Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 4:47 AM on October 17, 2006.


A response to a colleague...

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

Josh, you ignorant slut.

I've always wanted to use that old SNL point/counterpoint line. In reality I respectfully disagree with some of Josh's post: "If everyone agrees the religious right is 'nuts,' can liberals finally catch a break?"

Look at the title. Nobody agrees that the "religious right" is nuts; in fact, it's the same sloppy characterization that continues to haunt liberals in pursuit of their own ideals: namely, respecting that Truth is not the exclusive property of one world view or other.

This is not to outline some hippy-dippy, all-things-are-equal ideology. I don't agree with the way much of the religious right sees, and interacts with, the world -- in fact, I find some of it downright frightening and repugnant. But when we disrespect it as the "wrong" way to see the world, we do so at our ethical and political peril.

But Josh will say that this is a straw man and that the post focuses on the distinction between the hucksters at the head of the religious right and the rank and file at its heart.

To that I say...

yes, it's an important distinction and one often overlooked by those out to tar liberals with the religion-hater label. It is a talking point that liberals hate religion, though it's not fabricated from whole cloth. It's just as much of a straw man to claim that liberals are being smeared despite their respectful and diligent efforts to reserve their ire for those who've proved themselves hypocrites and politicos.

I'll grant you this: I haven't seen anybody in the Democratic Party or many in the progressive media bashing religion. But take a look at the comments section of any story or blog post concerning religion. Talk to people in progressive or liberal circles, and what you'll find is a general consensus that religion is a fairy tale fabricated either to calm the tortured human soul or to keep the masses at bay. The corollary is that the world's political situation will creep closer to justice as we become more and more secular.

Take a look at the hero worship of people like Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins, whose latest book is called The God Delusion. I'm not sure much more need be said about it. How freaked out and offended would liberals be, if hardcore religion scholar were to release a popular book entitled: The Science Delusion?

This is as ignorant as it is offensive, though I doubt many would even characterize it as antagonism toward religion. Which is where the divide becomes fundamentally evident; in the inability to even see where our most elemental beliefs are at odds. It's not that religion shouldn't be expolored, poked, and prodded. It should be a matter for debate. But the tenor of the debate is where the problems often begin. I find it anti-science to begin an honest exploration of religion with a title that strongly suggests the project's outcome. It doesn't even fight the battle on the proper battlefield.

I just find it ironic that the very facet of religion that many find dangerous and repellent -- namely, its inability to accept the truth and legitimacy of other, sometimes opposing ideologies -- is the one adopted by many liberals in their wholesale or sloppy condemnation of religion. It's funny because I see the most dangerous mindset as being the one that, regardless of its team membership, believes that it has a grasp on the Great Truth.

Digg!

Tagged as: religious, right

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


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.
I won't allow Bush's crimes to disappear down the memory-hole ...
Do what you want, but I refuse to play along.
Post by Joshua Holland. October 15, 2006.
Advertisement
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:
Spoken without irony...
Posted by: trampoline on Oct 17, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen, brother.

(Case in point: John Ashcroft looked like an out-of-touch buffoon in last weekend's NYT Sunday Magazine profile, telling us that he hasn't loosened his grip on his own delusions and that he considers his own faith superior to any and all others.

It's so mockable. But when we Liberals mock that, is there an air of "superiority" in our own mockery?)

(NOTE: this point, delicately made, is not likely to make me stop mocking him. After all, he's responsible for some egregious missteps and decades of social backsliding in this country. But still -- food for thought, I guess.)

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

Time and Again
Posted by: pcushniesr on Oct 17, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"How freaked out and offended would liberals be, if hardcore religion scholar were to release a popular book entitled: The Science Delusion?"

Not very, because such writings are old hat to those of us who follow such things. Every time ID is brought up for consideration by some school board, science is attacked. The time to be nice-nice with religion ended a long time ago.

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

» RE: Time and Again Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Time and Again Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Time and Again Posted by: Ian MacLeod
False analogy
Posted by: patriotboy on Oct 17, 2006 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evan, I love you man, but you're wrong to compare The God Delusion to your hypothetical The Science Delusion. Science is a method for determining truth using a repeatable, verifiable process. Religion is mythology. They have nothing in common. I don't understand why it is considered to be in bad taste to point that out.

