Believe It, or Not - By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/15/opinion/15KRIS.html?th

"The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.

Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, "So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions." On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way:

"God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God's intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God's choice."

-snip-

"Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.-"


We've recently discussed this in GD - but I found KRISTOF's take on it interesting. With the comments he quoted, one can see how either side could be mad at the other.

One of the interesting things he mentioned is that our country is getting more mystical. Why is that? ...less certainty?...too much change?...technology?

i say it is due to our culture being programmed by the corp elites which esentially teach PROFITS over EVERYTHING and to only focus on shallow things for you to induldge in.

it is all about YOU

peace

always gets a laugh.

thanks in advance:)

Mysticism isn't anti-intellectual, it's non-intellectual. Disbelief in evolution isn't mysticism, it's fundamentalism. Fundamentalists hate mysticism, because fundamentalism says that religious truth is literal, not symbolic, and is found in a book, not within the individual.

Being mystical has nothing to do with believing in the more supernatural elements of religion. Kristof misses the mark on that one totally.

While I would otherwise agree with you totally, I think all of the major religions have very mystical cores or centers, but those aren't open to or even known by all the adherents -- for reasons having to do with controlling the people. IOW, with Christianity at least, which I'm more familiar with, they don't want people accessing their own mystical spirituality. Heck, they don't even want priests accessing their own mystical spiituality.

Eloriel

The Society of Friends (aka The Quakers). It's always had a strong element of mystical spirituality to it.

Hi Eloriel,

Elaine Pagels has a new book out on Thomas which I haven't yet read, but her earlier book on the Nag Hammadi library argued that the early church suppressed certain gospels and perspectives because they promoted individual mystical union with Christ, in a way that threatened institutional interests. Thomas is arguably the oldest Christian text and the one with the greatest content derived from Jesus. But the narrative style of the synoptic gospels was much more useful to church authorities wanting to regiment belief and conduct.

CYD

I looked up mystical = 3.Theology a. Of a nature or import that by virtue of it's divinity surpasses understanding. b. spiritually symbolic.

For instance fundamentalists are not the only ones who believe in the virgin birth. And according to him - the believers may not even be Christians at all. Kristof was saying he has seen in his life - a move towards believing the unbelieveable...


Whereas mysticism = 1. A spritual discipline aiming at a union with the divine... 2.Any belief in the existence of realities...accessible by intuition or 3. Confused and groundless speculation:; superstitious self-delusion.

You're probably referenceing the first two, more widely used usages.

Yes, one can "believe" in something like the virgin birth in a mystical way, which has more to do with finding spiritual meaning in it than assenting to a particular biological claim. But even those who assent to that claim literally do so because they are told to by some religious authority. What I find particularly alarming about disbelief in evolution is that it is a purely fundamentalist issue, not mystical in the slightest. The Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ members, Disciples, and half the Baptists are *allowed to believe in evolution and not required by doctrine to reject it* (quite unlike the virgin birth which they all officially endorse IIRC)-- and STILL a large majority of our hapless population rejects evolution?!?

By rejecting evolution, they're EMBRACING devolution!

Though like you say - there are things that can be more of a spiritual or symbolic sort of belief and not so literal.

I do find it interesting that he seems to think that it is more usual for mainline Protestants to believe in things that were once less believed a generation or two ago. I don't know if there is a study for that?

Glad you pointed this out, carolinayellowdog. Mysticism can exist within or without a religious framework, but it's always about direct experience.

Contrary to the fundamentalists' (of any religion) assertions, the essence of the mystical experience can't be conveyed formulaicly in words, much less in rules or creeds.

it's anti-intellectual superstition. And more than ever, it's a dangerous indulgence.

It showed that religious belief was closely--and inversely--correlated to educational and overall development around the world. In other words, the more educated and developed a country, the weaker the religious beliefs. EXCEPT in one country--the US, where religious belief was equivalent to that of some pretty down and out third world countries.

It's all a mystery to me. But it does help to remember that--despite how our elementary school textbooks like to portray them--the Pilgrims were extreme religious fanatics.

You don't find this phenomenon in Australia, for example, where--if my Aussie friends will excuse me--the gene pool was largely drawn from European prisons.

