display your banner here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Proving God by Consensus: My Problem with the Religious Right

  1. #1
    Ink Blot
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    7

    Proving God by Consensus: My Problem with the Religious Right

    A few decades ago I was awakened at seven o’clock one Sunday morning by the persistent droning of my downstairs door buzzer. I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was.

    In this instance it was two Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    At the time I bore no animus toward people who presented themselves as fervently religious. Though I deemed them delusional, I respected both their right to their delusion and their need of it. The proselytizers I encountered were more likely to draw pity from me than to provoke my ire.

    So if I had good reason to be put out by the inconvenience they’d caused me, an inconvenience compounded by the ungodly hour they’d picked to pay a call, my reaction to the elderly and finely attired black couple with soft Georgia accents who greeted me—he with a bible in one hand and a straw hat in the other; she wearing a hat bedecked with white and yellow flowers—wasn’t in the least bit hostile. In fact, while I made it clear that I had no use for the message they were delivering, I was as courteous as I could be. I didn’t want to tamper with their fantasy or hurt their feelings and when I closed the door on them it was very gently.

    But that was a while back, before religion assumed the weight and influence that it has in our cultural and political affairs and before I understood just where the so-called “True Believers” are coming from.

    We tend to allow that, unhinged as we may judge them to be, evangelicals, in their efforts to make converts or to bring “more religion” into the culture, are doing the work of a God they feel with genuine confidence to be real. Some of us might even imagine that they care about our salvation. But this isn’t what’s happening. Dealing with their fear of death, a fear exacerbated by 9/11 and the destruction of the myth of American invincibility, and wanting desperately for a God and the potential for eternal life implicit in the concept of God to exist, the real mission of these people isn’t to share a revelation but to validate beliefs they’re not sure of by securing the agreement of others. To prove the existence of God to THEMSELVES by achieving a universal consensus on the matter (the only way to achieve something like certainty about anything) is the true aspiration of the religious right.

    And I mightily resent the manifold ways in which their ambition to, for starters, make a formal theocracy of America—a more than adequate means of certifying their beliefs—is already poisoning the lives of the rest of us.

    I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another. I’m also talking about the brakes they managed to apply to government sponsored stem-cell research and the role they played in obliging us to endure a George W. Bush for a second term (let alone what his presidency has left in its wake) because he professed to share their faith in Jesus Christ. And I’m referring as well to what turned out to be a politically pivotal quantity of Tea Party candidates that they were instrumental in electing to Congress.

    And, again, none of this has been, at bottom, to the purpose of spreading a vision (which could maybe have claimed some level of legitimacy), but rather to, in their own minds, ratify by numbers, law or custom, the presence of a deity.

    Since there remains a sufficient population of heathens to challenge their beliefs and to keep their uncertainty alive, reaching their unspoken goal will only become more urgent for the evangelicals. They will get louder and more insistent. And their successes will be more pernicious. Is a President Rick Perry completely out of the question?

    I should say that having a few issues of my own with the prospect of death, and quite capable myself of twisting and distorting reality in order to live in the world with a semblance of equilibrium, I can, even under the present conditions, experience some empathy for the Christian right’s agenda. (And I can also appreciate the necessity and durability of religion itself. I’m always taken aback when people whose minds I admire predict that human beings will one day “outgrow” the need for religion, as if it were merely a stage in our evolution. Like the biologists who are looking for a religion gene, they miss the point. For as long as death is a precondition of life, a need for some kind of invented deity, with a plan for mankind—and a collection of rules and practices which, if scrupulously followed, offer the promise of an afterlife—is going to prevail for a large percentage of humanity.)

    But while I’m not insensitive to the evangelicals’ cause that doesn’t make its increasing encroachment on the lives of the secular any more acceptable to me. I repeat: IS A PRESIDENT RICK PERRY OUT OF THE QUESTION? No. If there was once a time when we could indulge the folks of the Christian right at no substantial cost to ourselves, that’s not the case any longer. Their quest to conscript us into their immortality project has gotten too much out of hand and leaves no room for such generosity. At this point there’s little choice but to do battle with them; to fight their actions at every turn. The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.

  2. #2
    WF Veteran moderan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    southern AZ
    Posts
    3,953
    Blog Entries
    12
    Hmm. You're inviting criticism, but you knew that already. I'm of the same mind as far as a good bit of this goes, but I deplore the stridency implicit in the repetition of the Rick Perry attempted-meme. That smacks of the technique you're decrying and imo cheapens your argument.
    It's true that it's getting hard to ignore that the prevailing social agenda of the country is so Spain-circa-Inquisition, or at least one would be led to think so, for they speak in LOUD VOICES inspired by the One True Lord. But when one expresses disagreement, you're one of those "militant atheists". So.
    The gloom and doom in this screed...hmm. Bombastic! So what exactly are those dire consequences?
    As far as the writing:typos, there are a few. Could use another going-over and some random fine-tuning.

    The Motley Press- Your WF Ezine
    I blogged today. Did you?


    "From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it." - Groucho Marx

  3. #3
    Profound Writer Bloggsworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Leafy suburb of North London
    Posts
    1,460
    As they can't all be right, and all are equally sure that, with the exception of the Church of England (who will tolerate anything but other people's possession of money), only they are right, then clearly all are wrong. Extreme Zionism and Islamism run so close on parellel paths that only the names have been changed to protect the perverse, both will kill to to protect their own peace, just as the loony right will kill doctors, nurses and patients to confirm their belief in the right to life - If there were a God, he would have damned the lot of them - There is only us, flawed though we be, we are all we have...
    Last edited by Bloggsworth; 12-29-2011 at 01:00 PM.
    A man in possession of a wooden spoon must be in want of a pot to stir.

  4. #4
    Scrivener
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    154
    I told myself that I shouldn’t reply to this, but I have ignored the advice of much wiser men, so here goes:

    I was once on the ‘right’ myself (In no way do I mean to imply that I am now on the ‘left’). Never have I felt the need to go knock on the door of a stranger at ‘any’ time of the day. In fact, the conflict in which I saw within the doctrine of the church I was a member had to deal with this very topic. I once asked the pastor, of a rapidly growing church, why we needed to put as much effort into trying to lead people to the lord if it has been predetermined by god as to who will be the chosen ones (as the pastor was teaching us). He stared at me like a deer in the headlights, and said, “There are some good books on the subject; maybe you should read them. That left a bad taste in my mouth.

    I began to look around at others in the church. I noticed that most of them seemed to be simply ‘playing church.’ There lives were much different the other six days of the week than they were on Sunday. More importantly I noticed that the ones that had a lofty bank account seemed to be welcomed with open arms. Others, who weren’t as financially comfortable, could sneeze and were asked to leave the church.

    I think your post has a little more to do with the influence of those with whom you disagree than about anything else. You see them as a negative influence in the world. I think the problem is that there are extremes on both side of the spectrum. Those who stand on a soapbox and say there is no God are just as radical as those who knock on a door at 7 AM.

    If you were to ask me if I believe in God I would say I hope there is. I am only human, and that disqualifies me from knowing for sure. It also disqualifies the holiest of people along with atheist since both groups are human as well. Personally, I only know what I know, and what I know is: I don’t know. I would like to believe that a just God would understand that.

    I hope I didn’t offend anyone, but I know better. Sorry!

    One last thing: What do you want to bet that this gets moved to the debate section of the forum?
    Last edited by ClosetWriter; 12-29-2011 at 12:29 PM.

  5. #5
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Prolific Writer
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    So if I had good reason to be put out by the inconvenience they’d caused me ...
    I don't get why you blame them for causing you this inconvenience. Surely, it's of your own making, because you begin by saying:

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was.
    The inconvenience was down to the choice you made to live there, was it not? All they did was press the buzzer, which is all anyone might do.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    I didn’t want to tamper with their fantasy ...
    By fantasy, I assume you mean beliefs?

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    But that was a while back, before religion assumed the weight and influence that it has in our cultural and political affairs and before I understood just where the so-called “True Believers” are coming from.
    I suspect, from what you've written, it's the latter that has undergone the greater change more recently. That is, your own understanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    We tend to allow that, unhinged as we may judge them to be ...
    Who is 'we'? Who are you speaking for?

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    Dealing with their fear of death ...
    Do they fear death? In my experience, typically such people don't fear death. Some might, but in general their faith brings them a great deal of comfort not just in the course of their daily lives, but with respect to -- and at the point of -- death also.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    and wanting desperately for a God and the potential for eternal life implicit in the concept of God to exist
    I'm not sure whether it's your understanding that's flawed (I suspect it is) or whether you're just misrepresenting them, but I have to disagree with you again here. Typically, there's no desperation involved in their belief. It is a belief, as simple as that, and does not rely on any form of underlying desperation. While they may disagree about the finer details, God and the afterlife are fundamental.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    I’m speaking, of course, of their interference with a woman’s freedom to end a pregnancy and of homosexuals ability to marry one another.
    Of course, in a democracy, they're entitled to hold views that differ from other people on all issues, including abortion and same-sex marriage. But those issues aren't necessarily split down religious lines. There are plenty of people who don't hold religious beliefs who share opinions across the whole spectrum on those issues, and there are plenty of Christians who support abortion and same-sex marriage. It's not so very long ago, either, in fact it's an incredibly short amount of time really, that there wasn't widespread acceptance of homosexuality at all, let alone same-sex marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    Is a President Rick Perry completely out of the question?
    Of course not. Welcome to democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    I repeat: IS A PRESIDENT RICK PERRY OUT OF THE QUESTION?
    Not in a democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    Their quest to conscript us into their immortality project has gotten too much out of hand and leaves no room for such generosity.
    Out of hand how, exactly? I don't feel as though you've made a case for this.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    At this point there’s little choice but to do battle with them; to fight their actions at every turn. The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.
    Too dire, how? What consequences do you foresee, and why?

    Overall, I thought your case was poorly presented. You seem to make leaps based on your own (limited, sorry) perception of what these people believe or want. It's more of a rant than anything, with no quotes, no references, nothing to give your assertions or conclusions any real weight. I'm not sure how you'd go about fixing it without a significant rewrite based on some kind of analysis or research, and maybe more tightly focussed around what you see as the developing political concern.

  6. #6
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Prolific Writer
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by ClosetWriter View Post
    What do you want to bet that this gets moved to the debate section of the forum?
    No reason why it should, that I can see. OP wants feedback on a non-fiction piece. That's all.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    A few decades ago I was awakened at seven o’clock one Sunday morning by the persistent droning of my downstairs door buzzer. I was living then in a back apartment on the top floor of an East Village walk-up that was without an intercom or the capacity to buzz visitors inside. This circumstance made it necessary for me to descend five flights of stairs to personally open the frosted-glass front door and to see who it was.

    .
    With all the thieves combing that area a few decades ago, the sight of two Jehovah's Witnesses would have been a welcoming one to most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobertLevin219 View Post
    The consequences for those of us who live for this life rather than the next one have become too dire to let them slide.
    Live for the moment. Whatever is heading down the pipe will be revealed soon enough--whether its eternal sleep or eternal life cannot be altered by us anyhow. "Eat, drink, and be merry," as the saying goes.
    Last edited by Robinjazz; 12-29-2011 at 02:50 PM.

  8. #8
    WF Veteran moderan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    southern AZ
    Posts
    3,953
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by ClosetWriter View Post


    One last thing: What do you want to bet that this gets moved to the debate section of the forum?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob View Post
    No reason why it should, that I can see. OP wants feedback on a non-fiction piece. That's all.
    Quite right. And as long as the commentary is kept on that level, there shouldn't be any issue. There isn't a debate about the relative religious content, but a consideration of the cogency of the writer's argument and the quality of the words and effectiveness of said words.

    The Motley Press- Your WF Ezine
    I blogged today. Did you?


    "From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it." - Groucho Marx

  9. #9
    Scrivener
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Michigan
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by moderan View Post
    Quite right. And as long as the commentary is kept on that level, there shouldn't be any issue. There isn't a debate about the relative religious content, but a consideration of the cogency of the writer's argument and the quality of the words and effectiveness of said words.
    I just assumed it would because I posted an essay about how my feeling about sports has changed in light of the happenings at Penn State, and it was moved to the debate section. Not because it was written in a manner in which debate was promoted, but because people had many opinions on the subject. Just saying!

