The Truth: An Un-American Idea
Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers. Therefore thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee. But thou shalt say unto them, This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the LORD their God, nor receiveth correction: truth is perished, and is cut off from their mouth.
Jeremiah…Chapter 7 verse 26-28…King James Version
After listening to, watching, and reading transcripts of Chicago's now infamous Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, as well as other people's comments about those sermons, the inescapable reality of our situation hit me like a crane falling from a New York City skyscraper! That reality was that, to tell THE TRUTH is as "UN-AMERICAN" an act as bombing the World Trade Center. The truth in our day has been deemed an "enemy-combatant" an "enemy of the state" a "threat to national security" and a hater of the "freedom's" and "liberties" on which "democracy" was founded.
It's time for us to be honest. WHAT PART OF WHAT REV. WRIGHT SAID WAS NOT THE TRUTH? He said…
"…the Government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a 3 strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America…NO…NO…NO…Not God Bless America, but God Damn America! For killing innocent people, God Damn America for treating her citizens as less than human…"
Now am I missing something because America (CIA) DID bring drugs into the country! They DID flood poor neighborhoods with these drugs, and used the money to finance covert wars on foreign soil and subsequently built a prison industrial complex that incarcerates unsuspecting ghetto children while making themselves billions of dollars in the process! All of this might be an inconvenient truth, but it is the truth nevertheless!!! [See, Iran Contra; Dark Alliance by Gary Webb; ask John Kerry or visit Freeway Rick Ross at Prison]. The reverend continued by stating that 9/11 could have been the result of America's tyrannical and oppressive foreign policy. He referred to this as the proverbial "chicken's coming home to roost". He said…
"…We (America) 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 (America) have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done over seas are now being brought back right over into our own front yards…"
I'm not trying to be sarcastic but I really thought in 2008 that all of this was elementary and basic common knowledge. While watching an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, I heard Barney Frank say that "it was wrong for Rev. Wright to suggest that America had brought 9/11 on itself". Now I can understand why some people might think that it's wrong to bring up these very uncomfortable things because it's very painful to confront the potential reality of why such a horrific event could have happened, but in my opinion it's vital for us to start dealing with the core and real reasons why people around the world have so many issues with America. If you can accept the fact that Saddam Hussein was executed because his "chickens' of subjugation,
oppression, and state sponsored terrorism throughout Iraq and the neighboring regions had finally came home to roost, it shouldn't be considered Un-American for Rev. Wright or anybody else to start looking at America under the same type of microscope to try and figure out just what the hell is going on around here.
How many American's really understand the depth of this countries influence in foreign lands - for better or for worse? How many American's know that "Al-Qaeda" is an American CIA invention? This group was armed, trained, and named by the CIA in the early 1980's, and used to help destabilize the then Soviet Union. Guess what, it worked! America's so-called "Cold War" or "War on Communism" created the world we are wrestling with today, i.e., the "war on terror" the 'war on drugs",etc.
· The Cold War was responsible for fueling the illegal drug trafficking in America beginning when drugs from Laos were shipped to America in the 1950's – 60's and profits from sales financed the arming of allies fighting against Ho Chi Min. Also, the flooding of African-American communities with tons of cocaine from South America with proceeds going to finance the contra's whose task it was to destabilize the Sandinistas of Nicaragua.
· The Cold War was responsible for arming, training and financing such terrorists groups as Al-Qaeda, as well as the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Believe it or not Saddam Hussein was also a CIA "Cold War" creation.
· The Cold War was responsible for arming opposing African rebels in the Congo, thus, giving rise to the current "civil-unrest" in African countries like Sierra Leone.
I suggest the uninformed American citizen grab him/herself a copy of Mahmood Mamdani's Good Muslim, Bad Muslim (Tree Leaves Press, New York 2005). It was during this same "Cold War" period that Robert McFarlane and Oliver North asked the Saudis for $1 million a month to help finance their own international terror campaigns. The two, North and McFarlane, also tapped the Apartheid South African government for $1 million a month for the same covert terror. Then we wonder why the Reagan/Bush administration did nothing about the genocide in South Africa that was at its peak during this time?
