In The Preacher's Wife Denzel Washington plays an angel not a preacher. Your description bears absolutely no resemblance to the movie, so I have to guess that you haven't seen it, and are just babbling cliches, sort of like people that think they know about black churches but have never been in one.

Amy Sullivan wrote: "But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that's hurt the party."

That is one of the most bizarre statements I have ever read in my life.

Amy Sullivan is complaining that a political party "outsourced religion" to churches ???

The less attention that Democrats give to such nonsense, the better.

Well la-de-frickin-da. I'm busy too, and although it may not be on tee-vee, you suddenly have me wondering if you are trying to meet a quota.

It's also left most white Americans with a Disney-fied impression of African-American religious leaders

Fixed.

Funny how you often leave that word out when you talk about "Americans" or "Christians" or "religous" folk, even though your monochrome conception of those terms is so blindingly obvious.

But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that's hurt the party.

Could it be because the Democratic party is a political party concerned with politics, not religion? And I'd imagine that "black churches" did and do religion just fine without the Democrats outsourcing the job to them.

Don't worry, the meaning behind your sloppy writing and thinking is obvious. Don't bother to explain.

Instead, try explaining why non-white people of faith aren't bamboozled by Republican claims of piety.

Ms. Sullivan, we really don't need a explanation for the pause in your posting (or an unsubtle reminder to us plebes what a great career your one note, dishonest shtick has gotten you). We're just happy not to see you here. Or just reprint any piece you've writtn in the last five years or so: since they are basically interchangeable, no one would notice. And no, Kevin, if you insist on foisting this proven liar on us, I won't be particularly civil.

Congratulations for an oracular, yet flippant comment that manages to insult EVERYBODY!

Amy Sullivan jump shark, go bye-bye....

Congratulations for an oracular, yet flippant comment that manages to insult EVERYBODY!

Amy Sullivan jump shark, go bye-bye....

Historically speaking, churches have played a role in African American political life due to the destruction of other institutions under the legacy of slavery and the role of churches in the abolition movement. The importance of church in the community and in civil rights emerges directly from that. I agree that the title is bizarre and maybe insulting.

But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that's hurt the party.

Oh, you don't have to do that, Amy...No, really, you don't. You've had one too many posts about how Dems reject religion. Unless you've come up with some new angle on the same idea that's been shot down before, I'm really not interested.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if "most Americans" know very little about black churches or black religious leaders. Why would they? What reason would they have to look into the topic, and how would they casually come across accurate information in the normal course of life? "Most Americans" know precious little about black people period. "Most Americans" of any particular religious persuasion know precious little about other religious persuasions -- indeed, they seem to know precious little about their own. The Democratic Party, for all its many faults, is not responsible for this widespread ignorance and is an unlikely vehicle for correcting it. How does any of this connect with what the Democrats should or should not be be doing to woo whatever as yet undefined group of reachable religious voters Amy wants the job of wooing?

What an offensive non-post.
Thanks for letting us know about the 2pm panel.
By "most Americans" you mean whites, right?

When I was a teenager my church's youth group went to the poor side of town and attended a service at a small Black church. We were all given a dollar to put in the offering. The church was filled with well dressed mostly middle aged women. The pastor was a man and he did not disappoint, preaching the gospel with the stereotypical style we were brought in to experience. Hallelujah!

After the service the Black pastor climbed into his new pink Cadillac and drove away.

I have actually had the good fortune to occasionally attend a black church or two and have benefited from the experience. I am not shocked that a black minister would occasionally challenge his flock in the manner of Rev. Wright. People who are shocked are just displaying their ignorance. Ignorance can be cured by experience. I would suggest that in the coming weeks all of those shocked by Rev. Wright's words being endlessly repeated on the dittohead loop, pick out and attend a predominantly African American Church. You will probably find the experience uplifitng. You might even find it inspiring.

I have been noodling the Wright story since it broke and for the life of me just don't understand what the flap is all about. I guess people are saying that Obama should have left the church when he heard Wright say something outrageous during a sermon. That isn't how anybody judges a minister. Most churchgoers put the Sunday sermon on their list of important things, but not high on the list. The week is 7 days long. Ministers are mostly judged on the work during the 6 days leading up to Sunday. Wright might have occasionally gotten wound up in his sermon and gone over the top, but he and his organization have been able to grow his church from a few dozen to over 10,000. That means that most of the time Wright was quietly and effectively doing God's work.

