I forced myself to watch the Wright-Moyer¹ love fest last night on PBS. Here's the transcript. Knowing Moyer, and his talent for partisan obfuscation, I didn't expect much. My expectations were not exceeded.

If the purpose of this interview was to rehabilitate Pastor Wright for those whose only knowledge of him was based on "snippets" of his sermons "run in an endless loop," the interview failed.

Here's the Moyer-Wright argument, in a nutshell:

1. Pastor Wright is a good guy, and really smart.²

2. The "snippets" were taken out of context.

3. And besides, you wouldn't understand them anyway.³

When I first heard the audio of Pastor Wright's vitriolic sermons, the first thing I thought was "this guy shouts like a fascist." If you've ever heard recordings of Hitler or Mussolini at the crescendo of an oration, the tone is eerily similar.

I've since heard the context, and not only do I understand what he was trying to say, it's no different in context than it is out of context. The man is full of hate. Just because you can construct an elaborate argument to justify your hatred doesn't mean you don't hate.

I don't mean to equate Pastor Wright with Hitler or Mussolini, but their methods of proselytization are similar. It boils down to this: Out there you're a victim; in here you're safe because I will tell you the truth.

Many people naturally want to hear that they're victims, because it explains life's inherent unfairness in a way that relieves them of any responsibility. And many people are naturally attracted to conspiracy theories out of ego-gratification. I know the "truth" -- you believe the "lies." Therefore I'm smart and you're a fool. That's all it is.

So what if Wright's ministry did good work in the community? So does my church, and without all the race-baiting hate speech. It is possible to preach the gospel without dividing people into us and them. But perhaps not as profitable.

One passage from the interview stood out for its absurdity.

[A]fter every revolution, the winners of that revolution write down what the revolution was about so that their children can learn it, whether it's true or not. They don't learn anything at all about the Arawak, they don't learn anything at all about the Seminole, the Cheek-Trail of Tears, the Cherokee. They don't learn anything. No, they don't learn that. What they learn is 1776, Crispus Attucks was the one black guy in there. Fight against the British, the- terrible. "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal while we're holding slaves." No, keep that part out. They learn that. And they cling to that. And when you start trying to show them you only got a piece of the story, and lemme show you the rest of the story, you run into vitriolic hatred because you're desecrating our myth. You're desecrating what we hold sacred. And when you're holding sacred is a miseducational system that has not taught you the truth.

In his Farewell Address, Ronald Reagan addressed the same question, with a very different take, and one that I think is superior and unifying in contrast to Wright's divisiveness.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.

. . .

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do

1. I know there's supposed to be an "s." I omit the "s" because that's what LBJ did.

2. See, he uses the word "hermeneutic" in a sentence to show how smart he is. Even Bill Moyer doesn't know that word, which proves how smart the Pastor really is.

3. Wright said, "The persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the communication perfectly." Again, he divides people into us and them. If you were there, you understand and presumably agree. If you disagree, well, you weren't there so you couldn't possibly understand and you're opinion has no value. Interestingly, Obama would have it both ways. He agreed, but only with the stuff he heard when he was there. He disagreed, but only with the stuff he didn't hear because he wasn't there.

4. A recent poll of 2000 High school students asked them to name the top ten "most famous Americans." The top three were: Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Harriet Tubman. Oprah Winfrey came in 7th. And check this out, "when the researchers polled 2,000 adults in a different survey, their lists were nearly identical."

Posted by: annika at 07:41 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 971 words, total size 6 kb.