Prophecy Belief and Constitutional Boundaries
By Chip Berlet
A group of ultraconservative political operatives have harnessed a particular reading of Biblical prophecy, known as Premillenial Dispensationalism, (embraced by tens of millions of evangelical Christians) and transformed these beliefs into campaigns to deny basic rights to groups of people framed as sinful and subversive.
Premillennial means a belief that Jesus Christ returns in the End Times and, after a series of confrontations and battles against evil, he reigns over an earthly utopia for a thousand years…a millennium. Therefore, Christ returns before (“pre”) the Godly millennial kingdom. Dispensations are epochs, or blocks of history, during which certain things happen. Premillennial Dispensationalists think that we are poised on the edge of that historic epoch during which the End Times preface the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign.
A large portion of Christian evangelicals who hold these specific theological beliefs also believe that devout and Godly Christians, before the tremendous confrontations or “Tribulations” that culminate in a huge global Battle of Armageddon, will be spared injury or death when they are brought away from Earth and held in God’s protective embrace in an event called the “Rapture.”
It is easy to poke fun at these types of religious beliefs, but it is deeply offensive and provocative in a way that undermines a serious and important public debate over the proper boundaries for religious belief and public policy decisions. It is not accurate to dismiss Christians who hold these beliefs as ignorant, uneducated, or crazy. Social scientists have thoroughly refuted these stereotypes with polling data and in-depth interviews. In addition, it is not fair to ask people of faith simply to abandon their beliefs when they step into the Public Square or political arena.
It is also not fair, however, for those in the Religious Right to use God as a trump card in public policy debates.
Premillennial Dispensationalism and a belief in the Rapture have only recently been steered toward a particular ultraconservative agenda. For many decades the evangelicals who held these beliefs were wary of too much political participation, which they saw as pulling them away from their religious obligations and devotions. Most felt that God’s plan for the End Times would reveal itself without the need for political activism. After all, God in the millennial utopia would ultimately reward devout Christians, and this was especially true if they believed the Rapture would protect them from all harm during the End Times confrontations.
In the 1970s a group of right-wing political operatives, seeking to rollback the economic policies and social safety net woven by the Roosevelt Administration, decided to recruit evangelicals into their political movement to take over the Republican Party. In doing so they pushed political debate in our country away from democracy and toward theocracy.
Evangelicals, however, require a Biblically based reason for their actions. Christian Right leaders, including Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, provided the justification by arguing that, according to the Bible, Christians had an obligation to struggle against evil in the political arena, and to purify and restore the sanctity of secular society.
The leaders of the Religious Right mobilized millions by arguing there was no compromise with evil. The political operatives provided long lists of who was evil and how these sinners were subverting God’s plan for America. They presumed to speak for God and country. Moreover, they created a politicized religious movement willing to strip away rights from persons categorized as sinful. This type of demonization and scapegoating is toxic to democracy. It erodes the concept of informed consent and masks prejudice and bigotry with a veneer of religious devotion.
Because the leaders of the Religious Right have mobilized such a large voter base, they regularly have meetings with powerful political leaders, including the President. Today the Religious Right plays a major role in shaping foreign and domestic policies.
We can change this situation. The Religious Right does not speak for all Christians or even all evangelicals. The leaders of the Religious Right sometimes argue for policy positions that make their own followers uncomfortable. In a constitutional democracy, the ideal path for the nation is always open to debate; and the idea of God is too big for small minds to shackle. If we want to defend the Constitution, we must learn the religious beliefs of those evangelicals who dominate the Religious Right, treat them respectfully, and yet engage them in a critical public conversation over the appropriate boundaries for civic political debate set by the founders and framers of our nation.
= = =
Chip Berlet is senior analyst at Political Research Associates and co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America. He has studied and written about the Religious Right for over 25 years.
So what’s your point Chip? If you’re saying that the overwhelming majority of Mainstream Christians would be absolutely horrified if they understood the objectives of people like Falwell, Dobson and LaHaye, I’m not going to argue the point. The problem is how do you get the word out when any strong criticism of these extremists gets twisted into an attack on Christianity itself and the cowardly American press meekly reports it that way? Our tradition of “fair play” may become the death of American democracy. Like Hitler, they are using the system to destroy itself.
We’ve become a nation with an attention span that’s limited to voice bites provided by talking heads on the boob tube. This plays directly into the hands of the demogogues since it takes a lot more time to explain away lies than it does to lie in the first place.
So what’s your suggestion? HOW can we change this situation? To be honest with you, I’m beginning to get a little sick and tired of being told I need to RESPECT these religious extremists. They sure as hell don’t respect me. Maybe it’s time for a little DISRESPECT.
Hi Alencon!
I understand your frustration and anger; but how is frustration and anger going to change the current situation? Religious belief is deeply held. I think you need to make some distinctions. I am a Christian who disagrees with the politics and theology and End Times views of most conservative Christian evangelicals. So do most “mainstream” Christians who belong to mainline Protestant denominations or the Roman Catholic Church. Most of us are already unhappy with the “objectives of people like Falwell, Dobson and LaHaye.” Therefore, we are not the people who need to be drawn into the discussion.
Depending on how poll questions are designed and worded, we are looking at somewhere between 30 and 80 million of our fellow citizens who embrace these particular religious beliefs–maybe more. But most of these folks do not really want a theocracy, or to ratify the entire agenda of many leaders of the Religious Right. Only about 15% of voters in major national elections identify themselves as part of the Religious Right.
So we need to learn how to talk to conservative Christian evangelicals. If we believe in democratic process and civil society, we need to learn how to talk to them respectfully. Part of that is learning a little about their theology, and how it was harnessed by right-wing political operatives. Starting out by calling them “extremists” shuts the door to actual dialogue. Urging that we treat them with “disrespect” puts us on the low road.
A successful coalition to defend the Constitution is going to need both secularists and people of faith. It is even going to need conservative Christian evangelicals.
Chip, you make an interesting point. Here’s my question: In “The Rapture Exposed” (which is a must read if anyone wants a real understanding of the origins and errors of this theology) Barbara Rossing references the deep fear of the rapture that consumes followers of this belief and in many cases perpetuates their convictions. As with any religion, these ideas are tied more closely to emotion than rationale. So, how effective will “dialogue” be. In short, is there real hope for people, regardless of how open minded or well spoken, to shake deep convictions of other human beings? Convictions, that in their mind, are crucial to salvation from death and destruction.
I do not think - as much as I would like to believe that it is possible - to negotiate with people who think you are evil.
Isn’t that like asking a person of color to please attempt a respectful dialog with white supremacists?
I also do not think it is OK to fret about offending a group of people who are intent on denying rights to others.
Personally I prefer to be on the side of the oppressed.
Once their religious beliefs become their political agenda they damage my, or my son’s or my neighbor’s civil rights. Their religion indeed becomes open for scutiny because it is their religion they are putting into my politics.
Maybe I just can’t be pollyanna about this group, somehow tea and crumpets with someone who sees me as inferior is just a bit Uncle Tom for me.
PS. Sorry, I really do understand the pleas for restaint. I am afraid the cat is out of the bag though…
“The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98
How is this belief in “The Rapture” qualitativelly different from that of the fundamentalist Moslem who martyrs himself to attain immediate entry into heaven and a roomful of houris? How is it different from aspects of schizophrenia* in which a person is convinced of the reality of his singular thoughts that no one can dispel? If these people are not clinically crazy, and I’m not claiming they are, then it seems to me they harbor a detachment from reality that does not warrant sympathetic understanding except possibly as a cognitive abnormality.
I can see mobilizing the large majority of moderate and reasonable religious people in this country to stand up to and marginalize these extremists, but for those who have passed over into that other state of mind, I think that attempts to reach some sort of “coalition” with them is hopeless. If we who share deep concerns about the menace of the RR can’t seem to agree on the nature of the problem, how can we expect to hold a dialogue with them when we are speaking English and they are speaking in tongues? See dogemperor’s life story on another forum at this site. Kafkaesque!
I think we agree on one thing: the political whores on the right who pander to these extremists for their votes are the key problem. Removing them from power is a much more do-able objective.
*I’m not saying the RR are really schizophrenic; just that their rigid convictions contrary to rationality have superficially much in common with that illness.
Chip, I’m not certain it’s possible to have a rational conversation with a Conservative Christian and believe me I’ve tried. As for the “low road,” look around pal, they’ve been taking the low road for as long as I can remember. Spoken to many “Intelligent Design” advocates recently? Oh yeah, there’s a group with only the highest integrity.
Why is it that so-called Christians are allowed look down upon and revile anyone whose lifestyle they disagree with but the rest of us have to treat them with “respect.” Let’s see, wasn’t it Jesus that refused to condemn the adultress? Find me ONE Conservative Christian who is willing to not condemn those who disagree with his views or who’s lifestyle is different from his and I’ll think about it. However he tries to “evangelize” that individual rather than just accepting them for what they are and the deal is off.
Just remember, according to them YOU’RE going to hell just like I am and they’re not about to change that opinion if you talk until you’re blue in the face. Respect is a two way street. How can you respect someone who’s convinced you’re going to burn in the fires of hell for all eternity because you don’t buy into their way of worshipping. Do you REALLY think such people are ever going to accept a multi-cultural society if they believe there is some chance of shaping it to their narrow vision?
I think you’re kidding yourself, but like I said, find me one bona fide conservative that is willing to live and let live and I’ll think about it.
Very well said Worried Grandfather. I see it as mass hysteria, and I think the behavior exhibited is very close to lemming behavior. Their reactive and defensive posture, insistance that they are in a holy war - coupled with persecution paranoia are not amenable to reason. This is not because I fail to talk to them, it is because they fail to reason that I have a right to a secular government.
The people may, individually be quite kind and thoughtful, but as a mass movement it is socially destructive, politically subversive and disrespectful of others rights. I will fight them. Not as individuals, but as a subversive organization. No religion has the right on these soils to advocate the takeover of government.
There were many fine people who died at Jonestown, because they drank the kool-aid. They were led there, they were force fed, they followed, they stayed, they met their fate. Their sorrowful state was created by their utter and unfailing inability to question the leadership and zealotry of Jim Jones.
This group now, who advocates (whether in secret or not) the takeover of government, and has at their disposal the benefits of a tax code and a Constitution is no different that any other Ricco thug. Other than they wrap themselves in the freedom clause of the first amendment.
It is a shame if the followers of the Robertsons, the Reeds, the Falwells et al are drinking the kool-aid, but then ultimately, it is their freedom that gives them that right. I have the freedom to fight them tooth and claw when they advocate removing/preventing others liberties, a return to the reason of the Middle Ages, and the takeover of the secular government.
Whew!
Let me split up my responses into several posts. Lots of material to ponder.
First:
“The Rapture Exposed” by Barbara Rossing is a wonderful book, and let me point out the subtitle: “The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation.” Rossing has penned a theological challenge to those who believe in premillennialism and the Rapture. Central to this work is the idea that Christians are quite capable of discussing their theological views. There are several other books that explore apocalyptic and millennial views that I find useful.
Frykholm, Amy Johnson. 2004. Rapture Culture: Left Behind in Evangelical America.
O’Leary, Stephen D. 1994. Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric.
Mojtabai, A. G. 1986. Blessèd Assurance: At Home with the Bomb in Amarillo, Texas.
O’Leary, Stephen D. 1994. Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric.
Strozier, Charles B. 1994. Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America.
Mojtabai found that premillennial apocalyptic beliefs were woven into everyday life in a way that was shaped by these beliefs; but that the specific way that worked out for each individual varied widely.
Frykholm interviewed readers of the Left Behind series, and discovered that they were willing to discuss what they got out of the books with people who agreed with them and with people who disagreed with them, and were quite able to arrive at their own conclusions.
So there are two avenues to proceed down.
One is for Christians to pursue Rossing’s path of arguing theology with other Christians.
The other is for a lot of us to engage conservative Christian evangelicals in converations about the outcome of their beliefs on those who do not share their views; and where the boundaries between faith and public policy should be set.
I need to note that some of my research in this area was done for a paper I cowrote with Brenda Brasher, who gets all the praise, while I am responsible for the text I write here.
Hi Chip - just for fun - go to Amazon and look up review for “The Rapture Exposed” , check out the guy “Jack” and what he says. Then check out the other 5 reviews done by “Jack”.
Do you see anything wrong with asking us to reason with the likes of a human being who thinks:
1)In reviewing “The Rapture Exposed” is is ….”Another example of a liberal “Christian” on a self-righeous crusade against anything in sight. ”
and
2) Regarding an hugely violent game that provides entertainment by beating people up, stealing cars and defying law and order along with the “hidden” semi-pornographic sex scenes to be …. “Grand Theft Auto” is one 5-star entertainment option….”Take Vice City, multiply it by 10, then add a thousand pounds of new crap, and you get San Andreas. There isn’t a single aspect of this game that isn’t better than Vice City and GTA3… combined”
As others have mentioned this is Kafkaesque, it’s Naked Lunch, it is The Scream, it is a far-out sardonic parody. Wake me up.
Europe has a much better handle on this question. Allow me to pass on a quote from Muriel Grey in the Sunday Herald from early last August.
“For the government of a secular country such as ours to treat religion as if it had real merit instead of regarding it as a ridiculous anachronism, which education, wisdom and experience can hopefully overcome in time, is one of the most depressing developments of the 21st century.”
