RSS Feed
The Religion-Industrial Complex
The 2008 presidential election is probably the first in American history that has spawned a veritable faith and politics industry.
Entire non-profit organizations, university departments, think tanks, polling operations, and web divisions at prestigious East coast newspapers, have marshaled their resources in an attempt to make sense of the role that religion will play in the run for the White House. The industry is immense. Its wares displayed on every boulevard, sidewalk and back alley of the mass media. Its potential for influencing public opinion is considerable.
The faith and politics industry also has a variety of “applied” or “hands-on” subsidiaries. There are the lobbyists who work for religious special interest groups. There are demographers who conduct surveys for any client willing to cough up the fee. There is the very lucrative traffic in what I call “religious imaging.” By this I refer to the work of political consultants--an astonishing percentage of whom are graduates of theological seminaries--who advise and often rehabilitate candidates who have somehow drifted off (religious) message.
And did I mention that the industry is completely deregulated? That is to say, there are no standards for entrance, let alone excellence. No one seems to be interested in the identity of the employees or employers in the industry. It doesn’t hold annual conventions in a big, deep carpet-y Hotel where everyone gets to expense their meals back to Headquarters. In fact, no one seems to have much to say about the industry as a whole. It floats under the radar. Which is strange because as regards religion and politics the Industry is the radar.
The goal of this blog is to change that by casting a self-reflexive glance on the 2008 faith industry from a non-partisan perspective (about which more anon). By necessity, this will be an incomplete look, a peek. The industry is so vast and decentralized that no one observer could hope to cover it all. But, if all goes well I hope to draw your attention to key trends, emerging patterns, failures of judgment, and moments of critical heroism that will come to pass in 2008.
The goal of this blog, however, is not to appoint or anoint myself ombudsman of the entire, sprawling unregulated enterprise. Such an endeavor would be insufferably boring. Self-righteous. Puritanical. Rather, a sort of overarching apprehensiveness will pervade my bi-weekly posts. My maxim is: when dealing with faith and politics few things do violence to our (already limited) powers of impartiality like our own faith and our own politics. Whether writing about a presidential aspirant’s latest play of the religion card, or an emerging issue being championed by a special interest group, or a poll showing that this community of faith supports that candidate, my goal is to write with an acute awareness of how religious and political passion can obscure and cloud the good judgment, moral reasoning, and analytical clarity of industry commentators (including myself) and those they comment on.
This is a space for believers and nonbelievers, Republicans, Democrats and others, and your attention, comments and criticism are crucial to its success. In particular, I hope that many of you will use the comment threads to make me and other readers aware of important campaign matters I've missed and of perspectives different than my own. I ask only that you do so in a respectful manner, avoid re-printing campaign talking points or attack ads. Feel free to indulge my oft-stated theological premise that we were put here on this earth to make the world a less imbecilic place. I plan on posting twice a week and responding to comments once a week. I look forward to chatting with you.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
July 9, 2007; 12:42 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Online with On Faith |
Next: Evangelicals Not Behaving Badly: The Romney Candidacy
Posted by: dvdpt | May 7, 2008 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Science and Theology hav now been unified. God's existence has also been proven scientifically. (See The First Scientific Proof of God, 2006). The Western world religions will also change drastically.
See my latest work at http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/. My work is connected to the works of Abraham, Moses, Plato, Jesus Christ, Constantine, Nicholas of Cusa, Gottfried Leibniz, Friedrich Hegel, and Georg Cantor
Posted by: George Shollenberger | October 2, 2007 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Finally above: the REVISION of information... asked for re: Berlinerblau's credentials.
He was introduced to us, curiously, an 'associate professor and program director' at Georgetown.
(of, like, Childhood Diseases, European history? Urban planning? )
He is, upon some probing, the Program Director and Associate Professor of Jewish Civilization, etc. Makes no difference? Then why not tell the whole truth?
Not so much different from the praise and campaign for Bloomberg so subtly shaded in the piece.
Posted by: Raymondo | August 21, 2007 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think "marketing," (which is just a polite term for manipulation) is the key to understanding what Jacques is getting at. We generally don't realize how much of what we absorb is marketing and promotion, not factual information or reports of actual news. This process pervades nearly every aspect of American life. We are surrounded by people who make their money by manipulating our choices in everything in matters miniscule to enormous, and the entire process is founded on our unawareness that it is happening. None of this should be news to anyone, but most of us resist the evidence that we are so extensively conditioned, and that so many of our cherished opinions and preferences aren't really ours at all. Some of the most intensive manipulation takes place where politics and religion intersect - so let's have the courage to shine light into that darkness and look at what is really going on. I can guarantee one thing - most of us will not like what we see!
Posted by: Stefan | August 17, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
God tells us to pray for our government leaders. As a Christian during praying, I skip this requirement....We have the worst president that we in the USA ever had, and the Democrats who got re-elected or elected to their first term lied to us. In 2008, I will vote all Republican for congress and Democrat for the US Presidency.
Posted by: mac | August 7, 2007 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
JB: "Feel free to indulge my oft-stated theological premise that we were put here on this earth to make the world a less imbecilic place."
Can't see the logic in that premise. At best it's a trade-off. Without Homo sapiens, the earth would not even have the concept, let alone the realization, of imbecility. It requires the presence of a sentient being to have imbecility ... as well as genius. Unfortunately it seems we have more than a fair share of the former.
Posted by: jay | July 28, 2007 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
I think its great that you are taking this subject on. I think it will be interesting to see where your investigation of the religion-industrial complex leads.
