Much has been made recently about the video clips of Barack Obama’s pastor’s offensive remarks, given in the course of several sermons at Mr Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ.
Never mind that many of the things he said are manifestly true. America is controlled by rich white people. America did kill innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and in the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, etc). Osama bin Laden cited Hiroshima in offering a justification for the innocents whose murder he oversaw on September 11, after all. If that isn’t "chickens coming home to roost" I don’t know what is.
And whether white people want to think about it or not, the legacy of slavery continues to affect our present situation.
And when I think about the most inflammatory thing the Rev Wright said, the "God damn America" thing, I can’t help but wonder if that other Jeremiah, the Jewish prophet, would bless America, were he here, or condemn Her for Her sins.
None of this excuses the worst excesses of the Reverend; his travels to visit Quaddafi with Louis Farrakhan coming to mind, or his more paranoid speculations.
But to me this has a familiar ring.
Until recently my family and I were members, for six years, of St Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church. The pastor was about as complicated a man as the Rev Wright, gifted in many ways -intellectually, musically, linguistically- and tremendously compassionate: this was a man with a great heart. He was a gifted preacher and truly loved the Divine Liturgy, which he chanted in his resonant basso profundo, nearly as much as he loved his people.
And yet….
In 2003, just after the American invasion of Iraq, Father stated in the pulpit, in the course of a homily, his support for the war. I was stunned, and after the liturgy, at the coffee and donut social, I let him know that I was disappointed that he had imposed his personal political opinion during the Liturgy, an opinion that disagreed with the Pope’s stated opposition to the war.
The discussion grew heated, the first of several clashes between us.
But I didn’t leave the Church, even though Father had publicly expressed an opinion that to me was distasteful and wrongheaded.
And it did not diminish my recognition of his many fine qualities. To this day we are friends; I truly love the guy, blind spots and all (though to be fair, he like many Americans, has rethought his support for the war). We have him for dinner and enjoy his company, and I do not hesitate to praise him for his greatness of soul.
The idea that one must be flawless to merit love damns us all to lovelessness. I have lived with saints, real saints, in my life, and I saw their flaws. I am not an Obama supporter, but I see clearly how he could love his pastor, in all his complexity and contradictions.
–Daniel Nichols
Well put, Daniel. I keep coming back because of the careful discernment that is so often found here.
Note that I wrote this post before I saw the video of Senator Obama’s quite remarkable speech on the subject….
Now back to last minute Pascha preparations.
Daniel: Speaking of Pascha but off topic otherwise – as we colored eggs the other day for our preparations, I wondered what an iconographer might do with Easter eggs.
Osama bin Laden cited Hiroshima in offering a justification for the innocents whose murder he oversaw on September 11, after all. If that isn’t “chickens coming home to roost” I don’t know what is.
1. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terminal events in a war between Japan and various other parties in the Far East. The war in question was one the Japanese government had commenced in 1931 for its own purposes.
2. Bin Laden’s own country had scant involvement in that war.
3. The political conflict between the United States and Japan of which the war was a part was definitively settled in 1951/52 with the ratification of a treaty of alliance and the end of the American occupation.
For bin Laden to be invoking the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an excuse for his airline caper fifty-six years later is a non sequitur of gargantuan proportions.
(Might we suggest that the bombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki constitute chicken’s coming home to roost, or do chickens roost only in the United States and Israel)?
The subjugation of Central Asia by the Red Army during the years running from 1918-22 was a fairly sanguinary affair. Why do you suppose crews of Saudis and Egyptians have not been recruited to crash airplanes into tall buildings in St. Petersburg?
The only non sequtitors are yours; listing the circumstances surrounding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki affect the morality thereof how?
What bin Laden did was use those horrendous attacks to show that Americans believe civilian lives are dispensible in light of a good end. To bin Laden, attacking the centers of American econommic and military power was a very good end; he argues- convincingly- that Islam is under attack by the USA. Indeed, he could argue that civilians who died in the Twin Towers qualify as “collateral damage” more than the civilians in Hiroshima et all did.
Or do you think the bombings of civilian populations in WWII were justified?
A. “Islam” is not under attack. The practice of Islam is not proscribed or even seriously hindered in any occidental country.
B. From 1776 to the present, the United States has had military confrontations with
1. The Barbary States (1797-1800)
2. Gamel Abdel Nasser’s allies in Lebanon (1958).
3. Hafez Assad’s allies in Lebanon (1982-84).
4. Libya (1986).
5. Iraq (1990- ).
6. The Taliban in Afghanistan (2001- ).
Number six post-dates bin Laden’s airline caper; number one and number four were consequent upon international piracy; number three was a multinational patrol mission which went sour when the Hezbollah began attacking American troops. Number five commenced when the Government of Iraq elected to triple its proven reserves of oil by conquering a harmless neighboring state, and was undertaken with the co-operation of a number of other (Muslim) states in the region. It is simply not that difficult to avoid looking down the barrel of an American gun if you would rather not.
The United States was in shooting war with Japan, not a metaphorical war with no reality outside the imagination of President Roosevelt or President Truman. It was a war which Japan had elected to wage as a matter of national policy. American methods may have been inefficient and cruel to the civilian population of Japan, but destroying their industrial capacity and diminishing their civilian morale were a means toward a discernable end of defeating a military force that was in the field shooting at our troops. Incinerating a bunch of office workers in Manhattan serves what purpose other than sating bin Ladens’s bloodlust?
Immersing yourself in bin Laden’s atavisms and fantasies is not an aid to understanding the poltical life in this world.
1. “…destroying their industrial capacity and diminishing their civilian morale were a means toward a discernable end…”
Glad you clarified that you are a proportionalist, as I suspected.
