The Consistency Problem of the Religious Left

6 Comments

1. 
   DJD
   Posted July 30, 2007 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

   How do you define “Christian society” and “post-Christian society” ?

   And if we answer yes to the first question, why does that mean we have to argue for “minority faiths” ?

2. 
   Shawn Anthony
   Posted July 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

   Post-Christian society = the majority worldview of our society and culture is no longer founded upon the conviction, language and lifestyle of the Christian religion & faith.

   I think it is fair to say we live in such a society. So, welcome to Postmodernity!

   I personally do not believe we have to argue for “minority faiths.” We can be in conversation - authentic conversation - with minority faiths, but we need not argue for them. My point is that the “religious left” does argue for “minority faiths” while almost always tagging our society and culture as “Post-Christian.” Sometimes groups on the religious left even refer to themselves collectively as a “minority faith,” while simultaneously referring to society and culture as “Post-Christian.” The left does this, not me. So, not only do I not think we need to “argue for” so-called minority faiths, but I also do not think such a thing exists in a truly “Post-Christian” society and culture. The left often does, which baffles my mind. You can’t say both, can you?

3. 
   ck
   Posted July 31, 2007 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

   Hey Shawn, when you say “argue for and in terms of”, what do you mean? I want to understand your point here. Thanks!

4. 
   Shawn Anthony
   Posted July 31, 2007 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

   Hey, ck! I hope you and yours are doing well! Are you acclimated to your new setting yet? I hope! :)

   As regards your question, see this: Exhibit A. If you look closely at the date of Exhibit A, you will see that it was actually written after my little blurb here. I think that pretty much sums things up.

   You can’t claim to live in a post-Christian society/culture and fly the flag of a marginalized religious minority. Who is doing all of the marginalizing? If Dawkins says religious participation in America is greatly exaggerated, and just barely larger than his growing group of atheists, then who is behind this “hostile majority” pointed to by the blog author? Do you see? If our society is post-Christian, then there is no single majority, is there? I do believe we are living in a post-Christian society. I also believe that this easy cry of religious “marginalization” actually does a disservice and perhaps even hurts those groups and individuals who actually do cry marginalization. sometimes people cry just to hear themselves cry. I say this as someone who cares deeply about authentic marginalization and social stratification.

   Exhibit A sort of hints of this strange inconsistency, but there are plenty of others who flat-out wear this inconsistency as some sort of unconscious and uncritical badge.

5. 
   ck
   Posted July 31, 2007 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

   Hey Shawn, we’re doing well, thanks. Chicago is a great town. If you ever find yourself up this way, I’ll take you out for coffee–we’ve got a billion cafes! (We can exchange genuinely hard questions–I’m always up for that.)

   Anyway, I have seen the Dawkins “A” movement, and actually had some discussions with UU pastors at Meadville this past week, while in a class with Sharon Welch. I think that 1) it’s legitimate to say that the kinds of Christians feared by UUs (’fundamentalist’, Bible-totin’ etc.) are not as substantial as often thought; but yet 2) there are some background cultural assumptions that favor Christians. Let’s just say, as far as that class goes, that I’m a minority among UU’s, as much as I was a minority among Xns.

   But yes, as you know, I’m guessing first hand (though I don’t know for sure and cannot assume), people are often marginalized or put into categories based on some small resemblance to a group. For you, your Latino/Hispanic appearance could cause you some problems–I hope it hasn’t, but based on what I know of America, it’s probable. For others, having a belief in God makes them automatically part of this great, scary Theist and Christian majority.

   At the same time, though, it’s true that some form of theism is assumed–spend a day watching for the number of times god is invoked in politics and public life.

   So…I think the cries of “post-Christian” society are early (Peter Berger cried wolf twenty years ago, for example) but, cutting the social strata a certain way, there are some majorities, which, although their bonds may be theologically small, are majorities.

   I have lots of questions for my UU brethren–with whom I disagree and at the same time enjoy. Since I’m “inside” the movement, I’ll continue to live there. For you, though, since you are evangelical (though not fundamentalist–believe me, I know the difference and the use of the pejorative), what questions do you have for the religious right? If we are in a post-Christian society, or moving that way, how does that impact Christian aims in politics & society? Ideas about power? Etc.?