You see, after the Boland Agreement that stopped funding for the "war on communism" the Reagan/Bush administration took two initiatives that all but destroyed America's "black" community and changed U.S. foreign policy forever. According to Mamdani, these were 1) they turned to the drug trade for an illicit source of funds; 2) they turned to the religious right to implement those foreign policy objectives that Congress had ruled against, thus beginning a trend towards privatizing war." Rev. Wright was, in effect, RIGHT!
Remember Malcolm X made the "chicken's coming home to roost" analogy famous amongst us. Malcolm used the proverb immediately following the assassination of JFK. Brother Malcolm was referring to the fact that America had just assassinated Patrice Lumumba and had been involved in the assassination of many other foreign leaders, so maybe the JFK assassination was an example of "reaping what you sew", one of those good ole "Judeo-Christian" principles on which America was built. Today we know that the same American "Judeo Christian" machine that assassinated Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Lauren Kabila, Martin Luther King and Brother Malcolm, was the same machine responsible for splattering JFK's cerebrum all over his wife in front of the entire Judeo-Christian world.
Bottom line, Rev. Wright is a pastor whose only crime was telling the TRUTH! He had no cache of arms stockpiled in the basement of his church, he had no "weapons of mass destruction" and his church hasn't and doesn't receive any western-union transfers from Osama Bin Laden. The good Judeo-Christian Rev. Wright simply told the truth, now he's an "anti-American villain", who supports the "terrorist" and the "axis of evil", [ooohhh…scary], when both these infamous boogie monsters have "Made in America" sewed in their underwear!
But, even in the seriousness of this public "denunciation" and disowning/disagreeing with the good Reverend's "anti-American-rhetoric", I did find some humor in all of this. That laugh came from my own hood while watching black reverend's from my area play such an agile and rhythmic game of hop-scotch trying their damnedest not to say what they really felt, something like "Yes…God Damn America!" It was like that part in the Bible wherein Jesus told the disciple Peter that he would deny him thrice before the cock crow (John 13:38). Peter wanted to be down and represent with, and for, the denounced, rejected and crucified Jesus, but at the same time he did not want the rejection, denouncing and public crucifixion that came with telling the truth in the ROMAN EMPIRE!
These are Christian pastors who, by all accounts and testaments are supposed to do "what would Jesus do". Jesus said that "the Truth shall set you free". America was supposedly founded on a Judeo-Christian morality which holds certain "truths" to be self-evident! However, when Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Medgar Evers, Fred Hampton Sr., Gary Webb, and many others were moved to expound on certain evident truths, they were all denounced, disowned, messages reduced to rhetoric and assassinated! When certain MC's of Hip Hop's "Golden Era" (Public Enemy, KRS ONE, X-Clan, Poor Righteous Teachers, Brand Nubians, Ice Cube, Paris, Kam, Sista Souljah, etc.) were moved to high-light certain truths that they held to be self-evident, the entire movement was officially "un-officially" banned from the public domain; denounced, disowned, message reduced to worthless rhetoric and all but assassinated?
So, if the countries so-called Christian leaders (white, black, etc.)want to maintain their positions of no-POWER in the current set-up,they must take the position of the high priest Caiaphas of Jesus' day.For it was the high priest Caiaphas who said that if this man is allowed to continue with his sayings and works, the Romans will come and take all of our positions in the high places and destroy what's left of Jewish autonomy (John 11:41-53)! Needless to say, in order to keep their positions in the high places, they sold Jesus out even
though they knew he was telling THE TRUTH!
