Obama to Give Major Speech
48 comments | Permalink
Update: Here's the text of the speech.
Barack Obama is scheduled to give a major address this morning (10:15 E.T.) on race and religion and unifying the nation. I think this is the right move.
I suspect it may be carried live on the web at http://www.barackobama.com/tv/.
Jonah Goldberg highlights the sort of issues that Obama should address (but undoubtedly won't):
More thoughts from Ross Douthat.
Joe Carter weighs in.
Update: Quick reaction, for what it's worth: a very good speech; I can't imagine one better given the circumstances. But not perfect, for I still think it's a walking contradiction for Obama to be a post-racialist candidate while investing deeply for 20 years in a deeply racialist church. Obama didn't choose his grandmother; he did choose his church.
Update: Good commentary here from Douthat.
Update: Video here:
Barack Obama is scheduled to give a major address this morning (10:15 E.T.) on race and religion and unifying the nation. I think this is the right move.
I suspect it may be carried live on the web at http://www.barackobama.com/tv/.
Jonah Goldberg highlights the sort of issues that Obama should address (but undoubtedly won't):
Obama righteously deplores "divisiveness." And yet he literally worships at the altar of division. He wants to transcend race, but his black nationalist church and his liberation theology pastor consider race permanent and central issues.Thomas Lifson has a more plausible prediction.
Obama claims that he's a different kind of politician, but his "repudiation" of Wright last week is traditional pol-speak and nothing more. To listen to Obama, you'd think he was the only person in Chicago not to know that his minister is a hatemonger. Either Obama is the worst judge of character in living memory or he's not the man he's been portraying himself as.
Or there's a third option. Perhaps Obama didn't hear Wright's bilious rhetoric because it blended in with the chorus around him. This is the fact that Obama really needs to address if the "Obama movement" is about more than getting the junior senator from Illinois elected. . . .
Obama preaches unity. Well, real unity requires real truth-telling and the ability to tell right from wrong, and Wright from right. . . .
Obama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them. Well, it is time he spoke truth to that power. If the eloquent, self-proclaimed truth-teller and would-be first black president can't manage that, he should go straight from would-be to never was.
More thoughts from Ross Douthat.
Joe Carter weighs in.
Update: Quick reaction, for what it's worth: a very good speech; I can't imagine one better given the circumstances. But not perfect, for I still think it's a walking contradiction for Obama to be a post-racialist candidate while investing deeply for 20 years in a deeply racialist church. Obama didn't choose his grandmother; he did choose his church.
Update: Good commentary here from Douthat.
Update: Video here:
posted by JT at Tuesday, March 18, 2008
48 Comments:
Justin,
I'm afraid you are playing the race game as people in the media often do. You wrote, O"bama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them. Well, it is time he spoke truth to that power. If the eloquent, self-proclaimed truth-teller and would-be first black president can't manage that, he should go straight from would-be to never was."
I'm also afraid your statement above confirmed what Wright said about the problem of race in America.
Celucien-- no, actually JT didn't say that, Jonah Goldberg did. And you haven't explained what makes that "playing the race game."
Does anybody else want to bet that this speech, like most of Obama's, will actually have little to no content? I'm not holding my breath for anything new.
Obama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them.
Umm... seriously? JT?
Are you really giving credibility to such an asinine statement?
I apologize Justin.
Here's your statement Jake:
"Obama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them... the eloquent, self-proclaimed truth-teller and would-be first black president can't manage that, he should go straight from would-be to never was."
It is still morning. I am not doing good with names. I meant to write, "Here your statement Jonah" :)
As Russell Moore rightly said, "How fair is it for a presidential candidate to answer for his pastor's views"?
Celucien and Dave:
Thanks for your comments. I can see where that would come across as a bit over the top. But which part do you think is factually incorrect: (1) the power base of Obama's candidates is made up of African Americans and upscale liberals; (2) that upscale liberals condescend to blacks; (3) Obama doesn't need to speak "truth to power" to them? (4) etc?
I know you think I'm playing the race game and passing along asinine statements--but those comments don't really help me as they aren't arguments with reasons. So help me out here.
