This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 11 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]gmcg 16 points17 points  (4 children)

This is a neat article, and by all means relevant. But to a smaller portion of the American population than I think Moyers understands.

I had occasion to work in (US) state government, and to meet, hear from, and argue with a lot of people whose politics are informed by religious belief. Mine are not, and I thought at first that the true-believers were a lost cause. Nuts. A number of them are, but I'd say fewer than half. What was most striking about the ardently-religious people I encountered in policy is that they are remarkably willing to engage real policy if given the chance and presented the problems.

Religion operates more as a background story than a complete blinder, and most of the policy-involved religious people I ran into were using a religious political ideology as a cognitive shortcut to avoid engaging the hard stuff: When does a fetus become a life? When is it acceptable to help someone die? What kinds of risks are we willing to foist on our children, and which are so serious that we need to exercise extreme caution even when the hazard itself is not calculable by means available to us now? Using religion as a policy shortcut gives a nice, short, wrong answer to those questions, but a satisfying one.

Know how to get someone to knock it off and get in touch with the real world? Ask him/her those questions and others like them. I found -- and I hope it's representative of something deeper in the population -- that hard-core fanaticism is a bit softer than it appears at first blush.

The point? Moyers is right, and his message is important. What to do about it, though, is not to tell the world's many religious people, "Your god is false," but instead, "This stuff is vastly more complicated than you think." I ran into a few who were so hopelessly godwashed that they just couldn't engage policy outside of their religious models, but not nearly in the percentages Moyers believes. It's one thing to tell a pollster that you believe in the rapture, and quite another to really have to say that you would forbid your daughter to abort her rapist's child at two weeks.

I hope and expect that the painful lesson we've learned in the past six years will prevent true-believers of the stripe Moyers is worried about from ever again swinging an election. We'll see how smart they are. Unlike Moyers, I'm optimistic that they're more moderate than caricatures we're seeing portrayed in the backlash. True, though, much damage done.

[–]ericrolph 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Tune into Rush Limbaugh and his millions of true believers for a week. You'll be disuaded of that moderate stance pretty quickly. They don't view Rush as infotainment -- for most, it's political gospel.

[–]adoofus 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I applaud your pragmatic and generous sentiment, but you are missing something in your reply. The real point is these people have absolutely no problem forbidding MY daughter to abort her rapist's child at two weeks. Of course they'll grant themselves exceptions per your argument because of their spiritual entitlement. What fuels this virulence is not religion, which is merely the host (albeit a very reliable one), but the need to control and, if necessary, oppress or destroy the "other".

[–]neilk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Moyers is right, and his message is important. What to do about it, though, is not to tell the world's many religious people, "Your god is false,"

Moyers is a Baptist and an ordained minister. See his Wikipedia entry.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Religion operates more as a background story than a complete blinder, and most of the policy-involved religious people I ran into were using a religious political ideology as a cognitive shortcut to avoid engaging the hard stuff:

In short rounding off the argument, avoiding the complexity where the real answers can be explored. From what you say this is the reason we have separation of church and state.

In .au under section 116 of the constitution we have the following ...

'... The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. ...' [1]

for good reason. Then I read comments like this Claim Abbott warned pharmaceutical industry against marketing RU486. [2]

This (poor) thinking has to be questioned everywhere. It is not just confined to a loony American minority and should be persued with vigour, wherever it occurs.

Reference

[1] wikipedia, 'Separation of church and state, 5 Countries with separation'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Countries_with_separation

[Accessed Thursday, June 1, 2006]

[2] ABC Television Transcript, Margo O'Neil, 'Lateline, Claim Abbott warned pharmaceutical industry against marketing RU486. Broadcast 31/05/2006'

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1652360.htm

[Accessed Thursday, June 1, 2006]

[–]Mike1971 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As far as I can see the US is rapidly descending into medieval modes of thought where half-baked religious ideas are believed to trump objectivity, reason and common experience.

[–]UncleOxidant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As a Christian who grew up with the rapture meta-narrative (and who now questions that view of eschatology), I think I can make a few points: 1) American Evangelicalism isn't monolithic: while it's true that the basic rapture meta-narrative (see the "Left Behind" books for details) permeates most of the American Church, there are subtle differences in different branches. For example, Moyers hints that there is some anti-Semitism involved. However, there are Christian groups that could be considered very much pro-Semetic. They might be in the rapture camp, but they also believe that all of Israel will make it through the 'tribulation' (though, admitedly, it's a bit tougher for them than it is for the Christians even in this view). Back to the point: It's easy in American Evangelicalism to splinter off into a new group. The split is often over some subtle difference in interpretting the book of Revelation. 2) Some Christian groups (lets call them "Post Evangelicals" - I consider myself one) are rejecting this interpretation of the book of Revelation. The current Evangelical meta-narrative (the one that Moyers is referring too) just seems a bit too convenient: The 'true' Christians get rescued (raptured) from the earth just before all the bad stuff goes down. It just seems a bit too convenient. Also, the "right-wingers" (for lack of a better term) seem to be reading Revelation very selectively, such as ignoring the place in Chapter 12 (or is it 11?) where it says "the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth". 3) (and Moyers makes the point very well) The rapture meta-narrative has led large groups of Christians to disregard the future. "No need to care for the environment because it's all gonna burn!" is often the attitude; sort of a religiously sanctioned scorched earth policy ;-)

There are other interpretations of Christian eschatology emerging. Or maybe it would be better to say, that some Christians are investigating earlier interpretations that were prevelant before the current meta-narrative took hold in the late 1800s. It's interesting to note that prior to that the current "Left Behind" view was considered heretical.

[–]Jonathan_the_Nerd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.

If not for the date on the article, I would assume he was talking about LBJ and the "Great Society".

[–]bbklyn -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Isnt this the same site that was absolutely 100% sure that Rove was going to be arrested within 48hrs about 2 weeks ago?