Browsed by
Tag: fundamentalism

American Unreason and Anti-Intellectualism

American Unreason and Anti-Intellectualism

When I was an undergraduate, I thought it would be a good idea to get high school teaching certification as a backup. I had an amazing teacher – I hated him at the time – who asked everyone in the room why they wanted to teach. Most of the undergrads said things like “I want to help people.” Sheesh.

When he got to me, I said that I was an intellectual, and that curiosity, analysis and debate were essential for every American. He said something dismissive, and my previously-timid self stopped going to the class.

To save my grade, I finally went in to talk to him. We came to an agreement. I had to read Richard Hofstadter’s classic book “Anti-intellectualism in America,” write a report, and discuss it with him. The book provided a clear clear picture of what I would be facing in this country – pretty much for the rest of my life. Nothing else has been so accurate. I thank my professor with all my heart for forcing me to read it. The first effect it had was that I decided that I would never teach at a high school.

Now there’s a book that continues Hofstader’s insights into the contemporary situation, and I am looking forward to reading it.



Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason argues that “the scales of American history have shifted heavily against the vibrant and varied intellectual life so essential to a functioning democracy.”

Dismayed by the average U.S. citizen’s political and social apathy and the overall crisis of memory and knowledge involving everything about the way we learn and think, Jacoby passionately argues that the nation’s current cult of unreason has deadly and destructive consequences (the war in Iraq, for one) and traces the seeds of current anti-intellectualism (and its partner in crime, antirationalism) back to post-WWII society. Unafraid of pointing fingers, she singles out mass media and the resurgence of fundamentalist religion as the primary vectors of anti-intellectualism, while also having harsh words for pseudoscientists. Through historical research, Jacoby breaks down popular beliefs that the 1950s were a cultural wasteland and the 1960s were solely a breeding ground for liberals. Though sometimes partial to inflated prose (America’s endemic anti-intellectual tendencies have been grievously exacerbated by a new species of semiconscious anti-rationalism), Jacoby has assembled an erudite mix of personal anecdotes, cultural history and social commentary to decry America’s retreat into junk thought. – from the Publisher’s Weekly Review

Laura Miller’s review at Salon is a good read in itself.

Although Jacoby scolds culture warriors like Allan Bloom, author of “The Closing of the American Mind,” for both misunderstanding and misrepresenting the upheavals on American campuses during the 1960s and ’70s, she also deplores many of the leftist remedies for those conflicts. Women’s and African-American studies departments, she argues, only “ghettoize” the subject matter they champion, and further Balkanize and provinicalize university students. Not coincidentally, the creation of those departments generated more faculty jobs without pressuring traditional professors to reassess their curricula: “Too many white professors today could not care less whether most white students are exposed to black American writers, and some of the multicultural empire builders are equally willing to sign off on a curriculum for African-American studies majors that does not expose them to Henry James and Edith Wharton.”

There are some quibbles – and it looks like I might agree with them – but this is a definite add to my Amazon wishlist!

“Jacoby has written a brilliant, sad story of the anti-intellectualism and lack of reasonable thought that has put this country in one of the sorriest states in its history.” – Helen Thomas

Words about God

Words about God

I have long been a fan of the Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua. I’ve even got the tee-shirt, and it gets looks from the other PTA moms, let me tell you. The site, whose premise I adore, was the inspiration for the Virtual Church of Benevolent Deities, Inc (VirtuBene).

Scooper (heh-heh) recently posted on God and “inclusive language” – the scare quotes are to let you know that the title of the post is much more colorful. Go see.

I’m not afraid, just respectful. I can let the tradition bend. And yet, I get my back up when someone insists that I must use inclusive language. I know that the idea of God being masculine is God’s sop to the patriarchal tribal society of Hebrews in which God first planted ethical monotheism. And I know that many of us no longer need that sop. But must we wrench things the other way, cutting off God’s balls, as it were, in order to make God into an icon of gender-equality? Must God be treated like some kind of intellectual property, to be stretched in a tug-of-war between Fundamentalists and Feminists?

