In The Washington Post’s religion section on Saturday, reporter Michelle Boorstein wrote an article on "Altar Egos," on how clergymen have become liabilities for the presidential contenders. It’s a convenient attempt to once again blur Barack Obama’s problem with Jeremiah Wright, his own minister of 20 years, with John McCain’s problem with two evangelical preachers who he sought out for an endorsement, but have never been his pastor. The top of the Religion page has a vertical column with pictures of McCain on top, then Rev. John Hagee, then Obama, and then the Wrong Reverend Wright. But Boorstein’s other task seemed to be promoting the secularist God-bashers who spew on the Washington Post’s website, complaining that both parties shouldn’t be courting ministers or quoting the Bible at all:
"The chickens are coming home to roost," said Jacques Berlinerblau, a Georgetown University sociologist who writes a religion and politics blog called "The God Vote." A post that got 50,000 hits called "Huckobama" asked why Democrats who have criticized President Bush's overt faith expressions aren't more critical of Obama.
"That's the new Faith-and-Values friendly liberalism of the Democratic Party in 2008. And that's something that might make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace," he wrote.
Among the speeches Berlinerblau cited was one Obama made in February, preaching at length about Jeremiah 29, saying, "God has a plan for his people." The separationist group Interfaith Alliance has been sending out alerts about candidates for months, including when Clinton said last June that she'd like to "inject" faith into policy and when McCain said in September that the Constitution established "a Christian nation." The group also included an Obama speech in October in which he told an audience that, with prayer and praise, "I am confident that we can create a kingdom right here on Earth."
Democratic strategists have lamented off the record such comments, and the pamphlet Obama has used in at least two states, titled "Committed Christian."
Boorstein ended the article with Susan Jacoby, who has her own message board on the Post website called "The Secularist’s Corner." She thought the candidates deserved to suffer for being churchy:
Susan Jacoby, who writes about American religion and secularism, sees problems coming from several corners. Candidates are "getting what they deserve," she said, by talking so much about their faith beliefs. But the blame rests on the public, she said, for maintaining superficial attitudes to something as complex as faith.
"Pastors who say nutty things goes against our myth about churches, which is that only good and nice things are said in them," she said. "Americans don't want to look into the messy side of religion. They want candidates to be religious, but they want that faith to be a very bland, ecumenical, acceptable-to-all kind of faith. That's like asking for the moon."
Hagee had made viciously anti-Catholic comments, which he retracted completely (and sort of mysteriously) in a dialogue with the Catholic League. It's mysterious that a minister could hold the classic fundamentalist view that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation, and then say, oops, I misspoke a little.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Tim, I think we can take
June 7, 2008 - 09:37 ET by motherbeltTim, I think we can take solace in the fact that at least they are bashing both Democrat and Republican. Of course, when a Democrat problem arises, there is always that need to create "equivalence"...(both sides do it).
But at least someone is criticizing Democrats for the same thing that Republicans have been criticized for, forever. Normally it's OK when Democrats talk about faith and God, but a threat of theocracy when Republicans do.
As for the fact that supposedly "only nice things are said" in churches, it depends on which churches you go to. I have been a Catholic my entire life. I've lived and attended Catholic Churches in 8 different states and 2 foreign countries, and I have NEVER heard anything even remotely comparable to what goes on in TUCC. Catholic Churches do not preach politics. The priest may talk about abortion and euthanasia in the context of respect for life, but they never rail against this country or berate politicians by name. Sermons are always about interpreting that day's Scripture readings and applying them to our personal lives.
And in my wildest dreams I can't imagine a priest talking about "doin' us like he did Monica Lewinsky" and "ridin' dirty"...nevermind with hip action to illustrate!!
So frankly, I am sick of all churches getting lumped together!!
Update: Slight digression:
Here is another photo of Saint Barack from Reuters....on the townhall website.
Exactly MB - they like to make comparisons now but
June 7, 2008 - 10:25 ET by Dee Bunkas you said this kind of thing has been going on for ever in liberal churches and they never highlight controversial statements like they have with Jerry Falwell and others. With Falwell and other Evangelicals, they take them out of context most of the time. That's why they usually apologize because they are saying that they don't mean to incite or offend. Evangelicals have never been good at explaining to non believers how their problems are with the acts and society and not the individuals.I thought Huckabee was good at explaining it.
