6/7/05
In the 70s, when I came into consciousness - in the 80s, when I came of age - and in the '90s when I played out my adolescence - we had something called "static." It was the space between radio stations, the poorly-received television signal, the hum of the record player at the end of an album, and the hiss of a bad phone. This was an Analog culture, where shortcuts could be taken, songs could kinda be heard when driving under bridges, and mix tapes had to made in real time.
Those days are rapidly disappearing, replaced by today's Digital culture, which is clear, clean and unforgiving. With XM Radio, you either get a signal or you get nothing. Either your iPod works or it doesn't. Cable TV is on, and there's no getting the porn channel by placing the dial in-between stations. Your cell phone, even your internet signal is binary: you get service or you DON'T, there is no in-between.
I mention this odd change in American culture because it goes some way to explain yesterday's blog, which was not meant to call into question the sanity of Christians, but managed to do so anyway. I find many aspects of the digital culture to be cruel, and religion/politics is beginning to behave with the lack of nuance that only comes from a binary culture.
It's true, I have a problem with Christians. I'd like to think it was fostered early on with my disenchantment with early Mormonhood, but in all truth, I thought Christians - and Muslims, etc. - and agnostics like myself could live in harmony until recently.
But the last ten years has been devastating to any American trying to keep religion out of our governing system, and the digital, binary way of doing things has led to a codification, a settling in of the way things are. In short, it seems like Christianity is becoming a permanent, unmovable force in our lives, and like the Borg, resistance is seemingly futile.
Do I really need to give examples? That parts of Delaware are now being forced to teach Intelligent Design? That the Supreme Court is going to be stacked with conservatives until I'm in my 70s? That the judiciary is becoming downright scary? The goalposts of what is "normal" have been moved so far to the right that true progressives can no longer find the stadium, let alone play.
I think many Christians, even those who are large of heart, have either forgotten or have no concept what it is like to be losing the culture wars as badly as liberals are. Perhaps a few die-hards recall a time in the early 70s when everyone seemed to give up on God and attend key parties, but the culture has swung so far back that those of us wishing to keep religion out of our lives have to constantly explain ourselves.
This blog is my little space, a vent for frustration, and as I always say, a constant treasure trove of reasons I'll never win elected office. There is nobody else fighting my battles for me: the Democrats are so pusillanimous as to be embarrassing, the press corps have given Bush a total pass, and Americans seem willing to put up with anything as long as they don't have to pay too much for gas. It's sickening, and it makes me furious.
So I suppose I take it out on Christians occasionally, many of whom are my friends (and, of course, extended family). I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings in the particular, but right now, there seems to be no hope for those of us who just want our kids to grow up without Jesus being shoved down their gullets. Hillary will get stomped in '08, Katharine Harris will be elected to the Senate, and I'll have to spend an hour a day debriefing all the New Testament out of Lucy when she gets home from school.
And so, to my Christian friends whom I love dearly, try to put yourself in my shoes. Imagine every single belief you hold dear being throttled by the government. Imagine losing every debate, watching every tenet swirl down the drain, imagine feeling like you're one of about twenty native speakers left and they're all dying.
It doesn't matter how open-minded you are, how your church is different, how your God is kinder than the one I imagine. As much as I respect you, I find your beliefs to be impossible to fathom, yet according to most Americans, I'm the one who's crazy, and in a digital culture, there's no nuance: it looks like I'm going to stay that way.
Ian, I'm right there with you. I'll even raise you the fact that I think Scientology is not only goofy, but downright dangerous. When I find out that someone whose work I respect is a Scientologist--Jason Lee, Beck--my opinon of them drops a few notches.
I guess what I resent most about the Christian domination of our culture is how so many ridiculous laws are based upon its tenets. Just one example: I get up early on a Sunday to get some eggs and bacon for breakfast but I can't buy booze for an afternoon BBQ because of God. Sure, I can make a trip later in the day to pick that up, but what shouldn't I be able to buy a fifth of Jack at 7AM? A flawed but relevant analog would be if I owned a bookstore but prevented people from buying a Bible on Saturday nights from 6PM-12AM. But of course if I did that, religious groups from all over would picket and boycott my store and Sean Hannity would do a piece on it.
That's but one example of why I dislike the encroachment of religious values on secular society. And yes, I know 'Blue Laws' have been on the books for eons, but it doesn't make me resent them any less.
I may not share your view of Christianity, but I can certainly share your frustration with how many Christians behave. You need to keep working with the idea of analog to digital as a cultural and technological shift. There's a movie in there somewhere. Maybe Dr. Brandes could squeeze it into the curriculum at UNC. Oops! I almost forgot. Brandes was a digital man in the analog 80's.
Now Ian, there you go trying to foster understanding just as the air was filling with the whiff and spray of blood. I thought we were going to end this dispute right here! All right, all right. So what's up with Chopes and Lucy?
...and, Ken, Jesus made the hootch at a sacramental festival at his first gig. And God took plenty of God-time to roll out the development of time, space and the creatures. It's all about denial, pushing the Lord, tricking Him to be what they want. That's what gets me about these revisionists. I think they are ticking off the Lord. Keep you head low.
Rats. I thought we could continue talking about Tom Cruise. How about George Clooney? Now, that man is the Hottest of the Hot. Looked best in Ocean's Eleven. He is sizzlin'.
