A tale of two preachers--why dismissal of GLBT anger is hypocritical cowardice

[jpgray]

Everyone remember Reverend Wright? I thought you might. Here's a sample of his controversial ideas:

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost."

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America ... for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme."

For these statements and others, he was wholly abandoned by Obama's campaign. Never will you find Obama reaching out to Wright, never will you find Obama providing Wright with singular honors, never will Wright be part of a "coming together" of "differing views" to generate "compromise" or "dialogue." Why not? Because his views are a cardinal sin in the eyes of the establishment. No prominent person in politics or the media will admit to holding such views. They are wholly unacceptable, and are never promoted, praised or respected.

Now Rick Warren is also controversial. He believes, for example:

Unrepentant Jews and gays are going to Hell.

A woman should submit to her husband in all things.

The legality of abortion is comparable to the Holocaust.

GLBT folks are equivalent, not just comparable, to criminal deviants like pedophiles and those who engage in incest.

Despite these statements, he is embraced by Obama. You find Obama reaching out to Warren, providing him with singular honors, and casting him in a major role for the supposed "coming together" of "differing views" to generate "compromise" or "dialogue." Why? Because Warren's hateful views are accepted and respected by the establishment. No one has any qualms about associating with Warren or providing him honors. There is no shortage of prominent people in politics or the media who respect and share his views--almost an entire major party shares them. He is never demonized by prominent people for his bigotry, and is afforded great respect.

Why were Wright's views so unacceptable to Obama whereas Warren's are just fine? What's in the one that forbids all association, while the hatred in the other seems to be no big deal? Why is it that GLBT anger toward Warren can be freely dismissed by Obama, whereas anger toward Wright had to be paid the deepest respect? If he's serious about reaching out to controversial folks and bringing them together, why shun Wright and promote Warren?

For those who don't see Warren as any sort of big deal, I'd like to read the answers to those questions so I can understand your thinking better.

[NJmaverick]

1. For the sake of accuracy

Obama didn't abandon Wright for those ideas. He stood by the pastor and gave a historical speech in Philly on race relations. It was after Wright rejected that speech and its efforts to unite Americans, that Wright was finally let go.

[jpgray]

3. The question remains though, doesn't it?

Why did Wright's disagreements with Obama earn him a total shunning whereas Warren's don't? What is the essential difference? If Obama is all about bringing together those who disagree, why abandon Wright for his disagreements?

[EFerrari]

6. Because this is a political issue, not a philosophical one.

Wright had nothing to give Obama that he hadn't already given. Warren does.

Unity, my bald headed granny.

[NJmaverick]

8. Actually for 20 years it didn't cause him to shun him

it was only when political realities and Wright's own bad behavior, did he reluctantly part ways.

[Clio the Leo]

23. And if you REALLY want to get technical....

.... Barack didn't formally leave the congregation until after Rev. Michael Pfleger got up and Hillary bashed in the puplit.

see

(4/29 - Wright at the National Press Club)
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/04/obama_after_wright_at_the_nati.html

(5/25 - Rev. Pfleger incident)
http://www.cfnews13.com/Politics/PoliticsHeadlines/2008/5/29/obama_distances_himself_from_another_clergyman.html

and

(5/31 - Obama formally leaves congregation.)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/05/31/obama-quits-controversial-church/

I think it was becoming all too clear that the pulpit was being used, not to worship God, but to bask in the Obama political limelight and THAT is why he left. For the benefit of EVERYONE involved. I just hate that he seems to have stopped going to church all together.

But your point is still true nomad, ... Wright/Warren ... not exactly the best analogy.

[NJmaverick]

2. For the sake of accuracy

Obama didn't abandon Wright for those ideas. He stood by the pastor and gave a historical speech in Philly on race relations. It was after Wright rejected that speech and its efforts to unite Americans, that Wright was finally let go.

[bridgit]

17. NPR: Black Liberation Theology, in its Founder's Words

Fresh Air from WHYY, March 31, 2008 · The Rev. James Cone is the founder of black liberation theology. In an interview with Terry Gross, Cone explains the movement, which has roots in 1960s civil-rights activism and draws inspiration from both the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, as "mainly a theology that sees God as concerned with the poor and the weak."

Cone also comments on controversial remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former minister and a black liberation theology proponent.

In a now-famous 2003 sermon, Wright charged that an ingrained, abiding racism in American society is at fault for many of the troubles African-Americans face, and he thundered, "No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89236116

[Raineyb]

43. And in the process gave credence to the belief that there is something wrong with

Black liberation theology. I'm not given to spending time in houses of worship but liberation theology in any of its forms is not something I would have a problem with. It sure beats the hell out of those who would say that it's better to suffer in silence rather than try to do something about your situation because your reward is in heaven. (Usually said by jackasses who are not suffering at all.)

Regards

[AntiFascist]

4. K&R !

Acceptance of bigotry or oppression should never be allowed to become popular, and if it threatens to then those affected need to rise up along with their allies and expose it for what it is.

[yardwork]

5. I defended Wright, whereas Warren is indefensible.

[The Doctor.]

9. Isn't it amazing?

The entire media painted Wright as a threat for speaking out against injustice and expressing outrage, but a guy that actually wants to undermine democracy itself gets a pass.

:puke:

Warren is a menace to civil rights, but that's just the tip of the despotic iceberg.

[yardwork]

15. Not just a pass - Warren is uniformly praised by the media and mainstream politicians.

Whereas Wright was castigated 24/7 for months.

It's not surprising, though. Wright is African American and he said negative things about white people. That scares white people. Scary black minister running down white people! We can't have that.

Rick Warren, of course, is very much white. Red-haired white guy with a slow easy way of talkin' and a grin and he's pretty careful not to say anything that will worry mainstream white folks. So he's fine. In fact, the people picking on Rick Warren are the bad guys.

Typical of what passes for discourse and critical inquiry in the U.S. these days. Country's run by greedy pigs and our "journalists" are almost all owned by corporations. Terrific situation.

[The Doctor.]

22. Nail on the head. n/t

[truedelphi]

16. Me too. Plus I found out that the services at the Southside Chicago Church are

Internet stream-able, and when my time permits, I "attend" those services.

In return, some of the people there send me letters thanking me for my attendance - a gratitude I never experienced, not even once. for all the times I attended Mass at Catholic Churches.

[yardwork]

19. How cool is that?

[truedelphi]

34. It's pretty cool Their Easter service was amazing. n/t

[Solon]

36. I never understood the Wright "controversy" myself. Most of his views...

fit right in with most of the views I agree with or share on DU itself, and I considered him non-controversial. Never understood why the media harped on it, except to try to discredit Obama. It really was a foul, but unsuccessful attempt at character assassination, at least against Obama. Unfortunately, it was successful against Wright. :(

[xchrom]

7. recommend

[KittyWampus]

10. Those who anger you, conquer you. It's one thing to have anger arise, it's another

to give that emotion voice and then it's a whole other thing to allow that anger to control you.

In Yoga there is the notion of Rajas and Tamas as two Qualities of Being.

Rajas is Destructive action and Tamas is Inertia.

Sattva is a third Quality that is always present balancing the other two Qualities.

A Sattvic person observes their emotions and uses them as fuel but does not allow them to dictate their behavior.

Sattvic doesn't mean being Tamas (doing nothing). It means being more subtle and engaging in wise action that brings one's goal closer.

MOST of us are not "dismissing" the anger. We are commenting on the FEW DU'ers who insist on stoking that anger constantly, day after day. Maybe if you and others spent a little more time posting threads about how to constructively bring about greater Civil Rights for all.

Maybe if you focused a little more on winning over those who are most likely to understand your position.

Maybe if you'd spent more time posting about Prop 8 and how to defeat it BEFORE it was passed.

Maybe if you'd spend some more time posting about how to revoke Prop 8 now that it has passed.

Family members usually know best how to push their kin's emotional buttons. In my life, when I DO loss my temper, after a certain period I manage to regain my composure, gain some perspective and try to figure out best how to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. There on some on DU who seem invested in not allowing others to move on emotionally on begin working on solving the problem. Organizing ones allies to work on change.

And please note- I am not invalidating anyone's anger. Or telling anyone to just "get over" the insult. What I am saying is that if people want to effect change in their environment, eventually they have to CHANNEL that anger into some form of constructive anger that goes beyond posting on DU.

[jpgray]

11. My question remains: Why does Obama respect anger toward Wright, and not anger toward Warren?

[KittyWampus]

13. My question- why are some DU'ers so invested on keeping the anger going and stoking it?

Your post contains the notion that DU'ers "dismiss" the anger.

