POLITICS JANUARY 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The political fumbling by Christian conservatives has been even worse this presidential cycle than it was in 2008, when their blood-enemy, John McCain, won the top spot on the Republican ticket. The Christian Right’s fatal failure this time was its inability to form a consensus behind a single candidate. Last weekend’s Texas conclave of religious conservatives, engineered by Family Research Center president and Christian Right warhorse Tony Perkins, initially appeared to have generated a united front behind Rick Santorum. But almost immediately, Newt Gingrich supporters challenged the results, and the united front quickly crumbled. With polls indicating no surge for Santorum in the state, Perkins’ gambit looks likely to fail—catastrophically, in fact, since it mainly benefited Mitt Romney, the one candidate hardly any Christian Right leader supports.
But if it’s entirely fair to point out that the once-indomitable Christian Right has botched the contest for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, it’s another thing altogether to conclude, as the esteemed historian Michael Kazin did earlier this week, that the Christian Right’s days of national influence have finally expired. It is true that they have been less conspicuous in this campaign, and less united in candidate preferences. But if they haven’t been able to pull their muscle behind a single candidate, that’s not a sign that they are on the wane—it’s a sign that, as far as the Republican Party is concerned, they have already won.
Look at the potential nominees: Unlike 2008, no candidate in the field is pro-choice by any definition. Only Ron Paul seems reluctant to enact a national ban on same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum. and Herman Cain have been vocal in fanning the flames of Islamophobia; again, only Paul has bothered to dissent to any significant degree.
Mitt Romney, of course, has a history on cultural issues that instills mistrust among many on the Christian Right. But his current positions bring him entirely in accord with social conservative priorities, and if he were elected, he would enter office more committed to Christian Right goals than any president in history. And if he is the nominee, he will likely choose a running-mate (and potential successor) who will, like McCain’s in 2008 (after social conservatives essentially vetoed his first and second choices), delight the Christian Right.
But regardless of its residual power within the Republican Party (which he acknowledges), Kazin believes the Christian Right is on the wane because it is increasingly out of touch with public opinion, and on the wrong side of generational trends. And when it comes to same-sex marriage, Kazin is probably correct: Although majority support for same-sex marriage rights remains a distant prospect in some states, the positive direction of public opinion is clear and—given the close direct relationship of age and likelihood to oppose same-sex marriage—irreversible.
But on the issue most important to the Christian Right’s foot soldiers, abortion, it’s not at all clear the Christian Right is losing. Kazin cites the 2011 defeat of the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi as a sign of anti-choice weakness. In fact, it’s remarkable that such an initiative—which would ban not only all abortions, but Plan B contraception, intrauterine devices, and arguably oral contraceptives—did as well as it did (a similar amendment was crushed by nearly a three-to-one margin in Colorado in 2010). More illustrative of the current state of play is the passage by seven states, (with legislation pending in many others, of so-called “fetal pain” legislation essentially banning abortion after twenty or twenty-two weeks of pregnancy.
Even more significantly, none of the major national reproductive rights organizations have gone to federal court to challenge these laws, which clearly violate Supreme Court precedents. Why? Because they legitimately fear that the Court would not only validate these laws, as it did with respect to so-called “partial-birth abortion” statutes in 2007, but would use the occasion to partially overturn Roe v. Wade and other the other decisions that establish and protect the constitutional right to choose. And that’s with the current Supreme Court. There is zero doubt that the next Supreme Court opening filled by a Republican president will produce a Justice who will be at least as hostile to the right to choose as George W. Bush appointees Roberts and Alito.
Aside from fetal pain bills, anti-choicers, particularly after the 2010 elections, have succeeded in many states in enacting restrictions and conditions on abortion providers that have seriously eroded reproductive rights, particularly for poor women. In general, the anti-abortion movement is showing a degree of sophistication that indicates it has evolved beyond the days of bloody fetus posters and physical assaults on abortion providers.
And on abortion, unlike same-sex marriage, there are few if any signs that generational trends will greatly move public opinion in a more progressive direction; voters under thirty are at most only marginally more likely to be pro-choice than their parents, and evangelical conservative youth are, if anything, more devoted to the anti-choice cause than their elders. The right to choose remains fragile, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.
That brings me to a final argument of Kazin’s: that the Christian Right is literally dying off, via the aging of its leaders and followers alike. You could, of course, argue that this is true of the entire Republican Party, which now relies disproportionately on older voters. Perhaps in the long run the future does belong to the progressive forces that showed such strong support among young and minority voters for Barack Obama in 2008. But it’s cold comfort in the short run, in which older voters remain significantly more likely to vote.
Yes, the warhorses of the Christian Right are showing their age, but a younger generation of culture warriors, some more radical than their elders, are just beginning to come into view. The Christian Right has been buried many times by secular observers since its advent as a powerful political movement in the late 1970s. It’s far too early to write yet another obituary.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
35 comments
Couldn't have said it better, Mr. Kilgore. For one thing, the Christian Right is firmly entrenched in Wall Street (three cheers from Jesus for that, I'm sure). And the Catholic Church is the world's largest corporation. Big Christian money ain't goin' anywhere soon.
- magboy47.
January 19, 2012 at 2:24am
Swell.
- Sophia
January 19, 2012 at 2:57am
Kazin's and Kilgore's flaw is reflected in their use of the term Christian Right, which they use as a pejorative (let's be honest) and to identify a very large segment of the population as united only in their strong opposition to abortion and gays. Being an evangelical Christian (which is who Kazin and Kilgore are referring to) means much more than being opposed to abortion and gays; it means a world view derived from the individual's personal relationship with God and redemption derived from the individual's acceptance of Jesus as the individual's savior (God's grace). It's that personal relationship and individual redemption that identifies the evangelical Christian. Personal. Individual. That's not to say that there's no place for "good works" (a term I am reluctant to use because for Biblical scholars it has a much different meaning than its popular meaning), but for the sinner (and we are all sinners), no amount of good works, individually or collectively, can guarantee eternal life; it's God's grace alone that provides that guarantee.
- rayward
January 19, 2012 at 7:37am
Brilliant analysis. The Religious Right has "gone quiet" not because they've lost, but because in large measure they've won. Excellent point. I do have one quibble, though. Why does the MSM call them "Social Conservatives"? They're Religious Conservatives. If anything, they're Social Radicals, wanting to eliminate abortion rights, the separation of Church and State, change the Constitution, and prevent Gay rights. Calling them "Social Conservatives" is a kind of dog-whistle. On the face it implies that they're really trying to conserve some social order that never really existed. But it REALLY means "Religious Conservatives".
- AllanL5
January 19, 2012 at 8:16am
Allan5: Just out of curiosity would you feel comfortable with revealing your age? The reason I ask is that once upon a time... not just in the US but everywhere social taboos were encoded in to law. It was taken for granted with very little protest that various provisions of the collective mores were naturally accommodated by legal prohibition or social status penalties. There were some practical aspects to reproductive license. It was felt that casual sex was to be discouraged for the sake of maintaining an intact family. A father in the home was that which bled through all other, what you would consider, antiquated sensibilities. Gays were not gay... they were homosexuals. Abortion and acceptance of homosexuality are all very new issues for the world as a whole.
- jacko
January 19, 2012 at 8:56am
" It’s far too earlier to write yet another obituary." Edit please?
- ngever
January 19, 2012 at 9:49am
Allow me once again to apologize on behalf of my fellow Christians, who somehow find justification in our faith for demonizing legal and safe abortion but being perfectly ok with backing politicians who advocate endless wars of choice. And capital punishment. And coddling the very wealthy but having a policy towards the poor that can be summed up as "you're on your own, chump." And and and....
- Tristan
January 19, 2012 at 10:35am
Not sure I can completely agree, rayward; at least as much of the impetus towards the presumed twin towers of "Christian" right political activity (abortion and gay-rights issues) comes from the Catholic Church, does it not? Not an accident that two of the potential standard-bearers for that movement (Santorum and Gingrich) are Catholic, is it? At any rate, on another point, do not presume that the "Christian" right is aging its way out of relevance. Younger leaders may not be as vocal or visible as the old warmongers of that movement, the Robertsons and Falwells and such, but you can damn well bet that Republican-skewing voter guides will be getting passed out in the megachurches and evangelical denominations (and not a small number of Catholic parishes, I'd bet) before Election Day.
- cspencef
January 19, 2012 at 12:11pm
Thank you Tristan; your comment reveals exactly the reason "Christian Right" is used as a pejorative. It's meant to be one. The "Christian Right" does not behave in any regard like Christians, assuming Christians actually model themselves on a humble Jewish carpenter/rabbi who fought corruption, abuse of power, hypocrisy and blame, and did his best to care for the sick and the poor. And, he advocating paying taxes, lest anyone forget. I suppose in hindsight he was endorsing or perhaps merely accepting the temporal power of an occupying foreign empire (or, the book was written by Rome; more probably - has anyone forgotten that Rome occupied, terrorized and eventually destroyed Judea, and Christianity became the religion of the Empire?) Regardless the modern "Christian Right" doesn't behave in any regard like Jesus but they do seem to think their fellow Americans are an occupying power, are utter and complete hypocrites about wealth and power; and this business of going to heaven strictly due to accepting Jesus as a savior is repugnant to me. The whole thing about throwing others into the fiery pits is a horrendous way to see the rest of the world. Combine that with big bucks and the corruption, yes I will use that word, of our supposedly democratic and secular political system and we have a perfect inversion of Jesus' philosophy; it's being used to enforce imperial power, not the grace of G*d nor the beauty of the world and its beings.
- Sophia
January 19, 2012 at 12:11pm
I meant, "advocated," duh. Apologies. But this subject gets me nuts.
- Sophia
January 19, 2012 at 12:12pm
I'm 55 years old. When I was born in Texas, the collective mores of a segment of the population were indeed enshrined in law. My father didn't have to share a classroom in high school or college with any black people because the mores of the times thought that would lead to all kinds of social ills. Although segregation in public schools was outlawed the year I was born, and later the Civil Rights Act and fair housing laws made it legal for black folks to live in my neighborhood and go to school with me, none did. The intellectual, social and financial capital I got from my parents, the good schools and middle-class values that surrounded me when I was a kid, were denied to black folks. There were no black folks in the pews of my church when my parents started taking me there - they weren't allowed to share God's house with us. That changed, thank God, as collective mores yielded to the mores preached by the people portrayed on the stained glass windows, and the person who was crucified on the cross that stood behind the altar. Though our church integrated, others didn't, and "Christian" pastors and members of their flocks were on the front lines trying to stop the broadening of collective mores to include people with dark skin. One of my Dad's best friends from college was a confirmed bachelor - I don't know if he ever had the chance to be considered gay, but I do know that he missed out on having the kind of relationship and family my parents had, and my wife and I have today. That's true even of my friends who were homosexuals in high school but got to be gay later in life. Still, despite their late start, most of them who survived the AIDS plague have relationships, and some even have families, although it is illegal in Texas for them to cement their bond by getting married. I doubt this will be true of the gay friends my nieces and nephews have today; thanks to a change in collective mores, they will almost certainly get to lead full lives, even in Texas. My sister excelled in high school and college, got her degree and stepped right into the sort of job that would have been unheard for most women of my Mom's generation. Collective mores changed. During all this time, there were people fighting to keep collective mores static, and exclusive. These people occasionally called me a nigger-lover or fag, but, to tell the truth, I didn't think I deserved what they thought were epithets, but which I couldn't help but think were aspirations I had yet to meet. Refraining from committing positive evil is not the same as being good, and I've never been good, or at best, not nearly good enough. The broadening of our collective mores over my lifetime has always seemed to me to be empirical proof that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overcome it. Sure, sometimes it seems that darkness has the upper hand, and that people who claim to be good - people who claim to adhere to my religion - are the worst offenders in spreading it. But in my lifetime, many of these offenders have been converted away from positive evil, and many try, as I do, to be better than they are, even if, like me, they fail repeatedly. The greatest commandment says that we must all of God's children as we love ourselves. Collective mores that include everyone are something I can get behind. Let's just be sure that they are truly collective - that they include rich and poor, black and white, people of all religions and no religion, the enslaved, the imprisoned, the hungry and the sick - and that they are truly moral.
- GeoffG
January 19, 2012 at 12:15pm
Nice comment Geoff. And Soph.... well, Gandhi said it best I think. "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
- Tristan
January 19, 2012 at 12:41pm
That the Christian right is the Republican party is a fundamental problem with regards to the constitution because their legislative agenda is an attempt to implement their Christianity as the law of the land, which is by default unconstitutional. For example, there is no valid reason to not provide equal protection under the law for gay people, which is explicitly required by the Equal Protection clause of the constitution, except for religious doctrine. Therefore, the Defense of Marriage Act is by default unconstitutional as it is religious doctrine. Also, the purported "pro-life" movement is not about abortion, it's about forcing us to abide by their Christian doctrine about sex as they are against contraception that prevents unwanted and unintended pregnancies that would by default prevent abortion. That they haven't been challenged by rational Americans indicates that they have created the perception that their arguments are the baseline and their will inevitable. However, they are ultimately doomed to fail as they a) are religious and effectively establish a state religion and (b) treat people unequally under the law. They may be in control now, but that doesn't mean they'll win the war. That's in the hands of the American people.
- jeffbiss
January 19, 2012 at 12:54pm
Humans know we will die. Thus we engage in what followers of Ernst Becker call "immortality projects." When we are young, we fornicate, make little copies of ourselves, and try to ensure that they will inherit our stuff, make more little copies of our genetic material, and reflect well on us. (Obsession with abortion is buried in this sociobiology related activity.) We know that life is unfair; the virtuous do not necessarily prosper; the wicked do not necessarily suffer. So we invent a imaginary systems where we don't die and where virtue is rewarded and vice punished and call themt Heaven and Hell or reincarnation and Karma. I have dealt with skilled scammers and cult leaders. Many of the best of them do not get to specific in what they promise. They paint a broad (and appealing) outline and let their /m/a/r/k/s prospects fill in the details to suit. There is very little hard evidence that Jesus really lived (probably he did); the words that come down to us (the "Gospels") were probably carefully edited and managed quite a while after his death. They are very broad and ambiguous, billions of people fill in the details of what he REALLY said and meant and did. Of course, he was (probably) not a scammer and perhaps not a "cult leader" and probably was not born of a virgin and probably did not rise from the dead, but the entire story makes an irresistably appealing "mash-up" for quite a few people, including some posting comments in this thread. So whatever it will be called lots of flavors of Christianity will probably be around for quite a while, including the "Religious Right."
- skahn
January 19, 2012 at 1:15pm
You're right AGAIN skahn. Biblical intercourse certainly CAN accommodate a childish view such as yours and Beckers. Yeah, let's go with the 'just stories' thing. It's made for kids, too.
- jacko
January 19, 2012 at 4:54pm
Sorry Tristan, GeoffG's comment is nowhere to close to "nice." Rather, it's superb, in which nice is a lesser included offence. Great comment Mr. G. I, too, hold with those here who find Kilgore's argument convincing and well made. It seems to me the rightness of not rightness of religious belief is here entirely inapposite here and I can't see the need to ventilate that save as Rayward did to try to get some accurate purchase on the meaning of "Christian Right," which effort I appreciate but find unpersuasive as a way of getting behind Kilgore's thesis. But really, what's the point of pondering ponderously the substance of religious belief? As Geoffg and Tristan make clear, we can take Kilgore's point and agree with it or not regardless of our faith or lack of it.
- basman
January 19, 2012 at 8:07pm
1/3 Jacko, you are concise. Excellent. I am not sure what you are saying. (My bad.) Are you saying that the story of the Bible is literally true? Jesus was born of a virgin; rose from the dead? If we believe in Him, we will go to a place called Heaven and be Saved? I am sincerely (and not sarcastically) asking (not only you, but everyone posting in this thread who states or implies that he or she is a Christian) what do you believe?
- skahn
January 19, 2012 at 10:03pm
2/3 Here is my belief. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of any God of any variety, or any reason to believe that our selves will exist after our physical bodies die, or any reason for believing that ethics/morality is anything but an invention of human beings based on our evolution and our cultural development. All religions are the creation of human beings. While there are a lot of varieties of religious belief (and concurrent theories of ethics), the world seems to be evolving toward two main varieties. One is tolerant, kind, inclusive, hopeful, optimistic, and comfortable with empiricism whether or not it includes supernatural myths and beliefs. I call it “unitarianism” with a small “U” for lack of a better term. The other trend is most often referred to as fundamentalism. It tends to be exclusive, intolerant, violent, fearful, and angry. It includes the conservative religious right discussed in the article as well as the corresponding (and rather more violent in this era) versions of Islam. However, the unitarians include non-believers, such as Christopher Hitchens (and of, course, myself) as well as believers such as my fine neighbors here in the country who are devout members of the Lutheran ELCA branch. Communists such as Fidel Castro (and, of course, the traditional Soviet Bloc Communist leaders) are example of atheistic fundamentalists.
- skahn
January 19, 2012 at 10:04pm
3/3 I will express a thought as well about TNR comment etiquette. I am fairly sure that most if not all the people who contribute comments at this web site are more informed and more intelligent than I am. I therefore expect to learn and be entertained by your comments. Occasionally (not that often) comments are addressed to me. As a person with a fairly substantial narcissistic component to my personality, I always enjoy the attention, but as a person with a little more complexity to my personality than that I prefer that either positive or critical comments have enough substance to provide education and/or entertainment value. I am definitely a person who does not accept religious belief as having any basis in reality. If we are discussing an article (such as this one) where religious beliefs and values are a main theme, and you comment on it with an apparent assumption or subtext that religious belief has merit and substance (or take a swipe at me because I discuss religion scornfully – though I think not offensively) – then I think it reasonable to get at least a quick and coherent expression of why you think religious belief has value and provides a guide to us as individuals and as a society. Basman's comment came in as I was writing my response. I think his comment is an excellent example of a neutral, secular way of approaching the discussion of religious politics and if the whole thread followed that style I would refrain from making snarky comments about religion. However, the problem remains in any discussion such as this: from whence to we get our values and our ethics? The assumption in a forum such as this seems to be something along the lines of every reasonable person naturally agrees with me about these basic issues. Given the arguments and insults that often fly up in these discussions that assumption is, to put it mildly, dubious.
- skahn
January 19, 2012 at 10:14pm
Well, whatever one "believes," jeffbiss cuts to the chase regarding the religious Right and the GOP. In recent decades we have seen an attempt to outright take over the US and impose a religion on all of us. The other aspect of this may well be the manipulation of religion by powerful interests seeking votes. Regardless, this movement, like the money and interests behind and manipulating it, has grown incredibly powerful. That is against the very soul, the core of our nation, it is in fact unconstitutional. I don't know why more journalists haven't spoken on this issue. Religion is something we have a right to, as private citizens. The rest of us also have a right not to be subjected to other people's religious beliefs, full stop. Given the temporal power of this American political church, I think maybe it should be taxed. It is not benign, nor are its concerns primarily spiritual. And thanks, Tristan for the Gandhi quote! Also GeoffG who speaks so eloquently of the need to be inclusive; now that is a fundamentally American ideal, albeit one we're still seeking to perfect in real life. Sometimes when Obama speaks, I feel hopeful. Then I watch the GOP debates and I want to cry.
- Sophia
January 19, 2012 at 10:48pm
Skahn - if you're still following this thread, I'm happy to engage in a discussion of faith with you... though I'm not sure this would be the right forum. Say the word, my friend, and I'll be happy to share a work or personal email address and we can continue this. As a believer who spent quite a few years as an agnostic, I identify deeply with what you've said above, and I'm happy to share what (and why) I now believe. Let me know. Peace.
- Tristan
January 20, 2012 at 9:40am
Not sure if this chain is still going, but I do want to thank Tris, Sophia and Basman for their kind words. I've probably said it before, but it means a lot of coming from people whose views as expressed here I really respect. In relation to some of what Skahn is saying, I personally am not sure God exists - in contrast, for example, to the fact that I am sure that if I fell into the middle of the ocean and no one rescued me I'd drown. I am more sure that there is a moral order to the universe than I am that the God revealed to the prophets exists, but even then, I recognize that it could all be random. I am certain, for me, that I need to act as if God exists and strenuously seek to learn as much as I can about how to live decently in the world. For me it's like studying physics - people study it to increase their understanding, and that's a very worthwhile lifetime pursuit, even though they may be only slightly less ignorant when they shuffle off this earth. And please understand, in my view there are plenty of secular people seeking to learn how to live decent lives without a belief in a supernatural being, and I respect their pursuit every bit as much as I respect my own. This all may be pretty facile, but, like I said, I'm working on it. The possibly facile thought I'll close with is one I put at the bottom of another article here by accident. When morality (religious or not) is a tool for the weak to augment their power against the strong, it can be a force for good. When morality is used by the strong to augment their power the weak, it is always a force for evil. That's the difference between MLK, Jr. and Jerry Falwell. It's possible - and I very much want to act always as if it is possible - that the arc of the moral universe really does bend toward justice, which is why we celebrate MLK's birthday and not Falwell's. It may be why Lincoln's Second Inaugural, MLK's "I Have a Dream," and the Sermon on the Mount, among others, move us today, while the hateful words spewed by their opponents are in a trashcan somewhere. Even if it's an illusion, I'd rather believe I can do a little bit to bend it than to believe otherwise. And, like I said before, a lot of secular people are trying to bend it too - they're on my side, even if they think God doesn't exist.
- GeoffG
January 20, 2012 at 10:44am
What a great post, Geoff. Beautiful, my friend.
- Tristan
January 20, 2012 at 11:16am
Oh skahn... I felt as if your finding it necessary to interject your take on God was no more or less than coming in to this discussion and cutting a fundamentalist fart simply for its own satisfactions. There wasn't anything constructive to be gained by your contentions as such.... unless you are proselytizing your vision or version of Truth. If you want to go the Truth route I have stated quite frankly that your kind of justifications for world view are simplistic and small. That you would feel comfortable in announcing as much as self evident will have me challenge your claims of obviousness with charges of willful myopia and laziness. The very same crimes you accuse others of. The truth of it is you and Pat Robertson need one another. I think you are owned by labels every bit as much as those with whom you contend. The act of tossing out your commentary here is easy to characterize as nothing more or nothing less than fleecing God. Kind of a tourette syndrome manifestation of begging for a sign. Interesting behavior for a non-believer. Hey, I could be wrong. All said you seem like a decent sort. I suspect that your self professed nihilism is compromised and moderated by the fact that you love your daughter. Love makes its statement and has its commands and demands. It's hard to square that circle. Now defining what Love isn't is much easier than defining what it is. To distill it down to pure selfishness and happenstance is admirable in the sense of being open to intellectual honesty but lazy in the satisfaction of it being a sufficient answer in an all inclusive claim.
- jacko
January 20, 2012 at 11:22am
Thank you to everyone who posted interesting comments (in general, and in reply to me). To Tristan, you can communicate with me by sending an email to eman_modnar@yahoo.com. It's an email I use for "public" Internet communication and thus I am innured to and prepared for spam flying through the ether toward it. [Feel free to skip the following.] In fact, as I participate in various discussions the "flavor" of spam I get to this email address is rather interesting. I get spam from Christian evangelical groups (or scoundrels imitating them) from days when I participated on an evangelical forum. I get spam in Arabic and from Gulf countries (not quite sure what provoked that, but I have known and worked with various Muslims). I get spam in Chinese and from the Far East, perhaps because my cousin became a Taiwanese millionaire. So it will be interesting to see what kind of spam I get by posting this email at TNR. Will it be Jewish spam? (What would that spam look like, and what would it promote?) Or are all the people reading comments at TNR pure as driven snow, and no new spam will appear? Actually, I am hoping (though it seems as unlikely as God writing his name in the sky or Jesus appearing again) that before I die, we will discover or communicate with life from other planets, so maybe I can get spam from outer space. Or at least from dolphins, crows, or octupi.
- skahn
January 20, 2012 at 2:52pm
I have skimmed the other comments, but I am going to eat lunch. So to everyone else who commented (and is still reading this thread), I will either write later (appreciating and admiring your comment, or dissecting it carefully and politely) or I will be silent, but either appreciating your comment or dissecting your comment. Take care, especially if it snowy, as it is (rather unusually) right now on my Puget Sound island. The chickens are very unhappy about the snow. Listen: you can hear them whining.
- skahn
January 20, 2012 at 2:55pm
I have gone back and re-read the article and all the comments carefully. Some email conversation with Tristan may develop; I will maintain discreet silence until we are in agreement about whether to share. (If anyone happens to email me, my policy is to respect privacy of what anyone says to me.) I read everyone's comments carefully. It is difficult to respond without being prolix. There was a very positive response to GeoffG's comments, and I tend to agree, though perhaps from a different perspective. Perhaps the closest we come is Even if it's an illusion, I'd rather believe I can do a little bit to bend it than to believe otherwise. And, like I said before, a lot of secular people are trying to bend it too - they're on my side, even if they think God doesn't exist.. The empirical world seems to exist. It gets very philosophical here (above my pay scale), but every day I sense the world through my senses and appreciate it. With great struggle, human beings developed empiricism – sometimes called the scientific method. It seems to work in controlling the universe, but it is morally neutral and unsatisfying. It does not tell us how to live; it does not tell us why to live. To be alive is to suffer (though some more than others). We suffer because we are mortal and realize it. We suffer because life is full of injustice, pain, disappointment, disillusionment. Even if our own life goes well (and mine has gone fairly well), an empathic person cannot view the enormous and pointless suffering in the world, from genocides and wars to terrible diseases and accidents without wondering why humans have to experience this. My neighbor, who is a wonderful person, goes to church regularly and speaks of God's love, and of going to Heaven. He is a very kind person who does ceaseless good deeds. He is a very tolerant person toward all races (he is ¼ Sioux Indian himself); he has been enormously friendly and helpful to my daughter, her partner, and our granddaughter. He (and his church) have been ceaselessly (in a very kind, gentle, gracious manner) trying to evangelize me. I finally got around to telling him (politely) that I am not a religious believer. He took the “confession” gracefully. Our friendship has not been lessened. If God existed, I would regard him as a monster. The seed of this idea was planted when I was in college and read a book titled Milton's God, by the noted literary critic and mathematician William Empson. A contemporary writer (also British, but web writer only) who has developed this line of thought quite extensively (and as eccentrically as Empson) can be found at http://www.vexen.co.uk/. To put it as bluntly and concisely as I can, when people of all religious beliefs speak of loving God, they strike me as similar to people I have known who have been victims of domestic abuse, and who think If only I show [my abusive lover] how much I love [him/her], [he/she] will stop beating me. In religious terms, If only I pray enough and thank God enough, He will end my suffering [in Heaven/sartori/whatever]. As cold and barren as it seems, I prefer a random, uncaring universe to that kind of God. So where do we go from here? Is there any common ground? I will quote Geoff again: Even if it's an illusion, I'd rather believe I can do a little bit to bend it than to believe otherwise. And, like I said before, a lot of secular people are trying to bend it too - they're on my side, even if they think God doesn't exist.. If humans invented God, and if many humans need to feel a “sense of transcendence” [as the founder of the Ernst Becker Foundation once said to me], then I guess we need to invent a kinder, gentler religion, one that seems to run along the lines that Geoff speaks of. Sorry this is so long and I hope the bold and italic does not go wonky (it would be the equivalent of lightning striking a heretic).
- skahn
January 20, 2012 at 10:34pm
Yup. The formatting went wrong. This may be proof that God exists and that I am not going to go to Heaven. I am unrepentant.
- skahn
January 20, 2012 at 10:36pm
skahn. I'm going to risk here a little bit and take it on faith that what we discuss isn't going to be subjected to anything but sincere regard. You are contending that fear of fate is the primary mover for religious belief. I contend that it is nowhere close to being as simple as that. I say that a will toward the Truth AND a fear of the Truth has the larger say. You have expressed your abhorrence with the idea a terrible and morally arbitrary sky-god. I'm perfectly well with that. It seems to me a very reasonable proposition. Now it is not my purpose to do all of your work for you. There are things within your own conscience that no matter what I might say cannot be addressed by me. Only you can know these things. I don't have the capacity to know anything relevant concerning what you need beyond what our universals can inform. Do me a favor and try out the idea that Jesus was an insane genius. Let's take away all of the supernatural and assume that he was born in the typical way by typical means and had his ministry according the context of the prevailing fate of the sky-god and powers that be. Freedom from this illusory fear (Zeus, Jobs punisher, et al.) would be a welcome thing. Neh? Say this insane genius figured out a way to bring this terrible sky-god down to earth and slay him while making provision for how this would play out in the future. Now I'm keeping this fairly simplistic for the purpose of discounting intellect as the progenitor of moral certitude and validity. Paul had mentioned during his ministry that any thought process and talk of this kind came of evil. I give a nod in that direction inasmuch that child like faith in Love provides much more fulfillment and clarity than any apologetics of any flavor ( christian, atheist or otherwise) might inform. Now the directional terms of these powers and gifts are such that you must resolve and are completely according to the resolution of your convictions. The only things we have to fear are ourselves for we have the power of the gods..... To destroy and propagate Hell on earth or to work toward something more Heavenly. One need not kill this terrible god by means of intellectual conceit. Pretending that scientific reasoning has holds the keys to all mystery and knowing more that it can know about the world and thus the human condition. Intellect as we have seen in the 20th century is NOT the Savior it would make itself out to be. Part of the purpose of evangelizing is to be get beyond our own bubble and become acquainted with the reality of the human condition individual and collective. All of what I've laid out here is only the smallest of consideration. Words are such an incredible limitation. Our metaphorical alchemy in the weights and measurement of truth and lies become an unavoidable consequence of consciousness. Like I say it isn't my place to do your work for you. Anything that I have offered isn't anything close to comprehensive. Just a different perspective that you may or may not find beneficial. Ummm..... I'm fond of Carl Jung and his efforts. I also think Julian Jaynes to be a genius and further that his views hold some keys to the environment back in the day as well as now. Humbly yours, Jacko
- jacko
January 21, 2012 at 12:55pm
Jacko, Thank you for your comment, and thank you for wading through my prolix and mal-formatted comments. "Sincerity," is a difficult issue as none of us really knows what is in the heart of another person. I read your comment once, and will have to read it at least once more to feel I have given it a sincere and sensible evaluation. For now, I will say this, and I hope you will accept it as a sincere attempt to discuss the issue of religious belief in a non-hostile and interested (and perhaps) interesting way. (I will say, parenthetically, it is so difficult for humans to communicate that I wonder we -- humans in general -- manage to communicate as much as we do.) Again, I think suffering is the inevitable fate of human beings. Suffering, at least, in knowing that our fate is death, and in knowing that our wishes can never be fulfilled entirely, and for empathic people at least, in knowing that others suffer even more than we do. From my perspective, religious belief is not subject to validation or disproof by empirical means; thus, from a logical perspective, agnosticism is the most sensible way to approach the issue of religion. From my reading of history and from my personal observation of religious believers (not meant as an insult) and from my intuition and pondering on the issue, religious belief is the most effective method ever developed for alleviating and consoling ourselves about our fate (inevitable suffering). It just doesn't work for me. 1. From my perspective, and from an empirical point of view, I believe that there is no evidence to support the idea that the universe has any meaning or purpose, or that there is any innate moral order. As this is often called “nihilism,” and as I suspect (as a comfortable default) that you and most or all others reading this are non-sociopaths and non indoctrinated in wickedness non-varlets) that we mostly agree in theory and practice on what is ethical behavior, I call myself an “ethical nihilist,” though it seems to drive at least a few people around here apesh*t. 2. I strive through diet, exercise, and lifestyle to keep myself alive as long as I can, with some success. Although I feel some aches and pains not surprising for my age, at the moment I am doing fairly well. Nevertheless, I tell myself (in a calm, relaxed manner), every day, “Steve, you know you will die one of these days.” Naturally, I hope death will come fairly quickly and painlessly (dying in my sleep sounds fine in that regard), but I expect it to come with more pain and probably some excruciating slowness, so I try to prepare myself to deal with it as mellowly as I can. 3. I do an occasional good deed, but as we don't have much money and as we can not change the world to eliminate all suffering (not counting the inescapable suffering of self-aware mortality), I don't sweat it very much. 4. If I had suffered more than I have, than I might also be sitting in church praying to some God or other and telling myself that He (or She) is a God of love and mercy. Maybe if there is a God, that is why so many people endure so much suffering. (Well, that puts us back in a sour loop about the nature of God.) In the meantime, I will have to read your comment once again and see if it strikes a chord of insight or inspiration for me. Sincerely, Steve Kahn
- skahn
January 21, 2012 at 7:05pm
OK, Jacko, I read your comment again and it seems to make more sense to me. Here is a sincere response, though as you probably realize by now, I possess an irritating degree of sarcasm. (I am a great fan of Peggy Lee's song, “Is That All There Is?” and it's quite possible my last words will be something along the lines of “Is that all there is? Well, f**k that!”) Paragraph #1 of your comment: OK, I think you are working up to gentle evangelizing similar to my Lutheran neighbor's, though perhaps a little more skillful than his efforts (now that you have revised and honed it a bit.) Paragraph #2: Jesus the mortal “insane genius” said “Enough of the big bad Daddy God who must be obeyed or He will whup your ass” and let's try a little tenderness and loving. To twist Otis Redding's song a bit (try taking the sneaky lechery out of it) but when she gets weary you try a little tenderness oh man that un hunh i know shes waiting just anticipating the thing that you never never possess no no no but while she there waiting try just a little bit of tenderness
- skahn
January 21, 2012 at 7:36pm
My comment got cut off. Again, this may be God expressing His disapproval (though one would think that He has better things to do). Here (maybe) is the rest, in the spirit of "No good deed goes unpunished." Anyway, you say: “One need not kill this terrible god by means of intellectual conceit. Pretending that scientific reasoning has holds the keys to all mystery and knowing more that it can know about the world and thus the human condition. Intellect as we have seen in the 20th century is NOT the Savior it would make itself out to be.” I don't really have an argument with this in terms of saying I have anything better. My goal in life at this time is to be a decent husband, decent father, decent father-out-of-law (until gay marriage passes in my state, anyway) decent grandpa, and keep our chickens as happy as chickens can be, and perhaps do an occasional good deed in my eccentric way. [Although I don't know if its true, somebody once told me that a small, peculiar “shareware” contribution I made to him prevented him from killing himself. I consider this assertion dubious, but I prefer to believe it than the idea – also possible, as I am a combative and sarcastic individual – that my sarcasm and skepticism has driven someone to suicide.] Paragraph #3: I have a slight familiarity with Carl Jung and Julian Jaynes, but I am rusty on the little I knew. From my sarcastic point of view, perhaps there is a book somewhere that explains it all. Perhaps the Bible is that book, but as billions of Apologetics have been written explaining the Bible, I doubt that's it. Perhaps the answer is “42,” but I doubt it all adds up to that either. As I used to say when arguing with the evangelicals, “Christianity has had a couple thousand years to save this world, if that's its purpose, and it doesn't seem any closer.” Ray Kurzweill thinks he will merge with artificial intelligences, live forever, and participate in some great transformation of human consciousness he calls the Singularity. I suspect Kurzweill will probably die like the rest of us, and if he doesn't, he will discover Hell for real.
- skahn
January 21, 2012 at 7:38pm
skahn. I suppose I don't understand your insistence on sharing your lack of belief. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett were advocating their positions as a matter of wanting to save the world from the inevitable conflict at the hands of the evil religionists. They see/saw God as the cause of mindless violent conflagration and evil. The idea being that they and their fellow atheists can help make the world aright by virtue of doing away with the inspiration of fools. They are motivated by a constructive intention. I take issue with their means, meanings and methods. Thus their conclusions are in error. If it were only as simple as they would have it. You, however, would seem to be sharing, at least according to your stated intentions, for the simple purpose of being less alone. I have doubts.
- jacko
January 22, 2012 at 1:43am
Jacko, I am perhaps a bit unlike Hitchens, etc., in that I don't particularly see atheists (as a group) as being superior to religious believers, and I don't see religious believers (as a group) as being superior to atheists. One can find good atheists (and Hitchens and the buddies you mention probably qualify in that regard), and, of course, there are lots of evil atheists (Stalin, Mao, etc.). There are good religious believers and bad religious believers. We all struggle with the dark and seek the light. I am a human being. We are social animals. We are adaptable. Some of us can live alone, but on the whole we do better if we keep company with others. We are also irritable and quarrelsome, so in the company of others we fall into disagreements, ranging from friendly and sporting to violent and deadly. I would put our disagreement here at TNR as closer to the friendly and sporting. Do you see it otherwise? For reasons I am not sure, all my life I have been incompatible with every group to which I have belonged. My wife and I are about 80% incompatible, but we remain married, though every day we have to work on it, even after 46 years. All my life, I have had a strong negative reaction to somebody telling me something that strikes me as obviously not true. In some cases, these dubious statements can be examined by empirical means and in some cases, these dubious statements lead to harm to victims, in which case they should be opposed. As I've mentioned, my wife and I once fell into conflict with someone who was ostensibly leading a altruistic and beneficial project, but who was in fact doing a great deal of harm. We spoke up; we tried to get him to change his ways; we eventually went to court (at some risk) and forced him to stop; we eventually made some gain (kind of like a “bounty”) about which I still feel ambiguous and uncertain. In that case, the “proof” was that a jury ruled in our favor and appeals courts upheld us. There is no proof that God exists or does not exist. There is no overwhelming evidence one way or the other that atheism or belief does more good than harm or more harm than good. I just experience the world as an empty, meaningless, and purposeless place, and my motto as I approach the end of my life is, “Cheerful Despair.” At this point, I am sure I have bored everyone reading to complete ennui, and I shall stop for now. If you have a response to this, I will let you have the last word in this discussion thread, and I will sincerely read it with interest, respect, and attention, though probably I will continue to disagree. Or you can email me, as Tristan said he would. If you do, and I am still alive, I will respond.
- skahn
January 22, 2012 at 1:07pm
skahn. It seems to me that good natured despair is a far cry from nihilism. There is a degree of courage that is implied within good natured despair by its manner of facing the moment as apposed to denial and determined irrelevance. Give yourself some credit in that regard. Nihilism seeks to abdicate. Despair acknowledges. That's how I see it anyway. We could wax on, wax off ad infinitum but then the ennui might just swallow us whole.:) Next thing you know we'll be kicking around constructive despair. There is a way to get there but then... perhaps another day.... or night. Be well. Jacko
- jacko
January 22, 2012 at 7:53pm