One hopes that God is above the boundaries of any such definition. Or maybe it’s just me.

I commented that my own workaround on this is to see all local metaphors (including gender) for God as shards of greater truth. We don’t have the words to describe God. The gender problem highlights that. Biblical examples: There is the God who is like a mother hen guarding her chicks, there is the ferocious war God, there is the God of Love, there are the multiple Elohim.

For me, it’s helpful to dwell with different kinds of imagery from time to time. We don’t know what is meant by the statement that we were created in God’s “image,” but we do know that idolatry was frowned upon.

Not everyone has enough religious flexibility to do this, but I see God in Kuan Yin and in Jesus, in the sky and the ocean, in the quiet thoughts of solitude, and in the ecstasies and negations of the mystics. Since all of our words and images of God fall short by definition, there is perhaps insight to be absorbed in the practice of switching out the metaphors. Any fixation on one, such as the old man on the cloud, runs the danger of becoming fixed as a claim to Truth.

Some have no trouble with the claim to Truth, but wise and insightful people throughout the ages have tried to warn us against hubris. What is have are methods that point toward truths of different kinds – we don’t own or possess the Truth. That way lies fanaticism.

Language can make us aware of all this. Traditions of language are always more comfortable – they exist to create a comfort zone for community stability. Nothing wrong with that, but the “traditions of men” (and women) have their limits.

Scooper said this reminded him of Orthodox Rabbi, Abraham Joshua Heschel, who wrote:

Religious thinking is in perpetual danger of giving primacy to concepts and dogmas and to forfeit the immediacy of insights, to forget that the known is but a reminder of God, that the dogma is a token of His will, the expression of the inexpressible at its minimum. Concepts, words must not become screens; they must be regarded as windows.

That’s a fantastic quotation.

I think sometimes of my former cat, who I could never teach to look where I was pointing. She looked at the pointing finger every time.

To me, that’s what words about God are like. They point, but we look at their fingers.

(Are you picturing words with fingers? I am. There’s a book title in there somewhere.)

Christian Paradox, or, Hypocrisy Incarnated

Christian Paradox, or, Hypocrisy Incarnated

The Christian Paradox (Harpers.org)

Check out this excellent excerpt from Bill McKibben’s article in the August 2005 edition of Harper’s Magazine.

The basic point is that although the overwhelming majority of Americans profess to be Christian, the USA is the least Christian in its behavior (compared to other “developed” nations).

A few nuggets:

“In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries.”

“nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin.”

“Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers.”

“We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners).”

“Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest.”

Usery? Adultery? Deceit? Greed? Envy? Gluttony? Hey, take your pick.

“After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner.”

Think about it. The Christian message is NOT to steal from the poor, or to take water and other natural resources from others, or to abandon the needy, or to hate those who are unlike you or to rally for death. Those things are not Christian, and no manipulation by any false prophet will make it Christian.

God’s spirit and will – at least as it might have been expressed through Jesus, and I can think of some others – is a spirit of compassion, love and forgiveness. None of us are particularly good at living those values that Jesus modelled – but if you base your politics on a Christian viewpoint, you’re not really allowed to claim that the opposite of those values is a Christian moral ground.

I grew up as a hard-core fundamentalist, and later taught religion at the university level. Most students who think they are Christian don’t understand the texts and doctrines of their own religion. They have beliefs that are not a part of the understanding of their own denomination’s teaching, and sometimes not even mentioned in the Bible at all – supposedly the source of their authority. Of course, the bible is a highly selective and edited collection of diverse texts, with a political history of its own – and the idea of its being “inspired” came kind of late in that history.

Still – if you are a Christian, don’t you have to take into some consideration the actual teachings of your messiah? By your teaching, you must believe that you will be judged as you have judged, that you will be forgiven as you have been forgiving, that Jesus will consider all you have done toward the poor, toward the hurting, toward the powerless – as you having done it toward him.

Alas alas for you – hypocrites and Pharisees… making a big show of righteousness and it signifies nothing real at all.

The word repent means turn around. If you have not love (caritas – charity, compassion, caring), you have nothing at all.

Mobilize Nov 2 – Start planning now

Mobilize Nov 2 – Start planning now

Not in Our Name is trying to launch an initiative for November 2, 2005 called “The World Can’t Wait – Drive out the Bush Regime.” They envision mass outpourings of popular protest on the anniversary of the “re-election.” Politics as usual isn’t going to work, and dependence on semi-magical “leaders” in the Democratic party or elsewhere doesn’t appear to be a good option either. Silence and paralysis are irresponsible – what you will not protest and fight you will be forced to accept. We aren’t make much headway tackling issues one at a time.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn’t fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People who steal elections and believe they’re on a “mission from God” will not go without a fight.

—-

We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush’s “re-election”, we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US.

This is the first of probably several actions that aim to represent the majority as the majority despite losses in freedom of the press – to repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement that this regime does not represent us and we are committed to the refusal of being ruled and manipulated for aims that are not in our national interests.

Imagine if everything just stopped for a day – cars in the streets, people walking, talking with one another. Crowds in public places. They can’t block or arrest everyone. This is a country that is supposed to ensure the right of freedom of assembly – says nothing about permits or “protest areas” in the Constitution. What if major areas all over the country took that one day just to say that they reject what it being done in the name of Americans, and to America and its citizens?

Instead of hostility toward the ones who are still being fooled by Bush Inc – how about a reach out? How about some simple – and accurate – arguments? How about some visual aids? If the protesting is happening all over the place there isn’t a whole lot anyone can do about it! If assembly is peaceable, it’s protected. I say go for it.

This isn’t some nambly-pambly feel-good action. It really means to get out there. Grab ten of your friends and start making things for the camera to see. And…. keep your face off the camera – it’s not impossible that this administration would target you under the Patriot Act as a “terrorist.” And isn’t that part of what’s wrong?

Check out the site: http://www.worldcantwait.org/, and also http://www.notinourname.net/ if you haven’t been there yet. September 3/4 New York City National Organizer’s meeting.

Initiating signers of the World Can’t Wait Call include:

William Blum, author of Rogue State
Prof B. Robert Franza, MD, author of Control of Human Retrovirus Gene Expression
Nina Felshin, author of But Is It Art: The Spirit of Art as Activism
Margot Harry, author of Attention MOVE! This is America
C. Clark Kissinger, Revolution newspaper and initiator of Not In Our Name statement
Rev. Earl Kooperkamp
Travis Morales, Revolutionary Communist Party, SF Bay Area
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter [Bulworth]
Frances Fox Piven, author of Regulating the Poor
Ralph Poynter, community activist
Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers Guild-NY
Lynne Stewart, criminal defense attorney
Sunsara Taylor, Revolution newspaper

The Problem with Fundamentalists

The Problem with Fundamentalists

Welcome to my blog of random musings.

Before Oswald, did snipers have “nests”?

Someone posted an anonymous comment on my tag board saying that they peed in my pool. I’m assuming it’s an alumn from Attleboro High School. It’s been that kind of a week. Here’s my fundamentalism poem – a former fundy JW myself, I can do this. 😉

The Problem with Fundamentalists
(with apologies to John Cale)

The problem with fundamentalists
They live by the rules
No matter the context
The rules always rule

The problem with a fundamentalist
She looks at a sentence
Whole chapters and books
And she stops at the sentence

The problem with a fundamentalist
He stops at the light
No one coming, wife in labor
He still stops at the light

The problem with fundamentalists
Their god is too cruel
Ruled by their own fears
They too become cruel

The problem with fundamentalists
They’ve missed the whole point
All courage and faith
Aimed at the wrong point