Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

But what if I think 'people of faith' are a little crazy?

Posted by Jan Frel at 3:19 PM on June 28, 2006.


Barack Obama is the latest politician to call me and my antifaith friends out as divisive and harmful for the Democratic cause. Thank God that I know better.

I have two people in my close family who are long-time members of some very weird Christian splinter groups. One of them, who I won't identify, is a Jehovah's Witness. This relative -- an adherent for more than 20 years -- walks around, knocks on doors, passes out literature with some of the most laughable illustrations I've ever seen in my life. The most common pastiche is one composed of what look like off-duty prozac-popping bank tellers walking around in mocked-up nature scenes that most resemble a Hawaiian golf course in the adoring company of fuzzy mammals -- such as smiling tigers and koala bears. In the Jehovah Witness' world, this is supposed to be a depiction of paradise on Earth, when in fact it's litmus proof that 9th-rate minds are cooking up a weak broth of religious fantasy that makes the Left Behind series look as real as the pile of parking tickets in my glove compartment. Luckily for them, poor suckers like this relative of mine are satisfied with this Motel 6 version of Christianity.

My half-brother however, went for the most ornate and elaborate Christian sect I know of -- Eastern Orthodox. He worships five-star style, in an ancient church that hits, as he told me, "all the senses." Beautiful chanting, endless sticks of incense, gorgeous depictions of Jesus and his friends in mosaics and gold carvings, real relics that Jesus slept on that have healing powers, and endless cycles of feasting and fasting. Like a crazed Cubs fan who relocates to be able to sleep within sight of Wrigley Field, my half-brother moved to the old city of Jerusalem, just to be closer to the action. He truly believes that icons of saints and the Virgin Mary shed real tears, and that tombs of saints ooze myrrh and holy oils. He's been in Jerusalem for six years. Praying night and day, sometimes for me.

And I think he's completely out of his mind. If you are a believer, come and jump in my shoes for a second: if the prayers and chants he performs aren't in fact ordained by God, then what the hell is going on? What the hell is my brother doing? If God didn't write -- or inspire -- these prayers, some of which take hours to recite, then who did?

It makes me feel like these relatives are a bunch of suckers who pour their time in an energy sink, are stuck in an obsolete way of thinking, and make some very stupid choices in life based on these beliefs, involving everything from diet to seeing doctors.

And it seems to me that there's a very easy tool you can use to sniff out that something is very strange about religious faith: cold, literal comparison. Look at one church and its claims and compare it to another one. Like Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Eastern Orthodox Christians. Can my relative and my half-brother both be right? Their ways don't mesh, and make each other look pretty ridiculous when they're side by side. My brother’s fervent passion for kissing the icons of saints is matched by my other relative’s passion for converting Chinese immigrants with childish propaganda. They both have told me they think other sects of Christianity have it wrong... “if you go back look at the true words in the Bible,” they say, “why then you’ll see that what I’m doing makes perfect sense -- it’s what Jesus would have wanted me to do.”

But both can’t be true -- and because of the bizarre absolutist nature of the religious argument, they are both absolutely wrong. So what exactly are they doing if they aren’t serving God? Uggh, it makes me feel sick to my stomach to think about it. I try not to.

There’s the argument that religion gets more acceptable as it becomes less marginal; that a tolerant, pro-science outfit like the United Church of Christ is a reasonable vehicle for the worship of the Christian God. But ultimately, the insane component -- the God-worshipping component, orchestrated by priests and higher-ups who enjoy playing games of mind control -- is still there. Why cling on to this BS in desperation, I ask?

Sure, the Jehovah's Witnesses have an environmental bent, but it doesn’t make the religious component any less crazy. Or, to go to slightly saner grounds, just because Jim Wallis talks about economic justice doesn’t make his Christianity any less crazy to me. And, if I remember correctly, he’s out in the public sphere because he’s a Christian; his positions on various issues are there to burnish his Christian creds.

And that’s where we get to an evangelical suck-up like Barack Obama, who recently attacked Democrats and lefties failing to “acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people.” I think most of us acknowledge it, but why the hell bow to it? A long chunk of Kevin Phillips’ most recent book is one long “Oh my God, this country is filled with religious nutcases -- what the hell are we going to do?!!” Folks like Phillips have acceded to the fact that fanatics are there in abundance, but that doesn’t mean in the slightest that the Godless and misotheistic wing in America should stand quietly in the face of that truth.

While Rabbi Michael Lerner has been right to point out that liberals need to offer a language and lifestyle that appeals to the same grievances that attract evangelicals and other believers to megachurches, the long-term right thing to do is politely, but stiffly refuse to accept any religious recourses to explain reality, even when they would appear to help our cause. And that means for me that the starting place is to challenge him on the grounds of what he has in mind when he calls himself Rabbi.

Taking that logic to lefty journalism, it means it’s not OK to say that God is a liberal, that God supports the minimum wage, or that George W. Bush and his cronies have broken all 10 Commandments. This is especially true because I know for a fact that most of the purveyors of these arguments are not believers themselves. And that makes them just as cynical and manipulative as the guys on the other side who wield Jesus in their eternal and holy battle to cut corporate taxes.

Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Jehovah Witness knocking?
Posted by: DannyHaszard on Jun 28, 2006 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dissident JW member speaks out.

The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming 'invisibly' in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.

Jehovah's Witnesses door to door recruitment is by their own admission an ineffective tactic. They have lost membership in all countries with major Internet access because their false doctrines and harmful practices are exposed on the modern information superhighway.

There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the 'imminent' apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.
---
Respectfully,Danny Haszard http://www.freeminds.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anybody asked the middle of the road ...
Posted by: ccbite on Jun 28, 2006 4:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if it likes politicians humping it so often? I'm sure if it could file a sexual harrassment suit, it would do so. And while we're at it, let's ask Galileo what he thinks of the church? Hmmm ... come to think of it, that one might be a wee bit tougher.

Taking that logic to lefty journalism, it means it’s not OK to say that God is a liberal, that God supports the minimum wage, or that George W. Bush and his cronies have broken all 10 Commandments.

Your point about the left throwing back what accounts to 'Bible behavior benchmarking' against the right is an excellent insight. Why even validate such hucksterism? You are dead on, Jan.

This whole attempt to appeal to the christian vote reminds me of that cartoon where a certain rabbit says: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

As I have posted previously regarding this pandering, perhaps this is the time for the democratic party to split. Cthulu knows we can't go any lower. And the 2006 elections ... sorry, but nothing is going to change. Democrats should have had a triple digit lead over the republicans by now, but they don't. That's not good news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DC 2008
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jun 28, 2006 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tim Burton and Johnnie Depp have an understanding that everyone is more than a little nuts. The advantage of true religious in politics is that they are obliged to honesty and consistency. The faux water walkers, bush et al, merely abuse the notion of faith for personal gain. At this point, I'd settle for anyone in national office, of any stripe, who has managed to hold on to his integrity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DC 2008 Posted by: Vani
Food for thought on your last comment, Jan.
Posted by: kmeyer on Jun 28, 2006 5:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jan, I'm more or less in your camp on this one, but question part of your argument. When someone wears their faith on their sleeve, yet their actions are totally out of whack with what they profess to believe, they need to be called on it. It did not make Gandhi a cynic or a hypocrite to point out to the British that their Enlightenment ideals were totally at odds with their administration of India. Such arguments can be (when versed by someone sublimely articulate) universally persuasive, appealing to the better nature of all humankind.

Gandhi learned the ways of his opponents, often better than they themselves, and was then able to present arguments that were irrefutable. Recognize that few people genuinely want to be evil (Cheney & Rove being obvious exceptions), and then appeal to, as Lincoln said, "the better angels of [their] nature."

Not that it's easy.

Good article, BTW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is the Opiate.
Posted by: albertg on Jun 28, 2006 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, that Martin Luther King sure was some nutcase. And that Bill Moyers, what a complete crackpot. And let's not forget the Barrigans. And the Quakers. Wack jobs all of them. Wearing their pacifist religious beliefs on their sleeves.

Let's get back to some civilized atheism. Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. Castro. Men of the people all.

Or maybe, it's not religion or atheism, but those who carry the banner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» opiates are us Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: opiates are us Posted by: FedererFan
» ps Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: eligion is the Opiate. Posted by: Jan Frel
» Janism Posted by: DavidTbone
» not a bigot Posted by: schnoggi
» RE: not a bigot Posted by: DavidTbone
» But you are a dictator. Posted by: eastcoker
» Prozac and Ritalin.. Posted by: Phenix
» They stand out for other reasons Posted by: Blue Heron
And your solution is?
Posted by: wetblanket on Jun 28, 2006 7:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jan, though I completely agree with you in substance when it comes to religion and religious belief, I couldn't disagree more with your tone. While people like you and me might find blind religious worship irrational and incomprehensible, what right do we have to go around calling people crazy just because they happen to believe something different from us? I mean, sure, you have the "right" to think whatever you want about people, but I'm not sure your sentiments do much besides provide you with a sense of personal self-satisfaction. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me. But the school of liberalism I subscribe to embraces tolerance of those whose beliefs differ from mine and tries to promote pluralism and acceptance as a solution to competing ideologies.

But more than that, when you say we shouldn't bow down to the power of faith, what do you propose we do instead? If you agree that the power of faith is very strong in America, I don't see how the left is going to win change without at least embracing religious rhetoric. I completely understand (and support) resisting religious infiltration into the government by the religious right (or any religious group for that matter). But it seems to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you're suggesting non-believers like us refuse to allow all religious discourse on the left. That's somewhat totalitarian, don't you think? If a religious person embraces a progessive agenda and uses their faith to bolster such beliefs, folks like you and me have no right to try and stop them. We can resist their efforts to use the government to indoctrinate others, but we can't dictate what people can and can't say in the name of progressivism, liberalism, leftism, etc.

And trust me, I say this while agreeing with you 100% that, to use your words, "most of the purveyors of these arguments are not believers themselves. And that makes them just as cynical and manipulative as the guys on the other side who wield Jesus in their eternal and holy battle to cut corporate taxes."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And your solution is? Posted by: Ben Furman
» Thanks Posted by: DavidTbone
» RE: Thanks Posted by: aurora2484
» RE: Thanks Posted by: wetblanket
» RE: And your solution is? Posted by: Doubtom
The pot calling the kettle black?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 28, 2006 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do not ignore the difference between organized religion and what Emerson called “Soul.” He called it that, because the word “spiritual” had, even in his day, become so specious as to be inarticulate and had become an embarrassment to anyone who bothers to think, even just a little bit.

Rituals of initiation have the capacity to make one think that something important has happened. Such rituals are common to any human group, from lovers and the family to Erhardt Seminar Training and Hinayana Buddhism. They are almost always accompanied by some form of indoctrination.

Is ‘religion’ best understood as one certain kind of belief? Or are all beliefs, in one way or another, religious? If it is the former, then the examples given here of Eastern Orthodox and the Witnesses might be hard pressed to find anything in common, other than Frei’s designation as weird, crazy, foolish. But it would be just as hard to argue that all weird, crazy, foolish beliefs are religious.

The temptation then is to say that since one cannot avoid beliefs (even Data of Star Trek managed some of those), one cannot avoid religion. To paraphrase Emerson, “The Gods we worship write their names on our faces. And be assured we will worship something.”

What’s crazier than a journalist writing about how crazy his step-brother is? I always thought journalists had to be the craziest ones. Who else thinks they have something to say that other people need to hear? Why, that sounds like a preacher’s motto.

What do art criticism, literary criticism, and journalists bloviating about religion have in common? They’re always right. Why would anyone bother with opinions that can never be wrong? Sounds like some kind of religion to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What I was trying to say... Posted by: wetblanket
Yet again, a religion-bashing alternet article.
Posted by: dirkster42 on Jun 28, 2006 10:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While there's been a decent mix of views on religion here, the tone is generally "religious people are stupid, we can't have progress until we get rid of religion."

