poukledden

Rick Warren wants mindless fanaticism: Follow Jesus Like Nazis Followed Hitler.* He's tied to a brutal dictatorship in Uganda that has caused the greatest level of human death and misery since WWII.  And his so-called humanitarian work with AIDS is monstrously wrong. So I will just say it -- this man is a force of darkness in this world, and if his vision were allowed to prevail, humanity would be doomed. So, with all do respect, Mr. President-Elect, fuck you for picking this ass for your unconstitutional injection of Christianity into a governmental function. And with all do respect, Melissa Etheridge, you're dead, dead wrong on this one, and you're providing aid and comfort to the enemy.


(* I can hear the protests on this one already, so let me just say this: even if Jesus existed, even if Jesus was and is the Son of God, you'd still be ethically obligated to use reason and critical thinking to evaluate his claims and demands, and follow only those that pass the test. Being God or whatever does not equate to being something that can be followed blindly. Fanaticism is fanaticism is fanaticism)

Over at The Friendly Atheist, Mike Clawson introduces us to Revolution in Jesusland, a blog from Zack Exley of the Huffington Post. The short and skinny -- Exley is chronicling the rising movement (actually, many movements) within Evangelical Christianity towards an embrace of a gospel of chariy and love and anti-Empire. Evangelicals have woken up, seen how their movement got taken over by nasty and ugly people, and boy howdy, are they doing something about it. The result, as Clawson and Exley note, is nothing short of beautiful.  Exley's mission on his blog is to bring this world to the secular activists out there, so they can see this whole new group of allies emerging.

Go read Clawson's post, and then check out Revolution in Jesusland. Looks frickin' amazing, and it's one of those things to keep bookmarked for those days when you're convinced that idiots have taken over everything. The Good Fight is on, baby. I can't help but think of the Obama video I posted yesterday -- if only we learn to talk and live the deeper, more universal aspects of our beliefs, there's so many of us on the same side. Time we start recognizing it.

One thing is for sure and certain about Obama:  he gets the whole religion and society thing.


Compare that to McCain's recent comments that this is a Christian nation, and that non-Christians basically just have to shut up and deal with that, and his belief is superior neener neener neener. What a  dick.

Can I just add that it's so amazingly nice to hear a major party candidate actually including nonbelievers in his discussion of these matters. That simple act of acknowledgment, of hey, these people exist, and are citizens with rights like everyone else. My only regret, really,  is that he doesn't mention pagans.

Over at the Friendly Atheist, Mike Clawson points to the memoir of Krista Tippet, the host of Speaking of Faith on NPR. Sounds like an excellent read. Clawson mostly points out an interview with Martin Marty. Based on Clawson's entry, it sounds like a cool discussion, and if you follow that link you can listen to the whole interview. I haven't had a chance to do so yet, but I'm gonna download the mp3 right now.

I love this bit that Clawson quotes from the book:

In the end, Martin Marty doesn’t divide the world into conservative and liberal. He divides it into “mean and non-mean.” Billy Graham, who ushered in a gentler, earlier tradition of evangelical religious influence in politics, was not mean. Some of his descendants are, and so are some liberals. As the specter of the fundamentalist religious identity of Al Qaeda has come to overshadow international affairs and identities, Marty has this advice for policymakers and citizens that echoes everything I learn in my life of conversation: Don’t lump the faithful and fundamentalists together in any tradition. Don’t demonize any group of religious people as an enemy. There is great diversity whenever large numbers of human beings are involved. Do all that you can to help them show their varieties and make it easier for them to be diverse. Make it easier for moderates in all of these movements to be moderates. Marty helps me better understand an important side effect of the work I do. Speaking of Faith is among a growing number of spaces in our culture for intelligent, innovative, and moderate religious voices to in fact serve as moderators within their traditions and our culture - to be seen and heard and to act. Marty himself only speaks of religious movements in the plural - as Protestantisms and evangelicalisms and fundamentalisms. In the simple act of pluralizing these broad categories of faith, he defies their use as ideological boxes, wedges, and bludgeons.

Apparently they don't screen for dickheads when choosing education professionals.

Actually, it isn't even just the way the gay kids got treated that bugs me. There's also that whole freakout of the principle over "public displays of affection." Because we all know civilization will end if kids kiss each other.

Sigh. I'm so sick of my culture being controlled by 2000 year old ideas of morality.

The Root of All Evil -- if I were to succumb to the desire to simplify such a complex question into a simplistic answer -- might be our desperate need for certainty. We don't deal with Not Knowing very well. We don't deal well with Doubt.

Jacob Bronowski once warned us about that, and showed us the example of where that desperate need to be certain can lead:


But that is the stuff of the large movements of peoples and civilizations. It works on a personal level, too. As I look at myself, I see that every fear I have is founded in just that desire -- to know, to be certain. Labels are useful for that, because they give the illusion of Knowing. I am This, or I am That, and it all becomes easy to understand. Labels encourage ingredients-list membership*, and suppress the difficult act of thinking and questioning. Labels are, of course, useful, and often necessary. But they carry a danger of becoming the object of devotion, rather than the thing they point to.

In the modern age, we know more than ever how little we know. It takes a definite courage to face up to that, embrace it, and run with it, content to know that there is much you will never know, much you'll never be certain about. I'm tired of searching for certainty, and increasingly aware of the madness that quest can engender.

(*it strikes me that there's an entire metaphor to be had with cooking -- there's folks who follow recipes religiously, always using exact amounts and never experimenting or deviating. Cooking is Following Directions. And then there's the mad scientists of the kitchen, who mix and experiment and wing it, and sure they sometimes create something inedible or accidentally set fire to the blender, but then again, they also create wonders. Certainly, we all know whose dinner parties we most look forward to.)

Go look .

My take: pretty much what Hemant sez.

via The Friendly Atheist

(Don't ask why I'm up. I'll 'splain some other time)

The Friendly Atheist does an overview about why Barack Obama's faith shouldn't be a problem for atheists and other non-religious folk. Whatever else you think about Obama, the fact is that we haven't had a major presidential candidate speak this inclusively in decades. My favorite Obama quote:

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

Huh. Now I'm kinda thinking i want to read The Audacity of Hope sometime.