Category Archives: politics

Anti-intellectualism and anti-science: Keep ’em on the reservation.

Leave a reply

Karl Gilberson has another post in the Huffington Post in which he, an evangelical himself, addresses the issue of anti-intellectual, anti-science stances taken by the evangelical movement. He attributes this issue to driving away the youth from evangelical churches and cites statistics to prove his point. And his position brings to my mind the work of Richard Hofstadtner on anti-intellectualism in American history (Anti-intellectualism in American Life), a tendency which Hofstadtner links with religious and political conservatism.

Some Christians feel that God wants them to turn their brains off and not think critically. Their stance reveals a perception of God who wants to be merely adored and worshipped, who will, after “the end of the world “comes will get his jollies from having all his believers fawn over him for eternity. And “eternity” in this mind set is a quantitative term, not qualitative. In other words, it will go on and on and on forever! AND, of course, meanwhile those “non-believers” will be roasting in hell for the same “eternity.” Why is it so important for Christians to have and to maintain this perspective? (There are some revisionist interpretations of hell in evangelical circles and they are not appreciated. That is putting it mildly.)

A key issue here is the very nature of identity. People who subscribe to this world view reflect a very rigid view of themselves; for, as we see God so do we see ourselves and the rest of the world. This is just another variation of my oft-used bromide, “What we see is what we are.” This static view of the world was reality at one point in the past and still is in many cultures. And that “static world” created static identities. But reality has evolved so far beyond that limited grasp of the world.

Identity…and the rest of the world we perceive…is ephemeral. When this understanding comes to an individual whose grasp of the world is otherwise, it is admittedly disturbing and potentially catastrophic. That is why conservative believers cling so desperately to their static world-view, their static identity, and amuse themselves with mindless repetition of dogma. I must insist, however, they could “let go” of their dogma and discover that their “dogma” would still be valid, though in a radically different way. The “letter of the law” would then give way to “the spirit of the law”. When identity has been transformed, worship of “god” becomes worship of “God.”

But I must offer a caveat to any True Believer (see Eric Hoffer) who might have stumbled upon my musings— “You had better keep your kids on the reservation! Yes, home-school ‘em and try to keep them out of college. And if you let them go to college, make sure it is some diploma-mill where their belief system will not be challenged.”

Praise for Republicans

2 Replies

I actually feel some sympathy for Rick Perry re his memory lapse in last night’s debate.  He really screwed up and embarrassed himself and probably knows that this was the death-knell of his campaign.  But I cringe when someone humiliates himself anywhere, especially in a national forum.  I commend him for acknowledging this even then, with his “oops” comment, and even later when he admitted, “I stepped in it.”  (I like that course image as we all know what “it” was that he stepped in.)  And I’m impressed that he didn’t trot out the usual political refrain, “Well, I certainly was amiss on that occasion,”  and which point they trot out their talking points, prefaced with, “But, here is my central message…..”  He didn’t do that.   Well, at least he has not of yet.  I personally hope that he drops out, returns to Texas, looks seriously into his campaign and the issues that it brought to the surface, that he will delve more deeply into his faith and explore that faith more fully, and then will resurface to engage meaningfully…and hopefully with more humility…in the rest of his life.

And, yes, even a word of praise for Michelle Bachman, though I grimace at the prospect of praising this very simple, not-ready-for-primetime woman.  But I like her idea of imposing a tax liability on that 50% of the population who pay no income taxes each year, perhaps even $10.00.  And, yes, this responsibility could cost them a “happy meal” or two, or even better yet a couple of packs of cigarettes.  But, it would help impose reality on them and I fear that with the “welfare state” we do create a false reality for many.  Now, of course, there would have to be exceptions.  There are those who could not afford even $10.00 and do not have even the luxury of a “happy meal” or cigarettes.

God, I hope I don’t rot in hell for offering even the faintest praise for this appalling political character!  But I must always remember, “Even a blind pig finds a walnut eve now and then.”

 

 

Book review re Frank Schaeffer’s “Crazy for God”

Leave a reply

Frank Schaeffer is the son of Francis Schaeffer who was a leading spokesman and intellectual for the Christian Right in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.  Frank himself was groomed in his childhood as their heir apparent for his father and did indeed step into that role as a young man.  But, safely ensconced in that prominent position, he became disaffected and disillusioned by the bigotry and closed-mindedness that he witnessed and eventually left the fold.  But, if that wasn’t enough, he began to speak and write about what he witnessed during his youth, not just with the Christian Right, but with his family itself.  His book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All of It Back” is the story of his “conversion” from hyper-fundamentalist Christianity and political conservatism to a pronounced liberal stance in both regards.  If you are an ex-fundamentalist, or if you are a fundamentalist who would deign to look critically at yourself, you really need to read this book.

Politically and familial-ly his book is a story of a standard dysfunctional family, a family trapped inside its own limited world-view and incapable of dealing honestly and openly with the world.  Families of this sort are in service to the myth that they are caught up in and dutifully dedicate themselves to perpetuating that myth even at the expense of its members own soul. Yes, it is sheer lunacy at times.

However, let me note that the “lunacy” presented here cannot compare with the lunacy I noted last week when I discoursed re Muslim culture from the perspective of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Any closed-mindedness veers toward lunacy and will end up there unless reality sets in.  But, I much prefer our culture’s conservative lunacy over that of the Muslim world.  There are more limits set here, largely by the power of a liberal and critical press.

Paean to Ayaan Hirsi Ali

4 Replies

I would like to recommend two books by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel (about her rejection of Islam and flight to Holland to avoid an arranged marriage) and Nomad (about her move to the U.S., under threat of death from the Muslim community).  These two books are biographical as they recount her experience of the oppression of women in her native Muslim culture and the identity crisis she experienced as she moved to the West and began to verbalize and write re the tyranny of Islam, especially with regard to women.

Ali was born in Somaliland in 1969.  Her father was a political dissident and while he was jailed because of his political activism her grandmother seized the opportunity to defy Ali’s father wishes and have Ali “circumcised” when she was age 5.  She portrays this brutal practice as only a reflection of the brutal tyranny of the Muslim faith as a whole, a religion which desperately seeks to cling to traditional, tribal culture even as modernity closes in on them.  (I think she recognizes that Islam in the West is often less tyrannical but she argues that the tyranny is inherent in the faith itself, Western version or Middle-eastern version.)

I would like to share a few excerpts from Nomad:   “All my life I have been a nomad.  I have wandered, rootless.  Every place I have settle in, I have been forced to flee; every certainty I have been taught, I have cast aside….Every change of country threw me unprepared into whole new languages and sharply different habits of mind.  Each time, I made a child’s fornlorn, often vain attempts to adapt.”  She described her dilemma when she was in the West as “teetering between the clear ideals of the Enlightenmend…and my submission to the equally clear dictates of Allah that I feared to disobey.”  She described the temption to cave-in, to surrender to her cultural introjections, noting, “I suffered many moments of weakness when I too entertained the idea of giving up my needs and sacrificing my personal happiness for the peace of mind of my parents, siblings, and clan.”  And she summarized the problems of Islam as deriving from the belief that, “Muhammed is considered infallible…and all (the Koran’s) commands must be obeyed without question.  This makes Muslim’s vulnerable to indoctrination in a way that followers of other faiths are not.”

I deeply admire the courage Ali has had to step forth, at the risk of her own life. to pursue self-expression and self-dignity.  It takes nerves of steel to observe personally how deadly indoctrination is and dare to question the basic assumptions of one’s culture.  We can attempt a journey of this sort much more easily than she can as we usually…though not always…can do so without the threat of harm.  Our only risk is a lot of anxiety, perhaps a tad of depression, and guilt from no longer subscribing to the tribal god/s.

A couple of footnotes here:  a)  She rejected the arranged marriage by fleeing to Holland and there she began to get a Western education.  She even became a member of the Dutch Parliament for a few years before death threats forced her to resign and flee the country.  2)  Though Ali is a flaming liberal with regard to her native country, when she moved to the U.S. she quickly obtained employment at the American Enterprise Institute, a very conservative think-tank.  She noted in Nomad…I think…that she had some ambivalence about this decision but decided to take what was the best offer that she had.

 

 

Cognitive arrogance

Leave a reply

I discourse frequently about cognition and its limitations.  This is no accident as it is very relevant to me personally.  So much of my life has been limited by various cognitive grasps of reality which only later do I discover to have been very confining and….ahem….very narcissistic.  The key is, not to attempt to discard cognition….as if that were possible in the first place…but to recognize that there is a world out there beyond our cognitive grasp of the world and that in embracing that “world out there” we become a little bit more humble and tolerant of those who look at things differently.

Here are a couple of quotes I’ve ran across recently on the subject:

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. — William James

I happen to feel that the degree of a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting attitudes she can bring to bear on the same topic. — Lisa Alther

It is in fact a part of the function of education to help us escape — not from our own time, for we are bound by that — but from the intellectual and emotional limitations of our own time. — T. S. Eliot, Unknown 

And this last one I came across 30+ years ago but just cannot remember the author.  He said, “Our thinking is the belated rationalization of conclusions to which we have already been led by our desires.”  To summarize, he was saying, “We think just what we want to think.”

Richard Rohr on ideologogy

Leave a reply

Following up on yesterday’s post, and on a recent post on ideology, I offer you the daily-posting of Richard Rohr:

We are all powerless, not only those physically addicted to a substance. Alcoholics simply have their powerlessness visible for all to see. The rest of us disguise it in different ways and overcompensate for our more hidden and subtle addictions and attachments, especially our addiction to our way of thinking.

We all take our own pattern of thinking as normative, logical, and surely true, even when it does not fully compute. We keep doing the same thing over and over again, even if it is not working for us. That is the self-destructive nature of all addiction, and of the mind in particular. We think we are our thinking, and we even take that thinking as utterly “true,” which removes us at least two steps from reality itself.

Addiction to our mind is subtle but its reach is incredible.  We then find ourselves failing to adhere to the wisdom of Buddha, who said, “The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.”  The “word” is not the “thing.”  Words are but pointers.  We don’t own “the Truth”.  But, this does not leaving me doubting the presence of Truth in this void, doubting only grasp of it.  Or, as said yesterday and so frequently, “We see though a glass darkly” or “we hold this treasure in earthen vessels.”

Humility, finitude, limits

5 Replies

A passionate concern of mine is that we don’t see reality, we only “see through a glass darkly” at best.  One might even say that I am obsessed with this notion as I have found it a valuable insight in my life and believe that it could be relevant to others.  This insight has an humbling impact on me, helping me to realize that when I discourse, or “hold forth” as in this blog, I am not presenting Truth but merely my own perception of “truth.”  If suddenly, the world discovered me and understood this perspective and said, “Aha, this is It!”, then civilization as we know it would immediately collapse.  For this is a perception that is not valid for everyone and certainly not valid for the billions and billions of people who keep this “dog and pony show” afloat with their “less enlightened” outlook on life.

I’ve quoted Anais Nin before, “”We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”  And so what we see in the world, what we say about the world, says a whole lot about us.  Our version of reality is just that, “our version.”  Just yesterday in Huffington Post, I discovered Gangaji who noted: 

People who live their lives unaware that they are telling themselves a story consider their thoughts to be descriptions of reality. If someone else has a conflicting description, that person is considered just to be wrong. It is a leap into maturity to realize that our descriptions of reality are our versions of reality. Certainly there is nothing wrong about a version of reality, but the recognition that it is a version, rather than reality itself, is humbling to our version of ourselves!

And so it all comes down to humility.  Can I find the Grace of God which will allow me to humbly accept that I am a finite being, with a finite grasp on the world, and therefore be a bit more open-minded about those who see the world differently?  T. S. Eliot declared, “The only wisdom we can hope to find is the wisdom of humility.”  And then he added, “And humility is endless.”

 

Economic ecumenism

Leave a reply

According to a recent CNN story, the Vatican is calling for increased global cooperation in economic issues, specifically for a new “global public authority” to help alleviate the economic woes that all of us are now facing.  The Vatican is concerned that the market economy is not working any longer and that a central economic authority needs to be in place to regulate this market’s inequities and vulnerabilities.  This authority would also be able to impose penalties on individual market economies  that were not behaving “efficiently.”

Personally, I like this idea.  Our world has outgrown the 20th century (and earlier) ideologies, including economic theories, and we need to realize that all the nations of the world are economically intertwined.  I admit, it would be a perilous adventure to have such a global authority but I fear it is even more perilous if we continue present course.

Now I’m realistic.  This is not going to happen anytime in the near future.  I can hear the right-wing crowd scream with an age-old mantra, “One world government, one world government!  Its of the devil and a sign of the end times.”

 

 

 

 

 

(CNN) – Against the backdrop of the European debt crisis and the birth of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Vatican on Monday called for a new “global public authority” to help reform the world’s finance and economic systems.

New ideologies are “reducing the common good to economic, financial and technical questions, (placing) the future of democratic institutions themselves at risk,” said Roman Catholic Bishop Mario Toso at a Monday press conference.

The document, called “Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of a global public authority” quotes former Pope John Paul II in bemoaning the “idolatry of the market.”

The document calls for a new global economic authority that could impose penalties on member states as “way of ensuring that they possess efficient markets,” Toso said.

Some progressives embraced the Vatican’s call, arguing that it sounded many of the same themes as the Occupy Wall Street movement.

 

Rules for speech

Leave a reply

A fundamentalist preacher from my youth once posed three rules for speech:  Is it true?  Is it kind?  Is it necessary?

Hmmm.

This should give us pause from time to time.

Just for the record, the above bromide was brought back to my attention today by Steve Roberts (coolmindwarmheart.com) who attributed it to Eknath Easwaran and an old Arab proverb:  The words of the tongue should have three gatekeepers.