Getting the Bigger Story
I read a lot on religion and politics, but Souled Out gives some of the best historical overviews of contemporary American religious-political life I’ve come across. For example, Dionne sheds needed light on the Evangelical wing of the Religious Right by putting it in a broader context, and he does the same for the Catholic Right and Left too. The result, I think, is that readers from each side in current controversies can better see the rationale of their opponents. In an environment where political and religious disagreement so quickly turns to reductio ad absurdum and ad hominem street-fighting, this kind of respectful attention to “the other” is like opening a window in a stale room.
Simply by modeling a high degree of respect and empathy for both sides – as he does with unusual skill in Chapter 4, E.J. Dionne exemplifies what I believe is the only way out of so many of our current political deadlocks. (One way I’ve said this through the years is to say that almost everybody is against something worth being against; the trick is to avoid becoming so reactive that one finds oneself being for things not worth being for.)
I’ve noticed, though, that no matter how careful a writer like E.J. Dionne is, many secular folks are still nervous to hear religion and politics mentioned in the same sentence. One gets the feeling a good many commenters on “secular” political blogs wish that religious people would keep secret the religious roots of their political views – to put it gently, or that they would just shut up and go away - to put it bluntly. As a Christian myself, I share their distaste for the religious frame of mind that quickly reaches for the rhetorical blow-torch – although I’ve seen the irreligious display the same tendency.
I’ve been thinking about how we who are deeply and un-secretly religious can tell the story of our nervous-about-religion colleagues in a more sympathetic light, following Dionne’s example.
One way would be to go all the way back to the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), which arguably set the stage for the idea of secular government, separation of church and state, and a “naked public square.” The complex war pitted the Protestant League against the Holy Roman Empire, while Protestant Germans and Catholic Germans fought a bloody civil war. The protracted Christian-versus-Christian warfare was brutal enough to cast today’s Sunni-Shiite conflicts in a new light. Scholars estimate that at least 15 to 20% of the German population was killed either through direct combat or war-related famine and disease; many estimate the figure closer to 30%, and in some areas, it was closer to 60%. The conflict in Germany threatened to spread south to France, which played no small part in producing the anxiety that inspired Rene Descartes to right his Discourse on Method in 1637, which in turn became a seminal document in the development of the Enlightenment… the intellectual foment in which our own Constitution was forged.
In light of this history, I’m suggesting, my atheist and agnostic friends who find all this talk of faith and politics very disturbing have good reason for their concern: they carry on the tradition which remembers the brutality of “holy wars” in the so-called “Christian West.” They oppose religion in the public sphere not because they hate God and goodness, but because they love peace and civility, and they remember the violence, bigotry, and division that have been so often associated with religion across history. Until religious people can demonstrate an ability to bring their faith into politics in a responsible, respectful, civil, unifying, and charitable way, they have every right to be suspicious.
But this again brings me to appreciation for Souled Out. It’s a lot harder today than it was back in the 1960’s to believe that religion is going away any time soon; the death of God was prematurely reported. In fact, as Dionne suggests (in Chapter 8, for example), the anti-religious bias of late modernity has been one of the primary stimulants for the resurgence of religious fundamentalism: after all, any community under threat tends to be energized by fear and thrust into a defensive posture.
Which may explain the anxious tone and negative comments of some nonreligous folk. Just as religious folk fear being marginalized by secularists, secular folk may fear (with more statistical reason, it should be noted) being marginalized by the religious; just as religious folk fear the negative social consequences of materialism and atheism, nonreligious folk fear the negative social consequences of religiosity.
If we recall a quote that has been attributed to several people - the antidote to bad religion will not be no religion, but better religion – then we can appreciate what good books like Souled Out (and The Great Awakening, and several others) are trying to do: help people in times of violent and divisive religious insanity to rediscover “religion’s true calling” (as E.J.’s final chapter puts it). Even for those who feel more affinity for the Beatles’ Imagine than Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, I think this can be seen as a good and needed thing. All of us, whatever our religiosity or secularity, have to share this planet, and all of us share responsibility for its future, and so the struggle for civil discourse concerns us all.
Bringing "faith into politics"? Sounds like a plan for slipping in a Christianist fifth column. Don't you really mean proselytizing and evangelizing in the guise of performing political speech?
February 15, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way I have "faith" that the governmental policies I advocate will improve mine and others' lives. Is that what you mean by bringing "faith into politics"?
February 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have faith that the moon is made of green cheese. I just do. It is what gives my life meaning, and it is what makes me a moral person. Those who don't believe in lunar green cheese don't have any reason to have high moral behavior, and so they can't even join in the conversation.
We lunar cheesers also believe that life begins with the gleam in one's eye that precedes the encounter that joins sperm and egg, and therefore, if you see that gleam and you don't go on to have sex, you are a baby killer.
I believe it. I just do, and I feel sorry for all those who don't, because they are going to Venus when they die.
February 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Framers wrote, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Seems pretty clear they meant to keep religion, any religion, completely out of - not just separate from - the political arena.
Any 'foot-in-the-door' of a religious nature in the political house, whether it's benign, beneficial, or pernicious, must be immediately severed from its source.
February 15, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"'No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.' Seems pretty clear they meant to keep religion, any religion, completely out of - not just separate from - the political arena."
Nonsense. It simply means that any law mandating adherence to a particular religious faith -- or religious faith in general -- or membership in a religious group is un-Constitutional.
February 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I had some time to be more gentle, but I don't. So, I apologize in advance for being blunt.
It's great that you are deeply and un-secretly religious. Fine. And you tell a good story about why the non-religious are concerned about religion in government.
But the questions remain: Do you believe this story? Do you think other deeply religious people will accept it? Why doesn't the same story caution you against the mingling of religion and politics? And what does this story tell us, if anything, about the appropriate public policy regarding religion?
I would like answers to those questions. I would also like to know why religion shouldn't be personal and private. I made the same point when you were guest blogging here a couple months ago. Specifically, I think it is fine that religious persons are motivated by their faith when they pick their preferred policies. What I don't understand is why it is so hard for religious people to refrain from using the authority and means of the government to spread their religion.
The deeply religious people in this country need to spend some serious time thinking about their civic duties. Our democratic governance does not ask you what your religion is. Nor does it ask you to be secular. It asks us all to vote. That is generally the extent of our civic duties. The reasons that you vote the way you choose is your business. Please don't try to make it my business.
February 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an atheist, I am sometimes very resentful of the dominance of Christianity in so many aspects of American life and the arrogant presumption on the part of many Christians that only people of faith can have a moral center. The appalling statement by Bush Sr that atheists should not be allowed to be citizens is the exemplar of what I think of when I think of religion and politics.
Still, I am a pragmatist and know that I must work in concert with believers who share many common values. To that end, I propose a short code of conduct.
1) I won't say you are a superstitious idiot if you don't say I am going to hell.
2) I won't say you can't think for yourself and you won't say I have no moral center or that the morals I have I got from Christianity as it is America's moral center.
3) I will try not to think "but you seem so intelligent" when you mention your religion...and maybe you can stop thinking "but you seem so nice."
I could go on. Actually I work in concert with believers all the time and sure as shooting, one of them is going to say one of those things.
February 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greetings, Reece ...
fwiw - you didn't sound blunt to me.
You asked some good questions, to which I'll try to reply briefly.
You asked:
But the questions remain: Do you believe this story?
-- Yes.
You asked:
Do you think other deeply religious people will accept it?
-- That's one of the reasons I posted it. I think many religious people enter the story halfway through, so they only see "the other side" as bad guys. They read postings - perhaps like Ellen's above - and they get scared that others want to force them to keep their religious commitments secret as if it's something to be ashamed of - a kind of religious "don't ask don't tell" policy.
I want these folks to realize that some people who want to ban religion (or keep it private, etc.) are actually trying to protect society from a resurgence of the religious bigotry we've seen in the past, as I explained in my posting. So, yes, I believe it could help some people. Some of them won't care, I'm sure, but a surprisingly large number simply don't know the bigger story, and knowing it would help them become more sensitive, less combative, and more understanding.
You asked:
Why doesn't the same story caution you against the mingling of religion and politics?
-- It does caution me. I think it cautions E.J. Dionne too. He ends his book with a plea for humility. By the way, I'm not FOR a blanket mingling of religion and politics - not at all. (I'll say more on this below.) I am for people communicating openly and honestly - and civilly and respectfully.
