One side of the knife
I was just over at Mother Jones, where I read a very interesting op-ed by David Corn. In his piece, he questions whether or not Senator John McCain will ever be brought to bear for his association with televangelical Rod Parsely, who has called for the "eradication" of Islam. In lue of all the anguish Sen. Obama has been left to endure because of Jeremiah Wright, I'd ask the same question:
Will Sen. McCain be found guilty by association with controversial religious figures?
We all remember when Rev. John Hagee (another McCain supporter, I should point out) tried to play God by suggesting that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment to New Orleans for its sinful nature. As if that wasn't bad enough, now Rev. Parsley is urging us Christians to stand up and fight Islam; what he considers a "false religion." In similarly controversial sermons, he has lashed out against homosexuals, suggested that America is complicit in a "black genocide" and even compared abortionists to Nazis. Yet both he and his friend Sen. McCain has been given a pass. I mean, seriously: if Rev. Wright said anything like this in his sermons:
...all hell would break lose. And it has. It continues to.
This begs an important question: since Sen. McCain frequently referred to Rev. Parsley's as his "a spiritual guide," why hasn't the MSM brought him to bear because of Parley's statements? Two words; say it with me now: "Double Standards."
Talking heads in the conservative media (and indeed, even some of the more liberal outlets like CNN) have been working around the clock to punish Obama for his affiliation with Rev. Wright. But I challenge these hypocrites in the media RIGHT NOW to examine some of the associates involved with the other two candidates currently running for President. If after all that, the MSM still chooses to go after Obama, fine. But if Obama is going to be tried and found guilty for relationships with questionable figures, the knife must cut both ways.
Closing thought:
I usually don't like to push propoganda. But in this case, I just couldn't resist:
- ACL
18 "Insiders" spoke their mind. Join in...:
Rev. Wright, Hagee, and Parlsey are all racist loons. But the differences are clear: Hagee and Parsley don't necessisarily attack American sensibilities while Rev. Wright went after America RIGHT AFTER 9/11. That's why he's more repudiated thann the others.
Anonymous:
"Hagee and Parsley don't necessisarily attack American sensibilities..."
You're joking, right?
Hagee attacked an American city right after it faced one of the most destructive storms in our history. Parsley has condemned the American government and attacked a religion practiced by millions of Americans. That said, are you really sure you take that position?
Remember we were talking about "internal contradictions"? You just laid it all out.
Anonymous, this isn't a diss, but you just proved my argument. When you said "Homosexuals and Muslims don't respresnt American sensibilities.", you've revealed the some very contradictions that I've cited in this post. It's also why McCain has not been (and won't likely be) brought to bear for associating with the bigoted likes of Hagee and Parsely.
McCain has gone on the record calling Rev. Rod a spiritual guide...moral compass...and a number of other honorable titles. On top of that, he even accepted Parsely's endorsement as the Republican nominee. And you've seen what kinds of bigoted statements this dude can produce. I mean, the man is essentially calling for the extermination of a religion to which MILLIONS OF AMERICANS (not must people of middle eastern descent) subscribe. Yet Rev. Wright's comments are the ONLY ONES being focused on.
I should note -- for the record -- that Obama did at least disavow Wright's comments. We can't say the same about McCain for now.
When you consider the fact that hundreds of thousands, perhaps more than a million, American Muslims are Black, calling for the extermination of Muslims represents a pretty ominous threat to Black Americans, as well as Muslims of other ethnicities. Being Black myself, and having Muslim friends and family members, I have to say, that offends my very American sensibilities.
Anonymous,
I meant to say "...the man is essentially calling for the extermination of a religion to which MILLIONS OF AMERICANS (not JUST people of middle eastern descent) subscribe."
Ultimately, what I was trying to point out (which Malik just did) is that Islam is not limited to people who engage in jihad so they can get virgins in the afterlife. Similarly, Christianity is not exclusive to right-wing nutcases who bomb abortion clinics. If McCain expects to the President of a country made up of over 300 million people, he and his "spirtual guide" need to recognize the richness and diversity this country has to offer. If McCain surrogates and subscribers can't dig that, they need to get kicked to the curb. If not, the same scrutiny that has been plaguing Obama should be volleyed at the McCain camp. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that McCain should get it HARDER; considering that he tried to ride the Rev. Wright wave himself.
@ Malik: Happy to see you back in the blogosphere. Sort of, anyway. What's been up with you?
To be fair, you have to at least see that McCain was NOT a member of Parsley's church for over 20 years. He wasn't baptized by Rev. Parley. He was married by Rev. Parsley. His children weren't baptized by Rev. Parsley. Meanwhile, Senator Obama has been with Wright for over 20 years. If this whole controversy never came up, he'd probably still be sitting in Wright's church front and center.
It's not like Wright spent 20 years incorporating "God Damn America" into every sermon. As far as I can tell, he didn't go around selling "Chickens coming home to roost" dinners after 6 o'clock service either.
True, Rev. Wright represents a consortium of ministers who teach/preach using black liberation theory as a foundation. True, as a black man, even I have my issues with that kind of doctrine. But to suggest that this is his ONLY platform is to have a narrow and media-driven understanding of his doctrine and the Black church in general. So when Obama (and...let's not forget...Bill Clinton. Are you listening, Hill?) had relationships with Wright, it wasn't necessarily because of Wright's particular viewpoints about 9/11 retribution. If you believe that, you're falling right into the MSM's trap.
Also, to your main point: McCain is not a member of Parsley's congregation. True. But if you watched the video, you clearly see McCain bestowing honors on Parsley. These clips -- by the way -- all came AFTER Parsely first made his vicious comments.
Enough with all the guilt by association nonsense. Haven't we seen enough of it with Obama? Why do we have to recreate this tired argument with McCain now? Why can't we just just stick to the issues affecting this country? Chruch memberships and endorsements are not among the critical issues facing this country.
Let's just move on already!
That would be a good argument to make if the media didn't spend the better second half of the Dem. campaign talking about Rev. Wright. Even during that ridiculous excuse of a debate on ABC, Obama suggested that we kill the noise about Rev. Wright and stick to issues. The ABC moderators thought otherwise. The media created the monster. You can't just say "stop" after the monster attacks one guy while leaving the other at a major advantage.
'sup 'dre. I couldn't stay away, too much stuff on my chest. I just dropped a piece on Black liberation theology you might wanna peep at.
good point KC. i totally agree. if the media is going after one, then go after the other.
Hey Dre,
I'm going to have to call you out on something here. You say McCain, "frequently referred to Rev. Parsley as his "a spiritual guide,". After reviewing several vids of these references (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg) I could only find him saying "a spiritual guide" not "his". A small point, but an important distinction. Also McCain didn't belong to or attend his church regularly. Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with the MSM asking McCain if he shares Parsely's views like they did Obama.
@ HC: "I could only find him saying "a spiritual guide" not "his". A small point, but an important distinction."
I don't have a problem conceding to that point. I mean, playas can mess up, too.
Still, I've heard McCain on at least three occasions during his presidential run use "[a] spiritual guide" in reference to Parsley. Even if he's not claiming ownership of Parsely (the "A" versus "His" strategy is pretty smart on McCain's part, IMO. If, in fact that was his intention...), the fact remains: McCain still hasn't disavowed Parsley. That's the ultimate point.
Louis Farrakhan once called Adolf Hitler "a great man". From there, the manure hit the implement used to induce an airflow. While Farrakhan wasn't accepting Hitler as one of his own or indicating that he'd ever wanna roll in Hitler's crew, people still crucified him for attaching a description like "great" on a man responsible for the deaths of millions.
In today's political climate, can you really get away with calling a person who wants to annihilate an entire religion "a spiritual guide"?
The other two times, by the way, were at a Press Dinner and when McCain officially accepted Parsley's endorsement.
Just thought I'd toss that in.
One more thing: I made a typo in my post; which isn't the first time I've done that. I started typing "his", but replaced it with "a", without removing the "his" line.
Again, playas mess up too.
OK. That's it. I promise!
LOL, you called McCain a "playa".
Uh...Hippie. I was talking about myself. I was the one who made the mistake regarding the "his" vs. "a" thing.
*Shakes my head*
Post a Comment