Even Hage here, in my opinion, has every right to complain about other religions as being inferior just as Catholics have every right to think theirs is superior.
The difference with Wright is that he's not sorry for anything he said and is in fact indignant. Father Pfleger is only sorry because he knew he was speaking in a way the Catholic Church would not approve of. No one from Wrights faith has criticized or disciplined him in any way.
The other difference is that when Falwell and other Evangelicals would criticize it would be about the acts and not some individual race. He held no one out as superior. When he made his claim about God punishing America for it's sins like homosexuality with Sept 11, he wasn't saying that homosexuals were the cause of Sept 11. His statement was offensive and that is why he apologized. I don't want to go into what he really meant with anyone because those who don't understand never will. Again, I agree what he said was offensive and that he shouldn't have said it.
With Wright he blamed the White race and held the black race to be superior and without blame. Falwell was blaming everyone whether they were gay, straight or bi-sexual, black, white, Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Evangelical, Muslim or what ever. Wright also justified the terrorists for doing what they did whereas Falwell was explaining why God let it happen. It's two completely different things and Falwell alos apologized because he was misunderstood. Wright didn't apologize.
fiery preachers like Pfleger and Wright have always had a huge impact on left wing politics but it's never highlighted so people only see it as a problem on the right. It's no different than any other behavior (racism, bigotry,lack of empathy for the poor etc...) they all occur on both sides of the isle but are only highlighted on one.
<
Just an FYI here
June 7, 2008 - 10:36 ET by KC MulvilleCatholic homilies are a little different from sermons. They aren't supposed to be the place where the priest makes personal reflections on whatever topic comes to his mind. Catholic homilies are supposed to be focused on the readings of the day, and nothing else. The priest shouldn't offer comments on the contemptorary political or social scene. A lot of Catholics want that, but that's not the purpose of the homily within mass. The homily has a specific purpose, and priests need to stick to that.
When a priest strays from that day's scripture and blathers on about a personal story he's just gotta tell, that's an insult to the liturgy itself. When I hear a priest do that, I have no shame about going outside for a few minutes until he's done. (I do that often, by the way.)
Catholic homilies are a
June 7, 2008 - 11:12 ET by motherbeltCatholic homilies are a little different from sermons. They aren't
supposed to be the place where the priest makes personal reflections on
whatever topic comes to his mind. Catholic homilies are supposed to be
focused on the readings of the day, and nothing else.
Isn't that what I said? Here it is:
Catholic Churches do not preach politics. The priest may talk about
abortion and euthanasia in the context of respect for life, but they
never rail against this country or berate politicians by name. Sermons
are always about interpreting that day's Scripture readings and
applying them to our personal lives.
Yes, I used the old term "sermons" instead of the newer "homilies" but the meaning is the same, and that has always been my experience in the Catholic Church. And as you see from my post, I have not spent my entire life in one parish.
Which is why I'm wondering where this came from:
If you want to hear the priest's teaching on contemporary topics, fine,
but there are other places to hear that. Don't exploit the mass for
that, just because it's convenient.
Or is that just an observation? Because nowhere did I imply that that ever has been, or should be, the focus of the preaching...whether you call it homily or sermon, at Mass.
MB - I think KC was agreeing with you and just adding details
June 7, 2008 - 11:13 ET by Dee Bunkfor others who are unfamiliar. I'm not sure, but that's how I took it. I didn't see an conflict in what the two of you said except for that he said when he saw them engaging in that kind of behavior he would leave and you said you never saw the behavior. That's the only difference I saw.
I agree with both of you except on the one difference and that is where I've had your same experience MB. I've never seen a Priest use the Mass to talk about people or politics. I grew up in a very extremely liberal Catholic church that embraced every bit of Vatican II with vigor. Many traditional Catholics were offended by how liberal my church was and went to other ones even though it was supposed to be their Parish by geography. My Dad was one of those Catholics who followed the rules and because that was our assigned parish that's where we went. As liberal as it was, I still never heard a Priest talk about politics or criticize anyone.