ON EDIT: Not that genes really have anything to do with it. Consider that a metaphor for something like a "national mythos."

whose initial population came from the same source as Australia. To what do we attribute the differences?

another.

just googled that phrase, and only found references to them. Have never seen that shirt, like it though. Please, don't flame me, I'm only looking for this shirt, not to start a religious debate/flamefest (have had enough of those lately to last a lifetime):)

http://mall.GlobalFreePress.com

if you want one just PM me I will make it up.

:hi:

peace

Sweetie,

Write it out how you like it on your computer and print
it out on transfer paper. Iron it on the shirt that you
like a go out and do battle. <G>

is at work:) thanks for the suggestion tho, appreciate it:)

Our problem with school shootings is simple. These kids don't realize that they are loved by God and will invite His wrath upon them when they take another's life. It is that simple.

Years ago, teenagers would carry their guns to school for ROTC. There was no problem at that time. What has changed? The lack of moral direction instilled in these individuals due to the failure of the church and parents to warn them of the eternal consequences of these actions.

In our society, as we further ourselves from Almighty God, the question is not "Why?" but how is it these horrible shootings don't occur more often than they have occurred. We have a society embracing the darkness and the church has hidden it's light through compromise and warm-fuzzy, inaccurate Christianity.

If we really care about the poor souls of children who are so disturbed that they perpetrate such evil, shouldn't we fight to keep the families together and warn of the consequences that come from denying God?

more...................

http://dutyisours.com/schoolshootings.htm

"God will not be mocked. When we say we are His people we must act that way or He will punish us for making Him look bad."

"Years ago, teenagers would carry their guns to school for ROTC. There was no problem at that time."
I grew up in rural Maryland, and the high school ROTC there was conducted with dummy rifles with drilled barrels....

The only kid I knew who "owned" a real gun wqas only allowed to touch it when his dad was present...the rest of the time it was kept under lock and key. Good thing, too, the little shitheel loved to shoot his bb gun at other kids.

My old High School (in suburban Long Island, NY, built in the 50s or early 60s) has a gun range in its basement, since at the time it was built HS shooting teams were not uncommon. Such teams don't do very well with dummy rifles...

was commissioned by the Skeptic Society, and the results are in Michael Shermer's excellent book, Why People Believe Weird Things. While no concrete reasons came out of the survey, it did show that belief in the supernatural was highest among people with only a high school education or less. Also, the survey was done right around 2000 or so, so the whole millennium thing was involved, too, I'm sure.

http://www.skeptic.com

I remember Bob Heinlein observing that, in the early 1900s, astrology and horoscope reading were considered quaint "former" superstitions long since abandoned. Then, of course, came the 70s.

I think that certain sections of the populace respond to the increase in the availibility of information by becoming more gullible, not more informed.

Misuse of the word "mysticism" aside.

It's all related to the fact that the Right can't pass their policies with a truly informed electorate. It's also related to the fact that a large segment of the political Right is now made up of true fundamentalists.

I think the chickens are coming home to roost for the Right, in that by pursuing the former, they have ended up with the latter. they have created a monster. I used to think W was only pretending to be a born-again, fundamentalist Christian for votes. His actions have led me to believe that he actually IS one. And that scares me to death.

It has always been the in the interest of the Right to discourage independent thought and encourage unquestioning obedience to authority. This is directly at odds with intellectualism. The intentional demonizing and sabotage of of our public scholl system (via vouchers) is part and parcel of this. The level of Right Wing discourse is also. Right Wings talking points are often so illogical they barely merit challenging. But they have found that if you say something often enough and loud enough, logic does not matter. And if you demonize the opponent, you can say anything about them and get away with it.

Okay, enough ranting... I initially posted to say that this IS a big problem in our society, politics aside (it's just that the Right really capitalizes on it). The belief in fundamentalist dogma and pseudo-science, and disbelief in basic scientific tenets such as evolutionary theory may well be the ruin of this country. Kristof made some great points, without overly bashing religion, in this respect. He was spot on, and again, not overly insulting to religion in general, in ending by pointing out that "the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering", and relating that problem to the crisis today in the Islamic world, caused by "self-satisfied and unquestioning mullahs and imams" encouraging a "similar drift away from a rich intellectual tradition".

I was impressed by his ability to write about this issue without seeming disrespectful. (I'm not sure how someone who believes in the virgin birth would take it, though.)

It's such an emotional thing for people on many sides that just from DU threads, it's obvious how difficult it is for people to discuss civilly.

I mean, wouldn't that make them Christians?

That they would believe that part of it and not go for the whole story.

2 B christian U Blieve in the trinity (father, son & holy GHOST)& accept jesus as the biblical foretold messiah.

A few years ago I was nearly wiped out in an auto accident. A head injury led 2 brain swelling & a coma for a few touch 'n go days (I was told). As I recovered, almost w/o Xception people would say, God was watching over me. And here I thought it was my determination and the skill of the doctors. It occurred 2 me people do this to escape responsibility. If I had died, that would have been 'god's plan' also. Since it happened 2 me, I know s/he didn't have a thing 2 do w/ it.

People no doubt have different ideas as to the definition.

My dictionary - Christian = 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ OR following the religion based on his teaching. (Informal) 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

So I think - that even though some religions may say you need to confess this or that (2 B christian U Blieve in the trinity (father, son & holy GHOST)& accept jesus as the biblical foretold messiah), that actually one can be a Christian and not believe in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, and other things that I think were "belief" requirements added after the fact by various groups of people.

Many Christians are not Trinitarian neither do they believe in Virgin Birth...Christians who believe literal interpretations of the Bible are a SUBset of Christianity.

Satan visits the earth and sends letters back to the other Archangels.

(paraphrazing)

You won't believe it! Down here they actually think the old man is a nice guy!

You know, he's got this thing he put down here called a tse-tse fly. It's caused more human suffering than all the wars you can imagine.

Some poor soul in England spends his entire life searching for a cure for the disease this thing causes. Sweats and struggles, isolated in his lab, years on end. Finally he comes up with a medicine that cures it.

And for the result of this brilliant man's courageous struggle, who's the first one these earthlings thank???? You guessed it.

about going to work and all of these near mis-haps any of which could have killed him. He always said it was God looking out for him. I suggested once - kidding him - that maybe God just missed trying to get him. He laughed and laughed.

... Christian. But to believe in it and not profess to be Christian reveals a certain disconnect at work. It's almost as if it reveals that some people are willing to believe anything.

Does anyone here believe that humans sprang from a clamshell opened by a Raven? I think that is one Native American belief. If you are a member of that faith, and believe most of its tenets and stories, then fine. You accept it on faith (that is why religion is also often referred to as faith).

But to believe what is basically a supernatural story from another's faith is basically saying that you either A) do indeed believe in their religion (accept it on faith) or B) are willing to believe seemingly impossible stories without even employing a basic attempt at critical thinking.

I fear with most people, unfortunately, it is the latter (as far as something like the Virgin Birth). Perhaps I said "doesn't that make them Christians" because the other option is more difficult to face. I can accept people taking their own religious beliefs on faith, and not trying to cast a critical eye on them. If it's limited to their own belief in their religion's stories, that's fine. But I think it is much more harmful to society if people in general lack critical thinking capacity, if it carries over to all other aspects (which is what is happening if they even believe OTHER people's religious stories while at the same time not believing the religion).

where I would believe something like that and not the religion and I couldn't.

It's funny to think of something like yoga. To me yoga does amazing things in the way of relaxing and positive effects on the mind and yet some westerners seem wary. Like Time having an article recently about Meditation saying in effect: "It really DOES work. We've done scientific studies."

I guess my point is that for other cultures people want proof something works. What people say doesn't matter. I think it is useful to be open to possibilities.

If they do express a belief in the creation story? Or only Christians that you assume believe literally in the Creation story?

of "non-Christians" who believe in the "virgin" birth are Jewish? Why is it that it is assumed that even if one is not Christian one still accepts their beliefs as true?

I don't understand how someone can look at the bible with all of its contradictions as a historical document?

Oy vey!
:shrug:

and rabid religious mumbo jumbo that is short circuiting logic.

See? I was ironic and used the Christian Right's weapons against them. The slide into fundamentalist black/white thinking is Satanic.

LOLOLOL

I know a lot has to do with the rise of the right wing since the 60s. A lot has to do with the deliberate cultural ridicule of intelligent thought and the praise of dumbness.

But why? Why is it happening? What is it that draws people in to this? In the 50s and 60s, the culture encouraged people to be drawn to what was intelligent and thoughtful. Now it is the opposite.

This is really at the core of our problem as liberals. The villification of thoughtfullness creates an inhospitable mileau for the kind of enlightened approachs that we know to be the only sensible solutions to the problems we face.

A culture that celebrates dumbness and denigrates thinking compulsively leaps to the simple, thoughtless answers which religious zealotry provides, as does right wing demagoguery.

But what are the mechanisms that are encouraging these tragic trends?

of conservative vs. liberal or believer vs. non-believer.

I think Robert Anton Willson pegged the problem.

It's neophiles (those who embrace the "new" and look forward to the future) vs. neophobes (those who fear the "new" and look back fondly to a "golden age" that may or may not have existed).

I think it worries me more that people reject science than what their religious beliefs are. If they can believe in science and whatever else, that seems good. When peoples non-belief is a threat to others, when people go out of thier way to keep science out of schools, when my own brother feels moved to give my kids books that try to disprove any of Darwin's findings - I see a problem.

And tells us that the riddle of diseases may be solved 10-20 years down the road, if we are still alive...

Fundamentalism provides security for those willing to believe even after they are dead.

Where's the security science provides about death??

It is probably easier to suspend some religious beliefs if you are willing to say there may not be an afterlife.

Scientific "discoveries" are certainly not all rosy. The "science" I was thinking about is more along the lines of "what do we know now about the creation of the universe and how everything works together?" Without being a scientist myself, Il think that knowing about DNA, and Quarks, and seeing deep space photos is infinitly interesting.

And I also think it is interesting that some things may forever be unexplainable. Mysticism.

And communication going invisibly through the air.

And my wife and I took great comfort in believing in the presence of spirits after one of our beloved cats died of cancer at age 6.

I get very frustrated at the science OR religion argument. I think both have very positive impact on my life.

It's when either is used to bolster power and persecute non-believers (yes, those who revere science do sometimes persecute those who don't agree) that I get concerned.

.

The upside of proliferation of instant communication is that those of us with like ideas and interests are in touch in a way never before believed possible.

The down side is we do now know just how horrible things can be in other places in the world...and too many fear for it happening to them, and are seeking explanations.

Science really doesn't explain ravages of diseases like AIDs or 3,000 people dead in the WTC or genocide in a way that gives most of us a sense of security. Fundamentalism does provide that security for many.

We've got to figure out ways to dispel fear on a large scale - we do need someone on the caliber of FDR again!

And while reading DU (and the internet) does not dissipate fear - it does help me feel like I know a little more about what is going on in this country (and world). And it is nice to have a community of people with a common goal.

in number is their conviction that they (and only they) are right. The RW is correct in believing that tolerance and open-mindedness is weak--in the sense that true-believers tend to be gung-ho missionaries and active proselytizers. They really WORK at bringing in new members. Some do seem to try to make people believe what they preach--and the attempts seem clumsy to me, but it must work (going door to door and pamphleteeering, etc).

But I tend to think that the real lure they offer is the chance to be part of a community that appears to care personally about its members. They reach out particularly to people who feel alone and vulnerable and overwhelmed by life. One anecdote: I had a friend (strong, intelligent, independent, lapsed Episcopalian female) who was in an accident and was in severe pain for a few years. All of us (her friends) tried to help out--cooking, cleaning, driving her to doctor appts. But we had our own lives and pressures, and it wasn't long before her Mormon neighbors had organized their church to "adopt" her. They were with her for most of her day, and eventually pushed us less organized, less efficient friends to the side. They did win her over, and she joined the CLS.

Studies in Japan also have shown that the "new religions" (i.e., those zealous in missionizing, as the old-line Buddhists, eg., are not) were most successful among the 1st generation city dwellers, who missed the small-town and village webs of relationships, and especially the stay-at-home wives (husbands had their work to feel connected to).

The mainstream churches are certainly welcoming to new members, but I don't get the impression that they go out in droves to bring them in. If there IS more receptivity to the fundamentalist churches, I think a large part of it is the the RW in general is far more skilled in forming and building groups than we on the left are. As religion or as political party, I don't like what they are selling, but they are packaging it as warm inclusive belonging. And there are people who would sell their souls for that.

I suppose there are people who join the fundies because they think they have been convinced of the "truth" of what they teach. But I think it's more the PR and the comfort of belonging that really does the trick. I don't deny that some (maybe all) people have a spiritual hunger (that the fundies claim to satisfy). But there are so many more attractive paths to spiritual growth....

