The Hallelujah Complex

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Religious = fanatic? Wtf?

I thought I'd share a quote from a recently-written article which is a progressive critique of newly-elected President Obama's cabinet choices. While making good points about the hawkish nature of our new President's picks, the author sort of makes a fool of himself at one point:

Is there reason to be happy that the insufferably religious George W. is soon to be history? "I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." That was said by someone named Barack Obama. The United States turns out religious fanatics like the Japanese turn out cars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21377.htm
-William Blum

So all of a sudden, anyone who derives personal meaning from spiritual faith is a fanatic? I'm sorry, but this dude appears to be straight out of one of those Christian urban legends. You know, the ubiquitous stories that somehow assert that any intellectual, liberal or secularist is "anti-religion".

- Like the story about the college professor who told his class anyone who believed in God was a fool...and then challenged God to keep a piece of chalk from breaking.
(Which is false.)
- Or the one about atheist Madelyn Murray O'haire petitioning to ban all Christmas carols and religious programs from the airwaves.
(Which is also false.)
- Or the myth that Janet Reno once said that anyone who believes in the Second Coming of Christ and goes to Bible studies is a member of a cult.
(You guessed it...false.)

Unfortunately, this guy is one hundred percent for-real.
Seriously...he really believes that deriving hope from your Christian faith makes you a fanatic? I really don't know where to begin with that statement.

But I'll try.

First: As psychologist M. Scott Peck once said, everyone has a religion, in the sense that your "religion" is the way you see the world, other humans, existence, life and death, etc. Making any sort of value statements about these things qualifies as some sort of worldview, or "religion".
And one would assume that most humans seek to derive some sense of hope or meaning from their particular worldview--even the most diehard atheist finds a reason to get up in the morning, a reason to believe that their actions matter.
So are all these people fanatics? Is the atheist who finds meaning in her volunteer work at a homeless shelter a fanatic? Or the agnostic who derives great satisfaction from potentially saving lives through his anti-war activism? Or the Buddhist who feels that she is more conscious of life after meditating?

Second: I have to say, this guy seems like someone that Sarah Palin would make up. The progressive "elitist" who is a die-hard secularist and looks down his nose at anyone with religious faith. No, Sarah, most of us progressives do not fit this mold...but, after reading the above article, I have to admit that there are a few of them out there.
And I can think of nothing more hypocritical. It would be one thing if you were a neo-con elitist who was honest about the fact that you think you're better than most people out there. That the world is divided into "gods and clods". (As per the South Park episode.) Then, at least, you would be consistent--those ignorant masses down there have their silly, primitive beliefs.
But I just don't get the limousine liberal. Don't claim to represent the interests of marginalized sectors of the population if you are going to take this kind of snooty attitude toward their beliefs.

Third: "Fanatical" seems like the wrong word to use in this context. I mention this to begin with on my Hallelujah Complex blog precisely because...drumroll please...I don't believe George Bush's religious faith to be fanatical.

Sure, I believe that it's grossly perverted, misguided, self-serving and shallow. I believe that he manipulates religious language to serve overtly militaristic aims. But I wouldn't define it as fanatical...precisely because one of the main tenents of my Hallelujah Complex theory is that fanaticism is in the eye of the beholder. Culture defines fanaticism, and groups that are outside of their cultural mainstream often self-identify as fanatical, and end up behaving as such. And, like it or not, believing that God has a purpose for what happens in your life is a pretty ordinary part of the American cultural mainstream.
Sure, Bush has manipulated this belief for his own political aims. But what political leader in history hasn't manipulated the mainstream religious / cultural beliefs of his country to further the interests of the elite? Let's face it, civilizations as diverse as Aztec, Mayan, Egyptian, Byzantine, Greek, Roman, Mixtec, etc, have traditionally justified oppression using the religious language of the day.
But that doesn't make those politicians fanatics.

Fourth: Making a connection between the belief that "I am redeemed through Christ" and the belief that "I need to invade a defenseless country and torture prisoners of war" is a pretty big leap. In fact, for a person to assume that the latter is a natural reasult of the former, you would think that the person never heard of religion before listening to Bush's speeches.

Mr. Blum, I respect your agnosticism. But please, at least try to be informed about basic religious facts before making statements like this. To do otherwise weakens all the other (very valid) arguments you make against militarism and the politics of force...and, like it or not, a lot of us religious folk are on your side in that fight.

¶ 11:53 AM