Gods, Myths, Religion, Philosophers - and Projected 'Self-Energy Centers'
People think that yesterday's God's and myths are dead - a product of 'primitive' man who simply didn't 'know' any better. We all know myths are - well, false. Or are they? Epistemologically they may or may not be false. They probably are. But the same can be said about today's Gods and religions as well. Are we so arrogantly bold as to believe that our own God(s) and religion(s) has any more epistemological claim to 'truth' than ancient Greek mythology? If we think we do - we shouldn't. They are both the product of the same creative psyche - projecting a combination of symbolism and need into the outside world...and into 'heaven'.
We need to be accountable for our own projections - they are products of our own psyche, our own active, creative imaginations, usually built from some percentage, some proportion, of experiential truth and fictional fantasy. A projection is usually either a 'stereotype' and/or an 'archetype'. Stereotypes we lay on our friends, families, lovers, and enemies. Again, they usually contain a combination of truth and fiction.
Archetypes we lay on our 'Gods' - and in DGB Philosophy, also our 'great philosophers from the past'. They too, usually contain a combination of truth and fiction. Epistemologically, they usually contain mainly or totally - fictions. However, psychically, they contain 'truths' and these truths may be viewed as a combination of projected 'energy centers' and 'ego functions'. If we re-introject (swallow whole) the projective imagery that we originally spat out at the world in the form of Gods, myths, and religious symbolism - then we give ourselves the opportunity of 'taking back' our 'energy centers' and 'ego-functions' that we may have lost in our projections, suppressions, repressions, and/or denials. In effect, our Gods are us. We simply have to take re-ownership of them.
We can do this if we look at our Gods differently - specifically, as energy centers, ego-functions, and areas of self-empowerment that we gave up to the world in the form of our projections - our Gods, myths, religion - combined with a willingness to go back to an earlier state of being, both in childhood and in more primitive states of being in a relationship and in society - an authoritarian society where we 'hang onto' a portion of our ego - or an 'ego-state' - that is still willing to play the role of the 'submissive servant or slave': 'You're right, I'm wrong'; you're good, I'm bad; you're perfect, I'm imperfect; you're the master, I'm the slave. This is the 'dialectic dance' of the 'master/slave' relationship. It is still played out in business every day we go to work. It is still played out in many marriages and relationships, in most schools, in many doctor-patient relationships, in most expert-layperson relationships, professional-nonprofessional relationships, academic-nonacademic relationship, rock star or professional athlete/groupie relationship...and in most Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques...
More than anything perhaps, we have a tendency to project the 'master/slave' relationship into our relationship with God...or vicariously into our relationship with our priest, pastor, minister, favorite evangelist...God knows everything; I know nothing; God is good; I am bad...God is right; I am wrong...God is pure; I am a sinner...
This is authoritarian religion with the 'poison masked as candy' being the 'submissive ecstasy' perhaps of being in the company of someone or something much, much greater than ourselves. Bow down to the Pedestalized Idol...Gain your ecstasy by feeling secure and safe in the hands of Someone who protects all of us lesser beings...Bow down to the False Idol...This is the message of Authoritarian Religion....
We need a new type of religion - one that combines good will and compassion, safety and security, rootedness and community - with an unwillingness to bow down to all False Idols - either in heaven or in earth.
I think I can find that directive in The Ten Commandments...Here is it is from the internet...
................................................................................
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
.....................................................................................
This is the Nietzschean Commandment - the commandment that separates all 'humanistic-existential' religions from 'authoritarian' ones although Nietzsche would have made no such distinction. This is my modification of Nietzsche.
In humanistic-existential religions there will be no 'false idols' - indeed, there will be no idols period. We will re-introject all of our 'projected false idols' and turn them into a new and integrative, multi-dialectical, humanistic-existential form of 'self-empowerment'. As our false idols crumble into the dust our 'suppressed' and 'repressed', 'denied' and 'avoided' energy-centres and ego-functions will slowly start to come alive again. We will start to regain our full humanness...our 'all too humanness'... In DGB Humanistic-Existential Religion (Deism-Pantheism), we will not deny man's sensuality, sexuality, and romanticism (Dionysus, Aphrodite...)but rather aim to integrate it with reason, ethics, integrity (Apollo). One can say that DGB Humanistic-Existential Religion is a religion born partly from Nietzsche's first masterpiece - 'The Birth of Tragedy'.
And that is where I will leave the creative birth of DGB MDHE (Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential) Mythology and Religion today...
I can feel the spirit of Spinoza, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, and Perls all running through my blood as I write...Dead men, dead spirits - still alive and scorching through my fingers...Are these my own 'false idols'? Or are they my bridge to some form of new 'integrative self-empowerment'? For myself, I believe the latter.
Of course, your are entirely free to decide for yourself...and what you believe is good for you...Many orthodox religious institutions - whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Jewish - do much good for the community around it. They serve a pressing need for compassion, safety, and rootedness...particularly in today's more and more alienated and stressful urban environment that is creating more and more estranged, unrooted or uprooted, anxious people. But overly righteous, anal-retentive, authoritarian religions can and do come with some significant 'side effects' - or even 'main effects' - that can be - indeed are - disturbing in their own right. This is where orthodox religion lost many, many thousands of old or potentially new 'customers' that simply were not 'buying' what orthodox religion was selling anymore...DGB MDHE Pantheism-Deism offers no religious rituals...just a different way of looking at 'God', religion, and spirituality that is not authoritarian and which aims to integrate with science, nature, evolution, romanticism - and humanistic-existentialism.
This approach to a 'new, integrative' religion and spirituality is probably best captured in my much re-worked poem - 'God Is The Bridge'...
dgb, April 11th-12th, 2008.
.........................................................................
God Is The Bridge
God Is The Bridge
Between reason and passion.
Between thought and action.
Between impulse and restraint.
God is the bridge
Between spirituality and sensuality.
Between love and lust.
Between alienation and communion.
God is the bridge
Between being creative and being created.
Between being and becoming.
Between being human and being God-like.
God is the bridge
Between narcissism and altruism.
Between self-assertiveness and social sensitivity.
Between giving and getting.
God is the bridge
Between positive and negative.
Between yin' and yang'.
Between wife and husband.
God is the bridge
Between religion and science.
Between religion and atheism.
Between science and art.
God is the bridge
Between wholism and reductionism
Between abstractionism and concrete particularity.
Between dialectical opposition and dialectical unity.
God is the bridge
Between Israel and Palestine.
Between Christians and Muslims
Between Protestants and Catholics.
Between black and white.
God is the bridge
Between parent and child.
Between righteousness and rebelliousness.
Between parental restraint and teenage impulse.
God is the bridge
Between technology and humanism.
Between industrialism and ecological balance.
Between working to feed your family and working to create your soul.
God is the bridge
Between Conservatism and Liberalism.
Between Capitalism and Socialism.
Between Masculinism and Feminism.
God is the bridge
Between nature and man.
Between God and man.
Between man and man.
God can be found
In the gap, the abyss, the chasm,
That separates you from me.
God is the bridge,
The tightrope,
That we both need the courage to climb onto,
To put aside our fear
And righteousness
And mutual blaming,
To rediscover our humanity...
To rediscover...
The creative, democratic,
Contactful, assertive,
Respectful, empathic,
Dialogue or dialectic,
That brings people back together in differential unity,
The 'I and Thou, here and now',
That we both need to engage in,
To bridge the gap,
Between us,
To rediscover...
The 'God' between us.
God is the bridge between you and me.
DGB, originally written Sept. 29th, 2004; modified June 17th, June 25th, Nov. 23rd, Nov. 27th, 2006, Jan. 25th, 2007, Feb. 19th, 2007, Sept 5th, 2007.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
On God, Multi-Dialectic-Polarityism, Humanistic-Existentialism, and Religion
In this article, I will aim to give new meaning and purpose to the idea of 'God', 'religion' -- and the purpose of religion. I call this type of religion which I view as a creative integration of 'pantheism and deism' as opposed to religion in any type of 'institutionalized and ritualized manner -- 'Multi-Dialectical-Humanistic-Existential' spiritualism and religion. It is a philosophical and logical extension of 'DGB Philosophy' and the rest of the contents of 'Hegel's Hotel'. (See my profile for a brief discussion of DGB Philosophy and Hegel's Hotel...) What follows is a brief synopsis of how I arrived at where I arrived philosophically, spiritually, and religiously:
.....................................................................................
If God created man in his/her own image, then God is definitely 'multi-bi-polar' Because man -- and life in general -- is definitely 'multi-bi-polar' from protons and electrons, to acids and bases, males and females, deficiencies and excesses, right and wrong, good and bad, narcissistic and altruistic, dominant and submissive, authoritarian and democratic...and on and on we could go.
If man wants to teach and preach a religion that fully acknowledges and accepts the multi-bi-polarity of both man and God, then religion has to move away from 'righteous, either/or, narcissistic and/or anti-narcissistic -- extremist and divisive -- religion'.
Rather it has to move towards a full 'humanistic-existential' religion that teaches and preaches 'dialectic and democratic integrationism'; not authoritarian righteousness, submission and divisionism.
It has to urge man to be accountable to himself, and to other people, plants, animals, and resources that he has to share the earth with; and at the same time, it has to urge man to be 'humanistic and compassionate' -- within the realm of accountablity -- again, to himself, and to other people, plants, and animals that he has to share the earth with.
Furthermore, a 'bi-polar, humanistic-existential' religion -- as opposed to either a 'narcissistic or anti-narcissistic righteous' religion has to teach people that 'utopia' is not in 'heaven'; neither is 'purgatory' in hell'; rather that the earth -- and man's life -- is the 'dialectical meeting place between heaven and hell', and that 'utopia' can be achieved right here on earth if we all aim for the right 'homeostatic, dialectic balance' between the 'spirituality' of Heaven and the 'sensuality' of Hell; between the reason, logic, ethics, morals, restraint and integrity of 'Heaven' vs. the pleasure and biological impulses of 'Hell'.
Stated differently, what I just said above -- before everyone gets 'their shorts in a knot' and starts 'throwing eggs at my work' -- is simply a reformulation of Nietzsche's classic first book -- 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- where Nietzsche trumpeted the value of ancient Greek tragedy and pre-Socratic philosophy as being basically the ideal 'humanistic-existential dialectical/homeostatic balance' between 'Apollonianism' (Heaven -- and man's ethical-restraining and spiritual side) and 'Dionysianism' (Hell and man's pleasure-seeking, biological impulse side).
'The Birth of Tragedy' is a greatly undervalued masterpiece of philosophical work as it 'dialectically bridged the gap' between Hegel -- and the birth of much of modern psychology: specifically, Freud and Psychoanalysis, Jung and Jungian Psychology, and Perls and Gestalt Therapy, among many other similar but different schools of psychology and psychotherapy.
Which brings me to my second last point: 'Heaven' from a psychological, analytic perspective can be viewed as an external projection of man's 'spiritual and ethical' side (his externalized 'Superego' or 'Topdog') while 'Hell' can paradoxically and bi-polarly be viewed as an external projection of man's 'sensual and pleasure-seeking' side (his externalized 'Id', 'Shadow', or 'Underdog'). It is no coincidence in my mind that 'heaven', 'superego', and 'topdog' are all located 'above' while 'hell', 'id', 'shadow', and 'underdog' are all located 'below'. This is the internal workings of the human mind and psyche -- externalized in mythology and religion as well as in every other aspect of his life and culture.
What I think a 'dialectical-humanistic-existential' religion should be teaching then is 'utopia-here-on-earth-by-way-of-dialectical-integration-and-homeostatic-balance-between-heaven-and-hell-God-and-The-Devil-Apollo-and-Dionysus-spirituality-and-sensuality-superego-and-id-persona-and-shadow-topdog-and-underdog-male-and-female-black-and-white-Christian-and-Muslim-parent-and-child-man-and-animal-man-and-earth...' I call this 'Multi-Dialectic-Evolutionism-Differential-Unity-and-Wholism'.
One last thing: If man's 'ethical restraint system' functions alone, man self-destructs (religiously speaking this type of person is 'obsessed with heaven'); if man's pleasure-seeking system functions alone, man self-destructs (religiously speaking, this type of person is 'obsessed with hell'). If man's 'humanism' functions alone (politically, these type of people are often referred to as 'bleeding heart liberals'), then man self-destructs (not enough accountability); if man's 'existentialism' functions alone (politically, these type of people are often called 'cold-hearted, redneck, conservatives'), man again self-destructs. The type of utopia that we all should be looking for is 'dialectical-integrative-balance-between-heaven-and-hell-here-on-earth-here-and-now'.
Perhaps it is also no coincidence that the half way and meeting point between the 'brain' and the 'loins' is the 'heart'. If we want to get closer to utopia-on-earth, then we all have to have more heart...integrating our brain with our loins...our ethical restraints and our compassion with our biological-pleasure-seeking impulses. Neither side can fulfill man's individual and collective self-actualized destiny nor man's peace and differential unity within himself, his fellow man, and his natural environment -- alone.* -- dgb, April 4th, 2008.
................................................................................
*The 'triadic-dialectic' between 'mind', 'heart' and 'loins' with the heart being the meeting place between these 'three different energy zones in the body' is an idea that I picked up and slightly embellished (the heart as the meeting place) from Plato. I'm not a big Plato fan but this idea has stayed with me over many years. The idea of a 'triadic-dialectic' in man can also be found in Freud's work with his division of 'superego' (social conscience), 'ego' (conflict-mediating part of the mind), and 'id' (biological impluses). The difference between this triadic division of the 'mind-brain-psyche' and Plato's is that Freud's model is 'all within the divisional functions of the mind if you will' whereas Plato's model seems to include the body -- the 'heart' and the 'loins'.
