Never mind the flap over his “Muslim-sounding” middle name, or the controversy generated by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Over the past several weeks, a far more interesting question about Barack Obama’s “true” religion has emerged in the news media’s fascination with the “Obamessiah.”
Even though, as Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift recently observed, his media halo has “tarnished” a bit, pundits and political operatives remain at a loss to explain what Hillary Clinton herself referred to, in a Feb. 26 interview on Pat Robertson’s The 700 Club, as the Obama “phenomenon.” They are particularly befuddled by the intense involvement of so many young people, many of them university students and first-time voters. They dub them Obamaniacs and Obamabots: “glassy-eyed, brainwashed cult worshippers,” who chant “mantra-like” slogans and “swoon with euphoria.”
New York Times columnist David Brooks has likened them to Hare-Krishna people and to Moonies ”” “Soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings.” Joe Klein of Time has dubbed their “mass messianism” to be “just a wee bit creepy.” And William Lowther, Washington correspondent for the Telegraph (United Kingdom), reported something “unnervingly akin to the hysteria of a cult, or the fervour of a religious revival” at Obama events.
Picking up on the hysteria theme, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker has dismissed their “New Age glossolalia” as spiritual hunger gone terribly wrong, seduced by Obama’s rhetoric, which “drips with hints of resurrection, redemption, second comings.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, going Parker one better, was quoted in Australia’s The Age as saying, “I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. Obama comes along and he seems to have the answers. This is New Testament.”
Read it all.
[i][note: the link is to the blog page at USAToday. Some readers are reporting that the site is causing their firewall programs to report spyware, etc. See comments for details. This elf had no problem with the link and our security software reported no adware or spyware problems. But obviously different programs and browsers react differently, and some readers may have higher security settings engaged.][/i]
HEY ELVES, I CLICKED ON THE LINK TO READ IT ALL AND MY FUIREWALL WENT CRAZY WITH THE SPYWARE/ADWARE THE SITE TRIED TO LOAD ON MY COMPUTER!!! YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK IT OUT. THANKS
Amen to the above.
It’s because you’re not a True Believer.
You. have. been. warned.
My wife thinks Obama is the anti-christ.
Some of the Obama supporters do seem to be over the edge, like Chris Matthews.
#4, well, maybe not THE.. but anyone who enthusiastically supports leaving babies that survive a botched abortion to die on operating tables or in waste bins because he’s afraid that laws protecting them may chip away the legal facade protecting infanticide is certainly opposed to the will of Christ.
Those who have messiahs will probably be disappointed.
That said, Obama does some interesting things that are unusual for a politician. He has, on his team, people from a variety of backgrounds who range in thinking from left to right. He is confident to have such people around him.
He also, in speeches, doesn’t pander that easily. Take his challenge to people in Penn that they wouldn’t get the same jobs back; his challenges to black pastors for homophobia. His issues about affirmative action aren’t hard-line. He may be pro-choice, but he does have Senator Casey’s support. Chances are he’s the sort that will encourage women to have children through incentives rather than through government interference. Unlike lots of politicians, he praises his opponents and attacks issues. And his speech on race was much different than the usual thing. His defense of Wright was unusual: most politicians secretly agree and abandon their friends. Obama always disagreed with Wright, but refused to abandon the man.
No – there’s no reason to assume he is a perfect person. When someone asked the candidates, who would MLK support, Obama said the righteous thing: King wouldn’t support anyone – he would hold the leaders accountable.
The woman’s analysis is correct bout the “messiah” aspect of Obama, she doesn’t address the fact that, alas, messiahs get killed. Fortunately, Obama doesn’t intend on playing that role, given that he’s shown a degree of pragmatism that the visionary left lacks. Fortunately, being an organizer in the (church based) IAF tradition perhaps has revealed the limits and challenges of bottom up social change. Conservatives shouldn’t worry – Obama doesn’t have the same top-down inclinations of George Bush, although lots of leftists would love Obama to offer payback.
Fortunately, Obama’s main model has always been Harold Washington, a man known for being fairer than fair.
