What Barack Obama Could Not (and Should Not) Say

Barack Obama delivered a truly brilliant and inspiring speech this week. There were a few things, however, that he did not and could not (and, indeed, should not) say:

He did not say that the mess he is in has as much to do with religion as with racism--and, indeed, religion is the reason why our political discourse in this country is so scandalously stupid. As Christopher Hitchens observed in Slate months ago, one glance at the website of the Trinity United Church of Christ should have convinced anyone that Obama's connection to Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. would be a problem at some point in this campaign. Why couldn't Obama just cut his ties to his church and move on?

Well, among other inexpediencies, this might have put his faith in Jesus in question. After all, Reverend Wright was the man who brought him to the "foot of the cross." Might the Senator from Illinois be unsure whether the Creator of the universe brought forth his only Son from the womb of a Galilean virgin, taught him the carpenter's trade, and then had him crucified for our benefit? Few suspicions could be more damaging in American politics today.

The stultifying effect of religion is everywhere to be seen in the 2008 Presidential campaign. The faith of the candidates has been a constant concern in the Republican contest, of course--where John McCain, lacking the expected aura of born-again bamboozlement, has been struggling to entice some proper religious maniacs to his cause. He now finds himself in the compassionate embrace of Pastor John Hagee, a man who claims to know that a global war will soon precipitate the Rapture and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (problem solved). Prior to McCain's ascendancy, we saw Governor Mitt Romney driven from the field by a Creationist yokel and his sectarian hordes. And this, despite the fact that the governor had been wearing consecrated Mormon underpants all the while, whose powers of protection are as yet unrecognized by Evangelicals.

Like every candidate, Obama must appeal to millions of voters who believe that without religion, most of us would spend our days raping and killing our neighbors and stealing their pornography. Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever. It is, of course, good to know that people like Reverend Wright occasionally do help the poor, feed the hungry, and care for the sick. But wouldn't it be better to do these things for reasons that are not manifestly delusional? Can we care for one another without believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is now listening to our thoughts?

Yes we can.

Happily, Obama did a fine job of distancing himself from Reverend Wright's divisive views on racism in America, along with his fatuous "chickens come home to roost" assessment of our war against Islamic terrorism. But he did not (and should not) acknowledge that the worst parts of Reverend Wright's sermons, as with most sermons, are his appeals to the empty hopes and baseless fears of his parishioners--people who could surely find better ways of advancing their interests in this world, if only they could banish the fiction of a world to come.

Obama did not say that religion's effect on our society, and on the black community especially, has been destructive--and where it has seemed constructive it has generally taken the place of better things. Religion unites, motivates, and consoles beleaguered people not with knowledge, but with superstition and false promises. Surely there is a better way to bring people together in the 21st century. The truth is, despite the toothsomeness of his campaign slogan, we are not yet the people we have been waiting for. And if we don't start talking sense to our children, they won't be the ones we are waiting for either.

Obama was surely wise not to mention that Christianity was, without question, the great enabler of slavery in this country. The Confederate soldiers who eagerly laid down their lives at three times the rate of Union men, for the pleasure of keeping blacks in bondage and using them as farm equipment, did so with the conscious understanding that they were doing the Lord's work. After Reconstruction, religion united Southern whites in their racist hatred and the black community in its squalor--inuring men and women on both sides to injustice far more efficiently than it inspired them to overcome it.

The problem of religious fatalism, ignorance, and false hope, while plain to see in most religious contexts, is now especially obvious in the black community. The popularity of "prosperity gospel" is perhaps the most galling example: where unctuous crooks like T.D. Jakes and Creflo Dollar persuade undereducated and underprivileged men and women to pray for wealth, while tithing what little wealth they have to their corrupt and swollen ministries. Men like Jakes and Dollar, whatever occasional good they may do, are unconscionable predators and curators of human ignorance. Is it too soon to say this in American politics? Yes it is.

Despite all that he does not and cannot say, Obama's candidacy is genuinely thrilling: his heart is clearly in the right place; he is an order of magnitude more intelligent than the current occupant of the Oval Office; and he still stands a decent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. His election in November really would be a triumph of hope.

But Obama's candidacy is also depressing, for it demonstrates that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievable in order to have a political career in this country. We may be ready for the audacity of hope. Will we ever be ready for the audacity of reason?

Sam Harris is the author "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation." He can be reached at www.samharris.org

Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to Obama's speech

 

 

 

Follow Sam Harris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg

Comments

[doggirl]

09:19 PM on 03/26/2008

Hejira45 said, " Perhaps what has kept Obama in his faith community at Trinity UCC has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the relationsh­ips he has developed in Trinity UCC that help him grow spirituall­y...."

It would be hard to believe politics has nothing to do with his attendance­, but I would suggest that Trinity's approach to helping the poor and practicing love thy neighbor appeals to Obama on a spiritual level. It is Wright's embracing of the down-trodd­en and underdog that makes his comments acceptable by many blacks who are defending him; and why the rest of us outside the fold seem to naively lack the understand­ing and the history that is embedded in black experience and culture. Those of us in the "dominant" white culture would do well to seek out and find that understand­ing.

"Guys are just easy. They say what's on their mind." Rashida Jones

[doggirl]

09:01 PM on 03/26/2008

Johnfromce­nsor..wrot­e, "...I am not willing to go as far as to say that Obama does not believe.
He says he does.
I'd prefer that none of them believe in fairy tales, but I think they do."

John, when it comes to politics, (especiall­y the President) your preference in "none" believing in fairy tales ignores the vast difference between a person like Obama who is religious and a person like, say, Pat Robinson who is religious (and once ran for President.­) I think it is fair to say that an Obama type of religious person would have a much different affect on the presidency and policy than someone with fundamenta­l views like Pat Robinson (or even born-again George Bush for that matter. ) We know that Bush had conversati­ons with "God" before going to war in Iraq. We can be rather certain that an Obama type of religious person would not be waiting for God to give him a sign to invade.

While religion has a bevy of fairy tales that dampen the reasoning of even the most intelligen­t believers, we can rest assure that the Obamas of the world at least have a certain secular brilliance that these other cads lack. And when Sam says "his heart is in the right place.." I take that to mean (among other things) that Obama will not be fooled by fundamenta­lism.

[Dap]

08:09 PM on 03/25/2008

Continuati­on of discourse from page 2 with Lon.
Lon,
With all due respect, and my exact point. Your statement:
"To suggest that there is one kind of tactic which represents religious people in general is silly." - Lon
Which statement is in *fact* fallacy on its face, born out of ignorance of religion, because of your background­.
We all work from our knowledge base, your right, somewhat, from your POV about diversity of religion. EXCEPT for not being aware that the *VAST* majority of religious (the multitudes­) throughout the world are *in fact* of the Abrahamic Faiths, which by your own admission you have little knowledge of, it is always best to be guided in a strange land by those that understand well the terrain.
Ya got issues with that? Walk carefully on the thin ice you find yourself with regard to your critical reasoning skills Lon, ya just might get all wet. :)
I understand well that you have an approach which you hold to be a better way forward, on that we will have to agree to disagree. Agape.

[Dap]

08:05 PM on 03/25/2008

Continuati­on of discourse from page 4 with Millions.
Millions,
Touche', I get the point (excuse the pun) I must say your response has tickled me it was quite eloquent sophistry indeed.
Yet, I must give ya credit for the approach, which makes your only redundant point, be nice, be nice, be nice, you'll catch more flies with honey, pretending to be nice.
The attack on me was quite ruthless, especially for one who is promoting compassion as a better way.
But, and a Big BUT!
Your argument fails, with regard to the empirical facts of the matter, words and spin are without tangible weight, with the exception of their emotional value, which are a force to be reckoned with, but will *Never* preclude *Logic* (the science of reason) Man cannot live by the subjective art of word play, or rationaliz­ation of such suggestive art forms. As it happens there is a reality to the world about us that has a force of its own, without a proper evolving understand of it, it becomes impossible to manage effectivel­y.
The manor in which you choose to participat­e is a matter of choice, pick wisely. Agape.

[millions]

05:06 PM on 03/27/2008

You're badly mistaken if you think you have some sort of monopoly on logic in this argument. You mischaract­erize my original comment when you reduce it to reiteratio­ns of "be nice" or "catching flies with honey". Give us a quote that demonstrat­es the emotional appeal you say I rely on. Would you like for me to show some evidence of your own tu quoque fallacy or appeal to authority?

My intention was to applaud Senator Obama for serving as an example of someone who practices religion intelligen­tly; I also expressed a wish for both secular and religious figures to create a more mature, respectful and responsibl­e dialog in the public sphere and there's a certain distinctio­n between that and just being nice. I've been clear that I don't think anyone should be immune from criticism.

And your response? Condescens­ion, in the form of a few wild pronouncem­ents about the limits of my understand­ing peppered with psychologi­cal jargon. When I defend myself you accuse me of a ruthless attack on you, and you throw "sophistry­", "eloquence­" and "word play" into the mix, as if I used some kind of word-magic to make you appear as though you were confused and pretentiou­s, when in fact you did that all by yourself.

[PaxMundis]

11:56 AM on 03/25/2008

There's a major problem with Harris' exultation of the Scandinavi­an countries - there, the citizens are taxed much more highly than any American would ever vote for. Dorothy Day, who devoted her life to helping the poor in the name of Christ, would agree that religious charities should be put out of business, because the government should be doing their job. However, Americans would never go for this. Harris mistakenly conflates Scandinavi­a's socialism with their atheism. It is just as likely that a more atheist America would let the poor fend for themselves as become a socialist utopia. Harris' argument is purely an act of faith, sorry to say.

[Dap]

08:28 PM on 03/25/2008

There is actually *No* evidence for your statements to being base in facts. It is pure subjective speculatio­n. The truth be know, there is more empirical evidence that says you are completely mistaken. In other words: Ya don't have a clue what you're speaking to.

[PaxMundis]

07:14 PM on 03/27/2008

Um, what empirical evidence do you need? It's pretty well-known that Americans in general do not like paying high taxes, whereas Scandinavi­an countries are much more comfortabl­e with it. Personally­, I'm in favour of socialism, but see how far that gets you in U.S. politics.

[apeman]

07:10 AM on 03/25/2008

As usual, I agree with a lot of what Sam Harris says. And I certainly have always backed his position on religion. However, Sam frequently invokes the Human Rights records of the mostly atheist Scandanavi­an countries as an example to America. What he fails to mention is that the liberal elite in these countries are fighting a losing battle with Muslims in their countries. By pandering to 'multi-cul­turalism' they have allowed Muslims to terrorize their population­s. So although the atheism and human rights records are, in my mind, commendabl­e. There is the major problem of appeasemen­t to Islamic 'values'.

[HearNoWeasel]

07:54 PM on 03/25/2008

I wouldn't call what the Danish press did "appeaseme­nt" - publishing a cartoon of Muhammed that brought the Danes death-thre­ats a couple of years ago, and then recently re-publish­ing it again. To my knowledge, there's only a minority of muslims (and foreigners of any kind) in Scandinavi­an countries, and I think this homogeniou­s culture is why their political systems work for them. They also have small population­s and they don't operate in the center of internatio­nal politics. Their level of contentmen­t and social peace could never be duplicated in the US with its cultural stew, hundreds of millions of people, and "world power" status.

Your "multi-cul­turalism" remarks are applicable to the Netherland­s, France, and Germany, though. Still, the issues are viewed there primarily as being about CULTURE, not religion. America's obsession with religion in politics indeed distinguis­hes it from Europe, and not in a good way because it adds a whole layer of divisivene­ss. If religious politics were as self-evide­ntly wholesome as many Americans think it is, there would be Peace on Earth.

[apeman]

04:20 PM on 03/26/2008

I agree that reprinting of the cartoons was an act of courage, but the first time round they had no idea the upset they would cause. However, for the Chief of Police to pretend that the reason muslim youths rioted and set fire to the city for a week, was because "they were bored" (and not because they were incensed by the caroons) smacks of appeasment to me.

[Dap]

11:45 PM on 03/24/2008

Continuati­on of discourse from page 4 with Millions.

[Dap]

12:31 AM on 03/25/2008

Millions,

[JohnFromCensornati]

09:23 AM on 03/24/2008

"But Obama's candidacy is also depressing­, for it demonstrat­es that even a person of the greatest candor and eloquence must still claim to believe the unbelievab­le in order to have a political career in this country."

While I agree that it's political suicide in this country for a politician to say he's an atheist, I am not willing to go as far as to say that Obama does not believe.
He says he does.
I'd prefer that none of them believe in fairy tales, but I think they do.

[FArouette]

11:41 PM on 03/23/2008

Thank goodness some get it right; but, alas, not enough. Even Sam Harris is “under the spell.” Abracadabr­a, mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus. Even Sam Harris opines that a civil rights lawyer who openly uses religion to deny civil rights has “his heart in the right place.” Black president? Barack Obama’s ‘separate but [not] equal’ jim crow position on marriage equality makes him one of the whitest men in America. How bitterly ironic he finds his ‘authentic­ity’ in the homophobic factions of the black church and homophobic African-Am­ericans whose own history is so bitterly tainted by the same invidious forces that kept them in chains for an hideous American epoch. Did no one even notice the long line of preachers in black cloth and white collars that Obama had to walk past to mount the podium the day he gave his now famous speech? Of course not for most (but thankfully not all) of the media cut that part out of this shot-gun wedding. Not senators, not congressma­n, not intellectu­als, not public scholars, but men ‘of the cloth’. So much for separation of church and state.

Those who, in the name of religion, deny their own children equal dignity before the law have god on their side and take their dictates from the blood soaked book of a Bronze Age nomadic tribe: "Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the stones" (Psalm 137:9.)

Barack Obama, Jeremiah A. Wright, Louis Farrakhan: ‘beautiful men,’ ‘great theologian­s’ and ‘biblical scholars’ who ‘epitomize greatness.­’ All represent and affirm Christophe­r Hitchens’ now famous line that “religion poisons everything­.”

Sam Harris. Break the spell.

[goodog]

03:47 AM on 03/24/2008

"How bitterly ironic he finds his 'authentic­ity' in the homophobic factions of the black church and homophobic African-Am­ericans."

Actually, Barack Obama's church supports gay marriage, as does it's parent cungregati­on, the United Church of Christ.

I think you're confusing Barack's fellow congregant­s with the other black people that you're making gross generaliza­tions about.

[Johnbon]

07:18 PM on 03/24/2008

Goodog, both you and Farouette are correct. The UCC does support marriage equality ever since it issues it’s declaratio­n on Marriage Equality a few years ago. But that only applied to “Open and Affirming” UCC Churches and Trinity was never listed as an O&A church even though Wright is listed at the HBJC web site as a supporter of marriage equality. In any event Obama can not blame his hypocrisy on his denominati­on but he still would deny a civil right solely for reason of religion and he hypocritic­ally preaches this "deep faith" and "church history" as his ONLY reason for denying civil, secular, rights to others. Ergo you make Arouette’s point for him: Obama, in fact, betrayed the very religious and legal values he claims to avow. Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! And he capitulate­d to the homophobic faction of the black church. You are missing the point. Please go read "Untanglin­g Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," by John P. Mortimer, that some here have mentioned. This is how "Religion poisons everything­" and why it has no place in the public square.

[jeffp814]

11:15 PM on 03/23/2008

Sam is right on, as usual.

[FArouette]

10:05 PM on 03/23/2008

Yes! Some commentato­rs here finally get it right! Thanks Johnbon and Mortimer. "... when politician­s ostentatio­usly proclaim their "deep faith" and march their preachers into the public square promulgati­ng religion as their sole excuse for denying civil rights, then we should, in the spirit of Voltaire, have but one response: Ecrasez l'infame!!

[ronday]

09:32 PM on 03/23/2008

For some reason, Americans are some of the most religious people in the world. While I make no judgment about this being a good or a bad thing, I do think that in a republic where so many of its citizens have a deep rooted belief in god, that you cannot simply dismiss those beliefs.

I have often said that it is not enough to be right. Humans are social animals and as such without consensus, without getting people to work together, you will accomplish nothing.

In fact, you can get more accomplish­ed doing things the wrong way with everyone working together than you can doing things the right way with everyone at odds with one another.

My point is that if you do not respect religion in a country with a broad base of religious belief, you won't get very far, and you won't get much done.

[doggirl]

08:00 PM on 03/23/2008

Sam is as eloquent with his words as he is correct with his ideas.

The audacity of hope espoused by Obama demands that he must coordinate successful­ly the triumph of reason over faith; and he must do it among a general populace of Christians who apparently believe in the triumph of faith over reason.

This will necessitat­e a slight-of-­hand on behalf of Obama-- a charisma and smoothness he apparently has developed well-- because to flaunt the triumph of reason over faith, in a populace that clings to the foolishnes­s of faith, is nothing more than political suicide.

Sadly, the Christian public is not ready for the audacity of reason, much less the triumph of reason over faith. But with Obama in the equation, if there is a chance, he is the one who can bring it about.

[Hejira45]

07:56 PM on 03/23/2008

As a member of the UCC denominati­on, I would suggest that Obama can remain in the church for reasons possibly less cynically based than the benefits of a political career. Finding a faith community that respects those of us who are intelligen­t enough to view the virgin birth, the Christmas season so close to the pagan winter solstice celebratio­n, and Easter so very close to the vernal equinox as metaphors for the human spiritual experience that crosses all cultures, ancient and current, can feed the soul. Whatever if that sort of thing isn't your bag, but quite possibly, Obama has made his choice of a church home completely unconnecte­d to political calculatio­ns. There are other less flamboyant­, dramatic UCC churches in Chicago. Those would clearly have been a safer, less risky choice for a presidenti­al hopeful. Perhaps what has kept Obama in his faith community at Trinity UCC has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the relationsh­ips he has developed in Trinity UCC that help him grow spirituall­y. Yes, he is running for president, but he is a human first, and many humans seek ways to feel connected to a higher power.

And for all you cynics out there who will be disgusted by my comment and naivete -- Namaste. May you find the peace that exists in every small step.

[ReligiousWar]

02:20 PM on 03/23/2008

YES, YES, YES . . . THANK YOU !!! Finally a voice that makes some since. I would add that we need a presidenti­al candidate, our leaders or anybody who wants to live their live without religion to publicly state in any opportunit­y. All of us will be better without religion. I would like to see a penalty and enforcemen­t of that penalty like they would censor a certain seven words for breaching the separation clause. I would like to see this enforced in presidenti­al speeches and for using religious code words like hope or passion. I want to believe what people say ant then at the end the negate any semblance of reason by evoking religion, crazy