You know, I am going to have to bring my home dictionary into work so I can keep up with your blog. Pusillanimous? Gotta look that up. I still don't know what gambol means, and you have used that word twice. May as well look that one up too. My 680 verbal SAT from 1986 is not serving me well in my middle age. Ha!
Seriously, I can understand your frustration. And I agree that the climate is more black or white these days. As George says, "you are either with me or against me." I don't really have any words of wisdom to dispense. As for me, I find a lot of comfort in Catholicism, and I actually enjoy attending Mass each week. I want to expose my daughter to the Catholic fundamentals (which she can take or leave when she gets older), so we send her to a Catholic school. Her school is wonderful -- the children refer to their "classmates" as "friends" and they are learning the basic code of Catholicism: be kind to each other and strive to be the best person you can be.
For me, sending her to Catholic school and attending church is a reaction to an American culture that has no boundaries. Decency is a joke these days. The adult key parties you have referenced have been replaced with middle school oral sex parties. Playground bullying has been replaced with kids being gunned down in the hallways. You are concerned with drumming New Testament mumbo jumbo out of Lucy's head. I think that there are a lot of other horrors these days that you will have a tougher time explaining to her.
Anyway, I know you disagree, and I won't blab anymore. Take care and give Lucy a hug for me. The recent photos of her are so adorable, and you and Tessa radiate so much pride and happiness in the photos that it jumps off the computer monitor and smacks us in the face each morning!
Sorry, Ian. You cannot claim to love your Christian friends "dearly" while holding on to the views you hold. Not unless you want to be considered as pusillanimous as the Democrats you scorn.
You can love all of the people out here who have a very nice relationship with their God, thank you very much, no matter which religion they claim to be a part of. But to dearly love people who believe that they are the one-and-only right people on the face of the earth? And that their way is the one-and-only right way for hundred of millions of people from different countries, different cultures to follow?
No. Stop waffling. Imagine being married to a Christian if you think you can love them so dearly. Imagine the constraints on the mind of a child being raised by one. Like Lucy, for example. No creative person can believe there is one way to do anything. It's simply not possible.
You may love your friends because they're your friends, but that love stops somewhere way short of "dearly."
What from the New Testament would you have to make sure to have debriefed? Doing unto others as you would have others do unto you? It's the way people *misinterpret* the Bible, or misuse it for their personal animosities and agendas, that's the problem. Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about it unless you move about 300 miles south.
to ian, whom i love dearly, try and put yourself in my shoes...
imagine you believe that the christian imperative is nothing short of love, forgiveness, and radical hospitality for all.
imagine that you are not some exception, some very nice aberrant christian, but one of millions and millions of christians worldwide who take this imperative seriously and spend their lives working against the death penalty, for gay and abortion rights, for the separation of church and state, against war and torture of any kind.
imagine that because you are among the millions and millions of christians who believe that following jesus means bringing the kingdom of God closer to as many as possible, you work to end homelessness, hunger, poverty, economic disparity, disease, lack of education and healthcare, for those locally and worldwide, for little pay and even less cultural recognition.
imagine that because you believe this way, you are dismissed as heretical by right-wing christians, forced out of churches and leadership positions because of your 'radical' stances, mocked as weak and threatened by those who claim to love the same God you do.
now imagine that your intelligent, liberal, open-minded secular friends blithely lump you with these fundamentalists because it is politically fashionable. talk about binary thinking.
Cathie's comment kind of says what I was going to say. Ian, your point early on about the difference between digital culture and analog culture being the black/white v. shades of gray was right on. I thought that from there maybe you were going to criticize the way that the categories these days of "Christian" and "not Christian" get bandied about in order to support ideas that have little to do with Christianity per se.
But I think that when you start talking about Christianity later in the piece, you jump too far into black/white.
(I say this as someone who lives in the grays.)
As I was reading, I kept thinking of a few of my friends who are Christian and progressive. One of them even has a bumpersticker that says something like PROUD MEMBER OF THE RELIGIOUS LEFT.
What I think is the problem these days is not Christianity--which, as Cathie points out, really does not, as a doctrine, champion the things being done in its name--but fundamentalism. And fundamentalism can comfortably align itself with right-wing agendas. Then the new "fusion" right-wing fundamentalist agenda can call itself Christian and bring in more supporters.
But I love your blog. Keep venting.
Cathie, I do know some of the christians you speak of (a great many of them are Quakers) and I'm always impressed by groups who work on the real issues of human suffering. I just wish they had the political clout the fundamentalists in charge of the Republican party wield so unmercifully. I try very hard to respect all religious beliefs one might hold. I just wish it was all right with radical christians that others have different beliefs. Why is it so hard for them to respect the beliefs of others?
Cathie,
Imagine christians not doing anything 'from the inside' about those fundamentalists. Imagine that there is nothing else for us non-christians to see but people like the radical cleric James Dobson.
Where else are we supposed to lump christians when the only people we see are Tom Delay-style "Christians" and Mullah Dobson?
Oh, and just to reitterate... the church of scientology is fucking dangerous.
Cathie: It is somewhat offensive to assert that views like Ian's, which I share in spades, are "politically fashionable". Why are your views deep-seeded, respectable and VALID and not ours? Most of your posts reveal you to be open-minded and respectful, but this kind of reductive assertion is exactly what polarizes this issue.
