Many years ago I made the decision to leave the synagogue.
Doesn’t that sound strange? When Catholics say “I have left the church,” everyone understands what they mean. No one says, “Of course, but deep inside you will always be a Catholic.” But Jews are not afforded that luxury. When you say I no longer accept the religious teachings of my faith the standard response is “but you’ll always be a Jew.” Their inference is that culturally I will always be Jewish. I imagine I am guilty as charged. But the next time some ex-Catholic tells me he left the church, I will say, “yes, but your still going to experience excess guilt and a craving for fish on Fridays.”
But I digress.
There are more reasons for my “leaving the synagogue” that I have time to write and you have interest to read. One of the very significant reasons I left was hypocrisy. The hypocrisy was on many levels. But you know that this is nothing unique to the Jewish faith. Perform a “compare and contrast” between the average church attendee and the faith’s teachings and you’ll understand why many of the religious leaders call us ‘flawed.”
The specific example of the hypocrisy that had a significant impact on me was what I perceived as a strong vein of racism that was informally but strongly present among Jewish people. While I acknowledge that I am generalizing on limited observations, others have reached similar conclusions.
While hypocritical, it is also strange because the Jews have been persecuted for so many years by so many different people. You’d think this would make them hypersensitive to anything that remotely smacked of prejudice.
So this was one of the reasons “I left the synagogue.”
Barack Obama had the same option.
No, not to leave my synagogue.
Obama had the same option to leave his church based on the rhetoric of its leader. Unlike me, he didn’t even have to leave his faith. He could have found another church whose leader did not spew forth such hatred, anti-American garbage and paranoid conspiracy theories.
I do not want to take issue with Barack’s statement on the fact that he was never in the pews when this was going on because I do not have to. If he was an active member of the church he knew what was being said. More to the point, he has publically stated that this church leader (I have a hard time calling him Reverend based on the things I have heard him say) was his long time “spiritual mentor” and advisor. He married Obama and baptized his daughters. Obama referred to him as a "sounding board for me to make sure I'm speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible." I cannot conceive of having this type of relationship without knowing where Wright stood on these issues. Here are some of the things Mr. Wright has said:
The day after 9/11 – “American’s chickens are coming home to roost.”
He gave an achievement award to the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America,'" Wright said. "No, no, no. God damn
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."
"We put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there."
"
"We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure the
"Racism is the American way."
In addition to the “I didn’t know” position Obama made the “everyone has this Uncle” as another excuse. I agree, many of us have Uncles who say ridiculous things. I certainly have relatives who say some pretty racist things. There is one significant difference. I cannot choose my relatives. Obama can choose where he worships.
I do not find fault with his speech on unifying
My concerns are much deeper. For over 17 years why did he attend a church whose leader basically preaches racism against white people? For over 17 years why did he attend a church whose leader uses the Bible as a political tool? For over 17 years why did he attend a church whose leader spreads paranoid lies about the
I left mine because of racism and hypocrisy. Obama had the same option.
I happen to agree that Mr. Obama's relationship with Mr. Wright was far beyond that of a congregant sitting in a pew for an hour a week, and it is extremely telling of Obama's "new direction." The more interesting part of your commentary, being the tenacious religious nut that I am, is that you left the synagogue due to the racism and hypocrisy of its members (which I will take at face value). I have heard much the same said by many others who either stop attending church or bounce from one to another until they find one where they feel "comfortable." This leads me to ask what I think is an obvious question. What is the role of truth in church selection?
If you believe that your church has the fullness of unchanging objective truth, then the behaviours of its individual members, and even its clergy, is ultimately irrelevant. Discouraging, yes, embarrassing, yes, hypocritical, yes, angering, yes, but ultimately irrelevant. The truth doesn't change because people are flawed however seriously.
If on the other hand, you either a) don't believe your church contains the fullness of truth or b) you never think about it, or c) you just don't care one way or the other, then church for you is ultimately only a social club or a special interest gathering. I can only form an incomplete opinion on Obama's view of his church, but given the cursing from the pulpit by the pastor, the insane conspiracy theories, and the general spirit of anger, hostility and ego, I'm struggling to see how he claims that Mr. Wright is such a great spiritual teacher of gospels that purport to teach only humility, service, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, and the subsuming of one's own will. Maybe I'm just not enough of a biblical scholar to understand his theological treatise on "America Invented AIDS To Murder Blacks."
Back to your main point, my nine-year old nephew died of AIDS from a bad blood transfusion he got in a military hospital as an infant. I guess according the Mr. Wright they just mixed up the blood bags and he got the one intended for the black baby. How can Americans give Obama a pass on his outrageous, insane "mentor"?
Posted by: John Bonham | March 27, 2008 at 06:16 PM
John,
As I said, there were more reasons for my leaving the faith than just the hypocrisy of the people. As a non-believer, my opinion of what makes a church a church is somewhat irrelevant. But being irrelevant never stopped me from giving an opinion before so what the hell…
A physical building, the congregation, and the religious leader cannot or should not change the truth or your faith, period. On that subject I think we agree, if I understood you correctly.
My point is that given you are of a faith that has more than one church, I would select the one that has a leader and congregants that first, and foremost, do not violate the tenants of the faith.
Next, I would select a church that would challenge me, teach me, and in general help me grow as a follower of that faith. Please note that I am not placing the responsibility for my spiritual growth on the church. I recognize that would be between me and my god. But given a choice, I would choose one that supported that development rather than act as a benign or even counter force.
And finally, if the first two qualifiers are met I would select a church where I felt a true sense of community.
I assume Obama does not think that the government invented AIDS to rid the country of African Americans or that we put Mandela in prison. If true, my point is not that the ravings of a lunatic could impact his faith but that he could have found a church that was not lead by a lunatic. And I guess that aligns with your last question. ‘How can Americans give Obama a pass on his outrageous, insane "mentor"?’
PS - John, thanks for the feedback. I hope that with the practice I can organize my thoughts and present them with the clarity and wit found in your writings.
Posted by: Scott Perlman | March 27, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Scott,
In reading again what I wrote, I realize that my use of the word "you" in the second and third paragraphs could be read as "you, Scott." That was not my intent, as I was intending only to make a broad statement and not personalize my comments in any way. I should have instead said "a person."
I'm flattered by your compliments, but perhaps any wit I am imputed to possess is only because I write neither often nor long enough to expose the lie. With apologies to Lord Polonius, "Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief."
Posted by: John Bonham | March 28, 2008 at 08:01 AM