a lefty’s log

i wanted to have this posted earlier, but life got in the way and i didn’t. actually, i’m a little surprised that i didn’t add AC’s reply to my previous post, because it doesn’t really fit with this section. but i didn’t.

so i’m starting with this reply to my initial post:

LEFTY!

Hello. Thanks for the mail. Now you’re in my book and that’s good.

Yeah, I’ve kind of noticed that Christians are not buying into this Christian Right thing as much anymore, too. I think a lot of them feel misrepresented as nut balls when they really aren’t. They just liked to see their political leaders talk about God a little and push for a little social decency, which is valid I think. A lot of even them still have hang-ups about homosexuality though which bothers me. Even if they don’t even have a political agenda I’ve heard them say “I disapprove of the lifestyle.” I’m like why do you even have an opinion? Anyway, there are lots of cracks in the Christian merge with modern conservativism. One I hear about is environmentalism. The notion of “protecting God’s Creation” is becoming more popular with Christian Conservatives, but not corporate ones. Also, Chritianity vs. shallow materialistic corporate lifestyles is another one popping up.

I suppose we can only pray for their undoing.

-AC

and this is my lengthy reply:

no enclosing blockquote here, because then i couldn’t quote AC. (this theme’s style doesn’t allow for blockquotes inside blockquotes, and i don’t think it’s important enough to make/find a new one that do. nyah! :p)

[–start paste–]
AC,

(for sake of readability, [downstyle on])

[–you said–]

They just liked to see their political leaders talk about God a little and push for a little social decency, which is valid I think.

Well, here’s my point. If people really thought about it, they’d understand that a person’s religion is a framework for interpreting the world-at-large, a lens for their general outlook at life. Some people, as many as 1/6th of our nation–according to the diane rehm interview–reject this worldview completely, but still behave and perform as complete, decent human beings.

What is misconstrued in this discussion is that people who believe differently than the majority, in my estimation of the believers’ agenda, are allowed no say in the matters of lawmaking or setting moral policy. People who hold differing religious or philosophical worldviews must bend their will to the majority, or most vocal–for I doubt anymore that a true majority of Americans believe every tenet of the Christian faith. Unbelievers need not apply.

This is what’s strange about this debate. If you were to ask a bona fide Jew, Christian, or Muslim what he believes about the others’ faith, if they are well-versed in and true believers of the scriptures of their faith, he or she will tell you that the other two have it completely wrong and must die, either corporally or in the hereafter. People who don’t believe this, are not followers of their professed faiths–or there is a fundamental flaw in their religious practice. Call them crazed murderers if you like, but the Muslims who killed the Dutch artist Theo van Gogh in 2004 and the Crusaders of the Middle Ages were just being devout believers. Read The End of Faith by Sam Harris for more in this vein. It’s a marvelous book, four-and-a-half-stars in my estimation.

Modern (Western) believers have been conditioned to ignore those portions of the scriptures that are the most barbaric, except those passages that condemn homosexuality, divorce and a number of other “abominations.” Go ahead, read Leviticus sometime and see just how crazy (to the modern ear) some of those rules are: a male must marry his sister-in-law if his brother dies (doesn’t matter if he’s already married), you must not wear clothes of two different materials, menstruating women must live outside the encampment until they’re finished and must ritualistically cleanse themselves thereafter. . . . The list goes on. No one’s raving about these things, but couched in there are a couple of passages condemning “men who lie with men.” Talk about taking things out of context.

To get back to my main point, debates about religion in the public square really have less to do about trying to make the world more godly, than it is pure demagoguery. (Andrew Sullivan, blogger at the Daily Dish and correspondent for Time Magazine, calls these people Christianists.) For if godliness were at issue, there would be just as much discussion about those other things that are sinful or moral, than just the two or three hot-button issues that now define “family values,” or persuaded the so-called “values-voters” to choose the currently-sitting president.

This holds especially true about Christians who talk more about war than peace, profit than poverty, and define justice whichever way suits them best. The Christ of the Sermon on the Mount would have spent more time in soup kitchens and brothels than bombing a sovereign nation. The Christ of the ‘Money Changers’ episode would do more to clean out corruption of the megachurch movement–do you call it Pay for Pray? The Christ with the ‘Women at the Well’ would forgive her, cure her AIDS (to give the story a modern relavence) and send her on her way. He would not tell her it was her fault, that she needs to get a job, then condemn her to a life of poverty, misery and death. And as a Jew, he wouldn’t have bacon or cheese on a burger.

These people fail to understand that in a pluralistic society, each citizen has every right to pursue life as he or she sees fit, so long as the laws of the nation are not violated. (And if those laws are unjust, he or she has an obligation to petition for them to be corrected.) Those who choose to live outside the construct of Christianity (however it is perceived or defined), or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever, have that right. It makes them no less a decent, moral, law-abiding citizen than anyone else.

It is a false choice to say that believers alone are decent, moral people and nonbelievers are the opposite. It is a downright perversion to read the Christian story and do nothing about poverty, preventable disease, and the planet.

[–you said–]

One I hear about is environmentalism. The notion of “protecting God’s Creation” is becoming more popular with Christian Conservatives but not corprate ones. Also, Chritianity vs. shallow materialistic corparate lifestyles is another one popping up.

Yes, there are some advances being made there. I’m not sure what is influencing this change, maybe it’s a 30-year drumbeat of the same information finally seeping into the collective consciousness. But all is not lost:

• The Fast Company business magazine I read did a feature story on how Wal-Mart (yes, that Wal-Mart) is making a big push for compact fluorescent lightbulbs. One little bulb can change the world. The stats are amazing.
• PBS recently did a special about how sky scrapers in New York are being built green economically. Click on the thumbnail for a preview. I caught it on rerun last month, I don’t know if it’s available otherwise.
• And of course there is Al Gore’s little book (and the accompanying movie). Amazon has the book An Inconvenient Truth ranked #67 right now, sandwiched between Rich Dad, Poor Dad (59) and Elie Wiesel’s Night (71).

[–you said–]

I suppose we can only pray for their undoing.

No, active participation in the national conversation and the methods of change, i.e. voting, will change this. It is slow and imprecise, but it is much better than revolution. See the mess in Iraq for an example.

Some organizing wouldn’t hurt, either.

[downstyle off]
that’s what i have to say about that. thanks for listening.

–lefty

[—end paste–]

and thank you for reading. i should have the final installment later this week.