Speaking Precisely About the Religious Right
Michelle Goldberg has noticed the way the Egypt uprising is splitting the American right. On one side, the consistent side in her view, you have the neocons who have always argued that the overthrowing Arab dictators, whether by U.S. military force or the unrest of their subjects, is a good thing. On the other side you have people like Mike Huckabee, who fretted on Fox News about “how quickly the Obama administration abandoned a 30-year ally and a longstanding friend to peace.” And then there’s Glenn Beck, who knit together a cabal of every progressive villian he’s ever heard of—Code Pink, Van Jones—and blamed it for the “rioters” in Cairo.
I want to nitpick a little about the way Goldberg pegs this nutty, anti-democratic view to the religious right:
Beck, hero of the Tea Party, has become the hysterical tribune of the anti-democracy forces, linking the uprising in Egypt to a bizarre alliance of all of his bête noirs. “This is Saul Alinsky. This is STORM from Van Jones,” he warned on Monday, continuing, “The former Soviet Union, everybody, radical Islam, every—this is the story of everyone who has ever plotted to or wanted to fundamentally change or destroy the Western way of life. This isn’t about Egypt. Everything is up on the table.” It would all end, he warned, with the restoration of a “Muslim caliphate that controls the Mideast and parts of Europe,” along with an expanded China and Russian control of the entire Soviet Union “plus maybe the Netherlands.”
It sounds nuts, of course, but such fears are now rampant on the religious right, which has long seen American involvement in the Middle East in millennarian terms. In the apocalyptic view of politics that dominates the Christian right, Muslim nations are closely connected to the rise of the Antichrist, while the restoration of the Jews to the entire biblical land of Israel is key to the Second Coming. The end of days will be marked by the emergence of a one-world government and a great world war in the Middle East, culminating in a battle at Megiddo, or Armageddon, an actual place in Israel. (Beck is a Mormon, but he’s always incorporated elements of American evangelicalism into his ideology.) To side with the protesters in Egypt, at the expense of Israeli security, is to back Satan’s team in the coming biblical showdown. Thus John Hagee, the chiliastic preacher who founded Christians United for Israel, took to his website to praise Hosni Mubarak as “an American ally and closet friend to Israel,” writing, “Israel will soon be surrounded by enemies screaming for their blood. Will America support them? Our president certainly has not been supportive of Israel to this point in his administration; why would he change now?”
This sounds to me like the analysis of someone who knows their facts well but doesn’t know many evangelicals or members of the religious right. Thus, she can write a couple of paragraphs that are technically true but manage to be quite misleading about what average conservative evangelicals actually think.
First, Glenn Beck’s crazed notion that the Egyptian revolution is really a progressive plot to overthrow America is not “rampant on the religious right” just because John Hagee, a fringe pro-Israel preacher, is saying outrageous things again. When I have written presumptuously about the religious right’s political views, they have been quick to assure me that they don’t necessarily watch or agree with Glenn Beck (though other anecdotal evidence suggests some of them do). But again, the only people referenced here are Hagee and Mike Huckabee, neither of whom really speak for the rank-and-file of the religious right in any way significant enough to label their opinions “rampant.”
Goldberg is correct that a lot of evangelicals have attached apocalyptic theology to the Middle East. But unless you’re talking about Tim LaHaye or others who have made fortunes conjuring fearsome tales of the last days, most evangelicals seem to have moved on from their obsessive interest in the “end times” and realized that applying the Book of Revelation to current events is a pretty specious endeavor. Outside of the most fringe, most fundamentalist, or most isolated congregations, I promise there are not many conservative Christians wondering if the protests in Cairo are the beginning of the end.
I bring this up because I think it’s paramount that reporters who cover religious groups not make major assumptions about the way those people think. It’s incredibly easy for people socially and geographically isolated from the religious right to read a few crazy statements from high-profile evangelical figures and presume they’re expressing the general view. And it’s always a temptation for liberal journalists, myself included, to report the most extreme things they’ve heard from a conservative group without determining how significant or pervasive that view really is. I admire the work Goldberg and others have done to educate themselves about the religious right. But to really inform your readers about religious groups takes more work and less generalization.
My last comment got eaten by the blogmonster, so here is another crack at it:
As I understand it, you claim in this post that we cannot assume the religious right believes in bizarre and potentially embarassing conspiracy theories and rapture politics because we are <i>only</i> considering the statements of: 1) the religious right’s choice in the last Republican primary and a popular TV host; 2) Another, even more popular, TV host with a major following in the religious right community; 3) The religious right/political right wing magazines and blogs they read.
Why? Because pointing out that religious people sometimes have ridiculous beliefs would be elitist and unfair.
I wish that the “reasonable” centrists would treat the irreligious with such kid gloves…
— rj · Feb 2, 11:15 PM · #
I wish that the “reasonable” centrists would treat the irreligious with such kid gloves…
Do you claim to speak for the monolithic irreligious faction?
RME.
— The Reticulator · Feb 2, 11:32 PM · #
Reticulator:
No I do not.
The same thing goes for Tea Partiers (though there is a lot of overlap). We can’t draw conclusions from the Nazi-invoking sinage, the Kenyan anti-imperialist conspiracy theories, the gun hording, “survival seeds” and the like. When a commentator notes these undercurrents (overcurrents, some may argue), they are treated to a chorus of tut-tutting about how the movement is leaderless and has no platform, so any crazy statement from a leader or a rally-goer is excused.
Go back to 2003 and see if anti-war protesters got the same benefit of the doubt. You may recall a whole lot of coverage of street puppet theater and white kids in dreads. Back then, there weren’t many people in mainstream publications reminding us that most people who oppose the war have jobs, families and bathe daily.
It’s anti-anti-elitism gone awry. Living outside NY/DC/SF/LA and going to (a certain kind of) church every Sunday should not be a get-out-of-being-called-out-on-your-insane-beliefs card.
— rj · Feb 2, 11:51 PM · #
Anecdata: Last week in Sunday School, it was one of our resident Tea Party supporters and Fox News watchers who brought up the protests in Egypt, thought that the crowds were in the right and Mubarak who was getting his due for being a wicked ruler. Can’t say I really disagree with her, even though she and I probably don’t know a tenth of the facts.
Goldberg and her ilk (Neiwert, Sharlet, Weigel) are kind of amusing. Their whole schtick is to make money by covering the really fringey types and scaring the piss out of their readers. Yes, they sometimes have some influence for the worse, but it’s usually where the foreign policy adults don’t care (e.g. Uganda, the key, I’m sure, to our future in Africa.)
Hey, it takes all kinds, right? Find your niche! I’m glad our economy is big enough to support them.
— Klug · Feb 3, 12:19 AM · #
“But I’m feeling much better now!” — John Astin as Buddy Ryan, Night Court.
— iluvcapra · Feb 3, 01:33 AM · #
While I think you’re dead-on and Goldberg is loopy (and in fact I live among an awful lot of Evangelical-types, and they all seem to be cheering on the Egyptians, although some are darkly muttering about the Muslim Brotherhood while they do so), I think she’d be (and journalism in general would be) better off understanding these, and presenting them, as conflicting narratives: one way the conflict in Egypt will be presented is in this frame. So she could say something very very similar and be more factually accurate and more informative.
NB Beck’s narrative is something else altogether and I hope it turns out to be true because the movie will be wicked.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Feb 3, 02:09 AM · #
“…most evangelicals seem to have moved on from their obsessive interest in the “end times” and realized that applying the Book of Revelation to current events is a pretty specious endeavor.”
You are criticising the writer for making assumptions without evidence but you seem to be doing the same thing. How do you know most evangelicals have moved on from end times? Do they no longer believe in the book of revelations? Have they decided that the end times are somewhere in the far distant future? I really have no idea but jsut saying that something is so is not that convincing.
— cw · Feb 3, 03:14 AM · #
“…unless you’re talking about Tim LaHaye or others who have made fortunes conjuring fearsome tales of the last days, most evangelicals seem to have moved on from their obsessive interest in the “end times” and realized that applying the Book of Revelation to current events is a pretty specious endeavor.” – You
“The vast majority of American evangelicals interpret the most obscure books of the Bible (Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation) in a very narrow and particular way. They believe that when these three books are read in conjunction with one another and overlaid with a few of Jesus’ statements, a hidden “plan of the ages” emerges. According to their decryptions, a number of events will transpire just before the apocalypse. These include a return of the Jews to Palestine, a decline in morals, religious apostasy, and the consolidation of independent nations into one super-state led by a seemingly benevolent leader who is actually the Antichrist.” – Matthew Avery, author of Aimee Semple McPherson and the Resurrection of Christian America
— nitpicker · Feb 3, 03:59 AM · #
That reminds me of Goldberg’s take on the influence of the “Zeitgeist” movie on Jared Lee Loughner:
“To understand how, it helps to look at the career of Alex Jones, an Austin radio host and the country’s most prominent conspiracy theorist. Jones was the executive producer of Loose Change, and chunks of Zeitgeist are taken from his documentary Terrorstorm. Jones disagrees with elements of Zeitgeist—he’s a Christian, while Zeitgeist attacks religion—but he’s said he supports 90 percent of what’s in the movie, and he promotes it on his show. “A lot of people find my work because of Zeitgeist,” he said during an interview with the documentary’s director, Peter Joseph.”
I like this commenter’s rejoinder to Goldberg:
deegeejay
“Dearie – Zeitgeist was made by the Merola brothers – Peter Joseph and Eric. They are well known cohorts of Michael Moore and echo HIS conspiracy theories. This is clearly a mainstream leftiest problem. Michael Moore is embraced by the left – I see him sitting with the Obamas at political events.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-13/zeitgeist-the-documentary-that-may-have-shaped-jared-loughners-worldview/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-13/zeitgeist-the-documentary-that-may-have-shaped-jared-loughners-worldview/2/#comment_995732
— stuff · Feb 3, 04:33 AM · #
I dunno. John McCain sought out & publicly touted John Hagee’s endorsement in 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endors_n_89189.html
I am open to the possibility that Hagee is on the fringe, but this post doesn’t establish it.
For what it’s worth— probably not much above nothing, but whatcha gonna do— there are 1.8 million results on a Google search for “John Hagee”, 184K for “Jim Wallis,” 380K for “Tim Lahaye,” 128K for “Herb Kohl,” 3.7 million for “Mohamed Elbaradei,” and 153K for “Conor Friedersdorf.” Now, that’s not irrefutable proof of anything, for sure, but that combined with the importance the GOP candidate placed on him last election seems to me to set up the rebuttable presumption that Hagee has a semi-prominent place in the public consciousness.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Feb 3, 04:43 AM · #
Elvis, I’ve never heard of John Hagee, Jim Wallis, and Mohamed Elbaradei before this post. I’ve heard of Tim LaHaye, though — there may even be one or two of his books from the 70s gathering dust somewhere in our house. And I’ve heard of Herb Kohl. And Conor Friedersdorf sounds familiar.