2.”Immersing yourself in bin Laden’s atavisms and fantasies is not an aid to understanding the political life of this world.”
Oh, that’s right, he is a madman, filled with “blood lust”, who hates us because we are good, and because of our freedom.
Actually, it is wisdom to know one’s enemies, and that begins with taking them seriously, as they understand themselves. Or do you not think the Salafists sincerely believe that they are waging a holy war, justified by the facts?
3. “Incinerating a bunch of office workers in Manhattan serves what purpose other than sating bin Laden’s bloodlust?”
Well, for starters, the Twin Towers, symbols of American economic power, fell to the ground. And his enemies spun into an economic crisis. There was no “bloodlust”; indeed, he expressed regret at the loss of life.
” ‘Islam’ is not under attack.”
To the Wahhabist/Salafist, American presence in the Arabian peninsula- their Holy Land- and Iraq- site of the historic caliphate- constitutes an attack on their faith.
And your timetable to the contrary, America’s unswerving support of Israel and its oppression of the Palestinian people, clinches the argument.
Do not misconstrue any of this as sympathy for bin Laden; I find Salafist Islam repulsive. However, this abberational version of Islam would not gather the support it has if it and the analysis it offers did not resonate with Muslims in general.
As these are men sworn to our destruction, it would do us well to pay careful attention and disregard the simplistic paradigms offered by the government and the usual suspects.
Your lack of discernment is, frankly, appalling.
Glad you clarified that you are a proportionalist, as I suspected.
Remarking that a particular means is utile toward a particular end is not an endorsement of either the means or the end.
Oh, that’s right, he is a madman, filled with “blood lust”, who hates us because we are good, and because of our freedom….Actually, it is wisdom to know one’s enemies, and that begins with taking them seriously, as they understand themselves. Or do you not think the Salafists sincerely believe that they are waging a holy war, justified by the facts?
Bin Laden et al may ‘sincerely believe’ many things, but they are not entitled to their own facts. There was not, on 10 September 2001, any war on Islam, and nothing they did could be properly justified as collateral damage in some engagement in such a ‘war’.
It may be ‘wisdom to know one’s enemies’, but in your case I suggest you work up to it by first making it a practice to listen with care to your more circumspect critics.
Well, for starters, the Twin Towers, symbols of American economic power, fell to the ground.
You conceive of this as a legitimate end?
And his enemies spun into an economic crisis.
The country had entered a mild recession at the beginning of 2001 out of which it emerged before the end of the year. If he was hoping to recapitulate the mass financial panic that erupted in May 1931, he came up a bit short.
There was no “bloodlust”; indeed, he expressed regret at the loss of life.
You have his word on it.
To the Wahhabist/Salafist, American presence in the Arabian peninsula- their Holy Land- and Iraq- site of the historic caliphate- constitutes an attack on their faith.
Their irritation is not its own justification. American troops were in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of that country’s government to serve an immediate practical end. (And if I recall correctly, they were not stationed in an among that country’s civilian population). There simply is not any connection between those troops and those office workers except in the minds of certain less than lucid paramilitaries.
And your timetable to the contrary, America’s unswerving support of Israel and its oppression of the Palestinian people, clinches the argument.
?
Do not misconstrue any of this as sympathy for bin Laden;
I have your word on it.
I find Salafist Islam repulsive. However, this abberational version of Islam would not gather the support it has if it and the analysis it offers did not resonate with Muslims in general.
Could one apply that apologia to any of the domestic political ideologies you profess to find distasteful?
As these are men sworn to our destruction, it would do us well to pay careful attention and disregard the simplistic paradigms offered by the government and the usual suspects…Your lack of discernment is, frankly, appalling.
The deft, subtle, and sophisticated quality of your analysis has gone completely over my head. You’ve got me there.
Dear Mr. Deco,
You forgot to mention how the US has been involved covertly in the Middle East this century. We have helped to overthrow governments there. We are attempting to “pervert” Islamic nations, with our aid, which always has strings attached. We do in other nations, what we would never allow to be done in ours. You can argue the necessity of such steps, but you can not deny the facts. You are cherry picking history, by only using military operations, and ignoring all CIA involvement in the Middle East. You also ignore the very public goals of our government to replace shia law with democracy wherever shia law rules. Again this may or may not be a good goal, but you can not deny that we are aiding that goal. To ignore that many Muslims find that objectionable is to be very foolish indeed. What would our government do if a foreign power was financing/aiding a movement to undermine our system of government?
You know, Deco, it matters not a whit if you think bin Laden is justified in thinking the US is at war with Islam, or whether I think the destruction of the Twin Towers is a legimate end (and I wonder when you make such comments if you are really paying attention to what I say or merely looking for something to misconstrue with anaha!.
What matters is that he- and the majority of Muslims worldwide- believe it. And they are not impressed by Americans who deny what is to them obvious.
And while I agree that all this has gone over your head, I deny that there is anything esoteric about it; I just look at what those who hate America say about why they do.
What matters is that he- and the majority of Muslims worldwide- believe it.
What the majority of Muslims believe worldwide I would not claim to know. Bin Laden’s delusions are salient for making assessments about his future behavior, not for making assessments of the probity (or lack of it) of American policy.
Mr. Sarsfeld, clandestine operations are not ordinarily considered warfare except perhaps metaphorically. That aside, I am not inclined to comment about the CIA is a secret agency and its activities are opaque. It is known to have put its thumb on the scales in the course of the power struggle between the Shah of Iran and Premier Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953. I believe there are contentions that it had some involvement in the events which occurred in Indonesia between December 1965 and March 1967. It is difficult to think of more than a few examples of coups d’etat or insurrections in Muslim countries since 1947 which were all that beneficial to American interests, much less examples where the cooperation of the CIA has been demonstrated.