Every minister, priest, or rabbi worth his pay will challenge the congregation every once in a while. If your minister doesn't, fire him or her and hire somebody else. You need to be challenged.

Apparently the people whipping the Wright story are probably not church goers, or if they are, they need to revisit some of their Sunday school lessons.

After the service the Black pastor climbed into his new pink Cadillac and drove away...

...to his other job selling Mary Kay cosmetics.

t's also left most Americans with a Disney-fied impression of African-American religious leaders as folks who sit around listening to gospel music all day, spout inspirational phrases to slap on calendars, and generally act like Denzel Washington in "The Preacher's Wife."

Small suggestion: Don't project your cutesy stereotype of ignorance onto your readers.

Tipped your hand, Amy: "But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that's hurt the party."

Please reconsider. I can't imagine this turning out well.

But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that's hurt the party.

While you're at it, could please tell us which religion we're supposed to have once we bring it back "in-house"?

peep beat me to it with the *first comment*.

Denzel plays the *angel* in that movie, not the preacher. If one is using cutesy pop-culture references, one should at least make sure one is being accurate....

Actually I had begun to hope that Kevin (or whoever it is that schedules guest bloggers for Political Animal) had reconsidered, and Amy Sullivan would not be peddling her nonsense here this week after all, since her last vapid posting here was torn to shreds in the comments.

But perhaps the Washington Monthly has some obligation to help a former editor promote her book by giving her access to this blog.

Don't hurry back, Amy.

Count me in. I agree with most everyone here. Amy Sullivan seems to be shallow,vapid and as useless as tits on a bull. Amy maybe you should stay in the minors, you're sure not up to dealing with the majors.

Why the hell would the democratic party have to outsource religion to anyone? Pssst, Amy, they're a political organization, not a religious fraternity. Please stop trying to hoist this "respect religion" crap on us. An overwhelming majority of us can respect religion and recognize that it has no place in the political sphere. And if a bunch of evangelical wingnuts can't see that, who needs 'em.

If any one would like some sand paper to sharpen their claws, I have a whole bunch in my garage left over from a renovation project.

Come and get it!

Kevin, you might want to sequester Inky and Domino-minion in a bedrom this afternoon.

Amy Sullivan wrote: "I had to disappear to write my piece for this week's TIME on Obama and Jeremiah Wright--and now I have to run to the Hill for a live-on-CSPAN 2p.m. panel with E.J. Dionne and Michael Gerson on whether the religious right is dead (my short answer: no)."

You know, the fact that someone whose writing is as silly and lacking in substance as Amy Sullivan gets gigs like that, says a hell of a lot about what's wrong with the American media.

Who gives a larger share of their income to charitable organizations that feed, clothe, heal, and house the poor; progressive atheists? progressive agnostics? religious progressives?

MeLoseBrain wrote: "An overwhelming majority of us can respect religion and recognize that it has no place in the political sphere."

And we can also recognize that the political sphere, in particular on the Democratic side, is already saturated with religion, with every single Democratic presidential candidate of the last generation from John F. Kennedy right up to Clinton and Obama making frequent, ostentatious displays and pronouncements of the importance of their Christian faith in shaping their public policy views, and that Amy Sullivan's contention that the Democratic Party is, or gives the appearance of being, "hostile" to religion is nothing but regurgitation of partisan Republican propaganda.

A key question for Amy Sullivan is: why should Democrats listen to someone who has built a career as a pundit by reciting a scripted Republican talking point that is blatantly, demonstrably false?

It's also left most Americans with a Disney-fied impression of African-American religious leaders as folks who sit around listening to gospel music all day, spout inspirational phrases to slap on calendars, and generally act like Denzel Washington in "The Preacher's Wife."

Whoa, pretty divisive words, there! What, by the way, are you blaming on Americans having gained this, as you see it, false positive impression?

Anyway, this "outsourcing" is news to me. Seems to me more like all that happened was black churches or religiou figures get included in Democratic public events sometimes, and that's just a good symbol of how inclusive the party is, and what we stand for, which is why it happened.

If you think black churches are bungling something, Amy Sullivan, you should come out and say it, and say why you think they're bungling it, so we can discuss the validity of that argument, instead of bringing up this total b.s. for us to discuss-- "Do black churches really have nice, positive people in them or not?" What a crock of horseshit.

But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches

Thanks for the warning.

I think I'll outsource my reading of that "analysis."

ferd asks:

"Who gives a larger share of their income to charitable organizations that feed, clothe, heal, and house the poor; progressive atheists? progressive agnostics? religious progressives?"

The answer seems to be African American who are religious and earn more than $50,000. That's why, in a 2003 survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Detroit was the city that gave the largest share of its discretionary income to charity.

Here is the story:

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v15/i14/14000601.htm

But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches

How kind of you to warn us.

I think I'll be outsourcing the reading of that "analysis."

Obama messiahism seems to run so high on the left that they have missed the practical political ramifications of this incident and resulting speech.

It would seem to me that America large is just getting introduced to Obama. To have such an intimate association with so far left a philosophy be the FIRST negative episode of his campaign cannot bode well.

It would seem that he has lost his hue of being above the racial divide. The questions concerning his relations with far left race rhetoric rather than put to bed, have now been legitimized.

Kevin, why do you keep using Amy Sullivan as a guest?

What she writes about "White" Christians is mostly just repackaged conventional wisdom.

And her foray into Black churches seems grounded in cluelessness.

Carl Nyberg wrote: "Kevin, why do you keep using Amy Sullivan as a guest?"

I'm guessing that Washington Monthly, Kevin's employer and the owner of this blog, decides who will guest-blog here, not Kevin.

And I'm guessing that Washington Monthly has some interest in promoting books written by former editors.

I'm a bit more of a lurker than a commenter round these here parts, but judging from the comments to Amy Sullivan - who I generally don't read because I am an atheist and religion bores me to no end - I can't see how this is going to end up well.

Should be fun.

Secular Animist and Marlowe have perfect takedowns of Amy Sullivan, who becomes more vapid the more she writes here. (Kevin, tell your bosses that, for doorknob's sake. Make them make her have her own blog if they still want her here.)

Last night, National Public Radio ran an interview with Pastor Moss, the successor to Rev Wright at Trinity United Church. During the interview, Michel Noris, the NPR reporter, asked Pastor Moss about certain "extreme" statements that had been made by Rev Wright. These included: the federal government has helped to spread AIDS in the black community, that the federal government is aiding drug distribution in the black community and that US policy toward Israel is blind. She asked Pastor Moss whether he had made similar statements from the pulpit. Rev Moss sidestepped the question (referring to the Tuskegee experiments on black men) but Noris returned to it focusing on the first two. Pastor Moss explained his communities view that the government did not exhibit the political will to keep drugs out of the community. Noris did not return to the Israel part of the question. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88607509 I thought it was remarkable that she would relate the three.

An LA Times editorial yesterday also had this bit about Rev Wright.

Obama reiterated his view that some of Wright's comments were "not only wrong but divisive." That description certainly applies to Wright's . . . assertion that the 9/11 attacks represented the "chickens coming home to roost" for a racist society that dropped nuclear bombs on Japan and helped to oppress Palestinians and black South Africans."

In his speech, Obama mentioned Israel once. Rev Wright's views "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

There have been a number of articles recently about how the Jewish community trusts Hilliary (and McCain -- he just toured Israel with Lieberman) more than Obama -- even though the two split the Jewish voter pretty evenly. The articles suggest that he has a long way to go before the Jewish community will trust him. Rev Wright's comments speak directly to that concern.

I wonder whether he need to give a speech on Israel?

Shine wrote: "... I am an atheist and religion bores me to no end ..."

One thing about religion is that because it has no content except people's opinions, arguments about it can go on endlessly, with everyone able to feel that they are right. For those who enjoy such pastimes, discussions about religion are a great source of entertainment.

Clearly, you and Time Magazine are made for eachother. Quality always floats to the top, no?

Enjoy that GOP paycheck. You're earning it, champ.

Sullivan isn’t just vapid, she tells a narrow story of Christian-based religion in America outside of historically black churches. As an atheist with a graduate divinity degree myself (take that, name dropping Amy), here’s my blog take on her Time story:

First, even secularists can be, and are, contributors to social justice, Amy. I know you keep flogging the issue that the Democratic Party in general and too many white Democrats in particular are anti-religious, which is of course not true.

Second, re both Sullivan and Obama, many white preachers at white majority churches also talk about doubt and its role in faith. That goes back to the Niebuhr brothers. Hell, it goes back to Martin Luther himself.

Third, Unitarians have been multicultural for far longer, and far more in-depth, than mainline Protestant denominations that have made the effort at fully inclusive outreach.

And, political bonus points — Unitarians are often the liberal elite Starbucks drinkers that are Obama voters!