It is a sad day in the world when men are threatened to denounce, disown, and disassociate themselves with the truth. If men were not afraid to speak truth to power America would not have invaded Iraq on the premise of an out-right LIE! If someone in congress or the presidents cabinet would have been brave enough to publicly tell the truth about Saddam's "WMD's", over 4000 American soldiers and 120,000 Iraqi citizens would not be dead. It was George Orwell that said "in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act". It was the Apostle Paul that said "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? (Gal. 4:16)
The Politician & the Preacher
The recent quasi-controversy over the comments made by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, retired pastor of the United Church of Christ, to which Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL), both belongs and attends, has shown us how limited, and how narrow, is this new politics peddled by the freshman Senator from Chicago. Although first popularized via the web, the Reverend's comments caused Sen. Obama to say he was "appalled" by them, and he has repudiated such remarks as "offensive."
Just what were these comments? As far as I've heard, they were that Sen. Hilary Clinton (D.NY) has had a political advantage because she's white; that she was raised in a family of means (especially when contrasted with Obama's upbringing); and she was never called a nigger.
Sounds objectively true to me.
Rev. Wright's other remarks were that the country was built on racism, is run by rich white people, and that the events of 9/11 was a direct reaction to US foreign policy.
Again -- true enough.
And while we can see how such truths might cause discomfort to American nationalists, can we not also agree that they are truths? Consider, would Sen. Clinton be where she is if she were born in a Black female body? Or if she were born to a single mother in the projects? As for the nation, it may be too simplistic to say it was built on racism, but was surely built on racial slavery, from which its wealth was built. And who runs America, if not the super rich white elites? Who doesn't know that politicians are puppets of corporate and inherited wealth?
And while Blacks of wealth and means certainly are able to exercise unprecedented influence, we would be insane to believe that they 'run' this country. Oprah, Bob Johnson and Bill Cosby are indeed wealthy; but they have influence, not power. The limits of Cosby's power was shown when he tried to purchase the TV network, NBC, years ago. His offer received a corporate smirk. And Oprah's wealth, while remarkable, pales in comparison to the holdings of men like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet.
Would George W. Bush be president today if he were named Jorje Guillermo Arbusto, and Mexican-American? (Not unless Jorje, Sr. was a multimillionaire!)
In his ambition to become America's first Black president, Obama is in a race to prove how Black he isn't; even to denouncing a man he has considered his mentor.
As one who has experienced the Black church from the inside, politics and social commentary are rarely far from the pulpit. The Rev. Dr. Martin L. King spoke of politics, war, racism, economics, and social justice all across America. His fair-weather friends betrayed him, and the press condemned his remarks as "inappropriate", "unpatriotic", and "controversial."
Rev. Dr. King said the US was "the greatest purveyor of violence" on earth, and that the Vietnam War was illegitimate and unjust. Would Sen. Obama be denouncing these words, as the white press, and many civil rights figures did, in 1967? Are they "inflammatory?"
Only to politics based on white, corporate comfort uber alles (above all)" only to a politics that ignores Black pain, and distorts Black history; only to a politics pitched more to the status quo, than to real change.
Politics is ultimately about more than winning elections; it's about principles; it's about being true to one's self, and honoring one's ancestors; it's about speaking truth to power.
It can't just be about change, because every change ain't for the better!
Tim Wise on Obama, Wright and white Americans
Of National Lies and Racial America
By TIM WISE
For most white folks, indignation just doesn't wear well. Once affected or conjured up, it reminds one of a pudgy man, wearing a tie that may well have fit him when he was fifty pounds lighter, but which now cuts off somewhere above his navel and makes him look like an idiot. Indignation doesn't work for most whites, because having remained sanguine about, silent during, indeed often supportive of so much injustice over the years in this country--the theft of native land and genocide of indigenous persons, and the enslavement of Africans being only two of the best examples--we are just a bit late to get into the game of moral rectitude. And once we enter it, our efforts at righteousness tend to fail the test of sincerity.But here we are, in 2008, fuming at the words of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago--occasionally Barack Obama's pastor, and the man whom Obama credits with having brought him to Christianity--for merely reminding us of those evils about which we have remained so quiet, so dismissive, so unconcerned. It is not the crime that bothers us, but the remembrance of it, the unwillingness to let it go--these last words being the first ones uttered by most whites it seems whenever anyone, least of all an "angry black man" like Jeremiah Wright, foists upon us the bill of particulars for several centuries of white supremacy.
