South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has urged the Jamaican legislature to vote against re-instating the death penalty in Jamaica. He claimed, according to the Observer of Wednesday November 19, that, “It is imposed and inflicted arbitrarily. It is an irrevocable punishment, resulting inevitably in the execution of people innocent of any crime.” In that same vein, fourteen (14) regional Anglican Bishops have called on Caribbean people to stand with them in opposing the death penalty because their “study, reflection and experience” suggest that “the death penalty has not been proved to be a deterrent”.
Jamaican legislators should listen to all voices, whether local, regional, or international, in determining the fate of the constitutionally enshrined death penalty. However, those voices should not neutralize the need for them to ensure that their vote is made after serious reflection on and consideration given to all aspects of this controversial issue.
Indeed, life must be preserved at all times because life is a fundamental human right, as Archbishop Tutu has opined. However, it seems consistent with the dictates of justice for us to embrace the perspective that those who destroy other people’s lives and thereby those persons’ right to life automatically forfeit their own right to life.
Many of these men of the cloth who oppose the death penalty do so on the basis of the Christian ethic of love. They claim that love preserves and protects rather than destroys. What they fail to see is that love demands justice (and even vengeance) as well. Christian theology juxtaposes the love of God and the justice of God and champions the notion that whereas the love of God propelled him to make salvific moves towards humankind, his justice demanded that his Son face the death penalty.
Did God impose or inflict the death penalty on His Son arbitrarily? Did God violate Jesus’ fundamental human rights? Archbishop Tutu and the Anglican Bishops in the region must wrestle with these critical questions. Some may retort by saying that Jesus was innocent and that his story is a perfect example of the imperfectness of any given justice system. Be that as it may, there is a fundamental consideration behind Jesus’ death- we (humans) deserved to die, according to conservative Christian theology. We should have faced the death penalty, but Jesus acted as our substitute on the basis of love. God saw the death penalty as a necessary evil.
It is my view that we must preserve life. However, wherever people, who are deserving of the death penalty, have been so found guilty beyond any modicum of doubt, those persons should probably be executed, the imperfection of the justice system notwithstanding. The issue of deterrence must not be used as a straw man in such instances. Love preserves life, but justice demands death where the guilty is concerned. Love and justice must be held in tension.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
The World's Crises and the Ethic of Love
Profit-driven multinationals, underpinned by neo-liberalism and capitalism, are wreaking havoc on the global economy and diminishing the quality of life of the peoples of the world by making unethical financial decisions and by speculating on food prices and driving them through the roof, as it were. Added to this is the deleterious impact of oil prices on the world economy, the recent significant decreases notwithstanding. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made a timely call for a new world order, which should see international bodies such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations rebranded, refocused, and reinvigorated.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Reflections on Abortion
Many people undoubtedly have passion-driven views about the controversial matter of abortion. It is obvious that some write with their feet in their mouths and others with their heads in the sand. Some of the views expressed in the Gleaner and elsewhere smack of blatant intellectual dishonesty and unreliability. In essence, many persons who have sought to make a contribution to the debate have actually obfuscated on the matter and veered off track on unbelievably scandalous tangents.
Some have pointed to the church’s apparent or perceived hypocrisy by virtue of moral laxity and failure pertaining to other matters and have concluded that it has no moral authority to take a position on the abortion question. This is an irrelevant conclusion or a “red herring” argument. It is an attempt at diverting attention from the fundamental issue at hand. I have noticed that whenever the church takes a stance on any moral or ethical issue, it is accused of hypocrisy by virtue of its imperfections and flaws. However, if it remains silent on the matter it is charged for being an irrelevant monolith. This is so preposterous. The fact is the church should be applauded for taking a stance on such a controversial and divisive issue. Whether it is right or wrong is another matter.
Many people have delineated the position that because abortion was secretly practiced in the face of the church’s apparent silence before the current debate instigated by the Jamican Government in its examination of the possibility of amending the abortion laws, it should keep its mouth shut relative to the debate. The fact is the church has always been against abortion. Its not constantly throwing its anti-abortion rhetoric at the public was not necessarily indicative of its approval of the matter. Silence does not necessarily equate to consent. Anyone who concludes otherwise is guilty of allowing him/herself to appear to be bereft of sound reasoning ability.
A significant number of persons have argued that abortion should be allowable and legalized with respect to rape and incest. They conclude that no woman should undergo the psychological and emotional agony of carrying a child to full term that was a result of a violation of her sexuality and biological integrity. The woman, they vehemently advocate, should have the right to abort the child with all the inhuman and animalistic memories that come along with it. Indeed, rape and incest are heinous and outrageous crimes against humanity that should carry severe penalties. However, the life of a developing human person should not be terminated by virtue of the action, whether acceptable or unacceptable, of a mature human person. If indeed we all have the right to life, then a foetus is possessive of such rights as well, notwithstanding the rights of the pregnant woman. One person’s rights should not contribute to the negation of another person’s rights. This means therefore that we end up with a moral dilemma with respect to both the foetus and the pregnant woman. A fundamental question here is this: Which is the greater right- the foetus’ right to life or the mother’s right to destroy the foetus’ life and preserve her psycho-emotional integrity?
Some are of the view that whenever prenatal abnormality and perceived “threat to maternal physical and mental health and well-being” are the critical considerations, then “safe” abortion should be allowed by law. Well, who has the right to play God and determine who should live and who should be terminated? Don’t all human beings, including those born with physical and mental abnormalities and disabilities, have a right to life? Are we saying that persons with prenatal and congenital and other disabilities should not have been permitted to enjoy life on this planet like the rest of us “perfect” human beings? No wonder we treat people with disabilities with such inhuman and ruthless disdain and contempt. It seems there are some people who are hell-bent on preserving the perceived integrity of the human species to the extent that those whose physical and mental wholeness has been compromised should be obliterated or removed from the rest of us. What do we say about the threat to the life of the human being that is developing in the womb? Isn’t the foetus’ mental health and well-being to be preserved as well? I suggest that everyone’s mental and physical wholeness is important, including that of the innocent foetus. Fundamentally, a threat is not a reality. Even when it blossoms into some semblance of reality, the rights of both the mother and the foetus should be held in tension.
Finally, others have presented a perspective that is sociological in nature. They maintain that it is better to abort a foetus than to bring it into a world of poverty, suffering, deprivation, and dehumanization. They appeal to their sense of the greater good. This has always been a problem in the realm of ethics. Who or what determines the “greater good”? If we take this position to its logical conclusion, then many, if not most, human persons should have been aborted! Many of us should not be here. Interestingly, a significant number of the persons who use this argument have themselves emerged from circumstances of abject lack, deficiency, dispossession, and oppression. They have become successes. Why shouldn’t all other human beings who have not laid their feet on the earth be allowed to make the most of life’s opportunities as well and become noble members of the human race against the odds when they emerge from the womb?
We must not pander to the whims and fancies of those among us who, with Hitler-like philosophies and personalities, would want to decimate parts of the human family in an attempt at preserving the integrity and purity of the human species. All human beings, born and unborn, have a right to life, as long as they have not willfully, intentionally, maliciously, and illegally terminated the life of another!
Some have pointed to the church’s apparent or perceived hypocrisy by virtue of moral laxity and failure pertaining to other matters and have concluded that it has no moral authority to take a position on the abortion question. This is an irrelevant conclusion or a “red herring” argument. It is an attempt at diverting attention from the fundamental issue at hand. I have noticed that whenever the church takes a stance on any moral or ethical issue, it is accused of hypocrisy by virtue of its imperfections and flaws. However, if it remains silent on the matter it is charged for being an irrelevant monolith. This is so preposterous. The fact is the church should be applauded for taking a stance on such a controversial and divisive issue. Whether it is right or wrong is another matter.
Many people have delineated the position that because abortion was secretly practiced in the face of the church’s apparent silence before the current debate instigated by the Jamican Government in its examination of the possibility of amending the abortion laws, it should keep its mouth shut relative to the debate. The fact is the church has always been against abortion. Its not constantly throwing its anti-abortion rhetoric at the public was not necessarily indicative of its approval of the matter. Silence does not necessarily equate to consent. Anyone who concludes otherwise is guilty of allowing him/herself to appear to be bereft of sound reasoning ability.
A significant number of persons have argued that abortion should be allowable and legalized with respect to rape and incest. They conclude that no woman should undergo the psychological and emotional agony of carrying a child to full term that was a result of a violation of her sexuality and biological integrity. The woman, they vehemently advocate, should have the right to abort the child with all the inhuman and animalistic memories that come along with it. Indeed, rape and incest are heinous and outrageous crimes against humanity that should carry severe penalties. However, the life of a developing human person should not be terminated by virtue of the action, whether acceptable or unacceptable, of a mature human person. If indeed we all have the right to life, then a foetus is possessive of such rights as well, notwithstanding the rights of the pregnant woman. One person’s rights should not contribute to the negation of another person’s rights. This means therefore that we end up with a moral dilemma with respect to both the foetus and the pregnant woman. A fundamental question here is this: Which is the greater right- the foetus’ right to life or the mother’s right to destroy the foetus’ life and preserve her psycho-emotional integrity?
Some are of the view that whenever prenatal abnormality and perceived “threat to maternal physical and mental health and well-being” are the critical considerations, then “safe” abortion should be allowed by law. Well, who has the right to play God and determine who should live and who should be terminated? Don’t all human beings, including those born with physical and mental abnormalities and disabilities, have a right to life? Are we saying that persons with prenatal and congenital and other disabilities should not have been permitted to enjoy life on this planet like the rest of us “perfect” human beings? No wonder we treat people with disabilities with such inhuman and ruthless disdain and contempt. It seems there are some people who are hell-bent on preserving the perceived integrity of the human species to the extent that those whose physical and mental wholeness has been compromised should be obliterated or removed from the rest of us. What do we say about the threat to the life of the human being that is developing in the womb? Isn’t the foetus’ mental health and well-being to be preserved as well? I suggest that everyone’s mental and physical wholeness is important, including that of the innocent foetus. Fundamentally, a threat is not a reality. Even when it blossoms into some semblance of reality, the rights of both the mother and the foetus should be held in tension.
Finally, others have presented a perspective that is sociological in nature. They maintain that it is better to abort a foetus than to bring it into a world of poverty, suffering, deprivation, and dehumanization. They appeal to their sense of the greater good. This has always been a problem in the realm of ethics. Who or what determines the “greater good”? If we take this position to its logical conclusion, then many, if not most, human persons should have been aborted! Many of us should not be here. Interestingly, a significant number of the persons who use this argument have themselves emerged from circumstances of abject lack, deficiency, dispossession, and oppression. They have become successes. Why shouldn’t all other human beings who have not laid their feet on the earth be allowed to make the most of life’s opportunities as well and become noble members of the human race against the odds when they emerge from the womb?
We must not pander to the whims and fancies of those among us who, with Hitler-like philosophies and personalities, would want to decimate parts of the human family in an attempt at preserving the integrity and purity of the human species. All human beings, born and unborn, have a right to life, as long as they have not willfully, intentionally, maliciously, and illegally terminated the life of another!
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Hope of Obama- Part 2
I am using this post to clarify some perspectives delineated in the previous one. In a nutshell, I indicated that the hope of which Barack Obama consistently spoke (I called it ‘Obamian’ hope) was consonant with biblical hope, especially as the latter was enfleshed in the Christ. My point was that Obamian hope created the future, rose above the fray of the mundane and dehumanizing, and transcended racial, sexual, class, and national barriers. It seems some people have misunderstood the essential point and purpose of that reflection.
I must state here that I was not endorsing Barack Obama with respect to his quest to become the Democratic Party’s nominee and ultimately the president of the United States. In addition, I did not state that Obama was the Messiah. My point was that he was messiah-like with respect to American politics. Neither was I embracing uncritically and tacitly Obama’s stance on a number of controversial politico-economic, moral and human rights issues, such as international trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), abortion and gay marriage. Any attempt at marrying my reflection with Obama’s ideological perspectives in totality is utterly preposterous and mischievous.
In effect, I was articulating a philosophical-theological reflection on the Barack Obama phenomenon, especially with reference to hope. As an ardent student of both theology and politics, I was merely delineating a phenomenal connection I perceived between the very human and imperfect hope of Barack Obama and the very divine and perfect hope of the Bible, particularly as it is embodied by the Messiah of the New Testament. If indeed all truth is God’s truth, then truth should be embraced and reflected on irrespective of the person from whom it emanates.
By indicating that the hope of Barack Obama creates the future, I mean that it shapes a future that is bereft of the negatives and atrocities of the past and pulls it to the present. It is obvious that the hope of Obama does this in propelling his rejection of old-school, ‘gutter’ and internecine politics of the American past and seeks to bring into current reality a politics that respects the humanity, individuality, and views of others no matter how detrimental they are to one’s cause. This was demonstrated in the aftermath of the primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Obama, driven by hope, decided to not attack Senator Hilary Clinton even in the face of heated attacks on him by Clinton and her campaign. It is clear that on the basis of hope he envisions a future that is different from the past and seeks to realize it in his own political actions or inaction.
When I state that the hope of Obama rises above the fray of the mundane and dehumanizing, I mean that the hope of which he speaks does not get involved in common and animalistic behaviour. It seeks to exemplify the extraordinary and the humane in politics and ultimately in everyday life. It seems, based on current verbal emissions and behavioural depictions, that if Obama and the hope that drives him were to triumph first in the Democratic primaries, then in the presidential election in November of this year, a new day would dawn in the United States of America in terms of the infusion of extraordinary and civilized political and social attitudes, behaviours, and lifestyles in the United States and beyond. All of the preceding would have been realized by virtue of extraordinary hope.
That Obamian hope supersedes racial, social, class and national barriers is evident in its appeal to people of all races, classes, social backgrounds, and nationalities in the United States and the rest of the world. It is extremely fantastic that he, an African American, is able to connect with and obtain the votes of a significant number of white Americans. He is even getting more Latino votes as the Primary season progresses. He does this, I believe, because he is possessed by world-changing hope. Unfortunately, his Democratic opponent does not appeal to African Americans at all with less than 15 percent of the African American votes in many of the states so far. Moreover, people in the lower and middle classes, captivated and mesmerized by Obamian hope, are sacrificing to help finance the Obama campaign to the extent that it has raised more money that all the other campaigns. This evinces what I mean by Obama’s hope cutting across all barriers.
Fundamentally, whereas I disagree with Obama on a few politico-economic, ethical and human rights issues, I think the hope that he champions can make a huge difference in American politics with respect to the ever-present race question, the politics of personal attack, and the flexing of American economic and geo-political muscles in the waging of unjust and unjustified war. The United States of America has lost its standing in the world, to a significant extent, by virtue of racial discrimination and segregation, negative and dehumanizing politics, and its Republican-led wars. Obamian hope seems capable of changing the racial, political, and global outlook and orientations of the sole but declining Superpower in the world. It is indeed a time of change and newness similar to the time when the Christ came on the scene. The world waits with bated breath to see whether Obamian hope would triumph or be trampled. Biblical hope has already triumphed in Jesus Christ.
I must state here that I was not endorsing Barack Obama with respect to his quest to become the Democratic Party’s nominee and ultimately the president of the United States. In addition, I did not state that Obama was the Messiah. My point was that he was messiah-like with respect to American politics. Neither was I embracing uncritically and tacitly Obama’s stance on a number of controversial politico-economic, moral and human rights issues, such as international trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), abortion and gay marriage. Any attempt at marrying my reflection with Obama’s ideological perspectives in totality is utterly preposterous and mischievous.
In effect, I was articulating a philosophical-theological reflection on the Barack Obama phenomenon, especially with reference to hope. As an ardent student of both theology and politics, I was merely delineating a phenomenal connection I perceived between the very human and imperfect hope of Barack Obama and the very divine and perfect hope of the Bible, particularly as it is embodied by the Messiah of the New Testament. If indeed all truth is God’s truth, then truth should be embraced and reflected on irrespective of the person from whom it emanates.
By indicating that the hope of Barack Obama creates the future, I mean that it shapes a future that is bereft of the negatives and atrocities of the past and pulls it to the present. It is obvious that the hope of Obama does this in propelling his rejection of old-school, ‘gutter’ and internecine politics of the American past and seeks to bring into current reality a politics that respects the humanity, individuality, and views of others no matter how detrimental they are to one’s cause. This was demonstrated in the aftermath of the primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Obama, driven by hope, decided to not attack Senator Hilary Clinton even in the face of heated attacks on him by Clinton and her campaign. It is clear that on the basis of hope he envisions a future that is different from the past and seeks to realize it in his own political actions or inaction.
When I state that the hope of Obama rises above the fray of the mundane and dehumanizing, I mean that the hope of which he speaks does not get involved in common and animalistic behaviour. It seeks to exemplify the extraordinary and the humane in politics and ultimately in everyday life. It seems, based on current verbal emissions and behavioural depictions, that if Obama and the hope that drives him were to triumph first in the Democratic primaries, then in the presidential election in November of this year, a new day would dawn in the United States of America in terms of the infusion of extraordinary and civilized political and social attitudes, behaviours, and lifestyles in the United States and beyond. All of the preceding would have been realized by virtue of extraordinary hope.
That Obamian hope supersedes racial, social, class and national barriers is evident in its appeal to people of all races, classes, social backgrounds, and nationalities in the United States and the rest of the world. It is extremely fantastic that he, an African American, is able to connect with and obtain the votes of a significant number of white Americans. He is even getting more Latino votes as the Primary season progresses. He does this, I believe, because he is possessed by world-changing hope. Unfortunately, his Democratic opponent does not appeal to African Americans at all with less than 15 percent of the African American votes in many of the states so far. Moreover, people in the lower and middle classes, captivated and mesmerized by Obamian hope, are sacrificing to help finance the Obama campaign to the extent that it has raised more money that all the other campaigns. This evinces what I mean by Obama’s hope cutting across all barriers.
Fundamentally, whereas I disagree with Obama on a few politico-economic, ethical and human rights issues, I think the hope that he champions can make a huge difference in American politics with respect to the ever-present race question, the politics of personal attack, and the flexing of American economic and geo-political muscles in the waging of unjust and unjustified war. The United States of America has lost its standing in the world, to a significant extent, by virtue of racial discrimination and segregation, negative and dehumanizing politics, and its Republican-led wars. Obamian hope seems capable of changing the racial, political, and global outlook and orientations of the sole but declining Superpower in the world. It is indeed a time of change and newness similar to the time when the Christ came on the scene. The world waits with bated breath to see whether Obamian hope would triumph or be trampled. Biblical hope has already triumphed in Jesus Christ.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Obamian Hope
Barack Obama talks a lot about hope. He claims that hope is audacious enough to believe, embrace, and realize the impossible. Such hope may be seen as hope against hope, but, from Obama's perspective, it is nonetheless, hope. I call this "Obamian" hope because of the person from whom it has emanated. It is my considered opinion that this is consistent with biblical hope. Although Obama does not make reference to the Bible in his verbal emissions on hope, both perspectives seem to converge to the extent that one may conclude that Obama is skilfully weaving biblical hope into the tapestry of American politics. This is phenomenal.
Obamian hope moves beyond the of the past and seeks to pro-actively conceptualize and create the future. It does not just wait for the future to come; it contributes to its shaping and coming. It pulls the future to itself and pushes itself towards the future. Biblical hope is similar. Like Obamian hope it speaks to the matter of the future being pulled into the present in the Kingdom of God. In a real sense, the Kingdom of God respects but moves beyond the past and, in the present, it realizes the future, in a preliminary sense. Biblical hope also, in a sense, propels the one in whom it is found toward the future consummation of this Kingdom. Like Obamian hope, biblical hope knows that the present is just a platform on which the future is being built and experienced. This is powerful.
In addition, Obamian hope rises above the fray of the mundane, the dehumanizing, the frivolous, and the conventional. It shifts from the periphery to the center of human history. It is a hope that escapes attempts at suppression and obliteration by "unhope" and the forces thereof. Biblical hope also moves people from the sidelines of so-called secular history and secular society and places them in the center of salvation history or God's history. Biblical hope, like Obamian hope, eschews dehumanization, conventionalism and mundaneness. It upholds the humanity of all persons, the significance of the embrace of newness, and the centrality of the extraordinary. Both "hopes" may be criticized for being metaphysical, abstract, and philosophical. However, they both are inspirational.
Finally, Obamian hope transcends racial, social, class, sex, religious, and national barriers and considerations. Obamian hope, as I see it, does not hide its "head" in the proverbial sand of human reality and existence; neither does it turn a blind eye to the structures and strictures that perpetuate racism, classism, sexism, denominationalism, and nationalism. It faces them squarely and influences them to travel down the path of self-destruction. Like Obamian hope, biblical hope rejects, neutralizes, and obliterates all such obstacles and hurdles. Moreover, biblical hope sees these negatives of human life and draws people of all races, classes, sexes, religions, and nationalities to itself and its Originator.
Fundamentally, the similarities between Obamian hope and biblical hope are extraordinary, striking, and intriguing. Like biblical hope Obamian hope inspires the Unites States of America and the world. Biblical hope finds its fullest expression in and by the person who is referred to by Christians as the Messiah. Obamian hope, as the phrase suggests, finds its fullest expression in and by Barack Obama, who is messiah-like. In a sense, Obama may just be the messiah of American politics who brings a kind of hope that is reflective of the hope that the Messiah brought to the world. Just as the hope that the Messiah introduced to the world was needed then, it is needed now. May these two "hopes" suffuse the human race.
Your E-Pastor
Earlmont Williams
Obamian hope moves beyond the of the past and seeks to pro-actively conceptualize and create the future. It does not just wait for the future to come; it contributes to its shaping and coming. It pulls the future to itself and pushes itself towards the future. Biblical hope is similar. Like Obamian hope it speaks to the matter of the future being pulled into the present in the Kingdom of God. In a real sense, the Kingdom of God respects but moves beyond the past and, in the present, it realizes the future, in a preliminary sense. Biblical hope also, in a sense, propels the one in whom it is found toward the future consummation of this Kingdom. Like Obamian hope, biblical hope knows that the present is just a platform on which the future is being built and experienced. This is powerful.
In addition, Obamian hope rises above the fray of the mundane, the dehumanizing, the frivolous, and the conventional. It shifts from the periphery to the center of human history. It is a hope that escapes attempts at suppression and obliteration by "unhope" and the forces thereof. Biblical hope also moves people from the sidelines of so-called secular history and secular society and places them in the center of salvation history or God's history. Biblical hope, like Obamian hope, eschews dehumanization, conventionalism and mundaneness. It upholds the humanity of all persons, the significance of the embrace of newness, and the centrality of the extraordinary. Both "hopes" may be criticized for being metaphysical, abstract, and philosophical. However, they both are inspirational.
Finally, Obamian hope transcends racial, social, class, sex, religious, and national barriers and considerations. Obamian hope, as I see it, does not hide its "head" in the proverbial sand of human reality and existence; neither does it turn a blind eye to the structures and strictures that perpetuate racism, classism, sexism, denominationalism, and nationalism. It faces them squarely and influences them to travel down the path of self-destruction. Like Obamian hope, biblical hope rejects, neutralizes, and obliterates all such obstacles and hurdles. Moreover, biblical hope sees these negatives of human life and draws people of all races, classes, sexes, religions, and nationalities to itself and its Originator.
Fundamentally, the similarities between Obamian hope and biblical hope are extraordinary, striking, and intriguing. Like biblical hope Obamian hope inspires the Unites States of America and the world. Biblical hope finds its fullest expression in and by the person who is referred to by Christians as the Messiah. Obamian hope, as the phrase suggests, finds its fullest expression in and by Barack Obama, who is messiah-like. In a sense, Obama may just be the messiah of American politics who brings a kind of hope that is reflective of the hope that the Messiah brought to the world. Just as the hope that the Messiah introduced to the world was needed then, it is needed now. May these two "hopes" suffuse the human race.
Your E-Pastor
Earlmont Williams
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Obama Phenomenon
BARACK OBAMA! Wow! That is a bombastic name. Who is the man behind the name? Whither Barack Obama? The meteoric rise of Obama to national prominence and stardom in the USA is the story of the first decade of the new millennium. It is unbelievable! Who would have thought that a man by that name would rise to prominence in the land of the free and the home of the brave? Not even the greatest optimist would have been able to predict this anomaly.
Well, believe it or not, Barack Obama is here to stay. Before he addressed the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in 2004, he was a relative unknown entity. The speech he presented at that convention catapulted him to a place of national prominence. Nothing and no one could have stalled or stopped his speedy movement towards the higher echelons of the democratic party and national leadership. What a fantastic story Barack Obama's is! Simply phenomenal!
Back to the major question under consideration. Who really is Barack Hussein Obama? Yes, his middle name is Hussein! According to Wikipedia, Barack Hussein Obama "was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawai to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya of Luo ethnicity) and Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas)
Many people claim that his mixed background, having been born to a white American mother and a black Kenyan father makes him an interesting person. I'm not sure he is fully accepted in any of the two historically segregated communities- the white and black communities. However, he brings with him perspectives from both. He understands the white way of life and the black way of life. He identifies with both worlds. This makes him eminently qualified to serve as president of the United States of America because he is close to the two most prominent communities in the country.
Barack Obama does not have the kind of years of experience in positions of national leadership that John McCain and, to a lesser extent, Hilary Clinton do have. However, he brings a fresh message; a new style of politics; an unconventional approach to governance. He brings a message of change and hope that resonates with Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. Hope cuts across all ethnic, racial, sex, and class barriers, especially in a world that seems destined for self-destruction and nothingness. Barack now serves as a kind of black-white "messiah"- one who could make a significant difference in and change America and the world. Is America and the world ready for Barack Obama and what he stands for? YES, THEY ARE.
Eirene!
Your E-Pastor
Earlmont Williams
Well, believe it or not, Barack Obama is here to stay. Before he addressed the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in 2004, he was a relative unknown entity. The speech he presented at that convention catapulted him to a place of national prominence. Nothing and no one could have stalled or stopped his speedy movement towards the higher echelons of the democratic party and national leadership. What a fantastic story Barack Obama's is! Simply phenomenal!
Back to the major question under consideration. Who really is Barack Hussein Obama? Yes, his middle name is Hussein! According to Wikipedia, Barack Hussein Obama "was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawai to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (born in Nyanza Province, Kenya of Luo ethnicity) and Ann Dunham (born in Wichita, Kansas)
Many people claim that his mixed background, having been born to a white American mother and a black Kenyan father makes him an interesting person. I'm not sure he is fully accepted in any of the two historically segregated communities- the white and black communities. However, he brings with him perspectives from both. He understands the white way of life and the black way of life. He identifies with both worlds. This makes him eminently qualified to serve as president of the United States of America because he is close to the two most prominent communities in the country.
Barack Obama does not have the kind of years of experience in positions of national leadership that John McCain and, to a lesser extent, Hilary Clinton do have. However, he brings a fresh message; a new style of politics; an unconventional approach to governance. He brings a message of change and hope that resonates with Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. Hope cuts across all ethnic, racial, sex, and class barriers, especially in a world that seems destined for self-destruction and nothingness. Barack now serves as a kind of black-white "messiah"- one who could make a significant difference in and change America and the world. Is America and the world ready for Barack Obama and what he stands for? YES, THEY ARE.
Eirene!
Your E-Pastor
Earlmont Williams
Michelle Obama's "Mistake"
Did Michelle Obama make a mistake in a recent speech when she stated that she was proud of her country for the first time? Many people think so. A related question that is probably more significant is, Has her utterance hurt her husband's chances? Some are of that view.
Well, from my perspective, I do not think her utterance was a mistake. As a lecturer in Communication Studies, I am aware of the importance of context in the interpretation of what people say and write. Therefore, one should consider the context in which she said it. I am referring to the immediate context of the sentence, which is under consideration. The sentences before and after this one are critical. No one says anything in isolation. There is always a context. Whenever you move a statement from its context, you distort its meaning. That is what has happened to Mrs. Obama. It's obvious from the context that she meant that she was "prouder" because of the large scale embrace of change in America as it was embodied in her husband Barack Obama.
Whether her utterance has hurt Barack's campaign is left to be seen. However, I do not think that it would hurt it much, if at all. I think though that she should have been more careful with respect to such potentially controversial statements. More seasoned politicians would not have made such a statement. Well, Michelle Obama is not really a politician. I think she has learned from this experience as she moves full speed ahead in the direction of the White (Black?) House.
Eirene!
Your E-Pastor,
Earlmont Williams
Well, from my perspective, I do not think her utterance was a mistake. As a lecturer in Communication Studies, I am aware of the importance of context in the interpretation of what people say and write. Therefore, one should consider the context in which she said it. I am referring to the immediate context of the sentence, which is under consideration. The sentences before and after this one are critical. No one says anything in isolation. There is always a context. Whenever you move a statement from its context, you distort its meaning. That is what has happened to Mrs. Obama. It's obvious from the context that she meant that she was "prouder" because of the large scale embrace of change in America as it was embodied in her husband Barack Obama.
Whether her utterance has hurt Barack's campaign is left to be seen. However, I do not think that it would hurt it much, if at all. I think though that she should have been more careful with respect to such potentially controversial statements. More seasoned politicians would not have made such a statement. Well, Michelle Obama is not really a politician. I think she has learned from this experience as she moves full speed ahead in the direction of the White (Black?) House.
Eirene!
Your E-Pastor,
Earlmont Williams
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)