Religious right critiques hope, destroys world

Yale Daily News ^ | 2/29/08 | Peter Johnston

[XR7]

The recent criticism of hate speech on campus is entirely appropriate. But we ought to make one exception to this rule: the “religious right,” a retrograde coterie of unattractive common folk who seek to impose their irrational beliefs on the rest of us. These fundamentalists lie awake at night, plotting the imposition of the truths they have received by revelation from God. God has decreed the necessity of prohibiting abortion and gay marriage, lest the land be scourged by His wrath, so the unquestioning hordes of Jesus-freaks flood the polls on election day.

The few who are at Yale (here by affirmative action, no doubt) know that we won’t tolerate their religious arguments, so they present a secular facade. But it is so unconvincing, they might as well go home. Ask them why they are anti-abortion, and they claim the authority of science for the proposition that life in our species begins at conception. Apparently they can’t make the distinction between potential life before birth and life afterward. It is laughable to think we don’t know our own science; they are the ones rejecting the Origin of Species, after all. Ask them of their homophobia, and they suggest that the reduction of marriage to a contract between individuals may displace the family as the basic unit of society. It’s as if they think a social hierarchy ought to trump our inalienable right to liberty.

But if that is bad, it is nothing compared to their certainty and self-righteousness outside of politics. They affect to be concerned with our souls, and lament our lack of faith. Little do they know that our Hope isn’t pie in the sky, by and by, but a present reality, here on Earth. We need not lament original sin, for the election of our candidate will cure the racism in our national soul. We need not delude ourselves with divine promises, for we have our candidate’s word. We need not worry that our bitter animosity go unforgiven, for He has taken upon Himself the mantle of rhetorical conciliation. And we need not look to a second coming, for we can empower Him in this dispensation to make a better world. Look, the religious right can worship however it likes, but they ought to stop expecting us to take their God seriously. Barack Obama is good enough for us.

The fundamentalists seem to be supporting John McCain. Funny, since he isn’t one of them. He served his country in the military, and his stance against torture is grounded in his suffering as a prisoner of war. I suppose he has worked on campaign finance and immigration reform, demonstrated independence from corporate interests and never taken money for a pork barrel project. Oh, and he was an early critic of the Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq. But he was the most vocal proponent in Congress of the surge, which is not working because our troops are still in Iraq. Never mind the dramatic reduction in violence or increasing stability of the Iraqi government — McCain is simply a clone of George W. Bush, which explains their chummy relationship over the years.

The bottom line is that we have been waiting for change, and McCain won’t herald its coming. But from our Hope, we have received good news: We are the change we have been waiting for. What a profound saying! Why elect a national hero with a record of bipartisan accomplishment, fiscal restraint and military judgment, when his opponent supplies sublime intimations of salvation? The fundamentalists reject the notion that God is dead, but can it be possible they haven’t heard that McCain may soon be too? Our Hope is: young, vigorous and in tune with the times, the vision of change flashing in His eyes, reflections of thousands long-suffering, disappointment no longer muttering, but yes we can, yes we can, yes we can!

It is practically tautological to say that the critic of our Hope thereby becomes a killjoy. It is our duty, while fundamentalists are in residence at Yale, to protect them from that horrid fate. What will we do when they do not listen to reason, when they willfully reject Hope? We must draw them out of their grim study, invite them to our glad Obama fete, and help them to fit in, however hard, to make of them disciples of our Hope, that they too may become the change we seek. For if we can change Yale, we can change New Haven; if we can change New Haven, we can change America; if we can change America, we can change the world. And in that day of global transformation, religious fanaticism fading away, the trumpets shall sound and we shall experience in ourselves the glorious consummation of our longing by changing into change and thus remaining forever more.

[XR7]

Huh?

[MNJohnnie]

OH wow, now THAT was funny!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Doctor, heal thyself.

[NinoFan]

“a retrograde coterie of unattractive common folk”

I stopped reading there. What an ass.

[Cicero]

I was going to say, where’s Bill Buckley when we need him. But I THINK this is satire. I’m not absolutely sure, because I’ve heard some academics talk this way.

[weegee]

“a retrograde coterie of unattractive common folk who seek to impose their irrational beliefs on the rest of us.”

Sounds like those pushing the Global Warming scare, polysexual relationships on students, abortion of healthy children, socialist agitators in the streets...

[NinoFan]

Nevermind. I decided to read it all. Clever satire.

[A_Former_Democrat]

as opposed to, say, the lookers in Code Pink?

[Greg F]

Wow. Well done. I was 1/2 way through the article before I was sure that he was mocking the Obamites.

[USS Alaska]

a retrograde coterie of unattractive common folk who seek to impose their irrational beliefs on the rest of us

This is what the left considers rational and logical argument.

I'm proud to be a member of the "unattractive common folk".

What an ass.

[saganite]

Is this what passes for critical thought at one of our premier Universities? LOL!

[weegee]

“a retrograde coterie of unattractive common folk”

http://www.thephillipsfoundation.org/index.php?q=node/160

PETER JOHNSTON, Atlanta, Ga., attends Yale University and is majoring in history and the humanities. He is a featured columnist for the Yale Daily News and a talk show host on campus radio. An Eagle Scout, he is an officer of the conservative Tory Party of the Yale Political Union, a parliamentary debate and discussion forum. He is active in programs of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Liberty Fund, and the Philadelphia Society. He has been an intern for the president of King's College (N.Y.) and for a law firm in Sofia, Bulgaria.

[weegee]

Bio says he’s a member of the conservative Tory party. Perhaps it is satire.

[weegee]

Then again I was told that Charles Bishop/Bishra was a member of the Young Conservatives. His final piece of writing was a suicide note in which he honored Bin Laden and flew a plane into a bank in Tampa.

[beethovenfan]

The author has clearly been educated beyond his intelligence.

[NeoCaveman]

Funny stuff.

[marinamuffy]

That was great. I was sure it was a lefty at the beginning. When the adulation of Obama began I was a bit incredulous. Then I finally realized he was mocking them and doing a fantastic job of it.

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

marinamuffy

[bereanway]

Satire is what I was thinking. If not this Mr. Johnston has some serious issues to deal with, although I’m now so confused I have no idea where to begin.

[Resolute Conservative]

He appears he has enough life experience to light a fart. I am always amused at college kids who think they have it figured out. Go by some acne cream dweeb.

[Owl558]

“the trumpets shall sound and we shall experience in ourselves the glorious consummation of our longing by changing into change and thus remaining forever more”

I am changing into change and will remain thus forever more!

Maybe there is just a tiny bit of satire going on here.

[Da Coyote]

“Irrational belief...” This is coming from the school that gave us Gore and the Clintons? Gat a life Yalies. If you’re not in the physics/math/engineering/life sciences study majors, you are fed pap, and no one of us in the real world gives a flying (*&* about you or your marshmallow education. Of course, with such cruddy credentials, you can always get a job in govt, star in a shooddy “science” film, or get blow jobs in the White House.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Okay you inspired me to read the rest of it too. LOL!

[BwanaNdege]

For if we can change Yale, we can change New Haven; if we can change New Haven, we can change America; if we can change America, we can change the world. And in that day of global transformation, religious fanaticism fading away, the trumpets shall sound and we shall experience in ourselves the glorious consummation of our longing by changing into change and thus remaining forever more.

They omitted the remainder of the article which read as follows:

"And they said, Come, let us make a town, and a tower whose top will go up as high as heaven; and let us make a great name for ourselves..."

Now where have I read that before???

[RichInOC]

I never critique hope. Hallucinations are another matter entirely.

In any case, remember...as the underground cartoonist Gilbert Shelton really meant to say, hope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no hope.

[BwanaNdege]

< /sarcasm>

[RobRoy]

That article was a GREAT read. I had a hard time not laughing at my cube at some particularly funny parts. The author did an excellent job of lampooning those that hate the Christian right by bringing up their goofy Christophobic arguments one by one and positing them as obvious truth.

I mean, either that, or he is an ignorant, self righteous prig with poor writing skills. I can’t believe the school would allow that to reach print, therefore I am assuming he is the former.

[Skywalk]

Way to read the whole article, dweeb.

[WOSG]

Did April Fools Day come early? This is so bad, it is a self-parody. Please, someone give this a blow-by-blow fisking.

[LiteKeeper]

Psalm 14:1

[happinesswithoutpeace]

lolz

[SAJ]

1) Gork is a product of Harvard, not Yale.

2) Ths Xlintoons only attended Yale Law, not Yale College. The culture at Yale Law is **considerably** different from that at the College.

3) The article is satire, and really quite good satire at that.

Other than that, your observations were spot on. Perhaps you didn't read the entire article, or, perhaps the satire was a bit over your head.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping to read later

[Choose Ye This Day]

Guys, it’s satire.

This is a conservative, poking fun at his liberal classmates.

[Amendment10]

Regarding gay marriage, Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

[piytar]

Pretty sure it’s satire. Look at his other articles:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/authors/view/144

The scary thing is that we can’t tell it’s satire on its face because, I bet, most of us know far too many libs who really do think exactly this way, esp. in academia...

[WOSG]

“Bio says he’s a member of the conservative Tory party. Perhaps it is satire.”

Now I am befuddled. The line between a real liberal squawking and a satire of same is so thin ... Needs to keep his day job in any case.

Here he is in non-satire mode ...

---

Religious faith is the culmination of Reason

Peter Johnston
Tilting at Windmills
Published Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Our public atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al.) are correct to point out the difficulty in using syllogisms to prove the existence of God. But they misconstrue the nature of reason when they then assert the irrationality of theism. The mistake is not theirs alone.

At least since the enlightenment, the public conception of reason has been limited almost exclusively to syllogisms. Indeed, the syllogism is the important analytic component of reason. It clarifies the implications latent in premises, drawing out the consequences of ideas and occasionally demonstrating their incompatibility. And its value in practice was proven during the enlightenment when applied to the religious wars of the time, exposing the incoherence at their roots and laying the foundation for the modern conception of tolerance. The syllogism has since been basking in the reflected glow of that success.

Thus, it is often forgotten that reason has a broader concern than clarity and consistency. Reason is in the business of providing an account, of giving explanations and justifications, of answering the questions, “How?” and, “Why?” But the syllogism cannot do any work without premises. Since there are no self-evident premises, reason entails a creative capacity that furnishes premises with explanatory power. The syllogism was successful during the enlightenment because it then had rich material on which to work. But, in our society, the creative capacity of reason has been trumped by the analytic, and the analytic ascendancy produces little because of a dearth of creative premises.

It is this context within which Kierkegaard’s understanding of religious faith is most attractive. In our society, many people want to participate in a religious tradition, but syllogisms seem unable to provide compelling proof of religious claims. Thus, faith is likened to a blind leap, considered absurd in the technical sense that it cannot be justified; it is either embraced in a moment of existential passion, or scorned.

Advocates on either side rush into a debate. Those against faith indict the Inquisition and Crusades and interpret religious commitment as a crutch. Those for faith indict the atheism of communism and note the increase in charity and life expectancy that often accompanies faith. The debaters spill much ink but rarely convince each other of anything. Both religion and irreligion have black marks on their historical record in politics. In social science, religious faith is in some ways opiate, in other ways nourishment.

Perhaps the incomplete understanding of reason in our society is best expressed when those against faith assert their allegiance to “following the evidence wherever it leads.” The problem is that mere experience does not lead in an obvious and uniform direction. Any compelling account of human experience is an interpretation of human experience in terms of creative premises. The analytic is impotent without the creative. Because the debaters accept the analytic as the whole of reason, their arguments can only be negative. It is thus necessary to reclaim the creative capacity of reason as a prerequisite of compelling explanation.

This reclamation suggests that reason may be compatible with scripture and faith. It is not necessary or possible that one person carry out all the creative work of supplying premises. Communication becomes paramount in reasoning, with the living in conversation, with the dead through books and scripture. Reason combines individual creative efforts with the best of other sources; at its foundation, it is a project in collected creativity. Though the existence of God is still unlikely to be the conclusion of a syllogism, perhaps a scriptural God is the premise in terms of which the fullest account of human experience can be given.

Debate over what constitutes the fullest account of human experience will be the mainstay of this rational project, and many will reject the religious account. But for those who accept it, religious ideas would be the premises, and faith the conclusion, not the other way around. Faith would not be the competitor of reason, but instead its culmination.

Peter Johnston is a junior in Saybrook College. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays

[WOSG]

It’s satire...

His real opinion is very much prolife:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20519

[NinoFan]

Yep, I noted that in post 7. ;)

[Oliver Optic]

With modern-day leftists, satire and reality are drawing ever nearer to one another.

I believe it is called becoming a caricature of oneself.

I read a good portion of this article without realizing it was satire.

[mathurine]

Roger that.

[hellbender]

Maybe Yale really is capable of producing another Buckley after all.

[Amendment10]

As a side note to the abortion issue, this post (<-click) tells how FDR's establishment of constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs like SS arguably led to the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.

[Bitsy]

a retrograde coterie of unattractive common folk”

Does that mean a bunch of ugly folks?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOLOL!

[SmithL]

Eagle Scout with a sense of humor ping.

[The_Republican]

MAC IS NOT LIKE W BUT IS EXACTLY LIKE W:

The fundamentalists seem to be supporting John McCain. Funny, since he isn’t one of them. He served his country in the military, and his stance against torture is grounded in his suffering as a prisoner of war. I suppose he has worked on campaign finance and immigration reform, demonstrated independence from corporate interests and never taken money for a pork barrel project. Oh, and he was an early critic of the Rumsfeld strategy in Iraq. But he was the most vocal proponent in Congress of the surge, which is not working because our troops are still in Iraq. Never mind the dramatic reduction in violence or increasing stability of the Iraqi government — McCain is simply a clone of George W. Bush, which explains their chummy relationship over the years.

ATTENTION SPAN OF A CHILD:

He lists a plethora of facts that make McCain separate from Bush. He lists not a single fact to make McCain appear like Bush. However, he concludes that McCain is carbon copy of Bush.

Its like he couldn’t remember few moments later what he just wrote.

Logic-Gap.

[elcid1970]

It’s great satire when you believe it until halfway through.

But it’s the final paragraph with its almost-Islamic coercive inclusiveness that gives it away.

I believe Mr. Buckley has a pupil, one to carry on tradition.

[Ulysse]

Huuuu YALE pretend to teach and educate students?
Stuning!

[L,TOWM]

Read it all. One of the best satires on the blindly allegiant Obamatons I have seen so far.

[RoadTest]

Your dog hears “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah” I hear “We refuse God’s generous offer of salvation, no matter how much He loved us and still does.”.