Read the transcript of his interview with Bill Moyers.
And by contrast, read what John Hagee says still about Katrina and the gays.
You tell me which is more of a problem? The one that has a candidate still taking his endorsement and trying to "line-item" distance himself? Or the one that Obama was forced to reject?
And let me say another thing. I used to watch John Hagee and Rod Parsley on television. I am not sure why, but I did. I found them horrible and yet interesting at the same time. So, I am familiar with their work, and at least for Hagee, he has only Bible training. He has been in religious school after religious school--and not theology. But read the Jeremiah Wright interview and just see how much more educated this man is. Not only is he smarter, but he actually understands theology and history and culture. I would bet that John Hagee would not even get some of the references.
And that, in some ways, is one of the more troubling differences between the two. You may disagree with some of Jeremiah Wright's conclusions, but he is not just some angry black man raised in conspiracy theories. He is a well-educated and thoughtful man. John Hagee, on the other hand, represents the worst of the anti-intellectual wing of the conservatives. He reads the Bible and that is all that is needed (except, of course, to sell his books pushing for war with Iran).
I will take Reverend Wright any day.
8 comments:
Given a choice between those two I would also take Wright. If I had a broader pool, I am sure I could find someone better. With the exception of his theories on AIDS, I don't find his political views all that problematic. Like you point out, he is intelligent. One thing I don't like is his former church giving him a 10,000 square foot home in a Chicago suburb that costs $ 1.6 million. Obviously, he isn't the only pastor to get some lucrative retirement deals, but I wouldn't want to be part of a church that does that.
I think Obama has done a fairly good job addressing the association with Rev. Wright. I just want to make sure that his attempts to reach out to a broad section of voters is sincere.
Agreed about Wright's huge home. I don't like that either.
Here is how John McCain's spiritual advisor addresses those things. At least, according to Wikipedia:
According to the Form 990 that GETV filed for tax year 2003, Hagee received almost a million dollars in compensation for his work for GETV that year, which amounted to approximately 16 hours per week [34]. (The GETV Board of Directors, which determines his pay, consisted of John Hagee himself, his wife, his son, and a Cornerstone Church member.) However, because he claimed that he worked "80 hours a week" writing books, singing songs, meeting international dignitaries and answering the call to preach the word of God, John Hagee argued: "I deserve every dime I'm getting".
I just finished the interview...wow! He said a lot of prophetic things - I mean like in the Old Testament prophet sense. So now we know what happens to you when you speak the truth and say things people don't want to hear!
Is it really that hard to find a spiritual advisor that isn't greedy? How about someone that is humble?
I hate to admit this, but Hillary has done a far better job in this area than Obama or McCain.
Thanks for posting the transcript of Moyer's Wright interview. Too bad the mainstream media has not bothered to get to know this man. As for Hagee, the less said the better.
steves, I am actually not sure what Hillary has done in this area. But then again, she had her picture taken with Richard Scaife--so it isn't like she is somehow more pure here.
Steve, welcome to our little community. Your blog, Marin County Jesus, looks interesting.
Natalie, I agree. I don't agree with everything the man said, but he is no crackpot and in fact, has spoken clearly about some very important issues.
Hillary has managed to protray herself as moderately religious and hasn't associated herself with many (any?) people in this arena that would hurt her in some way.
What I find troubling is that pundits and other would-be/wanna-be journalists seem to believe so firmly that they know more about Jeremiah Wright than members of his Congregation.
Consider the oft-repeated question, how could Obama have sat in a pew there for 20 years? The question itself, and the feigned incredulity behind it, comes from repeated viewing of snippets of a particularly fiery sermon. The understanding of the questioners seems to stem from a process where one verifies the content of a newspaper article by reading the other copies in the same vending machine. There is no new information introduced into the analysis.
This is not a defense of Wright so much as an expression of frustration with those who would claim to "know," especially with those who would claim to "know better" than Barack Obama or any member of Trinity UCC.
Ultimately, it seems that the question is whether the clips the media keeps showing are representative of his sermons, of Trinity, or of the UCC as a whole.
Even so, what does this have to do with public policy matters?
Post a Comment