A response to Right-Wing Extremists:  The Enemy Within:

On 3/11/06 I sent the following link to a few correspondents:

Correspondent Joe responded and the following debate ensued:

>> The overwhelming current of fundamentalism? What planet is he living on? <<

Planet earth. What planet are you living on?

>> Someplace where gays stay in the closet, women stay at home, pornography is illegal, and the fundamentalists rule society? <<

That's what the religious fanatics in the White House and Congress would like to see. So the author was correct: the traditional, liberal, and progressive elements of Christianity have little clout compared to the fundamentalist fanatics in power.

If you want to live in a country where gays stay in the closet, women stay at home, pornography is illegal, and the fundamentalists rule society, why don't you move to a nice Christian country like Mexico? Or better yet, a nice Islamic country like Saudi Arabia? You and the Saudi fundamentalists seem to have the same values, so you'd be right at home there. You could stone adulterers to death just like the Bible tells you to.

Since this nation was founded on the separation of church and state, it's not the place for you. If you don't like the way we're running the country, leave it.

The debate continues (5/29/06)....
>> The closing line of your last message was If you don't like the way we're running the country, leave it. So, you admit you are running the country — and I agree. <<

"We" meaning Americans who believe in the Constitution, with its separation of church and state.

>> Do the decisions of the Supreme Court over the last forty years represent a secular mindset, or a conservative Christian one? <<

Over the last 40 years, the decisions represent a secular mindset. Over the last five or 10 years, they're more of a tossup between a secular mindset and a Christian mindset. The conservative Christian mindset has yet to predominate, thank God.

>> As to the congress, do you think a solid, genuinely Christian conservative candidate for the Supreme Court would have the slightest chance of being approved by Congress? <<

Roberts and Alito qualify as conservative Christians, so the answer is yes.

>> Can you tell me with a straight face that the US Congress represents right-wing religious values? Would you like to give some examples? <<

Sure. Going along with Bush and severely limiting access to stem cells. Eliminating foreign aid for Planned Parenthood functions, including birth control. Trying to pass a law keeping Terri Schiavo alive while ignoring thousands of other patients in similar circumstances. Allowing the FDA's attempt to ban the morning-after pill. Continuing to ban marijuana, including medical marijuana needed for treating patients. Trying to pass a flag-burning amendment. Trying to pass a marriage amendment. Etc.

Now give me a tough one. If you're this ignorant of what's happening in America, you probably shouldn't try to debate the subject with me. I'll wipe the floor with you.

>> Can you imagine a situation in an American university today where a homosexual or a feminist would be threatened for exposing their views? <<

Ward Churchill the alleged Indian received threats after he spoke out against the US after 9/11. So did many other liberals. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill for the details on Churchill.

>> As to the media, have you seen any negative references to homosexuals or atheists on TV or in the movies? It is Christians who are portrayed in a negative light. <<

For the most part, I haven't seen negative references to homosexuals, atheists, OR Christians. When Christianity is mentioned in the shows I watch—ER, Lost, Law & Order: SVU, The West Wing, etc.—it's given fair play. That comment doesn't include canceled shows such as Joan of Arcadia, which was all about God helping people, or Jack and Bobby, where the lead character became president as a Republican preacher.

>> As to the White House, you seem to think that because Bush makes a few religious statements from time to time that he represents conservative Christian values. <<

Bush's actions as well as his words make him a conservative Christian. Besides, he claims to be born again, I think. So he fits the definition by his standard and by everyone else's.

>> Are you aware that many Christians voted for Bush reluctantly and with distaste, thinking that he would be less bad than Kerry? <<

Yes, but a lot more conservative Christians love him and embrace him as their savior.

>> You seem to be unaware that Bush makes some politically advantageous statements on occasion, but is not pursuing a socially conservative Christian agenda. <<

He's pursuing a socially conservative Christian agenda on many fronts. He's not doing it on every front for a couple reasons: 1) He knows he can't win every battle. 2) Unlike some people, he's not a fanatic on every issue.

>> If his invasion of Iraq represents Christian values, then the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Chinese occupation of Tibet represent atheist values. <<

Only if those Communists claimed they were acting in the name of atheism. As I've shown you, Bush has claimed he was acting in the name of God. Any invasion could have a religious or secular underpinning, but Bush has stated his religious reasons for invading Iraq.

>> So, and here is a question: how can you boast that you are in control and then at the same time talk about the overwhelming current of fundamentalism? <<

I mean we're in control in general—and in particular, during the modern era beginning in the 20th century. We're still in control in many of the states. But we haven't been in control of the federal government since right-wing Republicans took over all three branches after 2000.

No one thinks the fundamentalists were in control during the Clinton administration. I'm talking about the last five years, when right-wing Republicans took over the presidency and the Congress. So your ramblings about what's been happening in the last 40 years are irrelevant. We're not talking about the old trends, we're talking about the new ones.

Overwhelming current of fundamentalism?
>> Please tell me if you think there is an overwhelming current of fundamentalism in the courts, the media, the universities. <<

Overwhelming, no. There's a moderate streak of conservatism in the courts and the media.

>> Is pornography illegal? Are abortions illegal? Are homosexuals required to hide in secrecy? <<

Not illegal, but restricted. Not illegal, but restricted. No.

Is the fundamentalist position that homosexuals should hide in secrecy?! That sounds more like the Nazi or KKK position. Homosexuals don't have equal rights in our society, so we're far from the liberal ideal. Homosexuals have attained some rights because our society is torn between unenlightened people like you and enlightened people like me.

By "enlightened," I mean capable of reading the news and understanding the scientific facts. Namely, that homosexuality is innate—one of God's many creations. See Homosexuality Isn't a Choice for some of the facts you're so obviously unaware of.

>> There is Christian influence in America, no doubt — but this constant harping about the menace of Christianity, when the Christians are a defeated minority and on the run in every field <<

What rubbish. Have you read a single poll on the influence of Christians? Large majorities of Americans believe in God, go to church, and pray regularly. We're a Christian, God-fearing nation by any standard you can name.

>> this imagining that the Christians are the menace that must be eliminated, to me this is pure fantasy which comes from an obsessive and irrational hatred. <<

No, it comes from reading the news and the polls. And separating church and state has absolutely nothing to do with "eliminating" Christians. If the Founding Fathers can advocate a separation of church and state without hating Christians, so can I.

>> the Christians are controlling everything, if we get rid of them all will be well <<

When you see me saying we need to "get rid of them," let me know. Until then, you're wasting my time fantasizing my position rather than reading my words on the subject. Stop making up nonsense and start dealing with what I've actually said.

>> The liberal Christians who think homosexuality is normal and should be accepted, who think abortion is a woman's right, who think the constitutional right to free speech includes pornography — these people have little clout compared to the fundamentalist fanatics on the Supreme Court and in the White Ho <<

Yep. That's what we have the Constitution for: to protect minorities like us agnostics and atheists from the tyranny of the majority. If five people on the Supreme Court vote to uphold the Constitution, it doesn't matter how many of you fundamentalist fanatics are in control.

And I repeat: You've been in control for only a few years, and many of us are still standing against you. You haven't gotten all the changes you wanted, but you're working on it. That's precisely why our warnings are so timely: because you could enact your fanatical agenda if we don't resist it.

>> That explains why pornography is outlawed and violators are strictly punished, making pornography so rare in America today. <<

No, but it explains why it's limited to adult shops and the Internet. In other words, it's under control; if you keep tabs on your children, they can't obtain pornography on their own.

>> Please tell me if you think the fundamentalist fanatics are in power to such an extent that the atheists, liberals, homosexuals, feminists, pornographers, and abortionists cannot withstand them. I await your answer with interest. <<

So far we've withstood them, but the threat is real. Another 20 or 25 years of a right-wing president and Congress and you'll see most of your agenda enacted.

Are you seriously arguing that we've expanded rather than curtailed homosexual rights in the last five years? How many states have voted to legalize gay marriages, and how many have voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman only? The latter number is greater than the former number, obviously. In the last five years, Americans have overturned attempts to liberalize gay rights and have further restricted them instead.

How about the right to an abortion? Are you seriously arguing that we've expanded rather than curtailed abortion rights in the last five years? Give me the evidence to support your position, or I'll assume you don't know what you're talking about.

The same goes for almost any other "right" you can name. Americans may have expanded that right over the last 40 years, but they've curtailed the right over the last five. Hence my statement that the fundamentalists are setting the agenda (or trying to) for the nation.

>> I think you know very well that your kind is in the driver's seat, as the facts show and as you yourself have admitted: we're running the country. <<

We're running the country in the long run, not in the short run.

Religious right isn't dominant?
>> Anyone who thinks the religious right is dominant in America today is living in a fantasy world, cut off from reality, so poisoned by hatred against Christianity as to be incapable of honest, mature, and intelligent discussions of the subject. <<

I've listed many of the areas where right-wing Christians are taking control. You've listed a few areas where secularists have made progress but are far from getting our way. Homosexuality? Abortion? Pornography? They're all much more limited than a true liberal would wish. Since we haven't gotten our way on these subjects, where exactly have we gotten our way? Name a single area where our desired position hasn't been compromised by you conservative Christians.