Thanks,
JT
Moore said that??? Where?
JT
The concern is not about whether one is democrat or republican. It is more than positioning yourself with a political party. As christians, we're supposed to stand for the truth and let it reign.
He did! Listen to yesterday's show, "Politics in the Pulpit
Guest Host: Dr. Russell Moore
Guest: Mark Dever"
Having now read the speech, I will give the man credit for at least addressing the racism issue from both sides. And as usual, it was very well-written and inspiring.
But at the end of the day, it still comes down to "I am the Great Hope. Trust in me to lead this country out of its sordid past and into its glorious future."
I hate to say this, but the people who would most likely object to the theology of Senator Obama's pastor (and by extension, the church's theology, and by extension, Obama's theology) are already not voting for him.
I doubt that even if Obama came out today and said, "you know, he's my pastor and I love him and I stand by him," it would change tyhe minds of anyone about him.
Those of us who aren't going to vote for him already have an arsenal of reasons to vote against him. McCain is going to have to create or explain the reasons that one must actually for for his ticket to do better than that.
your continual attack on obama are sickening. never in all my reading of blogs have to watched as one person attacked like you, justin. never. you do the things you criticize obama for doing. sad.
i call you to repent.
theologica.wordpress.com
But which part do you think is factually incorrect:
The part where "upscale left-wingers" condescend to blacks.
I think such an assertion is more than silly.
Jerald,
I'd be interested in hearing what I'm doing that is the same thing I attack Obama as doing.
Thanks,
JT
After today's speech Obama countered masterfully. He is loved because of his passion and authenticity and that's what most people crave, less and less substance. In my opinion, he sealed the democratic nomination with that speech, just a few days after people said that he was done and he is now the front runner (for the Presidency). He didn't dodge much in his speech and though condemning Wright, simultaneously highlighted how he was a beacon for serving the poor and diseased. When you hear him speak, he's so pacifying that it makes you want to apologize for any anti-Obama thought you ever had, ever. As my mother used to say, "he is like nailing jello to the wall."
JT, please keep the Obama articles a coming.
JT:
Some people post things to boost traffic to their untrafficed blogs.
I'm just sayin'.
untrafficked?
without traffic?
trafficless?
"Never in all my reading of blogs have to watched as one person attacked like you, justin"
Speaking of inflammatory rhetoric...
Jerald,
Two responses here... First, your response toward JT is a bit over-the-top itself. The only thing even remotely resembling an attack is in the extended quotation from Jonah Goldberg. Perhaps such an extended quote constitutes an endorsement of the ideas presented. But there is nothing of degree of viciousness you seem to see.
Second, for the sake of argument let's say that JT attacked Obama here (a point I am not willing to concede ultimately). If you've never seen worse than JT in the blogosphere, you haven't read many blogs my friend.
JKeller: your second response was the first thing I thought when I read Jerald's comment.
Another thing I thought was there's something about the address of his blog that makes his frequent JT-on-Obama criticisms seem a little... silly.
Celucien,
On the radio show yesterday (3/17) Dr. Moore (and Dr. Dever) never insinuated that Barack Obama did not have to answer for the comments of his pastor, comments Dr. Moore deemed "lunatic." Instead, the issue at hand was how much responsibility pastors ought to have in forming the public policy positions of the people in the pews. Both Dr. Moore and Dr. Dever concluded that pastors have the responsibility to preach the gospel, and speak to those issues to which the gospel speaks (such as abortion, race relations, etc.). I hope this helps clarify things.
Here's my concern:
You might not like Obama for his stances on various issues (i.e. abortion, church membership, theology ect...), but as a Christian brother you cannot burn him at the stake (or blogosphere) because you personally dislike him. I've been keeping up with your blog and you only seem to burn Obama. Remember Jesus: "Love your enemies" - don't burn them and mock them.
Please, Justin, you criticize Obama for being divisive, but aren't your blogs doing the same?
