I recall stating in recent weeks,

“I have yet to hear any of the sermons of the religious leaders of the churches of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, President Bush, or anyone else.”

It was a comment that reflected the fact that the media focus on 30 second soundbites – compiled from 5 – 10 second clips of 5-6 speeches made by Rev. Wright – of polispeak are being used as a tool to deter voters from joining the Senator Obama camp. My conclusion was that the comments were not friendly to Whites and the American Government, but were taken almost completely out of context. The media molded an impression of the words of Rev. Wright, and then extrapolated that impression onto Senator Obama and the entirety of the impetus for this was based in race and prejudice.

But the real stark fact was that the media, that sought out the videos and slips of words of Rev. Wright, made no noticible effort to cover or learn of the comments of the pastors of any other Presidential candidate. There is the bias. If the views and comments of a religious leader is important for one candidate, then it must be important for all of them. Yet only the African American pastor and candidate have fallen into this skewed interrogation.

That is until I found this information recently.

It seems that Senator Hillary Clinton’s former pastors have had a few things to say. Now you may wonder why they have made comment and what they had to say – as well as the reason why the major media threw a wet blanket on these relevant and newsworthy comments.

By the way, Senator Hillary Clinton has not been a member of any church for 16 years. That matches the time that she has been out of the White House. Thus there is no current pastor to listen to for her, nor is there a church for her to leave as she stated in this quote

“He would not have been my pastor," Clinton told a gathering of the campaign press corps, repeating a line she used earlier in the day on a Pittsburgh radio program. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” – Speaking about the video clips of Rev. Wright used by the media.

So for the religious that think Senator Clinton reflects their faith or is setting a morale stance, keep the facts in mind.

But of the pastors she did have while her husband was President and watched every Sunday have made comments.

Dean Snyder, senior minister at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. - which the Clintons attended while in the White House – stated,

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.”

Reverend Edward Matthews, who opposed both Iraq wars, supports same-sex marriage, opposes the death penalty, and has been a passionate critic of American foreign policy, served as pastor of First United Methodist from 1990 to 1998. The Clinton’s attended his church for the last 2 years prior to entering the White House. First United Methodist remains the only church of which Mrs. Clinton is a member.

He also attended prayer meetings at the White House while they were there. In addition to that he campaigned with Senator Clinton prior to the Iowa Caucus, and made a video testimonial for her. And he has said that at one time he even shared the views of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Matthews has actually heard a sermon of Rev. Wright. His comment on that was,

“If you are very close-minded, you would have gotten up and walked out of that. But I appreciated what he was saying." Rev. Matthews said. "I wouldn't have said it that way. I wouldn't have been so animated.”

As for whether she would leave his church because Senator Clinton disagreed with Rev. Matthew’s position on same-sex marriage, the death penalty, the Iraq War, or supporting Isreal he stated,

“She's disagreed with me on several things, but she remained a member of the church. We've remained close friends”

So it would seem that those preachers that can be identified as knowing Senator Clinton have made themselves clear. They support and defend Rev. Wright. To varying degrees they agree with him. They, in degrees, disagree with Senator Clinton’s political views. And she has not disavowed any of their comments in the past or present.

Thus I have to ask where is the major media coverage of this? Where is the controversy of the comments that Rev. Matthews made about America during the Viet Nam war? Comments that would have been viewed as strongly as those of Rev. Wright today. Where are the questions about how these pastors affected the politics of the Clinton’s?

Where is the investigation into the comments of Senator McCain’s pastor?

I am left with a single thought. This is all polispeak, meant to obfuscate the reasons to nominate Senator Obama, and assured to be brought up if he gets the nomination. It is racism under the guise of religion – 2 areas that are mostly taboo to question unless you are African American it seems.

There is nothing that justifies the manner and degree to which Rev. Wright has come under fire. Nor is there a reasoning, beyond that which I have mentioned, to attribute those misquoted, out of context, 2 – 3 word video snippets to the politics and character of Senator Obama. Thus anyone that would alter their voting due to all of this should also alter their voting for Senator Clinton, and perhaps Senator McCain. In effect none of the religious leaders for any of the candidates, as can be ascertained, are above reproach or question.

This is well disguised racism and prejudice. America should not have their votes determined by such paltry, disgusting, and meager reasons.

Vote for the nominee you believe in. Vote for the President you think is best for America. Vote because it is your Right, and far too many have died and bled for that Right. But don’t vote because someone, other than the candidates in question, spoke 3 words that by themselves sound uncomfortable to you.

