Jami's review

Amen, Chris.

What made you decide to even read a book like that? It sounds interesting and is something that I had no idea was going on.

Actually, it was Ellis's choice. We take turns picking out books, and then we discuss them. Ellis had the first pick, and I was a little skeptical at first when he chose this. It was really fascinating, though, and I enjoyed it much more than I thought I was going to.

I agree, it's scary as....hell.

That almost half of Americans thing we're going through the endtimes as predicted in the book of Revelations, and that this might even be driving US foreign policy, is a national nightmare from which I hope we soon awake.

You know what kills me, regarding US foreign policy and the Armageddon seekers, is our policy concerning Israel. The Israelis must think we are a bunch of Tools for supporting them against their enemies so that they later can be destroyed by their enemies in Armageddon. It must take an enormous amount of humility and desparation to accept help from a group who considers you Messiah killers just so you can be destroyed in the near future.

I just heard one of the big Evangelical church leaders (I don't remember who) say that we should attack Iran because it will hasten Armageddon. GENIUS! And if Armageddon did bring their Savior, what would he have to say to those that chose to bring war and death on a nation just to get Him here sooner. I thought Jesus said something about peace and meekness...

Yeah, well, the sooner we wrest power from the hands of these people and turn the national discourse back to sanity, the better.

I don't mind people having religion, but it should be private, not involved in politics and it should not - under any circumstances - be driving US policy here or abroad.

Xysea: you and I are in agreement about the dangers of all kinds of fundamentalism. But just to play "devil's advocate," don't you think it a tad unreasonable that people's spiritual and religious values should play no role in public affairs? After all, many of the great movements for social change (here and abroad) were begun and sustained through the efforts of those who were acting upon their faith. And even if I were convinced that it was desirable to sequester "religion" in a separate sphere, I'm not sure that it could be done...

The question, for me anyway, is how to respect people's natural and perfectly legitimate desire to take public action based upon their private beliefs (religious or otherwise), while still maintaining a system that protects the rights and freedoms of all...

To answer my own question...

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that with fundamentalism (of any stripe), it just isn't possible to create a society where EVERYONE's rights are respected. So for me, the threat is not that religion will influence government policy or bleed into public life - those boundaries are always pretty porous - but that certain zealots seem intent on undermining public life (as we know it) altogether...

It seems I have YET ANOTHER book to put on my to-read mountain... Darn you goodreads people! :)

Abigail,

Your questions and points are important. I think that the perfect means for maintaining the proper functioning relationship between religion and politics have been laid out by the framers of the constitution and have more recently been alluded to by JFK and Barak Obama. What we need is separation of church and state. Neither one need be elevated or diminished, but they shouldn’t be together. A person’s faith should be something held inward that guides one’s actions and decisions. We aren’t in any danger of the people who act in this way. We are, as you mentioned, in danger of fundamentalists and the intolerant movements they champion that are based on fear and hatred. Chris Hedges tells us in this book, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that we can’t tolerate intolerance. We can’t listen to intolerant views without speaking against them or voicing disagreement.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve really tried to put this into practice and it’s been really rewarding. Lots of times people say intolerant things because they don’t realize that others disagree with them, or because they think they are being really funny. I’ve made it a point to respond to all emails, largely spammed by my brother, containing political libel and other ridiculous statements. It’s been really interesting, and since I use the “reply to all” option on the big group emails, I’ve had a lot of interesting conversations with neoconservatives wondering who the unknown “lefty” is that’s writing them. I’m sure I haven’t changed how anyone will vote in November, but I think I have caused some people to think before they speak. It’s been fun.

You won't be disappointed you added this book to your list.

lol I am not one to preach intolerance lightly, as you know, Abigail, but I am wrestling with my own demons on this issue.

I have to say, probably arrogantly, that my brand of intolerance would likely be a bit softer and forgiving than theirs seems to me. Maybe I would like to believe that, but I don't tell them they must believe as I do - rather that they can believe as they like as long as they aren't imposing or infringing against others.

Further, there is no doubt in my mind that a religious person's religion will play a part in their values and how they vote, but for goodness sake, I wish we were a little more enlightened and progressive. I wish our religious Right were more tolerant, I guess.

I think the whole discussion of a political figure's religious beliefs to be a non-starter. It honestly doesn't matter to me, excepting Fundamentalism, what a leader believes. I don't believe being a Christian makes a leader better; you can't ask for better evidence than our current POTUS on that score.

So, yes, while I realize our Western values are based on Judeo-Christian principles in part, they were also influenced by people who had no religious affiliation at all, or who sought freedom of/from religious tyranny.

With the rise of fundamentalism, especially in the USA, moderate voices were often drowned out in the furious rhetoric flying around.

I would like to counsel a return to a more stable, open dialogue, absent words like 'traitor', 'seditionist', and ideas like Hurricane Katrina was G-d's punishment for a gay pride parade. And I certainly don't think our foreign policy should be decided on which event would most hasten Armageddon.

So, several months ago, in the effort to be "fair and balanced", and to get to know the oposing candidates better, I watched a debate between the Republican presidential candidates that was held by Fox "News". When introducing each candidate, a little fact list about the candidate appeared. The second thing on the list, right below the candidate's name was their religion. I was amazed! I shouldn't have been too surprised given the network that held the debate, but I was really disturbed by the importance given to a candidates stated religious preference. It's almost as if that tidbit of information was used to reassure us that each candidate was a good person. I wish it were so simple, but unfortunately for the Right, and all of us really, a person's belief doesn't really tell us anything about whether a given person will act ethically/morally.

Chris Hedges is one of my heroes. If you check out his list of books you will find that I have read virtually the whole lot. He's terrific and smart.

Ellis: I'm 100% in agreement with you, both as it concerns the importance of separation of church and state, and with regard to the idea that dialogue is useful, even when the parties involved don't come to an agreement. Sometimes it helps just to promote the concept that there is a plurality of views. When said dialogue is conducted respectfully it can also undermine the notion that all those "others" (liberal or conservative, religious adherent or atheist, etc.) are motivated merely by malice or ignorance. That isn't to say that one should submit to abuse - respect is a two-way street, after all.

Xysea: you make a point dear to my heart, which is that "moderates" are getting drowned out. I made my initial comment for that very reason - because as horrified as I may be by the actions and beliefs of various fundamentalists, I think that their opponents should be mindful of the fact that many of the "faithful" are thoughtful, well-informed people. Of course, I know YOU know that (from our many goodreads conversations), but I'm still wary of the whole "keep religion in a separate box" rhetoric. It can so easily be misunderstood by those who aren't necessarily in a different camp...

And yes! God yes! A Return to a return to a more stable, open dialogue, absent words like 'traitor', 'seditionist', and ideas like Hurricane Katrina was G-d's punishment for a gay pride parade would be MOST welcome! :)