But our collective indignation, no matter how loudly we announce it, cannot drown out the truth. And as much as white America may not be able to hear it (and as much as politics may require Obama to condemn it) let us be clear, Jeremiah Wright fundamentally told the truth.Oh I know that for some such a comment will seem shocking. After all, didn't he say that America "got what it deserved" on 9/11? And didn't he say that black people should be singing "God Damn America" because of its treatment of the African American community throughout the years? Well actually, no he didn't.
Wright said not that the attacks of September 11th were justified, but that they were, in effect, predictable. Deploying the imagery of chickens coming home to roost is not to give thanks for the return of the poultry or to endorse such feathered homecoming as a positive good; rather, it is merely to note two things: first, that what goes around, indeed, comes around--a notion with longstanding theological grounding--and secondly, that the U.S. has indeed engaged in more than enough violence against innocent people to make it just a tad bit hypocritical for us to then evince shock and outrage about an attack on ourselves, as if the latter were unprecedented.He noted that we killed far more people, far more innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were killed on 9/11 and "never batted an eye." That this statement is true is inarguable, at least amongst sane people. He is correct on the math, he is correct on the innocence of the dead (neither city was a military target), and he is most definitely correct on the lack of remorse or even self-doubt about the act: sixty-plus years later most Americans still believe those attacks were justified, that they were needed to end the war and "save American lives."
But not only does such a calculus suggest that American lives are inherently worth more than the lives of Japanese civilians (or, one supposes, Vietnamese, Iraqi or Afghan civilians too), but it also ignores the long-declassified documents, and President Truman's own war diaries, all of which indicate clearly that Japan had already signaled its desire to end the war, and that we knew they were going to surrender, even without the dropping of atomic weapons. The conclusion to which these truths then attest is simple, both in its basic veracity and it monstrousness: namely, that in those places we committed premeditated and deliberate mass murder, with no justification whatsoever; and yet for saying that I will receive more hate mail, more hostility, more dismissive and contemptuous responses than will those who suggest that no body count is too high when we're the ones doing the killing. Jeremiah Wright becomes a pariah, because, you see, we much prefer the logic of George Bush the First, who once said that as President he would "never apologize for the United States of America. I don't care what the facts are." And Wright didn't say blacks should be singing "God Damn America."
He was suggesting that blacks owe little moral allegiance to a nation that has treated so many of them for so long as animals, as persons undeserving of dignity and respect, and which even now locks up hundreds of thousands of non-violent offenders (especially for drug possession), even while whites who do the same crimes (and according to the data, when it comes to drugs, more often in fact), are walking around free. His reference to God in that sermon was more about what God will do to such a nation, than it was about what should or shouldn't happen. It was a comment derived from, and fully in keeping with, the black prophetic tradition, and although one can surely disagree with the theology (I do, actually, and don't believe that any God either blesses or condemns nation states for their actions), the statement itself was no call for blacks to turn on America. If anything, it was a demand that America earn the respect of black people, something the evidence and history suggests it has yet to do.
Finally, although one can certainly disagree with Wright about his suggestion that the government created AIDS to get rid of black folks--and I do, for instance--it is worth pointing out that Wright isn't the only one who has said this. In fact, none other than Bill Cosby (oh yes, that Bill Cosby, the one white folks love because of his recent moral crusade against the black poor) proffered his belief in the very same thing back in the early '90s in an interview on CNN, when he said that AIDS may well have been created to get rid of people whom the government deemed "undesirable" including gays and racial minorities.
