An Atheistic Examination of the Culture of Death
The Jesus Meter - Tue, Feb 15, 2005
Mark Giselson of Norwegianity last month employed a Jesus Meter to measure the number of Christ references by the "Northern Alliance" of blogs. Finding that with the exception of Hugh Hewitt and a few others the conservative political sites largely ignored our Lord and Savior, he wondered:
[A]re they just being politically manipulative, talking Jesus once in a while to help keep the coalition in line? If they're really Christians, why have I never seen any links to religious sites in their blogrolls? Where are the Bible quotes? The Powerline dudes especially have a six-figure readership now -- why aren't they witnessing their faith?Could it be that it's difficult to trash talk liberals when Jesus is in the room? Or is Jesus no more relevant to their daily lives than he is to mine?
Captain's Quarters ranked relatively high Jesus-wise, but Giselson found that after subtracting posts about "The Passion" and the like CQ didn't seem "terribly obsessed with Jesus." CQ, predictably, took exception to this "questioning" of his Christianity. Although he rightly objected to Giselson's methodology (my blog would blow the needle off the meter if mere Jesus-counting was the criteria), I found the rest of his criticism a bit of a cop-out:
[W]hat appears to have escaped Giselson's notice is that we are political bloggers, not religion bloggers. I've some experience with Catholic apologetics, but I don't find that a topic that interests me enough to write posts on it. I do sometimes write about my faith, when inspired to do so, but mostly I refer people to the Anchoress and to Joe Carter for better work in these areas.
First, at least part of politics is determining religion's role in government and society, so the distinction between political and faith-based blogging is not always so neat and clean. CQ himself has expressed disapproval of public schools which "abandon any mention of God" and has sniped at the ACLU for forcing the Pentagon to stop sponsoring any Boy Scout group so long as the organization requires a belief in God. One would suppose that if his faith was as important to him as those views suggest, CQ would be highly interested in the supporting details. But instead he sees fit to delegate his thinking to others. With occasional exceptions:
Interestingly, my posts on Mel Gibson directly spoke to matters of faith; I'm not sure why Giselson discounts them out of hand. Perhaps it's because he never bothered to read them. If he did, he has some comprehension issues that would explain this post.
I, for my part, did read CQ's posts on Gibson's brilliant art; did he bother to see the movie? I've given at least ten reasons why The Passion is an hideously, unspeakably immoral film (here and here), none of them having to do with its alleged anti-semitism, Gibson's Holocaust-denying father or the fact that Gibson believes that his own wife is going to hell for being a Protestant. I do, in fact, question that sort of literalist Christianity and I question the sanity of anyone who takes it more seriously than The Wizard of Oz. From CQ's posts I still haven't a clue why he believes it. Perhaps Anchoress or Joe Carter can tell me. Once again, CQ refuses to explain:
Why don't I write more about Christianity and my faith? I don't think CQ readers will find my insights terribly interesting, for one thing. I also tend to consider my Catholicism as a private matter rather than blog fodder. When I'm inspired, I write about it; otherwise, I leave it to those more inspired than me. It doesn't mean that I don't consider myself a practicing Catholic or that my faith doesn't have much import in my life. I think that point would have been obvious to most people.
I guess the point should have been obvious from his passionate defense of a blood-weeping Madonna statue. Although CQ questioned the fonts in the Rathergate memos, he overcame any skepticism about the crying Virgin. What I don't understand is why CQ insists such things will bore his readers, or why he isn't more inspired to write about them -- if Colonel Killian had risen from the dead to say that in 1973 he'd used a time machine to get a copy of Microsoft Word 2004, I bet CQ would have squeezed out a few posts on that. I mean, whoa -- a blood-weeping Madonna statute. A private matter? It conclusively proves that Catholicism is true and all other religions (and atheism) are false, and it's a lot clearer a sign than a mere Hiroshima-force Tsunami. If I believed that the statue did what it did it would have a hell of a lot of import in my life -- I'd be running around screaming at people to convert, killing them if necessary to save their immortal souls.