I am not sure whether it is your contention that the United States should not extend grants and loans to Muslim countries or whether it should do so without any quid pro quo (and why you seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with ordinary political deal-making).
You also ignore the very public goals of our government to replace shia law with democracy wherever shia law rules. Again this may or may not be a good goal, but you can not deny that we are aiding that goal.
I think you are referring to “Sharia” law, which I believe is applied no more than very selectively in all but a few Muslim countries, and most consistently in Saudi Arabia. I had not heard that the overthrow of the House of Saud was a declared aim of American policy.
No, keeping the Saudis in power is an American priority, and the support of such corrupt dictators is a major reason for Muslim animosity to the US. And it has backfired in other ways; the Saudi royals made a sort of devil’s bargain with the Wahhabist clerics, throwing tons of money at them, allowing them to export Salafist extremism worldwide. In return the clerics ignored the decadence of the royals. But not all their students did…
If you have no idea of what Muslims think worldwide why do you presume to opine?
It is no great mystery; there have been many polls. The vast majority- 80% or so- believe the US is hostile to Islam, though only a small minority supports bin Laden.
No, keeping the Saudis in power is an American priority, and the support of such corrupt dictators is a major reason for Muslim animosity to the US.
The House of Saud has controlled the Nejd since the early 19th century and the Hijaz and ‘Asir since 1924. To what extent their continuation in power is dependent upon the sort of diplomatic and trade relations they have with the United States I would not hazard a guess. The country has had an abnormally large guest worker population (mostly South Asians and Arabs from outside the Arabian peninsula) and it export mix is a monoculture, but its engagement with the world is not otherwise abnormal. (And neither of its extant peculiarities are an artifact of American policy).
Authoritarian government in the Near East and North Africa is the default mode. Altering that in any particular locale would require a considerable effort on the part of our diplomatic corps, military, and espionage services. Current efforts toward that end in Iraq are not proving notably successful and the domestic effort to institute constitutional government in Algeria in 1988-91 proved an abject failure. Experimentation with more salutary results has been going on in the Gulf in recent years, but for the most part it is doubtful there is a part of the world where there is less of a social or culural basis for non-despotic government than the Near East and North Africa. The intelligentsia of the Arab world may fancy the source of the problem is in Washington, but that is a rather idle exercise on their part.
On a personal note, I must say your complaint in this regard adds to the difficulty an attentive reader may have in attempting to divine the underlying principles of the statements you have made on American policy in the region. If the Foreign Service, the military, the intelligence agencies and the politicians to whom they report adopt a policy of laissez-faire toward the political life of various Arab countries, that is to be condemned (“supporting corrupt dictators”, &c.). If they knock-off one of these governments and attempt to induce the adoption of the constitution of liberty (‘intervention’, ‘nation-building’, ‘hubris’, blah blah), that is to be condemned as well. Evidently, it ought to be the job of the U.S. Ambassador to strike rude and ineffectual poses. Which is to say that in their work they should emulate one of your hobbies.
If you have no idea of what Muslims think worldwide why do you presume to opine?
Opine about what?
That aside, contriving a valid measure of public opinion given that the ‘public’ in question is scattered over several dozen bodies politic would seem a daunting task, quite apart from the limitations that polls have as indicators of dispositions (much less as indicators of likely actions). Also, I have not the slightest interest in the fancies of foreign publics except in so far as they cause practical problems for my own government and society.
As we have reached the “what the hell is he talking about”, throwing my hands up into the air point of conversation, I am signing off…
See ya.
One can summarize most of our exchanges as follows:
1. D. N. asserts the United States or Israel is blameworthy becuase some foreign population maintains a subjective sense that it is aggrieved.
2. Yours truly offers reasons why this grievance is not valid.
3. D.N. gets mad.
Wrong on all counts.
Actually it is more like this:
1.DN asserts something implying American or Israeli responsibility for something or other, or that there is some validity to the claims of the aggrieved.
2.AD challenges this assertion.
3.DN offers documentation.
4.AD ignores this and moves on to the next dense response.
5.This continues until Daniel grows weary and frustrated and calls it a day.
Contrary to your claim, I do not get angry in these exchanges. It is just that I am Celtic in temperment, more suited to a skirmish than a siege. These long drawn out arguments with you feel like being relentlessly attacked by ducks. No blow draws blood, but it does get tiresome.
Where was the documentation in this exchange?
I wasn’t thinking so much about this particular conversation, if you can call it that, but about some of our past disputes. But neither documentation nor argumentation seem to faze you much.
Not that there have not been some classic moments…
My favorite probably was when you retorted “Says who?” to something I said.
Nothing like a thoughtful response.
Or the time you prefaced your remarks with “I don’t know anything about this, but…” and proceeded to offer your admittedly ignorant opinion.
Quack quack quack.
As I said to Daniel by email the other day, I’ve stayed out of this because I don’t completely agree with either of you. But I’ll observe that once the debate becomes about the debate it’s pretty much over.
If you are not now Byzantine Orthodox, what are you?
I mean Byzantine Catholic
I still consider myself Byzantine, but we no longer attend that parish regularly. Long story, but there was a lot of infighting and backbiting, nothing doctrinal or substantial, mostly the big Italian/Polish personality of the pastor bugged people. And as he is fiery, he offended overly-sensitive people regulary. There was even a lawsuit by a lawyer in the parish, accusing him of financial mismanagement (falsely, as it turned out in court). It ended with the pastor resigning.
The bishop handled it like most Latin bishops would, ie, he turned out to be testically challenged, tried to please everyone, and just made both sides of the controversy ticked off.
