What’s wrong with Rev. Wright | VailDaily.com
YOUR AD HERE »

What’s wrong with Rev. Wright

Obama’s outlandish preacher from Chicago is a racist nutjob sadly hiding behind a thin veil of religion as backwash protection from his own spittle of hate, consistently fanning the flames of our differences with one hand while pretending to actually give a damn about “his own” with the other.

Other than that, he’s probably a great guy.

But the problem is not with what this latest excuse for a national bout of racism says, or how he says it, or how deep his connection is with the presidential candidate.

No, the problem is not with his words, it is the fact that we are even listening.

If I may be blunt (although I’m not really asking permission), the real problem is our nation’s superficial obsession with magical beings and the role a vocal minority desperately insist they play on our political stage.

When are we going to learn our lesson about leaders who say that one magical being or another tells them to say this or do that? We need to understand that the main difference between Jerry Falwell, George Bush, Pat Robertson and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Maqtada Al Sadr Osama bin Laden is NOT that one side has a more believable deity in their righteous corner.

It is how they express those differences through their actions that makes all the difference in the world.

One would think that the tens of millions who have died violent deaths over the centuries in the name of one deity or another would eventually, but surely, have a mollifying affect. Sure, secular leaders have been just as deadly, but at least they don’t use pretend supernatural excuses to somehow rationalize their wicked ways.

One would hope the recent rash of morality-pushing hypocrites (Larry Craig, Eliot Spitzer, Ted Haggard and all the others patiently waiting to be caught) would spur our national consciousness to secular action, but instead voters are being forced to endure yet another round of that time-tested game show “Who’s More Pious?”

This coast-to-coast evangelical litmus test debating piety is nothing more than arguing over whose supernatural beliefs carry more political weight, and although their supernatural beliefs will “never” have any bearing on their political decisions, please vote for them because of their supernatural beliefs.

Sheer lunacy.

And we all know the pandering platitudes from both sides are just going to grow exponentially as November creeps closer and closer, especially as the lines of patriotism and party affiliation are succinctly drawn in the publicly-owned sand.

What is wrong with us? Has a few thousand years of Middle East mayhem taught us nothing?

We are not, nor have we ever been, a theocracy. America is no more based upon Christian principals than Vail Resorts is based upon altruism.

The best known of our Founding Fathers — Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson — were deists, ardently opposed to Christianity as it was defined in that day and age (which, to our benefit, is vastly different from today). A simple reading of the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments distinctly demonstrates the broad differences, such as how the first commandment (Thou shall have no other God before me) is in clear contradiction with the first amendment (the right of free exercise of religion).

Just because a few still insist upon wearing the condom of piety to bed each election doesn’t mean the rest of us need protection from our own thoughts. In fact, our form of government actually provides the drive that allows liberty and free thinking to make pretty good bed partners.

Anyway, choosing for or against Obama because of Rev. Wright, McCain because of Pastor Hagee, or Clinton because of Pastor Snyder is as patently absurd as picking one of the above because they are a Capricorn (you have my pity if you now Google to see who is what astrological sign).

These, and all, superficial affiliations are little more than manipulative maneuvering techniques to gain favor with voters, and we should be insulted with every attempt.

Religiosity and racism are equally steeped in mankind’s insecurities, our tribal mentality insuring they always will be to one degree or another. But that doesn’t mean these ancient remnants of segregation should be used in any way, shape or form for determining someone’s qualifications for leading the free world.

NOTE: The preceding opinions belong to Richard and are not necessarily shared by this newspaper… but for some rational reason he thinks they should be.


Support Local Journalism


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User


Trending - News


See more