Why is my son posting on this blog?

"You know, the fact that someone whose writing is as silly and lacking in substance as Amy Sullivan gets gigs like that"

The fact that there is even a gig like that is just as bad. "Whether the religious right is dead???" Once you've said, "Of course not, idiot," what else is there to say?

And I agree with the consensus: don't bother with the promised post on black churches.

"...But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches, and how that's hurt the party."

Thanks, but I'll pass. If I need any instruction on why things are the way they are and how the Democrats are to blame for that, I can read about it at Slate.com

But I'll be back in a few hours to talk about why the Democratic party outsourced religion to black churches

Black people are going to church on my behalf? Who knew.

I'll be back in a few hours to talk about--

Don't fucking bother.

PLEASE!

She'll be back in a few hours to explain all of this stuff to us ? How white of her...

the fact that someone whose writing is as silly and lacking in substance as Amy Sullivan gets gigs like that, says a hell of a lot about what's wrong with the American media.

Not to mention the fact that the supposed "alternative" to the MSM insists on printing the worthless bullshit this little twit regurgitates on a regular basis.

SocraticGadfly wrote to Amy Sullivan: "I know you keep flogging the issue that the Democratic Party in general and too many white Democrats in particular are anti-religious, which is of course not true."

And worse, it is a scripted, focus-group-tested, carefully crafted, partisan Republican talking point, right out of the Lee Atwater / Karl Rove playbook.

Why does Amy Sullivan endlessly repeat blatantly false Republican talking points?

And why does Amy Sullivan, who behaves just like the script-reciting Republican trolls who frequent these comment pages, lobbing baseless slanders against Democrats and "liberals", refusing to back them up with any substantive information, refusing to respond to critics who demolish her so-called "arguments", then repeating the same bogus assertions again and again -- why does such a person get invited to be a guest-blogger while trolls like mhr who do this quite properly have their comments deleted by the moderators?

I have no idea what you mean by "outsourcing religion."

I'm certain the Dem party is not responsible for the status of the church in the black community (hint: Slavery).

Who believes that black people sit around whistling "Zippi-Di-Do-Da?" I've never met those people. Please give some names.

Steve... actually I agree with Wright on a fair amount of his comments, including the ones on Israel. Unfortunately, Obama probably won't listen to Wright on this one, and instead, will kowtow to the "bipartisan consensus."

Otherwise, the "government caused AIDS" conspiracy theme is one of the two biggest off-putters by Wright in my book, the other being the "black Jesus" one. Jesus may have been swarthy, but he was indeed Jewish, not sub-saharan African.

As for the conspiracy theory on AIDS, it's interesting that Obama didn't even bring that one up in his speech. It's probably something he would like to face even less than the issues he's already discussed.

I think the Democratic party should stand for every American being allowed to worship God in whatever manner each individual American decides is best for him/her. And, if any American chooses not to worship any God, that is good, too. I hate it when politicians try to shove their religion down my throat. Kennedy did not do this. And, I have never felt that Obama did that either. As an American Indian knowing how the white man fought my ancestors using germ warfare by giving them blankets infested with smallpox, I did not find any thing Wright said offensive. Those Americans who did, did so because they are trying to cover up their guilt with indignance.

"Should be fun."

Getcha popcorn ready!

Oh dear.

No good can come from this. None at all. BUT I JUST CAN'T LOOK AWAY.

Boy is this a trainwreck in the making.

SocraticGadfly wrote: "... the 'government caused AIDS' conspiracy theme is one of the two biggest off-putters by Wright ..."

Previously, commenter steve paraphrased NPR interviewer Michel Noris describing Wright as claiming that "the federal government has helped to spread AIDS in the black community".

I have not heard the actual statements by Wright on this subject, and I'm curious as to what exactly he said.

I am not aware of any plausible evidence that anyone deliberately created HIV for any purpose.

On the other hand, it is a fact that the Reagan administration adopted a deliberate policy of inaction against AIDS during the crucial decade after the disease was first identified, and that policy permitted the spread of the disease to epidemic levels. And it was perhaps predictable that the disease would spread most rapidly and have its most devastating effects in low-income, densely populated urban areas lacking the medical and social resources to effectively fight the disease.

So if Wright has said that "the federal government has helped to spread AIDS in the black community" through deliberate policies of neglect, while this may or may not be true, it is not nearly as outlandish as the contention that the federal government engineered HIV as a bioweapon to commit genocide against black people (and of course gay people).

SocraticGadfly wrote: "one of the two biggest off-putters by Wright ... being the 'black Jesus' one. Jesus may have been swarthy, but he was indeed Jewish, not sub-saharan African."

The notion that "Jesus was a black man" is far from original with Reverend Wright.

I have never seen the image of a bald head Jesus yet
I have never seen the image of a bald head Jesus yet
He is a humble and dreadlocked Nazarene man,
Look in yourselves and try to understand
Why you've never seen the image of a bald head Jesus yet

All ye bald head Jesus followers start to fret.
All ye bald head Jesus followers start to sweat.
He said to follow him and he will make you fishers of men,
But you just leave the barbershop and gone back again.
I have never seen the image of a bald head Jesus yet.

Every Apostle of Christ was a dreadlocked, bearded man.
Every Apostle of Christ was a dreadlocked Ethiopian.
This is a message to all church and denomination
That respect is due to the dreadlocked Rasta man.
Cause you've never seen the image of a bald head Jesus yet.

-- Bunny Wailer, "Bald Head Jesus"

SecularAnimist,

I'm under the impression (and I may be wrong) that blacks at first ignored AIDS because it was supposed to afflict only gay men, white gay men in particular. That it was gay (and largely white) groups that pressured the federal gov't and Big Pharma to spend more on AIDS research only confirmed for blacks that they did not have a dog in that fight.

Only when blacks, men and women, gay and straight, started dying, at a time when safe sex and the first really effective AIDS drugs allowed gays to feel something besides total despair, did the stories start that the feds weren't doing more because AIDS was a black disease.

The 1980s was a lost decade in terms of blacks giving a damn about AIDS. At least when compared to what gays were doing. Or trying to do, given Reagan and Bush's indifference.

Auto, you may well be right.

My only point was that a belief that "the federal government has helped to spread AIDS in the black community" by failing to address the spread of the disease at a crucial time, while it may or may not be supportable, is not nearly as outlandish as a belief that the federal government created HIV as some kind of biological weapon to commit genocide against blacks and/or gays.

That's why I would like to know exactly what Wright had to say about this, since his views have been characterized in both ways.

Historically Blacks have been used by White, Christian American medical researchers as uninformed subjects for studies on the effects of debilitating diseases without being told they were being tested and without being given treatment. Many White, Christian Americans were hoping that AIDS was a scourge brought by their god to not only kill homosexuals, but also to kill Blacks. Like the apartheid government of S. Africa, many White, Christian Americans wished a disease could be developed that would only kill Blacks, and many of them hoped the AIDS virus was such a pathogen. Black communities devestated by AIDS, because of intraveneous drug use, in the early days of the disease were given almost no help by their larger White, Christian communities to deal with the problem. African Americans have been given numerous reasons to be skeptical and suspicious of White, Christian Americans.

Blacks in poverty have long been a target of White, Christian American drug pushers. The early heroin trade by Catholic Italian Americans targeted impoverished Black communities in large cities. No one knows who introduced crack cocaine into impoverished Black communities, but crack cocain was cheaper and more addictive than the powder cocaine usually associated with White TV and movie producer use. What is known is that Blacks were targeted by both Democratic and Republican law makers for harsh, longterm imprisonment for the possession of this drug.

If the Black American experience has an analogue, perhaps it is in the treatment that the White, Christian American subsidized Israelis are perpetrating on Palestinians. The Palestinians experience indiscriminate slaughter of their children much like Blacks have. Palestinians are forced to live in too small of areas for their population set aside for them much like the Blacks were in Chicago until the civil rights era. Palestians are treated like less than second class citizens, which many Blacks will well understand.

What Blacks do know, is that when one of their religious leaders complains about the treatment Blacks have received from White, Christian Americans, it is called reverse racism.

Gee, I dunno. Amy seems like a nice, well-meaning, utterly sincere person who has the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart. She's grappling with a very complex sociopolitical issue in an effort to coax evangelical voters, many of whom poll as considerably less conservative than their very noisy spokespeople, away from their reflexive Republican lever-pulling. I'm no holy roller, and I don't suggest that the Democrats embrace rank intellectual dishonesty just to scare up a few extra votes around the margins, but I don't think it's productive for all of you to peremptorily dismiss Amy with rudeness and sarcasm. Who the hell knows? She may actually be on to something valuable to the progressive cause. Try engaging her, people.

Shorter Amy:

I never meant *those* kind of Christians.

or:

Why won't those Black people just shut up?

