No Place for Religion: On Jeremiah Wright and Our Culture of Disbelief

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.

Comments

[oldtree]

It is free speech. Goons are trying to tell the man what to say, think and do. What country is this? It has nothing to do with religion at all. It is about a muzzle.

[northcan]

People know should stop this nonsense about Jeremiah Wright. You sound foolish, uneducated, hateful...and personally exactly what he was talking about. I am a white woman, christian, and if he was in my neighborhood, this is were I would want to go to feel good about life's injustices, how to endure, and pray with people who are not so righteous, indignant and entitled. White America stop being so judgemental. Be realistic for your own good.

[S1m0n]

"We" respect the autonomy of religion just fine when it's the dominant culture's holy cow that's getting gored. If you're a white male conservative baptist, you pass. Your pastor can say anything at all, and no one will hold it against you. You're in.

It's when you're not that religion matters. Wright is a means of demonstrating that Barack Obama isn't part of 'our' tribe.

[JohnJames]

Good point. The media are also complicit in this. Consciously or not, they've come to regard fundamentalist Protestanism in particular and socially conservative white Christianity in general as the only authentic American religion. Any intolerance toward other Americans spewed by this brand of religion and they spew a lot of it is simply overlooked as being in the nature of things and any criticism of it is treated as suspect if not an attack on America itself.

[JohnJames]

I'll add that there's nothing truly "fundamentalist" in this brand of American Christianity. In many respects it's just blind Nationalism and a Capitalist ethos run amok dressed up in religious garb. Perhaps that's why it's so palatable to our secular and corporate owned media.

[Nommo]

Wow, all these experts on Rev. Wright. Not one of you had ever heard of the man one year ago. How keen of you all to reduce 30 years of his work on the altar of your expertise in Black clergy. I'm certain that you will all be in the front pew of the closest Black Church next Sunday morn.

[elbzee]

Bravo Nommo!

[Puller58]

Can we get to the point that Black Liberation Theology is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT?! There are any number of religions in the world that become infected with politics and that negates any positive aspects of the religion. Rev.Wright wants to be Veep, and what does that tell you? He sees himself as a political aspirant. (Actually, he might have been funning, since he's getting all the grief.) We need separation of church and state for the very reason that one corrupts the other. If you're a believer, then it stands to reason that you can make moral judgements as an officeholder. Of course, for some believers, non-believers are evil. But can anyone explain Catholic priests that molested boys, Evangelicals who defraud elderly followers, Muslims who advocate violence, Jewish Rabbis who advocate the taking of more land in the middle east, and all the rest of godly folk that do wrong? Amen.

[Nommo]

Are you equating Liberation Theology with "Catholic priests that molested boys, Evangelicals who defraud elderly followers..."? Do you remember a time in history when the church was the state? You needn't go back that far, you know. Somehow America had no problem rolling out the red carpet for that little Nazi creep from the Vatican, but gets all bent out of shape over a few words and phrases from Rev. Wright? What about the Liberation Theology of Dr. King? He died for it. What about the School of the Americas and it's war (your tax dollar killing priests and nuns) on Liberation Theology in Central America, now that;s a sterling record for politics and religion. Know anything about that, Fuller?

[outnow]

Jane Goodall studied primates' behavior for over fifty years. She said in an interview on April 17, "that for al long time there was a huge amount of arrogance among Western scientists and to some extent Western Religion in believing that there was a very sharp line dividing us from the rest of the animal kingdom, and that there was a difference of kind rather than degree."

She goes on to say that the Bible has been misinterpreted in asserting that man should spread his species all over the world as much as to be a good steward of the planet. Even St. Francis thought that animals were our brothers and sisters, like indigenous peoples and he could find no differences between animals and people as to whether or not animals have souls.

Albert Einstein stated that:

"The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition....There is no room in this for the divination of a nation, of a class, let alone an individual­.....Indee­d, even the divination of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be part of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the highest destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way."

[JohnJames]

Jane Goodall's astute observation also explains why many Christians feel so threatened by biological evolution since it makes impossible the idea that any clear line can be drawn between man and our non-human animal ancestors. This threatens their idea of a uniquely human soul. The theology it's based on isn't to be found in the Bible. It began to be elaborated centuries after Jesus in the late Roman Empire.

