Why We Should Not Be Easily Satisfied
First, let me thank the remarkable group of people who have agreed to participate in this discussion. I admire them all, and appreciate their taking time to offer their insights. I’ll be replying here to the posts I have in hand from Brian McLaren, Richard Parker and Alexia Kelley. I’ll post again on the other contributors.
I found Brian McLaren’s comments deeply moving (and extremely generous). I know a number of evangelicals who were greatly influenced by Francis Schaeffer and had been unaware that he had urged Christians to be “revolutionaries against the status quo.” The heart of my argument with the Christian Right does not concern their assertion that Christianity has a political dimension. Of course it does. But I write in the book: “It is impossible to see Jesus as a tool of the Establishment, It is difficult to imagine this revolutionary figure arguing that cuts in inheritance and capital gains taxes should be the highest goals in politics.”
I do not claim, and I know Brian McLaren doesn’t either, that Jesus is primarily a political figure. Those of us on the left or liberal side need to resist the temptation to turn Jesus into the Eugene Debs or Franklin Roosevelt of antiquity. His mission was primarily spiritual, and Christian salvation claims are more than a promise of a more egalitarian society or a wiser form of government. But I do believe that Christians (and this applies to followers of the Jewish tradition as well) have the task of calling the world -- and ourselves -- to account in the name of higher standards than any government or economic system typically achieves. Religious people should be hard to satisfy. I think Martin Luther King Jr. set the bar very high, and rightly so, when he said: “No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until ‘justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream’." We all have a lot of work to do.
I love Brian’s idea of “dynamic solidarity” and it’s especially worthy because the word “dynamic” implies our need for correction and instruction from each other. It is a sister concept to David Hollenbach’s idea of “intellectual solidarity and very close to Glenn Tinder’s concept of “the attentive society.” In a line I’ve never been able to get out of my head, Tinder wrote: “An attentive society would provide room for strong convictions, but its defining characteristic would be a widespread willingness to give and receive assistance on the road to truth.” It’s very kind of Brian to cite that passage from my book about the need progressives and conservatives have for each other. I had not thought of those lines in terms of “thesis/antithesis/synthesis.” But it’s a nice thought. Who knew I was being Hegelian?
My friend Richard Parker makes an excellent point about the media and how the religious right was covered. He is absolutely right about the dominant story being a “’shock and awe’ tale told by East Coast elites in the press and universities, of triumphalist white evangelical conservatives galloping out of the South like an avenging cavalry of saints.” I remember back in 1980 when I worked at The New York Times that Ken Briggs, then the religion editor, was one of only a handful of journalists prepared to resist this narrative. Ken and I used to joke that there seemed a kind of conspiracy between liberals and the evangelical right – there were liberals and people in the media who wanted to make the evangelical right bigger and scarier than it was at the time, and the evangelical right was very pleased to cooperate in propagating this view. In my post, I noted that where the media once paid attention to a broad range of religious figures such as Reinhold Niebuhr and John Courtney Murray, its focus began narrowing in the late 1970s. That coincides with Richard’s point that the media also did not cover the millions and millions in the churches who did not fit the religious right stereotype.
There is one fact that we must come to terms with, though: It’s simply true that in 2004, Americans who attended religious services the most voted Republican by a substantial margin, and those who never attend voted strongly Democratic. Richard would make the point, and he’d be right, that most Americans do not fall into either of these two groups and that there are huge numbers of religious Democrats and liberals. But the correlation between religious observance and Republican voting is undeniable. (The large exception to this rule, of course, is the African-American community, almost always left out – wrongly -- when we talk about evangelicals, even though they make up a large share of the evangelical community.) As a practical matter, the Democrats have a more complicated task on questions of religion: theirs is simultaneously the party of secular voters, who make up an important minority of its supporters, and religious voters. The political task of creating harmony among these groups is formidable. I hope we can talk more about this as we go along.
Finally, Alexia Kelley, who has devoted so much of her life to the work of lifting up the poor, writes in a powerfully prophetic voice. She stands as an example of the new spirit moving in politics that I write about in Souled Out. She makes note of the fact that so far in 2008, exit pollsters have asked only Republicans if they were evangelicals. This is something about which the Democratic National Committee also lodged its complaints. Can one imagine any recent election in which Democrats would want to insist that, wait a minute, a lot of our people are evangelicals, too? That, to me, is another sign that the religious winds are changing.