I look at this article as a 'gateway' article. There should be more articles to come in the development of these 'freshly developed' thoughts... -- dgb, April 5th, 2008.
.....................................................................................
If God created man in his/her own image, then God is definitely 'multi-bi-polar' Because man -- and life in general -- is definitely 'multi-bi-polar' from protons and electrons, to acids and bases, males and females, deficiencies and excesses, right and wrong, good and bad, narcissistic and altruistic, dominant and submissive, authoritarian and democratic...and on and on we could go.
If man wants to teach and preach a religion that fully acknowledges and accepts the multi-bi-polarity of both man and God, then religion has to move away from 'righteous, either/or, narcissistic and/or anti-narcissistic -- extremist and divisive -- religion'.
Rather it has to move towards a full 'humanistic-existential' religion that teaches and preaches 'dialectic and democratic integrationism'; not authoritarian righteousness, submission and divisionism.
It has to urge man to be accountable to himself, and to other people, plants, animals, and resources that he has to share the earth with; and at the same time, it has to urge man to be 'humanistic and compassionate' -- within the realm of accountablity -- again, to himself, and to other people, plants, and animals that he has to share the earth with.
Furthermore, a 'bi-polar, humanistic-existential' religion -- as opposed to either a 'narcissistic or anti-narcissistic righteous' religion has to teach people that 'utopia' is not in 'heaven'; neither is 'purgatory' in hell'; rather that the earth -- and man's life -- is the 'dialectical meeting place between heaven and hell', and that 'utopia' can be achieved right here on earth if we all aim for the right 'homeostatic, dialectic balance' between the 'spirituality' of Heaven and the 'sensuality' of Hell; between the reason, logic, ethics, morals, restraint and integrity of 'Heaven' vs. the pleasure and biological impulses of 'Hell'.
Stated differently, what I just said above -- before everyone gets 'their shorts in a knot' and starts 'throwing eggs at my work' -- is simply a reformulation of Nietzsche's classic first book -- 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- where Nietzsche trumpeted the value of ancient Greek tragedy and pre-Socratic philosophy as being basically the ideal 'humanistic-existential dialectical/homeostatic balance' between 'Apollonianism' (Heaven -- and man's ethical-restraining and spiritual side) and 'Dionysianism' (Hell and man's pleasure-seeking, biological impulse side).
'The Birth of Tragedy' is a greatly undervalued masterpiece of philosophical work as it 'dialectically bridged the gap' between Hegel -- and the birth of much of modern psychology: specifically, Freud and Psychoanalysis, Jung and Jungian Psychology, and Perls and Gestalt Therapy, among many other similar but different schools of psychology and psychotherapy.
Which brings me to my second last point: 'Heaven' from a psychological, analytic perspective can be viewed as an external projection of man's 'spiritual and ethical' side (his externalized 'Superego' or 'Topdog') while 'Hell' can paradoxically and bi-polarly be viewed as an external projection of man's 'sensual and pleasure-seeking' side (his externalized 'Id', 'Shadow', or 'Underdog'). It is no coincidence in my mind that 'heaven', 'superego', and 'topdog' are all located 'above' while 'hell', 'id', 'shadow', and 'underdog' are all located 'below'. This is the internal workings of the human mind and psyche -- externalized in mythology and religion as well as in every other aspect of his life and culture.
What I think a 'dialectical-humanistic-existential' religion should be teaching then is 'utopia-here-on-earth-by-way-of-dialectical-integration-and-homeostatic-balance-between-heaven-and-hell-God-and-The-Devil-Apollo-and-Dionysus-spirituality-and-sensuality-superego-and-id-persona-and-shadow-topdog-and-underdog-male-and-female-black-and-white-Christian-and-Muslim-parent-and-child-man-and-animal-man-and-earth...' I call this 'Multi-Dialectic-Evolutionism-Differential-Unity-and-Wholism'.
One last thing: If man's 'ethical restraint system' functions alone, man self-destructs (religiously speaking this type of person is 'obsessed with heaven'); if man's pleasure-seeking system functions alone, man self-destructs (religiously speaking, this type of person is 'obsessed with hell'). If man's 'humanism' functions alone (politically, these type of people are often referred to as 'bleeding heart liberals'), then man self-destructs (not enough accountability); if man's 'existentialism' functions alone (politically, these type of people are often called 'cold-hearted, redneck, conservatives'), man again self-destructs. The type of utopia that we all should be looking for is 'dialectical-integrative-balance-between-heaven-and-hell-here-on-earth-here-and-now'.
Perhaps it is also no coincidence that the half way and meeting point between the 'brain' and the 'loins' is the 'heart'. If we want to get closer to utopia-on-earth, then we all have to have more heart...integrating our brain with our loins...our ethical restraints and our compassion with our biological-pleasure-seeking impulses. Neither side can fulfill man's individual and collective self-actualized destiny nor man's peace and differential unity within himself, his fellow man, and his natural environment -- alone.* -- dgb, April 4th, 2008.
................................................................................
*The 'triadic-dialectic' between 'mind', 'heart' and 'loins' with the heart being the meeting place between these 'three different energy zones in the body' is an idea that I picked up and slightly embellished (the heart as the meeting place) from Plato. I'm not a big Plato fan but this idea has stayed with me over many years. The idea of a 'triadic-dialectic' in man can also be found in Freud's work with his division of 'superego' (social conscience), 'ego' (conflict-mediating part of the mind), and 'id' (biological impluses). The difference between this triadic division of the 'mind-brain-psyche' and Plato's is that Freud's model is 'all within the divisional functions of the mind if you will' whereas Plato's model seems to include the body -- the 'heart' and the 'loins'.
I look at this article as a 'gateway' article. There should be more articles to come in the development of these 'freshly developed' thoughts... -- dgb, April 5th, 2008.
God, Religion, Bi-polarities, Idols, and False Expectations
One of my friends wrote that she believed in God but not in religion. Or at least she didn't believe in institutionalized religion. I at least partly support this line of thinking. Institutionalized religion can create many different types of problems -- some of them worse than the types of problems it attempts to solve.
Most institutionalized forms of religion (notice I said 'most', not 'all') are full of 'righteousness' and 'narcissism' -- and that to me indicates the hand of man, not the hand of God. Even those religion that work extra hard to preach such things as: 'altruism', 'love', 'generosity', 'caring', 'community', 'family', 'not being greedy or selfish', 'tolerance', 'acceptance', etc., etc., -- these characteristics too reflect the hand -- and the mind -- of man, not the hand of God...Man is 'multi-bi-polar' in my mind, and this latter set of characteristics simply reflect a second line of 'bi-polar thinking' in man...
So here is one 'dialectical bi-polarity' that we find in many religions and churches (mosques, synagogues, temples...): the bi-polarity between righteousness on the one hand and tolerance/acceptance on the other hand. A second bi-polarity is between narcissism and altruism; and a third bi-polarity is between dominance and submission or even sadism and masochism. Some bi-polarities in religion are either suppressed and/or hidden. When they are hidden, we call them 'hypocrisies' such as when the Roman Catholic Church was preaching a life of 'self-denial' and 'giving everything possible to the Church' while the leaders of the Church were indulging in every luxury, fantasy, and narcissitic pleasure imaginable based on everything that was given to them by the people of their Church in the name of 'piety'. Or when a preacher/evangelist on television is preaching a 'very stringent sexual morality' to thousands and thousands of people but then is found to be visiting prostitutes in his spare time and/or engaging in very 'liberal sexual practises' inside his own Church. Hypocrisy -- thy name is 'man' (based on unintegrated 'bi-polarities' in the personalities of many, many individual people including even those leaders who we at least start out by idealizing and/or idolizing the most, that is, until they fall off the bandwagon of the 'most esteemed pedestal' that we unrealistically put them on to begin with.) We expect our leaders to be 'super-human' -- until we find over the course of time that they are just as human as each and everyone of us is who have falsely idealized and idolized them. We love to hold our leaders to unrealistic expectations -- and then 'trash' them when they 'fall from glory' because they can't or don't live up to these unrealistic expectatins that we placed on them in the first place. Call it the 'honeymoon' and 'after the honeymoon' effect...
There are at least three more bi-polarities that are worth investigating relative to the workings of many religions: specifically, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism, and authoritarianism vs. democracy. We will only look briefly at the last one in the context of this essay.
Most religions are flat out 'authoriarian'. They tell you what to do -- in the name of God -- and they expect you to do it. Which begs the question: 'Why not teach, preach, and practice democracy in Church?' Indeed, this is part of a larger question that needs investigating: 'Why do we teach, preach -- and indeed almost worship -- democracy (or purported democracy) in our political speeches and yet generally fail to practise it in our homes and families, in our place of work and business, and in our various religions and the institutions where these religions are practised? Where is the consistency and logic in this type of reasoning and behaving?
The answer as I see it is this: Man in general is conflicted and 'bi-polar' within his psyche between 'authoriarianism' and 'democracy'. And these two 'dialectical opposites' continue to 'dialectically dance' with each other every living day of our life -- at work, at home, in government, and even in our various religions.
Both authoritarianism and democracy have their strengths and weaknesses (for example, more unilateralism and speed of decision-making in an authoritarian context vs. generally more respect for the group and the various individuals in the group in the context of a democracy). Man is constantly sliding back and forth between authoritarianism and democracy as he reaches for the advantages and strengths of each while getting into trouble with the disadvantages and weaknesses of each.
Again, as in many instances of the thousands of possible 'dialectical dances' we can do, the answer will often for many lie somewhere in the middle such as in the integrative realm of an 'authoritarian democracy' or a 'democratic authoritarianism (or autocracy)'.
Regardless, 'democracy' rarely reaches into religion which is why we might ask ourselves: 'Why are we so ready and willing to submit and adapt ourselves to a basically authoritarian and dominant-submissive environment. What would it take to get from a basically 'righteous, narcissistic and/or anti-narcissistic, dominant-submissive' process of practising religion to a more 'democratic-dialectic-humanistic-existential' process of practising religion?'
Those are the two questions that I will leave you with today...
dgb, April 4th, 2008.
Most institutionalized forms of religion (notice I said 'most', not 'all') are full of 'righteousness' and 'narcissism' -- and that to me indicates the hand of man, not the hand of God. Even those religion that work extra hard to preach such things as: 'altruism', 'love', 'generosity', 'caring', 'community', 'family', 'not being greedy or selfish', 'tolerance', 'acceptance', etc., etc., -- these characteristics too reflect the hand -- and the mind -- of man, not the hand of God...Man is 'multi-bi-polar' in my mind, and this latter set of characteristics simply reflect a second line of 'bi-polar thinking' in man...
So here is one 'dialectical bi-polarity' that we find in many religions and churches (mosques, synagogues, temples...): the bi-polarity between righteousness on the one hand and tolerance/acceptance on the other hand. A second bi-polarity is between narcissism and altruism; and a third bi-polarity is between dominance and submission or even sadism and masochism. Some bi-polarities in religion are either suppressed and/or hidden. When they are hidden, we call them 'hypocrisies' such as when the Roman Catholic Church was preaching a life of 'self-denial' and 'giving everything possible to the Church' while the leaders of the Church were indulging in every luxury, fantasy, and narcissitic pleasure imaginable based on everything that was given to them by the people of their Church in the name of 'piety'. Or when a preacher/evangelist on television is preaching a 'very stringent sexual morality' to thousands and thousands of people but then is found to be visiting prostitutes in his spare time and/or engaging in very 'liberal sexual practises' inside his own Church. Hypocrisy -- thy name is 'man' (based on unintegrated 'bi-polarities' in the personalities of many, many individual people including even those leaders who we at least start out by idealizing and/or idolizing the most, that is, until they fall off the bandwagon of the 'most esteemed pedestal' that we unrealistically put them on to begin with.) We expect our leaders to be 'super-human' -- until we find over the course of time that they are just as human as each and everyone of us is who have falsely idealized and idolized them. We love to hold our leaders to unrealistic expectations -- and then 'trash' them when they 'fall from glory' because they can't or don't live up to these unrealistic expectatins that we placed on them in the first place. Call it the 'honeymoon' and 'after the honeymoon' effect...
There are at least three more bi-polarities that are worth investigating relative to the workings of many religions: specifically, dominance/submission, sadism/masochism, and authoritarianism vs. democracy. We will only look briefly at the last one in the context of this essay.
Most religions are flat out 'authoriarian'. They tell you what to do -- in the name of God -- and they expect you to do it. Which begs the question: 'Why not teach, preach, and practice democracy in Church?' Indeed, this is part of a larger question that needs investigating: 'Why do we teach, preach -- and indeed almost worship -- democracy (or purported democracy) in our political speeches and yet generally fail to practise it in our homes and families, in our place of work and business, and in our various religions and the institutions where these religions are practised? Where is the consistency and logic in this type of reasoning and behaving?
The answer as I see it is this: Man in general is conflicted and 'bi-polar' within his psyche between 'authoriarianism' and 'democracy'. And these two 'dialectical opposites' continue to 'dialectically dance' with each other every living day of our life -- at work, at home, in government, and even in our various religions.
Both authoritarianism and democracy have their strengths and weaknesses (for example, more unilateralism and speed of decision-making in an authoritarian context vs. generally more respect for the group and the various individuals in the group in the context of a democracy). Man is constantly sliding back and forth between authoritarianism and democracy as he reaches for the advantages and strengths of each while getting into trouble with the disadvantages and weaknesses of each.
Again, as in many instances of the thousands of possible 'dialectical dances' we can do, the answer will often for many lie somewhere in the middle such as in the integrative realm of an 'authoritarian democracy' or a 'democratic authoritarianism (or autocracy)'.
Regardless, 'democracy' rarely reaches into religion which is why we might ask ourselves: 'Why are we so ready and willing to submit and adapt ourselves to a basically authoritarian and dominant-submissive environment. What would it take to get from a basically 'righteous, narcissistic and/or anti-narcissistic, dominant-submissive' process of practising religion to a more 'democratic-dialectic-humanistic-existential' process of practising religion?'
Those are the two questions that I will leave you with today...
dgb, April 4th, 2008.
God, Jesus Christ, Religion, Preachers, and Politicians
Let's try to get to the bottom of the Reverend Wright controversy which is probably close to impossible because there are numerous different ways I could take this essay but regardless, let's at least open up some of these different avenues and see where they take us...
First, by way of an introduction, let me say this: We are all philosophers and we are all preachers -- stated more specifically, we all 'philosophize' about what we think is 'true' (epistemology) and 'right' (ethics); and we all 'preach' our epistemological and ethical philosophy relative to what we believe is 'true' and 'right'. Obviously some people are more righteous than other people (or stated differrently, some more tolerant and accepting than others), and also, some people are more openly straightforward with their righteousness, whereas others hide it more...
Relative to righteousness, we all have our private and/or public 'soapboxes' -- some more public than others -- upon which we preach our unique, individual philosophy. Some of these individual philosophies are healthier than others; some are more pathological than others. There is an intimate tie between philosophical and psychological health; indeed, 'mental-emotional' health can just as easily and rightly be referred to as 'philosophical-psychological' health.
President Bush has his soapbox. Reverand Wright has -- or had -- his soapbox. Senator Obama, both the Clintons, and McCain all have their own separate, individual 'soapboxes' on which they preach their own individual -- and/or party -- politics and/or religion.
I have my soapbox. This essay is my soapbox. 'Hegel's Hotel' is my soapbox. With whatever credibility and respect that I have here as a private philosopher and writer, I am here to say what I think is right and wrong about different elements of both Canadian and American poltics as well as in some cases such as this one -- religion, preachers, and the Church. There are those who believe that politics and relgion should not be mixed -- such as many of America's foundational philosopher-politicans, most notably, I believe, Thomas Jefferson -- but increasingly these days it is obvious that there are more and more people who believe that politics and religion can and should be mixed.
From a religious standpoint, the Reverand Wright is obviously one of them.
There is a time to be righteous and there is a time to be tolerant and the best philosopher-preachers have the best sense of timing about when to be which.
I preach a mixture of righteousnes and tolerance and try to get the timing right on both.
Let me begin by giving you this as a backdrop: We are all a mixture of 'epistemologically right' and 'epistemologically wrong' perceptions and beliefs, of 'ethically good' and 'ethically bad' values... We can talk about President Bush the 'right' and President Bush the 'wrong', of President Bush the 'good' and President Bush the 'bad'...and each and everyone of us will have a combination of similar and/or different judgments in this regard...Bush started out strong with America's trust and respect; it is obvious now that he lost most of this trust and respect to most Americans somewhere along the way in his length of time as President. Too many false assertions and assumptions...too many bad value judgments in the minds of most Americans today -- I would say.
We could go throught this same editorial process with Reverend Wright, Obama, both Bill and Hillary Clinton, McCain, myself, you, America, Canada...and so on..
We are all a mixture of right and wrong epistemology, of good and bad ethics, of good and bad tricks...There are no perfect idols or ideals amongst us -- some of us may make better leaders than others -- but we are all walking imperfections of right and wrong, good and bad. There are no Gods amongst us...nor should anyone -- in politics or in religion -- have the audacity and the arrogance to try to quote God... This is blatant man-made projection...man manipulating the use of God to serve his or her own political, religious, economic, philosophical and/or any other form of narcissistic purpose.
I am not a big religious person -- my religious, spritual, and/or anti-religous perspectives are far from fully developed at this point in time. They are still evolving...but at the same time, my religious-spiritual blogsite-section now contains over ten essays I believe...
Regardless, I found myself reaching for a recital of 'The Ten Commandments' on the internet this morning. (Isn't the internet wonderful in this respect as I didn't need to go digging around my townhouse for a bible or inside The Bible to find what I was looking for...just by googling 'The Ten Commandments', I could quickly find what I wanted. Some might equate this with 'fast food' -- lacking in full nutritional value -- but for a writer/philosopher like myself who wants to find something quickly and then get back to my essay, it truly is amazing what an 'enormous liberary resource' I have at my immediate fingertips. I often shake my head at the 'technological and resource advantages' I have today over someone like say Kant, Hegel, and/or Marx who must have ploughed through thousands of pages of books to get the information they needed.)
Here is my favorite commandment incidently (I believe it is the fourth commandment):
...................................................................................
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
.....................................................................................
This to me is a very 'humanistic-existential' commandment -- trust and respect your own resources, your own perceptions and beliefs, your own value judgments, your own integrtiy, and your own actions. Let no man, woman -- or God -- stand above you on a pedestal.
Unfortunately, there is a problem here -- a big problem. The Ten Commandments are not consistent -- or at least if they are consistent when taken as a whole -- are not 'humanistic-existential'; indeed, taken as a whole they lean much closer to 'authoritarianism', 'dominance-submission', and 'sado-masochism'. Look at the first four commandments when taken together:
.....................................................................................
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
2. Do not have any other gods before me.
3. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
4. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
5. But showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
..................................................................................
Taken alone, Commandment 3 seems 'humanistic-existential'. However, in the context of the first five commandments, it seems that God is saying in effect: 'Don't trust, respect, love, idolize, or idealize any other God -- but me -- for I am a jealous God. You can submit to me all you want because that is the way I like it.'
Gee, that sounds more like man talking rather than any God that I am willing to respect, love, idealize, and/or worship. A God that is into 'egotism, narcissism, authoritarianism, jealousy, dominance, and the type of sadism that can be seen in the 'God, Abraham, and Isaac' parable. In effect, the anti-thesis of 'Jesus Christ'. How do you explain that one? Look at the Ten Commandments, and the God, Abraham, and Isaac parable -- and it certainly does not seem that Jesus Christ was created in God's image. Rather, it seems much more plausable that God was created in man's image. Furthermore, it seems much more plausable that 'God' and 'Jesus Christ' can be viewed as 'projective-identifications' of one of the deepest polarities and conflict-issues in man's psyche, psychology, and philosophy: the polarity between narcissism, selfishness, jealousy, possessiveness and conditional love on the one hand vs. altruism, empathy, social sensitivity, generosity and love on the other hand. Projected: the jealousy, narcissism, dominance, and conditional love of God vs. the generosity and unconditional love of Jesus Christ. One might even say a projection of the 'masculine vs. feminine' side of man or in Eastern tradition the 'yin' vs. 'yang' in man -- and the need for harmonious unity and balance between the two.
I realize that I may be offending some of you who may hold a much more traditional viewpoint towards God and Jesus Christ but I cannot be anyone other than who I am. And right now -- as of this minute, arrived at by argumentative deduction during the course of this essay -- that is exactly how I view God and Jesus Christ. It is totally consistent with all of my other viewpoints in Hegel's Hotel. It is a post-Hegelian-Freudian-Jungian-Gestalt analysis: that God and Jesus Christ reflect opposing projective identifications and arhetypes in man's personality. When man is worshipinng God and Jesus Christ, he is in effect worshipping the 'twin polariities of masculinism and feminism, or 'yin and yang' in man's psyche.
................................................................................
I said that at the beginning that this essay had the potential of taking me in many different directions some of which I might not expect, and, believe me, I am as shocked as you probably are at the direction it just took me...Now let us move on and get back to the Reverend Wright...
.................................................................................
I respect that the Reverend Wright is a fiery speaker, that he says what he believes, and I don't even mind that he mixed 'politics' with 'religion' in his sermons. To hear someone say that 'governments fail' is a refreshing change for me compared to the usual sermon of individual people 'failing through their sins of being human'. Preaching politics in a religious forum in my mind is better than preaching religion in a political forum -- especially when 'God' is being used in a political forum to justify appropriate or inappropriate political actions.
However, it is rather obvious in my mind that the Reverend Wright committed some rather glaring professional and 'humanistic' errors. In this regard, I was thinking of some of the 'ethical transgressions' that the Reverend Wright committed and here was the first one I came up with again as I looked at the Ten Commandments:
....................................................................................
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
...................................................................................
Well, for a week or two I was oblivious to what had transpired in this 'Reverend Wright scandal' and then one morning I finally heard a 'fuller version' (courtesy of CNN) of the original much smaller soundbite that had created the substance of this political-religous controversy.
...................................................................................
'God damn America.' -- Reverend Wright
....................................................................................
This was the smallest soundbite-essence of what Reverend Wright said within the fuller context of his more complete sermon. The fuller context of the sermon talked about 'political failings' all through history -- and directly or indirectly about political oppression and killings resulting from political failings.
Well, the fuller context of the sermon does give the American people a better perspective on where the Reverend was coming from in his sermon -- but his first ethical-religous-political violation can be found right in The Ten Commandments...a part of the second commandment if the interpretation I am reading off the internet can be assumed to be an accurate interpretation...
.....................................................................................
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
.....................................................................................
I think I have heard it stated in other ways such as; 'Thou shalt not speak the Lord's name in vain.' But either version will do...
Now most of us have heard the Lord's name used in profanity or in a thousand and one different ways but for a preacher to use God's name in profanity and/or as a manipulative tool to further his own political-religous agenda -- is basically inexcusable. Reverend Wright was essentially projecting his own condemnation of America -- inexcusably -- onto God. That was ethical transgression number 1.
...................................................................................
Secondly,
This is my own epistemological and ethical commandment:
'Beware of loose associations and tight, stereotypical distinctions. They are epistemologically prone to error -- and worse -- tend to be ethically divisive, destructive, and self-destructive.'
...................................................................................
This was Reverend Wright's second epistemological error and ethical transgression -- and it was arguably worse than the first.
Which America was the Reverend talking about? Good America or Bad America. Was he referring to White America? And worse, was he loosely associating White America with Bad America?
..................................................................................
Again, there was no excuse for Reverend Wright's 'loose associations' and 'tight, stereotypical distinctions' relative to the history of politics in general -- and particularly, American politics and oppression.
How racial, how anti-white, how anti-America were Reverend Wrights sermons? Was there significant humanism underlying his speeches -- or were they all about anger, rage, and hate...in stereotypical, racial fashion? Loose associations and tight stereotypical distinctions can take you to angy, violent places where it is not humanistically good for you to go.
..................................................................................
America seems to be interested in two things but more so the second than the first:
1. Just how radical, racial, and/or anti-American were Reverend Wright's sermons?; and
2. To what extent are Obama's real personal philosophical views closely or not at all closely associated with what the Reverend Wright was preaching?
I saw Obama interviewed by Larry King a couple of weeks after this controversy broke loose and I thought that Obama handled himself -- and the Wright issue -- quite well. He's getting a reputation as the 'Tefelon Man' -- as he uses his gliding rhetoric to 'smooth' over problems. But once again, the American people are sick and tired of smooth rhetoric -- without substance, character, and integrity giving a strong, solid foundation to this smooth rhetoric. The American people want both an elegant speaker and a man of character, integrity, and substnace that has the willpower, the intellect, and the power to change the way politics is conducted in Washington.
Two issues in particular have left some seeds of doubt in the minds of people listenting to Obama: 1. his Michigan free trade speech in contrast to the contradicting contents of the leaked political letter by someone associated with his campaign; and 2. the Reverennd Wright controversy.
Should these controversies be viewed as possible precursors of more of the same to come?
Or should they be viewed as issues and controversies blown out of context by a Clinton campaign and/or a news media starving to rub something bad onto Obama's character and campaign?
We wait to see.
dgb, March 30th, 2008, revised and updated April 1-2, 2008.
First, by way of an introduction, let me say this: We are all philosophers and we are all preachers -- stated more specifically, we all 'philosophize' about what we think is 'true' (epistemology) and 'right' (ethics); and we all 'preach' our epistemological and ethical philosophy relative to what we believe is 'true' and 'right'. Obviously some people are more righteous than other people (or stated differrently, some more tolerant and accepting than others), and also, some people are more openly straightforward with their righteousness, whereas others hide it more...
Relative to righteousness, we all have our private and/or public 'soapboxes' -- some more public than others -- upon which we preach our unique, individual philosophy. Some of these individual philosophies are healthier than others; some are more pathological than others. There is an intimate tie between philosophical and psychological health; indeed, 'mental-emotional' health can just as easily and rightly be referred to as 'philosophical-psychological' health.
President Bush has his soapbox. Reverand Wright has -- or had -- his soapbox. Senator Obama, both the Clintons, and McCain all have their own separate, individual 'soapboxes' on which they preach their own individual -- and/or party -- politics and/or religion.
I have my soapbox. This essay is my soapbox. 'Hegel's Hotel' is my soapbox. With whatever credibility and respect that I have here as a private philosopher and writer, I am here to say what I think is right and wrong about different elements of both Canadian and American poltics as well as in some cases such as this one -- religion, preachers, and the Church. There are those who believe that politics and relgion should not be mixed -- such as many of America's foundational philosopher-politicans, most notably, I believe, Thomas Jefferson -- but increasingly these days it is obvious that there are more and more people who believe that politics and religion can and should be mixed.
From a religious standpoint, the Reverand Wright is obviously one of them.
There is a time to be righteous and there is a time to be tolerant and the best philosopher-preachers have the best sense of timing about when to be which.
I preach a mixture of righteousnes and tolerance and try to get the timing right on both.
Let me begin by giving you this as a backdrop: We are all a mixture of 'epistemologically right' and 'epistemologically wrong' perceptions and beliefs, of 'ethically good' and 'ethically bad' values... We can talk about President Bush the 'right' and President Bush the 'wrong', of President Bush the 'good' and President Bush the 'bad'...and each and everyone of us will have a combination of similar and/or different judgments in this regard...Bush started out strong with America's trust and respect; it is obvious now that he lost most of this trust and respect to most Americans somewhere along the way in his length of time as President. Too many false assertions and assumptions...too many bad value judgments in the minds of most Americans today -- I would say.