After running the Institute for Progressive Christianity for the last year, its clear to me that progressive faith does not have nearly the organization that conservative groups like the Christian Coalition have. Even as the Religious Right wanes, they are still better resourced and better organized.
Posted by: Stephen Rockwell | July 11, 2007 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Professor Berlinerblau
My apologies for not addressing you by the correct title in my post earlier!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil | July 11, 2007 6:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sir Jacques!
Bravo on the task of a lifetime. Just sifting out the meaningful from the off-center will fill most of your time, I'm sure.
I am a Conservative Anglican/Episcopalian who has chosen to fight for the soul of my church, which is in the process of being bartered away in the name of "inclusiveness". You will notice that this colors my worldview a bit. Not that I think inclusiveness is a bad thing, it's just that I refuse to accept my definition as definitive, when I stand on the shoulders of so many brighter, more committed, more lucid souls who have gone before. Humility is the key, I guess.
Remember when considering the mix of politics and religion, temporal and spiritual power, what Pope Benedict XVI said in his new book "Jesus of Nazareth." To paraphrase, faith ALWAYS suffers at the hands of earthly power. As church and state are intertwined, it is inevitably Church that comes out the loser.
Finally, it is important to note that the oversimplification of platforms from party to party is of no use to anyone. There are plenty of conservative Christians who call themselves Democrats (all politics is local, as they say) and plenty of heretics who call themselves Republican. So let's not tar with too wide a brush. You can know the candidate by his fruit, just like any man.
Congratulations, God Bless, and Keep the Faith (KTF!)....mrb
Posted by: Mike Bertaut | July 10, 2007 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Looking forward to reading Jacques' blog entries - and the self-declared atheists' comments will be good for comic relief as well.
Making the world a less imbecelic place is a good goal, but it is a means to an end. We were put on this earth to glorify the God who created the world and everything in it.
As for a religion-industrial complex, surely there are consultants of all faith expressions who make a handsome living helping to shape candidates. But you give religious activists, especially conservative Christian activists, way too much credit for organization. At the heart of the faith-based movement are millions of Americnas who are determined to vote according to their values, plain and simple. If we vote in lockstep, as we did on the marriage issue in 2004, it is because we know that God's revealed will is for marriage to remain as He created it, the union of one man and one woman. The issues aren't always that clear cut.
Posted by: andrew | July 10, 2007 6:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Mr Berlinerblau
As an Indian-Australian woman, I have no business to be making comments about American presidential elections, but I am tempted to do it anyway.
As a non-evangelising believer (Catholic) though, I have a simple way to to know whether something is right or wrong - "By their fruits shall ye know them." Personally I believe that is how the politicians should distinguish themselves and should be judged by the public - on the merit of their public policies. Their religious belief is their personal business and we shall know how good it is based on the fruits/policies they produce.
America being the only superpower, Australia being a close ally of the US, the fruits produced by the politicians running the American government will have a direct influence on the rest of the world in general and for me on a more personal note, on the relationship between our countries. As an Australian citizen, I wish the best not only for ALL Americans, but also for the American-Australian relationship.
I think it is great that the American public wants to know how best their politicians match their religious belief with their politics, even if it should not be a consideration in a secular government which is to be judged entirely on the basis of how it serves all the people of the country.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | July 10, 2007 5:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Randall writes:
"I'm a 30-year-old evangelical Christian and have been following closely the evolution of the church in America over the last decade or so from the position of a believer and stakeholder in the church. I’m often surprised at how often commentators focus on issues that are really at the fringes of the church rather than at the center."
???. How about this:
there is no god and Jesus never existed.
Central enough for you?
Posted by: Mr. Mark | July 10, 2007 1:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
I'm a 30-year-old evangelical Christian and have been following closely the evolution of the church in America over the last decade or so from the position of a believer and stakeholder in the church. The church has many weaknesses (and many strengths) but I’m often surprised at how often commentators focus on issues that are really at the fringes of the church rather than at the center. My impression is that commentators like to focus on extremes, and tend towards anecdotes that justify their position, often superficially. I hope you’ll be different.
Please don’t buy into the stereotypes and labels that are wandering around town. For good information sources, my suggestion would be to look at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life for guidance on the views of mainstream Christians. The magazine “Christianity Today” usually offers editorials and feature stories that track the leading edge of the popular church; that is, it usually is predictive of the direction of the church. And I find some of the most accurate journalism on the church at PBS’ Religion and Ethics newsweekly.
Please remember that the vast majority of Americans have a form of religious faith and those with a faith want to use it rationally and productively to inform their decisions on how to live and engage with society. Most people of faith get their information from the morning newspaper. Most churches, believe it or not, don’t touch politics. But Christians and (I imagine) people of other faiths have to make political decisions based on their values and what they hold to be important.
My observation is that the church these days is more responsive to the changing attitudes of grassroots Christians than Christians are responsive to any “faith industry,” as you call it. Find the weaknesses and strengths at the core of modern American Christians and you’ll find the reasons why we advocate and vote as we do.
Posted by: Randall | July 10, 2007 12:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The goal of this blog, however, is not to appoint or anoint myself ombudsman of the entire, sprawling unregulated enterprise."
Indeed, the neutrality required of an ombudsman is lacking in this post, starting with its title, and continuing with other phrases and terms pointed out by previous commenters, including in the statement above. Even your rejection of the ombudsman role is couched in language typically applied pejoratively to religion ("self-righteous" and "Puritanical").
If you would like be more balanced, you might also sometimes write about how one's limited powers of impartiality (if such a thing even exists on moral issues) can be affected as much by lack of faith as by faith itself. You might consider that anti-religious fervor can also compromise "good judgment, moral reasoning, and analytical clarity." If you can't conceive of how this is possible, I might recommend reading the June 10, 17, and 24 entries of a blog I will reference in a separate post.
Overall, the language in your initial post does not convince me that this is a space for believers as well as nonbelievers.
Additionally, you might also request that people stick to the topic, commenting about each posting (after all, it is your blog), instead of general comments for or against religion or faith.
Finally, I am intrigued and puzzled by your theological premise and would appreciate a further explanation in your next post: If we weren't put here on this earth to begin with, would the world without people still be an imbecilic place?
Posted by: LT | July 9, 2007 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Long: Watch the first and last.
Collapse of Atheism (1-5)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QgQcGuQGNmw
Best wishes, B.blau.
Posted by: lqtm | July 9, 2007 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques wrote:
"my goal is to write with an acute awareness of how religious and political passion can obscure and cloud the good judgment, moral reasoning, and analytical clarity of industry commentators (including myself) and those they comment on."
That's not a good goal, Jacques, and this is not a good start to familiarizing the readers with how the phenomenon you are going to write about "works."
The last thing that is needed on the Internet is another blog about religion in politics. What is needed regular and reliable reporting about how particular religious sects--the conservative Protestant groups on the right--have been centrally and hierarchically organized over the past twenty five years. It is now possible for the leaders of this movement to send candidates into Congress and the Senate and the State governments through nationally coordinated action. This movement has already made the difference in the last two presidential elections; without it GWB would not have become president because the vote total would not have been close enough for him to challenge Gore.
This is a dangerous and fascinating political phenomenon that the media has failed to cover or appreciate for decades. Leaders of the evangelical political movement (EPM) are quite familiar to readers of the news. But the hierarchical and nationally coordinated structure and operations of the EPM go unreported--therefore a rich and powerful political force directing millions of votes in the US is able to pursue its agenda in a news climate that is unaware of its existence.
Your opening post is long, a long mission statement. It has no links, no specifics, names no names, doesn't say who and what, specifically, you are going to expose and document. This is not going to hold a serious audience, and adding one more opinion is not going to add anything of value to the divisive debate on the proper role of religion in politics.
Here are two names for you to start with, if this is to be a serious endeavour in investigative journalism into the most underreported political power in the United States. If you hope to contribute anything to the subject matter you say you want to cover, you should research and report on the following two entities and their influence in American politics.
The Council For National Policy.
Salem Communications.
Best of luck to you.
Posted by: Bill Prendergast | July 9, 2007 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"KHOTE" in the post above is getting close. How is the world to be told that it is living a lie when the people of the world want to believe the lie? How is the world to be told that all religions and theology is obviously human made?
It would seem that there will have to be offered something in the place of 'religion' or maybe just simply a more universal behavior code.
Could it be that the Iraq war is so terrible that the only way for the world to recover from it is to stop believing and "living a lie" (religions) that the world is in.
Maybe this site could start a blog to slowly develop a universal behavior code for all humanity. And should the first point be that "Human knowledge and understanding of 'why we are here' is at best limited."
Posted by: Stan | July 9, 2007 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
KHOTE writes:
If we are ever going to defeat the religous fantics who have declared war on us, we are going to have to understand our enemies. We are going to have to understand what animates them, how their blind faith (predictably) determines their actions.
I couldn't agree with Khote more.
But I think the best way to defeat the Republicans is at the ballot box.
Posted by: lambert strether | July 9, 2007 9:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have another thought I'd like to examine. If we are ever going to defeat the religous fantics who have declared war on us, we are going to have to understand our enemies. We are going to have to understand what animates them, how their blind faith (predictably) determines their actions.
Just "killing them all" may be a pleasant brutal fantasy for some, but it's hardly going to solve the problem.
How does a religion occupy the human mind, what is the neurophysiology of blind faith? How is a being, a human being, convinced that it is better to die for a religious fantasy than it is to live?
And on this track, will we in the predominately christian west ever be willing to ask this kind of question, considering the discovery of purely physical explanations will certainly damage the certainty so many feel.
Posted by: khote | July 9, 2007 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You are broaching the most dangerous area of human psychology. When the church was supreme to politics, the church did as it pleased, and its pleasure was horrible. Now, the church must regain control over the political environment, so that it can regain its power to do as it pleases. And what does the church desire? I absolutely shudder to think of not only what the church desires, but what the church is capable of doing. Religious thought resides on the razor's edge of the most wonderful and the most horrible of human emotions and deeds.
Posted by: Sam Adams | July 9, 2007 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Merry meet!
I look forward to reading your blog. I just hope you can be as impartial as you state your intent to be. This is not an easy topic to undertake, as you can see from the posters here already. I can't help but admire your guts for even attempting something like this.
Posted by: PriveR | July 9, 2007 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau
Good morning.
I do recall President Dwight Eisenhower using the term, Military-Industrial Complex, to describe the connections between the arms manufacturers and their political allies in US Administration and Congress during the burgeoning Cold War era of the fifties.
A Religion-Industrial Complex? Granted, religion can be an industry or a business if one look at some religious entities' inter-locking activities. But perhaps a Religion-Political Complex, or a Religion-Political Network would be a better description of what you seek to identify and report on.
