Excuse me, but *inflammatory rhetoric*? Like what, exactly?
Disclaimer: Evangelical churches are not a monolithic entity so I don't presume to speak about ALL of them. But that comment you quoted was meant as
an example, not the general criticism you took it to be. "Inflammatory rhetoric" is implicitly in the eyes of the beholder.
But to illustrate with a more specific example, I've heard a lot against gay rights in Evangelical churches in language I find apalling. Parting from that, *I* find many of the conservative stances against gay rights buttressed by inflammatory rhetoric and homophobia, but my central point is that
regardless of how I feel they are not talking to me or for me unless they, the people spouting these views, run for something. Pastor X is talking to a certain group of people and under the free speech banner, he can say whatever he wants. Free speech cuts both ways.
I've spent my entire life in evangelical churches.
So have I.
Can't remember ever having been encouraged to go do anything violent, or to hate anyone, for that matter.
Remind me again, when I said this? I don't even know what this is refering to.
And if directing a message to a "specific (very narrow) audience" is inherently awful.
It's not awful--its inconsequential in the larger sphere precisely because it's a targeted message. You completely misread my post.
To clarify further, what I was suggesting is that people like John Hagee (whose program is actually watched by people I know and care about--how's that for the whole question of what those close to us believe?) and Jerry Falwell can say things that are inflammatory to those that are not their congregation/sympathizers and we shrug, but Wright says his own version of inflammatory statements (again considered so by those that he's not adressing) and it turns into a big hoopla. When in fact it's the same thing, the only difference is that the group being talked to is another.
Plus, didn't Paul point to Bush's own dalliance with religion? I'm sure at one point one of those people he relies on have participated in "inflammatory rhetoric" to someone or other (Part of the trade in religion, I'm afraid--you can't please everyone). Which is the far scarier scenario because as my president, Bush does speak for me and the church/state boundary is getting a little blurred. (And the fact that Republicans do tend to have chummier relationship with religious groups in general is another to consider in this panic attack over Obama).
Returning to the incident, it doesn't seem to be like the above at all. Wright has been dismissed and Obama has denounced the statements and tried to distance himself. Not to mention the constant footnote of the church/state separation.
So really, it's all moot.
alcyone
