Actually, it was the third rail of Left-wing online political discussion – religion – but I’m trying to keep the titles shorter. Besides, Kevin didn’t grab it so much as he brushed against it lightly:
This doesn’t mean you can’t fight religious groups on substantive grounds, of course, any more than strictures against mocking blacks mean you can’t oppose affirmative action. I’ll never give an inch to the creationism/Intelligent Design crowd, for example, but you can do it without ridiculing anybody’s actual religious beliefs — something that will win neither arguments nor friends in any case. My advice: the next time you’re tempted to mock somebody or something on religious grounds, just substitute “Hispanic,” or perhaps “Hindu,” and see how it sounds. If it sounds like something you probably shouldn’t say, then you probably shouldn’t say it.
And if that still doesn’t convince you, remember Amy Sullivan’s advice: just think of ’em as an interest group and pander to them. We libs know how to do that, don’t we?
It was probably that last paragraph that set certain elements of his comments section off so. ‘Pandering’, after all, is what the Other Side (however you want to define it) does. It’s interesting to consider, though, how little of an issue all of this is in the offline world. Contrary to popular online belief, there are quite a few evangelicals and fundamentalists in the Democratic Party, and luckily for said party the more… vehement… rants of certain secularists tend not to impinge on the Evangelicals’ / Fundamentalists’ radar. This is unlikely to change dramatically in the next decade, although I make no promises after that. Still, Kevin’s advocating a good habit to get into*.
(Via Kikuchiyo)
Moe
*Sorry about the pun; I have to admit that leaving it in seems a bit nunsensi… (sound of running feet, one body slamming into another and a godawful crash)
The thing that stunned me in the rush of “We want to be free to mock religion!” with the rush of “you lefties are all alike!” was that no one wanted to discuss why David Shaw felt it was “gratuitous” for a radio show host to mention that he was Jewish on Good Friday. Why? If respect for all religions is important, why shouldn’t a talk show host mention his religion, however much Shaw feels a Jew should keep quiet about it? Especially on Good Friday, apparently…
“The thing that stunned me in the rush of “We want to be free to mock religion!” with the rush of “you lefties are all alike!” was that no one wanted to discuss why David Shaw felt it was “gratuitous” for a radio show host to mention that he was Jewish on Good Friday.”
I did notice that. 🙂 Possibly because your question couldn’t be conveniently used to sharpen either of the two major axes being ground there?
As to myself, I don’t read this Shaw guy and I don’t listen to Air America, so I haven’t the foggiest what he meant by ‘gratuitous’.
I’m not particularly religious. Being an Episcopalian can do that to you. My mother’s family can be pretty Methodist, and even Baptist, at times so I learned that family reunions can go smoother if I speak some religiousese. I don’t do well in the Bible quotation games but a few praise Jesus’ and God blesses out of me raises comfort levels all around. It helps to know the difference between works ministries and faith ministries but the issue of consubstantiation rarely asserts itself anymore.
Course, I might be a hypocrite (a possibility expected to surprize nobody) but I don’t consider this to be pandering. Its more a language issue. It’s best to adopt the language of one’s audience, especially if you’re in their backyard. One doesn’t have to adopt their world view (best to have a good grasp of its parameters, however) but adoption of the language and behavior (like drinking your beer in a hurry out by the pickup truck) norms is what makes a good guest.
Possibly because your question couldn’t be conveniently used to sharpen either of the two major axes being ground there?
It might as well have been a dwarf bar. I’d have been better off quaffing and watching. Bah.
I don’t listen to Air America, and if that’s a fair sample of David Shaw, I don’t want to read any more of him.
I think Kevin gets this wrong here, where Strange Doctrines gets it right. Being a member of a certain religion is something you choose, just like being a member of a political party. If the latter is fair game for mockery, so is the former.
That said, I agree that mentioning that one is a Jew on Good Friday is only “gratuitous” to the extent that one believes Christianity is correct and Judaism is not. It’s no more or less mockery than mentioning that one is a Jew, a lonely Jew, at Christmas.
The declaration that one is of one religion during the observance of a holy day of another is petition of forbearence in the case of error or insensitivity. It is not gratuitous but rather a polite warning of “this is where I’m coming from”. People are usually insulted because they choose to be insulted and Shaw seems willing to fabricate reasons to be so.
Two thoughts on this; one sort of tangential, one sort of not.
First, I’m an agnostic. But one of my favorite writers is Walker Percy, the southern existentialist Catholic writer. His eloquent, reasonable and humane writings on many issues which land squarely in the political square (abortion for one) would be defended from any ridicule whatsoever by me regardless of its source, despite my substantive disagreement with him. I miss his voice.
Then, there are other voices for whom ridicule is
really too good. I have an acquaintance, a Messianic Jew, born yet again, who explained to me several years ago that he was saved but that my two sweet deceased grandmothers, both Christians steeped in Scripture, were in fact at the very beginning of (supply your own Dantean {ask me who this acquaintance believes inhabits the Vatican} graphics) eternal punishment because they had not properly grasped the Christian nettle.
I have a very good friend, too, who explains (this may be too good of a word for his utterances) that he will be raptured soon and yours truly is eternally screwed (well, that may be), all this courtesy of Tim Lahaye and assorted demagogues.
Ridicule? We’re already well into fistfight territory. Did I mention that refraining from bad deeds will not prevent my eternal punishment? So why not a fistfight?
The connection between these two is that they vote for like-thinking (did I say thinking?)and/or pandering individuals who now inhabit my County Treasurer’s Office, my Congress, my White House. Call me paranoid (please), but why do I get the feeling these folks want to advance my eternal punishment into this life?
We’re now far, far away from ridicule, and into something much more serious.
If these folks like end-times Christianity, I guess I can be an end-times agnostic. {Well, I’m not sure of anything, but somebody’s gonna get killed here)
I come from a family who didn’t care for discussions of religion, politics, and sex at the dinner table, merely out of politeness. This is a variation of Fabius’ family’s civilized rules. While this rule kept me completely shut-up for a long time, once somebody else starts the talk, I’m happy to be the last standing in the resulting food fight.
So, duck!
I generally give somewhat more deference to irrational ideas that have ancient traditional support. Tradition in itself is not dispositive, but neither is it to be ridiculed or ignored.
If many or most people have done something that makes no sense to me, I will at least consider it a possibility that I am missing some important consideration in my judgement.
Examples: Divine Right of Kings, Animal Sacrifice, Solstice Dancing are perhaps practices we have abandoned precipitously. You think I am kidding.
Sorry, doesn’t cut it. Any beliefs worth having are worth defending from argument – political, philosophical, scientific, religious, or otherwise. Tacking God onto the end of an absurd statement doesn’t – and shouldn’t – protect said statement from criticism and ridicule. If you’re too thin-skinned about your beliefs to have them take a verbal smackdown, maybe there’s a problem with your beliefs.
re: substituting “Hispanic” etc. next time…
Funny, but the Hispanics aren’t trying to take my rights away but the Neocons and Evangelicals together are. Racial groups are not banding together to amend the Constitution to discriminate against me.
Any beliefs worth having are worth defending from argument – political, philosophical, scientific, religious, or otherwise.
If it’s a “belief”, then by definition it isn’t defensible by argument alone, otherwise it would be called an “opinion.” I believe that mangoes are yummy, my wife disagrees; neither of us sees the need either to attack the other’s preference or to defend our own through argument.
We all have beliefs that rest only on unprovable assumptions and/or personal preference. Unprovoked criticism of another’s beliefs is both shortsighted and rude. However, provoked criticism (i.e. someone attempting to impose his/her beliefs on you or attack your beliefs) is a different story…
What rights of yours are on the brink because of the evangelicals, wilfred? You planning on praying out loud on public land, peacably demonstrating in front of an abortion clinic, wanting to run a political commercial within 30 days of an election or something?
Tacking God onto the end of an absurd statement doesn’t – and shouldn’t – protect said statement from criticism and ridicule.
Criticism and ridicule are two different things. Kevin Drum’s point in the bit Moe quoted was that secularists should lay off the ridicule, but feel free to continue criticizing.
Ridicule does two things. When you ridicule someone who you don’t have a bond of trust with, it sends a message of “I do not respect you. The idea that you may sincerely think you have good reasons for holding that belief is absurd.” On the other hand, if you do have a bond of trust, ridicule can send a message of “let’s not take ourselves too seriously — we’re only human, after all.” The problem that Kevin is pointing to is that liberal secularists and liberal religious people lack that bond of trust, and often actively undermine it with the first kind of ridicule. But if we stuck to criticism for a while, we could build up some mutual respect.
“The idea that you may sincerely think you have good reasons for holding that belief is absurd.”
I do think religious belief is absurd, but that has nothing to do with respect. There are plenty of religious people out there smarter, nicer, better informed than me. I respect people who are reasonably consistent and who are able to get along with those who treat them fairly.
Bob McManus:
…Solstice Dancing are perhaps practices we have abandoned precipitously.”
If they brought back naked solstice dancing, I might reconsider my agnosticism.
If they brought back naked solstice dancing, I might reconsider my agnosticism.
Depends where. Also when. Would not recommend naked solstice dancing in Minnesota at midwinter.
My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!
At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman/
Your jaw will drop!
eschatology,End Times,second coming,rapture,secret rapture,Second Resurrection,Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead,
End of Days,Day of the Lord,Endtime,Judgment Day