More than the Military-Industrial Complex, the Religion-Political Complex/Network goes to the grassroot and personal levels - who gets what, when and how (basic politics of course), and which beliefs prevails and why (by sheer numbers, monetary clout, and lobbying tenacity and savvy). And to factor in simple things such as the sociology and economics of the Complex/Network. Including opportunity cost, cost benefit analysis, needs analysis and such, of the religious entities/organisations at the state, national and international level.
Oh yes, as a non-American, I don't vote, I don't pay taxes in the United States. But I do understand how religion and beliefs can affect all in the public and private sphere regardless of different Constitutions and/or Bill of Rights in our countries.
Thank you.
Posted by: Jihadist | July 9, 2007 8:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill:
First, the use of the term "industry" is somewhat pejorative
No it is not - it is right on the mark! Christianity in this country is a sick joke that has been made into a dollar industry by the neo con religious right wing zealots.
Posted by: raoul | July 9, 2007 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh great! Just what we need - another blog about God talk like there isn't enough of them already.
Posted by: raoul | July 9, 2007 8:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Er, when you write "when dealing with faith and politics few things do violence to our (already limited) powers of impartiality like our own faith and our own politics," aren't you assuming that your readers have a faith? Why would you do that? Did it occur to you that some readers might find that insulting?
Posted by: lambert strether | July 9, 2007 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The "use of the term "industry" is somewhat pejorative"? What else do you want to call it?
Dobson, Robertson, Haggard, Swaggart, et al have huge businesses that are politically influential and tax free. The Mormon Church, for example, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on anti-gay initiatives and then claims to be a tax-free religion. These theives have hijacked Christianity and then our democracy. Who did they support by spewing Rove's politics of hate and fear from their pulpits? Dick, the Special and Separate, Cheney.
Posted by: Roy | July 9, 2007 7:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jealousy, through & through X2. You need to Crash! Ya. )'
Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill wrote: 'First, the use of the term "industry" is somewhat pejorative. A candidate needs to study up on a wide variety of issues when running for office. Is a person that advises a candidate about the intricacies of Medicare coverage or relations with Somalia part of the "Medicare industry" or "foreign relations industry?" If not, then why is a pastor who describes the common concerns of the members of his congregation part of the "religious advice industry"?'
Unfortunately, Bill, the answer is "Yes", so you shed the "if not" clause. You probably didn't mean to do that.
These are all industries, with all the cynicism the term implies. Religion may be the largest per-capita business in the world next to the military. It certainly kills more people, and it instills no more discipline and sense of purpose than the military.
Were you to read this you'd almost certainly defend religion on the basis of faith, values, good works, moral underpinnings, tradition or some other good, real or imagined. These exist, but they're not the evident basis of organized religion, but rather the purview of good people who elect to be religious: not a "because of" but an "in spite of".
Sorry, Bill, it's much, much worse than this blogger will let on.
Posted by: Eric Waits | July 9, 2007 7:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
First, let me say I believe faith in any religious belief system can help one travel the proper path, but faith cannot and should not be used to either prove supremacy or to validate one's actions.
Your chosen faith is usually based on where you were primarily raised as a child or the faith of your people (ethnicity, race, family, locality). Occaisionally, the salesperson of a given faith attempts to convert those of another faith to theirs. I find this humorous because, like I said, your chosen faith is more about where you were born and your culture than some divine selection. How would you feel if someone told you your religious beliefs were wrong and inferior?
Given that each religious faith believes to some degree that all other faiths are incorrect or misguided in some respect it strikes me as funny that anyone could be so disconnected from reality to believe that they and only they are the chosen ones.
Even more humorous is that religious leaders who know full well about the origins of their chosen religion and in most cases the origins of their competitors would seek to push an agenda on the American people, a nation of people, where the choice of religous beliefs is a freedom guaranteed by our founding fathers.
So, like I said, I believe faith is the wind that keeps most peoples' moral windvanes pointing in the right direction. Some who do not necessarily need faith to keep their moral windvanes pointing in the right direction will choose to practice a given religion because they enjoy it. While others who do not necessarily need faith to keep their moral windvane pointing in the right direction will simply conduct their lives with honesty, humanity, and integrity and will let those of various faiths follow their convictions without derrogatory comment. A final group will choose to use their faith and religion to validate their actions, the actions of their religious organization, and the actions of their government or business knowing full well that those actions are neither honest, humane, or ethical.
It is this last group that I believe would be actively involved in directing government, businesses, and ultimately the American people to conform and conduct themselves in a manner that they prescribe as divine.
To me, this makes any politician wearing his or her religion on his sleeve for political gain a poser for lack of better words. Worse yet, we all know the compromises politics forces upon those who practice it, how could a moral person truly accept these compromises. So, let's not protest our faith too much.
This also makes religious organizations or its agents who use religion to extort governments or its members; businesses or its employees; worshipers, or any people for that matter to conform to their interpretations of religious texts, religious mores, or religous biggotry a hypocrisy through and through.
Which makes all the big religions failures from a hypocrisy perspective.
Hopefully the rational members of the various religions who see the continued interference in political matters as a harbinger of terrible acts to come will be able to convince the general membership to advocate an immediate cessation of such interference.
When religion is used to usurp logic and objectivity in political matters we run the dangerous course where a shouting match between religions (Our religion is best!) is used to pursuade a country's leader to press a button that brings about armageddon. To which the worst kind of religious extremeists will say, but it was meant to be! Ergo, religion should never govern politcal matters.
Posted by: Garry | July 9, 2007 7:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
Kudos to you for this undertaking - only on seeing it am I a bit surprised it took this long for someone to address this topic from your stated perspective. My view is that organized religions are power structures and that politics is the overt business of power, therefore their relationship to each other and to each of us deserves examination. I'll be especially curious to see if/how strains of the overwhelming global trend of polarization are illuminated in the discussion. Good luck with it!
Posted by: Gabor Lutor | July 9, 2007 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Where is the legal line between what is taxable and what keeps religous organizations from paying taxes?
Posted by: pv | July 9, 2007 6:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion lives essentially on blind faith. Core principles must be unquestioned or the entire thing falls apart.
The American political system was designed by our founders to recognize the essential distrust we should have regarding those who seek power. Question Authority, question power.
When a religious leader declares his followers must vote for one politician or political party, that leader is associating the blind faith he owns by means of his religion to the politician/political party.
This is a true violation of the essental meaning of our republic. If your pastor/preacher/imam/rabbi whatever tells you that you aren't a true believer if you vote for the "wrong" guy, and you change your mind because of that ... then you know the poison of which I speak.
I would like to see an examination of this.
Posted by: khote | July 9, 2007 6:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Shed more light on just what? And then front and center, another soldier in the alternative news press trumpteting the evils of religion and politics. I thought Christopher Hitchens (Hitch) was already aptly filling that gap and role. Otherwise, there are many mainstream writers that have and do seriously invest in studying the moral/religious underpinnings of the fundamental religious/political movements - Chris Hedges, Boston Globe, to name a few.
I doubt the Post and this reporter (blogger) are going to have but a small portion of the corner of truth on this subject. It takes a full community of concerned citizens and investigative reporters to daily uncover the dark side of political/religious matters.
Maybe society needs another blogger to daily cover the carnage in Sudan? Why no moral outrage by the West on subjects such as this?
Best to you blogger - chasing "imbeciles" (endlessly) I guess, for the congress and now the presidency (and candidates) can have ribbons attached and you can pin the tail (tale) on the donkey(s).
Posted by: slewis | July 9, 2007 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Personally, I have been led to believe that God is there to help. "Ask and Ye shall receive". That could not be any further from the truth. The truth about God, basically boils down to how one man treats another, it's called morality. We have been lull to sleep by immoral men who claim, excessively to moral and Godly. I have come to the conclusino most recently that the God that I told about (Catholic) never existed. We have no souls and once we die, that's it. There is no such place as heaven or hell, just nothing.
The belief in a God is perpetuated by those who don't to take the time to understand nature and believe that they actually have dominion over all creatures on this earth. It was wrong thinking then and it is wrong thinking now. It is true that we have to have not only a respect for each other but we should have had a better appreciation and understanding of nature. Common sense is called for in most cases, but man's arrogance and his belief in "Divine Providence has led him down a road that he can't easily turn back from. In reality this greed and lust for power by only a certain few in our society has doomed us all. Nature will right itself and if it calls for the total annihilation of the human race in the process, it will happen. If you don't use common sense when dealing with nature, you pay a heavy toll for that arrogance.
Posted by: Bill | July 9, 2007 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frank, what god are you calling upon to woo poor benighted Anna? There are thousands to chose from so give us a clue.
Posted by: Jerry | July 9, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Personally, I have been led to believe that God is there to help. "Ask and Ye shall receive". That could not be any further from the truth. The truth about God, basically boils down to how one man treats another, it's called morality. We have been lull to sleep by immoral men who claim, excessively to moral and Godly. I have come to the conclusino most recently that the God that I told about (Catholic) never existed. We have no souls and once we die, that's it. There is no such place as heaven or hell, just nothing.
The belief in a God is perpetuated by those who don't to take the time to understand nature and believe that they actually have dominion over all creatures on this earth. It was wrong thinking then and it is wrong thinking now. It is true that we have to have not only a respect for each other but we should have had a better appreciation and understanding of nature. Common sense is called for in most cases, but man's arrogance and his belief in "Divine Providence has led him down a road that he can't easily turn back from. In reality this greed and lust for power by only a certain few in our society has doomed us all. Nature will right itself and if it calls for the total annihilation of the human race in the process, it will happen. If you don't use common sense when dealing with nature, you pay a heavy toll for that arrogance.
Posted by: Bill | July 9, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
That religion even has a place in politics reflects the sickness of our current system. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible, while religion is either (1) a matter of personal faith in some philosophy or document, or (2) in the case of the of the organizations and their lobbyists, a means of buying legislators and dispensing propaganda to influence those who do not think for themselves.
Jerry Falwell was quoted as saying "Christians, like soldiers and slaves to not ask questions", which describes the the first group. One example: they follow blindly the preachers who have convinced many Evangelicals, that the world started 5500 years ago; the Church that tells its followers what dogma they must believe in and follow; a sect that is based on the visions of a man who claimed that God spoke to him, and successfully convinced his followers that his visions and writing were straight from up high.
Almost all of the religions and sects have horrible histories of killing, torture, wars in the name of "their" God, and usually little of no tolerance for those that do not follow their beliefs. Only in the 20th century has there been some softening of such stances, because this was necessary to achieve the objective of increasing their following. Now, we have resurgence of militant Islam, which bridles at the word that their faith was spread by the sword in the last quarter of the first century. The new war against non-believers uses all the trimmings of 2oth century weapons.
Religion is a business, best exemplified by the preachers with mega-church following, in which the "chief" usually profits handsomely and lives a good life, only occasionally uncovered to his flock.
The number of disgraced "religious leaders" increases every year, when their misdeeds are discovered. There are no ascetics among church leaders, since they look to their own well being and power just like our politicians do. Staying in power/re-election is the primary objective.
Most of the beliefs are really indefensible, because if they occurred today, they would be tossed out as ridiculous frauds: virgin birth, resurrection, son of God, anointed by the supreme being, all knowing....
All their writing are those of men, setting down a system of rules for both health and political power. [ No pork for Muslims and Jews: trichinosis]
Moreover, these writings were subsequently reviesed to suit the then ruling hierarchy, and continued to be changed to suit those in power to the present day. Power of the religious groups must be maintained and their incursion into the governing classes has been constant since earliest times.
The religious-political groupings are big business, collecting huge sums from their followers, frequently working against the interests of those followers.
Posted by: Gunther Steinberg | July 9, 2007 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques,
Thanks for focusing the issues. I would add a little more "bite" to your focus by forwarding information that comes your way about the Religion-Industrial Complex to those NGOs who are monitoring the boundary between non-profit church institutions and their illegal participation in partisan politics.
I am a life-long Catholic and I was appalled when I went to church in Miami the Sunday before the 2000 election to hear a letter read from the pulpit from Archbishop Favalora of Miami stating that Catholics should vote for the pro-life candidate in the election. As a Republican friend of mine said, "He might as well told us to vote for Bush!!" My outrage was doubled when, on national news a month after Bush's election, the Archbishop Favalora was sitting around a table next to the President for a meeting of religious leaders. He may call himself a shepard but the faithful have more brains than sheep and certainly can add 2 + 2 on that partisan calculation!!
Again, thanks for focusing the issue of religion in the next election.
Posted by: Phil Klees | July 9, 2007 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spirituality and moral instruction certainly have a place in human development. So how does helping one another be better people transform into hatred of THE OTHER? Organized religion has a habit of being used to justify atrocious behavior. One need only check the front page of any general newspaper not published by Murdoch to see evidence of religion gone wild. Why did you explode that bomb in the town square? God told me to.
Posted by: Sam Rachman | July 9, 2007 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau,
You post is downright scary. To vote based on religious affiliation instead of political and social issues is dangerous to say the least.
I fear that America will eventually be turned into the theocracy some religious fundamentalists espouse rather than the secular republic it was established as.
That will be a sad day for all of us.
Posted by: Gaby | July 9, 2007 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This should be an interesting blog. Thank you for starting it.
Hopefully in the next presidential election there will be fewer people using religion to beat people over the head into supporting "their particular candidate". But, I doubt it -- although one can still hope.
Posted by: pmorlan | July 9, 2007 5:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I no longer persue a religion. They are counter to a persons spiritual development. Especially if they do not like you anymore.
Each profess a belief in One god.
BUT which one god?
What is god?
Posted by: Dan Fahey | July 9, 2007 5:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am happy to see a blog like this. I was raised in an evangelical Baptist church in Florida. I keep telling my friends that the evangelicals will go for Mitt Romney for one reason--their underlying ideology is authoritarianism. And Mormanism, more than any Christian religion except Catholocism, is steeped in rules and "thou shalt nots." Sure enough, the Pat Robertson/late Jerry Falwell gang is falling in line. The second underlying ideology is the love of money. I read a commentary on Focus on the Family and how they demonize anti-abortion laws and plant the fear of God into their followers about the godless courts (which are about 75% Republican, the federal courts that is) because it brings in the money. And what do they do with the money? Live lavishly (the leaders) and promote themselves.
The religion industrial complex, like the military industrial complex, has those two gods: power and money, and each serve each other--and themselves.
Posted by: Elaine | July 9, 2007 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a great topic and I very much look forward to reading your future posts.
As an atheist, the unholy marriage of religion and politics driven by the Christian nationalist movement makes me very uneasy. I'm certainly not against people allowing their decisions to be informed by their faith, but when that faith is so fiercely tribalistic and exclusionary I believe it poses a serious threat to a healthy representative government.
Maybe I just wasn't paying much attention prior to the current administration but I don't recall the "this is a Christian nation" rhetoric (with its implied "and all you non-Christians better just shut up or leave" and revisionist history) ever being so mainstream as it is today. I believe its having a profoundly corrosive effect on politics and government and I suspect that the bitter partisanship of the right has its roots in that Christian fundamentalist mindset.
Gazing into a crystal ball twenty years ago and imagining what life might be like in the 21st century I'd have though it far more likely that we'd all have flying cars and personal jetpacks than that our government would be inundated with John Birch Society throwbacks. I find it quite terrifying.
Posted by: Chip | July 9, 2007 5:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This should be an interesting experiment. In my own case, I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs, but I believe that organized religion causes more bad than it does good. It is exclusive rather than inclusive. It is a case of "us and them". You have Mormons in Utah going around cemetaries baptizing Jews who are buried there. How arrogant is that? As a country, we are sliding down the slippery slope towards an official state religion. There are already "Good Christians" vilifying anyone who does not share their beliefs. For example, a church in North Carolina banishes several members who said they were going to vote for Kerry in the 2004 election. This is not what the founding fathers wanted.
Posted by: Kurt Cannon | July 9, 2007 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To: Mr. Berlinerblau
You state/include:
"Feel free to indulge my oft-stated theological premise that we were put here on this earth to make the world a less imbecilic place."
Why in the world would you conclude that? You should re-read/read John Milton's conclusion that "God doth not need either man's works or His Own gifts! He who best bear his mild yoke, they serve Him best."
