As someone who not only believes in God, but who also believes in working towards an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives, I am frustrated. Perhaps I should explain, perhaps not. The problem is that whenever I try to say what I think (especially regarding religious issues), it is nearly impossible not to have people take offense, no matter how much I explain or how honest I attempt to be. Perhaps there is some wisdom in the time-tested warning, “NEVER DISCUSS RELIGION OR POLITICS.”
Wow. Let me stop right there. I can’t begin to estimate how many times I was told that as a child, by both of my parents, and by teachers. Discussing these issues was seen as a way of inviting trouble, and of course because I write this blog I violate the warning almost daily. Kind of wears me down. But I never Googled the expression until just now, and I am utterly flabbergasted to learn that regardless of its rightness or wrongness, it was not intended for men!
That’s right “NEVER DISCUSS RELIGION OR POLITICS” is “gender-specific“:
How many of us grew up hearing “Never discuss religion or politics” – that gender-specific caveat intended to warn women against expressing our beliefs in order to maintain harmony in our relationships?
Who knew? No one ever told me that the expression only applied to women, and I say this because I was raised as a boy, and I went to an all-boys school where other boys were told the same thing by their families. Not that they heeded the warning, but still. It never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that this was only meant as advice for women.
May the feminists who hijacked the expression please forgive me! I should never discuss feminism, and I did not mean to offend.
Where was I? OK, earlier, I found myself reading a very biased Esquire article beating once again on the very tired “conservatives who receive Social Security are hypocrites” meme written by one Charles Pierce. No, not the famous female impersonator (who merits a lot more respect, IMO), but a snarky leftist, author of a book lovingly titled “Idiot America.” From the blurb:
The Culture Wars Are Over and the Idiots Have Won
A veteran journalist’s acidically funny, righteously angry lament about the glorification of ignorance in the United States.
In the midst of a career-long quest to separate the smart from the pap, Charles Pierce had a defining moment at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where he observed a dinosaur. Wearing a saddle…. But worse than this was when the proprietor exclaimed to a cheering crowd, “We are taking the dinosaurs back from the evolutionists!” He knew then and there it was time to try and salvage the Land of the Enlightened, buried somewhere in this new Home of the Uninformed.
With his razor-sharp wit and erudite reasoning, Pierce delivers a gut-wrenching, side-splitting lament about the glorification of ignorance in the United States, and how a country founded on intellectual curiosity has somehow deteriorated into a nation of simpletons more apt to vote for an American Idol contestant than a presidential candidate.
So, clearly, the guy is biased, and it is reflected in his latest Esquire hit piece.
Not that I am in favor of idiocy, or idiots, mind you. But I am involved in local Republican and Tea Party politics, and I just haven’t run into people who want to take the dinosaurs back from the evolutionists. I don’t doubt they exist, but how many of them are there really? And how much influence do they really have among conservatives, or in the Republican Party? My curiosity was aroused, and as I am the sort of person who likes to question all premises, I thought to Google the dinosaur quote to see whether I could verify it.
Sure enough, in what is an increasingly familiar pattern, the quote was widely repeated, and every link I checked went right to the book blurb. Hardly proof of accuracy. So, I thought, is there even such a place as the Creation Museum, and what sort of proprietors run it? Do they actually have saddled dinosaurs?
Yes on both counts. The museum provides a gold mine of material for those who want to be outraged by the simpletons and idiots who believe the earth is 6000 years old. It has drawn laughter internationally, and doubtless provides much fuel for those who think Americans are cretins, with conservatives and Republicans being the most cretinous cretins of them all.
I’m tempted to ask whether this is some sort of false flag operation, for the director is an Australian with a scientific background…. But I have no basis for my speculations, and I don’t want to veer off into conspiracy land. This is silly enough as it is, for these people are mocking themselves, and providing an irresistible caricature for those who seek to mock and discredit all religion. I am a little shocked to see that it is a growing movement, as I think it’s a national embarrassment. I would not want to be associated with people who think that way, and they probably would not want to be associated with me. In balance, I don’t think they are helping the cause of Christianity one bit.
But I have a deeper worry here. By saying what I think, did I just ridicule people’s religious beliefs? Honestly, I don’t mean to do that, but with all due respect, it is my opinion that those who think the world is actually 6000 years old are either idiots, or dangerously misguided people whose opinions should not be taken seriously. I confess, I am wholly unable to respect them. This is not even a debate, as I don’t think it is a matter of opinion, any more than the claims of the 9/11 Truthers.
I’m worried that if this kind of thing becomes part of the mainstream, it will amount to more than a disagreement. If you cannot respect someone’s opinion, what’s to debate? Sure, if I met one of these people and got into a discussion, I could agree to disagree, and I am a very polite person. But I could never convince myself that this is anything other than idiocy. The fact is, some “opinions” are just plain idiotic, and I think it is dangerous to pretend otherwise.
Or am I mocking “religion” here? I hope not, but if is it “religious” to put a saddle on a dinosaur, then perhaps I should not have written this post.
Feel free to sound off.
Comments
17 responses to “On never discussing the saddling of dinosaurs”
As a “religious” person in a very traditional sense, I tend to agree with the proscription against discussing religion and politics… primarily because those are two subjects that most people feel very deeply about, and which are nearly guaranteed to create bad feelings between folks who might otherwise get along quite well.
In this specific case, I don’t think you’re mocking “religion” necessarily, although some might try to make the case that you’re mocking some specific beliefs. However, I think a repudiation and disdain for certain beliefs does not necesarily translate to “mocking.” I might disdain the Muslim belief that martyrs for Allah will receive 72 virgins after their death, but it’s only mocking when I make a joke out of it and belittle the people who hold such a belief. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not above doing that… I’m just attempting to define “mocking.”)
In the case of the Young Earth creationists, you can certainly reject their beliefs and even make fun of them, if you want… although it usually behooves us to consider that this really boils down to a fundamental difference in worldview. Basically, if there’s a conflict between science and their interpretation of the Bible, they will side with their interpretation of the Bible, whereas most of the rest of the world will side with science (especially since the rest of the world doesn’t even recognize the Bible as a consideration.)
Thanks John. As you referred to “their interpretation of the Bible,” I’m curious about something. Is the date of the creation ever specifically given in the Bible? If not, how can they be so sure that it was 6000 years ago? If we assume God’s time is infinite, how can man measure it so as to assign particular dates for God’s actions?
I don’t doubt these people have beliefs about their interpretations, but considering the very clear geological evidence, I don’t think such beliefs are reasonable.
The “6000 years” thing is an inference from the text, a calculation based on the genealogical listing of the descendants of Adam.
The Bible never specifically states the age of the Earth.
And “I don’t believe such beliefs are reasonable” is a perfectly polite and appropriate response! I wish more people could express their disagreements in such terms, rather than resorting to demonizing and excoriating their opponents.
Again, I think these people are doing Christianity a supreme disservice. Few are defending the kind of Christianity I grew up with anymore. Instead, they are saying Christianity = Fundamentalism = Belief in a 6000 year old earth. Atheists and Young Earther types are in an odd alliance to discredit all other forms of Christianity, the hope being that ordinary people will see the choice as atheism versus nonsense.
Eric, I agree with you. If I hear someone say that they hold creationist beliefs, I simply stop listening to anything they have to say. If someone is that credulous, that gullible, or so willfully blinded by faith, then I simply have nothing to say to them, nor any interest in anything they have to say to me.
Are they free to believe what they wish? Sure. Should they be free to insist on their views being taught in science class in public schools, and given equal weight in the curriculum? Or, as just passed here in Missouri, should they be allowed to keep their children out of classes that conflict with their beliefs? That’s another thing, I think.
Except, I’m not sure that most creationists (at least, not those who believe in intelligent design) would maintain the world is 6000 years old.
This is my problem with Mitt Romney. he seems such a nice and smart man. Is it possible he really believes that some lazy illiterate New York State plowboy really found then lost some golden plates covered with glyphs spelling out the book of Mormon? Really?
I’m sure that you, John, are a very nice man too. And so are my parents and most of the other Christians I know. And I’ll give all of you a base on balls for believing in a nice traditional religion based in almost pre-history.
But Angel Moroni and lost Israelis in NY State in the 1820s?
Come on, Man.
I hope Mormon is a only a family tradition for the Romneys, too
A degree is no vaccine against stupidity
Golden plates in the 1820s?
That’s nothing compared the Thetans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology
One of the major tenets of Scientology is that a human is an immortal alien spiritual being, termed a thetan, that is presently trapped on planet Earth in a physical “meat body.” Hubbard described these thetans in “The Space Opera” cosmogony. The thetan has had innumerable past lives and it is accepted in Scientology that lives preceding the thetan’s arrival on Earth lived in extraterrestrial cultures. Descriptions of space opera incidents are seen as true events by Scientologists.[27]
“You had better all learn politics or I’ll lay your soul to waste.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9AexiRyPc0
And thanks.
Note that the post that started this one is so non controversial about religion as to be a platitude.
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/08/the-essence-of-religion/
And then came the commentary including that of a currently semi-famous minister. I have (or had) blogging privileges at his blog.
What I was trying to point out was the common ground. And then things got ugly.
The commonality (as evidenced – not as I pointed out) is “I HAVE IT. And unless you do and believe as I do you can’t possibly have it.”
Forgetting that the Head Office has an INDIVIDUAL plan for each of us. Otherwise we are the Borg. Or some such hive mind.
The fact that our eyes are distributed argues against one point of view.
What got me in trouble was my repeating the Arius Heresy – which is the current Jewish view of Jesus. i.e. A Hell of a Rabbi. Not God himself. Other than the fact that we were (in some way) made in HIS image. All of us. Which Jesus supposedly confirmed according to one report noted in the comments to the linked post.
Young Earth creationism is on the rise among Evangelicals. Many at my church believe it. It is, of course, balderdash. This counting the days from creation through the age of Adam’s descendants to determine the age of the Earth is simply foolish. If you’re using the Bible as your evidence, I’d say that the evidence is clear that the Earth is much older. I ask my friends at church a couple of questions:
1) We measure days by the sun’s travels across the sky. How were days measured before the sun was created?
2) My memory is a bit sketchy, but I’m pretty sure that the Bible mentions that a day is like a thousand years for God. Since “a thousand years” is ancient speak for a really long time, why can’t that time span eons?
I will say that my final followup is that nuclear power isn’t mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn’t make my job as a nuclear engineer go away.
To be fair, a lot of my Young Earth believer friends are extremely smart and educated people. They just have a really, really big blind spot on this issue.