John McCain has supporters. Hillary Clinton has supporters.
Obama has [b]followers[/b]. That’s a huge difference.
Dear Elves: I also had a big problem when trying to read the Obama article. Got a message that looked like it was from Internet Explorer telling me my files are damaged, etc.
Here’s a website that collects some of the expressions of Obamamania [url=http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/]obamamessiah[/url].
John Wilkins (#7), [blockquote]His defense of Wright was unusual: most politicians secretly agree and abandon their friends. Obama always disagreed with Wright, but refused to abandon the man.[/blockquote]
Is there any evidence that Obama “always disagreed with Wright”? Or is it that he now disagrees with Wright because it is expedient to do so?
The link is to one of USAToday’s blogs. It does have a lot of advertising, and depending on your security settings, I suppose it could raise firewall “red flags” — we had no problems, nor did our spyware programs signal any alarms, but we’ll put a warning by the link just in case.
#7 Obama also stated it is better to allow a young women to have an abortion than punish her with a child. My such a deep thinking man! He says his grand mother is a typical white woman afraid of black men, is this racial steriotyping or what? Obama calls for a dialogue on race then when his 20 year relationship with some one who makes racial statements is brought up we are not supposed to remember his judgemnent of a shock jock? Other than mouthing slogans I can’t really hear a message from Obama. Largely ignored by the “in the tank for Obama press” is the statement by his former foreign policy adviser that Obama can not pull the troops out of Iraq in a year, virtually no questions about this and Obama’s postion on Iraq. Obama appears to me to be very nieve and inexperianced and would be a severe detriment to our nation.
The essay was written by a professor of womens’ studies …nough said
Dave,
In one of his books, Obama says that he disagreed with his pastor on race and class, following the lead of William Julius Wilson (who wrote The Declining Significance of Race). I can imagine the conversation: after all, not all blacks agree on class and race. I would, actually, be surprised if Obama did agree with everything his pastor said. That’s not usually how churches run – especially as Obama was hanging out at the University of Chicago. Which is not, exactly, a liberal place. I know, first hand.
Are you saying that elderly white women do not have stereotypes of young black men? Obama didn’t say that elderly whites can’t change their mind. Perhaps Obama is wrong. It was not the greatest comment – usually stuff like that is in the family – but perhaps you’ve never heard a white person unfairly denigrate a black person. When I heard him talk, It felt to me that he still loved his grandmother and didn’t feel resentment or anger towards her – he didn’t seem to be judging her at all. You were. He was just saying, that this is what he inherited, and these are the sorts of people he owed his life to.
I think that demonstrates a bit of charity we could all use.
Perhaps, your family didn’t have racists. And that’s great. In that case, I wish my family was more like yours (although in my own, it has been against non-Christians or Roman Catholics rather than based on race).
I guess I see a lot of difference between Imus statements and his own. Calling a group of black women “hos” seems a lot different than an honest description of one’s own family members. Granted, I think there could be made a case for free speech, but politics is politics and Obama is a politician. Not a saint. I’m not voting for a saint. I know that. As I said before, supporters of Obama could do themselves a favor if the recognized he isn’t a saint, nor is he a messiah. Interestingly enough, however, Obama seems to have a better sense of his own “imperfect” (as he said) campaign than others. And his promise, as I alluded before, is that he is clearly his own man. He didn’t tell Hillary to stop running. He has never stopped to insulting his Republican opponent. That’s impressive.
As far as abortion goes, I would admire anyone who can address it in a way that won’t immediately offend someone. I don’t think he’s been asked – but that’s a different issue. Still, I notice that Senator Casey did support him. Given Obama’s less doctrinaire stance on affirmative action, I think that he’s more likely to have a less doctrinaire position on other issues. But it does make sense that he is pro-choice. No pro-life Democrat is going to get elected. I’m guessing you’ve bought the Republican party platform.
Although personally, if we did overturn Roe, it could mean an end to the Republican Party nationally. It would be one of the smartest things the Democrats could do.