IMO, most DU'ers aren't "dismissing" the anger. They are commenting on how some can't seem to move on to anything else like determination to solve the problem and enthusiasm for constructive action.

I understand the anger and the need to express it. For most of us, it's only human. But some DU'ers are invested in keeping it going.

[Cheap_Trick]

26. Some seem to feel that if you're not as livid as they are, you're "dismissing" their anger. n/t

[Two Americas]

38. anger

Portraying the opinions of those who disagree with you as "anger" - as merely a transient emotional state, and an undesirable one, is a clever way to smear your opponents and misrepresent them, in the hope that the members here will not give their ideas serious consideration.

This is about principle, not merely some need to express some emotions that you condescendingly say you "understand."

People are free to talk ab out this as long as they like, and your post is a clever and deceptive way to suppress that - to build an impatient mob that will ignore or shout down your opponents.

It is a malicious lie to say that "some DU'ers are so invested on keeping the anger going and stoking it."

Posts like yours are stoking the anger.

[KittyWampus]

41. I am suggesting that the anger be channeled into constructive action. Human beings are able

to control and harness their emotions.

And some of us are sick of being lashed out on on this forum.

In families, people get angry. They lash out. It's part of being in relationships. If someone is angry, you give them space while they express it.

But while we might give each other space to express anger, it's NOT okay to allow a loved one to continually lash out day after day.

It is not acceptable to twist someone's words and engage in verbal abuse on a regular basis all the while hiding behind the excuse "I'm angry".

If you are self-aware to the extent you can realize you are angry, you are also aware enough to DO something with that anger rather than wallow in it.

[Two Americas]

44. we aren't children

We are not children and should not be lectured.

Challenging people's ideas is not "lashing out" against them. If people do not want their ideas challenged, they can simply not post them.

No one is "hiding behind" being angry or using it as an excuse. No one is "wallowing in anger."

It is insulting and demeaning to diminish people this way.

[The Doctor.]

12. Warren is a big deal... but you presume something that is not correct...

"
Why were Wright's views so unacceptable to Obama whereas Warren's are just fine?"

Obama has stated, unequivocally, that he disagrees with Warren on abortion and Gay rights.

Other than that, there is no reason not to express outrage where it is due.

[jpgray]

14. But that disagreement hasn't led to shunning of Warren similar to his shunning of Wright

Why?

[The Doctor.]

21. The simple answer? Political expediency.

Should Obama shun Warren? I think so, but I'm fairly certain that Obama isn't interested in appearing to dis the 'Right' over this either. Will it pan out?

Personally, I think the right should receive the same exclusionary treatment they exercised against Democrats and voices of reason. Shutting them out of the political process would cost little in the short term. But in the long term, the pendulum will swing one way with all the inertia it is pushed in the other.

This is a tough call, but I'm not convinced it will do a great deal of damage.

[Karenina]

24. A depression is on the horizon. People are flocking to the church.

Critical thinkers, the few who have survived the mind-numbing dumbing down, who may have read Warren's best-seller and related to it are now
having to process lots of info about Dominionism, equal protection under the law, the past and present of religious charlatans etc. et al. It's time to educate and peel them off. It only takes a committed 20% to turn a construct on its ear. Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

[54anickel]

27. IMO, you alluded to the answer in the OP when you mentioned "the establishment". Warren's

theology is no threat and actual quite useful to the establishment while Wright's liberation theology of promoting social justice, fighting poverty, and defending human rights by identifying the root cause of such injustice is extremely threatening to the powers that be. Matter of fact it sounds downright Marxist! The Warren's of the world keep us divided against each other, while the Wright's of the world might unify us against the status quo - the sword of social unrest (not peace) that Jesus himself proclaimed he was bringing. It certainly would question today's idol of capitalism!

Agent of change? We will have to wait and see. I cannot profess to know or understand Obama's decision making process in the Warren's thing, but the distancing from Wright was playing "politics as usual", plain and simple. It most likely helped to get Obama in, but at what cost? Does the end justify the means? Does it ever? Should this Warren's business play out the same, the same question will arise - does the end justify the means? Does it ever? Social peace that is attained by the use, abuse, oppression or neglect of another is no peace at all, certainly not worth the cost.

