“Absolute faith
corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”
“The opposite of
the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who
cares not whether there is a god or not.”
Eric
Hoffer (1902-1983)
Recently,
some thoughtful friends of mine have been writing about how the personalities
of Presidential candidates and their individual world view are not really
crucial to the process of how they manage the economy. These friends equate the economy with all the reasons to elect a
candidate. I suppose this is a
rationalization of how to support a Texas top gun like Rick Perry or a crazy
woman like Michelle Bachmann whose primitive social instincts are fantastically
out of touch with the 21st century. The economy is important, of
course, but there are other issues that trouble people, including a woman’s right to choose, birth control,
education, a safety net for our citizens, and the government’s ability to create
infrastructure and an environment in which people can live in safety.
Of
course, economic policy is an adjunct to this, but it is not the sole thing.
I
guess my perspective is different: I believe that the
socio-religious-anti-science zealotry of some of the candidates, especially on
the Republican side of the aisle that unctuously panders to the religious right
is a disingenuous manifestation of a
hypocritical vote solicitation-at-any-cost mantra. And when President Obama
also does the same thing, “may God bless the United States of America,” at the
end of every speech, he is no less
obsequious. Earlier presidents did not
need to wear flag pins or make ubiquitous and gratuitous religious references
in order to please the voting public.
Abraham Lincoln’s references to God were not done as a matter of course
at the end of every speech. And certainly Thomas Jefferson did not do so.
I
understand the perhaps human genetic need to believe in a supernatural force to
provide social cohesion and an ability to war against other tribes, but why
must it be a prerequisite to garner votes?
Why must every speech be an appeal to piety? Are not Muslim fundamentalists the same as
Jewish fundamentalists or the Catholic Church in their a priori discounting of other faiths, claiming their faith is the
exclusive path to salvation?
At
least the Catholic Church is somewhat consistent: no birth control, no capital
punishment, and no abortion. But its hypocritical
and certainly not biblical 16th century calls to celibacy among
priests so that the church could perpetuate its property and estates are no indication
of godliness. And there is a cogent
argument that the celibacy requirement attracts sexually abusive individuals to
its ranks. The Catholic religious
hierarchy continues to mystify me.
Why
is the American public so ostensibly pious?
Europeans have already moved away from state religions, but in the
United States, there is an almost secular state religion, an unintended
consequence stemming from the tolerance set forth in the Constitution. The entire fringe religious fundamentalism in
this country has a cult-like tenor to it, an irrationality that is almost
indecipherable yet understandable at the same time. I think the candidates should be extensively
questioned about whether they expect to govern by divine revelation. Michelle Bachmann has been particularly adept
at dodging that question. George W.
Bush, born again, took us into two wars costing trillions of dollars, which
history has borne out to be unnecessary, given recent events in the Middle
East.
I
still remember the Republican debate in 2008 when the candidates were asked if
they believe in the theory of evolution and all raised their hands in the
negative. That question should be put to the candidates again.
At
the same time, the ideological, proto-religious aspect of the economic arguments presented today is
undeniable. On the right are the zealots
who want to remove government from the economic process, yet wish to include it
in the social agenda. Do not abort the
child, but once it is born unwanted, abandoned, and neglected, let it inhabit
the lower depths of a Dickensian untervelt
of deprivation, ignorance and poverty.
America
must find a rational alternative to this mind numbing debate: Moving beyond piety in its political dialogue,
whether it be a religious or dogmatic view of economic solutions or its
misappropriated social creed of imposing religious education and its anti
science dogma in the public schools.
Focusing
on the solutions to our social problems through ideology is neither productive
nor encouraging of solutions.