Let me put on my big floppy floral hat and digest what you're saying. Hallelujah!

What better way to bring Obama and Clinton partisans together than to invite Amy Sullivan to guest blog?

Brojo, yes on the past medical experiments. Doesn't make the current claim by Wright, if he holds the full-blown idea, true. And it's not just black Americans. Many Africans hold similar conspiracy theories.

SecularAnimist: Several good points... I'm going to Google now and see what I can find, as to exactly what Wright has said on AIDS. If it's the "weak" statement, I'll give him half a pass.

SA: I know the "black Jesus" is far from original with Wright. He doesn't have to perpetuate it. And, if Obama is worried about Jewish votes in the general, assuming he gets the nomination, it's something else he should be worried about, I'd think.

Brojo: I'm not saying what racial group commits racism most often, but it is done by every racial group.

I'm going to look forward to seeing Amy's piece (of you-know-what). Barack Obama has done exactly what Mrs. Noam Schieber incessantly recommends-- wrap himself in the religion shtick.

It's blown up, and is going to wind up costing him votes. This is, of course, a cost of getting too close to religious leaders. But somehow, Amy-One-Note will find some way to blame the secular wing of the party for this.

And I second the general notion that nobody cares why Amy hasn't posted-- we're just glad she hasn't. Amy Sullivan has never run a successful political campaign, nor used her "Gimme Dat Ol' Time Religion" theories to successfully predict the result of an election. She lies and misrepresents to make her points, making her own realities in the same spirit as George W. Bush.

I can do without the nonsense.

Since this an Amy pile-on by a group of very touchy atheists. Can I just say that I like Amy's contributions here. That I enjoy reading her posts. And that I generally find her take on things an important voice in the discussion? What I don't find particularly helpful is the negativity and the pile on mentality and the abject fear of religion and so-called "superstition" (and I would then argue all of human culture) that these posts seem to bring out. I'm not sure at all why I even bother with these comment threads. Perhaps it's just to see if anyone at all is actually wanting to explore the issue and not look for whatever small idiosyncratic ways that her opinions threaten you. It's like watching a school yard fight, just to see the bullies.

Since most White, Christian Americans have an image of Jesus as a bearded European, a Black Jesus should not be denied to anyone who would accept that image. Especially by the ancestors of ex-slave owning, White, Christian Americans.

Besides, Amare Stoudemire has a Black Jesus tattoo.

Note that in the piece "The Origin of Obama's Pastor Problem," Amy Sullivan and Jay Carney does not mention the fact that Barack Obama is not John McCain and is therefore subject to a double standard.

Does Amy Sullivan think the double standard is fair? Why or why not?

Donna Q wrote: "Amy seems like a nice, well-meaning, utterly sincere person who has the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart."

Then why does she repeatedly recite the baseless slander that the Democratic Party as an institution, and Democratic candidates, are or give the appearance of being, "hostile to religion" -- which is blatantly false and in fact nothing but a time-worn, standard, scripted, right-wing Republican talking point?

Donna Q wrote: "She's grappling with a very complex sociopolitical issue in an effort to coax evangelical voters, many of whom poll as considerably less conservative than their very noisy spokespeople, away from their reflexive Republican lever-pulling."

If Amy Sullivan makes any effort to "coax evangelical voters" to do anything, she doesn't do it here. In her frequent appearances in this forum, she tries to "coax" the Democratic Party and Democrats in general to be less "hostile to religion", which is a false premise that Ms. Sullivan seems to think Democrats need to address by abandoning traditional, core liberal values such as reproductive rights, separation of church and state, and basic civil rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation.

Donna Q wrote: "I don't think it's productive for all of you to peremptorily dismiss Amy with rudeness and sarcasm."

The people who express rudeness and sarcasm towards Amy Sullivan's writings do not do so peremptorily. They do it out of long familiarity with her views as representated by her numerous articles posted on this site, which as several commenters have noted, are extremely repetitive and just make the same unsupported claims and illogical recommendations over and over again.

Donna Q wrote: "Try engaging her, people."

Those who have tried to engage Amy Sullivan have found her to be unresponsive. Much of the rudeness and sarcasm directed towards her is motivated by frustration with her refusal or inability to engage with her critics.

