Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger
Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, have begun to dismantle the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They are creating a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and shutting out all those they define as the enemy. This movement, veering closer and closer to traditional fascism, seeks to force a recalcitrant world to submit before an imperial America. It champions the eradication of social deviants, beginning with homosexuals, and moving on to immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims and those they dismiss as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace their perverted and heretical interpretation of the Bible. Those who defy the mass movement are condemned as posing a threat to the health and hygiene of the country and the family. All will be purged.
The followers of deviant faiths, from Judaism to Islam, must be converted or repressed. The deviant media, the deviant public schools, the deviant entertainment industry, the deviant secular humanist government and judiciary and the deviant churches will be reformed or closed. There will be a relentless promotion of Christian “values,” already under way on Christian radio and television and in Christian schools, as information and facts are replaced with overt forms of indoctrination. The march toward this terrifying dystopia has begun. It is taking place on the streets of Arizona, on cable news channels, at tea party rallies, in the Texas public schools, among militia members and within a Republican Party that is being hijacked by this lunatic fringe.
Elizabeth Dilling, who wrote “The Red Network” and was a Nazi sympathizer, is touted as required reading by trash-talk television hosts like Glenn Beck. Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, is ignored in Christian schools and soon will be ignored in Texas public school textbooks. The Christian right hails the “significant contributions” of the Confederacy. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s, has been rehabilitated, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is defined as part of the worldwide battle against Islamic terror. Legislation like the new Jim Crow laws of Arizona is being considered by 17 other states.
The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril, is being fueled by an ineffectual and bankrupt liberal class that has proved to be unable to roll back surging unemployment, protect us from speculators on Wall Street, or save our dispossessed working class from foreclosures, bankruptcies and misery. The liberal class has proved useless in combating the largest environmental disaster in our history, ending costly and futile imperial wars or stopping the corporate plundering of the nation. And the gutlessness of the liberal class has left it, and the values it represents, reviled and hated.
The Democrats have refused to repeal the gross violations of international and domestic law codified by the Bush administration. This means that Christian fascists who achieve power will have the “legal” tools to spy on, arrest, deny habeas corpus to, and torture or assassinate American citizens—as does the Obama administration.
Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep.
Those who embrace this movement see life as an epic battle against forces of evil and Satanism. The world is black and white. They need to feel, even if they are not, that they are victims surrounded by dark and sinister groups bent on their destruction. They need to believe they know the will of God and can fulfill it, especially through violence. They need to sanctify their rage, a rage that lies at the core of the ideology. They seek total cultural and political domination. They are using the space within the open society to destroy it. These movements work within the confining rules of the secular state because they have no choice. The intolerance they promote is muted in the public assurances of their slickest operators. Given enough power, and they are working hard to get it, any such cooperation will vanish. The demand for total control and for a Christian nation and the refusal to permit any dissent are on display within their inner sanctums. These pastors have established within their churches tiny, despotic fiefdoms, and they seek to replicate these little tyrannies on a larger scale.
Many of the tens of millions within the Christian right live on the edge of poverty. The Bible, interpreted for them by pastors whose connection with God means they cannot be questioned, is their handbook for daily life. The rigidity and simplicity of their belief are potent weapons in the fight against their own demons and the struggle to keep their lives on track. The reality-based world, one where Satan, miracles, destiny, angels and magic did not exist, battered them like driftwood. It took their jobs and destroyed their future. It rotted their communities. It flooded their lives with alcohol, drugs, physical violence, deprivation and despair. And then they discovered that God has a plan for them. God will save them. God intervenes in their lives to promote and protect them. The emotional distance they have traveled from the real world to the world of Christian fantasy is immense. And the rational, secular forces, those that speak in the language of fact and evidence, are hated and ultimately feared, for they seek to pull believers back into “the culture of death” that nearly destroyed them.
There are wild contradictions within this belief system. Personal independence is celebrated alongside an abject subservience to leaders who claim to speak for God. The movement says it defends the sanctity of life and advocates the death penalty, militarism, war and righteous genocide. It speaks of love and promotes fear of damnation and hate. There is a terrifying cognitive dissonance in every word they utter.
The movement is, for many, an emotional life raft. It is all that holds them together. But the ideology, while it regiments and orders lives, is merciless. Those who deviate from the ideology, including “backsliders” who leave these church organizations, are branded as heretics and subjected to little inquisitions, which are the natural outgrowth of messianic movements. If the Christian right seizes the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, these little inquisitions will become big inquisitions.
