I have in front of me a copy of Sleeping With Extra-terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety (1999) by Wendy Kaminer, a libertarian feminist writer whose work I generally enjoyed (haven't read her lately, though her name popped up when some ACLU insiders wanted to pass a rule limiting criticism of the organization's leadership). At the time, the book seemed a bit skewered -- as the title suggests, it spends a lot of time dealing with "alternative" beliefs such as astrology and the like.
There is also a somewhat strange chapter, with signs of Luddism, very critical of the Internet as a threat to reasoned thought. Sort of how the internal combustion engine caused air pollution. Her concern for links (basically the footnotes of the Net) really seemed a bit weird to me. The chapter has various "this is stupid" marginalia ala John Adams. I guess, as with her book against the excesses of personal empowerment programs and such, the book was partially sort of a response to irrationality from those that some generally sympathetic to her views (liberals). And, we are talking about millions of people here, people with irrational thought that in no way is cabined to belief that The X-Files is based on the truth ala Law & Order.
Such irrationality is a combined whole that can infect public policy (and private behavior) in any number of ways. Thus, many of these people are probably among those who think the Bush Administration somehow directly was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I'm confused by such people, since uh, people called from the planes. If missiles took down the Towers, what about the passengers? Were they like in on it too? Kaminer does note at one point that "social trends that conservatives lamented were not sins of secular* humanism; they followed a failure to embrace particular, sectarian interpretation of Scripture." This hits home -- it is a basic sentiment I share, one that annoys me whenever we hear about "values" voters and such.
The implication is that if you don't let's say support discrimination against gays you are not really a religious person, but supportive of "secular" values. "Scare quotes" are fitting since that is just what such a spin job is supposed to do. At issue are certain values, of course, as suggested by one of the replies to my Julia post cited below. And, the fact this is often spun as "religion" while the rest is "secular" is one of the worse cases of de facto establishment today. There are many books that will eventually fill up the "anti-Bush" library out that underline the point -- that supply a religious perspective from left leaning sorts.
For instance, Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter, who wrote a blurb to Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right by Bob Edgar. Dr. Edgar, a minister and former member of Congress, is the general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. The book is sort of a "Majority Report" (the old name of Sam Seder's Air America show, a spin of the "Moral Majority") account that promotes a progressive view of public policy. Thus, it has various quotes such as Hebrews 13:3, which calls for concern of prisoners and those (Revised Standard Version) "ill-treated" (Edgar's version translates as "tortured").**
But, hey, you know how vague and open-ended scripture can be. One thing that struck me was his point that some evangelicals are so concerned with personal faith that they miss the forest for the trees. Such right leaning sorts are so concerned with personal rights (property, guns, capitalism) and the wrongs of others that the clear commands to care for the community at large are missed. [I like his use of the "dominion" we are said to have over the world per Genesis ... such "control" brings much responsibility, like the control we have over our children. Anyway, it's God's creation and gift, so what right do we have to waste and pollute it?]
Relatedly, I would think given the personal relationship -- often not shared by the majority -- such people have with God would underline the importance of a "right of privacy." The ability to make personal choices compelled by one's faith is at the heart of such liberty. Middle Church promotes many liberal leaning public policies, but it tries to show an appeal to the majority at large. As we know, when "middle" is used ("middle class"), we often are not just talking about some sort of median. Thus, many who I don't really consider "middle class" like to see themselves in that category. It also helps Republicans, which is why tax cuts that favor the rich (but might help others in some tiny way, and even there usually just shifts the burden elsewhere) have more support than they deserve.
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
-- JFK, qtd. in book; more good stuff about human dignity and so forth from the remarks here
And, things like environmental protection really should not be some sort of "liberal" cause ... as some conservatives readily admit. Still, the book has a clearly nice guy liberal flavor. Edgar "respects" other beliefs, in fact, "very deeply." What right does he have to doubt the faith of others? He just can repeatedly show the error of their ["far right"] ways, which after all, is the whole point of the book. ["It's a belief built on myths."] So, it seems a bit coy at times. Still, there is a point to it all -- you have to focus on what unites, and when you write letters to President Bush against the war or so forth, just calling him out as a moron really is counterproductive.
Sure enough. Leave that to late night comedians.
---
* For those who do lean that direction, a recent hit to the site was attracted by a review of Freethinkers, which is one of the better entries imho. Relatedly, another entry from that period discussed a dissenting voice from the Muslim community.
And, there is always my "Julia Says Goodbye To God" post over at Slate, which patterns a similar one here. I really enjoyed her God Said Ha! (Sweeney's at times amazing "light" account of cancer invading her family) and will be seeing her "Letting Go of God" show later this month. Shall let you know how it goes, but it has received some good reviews. [If I make it back -- it's past 10th Avenue, a nice trek even from the subway.]
** It does annoy that he notes "Paul" wrote that epistle (it's more like a sermon), when it is pretty well accepted that he did not -- it is not even labeled as Pauline. The "summary" of biblical books in my RSV speaks of its "unknown author." Also, Edgar notes that homosexuality is only mentioned in the Old Testament, when Paul also cites such commands.