Let's do this again
Attention Joseph L. Riley: Again I say, it's a different culture of which you apparently have little or no knowledge of. Political dialogue at any religious ceremony - funeral, wedding or 'regular' - is accepted and widely practiced by African-American Christian congregations.
Everyone doesn't always follow the same customs and traditions you do, so learn to live with it.
Everyone doesn't always follow the same customs and traditions you do, so learn to live with it.
posted by Jmac at 7:01 AM
4 Comments:
So, you can have a church service, and ministers can speak and clearly articulate politically-partisan views, and it won't be a violation of "separation of church and state" so long as it's a "black thing."
And not just politically-partisan statements, but statements that are directed against one of the more notable attendees of the funeral itself. This strikes me as rude, in any culture. At least, in any culture that is a subculture of western civilization.
Um ... yeah.
I haven't offered any criticism of white evangelical churches which speak and clearly articulate politically-partisan views, typically being more conservative. More than likely, I may disagree with said views, but I don't think it's a violation of the separation of church and state.
I think all communities of faith have an obligation to speak out on the issues of the day, regardless of where their allegiances or ideologies may fall.
There's a distinct difference between a pastor instructing his congregation to vote in one way and one way only and between a pastor voicing political views and opinions from the pulpit. The latter occurs almost every single Sunday and almost every single church, though in most instances it's much more subtle. But still, I don't think either example would violate the separation of church and state.
And your final analogy appears to be odd. A visitor of a church who is, say, more liberal than the conservative followers shouldn't expect to have the message softened simply because he or she is attendence.
The whole criticism seems very disconnected from reality to me - particularly considering said criticism wasn't even that harsh (also particularly considering there was plenty of criticism of liberal ideology and, you know, Jimmy Carter during Ronald Reagan's funeral but no one raised any concerns over that).
When you're discussing the life of a woman who lived through wiretaps - in fact, a large portion of her life was fighting for civil rights while overcoming increased government scrutiny - then it only makes sense to mention her victories.
No one got up there and said 'President Bush is a liar! He deserves to be locked up forever!'
No ... what was said was a passing observation that King lived under the watchful eye of a domestic spying program and that this woman, who opposed war in most circumstances, opposed this particular war and it turns out, she was right about it.
It's honest criticism, yet also reflective of what she believed and what she endured.
Would it have been any less rude if Bush wasn't in attendence? Why is the standard of proper behavior being dictated by his presence? That logic would suggest any criticism is rude and we just shouldn't do it so we can play nice.
So you're at a religious ceremony (which a funeral is) and you're focusing on the civil rights accomplishments of Coretta Scott King (which we were) and political dialogue and criticism is generally practiced in African-American churches (which it is) ... I don't see what the big deal is.
I, of course, agree that the typical take of "sep of ch and state" is silly and nonConstitutional. We are all supposed to get the shivers when clergy/churches starting "influencing" the political process. I don't think there is anything wrong with such influence at all. But this is a very common way of speaking about this issue, and it is often only worried about in a selective way--i.e., Dems don't mind liberal clergy influencing the process, but are oh so worried about Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. But I've talked to you enough before to know that you don't have this double-standard, JMac, so I apologize for implying that you did.
So, aside from my general questioning of our cultural attitude about "church and state", what I am getting at about the King funeral is that there is a difference between espousing views with which I disagree, and directly calling me out as an individual. Bush is the president, and I admit that as such it is hard to follow this distinction in his case, since you can't really speak against wiretapping without it sounding like you are calling him out individually (since he is currently using wiretapping). Nonetheless, I think it is possible to honor this distinction in many cases, and the King funeral struck me as a failure to do so.
And of course I don't object to criticism under any and all circumstances. Criticism is good. Bush needs to hear some. But there is a time and a place. I think Bush was trying to do an act of goodwill by going to the funeral, and Lowry and Carter could have responded in kind. But they didn't.
Finally, I really don't see what was so 'partisan' about Reagan's funeral. I read when some blogs put up a bunch of quotes a week or so ago to try to "nail" the Repubs who are complaining about the King funeral, but I just wasn't impressed by the quotes. It just didn't come off the same way the comments at the King funeral did. (But the infamous Wellstone funeral was a far different animal, so I suppose the King funeral was just nothing to get that worked up about.)
Right. I didn't mean to suggest you were attacking me, so no apology necessary. I came across kinda defensive, and that wasn't my intent at all. More of an explanation of my views on the matter.
And I'll agree with you about the Wellstone funeral - though the only caveat was that I don't think many prominent Republicans were in attendence (though I could be wrong about that). Plus much of the criticism in that funeral came from Wellstone's own family, who can govern his funeral in whatever fashion they deem. It seemed more like an expression of their grief more than anything.
Though I do ultimately agree that much of the Wellstone funeral turned out to be a spectacle.
In comparison, much of the rhetoric from the King and Reagan funerals was tame. Much of the language in the Reagan funeral - of which the liberal blogosphere is citing the 'less convincing' portions in my view - is the similar parallels that Carter made. When a Republican speaker like current President Bush (I don't think it was him, but I distinctly remember this in the Washington ceremony) makes a statement like how Reagan restored our confidence from the malaise of the 1970s - that's a subtle reference to the presidency of Jimmy Carter.
And I don't think there was anything wrong about the anti-liberal/anti-Carter language during the many ceremonies/funerals during the Reagan's week long services. But it was no more out of place or rude, in my opinion, than what happened at King's funeral. So my argument is that if King's funeral bothered you because of manners, than so should have all of the events surrounding Reagan's funeral.
Post a Comment
<< Home