Category: The Dish

Ed Morrissey says I have one standard for religious criticism for Mormons and another for black Christians. This is so patently unfair that Glenn Reynolds links. Here’s my allegedly incriminating statement on Romney and the Mormon church’s history of institutional racism (worse, I’d say, than ugly words from the pulpit):

The awful history of the LDS church’s treatment of African-Americans requires an accounting by any leading Mormon …

Here’s my statement on Obama’s need to address Wright:

It’s nutty, offensive and paranoid stuff. And it is perfectly legitimate for reporters and voters to ask questions… Obama needs to be much more forceful and candid in explaining his relationship with Wright… like many people, I wouldn’t sit through one of these sermons, let alone come back for more. And it would be helpful, to say the very least, if Obama told us more candidly why he did and does.

Can someone tell me where the double standard is? And is it legit for a blogger to accuse another blogger of a double standard and not actually link to the current post he is citing? How can a reader fairly judge whether Morrissey or Reynolds is being fair when they deny the reader the chance to read the full context? Or was that the point?

I should add that the record is absolutely clear that I never argued that Romney’s faith should be used in any way against him in public life, and in fact repeatedly, strongly argued that it should not. I opposed him because he was one of the biggest phonies to run for president in my lifetime. And even partisan Republican voters agreed.

The debate continues. A reader writes:

"Many women believe they are acting out of compassion (however mistakenly); is it possible for a torturer to hold similar beliefs?"

In fact, it is possible. During the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, the primary purpose of torture was to get the victim to convert to Catholicism. Those doing the torturing believed that the conversion would save the victim’s soul. So they did, in fact, consider torture to be an act of compassion (the ultimate act of compassion, actually). And often the victim would be killed after the torture, but that was okay because the soul had already been saved.  How compassionate.

Music reviewing gets extra-creative:

Black Crowes manager Pete Angelus says, “Maxim’s actions seem to completely lack journalistic integrity and intentionally mislead their readership. When confronted with the fact that they never heard the album they are claiming to ‘review’ in their music section–with a star rating, no less–they attempt to explain that it was an ‘educated guess.’  In an email correspondence, Maxim went on to state: ‘Of course, we always prefer to (sic) hearing music, but sometimes there are big albums that we don’t want to ignore that aren’t available to hear, which is what happened with the Crowes. It’s either an educated guess preview or no coverage at all, so in this case we chose the former.’”

In case you thought it was a lone occurrence:

Rapper Nas was shocked when Maxim gave his new album, "N – – – – r," a 21/2-star review – because it isn’t even finished yet. "I’m finishing the album now, and it will be out April 22," Nas told Page Six. Maxim has since apologized for the premature review…

The candidate responds to the controversy by writing about his faith and church at the Huffington Post:

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.

I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

He spoke with CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Fox didn’t treat him with kid gloves: in fact, I’ve rarely heard a more inquisitory interview with respect to someone’s pastor. But Obama seemed as cool as ever:

It was a relatively big turn-out, and with a depressingly large – and pre-ordained – majority for the most extreme. Anecdotal evidence beforehand suggested little genuine enthusiasm:

"I have voted once in 30 years, and that was for the creation of an Islamic Republic" says an old gentleman who deals in real estate. "I’m not going to get [expletive] again."

Driving back to the hotel late at night, my taxi driver is clearly drunk. As we careen along the near-empty expressway, he belts out made-up lyrics to "Old McDonald", ending in a refrain that has something to do with getting a visa to France and drinking viski. Pointing at a billboard of a senior bearded cleric he shouts, "Shaitan!" (Satan) and draws a finger across his throat. Somewhat timidly, I ask in my limited Farsi about the elections. He cackles with laughter, then clutches his head in mock-dismay.

(Hat tip: FP)

David Samuels’ Atlantic cover article on Britney, or rather, her photographers is now online. A graf:

Some stars hate the paparazzi. Others use them to reinvent themselves or increase their fame. Working with the paparazzi to create memorable shots is called “giving it up,” a sexualized metaphor that neatly captures the masculine-feminine romantic dynamic of need and reluctance that characterizes the relationship between celebrity photographers and their subjects. Paris Hilton is the Queen of Giving It Up, Dano says. “She creates the beautiful shots that we need. She is the one who wants it.” Another favorite is Lindsay Lohan. “Lindsay’s OK, but she’s kind of strange, because she can be high, or in a weird mood,” he says. His least favorite subjects are surly male stars like Leonardo di Caprio, Ben Affleck, Justin Timberlake, and Tom Cruise. “Jessica Simpson, she’s really sweet, she’ll give it up. Gwen Stefani is nice. She’ll give it up.” But no one in the business compares to Britney.

Not necessarily the best short-term news:

What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign’s count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.

It’s a smart thing for Jeremiah Wright to quit any official role in the Obama campaign; and, I’d say, following Larison, that it was right for Obama to make the following distinction:

“I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country.

“That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.”

But Obama acknowledged that “there’s no doubt this is going to be used as political fodder, as it has been in the past.”

“What I hope is [that] what the American people will trust is what I believe,” he said, that “my values, my ideas, what I’ve spoke about in terms of bringing the country together will override a guilt by association.”

This won’t end the debate, and shouldn’t. But it’s a classy move. You don’t disown a man this close to Obama’s spiritual development over the years for political reasons. Obama’s not a Clinton. But a more forceful explanation of why and how Obama rejects Wright’s most inflammatory sound-bites would be helpful at some point. A bigger speech reiterating his own rejection of racial resentment would be even better – soon. Why not in a black church?  Obama’s more developed explanation for his membership of Wright’s church and closeness to the man is in his first book. A critical passage can be read here.