[laconicsax]

25. Where does Obama actually differ with Warren on LGBT rights?

[The Doctor.]

28. Well... Obama opposed DOMA and voted against the FMA, he wants to repeal DADT,

expand hate crimes legislation, and make discrimination based on S/O illegal.

Rick Warren, ultimately wants to stone to death any gay person that can't be 'cured'.
http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm

That's what Dominionism is about. Other than that, it's pretty obvious that Warren is against all things gay.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Guess what? Democrats are now backpedaling on repealing DADT!

You give them a pass on Warren, and you will only succeed in encouraging them on more betrayals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x108530

[The Doctor.]

35. A pass? Never.

They need to have their feet held to the fire.

[bridgit]

18. Have you ever been an HIV/AIDS counselor?

[yowzayowzayowza]

20. I've not seen any 'round here ...

"who don't see Warren as any sort of big deal." Afaict, all believe his positions should be vigorously challenged. We seem to confuse two planes on which we must operate independently, the absolute moral and the real political. I'm certainly in agreement with 'GLBT anger' on a moral level; politically however, raw anger leads to tactics which diminish the moral truths we seek to perpetuate. Censorship of positions of major political adversaries does violence to the dialog which we must foment to achieve our just moral ends. Gandhi didn't seek to censor the British as MLK didn't seek to censor racial bigots.

"Democracy and violence can ill go together. Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side." - Mahatma Gandhi

Obama has promised inclusion of adversaries who at times are going to be wrong both politically and morally. As Obama has also promised support of GLBT rights, smearing 'em with Warrenz positions or his inclusion is a waste of perfectly good political firepower.

[JVS]

30. Many people here (or at least who were here) spent weeks denoucing Wright vehemently and Obama...

for associating with him. If the "left" as represented by many at DU was willing to lash out at him for associating with a left-wing black pastor, what does this demonstrate to Obama about what kind of people he should be associating with?

[yardwork]

31. I don't think that a single person who considers themselves to be "left" denounced Wright.

In fact, those of us who identify as "left" - if not "radical left" - were the ones defending Wright, explaining the historical context of his sermons, and defending Obama for being part of Wright's church.

[IndianaGreen]

32. And those video clips shown endlessly by MSM were taken out of context

No one wanted to talk about 9/11 being blowback for some of the naughty things we have done, and continue to do to this very day.

[JVS]

40. Search the archives.

You will definitely find more than a single person who considers themselves to be on the left and denounces Wright.

[yardwork]

45. Not me.

[JVS]

46. Me neither. It is my fighting with those who went all out condemning Wright for weeks that makes...

me remember.

[yardwork]

47. I remember defending Wright for weeks - seemed like months - but I can't remember the posters.

[polichick]

33. Nice post! imo Barack has a need to be accepted by the popular creeps...

He can say it's all about "reaching out" but that's an excuse imo ~ I hope he does some serious thinking while on vacation.

k&r

[earth mom]

37. I don't like either preacher. Warren is a bigot against gays & Wright is a bigot against whites. nt

[polichick]

39. There's a big difference between calling out oppressors...

...and practicing discrimination against a group of people.

Like it or not, whites have been the oppressors of blacks in this country.

[earth mom]

50. NO-these days the oppressors are the rich-what we have now is a "Class War".

Even Spike Lee said so in his film about Katrina.

Reverend Wright should NOT be placing blame on white people because millions & millions of them are oppressed themselves. :grr:

[BeFree]

52. Indeed

The rich would have all of us be their slaves if they thought they could get away with doing so.

The rich control the media, the government and businesses. And at present, all three are enemies to the people being free.

[kenfrequed]

42. I wonder

I wonder if this is all some kind of diversional tactic to out-run President elect Obamas middle name being used during the inaugeration. The triangulators also probably don't mind that they will be able to say that both liberals and conservatives will have gone after Obama for his engagement with certain religious leaders.



Still, accepting this bigot as a speaker in this circumstance is wrong. Tactically, politically, ethically, intelligently, and symbolically. All wrong.

[maryf]

48. Kick, wish I could recommend

I so appreciate your comparison between the two preachers and your compassion toward the disenfranchised and so righteously enraged...

[Neshanic]

49. Because WWII was not about sex.

[Heidi]

51. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours.

So I'll give ya a :kick: instead.

:kick: