Juxtaposition of the Day

I haven't been able to actually read this week's New York Times Magazine cover story. Right there in big test it says: "We in the West find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin. We had assumed this was no longer possible, that human beings had learned to separate religious questions from political ones, that fanaticism was dead. We were wrong. It's we who are the fragile separation." Meanwhile, Isaac Chotiner observes:

In an otherwise uneventful forum this morning on ABC, the Democratic presidential candidates were asked whether prayer could have prevented the Minnesota bridge collapse.

John Edwards actually had a very good answer to this question (observing that he prayed before his son died and prayed before his wife got cancer so, no, he doesn't think praying hard enough stops bad things from happening; rather, he prays for guidance in how to deal with the things that arise in life), but it still makes it pretty hard to credit that "we" thought the religification of politics was a thing of the past. It all depends on whether or not "we" were paying attention.

Comments

Thank you for making this observation. I didn't read the story precisely because that first sentence made the author seem utterly clueless (has he not noticed the rise of the religious right in this very country?). I highly recommend Chris Hedges' "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."

Odd how that book didn't get nearly as much attention from the traditional media as Hedges' earlier best-seller "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," which was released right before the Iraq War broke out. Hmmmmm.

(Not that the latter was a rah-rah pro-war book, mind you . . .)

Posted by pdp | August 19, 2007 7:31 PM

I cringed when the question was asked, but I actually thought they all handled it well -- talking credibly about faith without pandering. Best of all, none of them seemed afraid of the question. Obviously, it says bad things about the state of our political discourse that such questions get asked in a forum like that one. But it is good to see Democrats finding the right balance.

Posted by pjs | August 19, 2007 7:33 PM

I guess that "freedom of religion" includes the freedom to require prospective presidents to profess their own religiosity, true or not.

Posted by Don Bacon | August 19, 2007 7:52 PM

I guess that "freedom of religion" includes the freedom to require prospective presidents to profess their own religiosity,

Article 6 is for heathen terrorist scum

Posted by cleek | August 19, 2007 8:47 PM

Wait... you can ask presidential candidates whether or not they think they can pray their way out of bridge collapses? Even the most open of presidential forums is somewhat moderated. If that question is allowed then every candidate should have to explain why they don't ask Santa Claus for world peace ever Christmas.

Posted by Mike M. | August 19, 2007 9:17 PM

The question asked seems to presume that the prayer was directed to the 'right' god - the one who protects bridges, or US public works.

I'm pretty sure that the questioner didn't want to get an answer that indicted the one of Hindu gods was the right target, but he was busy at the moment working on problems from Hurricane Dean in the Caribbean. Those busy signals are just plain annoying, and leaving a message doesn't seem to work.

This mixing of religion and politics is so confusing. I'm no longer even sure if the christianist god of the wingers is the same god as the Utah-brand - not to mention the unitarians and roman catholics and greek orthodox.

More specificity, please!

Posted by JimPortlandOR | August 19, 2007 9:21 PM

The question asked seems to presume that the prayer was directed to the 'right' god - the one who protects bridges, or US public works.

that would be St John of Nepomuk

someone needs to ask Rudy the Catholic if he prayed to St John to bless our existing bridges.

Posted by cleek | August 19, 2007 9:26 PM

If Rudy Giuliani is ever remembered for anything he said during the campaign, I hope it will be this response to a question about whether he was a "practicing Catholic:"

"My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests," Giuliani said. "That would be a much better way to discuss it. That's a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am."

"I believe that things about my personal life should be discussed personally and privately," he said, adding that his personal life is relevant only to the extent that it would affect his performance in office."

As for everything else he's said, let's just forget it.

Questioners and candidates alike need to be reminded of Article VI, section 3, of the Constitution, which provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Let me quickly add that a candidate's moral views, as opposed to religious beliefs, can be highly relevant to voters.

Posted by Geaghan | August 19, 2007 9:28 PM

It's questions like this that make me wish Simon Cowell was running for the Democratic nomination: "I've heard a lot of incredibly stupid questions during this primary season, but yours makes those other questioners look like Einstein. Did you run this question by anyone before you came out here tonight? Because if someone else knew and they let you say those moronic words, they are not your friend."

Posted by calling all toasters | August 19, 2007 9:43 PM

big test?

big text?

Posted by paul | August 19, 2007 9:59 PM

We in the West find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions, leaving societies in ruin.

No, the brilliance of the West is that we started pretending that our ideas are not at all theological, but "secular" and "modern".

We then took our secular ideals to countries that practiced traditions that only very vaguely resembled "religion", told them they had religions, and then told them how their religion was wrong. All in the name of universal ideals, modernization, not theological messianism, natch.

Posted by DivGuy | August 19, 2007 10:01 PM

Divguy's post made me throw up in my mouth.

It's amazing - even to a leftist like myself - how certain liberals can always manage to be self-hating, no matter what the situation. You are pathetic, sir.

Posted by JFD | August 19, 2007 10:25 PM

"We in the West ..." Will this ninny stop talking for me? I know a hell of a lot more about religion and "the West" and Islam than he does. It's unfortunate that the Times would hand out so much prime real estate to an ignorant, self-flagellating windbag. Unfortunate, but not unprecedented.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | August 19, 2007 10:32 PM

It's amazing - even to a leftist like myself - how certain liberals can always manage to be self-hating, no matter what the situation.

The "even to a leftist like myself" is a classic that just gets better with time.

I thought perhaps that the New Republic killed it during the build-up to the war - "Even to a leftist like myself, it's obvious we need to bomb a lot more Arabs" - but you prove otherwise.

Well played, sir.

Posted by DivGuy | August 19, 2007 10:38 PM

I remember my mother once telling me the reason there was never a nuclear war was because enough people had responded to the pope's plea to pray against it. She honestly believed that because enough people had prayed together, war was averted.

Posted by mad6798j | August 19, 2007 11:09 PM

The "self-hating" accusation is often used about someone who criticizes some indefensible Western action. In such cases consider it a badge of honor to be attacked in this way.

Posted by Donald Johnson | August 19, 2007 11:12 PM

JFD -

What are you trying to say (disregarding the part where you described a digestive issue) ?

Please elaborate and express a thought, as opposed to saying simply that a comment is reprehensible.

It doesn't have to be an essay - just pick one phrase or statement that you don't agree with and explain - briefly - why you don't agree or why you think it is wrong.

I'm really curious, honest. Thanks.

Posted by Howard | August 19, 2007 11:25 PM

It would be my pleasure.

No, the brilliance of the West is that we started pretending that our ideas are not at all theological, but "secular" and "modern".

We then took our secular ideals to countries that practiced traditions that only very vaguely resembled "religion", told them they had religions, and then told them how their religion was wrong. All in the name of universal ideals, modernization, not theological messianism, natch.

Note the lack of examples of this dastardly behaviour. Note the sarcasm in the initial paragraph, referring to the West, which is more than a place but more of an idea - that a lot of people, in a lot of countries, over a long period of time helped to build. Note that the "pretending that our ideas are not at all theological" bit (a stupid smug attempt to sound informed) was discussed and rebutted in the original NY Times article MY refers too.

And as for the last paragraph - wow, looking at my history books it seemed that the vast majority of colonization was followed by governments trying to push the religion of the West upon people who did not want it. So why the trashing of secularism? Why the instant and ill-thought out assumption that "The West" fucked the development of the rest of the world up? In short, why is DivGuy such a tool?

Posted by JFD | August 19, 2007 11:49 PM

Personally, I draw little correlation between the mixing of religion and politics in the United States and, say, in the Middle East. It's really a difference of multiple magnitudes. And of course nobody would deny that religion still remains a powerful force in the U.S. today.

About the NYTimes Magazine article, I thought it was interesting, well written, and on the whole pretty good. For those who didn't read it, it's a short little history of how church and state came to be separated in the West, and concludes with some parallels between that history and that of modern Islam. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but maybe I do. Thought-provoking.

