This Week in God

First up from the God Machine this week is a major political defeat for James Dobson and his cohorts, in their effort to drive diversity of thought from the evangelical movement.

The board of the National Association of Evangelicals has rebuffed leaders of the Christian right who had called for the association to silence or dismiss its Washington policy director because of his involvement in the campaign against global warming.

Prominent Christian conservatives like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, had sent a letter to the association’s leaders this month accusing the policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, of “using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time,” which they defined as abortion, homosexuality and teaching children sexual morality and abstinence.

Board members say that the notion of censoring Mr. Cizik never arose last week at their meeting in Minnesota, and that he had delivered the keynote address at their banquet.

The board of the National Association of Evangelicals also voted, 38 to 1, to denounce the Bush administration’s policies towards suspected terrorist detainees, stating that these policies exceed the “boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible.” The board went on to unanimously reaffirm the NAE’s three-year-old platform, which includes priorities such as the environment, human rights, and poverty, all of which the religious right found objectionable.

“There’s one Lord, but not just one issue,” said one board member, the Rev. Paul de Vries, president of the New York Divinity School. “I am as much against abortion as Jim Dobson and the others, but I want that baby to live in a healthful environment, inside the womb as well as outside of the womb.”

If they keep this up, the drive to change the political meaning of the phrase “religious issues” may work after all.

Next up, the religious push-back against Congress’ lone non-believer.

We talked the other day about Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) who became the first member of Congress in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn’t believe in any supernatural beings. I was anxious to see how the religious right responded to having one nonbeliever out of 535 members of Congress. As expected, the movement didn’t disappoint. There was this, for example, from Concerned Women for America:

“It is unfortunate in a society that is going down the path of godlessness and making right wrong and wrong right, that we continue down this path by celebrating one member of Congress who denies that God exists altogether,” Concerned Women for America Director of Legislative Relations Mike Mears told Cybercast News Service….

“I think a Christian worldview is proper for a politician to have,” he said. “I want them to be looking outside of themselves for answers to big issues.”

The Traditional Values Coalition went so far as to fabricate its own narrative.

In a display of open hostility to God, California Representative Peter Stark stood up on the Floor of the House on March 13 and declared his unbelief in God.

(For the record, Stark responded to a questionnaire; he didn’t stand up on the House floor.)

My personal favorite came from the Christian Seniors Association, a front-group created by the son-in-law of the Traditional Values Coalition’s president, called on other members of Congress to fight back against Stark’s secularism.

It is time for religious members of Congress to push back. A simple declaration of a belief in God by members of Congress on the House floor will be greatly informative for the American people….

This is a fight which is destined to be fought in America and we think it should begin today.

Theists now outnumber nonbelievers in Congress 534 to 1. Maybe the religious right ought to wait until atheists reach double digits before declaring a holy war.

“I think a Christian worldview is proper for a politician to have,” he said. “I want them to be looking outside of themselves for answers to big issues.”

This is one of the funniest goddamned quotes I’ve ever read. Worldview? Maybe if the Fundies actually had a worldview then maybe Iraq wouldn’t have been so fucked up?

  • Dobson in a nutshell:

    My invisible friend tells me that you have no standing ,unless you believe in him too….and I trust my invisible friend with all the responsibilities of protecting this world so I can concentrate on controling your sex life.

  • environment, human rights, and poverty, all of which the religious right found objectionable.

    They objected to them?

    Just kidding, I’ve been the victim of an unfortunate sentence of my own creation as often as anybody.

    Concerned Women for America Director of Legislative Relations Mike Mears told Cybercast News Service….

    Hey, look how hip and progressive they are- she calls herself by a name usually used by males. Just kidding.

    I know it’s possible that I’m being unfair here- a lot of whites have worked for NAACP and I’m sure men probably work for feminist groups. But why am I concerned when it’s a man who is the director for a conservative women’s group? Probably because it’s women who were traditionally controlled by men, and that’s what liberals, feminists, have worked against.

  • The Seattle Post-Intelligencer runs a regular weekly column by former minister Anthony B. Robinson. It’s always thoughtful, but today’s — A St. Patrick’s Day question: What makes a saint? — was particularly so. The focus of the article is the difference between heroes and saints. By its terms Peter Stark is a saint, while those who oppose him are neither saints nor heroes (no matter what the nutcases they bilk think of them).

  • Maybe I’m crazy, but I’ve never trusted anyone with a belief in supernatural being so strong that it modifies the way they interact with the real world. As Dawkins said;

    Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. “There’s an infinite number of things that we can’t disprove,” he said. “You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it’s wrong to say therefore we don’t need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

  • Concerned Women for America Director of Legislative Relations Mike Mears!

    That’s so pathetic.

    WTF? Isn’t there ONE woman in the CWA who can deal with legislative relations? Not one? The Concerned Women are concerned about what their Concerned Men tell them to be concerned about. What a bunch of losers.

  • All that is just is. And all that is…is God. We see it, are it and yet we expect it to be something else. If a man is walking in the ocean, looking for the ocean, and all that is, is ocean…he could walk forever and never find the ocean. It is all on us…the poverty, global warming, freedom. I, for one, can never accept faith through fear of punishment as anything but a means of having power over others. Dobson, Falwell…these people are billionaires. Their religions have certainly been good to them but they are just using this space…they don’t own it. Time to be responsible enough to take care of it. Dobson alone could end poverty financially for any given state on any given day. What was that thing about a camel and the eye of a needle, I forgot…I bet Falwell did too. That god needs to stay out of government.

  • #6 Dale

    Thanks for the link. Great civilized discussion of a subject that can easily degenerate into name calling. A vivid example of the vast superiority of the written word over the spoken for an honest consideration of serious matters. That superiority gets no promotion in this video obssessed world.

  • Dale’s Harris v. Sullivan link at 6 is entertaining. They write at length and though it’s worth perusing in whole, page 5 is where Harris’ gently lowers the boom.

    From the exchange, Harris to Sullivan:

    So I find it peculiar that you consider your successful ordeal of living as a homosexual in a homophobic faith to be evidence in support of the religious project. It’s like hearing a man who has been unfairly confined to a straight-jacket all his life say that he is grateful to have been taught such “economy of motion.” This is not to make light of the very obvious and important fact that we can all grow through adversity. Many people can honestly say things like, “cancer is the best thing that ever happened to me.” So, I do not doubt for a moment that your struggle with the sexual taboos of Christianity has made you a better person. But your experience does not transform a two-thousand-year pandemic of needless and crushing sexual neurosis in the name of Christ into some kind of spiritual sacrament. Generally speaking, the Church has promulgated views about human sexuality that are unconscionably stupid and utterly lacking in empathy. Full stop. The fact that you have navigated this labyrinth of sacred prejudice and kept your sanity is no point in favor of religion. The glory is very much your own.

  • And thus far, this is Sullivan’s last word:

    “But what that really means is: we have learned how to be human through religion. And how can we not be human? And who would want not to be human? What you are asking for, as I have argued before, is salvation by reason. But even after you have been saved by reason, you will die, Sam. And what will save you then?”

    Phantom tail grasped firmly in mouth. How crazy, this death grip on being “saved”. These folks should be called Pyrophobiacs. Their angst regarding Hell, or simply no longer being, is annoying. They’re afraid and they love their fear and anyone who tries to take their fear away from them is also taking away their spiritual underpinnings. Yuck.

    Sorry to be wandering off topic here Mr. CB. It’s Dale’s fault.

  • Another interesting tidbit to add to This Week in God:
    http://tinyurl.com/2xfxjk
    From yesterday’s NYT, a short article titled:
    “Homosexuality May Be Based on Biology, Baptist Says”

    And does it exonarate gays of sin? No siree, bob; it does not. But, if we mess with the foetus, we might cure it of the sin before it emerges from the womb.

    As CB often says: “you couldn’t make it up if you tried”…

  • Sullivan’s defense of religion is narcississitic. He admits it and revels in it. He says it’s the best we can do. It’s who we are. It is a rejection of life.

  • But why am I concerned when it’s a man who is the director for a conservative women’s group?

    [Swan]

    Because it is sc-rewed up? I’m beginning to wonder if CWA was originally “Men who are Concerned that Women Will Have a Voice in the United States of America.”

  • Just a small point on terminology. CB says, in summation: “Theists now outnumber nonbelievers in Congress 534 to 1. Maybe the religious right ought to wait until atheists reach double digits before declaring a holy war.”. I have no quibble with the point being made, but I humbly request that the terminology be tightened up.

    The complement of theist is nontheist. There are precise and exacting doctrinal and philosophical reasons for this. While such a fastidiousness concern may not appeal to everyone who is not attracted to the rigors of metaphysical analysis — none of us, of course — the debate and exploration of such matters demands it.

    A theist is someone who believes, has faith in and appeals to an external creator super-being for guidance, power and absolution. That is their right and their freedom. The understanding of the nature of such a purported presence, as an object of belief and veneration, presumably varies from one adherent to another. That is also their freedom and right.

    A nontheist is someone who fails to find a satisfactory basis for such a belief, and may even consider such (baseless) belief to be dangerous. There are mountains of evidence in history of terrible crimes, atrocities and stupidities committed in the name of such a belief — my God is better than your God, with God on our side, destroy the infidels, etc. Because nontheists do not subscribe to belief in an unverifiable entity, it does not mean they are bereft of understanding of the nature of reality and ultimate truth. On the contrary, their understanding of the true nature of experience can be very sophisticated, effective and substantiatable.

    The term atheist is not a synonym of nontheist. An atheist emphatically does not believe in the existence of God (or ‘a’ God) and so, in some ways, falls into the same trap as the theist, i.e. a belief in and commitment to an unprovable assertion.

    So, Dear Mr Carpetbagger, pretty pretty please, on this topic it would do no harm to exert a little more of your inestimable veracity and erudition on these specific epistemological niceties.

    — And thanks a million!

  • NB: I say the following as a born and bred agnostic/atheist.

    Can we lay off Sullivan? His understanding of religion, while maybe not being sufficiently logical for some of us, is at least of the rare loving form as which we long Christianity to manifest itself. How could the topic of that vile Dobson lead us to someone at least trying to be sane?

    And speaking of a proper Christian worldview for politicians, how could the Dobson-ilk have forgotten Lieberman?

  • Comments are closed.