At long last I bring you part 2 of my three part series on the Reverend Wright “controversy” and the hypocrisy that surrounds it. This controversy has been totally fabricated by the radical conservatives and propagated by our spineless and sensationalist media. Instead of honest conversations on the points brought up in Wright’s sermons we have instead been treated to biased and misleading racist propaganda and fear tactics punctuated by intentionally misleading video clips taken out of context.
In part 1 of this series I provided two videos of Reverend Wright that put his words in context. I strongly believe that while some may not agree with his points, his sermons are no more racist or anti-American than anyone else’s. To illustrate that I also provided four clips of conservative religious leaders making statements that are far more hateful and intolerant than any to be found by Reverend Wright.
The fact that the statements made by Reverend Wright have generated many times the amount of negative media coverage as those by his conservative counterparts is unquestionable. The only question then is why there is such a disparity between how the two are not only handled by the media, but viewed by the average American. In part two of this series I will explore how this hypocrisy is a direct result of conservative Christian culture. I apologize in advance for how long this is.
Media Bias Against Progressive Religion
The right wing propaganda machine is exceptionally good at misinforming its base, who are in turn exceptionally good at being misinformed. One of the biggest and most successful propaganda campaigns has been painting of our mainstream media as having a heavy liberal bias. While many objective studies have debunked this claim the right wing continues its propaganda, knowing full well that their followers will only accept the truth that they already believe (see below) regardless of any amount of information to the contrary. In this manner the right wing not only control the media through the corporations that own them, but also condition their followers to dismiss any harmful information as liberal lies.
As a result of the media’s perception of being to the left of center everything they cover is viewed through a distorted lens (like in a circus fun house) that shifts everything to the ideological left. In this manner the mainstream media is able to present radical fundamentalist Christians as if they represented mainstream American ideals even though they are in actuality far to the right of most Christians. The disparity in the amount of coverage conservative religious leaders receive over their progressive counterparts and the illusion of everything shifting to the left has serious consequences for the religious and moral discussion in America. This fun house mirror effect causes progressive ideals to appear far more radical than they really are which explains how even when viewed in context many conservatives will still think that Reverend Wright is racist and intolerant. Even worse though it has led directly to my next point.
Fundamentalism Has Hijacked Religion and Morality
Anyone who is not a conservative Christian and has spent more than a few minutes speaking with one will understand this point. Fundamentalists all share the belief that they own a monopoly on morality and that it is in fact impossible to be a good person if you are not a part of their belief system. The belief structure of conservative Christianity is that the only possible truth is that which comes from within their established belief structure forming a self referencing and self validating world view. Essentially it boils the burden of proof on anything down to whether or not their leaders say its true.
Conservative fundamentalists view themselves as a group of flawed individuals following a perfect belief. As flawed individuals they believe that the organizations and groups that they belong to carry the same moral perfection that they attribute to their religious beliefs. Naturally these groups include their clubs, partisan political attack groups, and churches but oddly they also extend to the country as an entity. This is due to the delirious belief that America is a Christian nation and that our laws, policies, and foreign military excursions are directly guided by the hand of God. As God is running the show so to speak, at least when there is a Republican in the White House, our nations actions are due the same scrutiny as their holy Bible, none.
How It All Ties Together
This is where Reverend Wright got himself into trouble. As the sole authority on what is right and wrong fundamentalist Christians do no take it kindly when others call on them to be responsible for actions that they do not feel are wrong. Yet Reverend Wright did just that. He attributed the attack on 9/11 to our foreign policy mistakes and imperialism. He called on America to accept responsibility for its past racist actions against not only the Black community but also Native Americans and other minorities. He called on America to accept the results of its history and to make the changes necessary to right those wrongs.
When fundamentalists are confronted with something that they do not agree with they only have one possible reaction, attack it. Alternatives like open mindedness, acceptance, tolerance, forgiveness, or any of the other traits they like to portray themselves as having don’t actually appear to exist for those outside the group. While this makes them horrible dinner guests, it makes them excellent attack dogs. So thats what they did with Reverend Wright. If your still wondering why these attacks are all based on misinformation, racism, and fear tactics your not paying attention. They have no relationship with truth or facts to draw upon even if they wanted to.
Anyhow, this is a short summery of how the fundamentalist Christian culture has contributed to the ridiculous Reverend Wright “controversy”. I really could go on and on with examples and references but I don’t think its necessary. Those who would be swayed but such things are most likely already convinced, and for the rest it would be wasted effort. I am not supposed to work on the weekends as my wife says I work too much but I will try to get the final part out anyhow. I promise it will be shorter.
