Ross Douthat has an interesting article in this months The Atlantic entitled Crises of Faith. Primarily the article discusses the slight rise in secularism in the U.S. while comparing it to the increase of religion in the public square in Europe. There is one point he makes that echoes something I have been thinking about for some time. To quote Douthat:
The secularism that has come of age in the Bush era, by contrast, seems to have a greater mass appeal. What’s more, where the earlier secularism tended to cultivate a self-conscious neutrality toward religion, the new secularism is defined by an unabashed hostility toward traditional faith—or at least toward any attempt to mix such faith with politics.
In a paper in the American Sociological Review, Michael Hout and Claude S. Fischer announced the startling fact that the percentage of Americans who said they had “no religious preference” had doubled in less than 10 years, rising from 7 percent to 14 percent of the population. This unexpected spike wasn’t the result of growing atheism, Hout and Fischer argued; rather, more Americans were distancing themselves from organized religion as “a symbolic statement” against the religious right.
It appears that religion has become a dirty word and, in large part, this is due to the Bush administration and its policies. So many people are angry with the president and link him to religion that peoples negative feelings toward him are rubbing off on faith in general. I have no problem with secularism. I also have no problem with faith. I actually see most religions as generally positive ( yes I am aware that religion can be used for any number of evil purposes as well, I just happen to feel there is more good to come from religion than bad).
My point is that it is truly unfortunate that Bush is such a polarizing figure and that the religious right in America is so unaccepting of others that they have tainted the idea of faith as a whole.
Interesting blog from Juan Cole’s Informed Comment.
Fox Cable News spent more time than other cable news networks covering Anna Nicole Smith and spent much less time covering Iraq than the other networks. Gee, back in 2003 they seemed to have a lot about Iraq. I guess Faux News is only interested in stories that further the agendas of Rupert Murdoch and his Republican Party:
‘ “Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN. The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN’s daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC’s. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time. Another story that has reflected poorly on the Bush administration, the controversy over U.S. attorney firings, also received more attention on MSNBC (8 percent of the newshole) and CNN (4 percent) than on Fox (2 percent), the Project for Excellence in Journalism found. ‘
At last, an explanation for the 33% who think Bush is doing a good job in Iraq! They are not getting any news about what is going on there from Republican Party t.v.!
And here’s Dan Marsh’s take on Paris Hilton and Darfur.
5- September 20 1967, the birth of Matt and Gunnar Nelson.
4- Ronald Reagan uses Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the U.S.A., a song about the treatment of Vietnam vets, as his re-election campaign song.
3- Tiffany’s mall tour.
2- Fabrice Morvan and Rob Pilatus release Rob and Fab, an album in which they actually sing.
1- The Final show of The Behemoth Experience.
All kidding aside, Behemoth rocks. Very few bands are this clever, smart and entertaining. Go see them while you can!
On May 31st I received my Master’s Degree in Religious Studies from California State University, Long Beach. The past few years in Long Beach have been a wonderful experience for me. Dee and I have met great people and have had a great time. I want to take a minute and thank all of the friends and family who have helped me the past few years. I could not have done it without this amazing support system.
In August I will begin my Ph.D.studies at Arizona State University. We look forward to the new city and new adventure.
Daniel Pipes is a Harvard educated historian who has worked, at various time, for the Departments of State and Defense. He was appointed by recess appointment to the United States Institute of Peace. He is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum, a conservative think tank which seeks to promote U.S. and Israeli interests in the Middle East, and Campus Watch, a group which seeks to “out” university professors who have pro-Palestinian, anti-Iraq War or anti-U.S. views. Pipes support for the blacklisting of Middle East Studies professors who don’t agree with his philosophy has echos of HUAC and is often compared to modern day McCarthyism.
Pipes has written that the internment of Japanese during World War II was the right thing to do, although he says he does not support the internment of Muslims today. He does however support restricting Muslim immagration to the U.S. and he supported not allowing Tariq Ramadan into the country.
Pipes claims that his work is an effort to protect American interests at home and abroad, yet his actions seek to restrict fundamental freedoms such as speech. To debate a belief is one thing, to attempt to restrict your opponents ability and right to debate by blacklisting them is as un-American as it gets.
In the future I intend to discuss more of the activities of Daniel Pipes and fellow cohorts such as Robert Spencer and David Horowitz.
Jerry Falwell died. To the few of you who regularly read my little blog here, it will come as no surprise that I was not a big fan Mr. Falwell. Rather than list any number of quotes handpicked to illustrate my views and make him look bad, I want to instead mention his contributions to the American religious landscape.
Falwell was at best a mediocre theologian. He rarely discussed issues of poverty and the poor, something that is fundamental to the Christian faith and teachings. He actually disregarded global warming and therefore was opposed to the concept that Christians should play an active role in conservation and act as stewards of the earth. He instead focused on essentially two political issues: abortion and homosexuality.
Falwell’s contribution was to bring evangelicals into the public square. He was more a politician that theologian. He courted politicians who he felt could further his political agenda. I am not opposed to religion playing a place in politics. One role of a religious leader is to inform and shape the moral views of their community. Falwell was, in my opinion, well within his rights to do and say the things that he did, as offensive as they may have been to me personally. My issue with him was he let his personally held political ideology inform his theology rather than vice versa. If a religious leader is going to use religious texts and theory to form a political opinion then that opinion needs to come from solid, good theology. Falwell did not do that. He was a practitioner of pick-and-choose theology, ignoring an abundance of text and Christian thought in order to further his political ideology. That is, at best, disingenuous.
It is a shame that whenever a news organization needs a “Christian opinion” on a given issue people such as Falwell, Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed are called on. These people are political operatives, not great theological thinkers. I hope people realize that Christianity is made up of more than this.
Due to the success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, movie studios are developing a new market for “faith-based” films. I don’t particularly care for this term as all of the films tend to be Christian based. There is nothing wrong with Christian films but Christianity does not encompass all faith so the term is kind of a misnomer.
Lionsgate, known for releasing indie films such as , American Psycho, House of 1000 Corpses and Fahrenheit 9/11 among others, has teamed up with Thomas Nelson Books, a Christian publishing company, while the Weinstein Company is teaming with Impact Entertainment, a Christian movie company. Some of these releases will be direct to DVD while others will be theatrical releases.
Religious-themed films are not new. The Ten Commandments was released in 1956, Ben-Hur in 1959 and Jesus Christ Superstar in 1973. But there is something about this new crop of films that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The Weinstein Company will release a movie based on the writings of Joyce Meyer, a TV evangelist who owns five homes and has all of her utilities paid for by Joyce Meyer Ministries, not out of her own pocket. Lionsgate is releasing a film version of the Lee Strobel book The Case for Christ in which Strobel, a Christian apologist and former investigative journalist and lawyer, seeks to prove that Jesus was God’s son by using the methodologies of a journalist/lawyer.
Here is my problem: I’m not a big fan of proselytism. I love faith, I love people of faith, but I also see faith as first and foremost a personal relationship between the individual and the divine (whatever that divinity may be). These films strike me as God propaganda. The audience in mind is not the believer, but the unbeliever who “needs to be saved”. From the perspective of the movie companies, however it is sound business decision. They will make money off the faith of others. Everyone gets a little salvation in the end.
The two biggest news stories of the past week have been the incredibly stupid “controversy” regarding Don Imus and the tragic school shooting at Virginia Tech. I did not intend to write about either of them, mainly because I figured I had nothing to add. The Imus thing was hyped-up, manufactured crap and the shooting was horrible. Somehow I doubted anyone needed me to tell them that so I wasn’t going to.
But listening to the news the past couple of days I realized there is another issue that is underlying both the Imus and Virginia Tech stories. Censorship. Or to be more precise, self-censorship.
In order to drag what should have been a one day story out over an entire week, news organizations were forced to bring on pundits to debate the Imus flap. The thing is the debates really had very little to do with Imus or his stupid comment. They turned into discussions over who gets to say what. One argument raised was why don’t we (meaning society I guess) hold rappers to the same standards that we hold 67 year-old shock jocks? Is it acceptable to hold different people to different standards? If so then what Imus said was not the issue, but the fact that it was Imus who said it that was the problem.
Jump ahead a week. NBC recieves a package from Cho Seung-hui, the shooter responsible for the massacre at Virginia Tech. The package contains a video, some photos and a manifesto of sorts. NBC decides to air the footage and other news outlets do the same. Should they have done so? Again the arguments. By making it public are we giving him the attention and notriety that he seeks while at the same time being insensitive to the family and friends of the victims? On the other hand, is their something to be learned from watching these videos that might help the common man to identify like-minded individuals and possibly prevent this type of event from happening again? Both are sound and reasonable arguments.
Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, once said “If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship”. Kristol is, of course, wrong. With censorship you don’t get Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce. While Don Imus is nowhere near Pryor or Bruce, there is something to be said for trying to push the limits.
I also support responsible journalism. Sensationalism and titallation get nowhere with me. Given proper context the video of Cho Seung-hui can be shown in a manner that could enlighten people as to his state of mind. If done for ratings, for “gotcha journalism” purposes then it is a disgrace. I am not an absolutist. Different situations requrie different responses. There is not one standard for all.
Last night I watched An Inconvenient Truth. Yeah, I know. I’m a little behind the times. Anyway, there was something that struck me (beyond the whole “the earth is heating up and were all gonna die” thing). Al Gore will forever be linked, not to Bill Clinton, but to George W. Bush. The election of 2000 is the key moment in the political history of Al Gore, and for those of us on the left side of things, he will always be the man who should have been.
But this is what got me about the movie. Here is a film in which 95% of the dialogue is given by one man, and it’s riveting. A man considered dry, dull and boring talks for an hour and a half and it is amazing to watch. I then tried to imagine a movie in which George W. Bush talks for 90 minutes on his passion, whatever that might be. How bad would that movie be?! He couldn’t do it based on his personality alone. George W. Bush loses the charisma battle to Al Gore. Who would have guessed that? Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go recycle something.
This is just a quick word of thanks for all of those who came out to see me speak at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church in San Pedro last Sunday. I gave a talk about Islam and the Sunni/Shia split. It was a very nice turnout and everyone had thoughtful comments and questions. I am always pleasantly surprised whenever I give a talk like this at a church. There is rarely a negative reaction to the subject manner and, I hope there is a deeper understanding of the religion, the people and the commonalties that we share. Thanks and I hope to continue the dialogue.