-- I think we're in the middle of a very difficult but very important cultural negotiation. Some cultures tried a combined church-and-state intertwined arrangement, and the results were problematic. Others have tried a "naked public square" approach where in public, religious people have to pretend they aren't religious, and where matters of faith and values have to be kept private. Many religious people see downsides to that arrangement too. (Which is another subject worth exploring at some point.) So we're considering - not just here in America, but all over the world in various ways - a new approach. Not uni-faith. Not no-faith. But multi-faith. Not absolutist, and not secularist, but authentically pluralist. Maybe it won't work, but I think it's the best option we have and it's worth pursuing.
-- I would also add that attempts to marginalize religion can have unwanted negative side effects. Here's where getting the larger story can help in our understanding current tensions in Muslim nations. Many people don't realize that one stimulus to recent Islamic extremism has been secular dictatorships which tried to instill order by crushing free speech and religious freedom. This is one more reason why, I believe, free speech and freedom of religion are so important. When people aren't allowed to speak freely, they are forced to speak secretly, and a lot of dangerous stuff can get hatched.
You ask:
And what does this story tell us, if anything, about the appropriate public policy regarding religion?
-- That's a huge question. I think E.J. Dionne's book tries to answer it. My recent book might be of some help in this regard as well - it talks about global crises and suggests that religious communities have an important part to play in mobilizing people for needed social change in relation to the environment, poverty, and war. But two quick thoughts.
1. I think it tells us that we need to create ground rules - like our Constitution - so that people coming from different communities, philosophies, religions, cultures, etc., - can work peaceably together.
2. I think we'd need to look at some other stories - like those of Stalin and Pol Pot - to learn about what happens when the pendulum swings too far in the other direction, where religion is seen as such a threat that it is banned or forced underground.
You ask:
I would like answers to those questions. I would also like to know why religion shouldn't be personal and private. I made the same point when you were guest blogging here a couple months ago. Specifically, I think it is fine that religious persons are motivated by their faith when they pick their preferred policies. What I don't understand is why it is so hard for religious people to refrain from using the authority and means of the government to spread their religion.
-- Here, Reece, I agree with your concern. Be assured - I do not believe religious people should use the authority and means of government to spread their religion. Whenever this happens, I think we're violating the Constitution - the set of rules our nation came up with to avoid religious conflict. This is "cheating" and sadly, many of my fellow Christians have been guilty of it in recent years.
Getting back to your question - I guess a lot depends on what you mean by keeping religion personal and private. I think faith always needs to begin in private ... otherwise, it's just a public show, which is another word for hypocrisy.
But a sincere faith that is formed in private, it seems to me, wants to express itself publicly. For example, if in private I come to believe that all people are of great value to God, then I want to work in public for equal rights for everyone.
Or another example: I am deeply concerned about our plundering of the environment. When I talk to others who believe in God, I think it's a good thing that I can say - openly, freely, publicly, "Listen, everybody, we believe God created the planet. We believe God loves all creatures. We believe God gave us responsibility to care for this beautiful gift of the earth. We need to wake up to see how the earth is being damaged by human greed and irresponsibility!"
My belief may well motivate me to try to elect politicians who share this concern - whatever their religion or lack thereof. It may motivate me to try to get laws passed against mountaintop removal or for protecting endangered species.
But if I'm speaking to people who don't share my basic beliefs, if I'm arguing before Congress or on CNN or whatever, it would be counterproductive for me - and inconsiderate to others - to use the same language. In those contexts, I need to find other common language and values and beliefs to reach the same goal. I might talk about the predictable consequences of global climate change, or the long-term economic losses for all that will result from the short-term economic gains for a selfish few, and so on. I need to be persuasive based on values and understandings that we all share, or my view will lose. I should never try to pull out "the God card" to trump that process of honest persuasion.
Sadly, I think a lot of religious people aren't willing to go the extra mile in this regard and find language and arguments that are more broadly compelling. If that bothers you, please be assured it bothers me too.
You conclude:
The deeply religious people in this country need to spend some serious time thinking about their civic duties. Our democratic governance does not ask you what your religion is. Nor does it ask you to be secular. It asks us all to vote. That is generally the extent of our civic duties. The reasons that you vote the way you choose is your business. Please don't try to make it my business.
-- I see your point, although I'd hope many of us would take our civic duties beyond just voting. My guess is that participating in this blog is also a kind of civic responsibility for many people - trying to establish a kind of "town meeting" where we listen to one another, challenge one another to better thinking and broader perspectives, and try to reach agreements for the common good.
I hope that's helpful. Thanks for the good questions. I'll try to check back this weekend.
February 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
But a sincere faith that is formed in private, it seems to me, wants to express itself publicly. For example, if in private I come to believe that all people are of great value to God, then I want to work in public for equal rights for everyone.
Brian doesn't just want to "work in public." What Brian wants to do is to tell everyone why he's doing what he's doing. He's so proud and happy that he's "come to believe" that he can't contain himself.
Why, it's even more than that! It's not even Brian who is speaking; no, it's the "faith" that "wants [needs] to express itself" (note: the third person impersonal or are we talking about the Holy Ghost?).
Thee, Brian, protesteth too much.
February 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian, thank you for the in depth response; I really appreciate it. I'm under a self-imposed book-buying moratorium for the next few weeks, and thus I can't spend a lot of time with E.J.'s book right now. But I've grabbed a copy in the book store I'm in to look at for a few minutes.
Let's talk about pendulum swings for a minute. You note that we can't let the pendulum swing too far towards secularism and point to Pol Pot and Stalin as examples. I agree with you and I don't think we even need to go that far. It seems that the strong secularism of France and Turkey wherein most religious expression is purged from public life is causing those countries significant problems. I actually think that our Bill of Rights stumbled onto the right solution: The government is allowed to neither endorse nor restrict religion.
I'm not terribly concerned about this country becoming strongly secular. I don't know if it is true, but the well-known argument goes that people in this country remain strongly religious in large part because they are free to make their own decisions about it.
There is another pendulum at work. There now exists a large group of religiously motivated, politically active people. I am concerned that the pendulum is swinging from the Right to the Left. Will we see it swing back in 10 years when environmental issues or poverty are alleviated? I would prefer if people would make up their own minds on these issues and not be lead around by their Church.
Smashing the weight should be only one method of stopping the pendulum, but I can't think of others right now. Do you have any suggestions? Are our pendulums at cross-purposes? Would an end to the left-right religious pendulum necessitate a swing towards extreme secularism? (I don't know and I don't expect you to have answers. I am posing the questions more as a way to help me think through this.)
Now, I have just briefly read some of E.J.'s concluding chapter, but it seems to me that he is wants to put religion and religious voters solidly on the left side of the political spectrum. He clearly doesn't want a religious Left in the manner of the Religious Right, where religious leaders used mass media to organize Christian voters for the Republican party, but he does want religion and religious leaders to organize themselves such that they help to bring about liberal outcomes by acting as some greater conscience for the national community. While we could use the help on the left, I'm just not sure that it is good for our country in the long run.
I would appreciate any thoughts you have on that, and I truly did appreciate your last response as it went a long way to address my concerns.
Thanks!
February 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a very, very long piece of writing that in the end doesn't say very much. I still don't see this huge secular/Christian rift that is supposedly being healed here.
I haven't seen anything Brian or EJ has written that demonstrates why the Christian (NOT religious) basis for their beliefs is relevant to any political discussion. I don't see how the presence of a Christian source for their opinions adds anything to a policy discussion, unless, as with the religious right, it is to serve as a trump card.
But, otherwise, I don't see why it matters what the source is for your political views. If you think the death penalty is a bad thing, do you get bonus points because the pope tells you so, or do you lose authenticity points? And why bring the pope up at all?
Sometimes people come to political views because of events in their lives. I know a rock-ribbed no-holds barred liberterian who is also a strong advocate of handicapped access. (It happens that both of his parents are in wheelchairs.)
Good policy is good policy. It's not better policy if it's been rubberstamped in Leviticus, or worse policy because the Gospels are silent on it.
I've read now three of these long essays, and I still don't get why your Sunday School teachings are anymore important than the fact that you grew up in a union household, or your mother was mean to you as a child.
So can I hear a sentence with religion and politics in it that advances a policy discussion? Or that advances a political discussion. Because all I can possibly see is that you want politicians to pander to Christians, as Christians, you don't want to be hooted at for wanting this.
February 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But, otherwise, I don't see why it matters what the source is for your political views."
How about this:
Without using any religious references, justify the criminalization of abortion.
February 15, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's my point.
My point is that the case for public policy should not be grounded in a religious belief, and that the only reason EJ or Brian would bring up a religious basis is to use it as a trump card. The claim that a blastocyst is the same thing as a six year old is not a claim based on anything other than a religious belief. That, it seems to me, detracts from the policy argument; it doesn't matter what I say or do in response.
February 16, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without using any religious references, justify the criminalization of abortion.
Assume it should illegal to kill persons except in self-defense.
Define a person as an independent organism with human DNA.
Abortion destroys such an entity and therefore should be illegal.
Now, I'm pro-choice, and I think the apparent parsimony of the person definition there is just an illusion--"human DNA" is a misleading abbreviation of the 4 billion base pairs that define a piece of human DNA. The antiabortion cause is a violation of the Copernican principle--but that's probably true of a lot of human moral causes. It isn't however, inherently religious.
I think a better example of a right-wing cause incompatible with secularism/pluralism would be the crusade against gay marriage. It's impossible to justify that without either specific sectarian claims or deceit.
February 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My Webster's defines organism thusly:
A form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
That rules out blastocysyts, & zygotes, at least. It certainly refutes the argument against "morning after pills." Non-viable fetuses are miscarried every day, and no one is declaring that they should have a funeral and be burried in a casket.
Face it. The argument is a religious one, although the irony is that abortion is not something addressed by any of the ancients as far as we know.
It is religious only because it allows those who use people who prefer to be told what to think; to serve as a voting base for those who do not serve them in any way. Whom do they serve? Their financial base, of course!
February 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Define a person as an independent organism with human DNA."
As Jan points out, this definition rules out even second-trimester fetuses. In several decades' time we may be able to totally test-tube a blastocyst. Not now.
Definitions of human wil get really tricky when we can ampify or replace some brain matter with hardware, and also when AI gets useful.
In the meantime, faith and feelings help one decide, internally, but one checks those feelings against others' perceptions.
February 16, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me an independent fetus sometime.
February 17, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
> I want these folks to realize that
> some people who want to ban religion
> (or keep it private, etc.)
As Ronald Reagan said, there you go again. I don't think more than 0.00005% of the secular population wants to "ban" religion - no more than the percentage of the religious (or any other group) who hold bizarre extreme beliefs. Yet you immediately conflate the two and then take it upon yourself to apologize for the secular.
Many people both religious and non-religious as well as secular (religious is not the opposite of secular by the way) do want religion kept separate from the daily operations of government. It might be well to consider that the first generation descendants of the _Puritans_ signed off on that in the Constitution and ask yourself 'why did such a strongly religious people agree to that provision?'.
And to forestall the next misargument this has nothing to do with how an individual legislator makes his decisions. If he wants to campaign on the basis that he will make his voting decisions based on his religion, and he wins office, fine. But using the government to impose a specific religion on the general population is very bad for the Nation and also very bad for the religious.
sPh
February 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many people both religious and non-religious as well as secular (religious is not the opposite of secular by the way) do want religion kept separate from the daily operations of government.
Yeah, although as a nonbeliever there was a lot I liked in McLaren's piece, but equating the secular with non-religion and non-belief was definitely something I did not like. The vast majority of Christians conduct their business and legal affairs in secular terms. Maybe not for secular reasons, but agreement on metaphysics and ultimate causes is not required for cooperation in the temporal world. "Secular" is not supposed to describe a set of beliefs or a type of person, but a set of practices and a sphere of existence compatible with both religion and the absence of religion. I sense that McLaren disagrees with the claims of both new atheists and the religious right that the religious and non-religious can participate equally in government and society without one or the other abandoning their beliefs. But the word for the sort of pluralism between different religions and different metaphysics he advocates is secularism, and I earnestly wish the religious would stop being afraid of it.
That said, I wonder if the distinction between religion and non-religion has grown too firm. I may not believe in divine agents in the heavens, but I do believe, as I suspect most atheists do, in transcendent things like truth, beauty, morality, and consciousness. (There are lots of atheists who disbelieve one of those but few who disbelieve all of them.) The reason that many nonbelievers are so offended by attempts to write laws that can only be justified by sectarian revelations (see gay marriage bans) is not just because we aren't members of the sect in question and disagree with the policy, but because being forced to live by the practices, symbols, and rituals of a sect one doesn't believe is profane--blasphemous, if you will--to the transcendent things we happen to believe in.
There are some religious folk who want to maximize religious freedom by exempting religious organizations from regulations on labor, child-welfare, zoning, controlled substances, etc. It would be nice if they would realize that separation of church and state is grounded in that same religious freedom--the same recognition that it's not the job of government to regulate the transcendent.
February 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sense that McLaren disagrees with the claims of both new atheists and the religious right that the religious and non-religious can't participate equally in government and society without one or the other abandoning their beliefs.
Sorry for the typo--fixed here.
February 16, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
McLaren said: Just as religious folk fear being marginalized by secularists, secular folk may fear (with more statistical reason, it should be noted) being marginalized by the religious; just as religious folk fear the negative social consequences of materialism and atheism, nonreligious folk fear the negative social consequences of religiosity.
If we recall a quote that has been attributed to several people - the antidote to bad religion will not be no religion, but better religion.
***
It's astonishing really how difficult it is for reasonably intelligent people even to hear what McLaren, Dionne, and the other responders are saying. I always think of TPM as one of the rare sites where you can read the comments and learn as much there as from the original post. But I guess not when it comes to religion. And I think Brian McLaren put his finger on why in the quote above. The secularist/new atheist is as uninterested in dialog--or even as incapable of it--as the fundamentalist because both sides are thinking with their lizard brains. They both, rightly, fear the extinction of their moribund late modern worldviews.
When I listen to or read the new atheists, it's as if they are thinking in World War I categories even though we've moved into the nuclear age. It's as if because they don't understand their current world or where it is going, they latch onto something they think they understand and which bolsters their sense of identity. It's as if the new atheists need Christian fundamentalists the way 1950s-era conservatives needed communists. The anticommunists needed some focus point to which they could direct their anxieties. They didn't know who they were unless they could define themselves over against what they hated. And they hated with the over the top hate of the cornered animal, their thinking soaked in adrenaline, high on the fear that their very survival was at stake. Oh it felt good, and they were so righteous in their hatred. They were a brotherhood and sisterhood of righteous survivors against the plague that threatened civilization as they knew it.
Well as with the threat posed by the Soviet Union in the postwar period, or the threat posed now by Islamic fundamentalist terror, the threat posed by the Dobson/Falwell Christianist right is not something to be dismissed as if it were nothing. These are people who have done and will continue to cause a lot of damage, but they are best confronted with poise and prudence, not hysteria. Such reactions just feed the beast, and what it needs, instead, is starving. And the best way to starve it is by refusing to participate in the polarity. And you can do that, I would suggest, by just moving beyond the moribund positivism that defines both fundamentalism and its rationalist materialist twin.
There is life beyond the stale conflict that we've been madly iterating since the Scopes trial. There are interesting developments in religion, and those developments point to a different kind of religious future. But the new atheists would prefer to stay in the comfort zone where they can feel safe in their smug sense of late modern rationalist superiority. Fine, but they are the mirror image of the fundamentalists they love to detest.
February 16, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, cusanus; you've got everything wrong. This post isn't about fundies and atheists. It's about whether proselytizing, evangelizing, "witnessing" in the public square should be condoned and/or encouraged.
Personally, I'd appreciate you all staying home so I don't have to waste my time figuring out which among you are the "whited sepulchers."
N.B. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matthew 6:6; KJV
February 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how the smaller problem of a few over-zealous atheists consumes so much more of your attention, cusanus, when they haven't next to no political or social influence. If reasonable and rational people of faith spent their energy focusing on the real danger of theocratic zealotry, their time would be better spent.
There is no class of people less likely to win public office. There is one elected person of NO faith in federal government. A president risks no damage saying atheists should not be citizens. I could go on, but the list nauseates me.
So, all of you who fret about us atheists, why don't you get a grip? There is no clearer demonstration of irrationality than the overwhelming majority stewing about the bragadaccio of a few outliers in a small and beleagured minority that is under constant attack.
It's bad enough we have to take this from the theocrats but I get damn sick of getting from the people who claim to be tolerant and liberal too.
This entire argument smacks of the typical journalistic one-side is bad as the other tripe that passes for journalism. One side is not as bad as the other, but even if they were...one side has the force of government, media and society on their side and includes an enormous chunky of the population. The other side has ONE elected and a few well-known public intellectuals.
Most atheists are reluctant to come out of the atheist closet because it can cost them jobs and because the typical reaction is "you are going to hell" or a hideous effort to save the soul of the poor atheist. So, why don't you believers clean up the mess in your house and leave our house alone?
February 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Oregon, if I may offer a few words in defense of cusanus, I think he is talking about a specific sort of atheist represented by Richard Dawkins and Chistopher Hitchens. They have both written new and popular books trying to argue that people should give up their religious beliefs.
In my view, Dawkins and Hitchens make rather childish arguments about religion. Hitchens specifically argues that religion has killed more people than anything else in the history of the world. That's the sort of argument you expect to hear out of a high school atheist.
I also think cusanus has a point about how these sorts of debates are anachronistic. I personally don't find the term 'atheist' to be useful in describing my beliefs. It is neither central tenet nor even a necessary conclusion of what I believe. I am a materialist. It doesn't really bother me that other people aren't.
We ought to reexamine the categories we use in approaching this debate.
February 17, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The history of the Christian religion, from its origin in the death of its titular leader, is the history of believers tortured and murdered, often en masse, by secular states as well as states promoting other forms of religion.
Just as the diaspora has become embedded in what we might call the psyche of Judaism, so this long history of brutality has become embedded in the psyche of Christianity, having long outlived the defining events and any usefulness.
It seems impossible to imagine, now, in Christianized nations like the United States, how any Christians could feel "besieged" by hate-filled atheists like "ellen." The trigger is just that historical memory, which comes with the earliest training in the stories of the torture-murder of St Stephen, the imprisonment of Paul, the death by clubbing of Boethius.
The bigoted attitudes expressed by this crowd of atheists are so far at odds with any notion of progressivism that just by opening their mouths, these people effectively repudiate any reason to take them seriously. Progressivism, as a social and political movement, was founded by Christians and is embedded in the fabric of Christianity, as Christianity is embedded in it.
It's not 'ellen' that relentlessly pursues resources for the homeless and destitute in our city; it's our pastor. It's not 'ellen' that week in and week out, provides them with food and shelter, clothes, blankets, job search training and medical care, it's the members of our congregation. When I was in New Orleans working for Habitat for Humanity (itself a Christian organization) after Katrina, the parking lot was filled with vans from churches all over the country. Where was 'ellen'?
Why, she was blogging, spitting on the people who were helping rebuild a devastated city. She, and thousands of her fellow-travelers, here and elsewhere, who believe that professing Christianity makes an individual either worthless or dangerous, depending on the context of the conversation.
The core of atheism ("Man makes his own meaning") provides no more trenchant or sustaining moral basis than that of Christianity ("love thy enemy as thyself"). People go back and forth over that fundamental reality, and get nowhere. I'd be satisfied if the pseudo-progressives just would cease the venomous spew. I don't need their approval; and I don't need their crap, either.
They've a right to their bigotry, which just parallels the bigotry of followers of Mike Huckabee. Unfortunately, I have no right (in their view, anyway) to be treated with respect. It is not possible to rid the world of poison by expelling more of it into the air. You think that people continuously congratulating themselves and each other on their own innate superiority, would be able to figure that out.
Thanks.
mp
February 17, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The history of the Christian religion, from its origin in the death of its titular leader, is the history of believers tortured and murdered, often en masse, by secular states as well as states promoting other forms of religion.
That would be through the middle of the Fourth Century AD (
One, of course, could not attribute the torture and murder of Christian martyrs to atheists, a group even scarcer on the ground in the era before Constantine than today. Pontius Pilate was supporting the state religion, as were the leaders of the Inquisition.
It is certainly true that religious communities have played key roles in providing support to people in emergency situations; it's no coincidence that we have the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, and no coincidence that Habitats for Humanity has a Christian basis. The message of Christ is clearly one that espouses generosity of time and money to those who need help.
It remains incomprehensible to me that you guys are so defensive.
February 19, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I was in New Orleans working for Habitat for Humanity (itself a Christian organization) after Katrina, the parking lot was filled with vans from churches all over the country.
Good job, guys!
February 18, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The simple fact is this argument cannot be resolved. Notions of religion and the formation of ideas based upon those notions cannot be proven or known one way or another. That we expend so much timne and energy on this is a waste. We have numerous problems that can be evaluated based upon things we actually know and that can be solved on that basis. Injecting things into the discussion that are unknown and will forever remain so only leads to disagreemnt. Is it any wonder our government and our elected officials accomplish so little? Or that things they do accomplish are often irrational? Such outcomes are the product of guesswork and are absolutely predictable. Our misadventure in Iraq is a perfect example of this alarmingly illogical process. Our government was in possession of a mountain of facts and yet was swayed by conjecture, innuendo and GWBs gut. Acting on what you don't know vs. what you do know is folly.
February 18, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here again is another longwinded pile of drivel talking about non-issues.
The secularist/new atheist is as uninterested in dialog--or even as incapable of it--as the fundamentalist because both sides are thinking with their lizard brains. They both, rightly, fear the extinction of their moribund late modern worldviews.
Brian explicitly says that he is not going to engage in dialog with athesists--that it's inappropriate:
He is, of course, right about this. But this raises the question of what the bloody hell we're talking about here. There is this bizarre thread of reasoning that somehow Christians aren't getting their place in policy debate. But Brian says he makes no special claims in that debate, and I can't help but notice tha nearly all the candidates for public office have to kowtow to the cross, and the one who kowtows to the crescent gets immediately villified. The idea that Christians are somehow excluded from public debate is batshit crazy.
It's as if because they don't understand their current world or where it is going, they latch onto something they think they understand and which bolsters their sense of identity. It's as if the new atheists need Christian fundamentalists the way 1950s-era conservatives needed communists.
WTF? Atheists don't have identity problems. We're not plagued by doubt. We don't care about your rituals, or who is where on what schism as long as Christianists stay out of public education and public policy. Yes, it's true that there are people who are more evangelical than others, but even Hitchens is not arguing for the abolition of religion. He's arguing for the exclusion of religious operatives from public policy making, because they have proven extremely bad at it.
And I don't get why you people get so worked up, especially Christians, which is a doctrine studded with tolerance and forgiveness. i don't understand how I can write a word that in any way challenges your faith, whether you're a young Earth Creationist, or barely non-secular Unitarian.
Sure, the way the world really works is in deep conflict with the way in which scripture says it works. But scripture is plastic. You can wave off the conflict the same way a hockey ref waves off icing. (Which is something else too arcane for me to understand.) And there's no way that a small number of skeptics can pose any threat to your soul, or your God.
Is there?
February 19, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this country, we are used to having Christianity dominate everything. Christians aren't used to having to defend their (our) Christianity, or even to consider the possibility of becoming a minority sect.
Europe has gone through this process of secularization already, and Christians there have, presumably, gotten used to being viewed as relics and fools.
And China -- heck, most of us Christians in the US would be inclined to curl up and try to look like palm trees or something, if we were ever subjected to the true, physical, dungeon/ beating/ torture danger of persecution that Christians have there.
(I said we'd be *inclined* to deny our faith; I can't tell how many of us would actually go ahead and sacrific to the emperor. *I* probably would be the first to run for safety. I'm not the stuff of which martyrs are made. I'd probably sell out my Lord for a reprieve from torture faster than you can say 'stool pigeon.' But I expect other Christians are made of tougher stuff.)
Anyway, my brothers and sisters in Christ, it's time we braced up and faced the post-modern American facts. I expect Christ and Christianity to have progressively fewer followers as the years go on in this country. Maybe that will be good for us, you know? Right now, those Chinese Christians put us comfortable Americans to shame.
Meantime, for those atheists who feel persecuted, like OregonA ("There is no class of people less likely to win public office. There is one elected person of NO faith in federal government. A president risks no damage saying atheists should not be citizens. I could go on, but the list nauseates me.")-- well, by all means let's stop persecuting them. Myself, I haven't persecuted an atheist for days now, and I'm determined to avoid the temptation for at least the remainder of Lent. :-)
On the other hand, for those atheists who feel, well, shall we say empowered and exultant, we may need to provide a little reality check -- just logic, mind you, nothing involving thumbscrews. For instance, Jackaroyd says, "Atheists don't have identity problems. We're not plagued by doubt. We don't care about your rituals, or who is where on what schism as long as Christianists stay out of public education and public policy."
Such self-confidence is admirable, of course, but I want to ask how reasonable he (somehow I'm sure it's a 'he') would find it if 'Christianists' proclaimed, "Christians don't have identity problems. We're not plagued by doubt. We don't care about you atheists *as long as atheists stay out of public education and public policy.*"
Well, no. I don't expect atheists to stay out of public sight, and I don't plan to either.
I think a lot of atheists and secularists think of Christians (we're not even considering other religions here, are we?) in the same way conservative middle-class people thought of homosexual people back in the '50s: "I won't ask questions about your private life, but don't even *think* about flaunting your repulsive lifestyle in public! Keep it out of our sight, and we'll allow you to exist."
Gay people decided they didn't really like those terms, and somehow I suspect we Christians won't submit to them easily, either.
But remember, once you atheist guys show up at my door with the lighted torches or whatever, I cave. So there *is* hope for you. :-)
March 5, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink