With the Bill Moyers interview, Jeremiah Wright is back in the news. And with the exit polling showing that Barack Obama's race was a factor for one out of six voters in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, there is no doubt that Obama's association with Wright is a significant political liability. I cannot help but think this is a sad state of affairs, not only for Obama's political fortunes, but also for our nation which takes such enormous (though perhaps misplaced) pride in our religious heritage and liberty.
In 1993 Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter published a bestselling book called Our Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. President Clinton once remarked that the book was one of the most important studies of American culture and public policy that he had ever read.
Carter's argument was a fairly straightforward one, even if it was counterintuitive. Basically the argument goes that anyone who takes religion seriously in today's American culture is automatically deemed a fanatic. He chides the American political culture and legal theory for what he calls this "trivialization of religion." Further, he argues the religiously faithful should not have to bracket out the logic of their religious belief for the sake of public consumption. As it currently stands, the only form of religious expression that is acceptable within the public sphere is that which is worn lightly on the sleeve, a process that Carter terms the "secular leveling" of our culture.
Carter's solution, which at least here in this work from 1993 is less satisfying than his diagnosis, is that the legal culture should strive to be more inclusive to the various types of arguments and rationales that our diverse public employs when coming to decisions and expressing values and deep-seated convictions. As he writes, "What is needed is not a requirement that the religiously devout choose a form of dialogue that liberalism accepts, but that liberalism develop a politics that accepts whatever form of dialogue a member of the public offers. Epistemic diversity, like diversity of other kinds, should be cherished, not ignored, and certainly not abolished."
The reason all of this matters is that if we accept this trivialization of religious devotion and continue to demand that our religious leaders and communities conform to the dominant discourse of our legal and political culture, then we should expect the following: First, the religiously faithful (whom, I remind you, continue to make up the vast majority of the American population) are forced into a state of schizophrenia, holding certain convictions in private while being forced to provide a public rationale that is not truly their own. Second, this moral vacuum in which religion dare not speak its name becomes a breeding ground for an extremist form of religious rhetoric that exploits the sense that traditional religious values are under assault by a hostile secular culture. In short, our political and legal culture of disbelief is at least partly to blame for the political mobilization of the religious right. Third, and most importantly, there would be no room for the moral suasion that characterized the Civil Rights movement as led by church leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In other words, if the only religious voices that were acceptable within the public sphere were those that parroted patriotic themes or that championed America's moral purity and manifest destiny, then not only would the prophetic dimension of religion be precluded, but religion itself would be of no use whatsoever to our nation. It would be confined as a mere redundancy. In this way, instead of a multitude of religious voices serving the interests of a genuinely plurivocal democracy as autonomous intermediaries to the state, the state itself becomes like a religion.
Carter's argument has been echoed more recently by those such as the Reverend Jim Wallis, who is the author of God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. For Wallis, the Left jettisons religion at its own peril, creating a soulless and cynical politics that the Right easily exploits. This line of thought received much attention in the immediate aftermath to the 2004 presidential election when prominent leaders of the Religious Right took credit for energizing President Bush's base of support and thus providing the critical margin of difference in a tightly fought campaign. The analysis then was that in order for the Democrats to become competitive in subsequent national elections, they could no longer yield the terrain of morality and religion to the Republican party. Like the Republicans, they must learn to speak the language of cultural values and admit how their religious beliefs inform their approach to politics and public policy.
Thus John Edwards repeatedly spoke about his campaign against poverty in the United States as a moral and religious duty. Likewise, Hillary Clinton courted progressive evangelicals by touting her leadership in developing a "compassionate" legislative agenda and by telling the story of the awakening of her political consciousness that was the result of her Sunday School outreach project to the local migrant community.
And then there was Barack Obama: At first there were the unfounded rumors that he was secretly a Muslim. As he countered those rumors by pointing to his longtime active membership in Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, the firestorm surrounding the comments from his former pastor Jeremiah Wright erupted. Suddenly the political terrain has shifted. It is no longer a matter of the Democratic candidate demonstrating the connection between religion, politics, and public policy. Now the real crux of the matter is finally exposed for all the nation to see: As Carter argued over a decade ago, there is only one form of religion that is acceptable within the public sphere -- namely, the religion of patriotism.
We are a believing nation. Study after study confirm that the U.S. is the most religious of all the industrialized nations of the world. The vast majority of Americans believe that the Bible is the authorized, if not necessarily the literal, word of God. Yet when it comes to the religious voice in the public sphere, what the widespread public condemnation of the Reverend Wright reveals is that we do not respect the autonomy of religion. We expect our religion to be palpable and to reinforce rather than challenge our self-image. There is no room for the prophetic voice that speaks the truth of righteous indignation to power. And so long as that is the case, it would be more accurate to say that really there is no room for religion at all.
As John H. Thomas, the General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, has said in his defense of Reverend Wright (link to the full text of Thomas' defense of Wright: http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html), to the extent that Christians desire to follow the Bible, faithfulness, not respectability, should be the order of the day. Thomas concludes with the following remarks:
Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. . . For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.
Obama's refusal to disassociate himself from his former pastor is a courageous political calculation (and no, courage and calculation are not necessarily mutually exclusive). By the success of his political organization, he has long since proven himself a capable manager. By his honest treatment of the subject of race in America, many believe he has shown himself to be an inspirational leader. And by his involvement in a church that dares to call the nation to task in accordance with the our own high-minded ideals and professed religious convictions, he may very well stem the tide of the trivialization of religion that has so easily allowed the religious values of peace and mercy to serve the misbegotten ends of a perpetual war.
For a nation made up by a vast majority of religious believers, I only wish (and pray) that we could begin to appreciate the positive role independent religious voices like those such as Jeremiah Wright play within, and on behalf of, our democracy. Anything less would not only be undemocratic, but downright unchristian.
GWW
However, the way religion has been practiced over the centuries, the way it is practiced in our world today, in our nation today--the self-righteousness, the superstitiousness, the abject closed-mindedness and the imposition of misinterpreted and pedestrianly literal-minded (did it never occur to people that those who first wrote scripture were capable of metaphor and symbolism?) doctrine, to the point of political, even violent, oppression has led me to believe that the whole world would be better off if the "people of the book" gave us all a 500 year time out, and practiced their religion in their own private ways. Enough of this nostalgia for a bridge back to beyond even the Dark Ages; God will be able to survive without religion, but humanity clinging to creeds millenia old (is the earth the center of the universe?), the world as we know it, will find it increasingly difficult poling.
One, the vast majority of Americans say they would never vote for an athiest, they'd even stay away from an agnostic candidate. Of all western nations American is the most unabashedly 'religious'. The few equivalent nations were most often along the lines of Soviet era Poland where 'religion' was used as a form of mass civil disobedience. The recent flap over Obama isn't over religion per se. Its cold-blooded, consciously-manufactured bigotry. Its an attempt to blacken a good man's reputation in the eyes of the ignorant and gullible masses.
The second point that you're missing is that 'religion' by definition IS somewhat fanatical. Believe in this unprovable improbable notion or spend forever screaming in the flames of hell. Believe in this unprovable improbable notion or be a 'bad' person. Believe in this unprovable improbable notion and shun and condemn those who do not also believe. From what I've been able to see the best religion is usually the least religion - consciously separating the notion of 'religion' from 'ethics' where the rule is invariably the more the better.
America indeed has more Believers than any other industrialized nation. And look what that got us: a nation that locks up more of its own citizens than any other nation in the world, spends more on weapons than any other nation in the world, and kills more people with its military than any other nation in the world.
Hallelujah, let's pray for more of that?
Yet, somehow, the far-right demographic that (generally) supported Bush has swelled to include, not only all right-leaning people of faith, but all people of faith, period. And apparently none of the other groups that (in general, or in part) supported Bush--soccer moms, rich people, pro-business sorts, Reagan "Democrats," etc.--count. No, somehow only people of faith voted for Bush. What's more, all people of faith. And none of those other votes counted.
Amazing, to live in a country where only the "religious" (far-right) vote counts. We need to find the landfill containing all of those other votes, if only for the sake of correcting the historical record. You know--the ones that were tossed out in favor of the faith votes.
Yes, far-right people of faith voted for Bush, as a group. Far-right people, PERIOD, voted for Bush. How that factoid morphed into such a huge, common-sense-consuming fallacy is beyond me. Such is the power of the Internet and cable news.
So no, I don't think that all people of faith voted for Bush, any more than I think all people of faith reject modern biology being taught in schools.
But I think there ARE millions of people of faith who base their entire life, and their voting habits, on a mindset that elevates acceptance of dogma over critical thinking and a requirement of proof, and it would be impossible to get a George Bush elected without them.
Every con man, huckster, politician, pimp and salesperson in the country uses religion as part of their sales pitch. Women go around with D-cup implants, blouses cut down to their navals and skirts cut up to their belly button, but with an enormous cross hanging around their neck, and they tell everyone they are a Christian, and by the way would you like to buy an annuity, praise be. I'm so sick of having religion shoved down my throat by these hustlers.
We don't have a lack of religion -- it's everywhere that a buck can be made. Churches in the U.S. want more money, bigger buildings and cars, more TV time. Too many of them actively solicit money from poor people while their leaders live like zillionaires and molest the girls (or boys) from Sunday school.
If religion would clean up their own act, do the work of [their] God and stop worshipping money, they might get more respect in this country. Overall, religion in the U.S. is greedy, ostentatious, mean to poor people, encourages selfishness and narcissism. When they clean up and deserved to be considered holy, give me a call.
