Why religion is bad for the US
Upon the imminent occasion of my 43rd birthday, and as I contemplate the real, but hopefully remote, possibility that I won't have another, I am reminded by some people of the human quest for solace in the face of death. My own spirituality has never been something I have chosen to investigate too closely; I suppose I rejected my Dad's family's Methodism out of little except boredom with the "oppressive" nature of being forced to go to church! (Give me a break, I was just a kid . . .) It certainly wasn't any of our minister's doing--Rev. Smith was an incredibly engaging and wonderful man and preacher.
This is not to say that I rejected morality or ethics, though. I have always had a strong ideal as to what constitutes good behavior, informed by the slights and misfortunes both that I have been subjected to and also what I have seen people do to others. I have not been thoroughly consistent in hewing to my ideal--who among us can claim to have been?--but I have tried during my whole adolescent and adult life to treat people as well as I could. In the largest sense, I abhor selfishness, prejudice, and closed-mindedness most of all, since I see that kind of ignorance as being the root cause of much of the pain in the world.
And this is where I think modern organized religion has started to go very wrong, because in much of the world, religious leaders are persuading their followers to practice not the tolerance or good works most of the world's religions have always seen as the most likely route to salvation, but rather to pursue a "self-righteousity" wherein there is only one path to heaven. More problematically, nowhere can this be seen as clearly as here in the US, because of all the nations of the world, I still believe that our country has the answer to how this planet's varied people's can survive our own humanity. The rising tide of fundamentalism is not a problem of Islam; it is a problem of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, etc. It is an even more dangerous problem nowadays because this particular tide has swept the political realm as well in an increasing number of countries, which is a recipe for mass annhilation. And the US is the only country currently with the power to push that button.
One of the major arguments supporting our present swing to a radical fundamentalist religiosity in politics that I have seen bandied about is that our country was founded on religious grounds, and that therefore the fundamentalists are merely seeking a return to the Founding Fathers' original vision for the US. It is true that most (if not all) of the creators of the US were religious men, but the truth of the matter is that they valued something even more highly than "God's will" in their deliberations--reason. The FF's work was based in the belief that it was more important that men of intelligence and rationality governed this country, instead of men of high birth (hence their rejection of monarchy) or religious background (seen in their rejection of a state-sponsored Church). The FFs knew that even though most men believed in God and would probably use their religious beliefs to mold their points of view, they also knew that only through reason and rational discussion could a democratic republic function in the long run. In any case, we are talking about people who lived 250 years ago; there is absolutely no earthly value in trying to rediscover their mindset instead of simply using the documents of government at hand. They have been modified (for the most part--we don't have Minutemen that need to remain armed at all times, nor do we fear troops being quartered in our townhouses or condos so much, for the most egregious example) to remain in touch with how the world has changed since 1776 or 1791, and that is how the FFs intended the Constitution to be used.
The second issue regarding the ill effects faith is having on us is related. Anyone acting from a foundation of his/her religion alone is by definition not able to engage in the rational debate or discussion necessary for the democratic process to succeed. Religion in this case leads to closed-mindedness and an inability to compromise, since any idea or policy that doesn't conform strictly with the faithful person's code will automatically be deemed sinful and therefore should not be passed or enforced--think of the various religious rationales that undergirded the institution of slavery before the Civil War, or the current slew of pointedly anti-gay legislation passed out of a justification based on nothing more than appeals to religious ideology. The faithful person cannot be argued with or persuaded, because whatever s/he believes is impervious to another person's set of beliefs or even facts, simply because faith is irrational by nature.
To the world's detriment, and for the first time in our history, this kind of irrationality has been incorporated at the highest level of our government. As Kevin Phillips points out in American Dynasty, George W. Bush is not only the President, he is also the de facto leader of all of the fundamentalist religious groups in the US. Many of his Administration's appointees have been drawn from his contacts in the religious realm, especially for some of the more culturally sensitive posts, and they are all on record as having disdain not only for secularism in general, but in some cases for the actual responsibilities and purposes of their offices (see Phillips for details). That's not good.
What's worse is that Smirky's incapacity to even approach a realization that he is fallible--as all humans are, after all, right? Only God is perfect, right?--makes him an unusually unfit person to be in a position of authority or power over other people, let alone the entirety of what used to be the "Free World". His utter inability to brook dissension or even hold a discussion with someone who holds views unlike his own (as seen in many of the "insider books" published, such as Woodward's Plan of Attack and Suskind's The Price of Loyalty), masked and marketed as decisiveness and self-confidence, are in reality a frightening glimpse into the mind of someone totally devoted to their faith to the exclusion of all else. Smirky believes that we might very well be in the "End Times", and his policy objectives of destabilizing military intervention in the Middle East and willful ignorance of all basic scientific proof that our environment is under tremendous strain prove that he has no intention of acting rationally.
The combination of these 3 factors mean that even though Smirky and his cronies have broken many Commandments and tenets of his chosen religion ("Thou Shalt Not Lie", "Thou Shalt Not Kill", "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged", among the many others), his blind followers inside and out of government continue to support him without question, solely because he is a "Man of Faith". This in turn has encouraged the Administration to ignore any and all deviations from their domestic objectives as well, which for the most part consist of eliminating any governmental interference with how the rich get richer, regardless of how many citizens of the world die or are impoverished.
The blatant disregard for the diversity, or in many cases even the mere existence, of human life that fundamentalists exhibit on a daily basis--Smirky telling Cindy Sheehan that he plans to "get on with his life" in the face of her loss is merely the latest, albeit most disgusting example--belies their fervently-held righteousness, and it is our great shame that the US has actually elected (well, kind of) someone like that to our highest office. We are the most dangerous country the world has ever known, and every minute the religious fanatics control the reins of our government brings us closer to what for them would be just peachy--Armageddon. Is that what the rest of us want?
This is not to say that I rejected morality or ethics, though. I have always had a strong ideal as to what constitutes good behavior, informed by the slights and misfortunes both that I have been subjected to and also what I have seen people do to others. I have not been thoroughly consistent in hewing to my ideal--who among us can claim to have been?--but I have tried during my whole adolescent and adult life to treat people as well as I could. In the largest sense, I abhor selfishness, prejudice, and closed-mindedness most of all, since I see that kind of ignorance as being the root cause of much of the pain in the world.
And this is where I think modern organized religion has started to go very wrong, because in much of the world, religious leaders are persuading their followers to practice not the tolerance or good works most of the world's religions have always seen as the most likely route to salvation, but rather to pursue a "self-righteousity" wherein there is only one path to heaven. More problematically, nowhere can this be seen as clearly as here in the US, because of all the nations of the world, I still believe that our country has the answer to how this planet's varied people's can survive our own humanity. The rising tide of fundamentalism is not a problem of Islam; it is a problem of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, etc. It is an even more dangerous problem nowadays because this particular tide has swept the political realm as well in an increasing number of countries, which is a recipe for mass annhilation. And the US is the only country currently with the power to push that button.
One of the major arguments supporting our present swing to a radical fundamentalist religiosity in politics that I have seen bandied about is that our country was founded on religious grounds, and that therefore the fundamentalists are merely seeking a return to the Founding Fathers' original vision for the US. It is true that most (if not all) of the creators of the US were religious men, but the truth of the matter is that they valued something even more highly than "God's will" in their deliberations--reason. The FF's work was based in the belief that it was more important that men of intelligence and rationality governed this country, instead of men of high birth (hence their rejection of monarchy) or religious background (seen in their rejection of a state-sponsored Church). The FFs knew that even though most men believed in God and would probably use their religious beliefs to mold their points of view, they also knew that only through reason and rational discussion could a democratic republic function in the long run. In any case, we are talking about people who lived 250 years ago; there is absolutely no earthly value in trying to rediscover their mindset instead of simply using the documents of government at hand. They have been modified (for the most part--we don't have Minutemen that need to remain armed at all times, nor do we fear troops being quartered in our townhouses or condos so much, for the most egregious example) to remain in touch with how the world has changed since 1776 or 1791, and that is how the FFs intended the Constitution to be used.
The second issue regarding the ill effects faith is having on us is related. Anyone acting from a foundation of his/her religion alone is by definition not able to engage in the rational debate or discussion necessary for the democratic process to succeed. Religion in this case leads to closed-mindedness and an inability to compromise, since any idea or policy that doesn't conform strictly with the faithful person's code will automatically be deemed sinful and therefore should not be passed or enforced--think of the various religious rationales that undergirded the institution of slavery before the Civil War, or the current slew of pointedly anti-gay legislation passed out of a justification based on nothing more than appeals to religious ideology. The faithful person cannot be argued with or persuaded, because whatever s/he believes is impervious to another person's set of beliefs or even facts, simply because faith is irrational by nature.
To the world's detriment, and for the first time in our history, this kind of irrationality has been incorporated at the highest level of our government. As Kevin Phillips points out in American Dynasty, George W. Bush is not only the President, he is also the de facto leader of all of the fundamentalist religious groups in the US. Many of his Administration's appointees have been drawn from his contacts in the religious realm, especially for some of the more culturally sensitive posts, and they are all on record as having disdain not only for secularism in general, but in some cases for the actual responsibilities and purposes of their offices (see Phillips for details). That's not good.
What's worse is that Smirky's incapacity to even approach a realization that he is fallible--as all humans are, after all, right? Only God is perfect, right?--makes him an unusually unfit person to be in a position of authority or power over other people, let alone the entirety of what used to be the "Free World". His utter inability to brook dissension or even hold a discussion with someone who holds views unlike his own (as seen in many of the "insider books" published, such as Woodward's Plan of Attack and Suskind's The Price of Loyalty), masked and marketed as decisiveness and self-confidence, are in reality a frightening glimpse into the mind of someone totally devoted to their faith to the exclusion of all else. Smirky believes that we might very well be in the "End Times", and his policy objectives of destabilizing military intervention in the Middle East and willful ignorance of all basic scientific proof that our environment is under tremendous strain prove that he has no intention of acting rationally.
The combination of these 3 factors mean that even though Smirky and his cronies have broken many Commandments and tenets of his chosen religion ("Thou Shalt Not Lie", "Thou Shalt Not Kill", "Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged", among the many others), his blind followers inside and out of government continue to support him without question, solely because he is a "Man of Faith". This in turn has encouraged the Administration to ignore any and all deviations from their domestic objectives as well, which for the most part consist of eliminating any governmental interference with how the rich get richer, regardless of how many citizens of the world die or are impoverished.
The blatant disregard for the diversity, or in many cases even the mere existence, of human life that fundamentalists exhibit on a daily basis--Smirky telling Cindy Sheehan that he plans to "get on with his life" in the face of her loss is merely the latest, albeit most disgusting example--belies their fervently-held righteousness, and it is our great shame that the US has actually elected (well, kind of) someone like that to our highest office. We are the most dangerous country the world has ever known, and every minute the religious fanatics control the reins of our government brings us closer to what for them would be just peachy--Armageddon. Is that what the rest of us want?
posted by bryduck at 12:43 AM
2 Comments:
Amen!
-TBO
Whoo! How come you & I see things so clearly & the rest ofthe electorate's glasses are so fogged up?
Post a Comment
<< Home