With that said, I agree with everything else you said about many, many Christians who are wonderful people and enrich others' lives. I just don't understand why they have to invite unproven, unproveable stories to the party. I plan on teaching my kids the exact same tenets of respect and charity and kindness. Can you share why you would need to add the Bible and God to that...considering that it's that "our story is right, everyone else's is wrong" aspect to religion that is the divisive element?
And for the people who crave the "comfort" that believing in God gives them: I honestly want to know what they need comfort from? I crave comfort from my parents, comfort from my spouse, the guilty comfort I get from reality television. But all these things are tangible, measurable, and cure an immediate, short-term deficiency. I simply don't understand picking someone/something to worship simply because your parents brought you up that way.
And that's my other beef: those that think they can (in my view) brainwash their kids from age 5 on, to believe one way and only one way (and to believe another way would break their hearts) and then say, "They can make up their own minds when they're older." It happens, but it's the exception, not the rule. Then again, I eventually stopped believing in Santa Claus, so maybe there is hope after all.
"I think many Christians, even those who are large of heart, have either forgotten or have no concept what it is like to be losing the culture wars as badly as liberals are."
I found this statement to be poignant, and I felt sympathy for you while reading it. Christians like myself also feel that they're countercultural in today's society (I prefer not to think of cultural viewpoint differences as "culture wars"). I will try to put myself in your position. Please try to put yourself in mine, as well.
Imagine attending a prominent liberal arts college in the Northeast as a moderate Catholic woman, a person of faith whose guiding principal is to live as a compassionate person. Imagine facing criticisms of one's faith on a constant basis from both students and professors, and being placed in the position of having to defend one's faith and face ridicule, or simply keeping one's mouth shut and feeling attacked.
Imagine being open minded enough to date someone of another religion, only to have your serious boyfriend tell you "You're too smart to stay Catholic" (the first of many people to make the same statement).
Imagine attending a meeting for an organization ostensibly designed to foster positive feelings between gay and straight students, only to hear a lecture about the evils of the "religious right."
Imagine, then, graduating and attending a Catholic-founded graduate school; you see fliers for a meeting for the Catholic student group, and you and the person who put up the fliers are the only two people who attend.
Imagine living in Manhattan and dating within the general population of twenty and thirtysomethings. Try finding mates who share your religion and beliefs without resorting to the extraordinarily limited pool of individuals who frequent your church's group for young professionals. One eventually learns that one is fortunate simply to encounter attractive members of the opposite sex who are not openly hostile to one's beliefs. One also learns to put up with statements from close friends, people one loves, about the stupidity of believing in transubstantiation or resurrection; one learns to take a deep breath and forgive, because that, after all, is what we do as Catholics.
Consider, also, the fact that many Christians dislike divorce and believe that it is better to have children within marriage than outside it, and then pick up virtually any entertainment or women's magazine, or turn on any major-network, prime-time sitcom, and see how long it takes you to cite numerous examples of divorce and childbearing outside of marriage. I say this not in judgment of such behavior--true Christianity frowns on judging others--but by way of example that the Christian way of doing things is not exactly pervading the popular culture.
I think we all have a lot to learn by putting ourselves in one another's shoes.
So, with all of this religious talk going on here in Coastopia, I thought I would post a small excerpt from an Email I sent to the recently elected Pope Benedict XVI. It is in response to his recent satements regarding gay marriage, contraceptives, etc. Enjoy, and questions/comments/concerns are welcome:
"I have several concerns regarding the Church's stance on various social issues, and wish to give them voice via this Email. I read just this afternoon about your pronouncement that gay marriage, along with divorce and trial marriage, is fake and anarchic. Although I myself am not homosexual, I have many acquaintances who are homosexuals and lesbians, and they are good, decent people who are only trying to make their lives, and the lives of those around them, just a little better and easier to live. In may cases these people are better followers of Christ's example then any other person I have known. I found this recent statement, coupled with over 20 years of similar statements by Pope John Paul II, to be fairly bigoted and unfounded. I was born and raised Catholic, attended private Catholic school from the time I was 5 to 19, and I have nothing to show for it now but a bad taste and temper toward the Church. I had hoped that you would move into the Papacy and speak with a more moderate tone, opening the Church to people of all races, gender, color, and persuasion, but it seems to me that is not the case. I fail to understand the reasoning behind the Church's dismissal of contraceptives (birth control, condoms, etc) which help to stop the spread of disease as much as they stop unwanted pregnancy. I fail to see how defaming homosexuality can endear any converts or lapsed Catholics to the Church's message. I realize that I am only one voice among billions, but I am beginning to come to the decision that I may need to search for spiritual guidance somewhere other then Catholic teachings. I do hope that you get a chance to read this, and hopefully remember that the message of Jesus Christ was not to disenfranchise people, but to open himself and his teachings to those at the bottom of society."
Your entry this morning gave me something to ponder in the shower. We discuss this topic in our agnostic home often, and we are struggling with what to do with the kids.
I have several thoughts on this topic; but they are disjointed enough that I won’t be able to make them fit into a coherent entry without spending way more time than I have this morning. So here is my laundry list:
Thought 1: I grew up in a Catholic household. We were Catholic by birth rite (Italian-born), and Bible-ignorant. I like to call this Catholic Lite.
