Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

White preachers get a pass from media

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Justin Dick

Published March 28, 2008 at noon

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

David Kopel’s March 22 column on media bias bring up the old canard that the media is essentially a covert outlet for the Democratic party’s propaganda. Let’s look at another recent series of stories. This one concerning Obama’s association with a radical religious figure.

Rudy Giuliani’s priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.

Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them.

He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault.

Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university’s commencement.

Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore.” He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s endorsement.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.

Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down from a “demon spirit.” Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think. John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s? You guessed it. They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

I’m willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.

I think there is another factor at play as well.

The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It’s easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.

If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of “respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church.”

But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.

If the disparity in coverage isn’t racist, then what is it? I guess it’s just that old liberal media thing again.

Justin Dick is a resident of Evergreen.

Comments

  • March 28, 2008

    3 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    raysmom writes:

    The difference is that your other examples include accusations, outdated religious doctrine, which every church has, and religion against religion. I don't excuse this, but there is a difference in perspective.

    Rev. Wright's diatribe was very visible and extremely offensive to both blacks and whites. Of course there is racism, but his Anti-White American conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric were so, well, personal to mainstream America, that they were impossible to overlook. Also, right or wrong, Mr. Obama did not show much wisdom in not anticipating this, and this is politics, after all- and as a relative unknown with a very liberal record, the Clinton campaign and conservatives were both just looking for something, and this was the big "AH HAA!" moment. It took two days of Fox News airing this story before the liberal media picked it up, because they just HAD to. Mr. Obama was given 30 minutes free air time, and things quieted down. To say that we would not feel the same about an attack on gays is not supportable- no church is more reviled in this country than that one that hates gays so much that they say the war in Iraq is our punishment for accepting gays. An attack on Muslims, well, I can't say, considering the situation in the world right now, but I am a conservative and most of my peers understand the difference between a Muslim-American and a terrorist, and live side by side with them without any problems, just like we do with blacks in our community- no difference between them and my white neighbors, truly.

    I suspect your motivations are more political than altruistic in writing this article, and I feel it is the continuation of an ongoing popular extremist liberal strategy to vilify conservatives. I don't buy your accusations, or your motives- I think they are fundamentally, intellectually dishonest, just as I perceived Mr. Obama's media-acclaimed speech to be.

  • March 28, 2008

    3:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    primafacie writes:

    Revs. Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee and Rod Parsley can say anything they want. Their parishioners can believe it or accept it as they wish. Like Ward Churchill, they get to live with the consequences and aren't immune from criticism and disagreement.

    The real issue is Barack Obama's relationship with Wright, which goes back 20 years. There is something that connects Obama to Wright, whose well-chronicled views on racal separatism and bigotry are clearly well received by his congregation. Fine, they aren't running for president.

    Obama is. And as he's interviewing for the job of leader of the free world, some questions naturally come to mind.

    Does he endorse those hateful views? If not, why has he been associated with Wright all these years -- better, why did he join the church in the first place? If it was purely for a political edge, what does that tell us about his character?

    Of course, since Obama outed his "typical white" grandmother as harboring racist views -- apparently a characteristic of "typical white" -- we already got a glimpse of his character. He threw a woman "whose loves me unconditionally" under a bus to protect his relationship with a bile-spewing preacher.

  • March 28, 2008

    5:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bassman writes:

    If you want to talk about double standards, imagine if McCain had uttered the phrase "typical black person". He would have had to quit the race the next day. Also, McCain has never attended one of Parsley's services. Go back to the 2000 GOP race and McCain blasts Falwell and Robertson as agents of intolerance. This time around, he unfortunately calls Parsley a spiritual guide. Not his spiritual guide, mind you. McCain is simply trying to win back some of the far right he has alienated over the years. Obama, on the other hand, calls Wright his spiritual mentor and inspiration for his book. You can't sit there with a straight face and say Obama wasn't aware of Wright's beliefs. 20 years in the pew and innumerable conversations would be enough for anyone to spot a bigot. If he wasn't able to discern this, then how will he be able to discern the true intentions of Castro, Ahmedinejad, Chavez and all trhe other thugs he will have tea with if elected.