Labels: Freedom of religion, news media, political bias, Presidential candidates, presidential election, religion in politics, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

I want to share a response to a comment that I recieved at Black Entertainment USA under the post of Coming to a movie theater soon: Monopoly - 2.20.2008.3 and my response. I feel both are more appropriate on this more political blog.

Every part of the following is verbatim and can be seen at the above link. I believe that the commentor meant to respond to one of my posts referring to the racial and false religious attacks against Senator Obama. [By the way, I do enjoy comments and generally don't care if the responder is anonymous or not. But I do not enjoy small minded racial, religious, or gender based prejudice and intolerance.]

"Anonymous said...
He is of muslim descent ding-a-ling. The name has everything to do with our future. Your not gonna have the women in the United States wearing burka's. How the hell has he helped the taxes in Illinois, What has he done for this state. We are one of the highest taxed States in the country. I cant stand hooples...the youth of the country voting for him are stupid."

M. Vass said...

Anonymous,

I can see why you didn’t place your name to this post. First, I find it quite interesting in your choice of term to try to denigrate and minimize my posts with. Generally I find the more eloquent wordings better, but yours was a cute blast from the past.

Beyond this, I feel the need to emphasize that you obviously placed the comment on the wrong blog. Considering that you posted this to my entertainment blog, under a post about Monopoly becoming a potential movie in the near future, I think you were a bit confused at the time. Or you were fearful of making the comment under a more appropriate post such as Democratic Presidential candidate’s tactics and behavior which is found at my political blog – VASS.

But, lets deal with the comment as it pertains to Senator Obama and his growing success at becoming the Democratic Presidential nominee.

As I stated in the post I referenced above, The Clinton campaign has used the background of Senator Obama’s parents (particularly his father’s religion) and his given name as a reason not to vote for him. You seem to agree. I find that ignorant.

Senator Obama is of African and American descent. To be more exacting he is of Negroid and Caucassian decent. The religious background of his parents is not a birthright nor a genetic imperitive passed on to him at conception.

Further, his name is not a determination of anything in his life. Were it true as you suppose, Billy Bob Thornton would never be an actor or person of note, but instead a poor farmer of dubious parentage and unlikely to be able to sign his name. Such is the stigma attached unfairly to such a name, and with no reasoning behind it. Another example might be John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It could be said that such a name could imply that this great President of our nation was gay and a drunk. Of course only the most insipid of minds would come to such a conclusion, but they might say this because his middle name comes from his mother and the last is related to his Irish lineage. Niether are true to my knowledge, nor affected his ability.

Or perhaps John Wayne, whose real name is Marion Robert Morrison, was gay? Or Albert Einstein was a Nazi because his name and parentage is German? I can go on throughout history, but the point is a name does not make a man. A man (or woman for that matter) makes the name renown by virtue of their actions.

But in your fear adled mind a mere name is enough to make you worry that women in America could be forced to wear burkha’s or that laws based on our constitution would be suplanted by those of a strick religious sect, which is not the most populous sect followed by a majority of Americans. I’m sure if you were told that the sky was falling or that certain actions with your hand would make you go blind you believed that too. I am also lead to believe that your knowledge of history is defined by your belief that those just like you were always right and beneficial in every act ever done. You are a fear monger, and appear ignorant of facts both present and past.

As for the taxation in Illinois, I cannot answer that. I am not a native nor resident of that state. Though I am sure that the taxes in that state are not the sole responsibility of this one elected official. Perhaps he has not done enough for your state, but sharing in that responsibility would be the Governor, another Senator, your Congressional representiatives, and the Federal Government most recently headed by President George Bush and his administration. But that is a legitiamte reason, if correct, to not vote for Senator Obama. That is your Constitutional Right. As is the Freedom of Religious Expression that this nation was founded under.

By the way, what is a hoople? I find that the urban dictionary has multiuple unofficial meanings. Do you mean you don’t like birds that cannot fly straight? Or the hardening of nipples? Or prehaps you are more against a preson who drinks to excess (normally refered to as a drunk or alcoholic). Possibly you mean to say that you dislike people similar to a character in the book Mott the Hoople that was lazy. Of course none of these meanings seem to apply to Senator Obama, my readers – I believe, with the exception of possibly the writter of the comment this is responding to, or myself.

