|
Examined thought is how critical thinkers test their reasoning process against logical standards. To reason well, you must know the parts of the reasoning system and know how those parts interact to make a sound conclusion. In addition, you need the will and the motivation to follow sound reason principles persistently.
|
|
|
|
| May 5, 2008 | ||||
|
Obama's critics attack his religion. America and its next president face some challenging issues like a potential recession, inadequate health care, a collapsing housing market, increasing fuel and food prices, declining public schools and two wars going badly. So, why does the national press interest center on the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a retired minister, and not on those national issues of concern?
The national press made Rev. Wright a surrogate, for presidential candidate Barack Obama. The press could not bait Obama into making racist or anti-American comments he did not believe. So, they attacked him though a surrogate in an attempt to brand him guilty by association. For twenty years, Obama was a member of the congregation where Rev, Wright served as minister. So, critics of Obama reasoned they could make him blamable for some alleged racist and anti-American comments Wright included in some sermons. They implied that Obama was guilty of those beliefs if he did not explain to their satisfaction why this was not true. Obama also attended law school at Harvard University during this 20-year period. Do they also hold him accountable for all his university and law school professors’ comments on public issues? By their reasoning standards, he should have boycotted the classes of all university professors who expressed opinions about race or patriotism that conflicted with some presumed national standard. Americans reserve political candidates’ religious practices in a protected personal area not subject to question or criticism. Nevertheless, critics attacked Obama politically through his religious practices. They presumed a pass into this heretofore-prohibited area, because they alleged Wright made racist and anti-American comments in his sermons. This justification does not hold. They interpreted the meaning and the worth of sermons when they decided the subject and words in some of them were inappropriate. Worse, they forced Obama to explain his religious choice and what value he may have taken from Wright’s interpretation of the scripture. In doing so, they questioned what spiritual value Obama received from the sermons. Slavery is an objectionable practice and illegal in the United States. Nevertheless, people would condemn a journalist who demanded that a politician justify why he remained in a congregation after his or her minister preached sermons based on positive biblical references to slavery. I do not agree or disagree with Rev Wright’s sermon, because I have no moral authority as a journalist to do this. Nothing Rev. Wright said in his sermon was more anti-American than news articles and television commentary that attacked a church, its congregation and its former minister for political reasons. No political candidate should face the choice between criticizing his religion and minister or having critics in the news media distort his or her political message and image. An exception may be a blatant call for an illegal violent act. Presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John McCain do not get high marks for their role in this incident either. I understand that Obama felt vulnerable being attacked on issues of race and religion two sensitive areas in American culture. However, he should have responded differently. Obama should have demand that his critics judge him by his personal traits and actions and not words of someone he interacted with along the way. He should have demanded that the press stop attacking his former minister, former church and the religious choice and faith of the thousands who worshipped there. He should have said this was his only response about this religious matter. Clinton and McCain should have spoken out strongly against press articles and commentary that launched those attacks on religion for political reasons. This would have confirmed to their supporters and to the world agreement that in America a respect for religious expression transcend political differences. Good leaders understand the need for this type statement. Good leaders are watchfulness and anticipate troublesome developments. They feel a responsibility to act in the interests of the group or social institution. Weak leaders are comfortable on the sideline not acting unless it is a nonthreatening issue or one that brings attention or benefit to them. Issues of race and racism always troubled American society and it stalked this campaign season from the start. This presidential campaign was and still could be an opportune time for the presidential candidates to make a statement about race and gender. Jointly, they should direct the national press to refer to candidates by the title of elective office, their political party or just their name absent any race or gender labels. This joint demand would force the news media to act differently and emphasize to voters how important it is for them to keep the political discussion centered on national issues and about candidates’ ability to address them. Contact Kenneth Brooks P.O. B 882, Vallejo, CA 94590, opinion@ethicalego.com
Contact Kenneth Brooks at P.O. B 882, Vallejo, CA 94590. opinion@ethicalego.com
|
|
