Paul to MLK: Go Fuck Yourself
OK, so let me get this straight. According to Paul, all religion is stupid and dangerous superstition, and anyone who disagrees is supinely polishing George Bush's scepter. I'm sure that would be news to Bill Moyers, one of the first and most persistent mainstream critics of Bush policies. And an ordained Baptist minister. Somebody shut Bill's pie-hole before he destroys America again!
I'm not sure who Paul's talking about when he says that our argument is primarily about whether "rhetoric with manipulative religious themes. . . should therefore presumably be a part of political discourse by politicians." Eh? Really? That's what we've been arguing about? Well, damn. You were right all along. Hallelujah! I've seen the light! Devious manipulation using religious rhetoric is baaaaaaaaad.
As I've said several times, Paul needs to stop arguing with strawmen. I know you atheists are tempted to believe that all the world's evil comes from religion, but this is just adolescent petulance. This debate started with my criticism of #3 for wetting his pants over ONE episode of ONE newsmagazine exploring a religious topic. It continued with my observation that Gerson, while not one of my favorite people, had made a moderate and reasonable case for religion in the cited column. If I ever parlayed that into praise of Gerson's religious-themed speechwriting or his Bush sycophancy, I missed it. Apparently, my atheist friends cannot stand to live in a world where they are even reminded that religion exists or where religious believers make mild-mannered arguments in their own defense. As Paul goes on to say, "religion itself would be better off if religion were left out of public political discourse by politicians." So long Abe Lincoln. Goodbye, William Jennings Bryan. Seeya, MLK, wouldn't wanna be ya. I really do appreciate it when atheists start telling us believers how to live our lives and whether we have any right to engage in politics. Thank ya massa.
Reduced to its elements, Paul's argument is profoundly illiberal and undemocratic. Politicians (right and left) use religious rhetoric because Americans are religious. American Christians participate in politics because this is a democracy, and that's what we let citizens do. While we set constitutional bounds on the policies believers can impose (school prayer, etc.), we don't force them to pretend that they're people they're not just to engage in political debate. I hate the religious right as much as the next guy--hell, it's my religion they're screwing up. But I will defend their right to speak up for what they believe in even if (and usually when) I disagree with it. If they're being manipulative, the answer is to explain why and how. That's how the system works. If you ban them from politics, it just makes them madder and gives credence to their victimology.
I don't think I need to offer you my personal faith testimony to make that case. For the record, I'm a pretty conventional liberal Protestant. But this isn't really about that. It's about whether we liberals are so obsessed with the evils of the Bush administration that we can no longer think rationally or discriminately about the place of religion in modern life. I can think of one liberal who has been quite thoughtful on that issue over the years. His name is Bill Moyers.
posted by tenaciousmcd @ 8:57 PM
6 Comments:
"Paul to MLK: Go Fuck Yourself."
Mmmm. I don't remember ever writing that. A blog search turns up no results. Where did you get that?
Or is that a...... straw man argument, you know the classic kind where you take someone else's argument, turn it into a weak representation, and then easily destroy it?
Hey, but a straw man argument is OK, since we live in a mere rhetorical and imaginary world where we battle over mere symbols. Those symbols may be exaggerated and take the form of words like "Paul to MLK: Go Fuck yourself" or take names like Baal, or Rah, or Zeus or Yahweh or Allah. Never mind none of these ever existed, except in various people's imaginations. The important thing is that we cannot be good moral citizens and society would have more conflict and suffering were we not to imagine those symbols as representations of some greater truth, even though the truth often gets lost in translation and a lot of untruths and suffering result.
In the end, unlike Moyers (I recognized that Moyers position differed from mine) and you, I think religion itself (as it is widely practiced) on balance does more harm than good, and while an MLK, a Gandhi, a Moyers or a TMcD occasionally come along and battle bigotry or other forms of injustice within their own societies -- usually the bigotry or racism of the dominating religion which they profess -- they are too far and few in between in my mind to claim that religion on balance is good and ends up justifying our better angels.
In the case of Gandhi (I know you didn't mention him, but he's an MLK type, or rather MLK is a Gandhi type), his religiously cloaked arguments helped to free India of British colonial control because a majority of every religious sect there could agree on that goal, but after the Brits bugged out, his principles were not strong enough to prevent religious-based sectarian bloodbaths and a division of India that persists today (see this story from August 26, 2007). In the end I cannot help but feel that India would have been better off without the religious differences.
MLK also had some success, but his dream is still no where close to being realized. Racism and segregation (partly based on religion) still abound in America. In fact, the Reagan revolution began with an in-your-face speech in Mississippi touting states' rights and God in the very place where several civil rights workers had been killed. It then swept on from there to undue much of MLK's work. So, in this case, a battle or two may have been won early on, but the other side has regrouped and the war still goes on and its outcome is still in doubt, along with religion's overall role in the conflict.
To sum up: The exceptional MLK, Gandhi, Moyers and TMcD over all goooooooood, but religion over all baaaaaaaaaaad.
TMcD,
Here's a list you might find interesting. Here are the various hot spots in the world right now that I've been able to find (current war zones or areas where there is an uneasy truce). Naturally, there is more behind each conflict than just religion, but religion is a significant component of each of them, if not the primary component:
1. Afghanistan: Radical Muslims vs. Moderate Muslims vs. Christian occupation forces
2. Bosnia: Serbian Orthodox Christians vs. Roman Catholics vs. Muslims
3. Cyprus: Christians (Greek Orthodox) vs. Muslims (Turks)
4. East Timor: Christians (Roman Catholic) vs. Muslims
5. India: Animists vs. Hindus vs. Muslims vs. Sikhs
6. Indonesia: Christians vs. Muslims
7. Iraq: Kurds vs. Shiite Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims vs. Western Christians
8. Israel: Jews and Christians vs. Muslims
9. Ivory Coast: Muslims vs. Indigenous vs. Christian
10. Kashmir: Hindus vs. Muslims
11. Kosovo: Serbian Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims
12. Kurdistan: Christians (including Chaldeans and Assyrian Orthodox) vs. Muslims
13. Lebanon: Christians vs. Muslims
14. Macedonia: Macedonian Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims
15. Nigeria: Christians vs. Animists vs. Muslims
16. Northern Ireland: Protestants vs. Catholics
17. Pakistan: Sunni vs. Shiite Muslims
18. Philippines: Christians vs. Muslims
19. Russia (Chechnya): Russian Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims
20. South Africa: Animists vs. "Witches"
21. Sri Lanka: Buddhists vs. Hindus
22. Sudan: Animists vs. Christians vs. Muslims
23. Thailand: Buddhists vs. Muslims
24. Uganda: Animists vs. Christians vs. Muslims
You'll be happy to know that there is one conflict in the world that I can think of involving a secular government vs. religion:
25. Tibet: Communists vs. Buddhists
I ask you. Is it really far-fetched for me to think that over all religion does more damage than good? Out of the 25 major conflicts going on in the world right now, only 1 that I can think of can be laid at the feet of the non-religious. I hate to add up all the deaths and miseries these other religious conflicts are causing. It is immense.
PS—Please note the nuance: my argument has been that religion does more damage than good, not the strawman that all relgion is always bad.
On a re-read of your post, I see I failed to respond to your charge that I'm advocating that religious persons be "banned" from religious public discourse. There is a difference between saying that religion doesn't really encourage our better angels, as well as that it would be better if the electorate wouldn't expect or wish to hear religious arguments from politicians, and saying that religious discourse should be banned. I support, and always will support, dialogue, argument and education rather than fiat. Of course, dialogue and argument require dialogue and argument.
In addition, I think your personal views on your own religion are important here. If you're going to argue, as you have, that religion encourages our better angels, then presumably that includes you as one of the "religious". It seems to me that you should be willing to state what your specific religious views are so that we might all know: first of all, if you meet the traditional definition of a Christian as it has been more or less defined since AD 321, and second of all, how it encourages your better angels.
This isn't some theoretical argument here. I've laid out my belief. I don't believe in god. I can look at the Nicene Creed -- the most authoritative, universal, and enduring definition of a Christian since AD 321 despite the minor differences in wording between the Greek versions of 321 and 381 and the later Latin version -- and say that other than the fact that there probably was a guy named Jesus who claimed he was the son of god and that he was crucified on a cross with the permission of the Roman puppet governor Pontius Pilate, the rest of the Credo is pure fantasy and never happened (Non Credo). Presto, I'm not religious and I fail to see how not having faith in what is virtually assured of being false makes me or society any more morally repugnant. Whatever better or worse angels I have, they are related to that belief.
Likewise, if you don't believe that Christ was literally the Son of God, that Christ literally died for our sins, that he literally went to the pit of hell and that he literally rose on third day..., then you have to say "Non Credo too. And this ain't me just talkin', this is 1,700 years of Christian tradition. The bishop of Hippo, bless his heart, while popular in some theological circles, ain't the one whose theology has been widely endorsed by just about every Christian denomination, so his views are not the standard by which a Christian has normally been judged a Christian.
Furthermore, if you aren't really a Christian as most Christians define a Christian, then that says something. I don't know what it says, but it might just say that you really don't believe in traditional religion, so whatever better angels you have, they don't come from religion as it is normally defined.
Sheesh, Paul, can't you recognize a paraphrase when you see one? I'm glad to see that you've retreated, if only momentarily, from your blanket condemnation of religion per se to a more moderate position of condemning all religion except for Gandhi, MLK, Moyers, and me. Such august company! I should build myself a shrine. I am dismayed, however, that you persist in attacks that make up for their lack of depth with surplus of breadth.
Where to begin? Since this is the first week of school down here, I don't have the nonstop posting time you apparently possess. But I'll see what I can do.
1) OK, we'll start with an easy one: MLK's political influence. Your reading of US history is bizarre, to say the least. The civil rights movement may be the single greatest achievement of American movement politics and government domestic policy in the 20th century. Jim Crow is DEAD. Sure, racism still exists. But it pales in comparison to what existed prior to 1964-5. Reagan may have started his 1980 campaign in racist MS, but how much did he REALLY roll back race relations in the US? Not much, I'd say. If anything, today's GOP bends over backwards to be PC & feature minorities prominently, even as they rail against affirmative action and conspire against the poor. Hypocrisy? Sure. But also progress. Gandhi triumphed too. So what that he didn't turn India into a problem-free utopia? A successful campaign of nonviolence to cast off a long-standing imperial occupation? Pretty good life legacy if you ask me, but nobody's perfect.
2) Religion and wars. I'll start with a minor concession. Religion is implicated in a lot of contemporary conflicts. Of course it is--it's a primary source of human organization and identity around the world. Most people are religious. It matters to them. That will create conflict. Same for politics, family, ideology, land, etc. If you broadened out your lens a bit past the current moment, you'd see a lot of war and destruction driven by those forces as well. We happen to live in an era where many of the other sources of conflict have receded as religion has grown, but that doesn't mean the others can't and won't return. On the other hand, religion also serves as a great unifier, often bridging older tribal or national disputes. But no surprise, there are limits to that unity. We're not living in some post-human utopia, after all. Internationally, religion may not be as effective at stemming armed conflict as capitalism, but then we do have to pick our poison, don't we. Unlike you, I cannot imagine a harmonious fantasy world of nonconflictual atheists all blissfully holding hands and singing Kumbayah. Getting rid of religion won't get rid of war, any more than getting rid of politics or land will get rid of war. Quite the opposite, I suspect.
3) The Gospel according to TMcD. Thanks, Paul. I know I'm winning this debate every time you turn away from the issue of religion generally and try to call me out on my personal faith. Didn't you say something about avoiding ad hominems? I should point out that in demanding a personal confession, you aim to give yourself a position of strength. Someone who believes in nothing can't exactly be criticized for what they believe, but they can certainly take potshots at someone who does claim to believe in something. And so I get the honor of being called a "heretic" by the Grand Inquisitor.
So I'll take my lumps. Yes, I accept the basic principles of the Nicene Creed, although I can't say I've heard it recited in a Presbyterian church (we prefer the Apostle's Creed). Now, I don't claim to "know" these things with scientific certainty. I'm not sure how you'd "prove" the resurrection. But I can guarantee you can't disprove it either, although you seem to think you can. (Singularities are not subject to empirical testing.) That's why it requires "faith," which is of course not the opposite of doubt. If I have doubts about some elements of the Christian story (e.g., virgin birth, Bethlehem birthplace) for historical reasons, it's only because, like most liberal Protestants, I take biblical scholarship seriously, rather than committing myself forever to the judgement of fourth century priests.
So there you have it. Let the next screed begin. As long as we're getting personal, how do you and your wife tolerate each other? I certainly hope you don't show contempt for her religion so openly.
Finally a straight answer. So you really feel that your religion isn't just mere symbol, which is what I suspected all along. By answering that, you've indirectly answered the second part of my question, which was how do you think your belief encourages your better angels.
"Mere symbol"? Not a formulation you'd see from a Christian.
I'll add that, despite my general acceptance of the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, I'm a creedal minimalist. I can't imagine that God really cares one way or another about whether I (or anyone else for that matter) mouths a loyalty oath formulated by ancient bureaucrats. Creeds are means to institutional ends, but offer little to the inner life of faith. As I've said before in these debates, religion is (to borrow a phrase from Kant) a metaphysics of morals. Unfortunately we believers often put the cart before the horse.
Post a Comment
<< Home