So I suspect you’re wrong.
I’ve seen this happen in the past, though. Some religious right person that nobody ever heard of is involved in a big scandal, and all of a sudden the moonbats are referring to him as an important leader of the religious right. I think they need to get out more.
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 05:25 AM · #
“Elvis, I’ve never heard of John Hagee, Jim Wallis, and Mohamed Elbaradei before this post.”
So I suspect you’re ignorant.
Here’s a good ElBaradei story from a little while back: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-21/us/iraq.weapons_1_nuclear-weapons-hans-blix-iaea?_s=PM:US
— Elvis Elvisberg · Feb 3, 05:29 AM · #
“So I suspect you’re ignorant.”
And I suspect you’re a bigot. Call it even?
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 05:44 AM · #
Whatever floats your boat, dude. You could have invoked reasons why that admittedly unscientific fame measurement was wrong, or why McCain was wrong to seek and tout Hagee’s endorsement. Instead you reverted to pure, unadulterated, 100% solipsism. Hope it works out well for you. God bless.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Feb 3, 06:02 AM · #
I sympathize with this post. No doubt, plenty of religious people are embarrassed— and should be— with the agendas of Hagee and Beck. For a liberal to lump the whole bunch together seems convenient.
But when I consider those who identify themselves as “conservative Christians,” I wonder how much wiggle room for multi-faceted interpretations they allow themselves.
A liberal Christian— or a liberal fan of the Constitution for that matter— implicitly acknowledges the limitations of living/governing “by the book.” He recognizes— it’s his tendency, anyway— that so many insights of one age fall away to the insights of another age, when subsequent discoveries undermine the founding road map. For conservatives, this is much less the case.
How many of the old myths/“truths”— whether diagrammed in our Constitution or scripture— does an alleged conservative excise before she is simply doing what a liberal does, which is recognize unforeseen advances in human knowledge and necessarily interpret or cultivate the founding imperatives? Implicitly, is the self-identified conservative not obliged to pretend that those same imperatives should somehow remain untouched and pertain in perpetuity?
I realize that this proposed dichotomy is simplistic and a little unfair. Still, I wonder at what point does the ultimately polite, delicate and level-headed politician who claims a conservative Christian view but who also is highly skeptical of not only Revelation but Genesis, Exodus and any number of smaller, horrible snippets of his creator’s mythology before he’s really reading— and sensibly so— the texts not as a conservative would, but as a liberal.
— turnbuckle · Feb 3, 06:08 AM · #
I don’t know whether or not it is true that most evangelical Christians don’t believe we are about to enter the last days, and as a consequence don’t look at the current events in Egypt though this lens.
But suppose it is true. Then we must ask why has this group, which I understand is about a third of the entire US population, has so utterly failed to make this clear to the rest of the country. Why has it supposedly sat back complaining it is being mispresented, but failed to undertake any organized campaign to inform the nation of its true beliefs? With its immense size, wealth, and influence, it surely could accomplish this task, and in a year or two, if it tried. Why do they instead simply passively and endlessly whine that everyone is misunderstanding them? A well-functioning democracy requires a well-informed citizenry. Don’t evangelical Christians understand they have a responsibility as citizens to let people know what they really think? Or perhaps they do nothing because the image that people like Goldberg paint is in fact accurate.
— eduardo montez · Feb 3, 06:19 AM · #
I realize that this proposed dichotomy is simplistic and a little unfair. Still, I wonder at what point does the ultimately polite, delicate and level-headed politician who claims a conservative Christian view but who also is highly skeptical of not only Revelation but Genesis, Exodus and any number of smaller, horrible snippets of his creator’s mythology before he’s really reading— and sensibly so— the texts not as a conservative would, but as a liberal.
Why not light a candle instead of cursing the darkness? Why don’t you drop up a list of doctrinal tenets that are acceptable / unacceptable, with a scoring system that will indicate when said conservative christians are properly housebroken such that they can be allowed to share space on the public square with you? In turn, I would be glad to draw up a scoring system for the horrible mythologies, superstitions, irrationalities, and moral dictates of the irreligious left which could be used to determine which of them are housebroken enough to be allowed to go out without a leash. You go first, though.
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 07:30 AM · #
Excellent questions, eduardo montez. Similarly, I have one for you: When did you stop beating your wife?
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 08:11 AM · #
OK, gang, I think I can now recap: David Sessions makes a gentle suggestion that it’s best not to paint all of the religious right with the same brush. So eduardo responds by complaining that the religious right have utterly failed to all grab the same brush together in an organized campaign to paint themselves with one color for the world to see.
Does that pretty well sum it up? And whether or not, should we assume that eduardo’s post represents the intellectual capability of the entirety of the U.S. left?
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 09:00 AM · #
No, you should not assume any such thing. There is plenty of loonyness on all sides, and we should pay attention, lest one sort of loonyness or another actually starts to stick. But that does not mean that we should not do our homework. Two things should be kept in mind—first, there is a lot more diversity within conservative Christianity than a lot of folks want to give them credit for, and second, there are a lot of non-religious folks who just don’t “get” religion, and are, therefore, not the best sources of analysis of religious phenomena. Eduardo’s post is a case in point. He assumes a monolithic, centrally controlled movement capable of concerted action, when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no “group” that you can speak of in the singular. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about, and therefore, speaks out of what he wants to be true rather than what is.
Having said all of that, the shame is that there are some real reasons to be concerned about some of the things Goldberg, et al, are talking about. Hagee, Beck, Huckabee, et al, do have influence and they are loonies. But it does no good to couch our concerns with mythical images of a vast, monolithic army hanging on their every word.
— Pastor Enid · Feb 3, 02:45 PM · #
Let’s coin “Sessions’ Law”:
“When a right-wing leader says something that shocks, offends or is just plain untrue, that person must not actually be a right-wing leader because to assume otherwise would be to assume right wingers believe crazy things, which is impossible because …. something something the heartland.”
— rj · Feb 3, 03:05 PM · #
While I am sympathetic to the general idea presented in this article, Sessions goes a step too far. If Mike Huckabee, the religious right’s most successful candidate in the 2008 Republican primaries and among the projected frontrunners for 2012, cannot be discussed as a spokesperson for the religious right then who can?
— Orange Crush · Feb 3, 03:39 PM · #
Very well stated, Pastor Enid. Good advice all around.
Orange Crush, I could be ignorant, as was suggested earlier, but I have a hard time imagining anyone as serving as a spokesman for the religious right these days. Even if he polls well among the religious right, however you might identify them, that hardly makes Huckabee a spokesman for the religious right. I like to think I have a good ability to get inside peoples’ heads and see the world from their point of view (my brother accuses me of having the ability to stick the rhetorical knife in and give it just the right little twist where it will hurt the most, which is something that can be done only if one understands the other’s worldview) but yours is so bizarre that it leaves me at a loss. Are you perhaps an alien from some alternate universe inhabited by non-carbon-based life forms?
Take a look at this article that James Taranto put under the heading, “Christians Aren’t Perfect, Just Forgiven.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121005108.html Although that’s an extreme example, it isn’t hard to believe that such things take place. Do you think people like that are going to have a spokesman?
Well, maybe I do understand your worldview a little bit. Were you by any chance a Clinton defender in the 1990s? (I can explain later why I would associate certain worldviews not so much with leftism but with having been a Clinton defender.)
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 05:27 PM · #
I keep hearing that the religious right shouldn’t be defined by its crazies, that most of those who self-define as religious conservatives don’t believe in apocalyptic conspiracies, aren’t fiercely judgmental, think evolution is basically correct, are open to reasoned debate, aren’t Tea Party-prone. And maybe this is true of a couple columnists who aren’t in most newspapers’ normal op-ed rotation. But anybody really famous? Help me out here.
— beejeez · Feb 3, 05:41 PM · #
RJ,
I find it pretty humorous that you’re suggesting I defend right-wingers too much, or that I am ever sentimental about the “heartland.” Check the archives of this blog, just for starters. The record shows I’m willing to call them what they are, whether it’s people like Glenn Beck or Mike Huckabee, or “ideas” like supply-side economics or Islamophobic scaremongering. But I don’t think the religious right can be effectively refuted or persuaded if the people who cover them make the same sort of alarmist, pejorative, presumptuous generalizations they do. In this case, the not insignificant number of evangelicals I know are much more like the ones Klug and Kieselguhr Kid describe than they are like John Hagee. It seemed only fair to point that out.
— David Sessions · Feb 3, 05:48 PM · #
David,
I’ve been a reader of this blog for about a year and a half (please don’t mistake my criticism for lack of appreciation of the work the writers here do) and I do know that you have gone after false equivalence and some major issues.
However, we have two anonymous commenters (like me, I’m aware) with anecdotal evidence from who knows where. On the other hand, we have the rantings of people with stratospheric TV/radio ratings and book sales in the millions.
And yes, a “not insignificant” number of evangelicals disagree. A “not insignificant” number of evangelicals are more like David Kuo than Hagee. But there is precious little support of the claim that the bulk of evangelicals are misrepresented – either people are gobbling up media they disagree with or they share at least some of these beliefs.
From many commentators, I see an effort to bend over backwards to imply that Tea Partiers, Evangelicals and other anti-elitist movements don’t say nasty things because it would mean a) they are reprehensible; or b) you can say those things in polite company now.
If you pick a), you’re an out-of-touch elitist, which is now apparently worse than being a nutty islamophobe. If you pick b), you’ve redefined the boundaries of acceptable discourse to include the worst impulses of humanity.
Instead, the polite dodge is to dismiss the rantings of the most popular people who appeal to this crowd whenever they say something considered out of bounds. Evangelicals vote with their wallets, eyeballs and, umm, votes, just like everyone else. In the main, they choose Huckabee and Left Behind.
— rj · Feb 3, 06:12 PM · #
“In this case, the not insignificant number of evangelicals I know are much more like the ones Klug and Kieselguhr Kid describe than they are like John Hagee. It seemed only fair to point that out.”
That is definitely fair. I think what some of us are asking for is a bit more substantiation, if you know of any. None has been offered in this thread, just people’s general impressions. Why did McCain bother to go out and get this guy’s endorsement— was he just getting bad advice? Is there polling data, or ratings information, or a more lengthy examination somewhere, that would demonstrate that Huckabee and Hagee aren’t fair representatives of the religious right? Who are folks it would be reasonable to take as leaders, or is there a gap between what the rank-and-file think vs. pressure on would-be leaders to say extreme things?
I mean, hey, it’s the Internet, we can all just offer our vague impressions, that’s fair enough. Just wondering if there’s been a careful look at all this that you trust.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Feb 3, 06:49 PM · #
If you are one of those in this thread who, despite the admonishments of David Sessions and Pastor Enid, insist on seeing the world in terms of us vs them, or if you have a loved one or friend afflicted with that malady, you might find this article to be helpful: Us vs. Them: Good News From the Ancients!
It gives some historical perspective on the malady, and let’s you know that you can overcome it. It isn’t hardwired into your DNA.
The article is from The Chronicle of Higher Education. I learned of it via Arts & Letters Daily.
— The Reticulator · Feb 3, 06:52 PM · #
I’ve been moving in evangelical circles all my life and attended on of the most well know evangelical Chrisitan colleges in the country, Wheaton. Given the amount of time I’ve spent in church and socializing with evangelicals, I can say with confidence that discussion of end times prophecy and evolution have taken up less than 1% of my Christian life in the form of sermons, conversations or bible studies. You know what the other 99% of my life has been spent hearing? How can I love my neighbor better, forgive people and live like Christ. Seriously, that’s what we talk about. Also, as shocking as it may seem, there has been a tremendous push among evangelicals over the last few years towards a more hands on approach to helping the poor and oppressed. It all leaves most of us with little time to talk about the end times coming.
— vaildog · Feb 3, 07:41 PM · #
vaildog,
Honest question here: Who would you consider America’s religious right leaders? Do you consider yourself religious right, or just evangelical?
— rj · Feb 3, 09:24 PM · #
I’m more evangelical than religious right. I think alot of evangelicals felt that the GOP co-opted our support in a way that took our focus from serving Christ to serving the GOP. This is why there has been so much more emphasis recently in church life on things like helping the poor. These ideas were regarded by many in years past as something for “social justice” liberal types.
Evangelicals are hard to pin down when it comes to leaders. There are so many denominations under the aegis of the evangelical label. Also many evangelicals go to non-denominational churches so there is a wide variety of heirarchical structures and lack thereof. There seems to be a real reaction against the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell types that used their position for political ends. Look at what is happening to Focus on the Family, an organization that has waned in influence and downsizing it’s staff. Some of it is because of the economy, but the political nature of the organization has turned alot of us off. It makes it a little harder to identify the new leaders of the movement because the media focuses on the old controversial war horses, and the new leaders are less focused on generating controversy and being in the media spotlight.
Some of the people that seem to be universally admired amongst evangelicals are people like Chuck Colson, Billy Graham and his son Franklin. I think these people are most admired because of the work they do to help the marginalized and the poor through organizations like Samaritans Purse and Prison Fellowship.— vaildog · Feb 3, 10:38 PM · #
vaildog: What you’re saying makes me think you’re not in the “religious right” demographic Goldberg is writing about in the Daily Beast article Sessions links to.
On that note, every few months, I read an article claiming that people are leaving hard-right churches because they are sick to an all-GOP, all-anti-abortion, all the time message. Every now and then, someone like David Kuo writes a book to that effect. There’s anecdotal evidence by the barrelful, but I never see real numbers.
— rj · Feb 3, 11:54 PM · #
Who are the leaders of the secular left? Who is so representative of the group as a whole that anything s/he says can fairly be applied to all it’s members?
— Kenb · Feb 4, 04:59 AM · #
Just for the record, friggin iPad added the apostrophe in that last “its”…
— Kenb · Feb 4, 05:01 AM · #
As to why John McCain courted Hagee’s endorsement, it may well have been bad advice. But surely some of it has to do with the fact that McCain is exhibit “a” of a politician who just doesn’t “get” religion. During the 2008 campaign, his statements about his own personal beliefs rang of a person who is uncomfortable even talking about such matters, and does so only because he knows it is expected of him. He did not come off as authentic in any way, but even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he did not seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about how to communicate about his personal faith in a way that would appeal at all to the folks he was presumably trying to reach out to, specifically religious conservatives who were worrying that he wasn’t one of them, both in terms of faith (or lack thereof) and his politics. If he couldn’t get that right, why is it so hard to imagine that he would fail to understand the lack of leverage he would get from Hagee’s endorsement among religious conservatives, most of whom, in my experience, have about as much respect for Hagee as they do Pat Robertson, which is to say, not much. Most of them would prefer that Hagee and Robertson would just stop talking, even if they agree with a lot of what they have to say.
— Pastor Enid · Feb 4, 05:28 AM · #
I thank vaildog for speaking for me better that I could myself.
rj, there are real numbers re: churches and political views, but you’d probably have to pay for them. I’m not saying that flippantly, I’m just saying that there are now a lot of consulting firms who actually study this sort of stuff in terms of marketing and what not.
“people are leaving hard-right churches because they are sick to an all-GOP, all-anti-abortion, all the time message.”
Honest question: do you think that people just preach on politics every Sunday? Good gracious, how boring! I’ve been to many, many churches — big ones, small ones, urban ones, rural ones. You know what they talk about most Sundays? Jesus, that’s who. Just came back from my men’s group. You know what we talked about? How to apply the Bible to our workplaces. (And not in the “tell your coworker that he’s going to Hell if he drinks a beer” sense, either.)
