Because they’re stupid/insane and incredibly politically naive

You do need to be more careful about simply identifying religion with the religious right. Literally every time we talk about this, I tell you how much I hate the religious right. I think that you exaggerate the amount of power it has — if they really do have more power than I think, then I suppose that my viewpoint is dangerous insofar as it’s inaccurate, but it’s offered up in good faith. I view the “religious right” phenomenon as a culture wars phenomenon, and I think (based on Thomas Frank and others) that the culture wars paradigm fundametally misses the point of what’s going on in American politics. I know that the religious right can be violent and destructive and I know they provide crucial support for a terrible political program — but at the end of the day, I view the religious right as a bunch of pathetic saps rather than as a genuine danger in and of themselves. They’re dangerous on a large scale only when mobilized by others, because they’re stupid/insane and incredibly politically naive and thus wouldn’t get very far without being manipulated from the outside. Those others are the real problem and should be the focus of analysis and critique. Adam Kotsko said this on April 30th, 2007 at 6:58 pm ...

I agree, they are a bunch of pathetic saps. However, they are mobilized by others. Hence it’s worthwhile to be concerned by these masses. Where you would say we should focus on the higher ups that manipulate them, I say we need to focus on both this population and those higher ups. With the “poor saps” efforts need to be made to shift belief. Chances are this will be unsuccessful with the hardcore believers. But it is possible with their children and with those that aren’t excessively attached to the movement. Some useful strategies here would consist of offering alternative ministries that preach a leftist message, that educate the lay about the relationship between economics and tradition/living conditions, and that focus on social justice. Similarly, I think far more can be done to draw attention to those elements of the Gospels that speak to these things: Christ’s attitude towards hypocrits, Christs views on wealth and accumulation, the story of the good Samaritan (focusing on the fact that Samaritans were a despised class, thereby underlining that everyone can embody Christian values whether they identify with a tribe named “Christian” or not, i.e., designing a ministry that seeks to undermine divisive tribalism), focusing on the beatitudes, etc., etc., etc. Those are just off the cuff thoughts and I’m sure you’re familiar with far more intricate strategies. The point is to change the terms of the debate. I think certain moves are afoot in the Southern Baptist Convention to do precisely this, focusing once again on social justice and stewardship of the earth, rather than exclusionary aims such as banning homosexuality. These are still small voices but they are promising. Similar renewals are, from what I understand, being advanced among some Catholics.

The reason I make the arguments I make is that I see your constant asides that these movements aren’t serious as delegitimating a legitimate field of engagement and criticism. That’s my only gripe. I agree that there needs to be focus on the rabble rousers as well. I just don’t feel that should be the exclusive focus. This reactionary population that you refer to as insane pathetic saps hasn’t always existed (or rather has, at times, existed in fall smaller numbers). There’s no reason that forms of praxis can’t be devised to shift things back in that direction. As you know, many moves are already afoot and in practice to do precisely this and they are showing signs of success. However, I do think part of the success of these types of ministries also requires constant exposure of these reactionary groups so that socially they increasingly come to be coded exactly as you code them. larvalsubjects said this on April 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

It is astonishing and improbable that religion and religion alone would be immune to the well-documented phenomenon of idealization and the over-estimation of the love object, which are common in every other branch of individual and social life, whether with regard to interpersonal love relations and friendships, our estimation of ourselves, or attitudes towards organizations, political movements, and even sports teams. In a clinical setting a psychoanalyst would be inclined to think a remark like this is the sign of a defense and denial.

This remark gets at the essence of my criticism:
I personally, as a semi-lapsed but strongly cultural Catholic happily go to Church, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with their stances on various issues and indeed, I speak against them whenever the time is appropriate. You don’t seem to understand the relation between theology and practice and theology and the church very well at all. Or the relation between individual believers and the church more broadly, particularly when those believers are theologians.

You continue to support the institution while disagreeing with many of its stances. In doing so you support the instutition and the political effects that institution has. Most institutions, including churches, of course, have feedback loops such as those you describe with the Vatican council. This, however, doesn’t mean that we can’t get so caught up in our theological musings that we believe these are more real than the concrete social practices relating to the church and its political effects on the larger social space outside the community of believers. I recognize that it’s legitimate to argue that you believe this organization does more good than harm and these disagreements are tolerable. That’s fine. I could list a number of reasons I find the Catholic church problematic, but I don’t want to open that can of worms. larvalsubjects said this on May 1st, 2007 at 12:36 am