So that's the truth of the matter: Wright made one comment that is highly arguable, but which has also been voiced by white America's favorite black man, another that was horribly misinterpreted and stripped of all context, and then another that was demonstrably accurate. And for this, he is pilloried and made into a virtual enemy of the state; for this, Barack Obama may lose the support of just enough white folks to cost him the Democratic nomination, and/or the Presidency; all of it, because Jeremiah Wright, unlike most preachers opted for truth. If he had been one of those "prosperity ministers" who says Jesus wants nothing so much as for you to be rich, like Joel Osteen, that would have been fine. Had he been a retread bigot like Falwell was, or Pat Robertson is, he might have been criticized, but he would have remained in good standing and surely not have damaged a Presidential candidate in this way. But unlike Osteen, and Falwell, and Robertson, Jeremiah Wright refused to feed his parishioners lies.
What Jeremiah Wright knows, and told his flock--though make no mistake, they already knew it--is that 9/11 was neither the first, nor worst act of terrorism on American soil. The history of this nation for folks of color, was for generations, nothing less than an intergenerational hate crime, one in which 9/11s were woven into the fabric of everyday life: hundreds of thousands of the enslaved who died from the conditions of their bondage; thousands more who were lynched (as many as 10,000 in the first few years after the Civil War, according to testimony in the Congressional Record at the time); millions of indigenous persons wiped off the face of the Earth.
No, to some, the horror of 9/11 was not new. To some it was not on that day that "everything changed." To some, everything changed four hundred years ago, when that first ship landed at what would become Jamestown. To some, everything changed when their ancestors were forced into the hulls of slave ships at Goree Island and brought to a strange land as chattel. To some, everything changed when they were run out of Northern Mexico, only to watch it become the Southwest United States, thanks to a war of annihilation initiated by the U.S. government. To some, being on the receiving end of terrorism has been a way of life. Until recently it was absolutely normal in fact. But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality. Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so, having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally shared by our darker-skinned compatriots.
This is what James Baldwin was talking about in his classic 1972 work, No Name in the Street, wherein he noted:"White children, in the main, and whether they are rich or poor, grow up with a grasp of reality so feeble that they can very accurately be described as deluded--about themselves and the world they live in. White people have managed to get through their entire lifetimes in this euphoric state, but black people have not been so lucky: a black man who sees the world the way John Wayne, for example, sees it would not be an eccentric patriot, but a raving maniac."
And so we were shocked in 1987, when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall declined to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution, because, as he noted, most of that history had been one of overt racism and injustice, and to his way of thinking, the only history worth celebrating had been that of the past three or four decades.We were shocked to learn that black people actually believed that a white cop who was a documented racist might frame a black man; and we're shocked to learn that lots of black folks still perceive the U.S. as a racist nation--we're literally stunned that people who say they experience discrimination regularly (and who have the social science research to back them up) actually think that those experiences and that data might actually say something about the nation in which they reside.
Imagine.Whites are easily shocked by what we see and hear from Pastor Wright and Trinity Church, because what we see and hear so thoroughly challenges our understanding of who we are as a nation. But black people have never, for the most part, believed in the imagery of the "shining city on a hill," for they have never had the option of looking at their nation and ignoring the mountain-sized warts still dotting its face when it comes to race. Black people do not, in the main, get misty eyed at the sight of the flag the way white people do--and this is true even for millions of black veterans--for they understand that the nation for whom that flag waves is still not fully committed to their own equality. They have a harder time singing those tunes that white people seem so eager to belt out, like "God Bless America," for they know that whites sang those words loudly and proudly even as they were enforcing Jim Crow segregation, rioting against blacks who dared move into previously white neighborhoods, throwing rocks at Dr. King and then cheering, as so many did, when they heard the news that he had been assassinated.
Whites refuse to remember (or perhaps have never learned) that which black folks cannot afford to forget. I've seen white people stunned to the point of paralysis when they learn the truth about lynchings in this country--when they discover that such events were not just a couple of good old boys with a truck and a rope hauling some black guy out to the tree, hanging him, and letting him swing there. They were never told the truth: that lynchings were often community events, advertised in papers as "Negro Barbecues," involving hundreds or even thousands of whites, who would join in the fun, eat chicken salad and drink sweet tea, all while the black victims of their depravity were being hung, then shot, then burned, and then having their body parts cut off, to be handed out to onlookers. They are stunned to learn that postcards of the events were traded as souvenirs, and that very few whites, including members of their own families did or said anything to stop it. Rather than knowing about and confronting the ugliness of our past, whites take steps to excise the less flattering aspects of our history so that we need not be bothered with them. So, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, site of an orgy of violence against the black community in 1921, city officials literally went into the town library and removed all reference to the mass killings in the Greenwood district from the papers with a razor blade--an excising of truth and an assault on memory that would remain unchanged for over seventy years.