Here’s the thing that I get frustrated by: the demographic that Goldberg (the fundamentalist right) loves to talk about is small, and getting smaller. They’re old and rural and white. They’re not winning any converts, either. Why do I keep getting hit over the head with them?
I know — because someone needs to sell books. Someone needs to make the cover of Harper’s. Someone needs to freak the holy crap out of Terri Gross today, and we can’t have Seymour Hersh, ‘cause he’s been on twice already this year.
— Klug · Feb 4, 05:36 AM · #
RJ,
What vaildog describes is close to the norm. You’re right that there are no numbers on this, but I after nearly 25 years of being immersed in evangelicalism in several different parts of the country, I can assure you it’s the case. I came from a church/religious environment that’s about as right-wing as you can get, and still went my entire life only hearing a handful of sermons about the “end times,” and hearing zero about abortion or homosexuality. The truth that’s hard to grasp for those not currently or formerly among the “religious right” is that they’re mostly religious; I think Michelle Goldberg might be surprised how few of those people actually know or care all that much about politics. They may vote on the right, but they’re not talking about it at church or holding political rallies. And that was all I was saying about Goldberg’s piece: ask an average evangelical what they think about Egypt, and they’re going to say, “I really hope they get to be free” and maybe, “let’s hope the extremists don’t take over.” Not “I’m worried about that losing their dictator will open the door for violence against Israel, which means it’s the end of the world.” She described that kind of sentiment as “rampant,” and it’s just not.
On another note, I think you’re absolutely right to be concerned about treating crazies with kid gloves. While the religious right often gets lumped in, generalized about, and is rarely actually reported on, the Tea Party movement was covered extensively and in detail, enough to firmly conclude and say that it’s as much about racial tension as lower taxes. Yet, the major newspapers, for example, seemed deathly afraid of mentioning the Tea Party’s racism, or calling its ideas extreme and insane. I’m with you on that.
— David Sessions · Feb 4, 12:08 PM · #
Honest question: do you think that people just preach on politics every Sunday?
Probably only on the left will this happen.
When I’m traveling alone (usually by bicycle) I sometimes go to church on Sunday, if I can arrange it so I’m not all sweated up by the time I get to one. I tend to be more ecumenical about it when I’m alone than if my wife is with me, but usually tend towards the liturgical churches. (We’re Lutheran.) More than once I’ve been treated to an angry, anti-American screed from the pulpit. “Don’t you hate it when your government lies to you [about U.S. policy in Central America, or whatever].” This kind of talk occurs only when Republicans are in power, though.
There have been times when I wished I hadn’t bothered going to church when on a tour, but I kind of get a kick out of these types. And I’ve had some good visits afterwards – where I get to meet interesting people. Lay people put up with a lot from their clergy, BTW. Not that we talk about the preachers — I was raised as a PK and have had a lifelong, unbroken policy of not having roast preacher for Sunday dinner. Years later in a blog, maybe, but not for Sunday dinner.
(I guess in more recent years I’ve seldom bothered to head to a church on Sunday, though occasionally wished I had.)
— The Reticulator · Feb 4, 01:53 PM · #
Long, meditative bicycle rides, ambivalence about his fading church attendance, blog replies that read like sappy journal entries. . . Reticulator, you fucking lefty, come out of the closet, already!
— Pat Bateman · Feb 4, 03:20 PM · #
A good example of what is going on in evangelical circles is something happened recently in Colorado. The republican controlled state house cut funding for school breakfast programs. In response a coalition of churches and groups including Focus on the Family stepped in to make up the shortfall. That’s the kind of stuff that the modern evangelical movement is doing.
— vaildog · Feb 4, 04:24 PM · #
Reticulator, you fucking lefty, come out of the closet, already!
I’ve been down that road, during the McGovern/Watergate years. I learned my lesson and won’t do it again. If lefties were still liberal like they sometimes were in the old days, it might be tempting if another Bush were to get into office. (Think Romney.) But nowadays conservatives are more liberal than lefties, and the lefties are fascists. I won’t be going there.
— The Reticulator · Feb 4, 05:04 PM · #
Thanks for that nimble, witty reply!
— Pat Bateman · Feb 4, 05:28 PM · #
Here’s a question for you. Choice:
(1) You can save from death one cute puppy.
(2) You can save from death 10 million Christian conservatives.
It’s an easy choice, isn’t it?
— secular person · Feb 4, 09:43 PM · #
Ideas that the majority of members of a group rarely think about can still dominate that group. In many cases, ideas that a relatively small number of passionate advocates advance can, in the absence of a countervailing idea, dictate the actions and narratives of a group. It does not suffice to ask whether the majority of religious conservatives agree with Mr. Hagee, still less whether they think about these ideas a lot. If Mr. Hagee’s followers push their position and the members of the Christian right who do not fully agree with it do not put up a strong counter-argument, then the religious right as a whole will end up adopting or accepting policies based on that position. And the end-times narrative has an enormously strong basis for its appeal to those who accept it: if the end times and the rapture come in your lifetime, you don’t have to die. I would expect believers in the end-times narrative to defend their position very strongly, even to the point of leaving any coalition or group that actively opposes it, and I see nobody on the Christian Right with a strong argument against them. Therefore, as a matter of practical politics, I would expect the influence of the Christian Right to back measures in regard to Egypt, or any other Middle East development, in accordance with the most popular end-time beliefs.
— John Spragge · Feb 4, 09:58 PM · #
I’m coming to this thread late, so I missed all the fun already, but I can’t resist making the following quick observations:
1) I love “The Reticulator”, but I wish he would cross the Tiber and get to Mass every Sunday;
2) Did Sessions take writing lessons from Conor on “how to sound like a reasonable conservative while sneaking crazy left-wing ideas into my posts”? Just wondering.
3) I went to that Hagee link and while he is…a bit too worried…he doesn’t seem crazy to me. Plenty of reasonable people can worry that Egypt will end up run by an Islamic government that is hostile to Israel and U.S. interests.
So I’ll bite and be the only conservative Christian (sorry I don’t fit the demographic — I’m Catholic) on this post that defends John Hagee.
Glen Beck…can’t do it.
— Jeff Singer · Feb 5, 04:36 AM · #
Dang. Now I’m going to have to find out who this John Hagee person really is.
Pat Bateman, I’ve been thinking about that phrase, “long, meditative bicycle rides.” I had never thought in those terms before, and never heard that phrase used on the bicycle touring discussion groups where I hang out. But it sometimes would fit. I like.
And to both Pat and Jeff Singer, I hate, HATE being defensive — I’d much rather go on the attack — but I didn’t mean to say that I no longer attend Sunday worship services much. Our attendance has possibly fallen off a little when we’re at home, but we’re still pretty regular — Sunday, Lent, Advent, the works. But attendance when on the road has dropped off a lot, and we’re traveling more these days. I’ve thought about this, wondering what will happen when I retire in the not-too-distant future and we’re on the road even more (I hope). I don’t know that we’ll go anywhere near the Tiber, literally or figuratively, though a few years ago a Catholic radio preacher convinced me that on one point the Catholics are right and the Lutherans are wrong.
OK, I’ve now taken a quick look at Hagee’s web site. It reminds me of what some conservative Lutheran pastors were saying about Jerry Falwell when he appeared on the national scene: They agreed more with his politics than his theology.
BTW, since we were talking about not painting all of the religious right with the same brush, I remember some lefty people who couldn’t say Pat Robertson without saying Jerry Falwell in the same breath. But I always distinguished between the two. Pat Robertson was an oily TV preacher. I had no respect for him and didn’t care for anything about him. But I had some respect for Jerry Falwell, even though there was plenty to disagree with, too. Falwell was a pastor, and took his pastoral responsibilities seriously. He had a congregation. Having a responsibility like that tends to make a person more responsible. No guarantee, of course, but there is a tendency. I think he realized later in his life that his politicking had maybe gone too far and had interfered with his pastoral responsibilities.
(A Jerry Falwell anecdote: Some friends of ours moved to Lynchburg and were invited by their new neighbors to Jerry Falwell’s church. So they went along one time. Our friends reported that Falwell had a whole different persona when the TV cameras were turned off. He’d put on a real southern accent and talk southern good ‘ol boy style (my words for it). He could switch back and forth with ease.)
— The Reticulator · Feb 5, 06:36 AM · #
One of my Sunday school teachers was Bob Jones’ daughter. In my church, Falwell was considered a moderate. I have since moved on and attend an Episcopalian church, but when I visit with family, I attend one of their churches. I find that they do mention the scourge of homosexuality and abortion occasionally. They only do politics during election season. The rest of the time they just preach. I will note that I get a nearly endless stream of religious right wing paranoid email from my family.
At my Episcopalian church, politics is not discussed from the pulpit, unless it specifically affects our soup kitchen, unless you want to include weekly prayers for those serving our country. I suspect that Hagee is more mainstream than some think. His books are passed around in the office by my employees, all physicians and nurses. I dont see either the left or right as monolithic. I dislike using the worst possible no name to make one’s case. However, just looking at ratings, it does look like Beck and Huckabee (a serious presidential candidate) have a significant following. However, I am encouraged by the younger generation. It seems to be more inclined to try to practice Christianity and less inclined towards political ideology.Steve
— steve · Feb 5, 05:23 PM · #
“Ideas that the majority of members of a group rarely think about can still dominate that group… If Mr. Hagee’s followers push their position and the members of the Christian right who do not fully agree with it do not put up a strong counter-argument, then the religious right as a whole will end up adopting or accepting policies based on that position.”
I agree with that, except I would take it just a step further.
Even if the bulk of self-described “conservative Christians”— even including Hagee’s followers— don’t agree with/care about his views on Israel, if people like McCain who seek him out think that he speaks for them, then the Republican Party’s policies on Israel can wind up much closer to Hagee’s views than the rank-and-file would want. And Huckabee might think his life is easier by not running afoul of noisy folks like Hagee.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Feb 5, 10:30 PM · #
So what you’re saying, Elvis, is that we should never have elected a President who spent so much time under the guidance of a crazy Reverend like Jeremiah Wright? That the entire Democrat party and administrative policy is now tainted with his hatemongering?
— The Reticulator · Feb 6, 12:54 AM · #
Yep. We’ve implemented the entirety of the Jeremiah Wright agenda. The Bush approach to tribunals, drone attaccks on American citizens abroad, escalated occupation of Afghanistan, increased deportation of illegal immigrants, Bob Dole’s health insurance reform plan, conceding the right’s rhetoric on spending cuts, etc.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Feb 6, 02:30 AM · #
Elvis,
That may be the lamest attempt I have ever read by anyone ever to defend themselves on the internet.
Also, did I mention I love “The Reticulator”? Once the knife goes in, it ain’t coming back out.
— Jeff Singer · Feb 6, 02:57 AM · #
Before this thread goes away, there’s a question I’ve been wanting to ask. Back in summer 2008 I saw a billboard near Bristol, Indiana, that said: “Obama had one. McCain had two. Let me be YOUR crazy reverend.” Link to a photo here
So who were McCain’s crazy reverends? Was this Hagee person one of them? If so, who was the other?
— The Reticulator · Feb 6, 06:48 PM · #
The point made by Elvis makes sense, but at something of a tangent to mine. Conservative politicians might indeed adopt the so-called “Christian Zionist” position in the belief that such “Christian Zionists” dominate the religious right to a greater extent than they do. I would argue that while many conservative Christians disagree with the theology of Pastor Hagee, most do not translate that disagreement into a political position, while the “Christian Zionist” movement has a political agenda they will promote with great energy. Thus, even for a politician who knows that the majority of Christian conservatives do not identify as “Christian Zionists”, support for the political agenda advanced by Pastor Hagee makes practical sense.
Reticulator’s rejoinder to Elvis makes no sense in terms of what he wrote or in terms of what I wrote. Both my comments and those of Elvis refer to the influence of an organized group of believers, not the personal influence, for good or ill, that a pastor has on an individual congregant. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me or anyone else, but it helps to come up with a refutation that addresses the point.
On a side not, if anyone objects to my use of quotes around “Christian Zionism”, I use them because the term as I have used it here, and as many people who agree with the millenarian beliefs around Israel use it, denotes a set of beliefs very different from, and in many ways profoundly at offs with, Jewish Zionism, either religious or secular.
— John Spragge · Feb 6, 07:20 PM · #
Both my comments and those of Elvis refer to the influence of an organized group of believers, not the personal influence, for good or ill, that a pastor has on an individual congregant.
Except that Elvis was referring to the influence on an individual congregant. Which means my comment was quite apt, after all.
Your use of the term “Christian Zionism” is helpful, btw.
I would argue that while many conservative Christians disagree with the theology of Pastor Hagee, most do not translate that disagreement into a political position, while the “Christian Zionist” movement has a political agenda they will promote with great energy.
That is a useful and fair description, too. The “they” might even include me, minus the “great energy.” For better or worse, I reserve most of my political energy for other things. Or maybe the Christian Zionists happen to be promoting the same agenda that I promote with such great lethargy.
— The Reticulator · Feb 7, 12:10 AM · #
Hardly anyone has independently developed views on foreign policy, and even fewer know a damn thing about Egypt. So what matters is what the elites are saying. And Huckabee, Hagee and Beck are obviously influential. Sessions’ criticism of Goldberg makes no sense, especially since she emphasized that the right is divided on how to approach an Egyptian revolution. Sessions is the one who is patronizingly refusing to take the religious right seriously.
— Pithlord · Feb 7, 12:32 AM · #
Um… last I checked, John McCain never belonged to Mr. Hagee’s congregation. He sought out Mr. Hagee’s endorsement, seeing him as an influential figure within a demographic he presumably considered disposed to vote Republican. That makes Mr. Hagee’s influence that of an opinion leader, not of a personal pastor.
— John Spragge · Feb 7, 01:57 AM · #
This is much appreciated, David. There are a number of problems in what Goldberg wrote.
First, conservatives have long been split between those who believe our conservatism requires us to support democratic movements rigorously and proactively (those scary neoconservatives) and those who believe our conservatism requires us to prescind from involvement in overseas affairs when there is not a dire interest at stake for us (sometimes called paleo-conservatives). This division is nothing new.
Second, as you say, Beck does not speak for the religious right, and the apocalyptic paranoia he propounds is not rampant on the religious right, either. There is a minority who are very loud and receive a great deal of press, because they play into the press’s well-loved religious-right-is-nutty meme. But the vast majority of the religious right does not listen to Beck, and some who do listen to Beck (not all of whom are religious) do not care for his caliphate-mania.
Third, this is simply a complicated phenomenon that brings to mind a lot of conflicting concerns. (a) It must mean something to be an ally of the United States. If we abandon Mubarak at the drop of a hat, what are other allies going to think of the value of our allegiance? This is an entirely reasonable concern. (b) The United States should be for democracy and freedom. © Are some people not ready for democracy? The Palestinians, for instance, elected Hamas. Would Egyptians elect the Muslim Brotherhood? Would they elect a government that turns against the United States and Israel? This too is a reasonable concern, it seems to me. And expressing this concern does not make you anti-democratic; it just means that you recognize we live in a complicated world. (d) In pushing Mubarak out the door, then, are we creating a power vacuum that would be exploited by figures far worse than Mubarak? Can we be sure that this actually will produce a democracy?
Personally, I’d like to see Mubarak leave power, but I’d like to see an orderly transition that prevents bad actors from exploiting chaos, I’d like to put in place safeguards to ensure that this does indeed lead toward a democracy, and I’d like a reasonable degree of confidence that the government that emerges will look kindly on the United States and will not want to attack Israel and ignite a major war in the Middle East. Can we get all those things? Perhaps not. But I think most thoughtful conservatives, religious or otherwise, and most liberals and the Obama administration, want more or less the same thing. That are just concerns that this will be mismanaged and will end up badly, and that’s not an unreasonable concern either.
— Timothy Dalrymple · Feb 10, 07:59 PM · #