Talk:Reinhold Niebuhr/Archive 1

Fabor?
I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I removed the section on Niebuhr's theology, which was copied from this website. This material, along with several other paragraphs, were inserted by anon. User:12.170.199.21 on October 30, 2005. Parts of his biography were also copied from the same article and parts were copied from this one. So some of the existing biography also needs to be re-written. --Blainster 23:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I don't see anything here indicating why there is an NPOV banner on the article

Does this mean that we can remove the NPOV banner? Not having dealt with that issue (the NPOV warning banner), I'm not sure how we get that reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.177.200 (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberation Theology and Karl Barth
Liberation theology has certainly been influenced by some Karls--Rahner and Marx--but not Barth. Liberation and Barthian streams remain mostly opposed, though rapprochements have of course been attempted. It seems that the intent of the sentence is to point out that both streams have superseded Niebuhrianism to an extent (Barthianism most notably through the "post-liberal" movement); my edit reflects this understanding. Caballocaballo (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Need for citations banner
Why was this removed? The article does not have enough citations to qualify as a good article.--Parkwells (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

David Brooks and Obama re "The Irony of American History"
Today (Friday, Dec. 11th, '09) on the PBS Newshour, David Brooks (journalist) (of "Shields and Brooks") mentioned that Pres. Obama's Nobel Prize speech was inspired from one of Reinhold Niebuhr's books. He mentioned "The Irony of American History" as being one that Obama had discussed in one of his early interviews with Obama. I'm reasonably certain that he also said Obama's Nobel speech took inspiration from sections of this same book. LP-mn (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly Article
There's an Atlantic Monthly article coming out that deals with him, and it actually suggests he had a large influence on neocons in addition to their opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Niebuhr influenced both the neocons and the liberals. "The Irony of American History" is actually sited by both sides of the debate. Both McCain and Obama quoted him in their campaign speaches. As for this article, it states some of this. You should take a minute and read it.--MarkB 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark1327 (talk • contribs)

POV
Talking about being sympathetic to Marxism without citing a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.82.86 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the comments are removed/tagged with citation needed, the need for the POV-template should be gone. So I have removed it. Greswik (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent work
Since the 1980s there have been a lot of studies published on Niebuhr. I have tried to summarize some of the main points, with citations. Rjensen (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Prussian Union
The Church of the Prussian Union is most commonly understood to be a Lutheran and Reformed United Church. Niebuhr's denominational heritage (He was a member of the Evangelical Synod which became the Evangelical and Reformed Church and finally the UCC) points more to the "United" quality of the Prussian Union than a strictly Calvinist character.chazman (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Judaism
"Niebuhr made many bold assertions regarding Judaism. As a young pastor in Detroit, he favored conversion of Jews to Christianity, scolding evangelical Christians who were anti-Semitic or ignored them. He spoke out against "the unchristlike attitude of Christians" and what he described as his fellow Christians' "Jewish bigotry." " Made a change trying to guess at the original. The quotes do not support an assertion that he wanted to convert Jews to Christianity, but suggest he was trying to deal with anti-Semitism directed at the more recent Jewish immigrants in Detroit, part of the wave then of "new" immigrants.Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Serenity Prayer Inaccuracy
The article states: "The earliest known version of the prayer, from 1937, has been found in a Christian student newsletter." The 1937 version referred to is the earliest version, or perhaps one of the two earliest versions, that attribute the prayer to Niebuhr. There are now three known pre-1937 versions that do not mention Niebuhr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.235.93 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Reinhold Niebuhr's stroke
Reinhold Niebuhr definitely had a stroke, as he himself discusses in his essay which is accessible on:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1446

I have a feeling that it was a stroke which led to his death in 1971. If this is the case, it could go in the article, and the categorisation of this article could be extended accordingly. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just looked at the category which is called "Deaths from Stroke", but Niebuhr's name is not there. If it was, as I suspect it was, a stroke which killed him in 1971, his name should be added to this category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Needs a source for cause of death to have this category added.--Parkwells (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholics
What does the section entitled Catholics have to do with Catholics? It makes a passing mention of a catholic but deals with the KKK and protestants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.55.151 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * he was defending Catholics. Rjensen (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Catholic incumbent, John W. Smith, won by a narrow 30,000 votes". Is 30,000 narrow? What was the size of the electorate?Arrivisto (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Serenity Prayer popular version citation
I am not an expert on the subject but out of interest regarding the serenity prayer and "the most popular version, whose authorship is unknown," reading:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can change, And wisdom to know the difference."

...I first discovered this in Kurt Vonnegut's fictional novel Slaughter House 5 (1969), which being one of the most popular novels of the 20th century it could have been the first spreading of this version.
 * I trimmed out the material that does not relate to Niebuhr -- dropping poetry that no one claims he wrote, as well as little league speculation that maybe he heard it somewhere or maybe not, which is not based on any evidence. Rjensen (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

lead
Just wanted to explain the edit I made to the lead on Niebuhr. I'm attempting to pare down the length of the lead by removing redundant statements (such as Obama's interest in Niebuhr). I understand that Obama is a politician and obviously is rational to include in the earlier section; I just don't feel that it's necessary considering he gets his own clause later.

Also, I'm not very familiar with Niebuhr as a whole, but the lead seems rather dense. Is there anything that is relatively unimportant in there that could be eliminated?L.cash.m (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Serenity Prayer update
I see that the Wikipedia article on the Serenity Prayer has been updated to reflect my discovery that Reinhold Niebuhr was clearly the originator of the SP, but the article on Reinhold Niebuhr also should reflect that. Fred Shapiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.149.245 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

2.2 Auto Industry
This paragraph, particularly the last sentence, seems somewhat problematic to me: "Niebuhr never talked to the assembly line workers — his parishioners were skilled craftsmen — but assumed they were automatons with crushed feelings. As studies of assembly lines have shown, the work may have been dull but the workers had complex motivations and boasted about their jobs and tried hard to place their sons on the assembly line. Ford tried and failed to control work habits; then, after extensive sociological studies in which they did interview the workers, management realized that the workers' were much more interested in controlling their home life than their work life. The Ford solution was welfare capitalism, paying very high wages with added benefits, such as vacations and retirement, that reduced turnover and appealed primarily to family men. Niebuhr should have asked his own parishioners." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.204.81 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added an NPOV tag. The section is in debate with Niebuhr, not about him. Further, it espouses a very specific point of view. Either way, I believe it's inappropriate.--140.247.41.199 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well and intend to remove it. Any objections? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. Numerous RS have discussed the issue. The question is what Niebuhr knew about auto workers and what motivated him to make the statements. What is needed is better footnoting so I added some. Rjensen (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding more citations does not address the NPOV issue. What I get from the above anons is that the paragraph reads like an apologia for the Ford Motor company and as such is out of place in an article about RN. It also espoused a very narrow, critical point of view. If you feel it must remain, how about a rewrite (and perhaps adding an alternate pov) to make it more balanced? Btw, kudos for the great work you've done here. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Niebuhr has been an interest of mine for 40 years. Wiki article on intellectuals typically include criticism of their positions. That means the article is more balanced, as opposed to espousing one controversial position and ignoring the opposition. Rjensen (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone removed the tag yet the section still remains biased as far as I am concerned. I intend to reinstate it. As regards the previous statement: criticisms are welcome, of course, but they still must be balanced with opposing viewpoints and presented in an overall neutral pov. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

From an outsiders POV what I "get" from this section is that Niebuhr was a Marxist and a Union Sympathizer. But he hated communism and disliked marxists? hmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.5.80 (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

US President Thomas Edison???
"[...]Aside from academics, numerous politicians and activists such as U.S. President Thomas Edison,[13]" Not clear what they meant to say here. The citation [13] is to the David Brooks column, which does not mention Edison. Rcolgrove (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Politics?
I would be interested in knowing the source for the political activism section, are there actual records or are these simply accusations of his opponents? Gerevpstr (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot imagine that there is any evidence to corroborate this account. I've never edited a Wikipedia article before, so I don't feel as though I should delete the first paragraph of this section on politics. As someone who has studied Reinhold Niebuhr for the last couple of years, however, I must say that every time I read the first couple of sentences on his politics in the 1930s, I am reminded why Wikipedia is not perfect. Yes, Niebuhr was a Socialist in the 1930s, but the "militant wing" label is a bit of a stretch. Of course I'm not sure what the author meant to refer to with his or her reference to the "militant wing" of the American Socialist Party of the 1930s. I doubt there were too many members of the party who participated in "military drill exercises" in the 1930s. and I'm quite certain that Reinhold Niebuhr, who was pre-occupied with teaching at Union Theological Seminary, lecturing on the college circuit, writing books and magazine articles, and serving on the boards of several organizations, would have had the time or skill to lead such drills. Furthermore, I think his leading of military drills would have provoked a bit of disapproval from the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the national pacifist organization on whose board Niebuhr served until 1933. The only sense in which he was "militant" is that he did not discount the use of violence outright, as many liberal Protestants of the time did. He never went so far as to advocate violence, but he argued that there was no inherent moral distinction to be made between violent and non-violent forms of coercion. Like many of his contemporaries, he was disillusioned with the capitalist system of the 1930s, and he argued that non-violent coercion was a fact of everyday life. As he saw it, non-violence helped protect the status quo and could easily become the tool of those in power to further the injustices of everyday life. He argued that, in theory, violence may actually help diminish the non-violent forms of coercion that were at work in society and therefore may ultimately help achieve a more approximate justice. -BPeery (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-

This article is missing some very important points; this is the problem with Wikipedia. First, his first political book wasn't "The Irony of American History" in 1952. "Moral Man and Immoral Society" was written in 1932 and influenced people from the civil rights movement through the war in Vietnam. Martin Luther King discovered Niebuhr while at seminary (see Taylor Branches' book, "The Pillar of Fire.") and it influenced his beliefs on social disobedience.

As for the whole sections on Politics and Niebuhr and Judaism, I'd strongly suggest deleting them until a decent write up with proper footnotes can be written. I'm not aware that missing citations, siting the Encyclopedia Britanica or an alleged political opponent(Louis Waldman) meets any reasonable standard.

Further, I see no bibliography with dates citing numerous his works. A passing mention of "The Nature and Destiny of Man" and focusing on one of his last books, written in the year of a debilitating stroke, "The Irony of American History," is a poor representation of the man, what he taught and what he was about.

Niebuhr is thought of as the greatest American theologian of the 20th century. With all due respect, you can hardly tell by this piece. Further, nothing in this article would have made me pick up or honor his works and thoughts.--MarkB 20:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick, someone call the calendar police:

"As early as 1942, he advocated the total expulsion of Arabs from Palestine and their resettlement in other Arabic countries. His extreme position may relate to his religious conviction that life on earth is never perfect, to his outrage over the Holocaust, or to the example of Germans being forcibly removed from Eastern Europe after World War II."

The problem: "As early as 1942, he advocated... after World War II".

I am not a Niebuhr scholar but this is a pretty massive editing/fact-checking error. If Niebuhr adopted a position in 1942, this was before the postwar expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe. Likewise Germany only began to use death camps in 1942, after the Wannsee Conference that January. "[O]utrage over the Holocaust" is just too ambigious, because it implies that Niebuhr and his audience knew about the death camps when almost no Americans did. That said Niebuhr had followed the situation in Europe closely for years and was likely aware that the Nazis were relocating and displacing Jews in Nazi territory and likewise probably aware of the earlier use of house-to-house death squad sweeps of Jewish populations in conquered territories. But to say "As early as 1942..." that Niebuhr advocated dispossession of Arab Palestinians because of "his outrage over the Holocaust" leaves too much room for faulty and chronologically-flawed inference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.238.147 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My own belief is that Niebuhr had at one time been a communist,possibly even a Marxist,but later rejected communism, making a quote to the effect that one of the great tragedies of the twentieth century was that the antidote to capitalism turned out to be worse than what it was attempting to cure. My source for this is the Lion Handbook of Christian thinkers.Vorbee (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)