Big debate going on over at Atrios about religion and its place in politics. [UPDATE: The whole thing was apparently triggered by this, this and this.] [UPDATE UPDATE: Jeanne D'Arc writes Atrios to point out the errors in the press coverage that started the ball rolling.]

Well, actually, it reminds me not so much of a debate as a big pile of yiffing Furries, happily spooging away…

It started out with Atrios writing about how tired he is about Christians pretending they’re a persecuted minority and went into this:

I’m tired of liberalish Christians telling me it’s my job to reach out to Christian moderates who feel that “the Left” is hostile to them. Screw that. It’s time for liberalish Christians to tell their slightly more right-leaning brethren that those of us who fight to maintain the separation between Church and State do it to protect freedom of religion - not destroy it. It’s time for moderate and liberal Catholics to take a stand against their Church’s assault on Democratic (and only Democratic) politicians who deviate from doctrine.

After the comments postings got rather heated, he added this:

The issue is not religion - it’s religion and politics. As long as religions aren’t too coercive of their members, I’m happy for people to do what they want. But, once religion gets involved in politics I have no need to be tolerant or nice about it. I’m can be tolerant of your religion without being tolerant of your politics. That’s the issue.

The thing is, the Cult of Atrios is a lot like the dying Cult of Bob Dylan: People sit around, pondering and parsing every word, then use their own interpretation as words to live by. Although Dylan did occasionally use his status to advocate on issues, he was never comfortable on that pedestal. (I suspect he did the Victoria’s Secret as a final “Up yours!” to the Cult of Dylan. We’ll never know, though. Being Dylan, he won’t tell us.)

People have belief systems, lots of ‘em. And some of the secular ones have strong parallels to fundamentalist Christians. For example: If you go to a good school and earn academic credentials, you will get a good job, buy a nice house and have financial security.

Like fundies, they’ve bought into an idea that doesn’t require much independent thought or individual trailblazing. They’ve chosen a track dictated by their beliefs, they’ve bought a ticket for that train, and off they go. Also like the fundies, they believe (economic) salvation waits at the end of their journey. Like them, they feel superior to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their beliefs. The only difference I can see is that they believe in heaven on earth, instead of “heaven” heaven.

The point Atrios makes (and it’s a valid one) is that his tolerance stops where religion imposes its beliefs into the political realm. (Although Martin Luther King Jr. might beg to differ.)

But we’re shooting ourselves in the foot when we treat Christians as a monolithic voting bloc; they’re not.

Catholics, to name one group, tend to be more liberal.

Andrew Greeley, the Catholic priest and popular novelist, is also a sociologist who teaches at the University of Arizona and is on the staff of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. What he says might surprise you:

Yet in fact, even if most journalists and election consultants are too caught up in their cliches to notice it, the 2004 election may well be more dominated by religion than many recent contests. The basic issue is whether the religious hard right will continue to maintain and expand its control of the country.

Where do Catholics stand in this situation? As far as one can tell from the available data, they continue to be left-of-center, not as far left as black Protestants or Jews, but still further left than the Protestant majority. They were more likely than white Protestants to support President Clinton during the Evangelical crusade to get rid of him, more likely to oppose the Iraq war (as they did the Vietnam War), more likely to support social legislation — more likely, in other words, to manifest the communal orientation that comes from their religious perspective.

***
Some bishops, perhaps ambitious for Vatican approval, have announced that they will deny the sacraments to Kerry because of his attitudes on abortion and civil unions for gays. It may seem odd that men who have lost all credibility and respect for the sexual-abuse mess they have created are willing to expose themselves to the charge of blatant hypocrisy just now. However, if they make denial of sacraments a big deal in the election campaign, they will certainly contribute to a possible Kerry victory. If voters see that the senator is banned from speaking, let us say, at the University of Notre Dame, that will infuriate just enough Catholics to decide a close election. If he approaches the altar in Boston and is waved away, it will notably improve sympathy among Catholics who also have been waved away when they demand a full accounting for the sexual-abuse mess.

