The Dish

"If there’s a single theme to Obama’s intellectual achievements, it’s been his ability to sieze upon powerful words and themes, lifting them out of their original context and reframing them to be inclusive and uplifting. Thus, Rev. Wright’s fiery sermon on "The Audacity to Hope" in a racialized world becomes the title of Obama’s serene meditation on the possibilities of transcending political and racial polarization. That seems to hold true more broadly. It’s how Obama is able to credit the honorable motives of his opponents even as he disagrees with them. It’s how Obama took the best of what Reverend Wright had to offer – community, inspiration, rebukes for his congregation’s shortcomings – and set aside the anger and divisiveness that seemed to him relics of an earlier time," – TPM blogger, Fly.

A gripping, powerful testimonial from Cass Sunstein.

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.