The analysis of your statement could go on and on but your general theme of no order in 'chaos' (religion/industry complex) itself should be re-worked. Once you get the focus it is all pretty clear. You just have to grasp that there really is an organization that has been in existence at least since the writings attributed to Moses, and probably earlier, that is skilled at pschology and behind the scenes string pulling. Then where is the headquarters? Does it have a headquarters? "Nothing comes from nothing." And remember, under communism 'religion' was stated as being the opiate of the people. The people want religion for whatever reason, so the 'they' gave up on throwing out religion and instead decided to embrace it!!!!!!!!!! Thus you now have religion/politics/military/industry complex - or is it colusion? - I believe is was Clinton that observed that it couldn't be a conspiracy because it is out in the open!!!! Cheney?
Posted by: Stan | July 9, 2007 4:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I Really do not know how believing in unfounded and wrong ideas (as the earth is a few thousands year old) makes someone have better values!
We have faith at times, but then we find that we were wrong, like the faith Congress had in authorizing war. It turned out, it was not good to have that faith.
If people believe God wants them to do something, I want the proof of that God's will. There is none.
All religions are product of social life. They are as contradictory as the human condition. Islam, as I know, calls for understanding but at the same time tell you that the only true religion is Islam. What good is discussion then? I am sure the Bible has the same contradictions
I think it is important that politicians Have good morals and ethics and that can be defined independently of religion.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 4:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"we were put here on this earth to ..."
Oh yeah? By whom?
Posted by: RP Asla | July 9, 2007 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Welcome! Judging from the comments I've seen in the "On Faith" blog, you're probably in for a rude awakening. I am a committed Christian who is also politically active - I even ran for office last year for the first time - so my faith governs my worldview. I recognize, however, that my faith cannot be the sole basis for policy in a secular society. Therefore, I look for logical, legal or philosophical foundations to support my positions on issues. It's a challenging intellectual exercise but one that I feel is necessary for me to be true to my faith (a Biblical command) and also a respectful member of society who seeks to be on good terms with everyone (which, incidentally, is also Biblical). I visited the "On Faith" blogs hoping to be educated and even uplifted, but the reader comments are often mean-spirited and hurtful. If John Meacham and Sally Quinn really wanted a "conversation," what they got instead was a brawl. I may read the columns every now and then, but I never read the reader comments.
I wish you well in your new endeavor. Nothing like taking on politics and religion in the same blog - you have my sympathies.
Posted by: Ron | July 9, 2007 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My dear Jacques! What a noble and necessary undertaking! It will be interesting to note the reactions and responses you will evoke. I must say that I felt, in my growth as a person, that I became less imbecilic when I acknowledged my atheism.
All best wishes, young man!
Posted by: Russell Manning | July 9, 2007 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mixing religion and politics is like adding LSD to your food. The results are about the same.
The most outrageous institutional neglect is that so many Christian groups act as frontmen of the Republican party. Their face to the public is pure Republican, but when the taxman comes by, they hide under the rubric of non-taxation of religion.
As proof, Christian radio ought to be monitored. My local Christian station repeatedly drums up support of tax cuts so the poor are less well taken care of. How these people can look in the mirror and STILL call themselves Christian must, when all is said and done reserve them a special place in the after-life for those with souls so morally corrupted. At least in the here-and-now, they ought to be taxed.
Posted by: Ethan Quern | July 9, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To the BlogMaster: GOOD topic, timely and important. Thank you for presenting it.
To all others here: So far, true to these forums. The bizarre, the extreme, and the cynic are flocking to the feast. But . . . there are still a few posts that speak reason - truly, each a voice crying in the wilderness. Keep crying - someone will be listening.
Posted by: Arminius | July 9, 2007 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Do you buy into any of the developmental scale models that view religous affiliation as an expresion of progresive stages with the deepest stages having the fewest members and the most populous stages having less depth?
Posted by: michael lonergan | July 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Have you seen the videos at:
www.worldslastchance.com
The videos can also be seen at youtube.com
As a world history student, I have compared history to Biblical prophecy for many years and am in agreement with what is revealed in these videos, which I think ALL people should watch. I don't agree with all their teachings, such as tithe, which means 10% of something. I have done an indepth study on this subject, such as when and why and by whom it was instituted and what exactly was to be tithed according to the Person who instituted tithe...and it's not about money, as the people have been taught. It seems almost everything thing on this planet has been polluted with the greed for money, elected officials secretly betraying their countries and people for it and churches teaching it, do they ever tell their congregations not everyone was responiblie to tithe? Jesus didn't tithe, nor did the Apostles, or the poor, etc., only land owners (10% of crops) and herdsmen (10% of stock)...Apostle Paul stated it correctly when he described the systems of this world as, "...evil world systems" and it's hunger for money. It is revealed that "the love of it is the root of ALL evil".
May God convince you, keep you and bless you as you allow your eyes and ears to open more completely...
Posted by: calumonit | July 9, 2007 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
(Frank, you have way too much time on your hands)
This will be a fascinating conversation. The verbal venom produced by Christians like us when our perspective is challenged is the stuff that wars are made of.
I (like most of my pew-mates) prefer to be led blindly, with little regard for reason, logic, or science...so, please respect my perspective, Jacques. Occasionally a non-beleiver (read: Democrat) wanders into our congregation looking for a peice of our faith-based initiative federal grant money...the nerve. Don't these people understand that these dollars are meant only for OUR faith?! Geez...
Posted by: Ms. Anna Graham | July 9, 2007 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Faith and Politics. Evangelic conservatives attempting to put religion belief center of political beliefs. strange bed fellows.
Issue one, all Americans do not belive in GOD.
Of course you should be more specific of which GOD, the Jewish God, the Catholic God, the Evangelic God, the Muslim God, the Mormon God, or the No God of Buddhism. You pick and let us know which God's votes you are acquiring.
I think you make the mistake of assuming all Americans are christian or believe in your God.
BTW, the white houses faith-based agenda does not address the many American Buddhist living and practicing in America today. Just the president's favorite rel;igious groups. get the idea.
Racist attitudes by America, lacking equality in substance for all.
Posted by: Patrick | July 9, 2007 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau:
You established the motivation for this blog as follows:
"The 2008 presidential election is probably the first in American history that has spawned a veritable faith and politics industry.
"Entire non-profit organizations, university departments, think tanks, polling operations, and web divisions at prestigious East coast newspapers, have marshaled their resources in an attempt to make sense of the role that religion will play in the run for the White House. The industry is immense. [...] Its potential for influencing public opinion is considerable."
The pervading influence of religion on politics is certainly nothing new for 2008; the two have been intertwined throughout human history. I gather that your focus here is on this newly engorged industry of commentary and analysis on faith and politics.
Still, it's not clear if you intend this blog and its ensuing discussion to be a part of this new industry or outside of it, focusing attention on the media coverage of faith-in-politics itself and *its* influence.
Since I anticipate the answer to be "both," I'll add this thought:
Historically, religions held a primacy in providing the main informational and moral message in people's lives, they were *the* source. We should take note that in our post-20th Century world, people get vastly more news and information from mass media than from direct religious authorities. As a result, faith-based groups now work to influence public opinion *through* the media, just as any organization with a message must.
As we then turn our eye to this new, economy-sized industry centered on faith-in-politics, we should be cognizant that this attention feeds into the very subject it examines.
Posted by: JD | July 9, 2007 3:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Carolyn Reyno, it may not necessarily cloud judgement, but it doesn't necessarily help either. Decisions of judgment are based on age, experience and a good moral/ethical grounding, which can be obtained in the absence of a religious background.
Posted by: Frank | July 9, 2007 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau,
I have to take exception to your premise that religion and politics cloud judgment, moral reasoning and analytical clarity. You, as a commentator, show your own bias by starting with "Apprehensiveness" towards these subjects.
The Washington Post may embrace any discussion of religion with skepticism, but that doesn't mean the rest of us lack clarity.
True reasoning requires no bias against ideas you disagree with, but entertaining them, and then presenting your own conclusions, with evidence to support them.
You can look for partiality, but being impartial requires starting from a neutral position. I look forward to your posts.
Posted by: Carolyn Reyno | July 9, 2007 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paul Garneau? Another patently obvious anagram.
Posted by: Frank | July 9, 2007 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A non-partisan blog in a liberal paper with a largley liberal readshership and respondership? Really?
Posted by: Paul Garneau | July 9, 2007 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
AHA Mark Braun! Or should I say Jacques Berlinerblau? That was clever using Mark Braun, which is obviously a anagram for Berlinerblau. You're a very smart man.
Posted by: Frank | July 9, 2007 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This new forum may be a valuable place for those of faith to vent some concerns and have topics discussed that would be suppressed otherwise. Being a man of faith, I must say that I do see the mixing of faith and politics extremely troubling. The real problem is, that there is NO preacher, minister or pundit that has the concept of God correct. It is impossible for a human being to understand what God really is. It says so in the Bible. So, when someone tells you that they have the keys to heaven and that they "know" God, this is wrong, so very wrong. It is beyond anyone to really "know" God. Therefore, what we have is a bunch of arrogant, misguided people trying to control our concept of God. This may be humanity's greatest sin, and organized religion in all it's forms is to blame. There is one God. Get it? and HE/SHE/IT doesn't belong to your church/religion.
Posted by: Mark Braun | July 9, 2007 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Note to Jacob and other commenters:
Sorry about that. Those comments were deleted accidently. By me. Won't happen again.
Please post away. Jacques is enjoying the conversation.
David Waters
Producer
Posted by: David Waters | July 9, 2007 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill your use of the word pejorative is somewhat pejorative too, but it was your prerogative. Don't you love it when homophones can be used as synonyms?
Posted by: Frank | July 9, 2007 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
First, the use of the term "industry" is somewhat pejorative. A candidate needs to study up on a wide variety of issues when running for office. Is a person that advises a candidate about the intricacies of Medicare coverage or relations with Somalia part of the "Medicare industry" or "foreign relations industry?" If not, then why is a pastor who describes the common concerns of the members of his congregation part of the "religious advice industry"?
Second, the idea that advice given to candidates (or anyone, for that matter) on religious or spiritual matters could possibly be regulated is just as ridiculous as the idea that advice and ideas printed by the Washington Post can be regulated. Both are forbidden by the same First Amendment.
Posted by: Bill | July 9, 2007 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques, welcome.
Both the text and subtext of fundamentalist Christian religion with regard to this presidential administration is truly frightening. To my mind, your contribution is beginning about six years too late. Anyway, better late than never.
Best wishes.
Posted by: welcome | July 9, 2007 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bravo to the Post for creating this important forum!! Perhaps the best way to start is with a discussion of the premise of this industry.
It seems to me that the purpose of this industry is to deprive the constitutional right of Freedom of Religion for millions of Americans that don't happen to hold the same set of beliefs and pursue the same doctrines as those of any particular industrial stakeholder.
Of course, they claim that their behavior is guaranteed by their Freedom of Speech. It's their goals I question, not their right to purse them.
Posted by: David Schwartz | July 9, 2007 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
WHY!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2007 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Where are all the Hillary Clinton supporters !