These people believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, believe that raping the ecology is good because it will hasten the apocalypse, get excited and bubbly over plagues, floods and earthquakes (they’re probably looking forward to an avian flu pandemic) because they just might be the start of the end times and think nuclear war would be simply wonderful. If pointing out, loudly and often, that this sort of thinking is irrational is “deeply offensive and provocative,” I refer you to Muriel’s quote above.
To hell with it. I don’t want to respect beliefs which are a collection of irrational, superstitious nonsense nor the people that hold those beliefs. Enough, is enough.
After thinking about it a little more, I’m completely opposed to your way of thinking Chip. This is the same kind of pussyfooting around that got us into this situation in the first place. I think they have a word for your approach Chip. I think it’s APPEASEMENT. Won’t we ever learn that you cannot appease the forces of intolerance nor can you negotiate with them. Sooner or later, here or there, it’s going to come down to a fight. So let’s save some time and get down to cases shall we?
Confrontation, Coalition, Conversation
Well, I think we are already having a confrontation with the Religious Right. And I am not interested in a coalition with the Religious Right. But I am interested in helping start conversations with tens of millions of conservative Christian evangelicals.
I can only speak from my own experiences, but I have had hundreds of conversations with conservative Christian evangelicals over the past 30 years and, overwhelmingly, these conversations have been fascinating and productive and without the acrimony most people who have posted comments here seem to think is inevitable.
How do folks here think it is possible to “marginalize” and “isolate” the “extremists” when these neighbors of ours number in the tens of millions? Would that still be a democracy? I don’t see how we can call it a democracy and flick away perhaps as much as half the population simply because we don’t know how to have a civil conversation with them.
And I think I can be unflinchingly critical of the Religious Right while still being respectful to individual conservative Christian evangelicals. The First Amendment guarantees their right to hold their religious beliefs. There is no fine print that states “unless we disagree with them.” So we have to find a way to defend the Constitution while abiding by the First Amendment. Nobody ever claimed living in a democracy would be easy.
There are no shortcuts or easy answers. Democratic civil society prescribes conversation and debate leading to informed consent. It’s our job to make that happen.
I understand the frustration of talking to religious conservatives; oftentimes the best solution is to politely agree to disagree. Not everyone who identifies as a conservative evangelical, however, has an unalterably closed mind, and a respectful approach can work.
One of my good friends at law school is a conservative Christian evangelical. He is a member of the Christian Society, attends prayer meetings, and probably belongs to the Federalist Society. He is also a strong advocate of the death penalty and has a fairly textualist reading of the Constitution.
He and I have fundamental disagreements over constitutional interpretation, a fact which was highlighted during our class on constitutional law. It would have been easy for me to denigrate him as having no respect for the rights of the individual or failing to understand how the country has evolved, but to do so would be pointless.
Instead, over lunch in the common room, he and I would debate the merits of a particular decision by the Supreme Court. I say debate instead of argue intentionally. We were respectful of each other, we listened to what was said, and we worked to draw out the underlying belief behind each viewpoint. These discussions quickly grew to involve others, most just listened, some participated.
I found the best approach was to find the reason for the view- e.g. a state can prevent issuance of a new marriage license if the person is behind on child support payments because it encourages family responsibility. From there I would draw out the consequences of such an approach, a parade of horribles, and challenge them to show how, in light of their view, the constitution would prevent that result. (I think what worked for the above one was asking if thee state force them to marry under the same rationale) This forced them to integrate their belief and the consequences. Sometimes he would find a way to distinguish or reconcile the view, other times he would acknowledge such an approach would be untenable.
The main success was that we were able to discuss it without falling into rhetoric and in so doing exposed not just each other, but all who listened to our debate, to the view points involved. Even if I could not convince him to change his view on an issue, by being reasonable, I may have convinced someone else. The goal is not to score points by shutting down dialogue; it is to convince the greatest number of people to support your view.
Being disrespectful and angry often makes the other side look reasonable. Take for example the recent violence over a neo-nazi march in Toledo (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/15/nazi.march/index.html), The neo-nazi’s who were marching to protest black gangs can now use the riot to prove the truth of their views. Their apparently calm reaction to the counter-protest bolsters the image of the entire movement. The greater the disrespect the less the neo-nazi’s look like fanatics which in turn infuriates the protestors even more. I do not want neo-nazi groups to have even a patina of respectability to hide behind.
Being reasonable is frustrating when confronted with a fanatic, but even then the most respectful and rationale side tends to win out in the long run, Gandhi being one of the more famous examples.
Gahndi is one of my favorites, but I am not Gahndi. Too long this debate has occurred at the rarified level, as a sort of intellectual exercise. All the while domininist media empires and bought and sold members of congress have hijacked a major nuclear superpower. Maybe there is just something I’m missing here.
I don’t get conversations with suave 3 piece suits. I get the person who screams in my face “you hate God”, or the visit to the principle’s office because gangs of Christian kids are pumelling my son with “you are going to go to hell”.
Maybe on an intellectual level this is all very interesting, but down here in the trenches regular old working America is having to deal with the commoness and vulgarity of thuggish bands of religious zealots who see their new world order as definately having no room for “other”.
Religous freedom? I don’t think a religion has a right to take over government. I don’t think religion has a right to turn science into a farse. Sorry. I would like to believe reason wins out in the long run, but if that were true, wouldn’t this issue already be settled? Thirty years of respectful dialog has just dug a deeper hole. Our country is turning into Lord of the Flies.
You’re using Gandhi as a example of how to deal with religious extremists? The British Raj was not fanatical and that’s where Gandhi succeeded. Where he failed was with the religious fanaticism within his own country. You do know that the partition of India was an absolute catastrophe because Gandhi never came to grips with the religious extremists right? Allow me to quote from a witness, Roshan L. Sharma.
“I spent the following days reflecting upon the radio news bulletins. Most of the news dealt with wholesale murders taking place on both sides of the border - in India and Pakistan. One day news of mass murder of Hindu caravans traveling by bus and train will be broadcast. The next day, similar atrocities would be committed on the Indian side in revenge. And the news would be broadcast on the radio. And this went on for several days and weeks with the full knowledge of local police and indifference of the military forces. The unruly citizens of both countries had their fill of madness, rape, killing and sadism… When the madness was finally over, a million innocent people had lost their lives and millions more were maimed. And let us not also forget that twelve million souls lost their ancestral homes and had to cross the borders to get resettled. There is no event in human history that compares to such a combination of bloodshed and forcible migration. It is a shame that this event is still being ignored by all the historians of the world.”
To paraphrase Voltaire, those capable of believing absurdities are capable of committing atrocities. A lot of good Gandhi’s being “respectful” did the million or so dead. If this is your idea of winning, I’d hate to see an example of losing. Let me suggest that you learn from history before you quote it.
Well Chip, as far as them having the right, under the first amendment, to hold the beliefs they do, that’s certainly a true statement.
However, under that same amendment, the KKK has the right to parade around in bedsheets while proclaiming their disdain of Blacks, Jews and Catholics and the Holocaust Deniers have the right to claim the Holocaust was all a Zionist plot. While they are entitled to their views, THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MY RESPECT.
Get it?
If some 50 million of our fellow citizens are religious fanatics willing to carry out atrocities and murder to achieve their goals, why don’t they just do it? Why do so many of them refrain from such actions? Why do so many of them go to the polls to vote?
There is no evidence to support the claim that most conservative Christian evangelicals are on the brink of a murderous rampage. This is the type of hyperbole that makes our work much more difficult. Here is the text from the opening page of the DefCon website:
“We will fight for the separation of church and state, individual freedom, scientific progress, pluralism, and tolerance while respecting people of faith and their beliefs.”
Are all of us who support these goals ignorant of history, naive, seeking appeasement, fools? Is it possible that some of us feel that demanding a full and open debate over these issues is mandatory; but that we must go into this debate having educated ourselves about those whose goals we oppose, and having accepted the obligation to not demonize and caricature those mobilized by the Religious Right?
As for Gandhi, I learned about him through the work of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. when I was recruited into the civil rights movement in the 1960s as a young member of a Presbyterian youth group in suburban New Jersey. I was influenced by the tone as well as the content of King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” The text and other statements about the power and moral power of non-violence can be found at the website of The King Center.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/letter.html
Democratic outcomes are an oxymoron if they are achieved without democratic process.
I really do understand what you are saying Chip. But I also notice something else. The people who have suffered harm over this - and yes I do mean harm - are not easily going to tolerate not having their wounds acknowledged. I am tired of dealing with the “don’t hurt them” all the while they hurt me. I fall to the floor in exhaustion over the “don’t offend” when they offend me. I know what prompts me to feel aggressive. It is 1. not having the acknowlegement that I am being wronged, and 2. the fact that the antisocial and personally destructive aspects of these religions remain taboo.
I spent the morning reading a news board for ex-pentecostals. It brought tears to me when they described the mind control and manipulation…the wholesale decimation of entire family fortunes…There is a disconnect between the intellectual debate of abstract rights and theories and the tangible reality of real time damage and conflict. I think what you see where you are is very different from what I see where I am.
A number of years ago I was serving as a liason between a government regulatory organization, surface mining companies and environmentalists. Needless to say there was no constructive solution because the mining companies only wanted to talk about their “right to mine”. Months and months of hard work came to naught because to start with it was not acknowledged that the enviromental group had just as much right to declare certains areas as “off-limits to mining”. The negotiations started with a non-level playing field. I think I am reacting to what I percieve as a non-level starting place.
So how do we make the discussion “level” so the “me” out here are stakeholders?
Chip, there’s a big difference between violence and respect. I assure you that while King preached against violence he didn’t “respect” the Jim Crow laws and the segregated culture of the south. I seem to remember that there were those that said it was necessary to “understand southern culture” and to “not criticize their ways” because it would be “deeply offensive and provocative.” Now where have I heard those words before?
I don’t take anything away from Gandhi, or King for that matter, but Gandhi, given the religious strife that accompanied the partition of India, isn’t a very good recommendation for negotiating with religious extremists. The paraphrase of Voltaire was related to Gandhi not realizing the depth of religious antagonism. It was his great error.
As for “respecting people of faith and their beliefs,” no problem, as long as those beliefs don’t threaten the rights of me, mine or anyone else minding his own business. As soon as that line is crossed, and in my opinion it has been crossed, the right to respect is forfeited.
Let’s agree to disagree and move on. You’re convinced you can negotiate and reason with these folks. I’m betting you’re about to be terribly disappointed. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
Wow! This is a fascinating and intriguing thread! I must confess that I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance as I read the remarks of the original author, his supporters and his detractors - somehow I agree with both sides, and I’m having trouble reconciling my thoughts. I hope you’ll bear with me if my attempt to unravels into a stream of consciousness.
First, I unequivocally support THE RIGHT of any individual to practice and preach fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity. Freedom of religion is at the core of American liberty, I sense that everyone on this blog agrees.
The crux of the particularly vexing disagreement, however, is how to approach those evangelicals who, quite frankly, would NOT support THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS to practice (or not practice) any other religion (or no religion). While on the one hand I understand why we should engage fundamentalists in dialogue - after all, they are individuals with equal rights under our normative code - it strikes me as equally compelling that it borders on suicidal to stubbornly adhere to the Marquess of Queensbury Rules if the opponent in the other corner not only refuses to, but is almost at the point where he can corrupt the ref to turn a blind eye to all rule violations. It’s almost paradoxical; our live-and-let-live philosophy of coexistence must necessarily extend to those who do not subscribe to the philosophy, which will include those who are willing to exterminate us. So now what?
I don’t imagine that anyone here, including Chip Berlet, would disavow self defense if it came down to it - if a fundamentalist “drew first blood” for lack of better phrasing at the moment. But part of the point of Berlet’s piece, I think, is TO AVOID getting to that point, 1) by recognizing that fundamentalist Christians are not stupid or clinically insane; and 2) by treating them not as a marginalized lunatic fringe, but as Americans worthy of respect for, if nothing else, being human.
As for respecting the evangelical’s beliefs, my sympathies are with Berlet’s detractors. I wholly respect their RIGHT to their beliefs. In fact, I’ll FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHT to their beliefs. But I simply can not, nor will I ever be able to, respect beliefs, in and of themselves, that gay people, transgendered people, Jewish people, Muslims, atheists, people who engage in pre-marital sex, etc, are heathens fit for punishment in this life and eternal suffering without any hope of clemency in the next.
So, if, as Berlet says, politically active evangelicals here are willing to listen to us, if indeed we can engage them in dialogue, it seems that the only way to reconcile my cognitive dissonance, is to find some sort of hope that there is a mode of pursuasion that will convince them not that they’re faith is wrong (an utterly futile and inappropriate pursuit, in my opinion) but that the political battles between evangelicals and non-evangelicals is not zero-sum. We must speak and write and advocate eloquently and loudly about EQUAL FREEDOM to show that their allowing those they consider heathens to live freely in no way eliminates their own way of life, and that the two can, and should, coexist.
That is, after all, what our Founding Fathers had to do, right? Freedom of religion and disestablishmentarianism were not exactly popular notions in the 18th Century. They succeeded - but not without fighting a war.
Mr. Berlet, I like what you say very much. In fact, I am the founder of a political alliance myself - the CLEaR Alliance. CLEaR is an acronym for Civil Liberties, Equality and Rationality. Rationality includes abiding respect for science and the scientific method. We encourage even fundamentalist Christians to join us, hoping to find some who will disagree privately with much of science, but publcly recognize the need for the government to remain rational and secular. So far, we have no takers.
