Washington, D.C. (Rightcommentary.com): We continue in our multi-part series on Rev. Wright. I realize that there was quite a commotion today about the speech - and Sen. Obama replied. I will have all of that in commentary as well later tonight. For now, I want to continue with the second part (the rest of the speech) and some commentary to think about.

I was struck by one thing that Rev. Wright and President Bush would likely agree upon - which is - faith based programs are entirely more efficient than the Federal government. As you may recall, the President wanted to take some (SOME mind you) of the social welfare spending on the discretionary side of the budget and allocate it to faith based initiatives (churches) to conduct social welfare. As some of you may recall, when the President proposed that - the entire political world exploded… establishment of religion, shirking of government responsibility to the poor, abandonment of compassionate conservatism… etc.

But the reality is, also, Rev. Wright, that the sums your church as spent solving these problems, while admirable, while laudable, while commendable - is INSIGNIFICANT compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars that the US Government has spent on attempting to solve problems associated with poverty since Lyndon Johnson and the “Great Society” project was undertaken. The reason why Social Security is the “third rail of politics” is not because Social Security goes to “the rich” and the “privileged”. The bottom line is - the majority of social security payments go to the poor. At present, that amount is over 800 BILLION dollars a year. Or, Rev. Wright, to put it in perspective - the US Government spends more on welfare in one week than you spend in your entire Congregation’s career - on poverty. Again, I do not mean to put down religious or charity activities to alleviate suffering. It is all admirable, but I do take offense that somehow all of our money has been going to the war - and none of it to the needy. That’s just bollocks.

Second, the issue of “change” and transformational change - and “freeing the oppressor” language… it was rattling around in my head. I kept saying, “I’ve heard this before…. where?” Then it dawned on me - Salafism… it is very similar to the language of Jihad. This is not to say I think Wright is a jihadist or that Obama is a Jihadist and anyone who says that about what I’m saying here is just plain wrong. That’s not my analysis. However, it did make me think about if there were elements of “grand narrative themes” for reveolutionary change. It appears at least that Salafism, and Black Liberation, share this common thread of justifying radical change in the name of freeing the oppressed and the oppressor and establishing God’s law.

And Finally, why must the “transformative” change that Rev. Wright talks about - as being the politics of difference - why then must the “White Church” and the “White World” be swept away in the establishment of God’s law. If in fact God values diversity, as Rev. Wright claims, then it would seem to me that reconciliation and not transformation or “liberation” of the oppressed would be the aim. In other words, Cone’s premise, upon which Wright so heavily relies - is false. This is an internal contradiction that is addressed but never within Wright’s arguments reconciled.

Part 3:

The whole lens thing is an interesting analytic. I wonder if it works both ways? You think? Can I use it to explain YOUR rhetoric Rev. Wright… or that of Rev. Farrakhan?

Also the “over under” argument on the slave ship is an interesting theological question. However, I think, Rev. Wright, you’re analysis is flawed. Unfortunately, God permits evil in the world - so the slave God is the same God as the slave-trader’s. Humanity lives in a universe of cause and effect and the consequences of certain causes are inescapable. We live in a universe in which the consequences of what they do are inescapable, and therefore their responsibility for what they do is equally inescapable. Without this burden of ‘natural law’ man could do as he liked with impunity, and there would be no responsibility. God made the universe this way because He is a moral God who makes men responsible beings with freewill to choose how they will act. If God imposes his will - and saves man from the consequences of his own actions - then the design of the Universe that God has made is ultimately thwarted in favor of a world where actions have no other consequence than to anger God’s will. Thus - there is only one law - it is my understanding - within the context of Christianity… although, I must admit, I am by no means the expert in this area.

Conclusions:

In the end, Rev. Wright is clearly a part of America that is often lambasted in the phrase, “Kill Whitey!” He is clearly a part of the Black Liberation Movement that advocates radical change in America. He is clearly unapologetic for his arguments and analysis.

In short - he just sent a full spread of torpedo’s directly into Sen. Obama’s ship. Sen. Obama has worked hard to distance himself from the Black Liberation Movement associated with prior black candidates like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

However - I would remind readers - that despite whatever Sen. Obama says - his books are clear. The title of the one book - the Audacity of Hope - comes from one of Rev. Wright’s sermons. Sen. Obama writes at some length the impact that Rev. Wright had on his theology and his values. Rev. Wright was clearly more than a “crazy uncle,” rather, he was a spiritual leader in Sen. Obama’s life. Whether he fully accepts the tenants of Black Liberation is unclear - but it will cause immense problems for him going forward as this is not the only albatross around his neck.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Being Rod Blagojevich
• Eve of Destruction: Are we headed for a Global Recession?
• Treasury Bills “crack the floor” and deflation becomes a greater risk.
• The next “bubble” to burst - US Government debt?
• Franken: I’m stupid enough… I’m vain enough… I’m litigious enough… and doggoneit… I’m still behind.