Oh--one other "attraction" of the fundies is their claim to have all the answers. Lots of people just can't handle the stress of all the fear and uncertainty of modern life. Personally, I think they'd do better to lobby for national health insurance than to wish for armaggedon if that's their problem, but that's just me.

we are a fast food nation and I don't mean just our diets.

*I'm pulling my comment myself*

Don't want to hear from the zealots.

--God

*something like that* :)

Hysterical!

To Skittles - aw c'mon, say it!

that people going to the moon, maybe the cold war, etc. was a contributing factor for all the upheaval of the 70's. People's ways of dealing with things. Drugs, etc.

Then there is quote "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." - Karl Marx

"get religion" so they forget the age of reason, period of enlightenment, technology age, scientific revolution, etc.

Back to the dungeons, you heretics, said Satan the Devil.

1. Mysticism and fundamentalism are NOT the same thing. Fundamentalists in all religions hate the mystics because they substitute personal experience of the divine/non-material/supernatural/whatever you want to call it/ for strict adherence to The Rules as devised by the fundamentalists.

2. The intellectual endeavors of mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches continue as always, but they receive little publicity outside the churches. In the Episcopal realm, we have Bishop John Shelby Spong ("Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," "Original Sin?"), Marcus Borg ("Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time"--about where the Biblical account is likely to be right or wrong about Jesus' life), Dominic Crossan (I forget the title of his book). Anyway, there are all kinds of mainstream intellectuals, but they are ridiculed and condemned by the fundamentalists and ignored by the secular press. The typical present-day Episcopalian would agree with Kristof's grandfather on accepting evolution and regarding the Virgin Birth as a myth. So would the typical 1950s Minnesota Lutheran, for that matter.

3. It is true that Episcopalians have lost a lot of members since 1970, but having been associated with them since perhaps 1973, I blame this on their not keeping up with changing social conditions. Through the 1950s and early 1960s, one had to attend religious services in order to be considered "respectable," especially in the Midwest and South. This had been going on for generations, so unlike the fundies or Mormons, who are concerned with creating a total cradle to grave social environment for their people, the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and, to a lesser extent, the Lutherans, ignored their youth, assuming that they would follow their parents' example and stay with the church.

But starting in the mid 1960s, the old social order broke down, and baby boomers left the mainstream churches, which had made no efforts to keep them interested.

The present-day Episcopal church has realized this, and they now have a lot of exciting programs for children and youth.

By the way, Episcopalians have a phrase "cradle Episcopalian." This refers to someone who was born and brought up in the Episcopal Church, and it is used because in many parishes, converts are in the majority. This denomination attracts an especially high percentage of ex-fundamentalists who are tired of hellfire and brimstone, rigid puritanism, and bad music. So while they lost a lot of their own young people over the past thirty years, they attracted a lot of people from other denominations.

4. I've posted this question several times, and I'm still wondering, although I don't have the time or resources to research it. Given the way that fundamentalist churches spring up full-blown in new suburbs, involving a lot of expense, you have to wonder who is financing them. When mainstream Protestants start a new parish in a new suburban area, they start small, often renting storefronts or meeting in houses until they gather enough members to pay for a building. Why can the fundies start out with multimillion dollar facilities? Are some right-wing millionaires financing them? Investigative reporters:you have your work cut out for you.

5. These fundie churches, as I mentioned above, create a total social environment for their people: church services three days a week, day schools, Sunday schools, clubs for married and single adults, youth, and children; counseling services, gyms, and a whole system of media, including TV and radio stations, magazines, websites, and newspapers. By providing a total environment (in sprawling suburbs, where there are no natural community focal points), they can easily brainwash their people, making them actually afraid to meet up with opposing viewpoints. (My stepfather as a piano student from a fundie family. This kid--who attends a fundie school and plays on his church's basketball team against other fundie churches--was shocked when he found out that my stepfather subscribes to the New York Times. "The devil is working through that paper," he said.)

Some observers have traced increased Republicanism to the suburbanization of America. In the typical "edge city" suburb, there are no neighborhood hangouts, few locally owned businesses, people driving everywhere instead of walking or taking public transit, few people working in the same area where they live; i.e. no sense of community. It's no wonder that Dems are strongest in the cities.