Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong.... It misses the point (he continues to talk about Reagan Democrats)
I read those words and initially rather agreed with him. It is quite understandable to be discomforted by Dr. Wright's remarks. That was the intent of the remarks for his very own congregation. However, the entire article is written in that paradigm. The idea that suggests that it is `Ok' for White Americans like Mr. Davis to be "discomforted" by Dr. Wright. However, it is "extremists" and "hateful" for Dr. Wright to be "discomforted" by White America. We can call for empathy, but we cannot call for trickle-down empathy. Mr. Davis is attempting to acquit himself by saying `I'm a little concerned about Dr. Wright, but those people over there really won't like it,' as if he is graciously revealing some unfound electoral truth that some people are disturbed by Dr. Wright. Perhaps it ought not be his role to comment on the Wright topic, considering:
I am a strong supporter of and a substantial fundraiser for Hillary Clinton for president (though in this column I speak only for myself).
I have been involved in a lot of campaigns, and know that while officially one may be speaking for oneself, personally one is always bias. When you part of a campaign, especially a losing one like Mr. Davis, the opponent quickly gets demonized. No action of Mr. Obama can be pure, no part of his history innocent, no relationship not stained with some ethical failing. Making sound judgments does not extend past Sunday's polls. I myself have made this mistake numerous times. I remember one case where I was convinced our primary opponent had taken money from a businessman who also gave money to Hamas. My judgment was clouded on two levels. A. The claim was not true our opponent was and is a good man. B. Outside of the campaign I myself am extremely sympathetic to Hamas, yet during the clouded judgment of the election to be connected with them was a sin beyond all sins. When Mr. Davis questions Sen. Obama:
Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?
He does not take the time to question himself first, perhaps due to his connection to the Clinton Campaign, or justified outrage, or more likely some combination of the two. Allow me to outline the two questions Mr. Davis, and we all, ought to ask ourselves before attacking Dr. Wright as hateful.
Do I agree with what Dr. Wright has said?
When one listens to the whole sermons, not just the snip-bits looped on the media, am I legitimately upset by the words of the Reverend? The specific comments Mr. Davis is upset with are cited;
"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 the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
-- Sept. 16, 2001 (the first Sunday after 9/11)
Dr. Wright, directly before this statement, called the attacks of Sept. 11 an atrocity. This first sentence is a fact, and a hard one to hear. The second sentence is also a fact, and a hard one to hear. We did support an apartheid South Africa. And, at some level, Israel has occupied Palestinian lands and (rather frequently or occasionally) crossed the line of oppression. "America's chickens are coming home to roost," is actually quoting an ambassador of Fox News, and is an idea presented in the 9/11 commission reports. Perhaps Mr. Davis, and many of us, are insulted because we are `suppose' to be insulted. But a funny thing happens when you pledge your allegiance to a country, as Dr. Wright did in the marines. We do not simply pledge that the Fourth of July is a great day, and the Constitution a Great Document. We also pledge responsibility for the ills and crimes committed under that flag.
- "The government . . . wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no. God damn America; that's in the bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human."-- 2003
- "The United States of White America."
Why Do I find Dr. Wright's statements jarring?
The first point of compassion is to look to oneself. Mr. Davis suggests that the kind of compassion, which Sen. Obama advocates, "doesn't work for me." He is stuck on the matter of choice, that you do "get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation." Do you? I'm Presbyterian, my parents were Presbyterian. Mr. Davis is Jewish, I'm assuming he is was born so. Mr. Obama grew up non-religious as a Black son of a White mother, and understandably hit life with a lot of questions. As a 28 year-old man he came under guidance of a Pastor, not all that unusual in the Black Community, who told him it was "Ok" to be Black, even (shockingly) a good thing. Davis would rather have had Mr. Obama stay with his White family. Act White, Marry White, go to a White Church. That is good politics - that would have been the advice of a good consultant. However, Sen. Obama would not be Sen. Obama without TUCC and Dr. Wright. If his compassion was a cheap compassion, the kind of compassion that cannot stand voices counter to one's own, he would not be the leader he is. If his compassion were a cheap political phrase he would have rejected Dr. Wright outright. I remind Mr. Davis that the very reason Dr. Wright says his "hateful" statements is that he, and much of his congregation, were once a segregated and rejected people. Now, Mr. Davis thinks we ought to once again reject Dr. Wright. We ought not be able to bear listening to him. How, Mr. Davis, is that any sort of progress?
- Some have suggested that any Clinton supporters who continue to raise this issue are "playing the race card" or taking the "low" road.When I said on CNN recently that concerns about the Wright-Obama issue were "appropriate" to continue to be discussed, my friend Joe Klein of Time Magazine said, "Lanny, Lanny, you're spreading the poison right now" and that an "honorable person" would "stay away from this stuff."
That is why many of us here at Princeton Theological Seminary (Faculty and Students) are inviting Dr. Wright to speak here (This is not an announcement arrangements are still being made). For those of you who don't know. Princeton sends out more main-line pastors than any seminary in the country. It is the nations oldest, largest, and wealthiest theological institution. It is widely respected as the nation's best theological institution with the lowest acceptance rate and the top-scholars across the board. If Wright is brought in to speak here it will mean a lot to pastors across the country, and likely send a pretty heavy statement that much of the American Theological Community stands by him. Hopefully, perhaps with a smaller microphone than Mr. Davis, Princeton Seminary is going to live out compassion and empathy.
CrossPosted at MyDD
|
|
|
Permalink :: 64 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