Think of it this way: Rev. Wright's sermons aren't being demonized because of the brand of Christianity they represent, but because they oppose notions of blind patriotism, which is indeed the preferred religion of the Right.
If we had the intestinal fortitude to exclude the nonsensical trapping of religion from political discourse, then Rev. Wrights' statements would be out of bounds, unless he made them in a non-religious context.
We need less religion in our politics, not more.
In wondering about Wright, we wonder about Obama.
It's not that complicated. The truth usually isn't--that is, unless we're running full speed in the other direction.
So true, but that's exactly what is happening concerning Wright and his sermons--running full speed in the other direction.
The intolerance you speak of isn't coming from Wright, but is being directed at him by those who cue on sound bites and refuse to listen to the "objectionable words" in the context of the larger sermon.
I personally hav eno problem with Obama being "tight" with Rev. Wright, and think he should have defended him [and the truth he speaks to power] from the beginning.
His religion, albeit the overall container, is besides the point; in the "Goddamn America" sermon he is telling us what we NEED to hear, not what we want to hear.
I'm disgusted by the righteous indignation of the reactions to the Reverend Wright. Interesting in light of our latest scandal. That we hear nothing from the msm of our esteemed retired sr. officers mouthing the pentagon's words while growing rich from their defense contacts is deplorable. Instead, we're repeatedly force fed Wright's now famous clips on a loop. Here's a man of honor who won't kneel to the right. Here is a man of honor who obviously won't let words be put in his mouth. And who, exactly who, do the people choose to vilify???
It is amazingly simple. If you are an author of a controversial book, and you are the former Pastor of Senator Barack Obama, what would you do to get your name out there? He keeps plugging this book as the national media follows him around.
This speaks volumes about the gullibility of the media. You are being played for profit. It would be laughable if it were not happening at a time when America is about to elect a president.
How many times can you say, "Rev. Jeremiah Wright " between now and November? The more you write, the bigger the book advance. If you are smarter than a fifth grader, you should be able to get it.
Rev. Wright will be laughing all the way to the bank while America stays in Iraq, has no health care, struggles through a deep recession and sends jobs abroad.
His book tour will draw the press and he will take all the free publicity you give him. Wake up, folks. You are being duped.
Technically, however, "religion" can't be divorced from any symbolic activity. And at root, the fundamental ethic most religions have in common is the urge to say "enough." This goes deeply against human desires, and is one reason religion isn't that successful - even its own leaders can't say, "enough."
More closely, religion is a shortcut for human behavior. It can indoctrinate people to cooperate for all sorts of reasons.
But to answer the question, perhaps the reason we still follow the teachings of illiterate, uneducated, Bronze age prophets is because we're all just a bunch of monkeys anyway.
The problem is that we're getting multiple versions of the supposed truth here. We're told that Wright's words are allegedly best understood in the context of (choose one): 1) prophetic preaching, 2) the black experience in general, 3) Wright's experience in particular, as it relates to 2), or 3) a black variety of prophetic preaching, specifically, OR 4) the sermons from which the various sound bytes were extracted.
In other words, all the bases are fully covered, defense-wise. We're to read or hear the entire sermon. We do so, but then there's the prophetic context. Then there's the BLACK prophetic context. Then there's Wright himself and his view of the world based on being Wright, etc. The man has thus been guarded against any criticism. Whatever he says, there's some "context" in which his words are not only acceptable but profound. (Funny, then, that Obama would disown many of those words.)
You'd have us follow a multitude of arrows, all aimed in different directions, to get to the truth. You'll have to forgive us for smelling a scam.
Religion should not be autonomous. It should receive skepticism, criticism and analysis. Too many times, religion is used to control and monetarily benefit those at the top. Look at these millionaire pastors who receive tax-exempt status! The privilege of religion in today's culture has allowed those who cloak themselves in religion to do harm to others and steal and control.
The idea that a god would send his son to be tortured and that we must believe he is our savior or we are going to hell is a nonsensical notion that deserves no respect. I respect people and am friends with many, many christians. But religion itself does not deserve autonomy and should be scrutinized and questioned always.
Progress is inevitable and with progress of humanity, religions go extinct. Christianity won't last forever. It will go the way of the other religions as people find reason in evidence and no longer need the lies from long ago to explain the purpose of their lives.
Most sane people welcome this, so long as empowerment doesn't equal revenge for the both the real and perceived inequitiies of the past.
Unfortunately, many of the comments of Rev. Wright sound like revenge is desired. With his past statements and his comments at the NAACP there is an almost palpable sense that that he believes he is the prophet for the annihilation of the "white European Culture" that he so despises and that success for African Americans will only happen upon the corpses of all of us so-called "AmeriKKKans" after the wrath of God has fallen on us and that we all had better just yield to the inevitable and get out the his (Wright's) way.