They Know Not What They Do!

Start at Crooks and Liars. There's a new book out that proposes the radical idea that the wealthy have been manipulating the religious in order to make more money and not pay taxes. Ya think? But it sort of vindicates something I've been thinking about for a long time.

Hi! I'm a Democrat, and I think your church sucks. Vote for me!

Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman University of Michigan

I always catch hell from some progressive friends for having sympathies with fundamentalists, Christian, Muslim and/or Jewish. In some circles, a good progressive is supposed to be an atheist and believe in the power of secularism. But this progressive belief system doesn't realize that it is also based upon a kind of faith, since it cannot be demonstrated empirically and it requires no less of a blind jumping off than its theocratic counterparts.

Religion and the people who practice it are seen by some progressives as enemies of the state rather than as mere varieties of ordinary human beings. Polemicists point out that religion has been the source of many of the world's largest conflagrations and therefore the secular faith is the way to go. But it's a false dichotomy. While it may be true that religion has historical shortcomings as an institution, the track record of its secular counterparts in the form of state mandated atheism ain't that good neither. We're stuck between dumb and dumber.

Religious impulses are as valid as any other human instinct as far as we can prove, and secular institutions benefit from their continued health and well being unless one religious faction rises to control all the others. Which is highly unlikely given what we see in Iraq. Individual religions don't do very well when it comes to wrestling control of governments out of the hands of other fundamentalists. Not because they are incompetent, but because so many other people take a different view of matters.

Who are we to play God, deciding which impulses are less than human? In certain circumstances the zealous instinct might become useful again. Where will we be if we cut it out and leave it on the operating room floor? A stock definition of hubris is man's temptation to play God with things beyond his scope.

In my humble opinion fundamentalists are victims of stunted mythology and lack of a broader education rather than active proponents of theocractic forms of government. Given the opportunity to get a decent education, most kids learn that the world is made up of all kinds of people and that we need to respect each other's cultural heritage. I say most kids. Bible Camp Moonies being the exception rather than the rule in American society. But, in my view, agitating for completely homogenous secular societies is counter productive.

Not only is it unrealistic to do away with religion completely, it pisses off the people you want to vote your way.

Hi! I'm a Democrat, and I think your church sucks. Vote for me!

And religous movements are just as silly who seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Christian version of Sharia Law. They're out there all right, but their numbers, I would argue, are probably about the same as some of the snake handler cults that used to come down out of the Appalachian mountains with the HillBillies. These rare orchids tend not to thrive in the urban and suburban settings where good education is available. So I think it's a matter of funding good education rather then prescribing secularism as the state religion.

I think the cartogram above makes it easy to see that the red populations - rimming the outside of the urban areas -  are in danger of disappearing demographically if we can just get them folks some Internets(tm) and a few good teachers.

Maybe I'm sympathetic because I was raised by religious people and I would probably have ended up on death row without their help given my baseline temperament. Bahai's and Catholics and Baptists opened their homes to foster children, actually doing good instead of talking about it, and so I benefited from their practice if not their dogma. I ended up becoming an official agnostic simply because I don't have definitive proof either way.

So I have a soft spot for good people who say it's better to believe in something - anything - doesn't matter what - and act on that progressive vision rather than to believe in nothing and end up a nihilist. We all know where nihilism ends up. In my humble opinion nihilism is where the secular faith-o-phobics are headed just as fast as their counterparts in other fundamentalist systems.

If people want their faith, I say let them have it. The homophobia running like a wild fire through the American prairie states and the west and the south, I would argue, is actually coming from a very small cross section of the American population who suffer from the least education. I would also argue that it's caused by an unconscious reaction to the perceived encroachments of urban realities and the impact of corporate culture upon bucolic ways of life. The Federal Marriage Amendment probably appeals to less than 10% of Americans, but these are the same 10% who usually sit home cussing when not excited and exploited by the fascist rhetoric coming out of Karl Rove's office. And that 10% is enough to tip the debate inside the 40 yard lines.

Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman University of Michigan

Homophobia usually dies when it reaches the suburbs, as evidenced by the Purple America maps. I don't have a lot of time to do a full demographic study to back up my hypothesis. I'm just sharing my intuition. I think when most people encounter actual gay people they find out that they are nothing like their minister said. And once they find out they've been manipulated by the wealthy who just want to skim the till, I think they'll come to their senses.

I've had this conversation with The Hanged Man countless times - so this view of mine didn't just fall out of the sky. I decided to blog it so we have a record of our conversations for the future. Lotta good stuff gets lost in the email with The Hanged Man. I'm just saying it's not wise to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Maybe if the DoD could spare us the cost of couple of carrier battle groups we might be able to send some Internets(tm) and teachers up into them thar hills out west and down south.