I can tell you that as a young adult, I wished I had more exposure to the Bible; It would have helped me greatly in my Lit classes, and even in some Poli Sci.
Thought Two: Consider your adamant desire to keep the Bible out of Lucy’s reality and then fast forward to the late teens/early 20s. I’ve never met a born again Jesus freak who was raised with a modicum of religious framework.
I’ve met too many cult-wannabes who had no religious upbringing at all...it was their “experimentation.”
I think our kids should choose their paths, but I don’t want to give them a high dive platform with no water to land in. They need a frame of reference before taking that journey.
Thought Three: I read this point somewhere (here?) and it has stuck with me. You have very sound reasons for making your choices regarding your religious beliefs. They are very Adult Reasons, however, and you have made them with the benefit of a been-there-and-done-that wisdom. What will be Lucy’s context when she makes her choices?Thought Four (the only one which directly responds to today’s entry): Interestingly enough, and I don’t know how pervasive it is, there are many Christians who don’t like what’s going on either. My neighbor is a Christian Activist who recently put this effort together: http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm
Read the Declaration, I bet you’ll find much there with which you can easily agree.Thanks for letting me blabber on….
I wanted to respond to some of Deb's comments. What other purpose does a religion serve other than to provide its believers some comfort? What do I need comfort from? From a world gone mad! It is very comforting to sit in a church with like-minded people and be reminded on a weekly basis that the world is a good place and that people are inherently good, when all week long, I am reminded of the evils in the world.
I do not think that raising a child with religion is equivalent to brainwashing. On the flip side, raising a child without a religion is the same thing as raising her with a religion -- the parent is providing a body of beliefs and opinions and a mindset to the child. What is the difference? And I am truthful when I stated that whether my daughter decides to be a practicing Catholic is ultimately her decision. My husband is not Catholic. Neither is my father.
As a believer of my church, I think it is my responsibility to have her baptized and provide a basic understanding of Catholicism. To provide a foundation of faith. What she does with that foundation will be her decision. I think that to provide no religious teaching whatsoever is a dangerous thing. I remember reading a study that children who are raised without any formal religious training at home or at "church" are more vulnerable to cults and the like. By not providing any religious point of reference in the early years, parents are truly setting the stage for brainwashing in the young adult years.
That said, I gotta go! Fire away!
I just read Josie's comments, and she articulated very well what I was trying to say above. I especially like the high dive platform analogy!
Kevin: A wonderfully thought-out, sensitive, logical letter.
Claudia: Your response, as well, struck me. You really put me in your shoes. But I think most of your troubles lay in the fact that you were in an urban environment; a reactionary microcosm of disenfranchised people; the 21st century Plymouth Rock, if you will. What I have learned over the last two elections, is that most of the country is the exact antithesis of such culture. I went to college in upstate NY, where a Jewish friend of mine hid his Star of David necklace under his shirt whenever we'd leave the campus. I was at a wedding in Virginia last weekend where every other car had a Confederate flag bumper sticker.
I agree that entertainment (for now) in many ways pushes the envelope. But there are entire organizations--ones that have the Administration's ear--attempting to sterilize that entertainment. Look at all of the "Family" organizations that decried Elmo and that Tele-Tubby, not to mention the FCC running Howard Stern off the public airwaves. You may not like him, which is fine. But wouldn't you defend his right to free speech and my right to listen? I'd certainly defend your right to watch the Hallmark Channel or "Seventh Heaven".
But I think the problem as I see it goes way beyond entertainment (which, as I said, can be turned off or tuned out). What is going on in our legal and educational systems is downright terrifying. Would you be ok if Judaism was pervading the country? Laws being considered about not working on the Sabbath? Including the Old Testament in the schools? Wouldn't you want to re-educate/protect your children from being taught things contrary to your beliefs?
As the Onion so eloquently said recently: Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians agree chicken is one tasty meat.
Laurie: I agree that the world has gone mad, but I think we'd disagree about what the madness is. I'm glad you find comfort/solace in a group of like-minded individuals. I suppose my group of friends is my congregation in the same way. But they don't give me rules or threats of punishments for bad behavior, OR tell me that our views are correct and others are not. Even the most progressive, open-minded churches/temples that preach respect and tolerance *have* to maintain that their way is the right way. They simply have to. And that, to me, is where the brainwashing comes in.
When you are five years old, you trust and believe your parents and authority figures implicity. It is incredibly difficult to shake those views. My husband was brought up in a Reformed Jewish household and is one of the most non-religous adults I know. Yet he still has the knee-jerk prejudices/biases/allegiances that come along with his religious upbringing (which wasn't even *that* religious).
To address your other thought, I was brought up with no religious instruction. Both of my parents are half-Catholic and half-Jewish. They explained to me that they were "spiritual" but not "religious". We celebrated the major holidays of both religions, but in a completely secular way, primiarly for the tradition. I never missed having a religious education. To this day, it's the thing I thank my parents for most. I'm an agnostic. Which means (sorry if I'm sounding pedagogic) I don't know that there is a higher power or isn't. To teach this to my children will mean that I offer up what other people believe, buffet-style. That's not teaching them "there is no god", a la atheism, which, you're correct, would be giving them religion.
Instilling in your child a "foundation of faith" when they are too young to understand, is taking away their options. They will never escape such teaching, as they will never not know what 2 times 2 is. Teaching our children inclusion, not segregation, is what will make them better people. The instant you teach them "we" and "them", it's a Middle East in the making.
Deb--Thanks for your response. I just wanted to clarify a few points that you raised.
I, too, attended college in upstate New York.
I have mixed feelings about Howard Stern, but have occasionally listened to him (including during a drawing class at my public high school), and certainly support his right to be on the air, and your right to listen to him, and my own right to listen to him. While we're on the subject, I don't see the big deal about Janet Jackson's breast, either. As you so well put it, entertainment can be turned off or tuned out (and many conservative Christian families have no television in their homes).
I think that the so-called "Family" organizations have gotten considerable press because their views are so provocative (e.g., Tinky-Winky as a gay metaphor). Do they really speak for the majority of Christians, or the majority of Americans, for that matter? I haven't seen any statistics. Please illuminate me, if you have. These groups certainly don't speak for me.
Your last paragraph is difficult to respond to. I would "be ok" if the majority of Americans were Jewish and were openly practicing their beliefs; how do you quantify "pervading the country"? I'm not quite sure what analogy you're drawing with the hypothetical scenario of laws against working on the Sabbath. I would have no problem with the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, or other religious texts being taught in schools as literature, or as a study of comparative religion, much the way these texts are taught in non-religious colleges and universities, and much the way unproven scientific theories are taught as early as the elementary school level as, well, unproven scientific theories. I do not, of course, think it is appropriate to teach theology or religious beliefs in the public schools, but that is very different than what I have just described. Children are taught things that I don't agree with every day; my own children will be no exception. I will not be angry or want to "protect" them from this information; I will view it as an opportunity to explain my own beliefs to them, and why my beliefs differ from what they have been taught. My bigger fear, frankly, is that my children will be persecuted and ridiculed for their beliefs in school, as I so often was.
I welcome and appreciate your comments, but, please, please let it be known that I don't watch The Hallmark Channel or "Seventh Heaven." Such is the stereotyping that Christians in this society have to bear.
Listening to Ian trying to back-pedal from his bigoted comments made yesterday, is like trying to watch Howard Dean do the same thing for his comments about "white christians" the other day.
More and more, the Democratic party is becoming nothing but a handy haven for anti-christian uneducated bigots.
With Dean spewing his bigotry on the national forum, and with others like Ian spewing their intolerant bigotry on their blogs, it is no wonder the party of bigotry continues to lose elections.
Is anybody listening to Swingline?
People might like to listen to this recent broadcast of This American Life
http://www.thislife.org/ra/290.ramI thought it was great. Here's the blurb
Godless America
At a time when House Majority Leader Tom Delay calls for enacting a "Biblical worldview" in government, when Christians are asserting their ideals in the selection of judges, in public school science classes and elsewhere, This American Life spends an hour trying to remember why anyone liked the separation of church and state in the first place. Julia Sweeney, among others, gives a full-throated defense of godlessness. Julia's faith began to crack after reading Biblical passages like the one pictured here, of Abraham about to cut the throat of his beloved son, Isaac.
It is always funny to hear Liberals talking about " separation of church and state", something which does NOT exist in the Constitution.
DO NOT STEAL is one of the 10 Commandments, so a liberal who believes in the separation of church and state completely thinks that stealing should be illegal, since making stealing illegal would be importing one of the 10 Commandments into American law, and that would be against church and state.
It's funny to hear Liberals talk about this separation, but yet they then want to come around and cherry-pick which Christian teachings they want and which they do not.
Liberals want all the power, they want to be able to dictate which religious teachings they want in government, sorry liberals, this is a DEMOCRACY, we ALL have a say in government, not just the liberals that don't go to church. If you liberals don't like democracy and that everyone has a voice, then perhaps you should look for a new country to live in.
Yes, Annie, I just listened to Swingline's hot-headed name calling. "Bigot" isn't right I think because I think it implies a lack of sympathy. Just because you want to place somebody in quarantine and wish them them cured of what you regard as a disease does not make you a biggot.
Seems to me, Ian, you confuse Christians with conservative Republican Christians--a noisy, nasty subset of Christianity--and that way madness lies.
Conservative Republican Christians embody the values of the scribes and pharisees. They do not feel quiet, gentle things. They don't feel pity, or even guilt. Their doctrine is based so completely on the Book of Revelations that they have lost all sight of the Gospels. They do not represent all, or even most, "people of faith", but they proclaim that they do, trying to fool religious people that the true battle in America is between "religion versus secular humanist liberals" whereas the real battle is between wisdom and ignorance.
Find a true cross-section of Christianity, and for every nutcase who denounces you for "bigotry", "elitism", and "examplifying anti-Christian Democrat intolerance", you'll find three or more who understand your snark and take it not personally, or who at least turn the other cheek.
St. Augustine said, "If you understand it, it is not God." Liberal Christians know that they see through a glass darkly; those who think they know God's intent and values--well, they may not know what they think they know.
"The Senators and Representatives ...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ***but no religious Test*** shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
That's item 6 of our nation's constitution, Swingline. Check it out. It was hotly debated. Passed 30 to 27. You lost. Proposed Constitutional ammendments by religious interests were proposed again and again up to mid last century when "In God We Trust" went on the money as a concession prize. This is a secular goverment, because non-secular goverments oppressed people through centuries of Europe and the founders knew that well, this being a nation of refugees from such governments.
I thought Piglet's post was very well articulated. Having read it, my feeling is, even assuming one's negative feelings do stem from confusing Christians with a subset, why is a "snark" necessary?
Claudia: I like you. I'm just sayin. And I think we're actually not very far apart in our views. Anyhow, I'll clarify my last paragraph. I think that exclusion and ridicule of one's beliefs is wrong, and I feel for you that you experienced any of it.
Christianity is pervading our schools and legal system day by day. Look at the curriculum of intelligent design in various states, the Supreme Court decision about removing "under God" from the Pledge, the horrific Teri Schiavo nightmare that almost became a reality, the Patriot Pastors in Ohio, our President, who says he was ordained by God and was elected primarily by the Religious Right, and the biblical reasoning behind denying gay marriage/rights.
So I draw the analogy to making laws derived from Judaism. Religion is supposed to be a personal matter, is it not? You wouldn't want your kids being forced to wear yarmulkes and davin before school as much as I wouldn't want them to start each day with a prayer of any kind. It would be incredibly frustrating and wrong if all stores were mandated to be closed by sundown on Friday. How do you think gay folks feel about the government in their bedrooms?
I also only mention the Hallmark Channel as an example of the kind of television you say you would like to see, or at least be available. I guarantee you they will not glorify divorce or violence. You actually said "show" divorce. Are you saying that a series about a divorcee raising her kids would be one you wouldn't even allow your children to watch?
Anyhow, my main point is that religion, primarily Christianity, is very much about telling other people how to live their lives. If you think having an abortion is wrong, don't have one. In China they limit the number of kids couples are allowed to have. If you think that's wrong, that the government has no right to tell you you are not allowed to have a child, then you (the collective you) should conversely believe that the government has no right to force you to have a child. Live your life the way you want to, but stay out of mine. That's all I ask.
Another morsel for thought: Non-Christians and devout Christians BOTH portray themselves as persecuted minorities in American culture. It seems to me that both are right.
Somewhere between 75% and 80% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian", but the vast majority go to church no more than once a week, and give little serious thought to their spirituality the rest of the week. They're comfortable in their role as good little citizens, wearing their Christian identity with the same attitude in which they wear their political affiliation, job title, and ethnic heritage, no more. They feel equally threatened by those who wear a different badge, and by those who wear the same badge "to excess"--who take to heart some of the more inconvenient requirements of the faith, be it charity to the poor, forgiveness to those who hurt you, or the exhortation to become fishers of men.
There's a pressure in modern society to not rock the boat, and to stick to the middle of the bell curve. Those on either "edge" endure a certain amount of alienation from the bigger culture, and it seems to me that a step toward mtual understanding is the recognition that it isn't the opposite fringe that has a stranglehold on American culture. It's the mediocre middle.
Oh, and Swingline--if liberals are mostly a bunch of Christian-hating bigots, I guess the REVEREND Al Sharpton hasn't heard the news, eh? Or any of the other four preachers who spoke at last year's Democratic convention.
I'd have plenty of sympathy for people trying to live 100% secular lives in a less than 100% secular America if there were, you know, real problems with it. At some point the definition of religious persecution went from the Spanish Inquisition ("damn, you burned my stake and me, too") to the Fictious Projection ("damn, you people won't stop believing in God even though I keep telling you it's totally dumb"). When you're writing it's liberating to be unchained from mundane reality, but it has its drawbacks. Speaking of fiction, how is the sitcom writing going? Still trying to get a deal with Uncle Rupert's Fox Network? I hear through the grapevine that Fox is working on a series with faith themes. It will be similar to earlier faith-oriented series but they want aim it at a younger, hipper audience. Although most of the writers will be believers, they need a non-religious writer to help add depth and tension. Willing to write for a prime time Fox Network series with a pro-faith theme?
Swingline: I am pretty sure that "do not steal" - or, if you prefer, do not take from others what is not your own - is a universal idea, as are at least 7 of the 10 Commandments. The "rules" set out on that stone tablet were around before Moses, or even the Jews themselves, existed since about 18th century BC - Code of Hammurabi, whereas the Jews have been around since 6th centruy BC, and Christians and Muslims after that. I find, sir, that you have no decency or respect for yourself, nor for others. Yours reasoning is flawed, your arguments are lacking, and you are nothing more than a troll (e.g. you are TROLLING for people to respond to your ridiculous posts and insults)with what apears to be far too much time o his/her hands. I'll tell you what, I enjoy a good debate every now and again, so should you decide to reply to this, I will post my email address and we can have it. But be prepared Ace, I will hesitate to pull out my analytical sword and cut you down post haste.
Hi, Claudia! I think you're articulate, too.
Why snark, you ask? Why red hair? Why intelligence?
Snark is a coping mechanism, to my mind a more appropriate one than most available. I look at the world, and if I did not respond with dry wit and sarcasm, I would have to instead cry, or lash out, or vomit. From what I've seen of Ian and his family, I imagine their motives may be similar.
Some few Jedis have learned to respond with effective help and love at all times, even when being kicked around themselves, but I'm just not there yet.
