The First Amendment-- Not About Politeness

When I was attending my right wing college, I heard a lot about relativism and creeping relativism. Lefties were accused of having no standards and of not believing in anything and therefore having no moral compass. This was apparently because lefties had applied the first amendment to their own lives in some illogical fashion--moving from all speech should be tolerated to I shouldn't firmly hold to any one idea.

As a lefty and a lawyer, I'm a firm believer in the first amendment. That means you should be able to pick your religion and your ideas--no matter how loony--until you actually become imminently dangerous to other human beings. That does not mean you have to politely sit there when somebody is deciding to go off in some repulsive direction. And that doesn't mean you have to withhold comment on other people's religion, pornography, morally relativistic play or whatever.

So, although I am not religious, I comment in this blog about religion. The marketplace of ideas means that everybody gets to say something. While I think it is important to be polite and tolerant, if you have something to say and there's just no polite way to say it, I think it's important to go for it.

Ethical Christianity

I'm reading Dorothy Day's autobiography which is a good reminder that religion and Christianity can line up on the side of the less powerful. In thinking some more about the subject of my last blog, I'd like to refine my thesis a bit.

Our democracy allows for personal choice in religion. The evangelical forms of Christianity seem to do better as a result. But the evangelical branches of Christianity believe in the literal truth of the Bible. So, once you make the choice to become an adherent, your choices are necessarily limited. For example, if you understand a choice facing you as one between a sin and a righteous action, there is very little wiggle room for compromise. Of course people do sin anyways as witnessed by the higher divorce rate among those who consider themselves born-again.

The interesting thing about the modern evangelical movement (which I learned from watching a documentary on Tammy Faye Baker) is that sin is essentially to be expected. The thesis is that while we certainly need to try not to sin, Jesus will forgive. Actually, Jesus will forgive if you believe in Jesus.

So, when George W. Bush speaks of Good and Evil, he knows his audience. And when he walks around with that smirk on his face that says he's confident he's going to Heaven--that's his religion. Which makes me wish for the good old days when Christians had a few doubts and a little bit of modesty.

If you think back to Max Weber's book, capitalism may owe a lot to the doubting modest kind of Christian. What will capitalism get from these smug Christians? I would suggest Enron, George W. Bush, and the teleevangelists for starters.

This terrible mix of right wing politics with Christianity is going to have lasting consequences for our Republic. They seem to have no ethical compass on matters not directly related to themselves or their families and they have put what can only be described as a bad man in the White House.

This mix of politics and Christianity will also have a lasting impact on Christianity. Hypocrisy and human suffering aren't exactly recruiting tools. And if Christians would like to claim that they're ethical people, they need to start thinking about what's going on as a result of their actions.

On the left wing side of things, Christian lefties need to get their act together and start challenging some of these right wing orthodoxies.

Religion and Democracy

So, I saw Thomas Frank who wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas" last week and he said at one point that someone should investigate what is going on with religion and the Republican party, but he just didn't feel qualified to write on it.

De Tocqueville had the great insight that religion flourishes in the United States because it is not state sponsored religion. But, I think the necessary next question is, what kind of religion flourishes here?

Historically, Christianity and specifically evangelical Christianity has done quite well. A lot of our mainline religions that aren't strictly speaking evangelical anymore (i.e. Methodists) were once upon a time in the not so distant past participants in religious revivals on a massive scale. After a couple great awakenings, certain areas of what was then the Midwest were referred to as the "burnt over counties." And of course there are the completely home grown versions of Christianity like the Mormons.

Some of these denominations have a church hierarchy and some don't, but they all feature an idea of individual salvation as the paramount thing. In a democracy, this makes sense. Because religion is not controlled by the state, people are free to find the version of Christianity that is most appealing to them. Most people think about themselves and their families far more than they think about world peace or humpback whales.

If the version of Christianity that people are following emphasizes the sinful nature of the world and the fallenness of humanity, then that kind of Christianity may to some extent act to de-democratize its believers. If a person believes that the most important choice he can make is a religious choice and that, in fact, all other choices should be in service of that religious choice, then there is a danger that he will lose interest in any choices that are purely secular and view many choices that are not religious in nature as religious tests. The logic is as follows. The world is sinful. Nothing I do in the world other than my religion matters. I guess I'll vote for George W. Bush. (Admittedly, the last one is a bit of logical leap)

The irony is that we have this kind of Christianity because we are a democracy and yet it may be one of the greatest threats facing our democracy. By that I mean that for many people, their social and democratic impulses are channeled into their religious lives--leaving little left over for improving the here and now. If they adhere to a particularly fundamentalist (usually individualistic) brand of Christianity, they may be trained to take the Bible literally and that training may carry over into the rest of their lives. They may have the twin handicaps of being unable to think socially and being unable to read beyond a literal interpretation.

The problem of Christianity and the state is not actually a new problem. A grandly oversimplified walk through history: Early Christians were perceived as a threat to the state. Early Christians were persecuted even though they just wanted to spread their religion and didn't have any designs on the government. Then, they were co-opted by the state. Then they broke free from the state. This resulted in a radical decline in religious observance in Europe and an uptick in religiosity in the United States. The Catch-22 for Christianity is that if it is involved in the world, it will be tainted by it. But if it fails to become involved in the world, then its adherents will suffer.

