May 15, 2007 in opinion, snark
“Seen here attending to his duplicitous egomania, right-wing extremist and one of the major public figures responsible for the inherent dichotomy between organized religion and spirituality, Jerry Falwell passed on today, only to discover that if ‘God’ really does exist, He probably doesn’t live in the tiny little box that Falwell defined for Him after all.”
Apr 08, 2007 in GodNot™
Ah, you came back. Thanks for that. This won’t be so long, because the thing that makes a group of people tend towards the dismissive is fairly easily identified.
Neoconservatives are very quick to dismiss the “Blogging Against Theocracy” endeavor as one born of fear. We are apparently so afraid of Christianity, that even allowing a piffle—a tish, a skosh, a teeny bit—of it in our lives is too much to bear. Yes, yes, I know. It’d be a wonderful life if everything were so obvious! But of course, despite its inherent untruth, this argument is the most commonly chosen because it is the one stance with which they can readily identify.
One of the things which continually strikes me as I discuss “faith” with my religious friends, is that they tend to forget the entire premise of faith: that that in which they believe might well not be true. For if it was inherently true, there would be no need to have “faith” in its truth. If all the elements of a religious belief were known, scientific fact, faith would cease to exist, replaced by knowledge. And yet repeatedly, evangelicals speak about their “faith” in terms of what they know. They know the Word of their God is Inspired. They know He died for their sins. They know He rose from the grave. And yet, somehow, they wrap it all up and refer to this supposed knowledge as faith, implying that their knowledge may well be unfounded!
Yeah, have a sip of that wine or beer or whatever. This stuff makes my head hurt, too.
This happens because so very many of them practice their one true universal talent of sciolism on themselves. Oh certainly, there are many believers who understand what their faith is about, and who appreciate the inherent risk of believing in something that others don’t believe in. But there are many more whose faith amounts to the steadfast belief that what they think they know is right and true and pure and immutable and holy and…and…and…well, it’s just right! Because they’ve been taught that it is right in Sunday School, told that it is right in their households, and instructed that nonbelievers (and oftentimes those who practice the same religion in different ways) are simply wrong and going to Hell. I can’t even count the number of times during my own childhood when I was frustrated with my friends for not believing in our own cultish practice of Christianity, that I was told something to the effect, “Oh, don’t worry about them. They’re not going to share the Kingdom of Heaven with you.”
Answers like that, and the rebuttals you see to this endeavor from the evangelicals, are easy. I don’t think they’re malicious by any means—and let’s do keep in mind that most of these people merely do what they believe is the right thing to do!—but such responses are a form of fear-mongering. And fear is the root of sciolism. After all, the most formative periods of growth in any religion are during those times when it’s being persecuted. It’s a human nature thing: we perform more efficiently, and often more effectively, under duress. And goodness knows that with the ease of making a few Moslem extremists look like an entire religious society (a theocracy, no less) is set against “America” (which to fundamentalists means “Christians”), the neoconservatives are under a lot of duress. Even acknowledging that there is at least one religion in the world that is practiced by more people than those who subscribe to the tenets of their own faith must have been difficult.
One last sip. We’re almost done.
So now, they claim their religion is being attacked on all sides. All they want to do is have a little prayer, and we “unfairly” want to keep them from doing so. Read Bob’s interpretation of the tenets of this endeavor that I shared with you yesterday. It is written from fear. We’re out to get them. We’re out to force them to change their ways. We’re out to undo all the good they’re doing. We’re out to redefine their definition of “good” and “right”. And it’s oh-so-easy, and ever so disingenuous, to describe us in this manner, because Bob and people like him honestly fear the fact that responsible members of society might hold a faith that differs from their presumption of knowledge. That’s a by-product of sciolism, for they have failed to understand what we’re talking about, just as they fail to understand the true intent behind the actions of church leaders on the national level. People like Bob may not intentionally be wanting a theocratic state (and for what it’s worth, I believe his assertion in this regard), but I do not believe the same is true for those for whom neoconservatism is a business.
But what is most striking—and of most concern—to me is the depth to which these fundamentalists fear themselves. If they truly had faith in their religion and their ability to teach and enforce its tenets, then what would they have to fear by not infusing public education, political discourse, and state and federal legislation with their religious beliefs, practices, and interpretations? If their God is truly all-powerful, what risk is there in leaving the religious education of their children to home and church? Let us not forget, that no matter what happens in the world at large or in their private lives, they will say that it was God’s Will that whatever-it-was came to pass. And if that’s really true, what is the harm in leaving science to scientists, literature to academics, and religion to the priests and ministers?
If they truly have faith in their chosen way of life, then people like myself would simply be targets for that “Go Ye Therefore” doctrine, right? We wouldn’t be “the enemy”, and neither would anyone else. Instead, due to their sciolistic review of their own religion, “preach the gospel” has become “make up a new ‘science’ and try to teach it” and “attempt to pass anti-abortion legislation instead of trying to extend the definition of ‘life’”. Because those things are easier to do, dismissively treating dissenting views as reactionary.
It’s easier, you see, because that way, proponents of their “faith” will band together and work harder for their “cause” under this manufactured duress, as opposed to having faith, even in themselves. Fear has become the new faith for them, and Fear is a much more demanding god than what they had before.
A pity, that.
{published on Mock, Paper, Scissors as well}
<Technorati Tag: blog against theocracy>
Apr 07, 2007 in GodNot™
Sit back, grab a beer or a glass of wine, turn the lights down, put on some quiet music, and imagine with me for a moment:
Imagine a world where people of diverse ideas can discuss important topics without burning straw men. . . .a world in which our natural, innate curiosity is shared by adult members of all political and idealogical persuasions. . . .a world in which it is by no means satisfying to glance at a thing—an idea, a principle, a philosophy—and consider it known. . . .a world in which a dismissive attitude towards the things which question one’s sense of normality, emotional security, or even personality, would be a foreign concept.
Imagine a world, in other words, devoid of the vagaries of all those things which have become the hallmarks of neoconservative philosophy: hypocrisy, duplicity, intolerance, sanctimony, deceit, guile, pretense, and sciolism.
Now, take a sip of whatever that is you chose to drink for this, and bear with me, because I’m about to address something that most, if not all, of us participating in this Blog Against Theocracy have been tap-dancing around, to our collective detriment. For in our attempt to be respectful and considerate, we have left this relatively indefensible word, “theocracy”, dangling out there, ripe for the picking. After all, there is, to all perception, no overt movement to set aside the First Amendment, so when we use this word “theocracy”, it is easily dismissible by those invested with a solopsism so self-definitive that they truly do not understand the relevance of differing opinion. And as a result, our mission is undermined at the outset, victim to the sciolistic tendencies of evangelicals, who honestly believe that in cursorily perusing a few posts relating to this endeavor, they understand not only our mission, but our impetus and our history.
And I’m very sorry, but there’s really only one religion in America which attempts to suborn the separation of Church and State instead of confronting it directly. I don’t need to name it. Theirs is a facile stance for argument, you understand, because it inherently makes all counter-arguments reactionary, and our being reactionary is something the more juvenile among them take great pride in pointing out.
Another sip, if you will, because I must beg your patient indulgence in explaining this.
I know that I was very clear, when I announced on Clean Cut Kid, that I would be participating in this endeavor. I said:
I believe that this is an important endeavor to support, and please note the careful wording of the intention behind this movement. We are not anti-religious, or even necessarily predisposed against any particular relgion. [sic, sorry]
Oh, they included a description of what it is they’re against. It isn’t any stuff that constitutes a theocracy, but they’re apparently so repulsed even a whiff of Christian beliefs being expressed publicly or informing public policy that they’re calling it “theocracy”:
* religious discrimination (not sure what this means–disparaging those who worship government?)
* end-of-life care (i.e. kill the disabled and infirm at will)
* reproductive health decisions without legal restraint (i.e. kill your baby if it interferes with your sexual fulfillment)
* academic integrity (i.e. vehemently reject anything the Bible says, no matter how much scientific sense it makes, in favor of anything that fits an atheistic worldview, no matter how little sense it makes)
* sound science (i.e. embrace naturalism)
* respect for all families (i.e. whether they’re a family or not, let them call themselves one, because feeling good trumps all facts or truths)
* the right to worship, or not (a right guaranteed and enjoyed by all Americans, unless you are a Christian who wants to express your faith in public)
But my point here is not what or how Bob thinks. Far from it, for Bob and everyone else are quite welcome to their own thoughts. Bob is merely an example of how certain people think, or fail to think. I don’t even care that he is a devout Christian, for even more fundamental than that, Bob is a sciolist. That is, one who indulges himself in superficial knowledgability, both to his own detriment, and to ours. A rational discussion on this subject cannot actually be held with sciolists, for they do little but utter rhetoric while pretending such utterance invests them not only with holiness, but with the right to expect all others to subscribe to their belief in what is holy. Sciolists will skim over a dissenting writing, or worse yet, just hear about it, and presume that not only can they rationally refute it, but that they can also argue the dissenting point and play “devil’s advocate”.
It is in this way that our discussion of the imminent theocracy in America is immediately curtailed, for when we talk, or write, or post, we are precluded from effective communication by the very act of intentional, willful, directed ignorance—sciolism, in more succinct terms. And as long as Bob and people like him indulge themselves in this sanctimonious pretense of understanding things which they dismissively ignore and impugn, we will continue to have to operate on the same level as political extremists. And what is most aggravating about that is the fact that working to protect the First Amendment is at least philosophically as centrist as one can be.
Oh, by all means. You need another drink? No worries. I’ll wait for you. Like I said, this will take a while.
Next: the roots of sciolism ~ {these posts are all mirrored at Mock, Paper, Scissors, by the way}
<Technorati Tag: blog against theocracy>
Apr 06, 2007 in GodNot™
Over the past couple of days, in preparation for participating in this Blogswarm Against Theocracy, I have had several conversations with friends and acquaintances on the subject of theocracy in general. As the majority of these friends are Christians, the conversation always got off to a bit of a rough start, but ironically, every single one ended with my friend’s assertion that indeed, a theocratic state wouldn’t be beneficial for this country, and quite often included an expression of exasperation at how various state legislatures, municipal governments, and even federal entities persistently attempt to hijack public forums and taxpayer monies to promote obviously religious agenda. For my experiences with my friends, and from what I read online, in the paper, and in national magazines, the Christian public at large doesn’t see a need for a theocratic state, and honestly resents taxpayer monies being used to promote such agendas. Personally of course, I believe they’re right to be offended by the actions of their own elected leaders and church leaders. There are two points that I believe to be the most fundamental to this issue:
1. Acting Against the Spirit of the Law. I know history isn’t everyone’s favorite subject, but think back to the reason why our “First Freedom” was written as: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” {emphasis mine} After having literally fled (in some cases) from persecution by the Church of England, our founding fathers saw fit to write this as the first Amendment to our Constitution. It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand the impetus behind it. Religion is a highly personal thing that doesn’t require a separate branch of government. But while the responsibility is specifically vested in Congress by this Amendment, is there any doubt as to the intent of this Amendment? No one religion should hold sway over another.
So today, we have a theoretically duly-elected president who considers himself and the entire Executive Branch as a separate Rule of Law, unconstrained by the checks and balances found in the Constitution, and specifically believing that he is above the Congress. He, then, being a religious character, begins supporting the actions of specific religious organizations, providing funding for them under the cover of carefully-defined special projects exclusively awarded to religious organizations that meet his definition of religion—that is Christian. By recognizing that Amendment I doesn’t apply to him and believing that he is in fact above Congress, he has effectively jeopardized the spirit of the Amendment.
2. An Inherent Expression of Idealogical Weakness. The kids that throw rocks at other kids on the playground, or push kids out of their swings or off the merry-go-round, kick sand in other kids’ eyes, etc don’t really exercise their power. That they think they do merely connotes their lack of discretionary thinking, for what they really show is their weaknesses: their inability to confront their peers one-on-one, face-to-face, with a general courtesy that society expects us to show to everyone. As well, they obviously show their lack of self-control.
And while some will consider it puerile, I make this analogy because it is exactly relevant. The current administration won neither election legitimately, knowing full well that their weakness in the public vote would cost them an election. And their cowardice is just as transparent in its dealings with Congress. Think carefully on this for a moment. Our president is an outspoken evangelical Christian, and the example he sets for other evangelicals is to ram-rod their beliefs down everyone else’s throats instead of working in responsible and acceptable ways to sway the public opinion in their favor. The favoritism to Christian evangelicals creates an environment in which other religions are marginalized, if not alienated.
I think this is an important issue, again not because of anyone’s particular religiousness, but because of how those religious beliefs are being inflicted upon the population. Here in South Dakota, for example, prior to the mid-term elections, members of our State Legislature first attempted to have an abortion ban ratified with no public vote. Then naturally, when that was disallowed, the “pro-life” crowd used every tactic they could to strong-arm the vote in their favor—to the point that they lost the moderate vote and thereby the election, I might add. And what’s most embarrassing about all that is the fact that our State Constitution already carries a clause that if, at the Federal level, a reversal of Roe v. Wade takes place, our State will automatically follow suit. The entire year-long affair was an unconscionable waste of taxpayer money, promoted by legislators who refused to listen to their own constituents, just for the benefit of “making their mark” in State and national politics.
What We Can Do About It.
There’s no denying that the vast majority of our founding fathers were Christians, or at least believers in some religion. There’s certainly a lot of evidence in government traditions (swearing on the Bible as witnesses in court trials, swearing on some holy book when taking public office, “In God We Trust” on our currency, and so on and so forth). Obviously, religious sentiment is strong in our government, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. No rational person even resents government officials being personally religious per se. It is only when one religious belief is specifically promoted, encouraged, or supported above others that the problems begin.
Good people can do good things for their communities without any one religion being sanctioned to conduct any particular program. And in fact, the example provided by this administration in that regard is exactly the wrong one to be following. Its actions merely exemplify its disregard for the founding principles of this country and its inherent idealogical weakness. If you’re a religious person, do good deeds in the name of your Creator as you are bidden. But please don’t support legislation in your States and communities that would set one particular religion above another. Your contract with your God is unbounded by the dictates of your government, and the personal impetus is far more valuable than a state or federal sanction.
Would you really be a better worshiper if your government told you which faith to believe in?
{cross-posted to the Mock, Paper, Scissors}
<Technorati Tag: blog against theocracy>