I am a liberal. I am a progressive. I am not a moderate. I consider religion to be an important part of my life. I do not shove my beliefs down other people's throats. I find the constant religion-bashing here very alienating. I do not see any difference between the atheists who tell me that I am stupid for not seeing things the way they do and evangelicals who tell me that I am going to hell for not seeing things the way they do.

I used to read alternet everyday. I don't feel much draw to the site anymore (I linked to this article through another site).

What I want to know is HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN PROGRESSIVE POLITICS IF YOU KEEP INSULTING THE "BS THEY CLING TO OUT OF DESPERATION" AS YOU CALL IT?

I have no problem with people explaining their journey to atheism. I have a problem with people saying anyone who hasn't had a similar journey is an idiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jan is correct Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Jan is correct Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: You are absolutely correct Posted by: Techubus
you ARE divisive.
Posted by: DavidTbone on Jun 28, 2006 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't speak for the progressive movement, you don't say what is OK and not OK to include in a movement. Sure, it doesn't take a Rabbi or somebody well versed in scripture to question the Right Wing moral authority, but posturing yourself as if you were of superior intellect on the grounds of disbelief in a supreme being is Grade A self-righteousness. Period.

I would never accept anybody bowing to what my personal beliefs are, and I am sure as hell not going to bow to yours. If you ever want the good guys to win an election; you know, the people who want to help the sick, the poor, the people who want to end the war, you are going to have to win by a majority. And you can't win the majority if you think they are mostly a bunch of nutcases. Its contemptuous.

Some of those nutcases, like the people of UNICEF, Quakers, Mennonites, Catholic Worker are actually out there in the real world trying to make a difference. It's a slap in the face of people like them and the Christians who were martyred during the civil rights movement to insult the belief system that makes them who they are (or were). Its a slap in the face of the priests who were slaughtered in Central America for teaching Liberation Theology to people who were being oppressed by US state sponsored terrorism. I know there are horrors done in God's name, but there have been horrors done in the name of secular labor movements also.

I probably agree with you on moral principal on most Earthly matters, but I am obviously inferior because of my belief in God. I'm sure the progressive movement can survive on intellectualism alone, so far so good. I'll just go back to my nuthouse where I believe that war is wrong and we are all suppose to love each other. I dont judge you for your beliefs. I would hope that you would see the benefit, the inclusiveness, of doing the same.

Otherwise we are divided and have no chance of defeating this immoral nationalistic fascism that has finally come to the surface.

Peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hmmm.... Posted by: DavidTbone
» RE: you ARE divisive. Posted by: Moderate
» You are pathetic Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: You are pathetic Posted by: Moderate
» RE: you ARE divisive. Posted by: Jbuuty
Yes
Posted by: RobbieUMD on Jun 29, 2006 12:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Mr. Frel. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What we probably can agree on
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Jun 29, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as progressives is that we want separation of church and state, we want positive progressive values informing our policies, and we want freedom of expression (religious, atheist or otherwise).

Yes, there's a lot more we could probably agree on. But what happens is that the politics gets personal... someone doesn't like religion in their experience, it's toxic to them personally. For someone else the experience or religion is entirely different and a positive factor for them personally. And that's ok. We're about diversity, we progressives love diversity and freedom.

The peace offering then, is to just buck it up. Spout off all you like about the Dems trying to appeal to religious values or how awful it is. Fine. But at the end of the day, after everybody feels better getting stuff off their chests, let's let go of all the fear involved in all of this and get back to

separation of church and state, positive progressive values (they can sound religious and that can be ok), freedom, and lifting every boat. We can find common ground, because even though we're progressives who are like herding cats, at the end of the day, we're uniters because we believe everyone has rights, our ideals are for each other, unlike the Neocon Religion-baiting Republicans whose agenda really is based on hate and division and taking away our rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God, The Universe and The Great Human Ven Diagram.
Posted by: Colin on Jun 29, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you remember what a ven diagram is? I have to confess, I was stretching myself to recall the long forgotten term from my school days. But I’m glad I did because the functionality of the vendiagram, to my mind at least, comes in handy here. Ven diagrams are drawings which visually describe the overlapping choices available in certain situations. This situation, as I see it, is a ven diagram of a situation. The problem stems from that fact both sides seem to dismiss this in favour of dealing in absolutes.

Jan, for instance, suggests that his brothers (and presumably everyone) who engages in religion are “a bunch of suckers who pour their time in an energy sink, are stuck in an obsolete way of thinking, and make some very stupid choices in life based on these beliefs, involving everything from diet to seeing doctors.” His analysis is entirely based on a need to be materialistically correct; Is the universe created by a God? etc. I have to say, on a personal level, this is pretty well the angle I broach the subject from.

However, there’s more to life than being correct, as Barack Obama seems to be suggesting. “Acknowledg(ing) the power of faith in the lives of the American people” is, I would suggest, focusing on the other angle from which religion entices – the other shape to our ven diagram - not mentally, but physically. Yes, we can all hark on about the nature of quantum physics, but religion didn’t just provide answers to such questions. It also made people feel better.

So here we have the two mergable shapes – on one extreme the head led, people like Jan and surely myself, who’s dedication is to being factually correct. On the other, the heart led, who’s dedication is to feeling better. And then, in the shady bit that we find in the middle of the ven diagram, we meet the majority. People who will pick and choose depending on whether they want to be correct for that particular moment, or if they want to feel better.

To my mind, people are only talking crazy by arguing for God *if* you are talking about physics or the nature of the universe in which case it smells like complete bunkem to me. But then, if, as seems to be the case with Jan’s brothers, it gives them a sense of purpose and puts a smile on their own faces, who are we to stop them? Moreover, as a rational atheist, I know that if I *could* suspend my disbelief and enjoy eternal bliss simply by believing in a nonsensical creator – would I be crazy by not taking that opportunity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not crazy, but a sellout Posted by: doctorsquared
true
Posted by: schnoggi on Jun 29, 2006 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's the paradox of rejecting religion: if they can't say they are "right" then how can we? I mistrust anyone who says they have the answers, but I have to be careful not to think that's MY answer.

"doubt, and doubt that you doubt"-- Crowley
(who might *really* be Bush's grandfather if you haven't heard, crazy...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If God existed, there would be no question
Posted by: moontime on Jun 29, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If God truly existed, we would ALL know. Every person of every generation would know for sure. I can't imagine a God that would play hide and seek, a religious Where's Waldo, leaving dubious signs such as the virgin mary grilled cheese...
Religion is the single greatest fraud and evil ever perpetrated on man. The bible was written by people for people- to control them. Looks like it works. There are lots of sheeple around. Me, I'm a good person. I have my own ethical and moral code, I don't have the fear of a lake of fire or eternity in hell as a motivating factor. I just do what I know in my heart is right.
Most of the religious folks I know are also the biggest hypocrites I know. They sin during the week, thinking its OK because they go to church on sunday. They hide behind the bible to justify predjudices they would have anyway. They don't do anything about all those child-molesting priests, but can't stop screeching about their version of "family values". They say God created the earth but treat it like their personal trash dump.
If I was religious, I would have a true personal relationship with God. I wouldn't need church (cult) to tell me how to think. And I would certainly never presume I could speak for God. I could never be so arrogant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jan is correct
Posted by: Moonray on Jun 29, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a rational person, Frel obviously feels compelled to point out the inherent strangeness of religious belief. If that's considered insulting, then so be it.

Consider the position we atheists are in: We live in a world that is run largely by people who believe in make-believe gods and their make-believe minions. Dirkster, how would you feel if every day you had to endure a society in which most people believed that Winnie the Pooh created the universe and the Tooth Fairy died for our sins?

To their credit, Frel and some others are courageous enough to point out this lunacy. Unfortunately, the crazies are winning and probably will destroy us all, but we don't have to sit quietly and watch it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Moonray Posted by: mikespindell
» RE: Moonray Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Moonray....redux Posted by: mikespindell
Hopeless
Posted by: jesme on Jun 29, 2006 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a religious conservative, I'm always fascinated to watch lefties try to grapple with the pervasive religiosity of American life. The most amusing and disturbing aspects of this curious waltz are rooted in the bitter hostility toward religion that is so common on the left. This hostility forces leftists into a very narrow corner. If they say what they really think, like Mr. Frel, they can kiss political success good-bye. Nobody votes for someone who calls him a self-deluded fool. So many unbelieving lefties try to tone it down, and even argue that their political views are more consistent with true religion than those of the right. But...so what. If it's obvious that you're only saying that to win votes, that you still despise religion, you can tallk that sort of thing all day long, and it won't get you anywhere. People will see it as the hypocritical cant it plainly is.

Enlightened folk of a century ago convinced themselves that hardly anyone would believe in God by this time, and so they never expected to confront this problem. But in a world that seems to be getting more religious rather than less, the left's general anti-religion bias has become its most crippling weakness. And I really don't see any way past it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Maybe Hopeless Posted by: WyrdSister
» Definitions: Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Definitions: Posted by: dirkster42
» RE: Hopeless Posted by: wli
Do you really believe?
Posted by: lamar on Jun 29, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people who claim to believe in God are deceiving themselves. If they truly believed, they would be doing as the bible commands. Instead, people make up reasons why the bible doesn't apply to them. I'm not being glib: if you believe in God, why are you not sacrificing animals at the alter, and rubbing yourself with annointed oils? You laugh, but that's the word of God, and laughing is not a straight answer. If you truly believed in Him, you'd be doing as he says instead of justifying your belief that you don't have to obey God's word. If you pick and choose which parts of the bible to heed, then you don't really have that much faith. If you've adapted the bible to modern times, you are disobeying god. If you think the bible is a metaphor, that's not god. If you believe in God, truly believe, then go do as the bible says, and start slaughtering those lambs. Otherwise, don't claim that you have faith, because what you really have is a political belief system propped up by faith. Not faith in God, but faith that your political views are righteous. Like I said, if you really thought God was all-powerful, you'd probably be doing what he supposedly told you to do. Actions speaker louder than words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: Krotos
» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Do you really believe? Posted by: MatthewSavage
» A Case In Point Posted by: mikespindell
» RE: A Case In Point Posted by: lamar
» RE: A Case In Point....Redux Posted by: mikespindell
This article makes baby jesus cry...
Posted by: antiapathy on Jun 29, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that from a logical perspective, religion is pretty whack. Especially when you compare group A against group B, with both claiming to be the chosen purveyors of god's true word.

But I also feel that these fallacies and contradictions do not mean jack squat to the true believers. There is no cogent argument or logic that will shake their faith. It is the same with conservatives and progressives. One group thinks the market should rule and that all poor people ar just lazy idiots who get what they deserve, while the other thinks that all people should have an equal chance at a decent life and recognize that many people are born into disadvantaged situations. You can't argue with a conservative, believe me, I have tried. They just see things differently, it's like their wiring is incompatible with the concepts of empathy or justice.

The point is, as logically sound and true as this article is, it only hurts our cause. I don't care if Mao was right and Rev. King wrong about religion, because Rev. King used his "crazy" beliefs to do something good for society while Mao took the opposite approach.

I guess I'm arguing that the ends justify the means. If the progressive movement can at least acknowledge that many religious people want the right thing, then maybe we can work on getting them to stop voting against our shared interests. Again, the bible-thumpers don't respond to logic. Voting against their economic interest is perfectly logical to them if they think their candidate is down with J. C.

That being said, I think there is spiritual gap in our society, and that gap is being filled with consumerism. I don't think spending time in church necessarily accomplishes anything, but I KNOW that spending time in walmart buying useless plastic crap only contributes to the destruction of the environment and widens the gap between the rich and poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Little has changed.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jun 29, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The irrational belief in the super natural fits very well with George Bush's America.

If the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism, then the first refuge is religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God? we don't need no stinkin god.
Posted by: ghoster on Jun 29, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There isn't any god, period, fact. If there was wouldn't he/she/it stop this madness? Aliens won't come here because this planet is sick. Or whatever you want to believe. Finding a crutch to salve your crummy life that isn't in your control and then pushing that belief on anyone else is a form of brainwashing. Cults, like republican, democrat, or whatever politics mirror religion as a means of control for the masses that aren't allowed enough information to think for themselves. Can't form a cogent opinion if you can't get good information, so why does the media parrot the party line? Simple, money, and that is the religion of this planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ganging Up on Non-Believers
Posted by: fairleft on Jun 29, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the article of this article is politically crazy, I'm also not too thrilled by Barack Obama, who is re-inforcing two insidious things: 1) that believers are victims, and 2) the truly offensive 'rule' that America is a god-believer country, and those of us who don't believe are second-class citizens.

Look at who's in power in this country: the fact is that religious non-believers are in need of defense in this country. Democrats joining the mob that hates and distrusts us is just plain scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» c'mon now Posted by: DavidTbone
Who is the purest?
Posted by: DaveB on Jun 29, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jan Frel, in this post you sound like you don’t want folks on the bus unless they think just the same way you do. Regardless of what your way of thinking is, that bus is going to be kind of empty. You might find the satisfaction of purity, but will you win elections?

The Republicans exploit sincerely religious people in a highly cynical way. I would venture that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove don’t have a particle of religious faith among them, but they harness for their own purposes the belief and the longing of those who do. Shall we just stand by while they harvest those votes again and again, because we don’t want people like that voting for our side?

Non-believing progressives have something important in common with many religious people: a sincere desire to Do The Right Thing. Jan Frel is focused on the differences. I don’t at all disagree with him as to what those differences are. But what are the areas of overlap? Can we find a way to speak to what we have in common with religious folks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Purity vs. clarity? Posted by: ccbite
» RE: Purity vs. clarity? Posted by: DaveB
I believe in God
Posted by: gmknobl on Jun 29, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this make me crazy? No. I simply believe there is a higher power - yet I don't define it. But you cannot condemn someone for such personal beliefs unless they choose to do bad things because of it.

I believe there was a man called Jesus who tried to show us a good way to live with each other. I also believe he showed there was more to our lives than just our physical bodies. Crazy to you (you'll only find out when you die) but where does that harm you in any way? It doesn't.

Trust me, people like me - liberal, progressive Christians - aren't the ones you should be calling out here as crazy or bad for the US (which you imply). I'm just betting you have a few such "crazy" beliefs based on unsupported suppositions yourself. We all do and know one ever gets around that. For, if we knew which beliefs were totally wrong due to supposed "facts" which turn out not to be, we wouldn't believe that.

The core beliefs in Christianity and most religions basically say "be good to people" (does this feel like a Bill and Ted movie yet?). And conservative or literallist nuts invariably act in ways which aren't good - and demostrably so. It's up to us TOGETHER to call them when this happens as it is now.

I don't really mind that you are an athiest. In my belief system, that's not what matters, as I believe Jesus tried to point out, but what does matter is how we treat each other all the time. If you do well in this last then you are all right by me, I don't care what religion or non-religion you belong to. And neither should you. My religion does not force my vote because of someone who spouts vocally beliefs similar to mine but my vote and my feelings towards them depend entirely upon how they act. The real problem here is that "you can fool some of the people some of the time" (fools, that is) "and all of the people some of the time" and as a group, boy, have most of us been fooled.

So now, instead of performing some strange self-destruction within the progressive community by calling each other names, we should educating other just to the extent they have been fooled and showing them that the people running this country are doing very bad things. And then, eventually, you'll see that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I do not, but... Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: I believe in God Posted by: aussidawg
Simple leftist religion
Posted by: Phenix on Jun 29, 2006 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read the Sermon on the Mount and read summaries of the Vatican II edicts. Jesus Christ and his "father" (g-d) advocate "preferential of the poor" but American Protestantism has successfully morphed modern Christianity into a sadist cult that believes we can only redeem ourselves through either a personal relationship with a dead man or suffering ala prison and our ridiculously harsh Judicial system. If you believe we have a lenient system then I beg you to talk to a person who has Moral Turpitude on their record.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics is not Rational
Posted by: picaresque on Jun 29, 2006 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are not going to get anywhere if we try to make politics into a wholly rational enterprise. People don't elect people because they are the most rational choice for the job (if that were the case, Gore would have won by a landslide). As someone once said, "Politics is celebrity for ugly people." Trying to win an election by rational argument, including the very rational arguments against the existence of a divine anthropomorph who controls our lives will keep progressives in the minority forever.

What we need to do is to engage people's passions about justice, fairness, equality, freedom, and other ideals that are the hallmarks of progressivism. The right has been winning this game hands down for a long time. And calling people with genuine religious impulses morons is merely playing up to the stereotype of liberals as smug elitists.

There are very rational reasons for humans to have and share religious beliefs (see Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained for evolutionary biological explanation). Religion provides people with a community of shared values. Your experience of these kinds of communities may be one of intolerance and disdain, but I have seen churches who are as deeply committed to the values of progressivism as any "bright" (speaking of smugness, as a card-carrying atheist, I find that term incredibly condescending). I don't feel the need to prosletyze for my lack of religion. I don't care if you are a believer or not, as long as you are willing to join the fight against right wing radicals. Maoist appeals to absolute ideological purity are a good way to make the progressive movement even more marginalized. Thanks, Jan!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics is not Rational Posted by: mikespindell
Hey, I have an idea...
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Jun 29, 2006 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about us "religious nuts" (I'm of the Pagan, hazelnut variety...the Christians, I think, are like pecans) taking our donations to Alternet and gviing them to the Quakers, local school systems, community centers, etc?

That'll keep the site pure of religious influence of any sort, since we're obviously stupid, dirty fools who can't see the road for our asses. Jan Frel and the other SUPER! ATHIESTS! will feel good about themselves, and they can attack historical leaders of faith and thier actions to the greatest of thier abilities.

Oh, whoops. No, they won't be able to. There won't be a site left. Or, it'll get the reputation of being the Left's version of Freeperville. Oh, noes!

Hey, Jan Frel, get this: when you're so high on your damned horse that you're looking down on REV King (and, yeah, I said Reverend. Wash your gooddamn eyes out. You saw something religious.) for his faith, you really need to step back, look in a mirror, and face yourself. That's a sort of intolerance and narcissism that needs help in a big way.

Look, liberals and progressives have faith, alright. We have faith that the world can be a better place. We have faith that our friends Larry and Stan, or Sami and Lara, can get married. We have faith that giving rich people tax breaks won't make us money. We have faith that children can possibly have a bright, green Earth to play in. And if you don't have faith in those things, you ain't a progressive. Could be a religion. Could be an obsession. Could be just another string of Roman alphabet characters spelling out a "word" n the OED. But it's something that binds us ALL together, which is why we're on this site in the first place.

If you can't seem to find it in yourself to share the oxygen with the rest of us losers, then I pity you, and people who think like you. Most of all, I pity us, because all of our love, time, and brainpower will be for naught because of CLOSED-MINDED PEOPLE LIKE YOU rejecting perfectly good people for not following your prescribed path.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey, I have an idea... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Hey, I have an idea... Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
Thanks.
Posted by: MatthewSavage on Jun 29, 2006 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for judging my sanity without having met me. For deciding based on blind faith that I am crazy.

Thank you for playing right into the hands of your enemy, the Republicans. Christians should universally be progressives, but sadly the most important messages in the New Testament have been hijacked and ignored. By alienating Christians, you are helping (in however small a way) to push votes away from the only alternative.

Thank you for holding up two extreme examples of Christianity as if all Chistians are extreme in the same or similar manner, ignoring the vast majority that is the moderate Christian.

Thank you for deciding that all religion is about accepting whatever answers are handed to you without critical thought, despite the fact that the church I go to is more about asking questions and letting the congregation find the answ