Message Discipline

I'm behind the curve on Amy Sullivan on David Kuo, but I thought this was interesting:

"I think the good news here is that people working in the White House think that Pat Robertson is nuts," he said. "They should. Pat Robertson is nuts." It seemed a little off-message--after all, this was a politically embarrassing book for the Bushies, and here O'Donnell was praising them. True, Robertson does regularly spout off truly nutty and dangerous statements (his call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; his prayer for the death of liberal Supreme Court justices; his belief that UPC symbols are the Mark of the Beast as foretold in Revelation). But what rankled O'Donnell the most was Robertson's "insane" belief that Jews are going to burn in hell. "

While most of them would put it more delicately than Robertson, it is an article of faith for millions and millions of evangelicals that the only way into heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ. (The good reverend has also said he believes Methodists will burn in hell, but that's not really the point.) By condemning and mocking that doctrine, O'Donnell managed an impressive feat. He took Robertson, a figure widely disliked and discredited throughout the evangelical community, and found a way to criticize him that would also insult and alienate evangelicals. Congratulations, Lawrence O'Donnell--you're the new poster-boy for secular liberal intolerance.

Now Amy's right. It would be useful, for the purposes of electoral politics, for liberals in the media to avoid expressing the view that the belief -- adhered to by millions of Americans -- that failure to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior will result in eternal damnation is daft. On the other hand, the evangelical view of this matter is, in fact, completely absurd. And not just absurd in a virgin birth, water-into-wine, I-believe-an-angel-watches-over-me kind of way. On this view, a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world (would an example help? Gandhi, maybe?) but who didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior would be subjected to a life of eternal torment after his death and we're supposed to understand that as a right and just outcome. That, I think, is seriously messed up.

But I shouldn't say so!

UPDATE: Since this post got Atrios'd, let me say that I don't especially think Amy merits a Two Minute Hate here and I agree with her point in the article that what Sam Rosenfeld called "theocracy hype" (for example) is both analytically wrong and tactically misguided. But I think there's a real dilemma here -- some things that are impolitic to say are also true.

Comments

I'm sure that plenty of evangelicals think that denomination-shoppers like Pastor Amy are headed to hell too. Didn't Dante have a circle devoted to the holier-than-thou?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 30, 2006 5:33 PM

That, I think, is seriously messed up.

You just say that because you're going to hell. But this is an interesting issue to bring up, now that Harold Ford is taking flak in Tennessee for having quoted someone saying that while Republicans fear the Lord, Democrats fear and love the Lord. This is being seen as a tremendous insult, but for a non-believer like me, it just shows the difficulties of avoiding landmines in religious speech, which appear to be everywhere.

Posted by RSA | October 30, 2006 5:35 PM

You obviously don't read enough Jack Chick tracts. I'm sure some of them think that Mother Teresa is flaming away as we speak.

And wasn't Gandhi a Christian?

Posted by zoombaba | October 30, 2006 5:39 PM

Precisely. The problem here isn't liberal intolerance, it's that Amy Sullivan, for all her good points, thinks that we liberals need to nod piously when some 'moderate' suggests that Ghandi and Anne Frank are bunking together in a fiery pit even as we speak.

That is crazed. It's absurd, it's asinine. But Sullivan thinks we need to pretend to take it seriously so as not to alienate the spiritual midgets we share the country with, who believe in a genie Yahweh who demands a particular semantic statement before opening the doors of Paradise.

The entire idea that Sullivan thinks there's a virtue in putting Robertson's sentiments more delicately demonstrates, I think, that she's got things terribly, terribly backwards. It's ok to think that Einstein and Feynman are in Hell, just so long as you don't say so too loudly. But it is indelicate to point out the consequences of this, and I do use the term loosely, theology.

Posted by NBarnes | October 30, 2006 5:39 PM

That IS a ridiculous thing that evangelicals think. But they are the right and moral ones and liberals are the insulting ones. Why? Because saying that gays and seculars should be treated equally is so much more offensive and out of the mainstream than saying that Ghandi is rightfully burning in hell.

Because the pundits say so, dammit!

Posted by Tom | October 30, 2006 5:43 PM

Gandhi wasnt a christian! and thanks for spelling the name right its Gandhi NOT GHandi!

Posted by mihir bhatia | October 30, 2006 5:44 PM

Gandhi is not a good example - he was an evil, self-righteous, Jew-hating, piss-drinking mysoginist who led millions to their deaths. At least, that's what the wingnuts tell me whenever they launch their bizarre ad hominem attacks. (You'd think they might notice it's just a pseudonym!)

I think you may be under-estimating these people's ignorance, xenophopia, racism and intolerance.

Posted by gandhi | October 30, 2006 5:46 PM

Fuck, what is it with the Jews? Why can't they lighten up about that whole "you're going to Hell" thing, and get with the program?

Evangelicals' feelings are really important, people! We can't go deriding this belief of theirs that everybody but them is damned! So tone deaf...

Posted by dj moonbat | October 30, 2006 5:46 PM

"And wasn't Gandhi a Christian?"

On the off chance you're not joking, here's what wikipedia says:

"Gandhi was born a Hindu and practised Hinduism all his life, deriving most of his principles from Hinduism. As a common Hindu, he believed all religions to be equal, and rejected all efforts to convert him to a different faith. He was an avid theologian and read extensively about all major religions. ... Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied: 'Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.' "

So I wouldn't call Gandhi a Christian for any American political purposes.

