Three things factor into why the "controversial pastor" phenomenon wasn't nearly as momentous as it ought to have been: 1. Many Americans are prepared to overlook black racism. Last week in this space and citing Rev. Wright, I disputed the idea that blacks still had legitimate reasons to perpetuate resentment of slavery and segregation. I also pointed out the fact that those who engage in this are "given a pass" by whites motivated by a misplaced sense of guilt or the fear of denigration for denying blacks their response to past social injustice. 2. Spirituality isn't important anymore. While making an issue of certain candidates' religious leanings has become a convenient point of contention for political enemies and the press (President Bush's born-again status and Mitt Romney's Mormonism, for example), most Americans don't draw parallels between a candidate or office holder's religion or spirituality and their character or decision-making abilities. They have either been convinced that there aren't any parallels (which I would argue), or they simply don't care. 3. The establishment media wants Obama to be the next president. Despite his extreme far-left politics and inexperience, the press made a messiah out of this candidate building on nothing more than glibness. In a nick of time – prior to the Wright storm – Obama was successfully sold to the public with larger-than-life, rockstar hype.
I know it’s never going to happen but I believe any presidential candidate might really bring in the black vote if he took on the racial double-standard as the REAL race problem in this country.
“People rise to the level of expectations” if a major political figure stood up and declared that our black brothers should no longer be allowed the Village Idiot’s exemption from the rules of decent behavior he’d be a shoo-in.
Now that would be a real “conversation on race.”
Eric Rush is correct; and his article raises a question:
The imperative question: Will Americans demand this, or will they march somnambulistically on, led by the press and continuing to be deceived by their creation?
Under the cover of "the church" there's all kinds of freedoms. Church of the Creator (Aryan Nation church) is still operating. So do operate anti-American, pro-Islamic churches.
However, a law, brought about by Democrats fairly recently threatened to shut down any church using the Pulpit for POLITICS and POLITICAL PURPOSES. And yes, a double standard is in play when it comes to Dems using the churches to fundraise.
I think this ... religion/politics" is what has folks confused, and blinded to addressing the issue of black racism. And I think what Wright/Moss's church is doing is blending the two issues on purposes. And calling it "black talk". And "different culture" and "right/left brain" crapola.
If one can make the distinction, one can make the case.
During CA's Prop 209, black churches in the San Francisco Bay specifically, actually said they'd kick out members of their churches who did not ACTIVELY fight against the repeal of preferential quotas. Meaning, if church members didn't go "political", they'd be kicked out of church. And coverage of these activities from the pulpit to members of the church WAS published in the San Francisco Chronicle.
So, let's turn this sideways, for argument's sake. Say a pulpit blaster from the pulpit issued the edict that if one did not actively engage in fighting against WELFARE reform, one would be banished from the church.
The independently minded squeek out that it would serve the church right to lose its members, and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would play out.
Where would the issue of say, Welfare Reform fall? A move for charity? Or a political move as promoted from the church pulpit.
That's the fine line I think everyone is dancing around.
Where to draw the line on "passion" from the pulpit/lectern? When does it cross that line?
