Now this isn’t easy, because understanding Sullivan is like trying to play whack-a-mole, a game at which I am terrible. His opinions switch more often than Arianna Huffington’s– and even more wildly. Today I discovered, of all things, that I am a firmer supporter of gay rights than Andrew, who writes in the midst of the Wright dust-up:
Or my own church, for that matter. What they have all said about gay people is horrifying to me, and I do not share all the political views of my spiritual leaders. The key – it seems to me – is the candidate’s public positions on these issues – not what his pastor has said and says in the pulpit. I remain in a church which describes gay people as “intrinsically disordered.”
Well, anything to justify Lord Barack, I suppose, but, to be frank, I can’t imagine anything more appalling than being in the congregation of a bigot–whether on racial or sexual matters. I wouldn’t stand for it for a second. It’s a moral issue to me, but I guess not to Andrew.
Earlier in this peculiar mobius curve of a post he writes:
The relevant – the only relevant – question is: are Obama’s beliefs represented by the handful of video clips of the most incendiary of Wright’s sermons? Or to unpack it a little further: Does Obama believe that black people should damn America? Does he believe that racial separatism is a viable option? Is he a black liberation theologian?
Okay, Andrew, have it your way, but some of us might have a few others, like – Does it show good judgment that a future president of the United States consorts with a racist as his chosen pastor for twenty years? Or do you like it that Obama claims not to have realized Wright’s views all this time? Or, in Sullivan’s words, “to unpack it further,” that that makes Obama either a liar or a fool? (I’m betting on the former.)
Editor’s note: This is is all Michael Weiss’ fault, since I don’t read Sullivan anymore. I found the link here.