We could go throught this same editorial process with Reverend Wright, Obama, both Bill and Hillary Clinton, McCain, myself, you, America, Canada...and so on..
We are all a mixture of right and wrong epistemology, of good and bad ethics, of good and bad tricks...There are no perfect idols or ideals amongst us -- some of us may make better leaders than others -- but we are all walking imperfections of right and wrong, good and bad. There are no Gods amongst us...nor should anyone -- in politics or in religion -- have the audacity and the arrogance to try to quote God... This is blatant man-made projection...man manipulating the use of God to serve his or her own political, religious, economic, philosophical and/or any other form of narcissistic purpose.
I am not a big religious person -- my religious, spritual, and/or anti-religous perspectives are far from fully developed at this point in time. They are still evolving...but at the same time, my religious-spiritual blogsite-section now contains over ten essays I believe...
Regardless, I found myself reaching for a recital of 'The Ten Commandments' on the internet this morning. (Isn't the internet wonderful in this respect as I didn't need to go digging around my townhouse for a bible or inside The Bible to find what I was looking for...just by googling 'The Ten Commandments', I could quickly find what I wanted. Some might equate this with 'fast food' -- lacking in full nutritional value -- but for a writer/philosopher like myself who wants to find something quickly and then get back to my essay, it truly is amazing what an 'enormous liberary resource' I have at my immediate fingertips. I often shake my head at the 'technological and resource advantages' I have today over someone like say Kant, Hegel, and/or Marx who must have ploughed through thousands of pages of books to get the information they needed.)
Here is my favorite commandment incidently (I believe it is the fourth commandment):
...................................................................................
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
.....................................................................................
This to me is a very 'humanistic-existential' commandment -- trust and respect your own resources, your own perceptions and beliefs, your own value judgments, your own integrtiy, and your own actions. Let no man, woman -- or God -- stand above you on a pedestal.
Unfortunately, there is a problem here -- a big problem. The Ten Commandments are not consistent -- or at least if they are consistent when taken as a whole -- are not 'humanistic-existential'; indeed, taken as a whole they lean much closer to 'authoritarianism', 'dominance-submission', and 'sado-masochism'. Look at the first four commandments when taken together:
.....................................................................................
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
2. Do not have any other gods before me.
3. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
4. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
5. But showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
..................................................................................
Taken alone, Commandment 3 seems 'humanistic-existential'. However, in the context of the first five commandments, it seems that God is saying in effect: 'Don't trust, respect, love, idolize, or idealize any other God -- but me -- for I am a jealous God. You can submit to me all you want because that is the way I like it.'
Gee, that sounds more like man talking rather than any God that I am willing to respect, love, idealize, and/or worship. A God that is into 'egotism, narcissism, authoritarianism, jealousy, dominance, and the type of sadism that can be seen in the 'God, Abraham, and Isaac' parable. In effect, the anti-thesis of 'Jesus Christ'. How do you explain that one? Look at the Ten Commandments, and the God, Abraham, and Isaac parable -- and it certainly does not seem that Jesus Christ was created in God's image. Rather, it seems much more plausable that God was created in man's image. Furthermore, it seems much more plausable that 'God' and 'Jesus Christ' can be viewed as 'projective-identifications' of one of the deepest polarities and conflict-issues in man's psyche, psychology, and philosophy: the polarity between narcissism, selfishness, jealousy, possessiveness and conditional love on the one hand vs. altruism, empathy, social sensitivity, generosity and love on the other hand. Projected: the jealousy, narcissism, dominance, and conditional love of God vs. the generosity and unconditional love of Jesus Christ. One might even say a projection of the 'masculine vs. feminine' side of man or in Eastern tradition the 'yin' vs. 'yang' in man -- and the need for harmonious unity and balance between the two.
I realize that I may be offending some of you who may hold a much more traditional viewpoint towards God and Jesus Christ but I cannot be anyone other than who I am. And right now -- as of this minute, arrived at by argumentative deduction during the course of this essay -- that is exactly how I view God and Jesus Christ. It is totally consistent with all of my other viewpoints in Hegel's Hotel. It is a post-Hegelian-Freudian-Jungian-Gestalt analysis: that God and Jesus Christ reflect opposing projective identifications and arhetypes in man's personality. When man is worshipinng God and Jesus Christ, he is in effect worshipping the 'twin polariities of masculinism and feminism, or 'yin and yang' in man's psyche.
................................................................................
I said that at the beginning that this essay had the potential of taking me in many different directions some of which I might not expect, and, believe me, I am as shocked as you probably are at the direction it just took me...Now let us move on and get back to the Reverend Wright...
.................................................................................
I respect that the Reverend Wright is a fiery speaker, that he says what he believes, and I don't even mind that he mixed 'politics' with 'religion' in his sermons. To hear someone say that 'governments fail' is a refreshing change for me compared to the usual sermon of individual people 'failing through their sins of being human'. Preaching politics in a religious forum in my mind is better than preaching religion in a political forum -- especially when 'God' is being used in a political forum to justify appropriate or inappropriate political actions.
However, it is rather obvious in my mind that the Reverend Wright committed some rather glaring professional and 'humanistic' errors. In this regard, I was thinking of some of the 'ethical transgressions' that the Reverend Wright committed and here was the first one I came up with again as I looked at the Ten Commandments:
....................................................................................
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
...................................................................................
Well, for a week or two I was oblivious to what had transpired in this 'Reverend Wright scandal' and then one morning I finally heard a 'fuller version' (courtesy of CNN) of the original much smaller soundbite that had created the substance of this political-religous controversy.
...................................................................................
'God damn America.' -- Reverend Wright
....................................................................................
This was the smallest soundbite-essence of what Reverend Wright said within the fuller context of his more complete sermon. The fuller context of the sermon talked about 'political failings' all through history -- and directly or indirectly about political oppression and killings resulting from political failings.
Well, the fuller context of the sermon does give the American people a better perspective on where the Reverend was coming from in his sermon -- but his first ethical-religous-political violation can be found right in The Ten Commandments...a part of the second commandment if the interpretation I am reading off the internet can be assumed to be an accurate interpretation...
.....................................................................................
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
.....................................................................................
I think I have heard it stated in other ways such as; 'Thou shalt not speak the Lord's name in vain.' But either version will do...
Now most of us have heard the Lord's name used in profanity or in a thousand and one different ways but for a preacher to use God's name in profanity and/or as a manipulative tool to further his own political-religous agenda -- is basically inexcusable. Reverend Wright was essentially projecting his own condemnation of America -- inexcusably -- onto God. That was ethical transgression number 1.
...................................................................................
Secondly,
This is my own epistemological and ethical commandment:
'Beware of loose associations and tight, stereotypical distinctions. They are epistemologically prone to error -- and worse -- tend to be ethically divisive, destructive, and self-destructive.'
...................................................................................
This was Reverend Wright's second epistemological error and ethical transgression -- and it was arguably worse than the first.
Which America was the Reverend talking about? Good America or Bad America. Was he referring to White America? And worse, was he loosely associating White America with Bad America?
..................................................................................
Again, there was no excuse for Reverend Wright's 'loose associations' and 'tight, stereotypical distinctions' relative to the history of politics in general -- and particularly, American politics and oppression.
How racial, how anti-white, how anti-America were Reverend Wrights sermons? Was there significant humanism underlying his speeches -- or were they all about anger, rage, and hate...in stereotypical, racial fashion? Loose associations and tight stereotypical distinctions can take you to angy, violent places where it is not humanistically good for you to go.
..................................................................................
America seems to be interested in two things but more so the second than the first:
1. Just how radical, racial, and/or anti-American were Reverend Wright's sermons?; and
2. To what extent are Obama's real personal philosophical views closely or not at all closely associated with what the Reverend Wright was preaching?
I saw Obama interviewed by Larry King a couple of weeks after this controversy broke loose and I thought that Obama handled himself -- and the Wright issue -- quite well. He's getting a reputation as the 'Tefelon Man' -- as he uses his gliding rhetoric to 'smooth' over problems. But once again, the American people are sick and tired of smooth rhetoric -- without substance, character, and integrity giving a strong, solid foundation to this smooth rhetoric. The American people want both an elegant speaker and a man of character, integrity, and substnace that has the willpower, the intellect, and the power to change the way politics is conducted in Washington.
Two issues in particular have left some seeds of doubt in the minds of people listenting to Obama: 1. his Michigan free trade speech in contrast to the contradicting contents of the leaked political letter by someone associated with his campaign; and 2. the Reverennd Wright controversy.
Should these controversies be viewed as possible precursors of more of the same to come?
Or should they be viewed as issues and controversies blown out of context by a Clinton campaign and/or a news media starving to rub something bad onto Obama's character and campaign?
We wait to see.
dgb, March 30th, 2008, revised and updated April 1-2, 2008.
Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, Posted on the internet, March 15th, 2008
Opening Comments by dgb: 'I like to post the occasional well-written article in 'Hegel's Hotel' that I think deserves further recognition and exposure and which I want to use as a starting point by which to bring a particular issue into focus and express my own viewpoints on the same, or a similar, issue. The article below fits into this category. It is called 'Reverend Wright and Barrack' -- by Gerald Posner, posted on the internet on March 15th, 2008. If the author has any problem with its inclusion here, I will quickly remove it. Until then, I will assume that it is okay to re-post here as it can freely and easily be found on the internet simply by googling 'Reverend Wright'.' -- dgb, March 30th, 2008/
...................................................................................
Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, March 15th, 2008.
I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.
I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.
The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.
Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.
A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.
There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.
If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.
Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."
But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.
And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.
Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?
Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.
.....................................................................................
Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection
John Martin of ABC News says "Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism." Garry Wills calls Posner "a superb investigative reporter," while the Los Angeles Times dubs him "a classic-style investigative journalist." "His work is painstakingly honest journalism" concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his "exhaustive research techniques" and The Boston Globe determined Posner is "an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research." "A resourceful investigator and skillful writer," says The Dallas Morning News.
Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.
He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC's TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive "Cultural Chatter" column. Read a profile about Gerald's work in Publisher's Weekly.
....................................................................................
...................................................................................
Reverend Wright and Barack -- by Gerald Posner, March 15th, 2008.
I am a Barack Obama supporter. I liked Senator John Edwards, think Hilary Clinton would make a super president, but have been persuaded ever since the start of the campaign that Barack offers the greatest chance for substantive, and greatly over needed, change.
I'm still in the Barack camp. But, as a vocal supporter, I'd like just a couple of answers about the flap over Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago megachurch where the Obamas have been members for 20 years.
The key issue for me, as both a supporter and as a reporter, revolves around what I view as Wright's most incendiary comments, those implying that America -- because of its own actions -- deserved the 9/11 terror attacks.
Wright made his comments on September 16, only 5 days after the deadly strikes in New York and Washington. He said, in part, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Barack was then serving in the Illinois senate. He had unsuccessfully run for Congress the previous year. Although the Trinity United Church is large (6,000 members), the Obamas were then, and have been since his 1997 election to the State Senate, some of the best known parishioners.
A church, synagogue, mosque, and other places of worship, are like extensions of the local communities they serve. Afro-centric churches like Trinity serve not only as houses of worship but as a backdrop for a wide range of social, personal, and often business, relationships. When a parishioner is away from their house of worship, if the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam says something particularly out of character -- or wildly controversial -- it is almost impossible that members aren't going to talk about it endlessly as gossip.
There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus at most places in America, coming so soon after the the attack itself. Political commentator Bill Maher lost his TV show when he seconded a guest's observation that the hijackers had courage to carry out their attack. The country was emotionally raw.
If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about Reverend Wright's post 9/11 comments, then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he preached from the pulpit many times before. In that case, I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners there -- by 9/11 they were there more than a decade -- and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack -- a sitting Illinois State Senator -- would have been one of the first to hear about it.
Can't you imagine the call or conversation? "Barack, you aren't going to believe what Revered Wright said yesterday at the church. You should be ready with a comment if someone from the press calls you up."
But Barack now claims he never heard about any of this until after he began his run for the presidency, in February, 20007.
And even if Barack is correct -- and I desperately want to believe him -- then it still does not explain why, when he learned in 2007 of Wright's fringe comments about 9/11 and other subjects, the campaign did not then disassociate itself from the Reverend. Wright was not removed from the campaign's Spiritual Advisory Committee until two days ago, and it appears likely that nothing would have been done had this story not broken nationally.
Come on, Barack. I'm backing you because you are not 'one of them.' You have inspired me and millions of others because you are not a typical politician. You tell it like it is, don't fudge the facts, and don't dodge and weave with clever words to avoid uncomfortable truths.
Tell it straight. Was Reverend Wright so radical that his post 9/11 comments did not cause a stir at the Church, and you never learned about them until 2007, nearly 6 years later? Why, when you did learn about them, did you not ask Revered Wright to step down from his role in your campaign?
Give us the plain truth. You won't lose us by being brutally honest. You only risk shaking our faith in you if you seem like so many other politicians that crowd the field.
.....................................................................................
Gerald Posner is the author of 10 books of investigative non-fiction, seven NYT bestsellers, and a finalist for the Pulitzer in History. His last book was Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi US Connection
John Martin of ABC News says "Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism." Garry Wills calls Posner "a superb investigative reporter," while the Los Angeles Times dubs him "a classic-style investigative journalist." "His work is painstakingly honest journalism" concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his "exhaustive research techniques" and The Boston Globe determined Posner is "an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research." "A resourceful investigator and skillful writer," says The Dallas Morning News.
Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.
He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC's TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive "Cultural Chatter" column. Read a profile about Gerald's work in Publisher's Weekly.
....................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)