Posted on 04/10/2005 7:18:57 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
I am a nonbeliever. But looking upon fellow nonbelievers, I much dislike what I see. They condemn religion as much as they condemn President Bush. I much prefer people who do believe. If war came, I'd grab a rifle for their side.
Tom Wolfe sums up the animus well in his new novel, "I am Charlotte Simmons," which is about a lot more than getting drunk and doing it.
In one scene, the school president meets with the basketball coach and a history professor who has caught the team's sole white starter in plagiarism. But that's not the best part. I was most intrigued by the world-view that the president shares with the fleshy, strident teacher.
For one thing, both academics believe in abortion. "Not so much because they thought anyone they knew might want an abortion, as because legalizing it helped put an exhausted and dysfunctional Christendom and its weird, hidebound religious restraints in their place."
Wow. "In their place"? How jarring. Why must Christianity be "put in its place"? If you don't believe the teachings of the church, can't you just smile and say no thank you?
I mean, it's not like the pope has police to enforce his dictates. Even if you count the Swiss Guards in their orange stripes, how would they get their axes through airport security? Come on, lefties, lighten up! They're not going to show up here any time soon. ("You! With the condom! Remove it or lose it!")
Professors don't get this. Nor journalists. As a friend of mine put it, they want a "ridicule hook," and they've found it in the minds of the minority of Americans who do not accept evolution.
The logic: "Some Bush voters believe the Bible. Oh, hell, why stop there? They all do! They're all religious kooks! That's why they voted for Bush! What other explanation is possible?"
In the dictionary of the New York Times newsroom, "Bush voter" means "religious freak who doesn't believe Darwin."
For evidence, look at Paul Krugman's recent column on America's professors. Krugman notes that when it comes to evolution, President Bush has declared "the jury is still out."
I'd bet the president made this statement to mollify his most religious supporters. I mean, be real. With two uninhibited daughters like Barbara and Jenna, how much of a Pharisee can this man be?
But, of course, Krugman is unfettered by reason. He decides that Bush's eminently forgettable statement proves that "today's Republican Party — increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research — doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general."
What rot. Plenty of Bush voters believe in evolution. Me, for one. In fact, I'm rooting for Krugman to develop any day now into Homo sapiens, from Homo erectus. "Here we go, evoluuution, here we go! Here we go, Paul Kruuugman, here we go!"
At the same time, I've been conducting an informal survey of Bush voters to see how many believe the Bible literally. I sent out an e-mail query to readers, friends and family.
I got 28 responses. Nine believe Genesis. Ten believe Darwin. Nine are in the middle: They accept evolution but also seem to believe a Creator provided the original spark impulse of life. Someone had to do so, they say.
As one wrote: "The Bible tells me who; Darwin tries to explain how."
My survey suggests just a third of Bush voters disbelieve evolution completely. Even if they're wrong, and I'm not saying they are, it's blatant bigotry for condescenders such as Krugman to deride an entire party based on what a segment of its members believe.
It's also hypocrisy, because left-wingers are fundamentalists of their own breed. Yes, it's true that despite mountains of evidence, some conservatives refuse to accept the theory of evolution. But so what? At the very same time, despite mountains of evidence, most liberals refuse to accept the theory of press bias. So what's the difference?
Similarly, fundamentalist liberals "know" global warming is the world's greatest threat. Fundamentalist liberals "know" Israel brutalizes the Palestinians. Fundamentalist liberals "know" Fox News is fascist, even though it leans to the right just exactly as much as the New York Times leans to the left. And fundamentalist liberals "know" Bush is stupid, even though his IQ is 126, while John Kerry's is 122.
Yes, they "know" all this stuff, and why? Because of blind faith. Nothing more. The very same kind of blind faith they attribute to their religious "inferiors."
So tell me: What's the difference between a fundamentalist of the Religious Right and a fundamentalist of the Secular Left?
Pot, have you met Kettle?
I have a theory about religion mockers. Like me, they were raised to be faithful, but they gave up their beliefs in their teens. "I mean, this is silly," they thought. "Do you really expect me to believe that Mary got pregnant without having sex? Please."
But deep down, they doubt. Their gut says: "What if the priests and rabbis are right after all? What if there really is a heaven and hell? Man, am I going to be in deep (bleep) then."
To hide their anxiety, they snark. It's unseemly. They pretend to be contemptuous of believers. But they're really contemptuous of themselves. They haven't the courage to walk their walk. In fact, you could call them self-hating atheists. Secretly they fear they're doomed to go to hell and burn.
Michael Bowers is a copy editor and page designer for The Star. Send e-mail to mbowers@starnewspapers.com.
CHICAGOLAND PING
"If you don't believe the teachings of the church, can't you just smile and say no thank you?"
Because it is not about live and let live, it is about the destruction of Christianity.
Excellent piece, thanks for posting it. And very true.
Thanks for posting this. Great article.
--ditto---
There's a "dog bites man" comment.
Libs also refuse to believe in the benefits of capitalism over socialism -- that's worse than refusing to believe in evolution.
Libs also refuse to believe the U.S. military are the good guys in the war on terrorism -- that's worse than refusing to believe in evolution.
Love that line "the Bible tells me who, Darwin tries to tell me how".
Funny! (But don't hold your breath.)
"Krugman is unfettered by reason. He decides that Bush's eminently forgettable statement proves that "today's Republican Party — increasingly dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research — doesn't respect science, or scholarship in general."
Krugman is so deeply warped that he doesn't even ask the right question. The question is not how truth "should be" revealed, but how it *is* revealed.
Some things are revealed through research -- the existence of bacteria, for instance. But what research could possibly reveal the nature of right and wrong?
Right back to the serpent's promise to Eve: eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and "you shall be as gods."
In other words, decide that you are capable of knowing the nature of right and wrong through your own efforts, and you will be the equal of God. You won't need God to tell you what's right and wrong. You won't be subordinate to God.
That, I think, is the source of liberalism's appeal.
Myself, I think there is Theological Truth in the Eden story. On the other hand, something happened that left the fossil record. Perhaps what is called "evolution" is the means that God used to get from big bang to where we are now.
I have a lot of disgust for "religious bigots". And that's what they are. Call them what they are.
That's the odd thing about evolution - ite seems for certain that natural selection occurs within species but it's difficult, if not impossible, to find a case where one specie evolved into another as Darwin suggests.
Nice theory and he might have a point there. Kill the messenger, because you don't like the message.
Fortress
It's biblical.....as Christ said, they hate believers, but they hated Him first.
"Fundamentalist liberal" - and interesting term. And, their faith in some of the "fundamentals" listed in the article is quite evident in the MSM. They are that old redundant phrase, "true believers."
You're so right annie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.