It's odd that an atheist such as myself keeps coming back to theology and religion. I do think religion attempts to answer important questions. But, like all symbolic organizations, the problem is confusing symbol with substance. Much like politics. Much like the media. Which brings us to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
I listened to Wright's "hate" sermon that's been making the media rounds-- notably on Fox News. Since Sean Hannity dislikes him and thinks he's unamerican my first inclination is to think Wright must be on to something. After all, somebody disliked by Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh can't be all bad. I heard him compare the 9/11 deaths at the hands of terrorists to the nuclear bombings in Japan. The comparison between these two acts and the implications that both are acts of terror was obvious: "The stuff we have done overseas is brought right back into our homes."
And the controversy is... where?
There's a long standing controversy over the Japanese bombings. After all, when thousands of people disappear in and instant with nothing left but a sooty shadow on a wall it leaves a psychological mark. I'll not debate the necessity of the bombing-- that's been debated many different places. But it was an act of terror and planned that way. Truman said it. Eisenhower said it. The intent to use the bombs was to scare the Japanese government into surrender. They had to think we were ready to obliterate them. That it was bluff (we had only two bombs) was immaterial. So, yes: it was an act of terror. Like all acts of terror, it was a dramatic act. An act of theater. The Japanese government was the audience. The theatrical act was effective.
It's also no secret that we created Osama bin Laden in a similar manner to Saddam Hussein. Hussein was seen as a bulwark of anti-communism and as such supported for years. Little things like the fact he was a murdering dictator wasn't considered germane. Bin Laden's education as a terrorist came with our blessing in when he was a mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Russians. Since he was fighting our enemy (the enemy of our enemy is our friend sort of thing), he was our guy.
Again, where's the problem with Wright? Sure he's a fiery preacher and states things strongly. He's not saying anything that hasn't been said before.
Wright's problem-- or rather, the public's problem with Wright-- is that he's speaking truth to power. Not to politicians, necessarily, though they are in the audience of his church. But to the bland symbolic representation of ourselves we like to believe.
We like to think of ourselves as a democracy or a republic-- and our political system reflects dominance by a popular majority. However, the framers understood that in addition to tyranny by individuals there is also tyranny of the majority. Majority rule, minority rights, as the saying goes. They understood that humans are herd animals and do not like to be poked where they are most smug. We want to believe ourselves to be the best, brightest, most free and smiled upon by God.
Americans are particularly prone to being smug about themselves. We have it made. We live in the biggest economy in the world, the freest society and the most sophisticated culture in the world. That the economy is built on borrowing from other countries, not everyone is as free as some and many of the world's cultures are appalled at our ignorance isn't something we want to hear. We especially dislike being called hypocrites. We hate that.
It's a minister's job to poke his parishioners right in the eye. A minister is supposed to bear your problems to the sight of the congregation and God so they can be corrected. This is a founding tenet of liberation theology, the idea that it's not enough to set store in heaven. You have to take care of people here as well. Martin Luther King knew that. So did Ghandi. So did Jesus: "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." (Luke 18:22)
The job of the minister in this country, like many things, has become blandified. Hell and brimstone preachers are perfectly happy with those that are saved at the communion rail on Sunday regardless of how rich or powerful they are the rest of the week. Ministers to more affluent churches make homilies that give minimal insight but great comfort to people with more stuff than anybody else on earth. Priests are scandalized by social injustices that are happening thousands of miles away or are of minimal cultural importance. Wright speaks from a culture of those who were bought and sold a hundred and fifty years ago. Who had lost their names and country. Who had lost their original religion. Who are even now the most jailed group in the country. What a surprise he might poke at the prevailing white wisdom.
Is it safe to say such things? Not particularly. Is it politic to have them referred to in a presidential campaign? Not at all. Is everything going to be cut but the twenty or so seconds that most demonizes this impolitic minister so that any rational judgment of the man is impossible without any data but we'll do it anyway because we don't like what he has to say?
Absolutely.
---------------------------------
Links of Interest
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment