Our mutual discomfort reminds me of two quotes.

One of them was spoken by Marlon Brando in Mutiny on the Bounty. I forget the context, but it was something to do with the strange ways of the Tahitians. One of the crew (or maybe Bligh himself?) was disgusted by one of their customs or something, to which Brando quipped, in that dashing British accent he sported, "Yes, well, I suppose it takes all kinds to make a world."

It was delicious.

Also, one of my favorite sayings (from a Roman, I forget which one, maybe Terrence?): "Nihil hominis alienum est mihi."

Nothing human is alien to me.

Thanks so much for passing on that information, it's really heartening.

I went on a bus tour of black colleges in high school and was disgusted by the vicious homophobia spouted so casually by so many. It just goes to show that black people are every bit as capable of mindless hatred as anyone else.

That Wright, ministering to the demographic he does has been able to not only not offend the gay community, but be a proactive champion of it is an amazing accomplishment and speaks volumes of the man.

I can't imagine such support is not deeply challenging to some, if not most of his congregation.

This goes a long way, as well, to explaining Obama's attraction to the guy.

Yet another tremendously significant and revealing detail that will probably never see the light of day.

God help us all, know-nothing parrots that we've become.

A resounding, enthusiastic hear, hear.

Perfectly articulated.

Thank you.

Excellent points, Voltaire.

I'd only add that the curriculum you describe has a venerable history. It's called (as I'm sure you're aware) the liberal arts and it dates to the Roman republic.

They were called "liberal" because they were deemed the requisite education of a "liber," or "free man."

One who would be truly free, and fit to participate in self-government and the awesome responsibility of leadership should possess an education to facilitate such goals.

Critical thinking, empathy, an understanding of human nature in all its varieties, basic logic, the ability to contextualize one's own time and place, etc.

The ability to recognize that we are often faced with genuine dilemmas that resist facile resolutions is something that few possess, it seems to me.

But the real problem isn't that the populace is ill-educated--though it's a major problem--the real problem is that "journalists" themselves are just as ill-educated as those they would inform!

They have the sacred duty to act as teachers and instead they show themselves just as profoundly simple-minded as their audiences.

Imagine if physicians knew as little about medicine as their patients. I suspect people would recognize this as dangerous corruption.

What's sad is that we demand so little from those who ought to be able to discriminate the wheat from the chaffe when it comes productive discussion.

Sigh.

No, I can't.

This is actually one of the things that pushed me into the Obama camp.

Originally I wasn't sure he was the real thing, that he was progressive enough, that he was substantive enough, etc. He seemed a decent fellow, but early on I didn't have any evidence he was a heavyweight.

It was the recognition, though, that he was quite literally putting his life on the line by running that made me give him the benefit of the doubt, that he really had something to contribute that he (and more importantly, his family) deemed worth the risk.

That kind of courage speaks volumes to me, and convinces me that Obama is not just interested in being president.

On the other hand, whatever you think of this quality, it's fairly transparent to me that Clinton really really wants to be president because she really really wants to be president. Not that she doesn't have a worthwhile (if middling) agenda, but she just seems driven more by ambition to me, which is troubling.

(That's a bit of a digression and I probably shouldn't have dragged Clinton into this, but that was my train of thought. The real point was that I agree with you, zootsuiter, thanks for your comment.)

I think we're talking past one another on this one.

I don't think Kamiya or those of us on this thread who have responded so enthusiastically to his essay are talking about "strategy" or "electability."

In fact, quite the opposite, I think we're bemoaning the fact that you're probably right, these things are poor "strategy."

The point of the essay is that this state of affairs needs to change, that these things are falsely or illegitimately condemned.

The point (as I see it) is to lay the groundwork for moving us all to a point where we can recognize knee-jerk patriotism for what it is, to free ourselves from its dangerous thrall.

So, leaving questions of strategy and electability to one side, do you have any thoughts on the actual content of the essay?

"I agree with Gary Kamilya's thesis that there should be a national discourse about the issues surrounding race, blind patriotism in this county, and out involvment internationally, however, the path that Wright takes is not the correct path to bring this about."

Perhaps there is no "correct path," but rather a number of paths, depending on the audience and context.

Was Wright addressing the nation, or simply his congregation?

Is anyone proposing that we adopt Wright's tone, rhetoric, etc. in launching a "national discourse?"

I don't think so, but maybe I'm missing something.

Maybe Wright's path was the right one for his congregation at that moment in history.

Maybe not, but again, I don't think anyone's putting this forward as the universal model by which to launch this particular conversation.

Do you agree?