Obama’s election website has a drop down menu for those who want to ‘contact us’. On that that drop down menu of ‘issues’ you can contact him about, ABORTION IS NOT LISTED AS AN ISSUE
John Wilkins (#7), who are some of the people on Obama’s team who are from the right? Just curious. And an undecided voter.
That quote about being punished with a child has been taken wildly out of context. Obama had been asked at a town hall meeting in Johnstown PA about HIV, AIDS, and preventing the spread of STD’s in young girls. I’m not going to quote his entire answer, which was quite long and ventured into other health-related issues, but here’s the context of that specific quote:
[blockquote]So, when it comes to — when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence only — should include abstinence education and teaching that children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I’m going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.[/blockquote]
He was talking about how comprehensive sex education, including information about contraceptives as well as abstinence, can help [i]prevent[/i] unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs. Agree with him or not on the issue of abortion, can we agree that preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs is a desirable outcome?
Hagel – the Republican (and Episcopalian) – seems to share some of Obama’s practicality about the military (the rumor is that Hagel would be his secretary of defense). And his economic advisers seems to be capitalist to the core. I’d look them up. But they are Chicago economists, which means they aren’t supply siders, but Monetarists.
Not that Obama is a monetarist. The point is that he takes ideas from everybody, which is different then our current system.
Hagel is hardly a conservative. He’s a Republican, in name anyhow.
The article, though, was not about Obama’s own positions, but about the messianic fervor with which he is being followed by many. Even his wife gave a speech saying that Obama is the only one who can heal America’s soul. Campaign rhetoric, but some people seem to be taking it seriously.
John Wilkins: Obama is an abortion absolutist. He voted AGAINST saving the lives of babies born alive after abortion.
How is that different from infanticide?
So what if Casey supports him? Politics and the prospect of power make strange bedfellows – and as Lord Acton said, power corrupts (principles as well as people).
Jeremiah Wright is both sinister and ridiculous. Obama never disowned the racist demagogue and grievance monger but used him, in the style of Chicago politics, as a stepping stone to power. Obama’s own grasp of Christianity and the person and work of Christ does not seem very profound, either. His strange autobiography (as unreliable as any in that genre) makes it clear hee was cool with what Wright was retailing as long as it bolstered his own existing soft left/liberal views. Anyone who could write ‘I saw that my sins could be *redeemed’ doesn’t really grasp the language or concepts of Christian faith.
John, Obama said that he would ot tolerate some one who made statements like Immus, yet he hung around with Wright for twenty years? That was Obama’s judgement. I don’t agree with my pastor on all issues but I would not hang around someone who said balcks controll every thing wfromm the Capital to the Black panthers from the white house to the … etc. Obama still says that having a child is a punishment no matter what the context. STDs are not a punishment they are illiness like heart diseaseor strokes. STDs are oppertunist effects. To sday they are a punnishment is as ignorant as saying cerebal palsy is a punishment.
Wow. Sorry for the typos and spelling. No coffee yet and to early!
David, what statements did Wright make that were like Imus? I find it hard to believe that Obama believes that children are punishment. He has two children himself.
Gordian, I don’t think Obama is different than most democrats. Abortion is an issue that, unfortunately, tends to digress upon blogs – so I’ll leave that alone (“infanticide” is quite a bait). I’m making the small point that Obama simply isn’t an absolutist – that seems to be his pattern. He’s a progressive that tries to find solutions that lots of people can agree with. Unfortunately, Gordian, most Americans support abortion rights.
You say that Wright is “sinister and ridiculous” but clearly you and I heard different things in his sermons. But yes, to most whites he might seem sinister and ridiculous. Gordian, you fall into a trap, however: that’s the way most whites have generally seen blacks who challenge white supremacy.
I’m not sure what you think he says that is sinister. Challenging the faithful for justifying the killing of innocents? Challenging his own country to care for the poor in the prophetic tradition? I’ll just cut those parts out of my bible if you’d like.
As someone who visited his church and knew people who went there, I just don’t hear what you think he says.
