Soundtrack to this post: Rusted Root, "Back To The Earth"**
I slept in this morning until 4am. I was so exhuasted last night that I barely made it to bed, and now I am fully awake, and the clock slowly ticks 5. So there is a war on secularism in this country. Testament's to christian belief are becoming a prerequisite to hold office. I am reminded of a bumper stick I see these days: "Last time we mixed religion and politics, we burned women at the stake."
It seems that in the past two decades, the secular nature of Government has been threatened by groups such as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition; groups whose sole purpose is to expand the influence of religion (particularly Evangelical Christianity) in Government. I hope to show that this is a bad development, not just for those who doubt (as I do) Christian belief, but for the very same people who so passionately believe, they have seen fit to try to legislate Christian tenets. This is an attempt, firstly, to articulate here a cogent statement about the theocratication of american politics, and secondly, to show how dangerous governing by religious tenets is for atheists and agnostics but also to show how silly it is for those same groups that now favor it, to try to press the point.
First off, the words "secular" and "secularization" have become dirty words in American politics, which is a terrible development for the country. It has been the standing policy of the Christian Right to confuse "secular" with "atheist," and to confuse a nation where personal beliefs are just that with a country that seeks to abolish beliefs. Indeed, over the twenty-year history of the Christian Right, it has continually assumed that those who believe that Christian values have no more place in governance than personal preference for milk in coffee, or toast with breakfast, are in fact seeking the total destruction of belief in the nation. They confuse those who believe in a secular nation with the French Radicals of the 1790's. They think the first step is to keep prayer out of the classroom; the next will be the guillotine for priests and the confiscation by the state of church property. This, really, is quite silly. Secularists do not believe that faith is a crime; we do not believe that religion is evil. We do take offense, though, at the idea that the God you pray to can tell us how to live; we take offense that our local police, by the FBI, may enforce the tenets you believe. The word "secular" does not imply lack of faith; it implies that whom we pray to is our own business, the morals we live by are of our own choosing, and that so long as we do not interfere with your pursuit of wealth, happiness or safety, you should not interfere with ours.
The word "secular" should be embraced then, not just in the politics of the Nation, but also by those who earnestly believe. A secular nation offers its believers a profound service: it makes belief a choice, and not a requirement, and because belief is a choice, it is enriched. Imagine a country where the foremost law is the Ten Commandments. This example highlights a little known, and uncomfortable fact for evangelicals. The Ten Commandments was actually given to Jews, not gentiles. Luckily, the gentiles actually have no obligation to follow them - they only need worry about the 7 Noahic Commandments. Another uncomfortable fact for evangelicals is that of all ten commandments, only two are statutes - theft and murder. And this is about right. Imagine all the catholic Mary's On the Half-Shell that would have to be destroyed because they clearly violate the second commandment. So, obviously, does the show "American Idol." Imagine a country that enforces the first Commandment as it would the traffic and tax laws. Is belief better off as a requirement for the full benefits of citizenship, or is it more enriched when individuals come to it on their own, through their own choices? Belief is cheapened when it is mandatory.
For the most part, I have been discussing religion in the public sphere in vagaries and hypotheticals; let us look at one particular religious question that we are debating hotly across the nation right now: gay marriage. Advocates for constitutional amendments at the state and national level are addicted to bringing God into this debate, probably because belief is the only way they have to cover their prejudice. To be argumentative and pedantic, using the bible to legislate against gays in the public sphere is simply fallacious. An argument must stand on its own, and Appeal To Authority is a fallacious argument, even if the authority is King James' heavy edited and redacted variation on the bible. So why is it so important for a Christian to oppose Gay marriage? The only answer I can come up with is that Christians must believe that they will be punished for the actions of others in their congressional district, that because they live in San Francisco, and the city married some 3,000 gay couples, everyone who voted in the Mayoral race in San Francisco is culpable.
How culpable in this Christian system is the individual for another's actions? Does someone committing incest or polygamy in Utah despite my objections (and Utah's Polygamy Czar) still land me in Purgatory, or Hell? (Assuming they exist, and I believe in them) -- Can an abortion down the street damn me? If I have never committed adultery, but I do live in a country where it is legal, am I still culpable?
I would say that this is flawed reasoning at best and that the only clear direction for the confused Christian is to remember God's answer from the whirlwind, in the Book of Job: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?" That is, who are you to assume knowledge of God's system of judgment?
It seems to me that the only just God would be one who holds individuals responsible for their own actions, a God who tells you that vengeance and judgment are his to deal out, not yours. I think it is proper here to remind you just how hard it is to lead a just and moral life, how hard it is to do the right thing, without being responsible for your neighbor.
** When my baby brother got Aplastic Anemia, and we went to New England Medical Center 3 times a week for blood transfusions and chemotherapy, we would drive down the expressway blasting "Back To The Earth," -- it was Our Song. Our Hope.
9 Months later, Aaron returned back to the earth, and now I listen to this song to think about him, and to cry.
© 2006 Will Evans
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28
"A leading world power such as the United States, with almost three hundred million people and huge international responsibiities, goes about as far in a theocratic direction as it can when it satisfies the unfortunate criteria on display in Washington cerca 2006: an elected leader who believes himself in some way to speak for God; a ruling political party that represents religious true believers and seeks to mobilize the churches; the conviction of many voters in the Republican party that government should be guided by religion, and on top of it all, White House implementation of domestic and international political agendas that seem to be driven by religious motivations and biblical worldviews."
Of course, Phillips makes an even stronger case throughout the book by showing examples of science being stripped away in favor of simple minded theories more amenable to Christian ideas of creationism; where Christian arguments about 'dominion' of man over the birds of the air and the animals of the earth and the fish of the sea are used quite seriously by Undersecretaries and commissioners in the Agriculture Dept., Fish and Game, etc, as well as EPA to take species off endangered lists. etc.
It's like a bad dream, and you have captured it here with your customary assertive rhetoric and mix of clearsighted view, clarion call, and logical analysis. I can't believe this essay hasn't been made Editor's Pick; this annoys me greatly. The urgency of the problem is palpable, for even with all the problems confronting the incumbent GOP in both houses of the legislature as well as in the West Wing, they continue to bluster ahead incompetently with their theocratization projects, mealy mouth Apocalyptic propaganda about being God's chosen people and nation, and of course use the fact that Latino immigrants are mostly Catholic instead of protestant subtly as a wedge issue, along with the raw use of language to effect 'divide and conquer' hardball politics.
Good going, Will, I'll see you in the Round Table,where I'm sure this will get a better reading. I hope more people stop by and check out this important article.
"Weep not for a brother deceased;
Our loss is his infinite gain;
A soul out of prison released,
And free from its bodily chain;
With songs let us follow his flight,
And mount with his spirit above,
Escaped to the mansions of light,
And lodged in the Eden of love."
Charles Wesley, Funeral Hymns, 1st Series, 1744
You would have loved Aaron - he was my polar opposite.
I agree with Will's post, but having worked in Washington for a while and learned some things I'd just as soon forget.....
1) I don't think the body of the religious right movement is actually built on religion - much of it is built on a population demographic that is becoming more and more fearful, because they understand less and less of the world around them. The only cure for this is hard, diligent study, but this is no longer a skill we prize nor one that can be reliably exercised by the majority of our citizens. Hence, the core of this movement is an attempt to find some agency that will take the responsibility away from them, and give them simple requirements that they can follow without thought.
This ties in extremely well in the current interplay between the RR movement and science. Science and facts raise too many troubling issues that require too much work. Dogma makes them all go away
2) As far as the interplay between government and the religious right, this one is even easier, if you take a callous viewpoint - tie your governmental power base to this, and it naturally cedes power and control to you - the government absolves people of the need to understand, and the people 'gain' the ability to move 'forward' without the investment that understanding takes. The end result - a much more easily controlled society, for the short term - in the long term, well, there is no long term.....
Here is my ultimate compliment: I wish I had written it. Well done!!
I think Mark makes a very good point...a lot of people want a simple solution to life's problems, and reassurance that life is not a "one shot" deal. Religion and fascism provide those assurances, but the price is loss of freedom.
Unfortunately, life is NOT simple, and a functioning democracy needs an informed electorate to control those who seek to concentrate power. We are getting a textbook lesson at the moment of the consequences if we fail to remain vigilant. We have a powerful weapon against this oppression. The ballot box. We had better start using it.
Mark is right - hearing Bill O'Reilly say that the founding fathers were all christian evangelicals is much easier than actually reading that they were enlightened theists. The easy way out. The Dumming down of america.
When 45% of Americans don't believe in Evolution, houston, we have a problem. Imagine if 45% of American's found it inconvenient to believe in the theory of electro-magnetism or gravity?
Imagine indeed. I wrote a little spoof piece on a related subject a few months ago.
Here is the link.
The Cosmos is a scary place and when you learn how insignificant our galaxy of a few hundred billion stars is in the big picture, and then realize how insignificant our ordinarly little star is in the galaxy, it is humbling. Many people cannot accept that we humans are not special, somehow, singled out by the Great Creator of this place. And that is where religion comes in, telling us how special we are, and how our souls will live on forever. It's a comforting thought, I suppose, if you can believe it.
Those Christians who think we ought to live in a country governed by religion should go live in Iran for a while. See what they think of a religious government when the religion is not their own.
It's important to remember that just because a government is ruled by religious people doesn't mean their religious tenets will be the same as your own. What if America became a Catholic nation that made all the Protestants go to mass? What if it became a Seventh Day Adventist nation that made everyone go to church on Saturday? Would those now screaming for a religious nation object if different religious views than their own were enforced? Or is it as Heather and Mark implied - that this desire for a religious government is really just because some people want easy answers, someone to tell them what is right, and they don't want to think very much about complex problems?
scary is that, one, the Bible teaches
that the first man was created about
6,000 years ago (see: the generations
since Adam.) Two, nearly all evidence
of human history, save archeological,
preceding 4,000 BC is next to impossible
to find.
Since we know man was around long
before 4,000 BC, we conclude the
possibility that the believers, at some time,
removed all traces. How would you like
to have been around to see that?
that you didn't have to dig up,
piece together, and rely upon
assumptions to interpret.
Scientists place the emergence
of modern man at about 100,000
years ago. Doesn't it strike you
as strange that suddenly all
traces of civilization before
4,000 BC are either gone or
buried? I don't know about the
cave paintings in France because
they have been questioned as maybe
a prank. But, if they are real,
there's a perfect example of a
trace that might have been over-
looked. Overlooked by who, you ask?
Well, maybe overlooked by Bible-
toting marauders, hell-bent on
destroying evidence of all
civilizations before 4,000 BC.
to support their absurdities.
It's just a supposition, but
look what they are doing as we
speak, trying to kick science
out of the schools.
Here's another example: To
believe what you see, there
were never any Indian towns
or villages in America. They
have all been wiped out. James-
town remains. Williamsburg
remains. Where are the Indian
villages? The only traces are
cliff dwellings that were
probably too much trouble to
destroy. Today, we would fill
the holes, gunnite them, and
paint over them with sandstone
colored paint. So, it's in the
genes of Christianity to
annihilate "alien" culture.
I am reading Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs and Steel" at the moment. According to him, most of the cultures that existed more than 4000 years ago were hunter/gatherer groups, mostly just small bands. They didn't build towns or monuments that would have survived to modern times. It is true that the first domestication of plants and animals took place around 10000 years ago, and that enabled "sedentary" societies to form. But that happened much later in most places. I think you are right that early structures might well have been torn down by later societies, or conquerors. I doubt that it was a "Christian conspiracy," although I wouldn't put it past those early Christians. They were almost as fanatical as the current bunch!
first a far fetched theory.
Considering the current
circumstances, and believe me,
I don't blame only the Christian
side, (As they say, "It takes
two to tangle,") could be a theory
worth tracking down. Bert,
even a calm and rational man such
as yourself goes so far as to
suggest such a purge would not
be out of character.
So, according to Mr. Diamond,
mankind went from hunter and
gatherer to writer on paper and
pyramid builder in a couple of
centuries. Oh-kay.
After "Guns, Germs, Steel" go over and read his latest, "Collapse," which I have sitting on my coffee table, and I've read the first chapter, but I was so busy finishing the lecture on usable enterprise system design, that I haven't had the chance to get into it. Now I will.
Some of the oldest surviving stone buildings I could think of off the top of my head, in Egypt and Crete, were built around 2500 years B.C., so that is not a couple of centuries since they were hunters and gatherers. It's more like 1500 years.
Of course, there is one guy who (in disagreement with the majority of Egyptologists) says the Sphinx is from 10,500 B.C.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3499/sphinx.htm
Fascinating as this discussion is, may I ask what it has to do with Will's Appeal for Secularism?
Will...I read "Collapse" first, so I'm working my way backwards in Diamond's writings. "Collapse" was absolutely fascinating...the two of them complete the picture of early man. GG&S deals with the development of human societies and "Collapse" describes how some of them failed. I have learned so much reading them!
Edward,
The transition from small groups of hunter-gatherers to tribes, cities and nations engaged in organized food production happened at widely varying times in different locations. In a few places, it never did happen...Australian Aborigines, for example. They remained stone-age hunter-gatherers with no written language until the Europeans arrived.
Amerinds never developed a written language, but they did domesticate plants for food production. I recommend both of Diamond's recent books if you have an interest in the development of early human societies.
My point is that Bible evangelists
have been forcing their views
onto people for a long time and,
that those views not only have
no scientific basis, but have been
proven erroneous time and time again.
The Chrisitian Coalition is nothing new.
I agree, but the current growth in their political power and the aggressive pursuit of their goals is unprecedented in my lifetime.
scientists out of the schools in
retaliation for all that noise they
have been making about CO2
emissons.
If we taught basic reasoning in schools, kids might realize that you can't skid through school, drink through college, and then complain about jobs being outsourced to someplace where education matters.
PS
I have learned to say I am a religious free zone instead of atheist. But I do live in a very rural area and now and then I can't resist saying I am a secular humanist, which leaves the person I am speaking to speechless, they know I must be evil, but don't really know what a secular humanist is.
Thanks for sending me the link to your article, very well written, but it is very difficult to reason with a person who considers faith to be a fact.
I actually sent my children to a private christian school, I had to deprogram them on a daily basis, but the academic standards were high, the music program excellent. I had been working as a classroom volunteer in the local public school. What is being taught. . . . . very little of nothing, but another topic for another time.