  • March 28, 2008

    10:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    I have problems with all of these hate spewing preachers that are supposedly speaking in the name of Jesus. They must have never read the book they wave around every Sunday. Thes people are every bit as bad as the Mullahs and Imams.

    Mr. Obama's lack of judgement in listening to Wright and bringing his children and wife to the man's racist church speaks volumes. As was stated above how will he deal with the thugs and our avowed enemies if he uses this kind of judgement. I also agree if Hillary or McCain had used the phrase "typical black person" they would have been done for.

  • March 29, 2008

    5:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    Give me a candidate who will state that he/she will never base a political decision on their religion and they will have my vote.

  • March 29, 2008

    8:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JimmyB writes:

    I would suggest no preachre, regardles of skin color, or demonination, should ever get at "pass".

  • March 29, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mtnsjohn writes:

    Yes, talk about a media double standard. The main stream press has been quick to excuse Obama.

    To further an argument, what if McCain was found to have attended an Aryan Nations meeting just once in his entire life? His political career would have ended before it even began.

    Wright's hate sermons and Wesley Swift's hate writings say the same things, only the targets differ. "All of our problems would be solved if it weren't for whitey or blackie or the Jews, or ...."

    We need leaders with the common sense to distance themselves from such associations, otherwise we are left guessing whether the hate speech has had an effect, and when and how will it manifest itself.

  • March 29, 2008

    10:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    revandrew writes:

    It's bad enough that Justin Dick doesn't know what he's talking about. He's also a plagiarist, and RMN is his enabler:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uy...

    If you're going to adopt someone else's ideas as your own, Justin, at least choose someone who has a clue. Cenk Uygur doesn't.

  • March 29, 2008

    11:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JimmyB writes:

    revandrew

    Why would anyone believe what nothington has to say. She's just another left-wing fascist who's claim to fame is.......what?

  • March 29, 2008

    noon

    Suggest removal

    rg writes:

    All Reverends believe in ghost droppings; therefore, if you believe in Reverends you believe in ghost droppings. Dan Caplis, lawyer talk show host at KHOW rapes little boys because his priest rapes them with the Pope transferring beastly pedophile priests from diocese to diocese. Thanks to America's legal system the Pope has paid out nearly a $billion dollars with Caplis murmuring "foul," with the five catholic Supremes concurring. Richard Grimes, deicide, believing in equality; therefore, disrespecting all gods equally and slaying them so they can enter Mythology Cemetery and stop killing humans by the millions and billions. 2nd Coming Holy Genocide will deliver billions to the devil: (such silly stuff). http://www.geocities.com/r22037/think...

    Deicide Corner:
    “O Lord, please don't burn us.
    Don't grill or toast your flock.
    Don't put us on the barbecue
    Or simmer us in stock.
    Don't braise or bake or boil us
    Or stir-fry us in a wok

    Oh, please don't lightly poach us
    Or baste us with hot fat.
    Don't fricassee or roast us
    Or boil us in a vat,
    And please don't stick thy servants, Lord,
    In a Rotissomat”
    -- Eric Idle, John Du Prez, Graham Chapman, John Cleese

  • March 29, 2008

    1:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anderson writes:

    Good catch on the plagerism, revandrew--although I generally agree with the original writer's point of view. Here are my original comments: There is a double standard in America and always has been. If you're a black public figure, you will be castigated for saying anything controversial. White America is still telling them they must act a certain way.

    Rev. Wright is facing a lynch mob, just as Ward Churchill did. The RMN editors are part of the pitchfork carrying crowd.

    Those who call his comments hate speech, or racist, make a mockery of these concepts. I'm sure if I (white person) went to his church, I would not fear for my safety, nor would I be turned away. Rev. Wright would unlikely demean my family, or ask my employer to get rid of me, or tell me to get out of his neighborhood.

  • March 31, 2008

    9:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jvb writes:

    I continue to contend that name-calling is demonstrative of a person's mentality: Children resort to name-calling; however, they get a free pass: They are children. Intelligent adults get their sentiment across without childish strategy.