You claim that the youth of this nation are stupid. I doubt that. While many may be misguided and/or are making decisions without understanding the full ramifications of the actions that is neither a new thing nor stupid. I in fact believe that the youth of today are educated, and far more knowledgable of current technology than many adults. Many are far more understanding of religious, racial and gender differences than their parents have ever been. Far more than what you appear to be with your limited scope of understanding and inability to use technology accurately.

So in fact I think you may be projecting your own fear and lack of willingness to become educated onto the youth of America. That seems far more apparent and resonable.

With any luck, and the attention of American citizens that actually care about the best interest of America, we will never have a President – nor any elected official at any governmental level – that reflects the small minded, zenophobic, religiously intolerant, illogical, uneducated, probably racist and gender biased mindset that I believe you have displayed.

That is what I believe. And I am happy to present my name not only throught my blogs, websites, and businesses but also on this post.

Michael Vass

Labels: Black Entertainment USA, Freedom of religion, Michael Vass, political bias, President George Bush, President John F. Kennedy, racial controversy, religious tolerance, Senator Barack Obama

Having just heard the speech by Mitt Romney I want to share my early thoughts. I think that this was an impotant speech, and there will be no end of pundits discussion of what worked and failed in the speech. But from a comman man’s point of view, I have to say that it was a good speech.

I have no doubt in the conviction of the words spoken by Mitt Romney. They came across in a heart-felt manner. And I believe there was a hint of annoyance at times as well. I too share that annoyance, because in the 21st century, with 231 years of existence, America should not have a need for such a speech.

I have to wonder, as I did early in the speech, if Senator Barack Obama needs to make a speech about his race, or Senator Clinton needs to make one about being a woman. Sounds absurd on the onset, but where is the difference? In essence there is no difference unless an individual seeks to find a way to segregate and divide Presidential candidates on a basis that ignores character, intelligence, ability and experience.

Mitt Romney stated [I am writing this before the full speech is available so forgive me if I misquote]

“As President I will need the prayers of all the faiths of this nation.”

The fact is that any President needs this. We are a diverse naton, and no President has ever, nor ever will, represent everyone in the nation. Nor should they. We don’t need candidates that are willing to deny what they are, or give platitudes in an effort to gain cheap votes. And do not misunderstand, seeking votes on the basis of gender, race, religion or other categorizing factor is a vote that is sold cheaply and unwisely.

There is no question that in this nation there are many faiths, and peoples from across the planet. That is a strength of this nation. The basis that we all live and believe that our freedoms are the single most important fact of our lives. It is the driving force of why everyone in the world wants to live here or have their nation emulate facets of our own.

But the fact that this speech needed to be made worries me. It implies that there are some, a great many of them, that cannot accept the freedoms far too many have died and bled to maintain. It means that some would rather stick to prejudiced ideals and huddle in the dark rather than take steps forward to ensure the greatest good for the nation.

I am not making an endorsement, but I am highlighting a thought. Does it truly matter what the race, gender, religion or ancestry of an individual if they are the best choice to lead our nation in prosperity, peace (as much as possible), and freedom? Could anyone honestly say that they would give up any of those things to gain a superficial comfort in having a cookie-cutter incompetent lead them? If so that is perhaps one of the most un-American things I’ve ever heard.

The next President of the United States, and those to follow like those that preceeded them, is not a Man. They are not a religion, race or anything else. They are the embodiment of the nation, and when we pick them properly, the highest ideals that are the foundation of our land. It is this embodiment of the people, and service to them in seeking the greatest good, that is what the President is. To select a President for any other reason, to have a President that serves any other purpose, not only diminishes the nation but in fact harms our ability to continue.

Mitt Romney’s speech reminded me of these facts. He crystalized the fact that the election is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or men vs. women, or White vs. Black. It’s not about whom a person gives faith to, or chooses not to. This election, like all elections in America, is about serving the will of the people and the betterment of our lives and world.

Perhaps that sentiment will pervade as pundits and major news organizations ponder over every letter and syllable. Perhaps the various candidates will reflect on this as they prepare for the next speech or debate. Perhaps the American citizens will take to heart this thought as they discuss this among friends, debate at primaries, and vote in the general election.

The faith of the citizens of this nation, in our nation and each other, is pre-emminent for each of us and all of us to continue to be free.

If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of America.

Labels: democrats, election 2008, Freedom of religion, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, religious persecution, republicans