Yet CQ is strangely apathetic about it all. He doesn't seem to care that the Boy Scouts permit belief in any god, or even that they permit disbelief in the Virgin Mother (somehow this watered-down multiculturist syncretist polytheism counts in their favor). And while he opines that "missing the fact that at least one of the three Power Line bloggers is Jewish also demonstrates Giselson's idiocy," he never criticizes the idiocy of that Jew Powerliner for denying what the bloody weeping statue so clearly proves. Perhaps this is the reason:
Jesus instructed his followers not to judge the status of others' souls or faith. That arrogates to man what is God's alone. When I start a faith-based blog, then perhaps Giselson can gain some insight into my faith and its strength or weakness. Until then, Giselson should remember to put his straw-man dolls away when playing with his keyboard. The confusion obviously overwhelms him.
Now confusion is starting to overwhelm me. Apart from the fact that writing a political blog involves a great deal of judging of one's fellow man, why does CQ think that Jesus' instructions might permit a faith-based blog? Aren't Anchoress and Joe Carter already doing enough arrogation of what is God's alone? And isn't that crack about straw man dolls a slap at Santeria?
(Top) —Posted by: The Raving Atheist in The Daily Rave · Permalink · 22 Comments
·•◊•·
The Raving Atheist » Comments on: The Jesus Meter
I write about religion once in a while. Mostly to snark about it.
Lileks isn't a Christian, he's a deist. Powerline are Jewish, as he discovered.
Since Norwegianity doesn't have comments, btw, I'm getting snarky here.
Most Americans (thank the invisible elves) do consider their religion a private matter, so I do not see why he expects religious posts on political blogs at all, other than theocon (aka Christian reconstructionist) and Islamist blogs.
Politicians do seem to feel obliged to wave their religion around in their political statements. But...bloggers aren't politicians.
[Edit] February 15, 2005
Kathy K makes a nice point about Political bloggers.
Still, TRA's point struck me more profoundly: People religious beliefs are one the biggest sources of their Political thoughts. This begs the question: Why does CQ promote Gibson's the Passion so hard when its such a grotesque story which proves nothing if he isn't basing his politics on it at least in part?
The idea that humans are Cruel to each other for Political Reasons as occurred to the Christ character is not a new one. CQ and other Passion Apologists need to include such Cruelties as Moses' mythical Terrorist attacks in Egypt or St Patrick's Irish Genocide (the snakes he drove out were people: Druids to be specific) and all of the Inquistions as well as Hitler's regime and the current ghostly Pope's scourge of Family Planning.
As often happens when readings RA's rants, there are spots where I'm asking myself, "what is he complaining about this stuff for?" I keep reading and understanding arrives:
If the bloggers in question want the political structures they propose, they had better be willing to share their personal Reasons (BELIEFS) for wanting those specific structures.
Form follows Function. Function is decided ahead of time in Civil Engineering which, after all, is simply a scientific approach to Politics. "Gawd" forbid THAT be used instead of Popularity Contest Politics!
[Edit] February 16, 2005
MBains: "Apologists need to include such Cruelties as....Hitler's regime."
Yes, and by mostly ignoring Hitler, except as he uses Godspeak to garner Christian favor, and focusing on the fact that his Germany was a Christian Nation, and that the vast majority of Germans who supported and carried out his policies were Christians. The vast majority of the people in the Gestapo and the SS were Christians, not Hindus, Muslims, Unitarians, Buddhists, or atheists. Hitler was just one man. He didn't invade Europe and Russia and murder millions of people all by himself; and he couldn't have done any of what he did without Christian support and assistance.
[Edit] February 16, 2005
Religion is VERY relevant to politics, especially when you support a President that feels its his duty to use American taxpayer dollars to give away military weapons to a Jewish state so that they may keep control of a city known as Jerusalem in order to fill the prophecy of the Bible and bring forth the second coming of Jesus, and therefore an end to the world.
Religion matters quite a bit when you support a President that gives government money to religious institutions that distribute aid in a religiously discriminatory way.
Religion matters quite a bit when you support a President that enacts draconian social programs based on his religious views in defiance of studies that show it hurts society (like abstinence only sex ed and the condemning of homosexual marriage).
Religion is very important when you support a president that allows the rape of our natural resources because he believes that a ghost will come down from the sky and bring about the end of the world while taking to heaven his most faithful followers (rapture) in such short time that theres not much point in preserving the environment.
When one supports things like that, an explanation or at least a description of ones faith and how it ties in to the things one supports should be expected. But I guess maybe some conservative bloggers dont talk about their faith much because they prefer to presuppose its all correct anyway, because a rational explanation of their faith would only serve to weaken it inasmuch as their faith is not rationally explainable, and whne the bloggers stop and read the things they wrote about their faith, maybe they doubt it as well. Its clearly safer not to dip too deeply into the nature of ones beliefs, especially if you practice analyzing rational things all day, because you might "explore" your own faith to the point where you doubt it yourself.
Now go stare at an American flag and repeat over and over "one nation under God" until youve removed all desire to talk about the nature of your god beliefs.
[Edit] February 16, 2005
Thank you RA for a delightful and highly-intelligent post.
And that goes for the commentators above too.
All I can say is that ...
People are dis-inclined to parade their dissemblance unless they are caught up in the expediency of doing so.
And we will always need to be exposing their dissemblance.
[Edit] February 16, 2005
The point of my exercise, which was largely lost on the NARN folk (all the blogs cited were part of a blog alliance), was simply to tweak some very opinionated folks who delight in putting words into liberals' mouths while flipping out anytime someone challenges their beliefs.
I think the fact that the hard right and Christianity coexist only in a hyperhypocritical relationship goes without saying, but still it felt good to point it out.
And Kathy, you're always welcome to email me. The only reason I don't have comments is that there is no way to control the trolls who come in to yammer endlessly, wasting everyone's time and energy. I had several good conversations with some thoughtful Christians after that post, and, as I expected, the better the Christian the less kneejerk the rightward inclinations.
[Edit] February 16, 2005
Mark, I think the less ambiguity and uncertainty a person can tolerate, the further to the right they are, and the more inclined they are towards religious fundamentalism. I think it's a natural symbiosis, and allowing for cultural differences, I don't think the outlook of the typical right-wing Christian is all that different from the typical Muslim fundamentlist. It may be a cliche, but the more someone has to fear, the more moralistic they are, and the further to the right you find them. That is the essence of the old saying that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.
[Edit] February 16, 2005
hermesten,
I disagree in a sense. I believe that people without any fear inside them are more inclined to be moral. Without fear, there is no need to hate, no need to harm, no need to be immoral.
Fear breeds anger and hate and immoral acts. Fear of that which you dont understand. Fear of that which may harm you. Etc...
And your last sentence betrays your proposition. See, a conservative may very well be a liberal who has been mugged, but as a consequence, they fear being mugged again. And because of that, they are immoral conservatives. Conservatives are totally immoral compared to liberals. And the worst part is that conservative social actions are what increases the crime in the first place!!!!
Example: Europe is liberal compared to America. Europe has less crime, more educated people, and a higher quality of life (in other words: more moral than America).
[Edit] February 16, 2005
AK, I'm not sure in what sense you disagree. The fear of a second mugging, or a third, or fourth, is exactly the meaning I intended when I quoted that line. And although I wouldn't make the blanket assertion that conservatives are "immoral" in comparison to liberals, I do think many of the actions undertaken by conservatives are motivated by fear --though not in the more palpable sense where they are aware of it and will admit it.
Still, this is really a gross oversimplification. Take the war on Iraq for instance. Fear was certainly the basis on which this war was sold to the public, but were the Bushiites really afraid of Iraq or Saddam? I think the suggestion is preposterous because such a fear could come only from ignorance and stupidity, and I don't believe they are stupid or ignorant. Iraq is about oil and power: power is the first driver, greed is the second (though these drivers are denied in public), and "fear," in the broadest sense, and as a tool of public manipulation, ranks, in reality, no higher than the thrid, though it is first in terms of public perception.
I think the "traditional" conservatives (who are really closer to classical liberals) are just as disgusted with the thugs calling themselves conservatives today as liberals are. And the neocons are unquestionably immoral. They will do anything to gain and keep power, and I mean anything (well, anything that doesn't require self-sacrifice --note how every last one of them either dodged the draft or avoided voluntary military service for themselves-- though sacrificing you, me, our children, or anyone else in the world is not a problem for them).
[Edit] February 16, 2005
I have to say, that most of the people..well..everywhere, completly miss the whole concept of religion (mostly Christianity really) and it's effect on the public sphere.
Most people have the perception that Christianity creates a bunch of annoying moralists that try to ram their morality down the throats of everybody else. This is completly wrong. Modern religion creates a bunch of annoying IMMORALISTS that try to ram their immorality down the throats of everybody else.