Interestingly, it is extremely impolite to say that particular sects of Christianity are dangerous. Because we are a democracy. Also, because although the right wing rails against relativism, they love it when it comes to religion. Why? Because if they were forced into theological discussions, the whole coalition would fracture. Which is my prediction for what will happen anyways. My other prediction is that one day, not too long from now, young Christians everywhere will wake up and realize that they have been duped by people who claimed to be god-fearing into killing and maiming and destroying life. And they will be angry about what this un-Christian president has done.

How weird are the Germans?

Apparently pretty weird

Link

On Alumni Magazines

My undergraduate alumni magazine arrived in the mail today. My classmates appear to all be brain surgeons who hold down public office and manage hedge funds in their spare time. I'm pretty sure even Harvard doesn't have as many genius people walking the earth.

On the other hand, in the category of small victories, I am no longer working for a man who thinks that Jesus wants him to spend his days shoe shopping while everyone else does his work. He got the axe on Friday. I'm in the process of readjusting my worldview to include ideas such as accountability and responsibility. These things sort of flew out the window (at work at least) for the last few months.

On Hedonism and the Weather

My professor who taught Milton claimed that it was impossible to understand any of the deeper authors (i.e. Milton) in a place like California. He also got really upset if any of us accidentally left out the t. You could watch veins pop on his forehead by saying "Mil'en."

Of course people in places with nice weather still have tragedies and still manage to have dark nights of the soul. That said, the natural state of being on a perfect 70 degree day in San Francisco is not sadness.

The Smartest Guys in the Room?

I've now both seen the Enron movie and read the book on which the movie is based. I suppose the one part I would take issue with is the idea that these guys are smart. And clearly, there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Yes, they were arrogant. Yes, many of them went to Harvard. But, smart?

Maybe the problem is that smart is thought of as some innate unchangeable quality. It seems to me that if your brain gets stuck in a rut, then you are no longer as smart. And if your brain is enslaved to some dumb idea, no matter how fast your brain moves, it's like a hamster on a wheel. It's not going anywhere.

Enron was only possible because the executives were smart enough to spend their money paying people off rather than building things. While that shows a certain short sighted kind of smartness, it's more evil than brilliant.

The Enron executives were not people that it would be particularly entertaining to have dinner with. They are not nice people or broad people or interesting people. They made money by cheating and it shows in their dodgy eyes. George W. has the same eyes by the way and while he is many things, no one has accused him of being smart.

Hair Products

I never fully appreciated why people's hair stays put. When I lived in Korea, I experimented with a product called hair glue which could probably hold a mohawk with 4 inch spikes no problem. But, apparently, ordinary hair cuts also require hair products just to make hair look normal. When I had my hair cut friday, the hairdresser straightened it with a flat iron and added 3 different hair products. There was even a pop quiz at the end. When I woke up the next morning, my hair looked exactly the same. It was incredibly freaky.

So, for the last couple of days, I've been sort of obsessed with the hair product thing. It's like I have a secret password and now that I know about these things I can tell who uses and who doesn't. Walking around San Francisco, I think that most people are users. Actually the weirdest thing is working out at the gym because although until yesterday I didn't realize that most people's hair doesn't move even though they are moving. Which makes me wonder what else I don't notice about the world. And it also makes me think that we really are living in some redux of the 1950s. It's just that we don't call it hair spray in more. It's hair products.

Liberals with Money

I just got done reading the letters to Salon.com about their most recent article on the problems of having a nanny. Which reminded me again of the weird thing about the Bay Area. This is where the liberals with money live. Liberals with money beget some strange things like Clinton and computer companies and more than likely affirmative action. They say they are feminist and not racist and down with the working people. But they encourage their daughters to marry well and have decorative careers. "I think art school is a swell idea Buffy." They hire nannies from third world countries. "I just think it's so great that little Blythe and Mortimar are going to learn Spanish." And of course they see no problem with earning outrageous salaries themselves while other people and families struggle.

Which gets back to the idea that all evil springs from willful innocence. George W. Bush is a bad man because he refuses to take responsibility for his actions and refuses to see the reality of his choices. Liberals can be just as guilty of that kind of innocence.

Am I a dictator?

A few years ago, my fondest dream was to run a book club where I would select all the books and run the discussion. Maybe I could pay people to be book club members, I hadn't exactly figured out how it would work. I'm picturing sitting around with a bunch of homeless people talking about Jane Austen.

The responses to the last post were like a Rorshach test. And I'm not a remotely elliptical writer.

So, as a dictator in blogosphere, I'd like to lay down some rules for comments.

(1) related to the post
(2) not personal
(3) pet theories kept on a leash

And yes, I know it's not nice to be a dictator and I'm supposed to listen to everyone and value your opinions and all that. But I would like comments that I can engage with and that will spark new blog entries.

The Roofs of San Francisco

Interestingly, at least in my neighborhood, no one hangs out on the roofs. I'm not complaining. I had a gorgeous half hour up on my roof today sipping tea and looking at the view. It wouldn't have been nearly as cool if I had to share the roof with someone. I guess San Francisco is a little too expensive to have people keeping pigeons on the roof like in On The Waterfront. Plus I imagine there's some zoning ordinance. And sun is pretty common here, so people don't go up and sunbathe like in Dublin. It's not nearly as crowded as Seoul, so there's no need to get away from people.

Maybe it's because you can't jump from roof to roof because there are too many steep ones...