Again, assuming Catholics march in lockstep is ridiculous:

There is a final dimension of the “Catholic factor” which must be whispered: There is a certain visceral dislike among many Catholics for some forms of evangelical enthusiasm — the demand to know whether one “has been saved,” the implication that Catholics are not “Christian,” challenges of “Mary worship,” denunciation with biblical quotes. Some of this antipathy dates to Catholic servicemen’s first encounter with fundamentalism in World War II camps in the South. With the presently available data there is no way to quantify such dislike. However, if the appeal to Bush’s “base” should become more blatantly evangelical (like a visit to Oral Roberts University) there could be a Catholic backlash.

In other words, you can no more discern the political leanings of American Catholics from the activities of their “leaders” than you can discern the leanings of Pennsylvanians from the fact that we are “represented” by Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter. Like the Republican party, the Catholic church has packed the electoral slate with ultra-conservatives.

I could go on. (After all, Atrios’ comment section often descends into pure, unrestrained id under the self-congratulatory guise of higher reason.) But my neck hurts and I don’t want to type that long, so I’ll stick to some bullet points.

* People who get fanatical and fiercely protective about unborn first-trimester “babies” that are, in the first six weeks, little more than blobs of pink Jello, are no more bizarre than people who accuse those who eat meat of being cannibals. The nuts who gun down abortion doctors aren’t any more insane than the ones who boobytrap logging trails to protect trees.

* Faith is speculative in direct proportion to science’s inability to quantify it. In the name of “science,” Ignatz Semmelweiss was labeled a nut for believing disease was carried by invisible particles that clung to doctors’ hands. Jonas Salk was crazy for thinking polio could be prevented by ingesting the virus.

* Fundamentalism sucks. And believing the world will be saved through advanced academic degrees, applied economic theory or Zoloft is just as wacky as the people who believe God appears in burned tortillas. Subscribing to orthodoxy on the basic premise that it will lead to salvation (economic, political, religious or otherwise) is to pure knowledge what paint-by-number paintings are to art.

* The character of religion is male, the same way the military or law enforcement is. It’s hierarchical, authoritarian and rigid. It has a structure of rules. It’s punitive and its power is grounded in intimidation and fear, the same way schoolyard bullies operate. The character of spirituality is female, the way mothering is. It’s encompassing, inclusive and flexible. It’s conciliatory, it’s intuitive. It’s rooted in the exceptions to the rules, not the rules.

Don’t assume they’re interchangeable. They’re not. And don’t assume because you can’t quantify something, that means it’s without validity.

* Liberal atheists remind me, in some ways, of rabid libertarians. Not so much in the beliefs, but in their utter disdain for anyone who does not share them. Hey, guess what? I’m not stupid and I believe in God. Deal with it.

* One commenter was dumb enough to compare a so-called religious experience to the contact high you get at a sporting event or a concert. This is like comparing a pat on the arm to an orgasm - if you can’t tell the difference, I can say with complete confidence that you haven’t had one.

* The use of pejorative terms to describe non-atheists or their God is not “tolerance.” It is condescending and snide. It will not win support - and it may lose us the election. Let me remind you: The last election was decided by a few hundred votes.

* People do love to feel superior. (If you need to understand why, I’ll refer you to Carl Jung; he can explain it much better than I.) The abuses and excesses of the religious right are legion, no question. They’re a powerful special interest, but still a minority. Every time the religious right runs for office and clearly states their intentions, they’re rebuffed by the voters. And if they pretend otherwise to get elected, they’re turned out of office in the next election.

* How about you guys explaining to some Native Americans what morons they are for believing in the Great Spirit? Yeah, right.

* I don’t care what you believe. I really don’t. But don’t characterize me on the basis of my beliefs. I’ve been labeled as suspect for lots of things: watching soap operas, studying astrology, believing in God - and reincarnation. Being against the war. Defending a president who got BJs in the Oval Office.

Hell, I even have people treat me like a moron because I’m a blonde. (It actually amuses me, but still.)

It pisses me off when, to indulge their own egos, people act like we have plenty of votes to spare. We don’t. And if you can’t be bothered to make common cause with people who are mostly leaning our way because you need to satisfy your own sense of superiority, then you’re nothing but a rank political amateur. You’re no different from the people who vote for Ralph Nader because they’re so “pure.”

It just makes you a naive little bitch for the right wing.

Bend over, boy, and squeal like a pig.