Back in July, I wrote a diary entitled "Because God is in the details." I crossposted it on Street Prophets, where I added an introduction, part of which I am reproducing here:
This is something that's been bothering me for quite some time. As some of you know, I choose to remain anonymous here because as a grad student whose funding and income depend on multiple sources with political agendas, I have to give the appearance of being politically neutral or at least harmless, and my participation on sites like dKos could threaten that image. But that's just the threat I get from political conservatives. From liberals, I get a different threat -- I'm religious, and as such, I can't possibly be a "good scientist."
Some more from the introduction:
I worry about both threats, but in the long-term, the one that bothers me more is the one from my fellow liberals.
It bothers me more because it stands in opposition to everything we progressives seem to idealize. We believe in tolerance and diversity, yet we sometimes express great intolerance for people of faith. We believe in relying on evidence, yet we make gross generalizations based on people's religious identification.
This is always a concern for me, and it's popped up here on dKos a lot recently. In the past several days, there have been diaries blaming religion for past Democratic failures in elections and for preventing greater Democratic gains in this year's elections; there have been diaries claiming that religion inherently threatens modernity, that religion is responsible for the civil war in Iraq, that the best way we can help the Iraqi people is to convert them to atheism; there have been diaries comparing religious education to child abuse or claiming that religion as a phenomenon is inherently based in bigotry.
The conclusions presented by the diarists in each case are based on the worst kind of stereotyping and overgeneralizing. Ironically, while most of the diarists I'm thinking of have bashed religious folks -- both kossacks and non-kossacks -- on many occasions because of our faith in God, religion, etc., their own conclusions are not based on empirical reality and are frequently presented as fact but without sufficient (or even any) evidence. In other words, they present their claims and demand that their readers accept those claims on faith.
With that in mind, I feel the need to present once again for the community's consideration the words I wrote four months ago.
Because God is in the details: A plea for tolerance
Religion seems to be a pretty hot topic on dKos. In general, there are two kinds of diaries about religion I'm used to seeing here. The first is the sort of diary we've been seeing a lot of lately, in which some organization, demented individual, or governmental body advocates and/or attempts to impose a specific religious perspective on unwilling people through abuse of power, violence, threats, or majoritarian arrogance. The second is the sort of diary we see at least once a week from pastordan, including this masterpiece earlier today. While that specific diary also addresses the abuse of power, violence, threats, etc., it has a very different perspective -- it reminds us that not all people of faith are bigots. It reminds us that religion is a tool. Used properly, it brings people together to achieve great things (see, for example, Street Prophets or Talk2Action). Used as a weapon, religion divides and oppresses people. Ultimately, religion is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. What makes it good or bad is the character of the people who wield it.
One of the things that frustrate me to no end is that so many otherwise tolerant, good-hearted people fail to see that distinction. I hope -- though I still have my doubts -- that this is part of what Barack Obama was trying to get at in his recent speech. Even here, where (in my experience) people are far more tolerant, fair-minded, and intelligent than most of the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis, I am sometimes amazed by the level of intolerance expressed towards religion and people of faith. Whether it's an ill-informed screed about Muslim terrorists; the baseless attribution of Joementum's tooliness to his Judaism; the ecological fallacy that all Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on all people; or the generalized accusation that all people of faith are anti-science, pro-school prayer, anti-equality, anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-war, unthinking mouth-breathers (hereafter "Rethugs"); it's still not based in reality, it's still a generalization, and it's still intolerance. And I submit that such generalizations about religion are no different from similarly hateful generalizations about race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, or any other category.
Research consistently demonstrates that education is a powerful tool against intolerance. In that spirit, allow me to address some of these fallacies by listing a few things everyone should know about people of faith. A detailed examination will reveal that none of the generalizations apply; as my title and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe suggest, God is in the details.
We're not all the same.
Like some of you, I am Jewish. Others here are Christians of various denominations. Some are Muslims. Some are Buddhists. Some practice Wicca. And so on -- if you can name the faith, there is probably at least one practitioner among our fellow kossacks. But religion is a highly personal thing, and what holds true for one person of faith may not for another, even within the same denomination. We can't all speak for each other. Heck, in Judaism we have an expression: "Two Jews, three opinions." In short, we can't even speak for ourselves sometimes. So when Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Fred Phelps, Dumbya (who, incidentally, I tend to think of more as a poseur and an opportunist than someone who is genuinely religious, but that's an issue for another time), or some nameless local preacher says something hateful, a reasonable person cannot in good conscience attribute their bigotry to all people of their denomination, let alone all people of faith.
We don't all want to convert you.
In fact, some religions prohibit active proselytization (or if you prefer, "recruiting"). In Judaism, for example, the tradition is that you're even supposed to discourage someone who approaches you to seek to convert. Again, religion is a deeply personal thing, and for many people it's deeply offensive when someone approaches them to try to convert them. A great many of us want to practice our religions privately, without interference from real-life roving bands of dominionist evangelizers bent on Rapture, and we respect your right to believe (or not) in your own way. Which leads to the next item...
We don't all hate people who adhere to faiths other than our own, or atheists, or agnostics.
I swear we don't. As clichéd as it may sound, some of our best friends are adherents of other religions, atheists, and agnostics. If you think about it, some of your best friends probably are, too -- that's probably because you are probably a tolerant person, as most progressives are, so you don't disqualify people who believe differently from being your friends. We're no different; just because we disagree on this one issue doesn't mean we hate you.
We don't all hate gays and lesbians.
We believe that religion should be used to promote lovingkindness, not hatred. We are just as appalled as you are by the homophobia justified by many as religious doctrine, and we shout out against it at the top of our lungs. We regret that the loudest homophobic voices are coming from people who describe themselves as religious, and we're going to continue to do the best we can to show the world that we won't tolerate the bigots' attempt to hijack our religions.
We're not all raving mad protestors outside abortion clinics.
A great many of us are pro-choice. Some of us volunteer at clinics; I've been an escort for terrified patients on several occasions. I suspect if you polled us, many of us would be in the Clinton camp on abortion -- we want it safe, legal, and rare. Rather than condemn people who have or perform abortions, we think they should be treated with compassion. Rather than have the government ban abortion, we think the government should do something about the underlying problems that make abortion the least of several possible evils in many circumstances.
We're not all crazy, stupid, delusional, mindless, unthinking, or uncritical.
Calling us crazy because you disagree with us is insulting to people with genuine mental illnesses. (It's also a hallmark of Rethug rhetoric.) Many of us are highly educated; I am a doctoral student at one of the best universities in the country and a graduate of an Ivy League university. We are doctors, lawyers, engineers, candidates for higher office (see, for example, Ted Strickland and Barry Welsh), scientists, professors, teachers, and students. We believe in science as well as God -- and no, that doesn't mean we subscribe to "intelligent design" over evolution. We accept prevailing scientific wisdom as fact, not theory. We question our leaders when we believe they are wrong and we seek to the best of our ability to rectify wrongs committed in the name of our religion. We do not all accept our sacred texts as the literal word of God.
We don't all wield our religion as a weapon to divide and oppress.
Quite the contrary, many of us are progressive because of our religious identities. In pastordan's diary this morning, I posted this comment in response to another reader:
Indeed, my favorite story in my religion (I'm Jewish) is about Hillel. From the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a:
A man wanted to embarrass the two leading rabbis of the era (end of first century BCE, beginning of first century CE), Shammai and Hillel. He decided that he would feign interest in converting to Judaism, but would only do so if the rabbi could teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot.
He approached Shammai first. Shammai was so incensed at the ridiculous request -- how could he dare mock the importance of Torah study and the discipline required to do it well? -- that he kicked the man out of his academy.
The man then approached Hillel and repeated his request. Hillel's response?
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it.
After all, is that not the essence of Judaism (or Christianity, or any number of other religions for that matter)?
The man was so impressed that he did end up converting to Judaism, but that's hardly the point of the story. The point is that nothing matters so much as loving our fellow human beings -- taking care of them when they need help (and even when they don't), protecting the least among us, defending the weak from the powerful, etc., etc., etc.