When her claims of Democratic "hostility towards religion" are questioned, she is unable to substantiate them. When she is pressed on what it is exactly that Democrats should do to mitigate this nonexistent "hostility" she responds vaguely, if at all, and seems only able to suggest that Democrats should be more "open" to people whose views on subjects like abortion and gay marriage and secular government are diametrically opposed to core values held by the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters. And when the alleged electoral benefits of Amy's vague recommendations are questioned, she again has no substantive response.

Please, Kevin. Make this horrid god-bothering woman go away.

I disagree with Ms. Sullivan on most things, but I like commenting about religion almost as much as I enjoy commenting about politics. I think Ms. Sullivan's roots and her networks are in the evangelical camp. What seems to exasperate many Political Animals is Ms. Sullivan's insistance on framing most arguments with those of her friends, family and clergy, which are too full of platitudes already dismissed by this group. When Political Animals are asked by Ms. Sullivan to tolerate intolerance, like accepting more abortion restrictions for political expediency, many become hostile to relinquishing hard won liberties for a short term political goal of electing a moderate who will not stand up for the rights many consider inviolable.

Have you noticed what is going on in this thread. We are looking rationally at the substance of Rev. Wright's statements.

We are not supposed to do that. When we hear the dittohead loop we are supposed to fall on all fours and howl at the moon. Where are the talk radio police when they are needed.

It is possible, just possible, that Rev. Wright had a point or two all of us lilly white Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians and atheists should think about.

Christopher wrote: "Can I just say that I like Amy's contributions here. That I enjoy reading her posts. And that I generally find her take on things an important voice in the discussion?"

What is it that you find "important" about her blatantly false claims that the Democratic Party as an institution, and Democratic political candidates as a group, are or give the appearance of being "hostile to religion"?

What is it that you find "important" about her repetition of this scripted, right-wing extremist Republican talking point? What is it that you "enjoy" about her refusal or inability to substantiate this bogus allegation when challenged on it?

Do you find Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to also be "important voices in the discussion" when they offer the same absurdly false slander?

I don't criticize Amy Sullivan for her religious beliefs. I don't even know what they are. Religion itself has no content other than people's opinions, and Amy Sullivan is certainly as entitled to hers as is anyone else.

What I criticize about Amy Sullivan is her blatantly false accusations that the Democratic Party is "hostile to religion" and her flimsy and fatuous argument that Democrats need to do "something" to remediate this nonexistent "hostility" in order to gain some tiny number of votes from predominantly white, male, conservative southern evangelical voters who tend to vote for Republicans because, in fact, their views are diametrically opposed to the traditional, liberal, core values of the overwhelming majority of Democrats.

Ignorance can be cured by experience.

One is left to wonder if a visit an Aryan Nations Christian Identity church would be equally useful.

Some experiences are best left unanswered.

Jesus, what a bunch of self-important, sneering prix. You don't like, don't read. Fux Ache.

You have made excellent arguments today SecularAnimist.

But I do miss Ms. Sullivan's NBA blogging.

Secular Animist... got your direct quote on Wright/AIDS

AND...

Something interesting from Obama's tax returns.

Slate has this direct quote, that Wright said the government “invent(ed) the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.�

The Washington Post confirms the full quote, “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,� as coming from a 2003 sermon.

(The “genocide against people of color� plus “Jeremiah Wright� gets 45 Google News hits.

“Inventing� is the key word. Rev. Wright is, sadly, an AIDS conspiracy theorist.

And, re Obama’s relations with Wright, Bloomberg adds a tidbit about Obama’s financial support for Wright and Trinity UCC.

He gave the church $22,500 in 2006, according to tax returns. That doesn’t sound like someone unaware of what his pastor was saying.

Time to do another blog post.

Brojo wrote: "I like commenting about religion almost as much as I enjoy commenting about politics"

Religion and politics are both areas where many people have strong opinions.

The difference is, that in general political opinions have some empirical referent. Political opinions are about something -- eg. the policies or actions of government -- that can be empirically examined by different observers, and opinions can be evaluated with regard to how they correspond to empirical observation.

On the other hand, religion has no content other than opinions themselves. The subject matter of religious opinion is not available for empirical inspection; there is no way to evaluate religious opinions based on how they correspond to observable facts.

That's why religion is an ever-popular topic for people who enjoy argument for the sake of argument.

Neo, you are right, sometimes ignorance is an invincible shield.

Comparing the standard black church with the Aryan Nations Christian Identity church is comparing apples and oranges. But you know that. Don't you?

SecularAnimist,

Are you talking about religion as doctrine or the black church as a social institution?