Most white people desire, or perhaps even require the propagation of lies when it comes to our history. Surely we prefer the lies to anything resembling, even remotely, the truth. Our version of history, of our national past, simply cannot allow for the intrusion of fact into a world view so thoroughly identified with fiction. But that white version of America is not only extraordinarily incomplete, in that it so favors the white experience to the exclusion of others; it is more than that; it is actually a slap in the face to people of color, a re-injury, a reminder that they are essentially irrelevant, their concerns trivial, their lives unworthy of being taken seriously. In that sense, and what few if any white Americans appear capable of grasping at present, is that "Leave it Beaver" and "Father Knows Best," portray an America so divorced from the reality of the times in which they were produced, as to raise serious questions about the sanity of those who found them so moving, so accurate, so real. These iconographic representations of life in the U.S. are worse than selective, worse than false, they are assaults to the humanity and memory of black people, who were being savagely oppressed even as June Cleaver did housework in heels and laughed about the hilarious hijinks of Beaver and Larry Mondello.
These portraits of America are certifiable evidence of how disconnected white folks were--and to the extent we still love them and view them as representations of the "good old days" to which we wish we could return, still are--from those men and women of color with whom we have long shared a nation. Just two months before "Leave it to Beaver" debuted, proposed civil rights legislation was killed thanks to Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate. One month prior, Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus called out the National Guard to block black students from entering Little Rock Central High; and nine days before America was introduced to the Cleavers, and the comforting image of national life they represented, those black students were finally allowed to enter, amid the screams of enraged, unhinged, viciously bigoted white people, who saw nothing wrong with calling children niggers in front of cameras. That was America of the 1950s: not the sanitized version into which so many escape thanks to the miracle of syndication, which merely allows white people to relive a lie, year after year after year.
No, it is not the pastor who distorts history; Nick at Nite and your teenager's textbooks do that. It is not he who casts aspersions upon "this great country" as Barack Obama put it in his public denunciations of him; it is the historic leadership of the nation that has cast aspersions upon it; it is they who have cheapened it, who have made gaudy and vile the promise of American democracy by defiling it with lies. They engage in a patriotism that is pathological in its implications, that asks of those who adhere to it not merely a love of country but the turning of one's nation into an idol to be worshipped, it not literally, then at least in terms of consequence.It is they--the flag-lapel-pin wearing leaders of this land--who bring shame to the country with their nonsensical suggestions that we are always noble in warfare, always well-intended, and although we occasionally make mistakes, we are never the ones to blame for anything. Nothing that happens to us has anything to do with us at all. It is always about them. They are evil, crazy, fanatical, hate our freedoms, and are jealous of our prosperity. When individuals prattle on in this manner we diagnose them as narcissistic, as deluded. When nations do it--when our nation does--we celebrate it as though it were the very model of rational and informed citizenship.
So what can we say about a nation that values lies more than it loves truth? A place where adherence to sincerely believed and internalized fictions allows one to rise to the highest offices in the land, and to earn the respect of millions, while a willingness to challenge those fictions and offer a more accurate counter-narrative earns one nothing but contempt, derision, indeed outright hatred? What we can say is that such a place is signing its own death warrant. What we can say is that such a place is missing the only and last opportunity it may ever have to make things right, to live up to its professed ideals. What we can say is that such a place can never move forward, because we have yet to fully address and come to terms with that which lay behind.
What can we say about a nation where white preachers can lie every week from their pulpits without so much as having to worry that their lies might be noticed by the shiny white faces in their pews, while black preachers who tell one after another essential truth are demonized, not only for the stridency of their tone--which needless to say scares white folks, who have long preferred a style of praise and worship resembling nothing so much as a coma--but for merely calling bullshit on those whose lies are swallowed whole? And oh yes, I said it: white preachers lie. In fact, they lie with a skill, fluidity, and precision unparalleled in the history of either preaching or lying, both of which histories stretch back a ways and have often overlapped. They lie every Sunday, as they talk about a Savior they have chosen to represent dishonestly as a white man, in every picture to be found of him in their tabernacles, every children's story book in their Sunday schools, every Christmas card they'll send to relatives and friends this December. But to lie about Jesus, about the one they consider God--to bear false witness as to who this man was and what he looked like--is no cause for concern.
Nor is it a problem for these preachers to teach and preach that those who don't believe as they believe are going to hell. Despite the fact that such a belief casts aspersions upon God that are so profound as to defy belief--after all, they imply that God is so fundamentally evil that he would burn non-believers in a lake of eternal fire--many of the white folks who now condemn Jeremiah Wright welcome that theology of hate. Indeed, back when President Bush was the Governor of Texas, he endorsed this kind of thinking, responding to a question about whether Jews were going to go to hell, by saying that unless one accepted Jesus as one's personal savior, the Bible made it pretty clear that indeed, hell was where you'd be heading.
So you can curse God in this way--and to imply such hate on God's part is surely to curse him--and in effect, curse those who aren't Christians, and no one says anything. That isn't considered bigoted. That isn't considered beyond the pale of polite society. One is not disqualified from becoming President in the minds of millions because they go to a church that says that shit every single week, or because they believe it themselves. And millions do believe it, and see nothing wrong with it whatsver. So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Meanwhile, those same white folks, and their ministers and priests, every week put forth a false image of the God Jeremiah Wright serves, and yet it is whites who feel we have the right to be offended. Pardon me, but something is wrong here, and whatever it is, is not to be found at Trinity United Church of Christ.
Tim Wise is the author of: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932360689/counterpunchmagaWhite
Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull >Press, 2005), and
Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge: 2005). He can be reached at: mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org
Is It Hillary's Turn to 'Denounce and Reject' a Problematic Pastor?
By Steven Reynolds,
The All Spin Zone
March 24, 2008
The blogs are talking about it, but the mainstream news is not. Still, this is interesting. Blogs such as Advance Americablog, commomdreams.org, the National Journal's Hotline and wakeupfromyourslumber.com are talking about the scandal that has enveloped the former Pastor of the Clintons, but it appears only the Utica, NY newspaper is covering the story. The rest of the mainstream media is silent.. Perhaps the story isn’t divisive enough for the mainstream media to take notice. Of course, it is as unfair to blame Hillary Clinton for her former pastor’s abuses just as it is unfair to blame Barack Obama for Rev. Wright. Still, that means the mainstream media is far more enamored of condemning Obama for his Rev. Wright’s tirades about 9/11 and race than it is concerned with the plight of a seven year old girl abused by Hillary Clinton’s former pastor. From the Utica Observer-Dispatch:
UTICA -- When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified. "As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied," Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.
A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.Let me be clear here. Hillary Clinton has nothing to apologize for, nor should she feel tainted because her former pastor, William Procanick has been convicted of sexual child abuse of a seven year old girl. By the same token, Barack Obama has no responsibility for the words of Rev. Wright, nor for the words of his successors in the pulpit. All of these people have personal responsibility, and Rev. Procanick is going to be answering for his crime. Hillary Clinton has no need to “denounce and reject” the man. Indeed, it may be a good thing if she were to express her sorrow for his crimes and compassion for those the man hurt. But she has no obligation.
The irresponsibility here is on the media, who wish to blow out of proportion those issues which will inevitably divide Americans, by focusing on the behavior of Barack Obama’s former Pastor, while ignoring other transgressions by the pastors of Presidential candidates, even though Hillary Clinton’s former Pastor has actually been convicted of a crime.