  10. #10
    Scrivener patskywriter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Durham, NC, USA
    Posts
    185
    If someone were to casually distill your (perceived) argument into one sentence, it could read: "I'm a decent person, but I choose to look down on you idiots who believe in a supreme being." Debates are easier to take seriously when the writer is able to (reasonably) examine both sides without lapsing into prejudicial statements and condescension.
    — Publisher of http://www.durhamskywriter.com, Durham NC's online community paper.
    Currently working on my first nonfiction book, "And Then We Saw an Eye: Caring for a Loved-One with Alzheimer's at Home"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,079
    You should have lived in the area when the sect Hare Krishna had its headquarters on 6th Street and 2nd Avenue. That group paraded through those narrow streets banging instruments and singing and shouting loudly.
    Last edited by Robinjazz; 12-31-2011 at 03:01 PM.

  12. #12
    WF Veteran moderan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    southern AZ
    Posts
    3,953
    Blog Entries
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by ClosetWriter View Post
    I just assumed it would because I posted an essay about how my feeling about sports has changed in light of the happenings at Penn State, and it was moved to the debate section. Not because it was written in a manner in which debate was promoted, but because people had many opinions on the subject. Just saying!
    We've had that argument many times. It never ends well. You know about assumptions. "Just saying."

    Quote Originally Posted by patskywriter View Post
    If someone were to casually distill your (perceived) argument into one sentence, it could read: "I'm a decent person, but I choose to look down on you idiots who believe in a supreme being." Debates are easier to take seriously when the writer is able to (reasonably) examine both sides without lapsing into prejudicial statements and condescension.
    It seems to me that the OP wrote in that style deliberately, as if in parody of "the enemy", i.e., the religious right. And this isn't a debate, it's a piece of purported nonfiction. While your statement regarding condescension is entirely correct, imo, it is misplaced. The entire purpose of the piece is to provoke such commentary and methinks to show the level of closed-mindedness of both sides.
    Could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

    The Motley Press- Your WF Ezine
    I blogged today. Did you?


    "From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend reading it." - Groucho Marx

  13. #13
    Captain Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Second star to the right, then straight on 'til morning
    Posts
    7,369
    Blog Entries
    40
    When Albert Einstein came up with the formula, E=mc2, it wasn't close minded of him to believe that he had found the one solution to that equation.

  14. #14
    Scrivener
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East Midlands UK
    Posts
    125
    I wont comment on the argument - tempted as I am - as I understand the main purpose of the forum is to comment on the writing and provide feedback!

    I found it well-written, provocative, engaging, easy to read. It does come across as a well-argued piece on the whole, but straying into "rant" in places.

    I am interested in moderan's last comment. Did you set out to parody the religious right and be provocative (matching their perceived style of fervour presented as argument) with your own, or is this written as a balanced and fair argument to contract with their style? It seems to achieve more of the former than the latter?

  15. #15
    Profound Writer KyleColorado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    1,209
    Quote Originally Posted by moderan View Post
    It seems to me that the OP wrote in that style deliberately, as if in parody of "the enemy", i.e., the religious right. And this isn't a debate, it's a piece of purported nonfiction. While your statement regarding condescension is entirely correct, imo, it is misplaced. The entire purpose of the piece is to provoke such commentary and methinks to show the level of closed-mindedness of both sides.
    Could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.
    I think this is a straight forward theo-political thesis: the author's argument that the "religious right", in their attempt to validate their own beliefs, are a growing cause of concern, so much so that it's argued things are bordering on critical and need immediate action (undefined action which is suggested but not explained, instead merely regarded as "we must do something before this gets more out of hand").

    I see what you're saying, moderan (and what you're saying, if true, borders on brilliance, in my opinion), that it's possible the author is presenting his own argument as a form of satire, thus mocking the narration itself. But I don't think that would fall into the realm of Non-Fiction, would it? Wouldn't that be closer to fiction, as the narrative voice itself would then become a character, and not, as Non-Fiction implies, the actual voice of the author?
    If you only read the books that everyone else is reading, you can only think what everyone else is thinking.
    - Haruki Murakami

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •