wright speaks the truth; obama apologizes for it

Christianity did not arise as a national or a class religion. As a dominant religion of rulers it must deny its origin in the crucified Christ and lose its identity. The crucified God is in fact a stateless and classless God. But it does not mean an unpolitical God. God is the God of the poor, the oppressed and the humiliated. The rule of the Christ who was crucified for political reasons can only be extended through liberation from forms of rule which make humanity servile and apathetic and the political religions which give them stability [i can't help but be reminded here of shariati's religion against religion. -LoA]. According to Paul, the perfection of the kingdom of freedom is to bring about the annihilation of all rule, authority and power, which are still unavoidable here, and at the same time to achieve the overcoming of apathy and alienation. Christians will seek to anticipate the future of Christ according to the measure of the possibilities available to them, by breaking down lordship and building up the political liveliness of each person.

Jurgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (1972)



Jon deMartin, "Faith in the Wilderness" (2006)


i have to admit that to me, a white man from rural north carolina, the words of rev. wright were beautiful. they brought back memories of many of the sermons i heard as a child and young adult, often, or even especially around the 4th of july or an election. the theme that was often pounded home from the pulpit of my home church was "heal our land". the clear implication, often made quite explicit, was that the country was sick and subject to divine judgment.

so my question has been from the beginning, what did rev. wright say that was wrong?

on this good friday, one should remember that jesus was executed as a political threat and blasphemer. he was not sentenced and killed for being nice and loving everyone. mr. rogers and barney the dinosaur are disgustingly sweet; no one suggested they be tried for treason. so the idea that sunday morning sermons should be inoffensive and make everybody feel better about themselves seems obviously absurd...even if for the most part this absurdity has become the reality in many churches. the words of pastor wright, the 30 seconds of sermon that we get to hear online, are apparently too much for fragile american ears, even though they are some of the most christian statements i have heard in a long time. they are the words of a christianity which refuses to be shackled to a state, refuses to be the handmaid of an alien power, refuses to lie in order to placate the powers and thrones that rule the american nation. america is not the kingdom of god and has been all too often blind to its own history of injustice and murder. the fact that rev. wright's words were so controversial -- pointing out the racism that still functions so powerfully in american life; reminding americans, as we try to limit nuclear weapons, that we alone have used them; reminding americans, as we fight against terrorism, that we have waged and are waging war with little concern for the lives of others; that america is not god -- is simply more evidence that america has made an idol of itself and that the nation has supplanted god in the minds and hearts of the american people.

obama has distanced himself from the "inflammatory" words of pastor wright. there are pragmatic reasons for this. perhaps it is the case that a christian cannot say the truth and be elected president. but the fact that obama denounced the truth reveals that he is nothing new on the political scene, and the fact that america needed him to denounce the words of his pastor in order to have a chance of being president suggests that america wants many things, but it does not want change. america does not wish to hear of its illness, but wants a president that will continue to lead it -- with the imperial band playing its march -- triumphantly into the glorious future that belongs to it by right, by nature. because america is the greatest nation in the world.

and it proves once again that prophets are not welcome in their own country.

-LoA



Evan Wilson, "Down to the Water" (2006)


"Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Woe to you who are full, for you will be hungry.
Woe to you who are laughing, for you will mourn and weep.
...
Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye', when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye."
Luke 6:24-25,41-42 (c.75 AD)

islamocommunism?

Odd Nerdrum, "One Blind Singer and Two Dancers" (2001)

What's next? I will grant that the comparison between the ideology of the revolutionary movements present in the Middle East to post-WW2 Communism is an improvement. It is at least a better comparison than the poor comparison to fascism. At least Communism was transnational in its own self-description. And certainly, Mao and Stalin destroyed their countries in the mid-twentieth century, murdering freely, imprisoning arbitrarily and generally using fear and power to extend their rule. Their programs of national reform destroyed the heritage of their people. And Mao and Stalin had just about as much in common with Marx as the Taliban (for instance) does with most practitioners of Islam: each tyrant twisting the words of a prophet to justify the deaths of any and all who disagree with them.

