Christianity Used to be an Intellectual Challenge

I have recently been looking through my scribbled notes from Bible studies back in the 1970s. Pages and pages of them, now barely decipherable. They were based on a close reading and analysis of many scriptural passages (avoiding, of course, the strange ones such as the fifth chapter of Numbers). We thought about, and discussed, everything, and analyzed our own lives in great detail. We had Friday night Bible studies and weekend conferences and retreats. These Bible studies were sponsored by Turnpike Road Church of Christ near Santa Barbara, a church that still exists. The youth ministers put a lot of thinking into the study sessions. Even though I now consider many of their assertions to have been incorrect, I remain amazed at the careful thought they put into it.

Those days are gone at most evangelical churches in America. Today, for many if not most white evangelical Christians, Christianity is very simple: Just worship Donald Trump. Even after Trump lost the election, evangelical support is still strong for Him. If you are a Republican—and very few centrist Republicans questions a single word from Trump—then everything is fine. You don’t have to worry about your materialism or your sexual morals, since God has given Trump and presumably His worshipers a blanket forgiveness for everything. You do not need to develop anything remotely resembling what we used to call a Christian character or an attitude of holiness. No longer do you have to wonder what sort of response you should have to immigrants; just kick them all out. No longer do you have to think about how a Christian should be a steward of God’s creation; the environment is nothing more than a source of raw materials for rich people to exploit. No longer do you have to consider that someone who disagrees with you might be partly correct; just assume that they are totally evil and treat them that way.

Perhaps the difference between then and now is best illustrated by what evangelical Christians are supposed to pay attention to. Back then, we read and discussed C. S. Lewis. Now, many evangelical Christians subsist on a fare of pure Fox News.

 

What the "Religious Freedom" People Really Want, Part Two.

 

Many extreme conservatives believe that the government is denying them the right to practice their fundamental religious beliefs. And sometimes this is true. Let me explain.

If your fundamental belief is that other people should be forced to live the way you want them to, then the only way you can practice your religion is by controlling other people against their will.

The 9-11 terrorists believed a certain version of Islam that told them that they had the right to, in Allah’s name, kill thousands of people. An uncountable number of terrorists around the world believe this. Our government, like others throughout the world, have denied terrorists their religious freedom whenever possible. Damn right, the government is restricting your religious freedom if you are a terrorist.

If your fundamental belief is that you must carry loaded automatic weapons in public and be prepared to use them at a moment’s notice, then the only way you can practice your religion is by carrying those weapons in public.

Do you want to live in a society in which other (probably white male) people can force you to live the way they want you to, or even kill you? But that’s what you will have if people whose religion is based on force and murder are allowed to practice their religion.

 

Few if any conservatives would claim that their religion is like that. But that is not the point. The point is that religious freedom is not unlimited. First amendment aside, it is already illegal to sacrifice children, for example. The government already has the right to restrict your religious practices if they threaten the public.

 

If your religion is “I have the right to force other people to do what I want, and maybe even to kill them,” then, damn right, the government is restricting your religious freedom.

What the "Religious Freedom" People Really Want, Part One

 

What the “Religious Freedom” People Really Want, Part One

Many extreme conservatives consider themselves to be evangelical Christians. Of course, what they are doing is making Jesus look like the source of all hatred. This is the opposite of evangelism, in which Christians should want to make people like Jesus, not hate Him.

But there are two things that the “religious freedom” people actually want. The first, which I here address, is that no business be required to offer its services to people whom the business CEOs do not like. If a store owner dislikes (or hates) gays and lesbians, they think they should not be forced to serve them. Let me explain why this is a supremely evil idea.

If these Christian businesses operated in a total vacuum from the rest of the world—that is, if all of their money came from other Christians and only from them—then they might claim the right to not serve people whom they, without God’s approval, condemn. I used to work at a so-called Christian college that rejected federal guidelines about discrimination. But they refused to accept any federal money, even scholarship money for the students. Apparently, this was legal.

But there are no businesses that operate in such a vacuum. Every business, even those like Hobby Lobby who claim this right, receive some federal money, even if indirectly. That is, their employees get federal money.

