religion and politics
What an interesting day in the news. First we have the Age republishing an article by George Monbiot from the Guardian which talks about the US talking about politics in terms which are more appropriate for religion:
The US no longer needs to call upon God; it is God, and those who go abroad to spread the light do so in the name of a celestial domain. The flag has become as sacred as the Bible; the name of the nation as holy as the name of God. The presidency is turning into a priesthood.
So those who question Bush’s foreign policy are no longer merely critics; they are blasphemers, or “anti-Americans”. Those foreign states that seek to change this policy are wasting their time: you can negotiate with politicians; you cannot negotiate with priests.
In the Australian, Janet Albrechtson levels the same accusation at liberal voices in Australian politics:
If we disagree with them on issues such as Iraq, illegal immigration, a republic or indigenous affairs, our motives are impugned or, worse, we are evil, shameful, depraved. And because there are so many of us who disagree with them, they preach that Australia is an evil, shameful, depraved place.
For all the styling of the so-called culture wars, this crossing of religion with politics seems very puzzling. Each of these writers has used the accusation of religious language to cast aspersions on the particular political figures they are lambasting. Why frame the argument in this way?
I can’t help but think that for these writers, religion and religious language in and of itself must have negative connotations. Is religion inherently seen as superstition and beliefs without any basis?
Frankly, the culture war annoys me. It seems that the debate about any issue becomes totally polarised - you are either a vile, evil nazi-loving conservative or you are a vile, evil, culturally relativist, hypocritical politically correct liberal. Writers and commentators seem to go out of their way to avoid balanced debate. Writers that I would otherwise agree with include such ridiculous and unwarranted statements and conclusions in their opinions so that I end up disagreeing with someone who is seeking to express a position that I agree with (it makes your head hurt, doesn’t it?).
Perhaps it is this phenomenon which these writers are labelling the use of religious language - although I am uncomfortable with the automatic association between religion and fundamentalism. Albrechtson calls this phenomenon “neo-fundamentalism” - thus according with the dominant cultural imperative to add the prefix ‘neo’ to every otherwise legitimate description (maybe it is just cashing in on the popularity of the Matrix).
Maybe we could start a movement called “neo-reasonableness” - in which participants engage in a new sense and spirit of reasonableness and balance in debate. That would be nice.
July 31st, 2003 at 12:38 pm
Frankly, I’m surprised it took this long for someone in australia to mix the two. It’s been common parlance in American politics for over a decade. “Religion” is scarcely different from “authoritarianism” or “simpletonism.”
I think part of the reason is that the only people who really display their religion - in public anyway - are evangelicals or “conservative” christians (including within that broad panoply those who would accept for themselves the term “fundamentalist” and those who adhere to more literal interpretations of the bible and, for that matter, a lot of Roman Catholics). These are people who stand up for their moral convictions (whether you agree with them or not), and go against the prevailing winds of culture. Thus, it is easy for the mainstream to label these people as luddites, fundamentalists, zealots, haters, bigots, etc.
Why frame it this way? Because the authors perceive that their audience as at least ambivalent toward, if not downright hostile to, organized religion. Religion represents authority, and by extension, authoritarian rule.
This even extends to what are more libertarian conservative voices, like, I assume Janet Albrechtson is (truth be told, I couldn’t tell exactly who she was railing against half the time in the poorly constructed article).
It is one of the reasons I don’t usually discuss certain topics on my blog. I know where people stand, and I know where I stand. To get into those discussions would automatically shut people off from listening to anything I say. Sad but true.
July 31st, 2003 at 12:54 pm
It is interesting that an authoritarian administration, like the US, almost dictatorial with respect to the rest of the world, should exploit that use of the public’s hostility to organised religion and institutionalized power.
I’ll join the neo-reasonables Dan.
July 31st, 2003 at 1:14 pm
It’s interesting that you see the U.S. administration as so authoritarian. I’m curious as to what your baseline for “non-authoritarian” would be? And last I checked, France still existed. I think people throw around the words “authoritarian” and “dictatorial” in far too cavalier a manner.
So, no, Luke, I don’t think you would qualify under the “reasonable” category.
As for the “exploitation” of the public’s hostility toward religion, I don’t think the current U.S. administration has ever exploited that particular hostility. Rather, there are those in all political stripes who use the language “contra religion” to tar and feather their opponents.
For an instructive lesson in this, study the battles that took place (and still flare up occasionally) within the Southern Baptist Convention beginning in the 1970s.
July 31st, 2003 at 2:26 pm
I am interested in the meta-conversation. We are used to having political language critiqued - some leaders frame their language in terms of a crusade or a quest. Some use PR and advertising models of presentation. Some are insular and inward-thinking - like bank advertising (”the most important person in the world - you”).
BTW I can’t stand the way that Albrechtson writes. I disagree with her politically anyway, but I find that she writes illogically and without a clear argument or hypothesis.