Now I don't think Obama will save America (read Jim Wallis's article in this months Sojourners), but I do think he should get a fair hearing since so many young evangelicals support him. And when you have such a high position in the Christian blogosphere you have a profound responsibility to the church to Respectively disagree with Christian brothers, but not to smear them. Justin I encourage you to post one, just one, positive entry about Obama.
Thanks.
Jerry
PS - I don't post my web address because there is not enough traffic - in fact there is plenty.
theologica.wordpress.com
Seems to me that there's far too many folk who seem to be missing your point JT.
Too often we take the statement "I am a Christian" as gospel truth, and don't bother to look at a life lived, to see if it lines up.
Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the hollowness of Obama's claim to be a Christian.
To all the Jeralds out there. Pointing out the missing pieces in the testimony of someone who is asking for permission to lead a country is hardly being divisive, particularly when the politician in question claims to be a Christian.
We must hold people to a higher standard when they make that kind of claim.
Why is Obama black? Somebody riddle me this and forgive my ignorance. With a white mother and a black father, why is he considered black? The potential first black president is heard all the time. Who determines this? Why isn't he considered white? And why never is he referred to bi-racial? Any insight?
Jerald,
Obama is already getting a fair hearing. The media and his supporters provide that for him. It's not the job of bloggers to get his message out there. Bloggers are free to respond to his message as they wish. This being a democracy, one of the keys to a democratic system functioning is that people know who and what they are voting for. Part of that means seeing beyond what a person says and looking at what they actually do and mean. Obama often sounds good, until you keep digging. That's what Justin is trying to point out. You disagree? Fine. But it is foolish to go to someone else's blog and say that they, on their blog, should not speak out against a particular politician.
As for how we should treat Obama based on his Christian claims, that is irrelevant in this instance. Whether or not he is a Christian doesn't change the fact that his policy positions are bad - dangerously so - and many people are drawn to his message without paying attention to the content. May we see more people willing to look at the messages of popular speakers and peel back the layers of what they say to reveal a rotten core.
Why is Obama black? Somebody riddle me this and forgive my ignorance. With a white mother and a black father, why is he considered black? The potential first black president is heard all the time. Who determines this? Why isn't he considered white? And why never is he referred to bi-racial? Any insight?
As one uniquely qualified to answer this question, let me say the answer ought to be obvious.
Obama grew up in "black" culture. Therefore he is "black."
Me, I grew up in "white" culture. Therefore I am "white."
The fact that we are both mutts doesn't mean a thing.
Stephen,
Didn't Obama grow up in Honolulu and Jakarta?
JT
"May we see more people willing to look at the messages of popular speakers and peel back the layers of what they say to reveal a rotten core."
Wow - ignorance. I guess we don't have to look to far to see your core.
Brandon,
The "one drop rule" - one drop of black blood makes you black - is one of the many legacies of the sad history (and contemporary realities) of race relations in America. Look up Plessy vs. Ferguson.
I think Obama's speech will effectively silence this issue. He speaks in a commanding, authoritative and articulate way addressing the issue head on, covering all his bases without a hitch. As someone else implied, he is a like a liberal Reagan. He obviously sought to use this as a way to channel a negative aspect of his campaign into a positive outcome. I think he did as good a job as could have been expected in such circumsatnces.
Nonetheless, like JT I don't think it adequately explains his 20 year association with Trinity or Wright. The fact that his speech was so convincing makes the situation even more disturbing in my mind.
Justin, I don't know where Obama grew up, I haven't really paid much attention to the man, surprisingly.
But the fact remains that he was raised identifying with black people and black culture, and that shows in his choice of church, wife, and community.
Obama grew up in Black culture?
Since when? He was raised by a white mother and a white grandmother, in Kansas, Indonesia, and Hawaii. He was raised by middle class whites in mostly non-black areas.
And still trying to figure out how us "upscale left-wingers" (I am assuming I would be included in that) condescend blacks.
As for why Obama is black? I would say that this is essentially because he is perceived as black based on his dark skin and his "ethnic" name, and in turn has had to deal with all of the ramifications of being black, even if he is bi-racial.
But the fact remains that he was raised identifying with black people and black culture, and that shows in his choice of church, wife, and community.