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

» RE: False analogy Posted by: PEEK
» RE: False analogy Posted by: cbaileydarland
» RE: False analogy Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: False analogy Posted by: Ian MacLeod
Crazy people of faith
Posted by: papergirl on Oct 17, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Evan for stating the obvious. I am one of those crazy people of faith, a Christian not exactly conservative, though. I am a Democrat AND a Christian......say WHAT? I am a rabid Democrat because I will fight to the death anyone's right to worship in any way they want to. I think this particular administration is especially scary because they have taken Christianity and made it the religion of the country. Who says? Take a walk through the streets of Salem, Mass and you will find a whole town of Wiccans. This is America. They have the right to worship in whatever way THEY think is right just like I do. I may not understand why they worship the way they do and they may not understand why I worship the way I do but we must respect one another as people with rights to worship however we want. Freedom of religion doesn't mean only one religion. There are Muslims and Buddhists and all sorts of offshoots of each and there are even Satan worhippers (although they are pretty few and far between). But each person has to decide for themselves what is right. And faith has no explanation to people who haven't experienced your type of faith. That is why as Democrats we MUST stay focused on message. That ALL people in a Democracy have basic rights to worship and there is room for ALL in our party. WE are not the exclusive ones. If we can stick to that and not be ignorant like the other party we CAN win this election and the presidential election in two years. Imagine how that could change our numbers if we began to make room for evangelicals in our party, teaching them tolerance and acceptance (and belive me they need it) instead of shutting them out. WE are moral and tolerant people. And that must be our message or we will never survive.

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

» RE: Crazy people of faith Posted by: papergirl
Science isn't the opposite of religion
Posted by: Joe Max on Oct 17, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dawkins naming his book "The God Delusion" is in keeping with the custom of scientific papers: the conclusion is part of the title.

Science isn't "anti-religion", unless your religion requires unquestioning belief in something that can be disproved by science. That's not the fault of science. If you MUST believe the earth is 6000 years old and science proves otherwise, that's you and your religion's problem. Scientists didn't come up with a scientific analysis of the earth's age JUST to "attack" your religion. Science reports the evidence and offers theories to explain it. That's all.

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

On Respect
Posted by: pcushniesr on Oct 17, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I respect is everyone's Constitutional right to freely practice religion. I am very much an admirer and defender of that great document. That, however, does not oblige me to respect religion itself, which I hold in very low regard, no matter how innocuous or benign.
BTW, thank you for reminding me of Dawkins' new book, which I just ordered from Amazon.

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

The strongest argument
Posted by: diogenes on Oct 17, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The strongest argument against "Intelligent Design" is the reality that Earth is just one planet in one solar system among millions in one galaxy, itself only one of billions of galaxies. If anybody thinks that there's a superior mind out there that gives a rat's ass about the most vicious primate on earth, they need to go to their nearest planetarium and get a grip. Even trying to claim that "Gaia" or something similar is watching over us doesn't cut it- if that were so, when the air turns to methane and every living thing on earth dies, I'd hesitate to call that "Intelligent Design". The thing to do is to become Intelligent Designers, instead of engaging in wishful thinking.

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

Kinda proves my point ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Oct 17, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But Josh will say that this is a straw man and that the post focuses on the distinction between the hucksters at the head of the religious right and the rank and file at its heart.

Actually, I'll say that the post was clearly a piece of political satire. The point was that there's this hyper-sensitivity on the left, stoked by the right's messaging, about being hostile towards religion, and Evan proves it by choosing that post, out of about 350 items I've published on AlterNet, to which to offer a serious response.

I can joke, but not about religion. Or at least not without risking a lecture about how commonly people of faith are disrespected in our society -- even by science!

... take a look at the comments section of any story or blog post concerning religion. Talk to people in progressive or liberal circles, and what you'll find is a general consensus that religion is a fairy tale fabricated either to calm the tortured human soul or to keep the masses at bay.

Yes, but there's an important chicken and egg question. To what degree has that developed since 1979 when religious conservatives became organized politically and started tryng to impose their beliefs on others? I'm too young to know the answer, but I imagine nobody on the left cared about the Evangelicals enough to bother condescending to them. When was the last time you heard someone disparage the Amish?

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

» RE: Kinda proves my point ... Posted by: oregoncharles
Josh, you ignorant Slut.
Posted by: spacestevie on Oct 17, 2006 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not from SNL but from the Zuker Brother's "Kentucky Fried Movie" and "Airplane"

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

» SNL Posted by: lessbread
responses
Posted by: PEEK on Oct 17, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First things first. I don't know nothing about KFM or Airplane's usage, but I do know that it was Chevy Chase's favored rejoinder to Jane Curtain's commentaries on SNL.

