CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Proving God by Consensus: My problem wth the Religious Right
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proving God by Consensus: My problem wth the Religious Right

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 

A few decades ago I was awakened at seven o’clock one Sunday morning by the persistent droning of my downstairs door buzzer. I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was.

 

In this instance it was two Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

At the time I bore no animus toward people who presented themselves as fervently religious. Though I deemed them delusional, I respected both their right to their delusion and their need of it. The proselytizers I encountered were more likely to draw pity from me than to provoke my ire.

 

So if I had good reason to be put out by the inconvenience they’d caused me, an inconvenience compounded by the ungodly hour they’d picked to pay a call, my reaction to the elderly and finely attired black couple with soft Georgia accents who greeted me—he with a bible in one hand and a straw hat in the other; she wearing a hat bedecked with white and yellow flowers—wasn’t in the least bit hostile. In fact, while I made it clear that I had no use for the message they were delivering, I was as courteous as I could be. I didn’t want to tamper with their fantasy or hurt their feelings and when I closed the door on them it was very gently.

 

But that was a while back, before religion assumed the weight and influence that it has in our cultural and political affairs and before I understood just where the so-called “True Believers” are coming from.

 

We tend to allow that, unhinged as we may judge them to be, evangelicals, in their efforts to make converts or to bring “more religion” into the culture, are doing the work of a God they feel with genuine confidence to be real. Some of us might even imagine that they care about our salvation. But this isn’t what’s happening. Dealing with their fear of death, a fear exacerbated by 9/11 and the destruction of the myth of American invincibility, and wanting desperately for a God and the potential for eternal life implicit in the concept of God to exist, the real mission of these people isn’t to share a revelation but to validate beliefs they’re not sure of by securing the agreement of others. To prove the existence of God to themselves by achieving a universal consensus on the matter (the only way to achieve something like certainty about anything) is the true aspiration of the religious right.

 

And I resent the manifold ways in which their ambition to, for starters, make a formal theocracy of America—a more than adequate means of certifying their beliefs—is already poisoning the lives of the rest of us.

 

I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another. I’m also talking about the brakes they managed to apply to government sponsored stem-cell research and the role they played in obliging us to endure a George W. Bush for a second term (let alone what his presidency has left in its wake) because he professed to share their faith in Jesus Christ. And I’m referring as well to what turned out to be a politically pivotal quantity of Tea Party candidates that they were instrumental in electing to Congress.

 

And, again, none of this has been, at bottom, to the purpose of spreading a vision (which could maybe have claimed some level of legitimacy), but rather to, in their own minds, ratify by numbers, law or custom, the presence of a deity.

 

Since there remains a sufficient population of heathens to challenge their beliefs and to keep their uncertainty alive, reaching their unspoken goal will only become more urgent for the evangelicals. They will get louder and more insistent. And their successes will be more pernicious. Is a President Rick Perry completely out of the question?

 

I should say that having a few issues of my own with the prospect of death, and quite capable myself of twisting and distorting reality in order to live in the world with a semblance of equilibrium, I can, even under the present conditions, experience some empathy for the Christian right’s agenda. (And I can also appreciate the necessity and durability of religion itself. I’m always taken aback when people whose minds I admire predict that human beings will one day “outgrow” the need for religion, as if it were merely a stage in our evolution. Like the biologists who are looking for a religion gene, they miss the point. For as long as death is a precondition of life, a need for some kind of invented deity, with a plan for mankind—and a collection of rules and practices which, if scrupulously followed, offer the promise of an afterlife—is going to prevail for a large percentage of humanity.)

 

But while I’m not insensitive to the evangelicals’ cause that doesn’t make its increasing encroachment on the lives of the secular any more acceptable to me. I repeat: Is a President Rick Perry out of the question? No. If there was once a time when we could indulge the folks of the Christian right at no substantial cost to ourselves, that’s not the case any longer. Their quest to conscript us into their immortality project has gotten too much out of hand and leaves no room for such generosity. At this point there’s little choice but to do battle with them; to fight their actions at every turn. The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.

post #2 of 5

First you are simplify religion to much, saying it about a fear of death. For some it can be, but for many others it is not about a fear of death or even death. For evangelicals it partly about saving the world, even though Jesus already did it. It also about enlightenment, what I mean about enlightenment is have you ever had a ideal or thought that was excited or gave you passion, and you felt the need to tell others?

 

As a liberal Christian the religious right worry me, because their brand of Christianity is not my brand. That said there are a lot of atheists, more so among the younger generation, then the older, that worry me just as much as any religious fanatics. I am not going to say fanaticism is evil, but it is very powerful. Fanaticism like powerful it must be used with causation.

post #3 of 5

What you're talking about here is the classic conflict between Church and State, and the fact is these 'one-religion states' have already existed in societies stretching back to pretty much the dawn on man. Look up any monarchic state in any era of any culture, and you'll see what I mean. Monarchs were once seen as being put there by divine powers, and their religion was compulsory under their rule. The idea of church and state being separate things is comparatively recent, being floated in the middle ages and arguably only gained traction as a major issue by Martin Luther.

 

The point is, for modern Western society to return to the one-faith state would be almost impossible, or at least would require a huge number of factors to go hideously wrong all in the exact way; something that would be very unlikely, given that more religious and personal beliefs are accepted than at any time in history. In fact, most right-thinking people would be terrified by the idea of a remelding of church and state. The religious right are loud and boisterous because they've never had a bigger struggle to get people's sympathy. It's not some Bond-villain-esque master plan clicking into place here, it's desperation. They don't even represent christians en masse, as Robert pointed out; they're outliers with a few connections and a huge bullhorn, but ultimately they'll never be taken seriously enough to obtain that kind of power.

post #4 of 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

It's not some Bond-villain-esque master plan clicking into place here, it's desperation.



Yeah, it's a raging against the current cultural tides and their increasing irrelevance.

post #5 of 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

What you're talking about here is the classic conflict between Church and State, and the fact is these 'one-religion states' have already existed in societies stretching back to pretty much the dawn on man. Look up any monarchic state in any era of any culture, and you'll see what I mean. Monarchs were once seen as being put there by divine powers, and their religion was compulsory under their rule. The idea of church and state being separate things is comparatively recent, being floated in the middle ages and arguably only gained traction as a major issue by Martin Luther.

 

The point is, for modern Western society to return to the one-faith state would be almost impossible, or at least would require a huge number of factors to go hideously wrong all in the exact way; something that would be very unlikely, given that more religious and personal beliefs are accepted than at any time in history. In fact, most right-thinking people would be terrified by the idea of a remelding of church and state. The religious right are loud and boisterous because they've never had a bigger struggle to get people's sympathy. It's not some Bond-villain-esque master plan clicking into place here, it's desperation. They don't even represent christians en masse, as Robert pointed out; they're outliers with a few connections and a huge bullhorn, but ultimately they'll never be taken seriously enough to obtain that kind of power.


While I agree that it would be nigh impossible for some "Western societies" to return to a "one-faith state", the idea that a 'modern' society can't be one-faith is a bit of a misnomer as there are a good number of 'modern' societies that "promote" monotheistic beliefs.

 

Case in point...

Quote:

Man Arrested for “Being Atheist”

 

As the international community sharpens its focus on Burma and its “opening-up” amid the ongoing release of political prisoners, its near neighbors appear to be heading in another direction.

Among them is Indonesia, which has enhanced its reputation over recent years through its improved handling of human rights, but has raised more than eyebrows when police arrested a 31-year-old atheist for blasphemy.

This was according to an interpretation by police and irritated district officials that Alexander Aan had committed blasphemy for writing “God does not exist…” on the social networking website, Facebook.

 

The charge also had much to do with mob rule. Local Muslims in the West Sumatra district where Aan lived were typically outraged, and attacked him for his comment while he was going to work. Their anger led to the arrest, with police saying the comment had implied God doesn't exist and that this violated Indonesian laws and highlighted the fact that Aan is indeed an atheist. Apparently Aan, employed as a civil servant, also wrote: “If God exists then why do bad things happen?” And: “There should only be good things if God is merciful”.

 

Atheism is also illegal in Indonesia and Aan is looking at a five-year sentence for stating a personal opinion. According to one report, his sins were made all the worse because he had once listed on a job application form that he was a Muslim.

 

His arrest comes amid rising resentment against social networking sites, which have been blamed by local religious courts for triggering extra-marital affairs, leading to a sharp rise in divorce rates.

 

Issues between Muslim hardliners are a constant irritant with the authorities in Indonesia, Malaysia and in southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, although human rights remain a thorny issue across the region.

 

Like Indonesia, communist Vietnam – a relative paradise for atheists – had also won some praise for the release of dissidents, and this included people who were locked-up because they believed in God. But Hanoi still has trouble in coming to grips with its relationships with the modern world.

 

This was highlighted by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which accused Hanoi of carrying out a systematic crackdown in 2011 leading to the arrests of at least 33 people under vaguely worded laws and jailed – despite protections afforded by Vietnam’s own constitution.

 

People ranging from writers and defenders of human rights to land rights and religious activists were harassed, intimidated and in some cases tortured and imprisoned despite

 

Hanoi being a signature to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

It also says that about 40,000 people, including children, are being held in more than 120 detention centers around the country.

Back in Burma, meanwhile, and the release of the political prisoners does represent a stunning turnaround in that country’s political fortunes. But talk of Burma “opening up” seems, at this stage, wildly esoteric.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Proving God by Consensus: My problem wth the Religious Right