Posted by Hamilton Lovecraft | October 30, 2006 5:49 PM

All of which is a good demonstration of why keeping religion out of politics is the best policy, not just for us evil secular liberals, but for the religious people themselves. They're about as interested in my opinion on their beliefs as I am in their opinion about mine - not at all. As long as none of us are burning people or otherwise breaking the law, then what we think about the afterlife or lack of one is really our own business.

Posted by tatere | October 30, 2006 5:49 PM

Well, seems like I got my "bonehead post of the day" out of my system. Actually, I wasn't talking about that Gandi (or Ghandi) ... oh nevermind.

Anyway, yeah, Jack Chick tracts, those are damn funny right?

Posted by zoombaba | October 30, 2006 5:54 PM

I just love Amy's reasoning here: I'm the intolerant one for criticizing people for their presumptive belief that I'm going to hell. Someday they'll just petition the courts to recognize bigots as a suspect class.

Posted by pickabone | October 30, 2006 5:54 PM

Credo quia absurdum

-tertullian

Posted by razib | October 30, 2006 5:57 PM

At a funeral in a Dutch Reformed Church, my Jewish wife and our more-Jewish-than-thou friend heard the pastor pretty much condemning everyone who had not taken Jesus Christ as his or her savior to eternal damnation. Our friend as deeply insulted: "I was a guest there," she said, "and shouldn't have been insulted." But, my wife thought, "It's their house, after all, and it's their belief."

That's how we look at it, I think. Believe what you want in your own house, as crazy as we may think it. We'll respect you in your house. But when you come out and expect to impose your beliefs on others, or even try to intrude into our house, well, then you've gone too far. And, I think, that's where Amy Sullivan goes wrong. She wants to bring all this into the public forum to thrash out. Problem is, it doesn't belong there.

Posted by David in NY | October 30, 2006 5:57 PM

Theres an enormous issue here which some Christians might understand. One kind of conservative Christian is the "revival Christian" who devoutly loves Jesus but never seems to be able control his bad habits for long. Some of the new "prosperity Christians" also allow themselves a whole lot of ethical leeway and repent every Sunday. These people presume on redemtion and forgivness.

A lot of churches have made a dirty deal with these people: "As long as you repent and give money to the church, were not going to pester you. We really wish youd behave, but the flesh is weak. But homosexuality is an abomination, and you have to avoid that. And maybe youre personally weak, but at least you can support political leaders who will make this country a better nation."

So bad guys get a get-out-of-hell-free card as long as they participate in the scapegoating of gays and abortionists.

Ive met the kind of people Im talking about -- its not imaginary. "Im no angel, but there are some things I wont do...."

(Your software read apostrophes as commands, BTW).

Posted by John Emerson | October 30, 2006 5:59 PM

I just love Amy's reasoning here: I'm the intolerant one for criticizing people for their presumptive belief that I'm going to hell.

Yeah, it's a pretty sweet little racket: telling billions of Others that they're Damned to Hell isn't intolerant--it's jes' folks, sticking with their beliefs. Telling those few millions that their beliefs are whack? Now that's "secular liberal intolerance."

God, Sullivan's a tool.

Posted by dj moonbat | October 30, 2006 6:01 PM

Reminds me of the bit in Gibson-Sterling's The Difference Engine where someone is accused of being an "anti-slavery bigot"...

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 30, 2006 6:06 PM

So let me get this straight. In another day and time, Amy Sullivan would advise the politicians of the party that she supported to not say anything overtly against, say, slavery, since such statements would obviously offend a large number of people.

I think Amy should clearly state that she is not taking any moral position, but a prgamatic one, designed to garner votes. Alas, if she does that, she undermines her own advice in that even the evangelicals would not be swayed by such overt cynical and manipulative stance of any politician.

So where is Ms. Amy Sullivan coming from? She is quite muddled in her thinking I must say.

Posted by gregor | October 30, 2006 6:10 PM

It's fun to challenge the evangelicals on their own ground:

"Yes, the Bible teaches that all who are not believers will be damned. But, as Christians, don't we love our neighbors? Aren't we obliged to pray that God will *not* damn them? That He will forgive them regardless of their unbelief? Shouldn't we pray for Hell to be empty for all eternity?"

(Origen is said to have hoped that even the Devil would one day be saved. That seems the only acceptable hope for a Christian.)

The fun of this -- and it's not just fun, it's what I believe, but it's *also* fun -- is to see how *furious* some people get at the very idea that everyone will be saved. Like, "if everyone gets to Heaven, then I don't want to go!"

(Locus classicus: Flannery O'Connor's story "Revelation.")

Posted by Anderson | October 30, 2006 6:12 PM

The funny thing is that polls have pretty consistently shown that a large majority of Christians, even from evangelical sects that specifically preach the necessity of accepting Jesus as one's personal savior, believe that non Christians who lead moral lives get to go to heaven. It's actually comforting that when dogma bumps up against one's innate sense of fairness and morality, often times the latter wins out.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | October 30, 2006 6:15 PM

Dear God, is that blithering idiot Amy Sullivan still around?

Figures TNR would be employing her. Who else?

Posted by dave™© | October 30, 2006 6:19 PM

Praise for Ricky Santorum and now an effort to get out the Republican base...

Hmmm.

Posted by monkyboy | October 30, 2006 6:22 PM

Precisely. The problem here isn't liberal intolerance, it's that Amy Sullivan, for all her good points, thinks that we liberals need to nod piously when some 'moderate' suggests that Ghandi and Anne Frank are bunking together in a fiery pit even as we speak.

