You are viewing jaylake

Lakeshore - [religion] Coming back to an old thread, my politics and your religion
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-01-12 05:57
Subject: [religion] Coming back to an old thread, my politics and your religion
Security: Public
Tags:family, personal, politics, religion
Lengthy discussions with blzblack, cathshaffer and daveraines in comments a while back, largely on the Atheism, cancer and me post. blzblack in particular raised some issue challenging my views on religion to which I have meant to respond, but it was cathshaffer who made a point that caused me to stop and carefully consider my approach.

She said:
you view religion through an intensely political lens. This only makes sense, because you are a person interested in politics. However, I also think it can color your perceptions to the negative, because you are seeing what comes up on your politically selective radar, and because most authentic religious practice is *actively orthogonal* to religion or contains philosophies which are at opposite ends of the artificial blue-red spectrum that is created in the old sausage factory (like social justice <--> respect for life). You are a very experienced and wise person, but because your life experience has not included a strong faith in god, that whole experience is somewhat of a black box. Your ideas about what is inside that black box are sometimes quite dismissive, such as an assertion that people hold faith for reasons of comfort, and that their choice is not challenging or difficult

To which my answer is ultimately, well yes. But it's a very important yes.

In some aspects, I have clearly not expressed myself well enough yet. I don't mean to be dismissive when I say that at least some people hold faith for reasons of comfort. That's demonstrable on the face of it. The evangelical message, at least in my lifetime, has ranged from "Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace" to "Pray for a red Mercedes." If such messages, along with the Prosperity Gospel and the Rapture mythos, aren't comfort seeking, then cathshaffer and I have very different definitions of "comfort". The primary source talks about comforting the afflicted, albeit in a somewhat different sense of comfort.

Likewise, blzblack has challenged a number of my assertions about the provability of God, and whether it is intellectually honest to even consider the question. I take the pink unicorn argument myself — absent some material evidence it is no more incumbent upon me to consider the existence of God to be a provable assertion that it is incumbent upon me to consider the existence of pink unicorns to be a provable assertion. The difference is God has a posse. The existence of faith, and more particular Faith as a political and cultural artefact, is demonstrable and powerful.

And this is where cathshaffer hit it on the head when she said that I "view religion through an intensely political lens". Of course I do. I stand outside the black box of religion by deliberate self selection. Her faith, or yours, is a private matter that has no effect on me, and is of interest to me only insofar as we are friends. What happens behind the door of your home, church, synagogue, mosque, temple or forest grove is between you, your temporal lobes and your vision of your spirituality. My faith was heavily inculcated into me with early and severe churching which I rejected over time in my grade school years and teens, and have never looked back on with longing.

To argue that because I stand outside the black box of religion means I'm misinterpreting is beside the points I keep trying to make. To be clear, the fault here is my own, not cathshaffer's or anyone else's. I have been unclear in much of my rhetoric. I have no grounds or reason to criticize religion or faith from within the box. An it harm none, believe what you will. Not my concern.

But because I am an intensely political person, and religion is an intensely privileged, political force in contemporary American society, I do have strong opinions about the impact of religion on my life and yours. They are political, not faith-based.

When your faith matters to me is when it spills out of the sacred space and influences the secular sphere. When children are allowed to die because a faith refuses medical intervention, for instance. That's murder, pure and simple. That's a cheap example, because it's easy to set up and difficult to defend.

But how different is that from the distorting effect of the Christian Right on medical research? Over the past decade we've ceded dominance in stem cell medicine to England, South Korea and other countries, simply because of a minority religious view. That directly undermines our medical and scientific systems.

Or in my own personal case, back in the mid-1990s, when Mother of the Child had a miscarriage wherein the pregnancy would not spontaneously abort. She carried a necrotic fetus for four weeks. The required procedure was a DNC DNX, which due to pressure from the Christian Right is no longer taught to most new doctors because it's primarily an abortion procedure. Neither the public nor the Catholic hospitals in town would allow it to be performed, even under our circumstances, due to religious pressure. We had one option, and in a smaller city than Austin, we would have had none. if you've ever prayed aganst abortion or given a dollar to Operation Rescue, your religious beliefs could have killed my wife. And there was no child's life at stake. That is a distorting effect of religion on the secular sphere that has left me angry to this day, more than fifteen years later.

I could go on with these examples, as I so often do — the decline in science education and awareness; the proud know-nothingism of Palinite conservatives backed by Biblical rectitude; the effect of End Times theology on Bush foreign policy. My point is, religion is intensely political. It affects everything we do as a society. It Christianity is intensely privileged in the political process — an assertion my Christian friends sometimes seem to find boggling, but how many avowed atheists serve in elective office? How many avowed churchgoers? 97.3% of the members of Congress avow a faith, 88.9% some form of Christianity.

We're still arguing about evolution in American society, with a rate of denialism matched only by the country of Turkey. That's a question that shouldn't even be asked in a rational culture. Religion distorts political, educational and legal processes every day in America.

So of course I view religion through a political lens. Your beliefs are your own, and I back them to the hilt as part of my own view of civil liberties and Constitutional rights. But the consequences of your beliefs write themselves large on my political life every time Texas rejects a textbook, or a child is taught Intelligent Design, or two people I love cannot marry because your God who hates shrimp also hates fags, or the life of someone I love is endangered because medical decisions have been taken away from doctors and patients in the name of one nonsecular view of the inception of life.

Keep your black box with my blessings. But for the love of God, just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true. Don't write it into our country's laws, our curricula, our healthcare guidelines and our court rulings. I'll try to keep my rantings out of your black box in return.

Really, we're not that different. I only believe in one less god than you do. Or perhaps one less pink unicorn.

Post A Comment | 73 Comments | Add to Memories | Share | Link



User: daveraines
Date: 2010-01-12 19:27 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Evidences for God constitute a whole different (usually fruitless) discussion, and I wish you hadn't thrown the trivial pink unicorn in. But I would like to say two things about the political angle.

1. What you're complaining about is the fact that we live in a democracy. "Religion" is organized faith, faith is deeply integrated in a believer's life, and cannot be separated from behavior, including voting. In my own denomination, the Pacific Northwest area is generally liberal, but unable to liberalize the global denomination in matters like the treatment of gays, because we are outnumbered. Do I like this? I do not. But it's the rules of the road. There are lots of evangelicals, and in a democracy, numbers matter.

Of course the Constitution is also set up to preserve the rights of the minority, and we can hope that the Constitution matters, too. Also stories of pain like the one you shared are not only important in their own right but as mind-changers.

2. This is all deeply ironic, because the Bible does in fact address political matters - but does so by setting up a counterculture, a protest against Empire. Christianity is supposed to be a place where the poor are blessed / honorable, the hungry are fed, prisoners are set free, shalom is granted, the rich give freely to the poor, and Christ brings all these blessings in the face of Caesar and his oppressive minions (who kill him, but he wins anyway).

Christianity functions really well as a place of power for an oppressed remnant (cf. MLK and civil rights); not so well when we're in charge of the wheels of state. From way back in the Old Testament, the people of God end up in trouble when they possess the land, and the same may be true today.
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-12 20:26 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Throwing out the pink unicorn question for the moment (though I know you see how the point looks from my end), I'll respond to your other comments.

1) We do live in a democracy. But some of the issues most cherished by the Christian-identified political segment in this country are purely religious, not political. For example, there is no support (or even a rational basis for support) of evolution denial outside of a religious framework. That's no more of a political issue than the presence of Thetans in your bloodstream, pace Scientology. Yet the rest of us in this here democracy have to sustain that idiocy through election cycle after election cycle, through lawsuit after lawsuit. That's a clearcut example of how religion perniciously influences politics and education.

More controversial, but still under the same rubric, abortion opposition. The absolutist position which dominates GOP politics has very little secular support. There is a *huge* slippery slope of developmental biology, ethics and human rights around when and how to define acceptable abortion, but the religious perspective has distorted the democratic and medical-scientific process all my life, including quite specifically my own story of pain.

So I think it's a bit disingenuous to say, faith is part of democracy, and therefore I must accept its role. When faith breeds patent idiocy, such as evolution denial; or deadly misdirection, such as the distortions in women's health and reproductive rights; it deserves to be called out. Otherwise we might as well accept Flat Earthers into discussions about satellite traffic control.

Mind you, I'm very clear that faith is not the only source of patent idiocy in our society or politics. But faith has that special imprimatur of divine approval which can in some cases so readily and demonstrably exempt its practioners from examining the consequences of their own beliefs, or considering how they might be improved. As an atheist and an empiricist, I don't have the luxury of rectitude. Being human, I fall into rectitude far too often, but it's not socially sanctioned or privileged the way religious rectitude is. My errors are entirely my own, and I cannot defend them with Scripture.

2) With you all the way on that one.

Edited at 2010-01-12 08:27 pm (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-12 20:31 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
To put my last comment more succinctly, I don't think being a voting member of a democracy is a license to be an idiot. Unfortunately, for some people their religious framework enables and privileges idiocracy in a way that is inherently impervious to argument.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: daveraines
Date: 2010-01-12 20:58 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Woops! I need to be more precise in what I say.

>> deserves to be called out

Absolutely, and that's important, essential, democratic, and (in my case) required by faith. To be unassailable is too much privilege indeed.

>> therefore I must accept its role

I think you must by the nature of things accept that it HAS a role; the question is, what role? I suppose it would be easier if we all locked up our faith inside closed doors and divorced our life outside those doors from our life inside them; but that's not healthy and not gonna happen, and besides, it leaves you with slaves in England and America, kids working in the coal mines, and blacks in the back of the bus. Personally, I think its role should involve speaking truth to power on behalf of the powerless. But that gets us back into the thorns - because the evangelical argument is that fetuses are essentially powerless human beings.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-12 21:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I think you must by the nature of things accept that it HAS a role; the question is, what role?

Fair enough. My basic assessment of human intelligence and character is that we should all aspire not to be deliberately stupid, yanno? That colors my view of politics and society alike, with or without respect to religion's role therein. And thus I get so frustrated with hypocrisy, disingenousness and deliberate stupidity.

Personally, I think its role should involve speaking truth to power on behalf of the powerless.

That is a line I can get behind.

But that gets us back into the thorns - because the evangelical argument is that fetuses are essentially powerless human beings.

Granting that, what is the basis of their argument? A faith-based belief that isn't inherent in scripture? I've never seen a Biblical reference to zygotes. So from my point of view they make an argument with poor empirical grounding and a no-compromises perspective which, judging from the political history of the last forty years, was in substantial part crafted by Republican strategists to fire up a voting base to help recover from the disaster that was Richard Nixon.

Slavery, child labor, the environment — those are quite properly the concerns of all decent citizens, regardless of their religion. But the fate of a cell? And what about the powerlessness of my wife in the face of Evangelical decision about her healthcare?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: daveraines
Date: 2010-01-12 21:33 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Here's my first response: Uncle! *taps out*

Here's my second: Let me get out of my own mind and into other people's as best I can - There are a few Bible verses a person can cite re the "zygote" issue (e.g. Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5), but as far as I know, the main line of argument comes from Catholic and scholastic theology; that is, Bible interpretation based on reason and experience. They're quite consistent about this "culture of life," opposing the death penalty and euthanasia as well as abortion. [Note well: I am NOT an expert on this. Anyone who knows more is welcome to chime in!]

The rub comes in when we face new cultures and new technologies and new knowledge with traditional wisdom as our only guide, instead of adding reason and experience to the mix. (That part's my own mind.)

Re: your wife's powerlessness - I'm trying to imagine some of my evangelical friends hearing this story, and in my imagination, at least, they wouldn't object to the D&X. Of course your point is that the SYSTEM is distorted because of the abortion debate, and at that point, I can't imagine what they'd say.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-01-12 21:44 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
They're quite consistent about this "culture of life," opposing the death penalty and euthanasia as well as abortion.

I don't know about the Catholic perspective, but it's my understanding that support for the death penalty polls pretty well among conservative-identified Evangelical Christians who are opposed to abortion. Which strikes me as "death for deserving", an odd position for people to take when they claim to look to God for judgment.

The rub comes in when we face new cultures and new technologies and new knowledge with traditional wisdom as our only guide, instead of adding reason and experience to the mix. (That part's my own mind.)

This is one of the reasons I like you so much

Of course your point is that the SYSTEM is distorted because of the abortion debate, and at that point, I can't imagine what they'd say.

I don't really care what they'd say, frankly. They deliberately distorted the system to meet their own religious ends at the expense of public good and common freedom, and it endangers and kills women every year. That's indefensible on the face of it.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Josh English
User: joshenglish
Date: 2010-01-13 00:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Among most American Catholics, opposition to abortion is tied to opposition to the death penalty. Both stem from the idea that human life is sacred.

Sadly, among the Christo-fascist noise machine, it's all save babies, let mothers die, and kill black people for Jesus.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



joycemocha
User: joycemocha
Date: 2010-01-13 04:04 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The Catholic consistency about the "seamless garment" (respect for life) is spotty, depending upon who you're talking to/about. The official policy is the "seamless garment" of opposition to abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty....but the reality can be vastly different. That said, I've known more Catholics who hold to a consistent culture of life than I have anti-abortion Protestants who also oppose the death penalty.

Some of this in Catholicism also depends very heavily on the background culture of the person/parish in question. What outsiders don't see within the Catholic church is the degree to which ethnicity shapes the internal politics, not just in the American church but worldwide. The more authoritarian a person's background is, the more likely they'll hold an anti-choice and pro-death penalty point of view--Catholic or Protestant.

After my traumatic experiences with authoritarian Protestantism, I just simply won't deal with Catholic leaders who want to drag me and the Church back into that morass. Still waiting to see what's going to happen there.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: daveraines
Date: 2010-01-13 16:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I've known Catholics who quietly rebel in, for instance, the use of birth control, but was not aware of the deeper currents. Thanks for the update.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
May 2013
2012 appearances