That is, these pseudo-Christian businesses accept, at least for their employees, taxpayer money, but they refuse to serve certain taxpayers. This means that gays and lesbians pay taxes but have federal benefits denied to them. These businesses take taxpayer money then refuse to pass along government benefits to their employees.

One would think that conservatives would be really upset about Americans being taxed while being denied the services for which their tax money pays. But, so long as it is people whom the conservatives hate, then it does not matter if they are required to pay taxes for benefits that they do not receive.

Their attitude toward people they don’t like is, tax them and then tell them they are going to Hell.

Consistency of Character

 

Below is a political cartoon from 1990. That is, thirty years ago. During the past thirty years, Donald Trump’s character has been unchanging. He was mean, dishonest, egotistical, and thought women should swoon over him even back then. Today, should anyone be surprised that he is still like that?

The Evolution of a New American Religion

 

In America today, a new religion has evolved: the worship of Donald Trump. Many or most of his supporters (or should I say His?) worship Him. They do not merely support Him. They have made Him into the representative of God upon the face of the Earth. Not all Trump supporters do this, but several million of them do. I will explain and give five ways you can tell that, to many Trumpers (His word) it is a new religion.

Religion is an instinct. Everyone has it, though some people (who consider themselves atheists) have psychologically diverted it into a different form. And religion is a universal instinct within the human species: all humans, and only humans, have it. Religion must provide a strong evolutionary advantage, or else it would not pervade the human species.

Religion evolved because it promoted evolutionary fitness of individuals. First, individuals who are members of a religious tribe benefit from the success of that tribe; a tribe whose religion causes them to fiercely fight other tribes, slaughtering them not merely as enemies but as heretics, benefit from the resources they get from the other tribes. Second, leaders of the religious tribe benefit within the tribe because they get more resource and reproductive opportunities. The rest of the tribe reveres them for their spiritual leadership. Today, many charismatic religious leaders get lots of money and sex from their brainwashed followers; this must have happened thousands of years ago also. The genes of the charismatic leader, including the genes for having intense religious experiences, are thus over-represented in the next generation.

Consider this photo, taken in rural Oklahoma in September 2020, in the run-up to a presidential election many of us are nervous about, since Donald Trump has not been very clear about whether he would give up power even if He loses. In this photo, a rich Trumper (a large house is a mile away surrounded by lawn which must take a couple of thousand dollars to mow, which is done frequently) has two flags: an American flag, and a Trump flag, both at the same height. In flag display protocol, the American flag should be highest, the state flag next, and other flags below them. This supporter, first, considers Trump to be equal to the United States in importance; and, second, that the United States has no value apart from Trump.

Here are the five characteristics that make Trumpism a religion:

 

1. They believe that everything Trump says is truth. Truth consists of His sayings, just as the Chinese recently considered the words of Mao in the Little Red Book to be Truth. Trump creates Truth as He speaks. Something that may not have been true before He said it becomes true when He says it. Trump cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound but, to His followers, He is omnipotent in this particular way.
2. Trump is not only omnipotent, but they think that He is, like Jesus, without sin. Every lie He tells, every promise He breaks, every sexual sin, all are holy in the sight of God. The brainwashed followers of many Christian evangelical leaders feel the same way about their evangelists; Trumpers do the same, which makes it a religion.
3. Trump’s followers know and care nothing about His policies. It is His image, not His substance, that they worship. Many of these followers (not the one in this mansion, but most of the run-down houses I see that fly Trump flags) are poor, and they cannot explain how His policies have made them any richer in the last four years. This is because Trump has no policies. What passes for policies are whatever Trump happens to get mad about on any given day. In this way, Trumpers are like many evangelical Christians, who follow Jesus but never read the Bible and thus have no idea what Jesus said. They are like the followers of the three generations of North Korean dictators.
4. There is no good-natured humor allowed. Many of us progressives allow ourselves to be ridiculed in a friendly fashion, and even do it ourselves. On my YouTube channel (www.youtube.com/StanEvolve) I often make fun of myself. But Trump hates anyone who makes fun of Him. He can’t stop the flood of anti-Trump cartoons, but if He ever gets the chance to silence them, He certainly will. In this sense, Trumpers are like the terrorists who attacked the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in France who dared to make fun of Mohammed.
5. There is no middle ground. You either adore Trump or else you are a heretic. Just look what has happened to moderate Republicans. Just as in the late Middle Ages Catholics hated Protestants more than they hated Muslims, so Trumpers hate free-thinking Republicans more than they hate Democrats. Well, except Hillary, whom Trumpers consider to be the devil incarnate. In my lifetime I have watched the destruction of a middle ground, progressive Republicans and conservative Democrats, a process that Trump has deliberately accelerated.

There are my five reasons. One of my Facebook contacts just wrote, “God is all in all. He will guide Trump.” This is a statement of faith—not in God, but in Trump. Why not just admit that Trump is merely a human being, whether you support Him or oppose Him? Because He has made Himself into a Messiah. Fortunately, not all Trump supporters worship Him—I know some who do not—but enough of them do that America could be in for some severe problems.

Could this turn violent? Might Trumpers get out their guns? I hope not. But some Trumpers are piling up weapons—one of them told me so. And it has happened before, when religion has inspired mass slaughter. During the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of August 24, 1572, Catholics killed thousands of protestant Huguenots in Paris. Then as now, Paris was one of the most civilized cities in the world. This isn’t ancient Babylonians we are talking about here, much less savages. Germany was very civilized when the Nazis arose to power.

If the Trumpers do attempt to grab power (if they lose the election) through violence, they will fail. The armed forces, sworn to defend the Constitution, will not support them. But they can cause a lot of domestic terrorism on the way down.

I also posted this essay in my science blog.

Ragtime: A Novel for Today

E. L. Doctorow’s novel Ragtime, first published in 1975, remains one of the major novels of the twentieth century. It is one of the few novels I have read in a single twenty-four-hour period. If you haven’t read it, the time is now.

The main plot (just one of many interwoven plots) was what happened with a black musician, Coalhouse Walker. He tried to be a responsible citizen, but when an Irish fire brigade in New York trapped him and destroyed his car, and when no justice was forthcoming to make restitution for the car, Walker took the law into his own hands. The event that pushed Coalhouse over the edge was when his fiancée tried to confront the Vice President with the injustice done to Walker, and secret service agents beat her to death. The climax event was when Coalhouse committed a major act of domestic terrorism.

Clearly, every reader understands that Walker’s act of terrorism was completely out of proportion to the wrongs that he suffered.  But it is equally clear that he would not have done any of his crimes had he not been goaded into it by the systematic and severe racism that pervaded New York City at that time. The message is clear: people of all races need to be treated with dignity. If they are not, someone might lash out with major acts of destruction. The point is not to assign blame, but to prevent these deadly situations from occurring in the first place.

The parallel situation today is very clear. Minorities in America, including but not limited to blacks, are being treated very badly. Their response, such as destructive riots, has been much greater than the narrowly-defined wrongs done to them. The acts of violence that minorities are committing in America today are often property crimes, but are understandable. When you treat minorities with systematic abuse, their over-reaction is easily predictable. It is as if Doctorow’s novel is being played out today before our eyes; just substitute George Floyd in place of Coalhouse Walker’s fiancée.

What amazes me is the restraint that minorities have shown in response to the abuses against them. If a black terrorist were today to do what the fictional Coalhouse Walker did, it would not be surprising at all; modern black activists have been nicer than one could reasonably expect any group of humans to be under the circumstances.

If minorities were to rise up against the white oppressors, it would be wrong, but us white people (or, in my case, mostly-white) are just asking for it. Minorities must be very nice people to not react as Coalhouse Walker did in the novel.

Doctorow masterfully wove together story lines of many characters, as if he were Tolstoy only much more interesting. I almost felt as if I was reading a history book by James Burke, in which all possible connections were made. Pierpont Morgan, Henry Ford, Emma Goldman, Harry Houdini, Sigmund Freud, and Booker T. Washington are just a few of the characters. The characters were, when named, usually real; the fictional characters were identified with names such as Father or Tateh or Mother’s Younger Brother. The one exception is the main character, a black musician named Coalhouse Walker, who as far as I can tell is invented. Many of the major events were real, for example, when Evelyn Nesbit’s husband shot her former lover on the rooftop of Madison Square Garden in 1906. Of course, Doctorow invented the ways in which the characters came in contact, such as Evelyn Nesbit taking care of the daughter of a poor Jewish artist who later became a major filmmaker. Doctorow probes the what-if of the inner lives of the characters: for example, what if Evelyn Nesbit was really a philanthropist? The situations were real; for example, in the first decade of the twentieth century, there really was a strong socialist movement in America.

The climax scene, a standoff between Coalhouse Walker and Booker T. Washington, was fictitious but perfect. Two very different approaches to solving the problems of race relations stood in conflict with one another: Coalhouse Walker advocating violence, and Booker T. Washington insisting that black people earn the respect of whites. Since Washington’s time, black people have shown themselves the equals of everyone else. However, white racists still refuse to respect them. Washington would have been extremely disappointed to see the continued racism in our society today.

Doctorow used several techniques that most modern writers consider to be forbidden. For example, he would insert intrusive sentences about how the events look to us today, long after the events, introducing a jarring break from the time line of the story. But this didn’t matter to me as I read. Some of the characters, such as Houdini, played roles that were entirely unnecessary for the plot of the novel, and a modern editor would have insisted that Houdini’s story line be removed from the novel. A more serious problem for a modern novelist is that the main character did not enter the novel until chapter 21 on page 178. I would just say that beginning novelists such as myself should not try things that Doctorow got away with. Ragtime is a masterpiece despite things of which, 45 years later, editors and agents disapprove. I enjoyed them, however.

If you haven’t read Ragtime, now is the time to do it!

Guns: We Worship Them in Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, we worship guns. It is part of our worship of Donald Trump and of whatever part of the Republican Party that, at the moment, obeys his absolute command. In Oklahoma, we believe that we must all be armed to the teeth to protect ourselves from anyone who might threaten the absolute power of Donald Trump, whether it is Democrats or Republicans who are too moderate for Trump to tolerate.

 As of May 2020, the entire state of Oklahoma became an anti-red-flag-law state, the first and possibly only state to do so statewide. A red-flag law is one that allows judges to block certain dangerous individuals from possessing firearms. What this means is that the sheriff’s departments have decided to not enforce anything that might restrict the absolute right of any person (translate: white male) to do whatever he wants with his guns. This includes any laws that limit the access of any person to guns, even if a judge has determined that this person is a danger to his neighbors and should be temporarily deprived of his guns. The designation of “second amendment sanctuary” could not mean anything else, since the second amendment itself is the law of the land. In May, the governor signed a bill that permitted all counties to disregard red-flag laws and any judges’ orders related to them.

Sheriffs of these rural counties claim that this move is necessary for public safety. They claim that all citizens should have a right to defend their homes in counties with such a low population density that law enforcement officials cannot arrive in a timely fashion. But citizens already have this right, except for those that have shown themselves to be a public danger. This policy can only benefit the criminals, not the homeowners. These sheriffs have not cited any instances in which the sheriffs’ failure to enforce court orders has led to anyone being victimized.

The sole purpose of these declarations must be to allow militias to form in order to be ready, at a moment’s notice, to begin shooting any government official, or any neighbor, who refuses to follow the orders of Donald Trump.

The leaders of these rural counties worship the second amendment. It takes precedence over every other part of the constitution, every other law, and every part of the Bible. The Jesus whom they claim to worship never says that His followers have absolute rights to weapons, nor the obligation to make themselves victims to their neighbors who collect storehouses of weapons.

Suppose that there is a dangerous person in the county, and a judge orders this person to not have weapons. But the sheriff will not enforce this order. A mentally unstable man with a gun could shoot me at a convenience store, or even on the highway.