   Peace, Shawn.

6. 
   Shawn Anthony
   Posted July 31, 2007 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

   Glad to hear you two are well, ck. Moving is tough. I’m trying to do it maybe one more time and then stay put until they have to wheel me away. I’ll take you up on that coffee someday! I’d love to sit in a face to face chat with you … I think we’d both enjoy it so much more than text-based communication.

   Now then …

   The Christians “feared by UUs” (really, fear?) have no influence at all. Funny enough, the “UUs who fear them” don’t have any influence either. Seriously. If these Christians do have real influence then the politicians that used them in recent years would be forced to make good on all of the empty promises they strategically offered to them while knowing they would never fulfill them. Substantial? Our political processes have proved the only substantial quality of the fundamentalist right can be found in their collective and organized size - which is only big enough to barely push one political party ahead of the other. The fundamentalist right’s power is a myth, or urban legend. Ironically, it’s a myth Richard Dawkins and his followers embrace. Now that’s an interesting thought …

   Your point re: the mention of the word God in public spheres substantiates my point. Words spoken through public mediums are mostly propaganda used for political purposes. Consider where you are actually hearing all of these mentions of God. Mere mentions of God are not proof of some sort of Christian or religious majority. Where is it? Just because the word is on our dollar bills does not mean we are a great Christian nation (we all know how McCarthyism put it back on money). Chatter does not necessarily point towards a huge God following. Dawkins and his followers use the word all of the time; they don’t even believe God exists. So, I’m not sure where this theism-privilege is actually lived out in the world, in any real or meaningful way. If it does exist, it ha to be rooted in something much deeper than public pronunciations of the word “God.”

   I do believe we are living in a post-Christian setting. I believe most religious groups have equal footing in this country. No? Compare our setting to other places in the world. This does not mean, however, that all religious groups are equally embraced, mind you. Some groups are just too strange to be taken seriously by anyone, and these weird groups would do well to not cite unpopularity as marginalization, for the sake of those who truly are marginalized. Seriously, folk should not mistake social rejection induced by flat-out weirdness with authentic marginalization and/or stratification. There is a big difference in the public square (I’m not talking manipulative politics either).

   Yeah, I grew up in a place populated with ignorant red-necks. So, my physical identity created more than a few interesting situations, to say the least. Honestly, I have a difficult time making a meaningful correlation between Atheism (think) and my Ethnic Identity (being), as far as marginalization is concerned. In my setting, I simply had to exist to be marginalized; I didn’t even have to speak a word. Atheists have to speak, and demand fulfillment of their perceived rights, which sort of hints to a privileged position of some kind, doesn’t it? I have an absolute right to be and atheists have a right to think, but not everyone has to think the same way and/or even agree. That works the same way for Christianity too, I might add. You don’t have to agree with Christian thought, but you have the right to be. This is a bit off point, but I thought it had to be said, because I can equate Atheism and Ethnic Identity, in terms of marginalization. That said …

   … as beings we are all marginalized to some extent. It’s the reality of a broken existence. No, we will not be treat justly by everyone we encounter during out lifetimes. This injustice spans culture, class, race, gender, sexual identity, etc. It is a beast all its own. In this particular discussion, however, we are specifically talking about the standing of religious and philosophical groups in America. Are any of these groups really marginalized, in this postmodern, pluralistic culture of ours? I would say no, not really. Some are not popular, and thus very low on influence, but they are free to sink or swim. Some choose sink. They expose their sinky-ness when they claim we live in a post-Christian society (you may not, but many do), and then also cite their group as a minority movement pressed down by the bastardly and oppressive Christian majority. It’s a myth … but it get great mileage per gallon.

   Re: the religious right. I have one big question for them: “Will you please just bury that old, tired, rigor mortis riddled corpse of Christendom.” I’m really tired of smelling it. I wish they would just bury it for God’s sake, quite literally.

   I have no problem pointing out things to the religious left and right. I do so regularly. I think they are twin sides of the same coin. Do I have to actually live in either to do so? Nope. It’s a good thing too, because I refuse to live in either. So, I’ll keep on doing so even though I heard a slight hint in your comment to focus on my own. They both are my own. Anabaptists are radical that way. :)