[Gibbons]

My opinion of Reverend Wright is that whatever else he is, he is first and foremost an egomaniac. He is relishing the attention and airtime he is getting and he doesn't care what it does to the Obama campaign.

[AristophanesJones]

'Epistemic diversity, like diversity of other kinds, should be cherished, not ignored, and certainly not abolished."

"No, stupidity isn't a form of knowing things. Thunder is high pressure air meeting low pressure air; it's not God bowling. 'Babies come from storks' is not a competing school of thought in medical school. We shouldn't teach both. The media shouldn't equate both." - Bill Maher

Overall, yet another frivolous article wherein a whiny theist insists the he and those of his ilk are being relegated to the sidelines of American society and public discourse by mean old secularists when, in fact, the opposite is true.

[outnow]

Those conducting the Inquisition always claim that they are the victims of religious persecution as they torture and kill. Likewise with the witchcraft trials; he who points the finger of guilt has the most to hide. Spirituality is a personal thing. Mass hysteria and the ducking stool are the tools of those who would control others. Aztec human sacrifice was used to stave off disfavor by the Gods. A nation of priests would be a great evil.

[Zenith1959]

I completely agree with AristophanesJones. It is both amusing and a bit sad to constantly hear the religious people of America whining and complaining like they are some sort of oppressed minority. Exactly how many atheist presidents, senators and congress members have there been in America? Doesn't every session of the US and state congresses open with a prayer? Just because we don't allow tax money to fund religious displays, they feel they are being repressed.

[Nommo]

Are you writing here about he author of the subject of the post?

[JanetE]

This morning Rev. Wright said he would be open to be Vice President - he said it twice.
Hmmmm ...

He also said that the media hasn't been attacking Rev. Wright, they've been attacking the black church, they've been attacking his "Grandmama".

Okaaaaaayyyyy...... NOT.

No, he's not divisive.

[marymansour]

Is it possible for the media and this country to get real for a moment? This was Barack Obama's retired preacher. Not his wife, mother, father, etc. If we want to sling the mud, the Clintons have some major skeletons potruding from their closets. In fact some of the Clinton garbage is all over the floor in plain view. Vince Foster, White Water, Impeachment, Monica Lewinsky - what the hell else do we need? Religion shouldn't even be brought up except for the fact that under George W. Bush, we have lost our status as a secular nation.

Go Obama!

[JanetE]

Rev Wright is still gabbing on TV this morning:
He still feels the govt is bad and should apologize to people they've hurt.
That he will be on Obama's back if he wins to change things in the govt - oh yeah, he's not political.
That he would be open to become Vice President (yeah, Rev Wright). He said it twice.
He is arrogant in his answers to the questions being asked of him.
He still believes the US created the aids virus in African blacks.
Obama's race speech where he distanced himself from Rev Wright's words - Wright claims Obama says what he has to say because he is a politician.
His view is that whites created an oppressed black society - where has he been for the past 15 years because in my world things have changed and improved so much - why does he keep referring to slavery - is he trying to make whites feel guilty? Well, that's obvious.
He wants the white men controlled government to feel guilty and apologize for all the bad things they've done.
"We raped a country" he just said referring to Africa. There ya go, more non-controversial words.
"The media was making a fool of itself" - he claims they attacked the black church, not Jeremiah Wright. Talk about SPIN. "This is about my Grandmama" he just said. Oh boy.

[scarfoot]

"That he will be on Obama's back if he wins to change things in the govt - oh yeah, he's not political."

He views being on Obama's back as his role as a prophetic pastor. It is entirely within the mainstream of his tradition. As are the other provocative notions he advanced. He's provocative. That's what prophets in the old testament tradition do. The author of this post appreciates the dilemma this poses in public life. I'm not sure he has the right answer. My guess is that religion cannot be autonomous with respect to politics. Islam is explicitly not,.

[elbzee]

Janet, exactly which world are you in?

[RoloTomassi]

You are clueless.

