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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There is an interesting philosophic question about the role of religious justification in a liberal democracy. Some think that arguments made in the public sphere should be ones that could convince everyone in the public sphere and so religious based arguments are excluded. Others think that this would require religious people to argue in bad faith. This debate is mentioned above, but none of the conclusions follow from it.
The trivialization of religion in the US seems to have come about through a desire to be able to mix religion and government and not the opposite. So we have that post yesterday that a coach should be able to pray with his students as long as he does it in a way that one can pretend isn't to prayeeish. We have all the uses of "God" which trivialize God so that they can continue to be government supported, because after all "In God We Trust" (but not enough that we don't preventively invade countries that represent no foreseeable threat to us).
But the silliest aspect of the above is the idea that there would be less criticism of Wright if we accepted religious arguments in the public sphere. If we accept religious arguments in the public sphere, then we accept criticism of religious arguments in the public sphere. One thing that a liberal democracy cannot abide is the acceptance of arguments with appeal to a few that are not open to criticism by the rest.
If an atheist does a good act it must be because God slipped up behind him and directed him to the good act. The author's argument assumes that religions of all kinds are the driving moral force. I would rather see Mother Theresa doing good acts with all of her doubts about God, then the self-righteous spewing hypocrisy while using religion for dual purposes, i.e., the political and the moral/ethical. The reality is that the evil hide behind religion. "People of the Lie" by F. Scot Peck is the classic work based on Martin Buber's analysis of evil. So often, the evil lies within and the religious types externalize it and scapegoat other people. I am sick of the religious people in this country. Religion is shamelessly used by those seeking power. I rarely see a "religious" person do any act of good or kindness that is not self-serving and basically narcissistic. Religion has been commercialized in the mass media and exploited, as usual throughout history. Have you seen a burning bush lately? Has a serpent tempted you? Golden Tablets in your back yard?
Or it is possible that being a force for positive change and being spiritual are two completely separate concepts? It isn't necessary to understand the nature of the universe and your place in it to be a thoughtful, kind, respectful, and generous person; it is just helpful for some people that have a hard time coming to the conclusion that this is a good thing without guidance.
It upset's me greatly that Jeremiah Wright is seen as divisive, when his rhetoric is part of his culture of loving one another. HIllary Clinton's 'faith never discussed. In fact her faith is a secretive underground conservative membership of which she became an 'elitist' in that membership as soon as she became senator. The group is called "The Fellowship", or "The Family" which is worldwide and only in political circles for the sole purpose of World Dominatiion.
Please ask her about her membership that has still nazis and former nazis in her group and who's exemplery figure of this faith is none other than "Adolph Hitler. Please media, pick up on this in fairness, fairness to all the Jewish population that suffered under Hitler's domination and Clinton's pander to and court for their vote. To all the 'hate groups in America that think that Jeremiah Wright does not have a right to express his own feelings and experiences of America. This election is very important. Please be fair and balanced as Jeremiah Wright was in his speech last night. Obama is a wonderful candidate. Please be fair America.
Jeffrey - you couldn''t be more worng. Reverend Wright, no matter what he says, is a divisive hateful person. He is still wallowing in the evils of slavery and lynchings. He preaches this hate to his congregation to perpetuate the hate of balcks against white america. He is entirely clueless to the problems and solutions facing black amaericans today. In this country we are so afraid to speak out against religious institutions. We need to be more vocal and to condem hateful activities, like what goes on in Wright's church, just like we would a Klan rally. We can truely see how this election has brought the true racism in this country. Only 40% of whites voted for Obama - oh my heavans that must be racism. Over 97% of blacks voted for Obama - simply because he is black. If that isn't racism, then I don't know what racism is.
Obscess much about race? Are your comments about Rev. Wright informed? How many of his entire sermons have you seen or listened to? Did you watch the interview with Bill Moyers? Probably not. I'm sure that you are one of those people who watched th 30-second sound bites taken out of context and thought to yourself "How dare tha n----r damn America!".
BeGone troll!!! Go back to your cave!
My 8:47 am. comment should read first. I had no idea HuffPO comments were limited to 250 words.
jason
People should disagree with the idea that certain acts are wrong, or wicked, or villainous, and that people who perform such acts should be severely punished. Folk should be able to see that certain acts are inappropriate or antisocial and that people who perform such acts are invariably stupid, ignorant, or emotionally disturbed.