Ms. Sullivan apparently you don't know that Denzel played a supernatural character in that movie remake you referenced. This means that for those who actually know the movie your statement that these black religious leaders 'generally act like Denzel Washington in "The Preacher's Wife.' means that they spend their time performing miracles. Now that, of course, may be true since befuddling minds was one of the things he did. It seems to have worked on you anyway.

I'm happy that you have so much work that you're only able to spend a few words on this site, we're all the better for that. May I suggest that this insightful posting implies that an indefinite continuance of your 'disappearance' from this web locality is not contra-indicated.

When we hear the dittohead loop we are supposed to fall on all fours and howl at the moon.

These people are not just on the radio. Yesterday morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, the callers were howling about the Rev. Wright's racism.

So much of the disagreement with what Rev. Wright said is derived from a lack of knowledge about the slave and ex-slave experience. Many Americans wanted to nuke anybody after 9/11, just to act out their aggression. If those Americans had the kind of experiences Blacks have had for the past four hundred years, they would want to nuke every state capital built with slave labor.

Ron Byers, I am saying that religion in general has no content other than people's opinions. The word "faith" as it is used in religion denotes a belief, or opinion, that is in principle not subject to empirical verification.

SecularAnimist,

I agree with your observation about religious dogma, but religious dogma is not relevant to the discussion we have been having about the black church and Reverend Wright's comments. That discussion is more about the social aspects of the black church.

Understanding the black church as a social institution is central to any understanding the black experience which I think we can all agree is an important aspect of America.

I don't get to visit black churches all that often. Probably less than once a year.

Get to see them any time a Democrat is running for something, but not really hear the sermons.

The only 'content' in religion is historical.

inventing the HIV virus

People who are not scientists, and especially people who believe in fath, are going to make things up to explain things they do not understand. Black preachers are not the only people who created myths from the HIV virus. White evangelicals can still be heard saying the HIV virus was created by their god as a punishment for homosexuality. They preach to a lot more people.

I heard Dick Gregory say manganese exposure causes violent behavior and that Blacks were purposely exposed to it to make their lives worse. That caught my attention. Lead and manganese processing industries do tend to be located where the poorest people live, and in America most of the poorest people are Black. I doubt the Blacks who have been exposed to to these toxic metals were the victims of a racial conspiracy to make them more violent, but I have no doubt capital conspired to contaminate them with these toxins in order to obtain greater profits.

If myth making improves the lives of the poorest of the poor by reducing exposure to toxins or if myth making breaks the chains of prejudice of the most discriminated of people, then perhaps it can serve a greater purpose. It would be better, of course, if environmental issues and racial prejudice could be treated with generous fairness by our society, but if, after four hundred years of such poor treatment, Blacks have to make up stories that enables them to avoid the troubles that have always been a part of their American experience, then we as a society have to take some blame for that.

McCain calls all churches agents of intolerance

Actually, what makes this more fun is that the actual preacher in that movie is a repressed yuppie who's too hung up on balance sheets and formality to bond with his family.

Brojo, the issue with things like lead smelters is socioeconomic as much as racial. Unfortunately, the precentage of poverty is higher among blacks than other ethnic groups.

There's an Indian tribe in Nevada that has actually expressed its willingness to do nuclear waste storage as a moneymaker, as another example.

Those who have tried to engage Amy Sullivan have found her to be unresponsive. Much of the rudeness and sarcasm directed towards her is motivated by frustration with her refusal or inability to engage with her critics.

How so?

Donna Q: If you've not posted here before yesterday/today, you don't really have a place judging people who have, and who know this is just another in a long string of largely vapid posts by Amy Sullivan.

I'll politely suggest you sit back and listen, unless you're OK with willingly being caught in the crossfire.

Comprehende? Versteht?

The myth makers responses are socioeconomic.

Discriminated or oppressed populations are suspicious of detrimental events as conspiracies from the dominate population. Dominate populations experience detrimental events as divine intervention either against an offending population or against their own wickedness.

With HIV or drugs, the most oppressed population in the US, Blacks, suspects a conspiracy against it from the dominate population, European Christians. The dominate population experiences HIV or drugs as an intervention by their god against wicked homosexuals or an inferior race.

With toxic waste exposure or natural disasters, the most oppressed populations suspect a conspiracy by the dominate population to eliminate them or steal something valuable from them. For the dominate population pollution is borne by the least contributors to the economy and natural disasters are divine interventions, either as punishment for their own misguided transgressions or the wicked ways of a population that has displeased their god.