Oct 12 2008
Politicizing God, & That Whole Evolution Thing
This seems to be a running theme, religion in politics, and fits neatly within the confines of my current career path. We had a lively discussion yesterday about people who regard their particular supernatural belief system as better than someone else’s, and I promised I’d address my own personal outlook sometime soon. So here it is:
Rhino’s View on Religion
1) I don’t have a problem with you if you like bedtime stories. But to claim that you know, absolutely know, that the Bible is absolute truth shows a rigidity of thought that has no place in the modern world. There are those out there that regard the Bible, as well as the Qu’ran, and the Bhagavad Gita as allegories, lessons to be learned and practiced, but not under any circumstances to be taken literally. Which is fine, as long as they regard every morality tale equally. This, we know, doesn’t always happen.
2) From multiple gods and goddesses, to animal or nature worship, to monotheism, all supernatural belief systems were created as a means to answer questions. Where does the sun go? Why does it rain? Where did we come from? What happens when we die? The only one we haven’t been able to prove is the last, but at least those of us that don’t know, aren’t so arrogantly presumptuous to pretend that we do.
3) Evolution v. Creationism: Ready, kids? In the scientific community, the word theory can be substituted for the word fact. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural works that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validization changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the “theory of evolution”- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity- they are not expressing reservations about its truth. You can safely substitute fact for theory because scientific fact is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical reasons is defined as true.¹” The same cannot be said for creationist myths of any faith. I have heard the argument that because a day is an eternity to humans in the eyes of god, that proves the radio-carbon dating analysis of Earth’s age. This theory comes from more realistic Christians, who, unlike the majority of the members of the religion, refuse to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. However, when it comes to the finer points of evolution, they fall back on the “faith” argument, turning their backs on proven science.
4) Religion should not be a determining factor in the political sphere: This is a Rhino-sized pipe dream, because we live in a country where in 2008, 68% of Americans believe in angels. So unless you live in Vermont, you have to be (or at least appear) devout in order to be elected. It is my opinion that the issue of religion distracts from the progress of a nation because it creates ideological distractions and conflicts of interest when dealing with a) social issues, b) foreign relations, and c) furthering scientific research. If a political leader is constricted by his/her tenets of faith, issues like reproductive rights, the legalization of marijuana, privacy rights, and (ironically enough) the treatment of prisoners hinder his/her ability to view these issues in an unbiased, professional light. It (religious beliefs) create a conflict of interest when dealing with nations that hold different constructs of faith (see: Global War on Terror). Further, it hinders necessary research in life saving medicinal sciences ( see: stem cell research), and effectively slows the ability for those in that community to make timely and beneficial advances.
If you look at countries and nation-states that still operate under theocracies, you find a populace under extreme social, financial, and political duress. That we insist on dragging God along with us on the campaign trail in election after election shows to me how little we have ourselves advanced as the “most powerful country in the world”. Religion has been the historical basis for more deaths on and off the battlefield than any other cause in humanity’s existence. Without a clear distance from supernatural belief systems, our country will be forever spinning its wheels and closing the door on progress.
Rhino out.
¹Rennie, John Physical Anthropology, article 4, Answers to Creationist Nonsense. 2008 McGraw-Hill Publishing
Stumble It!
My personal view is that the Bible is basically a story book. And I agree it should not be taken literally. I also believe that when you are in office, your religious beliefs should not come into play. What ever happened to separation of church and state?
Great post.
http://apoetsview.today.com
http://insanfrancisco.today.com
Lemme know when you finish the book, I’d love to read it.
Religion and me is an ongoing thing. I pretty much have accepted the fact that I do not know, and don’t have the capabilities to understand, so therefore I’m open to a lot of theories/facts. Don’t necessarily believe them, but don’t condone people for having faith in something either. Sometimes faith, even if misplaced, is the best support system for someone in an irrational world. Even if it is false, it’s not my place to take that away from them. Kind of like telling your 3 year old that santa doesn’t exist… it may be true, but is it really worth it? Oh the bliss of ignorance lol.
I have come to believe The Enlightenment never made it to the shores of the United States of America. Oh, some of us found it through school and scholarship, but the movement itself was already well underway before we became a nation. The founding fathers were blessed by education in the European tradition. That tradition is vilified today as “elite” and we see “founding fathers” conflated with Puritans and the Mayflower Compact. Historic fact has little meaning. “Supernatural belief systems” are the socio-political constructs of man; and their inherent function within society can be directly traced to political and economic systems-at-work. Questions of power and control lie at the heart of all fundamentalist theologies. That was true thousands of years ago, as it is true today. The concurrent rise of Evangelicalism within the U.S. along with the Neoconservative movement has not gone un-noticed. It is being examined and deconstructed to illuminate who has most benefited from this new political force. Who gains control of whom, and how does that play out in the life of “the-citizen”.
Any reason-abled person can see that evolution does not have to be counter-intuitive with God. The case becomes problematic when one projects their own human-ness, onto their ‘God image’; therefore delimiting the infinite possibilities for what God might actually be. Some of us view this to be blasphemy; e.g. how dare we mere mortals presume to know the mind and heart of God. Furthermore, how dare mere mortals presume the place of God to take action against fellow-man? To answer fundamentalism with fundamentalism is nothing more than barbaric.
I need to apologize for this being so long; but today, I had to “print Rhino” and sit with it a while. Re your book: see the 2002 Baehr-Wells Trans. of Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism”…you might find some seriously good stuff.~k
If you finish this book, it would be a great read.
I quoted your comment (to one of my posts) on my blog today, trying to get a few answers for myself. If this is a problem, let me know. I wouldn’t mind a few answers myself.
I was watching an interview with Jon Stewart and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Stewart asked him why religion is not as big of an issue there as it is in the U.S. Blair said that religion is something that is a private matter for the citizens of the U.K. Wow, what an amazing concept!
Another issue that I thought of while reading eclecticbird’s comments was that I continually get comments from religious people about my lack of religion. I get the “Oh, that’s just too bad” looks from people when I say that I am not religious or comments like “I hope that you find that kind of peace someday.” This pisses me off beyond words because if you are not religious in our society, you are seen as someone who is deficient in some way or not at peace. I am positive that I would be much more at peace without religion being such an ever-present force in my life (and government). The reason that I thought of this was because of eclecticbird’s offense at rhino calling religion ‘bed time’ stories. I am not saying that eclecticbird is someone who thinks or says things like this to non-religious people, but there is definitely a double standard that exists there. Disrespecting the right and relevance to having a lack of belief is just as offensive as saying that religion is a bunch of malarkey.
By the way I just saw Religulous the other day and it was awesome!
Ok, so I have some more to say….
I completely support everyone’s right to believe whatever malarkey they should want to believe. The problem comes from religious people who think that they have the right to force their beliefs into public policies. Yet another problem is the lack of critical thinking (or in fact just lazy thinking) that religion often promotes. I work with a Mormon woman and the other day someone asked her why she can drink a Coke but not tea and she responded with “I don’t really know.” Yet she continues to refuse to drink tea without questioning this contradiction. This is obviously a simple example of how religion can create drones that merely nod their heads to their religious doctrines and unquestioningly commit their lives to them. However, it is still something that I see everyday (especially within the Mormon population, which I am surrounded by).
Rhino, I think I love you.
First let me just say before everyone gets confused that there are two of us bluesisters (as the title of our blog implies) and while my sister and I agree on most everything one sticking point is that one of us believes in God (the one writing now)and the other doesn’t (the one that professed her love).
I understand why after reading this very concise blog it is easy for you to equate the Bible to a bedtime story. That comment doesn’t sit well with me because as you mentioned people kill and die for their religion. I have yet to hear of a single life being lost defending the principles of Goodnight Moon. Secondly let me say that I disagree with anyone killing in the name of Christianity. It is a contradiction that I have yet to understand. I do however understand the principle of dying for your faith (I don’t mean sucicide bombing here because that again would be killing). Remembering Danny Pearl, or Rachel Scott both died for admitting their faith (although Danny was not practicing his). I think that it is important to add that I believe in God and not in the people cherry picking (to borrow a favorite term of yours) through his message to further their own agendas. I am unwilling to throw the baby (Christ’s message) out with the bathwater (the state of Chrisitanity today).
Rachel Scott was one of the victims from Columbine Highschool.
My ultimate dream is that religion will exit the political/legislative stage.