Bravo! What a great post. For anyone interested in arming themselves for the fight against American theocracy there are two new books that I highly recommend: Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris and The God Confusion by Richard Dawkins. The perfect Christmas gift!

It seems that many religious individuals have been led to believe that there are two litmus tests for 'good' politicians: gay marriage and abortion. We need to reframe this thinking. What are the progressive values that are in line with mainstream religious thought? Taking care of God's world - the environment, helping your brother in need, caring for God's temple - the human body. The language used to describe these values varies with the group, but the beliefs are the same.

While I am not a religious person myself, I have deep respect for those who are and I have no desire to change them. I would like to see progressives point out that there are many values that are shared and start getting away from the trap set by others to frame the debate narrowly.

War-mongering is not a Christian value. Because the current President is, maany religious folks are now looking for alternatives. Do we want those alternatives to be just 'nicer' conservatives? We now have an opportunity to show ourselves as responsible, caring people with strong values. Let's be sure we don't trash the religious values of others while trying to uphold our own.

Could not have said it better myself; and I agree that both books recommended by JB are great tools to have in the toolbox when talking to Christians. War mongering may not be a Christian value but it is sure frustrating to look back at the history of war and Christianity.

Corn-fed Southern gal -- born 1950, raised in Selma, AL -- savored this post. Thanks.

I've sat at that table myself more times than I care to count, biting my tounge and wishing I could have a real conversation without being labeled "blasphemous" for the simple act of questioning their logic.

Doretta is right in saying this isn't the bible, rather a deeply ingrained set of cultural mores. I believe it all boils down to one thing. People want a place to belong, and many are willing to change their own beliefs to justify remaining as part of the group they've chosen. The evangelicals count on this quirk of human psychology, promoting the "constant community" of their religion and lifestyle to the exclusion of everything else. They also employ fear, shame intimidation and humiliation in order to keep their sheep in line. Pretty soon, once you're in, you forget how to think for yourself and rely on the group to make those decisions for you. By that point, you've learned not to question, to "go with the flow" and not make waves. That's when the leaders know they've done their job. At that point, you're so invested that it's nearly impossible to turn back, like a gambler at the poker table.

That's a fundamental difference between super-red staters and just about everyone else. We blue staters don't have that sense of belonging most of the time (with the exception of this election cycle, with most folks thinking along the same lines), but we do have the advantage of being greater in number than the evangelicals. As pollsters continue to point out though, it's not the total numbers, it's the ones who vote that count. Because those evangelicals are so well organized through their churches and communities, they can motivate that base to do just about anything they want- which is truly scary, if you let yourself think about that for a minute.

The other part I'd like to point out is that the days of the "super-Christian" seem to be waning. This has been a fashionable trend for a lot of people over the last decade, and I believe it will be dropping off more in the next few years as their youth grow up and realize the hypocrisy of the bill of goods they've been sold isn't all it's cracked up to be. It takes a strong person to turn away from all that powerful programming, but once they do, they can become a strong force for the blue state if we can learn how to engage them.

The book by Richard Dawkins mentioned in the first comment is actually The God Delusion. Have not read it yet. Dawkins is an Oxford biologist and a wonderful writer on genetics and evolutionary biology; he is also known to be exceptionally strident in his distaste for religion. A review of The God Delusion in the latest Harper's raked Dawkins over the coals, frankly.

As for the so-called Bible Belt / red-state business, aren't we actually talking about a cultural mindset that is geographically diffuse (albeit best known in its Southern manifestation)? The commentary by isis1138 sort of gets at this by remarking that "[p]eople want a place to belong, and many are willing to change their own beliefs to justify remaining as part of the group they've chosen."

Frankly, I don't find attacking religion either politically useful, intellectually challenging, or in any way persuasive.

I expect that in the US, religious practices tied up with Southern Baptist style intolerance are in fact a minority. Isn't the problem that this is a very vocal, highly organized minority?

Regarding religion and politics and party hijacking, this much needs to be said, religion in politics is a neutral issue, in law it isn't. But the fact that a party can be hijacked is nothing new. The impact of a small vocal group is underestimated by the public at large, we have elections with less than 50% eligible voter turnout, that means in a close election about 25% of eligible voters determine the outcome. Of that 25% the activists within the party are at a high about 1% - that is those who particapate. How many noisy people are required once the numbers get that small?

Nice hate spewing, intellectually void, and yet amazingly boring article. Never ceases to amaze me how bitter and unhappy most of the extreme left is. /sigh

So it's considered "hate" to criticize a violent, aggressive religious faction (i.e., fundamentalist Christianity) that has effectively tried to control the United States government over the last six years? Baloney. Have a nice Tuesday, Luke -- I know I will.

Jim,

Yeah that's the funny thing about Fundamentalist Christianity, the majority of Fundamentalist Christians don't believe that politics is an effective, appropriate, or at the very least "Christian" way to affect change. And even if they believe it is, they're emotionally less attached then other political groups. The majority of Fundamentalists thumb their nose at politics and at least subtly discourage participation and/or activism. Even Cal Thomas holds that view.

Guys like Dobson are the minority, and they got into where they are because they care about social fields and are not theological leaders. When was the last time you heard of an activist heavyweight theologian? Oh right, they don't exist. If you're even slightly inclined to disagree, look up this year's speakers at Evangelical Theological Society and see how many names you recognize.

In other words... the vast majority of us crazy fundi's only care what happens on Tuesday intellectually. Deep down inside we have to admit we don't really care. I'll be having a great day Tuesday regardless of what happens, so maybe we should go have a beer or something ;)

PS. It's always possible that the author of this article is misusing the term "fundamentalist." Probably one of the more misused term in politics, but that's another rant for another time.

PPS. The more "fundamentalist" a Christian is, the more likely they are to being pacifists at least personally if not politically. Violent? ROFL...

"I think you may be a couple of decades behind the times."

For what it's worth... I'm 22. :)

"I'm not sure why you bring theologians into the conversation. Fundamentalists have never thought much of theologians."

I bring theologians into the conversation because they set the pace of evangelicalism. Evangelicals are by definition "fundamentalists" since they hold to the historical "fundamentals" of Christianity.

"You say we won't recognize the names of the speakers at this year's Evangelical Theological Society. I'd submit that the average fundamentalist won't recognize them either."

Of course. That's my point. I have a degree in the field and I only recognize a handful of the more academically well-kown ones. These are certainly not people you'll see on tv or campaigning, but they are the pulse of evangelicalism.

"They will, on the other hand, recognize the names James Dobson and Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye and will say they think of those people as Christian leaders."

From my experience at least, Pat Robertson isn't highly thought of (I have no use for him), Tim LaHaye is largely ignored (fiction author?), and Dobson is usually respected (I did grow up in an era when California social workers were occationally inclined to "kidnapped" homeschooled children and then strip search them. Dobson and Armey's successful campaign for the rights of homeschoolars will not quickly be forgotten.)

"When you say "guys like Dobson are in the minority" do you mean to say most fundamentalist Christians aren't as active in politics as James Dobson? Since Dobson is very activist that's no doubt true. What's more relevant is what proportion of fundamentalist Christians would say they think James Dobson is a good Christian."

Well, I mean people who believe evangelicals should be politically active are in the minority. Even people (such as myself) who intellectually believe that we need more politically engaged professionals are unlikely to commit their own lives to the cause. "Politics" is simply not my faith in the way that it is to so many more left-leaning students around me. Historically it was the evangelicals/fundamentalists that were most inclined to distance themselves from politics and culture, and that separatism still has a powerful attraction. As a Christian I simply cannot hold the same passion and allegiance to politics and party that my liberal counterparts do. Thus it always puzzles me when people try to paint fundamentalists as naturally politically active.

"The word "fundamentalist" has come to mean more than it once did. Perhaps we should be talking about Dominionists instead. Whatever word you use, the issues are real."

Agreed. I tend to throw the word "legalists" around a bit, but the term might not make sense to somebody not familliar with Pauline theology. Accurate terms are so hard to come by these days.

"The Bush administration certainly counts on a large group of Christian voters to care passionately about the issues mentioned in the original post and they aren't targeting United Methodists or Episcopalians."

Yeah I agree, unfortunately politics in America is far to polarized around moral issues right now to get any healthy amount of evangelicals on both sides of the isle. I mean really, for an evangelical it's perfectly legitimate to believe that using the state is one of the best ways to take care of the poor (taking care of the poor obviously being a biblical imperative), but it's simply not arguable for an evangelical to support abortion. Litmus test issues... /sigh.

As an ex-evangelical now Catholic, I've gotta disagree with your conclusions, Luke (and I had significant theological training at one time, I attended NCC in the mid-70s and was majoring in Old Testament Theology).

What those professionally trained in the field view as terms of art and as points of view that are in the minority do not match those observations and data taken by the political scientists (I also claim experience in that field, UO 1981). The simple reality is, quite frankly, that the Dominionist sorts (Dominionist is a much more accurate term for those conservative fundamentalist Biblical literalists who present a public political face) dominate the public perception of Christianity today.

Either that or Catholic pedophile priests (sigh).

Many (again, not all) of the megachurches who actively seek publicity come from a Dominionist point of view. Many, especially in areas of this country where Republicans dominate the political discourse, have acted in an explicitly non-Christian manner toward ethnic, sexual, and political minorities. Many place personal sexual morality highest on the scale of "Christian behavior," value prosperity theology higher than the Biblical call for social justice, and blindly back the war on Islam.

Many of the non-Christians who speak bitterly about such people do so for good reason--they've been treated unjustly and unfairly by Christians.

Even as a fellow believer, when I run into someone in the political arena who starts proclaiming their belief, I usually shy away from those folks--generally because the majority of the politicians and activists who wear their faith on their sleeves tend to be Dominionists (except, of course, for folks like Jim Wallis and the Berrigans, Sr. Joan Chittser and so on). Many faith people who live and walk their faith don't make a big deal of showing it (gets right back to that parable of the Pharisee).

So, before you go condemning people on the Left for their bitterness, do some thinking about where and why they got that way. We've a lot to answer for.

Jim:

Do you have any evidence to support your condemnation of fundamentalist Christians as a "violent, aggressive religious faction"?

Excluding the highly publicized cases of abortion clinic bombings and several "Army of God" abortion doctor murders (more than a decade old), I don't recall large numbers of Christians rising up to commit violent/aggressive acts in this country. Not since Jonestown, anyway.

I watch the images of thousands of Muslims parading around a Mosque, with AK-47s punching the air above them...or the infamous Shia Cleric Hassan Nasrallah quote: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel." and I find no comparable aggression or violence from the Fundamentalists of America.

Nice little caveat -- "in this country," that is.

Crusades were invented as a way to ship the violence elsewhere. They still function the same way.

Thanks for that post Leigh Anne. It is spot on.

The Bible is political fiction with a message that boils down to "Believe in me, and you shall be saved - oh, and kill the infidel." There's not a shred of evidence that any of its supernatural claims are true, and it's jam-packed with horrifying acts of immoral violence. "Moderate" Christians like to pick and choose which fictional fables to believe, and which to ignore - but there's no evidence for any of it.

There is a real world out there, and it is much more awe-inspiring and incredible than the nonsense that evangelicals, many Catholics, and other conservatives try to swallow hook line and sinker. Gay Christians, for example, clearly run up against a biological reality, and work mightily to project their own religiously inspired self-hatred on to others, with often (as in the case of of disgraced evangelist Ted Haggard) highly amusing consequences.

But as Leigh Anne notes, it is not always funny.
Starting violent crusades under false pretenses, bashing gays and restricting women's health services all gain religious votes for the GOP. So does dumbing down science education, and defunding promising avenues of medical research.

And of course there are the Catholic priests, denied by their own biblical fictions the opportunity for normal, healthy sexual relations with other adults (male or female), who have devastated the lives of children, families and entire communities.

Thanks again for your post. And I have hope. Over 1000 people came to hear evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins talk about his excellent new book, "The God Delusion." Powell's had to move this event to the Governor Hotel to fit everyone in.

I'm a grit-fed, Athens Georgia born lefty, but I think that post belies some major immaturity. Despite the battle cry I see on here that "nice" hasn't gotten us what we want, I believe that sugar continues to catch more critters than vinegar. Dump the "fight" talk, and have a fact filled conversation. -CA

Dump the "fight" talk, and have a fact filled conversation.

A "fact-filled" conversation with the "faith-based?" (!)

Faith means the absence of fact; as Twain wrote, it's "believing what you know ain't so." HL Mencken noted that "the most curious social convention of the age" was "the idea that religious ideas should be respected." They are ludicrous, evidence-free, and lead people to all sorts of uninformed, immoral, and destructive actions.

And it's time more people said so.

Posted by: Luke | Nov 4, 2006 8:15:21 PM Nice hate spewing...

Nice name calling...

But if you've got a fact-based argument (which means something besides Yahwe/Zeus/Baal/Jesus/Mohammed/the Flying Spaghetti Monster says so), then let's hear it.

Otherwise, it's just plain awful that "red state" religious voters base their political support and advocate public policy based not on actual evidence of what is and what works, but on evidence-free, generally violent fictional tales and prejudices.

Hi Bill.

The last time I checked, anyone can easily argue against abortion on the grounds that it was a unique, developing homo sapiens, from conception when a one-of-a-kind string of DNA is newly formed.

The last time I checked, it didn't take the Bible to guide an individual to take a literal interpretation of Federalism or the Bill of Rights, with emphasis on the First and Second amendments re: religion and firearms.

Regarding homosexuality, there is no definitive answer to whether it is nature or nurture. We don't know if a gene triggers homosexual behavior and if it did, if it is normal or if it would be considered abnormal and should be added to the list of genetic disorders that modern researches strive to prevent and cure.

There is a lot in life that we don't yet know and can't yet know and that is where faith plays a vital role in people's lives. Sometimes a guess, or a leap of faith is necessary. Religious morals and spiritual guidance in these matters make a difference, in addition to provide support and comfort in times of trouble.

I suppose your disdain for those who base their decisions on "frequently violent fiction" would include Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Bishop Oscar Romero? Malcolm X? Father Stanley Rother? Jimmy Carter? Bill or Hillary Clinton? Robert Kennedy?

You've clearly had bitter experiences with people of faith and that's tragic. Particularly so because those who have offended you clearly were not living up to their required calling to live in a spirit of compassion. But your current tendency to lump a whole group of people based on their preference for a religious practice is disgraceful and no different from the wholesale categorization that eventually turns into hatred and then violence.

Hi Bill.

The last time I checked, anyone can easily argue against abortion on the grounds that it was a unique, developing homo sapiens, from conception when a one-of-a-kind string of DNA is newly formed.

The last time I checked, it didn't take the Bible to guide an individual to take a literal interpretation of Federalism or the Bill of Rights, with emphasis on the First and Second amendments re: religion and firearms.

Regarding homosexuality, there is no definitive answer to whether it is nature or nurture. We don't know if a gene triggers homosexual behavior and if it did, if it is normal or if it would be considered abnormal and should be added to the list of genetic disorders that modern researches strive to prevent and cure.

There is a lot in life that we don't yet know and can't yet know and that is where faith plays a vital role in people's lives. Sometimes a guess, or a leap of faith is necessary. Religious morals and spiritual guidance in these matters make a difference, in addition to provide support and comfort in times of trouble.

I suppose your disdain for those who base their decisions on "frequently violent fiction" would include Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Bishop Oscar Romero? Malcolm X? Father Stanley Rother? Jimmy Carter? Bill or Hillary Clinton? Robert Kennedy?

You've clearly had bitter experiences with people of faith and that's tragic. Particularly so because those who have offended you clearly were not living up to their required calling to live in a spirit of compassion. But your current tendency to lump a whole group of people based on their preference for a religious practice is disgraceful and no different from the wholesale categorization that eventually turns into hatred and then violence.

Posted by: Other Bill | Nov 6, 2006 4:36:51 PM

Particularly so because those who have offended you clearly were not living up to their required calling to live in a spirit of compassion.

And the following is your definition of a "spirit of compassion..?"

Regarding homosexuality...We don't know if a gene triggers homosexual behavior and if it did, if it is normal or if it would be considered abnormal and should be added to the list of genetic disorders that modern researches strive to prevent and cure.

A "genetic disorder that modern researchers strive to prevent and cure?" It requires a leap of religious faith to dismiss real human beings (in this case, gay and lesbian neighbors, friends, co-workers, fellow human beings), as "disorders."

Moral behavior comes from a different place than the violent, often deeply immoral fictions of scripture - in fact, the same variety of red state Christian who considers gay and lesbian Americans less than fully human (like yourself, apparently) had no trouble justifying racist efforts to deny civil rights to African-Americans based on a bible. Good Christian Southerners justified slavery with scripture. Moral behavior can come from both the religious and non-religious - and usually rests on life experience, not specific tales from Zoroastrian or Christian mythology.

In fact, moderate Christians who actually read their bible are usually repulsed by the "moral" lessons it appears to convey - kill your kid on some god's whim, stone your daughter for impertinence, burn a bush that doesn't produce during winter. Or consider a gay acquaintance or co-worker a "disorder."

The world will be a much better place when these violent, evidence-free tales from the past are enjoyed for their entertainment value (as Emerson wrote, "the religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next!"), and no longer provide a "faith-basis" for the dehumanizing religious prejudices of red state Republicans (and "conservative" Democrats, too).

"Disorder?" Jesus! (it takes Jesus, doesn't it?)

On the other hand, not-other Bill, you sound a lot like the worst of religious fanatics. Oh-so-sure you are privy to the truth and quick to disparage things you clearly know very little about.

Not true - there are zillions of things I know nothing about. But I'd love to figure them out, and I want to fund and support smart creative people who find evidence to back up their explanations. I certainly do not throw up my hands and say - hey my god did it (Zeus, Jesus, whichever imaginary set of tales I grew up with), it's too complicated, and if you don't agree - kill the infidel (or the "disorder!").

And what if I told you (like Bertrand Russell once did) that the world was created by a tiny spinning teapot in the asteroid belt? You can't didprove it, and perhaps I've had a deep spiritual connection with that teapot. Don't you think the onus is on me to provide some evidence?

It's true that there were people who used religion to justify slavery. It's also true that the abolitionist movement was largely founded by Quakers based on their religious objection to slavery and greatly advanced by the larger evangelical movement for the same reason.

Right - morality doesn't come from religion (witness the "disorder").

Go see "Borat" (I did last night) - it includes some astonishing introductions to a few true religious believers in the red state South..!

Hi Doretta -

A lot of "moderate" religious people pick and choose which fables from Emperor Klaktu IV (I mean the Angel Moroni) (I mean Jesus) to believe in and which to discard, and if they pick nice stories (love thy neighbor) that's very nice.

But a lot of "moderate" religious people - and a lot of Blue Oregon progressives - used their evidence-free tales from Mount Olympus (I mean Bethlehem) to deny you (and me, for that matter) basic civil protections by voting for Measure 36. And many others pick and choose fictional passages from the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Dianetics, to restrict health care and educational options for women, impede scientific progress, and justify some appalling acts of violence.

And that's too bad. There's a lot of amazing evidence-based information about how we got here and how we work. We don't have all of it by any stretch, but falling back on the tiny spinning teapot (I mean Zeus) definitely does not help.

Oh, and about that omnipotent teapot? IT PROBABLY DOESN"T EXIST. And there's certainly not enough reality-based omnipotent teapot evidence to justify invoking it to craft public policy, amend the constitution, or deny denim-wearing citizens (it is written that the teapot hates blue jeans) the right to assemble, vote, marry, etc...

And sorry to disappoint you - I have no direct connection to Reed.
(I'm 41, married 17 years, and a father to three smart kids.)

go on to somewhat deeper thinking

Please!

And Borat was brilliant

Bill and Doretta:

Exactly how did I "step in it" by objectively stating that someone that is homosexual may be so hard-wired because there happens to be a gene that determines such a characteristic. And what if that gene's characteristic is found to be medically "abnormal" just as the gene that causes Asperger's, or sickle cell, or any other biological characteristic that we call "abormal" or "disorder."

Should the person be treated like a lepers used to be treated? No, clearly not. Are they any less human and deserving of respect? No. Might it cause us to rethink what homosexuality is? Yes, I'd say so. It might not be so simple a comparison, say, to being left-handed. Or it might be. We don't yet know and we might not ever if someone is willing to state something heterodox and be accused of hatred.

I do not hate homosexuals, nor condone hatred of homosexuals, just as I don't hate nor condone hate of people with Downs Syndrome, or dark-pigmented skin, or preference for left-handedness.

But the fact that a person can't listen to the simple and objective statement that a genetic explanation for homosexuality may some day be discovered and scientifically categorized as medically "abnormal" speaks a lot about how some on the Left - including the anti-religious Left - operate within an inflexible fundamentalist mindset just as do some on the very far right.

When some on the Left are ready to grow up and be truly scientifically rational - without slinging mud, accusing hatred, or insulting personal spirituality at every possible turn - then we'll all get somewhere.