Is there really a way to approach evangelical Christians in a manner that demonstrates effectively the value of religious liberty? Your arguments, Mr. Berlet, suggest that there is. I hope you are right.
I apologize if I’m rambling. Thank you for indulging me, and for this extremely important and interesting thread.
Sincerley,
Karen Mockrin, founder
The CLEaR Alliance
Every individual is equally, fully and substantively entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn’t it once self evident?
liveliest.crib@gmail.com - all e-mails related to this post are welcome
The Marquess of Queensbury Rules? LOL! I love it Karen! Very nice summary and attempt to moderate the different positions.
My only problem is that I’ve yet to see anything from Chip that would acknowledge that “respecting” those that don’t respect you is a tad one sided. He keeps trying to make it sound like it’s a question of restricting their rights rather than demanding they leave the rights of others intact.
Maybe the problem is we’re thinking about different degrees of extremism.
I’ll make it easy for you Chip. Make a definitive statement that you condemn the beliefs and activities of the Army of God and I’ll accept that you’re on the side of the angels. And I mean only the beliefs that are unique to this particular group and others like it. Or do you think the beliefs of these guys should be “respected” too?
Hi Alencon,
I get the sense that I am not making myself clear to you. I have no idea how you could think I was supporting the violence and zealous beliefs of the Army of God. I do not.
In fact, if you search the web using my name and “Army of God” this is quickly obvious.
Here is what I wrote in my essay about the leaders of the Religious Right:
“They presumed to speak for God and country. Moreover, they created a politicized religious movement willing to strip away rights from persons categorized as sinful. This type of demonization and scapegoating is toxic to democracy. It erodes the concept of informed consent and masks prejudice and bigotry with a veneer of religious devotion.”
“If we want to defend the Constitution, we must learn the religious beliefs of those evangelicals who dominate the Religious Right, treat them respectfully, and yet engage them in a critical public conversation over the appropriate boundaries for civic political debate set by the founders and framers of our nation. ”
I think that is pretty clear. Yet you seem to have quickly concluded that I am naive, an appeaser, and maybe a closet supporter of murder by religious fanatics.
Yikes!
I would bet that 99% + of conservative Christian evangelicals would also be happy to denounce the Army of God; which is at best composed of a few dozen people and may not even have a central leadership. Compare that to 50 million +- conservative Christian evangelicals.
And so I do think we are talking about different degrees of ideology and methodology. And I am an optimist precisely because I realize that most people mobilized by the Religious Right are people with whom I can have a political debate in the hopes of shifting their POLITICAL policy support in the public square while respecting their right to hold RELIGIOUS beliefs with which I disagree.
Ok Chip, we are, perhaps, in violent agreement. Maybe I’m getting too suspicious and too quick to look for conspirators under every rock. Must be the fault of all that Agent Orange.
I apologize for jumping the gun on you there, but, I’m still suspicious that the percentage of those that would be quite happy to trample the rights of those they consider evil is a lot higher than you think. I’d be VERY surprised if 99% of conservatives would in fact condemn the AoG. Not just SAY they condemn it, but really condemn it. I’ve been shocked at some of the stuff I hear from otherwise grandmotherly looking types.
Chip: More power to you if you and like-minded people can have real influence with rank-and-file evangelical Christians, as opposed to some of their more accessible leaders. Is there any evidence (or hope) that views you get across to those you can converse with have any chance of trickling down to the troops? My guess is, not likely.
As Molly passionately states, this struggle has gone well past an “intellectual” debate to the point where people are suffering personal damage by zealous, intolerant ECs. In my neck of the woods (MA, which is probably as liberal a place as you can find in this country), we’re fighting to defend the right of same-sex couples to marry. There have been many very nasty confrontations recently between supporters and enemies of this right, the latter invariably motivated by their religious convictions. It’s indeed nasty, as reflected by their screaming “God hates fags”, by the venom in their voices and hatred in their faces. This hits home, hard. We have a gay son who is hurt to the core by these bigots, and his parents and sister are hurt as well.
Chip, do you think there is any room for accommodation between these two warring camps? Any hope of reaching the spewers of hate and getting them to see that their actions are just the opposite of what Jesus Christ taught? No chance whatsoever, in my opinion.
To compound the disaster: we have an administration and a Congress that is doing everything possible to exacerbate the division between groups of American citizens by playing the religion card (”faith” they call it, with Orwellian irony). They may not actually be feeding the wolves red meat, but they are obviously stoking the fires of intolerance, This wedge is their new-found politcal tool: pandering to the RR or EC, whatever name you want to give them, is their key to power. Rove may not have invented it, but he has perfected it. The religious movement has been highjacked as a political movement, one that threatens the constitutional principles on which this country was founded, all, of course, under the inspiring motto of “not legislating from the bench.” Orwell again.
I’ll end by highly recommending this link to an op-ed piece in today’s Boston Globe on who owns God. It was written by James Carroll, a former RC priest who is still a devout Catholic. I found it enormously moving.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/10/17/all_god_all_the_time/
Chip, the problem is that removing science from our schools is not only the goal of the small number of fanatics, but of the millions of evangelicals with whom you claim you can have “fascinating and productive”conversations. Sorry, but no matter how soft spoken or reasonable they may seem, I have never met one who can actually be reasoned with. They are terrified by science and by the challenges of having to think and adapt to new information. It is not a logical debate. When they do sit and talk, it is with a smug sense of their own certainty, if not outright condescension. You can forget it.
I agree with those who have equated your approach with appeasement. I also agree with you, that in a democratic society, we cannot forcibly marginalize any group, no matter how ignorant. However, we CAN and should marginalize them by refusing them a seat at the table whenever possible. They want to make our children ignorant because they think the world is about to end. The only consequence will be that they undermine American scientific and economic leadership in a world that likely has a long way to go before it ends.
One thing is abundantly clear to me reading through the posts here. All the braniacs who have been pondering this at the research level have not prevented the incursion by these thugs - and yes I am calling them thugs - into our daily life. They degrade public dialog, drain public resources. Each week it is back to square one. Each week we are asked to watch as intoerant hate groups disproportionately shout down reason, liberty and civic dialog and drain the resources of our communities..
What has started as a public nuisance, has become a battle squirmish. IT IS ALREADY HERE. Maybe it hasn’t tricled up to the thinkers pondering the issue, but we are already at war. I am afraid to not acknowledge the fact that THEY STARTED IT, not us, is INSULTING.
In a dialog with my freshman college son who was laughing at the “old guard” the civil rights people, he told me the reason kids are not there is because the “1960’s” dialog - as he put it - does not sepak to today’s young Americans. I took him to task for being a follower waiting for someone to lead….that it is their fault the youth of today would rather ridicule than join, that they don’t invest the work needed for their generation to have a vision for American. But he has a point: we are arguing with are is 30 years old ideas.
I am rapidly, although still open to convincing otherwise, approaching the conclusion that the pushback needs to be ferocious. The old MLK model was for another era.
I want to talk about Ricco, I want to talk about taxing churches, I want to talk about the community loonies who endlessly tie up library and school boards with the same issue over and over again - how do we declare them a public nuisance so our communities can get back to business. I want to talk about destructive and anti-social churches.
To tiptoe, because they are a “religion” is nonsense. Some - and not all religions - have banded together to be a political force to push dominionist ideology. If we want a respectful dialog with Christians, we have to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Why are Christians not attacking these groups ? ( The friend of the enemy is not a friend)
Coercive dominionist antisocial hate groups are hiding behind tax exempt advantages and the first amendment. If just calling yourself a “religion” means you get a “get out of scrutiny card” something is wrong.
My patience is waning (clearly) : (
My American Values say: I have no intention of standing by while Worried Granfather’s son becomes a target of hate merely because he drew breath on a continent that prides itself in individual freedom and liberty. If that means the question of the legitimacy of a church must come up - It must come up. So be it.
Actually guys, I suspect, or at least I hope, that all we’re disagreeing on now is “where’s the line?”
We have agreement that some beliefs and actions are “over the line.” The Army of God’s beliefs that it’s ok to murder abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics are “over the line” and can, should, MUST, be condemned.
What about those who think its ok to yell “God hates fags,” or even “kill all fags,” are their beliefs over the line? Are beliefs that it’s ok to block a woman’s access to an abortion clinic or call abortion doctors “baby killers” over the line? What about the people that try to push their creation mythology into the science classroom, are their beliefs over the line? And what about those that think its ok to pollute a river because it mightl hasten the apocalypse, are their beliefs over the line?
I doubt we’ll ever get total agreement on where to draw the line since I’m certain some of us have, to coin a phrase, a greater intolerance for intolerance than others, but I can live with that.
I think that I am an optimist, and an organizer that really wants to reach a broader audience. And I am looking for ways to honor democratic principles and yet be effective.
Be careful with that term “democratic principles” Chip. The rules in the constituion apply to the government. Primarilly the Federal Givernment and, to some extent through the 14th Amendment, to the states. The meaning of the term is not terribly clear when applied to private organizations or individuals.
The problem is you can get into a 1st Amendment conflict. Mary has a 1st Amendment right to hold any religious beliefs she chooses but John, if he believes Mary’s beliefs are dangerous or inconsiderate of others, also has a 1st Amendment right to say so regardless of whether or not it offends Mary. Either taking the position that John is within his rights to criticize Mary’s religion or saying John should respect Mary’s beliefs and not do that could be argued as “honoring democratic principles.” You seem to be focusing on the latter argument while some of us are focusing on the former argument.
Which argument is appropriate most likely depends upon the details of the situation. For example, we can condemn the AoG, but not ridicule someone who believes in peacefully awaiting the apocalypse. However if that person waiting for the second coming starts polluting streams and rivers to hurry things up, then he’s “over the line” and just forfeited the right to any consideration in my opinion.
Chip, I just went out and found an article you had written: Abstaining from Bad Sects
Understanding Sects, Cadres, and Mass Movement Organizations
I can see that this is far more complicated then my gut reaction makes it. But in this piece I think you articulate what I have been experiencing in my community:
“It is not fair for cadre organizations to send blocs of cadre members bound by democratic centralism (or other mandates to conform to a single line) into mass organizations to commandeer debates and votes. It is manipulative, elitist, and profoundly undemocratic. ”
You also caution in this article,
“Individuals who repeatedly engage in disruptive behavior should be expelled from a group”
How about resurrecting this piece to post here? It was very interesting…Thanks
I suspect there are quite a few intelligent people on this blog trying to come to grips with something they cannot understand. We have history, we have science, we have philsophy and reason on or side so why can they
not understand. Very simple. The rapture crowd have the one and only thing you need to believe the world is
flat, the moon is made of green cheese and the earth is the centre of the universe. Faith. Sheer blind immutable
faith. The Pope has it. The Taliban have it. Osama bin Laden has it. The right-wing Christian fascists have it in
buckets. Throughout history there have always been groups of people who, because of race, colour, creed,
political or ecconomic advantage have thought they are better, whose only thrill in life is look down and say
thank God, I am not like that. That is their one and only crutch in life and no one can take it from them peace-
fully. The Nazis too were the chosen people, only when they were stomped flat into the ground did they
allow some doubt. The same with the Afrikaaners. I have recently had an argument with someone who swore
the space program did not exist, no one has ever been on the moon, it is all a Hollywood production. Nothing
could sway him, he even brought a dozen friend who had also ‘researched’ the subject to back him up.
Until someone comes along and stomps the whole bunch into the ground, forget even arguing. When they
tell you the earth was created 6000 years ago, agree, just mention the the dinosaurs became extint at the
time of the flood, Noah was so pissed off at them shitting all over the ark that he dumped them overboard.
Since there are at least 50,000 known species of animals, ask them to calculate the size of the ark.
true democracy
principles must be the guide
our thoughts and actions
Democracy is more than Constitutional protections from government infringements of liberty that erode our freedom.
We live in a representative constitutional democracy–or at least that is the promise and the goal. People who seek to manipulate democratic process–be they political cadre organizations or the leaders of the Religious Right.
But isn’t there an irony in denouncing the Nazis and then suggesting what we need to counter the Religious Right is someone who comes along and “stomps the whole bunch into the ground?”
If we complain that some in the Religious Right are not playing by the rules of a representative constitutional democracy, do we not have to ensure that we are playing by the rules as well?
The point I keep trying to make is that we need to reframe the debate. If we argue with them over their theology, we are trapped in their frame where proper theology determines proper political conduct in the public sphere. We must reframe the debate to be about establishing the proper boundaries in a representative constitutional democracy for the intersection of religious belief and proper political conduct in the public sphere.
This is an important distinction; and this is one reason I support the DefCon pledge:
“We will fight for the separation of church and state, individual freedom, scientific progress, pluralism, and tolerance while respecting people of faith and their beliefs.”
We must reframe the debate and learn the concepts and language we need to take the debate into the public sphere and reach people who might not otherwise listen to us.
It is hard to leave the arguement here, because for me this is the core of where we go…but I will try to make this may last post in this thread…
If the defcon pledge requires that I support the right of subversive, stealth and destructive religions who use coercive tactics to bamboozle people, build media empires and hijack and obstruct the public dialog SORRY. That’s a deal breaker for me. As much as I would like to join the debate, if the so-called principles of democracy do not allow us to indentify internal cancers…I see little hope for a cure.