Why do I say immoralists? The complete and total effect of religion in the public sphere, iis to keep morality OUT of the public sphere. If you limit morality to the traditional religious issues..more specifically abortion and homosexuality, then you don't risk the chance of more liberal churches getting uppity and deciding to camp out in front of the local Wal-Mart until Wal-Mart gives all their workers a raise and better benefits.
By limiting the debate about morality in the public sphere to these limited issues, morality never comes up in arguments about things like the environment, foreign affairs, etc. And that's the goal. And that's not a disconnect between the neo-cons and the religious right. It's designed that way. By both parties. The religious right do not have a lock on morality. They just don't care about their own vices, that's all...mainly greed and hubris.
[Edit] February 17, 2005
Now it makes more sense. I might have slightly misunderstood earlier. Thanks for elaborating further. :)
[Edit] February 17, 2005
Karmakin, I agree with you to some extent, but by including homosexuality in the sphere of "morality" I think you weaken your argument. Abortion is in the moral sphere but homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Consensual sex, of whatever variety, unless it leads to a pregnancy, has nothing to do with "morality." "Pornography" and "obscenity" are just legal terms, and also have nothing to do with morality. Personally, I don't know any Christians that are troubled by torturing and killing some innocent people --unless the innocent happens to be a fetus. Every single Christian I know supports our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, is untroubled by "collateral damage" (or would like to see more of it), torturing prisoners, indefinite incarceration without trial, etc.
[Edit] February 17, 2005
Maybe it would be more accurate to just call them "so-called Christians."
[Edit] February 17, 2005
....oh no, mark.......they are christians.....if they believe in the christ.......
[Edit] February 17, 2005
Mark, they believe in Jesus. Some of them have preached to me at length on the subject of Jesus Christ. Unless all the "real" Christians create some kind of religious UL certification and Christian ID card to identify who is and who isn't a "legitimate" Christian, we're just going to have to take them at their word.
[Edit] February 17, 2005
The only qualification for being a Christian is believing that you are one. If that makes any sense.
[Edit] February 17, 2005
Hermstein:Actually, I think you misunderstood what I said. On a personal note, I don't really think that safe consentual sex has ANYTHING to do with morality at all. Morality being how you treat and effect other people, (with the adjustment of it also being how you intend to treat other people...intent in other words).
But most religious groups focus on homosexuality with a laser beam, and for the reason I gave. It's a very good distraction for them. It's "morality" for the other guy, but not for them. It allows people to basically be either immoral or amoral, but still believe that they are moral, because morality is limited to abortion and homosexuality.
And this breeds a culture of amorality at best, and true immorality at worst.
[Edit] February 18, 2005
Bush calls himself a compassionate conservative, but I'd say that's false on both counts. These folks may think themselves Christians, but by any objective theological yardstick, they're heretics. Or as the Bible called them, Pharisees.
[Edit] February 18, 2005
Karmakin, perhaps I misunderstood you, but as far as I can tell, it sounds like we are more or less in agreement. I probably should have been more meticulous about my wording, but while the Bible Beaters do as you say, I refuse to concede to them that consensual sex has anything to do with morality. In fact, I like to take the position with them that if anything, homosexual sex is more moral than heterosexual sex, since it doesn't lead to pregnancy. The condemnation of homosexuality alone makes Bible "philosophy" immoral. Falsely linking sex and morality is just a control strategy. But then the Bible doesn't really even attempt to regulate the conduct of "believers" towards others who believe differently, and members of other "tribes" have always been treated accordingly --often with torture and death.
[Edit] February 18, 2005
Mark, I agree that Bush is neither compassionate nor conservative, but he sure seems to have most of the Bible Beaters fooled. His neocon mafia has more in common with Trotsky and Hitler than it does with Adams and Jefferson. This Band of Thugs is the worst thing ever to happen to this country, and as a result, to quote from the movies, "we're on an express elevator to Hell, going down."
[Edit] February 18, 2005
hermesten:and as a result, to quote from the movies, "we're on an express elevator to Hell, going down."
So is the only response to "Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit?" It is the only way to be sure.
;o)
[Edit] February 18, 2005
It's a favorite. I've probably only seen John Carpenter's "The Thing" or "Dr. Strangelove" more often.
[Edit] February 18, 2005
Comments Closed
In order to stop the proliferation of comment spam, the comments on this post have been automatically closed because the post is older than 30 days and the discussion has been inactive for more than 21 days.
Please feel free to your comments to me.
(Top)