Some Things to Ponder on Sunday
Update Monday noon: It was not my intention to offend anyone by posting these quotes from A Letter to a Christian Nation. I suppose I was being lazy and probably a bit provocative on a Sunday morning. I am happen to be personally obsessed with the recent emergence of the Evangelical Right in the national political discourse and the very real intersection in public policy. Again, it was not meant to offend, I simply find the numbers informative in providing perspective. I invite anyone to submit a top post in response.
· 44% of Americans think Jesus Christ will return in the next 50 years. (22% are “certain†that he will, another 22% think he “probably†will.)
· 65% of Americans believe in the literal existence of Satan. 73% believe in Hell.
· 83% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. (11% disbelieve. 6% don’t know.)
· 87% of Americans say they “never doubt the existence of God.â€
· Only 28% of Americans believe in evolution (and two-thirds of these believe evolution was “guided by Godâ€). 53% are actually creationists.
· “According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government believed that the world was about to end and that it’s ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.â€
· “Despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue.â€
· 80% of Americans expect to be called before God on Judgment Day to answer for their sins. 90% believe in heaven. 77% rate their chances of going to heaven as “excellent†or “good.â€
· 28% of Americans believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. 49% believe that it is the “inspired word†of God.
· “We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).â€
· “It is terrible that we all die and lose everything we love; it is doubly terrible that so many human beings suffer needlessly while alive. That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion—to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions and religious diversions of scarce resources—is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity.â€
· “In the year 2006, a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get seventy-two virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: they don’t know what is like to really believe in God.â€
· “The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.â€
· More than 50% of Americans have a “negative†or “highly negative†view of people who don’t believe in God. 70% think it important for presidential candidates to be “strongly religious.â€
· “A person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying.â€
· “Had the residents of New Orleans been content to rely on the beneficence of the Lord, they wouldn’t have known that a killer hurricane was bearing down upon them until they felt the first gusts of wind on their faces, but a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that 80% of Katrina survivors claim that the event has only strengthened their faith in God.â€
September 24th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Freud called religion infantile and described it as the “universal obsessional neurosis of mankind.”
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24
September 24th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Carl Sagan said: ” One of the saddest lessons in history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The Bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.
-The Demon-Haunted World
September 24th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I came back in 1949. Was killed in Viet Nam. I’ll stop in again when I have more time.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Ok Cliff, the very least you could do is to say, ‘80% of those polled…’ Noone ever asked me. So here’s my conjecture on how this dribble was assembled…Pollster comes across a group of twenty or thirty snake-handling, tongue-talkin, inbreeds and decides to sell us short with another bogus poll reflecting ‘what americans think’. Get the picture?
September 24th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Cliff
The tone of your post seems to be a belittelment of people of faith. I hope my impression is wrong. Could you please state the purpose of your post?
September 24th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Sorry Cliff,
This is another example of why Democrats have such a hard time winning normal Americans over to their cause. When people who present themselves as Democrats criticise people of faith by lumping all the crazies together with fair minding god-fearing Americans they shortchange our party and portray us as godless elitists. That just isn’t a philosophy that plays well in America. It does even worse in Utah. We need to do more to help our ailing cause…not bury it further.
September 24th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I knew you would take a massive hit going against all the supersition Cliff.
I personally am not “God - Fearing.”
….. I fear humans much more.
So Jeremy, do you really want to perpetuate the faith-based agenda of Karl Rove?
Do you really believe that caving in to mere superstition will get us to where we want to be?
Check this out:
(And for once free yourself from monleylike superstition:)
I suggest Kurt Vonnegut:
http://www.vonnegut.com/
September 24th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
That would be “monkeylike superstition.”
September 24th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Ken,
It’s not people of religious faith that present the problem.
The problem occures when people blindly place their faith in the hands of lying politicians. The religious right - including too many in the Utah LDS community, in particular - put blind faith in the Bush administration, and these same people refuse to admit they were burned right along with everyone else, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to that effect.
“Bush is fear, and without fear, Bush is nothing.”
September 24th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Cliff, I’m afraid that this post serves no useful purpose. Speaking as a committed liberal, your words here in no way helps our cause. By casting generalized aspersions at religious belief in general, you are only reinforcing the stereotype among the religious community that liberalism is anti-religious.
As a person of faith, the post bothers me. I share some (though certainly not all) of the beliefs which you seem to be mocking. I hold other beliefs based on faith which you do not mention, but which I might be uncomfortable sharing now because of the apparent insensitivity of your post. Yes, I can understand that some people have been led by their faith–in error, I believe–to come to some very dubious conclusions. But do you doubt that religious faith, properly understood, can lead to some meaningful and beautiful conclusions?
I hope that you will all recognize that while MANY within the LDS faith have shown a blind faith in the this administration’s agenda. That does not mean that the LDS faith has done so. There are many of us within the faith–a minority to be sure, but one not insignificant and one which is growing–who see things differently.
I can understand the frustration which many of you might feel toward many people of faith. We’ve seen so many examples over the years who have been bad examples, many hypocrites who have cynically exploited their purported faith. But you shouldn’t allow those experiences to prejudice you against people of faith any more than we should let bad examples of secularists, rationalists, and atheists justify prejudices against those who eschew faith.
Remember that there are some of us (people like Dennis Kucinich, Harry Reid, Michael Lerner, Bishop Irish, Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, etc–and many good, faithful LDSaints both in and out of the Democratic party) who are liberal not in spite of our faith, but BECAUSE of it. Keep the tent open for us.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Derek,
I appreciate your thoughts, but Cliff’s post does serve at least one useful purpose. For example, the post highlights at least one irony that folks of faith fail to address - they use the Bible as a moral foundation when it suits their purpose, but overlook so many utterly absurd passages when raised by others to question the authenticity of the “good book.” Tell me, Derek, how did Jonah survive those three days inside the belly of the “great fish” anyway?
September 24th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Ken,
My great Grandfather was Southern Presbyterian Minister in Alabama. He was fired for saying Jonah and The Whale was parable. That wouldn’t happen today. He wouldn’t have been fired.
But the fact remains, there is a faith test thing going on in the evangelical/LDS culture. And the bar is always moving.
But none of it is true. It just isn’t.
Jonah did not swallow the whale, the world is not 6000 years old, and Jesus is not coming back.
And it’s OK to “have faith†AND know the difference, and not impose impossible beliefs on the rest of society. That’s how people get hurt.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:12 am
Oops, my bad. As a dem, I shouldn’t have come out swinging so hard on ‘people of faith’. I just hope we’re not equating ‘P. o. F.’ with ‘mindless followers’. That would be a mistake. My remark was meant to reflect a resistence to characterizing ‘Americans’, when a poll fails to communicate with so many of us. I am consistently in the group who, when asked, ‘is there a heaven?’ reply, ‘you mean there’s doubt?’ and somehow that just doesn’t show up in the poll results. Anyway, I am never asked.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:57 am
You are right, Cliff, when you say that it is wrong to impose beliefs on others. Yes, that IS how we hurt others and ourselves. The quest by allegedly religious people to do so has been the source of many catastrophes in the history of this planet.
But you are wrong to so broadly dismiss the beliefs of others.
I respect your right to believe Jesus isn’t coming back–just as I respect the right of others to believe the world is 6,000 years old. I do not agree with either you or the strict creationist, but I still respect any given person’s right to believe. I hope you will respect my right to believe those things I choose to believe, whether or not you see any reason to believe them yourself.
Believing in many of those apparently irrational or illogical ideas does not preclude one from being engaged in liberal politics, or being willing to have a sincere and open-minded dialogue on liberal principles–unless liberals tell them that we don’t want their kind.
We may have arrived at them by different paths, but I’m confident that both secular and religious liberals have many similar goals. You can choose to focus on what divides us, making some litmus test regarding religious beliefs or faith. If we choose that path, you will greatly reduce the chance that ANY of us will successfully bring those goals to fruition. Or you can focus on those common aspirations, putting aside our differences, so we can unite our efforts and make the world a better place.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Is it any surprise that our “enemies” the “terrorists” hold similar views based on unsubstantiated religious ethos, that have morphed into political reality with regard to the Middle East?
Consider that if your enemies define you, then the Islamicists and the Christian right were made for each other. With any luck they should cancel each other out in time, since reason has been abandoned, we can expect both parties apocalyptic nonsense culture to play right into each others hands.
I would remind people that most of our founding fathers, Jefferson and Madison in particular, viewed the religious zealot with contempt, and would not tolerate their meddling in the future of our great nation were they alive today.
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy†James Madison.
…. and this gem from Madison…
“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.â€
Stick a fork in our ass, we’re done.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Re: Jonah
Scholars of the Bible generally recognize Jonah’s version of the story to include a “great fish” and not a “whale.” See, e.g., Jonah 1:17-2:1,10 (describing three days and nights in a “great fish”); but see Matthew 12:39,40 (making passing reference to a whale).
If we are going to rant about bible thumpers, let’s at least get the story correct!
September 25th, 2006 at 9:05 am
[...] Unfortunately there is a vocal element in my party which makes it extremely difficult for most people to accept the idea that the Democratic Party could ever represent them. Check out this post at One Utah (one of my favorite local blogs on the left). [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Thank you for your straightforward response and also your interest in this subject. I believe this exchange represents perfectly the very obstacle to our common goal of “putting aside our differences, so we can unite our efforts and make the world a better place.“
Painfully, we really need to look at semantics and equivocation in order to truly “put aside our differencesâ€
Your response ascribes four assumptions to me both individually and taken together, represent what has by now become a common reaction of the political right to any suggestion that religious beliefs should be excluded from political and policy discourse.
1. That I “broadly dismiss the beliefs of othersâ€.
2. It is wrong to “dismiss the beliefs of othersâ€
3. That I “choose to focus on what divides usâ€
4. I should respect “any given person’s right to believe.â€
I respectfully submit that if you compare my “Jonah and The Whale†comment above, with your response, that you will agree, that I could easily argue that the four positions that you ascribe to me, are in fact, assumptions.
Particularly compelling, is that you of all people – you, a thoughtful, occasionally “apologeticâ€, self-critical, wise, and well-intentioned man – in this particular conversation, have retreated into a quite common, historically scripted, culturally memorized, reaction I shall call the “double barrel conversation killer.â€
Derek, I want to be very careful not to offend you. On the contrary, I hope to engage you explicitly because I believe you stand head and shoulders above the din, as one uniquely positioned to contribute to a solution to this problem. I think you possess the rare combination of intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and fierce loyalty to your faith.
So, back to the “double barrel conversation killer.†I say “double barrelâ€, because it is both a defense AND an accusation. The genius of it is that it is a defense of it’s own implicit accusation. We get into trouble when we use the word “belief†too broadly. For example, I can say, “I believe that carbon dioxide emission from cars contributes to the greenhouse effect.†That is very different than saying, “I believe Jesus will come back in the next 50 years.â€
There are major qualitative and quantitative differences in those two beliefs. One is based in physical science, the substance of which (air pollution) has severe effects on the daily lives of people around the world, and the truth of which (if true) is killing our planet, and has been proven. The other is a literary interpretation of a relatively small group of religious leaders whose followers accept it on faith.
It should be pointed out that my eleven-year-old niece believes both, but cannot point to the source of the latter.
The extent to which those beliefs inform our behavior has major implications for our quality of life and our planet, and I think you agree with that.
So, the question is, how can I express my concern about the potential threat to society posed by beliefs rooted in faith which guide laws that discriminate against gay people and families, influence the promulgation of regressive environmental policy, foster attempts to equate Creationism with science public education, or God forbid, support the formulation of foreign policy supported by invocations of religious icons and dogma?
How do I as one of deep spiritual conviction and a deep and visceral respect for diversity of religious faith and lifestyles, and our freedoms and liberties, how do I express my concerns about the intersection of explicitly Christian beliefs with public policy, without being accused of “broadly dismiss[ing] the beliefs of others†and “focus[ing] on what divides usâ€, and disrespecting “any given person’s right to believeâ€?
I ask you Derek — because I know you sympathize with those concerns, and because I believe it is specifically incumbent on you — how CAN we articulate these concerns, without getting blasted with the “double barrel conversation killer†and accused of religious intolerance?
Thank you Derek for your indugence. I look forward to your (or anyone’s) response.
Lets remember to Love!
September 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Thanks for being willing to respond to my critiques in a sincere and respectful manner, Cliff. Deserves a response, one which I will not be able to provide for a few days. But it will be forthcoming.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Jeremy M., ‘hard time winning normal Americans over’… I cain’t hep’ but laugh, and believe normal americans are inviting you over. Seems like Democrats can be P. o. F. (in fact they’d better be cause the powers-that-be, with their full control of the mechanism don’t seem to be able to remember the Golden Rule, and I don’t mean, ‘He who has the gold, Rules). God exists whether I, he, she, you, they, or ? believe or not. Give us a smile, fairy dust ain’t worth all the blood and guts.
Now, ya hear the one about how when GW finally arrives up at the Pearly Gates, St. Peter, or whoever was filling in for him at the time, looks him up-n-down and says…sum’pin about FUBAR, couldn’t hear him too clear.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
There are two schools of thought to the Jonah Story in the Bible. One is that the Jonah story is a parable and is meant to teach a principle about faith and the power of God. The second is that it was an actual event and Jonah was literally inside the belly of a “great fish”. I would submit that weather or not it actually happened is completely irrelevant. It is not necessarily the stories of the Bible that makes them meaningful; otherwise it is a mere history book. What are important are the principles taught in the scriptures that give them meaning in our lives and give us knowledge? Jesus taught in parables because it was a way to bring the mysteries of God to a level the people could understand and relate in their own lives. Parables also require the listener to think harder for the deeper meaning of the story. If you are not willing to delve deeper into their meaning they will indeed seem like fables, but if you take the time and study and ponder them then their meaning will be revealed.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Precisely the point, Ken.
Given your thesis, one is left with the following question: where do you draw the line between the various parables appearing in the bible? Seems to me is the answer depends on whether or not the parable fits the cause of the religious right. If it fits the cause, then the parable represents a teaching grounded in the bible; if not, then the parable is a mere abhorent tale left to ponder for some future date.