David mentions that his autobiography was “unreliable” but perhaps he could substantiate those claims. I get the intuition that there are some people who spread lots of rumors for people who already don’t like him to feel justified for their dislike. But, I admit, I’ve heard such discussions between blacks before. I’ve heard them between whites. I’m not the sort who thinks black preachers say something and all blacks suddenly agree. But I do know that people do get wary about airing out the family laundry.
If someone said the black panthers controlled everything, it would be empirically wrong. But empirically, whites do control the country. He might be wrong that this is a conspiracy. But there are more whites than blacks in this country. So I’m glad you would disagree with someone who said that blacks were in control. Because they aren’t.
Second, “sins redeemed” doesn’t sound that bad. I’m not even looking for my president to be a theologian, or to fully grasp Christian concepts. I want him to who knows something about policy and cares about the country.
#23: John W: despite your unsubstantiated comments, Obama IS an abortion absolutist. Anyone who would vote to deny a born alive infant care if thr mother had wanted the child dead IS an abortion absolutist. And I see no distinction here with infanticide. Can you explain why there is one?
As for Jeremiah Wright, the issue is not ‘blacks challenging white supremacy’. Vulgarity is the least of his sins, but his abusive comments about Hillary Clinton, his callous remarks about 9/11, and the absurdity of his exegesis defame his education and his claim to be a minister of the gospel. The sinister side emerges in Wright’s promoting insane conspiracy theories. I have to agree with the atheist Christopher Hitchens here.
I think this is one of those stories that becomes accepted because it’s just so easy to write — no journalist with column inches to fill and a deadline to meet can turn it down. You go out, find a few slightly loopy people to interview, write it up and you’re done.
Yes, there are people who are sold on Obama’s sex appeal and his inspiring language; yes, he’s drawn some enthusiastic first timers into the process; but the overwhelming majority of people who have voted for him or identified themselves to pollsters as his supporters are just run of the mill democrats who agree with him on the war or don’t want to vote for Hillary because they can’t stomach the media circus another Clinton presidency would bring or have some other normal political motivation. After they’ve written about how Obama supporters are all weird pseudo religious freaks, the same political commentators will write next week about how they’re all Starbucks drinking Outback drivers (that’s also what last weeks columns were about, so it’s easy). It’s turned into a long campaign, and they’e gotta write something.
Someone said, “I find it hard to believe that Obama believes that children are punishment.”
Obama was talking about making information on contraceptives available, and he was countering people who say, basically, that if you tell kids about birth control they’ll just have lots of sex. In other words, they are in favor of keeping the threat of babies and STDs alive so that they can function as a disincentive to sexual activity. So when I read the comments I thought Obama was accusing his opponents of treating babies and STDs as “punishments”, rather than as the gifts and responsibilities they in fact ought to be.
… OK, one more thing. I added “and STDs” to the last line of my previous post without rereading it. I understand that seeing STDs as “gifts and responsibilities” requires a very evolved spiritual outlook!
The correct term for unwanted pregnancies and STD’s is consequences. Punishment infers that an outside authority is judging and imparting punitive measures based on actions, “did this man sin or his parents that he was born blind”. I hope he would not impregnate his daughters or give them an STD as a punishment. Again, unwanted pregnancies and STD’s are not punishments, they are consequences. That these realities exist and should serve as a disincentive!
It sounds like he equates having to have a baby with having an STD. Babies are not STDs and they are not punishments.
Gordian, have you examined his voting pattern or what he actually has been reported to have said about affirmative action? I also don’t know what argument you are talking about. I haven’t heard him make it. Point it out to me.
It’s interesting you agree with someone who… doesn’t know a thing about religion, or about the black church generally. You agree with a man who considers Mother Theresa an almost evil fraud. OK. But even on his merits, Hitchens just got lots of things wrong. I don’t even think he watched the entire sermon. nor could he. He just doesn’t comprehend religious language.
I don’t quite believe in the conspiracy theories that Wright has referred to in the pulpit, but, given history in the country, it’s – alas – the way 30% of black people think. What the Wright issue illustrates is the divide between black and white. But that’s not generally what he preached. At least, that’s what Martin Marty says.
As far as the exegesis, it’s actually pretty good. The prophets do Damn Israel; and he did a very good job of interpreting Psalm 137:9 – and I thought the direction he went with it was quite rational. It is pretty clear to me that the interpretation of most whites of those sermons demonstrates how little whites know about black preaching. Blacks “damn” America as Americans, as people who think this country ignores them and condemns them to poverty. It may or may not be true, but the prophetic tradition speaks to them.
John Wilkins/Gawain:
1. Yes. He gets 100% from ACLU for his voting pattern.
2. Be careful about your flaws in logic. I didn’t say I agree with everything Hitchens said, only his judgment on Wright and his racist maunderings. As for Mother Theresa, there were a lot of flaws in her modus operandi.
3. You don’t ‘quite believe in conspiracy theories’. Does that mean you do ‘a bit’? Which bit? the origin of Aids? CIA (or is it FBI?) drugs in the ghetto?
4. I was referring to his bizarre description of Jesus as ‘a poor black man victimized by the whitey Romans’.
As for black preaching, there is plenty of it that isn’t poisonous, throwback demagoguery such as Wright peddles.
Wake up, Gawain – stop trying to believe six impossible things before breakfast.
1) the ACLU gave him 100%. So? It doesn’t indicate much.
2) Still, I’m just surprised that you would offer that he has much credibility. As someone who has visited the church in question, along with plenty of white students, we never experienced it as racist. Hitchens’ points about Wright demonstrate how little he knows about that style of preaching.
3) I do think that events can look like conspiracies. Sometimes negligence seems conspiratorial. But why does it matter what I think? Of course, I do sometimes think conspiracies are true (say, price fixing with ADM, for example). It really depends on the evidence. Given the CIA’s role in trafficking drugs and their landing in South Central LA, I can see how someone else might make a connection.
4) This is called an analogy. It’s about bringing the past into the present. Second, I don’t quite think it’s that bizarre.
But you lead me to think that you’ve ONLY listened to the clips given by Fox News.
Gordian, I’m guessing you haven’t visited. Perhaps I will rely on my own experience, or the experience of Martin Marty, the White Professor of Church History. He says, “The four S’s charged against Wright — segregation, separatism, sectarianism, and superiority — don’t stand up, as countless visitors can attest. I wish those whose vision has been distorted by sermon clips could have experienced what we and our white guests did when we worshiped there: feeling instantly at home.
Yes, while Trinity is “unapologetically Christian,” as the second clause in its motto affirms, it is also, as the other clause announces, “unashamedly black.” From its beginning, the church has made strenuous efforts to help black Christians overcome the shame they had so long been conditioned to experience. That its members and pastor are, in their own term, “Africentric” should not be more offensive than that synagogues should be “Judeocentric” or that Chicago’s Irish parishes be “Celtic-centric.” Wright and colleagues insist that no hierarchy of races is involved. People do not leave Trinity ready to beat up on white people; they are charged to make peace.”
I think I’ll rely on that, rather than on the Media.
I’ll also add that Marty says the following: “It would be unfair to Wright to gloss over his abrasive — to say the least — edges, so, in the “Nobody’s Perfect” column, I’ll register some criticisms. To me, Trinity’s honoring of Minister Louis Farrakhan was abhorrent and indefensible, and Wright’s fantasies about the U.S. government’s role in spreading AIDS distracting and harmful. He, himself, is also aware of the now-standard charge by some African-American clergy who say he is a victim of cultural lag, overinfluenced by the terrible racial situation when he was formed.
Having said that, and reserving the right to offer more criticisms, I’ve been too impressed by the way Wright preaches the Christian Gospel to break with him. Those who were part of his ministry for years — school superintendents, nurses, legislators, teachers, laborers, the unemployed, the previously shunned and shamed, the anxious — are not going to turn their backs on their pastor and prophet.”
John, here are just two of Wright’s comments. It was the white roman’s who killed the black Jesus, and Italians have garlic noses, these are every bit as disgusting as Immus’s remarks yet Obama has not “fired” Wright.