Actually... he began to really identify with black culture in college.
I am not really sure why assumptions are being made that aren't base in reality.
Jerald: It seems like you think that anyone who criticizes Obama is being mean, ignorant, and un-Christian. Are you willing to grant that some of us have listened to what the man says and decided we just don't like it?
Also, if being a professing Christian means we're not allowed to criticize a candidate, there would be no candidate we could criticize. And I'm curious as to how this idea of yours is applied to the current President. When on your blog you say that the war in Iraq is "immoral, illegal, and unjust", does that constitute an attack on a brother, the way you say Justin's criticisms of Obama do?
This series of correspondence generated here gives evident signs of our poor judgment (with the inclusion of I) of the issue of race relations in America; and our reluctance to create genuine conversations without attacking someone's personality. Racism in America may not be solved in this generation, or even the one (s) to come. For the issue is far greater than our thought, imagination and comprehension. Nonetheless, we do have an opportunity to change things, ameliorating issues of race and ethnicity, furthering the cause of racial harmony and reconciliation in this great nation we love and will die for. It is one thing to talk about racial harmony in books, holding conferences, seminars and workshops, or even preach about it. However, it is another thing to practice it and make it part of our Christian ethnic and value.
Furthermore, racial categories were created to produce anthropological hierarchy among human beings. For some humans were deemed inferior than others. The ontological nature of some people has always been an issue in the fields of humanity, social sciences, philosophy, even in theology. This was evidenced in the colonial periods. “Men were conquering, killing, dominating, and enslaving other beings (?) thought to be equally human, if only by some.” In other words, degrees of humanity were recognized and maintained. “Some humans were more so than others.”
These are the issues we have to confront and face in this generation, and the next to come. We cannot and should not undermine and avoid them. Until we learn to listen to people who are different from us, acknowledging their culture, respecting their opinions, ideas, values and perspectives, we will make little progress in regard to race relations.
So God help us!
You might not like Obama for his stances on various issues (i.e. abortion, church membership, theology ect...), but as a Christian brother you cannot burn him at the stake (or blogosphere) because you personally dislike him. I've been keeping up with your blog and you only seem to burn Obama. Remember Jesus: "Love your enemies" - don't burn them and mock them.
Wow, where does one begin here? The Bible is full of taunt songs that mock the enemies of the covenant community.
Calling oneself a Christian does not earn a person a free pass. The Bible assumes that persons who make that claim live up to the claim. When they fail to do so, they rightly earn harsh words directed in their direction.
Fact: Obama himself has drawn attention to the fact that he's a Christian within the past few weeks. So, we have every right to hold him to such a profession,since he's the one who chose to frame the issues in that manner.
Rev. Wright espouses Black Liberation Theology (herafter, BLT for ease in typing). BLT is little more than yet another ethnocentric heresy that has risen up within the visible church.
Now, it's true that we should speak out against racism - but the Bible's answer to racism is the Gospel, in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female. The Bible's answer is not to look at all theology other than BLT and call it oppressive white theology intended to keep the black man down.
And, what's more, the Bible directly addresses this particular heresy. It happens to be one of the oldest ones in the book.
1 Timothy 1 refers to Jewish myths and endless genealogies. We must therefore, understand the content of those myths in order to understand what Paul is saying. These myths were probably from the Midrash and anti-Gentile in tenor and were specifically designed to exclude some from salvation. They would form the basis of Jewish Gnosticism, which was designed to create a special class of persons who possessed the “gnosis.” Thus, to counter this, Paul’s usage focuses on the universal offer of the gospel in chapter 2, not to Jews only, not to a specific class of Jews, but to all classes of men, and all ethnicities.
Obama told us he could not disown Rev. Wright. He drew an analogy with his grandmother. I sympathize. My grandmother grew up in the NC mountains during the Depression. Consequently, I heard a lot of racism out of her mouth. However, I did not choose my Grandmother. We do choose our churches and pastors.
As a Christian, we have an obligation to confront those who err. Senator Obama has that obligation. Here, to his credit, he has confronted Rev. Wright.
But that obligation does not stop with the individual. If one looks through the documents @ Trinity, we find that BLT riddles their confessional and directional documents - so BLT is a part of the very fabric of that ecclesiastical community. In that event, as a Christian, Obama must not only confront Rev. Wright, but confront the whole ministry there, including the members of the church. Why? Because of 2 John says:
9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.
10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;
11for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
In other words, don't receive false teachers into the fellowship of the local church. In Obama's case, he should leave the church and do so publicly.
The Bible's harshest words are for members of the visible covenant community, and for false teachers within that community who rise up. We find such words on Jesus' own lips, in the OT,and in the NT Epistles. Senator Obama has a duty to "disown" Rev. Wright and separate himself from Trinity Church,for if a church is to effectively excommunicate its own members in the New Covenant era and the Old Covenant community can stone apostates in their midst, then Senator Obama can certainly "disown" Rev. Wright. His duty to Christ and the Gospel supercedes his relationships with them and his run for office,for that is a duty that we accept as Christians, and Obama has made the repeated claim that he is a Christian.
jake,
my contention is that if we are going to criticize obama for being a "bad" or theologically liberal christian we must first ask ourselves what makes him so bad and us so good. perhaps we are the ones who need reforming?
i have never attacked bush's christian faith or stances on issues. i have attacked this war which is beyond simply bush. i criticize the culture of death that permeates much american politics. i am saddened to know that so many christians are anti-abortion but pro war - to me this seems like an obvious contradiction.
I think the idea that "upscale left-wingers condescend to blacks" is the whole problem that Bush summed up as the "soft bigotry of low expectations".
Its expressed exactly in Obamma's explanations of Wright's rhetoric. "Its his generation; his style, his culture, his authenticity". Read Byron York's interview with the audience. Many of them DON'T think there's really anything wrong with Wright's claims (like the government CAUSED AIDS!).
Wright is "authentic" black to the liberals, and conservative blacks who realize that that kind of rhetoric is actually counter-productive are NOT regarded as authentic voices.
Thusly, the liberals condescend to blacks like Wright by giving them as "pass" for hateful views. "What do you expect?"
I find it interesting that Dave, a white guy, is trying to lecture me, a bi-racial guy, on what constitutes a person's racial identification. Being loud and white doesn't make you correct. That's one kind of condescension "upscale liberal whites" give out.
You can be raised, as I was, primarily one race. You may also wrestle with your heritage and settle on an "identification" as Obama did. That does not change that one is raised to identify a certain way.
I suppose I've little else to say if I apparently know less about these things than those who spend all this time on politics and the background of politicians.
"what makes him so bad"
Obama says that a baby born alive after aborted must die.
Partial birth abortion is something we need to keep legal.
Abortion all around is legal, and he wants to keep it legal.
he thinks killing babies in the womb is a woman's right.
That's what makes him so bad to me.
And I also don't care for most of his other liberal stances.
He would be a bad president, because he disregards life in the womb to begin with.
I'll stop here for now.
I’ve been very busy today, so I’ve not had a chance to respond before now. Please understand, I write as a fellow conservative evangelical who holds many of the same views as most of the commenters here. I’m not endorsing Obama or excusing Wright. Justin’s post and many of the comments which follow concern me, and I think my concerns are pretty much encapsulated in the following quotes. First, these quotes from Jonah Goldberg, whom Justin quoted (which I assume are endorsed by Justin, or they wouldn’t be quoted in the first place):
“To listen to Obama, you'd think he was the only person in Chicago not to know that his minister is a hatemonger. Either Obama is the worst judge of character in living memory or he's not the man he's been portraying himself as.”
Then, Goldberg adds this thought:
“Obama's power base is made up of black voters and the upscale left-wingers who condescend to them. Well, it is time he spoke truth to that power.”
Finally, in the comments, “genembridges” said,
“Senator Obama has a duty to ‘disown’ Rev. Wright and separate himself from Trinity Church…”
Here’s my response to the first quote by Goldberg:
Dr. Jeremiah Wright is well-known in Chicago. His views are not unknown. What he said is only a problem now because some whites recently discovered who Jeremiah Wright is. I don’t hear complaints from Wright’s church—He recently retired from that congregation after 36 years of service. I don’t hear complaints from the black community. Blacks aren’t up in arms about what Wright said. Why? Because we don’t necessarily disagree with everything he said. And, even if we disagree with some or most things he said, we understand why he would say what he said. We don’t consider Wright to be a “hatemonger”, nor do we consider Obama “the worst judge of character in living memory”. Why? Because, to borrow from Wright, we understand what it’s like to be black in America. We’ve experienced it.
In response to the second Goldberg quote…
I think that sentence is an insult to blacks. Goldberg implies that black people have a problem and Obama is the one who needs to set them straight. Pardon me, but black people don’t need Barack Obama to tell us what to think and how to feel any more than we need Jonah Goldberg telling Obama to tell us what to think and how to feel. In my opinion, Goldberg’s statement is just as condescending as the “upscale left-wingers” he criticizes.
“Genembridges” basically said what many others have said in so many words. Here’s my response to his comment and the others like it:
To my black ears, your statements simply come across as white men trying to tell a grown black man what to do, as if that black man is a child who needs to be told what to do. There are reasons why Jeremiah Wright said what he said, and there are reasons why many black folks agree with at least some of what Wright said. Instead of criticizing Wright and Obama, perhaps those who are incensed at Wright should take time to get to know some black men, actually listen to what they have to say, and find out why they think as they think and feel as they feel. You might be surprised to know what black folks—even evangelical black folks—really think.
I find it interesting that Dave, a white guy, is trying to lecture me, a bi-racial guy, on what constitutes a person's racial identification.
I am absolutely not lecturing you on what constitutes a person's racial identification.
I am simply correcting you on your assertion that Obama was raised in the black culture. A statement that you admit is based on limited things that have happened later in his life instead of his actual upbringing. You admit that you don't know much about him and haven't paid much attention to him.
Yet, because he has a black wife and goes to a black church, you assert that he was raised in black culture, which simply isn't true.
wwdunc,
Is what Gene Bridges stated biblically wrong? If you believe so, would you please demonstrate how.
The sad part of this whole thing is that what we have been privy to hear from a pulpit that someone else is to blame for others problems and the answer given wasn't Jesus. I would love to hear Mr. Wright proclaiming the Gospel.
I don't understand why Wright would look to compare himself and others to Jesus as being poor then veering far from reacting the way Jesus reacted as revealed in Scripture.
Mark
wwdunc:
Its not that Goldberg is saying that Wright is unknown among blacks.
He's saying
1. Obama is incredibly politically naive if he thought he was ELECTABLE by a general population with what would be perceived as hateful rhetoric by non-blacks (C'mon: the US created AIDS? That's a rational view?)
2. If Obama wants to keep Wright AND win non-black America, he needs to say something negative about wright TO blacks.
Interestingly, that's what Obama DID in his speech. Did he condescend to you when he said that?
3. Smart white liberals think its loony to assert that the government created AIDS. Which is more condescending: to keep quiet around blacks who think that by not saying you think that's loony, or to treat people as responsible moral actors and say "you need to get over that loony belief"
My thought:
The problem is when we find out that some blacks have suprising views (like Wright), the only reasonable response is utter despair. It makes me want to slit my wrists to read that 10 black scholars interviewed by Newsweek didn't see anything "over the line" in what Wright said.
Although Black Liberation Theology has issues, so does the Millard Erickson style systematics. The question isn't solely theological, but for many in the black community it is communal. Many in the black community don't choose their church like whites, who shop around for the best fitting, but instead join a community and work within. It's interesting that most who are attacking Wright are white - they are doing the very think he is uncovering in his sermons.
theologica.wordpress.com
Jerald:
No, that's not right.
If the black community and even the black evangelical community sees nothing substantially wrong with Wright's views then we have a much wider and serious racial divide today then perhaps I thought.
view my blog:
i've posted rev. wrights sermon in context
theologica.wordpress.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home