But the fact that one day the Islamic terrorists can be fascists and the next day they are communists, one day the Nazis, the next day its a Red Islam (not that Shariati minds), makes clear the extent to which the rhetoric is just that: rhetoric. Bush and company are no closer to understanding who and what they are fighting against today, than they were the day before or will be tomorrow. As with all good Islamophobia, the rhetoric is not meant to identify the enemy so much as rally public opinion into a cohesive and deadly force. Bush and company are grasping at straws, desparately comparing their enemy to enemies of old in an effort to contain them, comprehend them and make the American people understand why Islam is such a threat to America (not the "good Muslims" of course. *wink, wink*). Its a major victory if government policy makers can tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone the differences between an Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And finally, one must ask, will we allow our country, our governments to kill in the name of its own idols? Has the fanaticism of Bush been less deadly? The Goddess of Democracy has been the justification for the destruction of Iraq, and many within our government would to build a new Temple to her in Iran as well. Her hands are red with blood and her priests are calling out for more victims.


-LoA

problems with language; or, the war against ideas, part 2

Evelyn DeMorgan, "The Field of the Slain" (1916)

One wonders how much of the foreign policy failure of the United States in the Middle East is itself a failure of language. Do the Americans even understand what it is they are working for? The Crusade-for-Democracy has been and will continue to be a dismal failure because democracy is not really what America and the Europeans want to see in the middle east, even though they do not seem to realize it. Democracy, where it has been achieved has been an embarassment, and a wave of middle eastern democratization would only increase the problem. Palestine, in free elections, elected Hamas; elections in Lebanon have seen the increased political influence of Hizbillah; the broadening of elections in Egypt (Masr) demonstrated the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood, while extending elections in Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Pakistan would weaken if not topple those who would be allies and partners of liberal governments.

Democracy is not the solution and is often a problem. It was a form of government spurned up until very recently because of how dangerous it was to hand over power to the mob. Democracy is always, taken on its own, mob rule. The failure, then, is the inability of the United States, among others, to recognize and articulate that it does not want democratization but liberalization in the Middle East: something that is not tied, initially in any case, to a particular form of choosing one's rulers. Monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, etc. are all capable of being liberal, and it was only the liberal revolutions in France in and the United States that made democracy something more than the tyranny of the mob (and that only after a great deal of bloodshed at the hand of the mob in France). Liberalism, a word that Bush is seemingly incapable of speaking, is the commitment to the universal rule of law, the tradition of human and civil rights, a belief in universal human dignity, negative freedom (i.e., freedom from constraint) and the abstract equity of all before the law. These are the things that protect the socially vulnerable from the violence of tyrants, even when that tyrant is the demos (the mob/the people) itself.

Perhaps this failure is rooted in the American political situation. There has never been a flourishing right or left in the United States. Neither fascism nor Marxism were ever very successful on American soil, and so the term liberalism lost its distinguishing character relative to those other two movements against which it was so starkly defined on the European continent in the middle 20th century. And now 'liberal' is a curse in the mouth of social and economic conservatives, even though neither side, ironically enough, realizes that they are both liberal.

But whatever the case, the goal of the United States ought to be the broadening of liberal reforms in those countries with whom it is friendly in the middle east: the least and last of which would be "democratic" elections. High on the list must be freedom of speech and its relative, freedom of the press (something which is itself under increasing pressure in the United States): the ability of the government and thus also the public to tolerate speech with which it does not agree; the ability to show that violence is not the only way to handle disagreement. This would allow political parties to organize, to form their own voice and to learn how to operate in the public square. The places where we ought to be pushing for liberalization are Saudi Arabia (slowly), Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt (where the United States has exhibited failure on a massive scale in recent days) and encourage its further extension in Lebanon (which is at a critical moment), Qatar, and the UAE (especially Dubai), and Bahrain.

Instead, current American policy is alienating those whom it has the greatest ability to actually reach, and disrupting and further degrading the lives of those over whom it has the least influence. Democracy, without liberalization, is tyranny, and America is helping to bring that new tyranny to the Middle East at gun point.

-LoA