This Father Pfleger is a complete anamaly to me. I can't imagine that there are many more like him and though their may be a few that veer off from the traditional mass, I still don't think they get into politics or criticizing people. I've visited a lot of different Catholic Churches and I've never seen it.
My Dad was the type that even when we were on Vacation, we couldn't miss Mass. So I saw a lot of different churches growing up and in my adult life I've visited many different Catholic as well as Protestant Churches. I've heard politics in some of the Protestant one's, but none in the Catholic ones and neither had anything like what Wright was doing.
Well, when someone replies
June 7, 2008 - 11:21 ET by motherbeltWell, when someone replies to my post and starts out with "FYI"....I take it as a correction, or instruction.
I had pretty much the same upbringing as you, from reading your description. Even with my own kids growing up, we found and still find a place to go to Mass away from home.
My experience in different churches came about from moving around in the USAF for 20 years, and 2 more moves since then. I sort of lied tho, I meant to say 8 places, not 8 states...6 states and 2 foreign countries (England and Spain). Still never heard a priest go on like Wright. Or Moss. Or even Pfleger (he is definitely an anomaly!!) I wonder if he does that sort of thing at St. Sabina's when saying Mass, or only in other settings, like Trinity.
I can definitley see how you'd take it that way MB
June 7, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Dee Bunkand he could have meant to. I just know a lot of people reply because they have something similar but different to say and are not always meaning to speak directly to the original person. It gets confusing. I only deduced that he wasn't criticizing you, because he mostly said the same thing in a different way and just added more details.
I think Father Pfelege is probably inappropriate at St. Sabina's also, but just not to that degree. I know he's a well known radical around Chicago. There were about 10 people who complained to the Cardinal about his suspension and I read an article this morning, but can't find it now, about how they met with the Cardinal and are now silent about it. So hopefully that is a good sign that most in the Parish respect the Church more than him.
They really do need to do something about these kind of people because there are many, like my family and yours, who follow the rules and go where they are supposed to and are just "stuck" with a bad one like him. Over time, people get immune to it. Unfortunately there is a shortage of Priests so I think they are more tolerant of bad behavior than they should be.
How anyone could justify what he did blows my mind. We are living in a time where anything can be justified. It's really sad.
Ooops
June 7, 2008 - 13:01 ET by KC MulvilleSorry, I was running a few errands and didn't realize this had gone any further.
No insult or "correction" intended, MB. I was trying to communicate (and apparently did a poor job) that there are specific rubrics governing homilies, which many Catholics may not know. (From my experience as an ex-Jesuit, many don't.) So, the fact that Catholic homilies don't dwell on politics is by design, not because the priests just happen to be modest about it.
Why did I think that was worth pointing out? Because I've had several conversations with people who argue that if a priest starts making political statements from the pulpit, the Church should lose its tax-exempt status. So, those people assume that priests refrain from "real" preaching because they don't want to lose their tax exemption. Well, that's not so. I've had other discussions where it was assumed that priests "stayed quiet" because the Vatican wants to control its image. Or that John Paul II wanted to impose his politics on the whole church, so he would "silence" any priests who spoke out of line. Again, not so.
Priests are supposed to refrain from political commentary from the pulpit for strictly liturgical and sacramental reasons. It has nothing to do with politics. So it's not only that priests "just happen" to refrain from political commentary ... on the contrary, the rubrics of the mass forbid them.
Sorry, but I don't take any
June 7, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Ten7sSorry, but I don't take any solace in this whatsoever. The MSM is trying to give Barack Hussein Obama political cover for his past 20 years of worshipping anti-Americanism, racism, antisemitism and Marxism by presenting an extremely false moral equivalence, false (by dozens of powers of ten) both in content and depth of association.
BTW, doesn't "Liberation Theology" come from the Catholic Church in Latin America? And isn't "L.T." merely Marxist where "Black Liberation Theology" (which forms Obama's most deeply held beliefs) is also overtly racist, antisemitic and anti-American?
Ten7s...my comment about
June 7, 2008 - 10:55 ET by motherbeltTen7s...my comment about taking solace was a bit of sarcasm.
Ga'cha, mon amie.
June 7, 2008 - 11:00 ET by Ten7sGa'cha, mon amie.