Comments are welcome but as before no race-baiting comments or allegations against Reverend Wright or anyone else. If you would like to refute my point please do so, just remember that in a debate both sides carry an equal burden of proof.
Fundamental Christianity says thou shalt not murder. Fundamental christianity does not instruct one to kill a child that is demon-possesed in any sense. So the mother’s idea to stab her 6 year old daughter did not originate from the bible or fundamental christianity. Also I have never seen a bible reference that instructed one in the use of antibiotics. All I can think of that would be related is Paul’s instruction to a someone to drink a little wine for their ailment. I don’t know enough facts about your second example to comment on it. Overall it seems these people acted in an incosistent way toward the bible. Do you really think that the author of the bible, God would do such harm to innocent people? Only God has right to take life in such a way and He instructs people to preserve life. Thus we have laws of not murdering and not stealing.
SEAN – “Fundamental Christianity says thou shalt not murder”
You should study your Bible again. There are many passages where God commands his followers to kill. For example Deuteronomy 13, Exodus 22, and 2 Chronicles 15 commands Christians to kill anyone who follows another religion, Exodus 22 demands death to witches, Leviticus 20 demands death to children who curse at their parents, and Exodus 31 demands death to anyone who works on the Sabbath. There are dozens more examples but I think you get the point. So while the Bible does not specifically state to kill possessed children, it can be inferred by its demands for murders of everything non-Christian.
SEAN – “I have never seen a bible reference that instructed one in the use of antibiotics”
What a dumb statement. Antibiotics were not invented until the late 1930′s or so. How in the world would tribesmen (The Bibles authors) wandering around the middle east write about them?
The bible does say that prayer will cure sickness, and that is what those families were relying on when they killed their daughters. James 14,15 “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.”
I would like to suggest that the “thou shalt not kill” statement in the bible is better translated thou shalt not intentionally and with premeditation, murder another. And I draw this conclusion based on the context and the hebrew words for kill. That is why the mother who stabbed her 6 year old daughter was clearly doing a wrong and in contradiction to the bibles commands. I would like to refer you to this short essay on meaning of kill – http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
Also check out this explanation given by biblestudy.org website –
Q. I am studying the 10 commandments. Please explain the Sixth commandment “thou shall not kill.”
A. The commandment “thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean “you shall not murder,” most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10). Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).
The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew 5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11; 4:1-3), Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.
Its always fun to watch fundamentalists try to rationalize the many contradictions in the Bible without admitting that their supposedly infallible book is hopelessly self contradictory.
I always get a laugh out of this myself. If you take the bible literally, you’ll be wrong in it’s interpretation. Jesus usually spoke using symbolism. Kill, murder, yeah, we know there’s a difference and the OLD testament probably meant murder, not kill, but I’m not a true biblical scholar. You can also do the same thing with “turn the other cheek.” It can and had been taken by many to be a Jiu-Jitsu type reference to using the other’s force against them and also to NOT mean, let them do to you what they will. However, taking Jesus’ life and actions as a whole, it is very doubtful he ever meant anything other than the more commonly held peaceful interpretation of this.
So, why is there all this contradiction here in interpretation? Because people always have differences in anything. People aren’t perfect. And regardless of what you want to believe, it is a fact that people wrote and compiled the Bible. That makes it imperfect. Sure, it may be the “word of God,” or logos, but anytime man get in contact with that, you will have errors. Mankind was given free will, and that includes the ability to make errors. No one is perfect. Despite what radicals may teach, those who put together the bible were prone to error therefore the bible is prone to error. Does this make the bible wrong in it’s main message, especially in the New Testament? No. But it is how us fallible humans interpret it that allows for it to be misinterpreted.
Now, fundies, I want to hear you talk about the origins of the Book of Daniel. Was Daniel a real person? Did he do all those things in that book? Let’s have a discussion!
William has an excellent point. The Bible — the Old Testament — often demands killing. One of the seminal stories in the Old Testament is of course the story of Abraham, who had to agree to kill his beloved son Isaac, and then start to do so, before God (or his angel) stayed Abraham’s hand and blessed him for the attempted murder. William could have added that the Bible (again the Old Testament) also sanctions slavery and prescribes bodily mutilation to slaves who attempt to escape. William is also right about the Biblical prescription of prayer. There isn’t a single fact William refers to that can be seriously contested. It isn’t clear to me whether William approves of all these prescriptions, maybe because I’m visiting this site for the first time. I hope he doesn’t. Maybe in the days when tribes wandered the desert — a very good description of the Bible’s authors, again by William — murder, slavery, and slave-mutilation (to say nothing of prayer as a healing measure) were the best one could hope for. In my opinion, mankind has moved on, and the problem with these witches, Witnesses, and Christian Scientists is that they haven’t caught up.