Amy Sullivan? Good points? What good points?

Seriously, her entire body of work reflects and reinforces two simple premises:
1) Bush in particular and all the religious right in general are a group of principled, well-meaning idealists who may be mistaken about some minor issues but really do think they're doing the best things for everyone in the country.
2) Any attempt to challenge the previous premise is morally unfair, abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans, and totally unsupported by facts no matter what we can't hear you LA LA LA!

I admit, I'm too lazy to get that free registration to TNR, so maybe she makes good points that no one ever bothers to blockquote. But based on what I see criticized on blogs and in things she's written elsewhere, those Two Rules sure do seem like her schtick.

So when she starts out as absurd as that, it's clear that her "good points" are as impressive and well-founded as the daily horoscope. And if there were any justice in the world they would be relegated to the same page of the paper.

Posted by Cyrus | October 30, 2006 6:22 PM

Gandhi is not a good example - he was an evil, self-righteous, Jew-hating, piss-drinking mysoginist who led millions to their deaths.

Gandhi drank his own piss? That's so fucking gross, Gandhi was just completely fucked up. And the fucking jews, they're fucked up too.

Posted by E. Costello | October 30, 2006 6:22 PM

The funny thing is that polls have pretty consistently shown that a large majority of Christians, even from evangelical sects that specifically preach the necessity of accepting Jesus as one's personal savior, believe that non Christians who lead moral lives get to go to heaven.

Got a link for that? I'd like to follow up if this is right.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | October 30, 2006 6:24 PM

Righteous heathen who for some reason (like living BC) never had the opportunity to hear the word of God go to limbo, getting to be bored rather than tormented for eternity. If they heard about Christianity and didn't convert, however, it's off to a lower circle of hell for them. At least, that's how I recall Dante explaining it . . .

Posted by rea | October 30, 2006 6:26 PM

So when she starts out as absurd as that, it's clear that her "good points" are as impressive and well-founded as the daily horoscope.

Perhaps even Amy Sullivan will be saved.

--Which is another thing that bugs me. Evangelicals should be *happy* to see their religion mocked, etc. The gospels are pretty clear that the Christians are likely to find themselves in a minority in this world.

But they're infuriated by the suggestion that they're wrong, that their faith is mistaken. This is because evangelicals have an unrealistic idea of "faith" that excludes doubt. You either *totally* believe, or you "don't have enough faith."

Hence their desire to swaddle themselves in a culture that never challenges their fragile "faith."

Contrast the cry of the centurion in the gospel: "Lord, I believe -- help thou my unbelief!"

Posted by Anderson | October 30, 2006 6:27 PM

Matthew:

Here's the article:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17348_1.html

And the poll itself:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17353_1.html

The whole thing is fascinating, but the most germane question is here:

Can a good person who isn't of your religious faith go to heaven or attain salvation, or not?
Yes No Don't know
Evangelical Protestants 68% 22% 10%
Non-Evangelical Protestants 83% 10% 7%
Catholics 91% 3% 6%
Non-Christians 73% 3% 24%
Total 79% 12% 9%

Posted by Hank Scorpio | October 30, 2006 6:28 PM

Y'all need to calm down. So evangelicals think Jews and other non-believers are going to hell. As far as I know, no policy position of theirs follows from that. Lots of people believe crazy things. I'm not sure that bit of their moral system is telling. Don't Catholics believe roughly the same thing? Yet I think of the moral map of the average Catholic as not so different from my own. The same could be true of evangelicals. If it's not, I'm not sure you can point to religious doctrine to explain the difference.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2006 6:29 PM

Can a good person who isn't of your religious faith go to heaven or attain salvation, or not?

The evangelicals may have thought the poll was talking about Catholics, or even Presbyterians.

N.b. that an evangelical who pauses to think is unlikely to admit that an unbeliever can be a "good person."

I'd like to see the poll with "isn't a Christian" substituted.

Posted by Anderson | October 30, 2006 6:31 PM

I absolutely hate having to point this out--over and over and over and over and over again--but for the record, not all Christians think you're going to burn in hell if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior. Nor do all evangelicals believe that. Just because the Falwell-Dobson-Robertson cuckoos in control of the GOP want everyone to think you aren't a Christian unless you drink their Kool-Aid, we all know it's not true.

The Christian faith is an amazingly diverse thing, and this constant lumping of all Christians into one pot of belief is very annoying.

Posted by Litz | October 30, 2006 6:32 PM

It's worth noting, as a follow up to those numbers, that Catholic doctrine is quite clear that good people who aren't Catholics / aren't Christians get saved.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 6:33 PM

See, I don't believe in Hell, so why should I believe that I'll go there if I don't accept Jesus as my personal whatever?

Posted by Andy | October 30, 2006 6:39 PM

"I don't especially think Amy merits a Two Minute Hate"

Guess you don't know what the Two Minutes of Hate really look like. This is practically a picnic by comparison. Seriously, she's been getting two minutes of Well-Deserved Criticism, and that's about all.

Posted by David in NY | October 30, 2006 6:40 PM

> Y'all need to calm down. So evangelicals
> think Jews and other non-believers are
> going to hell. As far as I know, no policy
> position of theirs follows from that.

We have no real knowledge of how deep the End Times thinking permeates the Bush Administration; based on the evidence I would suspect a lot deeper than even most Radicals would like to admit.

However, we do have one very concrete example: the situation at the Air Force Academy. That is a specific policy decision made, reversed due to public outcry, and quietly reimplemented by the W Administration at the direction of the Dobson crowd.

Not Really

Posted by Not Really | October 30, 2006 6:40 PM

The latest survey I have read (I'm an academic-type in religious studies, though I don't study Christianity) says that just under half of white, evangelical Protestants believe that "many religions will lead to eternal life" and that 75% of all those surveyed believe that. Other surveys may give higher numbers.

Here's the Pew link: http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/religion.pdf.

Posted by dmp | October 30, 2006 6:45 PM

I'm with Dawkins on this one: it's time to quit playing the stupid social game of "we must respect people's insane ideas and bigotry and pretend to take them seriously because they are cloaked in religiosity."

Insane delusions are intellectually juvenile no matter how much Jeebus they are pre-soaked in to hide the smell. And Amy's insistence that we all pander to them just because they are religion-flavored or be labeled "intolerant" is offensive. Count me out.

Posted by melior | October 30, 2006 6:46 PM

I am not as good a person as you Matt. Amy just said I am going to hell because I am Jewish and that it is bad politics for me to tell her she is a fucktard.

IT IS BAD POLITICS TO MIX POLITICS AND RELIGION.

Amy, if you want to believe I am going to hell, A) fuck you, and B) keep it out of politics.

Posted by jerry | October 30, 2006 6:47 PM

I absolutely hate having to point this out--over and over and over and over and over again--but for the record, not all Christians think you're going to burn in hell if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior.

Well, that depends. If you mean people who check off the box on their census questionnaires, then yes. Christianity in that sense is quite diverse, and has become especially so over the past few decades/centuries.

If you mean people who take a non-allegorical (not the same as "literal") reading of the Bible and adhere to the religion that was traditionally called "Christianity" for the first several hundred years of its existence, then no. Christians in that sense believe that those who do not place their belief in Christ (not the same thing as formal membership in a religious organization) go to hell and that this is the just position.

That is, simply put, the entire point of the religion. You either accept it or you don't, but if you don't you're not a Christian (in the second sense of the word).

Posted by JP | October 30, 2006 6:48 PM

Dawkins?? That guy is an idiot. Terry Eagleton's take-down was just brilliant:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 6:49 PM

I would also agree with SomeCallMeTim in that this belief system doesn't necessarily map out onto any particular set of political views. Jimmy Carter holds these beliefs, for instance, but that hasn't caused his politics to be objectionable to non-Christians, or at least not as such.

Posted by JP | October 30, 2006 6:51 PM

Amy just said I am going to hell because I am Jewish

Amy said what-now? Do you have a citation?

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 6:51 PM

Amy has a point, however.

All Christians except a few on the fringe hold that Christianity is the only way to salvation. Most are too polite to express that belief in terms of Jews burning in hell, but it amounts to the same thing.

Given that so many of our fellow citizens hold this belief, it's not helpful in public discourse to label it "insane," whatever you or I might think of it privately. And after all, freedom of religion is not limited to religions you and I agree are not crazy . . .

Posted by rea | October 30, 2006 6:53 PM

Jerry Falwell, March 2006:
"While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven."

http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2006/03/falwell_sends_t_1.html

Posted by JR | October 30, 2006 6:54 PM

Amy Sullivan represents surrender to the GOP - not just in a moral and ethical sense, as in accepting that their principles are intirinsically superior to our own, and that Christianity is inherently superior to secularism -

but also in the tactical, pragmatic, win-some-elections sense. Voters can smell a pandering faux-religious Democrat from a mile away. John's Kerry's talking about his faith fooled exactly zero of the religious crowd that he took his faith as seriously as GWB. If you're a secular liberal who thinks a religious belief is asinine, it's your dam* right to air your view in public, and in many cases your transparent attempt to fudge your own beliefs is only going to make you look weak as well as secular.

It is also *not* intolerance. Demanding that Christians stop spreading the idea *may* be intolerance, but *mocking* the idea is definitely not intolerance.

I don't like Atrios' style either, but Amy's attempts to promote a blanket of silence on an honest moment of victory is nuts.

The Bushies believing Pat Robertson is nuts is an example of Christianist extremism discrediting both itself and the GOP for sucking up to it. It's an example of the fundmental integrity of the Democratic critique being validated. It's, hallelujah, a victory in the war of ideas, small and petty though it may be.

Amy Sullivan is way off-base to suggest that we shouldn't own it with pride.

Posted by glasnost | October 30, 2006 6:55 PM

And Matt- if you don't accept JC as your personal savior, you cannot by definition live an exemplary life. You are a contrary, contumacious, rebellious, and stiff-necked creature and you have denied the divinity of the Lord. So how dare you claim to have lived an exemplary life? Not to mention that you probably have sex outside of marriage.

Posted by JR | October 30, 2006 6:59 PM

All Christians except a few on the fringe hold that Christianity is the only way to salvation. Most are too polite to express that belief in terms of Jews burning in hell, but it amounts to the same thing.

This is just completely untrue. Not only is it baldly untrue, but it's been shown to be untrue just like 10 posts above yours.

Newsweek-BeliefNet Poll:

Can a good person who isn't of your religious faith go to heaven or attain salvation, or not?
Yes No Don't know
Evangelical Protestants 68% 22% 10%
Non-Evangelical Protestants 83% 10% 7%
Catholics 91% 3% 6%
Non-Christians 73% 3% 24%
Total 79% 12% 9%

The vast majority of religious people do not believe that there is only one way to salvation. Another great line from that Eagleton review applies here:

As far as theology goes, Dawkins has an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley and American TV evangelists. Both parties agree pretty much on what religion is; it’s just that Dawkins rejects it while Oral Roberts and his unctuous tribe grow fat on it.

The rhetorical move that turns all Christians into Jerry Falwell is not only deeply problematic on both ethical and pragmatic levels, but it's completely wrong on the basic facts.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 7:02 PM

I don't like Atrios' style either, but Amy's attempts to promote a blanket of silence on an honest moment of victory is nuts.

My sense is that, in general, Sullivan says, "Try not to be such dicks to evangelicals, and they might vote for you." She's not trying to silence people, particularly, unless it's important to you to be rude to evangelicals. I don't personally want a coalition that depends on evangelicals, as I think the relatively strong support for Bush that they show is essentially anti-American, but I'd be awfully happy if they weren't so motivated to vote against me.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 30, 2006 7:03 PM

On the other hand, the evangelical view of this matter is, in fact, completely absurd..

For those of us who think that belief in heaven and hell is itself absurd, the evangelical view is just one flavor of absurdity among others. I find it difficult to work up a proper sense of injustice over different religious groups' allocation of the human species to two imaginary afterlives.

Posted by blah | October 30, 2006 7:07 PM

Although if I did believe in the afterlife, the version that segregates the good and bad people regardless of religion makes the most sense to me.

Posted by blah | October 30, 2006 7:11 PM

Litz correctly points out this constant lumping of all Christians into one pot of belief is very annoying. I would like to follow up with the observation that it is also hypocritical. It's a pigminded rhetorical device sufficient to impress lazy-minded and theologically unsophisticated readers (i.e., most atheists) that the writer is "onto something." No thought process was involved in the creation of this anti-Christian theorem. Its purpose is to provide a welcoming vacuum for its thought-free followers. Rush Limbaugh used to finish up his rants with, "You don't have to think about this. I've done the thinking for you." Well, what do you know? A crowd of dittoheads here, too.

What is the difference between Yglesias thumping his chest about Christians and Pat Robertson thumping his chest about the Jews? It appears to me that the levels of knowledge are about equal, as are the egoistic "I Am Holier Than Thou" attitudes.
Meanwhile, Christian organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous and Habitat for Humanity are doing what the readers and expounders of the Yglesias Corollary to the Robertson Theorem -- aren't doing. Making the world a better place for everyone.

But, as I like to say, now and then, "You can lead a man to an idea, but you can't make him think." Well, it applies to women, too, but in my experience women have more practice thinking.

mp

Posted by Michael Powe | October 30, 2006 7:12 PM

But of course Matt didn't lump all Christians together, he's talking, as was O'Donnell, about a subset of Christians with a very specific belief system, namely that people like Matt and myself are destined for eternal torment.

Posted by Atrios | October 30, 2006 7:13 PM

So it's not ok to lump all Christians into one pot, but it's ok to do so with atheists?

Posted by blah | October 30, 2006 7:16 PM

But of course Matt didn't lump all Christians together, he's talking, as was O'Donnell, about a subset of Christians with a very specific belief system, namely that people like Matt and myself are destined for eternal torment.

And that group is not the people that Amy Sullivan is talking about. She's talking about evangelicals broadly, and more specifically the leftish evangelicals who could possibly either swing their votes to the Democrats or at least stop voting for the Republicans. As shown by the polls above, it's only a relatively small group of hardliners who believe that Matt and Duncan and me will burn in hell.

There is basically no overlap between the people Sullivan wants to win over and the people whose beliefs Matt judged absurd. (I basically think they're morally reprehensible, and would be very happy to get into a theological debate if one were in the offing, but that's not what's going on here.) The rhetorical link that everyone's drawing between salvation-only-through-Christ and Sullivan's targeted evangelicals does not stand up to empirical, ethical or pragmatic scrutiny.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 7:18 PM

Oh, wait... jeez...

Sullivan is actually citing O'Donnell apparently just on the exclusive salvation theology. So there is some reason for hte connection - she's the one drawing it.

I will say that there's a reading of Sullivan that says the issue is not whether people insult the hardliners, but that many moderate evangelicals, even if they don't hold such a fundamentalist theology, feel a strong sympathy for the fundamentalists and don't like to see them mocked, even for theological views with which htey disagree.

But y'all are correct that Sullivan is the one who first drew the rhetorical link between exclusivist soteriology and mainstream evangelicalism. I think the proper critique of Sullivan, then, is not to ramp up the mockery of exclusivist soteriology, but to note that it's not really a widespread belief, and to avoid treating it as a belief which unifies American evangelicals.

Posted by DivGuy | October 30, 2006 7:23 PM

"Seriously, her entire body of work reflects and reinforces two simple premises:
1) Bush in particular and all the religious right in general are a group of principled, well-meaning idealists who may be mistaken about some minor issues but really do think they're doing the best things for everyone in the country.
2) Any attempt to challenge the previous premise is morally unfair, abhorrent to the vast majority of Americans, and totally unsupported by facts no matter what we can't hear you LA LA LA!"