But Josh has joined the thread with the news that his post was satire. Ok. Sure. That I plucked this from the hundreds to prove my point.

Except, having read most of his past posts, the bulk of which I love, respect, admire, and, generally, to his eternal dismay, genuflect to, there's nothing in this "satire" that, to my eye, distinguishes it from his other writing or thoughts about religion and belief.

Doesn't satire require a departure from an objectively understood starting point? And I won't bother pointing to the fact that none of the commenters on Josh's post got the satire either as they don't appear to be arguing about Josh's post, but rather about some abstraction ignited by an initial, somewhat off-topic, post.

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

» Alright, let's try it this way ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: responses Posted by: HeroesAll
WHY WE CAN'T GET ALONG
Posted by: chanceny on Oct 17, 2006 11:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that most liberals personally respect religious values AND trust scientific findings, and are actually outraged that religion, (especially Christianity in America) has been hijacked by a handful of hypocrites who have been empowered by the elite of the republican party. The Bushites have financed the mega church culture to propagate messages intended to divide Americans already separated by the 'red/blue' line they connivingly erected and unabashedly promote. It is a sad state of affairs that the 'values' voters have been brainwashed by such cynical power-mad politicans. Their love of the bible seems to tilt to the most harsh of punishments and foreboding tales of Sodom and the coming end of days. The teachings of Jesus regarding the poor and the meek seem never to be mentioned. Just the vengeance. Always the fiery retribution. Always the straw man, be it the homosexual agenda, the feminist nazis, the cut and run cowardly democrats, the corrupted judges who 'legislate from the bench', the liberal-biased media that paint a negative picture of their percieved reality, the abortionists who derserve to die themselves. An honest debate becomes less tangible in this climate of twisted religious fundamentalism. When fanatic zealots preach to the faithful and their message goes unquestioned, reason goes out the door. Vengeful Islamic leaders call for jihad as our homegrown Falwells, Dobsons and their evil mongering ilk demand a purge of 'infidels'. Their hate-based demagogery converges and our 'enemies' become indistinguishable. When the masses who have been deliberately manipulated by disinformation delivered at their pulpits realize they have been used mercilessly to benefit charlatans whose only intent is to monopolize power, perhaps our progressive liberal ideas will be seen in a positive light. All they'd have to do is actually READ the words of their prophet Jesus to see that the ideals of liberalism were actually his agenda to begin with. What a revelation!

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

» RE: WHY WE CAN'T GET ALONG Posted by: papergirl
We CAN have it both ways.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 17, 2006 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, we have to.

Personally, I'm a hard-core atheist and rationalist like Dawkins. & I find religious fanatics like the fundamentalists especially scary - they have a long history of killing people in especially large numbers, when they get involved in politics. The Founding Fathers tried to separate religion & gov't. because they were still very close to the Religious Wars that ravaged Europe, and hoped to prevent that sort of thing here.

At the same time, we have to remember that progressive values are mostly derived directly from the ethical teachings of Jesus, as well as other, parallel religious teachers. Consequently, the branches of Christianity that take those teachings seriously, aptly called the liberal, mainstream churches, are our most important political allies. (Joshua misspelled Jim Wallis's name - for one example. ) They are particularly important against the "Christians" whose politics are so remarkably un-, if not anti- Christian. We need to respect and cultivate that alliance.

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

Chevy Chase?
Posted by: Chris420 on Oct 17, 2006 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean Dan Aykroyd.

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

religious nuts
Posted by: jareilly on Oct 17, 2006 11:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I refuse to relinquish my right to publicly criticize religious beliefs or those that hold them. I would never advocate a legal system and socio-economic structure which would impose atheism or agnosticism on anybody else. And in no way does my right to criticize religion deprive the religious of their rights. Many who call themselves religious, however, would deprive me of my rights at the drop of a hat...or the thump of a Bible. In fact, they already have.

Actually, the left and liberals do not owe believers any apology for anything. It is they who owe us and the world an apology for the brutally bad behavior of their most extreme adherents. It is they who should have to explain why mere criticism should throw them into such a crisis of faith, why open debate should make them feel so threatened, should fill them with such unthinking outrage. Is it because their faith is actually brittle, weak and shallow, unable to withstand our questions and critiques? Well, if weak faith is their problem, they should be looking in the mirror, not at the rest of us.

