Even A Stopped Clock, Etc.

It's not very often that I agree with Christopher Hitchens on politics, and he'd find my faith as foolish as he finds all others. But his rebuttal in today's WaPo to yesterday's obnoxious opinion piece by Michael Gerson -- who asserted that, without relligion, there is no morality -- is rather good. Hitchens notes that religion certainly has led to some seriously "immoral" behavior:

Those of us who disbelieve in the heavenly dictatorship also reject many of its immoral teachings, which have at different times included the slaughter of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination, the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the ethi=cally dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice.

I think his comment about the "ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice" refers to the xian notion that they are "saved" from "original sin" because Jesus was crucified "for them." But, of course, ancient Pagans did, from time to time and in some places, practice human sacrifice. (Yeah, I know that there's an argument that some of those sacrificed volunteered for the job. We just have no way to know that as of now.) Some Pagans also kept slaves, although there's certainly little indication that it was "approved" by their Goddesses and Gods, the way that the Old Testament indicates that Yahweh "commanded" the Israelites to enslave others or "allowed" the Babylonians and Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews. So while I like to think that today's Pagans aren't as likely to commit outrage as are members of, for example, the three Abrahamist cults, we do have a history of doing some shitty stuff. (And, then, there's the way most of us dress and all that crap jewelry. Those are serious outrages, right there, and they're getting worse, not better. I am just saying.)

I do think that Hitchens misses the motive behind Gerson's screed. Gerson and other xianitst are determined to make it impossible for anyone other than fellow Abrahamists to hold public office in America, indeed, even to participate in American political life. (See, e.g., xianists this week making it almost impossible for a Hindu chaplin to offer a bland and nondenominational prayer to open the U.S. Senate. They argue -- seriously -- that only monotheists (and we all know they aren't talking about someone who believes that Loki is the one, true god) should be allowed that privilege.)) Digby makes a very similar point in an excellent essay concerning how the press lies about Democrats' religious affiliations. She says:

Since it doesn't seem to make any difference how much they talk about their religion or spend time in church or anything else, what could they possibly do to prove that they are really, truly, god-fearing religious people? Why, they could adopt socially conservative policies!

That's the real agenda. These people are not as concerned about Democrats winning, despite all the concern troll advice for the last decade or so, as much as they care about making the Democrats more socially conservative. Amy Sullivan just proved it again by writing a misleading article that assumes Democrats are going to lose because they aren't religious enough --- at a time when the country is sick and tired of their leaders' using their religious views to justify policies that the majority don't want enacted. And let's just say that all this religion talk in politics doesn't exactly have the same punch now that so many of the allegedly pious, evangelical Republicans have shown themselves to be lying perverts.

Again, I have no problem with Democrats talking about their religious views. But it will not buy them one Republican vote. The religious folk who vote GOP on the basis of religion are never going to vote for Democrats unless they become social conservatives. That's the formula and that's what the liberal religious lobby is really pushing. I just wish they'd be honest about it.

Only "religious" people have morals. And, in fact, only monotheists are allowed to participate in politics. To show that they are "religious" and "have morals" even monotheists (and, let's face it, there isn't a Democrat running for president who isn't a xian) have to adopt conservative social policies (which I wish Digby would go ahead and call anti-woman, anti-gay, patriarchial policies, since interfering in other people's private lives is emphatically not classical conservatism). Voila! Theocracy!