Not coincidentally, that's why I'm a progressive.
So I arrived at my progressive values through my religious identity, as do millions of other progressive people of faith. What's wrong with that? I know someone will probably say in the comments that we could have arrived at those values independent of religion. That's true -- but we didn't. If we had, we wouldn't be us. We are all shaped by our experiences, and our religious experiences led us to progressive values. We choose to use our religions to unite and uplift, all without imposing our religions on anybody.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant for dKos, we are a powerful weapon to aid in the election of Democratic candidates.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey, 81% of Americans self-identify as adherents of some religion or another. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that generalizing people of faith as crazy, stupid, delusional, mindless, unthinking, or uncritical is a great way to alienate enough voters to ensure that we never win another election. Like it or not (I opt for not), a substantial proportion of the electorate has gotten it into their heads that Democrats are anti-religion. We progressives of faith can fix that if given the chance. We speak the language of faith, and we walk the talk as well. We can convince independent voters that Democrats aren't anti-religious. We can convince lots of people that the ideals of the Democratic Party far more closely resemble the ideals of most Americans' religions than the ideals of the Rethugs. In a time when many people still unthinkingly repeat the meme that there is no difference between Dems and Rethugs, we progressives of faith can help convince swing voters of faith to vote for Democratic candidates. Use us and we all win. Alienate us and we all lose.
So yes, it's true that some religious people are opposed to modernity, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is inherently opposed to modernity. Yes, it's true that some religious people are making things worse for the people in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is inherently pro-war, pro-violence, or anti-peace, and if you know anything at all about the Middle East, you know that efforts to "convert" Iraqis to atheism is one of the most inflammatory things you could do there.
And yes, it's also true that some religious education programs are comparable to child abuse in that even if they don't physically or sexually abuse their students, they may teach children that their way is the only way, or that people following other ways of life are somehow unequal, undeserving, or even unworthy of life. But the vast majority of religious education programs you'll find in the United States aren't like that, and the vast majority of religious educators have nothing but the best interests of their students at heart. Furthermore, if I may get personal for a moment, I have been a religious school teacher. The values I taught my students are the values I describe above. I resent the implication that I am a child abuser because I have taught at religious school. I consider it slander. I defy anyone to find even a shred of evidence that anything I ever taught my religious school students consisted of child abuse in any way. (I might also suggest that poisoning your children's minds so that they believe any of the disgusting anti-religious stereotypes I've debunked here -- or that their orientation toward religion is the only acceptable orientation -- is child abuse, but I won't do that. If I did, though, I'd have a hell of a lot more evidence than the guano I saw presented in that particular diary.)
We are a community of (mostly) progressives. We believe that evidence is needed when we make factual claims, and we don't accept factual claims made on faith. Let there not be a double standard when it comes to making claims about religion. Let us never accept such hateful claims about religion without evidence of systematic wrongdoing inherent to religion itself, and not a function of the people practicing or bastardizing the religion.
Let us remember that some religious people condemn us for not believing the same way that they do simply because they accept on faith alone that there way is the only way. Let us remember that if we condemn all people of faith -- even those who feel deeply it is our right to believe whatever we want -- not because of their behavior but because of their beliefs, if we criminalize them for their beliefs, if we call them abusers and cast them out of our community because of their beliefs, we are doing exactly the same thing: condemning on faith rather than actual evidence of misbehavior. If this is what we do, we are no better than the dominionists we condemn. We are just as judgmental; we are just as arrogant; we are just as fundamentalist in our faith-based condemnation of others; we are just as hypocritical; we are just as hateful.
Let us not be like them. Let us be progressives. Let us welcome people with different ideas and different beliefs. Let us be thankful that we live in a country where there is still freedom to believe differently. Let us remember that that freedom was one of the fundamental principles embraced by the founders of this country.
For God's sake, for goodness' sake, for democracy's sake, and for the sake of basic decency, let us be tolerant.