And maybe there's a correlation in my hypothesis to Muslim fundamentalists, assuming they're human beings just like the rest of it, and maybe we could all benefit from a long term prescription for terrorism which involves good education systems instead of strong Departments of Defense, which is another scam perpetrated by the weatlthy on the unknowing.

This diary has been brought to you by mindless blog whoring from Ressentment

•  Tip Jar and/or Spitoon!

  Gimme dat mojo!

  by servantsavant on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 04:36:06 PM PDT

•  Perhaps some people generalize

  about secularists the way you say some secularists generalize about fundamentalists.

  Although I know people with very strong negative feelings about the overall effect of religion on our world, I can't say that anyone I know wishes that all people would give up their religion.

  In my opinion it has a lot more to do with the culture of a religious institution and its practices than with whether a person is religious.  For example, religion as a means of domination is vile, while religion as a means of succouring the helpless (e.g., the origins of the abolitionist movement and the churches that defied Reagan to shelter people escaping torture in Central America) is way cool.

  That certain religious  cultures foster subjugation of critical thinking to authoritarian figures is extremely harmful and tragic.  That other religious cultures use the doctrine and history of the religious group to foster an exchange of ideas on the human condition is another thing altogether.

  It all depends what kind of people you're dealing with.

  by A Mad Mad World on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 05:49:57 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    People don't fit easily into categories, and each group has exceptions to the stereotypes.  People are people.

    Up until recently when the fortunes of the conservatives seem to shift in our favor I thought the United Statess as in real danger of becoming a theocracy.  It still might happen, but everytime I see that cartogram from the 2004 election, I do a bit of paradigm shifting.  

    If we could have just convinced a small portion of those "values" voters that Democrats aren't hostile to religion as the right wing ideologues paint us, we only needed about 2 percent to change their minds in 2004 and elect Kerry.

    I just hope we don't repeat the same mistake is all.  

    by servantsavant on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 05:58:03 PM PDT

    •  Won't ever happen.

      The really dedicated "values" voters are (a) constantly indoctrinated by the Democrats-are-godless speeches coming from Rove and the pulpit, and (b)rabidly anti-choice and anti-gay.  Those are their "values," and our party isn't into criminalizing abortion or gay-bashing.  

      by gkn on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 08:53:05 PM PDT

•  My Brother, My Friend...

  ...is somewhat of an Evangelical. Couldn't make him bat an eye against Bush in 2000, 2002, 2004. Now he really has a sour stomach, feels rattled, and believes himself taken as a fool. There's hope yet I startle to believe!!!

  by keechi on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 06:27:01 PM PDT

•  What happened?

  I know I saw at least one recommended.  

  by servantsavant on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 07:11:56 PM PDT

•  Define 'good education' ...

  Bush and bin Laden want "good education" too.

  by John Driscoll on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 08:27:43 PM PDT

•  Interesting Thoughts

  Thanks for the interesting diary. As someone with strong and private spiritual beliefs, it frustrates me to hear our party often derided as anti-religion, or to hear other liberals suggest that there is something wrong with religious beliefs.

  To be fair, I have serious, serious issues with most forms of organized religion as they are practiced today. I have always understood religion as one possible path to discovering one's own personal spiritual beliefs. Ultimately, I must arrive at my own conclusions as to how I view my own soul (or lack thereof), place in the cosmos (or lack thereof), meaning of life (or lack thereof).

  Perhaps the Democrats need to address the importance of personal spirituality. The Republicans seem to have conquered the organized side of religion. Perhaps we can win over the grassroots, personal end of things by appealing to religous voters as individuals with a strong sense of spirituality.

  by kath25 on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 09:01:24 PM PDT

•  Good Idea. Bad facts.

  I sympathize with your project, Servant, but I'd argue that you've inadvertently condescended to conservative religionists in just the same manner as you rightfully accuse knee-jerk secularists of doing. You do these conservatives no humanizing favors by folding them under a vast, centrist umbrella. The reality is that there is a very strong, very conservative, and, yes, grassroots fundamentalist movement that has succeeded in shaping the country.

  You write: "religous movements are just as silly who seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Christian version of Sharia Law. They're out there all right, but their numbers, I would argue, are probably about the same as some of the snake handler cults..." That's just not true. Consider all the congressmen who have signed onto the Constitutional Restoration act, Senators Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, and many others.

  You continue: "homophobia running like a wild fire through the American prairie states and the west and the south, I would argue, is actually coming from a very small cross section of the American population who suffer from the least education." In fact, the increasing strength of homophobia as a central idea in Christian conservatism comes from the MOST educated corners of the movement, its intellectual elite, writers such as Charles W. Colson and John Eldredge, who are in turn drawing from much more brutal thinkers such as Frances Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony.

  All these conservatives are, as the old saying goes, people, too. I'm glad you're trying to move us past the silly caricatures. But let's not replace them with new ones like "Bible Camp Moonies" -- I've been reporting across evangelical America for about five years now, and I'd argue that "Jesus Camp" is the most representative portrait of seen. There are a lot of fundamentalists who wouldn't fit in it, of course, but that's a very strong current.

  by Ishmael on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 09:14:48 PM PDT

  •  benefit of the doubt

    I was just trying for a paradigm shift.  

    I think it's more useful to think about good people who have been misled or misinformed than to think they have something inherently wrong with them.

    My hypothesis is really the classical liberal one.  People contain potential for both good and bad behavior.  But no one is inherently just all good or just all bad.  Which is the way a lot of secular zealots present their case.  

    Thanks for recognizing it as a project.  Changing paradigms doesn't change the actual people, but it can influence how we regard others.  

    We just naturally treat people they way we feel about them and that's not always the right approach.

    by servantsavant on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:00:26 AM PDT

    •  Who You Calling Bad?

      The problem here is the classical liberal paradigm, which assumes that there is a universal agreement on what's "good." In its intolerant form, it condems those who don't fit and are therefore bad. That's what you're rightly condeming. But in its tolerant form, this paradigm imagines that most of the "bad" guys in fact want to be "good" -- i.e. like us.

      I imagine you can see the problem. Yes, plenty of fundamentalists are good people. But not many are any more misled or misinformed than we are. Nor is there anything "inherently wrong" with them. Rather, they hold different values and have arrived at different conclusions.

      You want to be respectful? Face those values. Fight them, even. But don't simply deny that they exist.

      Otherwise you're buying into the classical liberal paradigm of simply dismissing all that does not bow before it is "old-fashioned," bound to wither away. That's been working great since, oh, 1925, the Scopes Monkey trial. Yep. Those silly misled fools are going to get the "right' information and give it up. Any day now.

      by Ishmael on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 08:25:15 PM PDT

•  I agree that we don't earn any friends by

  demonizing religion, but another poster pointed out it's worthwhile to read up a bit on these groups and educate yourself.  You might look at Frederick Carlson's books to get a picture of what these movements are about and why it's worthwhile to be concerned.  Moreover, this isn't a small cultish group in the United States.  In the last 35 years they've earned significant power at all levels of government and today have the presidency.  It would be a pleasant world if we could all agree to simply get along and live peacefully side by side, but these groups also wish to assert dominance over the rest of us because they believe that it is their duty to do so to prepare for the apocalyps.  Given that they believe that they possess the truth they feel no need to argue or debate as why would one argue or debate with others when one already has the truth?  It's a scary movement and hostility towards it by those on the left is not some irrational commitment to the Enlightenment, but is come by honestly by those who have had their local government and school boards assaulted by these groups.

  by Philoguy on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 10:00:55 PM PDT

•  Poltics corrupts religion

  I was raised Methodist, but I don't attend church anymore. One of the big ideas I got from Sunday school, and later just reading the bible was the idea that politics and business, when brought into the church, are corrupting forces. Basically, the "money changers in the temple." I'm mystified as to why modern Christian fundamentalists can ignore this lesson so easily. I'd rather not have Democats replace the GOP as the supplier of "money changers for the temple." Can't we respect religion, and still keep it separate from political power?

  by Mark Wallace on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 01:13:46 AM PDT

  •  Good point mark

    Somehow the personal got mixed in with public matters.

    I don't know how that happened, but I figure everyone will come around given good information and a hearty welcome to a different way of looking at things.  

    by servantsavant on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 09:03:44 AM PDT

•  I think they do know what they're doing

  I think they know exactly what they're doing.  They scream bloody murder when other faiths are protected from harassment because they see that protection as discrimination against them.  They confuse discrimination with the absence or removal of privilege.  And I'm sorry, but I can't muster up that much sympathy for them.  They "suffer" for their beliefs by having Starbucks in their church basements and mini-malls catering to their tastes and multi-million dollar industry targeted right at their specialty market.  All for the low, low price of thirty pieces of silver to buy their votes.

  They respond to the GOP lines because inherent in those lines is the implicit (and sometimes downright explicit) promise that they will retain their privileged status, and even be rewarded with more privilege (by removing simple and basic rights for a gay couple to visit one another in the hospital, for example.  Or sidestepping the consequences of having their children gang up on a child not of their faith and employ some "conversion by the sword" tactics in a public school).  

  I'm not saying every fundamentalist is evil incarnate (but a few of their leaders are), but I just don't have much in me that wants to reach out to them when I know they are doing everything in their power to make sure that me and mine are stomped on in the public square.  And I'm not sure it's worth it to try, when a party that seeks true equality and fairness for all is NOT in their best interests.

  I'm tired of giving them a free pass and the benefit of the doubt.  They let people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson speak for them.  What choice do I have but to think they have implicitly granted people like those two clowns the "moral" authority to do so.  I'm tired of getting steamrolled.

  by athenap on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 07:03:32 AM PDT

•  atheism

  But this progressive belief system doesn't realize that it is also based upon a kind of faith, since it cannot be demonstrated empirically and it requires no less of a blind jumping off than its theocratic counterparts.

  I think you have a skewed view of what atheism is, properly, which many religious people have.  It does not require evidence to fail believe in something that has not been proven.  It is no more a blind jumping off to not believe in fairies or the elven holocaust than it is for a given mainstream religion.

  by scromp on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 07:14:32 AM PDT

  •  you can't prove anything either

    so atheism is made of the same stuff as faith.

    atheism is just a hunch that could be wrong. there's no proof either way.

    by servantsavant on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 08:52:34 AM PDT

•  Aethism Just a hunch, dumb and dumber, etc, etc.

  Your quote...

  "Religion and the people who practice it are seen by some progressives as enemies of the state rather than as mere varieties of ordinary human beings. Polemicists point out that religion has been the source of many of the world's largest conflagrations and therefore the secular faith is the way to go. But it's a false dichotomy. While it may be true that religion has historical shortcomings as an institution, the track record of its secular counterparts in the form of state mandated atheism ain't that good neither. We're stuck between dumb and dumber."

  You start with a premise and then compare the two as though they are opposite sides of the same coin or as two equally valid theories on the meaning of life.  

  That is where you went off the track.  Atheism is not merely a "belief" about a god.  It is the pursuit of the scientific method as it applies to God and creation.  Faith looks at a question that cannot currently be answered and then applies it to some supernatural power that cannot nor has ever been prooved.  I can apply the existance of God in my life just as easy as I can ascribe unexplainable occurances to a being that lives under the ice in the poles, or any other mythical being that noone has seen, but believes in just the same.  Religion says that the reason things are the way they are is because there is a God who made it so.  You must have faith because there is no evidence to suppport the claims.

  Aetheism is not a hunch about these questions - it is an assertion based upon science.  It looks at the evidence that has been presented in a scientific light and concludes that there is no evidence to support the claims that religion makes.  Gravity cannot be seen, either, but scientist do not believe in gravity because they have faith.  They accept it's theory to be true based upon countless observations and tests that are repeatable and verifiable by anyone who cares to put forth the effort.  Although atheism  says there is no proof for the existance of God, most atheists would leave open the possibility that anything is possible,  but God is not probable based upon what we currently know about the universe.  That openess is what drives science.  Atheism as it applies to science is the constant pursuit of the truth and the williness to jetison any current belief should, but only when, verifiable evidence presents itself.  

  Religion holds no such options.  The beliefs are dogmatic and absolute and not rendered to the method of science nor even casual question.  When questions do arrise they are merely "a crisis of faith".

  Your assertion that regimes that held secular beliefs have at times been corrupt is not, therefore, an indictment of secularism as equally flawed as religious beliefs.  Dictatorial regimes have a focus on maintainining power and have many times found that easier to do by depriving the masses of excuses to assemble and discover their shared plight through religious activities.  This has nothing to do with a secular view on society that focuses on the here and now and the objective applications of policy to make life better for the greatest numbers of people.  

  Religion always leads to the view of those who are outside of the religion as "the other".  The other  should   be persuaded to accept thier beliefs to save their soul.  Should the conversion not work, those people are thought to be less than the members of the group.  How could you not look at someone who chooses Hell as an inferior being and then perhaps - evil.  It is a short trip at that point to extend less rights to those people and it sure makes armed conflict much easier.

  Aethism is not an organization that insists that people give up their beliefs even though it would be better for the members of the planet.  There is no serious organized group of atheists going around and oppressing people because they do not believe in evolution.  It simply holds as it core belief that human society will be better as it can apply the methods of science to all undertakings and keeps hope that many more will discover the rigours of scientific thought.  

  Aethism is not responsible nor could it be for depriving condom use in AIDs infected Africa because God does not want people to have sex.  Aethism is not responsible for keeping 10% of our homosexual population from enjoying basic rights because God hates homosexuals.  Aethism is not responsible for holding back research on stem cells because God thinks every blastocyte has a soul.  And Aethism is not responsible for oppressing women because God thinks they make men want to have sex with them.  These are examples in this country - where we live in religious "moderation" - where faith, when pursued to it's natural end, will take us.  

  Science should just be as it is.  It's findings should be published far and wide.  Over time and many generations, people will start to be more comfortable with science as it truly strives to answer the unknown questions of our day, and then offers solutions that are within our power to affect.  And that is when we will start to jetison the ancient beliefs that have served us so poorly and allow us to look to the future where all people can live together in mutual peace and pursuit of happiness of making THIS world a better place.          

  by grettadog on Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:57:49 PM PDT