It just plain seems ridiculous that the lofty principles of democracy are this dilapidated. Jefferson and Madison both discussed religion not being excused from acts of criminality…I refuse to let this part of the debate disappear.
If my words scare those of us who have a faith, then shame on the faith community for not screaming about these wolves in our midst long long ago. Their silence has led to this situation.
Something those with their pulse on this have neglected to stop has spilled into the life of everyday Americans, in our schools, out communities, our public dialog, our political debate. It threatens the goodwill of our communities and impacts us in our homes. Now regular Americans are paying attention.
Perhaps our solution is not as politically correct as the studiers, but I can tell assure you, there is no way you are ever going to get me to the table at this point, without the discussion of anti-social and destructive religions being part of the dialog. To me it is not Taboo, it is essential.
Whilst (due to length) it’s too long to really post here as a reply, I’ve done a bit of a post noting how dominionist groups–and specifically the “dispensationalist” ones (of which I am all too intimately familiar–being a walkaway from a church into that)–actually meet the criteria for being coercive religious groups.
In other words, we’re dealing less with a political movement per se and more of bona fide cults (complete with extensive tactics of “thought reform” practiced on their own members) which have a political extension (the dominionist movement).
This isn’t unusual with coercive religious groups–the Rajneesh folks and Scientologists have both attempted subversion of governments, and many experts in coercive religious groups consider the Taliban and the Al Quaida movement to both have characteristics of coercive religious groups (Rick Ross in particular has extensive info on Al Quaida as cult).
It is partly because of the fact that dominionism is in large part a political extension of coercive tactics–and partly from my own experience having been raised in a coercive religious group heavily involved in the dominionist movement and having spent the first twelve years of my life thoroughly indoctrinated into the mindset of dominionism–that I think constructive dialogue is going to be a failure (on the scale of “trying to engage Tom Cruise in a reasonable debate on the merits of psychiatry” level of failure); in many cases, you are dealing with people who quite literally believe people outside of the dominionist movement are demon possessed and/or agents of Satan and that even *listening* to them will cause them to be demon possessed and potentially permanently damned. (Many “dispensationalists”–the same ones into the Rapture stuff–are also into a particular branch of theology known as “deliverance ministry” that literally teaches not only that all ills (including genetic diseases, etc.) are in fact the result of demons, but that any media not approved by dominionist causes, any debate with people, any exposure to info outside the group *is literally satanic and crawling with demons*. The closest comparable theology in any religion that I can think of is the concept of “body thetans” and “supressive persons” in Scientology–and yes, dominionists into “deliverance ministry” WILL react as rabidly.)
At the very least, ANY debate with dominionists themselves will *have to* take into account that the people involved are likely members of coercive religious groups and–unless they are on the verge of walking away themselves–are probably going to spend more time rebuking you because they’re scared you will infect them with The Evil. (Again, speaking as a former dominionist myself, I’m afraid I know what I’m talking about. I used to do the same thing myself until I found out–for myself, and in an environment with no dominionist influence–that I was being actively lied to.)
One thing that *DOES* need to be done, especially in the mainstream Christian community, is pointing out they aren’t playing by the rules and that Christianity in general isn’t like that. (This is especially important as some dominionist groups and dominionist denominations explicitly practice both “stealth evangelism” targeted at members of churches and efforts to *actively infiltrate* moderate Christian churches–the Southern Baptists may well have been turned dominionist by such infiltration, and the denomination I am a walkaway from (the AoG, which is heavily linked to the dominionist movement and operates no less than thirty separate front groups, many of which are explicitly targeted towards “sheep-stealing” or targeting other Christians for conversion) also does both infiltration and blatant “sheep stealing”)
Yes Chip, you will excuse me BUT precisely what we are arguing about is WHAT ARE THE PROPER BOUNDARIES? Where is the lines over which it is unacceptable to cross? So far I haven’t seen anything from you about where you think that boundary is. What should be “the intersection of religious belief and proper political conduct in the public sphere.”
Don’t go by me. I’m convinced that religion is the opiate of the people.
Part of the difficulty is that THEIR BELIEFS ARE WHAT’S CAUSING THE PROBLEM! That means you have two choices. Choice #1, take the position that it is unacceptable for them to attempt to force their beliefs on others. But here’s a newsflash for you, that is precisely what some of them think their religion is telling them to do. Or at least that what some leaders on the right have convinced them their religion is telling them. Even those that understand “force” is a bad idea believe they must at least “preach the word” at every opportunity. They just can’t get it through their thick skulls that it’s OK if other people believe differently.
You have said it “is not fair to ask people of faith simply to abandon their beliefs when they step into the Public Square or political arena.”
Why the hell not? Their beliefs should be private and drive their actions, even their votes if they want, but not be considered the blueprint for society at large. Again the conflict is between the evangelical push and the rights delineated in the constitution. I’m not telling them they can’t believe abortion is murder, simply that they can’t stop someone who may not share that view from getting one.
The second choice to to attack their beliefs, at least the most extreme ones, as dangerous, irrational and unfit for a democratic society. This approach appears to horrify you and I’m not sure why as some of their beliefs are dangerous, irrational and unfit for a democratic society!
You seem to think you can gerrymander the moral border in some way, manner, shape or form in oder to mold the conversation. Ok, I’d like to hear more about how you intend to do that. Please elucidate.
repent! ask God to forgive you, admit you are a sinner and that you are lost without Him. Give your life to Him and put your trust in Him for salvation and He will turn your life around. Jesus is Lord and will return soon! Don’t be lost when the time comes! True freedom comes from submission to the Most High God! Jesus lives! God is love! The Truth will make you free, and whom the Son sets free is free indeed! God bless you!
True freedom comes from submission to the Most High God!
So freedom is slavery? My, how Orwellian.
I will put forward a very simple model which I find compelling and which does much to explain the seemingly insane behavior of religious extremists. I do not mince words.
All religions are computer viruses for human minds.
They are communicable mental diseases which alter perception of the world, influencing judgement and reason. Even a religious person will have to admit the similarities between every other religion or cult and computer viruses. How they spread, the central patterns common to all of them (such as blind faith), their long history of gradually recanting in the light of new scientific evidence. They are all based on a simple formula which is designed to spread information to the next generation. Thus they survive and continue.
It is only now in the light of the computer revolution that we can understand the concept of informational life forms, and recognize them for what they are: parasites. At one time, religion may have been a useful model to preserve culture throughout the ages. It is no longer needed. There is a rich physical world out there, and some people are actively trying to understand it and to preserve our species from the bleak reality of extinction.
