Although it’s not exactly news anymore, Obama’s issue with Jeremiah Wright is not behind us, not least because another preacher from the same church bashed Hillary recently. But I think there’s a tremendous amount of significance to the entire matter.

Obama knew that his pastor was prone to making controversial outbursts (although wasn’t apparently present at the sermons that have been getting so much coverage on YouTube and on the news). However, he chose to stay with the church, only recently distancing himself from Rev Wright, arguably for political expediency. Hillary Clinton said very forcefully that she would not have stayed with the church had she heard Wright say the sort of things that he said after 9/11.

Forgive me for getting on the soapbox here, but I suppose that’s what Dyalogues is for, anyway. I side with Obama on this.

First, I don’t think language critical of the U.S. (”God damn America”) is something profoundly evil to say. The United States is an institution that, like any institution can be condemned. If this country weren’t open to severe, biting criticism, it wouldn’t be the country that it is. Countries that forbid self-criticism either through law or officially-fomented nationalism are, well, not exactly the kinds of countries that inspire envy. (I’m thinking of North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc.) Unsurprisingly, the U.S. has indeed survived Wright’s criticism, and doesn’t seem to have borne any permanent scars.

Second, as an adult, I’m sure Obama can sort out what he can seek spiritual guidance from his reverend on, and what to politely dismiss and ignore. It is not as if he were a child that can’t make those sorts of judgment calls. And it’s clear, from many, many long-time parishioners’ accounts, that, for the most part, Rev Wright was an inspirational, uplifting figure, that spent decades doing good work for his flock and thousands of suffering people in the Chicago area.

The fact that Wright made a number of outbursts seems to have come as no surprise to either Hillary Clinton’s pastor nor John McCain’s; both actually defended Wright. They know that delivering a sermon can be an emotional experience, and occasionally prone to stirring eruptions on the pulpit.

But the most important issue, in my mind, is this: How can we bridge the divides that separate us in this country if we turn our back on people we disagree with? This is something I feel very strongly about, and it is the main reason we started Dyalogues. Engagement with people that you disagree with is the only way you ever have any hope of finding some sort of compromise or understanding that you can live with. Refusing to engage at all with people unless they see things the way you do is a quick way to end things in a hopeless stalemate.

As a gay person who has strong feelings about gay rights, including the right to marry, it can sometimes feel infuriating to argue with someone who doesn’t feel like we’re entitled to the same rights that they enjoy. But, provided they’re simply not an unrepentant bigot, it would be a mistake to write them off and not understand at least where they’re coming from. You can only guess at what a person’s reasons are for holding a different position from yours until you actually talk to them.

So this is where Obama’s argument that he can bridge the divide in Washington, ironically, gets a little substance. And this is where Clinton’s similar claim tends to ring empty.