Zealotry: A growing danger to American freedom

[cloudy]

This is basically the same thing I said in my essay, The Myth of Religious Freedom, but better expressed, I think. (end of shameless plug).

I got mercilessly blasted by people who didn't realize that by posting the comments that they did, they were proving my point for me. This is just an interesting read (and yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir here ):

Zealotry: A growing danger to American freedom
by: Editors Report / Indian Country Today

When the spiritual love of Jesus turns into ''the dogma of Christ politicus,'' it is a dangerous moment for America. This is happening at an alarming rate and in weirder and weirder forms by the week. Somewhere along the line we hope the broader range of Christian open-minded and moderate thinking will prevail in the public discourse. The signs of the times, however, seem ominous and dark indeed.

Witness Rev. Chan Chandler of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina, who kicked out nine members from his own congregation because they voted as Democrats and did not support George W. Bush for president. During last year's presidential campaign, Chandler told his congregation that those who would vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should repent or leave his church, according to one member who was forced out.

Witness the Baptist deacon of a California congregation who told the Lakota family of Muriel Waukazoo, who wanted a drum group to accompany their mother's funeral, that the traditional Indian songs could not be tolerated because ''drumming brings the demons.''

Witness Bush getting the nod from the Catholic Church hierarchy, which essentially endorsed him when it allowed then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to urge bishops to consider the denial of Holy Communion to Catholic politicians (i.e. John Kerry) who endorsed a pro-choice position on abortion rights for women.

Witness the even more troubling case of an American Jesuit who respectfully and intelligently criticized the positions of the Catholic Church and is now ordered to resign as editor of the Catholic journal, America - forced out by no less an authority than the office of doctrinal enforcement, called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on an edict issued by - again - then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now pope.

One major issue to cause the resignation order involved the magazine's critique of the church's ''Dominus Iesus,'' a document directly insisting on the supremacy of Catholicism over all faiths. The church document had been issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, resting on the dogma of infallibility of the pope, while the critique considered it a setback to more respectful interfaith relations.

The magazine also strove to present opposing views of issues of same-sex marriage and Catholic relations with Islam, as well as the pernicious issue of whether Catholic politicians who support freedom for women should be excommunicated. The ''Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith'' was previously known as the ''Office of the Inquisition'' in the Catholic Church.

Always throughout history, religious zealotry at the political helm leads to horrible injustices. Among the worst of many excesses of zealotry in Catholic history was the Inquisition, when tens of thousands of people were tortured, burned to death and expelled from their home countries and their properties confiscated on a ''religious'' basis.

American Indian people well remember how that institution would cause Indians throughout the Caribbean and Mesoamerica to be slowly burned while dangling from their hands, 13 at a time, to commemorate the holiness of Christ and his 12 apostles. In the Americas, the killing of Indians for supposed ''paganism'' was wanton and widespread. In Old Europe, the Inquisition's enforcers killed thousands of women healers and herbalists as ''witches,'' and in particular targeted heretics for torture and execution.

The concept of heresy as a cause for torture and death is particularly identified with the Catholic Church. It was a main reason for the rejection of the church among many populations who chose to disagree with the class of men-priests who ruled the institution and who wielded great and fearsome power.

Religious fervor that borders on zealotry, always suspect in a democratic society, is perhaps tolerable if encompassed in the much larger open-society discourse, bent on real goals of productivity and prosperity for all citizens of the nation. But this is not what is happening. A much darker form of religious zealotry has been ushered into all levels of American government. The objective is to break down the wall between religion and state, so long a revered and fundamental principle in America.

Freedom of religion has always also been freedom from religion; freedom from having arguments and issues completely taken on faith and framed in Biblical terms, wrapped up as ''the word of God'' to be interpreted and mouthed by preachers (and now politicians).

Ratzinger, as author Jane Kramer reported recently in The New Yorker, is well-known within the Catholic Church as a force against dissension or free thinking of any kind that might possibly question, much less contradict, Catholic dogma. A tough enforcer of the imperative by all Catholics - and by extension of a proselytizing faith, all human beings - to bow to the authority of the magistrate of the church, the new pope has alarmed many with his history of ultra-conservatism and zealous guardianship of dogmatic Catholic authority.

A number of commentaries on the cardinal's recent ascension pointed out that as Pope Benedict XVI, he might project a more tolerant attitude to other faiths and other points of view. We hope this will be so and we hope the force of reason and secular common sense will prevail over American politics.

But we can never forget the substantial collusion between the Church hierarchy and boy-rapers masquerading as spiritual men-priests, nor that it was precisely the office of Cardinal Ratzinger that imposed the transfer of sexual abuse cases - and all related evidence, in secret archives - to the Vatican's jurisdiction. Nor can we forget that in the same letter, the young victims are directed to keep the ''pontifical secret'' under threat of excommunication. The hiding of truth and the protection of the perpetrator rather than his victims characterize the action of the Catholic Church in this sordid affair.

There was a time when America's foreign and domestic policy was not dictated by the ignorant literal biblical interpretation of current affairs, when America's sense of the world was not dictated by a tunnel-minded ideological misunderstanding of other places, other major religions and cultures. Most Americans would also like to believe that there was a time when rapaciousness, greed and political spin had not completely replaced reality. But Indian country knows otherwise.

The problem with all this religiosity in our public life is that it introduces a whole new degree of manipulation of important voting blocks that will ultimately define national life in this country for decades to come. We tend to recoil from true-believing attitudes when it comes with dealing with the powerful, both in government and in private sector issues. It reeks of flimflam rather than of sincere illumination of problems and issues, for which the country has long enjoyed a useful working press and active academic research bases that could study and discern issues intelligently with many-sided analyses that will inform serious, long-term decisions.

Anybody willing to trade this most wonderful principle of American freedom - the guarantee of a free and independent intellectual tradition - for the strictures of theocratic institutional dictum needs to rethink their sense of the nation. To chose ignorance by free will may yet become the best working definition of social insanity.

 

[cloudy]

Another Op-ed from Indian Country Today about what true Christianity is, and how their religion is being hijacked and twisted by a few into something unrecognizable.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

While I agree with the presmise of the article concerning zealotry, I'm still stuck by an obvious bias in the writing.

All of the examples given were of the zealotry and it's ties to "conservatives" in one way or another. There are people on the other side of the aisle that use religion in the exact same manner for the promotion of themselves and their views.

Religious zealotry gets warped by people on both sides of the political aisle.

 

[cantdog]

While I agree with the presmise of the article concerning zealotry, I'm still stuck by an obvious bias in the writing.

All of the examples given were of the zealotry and it's ties to "conservatives" in one way or another. There are people on the other side of the aisle that use religion in the exact same manner for the promotion of themselves and their views.

Religious zealotry gets warped by people on both sides of the political aisle.

So what? The other side of the political aisle isn't in power.

 

[rgraham666]

This is what happens to any structure that gains power. It becomes an ideology.

And ideology is not about being good, but about being right.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Quiet_Cool]

So what? The other side of the political aisle isn't in power.

But they wish to be, and the problems here would most likely persist, from a different angle or not, had they been given power instead.

The bias was obvious, but it was an editorial, that's how those work.

But it's also old news. Religion has never been "free of blame" so to speak, when it comes to acts done in its name.

Today is no different, and the future won't be either.

Q_C

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I've often wondered what it is that makes so much of American Christianity so overzealous and extreme, almost hysterical in its beliefs.

I wonder if it's that the very idea of freedom is just too much for some people to handle. They need a very tight structure and sets of rules, and they create these in their religion.

Of course, then there's the case of the Rumanian priest who was recently inthe news for crucifying a nun he thought was possessed by the devil. She died of suffocation when she was tied to a cross and left in the basement with a sack over her head, so we don't have a sole lock on the charge of zealotry.

 

[Liar]

So what? The other side of the political aisle isn't in power.

Um, but when they are, there will still be zealots in power. So your point was?

 

[Liar]

I've often wondered what it is that makes so much of American Christianity so overzealous and extreme, almost hysterical in its beliefs.

I wonder if it's that the very idea of freedom is just too much for some people to handle. They need a very tight structure and sets of rules, and they create these in their religion.

Of course, then there's the case of the Rumanian priest who was recently inthe news for crucifying a nun he thought was possessed by the devil. She died of suffocation when she was tied to a cross and left in the basement with a sack over her head, so we don't have a sole lock on the charge of zealotry.

Definitely not. The only reason American zealotry raises more eyebrows than, say Romanian zealotry, is that it doesn't ring well with certain aspects of your culture. There is a tradition on this side of the atlantic of Ye Ole Time Religion, we expect that old and mostly abandoned ideas and attitudes still are stuck in the wrinkles of history here and there.

You live in what at least looks like a more open and dynamic culture, and from the outside it is hard to see at a first clance how it can be that everone is not an ultimate free, reasonably secular and enlighened modern reanissance man.

 

[elsol]

Was this article about religious zealotry in America or the evils past, present, and future of the Catholic Church?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

A very important post, however, I'm afraid you may be right in saying you're preaching to the choir. Those whole-hearted believers of Catholic and Evangelical persuasion are not to be persuaded to look at anything not in the particular tunnel they love looking through.

As opposed to the remarkably open-minded, generous, and unbiased approach you evidence in your post?

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[BlackShanglan]

==================================================




I'd love to say I understand what you mean, Shang, but truthfully, it leaves me a little perplexed. Can you elaborate? (asked kindly, and with genuine curiosity)

mismused

In your previous statement, you describe a group of people with whom you disagree as narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned people who wilfully refuse to consider any perspective but their own. In doing so, you inherently reject the possibility that they may have considered your position and chosen not to agree with it, possibly for reasons that are substantial and important to them. I think that rather unreasonable of you, particularly when lumping very large groups of people together for the purpose of this classification. I don't find it significantly more tolerant than some of the stances that you decry.

Shanglan

 

[Wildcard Ky]

So what? The other side of the political aisle isn't in power.

So being in power is the only thing that matters? Their only goal is to be in power. They spent 40 years in power in the house and senate. I'm sure they will be in power again.

Um, but when they are, there will still be zealots in power. So your point was?

Perfectly said.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[oggbashan]

Brethern and Exclusive Brethen

Some practioners of religions seem to believe that only their way is the route to salvation.

In the UK we have had Plymouth Brethern. Some of them decided that the Plymouth Brethern were too lax in their beliefs so they formed a group called Exclusive Brethern who excluded the Plymouth Brethern who already excluded anyone who wasn't a Plymouth Brother from the promise of Paradise. Then some of the Exclusive Brethern expelled some of their number for being too associated with the secular world and the Exclusives split into the Excluded Exclusives and the Included Exclusives... and most of the Included died out because they couldn't find partners who were included enough and wouldn't jeopardise their hope of Paradise by compromising their beliefs.

The same thing happened to the Baptists. Some of them started a Strict Baptist Church and then a Strict and Particular Baptist Church...

The theme is that the numbers of the elect are limited and only those who are observant in their special way can ever be one of the elect.

Those examples are from Christianity. Similar trends can be observed with Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, Buddists and even the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific.

The one common feature is lack of tolerance of variations from the norm.

My own view is that these splinter groups lack an understanding of the diversity of the human experience and have no sense of humour.

Og (aka The Reverend Jeanne_D'Artois who will let anyone worship in her Church however they want to)

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Some practioners of religions seem to believe that only their way is the route to salvation.

Isn't that true of all religions? I would think that believing that one certain religion held the key to eternal salvation would be the single biggest precursor to joining that religion.

 

[Liar]

Isn't that true of all religions?

The three monodeitist (Christians, Moslems and Jews) religions pretty much says so. But I'm not aso sure about the eastern religions. At least lamaism and shinto are to my knowledge more action oriented than belief oriented.

 

[cloudy]

Isn't that true of all religions? I would think that believing that one certain religion held the key to eternal salvation would be the single biggest precursor to joining that religion.

No, that's not necessarily true. It is true, as Liar said, of the big three, but not so much with others.

I truly don't understand the need to convert people to my religious beliefs, and it's even harder for me to understand some of the things done in the name of God, or of religion.

I have a very good friend who is a devout Christian. In a discussion about Iraq, etc., the other day, I found it impossible to explain things in a way that she would understand. She considers Christianity the one true faith, of course, and since that's necessarily true, then she considers it our (Americans) responsibility to bring others into the fold so that they have the chance to be resurrected, etc., etc. I approached the subject from several different angles, but none of them even scratched the surface of her defenses.

Ditto the whole 'bring democracy to Iraq' argument. I was trying to explain to her that though we may feel that the way we run our country was the best way, it wasn't up to us to force our ways on anyone else. She was honestly dumbfounded when I said that. Her reply was something to the effect of: "But, if it's the best way, then it's up to us to bring it to the rest of the world, so that they can have the 'best way' as well."

I think that's where people like me make their mistake. We underestimate the defenses built into the major religions. They truly don't see themselves forcing anything on anybody, but rather see it as bringing the true word of God to the infidels and saving their souls - they're being done a favor.

For myself, I see religion as something extremely personal. I very seldom share my beliefs with anyone for a couple of reasons: 1) It's truly nobody's business what I believe as long as I'm not hurting anybody, and 2) in the past, when I have discussed them, I'm usually then looked upon as a 'project' and my beliefs pushed aside as primitive, and they want to save me.

It has occurred to me that the tenet of 'witnessing' may not be all that altruistic. I'm sure there are some 'true' Christians, Muslims, whatever, who honestly try to convert people out of concern for them. On the other hand, I can't help but think that 'witnessing' is just a way to bring more members into the fold, and thus more money into the coffers. Why else would there be a rule against using any birth control method but the rythym method? It couldn't be because without birth control, there are more little church members, can it?

Jesus Christ preached tolerance, and I see very little of it anywhere. There's no tolerance within any of the major religions, which makes those little WWJD bracelets, etc., especially ironic. (the link in my second post points out the differences in people who live their beliefs vs. those who yell about how strong their beliefs are)

 

[KarenAM]

I wrote the following about a week ago after reading an article on the Papacy of John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger in the New Yorker last week. It seems relevent to this discussion, and so I post it here. There are a bunch of links attached to this essay, but rather than retype those in here, I'll just refer you to my original blog link if you're interested in pursuiing them:

The Sin Fetish

Religion, like sex, is generally a very personal matter, and by its nature it tends to defy easy definition. This, of course, has not stopped people from trying, and if there is any one thing that has distinguished religion in the common era (CE or AD) from that of before the common era (BC or BCE), it is the tremendous amount of effort that has gone into defining religious things, organizing them into stricter and stricter dogmas.

The effect of this, historically, has been to make religions rigid, and it has created the need to enforce orthodoxy and stamp out diversities of opinion. Rather than claiming to touch on truths, religions these days often tend to speak in the singular: TRUTH. There is only one, they claim, one correct way of defining the divine, one correct way of viewing the universe. As this attitude festers, it tends to become aggressive, and inquisitions and crusades and jihads result. Religion, which can serve to liberate the human spirit, which can help heal suffering and provide meaning in what often seems a meaningless existence, becomes instead a tool of power and control, and it winds up adding to human misery rather than alleviating it.

The big tool in the toolchest of this sort of religion (which is, thank God, not the only sort of religion out there) is of course the concept of sin. This is not to say that sin is merely an invention of oppressive religion, for there is ample evidence of an inherent moral code in most human beings, even if they act against it. We do know the difference between right and wrong most of the time, even when we do bad things. Were there no inherent moral code, it is hard to see how human societies could function at all, and it is no coincidence that those societies which abandon moral codes completely tend to collapse or survive only with significant outside aid. One need not be religious to be moral, as ethical atheists prove every day.

When it comes to the idea of sin, few groups seem more enthusiastic about the matter than the Roman Catholic Church. This organization seems to love the idea of sin, seems to love defining it. A summation of Catholic sins given at the St. Thomas Aquinas Forum shows us that the church has grouped them into two broad categories: Mortal and Venial. Mortal sins, of course, are the really bad ones, and if you die having committed a mortal sin, apparently even a single mortal sin, you get to suffer in hell for all eternity at the hand of your loving God, even if you rescued Jews from the Holocaust or saved a million babies from starvation. A venial sin doesn't exclude you from heaven, but it's still bad. Maybe it warrants only a spanking or something like that.

Mortal sins, of course, get the most attention. Many seem to be based on interpretations of the Ten Commandments. I won't outline them all here, but will instead focus on a few features of them.

First, the commandments that get the most attention in the summation are #5 (You shall not kill) and #6 (You shall not commit adultery). Unfortunately, #5 is a mistranslation: correctly, the Hebrew reads: "You shall not commit murder". From #5 we are told that murder, abortion, euthanasia, and suicide are sins, and there is some logic to this, since each of these things can be interpreted as a form of murder. Of course, so too can hunting, eating vegetables, and fighting off an infection, since the commandment does not specify humans, particularly if you use the translation of "you shall not kill".

Other sins based on #5 include scandal, drug abuse, gluttony, alcohol abuse, terrorism, extreme anger, hatred and extortion. I don't know if blackmail falls under extortion or not. What's odd, though, is that although each of these things can be considered bad and immoral, among them only terrorism by its nature actually involves murder. The others can lead to death, but they don't have to.

Notably absent from these varied definitions of sin is war. While this might at first seem odd, the sad truth is that Christian and Catholic history are both quite bloody, and even the current Pope has argued that:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

"You shall not kill" or "you shall not murder" apparently don't always apply if you use enough bombs. "Onward Christian Soldiers" and all that.

Now #6, "you shall not commit adultery" includes adultery, which is what it says, and then a whole host of other things that seem to be related to adultery only in that they involve sex or marriage: divorce, fornication, pornography, prostitution, rape, homosexual acts, incest, and masturbation. Now, some of these things are very bad things because they have clearly defined victims: rape and very often incest cause real harm and are usually the result of the abuse of power in one form or another. Divorce, on the other hand, has no clear victim and can be used to end an abusive marriage (note that spousal abuse does not seem to be on the list of mortal sins, unless it leads to one like rape or murder). Fornication can be a bad idea, as can prostitution, and if one of those involved is married, then both can constitute adultery.

But pornography, homosexual acts, and masturbation? Yes, all can be harmful in excess, but so too can religious devotion, as Jim Jones and David Koresh clearly showed. And the simple fact is that human beings are sexual, and that these are forms of sexual expression that need not produce victims. And to judge by the regularity of sex scandals within Christian organizations, repression hardly seems likely to eliminate the excesses that do occur.

There are more sins, of course, so many so that I can't recount them all in the space of this single essay. Suffice it to say that Reverend Lovejoy's remark to Marge Simpson is not far off the mark: "Marge, just about everything is a sin. Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."

The question is: Why? Given the almost fetishistic obsession with sin given by the Catholic Church and a huge number of Evangelical Protestants, one can't help but wonder if many Christians (and others in other faiths that do the same thing) aren't actually getting off on sin somehow. Note that the site from which I got the list of Catholic sins has no corresponding page detailing Catholic virtues (though it does have one on grace, which is not the same thing, and one on faith, one on Original Sin complete with a total misreading of what the book of Genesis actually says about the matter, another on angels, justification, redemption, and the position of the Church on controversial topics). The site also has, of course, lots of discussion about those the Church regards as its enemies, which seems to broadly be anyone who embraces modernity.

But I think the main reason isn't fetishistic but rather that it is political. The Catholic Church has through most of its history been a political instrument first and foremost, as have many other churches. By deciding that the church has the divine power to define sin, it gives itself the power to control the lives of its members, which is all the more disturbing given the use of forced conversions in Christian history, a trend that continues today through the use of extortion: Christ is the only way to salvation, and the only way to get Christ's support is to do what the church leadership tells you to do.

The church leadership, mind you. Not Jesus. A quick look at the citations in the list of sins given above shows us that only a minority come from the Gospels; most are from Paul and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). The simple fact is that the Bible itself doesn't actually mention many things defined as sins (such as masturbation), or mentions them only briefly (homosexuality).

So I confess that I find it impossible to see the exaltation of sin that dominates so much Christian thinking today as anything more than an effort to restore the political power that Christian churches had before the rise of secularism. You know the sort of power I mean, I'm sure: the power to make war, the power to persecute, the power to sell indulgences, the power to hold inquisitions and kill and torture Jews and heretics, the power to enslave Native Americans and Black Africans, the power to silence dissent and to tell boldfaced lies about science and medicine, and so on.

What I don't see is why anyone would consider such a grab for power to be moral. I somehow doubt Jesus would see it that way, since he spent most of his time talking about compassion, peace and love. What a weirdo, huh?

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[elsol]

I think that's where people like me make their mistake. We underestimate the defenses built into the major religions. They truly don't see themselves forcing anything on anybody, but rather see it as bringing the true word of God to the infidels and saving their souls - they're being done a favor.

Let me explain... no, that would take too long, let me sum up.

What is THEEE Archetype in Catholic faith? Jesus H. Christ

What roles did he define for the Church? Missionary, Martyr, Savior

Get it?

Converting heathens isn't something we 'have' to do; it's the identity given to us by our ultimate role model.

--- I'm just a firm believer that I should not try TOO hard to emulate Jesus for that would be hubris.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[cloudy]

Let me explain... no, that would take too long, let me sum up.

What is THEEE Archetype in Catholic faith? Jesus H. Christ

What roles did he define for the Church? Missionary, Martyr, Savior

Get it?

Converting heathens isn't something we 'have' to do; it's the identity given to us by our ultimate role model.

--- I'm just a firm believer that I should not try TOO hard to emulate Jesus for that would be hubris.

Sincerely,
ElSol

I don't appreciate your smart-assed reply to something I'm honestly trying to understand.

And, this heathen doesn't need to be 'saved,' get it?

You're quite welcome to your beliefs, but don't force them on me. It's all about respect, which you obviously could learn something about.

 

[rgraham666]

It's the difference between faith and dogma.

With faith, you don't know, you believe. You can never be sure your faith is the correct way to believe or if the actions you take from that faith are good ones. You can be pretty sure but you'll never know. That niggling little sliver of doubt can be quite annoying and even painful. Many people would rather do without that doubt.

With dogma, you know. The Truth, absolute, unchanging and never, ever doubted. This sets the dogmatist free. They are free. Free from thought, free from doubt and above all, free from responsibility. Acting from The Truth makes it impossible to do wrong.

Such a divine state must of course be inflicted on others. Who wouldn't want to live in divine bliss after all?