Yup,
June 7, 2008 - 11:05 ET by pbanks7Sorry, but I don't take any solace in this whatsoever. The MSM is trying to give Barack Hussein Obama political cover
It's "fair" to go after a right winger, period. But if they have to cover a left winger (because the brouhaha caused by talk radio and youtube makes it impossible to ignore any longer), they throw in a RW comparison for "balance." Fair and Balanced.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.
There are reasons for the
June 7, 2008 - 10:15 ET by wdhorningThere are reasons for the liberal bias that is pro-Democrat despite their religious beliefs, and anti-Republican because of their religious beliefs. In liberal churches they tend to speak of social justice and political issues in place of soul-winning, but in many conservative churches, soul-winning takes precedence over worldly causes. It is all really a matter of where one thinks God places His priorities.
But before the political issue at hand can be addressed, a little background is in order.
The Bible is clear that soul-winning takes priority over worldy causes, but that worldly causes should never be totally shunned either. This is because soul-winning is related to where people spend life for eternity, while worldly causes only have to do with this life. So it is simple, which is more important?
Liberals, even in evangelical circles, tend to attack conservative values for one reason: they cannot stand to obey the Bible (that is, obey God), and so place a twist on everything it says. Time would fail to show the countless misrepresentations in modern translations, which make the point about liberal twisting, but one very common example is to replace "our Lord" with "the Lord" even though the Greek from all sources says literally "of us" or in English, "our". So how it is changed to "the" is beyond comprehension. And the word "our" speaks of three things: a personal relationship with "our" Lord, "our" Lord in the sense he takes care of us in an active manner and "our" Lord in the sense we are to obey Him.
The liberal has much lower interests in the above idea, and so prefers the indifferent, non-personal, and distant use of the words "the Lord".
So now back to politics, in liberal-thought processes, it is easy now to understand that liberal thought is more "worldly" and thus attacks convervatives for their different value system. Conservatives tend to think they can do it all with God's help, but liberals tend to think they are "gods" and can do it themselves, with a distant God in the background. This is reflected in the arrogance that often surfaces in the liberal press and in other liberal circles. It is very often "holier than thou" attitudes.
This brings us back to the treatment of liberal and concervative religion, because clearly treating Rev Wright and other Obama minsters with excuses by the media and other rationalizations have occurred. And at the same time, treating McCain ministers with more scrutiny has been the practice of the liberal press.
In the final analysis, Obama gets a "pass" and McCain gets "crucified" by the liberal press.
Is this what our soldiers have bled and died for, a press that will not tell the truth?
This brings us back to the
June 7, 2008 - 11:24 ET by motherbeltThis brings us back to the treatment of liberal and concervative
religion, because clearly treating Rev Wright and other Obama minsters
with excuses by the media and other rationalizations have occurred. And
at the same time, treating McCain ministers with more scrutiny has been
the practice of the liberal press.
I think a lot of that is because they like the "liberal" Christian values of caring for the poor and the sick, while ignoring messy things like abortion, fornication, and divorce.
Tim
June 7, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Gothampc"Hagee had made viciously anti-Catholic comments, which he retracted
completely (and sort of mysteriously) in a dialogue with the Catholic
League. It's mysterious that a minister could hold the classic
fundamentalist view that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in
the Book of Revelation, and then say, oops, I misspoke a little."
Tim, I thought you were smarter than to stoop to stupid comments like this. Go back and do your research about what Hagee actually said. Please don't let the MSM influence your thinking.
The whore is
June 8, 2008 - 06:11 ET by sentforth5the organized Christian church system.All of 'em. Not the parishoners, mind you...most of them are stupid victims, but the organized church governments.
Babel is an hebrew word that means confusion. Babylon is an hebrew word meaning "city of confusion".
God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.
this gets so tiresome...
June 8, 2008 - 06:04 ET by sentforth5none of these people have anything to do with our Lord and Redeemer Christ Jesus. I just get so tired of this crap............
There is only One Word. Any "preacher" who strays from that One Word, even just a little, is a bullsh!tter, and has no place taking God's Precious Name in their mouths.
We all have a plumb-bob in the Holy Bible; a center of facts that God wrote to us so that we could distinguish between true teachers of YHVH and the liars. Geez louise anyways...