The dilemma about whether to continue to attend a parish with so much drama, and one that had wounded our priest, whom we love, was resolved when the bishop appointed the pastor of a nearby parish to take on St Nicholas as well. He decided that an 8am Sunday liturgy was the solution. As we are a half hour drive away, and as we have small children, it was a no-brainer.
So we are adrift, going sometimes to the Melkites, sometimes to the Ukainaians, sometimes to the Romanians, and sometimes traveling to the Cleveland area to other Ruthenian and Ukrainian parishes…
Not a good permanent situation, but okay for now.
Maclin, that you disagree with both DN and AD is about the best reason why I would want to hear from you, alas. Alas too that I seldom see a constructive debate involving AD (sorry Art).
Left in a liturgical lurch
He drives past the Roman Rite Church
No rite does he find
Going out of his mind
Not a Rite, but a byzantine search
Daniel, I hope that’s taken in the good fun it was meant. If I went too far, than please accept my apology and expunge it from the blog. And I know you’re not “going out of your mind” but the meter was irresistable.
These are various “Rites” you are visting, all in union with Rome, right? I have some good hunches why you go to such lengths, but perhaps you could clarify.
…go to such lengths to avoid RC, that is.
Thanks, but I have too many other fish to fry these days.
Good limerick. We just got a new bishop here. Don’t know anything much about him but I’m worried about what might happen to the liturgy at the cathedral.
No offense taken; sorry it hasn’t been more apparent that I do have a sense of humor.
The short answer to your question is that it is a matter of love, sort of like why I drive past so many women every night after work, to come home to my true love.
A longer answer must be preceeded with a question: how familiar are you with Byzantine worship?
But no, these are not various rites; they all use the Divine Liturgy of St John Chryststom, or on some days the similar but longer Liturgy of St Basil the Great. Hence they are all what we call “Byzantine”, though the feel of each church is very different. The Arabic tones in the Melkite Church are very different from the Slavic tones of the Ukrainian Church, for example.
Other rites than the Byzantine include the Maronite, the Armenian, the Coptic, and so on through the seventeen or so others. Each has a distinct liturgical tradition, and each has a distinct spirituality. I am in love with the Byzantine church, especially in its Slavic incarnations.
And yes, the churches I have been attending are all in union with Rome.
Though I am planning on attending an Orthodox church I stumbled across on my way back from an appointment at the Cleveland Clinic last week. (Thank God, everything looks good, healthwise).
Actually, to ease the worry of the appointment I had planned lunch at a Jamaican restaurant I found online, which was no longer in existence, not the first time I have found online information dated. And I had planned a leisurely afternoon exploring a neighborhood in SW Cleveland we had seen from the freeway, where there were, it seemed, dozens of domed churches.
Sure enough, an Orthodox church about every block or two. But the neighborhood was pretty run down, and the churches all locked up. And from the looks of it not too promising; late 19th and early 20th century, worn looking, and most probably with the Italianate, westernized icons common to the era. If you ever saw The Deer Hunter the church sequence was filmed in that neighborhood…
Plus there was a hard cold wind blowing, and a cold wind always feels worse in the city.
So I headed home, hungry and tired. I took the Parma route, got lost trying to find the Ruthenian cathedral, which was locked up too, though I did peer into the windows of St Vladimir Orthodox Cathedral, which was really beautiful.
Taking the back roads home, I was astounded by how many Orthodox churches I passed, all looking abandoned.
South of Parma, near Seven Hills, I saw a particularly stunning newer looking church, with numerous onion domes. For some reason I turned around and went back. There was a lone car in the parking lot, and I tried the door, which was unlocked. The sound of a vacuum struck my ears.
The entrance corridor was astonishing; fifty feet long or so, and covered in an iconographic mural of the Apocolypse.
Entering the church proper was practically a mystical experience in itself, exquisite icons everywhere from floor to ceiling. I was so astounded I didn’t notice at the time whether there were pews or not, though in retrospect I think not.
At home I researched the church (OCA) and learned that the iconography was done by Fr Theodore Jarowicz, who is a priest at the Old Believer church in Erie. He, it turns out, is Polish American and converted to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholic in his teens, in the 70s.
Later, looking at the new web page of a local Orthodox church I had visited, and whose icons I love, I realized that this is the same priest who painted their iconostasis, which is astonishingly beautiful.
Anyway, the church I visited is Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, and I simply must witness worship in such a place. It is one of the most beautiful churches I have ever seen.
However, I really have to wait until after Orthodox Pascha; they are still in Lent and while God is outside of time, I am not, and it would be jarring to regress to Lent at this point.
The website for the parish is : http://www.holy-trin.org
Click on the thing for the icons, but believe me, while what you see will show you the quality of the iconography, the poor resolution dims the impact, and gives no notion of the actual scale of the murals. It is really breathtaking.
Daniel,
That was the best thing I’ve read on the web in days and worthy of its own post. Thanks very much.
Christopher, yes I concur. Thank you Daniel.
Yes, that is very good. It is worth a post. Or maybe wait till you’ve been back, and make this the first part of a post about it.
It’s odd, how a cold wind does feel worse in the city.
It was like a dream. A good dream. Like the ones where one goes back to one’s childhood home.
What was? The pictures of the church? Daniel’s post?
Daniel’s post.
Correction: the iconographer’s name is Fr Theodore Jurowicz, not Jarowicz…
Daniel:
I know this thread has gone a bit stale but to return to the original topic: I think I can more readily understand how you might remain in a Catholic parish where you might have had personal/political disagreements with the pastor than I can Senator Obama’s decision to remain in Pastor Wright’s church. Here’s why, as Catholics the point of our worship in not so much a cult of the pastor’s personality it’s about the eucharist which depends only upon the priestly office not what he thinks about current events. That’s not so much the case among protestants. From the outside looking in, I discern that the personality and beliefs of the pastor are very much part and parcel of their worship and belief. So I’m not sure it’s an apples to apples kind of comparison.
