September 9, 2003
WHO NEEDS ENEMIES WITH DEFENDERS LIKE THIS:
In defense of God: Liberal atheists condemn belief in God as nonsense, but their simplistic arguments are no better than the religious zealots they deplore. (Bradford R. Pilcher, September 4, 2003 , Jewsweek.com)
The consensus seems simple enough. Religion is for those less advanced peoples, the superstitious and the weak in need of a crutch. In the name of religion, wars have been fought, peoples have been oppressed, and much sin has been perpetrated. Hence we'd be better off without it.As a committed liberal not particularly fond of religious wars or oppressive practices, I feel obliged to disagree. It seems today that religion has become synonymous with conservatives, usually southern conservatives, and almost always loony meshugeh conservatives. Hence it's continually easy for liberals like Bill Maher or Sarah McLachlan to deride it as a tool for social oppression, backwards thinking, and a general lack of human progress.
If that were so, however, why do I feel such an affinity for God? I'm a liberal, pro-choice guy who believes in the positive power of government and feels we don't fund public education or the arts nearly enough. And I believe in God. Who knew?
The truth is, there are religious nuts and then there are irreligious nuts. Meanwhile, it was religion that said, "Thou shall not murder." Religion was the first venue where otherwise tribal peoples could claim a single unifying creator, and thus a single unifying heritage. Darwin's view on a common origin for all of humanity was just a few millennia late to the dance.
Today, religion provides one of the strongest ties that bind disparate peoples from around the globe. Jews seek to aid fellow Jews in the farthest corners of the globe, even if they have absolutely nothing else in common. White Christians in America are appalled at the treatment of black Christians in Sudan. Islam links people from Morocco to Malaysia with Americans and Europeans, and when Malcolm X was preaching disdain between the races, it was a trip to Mecca that showed him the beauty of the human rainbow.
And yes, an obscene number of Catholic priests molested children. Crusaders killed Jews, Muslims, and even other Christians. Islamic terrorists praise Allah as they blow up babies, and a Jew by the name of Baruch Goldstein took his religious beliefs straight into a Hebron mosque, gun in hand.
For every violent, despicable, oppressive, and illegitimate religious impetus, there is the power of faith and influence of God for the betterment of humanity. Those who would deride religion, sneering from their secularist perch, ignore a depth of history and religious possibility. They throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and worse, they express the kind of childish reasoning religious zealots and conservative kooks are so fond of.
Nowhere is the greatness of God more evident than in His ability to withstand the assistance of His defenders. Although it seems to be one, Mr. Pilcher apparently doesn't intend self-parody. But mustn't his editor have cringed when he read along as Mr. Pilcher followed his statement that he both loves God and supports abortion with the laudatory words about religion forbidding murder and then the painfully unfortunate phrase about throwing the baby out?
If religion has become synonymous with conservatism--which it largely has--it's because only conservatives are willing to preserve its moral teachings, which can't be reconciled with abortion.
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2003 1:10 PMWhite American Christians are appalled by the treatment of black Christians in the Sudan?
Not so's I've noticed.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 9, 2003 2:31 PMMay not make the evening news (unfortunately), but
simply GOOGLE : "Treatment of Christians in Sudan"
and one will realize that this consumes a fair
amount of concern amongst individual Christians
and some Christian groups.
Especially...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/700394/posts
Posted by: J.H. at September 9, 2003 3:36 PMHarry: then you haven't been paying attention. They're the only ones I've noticed making any noise about it.
Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2003 4:57 PMHe's probably not noticed because while the evangelical community is acutely aware of this issue, the mainstream media pays very little attention to it. And those people paid attention to it years before 9/11/2001.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at September 9, 2003 5:03 PMWell, I've been paying attention to it since the early '70s, when I was working in Iowa. At our paper there, we paid some -- not a great deal of -- attention to it because the Christian leader is a graduate of Iowa State.
If evangelicals have sat around wringing their hands at church for the past 30 years, I'll take your word for it. So what?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 9, 2003 5:31 PMSo they've had zero effect or influence. Right through all those regimes where the US was supposedly under the thumb of rightwing Christians. Did we ever do anything for any Sudanese?
I've had zero effect or influence on this, too, but not for lack of trying.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 9, 2003 7:26 PMSorry, Harry, I should have known--you just wanted to call attention to how religion pales in comparison to you personally.
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2003 7:48 PMOJ:
I should have known, you'll take any chance to insult someone who's point of view disagrees with yours.
One can only wonder what the reaction of evangelical Christians would be to Sudanese Christians abusing Sudanese Muslims.
Pretty close to zero. That's how organized religion becomes synonymous with hypocrisy.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 9, 2003 9:34 PMWell, it does pale. And that's not the only issue.
Right now, Christian evangelicals are busy burning the idols of Melanesia. I expect you think that's a good thing, but it isn't your call.
Only one person in Hawaii has spoken out against it. He was not a Christian.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 9, 2003 10:53 PMHarry:
If you, a crusading newspaper man, have had no effect on the abuse in the Sudan why does the contribution of the religious pale in comparison to yours?
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2003 12:33 AMIt's still a free country, Orrin. It has been instructive to see, over the years, what people respond to after I've explained the issue -- that's all I do, I don't order them around.
By far the most successful crusade I've ever done was one I thought had the least chance. Next time you're in Iowa and hanker for a dogburger, thank me. I kept 'em legal there.
Seems to me that malaria, destruction of idols and religious murder -- all subjects I've written about -- would be of more interest than protecting the right of Indians to eat dogs, but they haven't been.
Right now, if you took a poll, I bet you'd find more people who think overweight pets is an issue than know about slavery in Sudan.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 10, 2003 5:47 PMHarry:
Which begs the qustion: you said the religious effort over the Sudan pales in comparison to yours, how?
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2003 6:58 PMWell, they outnumber me about 200 million to one. Seems like they could get more done if they cared to.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 10, 2003 9:44 PM