Exactly what are those statistics regarding liberals and high levels of education? And aside from formal education, Ian and blog participants are always seeking information by respectively sharing differing ideas through this forum. The unfounded name-calling is unproductive and hateful. C'mon, Swingline, be Christlike.
Deb--I like you, too, and I agree that we probably have share many common viewpoints, and differ on many issues, as well. I just don't think that Christians are taking over the country because Bush is in the White House, or because Howard Stern is moving to satellite radio.
A lot of things are happening in the country that a lot of people who post to this blog disagree with. It is unfair to blame all Christians for this turn of events, and in the same breath to mock beliefs and ceremonies that we hold sacred. It is offensive, pure and simple. It reminds me of the old cliche of individuals who lose their jobs and then blame immigrant groups and insult their ethnic traditions.
I said nothing about wanting to see programs like those on The Hallmark Channel. That such shows should be available is an issue that we both agreed on in our previous posts.
Of course I would permit my children to see a show about a divorcee raising children; please don't put words in my mouth, as that is a sensitive issue for me and for many other Christians. I merely made a point regarding the prevalence of divorce and childbearing outside of marriage in magazines and on television sitcoms as a small bit of rebuttal evidence that the Christian way of doing things is not necessarily pervading popular culture; this was in response to Ian's post that people like him are "losing the culture wars" to Christians.
I do not care to discuss the abortion issue you raised in your last paragraph, except to note that it can hardly be reduced to the reversal of a simple if-then statement. I am generally content to live and let live; what I am asking for is that I also be allowed to live without casual persecution.
Oliver:I heard the Kramnik interview from that episode of TAL. It was quite interesting, especially the "religious test" discussion. That would be a revelation for swingline.
Swingline,
It is true that there is no mention of religion in the Constitution, but religion is addressed in the Bill of Rights (first amendment), and the Bill of Rights is every bit the firmament of our nation.
Also, I think the argument that a liberal would be *for* the legalization of stealing is facile at best. The aknowledgement that stealing is wrong is just the conscience of a civil society, and happens to be reflected in a commandment. So, on something like that, the Ten Commandments can be cited as one of the most famous written aknowledgements that stealing is wrong, but it is absurd to think that an aetheist would not feel the same way.
You say that Liberals want to dictate which religious teachings can be in government. I don't think that's accurate. Spekaing for myself (and I tend to be liberal on many social issues), there shouldn't be *any* religious teachings in government. Or, more specifically, there should not be religious texts. Prinicples of decency (which can be shown through example, but don't have to be taught per se) that may have roots in (or serious promulgation by) the Judeo-Christian tradition (i.e. not stealing, treating others with kindness and forgiveness) are excellent and should be respected. But keep the books that bookend the Bible out of public classrooms.
I don't think that Liberals want all the power - I think that trait is shared by both major political parties. Also, when it comes to complete power, we have a few liberals to thank for the recent fillibuster debate, in making sure that there are checks and balances on anyone having complete control (and checks and balances is absolutely provided for in the Constitution).
I, too, enjoy "static". I was raised Catholic and was quite comfortable with our family's liberal and tolerant version of Catholicism. However, when my husband and I got married, I was forced to face my true beliefs as compared to Catholic dogma. Since my husband was not Catholic, the very conservative young priest who counseled us was very critical of our marriage and was going to require me to be a "better" Catholic and my husband to espouse all Catholic beliefs (but not convert). I parted ways with the Catholic church at this point, and as I see the Catholic church become roiled over pedophile priests, church closures, and rising conservatism, I know that was the right decision for me although it was really difficult at the time.
But how to raise our kids? I agree with those who wish to have a spiritual framework for their children, whether it is a community of friends or a congregation. I found the right place for me in Unitarian Universalism, which embraces many traditions and celebrates the common ground within them. Everyone is expected to be in the midst of their own personal quest, including the children, and that works for me.
Aimee D.
Claudia: Not to be nit-picky, but your words actually were: "...turn on any major-network, prime-time sitcom, and see how long it takes you to cite numerous examples of divorce and childbearing outside of marriage." To me this is saying that simply depicting divorce, is objectionable to you. This may not have been what you meant, but it's not far-fetched to infer that it was. Nonetheless, I apologize if I ascribed to you an incorrect position.
I don't mean to lump all Christians together. However, the radicals are no longer the only ones attempting to change our laws. And I don't know any Christians, moderate or otherwise, who would object to the infusion of religion into our schools and laws, as long as that religion was Christianity.
I have my own feelings about religion in general, which is a separate issue from others' religion affecting my life.
I didn't mean to both raise the abortion issue or reduce it to a simple analogy. We can just leave it alone.
I feel like we're the good guys, hoping for respect, kindness and inclusion. I do apologize for any offense you feel I sent your way.
Piglet:
Welcome back.
Hi Piglet! Thanks for the compliment.
I completely agree that dry wit and sarcasm are coping mechanisms, and great ones, at that. However, there's a distinction between wit/sarcasm and insult, and the former are certainly possible without the latter.
I was offended by some of Ian's posts regarding Christianity. By asking why a "snark" was necessary, I just meant to adopt your language in asking Ian why insulting Christians was necessary, even if he felt (misguided) anger towards them and/or disagreed with them. I did not intend to say anything about your post, other than that I liked it and thought it was well written.
I also enjoyed your Jedi metaphor very much. I understand how idealistic it is to expect that one respond with nothing but love and understanding when one is attacked, but I felt that Christians were the ones being attacked, and I thought it was unnecessary.
