Well, not really. But last Friday, the Gang of Four did spend much of the Weekday program discussing religion and politics. Since none of the four has any religious beliefs, the discussion reminded me, at times, of four monks discussing The Joy of Sex.
(Knute Berger, the former editor of the Seattle Weekly, said on the show that he was in the 18 percent that have no religious beliefs. Naomi Ishikawa, editor of Colors NW, said she was in that group, too. Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat says, in this column, that he does not attend church. The host, KUOW's Steve Scher, did not describe his religious beliefs, but those who have listened to him will agree with me that it is quite unlikely that he has traditional religious beliefs.)
The four seemed somewhat baffled that religion was important to many voters, that it may be more important now than it has been at some times in our past. I will give them a small hint. There is an issue that is terribly important to those with traditional religious beliefs, Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and even most Muslims. That issue is, of course, abortion. And it became a peculiarly bitter issue after a reckless Supreme Court grabbed it, taking it away from our legislatures. Along with the hint, let me suggest they look at the history of the Civil Rights movement and the causes of the Civil War.
And then there is the question of discrimination raised by Knute Berger, though he did not realize he was raising it. Let us suppose that people with no religious beliefs do make up 18 percent of the population, as he said. (That number sounds about right to me.) In that case, what are the odds that four people, chosen at random, will all have no religious beliefs? For those who don't have calculators handy, I'll give the answer: about one in a thousand.
Is it possible that discrimination helps explain why four journalists could get together to discuss religion, and all four have no religious beliefs? Sure. In fact, I am reasonably certain that many "mainstream" news organizations discriminate against people with traditional religious beliefs. Not, let me add, as a matter of intentional policy, but because most "mainstream" journalists dislike traditional Catholics, evangelical Protestants, and Orthodox Jews. It is hard, for example, to imagine KUOW offering a job to a journalist as talented as Fred Barnes — if that journalist shared Barnes' religious beliefs. And it is simply amazing that neither Seattle paper has picked up movie reviews by Michael Medved. Or would be amazing if I hadn't learned to expect certain kinds of discrimination.
Would this discrimination at news organizations (and in many other places) encourage some people with religious beliefs to get more involved in politics? Sure.
Understanding traditional religion would help journalists understand issues not usually thought of as religious. For example, many environmentalists have beliefs that are, at their core, religious. (I first realized this when I read John McPhee's wonderful Encounters with the Archdruid, but the idea is much older than that book.) If you look, for example, at the arguments against drilling in ANWR, you will see that they are, at heart, religious. Drilling opponents nearly always use religious language in making their arguments. They will say, for instance, that it would be "sacrilege" to drill there. Those religious beliefs explain, by the way, why the practical arguments for drilling in ANWR have no effect on most opponents.
Danny Westneat, who seems to be trying to think about these issues, said, during the program, that he wanted to "truth squad" politicians on their religious beliefs. I am not certain what he means by that, but, if he means what I think he means, I have a suggestion for him: Call up John Kerry's senate office and ask them how many times Kerry has attended church since November, 2004. And then call the archdiocese of Boston and ask the same question, and follow it up by asking whether Kerry and his wife (who inherited a lot of money) have made any significant donations to the church. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought Kerry's ostentatious church attendance during the 2004 campaign reflected political calculations more than religious beliefs.
The gang is not completely hopeless on religious questions. When a caller complained that her school's winter concert had too much religious music, Westneat replied that the Seattle schools typically had none. And Berger made a sensible point; most of the good holiday music is Christian, not secular.
Nor was the entire program as one-sided as it usually is. The four began by chuckling over Congressman McDermott as the Grinch, though they had no explanation for him voting against Christmas. (Hint to the gang: Look at the ideological ratings for those who joined him.) All admitted that the South Lake Union Trolley (which I think has been re-named to avoid that unfortunate acronym) was a silly idea. It is good to see the gang rejecting one 19th century transportation solution.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(The grade for the gang last Friday was 0.10, which may be generous.
Finally, here's an essay from 2005 on the importance of those who oppose traditional religion to the Democratic party. They are a bigger part of the Democratic coalition than black Protestants.
Today, I forgot that the gang was on until the last twenty minutes of the program. But that twenty minutes was worth listening to — if, that is, you share my desire to know why "mainstream" journalists are failing so badly. A caller brought up impeaching President Bush, and got strong reactions from the gang. Steve Scher made a revealing comment about Ken Starr's "witch hunt". The Seattle PI's D. Parvaz was enthusiastic about impeachment, and was sure that she knew why Bush should be impeached; Parvaz is absolutely certain that Bush lied us into the war in Iraq. She did not find it necessary to share any evidence she may have for that proposition with the audience. (Incidentally, the more I listen to her, the more I am reminded of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.) Knute Berger loved the idea of impeachment — but suspected it would not help his side, politically. Danny Westneat was relatively moderate; he wants hearings that might lead to an impeachment. (Unless I missed it, the four did not differentiate between impeachment and trial, which they should have, for their audience.)
At the end of the program, Scher asked the others what they thought the big story of the year was. All answered, naturally, the success of the surge in Iraq. Just kidding!! None mentioned the surge or its success, and I wouldn't expect them to in future programs. But that is the biggest story of the year. That the four don't know that, or refuse to say it, tells us something interesting about them.
The grade for those twenty minutes was 0.00.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 21, 2007 05:41 PM | Email ThisThe inevitable response will be "Sound Politics readers live in a conservative stoopid bubble,". To that I reply: Sorry, that's not how it is. When the local media intelligensia (snort) has something worthwhile to say, I and many others will start paying attention.
Posted by: Steve in Queen Anne on December 21, 2007 06:04 PMSecular progressives follow the "religion" of Secular Humanism. Extreme environmentalists practice their own form of "religion". They are able to, with straight faces, push for legislation to "ram their morals and beliefs down others throats" because their religions do not have a supernatural component - man is his own god, or Mother Earth is in charge of all....
They fervently worship their "gods" and they try to convert the "pagans". They proselytize constantly and do not tolerate other peoples religion. When the "pagans" do not convert, they try to stifle them through laws and regulations. They use the power of the government to force conversion.
Theirs may not be an "official" religion, but they are perhaps more ardent about it than any evangelical christian, orthodox jew, or devout catholic. In effect, Secular Humanism is being forced upon us as the official national religion.
Ironic. The most intelligent of Mother Earth's animals has set himself up as his own god - despite his propensity for hate, fear, war, fallibility, disregard for the environment and the other animals he shares the planet with.
All hail - man.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 21, 2007 07:58 PMThere's a very good reason for that. In the long centuries when most folks of the Anglo and other European persuasions were believing Christians, a form of music developed for the anniversary of the birth of Christ - hey, not a bad idea! - which was based on communities of folks singing together in celebration. And those centuries gave a refinement to this music that the soundbite generation has never achieved.
But in a perversion of that old custom, modern pop artists suit up and give 'performances' of newly-contrived drivel, wholly designed to cash in on the season and attract attention to themselves - instead of directing it to the guy who died on a Cross for good reason.
Nothing tickles my funnybone more than the four KUOW 'intellectual' worthies suffering through Christmas after Christmas of the repertoire so well brought to light by Don Ward's post of two days ago on Sound Politics, "The Worst Christmas Songs Ever".
And the good folks at NPR, who give Christianity no more credit than they would a lunar cult (hey, guess who first organized to end slavery), will sooner or later have to face Christmas music from which Christianity has been wholly banished - sort of like Christmas has been from the public schools these days. When they arrive in Hell, this stuff will be blasted over them for four or five millenia, just for starters.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 21, 2007 08:37 PMThis is the first time I have been censored at Sound Politics.
Care to tell me why you did it, Jim?
My post was civil, and contained no personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 21, 2007 09:02 PMGee, perhaps Jim couldn't figure out what a seventeen paragraph Ron Paul commercial had to do with religion and politics.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 22, 2007 05:16 AMThe problem with these "self-proclaimed intellectuals" is they do not even try to understand. They have pre-judged faith as Right-wing lunacy. They feel THEY or Mother Nature have control over our lives.
People like this are often angry...because they are soul-less empty shells.
The good news is there is hope for all of us.
Pray for these 4. Seriously.
Isn't it interesting, these folks who love to criticize O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes, would fail to have a "fair & balanced" panel that included some people of faith. Perhaps Rabbi Lathan & Ken Hutchison??
I guess they are too fearful and need to surround themselves with their own New Age Progressive ilk.
Shameful.
Thanks for the info Jim.
(Don't tase me, Jim!)
Posted by: blathering michael on December 22, 2007 03:04 PMPlease do explain michael how this is so. And perhaps you'd like to further expand on why the left is drooling all over itself with front cover Time and Newsweek articles regarding Romney's Morman religion, Giuliani's marital affairs, and Huckabees Baptist faith.
"The Democrats have it right- government is a secular matter." This last statement of yours also bears some explanation. Democrats have never been afraid to acknowledge their creator over the years. Uh, until now, when you communists feel so bold as to believe that you have taken over the Democratic Party. I am waiting to see which one of the current crop of leading Democratic Presidential candidates announces that they are an atheist.
Oh wait, I'm talking about Democratic candidates. They get a pass, of course. My mistake.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 22, 2007 05:03 PMPolitics has never really been secular. If one goes to a really old set of values called the Ten Commandments, much of the legal system is built upon the concept of establishing rules like do not kill or steal so that the society is liveable.
Many liberals share many of the same values as conservatives, the major difference is right to life issues and assisted suicide. Many young parents want their children to be educated and grow up to be successful citizens. Nick has a real issue now that 16 year old Jamie Lynn Spears, sister of Britany, has gotten herself knocked-up. Many parents for whom anything goes are beginning to wonder if things have gone too far.
You must have missed the memo from Howard Dean saying that dems want to court evangelicals. I agree with you that ideological purists on both sides have destroyed the ability to govern. Fact is, no right to life person of either party will be elected in Seattle and large segments of King County for the foreseeable future. Even if the candidate states they are personally against abortion, they will have to allow women to make the decision. Similarly, dems espousing Seattle values will probably get hosed in much of Eastern Washington. If there is to be a viable two-party system, then parties will have to be elastic about the challenges a candidate may face in different locations. Right now we have the ACORN/Cindy Sheehan nutcases on the left and the libertarian/right wing crazies on the right. Meanwhile the ranks of indies keeps growing. I don't think people are turned off by religion as much as the type of policies that are espoused. If a woman truly wants an abortion, there is nothing that can be done to stop her. She will get the abortion whether it is legal or illegal. What pro life people have to do is persuade the woman that there are other options and there must be real support for her and the child. Adoption has to become a more realisitc option. As far as I know, helping women to see there are options other than abortion is neither liberal or conservative. Liberals and progressives just love Jimmy Carter and as far as I know he still teaches Sunday school and goes to church a couple of times a week.
Posted by: WVH on December 22, 2007 09:14 PMIt is axiomatic, to me, that there is more there than meets the eye. For instance - I have pondered the question: beyond space what is there? So when the void ends, what continues from there? A solid? And then what? Space going on forever really is a concept that can lead the inquisitive to sleepless nights.
When we look at Darwinism (Trans-specie evolution) with a critical eye, the gaps require a leap of faith that will lead anyone with a modicum of critical thinking ability take pause. I mean really, when we ponder the human eye, and the steps required to get to a functional eye it really requires a faith beyond common sense that it "just happened" that way.
I mean come on. Look at the Darwinistic premise and think it through. If there were one step every thousand years (which is their most optimistic scenario) there simply isn't enough time to have a human eye evolve much less a complete human, or even a complete bug for that matter.
WTF Homer, get real, humans simply did not just evolve on this planet from a single cell and to believe they did is an untenable belief. So is the creation myth actually more true than not? There is no tangible truth to prove this either, but what I can say is that the Cristian faith and the faith in the God of Abraham (not in a literal sense) before that time has proven to give mankind a basis to ground his life decisions by and has as much to support it as any alternative, including Darwinism, has.
As far as my faith in Christianity is concerned - what but Jesus' story could be more atypical of one who claims to be the Son of God than Jesus' story? Let's get real here folks.
Jesus' story, in the Bible, and in history is one that cannot be given short shrift. So the underlying point to Christmas is: Where did we come from? And what is our purpose here?
It's either that we evolved and our purpose here is irrelevant or that we were put here for a purpose. It's as simple as that. And if we are the Creation of an all powerful God and Jesus is the Son of God then Christmas is an important milestone in all of our lives and we should celebrate that event.
So when we ponder Christmas and more importantly Easter we are making a conclusion on what we are? Either we are just another organism or we are something very special.
That is really all that I have to say on the subject.
Posted by: JDH on December 22, 2007 11:28 PMThe questions you have pondered are the greatest mystery of our existance on this earth. Do I believe in an all-powerful Creator, or is it possible I desended from a pit of ooze? Is the Bible based on truth and actual events or merely a book of fables concocted by man? Has Darwin happened upon the absolute truth, or is evolution wrought with abject foolishness? If I were to objectively consider the two alternatives, using only reason and logic as basis, I would have to conclude that it would take far more faith on my part to believe in evolution than the Bible.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 23, 2007 05:43 AMOdd isn't it. If this planet has been around so long and we follow the (Darwin) idea.
Should there not be another type of man getting as good or better than us? What about all the aminals around us, should their not be a few types becoming smarter and more evolved?
Something is missing from this Darwin talk. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 23, 2007 07:53 AMI'm sorry Michael. I forgot that Matthews, Time, and Newsweek are "mainstream" in your world, just like the P-I.
Maybe you could name some issues where the aforementioned media outlets defend Republican positions?
They are fair and balanced after all, aren't they, Michael?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 23, 2007 10:52 AMYou need to remember that Blithering Michael is most likely a product of Seattle "mainstream" culture, which considers Karl Marx a conservative.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 23, 2007 12:29 PMHoliday means Holy Day and that would be Christmas. Merry Christmas to you and yours and may Santa bring you a coherent political thought.
Best Wishes.
Posted by: WVH on December 23, 2007 02:44 PMBlathering, why do you have such a difficult time acknowledge the virtues of Christianity??
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 23, 2007 02:54 PMIf Republican candidates in this state recently have been "beholden to the religious right" it's probably news to them.
Leftists have an irrational fear of Christians. They regard Christians as competition for there own god, an ever increasing government that imposes itself on everyone's lives more than Christianity ever will. That's why leftists spend so much energy on their war against Christmas every year.
And yet Michael in spite of your paranoia about Christians has deeply religious George W. Bush imposed a theocracy on the country? Of course not.
Republicans don't lose elections in Washington because of their religious preferences, they lose them because secular progressives have moved here in increasing numbers and now are the majority of the voting public.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 23, 2007 03:12 PMBut this is just what Huckabee and Romney have done lately. Huckabee's TV ad with the not-so-subtle cross in the background, and Romney's speech in which he declares his faith, were acts only a Pharasee would love. No real Christian should vote for a candidate who behaves in this way.
Jim's article above refers to a House Resolution declaring Christmas to be an important holiday to America. But this resolution has no real effect. It takes no action. It's only purpose is to help those who voted for it to get re-elected by having them publicly defend a religious holiday. These politicians assume it will be popular with their constituencies. So it is another form of public declaration of faith that Jesus would have opposed. No real Christian should vote for anyone who voted for this pointless resolution. Voting for it was against the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, this resolution wasted time in Congress. We pay our representatives to work on the business of government, not to get themselves re-elected. No fiscal conservative should appreciate what those who voted for this resolution have done. Time in Congress is probably worth millions of dollars a minute. They have wasted the taxpayers' money.
Yes, as Jim points out above, McDermott voted against the measure, but probably for the "wrong" reasons. He probably voted against it because he is an atheist. I'm sure most of the people on this forum will dislike him for this. But there is a good argument that good Christians should have at least abstained on this resolution.
Unless you like Pharisees.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 23, 2007 05:13 PMNo one disputed my claim that those with traditional religious beliefs are discriminated against, especially in "mainstream" news organizations. If I am right in that claim -- and I think I am -- many news organizations are breaking civil rights laws. And, more important, they are doing something profoundly wrong.
And now the suggestion: If you have not done so recently, read Lincoln's brief Second Inaugural. In particular, read the last paragraph, which has good advice for us.
I hope that readers who celebrate Christmas have a Merry Christmas, and that readers who don't have a happy holiday.
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 23, 2007 07:01 PM