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

» RE: religious nuts Posted by: papergirl
» RE: religious nuts Posted by: oregoncharles
Nuts?
Posted by: oregoncharles on Oct 17, 2006 11:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" Nobody agrees that the "religious right" is nuts"

Actually, I agree that they're nuts; I've heard or seen the comment many times - sometimes the word is "delusional". Sometimes it's just "dangerous."

But as I noted above, my personal positions aside, I think it's vital to distinguish between fanatics and good-hearted, reasonable "people of faith." In general, I think most people want to be good and use their religion to that purpose - the actual content matters little.

That doesn't change the reality that religion is a terrible weapon in the hands of the power hungry. Our suspicion is based on ugly history, which i won't rehearse again. "Eternal vigilance....", and all that.

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

Religious Right Cannot Go Unanswered
Posted by: msluderitz on Oct 19, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any group whose goal is to impose its own belief systems on everyone else in a way that severely restricts individual freedoms must be challenged. That includes the Religious Right in the US if it fits the bill, and it does.

Iran is a good example where a small, determined minority of radicals has managed to hijack the government and enforce 6th century values on a largely moderate populace. Censorship is massive and women are stoned to death for adultary.

We don't live in Iran or Russia, but it would be naive to believe that it couldn't happen here. The checks and balances that help to protect us from tyranny are being watered down by the current Administration, paving the way for rule by persons instead of laws.

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

nuts and all those other things
Posted by: amazed again on Oct 22, 2006 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the english language fun to play around with.
Take the word NUTS used in many comments. What does nuts mean? where does the idea that people who are insane should be described as NUTS is it "NOT UNDERSTOOD THROUGH STUPIDITY' or perhaps its the dictionary meaning Crazy, Demented, or Extremely enthusiastic or in love, or perhaps we should be looking at where the word first came from, what is a nut? I see it as a seed that produces life. or Food.
Having said all this I spent years under the rule of the Catholic Church and after years of torment from these religious fanatics, ran away from this faith who's Religion for me did not add up. and I certaintly found the Pious folk nasty viscous people to a young child. There was also too many questions, who's answers the Nuns and Priests asked me to take on Faith.

I suppose I have a scientific mind that questions everything. Through being inquisitive I have explored all kinds of religions including Christians, Islam, Budhism and Hinduism and have come to the conclusion that really at the end of the day non of these groups have got it. They are all following someone else, or a group of people who believed in God or their version of Gods, So how do they think these Ancients got their information? By hearing Angels or Voices speaking to them.

So is it a matter of believing that some person or persons somehow knew more about life or the afterlife than they do.

Or using your own intuitive powers, insights, spirituality, and a genuine caring for all the Earths Creatures and Plantlife, and a belief in self and self worth. or wander through a peice of natures beauty or observe the miracle of a leaf formed, which proves stronger and more powerful than any religious manipulative power brokers who's only reason for being is Greed, or Control. ( follow the Money) One of the wealthiest Communities on Earth is the Vatican. Pay to go see the Icons,and paintings in the Cistine Chapel or the Pieta and tell me they do it all for the love of God. or love of mankind.

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

I forget which scientist said it,
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Dec 21, 2006 9:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But someone said that it's beginning to look like when the scientists finally climb the mountain of knowledge, they're going to find that the old sages have been sitting on it all along.

The problem is that the so-called "faithful" cannot imagine something so unfamiliar or difficult to understand. Better to have a self-contradictory, nasty-temperedGod like themselves but bigger. With so much scientific evidence contradicting religion as it's interpreted, God would have to be a sadistic practical joker to Whom Hell is a punchline.

If you stop to consider, for God to answer prayer or protect someone (and if God protects the faithful, why are there martyrs, and why do the innocent suffer, or why is there something so patently unfair as original sin?), it takes away the consequences of free will as though it had never been there in the first place. At best, we might have access to something of the Creator within us all, for uses good or ill. Also, to answer one prayer is usually to deny another.

These "faithful" are no different than the early Egyptians who imagined heaven to be like Egypt, but perfect: crops that never fail and so on. They're short on imagination, and so scared of death they desperately need something they can understand to hold onto. That, and they're power hungry, and need SOME reason, even one so unfair, even evil, in order to feel superior.

Ian

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