It's Purim, and it's Good Friday. But I think they're both trumped by The First Day of Spring!!!!!

This is what Geraldine Ferraro said:
"If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept."

Sorry to revert to sarcasm, but…. The statement above is obviously true, since no white man has ever become a frontrunning presidential candidate.

This is from the supporter of a candidate who is claiming ‘experience’ based on being the wife of a former president. Would she have been able to claim experience had she not been the man’s wife? Would she be able to be the man’s wife had she not been a woman? But my implication isn’t even true. It’s not her gender that gives her an edge. It’s her relationships and connections that give her an edge. Which is true for everyone. Barack is now being held to the fire for being a member of a black church. If he were white, what would be the odds of his being a member of a church like that one?

Would John McCain have become the senator from Arizona if he were not white?

I don’t think in reality that Americans are shocked that such churches exist, or even that offended. The Jewish religion is replete with references to ‘other’ groups that would do us harm. But these stories are stories of strength and fortitude, not of hatred towards others. In fact most of these stories remind us that not only do we not have to live a lifestyle because "everyone else is doing it" but that we can achieve success by following rules that go against conventional wisdom despite what the forces of commercial marketing or political persuasion ask of us.

Purim is another story of oppression – intended genocide, in fact. There is little objection to the vilification of the 'other' in this case because the oppression took place during the Persian empire, and who knows much about Persians these days, anyway?
Most religious groups – even atheists – denigrate the morality of 'others'. Heck, this is one reason people object to religions.

Pat Buchannan says of this matter:
“America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.”
I suppose it’s fair to suggest that a preacher should appreciate being introduced to Christian salvation, but what about those who were introduced to Christianity through burning crosses? It is common wisdom that people are more strongly influenced by fear than by some objective rationalization, which is rational in itself, since objectively rationalizing whether a tiger will or won't eat you is more likely to get you killed than running away on instinct.
I abhor this attitude because it suggests that good enough is good enough - that America doesn't have to have high standards, because it's better than other places. Heck, I have no idea how Blacks are treated in other parts of the world, anyway, especially in terms of equality. But that is a digression. The point is not how can the vilification of the other be viewed, but how is it used. If it is used as evidence of self driven success in light of percieved or actual adverse conditions, what is the objection?

The question is why do religious attendees who are multi-denominational in their every day lives tolerate being part of groups that treat the rest of the world as ‘others’? Because they do. Perhaps it’s wrong. But the question isn’t whether it is right or wrong. The question is how reasonable is it to expect someone to separate from something so omnipresent. Especially someone who aspires to be a leader of a land where such attitudes prevail. A land marked by freedom of speech and religion. A person from a party nominally dedicated to tolerance of differing opinions. It seems like Republicans hate political correctness, except when certian people deviate from it.

In Judiasm, one of the lessons to be learned from tales of oppression is that of self fortitude. The idea that sticking to time tested principles leads to positive results. More simple minded people, (including simple minded or disingenuous atheists) believe it’s a belief in “magic”. That God somehow waves his wand and rewards loyalty. But thinking people understand that no matter what the trends of the day are, there are certain behaviors that, when practiced with consistency, lead to a better life. In Purim, one lesson is that the ‘signs from God’ are actually mechanisms of daily life. In this case, it is a lesson in civil engagement. Mordachi used his position as a senior administration official to a king to discover an evil plot to destroy the Jewish people. Esther used her position as the wife of the king to thwart the plot. On one level the lesson is a reminder of the value of public service and engagement. It was also a reminder that while dependent on the kindness of others, we are also potentially subject to their evil intentions, and it is up to us to work to be in self sustaining positions within the system. It is not such a controversial message. If the message of a black preacher is not to rely on Whitey or whomever, surely the results outweigh the methods?
(Ironically, years later, Esther referred to her marriage to the king as an example of her experience in serving the people, while at the same time denigrating her opponent for listening to the story which paints the Persians in a negative light. At least I think that's what happened)

Barack wasn’t the one saying the offensive words, just understanding their context. Remember that there are people alive who suffered from second class citizenship within our times. This preacher's position wasn't to represent the whole country, just his congregation. There may be a case for a preacher to promote perspective rather than show empathy, but I don't think it's a wrong doing on the preacher's part. And that leads me to the next point. It illustrates a generational difference. The 60s were a different time than the one we live in now. This preacher is of the 60s, as I think is the Clinton camp.

In fact, I’m a bit relieved by Ferraro’s statement, because they shine light on an element of the Democratic party that I despise. The victim champions. It is the baby boomer generation of the 60s that holds onto this idea so dear, although victimhood still draws honors from some. It is as though, to her mind, Democrats cannot justify supporting success except if it is in contrast to victimhood. Oblivious to his oratorical skills, sharp mind, perspective, motivation or other accomplishments, it seems as though Ferraro (and by extension the Clinton baby boomer camp) went through a checklist of victimhood to justify Democrats’ liking someone. “How perplexing his popularity is! He’s not a woman. He’s not handicapped. He wasn’t poor. Hmmm. Well, he is Black. That’s it. THAT’s why people like him!”