"But Virginia's "conservative Christians" are hardly a monolith; the formulas that worked before are in tatters. Jerry Falwell is gone; Pat Robertson is on the way out, and his once intimidating "Christian Coalition" barely even exists - even what it stands for anymore is a mystery. (A friend yesterday even hinted that the current CC leader is quietly supporting Clinton)"
February 12, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was about to start "with all due respect," but then realized that no respect is due to people who believe something without any shred ot evidence. Religious believers do, indeed, perform good works, and if that alone were the issue, I'd be praising them. But whether they're Christian, Jew, Muslim, or otherwise, they insist on perpetuating myth and superstition. I prefer to have a relationship with them much as Mark Twain was said to have had with God--we tip our hats when we pass on the street, but we never speak.
February 12, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: warhog
that one should give credence to a mythical being "without any shred of evidence" does not conform to reality... people, wake the fuck up and smell the shit about you... you are being fucked at both ends by the powers that be... let's get busy for the love of christ!
February 12, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraq war is strapped around John McCain's midsection like a suicide bomber's detonation belt.
He's made it his destiny.
His campaign strategy is to make it ours.
Can Jack 'Bama stop him before it's too late?
February 12, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My disagreement is their asumption that religious people never question their faith, never subject a tradition's assertions to critical inquiry.
From previous comments.
You say about "militant atheists." (I don't get that phrase, by the way. If you mean people who express themselves in very clear terms, then that is hardly militant. And, as Hitchens spends some time pointing out, it is a far cry from killing people in vast numbers in disputes over creed.)
I challenge you to find any atheist who claims that religious people never question their faith. Now they do say that religious people Christians (sorry, the euphemism was irritating me. this is not about all the other religious people who have beliefs that are in conflct or even utterly incommensurate with Christianity) do not engage in critical inquiry
The claim that people like Dawkins make is that while it is very very clear that Christians spend a great deal of time trying to reconcile internal contradictions of their scriptures, their personal faith and their behavior in life, they don't really get anywhere.
Take the Trinity. The Council of Nicea engaged in a very difficult and complicated process of reconciliation that required much writing down of stuff. But the result didn't really make a whole lot of sense at the time; witness all the "critical inquiry" that took place afterwards trying to explain the Nicean Creed--which Christians still recite to do as the basis of their faith.
Now this was a difficult problem in the 4th century, both theological and political (to the degree these are distinct areas of concern). The whole business of dismissing the various heresies leads to a pretty incoherent doctrine regarding the nature of the various aspects of the Trinity, one that resists explanation to a normal person.
But it's even worse now. Then, at least, the idea of how people came to exist was very mysterious. While it was unreasonable to declare that a child could be fully human and also be conceived without a human father, you could kinda talk fast and move past this point by noting that God can do anything. (That, by the way, is not an example of critical thinking.)
But now we know a great deal about human development, and in that context it's even harder to make sense of the Creed in any other than an entirely symbolic. Now, the critical thinking part would require acknowledging this, moving on, and maybe stop reciting it so often, like we've moved on social issues like slavery. (I'm actually sympathetic to this. The whole enterprise is shot if Christ didn't really suffer, or wasn't really divine.)
And so this is when people get cranky. This is when they start saying things like "militant atheists." The Creed is at the core of the faith. And it's also nonsensical in any contemporary reading of it. You can't get the fully human, fully divine thing given what we know about fetal development without committing one of the heresies the Creed is meant to guard against.
So when Dawkins says that Christian theologians don't engage in critical inquiry (if he in fact does sasy that), he is saying, among other things, that they do not take into account areas of human knowledge that have vastly changed since Saul fell off the donkey.
He'd also say, as I do, that what passes for critical thinking seems mostly to be lengthy and repetitive, rather than crisp and focused.
February 12, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wardog has it right.
You state "The heart of my argument with the Christian Right does not concern their assertion that Christianity has a political dimension. Of course it does. But I write in the book: “It is impossible to see Jesus as a tool of the Establishment, It is difficult to imagine this revolutionary figure arguing that cuts in inheritance and capital gains taxes should be the highest goals in politics.”" Frankly I would like you to not vote. I'd rather not have religion mingle with politics. I'
February 12, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"on the road to truth"!? which planet are we living on people? let's get our collective heads out of our asses and demand the impeachment of and sentencing of these arrogant asswipes that have passed themselves off as our "supreme leaders" for the last 7+ years... why the fuck do we wait?!
February 12, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I do believe that Christians (and this applies to followers of the Jewish tradition as well) have the task of calling the world -- and ourselves -- to account in the name of higher standards than any government or economic system typically achieves. Religious people should be hard to satisfy." Nice ideal but I rarely see this in practice. there a strong Calvinist strain in Protestantism that makes so much high minded thinking seem snobbish (and often it really is just high brow snobbishness). Religious people often have been the first to identify themselves as being on "the side that's winning", certainly in Catholic and Protestant colonial outposts and, in this country, very much in Protestant circles.
Most people I've known who think about standards in a truly sincere way have been Jewish. Reform Judiasm, in particular, has set these ideals in ways that seem to become aspirational in a way that doesn't happen in Christianity.
The issue of "how to reach religious people" is a difficult one because there are so many different variations. We have had progressive thinkers motivated by evangelism, like Neibuhr. But many of the same ideal have been espoused by their contemporaries who had become ever more secular (consider Niebuhr's nemesis, John Dewey). Christianity has repeatedly countered modernism of various forms (e.g., science) and, at best, resolved itself in the most philosophically tortured ways.
people like Hitchens may have visibility on parts of the web and with a limited print readership, but I tend to think that organized atheism is pretty irrelevant in terms of how people think about faith. There are a great many people who have fallen away from active religious practice--some really don't think about religion at all. Others may be searchers who explore Buddhism or other alternatives with varying degrees of devotion. In the megachurch era, it appears that even the most evangelical of churches are more like a consumer market place than a place that really identifies with uplifting standards.
In the end, what to do with religious people becaomes a complicated question and one that cannot turn on one's own ideals or preconceived notions of what religious people are like or who they are. There is plenty of survey evidence that would suggest that once you get out of the South, the religious people we're used to hearing about (evangelicals, fundamentalists) are a declining force in the population. And in the South, the rates of divorce, eta l. aren't exactly a testimony to how they shape behavior beyond the most superficial applications of faith. Religious practice in the South is as much a status marker (a means of gaining middle class respectability in places where a middle class life is unattainable) as anything else.
February 12, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toleration, and not just today's watered-down version, but also 17th century version with a capital 'T', has been a source of continual tension since the first European settlement of this land. It was a necessary creed of Europe in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War.
Initially, Massachusetts Bay could be a New Jerusalem of true believers, but then those pesky Quakers and Baptists showed up, and somehow Rhode Island's notion of toleration became a model for the nation 150 years later.
Still, the tension has persisted, and will never be resolved as long as there is belief in an absolute truth. One can always live amicably with thy neighbor who believes differently; we should honor all men of good will.
That said, those who are not secure in their station in life—whether it be economic insecurity with outsourcing of job, whether it be social ties weakened with family moving away and new ethnic groups moving into the neighborhood, whether it be a vaguer sense that one’s regional or cultural ‘identity’ is under assault from outsiders or elites—they will attach themselves more closely with an identity. Because of its structured environment and because of its absolutes, religion will attract those seeking such an identity. I say this not as a disparagement of Christianity, nor of the motives of its believers (for I am indeed committed in my faith), but as an (amateur) sociological analysis of what the TV pundits like to call “values voters’.
Perhaps, religious identity has become a mere proxy for being on the outside, insecure economically, and with traditions vulnerable. Those blacks, likewise on the outside, despite being churchgoing, will be a separate group since race trumps religious identity. The Catholic or Orthodox blue-collar worker who once made the backbone of the Democratic Party, too, falls outside this larger swath of alienated Americans—they are either dying off, or their sons or daughters have “made it”. What is left is the swath coming down from Appalachian Pennsylvania through the South and spreading out to the Midwest. Addressing these voters will be more of addressing their insecurities than their religious convictions.
February 12, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . at The New York Times . . . Ken Briggs, then the religion editor . . . and I used to joke . . . . E.J. Dionne
Doubtless, because the two of you, liberal establishment believers both, were so blinkered and so self-satisfied that you were unable to see let alone imagine the gathering threat.
February 13, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey folks, what's going on here? Are we try to prove whether or not God exists or are we trying to win an election? I think I'm the one who first threw the term "militant atheist" into this forum, and I'm not sorry that I did. If you want an operational definition of militant atheist read the recent post by JayAckroyd. It is typical of the poisonous attacks on people of faith that is happening on liberal blogs across the Internet. Quite frankly Hawkins and Hitchens have been attacking straw men, rather than top-of-the-line theologians. And, quite frankly, I have far more respect for previous atheists like Sartre and Camus, who had enough brains to figure out what an ugly corner they had painted themselves in, even it it was all true. The notion that morality didn't exist until contemporary atheism is absurd. The notion that religious people are a subhuman race of blathering idiots also is absurd. What bothers me most is that the militant atheists are damaging the progressive cause. They are giving it the kiss of death. No election can be won without giving respect to people of faith.
I am a Christian and about half of my friends and are completely secular. We get along just fine. We work together for social and economic justice and for environmental protection. The Democratic Party has a sizable minority of people who are completely secular, but it has a large majority of people of faith. If we don't learn how to respect one another and work towards common goals, we are doomed.
February 13, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that was interesting. I was going to respond to this, but there is really nothing to respond to. The "mlitiant atheism" quote was in the EJ Dionne comment, just before the snipped passage.
I still don't know what "militant" means in this context. Blowing up abortion clinics, torturing people in dungeons, flying planes into office buildings. These are militant acts. Writing stuff down certainly doesn't seem to me to qualify.
As to your little prefabricated rant, I'd ask to read what I wrote. I said, no more and no less, that the claim that theologians engage in "critical thinking" is very hard to support. To make that argument concrete, I noted that it is very difficult to perform a satisfying critical analysis of the Nicean Creed--that it was very difficult in the 4th century, and that is well-nigh impossible now.
I simply do not understand how it is somehow unfair to point out that a claim is false.
This is something of a running theme in this kind of debate. American Christians are in something of a state of cognitive dissonance. They want to be able to justify their faith in the context of post-Enlightenment thinking, which is very difficult to do, while thinking critically. And they want to keep the supernatural elements of their faith. This leads to embarassing contradictions.
As Dawkins points out in his last book, what really is going is that when you bring up points of doctrine that are really hard to swallow, you are being exceedingly impolite. It's so "19th century" to bring up core elements of Christian belief that are, well, hard to believe given what we know to be true about the nature of human beings.
The resolution is to drift ever Spong-ward, to an abstract series of principles that are summarized rather well on the Sermon on the Mount or to drift Falwell-ward, to the imposition of petty restrictions on (mostly female) behavior, focusing on preserving the community from the effects of modernization.
EJ is in the Spong-ward camp. The trouble is that as the drift gets more pronounced, you end up (as many Episcopals have noted) throwing the baby out with the bathwater and become indistinguishable from secular humanists.
As for the idea that there would be any difficulty getting along with co-workers whose religious beliefs are different from yours, who said that there was an issue? This is a discussion about a book about faith in America, describing the growing backlash against the Christianist, but not terribly Christian "religious right" among rank and file Christians.
One thing I may have missed in the previous discussion is the observation that for most people this is all irrelevant. Most people find community and support in their congregations, and are not terribly caught up in the theology of it all. One of the things that I've found most appalling is the exploitation of these communities by Christianist leaders for political access and, "raising" money for their accoutrements.
February 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The notion that morality didn't exist until contemporary atheism is absurd. The notion that religious people are a subhuman race of blathering idiots also is absurd.
Now to irrelevant side issues raised.
Atheists don't say that morality didn't exist until now, What atheists say is that morality preceded religious belief. The Israelites didn't think it was okay to steal and murder before the tablets were brought down. The Ten Commandents codified previously held moral precepts.
There are universally held moral precepts that transcend, and precede, the establishment of formal religion. Every society regulates sexual relations and childrearing ("marriage"). Atheists make this argument to refute the claim that without religion, there would be no morality.
Now as to religious people being subhuman or a bunch of blithering idiots, again, nobody I know of makes that claim. Certain even PJ Myers doesn't make the former, and nobody would call Freeman Dyson a blithering idiot. Now Hitchens can be very cutting, but when I've seen him being so, the person he was respond to was being pretty dumb.
As I said before what's going on here is cognitive dissonance. It's very hard to reconcile a religion with supernatural elements at its very core with how we know things work at this time. An example that would apply to nobody here is the young earth creationist going off to his weekly meeting in his fossil-fueled car.
For the most part, what people do is compartmentalize this--do a quick and dirty version of Gould's non-competing magisteria. What gets you (and others) angry at people like Dawkins is that they call you on this compartmentalization. My discussion of "critical thinking" regarding the Nicean Creed is using a similar trick. But one is not thinking critically if one restricts oneself to texts that affirm the central belief structure, when there are texts extant that question it. This was a big problem in the 4th century. The Council was, in part, a declaration of what texts could be used to engage in understanding of the nature of God, Christ and the Pneumos. This is the opposite of critical thinking.
February 13, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party has . . . a large majority of people of faith.
"Faith"? Faith in what? The natural goodness of humankind?
February 13, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see the sense of combining religion and government in all of this. It invites a debate that is illogical because it isn't one that can be argued with any expectation of an agreed upon outcome. Government needs to be about the secular provisioning of things we can see and touch and evaluate in an objective way. And I don't mean we shouldn't demand ethical conduct of our elected officials or ignore the moral imperatives. Trying to incorporate something into the process of governing that is not quantifiable is sure to produce an undesirable result that we know beyond any historical doubt, we should avoid. I think it is seriously irresponsible of any person who wants to participate in the political process not to acknowledge this reality. It's an open invitation to failure. After thousands of years, have we not learned anything? Maybe I am wrong and need to apologize but I think anyone who thinks they can successfully mingle government and religion is just plain stupid. 100% of the historical evidence says it can't be done.
February 13, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't see the sense of combining religion and government in all of this. It invites a debate that is illogical because it isn't one that can be argued with any expectation of an agreed upon outcome. Government needs to be about the secular provisioning of things we can see and touch and evaluate in an objective way. And I don't mean we shouldn't demand ethical conduct of our elected officials or ignore the moral imperatives. Trying to incorporate something into the process of governing that is not quantifiable is sure to produce an undesirable result that we know beyond any historical doubt, we should avoid. I think it is seriously irresponsible of any person who wants to participate in the political process not to acknowledge this reality. It's an open invitation to failure. After thousands of years, have we not learned anything? Maybe I am wrong but I think anyone who thinks they can successfully mingle government and religion is just plain stupid. 100% of the historical evidence says it can't be done.
February 13, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find this post profoundly objectionable and insulting. I cannot believe anyone truly religious, or more important, moral, would pen it. From its salutation thanking all the wonderful people who had contributed, it was clear this was all headed in the wrong direction.
The salutation, in fact, was my first tipoff. A pet peeve of my single mother who raised four children (her husband died), was that men will bend over backwards trying to be nice, at least to other men. Let's start out by thanking all contributors for their moving words. Give me a break.
Here's the deal as far as I am concerned: I went to church through 12th grade. Although I can't argue the intricacies of the Nicaean creed, I do know the difference between right and wrong. And I learned that partly from my religious training, but more from my mother. Religion is not the only pathway to a moral or ethical (what an ancient concept that is) code.
And now, suddenly, it's the liberal, Democratic responsibility to embrace the religious, defined, of course as:
Americans who attended religious services the most
That, on its face, is laughable. This is an interest group the Democrats, or anyone sane, is supposed to court? Attendance to church is a criterion?
Of course, your religious point isn't that we necessarily like or respect all of those who attend church regularly, but that we do need their votes, and should somehow reach out to them. Jesus wasn't political, but, then again, he was.
Then we have this:
But the correlation between religious observance and Republican voting is undeniable.
Religious observance being what? Going to church. Christ, could there be a more ridiculous parameter?
And where were you for the last seven years? Calculating your religious advantages? We've been through at least one unjust WAR, illegal wiring-tapping, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, all brought to us by the Christian republicans, and, while being silent for all of those atrocities and years, you suddenly decide it's the Democrats' responsibility to stop this?
Where were you moral Christians for the last 7 years. Where were these Christian republicans during this time? Why weren't they stopping it?
For the most part, by your silence and accommodation, you moral and religious (that is, going to church every Sunday) charlatans have aided and abetted the last seven years. Don't come crying to us atheists to bail you out. You abdicateD your responsibilities; deal with it.
You want a higher standard? I have one. I do not countenance sideliners who suddenly demand a higher code than they have ever shown. Your call to embrace morally reprehensible people merely because they go to church more than I is pathetic.
February 13, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find this post profoundly objectionable and insulting. I cannot believe anyone truly religious, or more important, moral, would pen it. From its salutation thanking all the wonderful people who had contributed, it was clear this was all headed in the wrong direction.
The salutation, in fact, was my first tipoff. A pet peeve of my single mother who raised four children (her husband died), was that men will bend over backwards trying to be nice, at least to other men. Let's start out by thanking all contributors for their moving words. Give me a break.
Here's the deal as far as I am concerned: I went to church through 12th grade. Although I can't argue the intricacies of the Nicaean creed, I do know the difference between right and wrong. And I learned that partly from my religious training, but more from my mother. Religion is not the only pathway to a moral or ethical (what an ancient concept that is) code.
And now, suddenly, it's the liberal, Democratic responsibility to embrace the religious, defined, of course as:
Americans who attended religious services the most
That, on its face, is laughable. This is an interest group the Democrats, or anyone sane, is supposed to court? Attendance to church is a criterion?
Of course, your religious point isn't that we necessarily like or respect all of those who attend church regularly, but that we do need their votes, and should somehow reach out to them. Jesus wasn't political, but, then again, he was.
Then we have this:
But the correlation between religious observance and Republican voting is undeniable.
Religious observance being what? Going to church. Christ, could there be a more ridiculous parameter?
And where were you for the last seven years? Calculating your religious advantages? We've been through at least one unjust WAR, illegal wiring-tapping, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, all brought to us by the Christian republicans, and, while being silent for all of those atrocities and years, you suddenly decide it's the Democrats' responsibility to stop this?
Where were you moral Christians for the last 7 years. Where were these Christian republicans during this time? Why weren't they stopping it?
For the most part, by your silence and accommodation, you moral and religious (that is, going to church every Sunday) charlatans have aided and abetted the last seven years. Don't come crying to us atheists to bail you out. You abdicateD your responsibilities; deal with it.
You want a higher standard? I have one. I do not countenance sideliners who suddenly demand a higher code than they have ever shown. Your call to embrace morally reprehensible people merely because they go to church more than I is pathetic.
February 13, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard much discussion on what the story of the Three Temptations of Christ has on the Religious communities involvement in the political process. The last temptation involved Satan telling Christ that he would give him dominion over all the kingdoms of the world if Christ would worship him. In relation to the metaphor of this story it is rather humorous to see so many politicians bowing down to certain religious leaders for the support from their kingdoms.
The historical research being published on the origins of Christianity and the circumstances that influenced the early gospel writings is fascinating. The evolution (pardon the pun) of "the church" is looking quite different from how the first Christians viewed Christ and even amongst them there were numerous factions of interpretations. Elaine Pagles writes about the Gnostic and the Orthodox church conflicts. Once the Orthodox church took control they called the Gnostics heretics and they have had to go underground ever since.
February 13, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make the men sit down. KJV, John 6:10. And he commanded [his apostles] to make [the five thousand] sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties. KJV Mark 6:40-1; emphasis added.
As the Bible says, these men were looking for a John the Baptist, an Elias, any old prophet, and further implies, a leader who would lead them in a rebellion to throw the Romans out and would make the promises of scripture come true.
And Jesus said, Cool it! Sit down! Politics is not my bag. And, he implied, it mustn't be yours either.
February 13, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
E.J. Dionne says:
[i]As a practical matter, the Democrats have a more complicated task on questions of religion: theirs is simultaneously the party of secular voters, who make up an important minority of its supporters, and religious voters. The political task of creating harmony among these groups is formidable. I hope we can talk more about this as we go along.[/i]
Actually, it wouldn't take much talk to resolve this issue, and it is really quite simple. The Democratic party simply needs to affirm that it is the party of those Americans who believe it is none of the government's business if our citizens have faith in a supreme deity or other such spiritual matters. Founders like Jefferson were quite clear on the matter. Democrats just need to say, "you know, that viewpoint is correct. If you agree, whether you are a believer, aetheist, or agnostic, you can be a Democrat."
There are secular concepts of justice, freedom, and morality that supercede all religions. Many religions partake of these concepts; none may call them their own. That's what I want my country and my party to stand for. When a presidential candidate can say to a debate moderator that his or her religious beliefs take a back seat to the duty to uphold the constitution, I'll place my faith in that candidate.
February 13, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
DMS asks: Where were you moral Christians for the last 7 years?
Answer: We were working for peace and justice, doing everything we could to end an obscene war, petitioning Congress to get the government to care about unfortunate people. We were sticking up for the poor and the disenfranchised, the ill, and the victims of discrimination. Where were you?
February 13, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the point is that non-believers do believe that praying doesn't count. Otherwise, the silence in this country has been deafening.
February 13, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: I was about to start "with all due respect," but then realized that no respect is due to people who believe something without any shred ot evidence.
Most religious people are not believing "without a shred of evidsence". They have examined the evidence and concluded that it supports their beliefs. You have come to a different conclusion (and probably with different evidence). There is no need for such arrogance here, it is in fact quite counter-productive. Why not be content with a "To each their own" approach.
February 13, 2008 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you want to say "Jesus isn't a political figure" the only examples on the Left you can come up with are Eugene Debs and FDR? You're playing a game.
Ghandi and Martin Luther King were great political figures and great religious men. When Jesus throws commerce out of the temple, you don't see that as being just a little bit lefty?
You know, when one starts an argument by making up some imaginary "balance", thinking it makes one look more "reasonable", one has already lost ones way.
February 13, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Jesus hadn't played a role in the politics of his time, there would have been no need to get rid of him.
February 13, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a practical matter, the Democrats have a more complicated task on questions of religion: theirs is simultaneously the party of secular voters, who make up an important minority of its supporters, and religious voters. The political task of creating harmony among these groups is formidable. I hope we can talk more about this as we go along
Maybe I've been living in a cave, but haven't Democrats long ago learned to accept one another on these terms? If secular voters are indeed a minority in the Dem party, I don't believe they are a small minority. In any event, I have not noticed serious disharmony among these groups.
February 13, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, Marie, I'm with you. There's nothing complicated about it. There's no reason to make a big fuss about this. Look at how YKos handles it. There's a service on Sunday. Some people go.
it's weird to make the claim that there is a need to "create harmony" among these groups, never mind that it is "formidable."
The issues that progressives care about are not related to religious bellef. The idea that pastordan or revdeb need some special treatment is ridiculous--and they would agree.
It's weird that EJ would introduce the idea of a rift between these groups when no such rift exists. I don't see how it helps to call secularist names, or to indicate a need for a special status for Christians in the process.
February 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of "Militant Atheist," let us substitute the the phrase: "Defensive atheist who, feeling judged accuses others of 'myth and superstition.'" I know it's a bit cumbersome but maybe the acronym DAWFJAOMAS will work.
Those of us who consder ourselves part of the "church catholic" (note the small c) are stuck with the Nicean Creed, neo-platonic jibberish and all. Note that it begins with "we believe" not "I believe".
Concerning the last 7 years, I for one have been teaching 13 year olds every Sunday a faith that consistent with social justice and peace. I have taught them that forgiveness is not optional, according to the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount and that holding a grudge and seeking retribution are fundamentally opposed to what he taught. I have tried to bring more attention to people of faith like James Reeb, Bruce Klunder, and Jonathan Daniels, who made a difference in the world. I have also been giving and working for candidates who support my values.
February 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't accused anyone of myth and superstition. I've simply said (and you apparently agree) that this kind of thing does not involve not critical thinking. I picked out the Nicean creed in part because it is the work of human beings trying to come to terms with internal contradictions of the base set of beliefs of Christianity.
Good point on "we believe."
I have to say that the defensive attitude seems to be on the other side. I'd just as soon the question of what particular collection of religious beliefs people have not be part of a political discussion. I think the religious right has done a great deal of harm by making it so.
I think it would be a huge mistake to make a gulf where one does not exist--and when EJ says that there are problems integrating secular and Christian progressive values, I think he is creating a gulf that does not exist.
February 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Jay, you did not accuse anyone of myth and superstition. Wardog did. I agree with you about the creed.
If the Christian left is defensive it is because we may sometimes feel trapped, accused of apostasy by the orthodox and fundamentalists on one side while being accused of either believeing in "myth and superstition" or of not doing enough to properly represent the values we believe in by secular progressives.
I will continue to bring issues of justice, peace and forgiveness into the political arena because I can't let the voice of the Christian right stand alone and misrepresent my faith. I'm sorry if that creates too big a gulf for you.
February 13, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how much more carefully I can write. I'm attributing the "gulf" to EJ's remarks that there are problems integrating secular and Christian progressive values.
I strongly disagree. I do not think essays like his are helpful; they create conflict and strife where none should exist. While wardog may be derisive and disrespectful, he's responding to a claim of special status on the part of progressive Christians, which is kinda offensive, don't you think?.
It's hardly militant to point out that this special status has pretty much been, and still is, the standard state of affairs. to say that there is a newfound crisis where the secularists have to welcome in the religious just seems crazy to me.
In surveys asking "Could you vote for a......" "atheist" always comes in last.
There's no particular reason to insist that more needs to be done in this area--and doing so WILL raise hackles. The idea that any meaningful political movement in the US is dominated by atheists is beyond absurd, and the idea that secularism excludes participation of progressive Christian activists is also absurd.
So I think EJ and other progressive Christians are not doing a good job by creating a divide based on the source of a progressive's beliefs in any set of principles. It's, as you say implicitly, the principles that matter, and not whether you convey them during a Sunday School class or Drinking Liberally meetup.
People like to point out that there are plenty of religious scientists (there aren't that many, in point of fact, but "plenty" is fair). Believing scientists don't bring their faith to the lab. Neither should believing activists bring their faith to the rally, in my opinion.
February 13, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have a more complicated task on questions of religion: theirs is simultaneously the party of secular voters, who make up an important minority of its supporters, and religious voters.
Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but this frame is utterly bogus (and all too common). You're wrongly equating "secular" voters with non-religious people and/or atheists.
It is, in fact, Americans of faith like myself who most want a secular government because we know religious freedom is only possible under a secular, religion-neutral government.
The real socio-political divide is between Americans who believe in religious pluralism and Americans who seek religious conformity.
The Democratic Party today is the champion of religious pluralism and inclusivity in America, which is why they tend to support the Separation of Church and State and eschew public exhortations of sectarian faith.
Unsurprisingly, the first Catholic President, first born-again Christian President, first Muslim Congressman, first Jewish Governor, first Buddhist members of Congress, first Catholic Governor, and first Mormon Senate Majority Leader were all Democratic. Elected Democrats include the likes of former missionary John Warner, Baptist seminarian John Louis, Eastern Orthodox Christian Mike Dukakis and Methodist seminarian Ted Strickland.
Today's Republican Party, on the other hand, has been appropriated by militant religious ideologues and fundamentalists who see government as a tool to force conformity to their right-wing religious ideology. Kevin Phillips has dubbed the GOP "The First American Religious Party," guilty of unleashing "A 21st Century American Disenlightenment."
Indeed, when Keith Ellison (D-MN) became the first Muslim elected to Congress, Republicans and Religious Right leaders did not celebrate: they went absolutely crackers because he planned to take the oath of office on a Koran. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) wrote a letter to constituents calling Ellison's use of the Koran contrary to, "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America," and warned, "if American citizens don’t wake up... there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."
The first time a Hindu guest chaplin was invited to offer the opening prayer in the US Senate, religious conservatives did not pray with him, they organized a protest, disrupted his prayer and attempted to shout him down. Religious Right activists praised the protesters, whileRepublican Rep. Bill Sali of Idaho derided the Hindu chaplin: "that's a different god... [it]creates problems for the longevity of this country."
Sure, the Democrats have a more complicated task because religious pluralism and freedom of belief are more challenging than fundamentalism and conformity.
Pluralism also happens to be America's principal opportunity for greatness.
But from Bob Jones University to the Terri Schiavo fiasco, Pat Robertson's "New World Order" to Falwell's "America deserved 9/11," from Chuck Colson's prison ministry scam to "Justice Sunday," the Air Force Academy's religious hazing scandal to "Justice Sunday" --it's clear that the proponents of right-wing religious conformity have openly declared themselves the sworn enemies of pluralism.
Fortunatley, the cause of pluralism has increasing numbers of voters like myself: Religious Americans who support a strongly secular government to guarantee our religious freedom.
February 14, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Mr. Dionne, but this frame is utterly bogus (and all too common). You're wrongly equating "secular" voters with non-religious people and/or atheists.
This is a very good point, and one that I will now be more alert about noticing.
It's a little tricky, because there's certainly something in between Christianist and secular--people who are influenced by a politician's religious beliefs, but not overwhelmingly so. And atheism is simply not allowed. But, by and large, the secular voters include a large number of people who happen to attend church services regularly.
February 14, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink