Religious right critiques hope, destroys world
Religious right critiques hope, destroys world
Friday, February 29, 2008
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.
Peter Johnston is a junior in Saybrook College. His column usually runs on alternate Wednesdays.


Comments
None 3 years, 11 months ago
This author is a religious conservative. I view anything he writes through the prism of his professed religiosity. I'm an atheist and it's easy for me to dismiss writers who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves.
I am supporting Hillary Clinton for president in spite of the fact that she's always professing her religious bona fides. It's important in America unfortunately for candidates for higher office to keep their religious non-beliefs/skepticism/atheism/agnosticism to themselves lest they never ascend to higher office.BTW, watching a great Youtube video: George Carlin and Religion is Bullshit. Classic.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Peter
You better be careful! Once the Yale Witch Trials are called to order, You'll be denounced to this committee and punished for your intolerance. Hate speech is no joke. but the CCU aims to turn it into one. Where not letting a unfamiliar person of color through campus gates gets you dragged before the committee for being a racist. when you tell them you honestly didn't recognize the person you'll be let go, with just your reputation besmirched.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
There are so called "progressive" religious types, and there are conservative religious types. I'm an atheist who will vote for McCain as the imperfect but still better than Obama candidate. I agree with quite a few conservative religious people on a lot of issues, which makes me wonder - maybe the belief in God has something to it.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Not everyone who opposes McCain is an Obamaniac.
John McCain wants troops to stay in Iraq for the long-term, which would impose an immense cost on the U.S. economy, yet he also rejects waterboarding and wants to close down Guantanamo. To me, this shows that he is not serious about obtaining information from our ennemies. I don't think that McCain can effectively fight terrorism if he refuses to get information from terrorists.
McCain also is likely to appoint left-wing justices to the Supreme Court because he cares first and foremost about McCain-Feingold and only left-wing justices would agree to uphold McCain-Feingold. That, combined with the fact that McCain has absolutely no interest in fighting illegal immigration, means that we would probably be better off with a Democrat win in 2008 and a true Republican to take back the White House in 2012.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
As someone who believes very deeply in God and also happens to be an Obama supporter - dude, quit whining and get ahold of yourself. So no one on campus likes your candidate. Big deal. You complain about the condescending and dismissive attitude with which some at Yale treat social conservatives, and then you choose to treat your fellow students with the same dismissiveness and condescension?
If you seriously think people who support Obama take a similar attitude towards him that Christians take to God, then you're in dire need of a visit to church. Or a conversation with an actual Obama supporter. Or a few moments of quiet reflection. Or something. And if you don't actually think that but wrote this anyway, then you're just being a jackass and really not contributing anything to the debate.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
While you obviously intended most of your article as a satire, I think you accidentally discovered one of the major tenets of the practice of tolerance that most conservatives seem to not comprehend: tolerance implies to be tolerant of others' beliefs and lifestyles only when their behavior does not infringe upon your own life and pursuit of happiness. One pertinent example would be gay marriage: it would be right to be tolerant of the gay person and their marriage because they are only seeking to make their own life happier, whereas we would want to be intolerant of the fundamentalist Christian who doesn't support gay marriage because that person is not trying to make their own life better and happier but instead is trying to make someone else's life worse.
Does that make sense? Tolerance is pro-active, as in, a support of a healthy diversity of positive ideas and ways of life. Tolerance stops though when someone is trying to be intolerant of another's way of life.
On this campus there seems to be quite a bit of tolerance for fundamentalist Christians, probably more than they deserve considering how generally intolerant they are of so many things.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Brilliant! I couldn't decide whether this piece was a satire until I google'd the author's name... I met plenty of Obama supporters who actually think and talk like that.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Laying it on a little thick, wouldn't you say?
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?
http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Ask the risk of extreme irony: get off the cross. Seriously.
Oh, and the holier-than-thou attitude probably won't make people like your opinions more. If you want to have a reasoned discussion of your beliefs or present an argument about why you are anti-women's choice or anti-gay marriage or pro-McCain, that's great. I, for one, would welcome an open and honest dialogue about the merits of the various positions in each debate. But by spending 800 words saying "woe is me" and effectively electing to take all the toys and go home you're not doing yourself--or those who agree with your views--any favors.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
This was such a great, and well-deserved criticism of ridiculous religious nuts before you turned it political. Which is a shame, because I (and surely many others) would've been right with you on that first part. Instead, your piece can't help but become (as the first commenter states) a "nobody loves my candidate" pity party which tries to make its point by comparing people's belief and hope in a good man's powerful message to the nutty fundamentalists' belief and hope in an invisible man in the sky.
You should've stuck to attacking the latter.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
The writer clearly isn't worried about the facts getting in the way of his story.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Looks like WFB's "God and Man at Yale" was indeed the product of prophetic Divine Revelation.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Excellent work! I knew nothing about the author, so I didn't figure it was satire until about halfway through the piece. You imitated the average Obama fan perfectly. I see a good future for you.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
I don't care what anybody says, that was funny as heck! However, in your discription of Christians, you left out the fact that they don't have any teeth and are eeeeevil.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Great work!
Great satire of these Obamamaniacs.
None 3 years, 11 months ago
Does the fact that this satire is actually an accurate portrayal of a significant minority of Yale's student body make the satire funnier, or more depressing? The ONLY way the reader can infer that this is satire is by looking at other columns by the same author.
Or login with:
OpenID