This is a prime example of the scurrilous slander of Amy that has prevaded this entire thread. Nowhere has Amy SUllivan ever defended George Bush and his ilk; indeed, she's repeatedly excoriated him for his hypocrisy and his exploitive approach to evangelicals. Nor has she ever defended the religious right. She does defend evangelicals, but--amazing at it may seem to you idiots--they're not the same thing. And that's precisely her point. She's not trying to convert you; she only wants you to behave in public. After all, supposedly you're smack in the middle of a campiagn that's a step toward building a new American majority. Yet do you really WANT to be in a majority? Frankly, I doubt it, given the fact that you spend a huge amount of your time trying to drum out people on your own side for insufficient fealty to your own party line. I know you people are really, really self-congratulory about your superiority to the common herd of Americans--but if you act like this you richly deserve to lose. It's fortunate that the politicians in the party are actually more understanding of what the Amy Sullivans are trying to say--namely that there's the potential for an alliance here, if you're willing to set aside *your* prejudices to effect it. But the first step toward doing that is a little humility. Thank God the voters don't hear this garbage.

Posted by David | October 30, 2006 7:25 PM

Y'all need to calm down. So evangelicals think Jews and other non-believers are going to hell. As far as I know, no policy position of theirs follows from that. Lots of people believe crazy things. I'm not sure that bit of their moral system is telling.

I'm sure SCMT will not want me agreeing with him here, but this is exactly right.

Why does anyone here care if some evangelical Christians think you are going to hell? So f'ing what? Why would this bother anyone at all?

Posted by Al | October 30, 2006 7:32 PM

Nowhere has Amy SUllivan ever defended George Bush and his ilk

I want some of what David's smoking.

Posted by melior | October 30, 2006 7:33 PM

On the other hand, the evangelical view of this matter is, in fact, completely absurd. And not just absurd in a virgin birth, water-into-wine, I-believe-an-angel-watches-over-me kind of way. On this view, a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world (would an example help? Gandhi, maybe?) but who didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior would be subjected to a life of eternal torment after his death and we're supposed to understand that as a right and just outcome.

Please explain to me the difference between the aburdity of virgin birth, water-into-wine, I-believe-an-angel-watches-over-me and the absurdity of person who doesn't accept Jesus as his personal savior is subjected to a life of eternal torment. Maybe my absurd-o-meter is broken, but to me the former stuff is just as absurd as the latter.

Posted by Al | October 30, 2006 7:35 PM

The essential dynamic of the christianist-secular debate in this country: They can (and loudly do) say we'll suffer eternal torment in Satan's dominion, but we can't say that they're a bit daft, even though we (and certainly our elected Dem politicians) hardly ever actually do.

Sort of the theo parallel of the Coulter-Colmes continuum.

Posted by Alan in SF | October 30, 2006 7:39 PM

Doesn't this remind anyone of the (possibly apocryphal) medieval debates as to how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?

Even Aquinas, on his deathbed, is reported to have said,"It's all straw."

Posted by Kinnison | October 30, 2006 7:41 PM

Better to lose an election than lose the attention of the web?

It don't think that type of behavior will get someone into heaven...no matter what they believe.

Posted by monkyboy | October 30, 2006 7:42 PM

Matt,

1. As the Sullivan article states, evangelicals are used as cover for the raw control desired by this administration. Christians by and large can be trained to respect authority even misused authority. The ideal Christian is meek as a sheep. Misleading this group has always been a quick way to power, but always at great personal cost when the misleading is uncovered.

2. On Jesus
I think you are missing the point. What does accepting Jesus mean?

In traditional Torah if you fall down on the law you see your Levite and you bring your oxen or pigeon or whatever and you sacrifice it to the lord in the courtyard of the temple to be made right again. Jesus was promised as the perfect sacrifice and accepting him as the sacrifice for you, means that his death becomes your salvation, your entire life is made right in the eyes of God by your accepting of that sacrifice.

Does this give you a get out of jail ticket for the rest of the time you are alive? No. Having accepted Jesus you must pick up the cross and following him. Which means living your life as he would have lived it - more than any of us can really handle.

Jesus speaks of a judgement day, as do various prophets before him. At the time of this judgement those who have accepted Jesus as their savior will be saved by him. Can anyone's actions measure to his? No. Can any other take his place? No.

If you believe there is a God, and that this God is the god of the Hebrews, and you have studied the doctrines of the Hebrew faith and believe them and then you have learned of the Christian faith and then studied these accounts; you are then confronted by a stark choice- rejection with the understanding of what that rejection really entails is a devastating self-condemnation. I would strongly advise all those of you reading and posting here to go and study these things as carefully as you have already study world and political affairs before coming to judgment.

You can search my post history here and elsewhere on the internet to determine the value of my testimony on this.

Why do even the most noble actions of Gandhi fall short of Jesus? Gandhi did not heal, did not perform miracles, did not resurrect others, did not go through the spiritual transformations that Jesus went through. Gandhi did not have the power that Jesus has. One of the many remarkable aspects of Jesus is the righteous use of the vast power he possessed, and though it is popular in modern times to scoff at the accounts of this power, these actions are as much a defining part of his life as his philosophical teachings, often one sprang from the other. It is a false proposition to claim equality between Jesus and any other, because no other possesses the divine power and authority possessed by Jesus. How will Gandhi be judged? I don't think anyone living can tell you and its foolish to try.

The "who's going to hell" argument is just a foolish distraction from the real proposition, which is "how can a person be made right with god?"

Do not glibly dismiss the most precious gift any person can be offered.

