A major address on religion and race

March 17, 2008 By

wrightobamaWhat a campaign season this has been. It’s amazing how much religion has played a part this year — from Huckabee’s surprising win in Iowa to Mitt Romney’s big religion in America speech. And now this, as reported by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic:

Barack Obama plans a major speech tomorrow in Philadelphia on race, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the future.

An adviser said that Obama wants to contain the Wright story. He worries that the 1960s-to-1980s prism of race is what everyone has read into it, and Obama wants to move the discussion forward.

He is expected to recount, in detail, how he came to know Rev. Wright, how he came to admire Rev. Wright, the history and meaning of the Trinity church, and address the controversial remarks attributed to Wright.

He is also worried that Wright and church will get caricatured unfairly.

Let us know if you see any particularly good or bad media previews of the speech. And we’ll compare, contrast and analyze how the media portrays the speech tomorrow. Already the media are highlighting that this is a speech about race. I imagine that will be the focus of much of the media coverage, too.

The Washington Post just posted a good preview:

MONACA, Pa — Sen. Barack Obama will deliver a major speech about race in Philadelphia tomorrow that he said would explore his relationship with Chicago pastor Jeremiah Wright and the wave of controversy it has stirred in his presidential bid.

“I am going to be talking about not just Rev. Wright, but just the larger issue of race in this campaign, which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told reporters after a town hall meeting here. According to aides, he was up until 3 a.m. Monday working on his remarks.

Wright, who recently retired as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s South Side, was Obama’s spiritual guide when he became a practicing Christian during his 20s. He presided over Obama’s marriage to Michelle and baptized both Obama daughters. But Wright, a fiery preacher, has come under heavy media scrutiny for a series of racially charged remarks he has made from the pulpit, and Obama has played defense on the issue since Friday.

“The statements that were the source of controversy from Rev. Wright were wrong and I strongly condemn them,” the Illinois senator reiterated today. However, Obama added, “I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate. And so part of what I’ll do tomorrow is to talk a little bit about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”

The story doesn’t ignore the religious angles to this story. Keep an eye out for others that look at the full picture.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Mainline, People, Politics, Social Issues
  • Jerry

    Thanks for the heads-up.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I’m surprised that nobody seems to have picked up on this important statement by Wright quoted a year ago in the New York Times:

    “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

    Hat tip to Warner Todd Huston on NewsBusters.org.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Mike Toreno,

    I deleted your comment because it was both hateful and off topic. Remember, we don’t cover politics here. We cover media coverage of religious issues.

    Also, please calm down and cut out the hate speech. If you accuse me of something, back it up.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Obama’s biggest problem is now not what has been said by his mentor (as Sen. Obama described him) about race, sex, patriotism, or class. Instead, it is convincing people that over 20 years he did not– as he publicly claimed– realize that this preacher was way over on the radical, virtually anti-American fringe.
    For if he didn’t realize it, then he is supremely stupid and lacking in judgement. And sound judgement was what he was selling as a substitute for experience–of which he has little.
    But there is another angle to the story the media–even the few media outlets and people skeptical of Sen. Obama–have ignored.
    One has only to read or listen to many activists tied to or supportive of the Democratic Party to realize that most of the wildest ravings of Rev. Wright on political or historical topics –which have upset and angered so many Americans– are believed and promoted by non-religious activist Democrats in liberal academic and liberal religious circles.
    And these activists are the ideological and philosophical
    mentors of the Democratic Party.

  • Asinus Gravis

    Deacon JMB is way off base in his anti-democrat rant.

    Like the Biblical prophet Jeremiah, who was not anti-Judah, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not anti-American, nor is he proposing to tinker with the deck chairs on the Titanic. Being critical of something does not amount to being anti-that thing. Both cared enough about their countries to speak truth to power.

    Rev. Wright is identifying, as did his namesake, the fundamentally unjust legal, economic, and social systems that prevailed in the country. They both point out the idolizing of superficial values that are fundamentally incompatible with the demands of YHWH/God. Both point the consequent damnation of their own country. The religious and political leadership of Judah tried to kill Jeremiah, while the defenders of the status quo in America don’t like the message either and want to “kill off” an associate of Wright.

    The journalists (and the right wingers) would do a better job on this story is they knew a lot more about the original Jeremiah and his message.

  • Dick

    Asinus Gravis:

    Jeremiah was lamenting Judah’s turning away from God. Is Rev. Wright calling America back to God? Or is he calling America to another more political place? If Jeremiah is brought into the media’s coverage, the differences as well as similarities should be pointed out.