And people should disagree with the idea that much human unhappiness is externally caused and is forced on you by the outside people and events. You should embrace the idea that virtually all human unhappiness is caused by the view one takes of things rather than the things themselves.
Remember, all these religious book were written in ancient times. They are the stories of childlike men who had not the vocabulary, and mostly understanding, to write correctly about the world they lived in. So when the walls of Jericho came down, it was probably that they were not built well enough. And when Jesus was rose from the dead, there were dozens of prophets snatched from the graves in those days. Each group claiming that theirs was the messenger from God. How boning.
It is typical of people today to think that people from earlier times were stupid or childlike. I would ask that you google Anastazi a group of Indians who existed from 900 to 1200 AD. the placed three rocks against a mountain that told them when the solstices occurred this primitive contraption still exists today and still works.They discovered a place 200 miles from their home where the moon rises out of the exact same spot for several months out of the year but only in certain years.The hebrews according the bible circumcised babies on the eighth day after birth doctors today will tell you that there is less pain and less bleeding on that day. As we become educated we also become arrogant.
Anastazi? East German native cliff dwelling secret police? That was too funny to let go; I think you mean Anasazi.
Religion is a social/mental disorder disorder with psychotic episodes.
"How dare he claim the MY religion is not the one true belief! How dare he insult our prophet or our Jesus or our stone fat broad with forty titties!" Because I am a rational, thinking, and logical
human being.
How many gods have their been since the beginning time and their crap never stinks. It seems there is a new one every three months. But really folks, the time has come to put away the thoughts of childhood and to begin to think at least like a teenager.
First of all, you got to get rid of this idea the you need something other or stronger or greater than yourself upon which you can rely on. Instead of this, the idea that it is usually far better to stand on one's own feet and gain faith in one's self and the ability to meet the difficult circumstances for living.
Next, you should disagree with idea that it is vitally important to your existence what other people do, and that we should make great efforts to change them in the direction we would like them to be - instead of the idea that other people's deficiencies are largely their problems and that putting pressure on them to change is usually least likely to help them do so.
we do not respect the autonomy of religion.
My feeling is that most of the time your religion
fails to
respect my government's autonomy
Well said!
FUCK RELIGION...PERIOD
Rev. Wright Different isn't Defective.....Well Duh
by: 1 black Detroit mom aka vote theft victim #3
A Detroit mother of 2 tells Rev. Wright what she thinks about his "oration" at the Detroit NAACP dinner on April 27th,2008.
Read everything she has to say at www.unheardamericanvoices.com or
http://blog.unheardamericanvoices.com/2008/04/28/rev-wright-different-isnt-defectivewell-duh.aspx
Though Hillary and the GOP like to pretend it will be - I don't believe Wright or Ayers will be a legitimate concern in a GE run off between Obama and McCain. Half the people in the red states will either attend a church in which it is preached that "God hates America" . . . think of the evangelicals protesting at military funerals or those that claim New Orleans was destroyed by God for the licentious ways of the New Orleans citizenry. The other half will have a Timothy McVeigh like character in their family or circle of friends. They might actually have sympathy for Ayers' opinion on this one.
Hillary's problem is Bill's extramarital sex. It's why God hates America the voters in red states will believe, so I think, if she ever had a chance, it would have been a polarizing issue like gay marriage.
Well said. Exactly the only ones that want to keep this story alive is the republicans and the media.
This is why politics and religion should never be mixed--they are two oposites. The practice of religion has always been a personal, private event conducted in the safety of a sanctuary or church--protected from the outside censors and unbelievers. What was done to not only Rev. Wright through those unfair and out of context sound bites, but to the entire congregation of that church was a violation of their privacy rights, a violation to their freedom to practice their own religion on their own terms, a violation of their rights as American citizens. What was done to Rev. Wright and concequently to Sen. Obama was Anti-American and certainly with a clear racist agenda. If this violation had happened in a white church, the outrage over the violation of their privacy and freedom of religion rights would have sounded so loud that people in China would have heard that scream. Instead we have TV pundits carelesly ruining a minister's reputation while they try to suck out more blood. We have a Presidential candiate forced to explain his choice of church & prove his partiotism, and we have another Presidential candiate jumping on the bandwagon of bloodletting hounds to try to further slander this candiates reputation. All to make sure this black candidate does not have a chance at the Presidency of the United States of America--despite his obvious and superior leadership abilities, honesty, political courage, proven insight and unifying force. This is what is wrong with America.
Food for thought.
There is no sector in the American political realm which is not tainted with bad nuts whether the political parties, flawed politician and any administration for that matter.
The most sacred institution and every fabric of our government is flawed. Case in point is the recruitment of felons to join the military. There is always an "UNHOLY" association of one way or the other of our government or a politician with section of our society or persons with shady past or those that have made controversial statements about our country. We should judge every one by the same standards including our government. Each and everyone of are infallible
Wow, you religious people always have the best of both worlds- you get to completely dominate the modern political agenda, and you get to complain about bad you have it the odd time someone calls you on your crap, all at the same time. I'd join up and reap the benefits, but sadly I'm disqualified by having an IQ bigger than my shoe size.
Dummies like Carter, Clinton, and Gore can only look up to you, I guess. Maybe you, by virtue of your superior I.Q., can make them wake up and live.
Amen to this.
The sheep of Christianity define, sadly, the sheep of 'Murka. They are one and the same.
And then we wonder how horrible, hateful men like Bush are able to steal office.
Do you feel puffed up and manly when you say things like this? How many religious people do you insult in this manner face to face?
Just asking.
I think the article is spot on. Anywhere you look in the world where religion is suppressed, say for instance Egypt, the extremist branches of religion gain power and support. This is the same as the US. When an American thinks of Religion, he or she thinks of John Hagee and these insane Evangelical/Corporate churches. I am a staunch liberal, but I am also respectful and reverent of religion. Your statement that you are not religious because of your IQ is highly ignorant and arrogant. This is not the way a true progressive should believe or feel. Some of the greatest minds in history have been religious, just not in the narrow way you define it. Are you telling me Ibn Arabi, Rumi, Goethe had low IQ's?
Careful... you've got a No True Scotsman running around in your paragraph...
That is not the way a progressive should believe or feel.
Well, he is a progressive and he believes and feels that way.
No *TRUE* progressive would believe or feel that way.
I think religion in this country has trivialized itself. Religion used to be a personal matter, private and therefore dignified - a far cry from the parade of blowhard preachers we've seen in this country, many of whom have revealed themselves to be morally and ethically impoverished.
So we come to the Rev. Wright, a deeply patriotic man who has called on his parishioners to take a hard look at things this nation has done. I wonder how many of the people who criticize him have read the sermons. It's OK to lie and scheme, manipulate the country into war - but to challenge people to think about our actions and our policies? No, that's not OK.
I'm very glad to know that John H. Thomas has defended Wright.
IMHO people who do not wish to vote for Barack Obama are looking for an excuse to not do so. Many aren't even trying to understand what Reverend Wright is saying. I would venture to say that most people who read this have never even considered looking on YouTube.com for Reverend Wright's full sermon.
It is necessary to get outside of your ownself, your own culture and your own beliefs and learn to look at how the experience of those different than yourself has been. It looks like we're all in this giant salad bowl together. We don't have to compete, we can complement one another. Please let us not hate one another based on differences. That doesn't promote growth for anyone.
What never ceases to amaze me is that black people can always understand what white people are saying. But, yet and still, the vast majority of white people refuse to think outside their own particular circumstances. Blacks are always the group who have to make accommodations.
Please do as Reverend Wright spoke on tonight and view people as different, not deficient, just different. If everyone thought the same way and did things the same way, this would be a very boring world.
Thanks for this thoughtful post.. I am ashamed that I haven't listened to the full sermon. But who has the time? Our public discourse is almost entirely without context, for lack of time and desire to actually understand.
In a nation such as America, religion is a discourse that cannot pervade in the public sphere. There are too many religions, and an easy justification to not support something it states is "I don't believe in (insert religion)."
You can't really counter that. Religion is based on faith and belief, one cannot prove God exists, one must believe in Him. Religious folk are not taken seriously in public discourse.
There is a way around it, though. Don't preach something like "AIDS was created to kill the black man." I mean, we lambaste bin Laden and Jerry Falwell, don't we? We owe it to continuity to blast religious leaders for saying outrageous and hateful things.
prove it wasn't
Prove what?
Great point. Did you learn that in 3rd grade debate?
Are you an idiot? Prove a negative?
What kind of response is this? "I know you are but what am I?" Advanced for the third grade, tho'.
-MS
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