For a classic example of these assertions and how focusing on the side arguments such as "who's going to hell", lessen the discussion check out this transcript from ironically enough the Phil Donahue show.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Donahue.html

Posted by patience | October 30, 2006 7:43 PM

From a political standpoint, Sullivan's recommendations are probably unsound. Most evangelicals are conservatives, and making a few friendly rhetorical gestures in their direction probably wouldn't change enough minds to matter. However, there might come a day when this is no longer the case. There's a reason why pollsters always break down their data into a subcategory for "white evangelicals." It's because black and other minority evangelicals tend to vote very differently, even though there aren't really any material theological differences between them and their white counterparts. Along those same lines, white evangelicals tend to live in less urban, less coastal, and less diverse areas. However, those white evangelicals who reside in, say, New York City do not exhibit the same levels of political conservatism as their counterparts in Nashville, even if their theological views are more or less the same.

The point is that evangelicalism does correlate with political conservatism, but only up to a point. The political behavior that we've seen over the last few elections is only partly a result of religion as such. It's also influenced by a lot of regional and cultural factors. The support of affluent white Southern conservatives is probably not gettable through a change of rhetoric alone. The support of non-affluent or non-white or non-Southern evangelicals, however, is much closer to that tipping point.

So, Sullivan is right in theory. While evangelicalism does tend to make people somewhat more conservative -- you won't find a lot of evangelical leftists -- it isn't completely at odds with liberalism and an evangelical can be won over as long as he/she isn't also carrying a lot of other regional and cultural baggage that pushes him/her even further in the direction of the right. However, as a matter of fact, most American evangelicals in the present day do carry this regional and cultural baggage, and therefore are not "gettable" even with rhetorical appeals. In the future, this may change, or maybe it won't.

Posted by JP | October 30, 2006 7:44 PM

Everyone already knows that SCMT is an Al sock-puppet.

Rather than going on and on about Jews not going to Hell, which is a purely negative position, I think that we should make a list of people who should go to hell and then hash out an agreement with the Christians. Frankly I'd give them most of Top 40 music right off the bat.

Posted by John Emerson | October 30, 2006 7:44 PM

I'd say that end-time thinking does have policy ramifications.

I hope that Bush really is one of the cynics in the White House, rather than a religious fanatic, but I don't really believe it.

Posted by John Emerson | October 30, 2006 7:46 PM

Can't we all just agree that it is very very difficult for rich people to get into heaven? Why doesn't anybody want to talk about that anymore?

Posted by blah | October 30, 2006 7:49 PM

"some things that are impolitic to say are also true."

So you're advocating sins of omission? Why are you anti-Catholic?

Posted by kevin lyda, co. galway | October 30, 2006 8:06 PM

sullivan can kiss my brown butt! heretic!

Posted by razib | October 30, 2006 8:10 PM

JP: That is, simply put, the entire point of the religion. You either accept it or you don't, but if you don't you're not a Christian (in the second sense of the word).

Rea: All Christians except a few on the fringe hold that Christianity is the only way to salvation.

Are JP and Rea Christians? Because I just love being told whether I'm a Christian or not by non-Christians.

I don't particularly see why the beliefs of people in the year 500 should determine what gets to be "Christianity." Pursued to its logical end, that line of thought gets you Nietzsche's "there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." Now, I love ol' Nietzsche, named my blog for him, but I am not going to take him as an authority on what Christianity really is. (His diagnosis of Christian pathologies, OTOH, is spot-on.)

Posted by Anderson | October 30, 2006 8:12 PM

It's a pigminded rhetorical device sufficient to impress lazy-minded and theologically unsophisticated readers (i.e., most atheists) that the writer is "onto something."

Seriously, Mike? Fuck you and your sanctimonious bullshit. We're smarter than you seem to want to give us credit for being.

Posted by spencer | October 30, 2006 8:14 PM

I was using it as a defined term, Anderson, as the part you excerpted itself indicates.

Posted by JP | October 30, 2006 8:14 PM

Seriously, why are we having this conversation?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

Posted by jd | October 30, 2006 8:27 PM

Kudos to DivGuy for admitting his error in blaming Sullivan's opponents for lumping all Christians into the same pile of potatoes. But then...

"I will say that there's a reading of Sullivan that says the issue is not whether people insult the hardliners, but that many moderate evangelicals, even if they don't hold such a fundamentalist theology, feel a strong sympathy for the fundamentalists and don't like to see them mocked, even for theological views with which htey disagree."

We're not talking about an arcane theological dispute about the finer points of religious practice. We're talking about a condemnation of the souls of billions of people by a radical few. Whatever fellowship moderates might feel toward fundamentalists, they should recognize that the belief in exclusive salvation, the vocal public expression thereof, and any attempt to bring such beliefs to bear on politics and public policy represent the more intolerant behavior than the mocking of the same.

Posted by pickabone | October 30, 2006 8:40 PM

Not to harp on the poll findings again, but they pretty clearly show that Sullivan is conflating the views of prominent Evangelical leaders with those of their followers. The takeaway is that while your fundie neighbors may have some wacky ideas about the age of the Earth, the odds are that if they think you're good people, they're not willing to see you sent to hell.

Posted by Hank Scorpio | October 30, 2006 8:42 PM

Folks, say whatever you like. Critcize Christianity as you see fit, in whatever terms you see fit.

But, please: to be consistent, have a word or two to say about Islam. Haven't heard a PEEP outta you folks about THAT.

Wonder why?

Posted by Dave Reese | October 30, 2006 8:50 PM

The actual phrase as I understand it is "...no one comes through the father except through me."

I've since interpreted this to me "because of my ACTIONS people can be saved." The action in this case being the death/resurrection. Thus people who do things like actually care for their neighbor, are fine. You can walk the road without realizing it. I feel that acceptance of the real Jesus as a personal savior is say a faster more direct path, but it works to differing degrees.

Posted by MNPundit | October 30, 2006 8:50 PM

Matthew Yglesias:

On this view, a person who led an entirely exemplary life in terms of his impact on the world (would an example help? Gandhi, maybe?) but who didn't accept Jesus as his personal savior would be subjected to a life of eternal torment after his death and we're supposed to understand that as a right and just outcome.

Apparently you forget the divine command nature of Christian theology. Recall, from the prophet:

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"

Or for further explication, for those who think the point in the story of god telling Abraham to murder his son is that god will stay your hand in the end: Read the Book of Job.

Of course most Christians today have a much more liberal view of this. If you need to worship Jesus to get into heaven, then that Jew, Moses, is burning in hell.

But in fairness, every religion is a tacit, if not explicit, rebuke to every other religion. And since religion is about morality, then all true believers think they are morally superior to those of other faiths.

Posted by epistemology | October 30, 2006 8:52 PM

If Amy Sullivan deserves some criticism it is for her recent appearance on Scarborough County when she failed to give a single line refutation of the porn-money lies about Harold Ford.

It would be as simple as, "blahblahblahblah, and by the way, Ford didn't accept money from porn producers, he *rejected* money from porn producers. blahblahblahblah."

Posted by Chuck | October 30, 2006 8:54 PM

Of course all true Catholics believe Gandhi and other virtuous pagans, as well as unbaptized babies, are in LIMBO. (It's not just a party game.) They get into heaven when Jesus comes back to send the Jews to hell. So says the Pope.

Posted by epistemology | October 30, 2006 8:55 PM

Dave Reese:

But, please: to be consistent, have a word or two to say about Islam. Haven't heard a PEEP outta you folks about THAT.
Wonder why?

Do you? Do you think it's because the liberals on this board hate America and side with the Muslim terrorists? And to be REALLY fair, don't you think a few words should be said about Hinduism, Shintoism, and Zoroastrianism? Or does your curiosity (is that too strong a word?) begin and end with the Abrahamic religions?

So a few words about Islam: I think the Meccan suras are stronger than Medinian ones, less angry and political. Shorter too. What do you think Dave Reese? Or weren't you really interested in a conversation? Just trolling?

Posted by epistemology | October 30, 2006 9:08 PM

Actually, the concept of limbo has never been an official part of Catholic teaching, and word is that the current Pope is particularly hostile to the idea.

In fact, the Catholic Church is laying the groundwork for dismissing the concept altogether:

Vatican document on the concept of limbo is still incomplete and the International Theological Commission will continue work for another year in an attempt to further refine the Catholic understanding of what happens to unbaptised babies after death.

While no one can be certain of the fate of unbaptised babies who die, Christians can and should trust that God will welcome those babies into heaven, members of the Vatican's Commission told Catholic News Service at the conclusion of their 2-6 October meeting in Rome.

The commission had met to continue work on a statement explaining why the concept of limbo entered the common teaching of the Church, why it was never officially defined as Catholic doctrine, and why hope for their salvation makes more sense, said commission member Fr Paul McPartlan.

"We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen" to unbaptised babies, Fr McPartlan said, "but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

Fr McPartlan, a professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington, said the 30 commission members were in agreement on the main thesis of the document, but they had not put the finishing touches on it.

If they vote on the final version by mail, the document could be released in 2007.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/610/39.php

Posted by blah | October 30, 2006 9:22 PM

Epist--what a nasty, defensive response. I ask a simple question, genially phrased, and you respond with a precious bit of pique.

Well, if you wanna get tart: I'd love to see someone in this crowd criticize Islam with the same invective that's generally reserved for orthodox Christianity.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of liberal anti-religious spite is reserved for evangelicalism is certainly telling.

Posted by Dave Reese | October 30, 2006 9:27 PM

Whatever fellowship moderates might feel toward fundamentalists, they should recognize that the belief in exclusive salvation, the vocal public expression thereof, and any attempt to bring such beliefs to bear on politics and public policy represent the more intolerant behavior than the mocking of the same.

"Intolerant" is an unhelpful way of analyzing the issue. Evangelicals have a factual claim about the state of the universe. Either it's true or it isn't. Whether or not one wishes it were true is beside the point.

Just to be perfectly clear, in all of my comments I've been defining "evangelical" as someone who believes in some form of exclusivist soteriology, among other things. DivGuy makes a good factual point about the poll numbers on the ground, so clearly a lot of self-described evangelicals disagree with that definition. Then again, a lot of self-described Republicans think their party is the party of low spending but that doesn't make it so. Of course, that situation's a little different.

Anyway, setting all that to one side, my point earlier was that I don't think there has to be a strong correlation between exclusivist soteriology and political conservatism. There's a strong correlation in the here and now, but mostly because of demographics. Also, I don't know that soteriologgically exclusivist evangelicals are any more likely to be conservative than soteriologically non-exclusivist evangelicals.

Posted by JP | October 30, 2006 9:30 PM

The fact that the overwhelming majority of liberal anti-religious spite is reserved for evangelicalism is certainly telling.

Yeah, it's telling of the fact that the overwhelming majority of American liberals lives in a country that's 80% Christian and 1% Muslim. Go away, dude.

Posted by JP | October 30, 2006 9:34 PM

I'd love to see someone in this crowd criticize Islam with the same invective that's generally reserved for orthodox Christianity

muhammad is a goat-f*cker. muslims are by and large primitive savages.

Posted by razib | October 30, 2006 9:40 PM