© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please dive in, be a voyeur, and venture into the world of battering Barack. Tucker Carlson on Obama's church: "It's hard to call that. YouTube.
When you are a threat, even if a peaceful one, criticism follows you. Barack Obama is receiving a barrage of barbs. The Junior Senator from Illinois is too inexperienced, too fat, too thin, too handsome, too elite, and not eloquent enough. He is "clean," not as clean as he could be, and too conservative. Barack is not Black enough. Mister Obama declares that, for now, his race is perchance a novelty. However, he surmises, the uniqueness of his tone will wear off.
A New York Times reporter did respond to the charge of his color.
The arguments being raised about Mr. Obama’s blackness — or his lack of blackness — seem positively antique at a time when Americans are moving away from the view of ancestry as a central demographic fact and toward a view that dispenses with those traditional boundaries. Even so, the complaints about Mr. Obama provide an interesting opportunity to examine the passing of the old and the rise of the new.While the discussion of Obama's race may wane, adversaries can always turn to his philosophical positions. His middle name, 'Hussein' was ruled a reason for concern. Throughout cyberspace and the mainstream media, talk of the terrorist, Obama, loomed large.The claim that the candidate isn’t really black because his mother is white carries little weight under either system. It makes no sense at all to the young Americans who checked more than one box when identifying themselves by race in the last census. They subscribe to a fluid notion of race and seem perfectly willing to let people describe themselves racially any way they choose.
Nor does the charge make sense in the black community itself. That community has historically and eagerly embraced as black anyone and everyone with any African ancestry to speak of. That embrace often included interracial families, who lived in black communities long before they were accepted elsewhere. It included even blue-eyed, sandy-haired people like the civil rights leader Walter White, whose black ancestry was imperceptible to the naked eye.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama is or was said to be a Muslim. He studied in a madrasa, a group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque. Perhaps, no, probably this American man is actually an insurgent. Those on the right recounted tales declaring that obviously, Obama was trained to hate the United States and all white people. The Senator responded.
“If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I'm a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.The critics looked at the religious practices of this Illinois Senator once again, this time acknowledging his Christian faith. They assessed his spiritual affiliations. Now, they joyously state, Obama's Christian church advocates separatism. Principles such as those read and heard in the United Church of Christ are certainly not Christian according to conservative talk show host, Tucker Carlson. The Journalist joins his broad conservative coalition and fuels an inflammatory flame.“Ultimately what I think voters will be looking for is not so much a litmus test on faith as an assurance that a candidate has a value system and that is appreciative of the role that religious faith can play in helping shape people's lives,” he said.
Tucker Carlson criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), a presumptive candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, for being a member of a church that Carlson claimed "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss." Carlson was referring to the "Black Value System" advocated by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of which Obama is a member.The faithful Senator assailed such claims in June 2006. At that time, he was speaking to another conservative pundit, Alan Keyes. The "Black" political opponent, Mister Keyes suggested in an opinionated oration, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." Although Senator Obama was encouraged to ignore the taunt, he concluded he could not. I offer a portion of Barack Obama's response to the sinister Alan Keyes.
Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.Thus, I suspect Presidential candidate Barack Obama will address this recent twist on an old assault. The junior Senator has addressed others.Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics. For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait.
At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.
Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness. And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were.
My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist.
My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I. It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.
I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me.
They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst. And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.
And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today.
Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world.
As a source of hope. And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts. You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values.
In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values. And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
When attacks against the man prove to be ineffective. Thus, those intimidated by a Barack Obama Presidency must go further. They have. The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, a close bud and ally of the not so popular President George W. Bush is lashing out. Howard spoke of the Senator's proposed policies.
In a nationally televised interview on Sunday, Howard said Obama's plan meant that the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq should "be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats" in presidential elections due late next year.Prime Minister Howard has aspirations and needs. He too is running for office amidst much criticism. Many Australian citizens do not favor a man closely associated with America, its failed policies, Mister Bush, and the American President's mishandling of Iraq. Aussies too want out of Iraq and wonder whether it was wise to have ever entered into such a war.
In the AP interview, Obama laughed off criticism Saturday from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who said Obama's plans for Iraq “encourage those who wanted to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq.”Senator Obama stressed that a leader must have forethought and consider what is really being said and done. The validity of Intelligence must be a consideration. For him, in reference to Iraq, it always was.“It's flattering that one of George W. Bush's allies feels obliged to attack me,” Obama said.
Obama said that if Howard did not think enough was being done in Iraq, he should consider sending more Australian troops to the region. Australia has about 1,400 troops in Iraq, mostly in noncombat roles.
“I don't think there is a more significant set of decisions than the decision to go to war,” Obama said. “I think the war was a tragic mistake and it never should have been authorized.”The Prime minister retorts; he has no political agenda. He merely wishes to make his position known. Howard is protecting the interest of his prized people and the allied Australian armed forces stationed in Iraq.Obama told reporters he thinks his early opposition to the war shows “it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well” and that it speaks “to the kind of judgment that I will be bringing to the office of president.”
The senator has called for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and then beginning to withdraw them on May 1. He wants a complete pullout of combat brigades by March 31, 2008.
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia denied Monday that he had a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic hopeful, to become U.S. president.One must wonder; what will come next. It seems America and even Australia has substituted the well-known Mac Attacks for the barrages against Barack, battering on Obama. Admittedly, Senator Obama may be too much of a conformist for me; however, I am impressed that this man does not let criticism stand. He does not avoid addressing the assertions; nor does he wait for moss to grow beneath his feet.Howard, a steadfast supporter of President George W. Bush in the Iraq war, insisted that his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.
You go Barack; be real. Call upon your challengers; ask them to substantiate their claims. I am certain criticism will continue to come. Perchance that is good. I might not have considered your positions as thoroughly as I am were you not there, actively speaking to the allegations. I thank you for exemplifying what for me is a "great communicator." Might I say, you are quite "articulate," unlike many that state you are such.
Dear Earl Ofari Hutchinson . . .
I thank you for digging up the real dirt, the treasures that truly threaten the "Right." This information is valuable. Barack Obama's Illinois State Senate record reveals he might be a viable Progressive candidate.
Please review the evidence the Conservatives are sure to use against Barack Obama . . .
The Senator . . .
This record will give Republicans much to criticize. An entrant that votes to raise taxes surely will not be popular. maintaining a healthy infrastructure is not an American priority, or at least it has not been for decades. No one remembers that with sufficient funds, we could perhaps preserve our schools, sustain quality libraries, police, and fire services. This nation has not focused on these fundamentals for quite some time.
Therefore, our fellow citizens might not understand an aspirant suggesting we support our offspring and ourselves by allowing reasonable levies. They may not understand the need to save our communities before they crumble further.
For these stances, Barack Obama will certainly be skewered. A few will say he is a thinking candidate, not a pandering politician. Others might assess these policies and work to protect their personal pocketbooks. Yes, in Barack Obama there is much to condemn, or is there? Stay tuned. This is the Election 08.
Refer to the references for rants and rages against Barack Obama. . .
Recent Comments