    Also, it is not enough to say that Rev. Wright is pointing out some injustices. Most reasonable people would not quibble with that. The question is what is he calling America to be, Farrakhan’s America with racial animus and anti-Semitism? The real story here is where exactly does Obama part ways with Rev. Wright. At what point in the rhetoric does Obama say, OK, that’s far enough? His speech tomorrow will need to make this clear in order to make this issue go away for him.

    Another aspect of this that I find fascinating is that Rev. Wright has suggested that America’s own corruption caused 9-11. When Rev. Jerry Falwell suggested this (albeit for moral corruption, not political corruption), he was excoriated in the press. It should not be surprising that at least some eyebrows are raised over these statements by Rev. Wright. The religious right says that America’s failing morality caused 9-11 and is beat up about it. The relgiious left says that our political corruption caused 9-11 and nobobdy seems to care too much. I would suggest that the fact that there has not been more of an outcry over Rev. Wright’s comments shows that the religious right and the religious left are treated differently by the media.

    Perhaps this bias is why the media did not pick up on this much earlier. The media’s love affair with Obama may now be over.

  • danr

    Asinus, you are much quicker to defend Wright’s comments than Obama, who “strongly condemned” them. Perhaps he didn’t get your memo? Or perhaps worse, he’s being two-faced and out of political expediency condemning the statements with one face, while winking at Wright and sympathizers with the other? The prophet Jeremiah would be turning over in his grave, if his soul wasn’t with the Lord.

    I will be interested in the long run to see if Obama’s speech alleviates concerns, or rather the mere fact that he’s making the speech partly has the opposite effect (a la Romney’s speech). Sometimes a “This is not an issue!” speech ends up raising public consciousness (or subconsciousness) of that very issue.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Asinus Gravis–There are prophets and false prophets. There is no doubt there are and have been great injustices here as in every country on the face of the earth (Christ’s Second Coming is not yet here). But Christ was the greatest Prophet of all. And he was hated by those who were political revolutionaries (of which it is believed Judas was one)–the ones sounding, I am sure, like Rev. Wright and the radical wing of the Democratic Party which is rarely profiled or investigated in the MSM. Yet one has only to live here in Ma. near Harvard Square to know the situation is real and has influence. In fact many of the bizarre, off-the-wall ideas in some of Wright’s sermons are considered “Gospel” in radical Democratic circles around here–it is just that they are shocked that what they virulently say in little publications or on web sites has been brought into the light of day and put under a spotlight (although reluctantly in most major liberal MSM outlets—they keep saying it is not a REAL issue to look to see if a future president consorts with race and country haters) Always calling President Bush a liar on just about every issue is only the tip of the iceberg of the insane hatred that flows in some liberal-Democrat arteries I have read.

  • FW Ken

    Apologies if this is too out o place, but I have been looking for a column Frederica Matthews-Green wrote after 9/11 which was the best take on 9/11 as God’s judgment that I have seen. It put to shame both Rev. Falwell and Rev. Wright… but I can’t find it.

  • Jerry

    http://voices.kansascity.com/node/730 is the most balanced preview of the questions I’ve seen so far.

  • Stephen A.

    I’m surprised that nobody seems to have picked up on this important statement by Wright quoted a year ago in the New York Times:

    “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

    I actually have heard this a oouple of times in the MSM, and I’m surprised and pleased that I did hear it because it gives some context to the discussion.

    I will reserve judgement on Obama’s comments until Tuesday, but I wonder if his speech will resemble in any way the speech Mitt Romney was eventually forced to give about HIS faith? While I think it did settle some issues, it also did raise the issue of religion in prominence for a few days. It also was so well delivered, it made him look presidential.

    Obama’s such a great speaker [no sarcasm], it may do the same thing. But it also must deal with the thorny issue of race, and I wonder if this will raise the temperature in the media (and whet their appitite for more ‘discussion’ sometimes offering more heat than light) or whether it will settle some things.

    I’m not sure the political spin of saying “the fundies said bad stuff, too after 9/11″ is going to fly, since McCain wasn’t a member of a fundamentalist flock or a friend of one of the pastors spouting this stuff – which, BTW, was ALSO Jeremiah-like, and plausibly “biblical.”

  • http://blog.muchmorethanwords.com gfe

    I’m glad you all alerted me to the speech, or I would have missed it.

    About all I have time to say now is that Sen. Obama is one of the best orators of our time, and that was evident in his speech.

    Although it didn’t touch a lot on religious issues (it was mainly about race, although Obama did talk about the experience of the black church), there were some interesting parallels between Obama’s speech and Romney’s. Both sought to explain their views in sometimes personal terms, and both of them sought to get past the immediate issues and look at the broader picture of the common values that nearly all of us share. And both sought to draw on the constitutional heritage of the United States, looking at what has been able to help us transcend often profound differences.

    Although I didn’t agree with Romney politically, at the time I felt that (to use a cliche, sorry) he had hit a home run with his address, and it did much to change the tone of his campaign and subdue some of the criticism of him. At this moment (before I’ve had much time to hear and read all the spin), I’ll say the same thing about Obama’s speech.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    The trouble with Obama’s speech is that it revealed him as a bald-faced liar (dare I say in the W. Clinton tradition of an “in your face” liar). For only a night or two before his speech, Obama denied–in his typically seductively appealing manner–that he had any idea at all or had ever heard any of Rev. Wright’s bombastic sermons. He said that what he heard were just typical Sunday sermons of sweetness and light. Then on Tues. a.m. –without apology or explanation– he admits that he was well aware of and and heard some of Rev. Wright’s harangues.
    But, so far, it seems only the radio talk shows are willing to point out Obama’s Big Lie while the MSM slides over his Big Lie.

  • Grupetti

    Deacon John, please provide a link to the specific statements you claim Obama made. I don’t think you remember them correctly. And what radio talk shows are you listening to?

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    I’ll make it simple::Just go to Get Religion for Wed. March 19 under the heading Race and Religion in Obama’s Sermon by t. matt. Therein is reprinted part of a Washington Post Story that says :”Obama acknowledged that he had heard his pastor say controversial things with which he disagreed.” This is almost exactly the opposite of what he was saying Sunday.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    I found the exact words of Obama in his speech: “Did I ever hear him [Wright] make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the Church? Yes.”
    So Chris Matthews goes ga-ga goo goo and equates the speech with Abraham Lincoln. I wonder how often Lincoln lied. Or maybe the media of his day just ignored any Lincoln lies like they ignore Obama lies today.

  • Grupetti

    Deacon John, you first said “For only a night or two before his speech, Obama denied—in his typically seductively appealing manner—that he had any idea at all or had ever heard any of Rev. Wright’s bombastic sermons.”

    That’s gross embellishment.

    Then you claimed ”Obama acknowledged that he had heard his pastor say controversial things with which he disagreed.”

    This is “what somebody said Obama said.” That is not the same as “what Obama said.”

    Then you backpedalled to ”Obama acknowledged that he had heard his pastor say controversial things with which he disagreed.”

    Obama did not say what you said he said.

    You also said “He said that what he heard were just typical Sunday sermons of sweetness and light.”

    That’s just bald-faced lie. Shame on you.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Of course I used some colorful words to describe Obama’s comments.(I think his actual words were that he heard basically Jesus and love sermons from Rev. Wright.) Journalists giving opinions do it all the time. The fact remains that on the week-end before his speech Obama in interviews made like he was totally unaware of the vicious harangues in Rev. Wright’s sermons. Then, in the direct quote I got from this site’s video (and I had heard before elsewhere) of the speech, he said: “Yes” he had heard such controversial sermons while he sat there (which have struck most as unpatriotic and hate-filled.

  • Grupetti

    “Of course…”

    Of course? Huh? You can’t be honest?

    “I used some colorful words to describe Obama’s comments.”

    “Colorful words?” You are in denial. You lied about what Obama said. Shame on you.

    “(I think his actual words were that he heard basically Jesus and love sermons from Rev. Wright.)”

    Do you have even a shred of evidence that this does not accurately characterize the vast majority of what Wright said? Of course not. You base your conclusions on your prejudices supported by a few anecdotes. And you listen to right-wing talk radio.

    Here’s a few other comments by Wright that make hinm sound like just another evangelical preacher:

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=8491

    Too Famous for Church
    When Oprah goes to church in Chicago, she has been known to attend Trinity United Church of Christ, located on the city’s South Side. Trinity is the largest church in its denomination, with more than 8,000 members, several subsidiary corporations, and an annual budget of about $9 million. It is an Afrocentric church with a membership composed largely of upper middle class blacks. These elements, no doubt, appealed to Oprah’s roots in the church, her longtime interest in black history, and her concern for social justice.
    According to Trinity’s senior pastor Jeremiah Wright, however, Oprah has not attended a service there in the last eight years. When she first came to Trinity in the 1980s, it seemed that she would become an active participant. Says Wright, “She walked the aisle to become a member, publicly claimed us as her church in Ebony magazine, and when I would run into her socially, like at a United Negro College Fund dinner, she would say, ‘Here’s my pastor!’” But Oprah never completed the membership classes and after awhile her attendance dropped off.
    Wright says Oprah had been very active as a member of Bethel AME Church during her years in Baltimore. Mentoring young girls was one of her primary interests at Bethel, and it looked as though she would continue that ministry at Trinity. But then The Oprah Show went national and altered the course of her life.
    “Sundays got to be a hassle for her,” Wright says. “Everybody came at her with notes, with portfolios, with ideas and requests. It made her coming to church a problem.”
    Shortly after her show was syndicated in 1986, Oprah spoke about the challenges of being a celebrity in a public worship service: “Last Sunday I was in church, and a deacon tapped me on the knee and asked me for my autograph,” she said. “I told him, ‘I don’t do autographs in church. Jesus is the star here.’ ”
    Wright understands the pressures Oprah faces in public settings, but he has seen other celebrities maintain a commitment to their churches, despite their fame. He thinks there might be other reasons for Oprah’s absence from the pew. “I think it is hard for most very wealthy people to be a part of the church,” he says. “Somebody who makes $100 a week has no problem tithing. But start making $35 million a year, and you’ll want to renegotiate the contract. You don’t want to be a part of ‘organized religion’ at that point. That’s a generalized statement, but that’s what I’ve found across the years. The wealthier somebody gets, the more they pull away from the church.”
    Today Oprah’s relationship with Trinity and Jeremiah Wright seems strained. In a column for a recent issue of Black Collegian magazine, Wright mentioned Oprah as an example of African Americans who forget their roots in the church after finding success. “A lot of us do not even like the word faith anymore,” he wrote. “We prefer the more chic-sounding word, spirituality! We are caught up in an Oprah-generated mentality and a 12-step vocabulary that prevents us from using the very words and the very bridge that ‘brought us over!’ ”
    Oprah Winfrey did not respond to CT’s request for comment about the article, but Wright stands by his statement. He is clearly put off by the direction Oprah’s faith seems to have taken.
    “She has broken with the [traditional faith],” he says. “She now has this sort of ‘God is everywhere, God is in me, I don’t need to go to church, I don’t need to be a part of a body of believers, I can meditate, I can do positive thinking’ spirituality. It’s a strange gospel. It has nothing to do with the church Jesus Christ founded.”

    Maybe this is more typical of Wright’s preaching.

  • http://theantipodeanpundit.wordpress.com/ Grupetti

    Deacon John wrote:
    “Of course I used some colorful words to describe Obama’s comments.”

    Of course can’t handle the truth. You’re above the truth.

    No, I’m not letting this rest.

    I do wish GetReligion would do more examination of the Right Wing Media that facilitates views like Deacon Johns. It would also be good to examine why McCain gets a pass for his support of Hagee and Parsley.

  • Stephen A.

    Colorful adjectives or no, the fact is that Obama’s about-face during the speech, in which he suddenly admits that he WAS in the pews for at least some of Wright’s incredibly offensive and racist remarks, went almost completely unchallenged in the mainstream media, who instead started calling the speech Greater than Lincon and MLK combined.

    Yes, the right-wing blogs and talk radio noticed, and some of them go over the line in hyperbole, much like Wright himself. But there’s no claim to neutrality for those media sources.

    But I would expect more from journalists who are, supposedly, not taking sides here. They’ve sure beat up on Hillary whenever she misspeaks, or changes her tone of voice, or “attacks” Obama on issues of substance.

    Why is it wrong to mention this rather clear case of either lying or changing one’s story – especially when his relationship to this man and his sermons IS the story?

  • http://theantipodeanpundit.wordpress.com Grupetti

    “…Obama’s about-face during the speech…incredibly offensive and racist remarks…”

    You are putting your own spin on the truth. Did Obama actually use the exact words “incredibly offensive and racist remarks?” No, I’m sure he didn’t! What is your problem with the unvarnished truth?

    “…clear case of either lying”

    Who’s the one lying here? Yes, I am calling you a liar. Or maybe you’re so blind you can’t see your own biases. And you question the biases of journalists? Oy.