Ian, Darling,
You seem to crave nuance so much, yet your unceremonious dumping of everyone who believes in "Jesus h." into a category WITHOUT nuances seems er, hypocritical? *ducking as I type this* You did the same a few weeks ago when you went off on Americans and it pained me then, too.Anyway, your frustration is apparent and your cynicism is crystal clear. It sounds to me like you're mad at the current political climate and this is verbal tempertantrum. Feels good, doesn't it? Rock on!
Thanks for your most recent post, Deb. I appreciate it, and I appreciate your desire for respect, kindness, and inclusion. I agree that you're one of the "good guys." I'm glad we can have this dialogue.
I meant "respectfully." I'm tired and pregnant and chasing a toddler. See, Ian, this is why I never post.
Of all the impassioned outbursts in this remarkable set of notes, including Ian's (Mr. Hyperbole, himself), the only ones that are full of hate and rancor and full-steam vituperation, and are yes, UN-Christlike, are those of our friend Swingline. But...
Let him(her?) rant. Someone who can't come up with a better screen name than a stapler company, and whose arguments are the same old set of screeches against liberals, is not worth reading. But I passionately believe in freedom of speech. Bring it on. But, Swingline, dear, unless you can be less cliché-ridden and jingoistic, no one can possibly take you seriously. Compare that with the articulate, compassionate, literate, (and yes, nuanced) replies of Cathie, who also challenges Ian. No contest.
If it makes you feel better, swing away, Swingline, but so far you are strikin' out.
This week's "This American Life" discussed Christianity and Government - I found it entertaining if not enlightening.
Bravo Ian! I too am sick and tired of feeling like I have to apologize for my agnosticism. (I used to call myself an apatheist but in todays culture it is impossible to be apathetic about religion when it is constantly thrown in your face. ) I was recently in a large chain restaurant in Baltimore and the muzak was christian muzak!!!! I called for the manager and asked them to turn it off.
As for the earlier comment that kids raised w/out religion are ripe for cults and brainwashing.....please. What church sponsored that study? Fear mongering 101.
And Ian it is difficult to raise kids without religion but Lucy will be just fine because she has intelligent parents!
Jason wrote:
"It is true that there is no mention of religion in the Constitution"
O.K., so Article VI says "religious" and not "religion." Note the ten commandments never said anything even close to "Thou shalt not kill." According to the Bible story, the tablets were inscribed in ancient Hebrew.
Mom wrote:
"Of all the impassioned outbursts in this remarkable set of notes, including Ian's (Mr. Hyperbole, himself), the only ones that are full of hate and rancor and full-steam vituperation, and are yes, UN-Christlike, are those of our friend Swingline."
You're right! I've been suckered by a troll...and now twice! Please, nobody else follow my foolish lead.
>>Imagine christians not doing anything 'from the inside' about those fundamentalists.
A good point, but I'd like suggestions on what they could do. Write letters? Op-Eds? Extreme views are more likely to get on the air and get national attention. Maybe there are some more moderate Catholics out there (didn't one of them just lose a bid for the presidency?)
>>they don't give me rules or threats of punishments for bad behavior, OR tell me that our views are correct and others are not.
Liberals sometimes do the same thing, by painting anyone who disagrees with them as 'stupid' or in favor of censorship. I noticed that people here who disagreed with Ian today had to end their comments by saying, "but I love the blog, so keep ranting." I agree, but shouldn't that go without saying? I wonder if there's some fear of being kicked out of Coastopia if you debate the issues.
well, more bad news for the liberals today, just a day after Kerry's report card was released and he was outed as nothing but a dumb D student, now another bad day for the liberals
Judge Janice Brown was passed today, the anti-christian liberal bigots lost another battle today, the uneducated liberal bigots must understand that people of religions have just as much rights as anyone else of being promoted in the workplace, and America will continue to stand up against these liberal bigots
the dumb binge-drinking bigot Dean can run his mouth as much as he wants, but he will continue to lose, lost just about all the primaries, then lost with Judge Owen, and now lost again today with Judge Brown
the nazis who hated jews lost in the end, and the liberals who hate christians are currently losing, it doesn't pay to be a bigot
How can this guy keep talking?
Amen, Ian.
[crap deleted]
Ha, I liked it that Viagra Online chimed in on this discussion.
Blaming Christians for the shit going down now is like blaming Coffee for that crap they serve at Burger King. Don't tar Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King (or Martin Luther, for that matter), and Philip K Dick for the sins of the cynical opportunists who wrap themselves in Jesus' robe to ass-rape the world.
You have to be pretty specific when you call people out, because Christianity is NOT monolithic.
The real battle isn't between Secular Humanists and the Forces of Tedious Smarmy Icky Jesus Love. It's between the good folks and the assholes. And if you're good folks, and you lose the ability to see the humanity of the assholes, you've become an asshole too.
PS Swingline is a chicken-shit, shit-for-brains, cowardly, ignorant ASSHOLE. And I'd love to meet up with him to try to find the humanity in him.
Not that that would ever happen, because he's only comfortable sniping. If he ever had to meet up with any of us and defend his positions (btw Rush Limbaugh called, he wants his opinions back) his nuts would shrivel and he'd run crying back to his mom.