[Zanti]

What? How dare you try to hold Wright responsible for the words he speaks!! That's not fair! ;-)

Actually, in spite of all appearances to the contrary, the Obama/Wright water carriers are probably wishing Obama weren't connected with this kook. Want to bet? I think it's hilarious. Better they than I.

[daddysboy]

The concepts of religion and personal belief and conviction are not one and the same. What is not allowed in America and what should never be allowed is the governmental sanctioning of one religion or belief system over all others or over a choice to believe in nothing. Religion is personal and should continue to be. Your assertion that America is filled with religious believers may be true and it may be entirely supposition as it is possible that America is only filled with people that SAY they are religious. We may never know, but what we should know is that everyone living here is supposed to be entitled to make that choice for themselves and that includes choosing to disdain political pressure from a church leader in our potential presidential candidates.

[JanetE]

Right now I am watching Rev. Wright on TV - it's Monday morning. And I also watched IN FULL (no, not just snippets) of his NAACP speech last night. Wow. Where to begin?

1- As a teacher, I was taught way back in the 1970's that ALL children do not learn in the same way and that we must find out how EACH child learns and then individualize our teaching so that EACH child learns. No, not just black children learn from the right side of their brain, as Rev Wright said Sunday night. There are many white children, Asian, Mexican, etc. who learn that way too. Why in the world must he separate the world into black and white?

2- He mocked former presidents and he mocked people who don't worship as the black churches do.

OMG - I was willing to think that the GDAmerica snippets might not have been typical of how he really feels. Now I am completely convinced that Rev Wright's world is black and white where blacks are actually superior in many ways and perhaps whites should try to be more like blacks.

Rev Wright said his attacks have not been on HIM, but on the black church --- WRONG.

Wait til you see how much money he makes from his upcoming book! And today he's saying things that indicate he feels his church and HIM are superior to the US government and Dick Cheney.

[apduncan1]

"...he feels his church and HIM are superior to the US government and Dick Cheney."


Do you have a problem with that???

Those two are the reincarnation of Hitler and Goebbels.

[JanetE]

Many of his comments show he feels the black church is superior to the white church - he mocked how unemotional white pastors/churchgoers are and that it's better to show emotion like they do in black churches.

He has a huge ego - he said so many things to show how superior he feels he and his church are to the government and current and past politicians. Please. We are such a horrible country that Wright just moved into a million dollar home and will make millions from his upcoming book. Oh, I feel so sorry for him, he's so black and so oppressed. Bullsh*t.

He's an ego-driven extremely divisive man. Intelligent, yes. Well-read, yes. Done a lot of good things through his ministry? Yes. I don't see everyone and everything as black and white like he does. I realize he's done a lot of good things. But he has extremely divisive, controversial views. And he's hurting Obama's candidacy.

[outnow]

"He mocked a former president." What about those mocking Jimmy Carter? Nixon doesn't deserve derision or the Bushes?

[MaeScott]

It was an attack on the black church. Period. End of story.

[desmirl]

I think people should be free to believe whatever craziness constitutes their particular superstition... er, religion.

[outnow]

The author states that America is the most religious of all of the industrialized nations. I watched the movie "September Morning" on cable this weekend. The movie was based on Brigham Young's alleged attack on a wagon train in the 1850's. The themes of the chosen people, Zionism, persecution, revenge, fantastic revelations, death, false patriotism, paternalistic sexism, messianic death, false self-righteousness, persecution, etc., permeated the distorted and dishonest thinking and rationalizations of religions in general. Again we see the polygamy in Texas and the 71 virgins in the Middle East and the toxic Zionism, Jewish and Christian playing out their destructive roles.

I support ethics and morals in public and private life. I also support Rev. Wright's attacks on certain aspects of our foreign policies, but do we need a man with a gray beard directing us to this same conclusion? Most settlers came to America to escape an oligarchy in Europe that used religion to consolidate its grip on power. The settlers wanted fortune just as much or more than as the much touted religious freedom. The author reasons to the right conclusion that MLK was right about the triple evils. But do you need God to tell you this? LBJ should have enacted the Civil Rights Act based on the US Constitution, not the Bible.