I have read many of the articles and posts on this site. Rest assured I feel the threat from the religious right. I am not an esteemed scholar, but I have fought battles of all kinds and most recently with friends who have converted to the Lords plan. Granted my sample size is small but it registers well with the fact that America and the Middle East are succumbing to a mind numbing philosophy in an attempt to find meaning in their retched existence. No science or government has met it alleged goals and never will according to religious text.
Furthermore the scientific community has done an excellent job at remaining aloof from society at large. Look at the cost of education and how the Ivy League schools are succumbing to research that MUST be profitable.
Compound this fact with this statement: “Your community (scientific) does not wear the cloth of the people.” Carl Sagin and Stephen J. Gould were the only members (that I am aware of) from your community to connect with the world—outside of academic circles.
No disrespect intended. The fact of the matter is you fail in street fighting and appear too arrogant to get dirty in this issue. I love reading your articles and journals. I am one of the choirs so to speak. But you do not get the tactics and meaning in the battle against religious extremism. You hold your information in manner that is elitist and only available to those in your circles. How many people read the Columbia Journal Review in contrast to Lehaye?
They have money. You are beholden to funds from the public. They have a public relations arm that needs no convincing of holy cause. You debate the obvious on this site and fail to put together a cogent plan to address your adversary. You need to learn to market, lobby and find a political base willing to back science.
Believe me, I have tried to communicate with the religious right with simple logic and personal attacks of out right anger. It made no difference. Why because they have “the” message, pure and simple. They are (not all, to avoid an obvious fallacy) beyond any form of reason and rationale. They literally bank on times after the rapture.
The religious right does not have to be politically correct. The scientific community has to be politically correct. They can make the most absurd charges against science and the science community has no rebuff except for well thought out and documented research that is hard to communicate.
Find your public voice, lobby and be present. Hire a firm if you have to get the message out. If you believe that reason and empirical evidence will save us then reflect on the middle ages. Find the medium to bring an astounding amount of work to the public for scrutiny.
If humanity at large can only understand ideology then that is your battlefield. Forget the converted and focus on those who may listen. Do not be as naïve to think that reason will prevail. This is absurd as waiting for dispensationalism. Currently my thinking is; science can remain intact and at the same time be a bit of a demagogue.
Nazgul,
Nice analogy. Are you familier wih the concept of a “meme?” The term was coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976 in his book “The Selfish Gene” and has come to mean a self-replicating social concept or belief. In other words, a mental virus of the mind much like what you are describing. Religions are perfect examples of memes as are things like astrology and the belief in UFOs. Note that a meme can be either true or false, positive, negative or neutral. Faith in democracy can be considered a meme as can the spread of casual dress in some work environments.
Basic information on memes can be found at various places on the web. The Wikpedia definition is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Yes, I am somewhat familiar with memes. Thanks for the link.
However, I will stick to the term computer virus to describe all religions. The meme is a much more generic term, and as you mention, it does not have a negative connotation. Given the history of violence, ignorance, and hatred surrounding all religions, I feel they need to be singled out from other memes or sets of memes. I oppose apologists arguments suggesting that religion fills some need in people, and is thus acceptable. No, it merely exploits people’s weaknesses to grab hold of their minds, infiltrating through security holes in our mental armor. It’s like saying that a tapeworm or a flu virus must continue to exist because it fills some personnal need. No, they’re just parasites.
The question is, how can they be fought? How can we weaken their hold on politics so that the breed of madness plagueing the Middle East and our own country is stopped and never returns? Are all true believers hopelessly infected, beyond the reach of reason? Why doesn’t critical thinking prevail, when the arguments presented in support of religion tend to be silly at best and do not stand up to any scrutiny?
These ‘end times’ cults would seem laughably stupid to me if there weren’t so many people involved. As it is, they seem truly terrifying. I can almost smell the torches and pitchforks coming.
Perhaps, for a start, it should be considered socially uncouth to even mention religion in politics. Second, science has saved us from a variety of diseases which religion has utterly failed to cope with. Leprosy comes to mind as one treated by religion as having several isolated cases cured ‘miraculously’. Medical science came along, realised leprosy was a bacterial infection, and boom, it’s suddenly treatable with simple antibiotics and we don’t have leper colonies anymore. There are a number of such success stories, maybe more publicity for them so people don’t forget who’s pulling for the species and who’s hanging on like a leech.
Nazgul,
Yeah, I sort of figured you knew all about memes after I saw you quote Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker” on another topic, but I had already written the post. Boy did I feel dumb. This place needs a full forum complete with editing capabilities so I can fix mistakes like that and not make a fool of myself more often than necessary.
Exactly what’s the best way to approach the problem has been the topic of this string, but as you can see, I don’t think we’ve arrived at any conclusion. I doubt we’d get them to accept the idea that the mention of religion in politics is socially uncouth because they’ve been hoodwinked into thinking that molding the body politic according to their moral viewpoint is an imperative of their religion.
If there is a ray of hope to be found, it may be that the alliance (the Unholy Rovian Empire?) between the religious right, the neocon would-be world conquerors, and the conservative “intelligensia”, which have few if any common priorities except to hold onto political power, is about to explode into impotent fragments. We may see the beginning of the end within a few days. Check out this Frank Rich column:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102305Z.shtml
This should be much more exciting to watch than the Worlds Series.
I am with Chip on all this.
I see a great deal of extreme language being used to paint way too many people with a broad brush. Holding to democratic values means just that. If you don’t practice them, if you don’t live them, if you don’t use the language of democracy, then you really can’t say you believe in it or that you speak for it against those who do not.
I think people should actively consider whether they would dare to use the kind of overheated rhetoric on this thread in conversation with people who live in thier own town, their own neighborhood; in a public meeting. This is the standard that really needs to govern our civil behavior, including online.
Using fair and accurate terms, allows us to have productive conversations not only with many in evangelical Christianity, but also with each other. Use of hyperbole, unfair and inaccurate labels, and the language of demonization often says more about those who use such language, than those they are talking about.
I am terrified of the Religious Right’s plan to take away our freedoms. These people are constantly going after those they categorize as “sinful” and proceed in treating those people like they aren’t even human. As a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage atheist, I get scared thinking about what these wackos will do to my country in the years ahead. We must know that the only reason why the Religious Right is so powerful now is because they have all this money. Even religious-themed or anti-abortion organizations that were in obscurity ten years ago are now making millions of dollars from their donators. Money equals power, and power equals respect; there’s now way around it. We know what these people plan to do; the Schiavo case gave us a look into their agenda. (You wonder, are they going to make it illegal to remove someone’s life support.) Extremes only lead to more extremes. As soon as the Religious Right becomes THE government you will have radicals on the other side who are just as crazy (some of the things said by the extreme-left scare me too). It is more of retaliation than anything else. Religion is what divides people; kindness is what unites people. The Religious Right is not pushing their agenda will kindness and compromise, but rather by enforcement.
Please remove Bush from office and bring the country back together before we have another civil war!