Posted by Korha | August 20, 2007 12:00 AM

Divguy's post made me throw up in my mouth.
It's amazing - even to a leftist like myself - how certain liberals can always manage to be self-hating, no matter what the situation. You are pathetic, sir.Posted by JFD

Pretty well on target. To me, blaming the West for everything sounds creepy and repulsive coming from the Left and Right Wingers that spout it. All dissent is not patriotic. It sometimes comes from smarmy ideologues that hate the West and seek it's ideological cleansing.

Remember how disgusted most people were when Falwell and Robertson said we "deserved 9/11" because of abortion, and it was "God's punishment"? When the Phelps Church scuzballs said God killed US troops as a "gift" to let us know "God Hates Queers"? How Terri Schiavo was "sent by Jesus" to Tom Delay to aid him in fighting corruption charges?

Disgust.

The only defense on the Right is that it is far rarer in sliming our civilization than the anti-American, anti-West forces on the Left at work for 90 years - who excuse every evil deed done by non-Westerners as the "Root Cause Fault of the West, the White Oppressor Male Christian". Some on the Left slur so much and so widely about the society they live in that they take the weariness of the Masses to speak out enmass against Lefty Haters of America, whites, Christians - as acceptance.

True patriotic liberals have from time to time risen up and purged the hard Left cancer from their ranks - Clinton, Blair, and the reforms now happening in Continental Europe and S Korea are good examples. But an unpopular war and a bad President have emboldened the haters of our nation and culture to once again thing "Sedition is Cool" and crawl out of the woodwork again thinking they can take over the Democratic Party and end it's Centrist positions.

They are the New McGovernites, convinced of the moral force of terrorist civil liberties and a major US defeat and retreat from a strategically critical region being "Good for America". But what they have done is crawl way out on a limb, drag many rank&file Dems, indepndents, young people disgusted with the Bushies out there with them - and are clueless of how fast their limb gets sawed off with another 9/11 or the US abdicating it's influence on 60% of the world's energy supplies of oil and gas to the Iranians and Chinese.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 20, 2007 12:02 AM

As a coda to my previous post:

The clerics of the Religious Right here in the United States and the clerics and Mullahs in the Middle East are after political power, and nothing more.

You can obtain political power by heading an industry that is important to the day to day life of the citizens. You can obtain political power by being elected to a secular position. And you can obtain political power by being a "religious" leader, listened to by the masses.

I think an argument could be made that we live in a fundamentally democratic world (the ability to make economic decisions for yourself - capitalism - and the ability to vote for your own leaders that so many of us enjoy suppots this assertion) - and in a democratic world, everything is political, and everyone.

Posted by JFD | August 20, 2007 12:12 AM

"Democratic presidential candidates were asked whether prayer could have prevented the Minnesota bridge collapse."

I'm sort of disappointed that none of the candidates had the sarcasm and the balls to say, "What are you talking about? There *WERE* prayers to prevent the Minnesota bridge collapse, and there were prayers for lower taxes. Guess who won. Then God said, 'Interesting choice. Now, what if I told you the tradeoff was bridge-collapse-plus-a-couple-carloads-of-dead-people versus lower taxes, what would you rather have?' And the people who were praying said, 'GIVE US LOWER TAXES ALREADY, SLOWPOKE!' So he did."

Posted by Chris | August 20, 2007 12:31 AM

Another code to my previous post:

Because they are all about power, and nothing more, I favour the full taxation of all religious organizations. The incomes of "religious people", their properties, their events should all be taxed because they seek power and influence in a democratic society, and such, they should be made to pay the entrance fee.

Of course this would open up the opportunity for religious groups to claim their right to speak in the public sphere. Which is entirely the point.Religious groups would melt under the hot light of democratic scrutiny. The ones who survive will be forced to change to meet the progressive values of the age. And we will all be better off.

"Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet, fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism."

Posted by JFD | August 20, 2007 12:33 AM

JFD -

Thanks for the earlier elucidation.

The initial comments seemed more like frustration than sarcasm to me. Frustration in that people generally have trouble making a distinction between "cultural traditions" and "religious traditions".

I also think Div would agree with you that religious conversion, to some degree or in some form, is still a force today in US foreign policy but that it usually hides behind "secular" objectives (such as "democracy", "free markets", "equal rights for different genders", etc.).

That is not to say that these objectives are themselves negatives - quite the contrary. But the imposition of change (initiated for the benefit of the West, really) is often self-serving.

I perceived that Div is somewhat exasperated by the type of individual that thinks the West is superior in all regards to the rest of the world. Those who are confident in our "superior" beliefs much as they are confident in our "superior" military power.

But you don't necessarily hate yourself just because you are critical of others who came from a similar background or heritage.

Anyway, that was my general take.

Thanks again.

Posted by Howard | August 20, 2007 12:51 AM

And as for the last paragraph - wow, looking at my history books it seemed that the vast majority of colonization was followed by governments trying to push the religion of the West upon people who did not want it. So why the trashing of secularism? Why the instant and ill-thought out assumption that "The West" fucked the development of the rest of the world up? In short, why is DivGuy such a tool?

1) Fuck you.

2) An example: the policy of the "Americanization" of native americans. Cultural traditions were forbidden, children were taken away to special schools, all in the name of universal values such as modernization and civilization.

3) An example: the British decision to ban ritual hook-swinging in India, not on religious grounds, but on the "universal" grounds that it was a "degrading exhibition of self-torture" that was "repugnant to the dictates of humanity" - as such, a traditional ritual of the community became illegal, cultural change was forced for particular contingent purposes, in the name of the universal.

4) An example: 19th century reformers in Egypt who called for the end of hijab practice, in the name of women's autonomy and self-respect. This movement has genealogical ties to the Belgian move to ban the wearing of head-scarves in school, again not for technically religious reasons, but due to dictates of the ease of education, safety, and being Belgian.

5) I do not mean, in saying this, to claim that secular ideals are bad. As Paul Gilroy argued in Black Atlantic, the very enlightenment ideals that had been developed on the back of slavery, and which had consistently failed to condemn or wipe out slavery, these ideals were in fact some of the most powerful intellectual weapons that black reformers and revolutionaries had in the struggle against slavery, segregation and oppression. We can use notions of secularism, universalism, and human rights toward good ends, and many have.

But we should not misrecognize their history, or blind ourselves to their deeply religious, deeply sectarian, deeply political history. The history of these terms is that they have been used for sectarian and political goals while veiling themselves with universality. If we want to make arguments from universalism, we need to be very aware of and very careful with that history.

Posted by DivGuy | August 20, 2007 8:15 AM

When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there
Who put forth the proposition, that you can petition the lord with prayer
Petition the lord with prayer.
Petition the lord with prayer
You cannot petition the lord with prayer!

Posted by rea | August 20, 2007 11:21 AM

Edwards comes close. For once, I'd like a candidate to admit to praying for daily bread, forgiveness and deliverance from evil.

Posted by Jalmari | August 20, 2007 11:37 AM

How stupid is this question? I wonder if people like this ever think, "I wonder if Jews, members of a religious-cultural community, at Auschwitz or in the Warsaw ghetto ever prayed." Following this line of logic, it does suggest that the questioner thinks that bad happens to people when they don't pray hard enough. This is a rather sick way to go through life.

Posted by Reality Man | August 20, 2007 11:57 AM

As part of a sound program of bridge maintenance, prayer contributes to the durability of bridges.

Posted by John Emerson | August 20, 2007 2:40 PM

John Edwards actually had a very good answer to this question (observing that he prayed before his son died and prayed before his wife got cancer so, no, he doesn't think praying hard enough stops bad things from happening; rather, he prays for guidance in how to deal with the things that arise in life)

Goddamn, I love John Edwards.

Posted by NBarnes | August 20, 2007 10:04 PM