The cult of masculinity pervades the movement. Feminism and homosexuality, believers are told, have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian right, is a muscular man of action, casting out demons, battling the Antichrist, attacking hypocrites and castigating the corrupt. This cult of masculinity, with its glorification of violence, is deeply appealing to those who feel disempowered and humiliated. It vents the rage that drove many people into the arms of the movement. It encourages them to lash back at those who, they are told, seek to destroy them. The paranoia about the outside world is stoked through bizarre conspiracy theories, many championed in books such as Pat Robertson’s “The New World Order,” a xenophobic rant that includes attacks on liberals and democratic institutions.
The obsession with violence pervades the popular novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. In their apocalyptic novel, “Glorious Appearing,” based on LaHaye’s interpretation of biblical prophecies about the Second Coming, Christ returns and eviscerates the flesh of millions of nonbelievers with the sound of his voice. There are long descriptions of horror and blood, of how “the very words of the Lord had superheated their blood, causing it to burst through their veins and skin.” Eyes disintegrate. Tongues melt. Flesh dissolves. The Left Behind series, of which this novel is a part, contains the best-selling adult novels in the country.
Violence must be used to cleanse the world. These Christian fascists are called to a perpetual state of war. “Any teaching of peace prior to [Christ’s] return is heresy…” says televangelist James Robinson.
Natural disasters, terrorist attacks, instability in Israel and even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as glorious signposts. The war in Iraq is predicted, believers insist, in the ninth chapter of the Book of Revelations, where four angels “which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of men.” The march is inevitable and irreversible and requires everyone to be ready to fight, kill and perhaps die. Global war, even nuclear war, is not to be feared, but welcomed as the harbinger of the Second Coming. And leading the avenging armies is an angry, violent Messiah who dooms hundreds of millions of apostates to a horrible and gruesome death.
The Christian right, while embracing a form of primitivism, seeks the imprint of law and science to legitimate its absurd mythologies. Its members seek this imprint because, despite their protestations to the contrary, they are a distinctly modern, totalitarian movement. They seek to co-opt the pillars of the Enlightenment in order to abolish the Enlightenment. Creationism, or “intelligent design,” like eugenics for the Nazis or “Soviet” science for Stalin, must be introduced into the mainstream as a valid scientific discipline—hence the rewriting of textbooks. The Christian right defends itself in the legal and scientific jargon of modernity. Facts and opinions, once they are used “scientifically” to support the irrational, become interchangeable. Reality is no longer based on the gathering of facts and evidence. It is based on ideology. Facts are altered. Lies become true. Hannah Arendt called it “nihilistic relativism,” although a better phrase might be collective insanity.
The Christian right has, for this reason, its own creationist “scientists” who use the language of science to promote anti-science. It has fought successfully to have creationist books sold in national park bookstores at the Grand Canyon and taught in public schools in states such as Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Creationism shapes the worldview of hundreds of thousands of students in Christian schools and colleges. This pseudoscience claims to have proved that all animal species, or at least their progenitors, fit on Noah’s ark. It challenges research in AIDS and pregnancy prevention. It corrupts and discredits the disciplines of biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology and physics.
Once creationists can argue on the same platform as geologists, asserting that the Grand Canyon was not created 6 billion years ago but 6,000 years ago by the great flood that lifted up Noah’s ark, we have lost. The acceptance of mythology as a legitimate alternative to reality is a body blow to the rational, secular state. The destruction of rational and empirically based belief systems is fundamental to the creation of all totalitarian ideologies. Certitude, for those who could not cope with the uncertainty of life, is one of the most powerful appeals of the movement. Dispassionate intellectual inquiry, with its constant readjustments and demand for evidence, threatens certitude. For this reason incertitude must be abolished.
“What convinces masses are not facts,” Arendt wrote in “Origins of Totalitarianism,” “and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the masses’ inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time.”
Augustine defined the grace of love as Volo ut sis—I want you to be. There is, he wrote, an affirmation of the mystery of the other in relationships based on love, an affirmation of unexplained and unfathomable differences. Relationships based on love recognize that others have a right to be. These relationships accept the sacredness of difference. This acceptance means that no one individual or belief system captures or espouses an absolute truth. All struggle, in their own way, some outside of religious systems and some within them, to interpret mystery and transcendence.
The sacredness of the other is anathema for the Christian right, which cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of other ways of being and believing. If other belief systems, including atheism, have moral validity, the infallibility of the movement’s doctrine, which constitutes its chief appeal, is shattered. There can be no alternative ways to think or to be. All alternatives must be crushed.
Ideological, theological and political debates are useless with the Christian right. It does not respond to a dialogue. It is impervious to rational thought and discussion. The naive attempts to placate a movement bent on our destruction, to prove to it that we too have “values,” only strengthens its legitimacy and weakness our own. If we do not have a right to be, if our very existence is not legitimate in the eyes of God, there can be no dialogue. At this point it is a fight for survival.
Those gathered into the arms of this Christian fascist movement are desperately struggling to survive in an increasingly hostile environment. We failed them; we owe them more: This is their response. The financial dislocations, the struggles with domestic and sexual abuse, the battle against addictions, the poverty and the despair that many in the movement endure are tragic, painful and real. They have a right to their rage and alienation. But they are also being used and manipulated by forces that seek to dismantle what is left of our democracy and abolish the pluralism that was once the hallmark of our society.
The spark that could set this conflagration ablaze could be lying in the hands of a small Islamic terrorist cell. It could be in the hands of greedy Wall Street speculators who gamble with taxpayer money in the elaborate global system of casino capitalism. The next catastrophic attack, or the next economic meltdown, could be our Reichstag fire. It could be the excuse used by these totalitarian forces, this Christian fascism, to extinguish what remains of our open society.
Let us not stand meekly at the open gates of the city waiting passively for the barbarians. They are coming. They are slouching toward Bethlehem. Let us shake off our complacency and cynicism. Let us openly defy the liberal establishment, which will not save us, to demand and fight for economic reparations for our working class. Let us reincorporate these dispossessed into our economy. Let us give them a reality-based hope for the future. Time is running out. If we do not act, American fascists, clutching Christian crosses, waving American flags and orchestrating mass recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance, will use this rage to snuff us out.
- Posted in




374 Comments so far
Show AllLet us stop having so many damn children in the name of family values, and lead us away from Wal Mart and shopping malls and "green" delusions as we shop for all those kids.
Let us remember that heterosexism has lead us to this path, be they fascist or socialist.
And while resources diminish that uphold heterosexism and all the wants and needs of the breeding family, they point fingers at everyone but themselves.
The population of the planet increases at three additional people per second.
Voluntarily get spayed and neutered, then we can talk.
Good points, posters above.
I think people can be hetersexual, though, and not reproduce. They should try it.
Ahhhh, but the Bible said "Be fruitful and multiply...right???? Religion again.
So, an old thought of mine had been. We should be fruitful (mentally and emotionally and creatively) and we should multiply our constructive actions and compassion. I think that would work a lot better than having children so frequently, which is truly unsustainable.......And that is a fact.
That brings in birth control issues, of course and the Catholic church. Who knows what the fundamentalists say. Oh, women need to reproduce. That's the ticket!
queerplanet, you may be onto something here after all!! ;-)
"Let us remember that heterosexism has lead us to this path" - QP
The irony in your statements QP is that you yourself are a product of heterosex.
You were born of heterosexuals, so now the heterosexuals can rest?
Are you advocating all future children being born via test tubes and petri dishes? If not, who decides who is selected to birth children? You??? You seem threatened by people taking freedom of choice from you, but contradict yourself by wanting to take that freedom from others.
Family values...they will ruin us all! C'mon QP.
Not ALL family value sharing people are political extremists...some of them actually love their family...if you find those people threatening you have bigger problems.
I am sure there are lots of blanket stereotypes that could be thrown around, but that is not going to encourage anyone to examine the system or how they live their lives in relation to people and the planet.
Oh, mercy. Girlfriend...
Thanks for pointing out that even in the gay culture there are radical fundamentalist nutjobs who also persist in the same sort of magical thinking endemic to the xtian, mustlam or any other faiths around the world. (but homosexuality isn't a religion, we don't convert others [but we do have some awesome ribald jokes about doing so] and although some do worship at the gay bars and baths I'd hardly call them 'churches' or 'temples'...)
Let me say this as nicely as possible, dear...
Go get laid.
Although I do love and respect Hedges for being the true American Iconoclast that he is... I have to take issue with his assertion (through innuendo) that much of the problem can be laid at the feet of the liberal (progressive) tribe for their failure to adequatly challenge a christian/fascist/totalitarian agenda.
In my view the Progressive/Liberal agenda is as fully to blame as the christian right - since they all seem to think that somehow (as Hedges himself does) supporting the "Democratic" Party of the Totalitarian Corporate Uberclass will end up delivering fruitfull results.
Hedges fails to come to an "Existential" understanding that the "FAUX" Pary of the people is equally guilty in arriving at the current madness we now witness.
The so-called "Democratic" Party, is in all reality the "Good Cop" to the Good Cop/Bad Cop duality which perpetuates Corporate fascism disguised as "Freedom, Liberty, Independence, God's Shiny City on the Hill...(add whatever superlative which makes you feel warm & cozy).
Hedges will sooner or later come to the realization that it is the very nature of the Capitalist/Corporate/Uberclass State that is the real "PROBLEM" and until it is overthrown, warfare, calimity and chaos will continue to reign.
What makes you think Hedges is a Dem supporter? He openly supported Nader in the last election when most other "progressives", including the so-called "progressive' media, would not ...
I'm going to assume you're being facetious.
Chris, you conclude and correctly advise, "Let us openly defy the liberal establishment, which will not save us, to demand and fight for economic reparations for our working class. Let us reincorporate these dispossessed into our economy. Let us give them a reality-based hope for the future."
The only way to absorb and deflect the valid angst, anger, and motivating misconceptions of the Christian fascist peonized masses that you describe is to level with them about the real source of their oppression; EMPIRE --- which is also the hidden and debilitating master of the entrenched neo-liberal petty elite.
Rational thought (and knowledge) can still be used to win over the dispossessed working-class if only the truth of peaceful but firm confrontation with EMPIRE can be correctly conveyed as the mission that Christ himself and our forefathers were validly focused on to bring about a better, and more peaceful, world.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
I would argue that the real sources are empire and corporatism, but in any event the corporate elites have a stranglehold on the mass media as well as the government and use that control to set up levees to direct the flow of information and ideas to ensure that the poorly educated will rarely make the connections. As the US middle class disintegrates, many of the hurting and needy will inevitably flail about wildly in the search for answers and relief, and the corporatists are not about to allow them to find the sought for answers in any political party or movement that would seriously challenge corporate power.
yes
[Rational thought (and knowledge) can still be used to win over the dispossessed ]
And must be used to do so. I agree with you completely. I don't think using say 'unrational' thought is going to win the dispossessed back to the real world. I'm also pretty sure that's not what Chris was talking about.
The rise of the fundamentalists is already a problem in our world. The magical thinking that permeates these various groups (xtian, mustlam, and zionism) is the same threat that it has always been. They'd rather believe in a world of magic than in a real world, and have always done so.
You're quite right to identify the 'empire' as the source of many, if not most, of our troubles with the economy, and with the drive to totalitarianism that some of the elite seem to desire. When I'm feeling a bit nihilistic I think that the elites who unleashed this abomination are going to be the ones who hate it the most should the xtian version of the fundy nutballs succeed in turning the usa into the 'Christian' theocracy. But laughing at them isn't that funny when in the end we'll just have returned to the dark ages...
Wrong Chris. Don't blame liberals. Blame all religions. All religions are scams. Christian Taliban, Islamo fascists, end of the world astro motherf--kers, judeo zionists, Hindu gangs, etc... only exist to try to control other people. How come Hedges doesn't talk about the Sharia Law in the Middle East? I'm a proud atheist and I can be my own leader. Do you religious nuts want to keep making excuses on answering to some make believe supernatural higher authorities that don't exist or you ready to get busy and do something about religious fascism? All religions must DIE DIE DIE !
Shawn, it seems, is a convenient god of a one man religion. I am curious to know upon what moral standard SB can imply his assertions that, for instance; Sharia Law is wrong for the Middle East (or the West, for that matter), or that it is bad to try to control other people. Just askin'.
dpjr: "Shawn, it seems, is a convenient god of a one man religion."
I see no evidence of this whatsoever.
dpjr: "I am curious to know upon what moral standard SB can imply his assertions that, for instance; Sharia Law is wrong for the Middle East (or the West, for that matter), or that it is bad to try to control other people. Just askin'."
I'm not going to speak for him, but I think that the obvious harm done by both (to women in the first case, and unjustified instances of control in the second, since I think people would agree that environmental regulations, while a form of control, are justified) for the sake of some people's whims and lusts for power says a lot about what's wrong about them.
Iconoclaust, correct.
SB and Icon, I will ask again; upon what moral standard do you base your observations? For instance, what is wrong with people's whims and lust's for power, and why? What is wrong with doing harm - for instance; to women, or through control - and why? Keep in mind, the "why" is the important part of the question. I'm just askin'.
dpjr asks
"upon what moral standard do you base your observations? "
Plain and simple. Independent moral standards.
dpjr asks
"what is wrong with people's whims and lust's for power, and why?"
Gee, I dont know. Try asking that question when a fascist has a bar or a gun pointed to your head thanks to his or her whims or lust for power that religion got them to.
dpjr asks
"What is wrong with doing harm - for instance; to women, or through control - and why?"
No sane person would ever ask such a tyrannical question. Tell you what. Give yourself a sex change and let some religious nut who is male beat you up or control you. You'll find out. Stupid.
"Plain and simple. Independent moral standards." -SB
Well, bully for you SB. Unfortunately you cannot project those standards onto others due to the dictum of independence. So I believe the fly in the ointment that you are being encouraged to look at is that if everyone looks at the world that way, you have no ability to say what someone else is doing is, 'morally wrong'. Becuase they too decide independently.
Unless you collectively start pulling like minded people together to create your version of a a moral society. Uh-oh...slippery slope again...losing independence...stonger minds taking over...
"So I believe the fly in the ointment that you are being encouraged to look at is that if everyone looks at the world that way, you have no ability to say what someone else is doing is, 'morally wrong'. Becuase they too decide independently."
No, not really. I don't get to decide independently to go to your house, tie you up and torture you to death.
"I don't get to decide independently to go to your house, tie you up and torture you to death." - rfloh
You don't? I am not sure where you are going with this.
If you decide to join a military organization...you decided to abide by the directives of that organization. If you are conscripted by a military organization and join you decided to not be a conscentious objector. You thus made independent decisions that led you to my house.
Any other way you arrived there was still a vehicle of your choice.
Every regime that is big on military is also big on religion. See a difference between Xtian America and Xtian-Judeo Israel or Islamist Egypt? No. Religious fascism.
That is a statement I cannot dissagree with SB.
North Korea? With the highest military/population ratio on the planet?
"You don't? I am not sure where you are going with this."
I do? Really? You have no problem if I decide independently that you need to be tied up and tortured to death?
"If you decide to join a military organization...you decided to abide by the directives of that organization. If you are conscripted by a military organization and join you decided to not be a conscentious objector. You thus made independent decisions that led you to my house.
Any other way you arrived there was still a vehicle of your choice.
"
Putting aside the issue that armies often have not accepted the concept of "conscientious objector", so what?
I believe you are entirely missing my point. I wasn't arguing that if someone is independent that which you state won't happen or conversely that I wouldnt have a problem with it.
I am saying that if a person chooses to adopt total independence from a moral collective of any sort, they cannot then tell others what is moral. The independent individual has made moral guidance personal.
And by the way, if you conscientiously object and refuse service it is immaterial what the state accepts or recognizes. You personally may pay a huge price for that, death or a prison term, but many around the world make that choice and have throughout history.
Actually, RF, I would imagine that every person who has ever chosen to "go to your house, tie you up and torture you to death" decided to do so "independently". The fact is, you DO get to make that decision, independently, applying your own moral standard.
SB, as I attempt to follow the logic of your reasoning I find conflicts. For instance, if we apply, plain and simply, "Independent moral standards", can we not assume that the standard established independently by the male "religious nut" allows his moral righteousness to justify beating the sex changed me up and controlling me? The fact that his "independent moral standard" is different from yours or mine, while maybe troubling to us, is consistent with your plain and simple standard, is it not? If not why not?
What it wrong with someone going to your house, tying you up, and torturing you to death?
Exactly! For the person who chooses to do all of these things, what is wrong with that and why?!?
I take it you have no problem with someone going to your house, tying you up, and torturing you to death?
Of course I do, but the other person apparently doesn't. What makes him wrong and why?
What makes him wrong and why? Well, why do you object to being tied and tortured to death?
That is your answer; Why do I object...? I mean, for real, that is your answer?
You have chosen, along with Shawn and Iconoclast, to defend the notion that we can independently define our own morality. When I ask the most important question presented by that philosophy: what makes one person's moral standard more valuable than another's you all choose not to answer.
So, I will attempt to ask again: What makes this him wrong for practicing a standard that is hurtful to me, a standard he chooses "independently", and why? More specifically, why is HE wrong, if in fact he thinks it right? Why should HE be forced to submit to MY moral standard, and why?
Ask your friend Rosie.
So, I will attempt to ask again: What makes it wrong for someone to practice a standard that is hurtful to you? Specifically why is it wrong for someone to tie you up and hurt you? Why do you object to being tied up and tortured?
The golden rule. 'do unto others' is not an idea that originated with 'the Christ'.
Most of the things that religions argue are 'divinely' given 'rules' are in fact the result of social evolution in the 125k years that humans have lived with each other on the planet. No society that permits murdering at a whim could or would have long survived. No society that permits theft and corruption will have a prosperous culture. No society that permits lawlessness will be 'civilized'.
The idea that we do 'right' because a 'gawd' will punish us for being bad if we don't is offensive. Are you really going to argue that without religion you'd be barbecuing babies right now? (Although it was various religions in human history that did indeed bbQ infants as a 'sacrifice' fitting for their 'gawds')
Succinct, apropos, and well said ....
Saturnalia, i am prone to saying that even without the ten commandments, i would never have gone around murdering people.
After all, to do 'right' just because of fear of punishment, which our whole society is based upon....It is the moral equivalent of a five year old. Problem is that no one gets beyond it, usually. Kohler is the only one i know who has a developmental theory of moral development. It is excellent.
After all, the "original sin" was disobedience of God, the authority figure. And this is the basis of most religion. No development there. Just scared children, all.
How's that been working for us???
It is a matter of evolution of consciousness, in my own perspective, anyway.
But we'd better make a quantum leap really soon!
My own. I agree partially with what Saturnalia said as a response. At the same time, I think that giving you a long explanation and answering your question that way misses a much more important question that ought to be asked-especially concerning Chris Hedges and atheism in general:
Why is an honest admission that atheists (and for that matter, just generally unorthodox thinkers) try and work out what is ethical for ourselves, less acceptable than the idea of letting religion try and make those decisions for us? I think this question is especially salient when in my lifetime most of the decisions that I've seen the religiose make have been disastrously wrong.
I'm not just referring to 'conservative' religion. That point has been made by so many other individuals that I think I'd belabor it by bringing it up again. I'm also referring to the kind of 'liberal' religion that Chris Hedges (and I suspect you) espouse as well. Generally, 'liberal' religion has preferred to:
1) Glorify theories of individualized, personal change at the expense of the institutional (omitting that the amount of oil spilled in something like Deepwater Horizon is the equivalent of probably thousands of Colin Beavans).
2) Emphasize forgiveness and symbolic protest (over issues of whether such actions are even meaningful at creating change any more, or as one anarchist writer I read a while back put it: "Immoral people do not pay attention to moral acts.")
3) Preferred 'existential' revolution (to the real thing).
This isn't even getting in to the issues of whether the supernatural even exists or not, or whether the idea of morals arising from a supernatural source gives so much ground to the worst elements of 'conservative' religion that it's been fighting a battle it's mostly been losing badly.
Amen !
iconoclast, i would like to take a shot at responding here, so i hope someone reads it...I just decided to check out the posts to Hedges. Always interesting.....
Institutions can't change unless the actual people that comprise the instituions change. That is basic. It is human beings that design them and operate them and join them and *are* them. There wouldn't be institutions or organizations if there were no human beings. Therefore, no institution *can* change if the people in the instititution don't change.
Forgiveness, if it isn't from the heart or for real, is just fake. That is worse than being real and telling someone what you actually think and feel. You don't need to be destructive when you do it. You do it to be clear and authentic.
I am totally not supportive of organized relion whatsoever. I think it tends to create mediocrity and stifles creativity and spontaneity. Dressed up crowd control. Keeps people afraid of their own humaness. Of course there have been exceptional people who held to their religion. But i beleive it is because of who they were as apposed to their religion.
I will stop here, since i doubt anyone will see it......I love this topic, though.
Peace.
I got to read it. Organized religion might be the source of religion gone bad but still can't trust any religion.
Thanks for responding, because I think it gave me the chance to try and unpack what I think of institutions (and the failures I've seen in both branches of Christianity regarding them).
I think it's obviously true that you don't have institutions without having people. At the same time, though, I think that an institution is more than just people (and I don't mean that in a metaphysical sense). I would say instead that institutions consist of:
The people within them.
A set of rules that defines the institution and the behavior that most members of the institution will follow the majority of the time.
The power which the institution possesses to either preserve itself (at the behest of the individuals in charge of it or comprising it). This isn't necessarily physical power, though; it could also be social power in terms of people having so much involved with an institution socially that it becomes easier for them to stay with it rather than depart it.
A more extensive definition of institutions helps I think to make clear the central problem. You can change people (and some people, like Dick Cheney or the upper ranks of the Christian fascists/dominionists, will simply never change), but without stripping power away from the institutions involved and/or changing the rules under which the institution operates, even if you make any gains they're likely to be extremely ephemeral.
This is where I think that liberal Christianity has failed. I think that it has abandoned both the concepts of either taking power away from conservative Christianity or building institutions that would either help to do what a rotten and antiquated governmental system will not, or defending people from the ravages of their brethren (especially given that the typical response to Christian atrocity is "but it wasn't my denomination!") In its place has been the near-relentless pessimism of Chris Hedges which actually leaves causes worse off (wasn't there a nine month period in which every three months, he predicted an American attack on Iran and martial law?), the commitment to either substitute personal change for trying to create large scale change, a willingness to keep trying the same tactics that worked in the 1960s whether they work now or not, and when this fails, misanthropy.
You don't get it dude. Religion is a scam someone uses to control others. I'm an atheist so I don't do religion. If I believe in being my own leader where possible, I only control myself and no one else. Plain and simple.
I for one certainly don't get it.
You say you only control yourself and no one else. How do you implement a project such as: "All religions must DIE DIE DIE!" without being, to say the least, somewhat controlling? I'm not suggesting that you trouble yourself about this apparent contradiction. Perhaps philosophical questions give you a headache. It's nice that you've got the matter simplified, not so much into a reasonable conclusion as a flare of temper - the philosophy of a junkyard dog. Most atheists do like to keep it simple like that, though your level of anger reveals that you are not peaceful with your position, which seems to require the eradication of all religious thought. Did the nuns whap your knuckles when you were a kid?
Atheism may not be a religion, but it is a cosmology. Like any other dogmatist saddled with a strongly held set of inflexible beliefs, you require agreement.
It's harder to control someone without subscribing to a religious belief than it is otherwise. I've gotten into nasty arguments with a few Xtians, Islamos, Astros, and that. Most people I come across aren't fine with their religion and worry like hell all the time. I'm perfectly peaceful and proud of my position because I don't rely on doom and gloom prediction shit. Why give a shit what happens 10, 20, 50 years from now when you should take care of today's problems now and tomorrow's problems will be taken care of tomorrow? The end of the world my ass. The empire is crumbling but are you prepared to survive or do you believe in some supernatural authority to save you?
"Why give a shit what happens 10, 20, 50 years from now when you should take care of today's problems now and tomorrow's problems will be taken care of tomorrow? "
Do you work for BP? Sounds like the reasoning they, and Obama used ...
Sorry you left the thread the other day, I left you a note ...
I'm just giving common sense down to earth advice and you think I'm working for BP? Geesh ! I don't want to sound blunt but losers worry about what will happen a loooooooooooooong's ways into the future without doing anything to build a better future. Doing apocalyptical predictions like looney evangelicals or planetary predictions like astrologers is not action. Winners are practical and work to do their part and stop worrying about things they have no control over. What happens 10, 20, 50 years down the road is anyone's prediction but as a can do winner, I help myself and others out with real action and real results of satisfaction to stay prepared in case disaster strikes.
Shawn, the point being was that we got into this mess in the Gulf BECAUSE no one "gave a shit" about what would happen down the road. Obviously BP and Obama and his predecessors followed you advice and DIDN'T "give a shit".
Obama is not responsible for BP's mess. BP is responsible. Obama only gave a poor showing against BP's mess. My advice on working hard and making a clean present now instead of making doom gloom shit predictions is totally different from what BP followed.