But in most parts of the country there are many Catholic parishes from which to choose, and individual parishes are just as touched by the pastor’s personality and theological outlook as in any Protestant body. At the same time, any church body is also bigger than the pastor.
One does not get a fair indication of the nature of Mr Obama’s church from a few video clips of the pastor cutting loose; by all accounts it is a lively congregation, offering many services to its members and the wider community. And while it is part of the most liberal mainstream denomination, from interviews with the current pastor, it is also very evangelical in outlook, pretty atypical for a UCC congregation. It is clear that Jesus Christ is not just some vague symbol there, but a living presence.
None of this is an endorsement of everything the Rev Wright said in those clips, nor is it an endorsement of Sen Obama. Just a defense of his loyalty to a flawed pastor.
Good point Christopher. Priests come and go and it would take more than one seriously bad experience before I’d consider leaving the parish I love. Daniel’s point still stands of course, though I think “loyalty” may not be the most accurate description. Youtube is showing us the Rev at some of his worst moments as pastor, and there have been many good moments too that we do not know about.
Their personal friendship is not so much a cause for concern as is his decision to retain him in the pastoral role. I’m long past the point where I can casually discard an otherwise serviceable friendship because of some point of heterodoxy. Usually in that situation both parties know where disagreement lies and, for the sake of the friendship, tread lightly upon that ground. From what I have heard of the Reverend Wright there is more to him than can be summed up in a YouTube clip. But I don’t much care what affect this has upon Senator Obama’s political fortunes and so haven’t actually bothered about it much. As I pointed out to Daniel, I think the person of the pastor means something very different to Catholics than it does to protestants. In my own experience, I’d be hard pressed to state with certainty the political views of many priests so bland and inoffensive are their homilies. I can’t recall ever having known a Catholic going out of his way to hear any particular priest preach. There are, I suppose, a few ‘celebrity’ type priests that might draw a crowd to their liturgy but I’m hard pressed to name five living souls. It seems to me that Catholics shift parishes these days for vaguely aesthetic reasons: too much hand clapping, too little hand holding, liberal use of the accordian, insufficient bass amplification, garish vestaments, incense allergies, too many statues, not enough statues, failing to heed the spirit of SVC, overzealously heeding the spirit of SVC, and what not. I can count on one hand the number of overtly political statements I have heard from the pulpit.
Same here, and you are right on the general blandness of Catholic homiletics. But my point was that I did indeed hear a rather loathsome political homily, and confronted the priest about it, but it did not dim my regard and affection for my pastor. I’ve learned to overlook my friend’s blind spots over the years. Given my general outlook, which is seen as eclectic or worse even by most Catholics, I would otherwise have very few friends…
But my point was that I did indeed hear a rather loathsome political homily, and confronted the priest about it, but it did not dim my regard and affection for my pastor.
This is, I think, quite natural for Catholics because our doctrine is identifiable quite apart from the person of our priests thus there is no assent to that belief by your mere presence. He who attends Pastor Wright’s church is, of necessity, there to hear Pastor Wright who is, after all, their employee. The implication is that one who prays with the Reverend Wright believes as the Reverend Wright does. There is, as it were, no appeal to another authority such as a bishop or cathechism. I’d guess that Senator Obama was simply one of Reverend Wright’s more heterodox sheep but one might fairly conclude otherwise.
Given my general outlook, which is seen as eclectic or worse even by most Catholics, I would otherwise have very few friends…
I know what you mean…
I would have no friends. Even more, as I mentioned too on LoDW some time ago, those people whom I admire most for their piety/sanctity/orthodoxy are generally not those whom I prefer to spend time with. Not that my close friends are all louts, mind you.
Christopher, an exception to your rule: I often went out of my way to hear a marianist at U Dayton preach. No celebrity, Fr. James Heft nonetheless gave sermons that were at once scholarly, humorous and challenging. Sadly, he has moved to CA. Liturgies are always reverent at the Immaculate Conception Chapel on campus, which blended old and new architecture to my liking.
Dave,
In point of fact my own piety/sanctity/orthodoxy is not all that admirable. I once wrote that if the church is a hospital for the sin sick souls I’m the one in the iron lung with a Pall Mall in my lips. The most I can say for myself is that at least I’m not kidding myself about right and wrong. But even that is probably not quite true. I think I read a Stanley Hauerwas essay where he said he was endeavoring not to write anything that was untrue. Don’t think I could pull that off.
This awareness of my own sinfulness grows with me every year. It also strikes me as a tough thing to sell to those not quite whole heartedly committed to Christianity “Come join us and get an ever more keen awareness of just how vile you are!” I know that isn’t an accurate characterization, but it must appear that way. My own experience so far is not so much of being more and more guilt-ridden, but rather becoming more and more humble. Do you think that’s common?
Dave,
Who can tell? I find myself at turns acknowledging my culpability, then rationalizing it, then suppressing the thought of it. Sometimes I think I’m just a sinner with better P.R. in the manner of the good thief and hoping that will be enough. Not sure that that counts as humility, though. My pattern is not much changed in many years. I avoid sins that I find not at all tempting with saint-like rectitude. As to all the other temptations: ah, well…
I know that pattern well too.
A late comment on Rev. Wright: whatever the merits or lack thereof in his views, he may very well have sunk Obama. Instead of being the moment when race was transcended, Obama’s candidacy has now been dragged down into the maelstrom of racial resentments where everyone’s least word is scrutinized suspiciously. What a shame.
I was thinking the same thing; at first it seemed that Mr Obama might bring the nation to some sort of breakthrough. Instead we are at an impasse. Or worse.
The right wing talk show hosts who relentlessly broadcast the same 12 second sound bites (from 20 years of ministry) of the Rev Wright at his most incendiary only stoked the fires of racial misunderstanding. Did he say some outrageous things? Of course, why is it so hard for white people to grasp the degree of alienation and suspicion that black people feel?
I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in some of Mr Obama’s remarks distancing himself from Rev Wright. While I grant that Wright gets a bit carried away, he is right about certain unpleasant truths: Yes, America did pursue biochemical weaponry. Yes, America did target civilians. And this is not ancient history: in my lifetime the US killed some 3 million Vietnamese, and only a small percentage of these were combatants.
That Obama declared that the acts of America at war were not morally equivalent to terrorism demonstrates that no one can be elected to higher office in this nation who applies the same moral principles to the USA that we apply to others.
Ron Paul is the only politician who has done this; he often applied the gospel rule- actually a pretty universal human rule of some variation of “how would you like it?”- and look where it got him.
As Eliot said, we cannot bear much truth.
I don’t know what is going on between the Rev Wright and Senator Obama; it is no doubt complex and deeply personal, but it is a tragedy,only the latest in a long series of American racial tragedies.
Especially as Mrs Clinton is chortling in delight.
Sheesh.
Daniel,
Fair enough, but Wright did make the insinuation that the US government created HIV/AIDS to eradicate the black population from the pulpit. This, I think, is beyond the pale.
Daniel,
Not to be pedantic but something else you wrote is stuck in my craw. With the possible exception of Hiroshima, the US military is not in the practice or habit of targeting civilians. In point of fact, our troops take on considerable risk to spare civilians that might be caught in the crossfire. Particularly in our most recent conflict. While I don’t deny that civilians are occasionally caught in the crossfire, it is never the design of our troops to draw them into danger. The same cannot be said of our adversary of the moment.
Daniel,
None of the above is intended to argumentative. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m playing ‘gotcha’ in the comboxes. I meant as a mild dissent. In general, I think we a fairly like-minded…
Christopher,
Hey, you really don’t have to apologize for disagreeing with me; that’s what the discussion is for. It would be pretty boring if all we said here was “yes, you are so right”>
As for civilian deaths in American wars, during WWII we targeted cities even before the development of the atomic bomb. And while we say that we don’t target civilians, in fact civilian deaths in modern warfare always outnumber combatant deaths. Estimates vary in Iraq, with the low end in the tens of thousands, the high end in the hundreds of thousands. And certainly civilians are targeted when we take out the infrastructure in bombing campaigns, as we have done, and when we impose sanctions, which we did in Iraq for the years between the wars (again, estimates vary, but at least tens, if not hundreds, of children perished as a result of this).
As for Rev Wright’s allegations, bear in mind that the US has developed biological weapons, has experimented on its own citizens in the past, and he is speaking as someone who suspects the worst of the government, which he sees as hostile to his people. If you do the research, you will see that there is evidence of the military working on immune-system attacking viruses for use as weaponry. I’m not saying I agree with his allegations, only they aren’t as wild as some would have you think.
And I was disappointed that Mr Obama saw fit to denounce the idea of the moral equivalence of war on civilians with terror. Only Dr Paul applies the same moral demands on the US that it applies to others.
Daniel,
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. Electronic communication can sometimes be easily misunderstood thus I am ever wary of being perceived as a tiresome troll.
I might add that Dresden is another possible example of targeting civilians. At the moment I can’t remember what was to be achieved with that. In fairness though, we did rain down destruction on the heads of our own prisoners during that raid as Mr. Vonnegut so memorably recorded.
I don’t think there is much doubt that war is always hardest on the non-combatants immediately proximate to it. That makes Augustinian formulations on proportionality a bit troublesome.
For my part, I’ve taken the plunge and embraced pacifism — at least intellectually (heart and hands perhaps not so much). Just War theory seems increasingly absurd to me not least because so much of it is predicated upon a notion of justice of which there is very little encouragement that we should expect this side of heaven.
At best,and this is how I conclude that magisterial error has been avoided, Just War theory is a speculative exercise for theologians. I am skeptical that any actual human conflict has met — or could meet — its requirements.
It is very odd to arrive at this point but here I am: a veteran and a defense worker turned pacifist, not because I doubt the efficacy of violence or our cause per se, but simply because I find no support for the idea in Christ’s message.
That sounds very high-minded and pious which, I assuredly am not.
Yes, I saw a bumpersticker yesterday that said “When Jesus said to love your enemies he probably meant don’t kill them”.
I would disagree on any war ever being just, though. Modern weaponry makes the notion obsolete, but when my Celtic ancestors defended themselves from my Viking ancestors that would seem entirely just.
Daniel,
re: bumper sticker LOL.
re: Vikings v. Celts – realize I may be heterodox here but maintain legalistic suppositions required by JWT have probably never been fully met.
That said, I am hardly one to go round stuffing daisies into gun barrels. I’m an ardent admirer of William Tecumseh Sherman and U.S. Grant (the general not the president). I root passionately for the success of our armed forces on the battlefield (none of this ‘Support the Troops, Bring Them Home’ nonsense for me).
My grandfather fought at Guadalcanal. My best friend has fought two tours in Iraq (and is looking forward to his next deployment). I personally find Iraq no more objectionable than WWII. I love, and perhaps cling to, guns yet recognize that their most obvious purpose is immoral. A more saintly man would find all this horrifying. I suspect your Viking and Celt ancestors would find me most strange.
But, as I wrote, there is really no getting around the obvious, though Augustine gave it the old college try.
I hesitate to say this, because I’m not going to want to take the trouble to defend it at length, but I finally took the time to read the transcript of Rev. Wright at the National Press Club, and on the basis of that I don’t think he’s being done too much of an injustice. Sure, some of what he says is true, but much of it is deplorable. Even if you grant that there is reason for black people to be paranoid about the government, there’s no excuse for spreading and supporting the belief that AIDS is a government-run program of African-American genocide. Not unless you have some real proof. Without that, it’s fire-in-a-crowded-theater stuff, a deliberate inflaming of racial hostility.
And he leads off with “this is an attack on the black church.” That’s just silly. I’ve heard some of the most inspiring preaching I’ve ever heard or hope to hear from black preachers on the radio (alas, that I have no recordings). But I think he’s just a blowhard hollering racism to silence his critics.
Although it’s true that the saturation broadcast of those few minutes of video has been kind of an extended cheap shot, I think he actually looks worse as you look closer, because you see that those were not particularly aberrations with regard to his basic thinking.
I read that 27% of African Americans believe the government is behind AIDS, and another 26% are undecideed on the matter. That a majority of black Americans believe that this is possible reveals a deep alienation that white folks should note…
Yes, that’s true–alienation and paranoia, and it does have to be taken into account, but that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. All the more reason not to fan the flames.
It’s true, the Tuskegee study was a crime, but it was not even remotely close to the deliberate infection of a whole population with a deadly disease. It didn’t, as is often stated, involve infecting people with syphilis, but rather not treating people who already had it, and one of the doctors running it was an African-American.
That one of the doctors involved was African American is irrelevant; reportedly the most brutal guards at the Nazi death camps were the Jewish trustees. It is ever thus.
In fact our government has conducted experiments with the most hideous of biological weapons, including those which target the immune system and those which target particular racial groups.
If the Rev Wright said, as I have read, that he can’t put anything past this wicked government, I concur.
Though of course not all African American churches would agree with the Rev Wright’s take on things -very many of them are classically pietistic, and I do not mean that in a disparaging way- there is an African American religious context in which his “rants” are not so out of the ordinary, or outrageous.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant, since the whole point of the Tuskegee example in this context is that it was a white conspiracy against blacks. This doc was not a “trustee,” but the head of the hospital at Tuskegee. And besides, like I said, that study had nothing to do either conceptually or practically with biological warfare.
This is pretty discouraging. You’re basically saying that there is no hope of racial harmony in this country, since there is literally nothing anyone can say or do to dispel this level of paranoia. There’s always room to believe in the secret plot. I don’t believe that the FBI raid on Waco was phase 1 of a plan to exterminate the Christian population, but there are no doubt people who do, and with even more justification than Tuskegee gives to Wright’s accusations.
Every government that ever has been or ever will be is capable of war crimes, including ours. I certainly wouldn’t dispute that. But the AIDS conspiracy theory is another kind of thing altogether. I don’t believe you can show me an example of the U.S. government releasing a disease into the U.S. civilian population for the purpose of killing off a segment of it.
What I am saying is that there is no hope until white people understand the level of distrust among blacks and acknowledge that there is good reason for it.
And acknowledge much else about our history that Americans as a people are in denial about. Much of what got the Rev Wright into trouble simply confronted America with some of these forbidden truths. That targeting civilians in warfare is morally equivalent to terrorism, for example, or that America is in fact controlled by rich white people.
No, I can’t cite an example of the government releasing a disease into the civilian population, but they do in fact do research on biological weapons, don’t they? And they have sold such weapons to other countries, which have used them, haven’t they? And some of our ancestors deliberately traded smallpox-carrying blankets to native tribes, didn’t they?
I’m just saying, that if a black person considers all that, and suspects the government of plotting against his people it is not so irrational a suspicion.
I grant that hardcore racism is not anything like it was even in my lifetime, but racism continues. In the news lately there have been stories of an appallingly high number of falsely convicted black men in Texas, 40% , perhaps, of the total, revealed by DNA testing. To cite only one example…
Understand that it’s there, yes; understand that the position of black people in our society historical encourages paranoia, yes; admit that it’s reasonable, no. It’s still paranoia, in the sense of an unreasonable fear. “It’s reasonable” grants that it’s plausible that the U.S. government has inaugurated a program of genocide against African-Americans. I don’t think it is, and the bad thing about circulating such a charge without proof is that there’s no way to disprove it. It would be different if there were some evidence for it.
It seems to me that you’re collapsing a whole lot of distinctions–for instance, the difference between a government’s own people and its enemies in time of war, between developing weapons and deploying them against your own people, between the existence of racism and the planning of genocide, etc.
And treating the U.S. government and/or “rich white people” as a single-minded unit across two hundred-plus years. I think the smallpox and blankets thing, for instance, was a specific incident in the French and Indian war, directed against an enemy. A crime, but, to use Waco again, not as immediate a reason for black paranoia as Waco is for white Christian paranoia.
This is like white people assuming that black-vs-white crime is a deliberate strategy with the long-term goal of getting rid of the whites. There’s been a long series of robberies in this area committed by black men against institutions such as banks–white-controlled, almost certainly. You can imagine KKK types saying “Coincidence?!? I think not!” Same logic–assume the absolute worst intentions. Not something anybody ought to encourage on either side.
Daniel,
I’m not so sure that Americans are necessarily in denial about anything per se regarding Reverend Wright. Wright’s ‘God Damn, America’ sermon, coming as it did, hard on the heels of 9/11 simply rubs many folks, myself included, the wrong way. One need not don the rose-colored spectacles to see that juxtaposition as ill-timed. One does not attend the funeral of a junkie and inveigh against the mother for poor child rearing however true it might be.
Unfortunately, Wright cannot claim truth as a defense for his every utterance. But I think I agree that the devotion to Wright’s brand of paranoia is easily understandable in terms of a sad history of maltreatment for blacks in our nation. That said, would you not agree that current American foreign policy is certainly as easily understood and grant it the same sympathy?
No.
Daniel,
Okay, but why not? American fears of jihadist Islam are certainly understandable. Why then isn’t a sympathetic understanding of our post 9/11 actions possible (i.e. that of a scared people who are not irrationally scared but perhaps mistaken in their actions)? Anticipating your response a bit, there is certainly a long a complicated history to the Islamist grievance against America. But in everyday American life there is, or at least used to be, very little conscious thought given to Islam and its most troublesome adherents. 9/11, in a sense, was the first most people had heard of it.
As always, I ask not to be Puckish but to get a better idea of the thing. In this case I ask because I observe that you have a great deal of empathy for the other that is displayed in your writing. I find that admirable. On the other hand, you seem to have a hard time granting the same empathy folks closer to home. I do not say you have no empathy for them only that it is less evident in your writing as if the bitter caricature presented by Reverend Wright is the only true portrait of America.
You didn’t ask about American fear of jihad; you asked about American foreign policy.
Iraq, of course, had nothing to do with Islamic militancy until we invaded. Yet fear of terrorism was used by the neoconservatives to whip up support for their war, which has always been about a bigger neocon goal: American hegemony. I can sympathize with the fearful to some degree, but not at all with those who manipulate fear.
Great discussion here. Good job fellers.
Daniel,
I think fear of jihad is what defines our foreign policy but you demonstrate my point…
You do not appear to extend your sympathy and understanding to neoconservatives. Instead, you attribute to them a sinister design where one might just as easily conclude that something has scared the bejeebers out of these folks and we ought to try and understand what and why that is.
We’ve had this conversation before and it just struck how we both apply an empathy to certain groups. More, I am naturally inclined to deny that empathy (that you very charitably grant) to Pastor Wright but in formulating a rebuttal to you I recognized something inescapable. It’s the same thing worked the other way ’round.
Generally, I’m capable of viewing neoconservative types with some sympathy. Without necessarily condoning their policy prescriptions one can discern a not unreasonable reaction to the world as they find it. It’s harder for me to view the Reverend Wright’s of the world in the same way. Mostly because I don’t know what they know. Your disposition (grokking the Reverend Wright but seemingly not getting the neocon) seems to run just the opposite of mine.
Obviously, the term neocon isn’t quite right because chances are your neighbor who supports Bush or Iraq or whatever probably doesn’t think of himself in those terms.
I’m not sure I’m making this any more clear. I was up late last night. Very tired…
(And, thanks Dave, if you meant any of my gibberings…)
It’s true; I find it easier to sympathize with the outsider, the reviled, and the little guy than with the insider, the powerful, or the Big Shots. Always have, and at times naively. I would suggest that it is more of a gospel outlook, though. Dontcha think?
I am not sure if the neocons are really scared; I tend to think they know they exaggerate. Is this uncharitable? Yes and no. Yes, because I find it hard to see them as well-meaning but bumbling. No, because it grants them more intelligence than if they were really scared, which is charitable.
Bush, on the other hand, is terrified.
Speaking of neocons, I just finished reading a fascinating, in-depth history of the movement, They Knew They Were Right: the rise of the neocons, by Jacob Heilbrunn. He is critical, but does not demonize them. In conversations here the contention that the neocons were Trotskyites was crititicized, but according to Mr Heilbrunn, the fever swamps of leftist infighting in the old Jewish intellectual world was the birthing place of the movement. Not only Kristol and Podhoretz, but their mentors, guys like Max Shachtman, Melvin Lansky, and Eliot Cohen, were deeply involved in Marxist politics before turning right. The book argues that they maintained their global ideological habit of mind, which the author, a Jew himself, regards as a warped version of the Jewish prophetic tradition.
I suppose the next logical step here is to float the supposition that regardless of who or what one actually supports it is invariably believed to be the weaker than in any given dispute. Meaning, I think it is quite possible that our knee-jerk sympathies are naturally geared to those we perceived as being treated unfairly. Maybe because I live on one of the bigger lily pads in the liberal fever swamp and have become sensitized to the local tendency to be dismissive of the conservative (neo or otherwise) other I naturally think Bush or just a garden variety Bush voter isn’t getting a fair shake.
Oh heavens, I’m rambling. Not expressing self well. Must have sleep…
Not sure if you have my criticisms in mind, but just by way of clarification: I know many if not all of them were orginally leftists of one kind or another–that was kind of the whole story with the originals (Podhoretz). I only dispute the treatment of that as evidence that it was a conspiracy all along, and they’re probably all still Trotskyites (as some paleocons seem to think).
The same tactic could be used to discredit you or me–”oh they’re ex-hippies, that explains it all.” It’s not irrelevant, but it’s not dispositive, either. Sounds like Heilbrunn’s view is reasonable.
Actually I think there’s a tendency in almost everybody who came from the left which is “ideological” in a very loose sense, in that we are very susceptible to the idea that, as David Mamet put it recently, “everything is always wrong,” and sweeping revolutionary change is needed.
(“you” above = Daniel, not Christopher)
No, I never thought they were still Trotskyites, only that certain things clicked when I knew this about them, like the tendency to think ideologically in utopian terms, and the willingness to unleash hellishly destructive forces toward the paradisical goal…
Actually, the fact that C&T was written largely by ex-hippies explains a lot. Heck, Michelle and I even look like hippies these days. And the one picture of the editors has you with beard, fuzzy hair, granny glasses and Karen in tie dye….(I was relatively clean cut in those days).