>> Mexico is a Christian country? <<

Hell, yes. It may be the most Christian country in the world. Are you really that ignorant of your own religion? What do you think the most Christian country in the world is, if it's not Mexico?

>> As to Saudi Arabia, why don't you move to China? <<

Because I'm a secularist and America was founded on the principle of separating church and state, so it's a perfect fit. Your perfect fit is an explicitly religious country like Mexico or Saudi Arabia.

You don't understand the concept of a secular state like the US and you don't like it, so you don't belong here. Find yourself a religious state where you DO belong.

>> Would you like to see that in America, the narrow minded and intolerant Christians being carried off to prison? <<

No, because that would violate the Constitution too. Read the Constitution and you'll discover what I believe.

>> Would you like to set up labor camps where the Christians could be forced to work 12 hours a day seven days a week on minimal rations until they dropped dead of hunger? That's the way to deal with those intolerant fanatics. <<

You're wasting your time with this stupid verbiage.

>> Do you think Jefferson and Washington and Adams advocated the elimination of Christianity? <<

No, they advocated the separation of church and state, which is why I wrote what I wrote. Learn to read so I don't have to repeat myself.

>> I think Jefferson, Washington, and Adams would be disgusted if they could see America today, a land of homosexuality, vice, pornography, crime, baby killing, divorce, immorality, mind-numbing entertainments <<

Abortion wasn't made illegal until the late 19th century. It was legal when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. So you're wrong on one basic fact, at least.

As for the rest of these things, most of them aren't constitutional issues. The Founders might be upset at the state of the union, but they'd be glad we're still obeying the rule of law as embodied in their Constitution. (By "we" I mean everyone who isn't a fawning Bush sycophant, that is.)

And as I've told you before, the most Christian states are the most at fault for almost every social ill you could name. More abortions, more divorces, etc. You're simply ignorant if you don't know this fact about American culture. Quit wasting your time berating us secularists when your fellow Christians are the biggest sinners around.

>> Actually, I have left the country. <<

Good, since you don't believe in our democratic ideals. Feel free to stay away until you learn what it means to live in a pluralistic society that upholds the rights of the minority.

Rob

Immorality in America
As I told Joe, educate yourself about immorality in America. From the LA Times:

The dark side of faith

By ROSA BROOKS

October 1, 2005

IT'S OFFICIAL: Too much religion may be a dangerous thing.

This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.

Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.

He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust.

Murder rates? Six of the seven states with the highest 2003 homicide rates were "red" in the 2004 elections (Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina), while the deep blue Northeastern states had murder rates well below the national average. Infant mortality rates? Highest in the South and Southwest; lowest in New England. Divorce rates? Marriages break up far more in red states than in blue. Teen pregnancy rates? The same.

Of course, the red/blue divide is only an imperfect proxy for levels of religiosity. And while Paul's study found that the correlation between high degrees of religiosity and high degrees of social dysfunction appears robust, it could be that high levels of social dysfunction fuel religiosity, rather than the other way around.

Although correlation is not causation, Paul's study offers much food for thought. At a minimum, his findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, lack of religiosity does societies no particular harm. This should offer ammunition to those who maintain that religious belief is a purely private matter and that government should remain neutral, not only among religions but also between religion and lack of religion. It should also give a boost to critics of "faith-based" social services and abstinence-only disease and pregnancy prevention programs.

We shouldn't shy away from the possibility that too much religiosity may be socially dangerous. Secular, rationalist approaches to problem-solving emphasize uncertainty, evidence and perpetual reevaluation. Religious faith is inherently nonrational.

This in itself does not make religion worthless or dangerous. All humans hold nonrational beliefs, and some of these may have both individual and societal value. But historically, societies run into trouble when powerful religions become imperial and absolutist.

The claim that religion can have a dark side should not be news. Does anyone doubt that Islamic extremism is linked to the recent rise in international terrorism? And since the history of Christianity is every bit as blood-drenched as the history of Islam, why should we doubt that extremist forms of modern American Christianity have their own pernicious and measurable effects on national health and well-being?

Arguably, Paul's study invites us to conclude that the most serious threat humanity faces today is religious extremism: nonrational, absolutist belief systems that refuse to tolerate difference and dissent.

My prediction is that right-wing evangelicals will do their best to discredit Paul's substantive findings. But when they fail, they'll just shrug: So what if highly religious societies have more murders and disease than less religious societies? Remember the trials of Job? God likes to test the faithful.

To the truly nonrational, even evidence that on its face undermines your beliefs can be twisted to support them. Absolutism means never having to say you're sorry.

And that, of course, is what makes it so very dangerous.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .