RoR: Forum

Thanks George - I liked your response.

I especially agree with your statement:

"The point is that the alternative for America at this particular moment in history is not between Objectivist atheism or mysticism – but between socialistic/hedonistic atheism (or agnosticism) or secularized mix-premised Christianity."

I wish the former were the case, but it is not likely to happen soon unfortunately. To separate the "popular ideological" atheism from socialism and conservative Christianity from capitalism will prove a daunting task for objectivists.

That is why I don't really agree with your last statement, which compared with the first statement I quoted must be a contradiction:

"And if each century were to be named after the individual who had the greatest impact, then the title of this chapter will read: 'Chapter 3, the Century of Ayn Rand.' "

Although, I do hope you eventually turn out to be right, I do not as yet see any evidence for it.

Post 1

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:36am

I wanted to thank George W. Cordero for a thoughtful, respectful, and lengthy response to my essay, "Caught Up in the Rapture." It will be impossible to respond to every last point you make, Mr. Cordero, without writing yet another article. I fear this response is a bit longer than I had anticipated, but I do think some points needed to be made.

Cordero writes: "A common tendency among Objectivists is to present current events in the same highly pessimistic, and at times apocalyptic, terms as the extreme Left and extreme Right do."

Just as an aside: I no longer identify myself as an Objectivist for reasons I describe here, and in other posts that can be referenced at my Not a Blog. Though I am deeply influenced by Ayn Rand, and though I accept the essentials of her philosophy in its basic branches, I am much too disturbed by the ways in which contemporary "Objectivists" have abandoned Rand's radical legacy; hence, I am no longer interested in the almost religious debates that surround the question: "Who is an Objectivist?"

Cordero goes on to say that my article focuses on "cultural 'blips'" from which it draws "sweeping generalities" that "are vastly overblown."

We are living in a nation that, for all its profoundly secular advances, is still among the most pious and religious in the industrial world. Some surveys suggest that 90 percent of Americans still believe in God, while 60 percent still believe in Satan. It is true that religious forces have lost immeasurably when judged along a broad time continuum; the secularization of the human mind has been going on for centuries, and, at times, there have been religious surges that have constituted a reaction to that secularization. Like most movements in their death throes, however, such surges can be positively cancerous in their implications.

Please note that the article was rather restrained in its characterization of these tendencies; nowhere do I suggest that this is some kind of apocalyptic battle. (I'll leave the apocalyptics to the fundamentalists...) Odds are, given the inherent frustrations of an interest-group driven political process, these tendencies might very well be kept at bay. And I do state, quite explicitly, that we're dealing not with a "hegemonic" religiosity, but with an "increasingly influential" stream of thought, not one that dominates the culture in every way. Moreover, I have argued here and elsewhere that it does not much matter who is in power at this point; the interventionist state has long been institutionalized, and whether it is Bush or Kerry in 2004, current domestic and foreign policy agendas will continue unabated.

Cordero writes: "The extreme left that dominates the mass media never tires of presenting America an endless series of highly dramatized examples of the evil and growing influence of Christian fundamentalism."

I have no doubt that the left dominates some sectors of mass media; but the sectors that draw some of the biggest numbers are Talk Radio, overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and, in cable TV networks, the Fox News Channel, overwhelmingly conservative in its political orientation. So I don't believe that the left has a monopoly over mainstream media outlets. The right and the left typically scapegoat each other's constituencies, and it was not and is not my intention to scapegoat religious people. I state that "there are many other non- (or anti-)religious ideological groups trying to ram their particular social agendas down the throats of the American people; some of these groups are notably secular and left-wing." Those groups were not my focus in this article; I have addressed those groups in other essays.

I also go out of my way in the current article to state that it is not religion per se that is the central issue, but the character of a specific bloc of religious voters who are having a much deeper effect on American culture and politics than they have formerly.

With regard to what Cordero calls "the continued secularization of modern Christianity," let me say this: Christian fundamentalists are not imbeciles. They are media savvy individuals who have learned to package their pietist messages for the MTV Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers. If they hadn't adapted their message to the medium, they would have risked falling into utter cultural irrelevance. This is not a victory for secularization, however; it is the use of technologically sophisticated instruments of marketing that attempts to both reflect and alter popular cultural idioms for the benefit of Christian fundamentalist ideology. That packaging is potentially far more insidious in its effects than the Bible Thumpers of Old Time Religion. I am most definitely not talking about a return to the Dark Ages, or to a surge in the "popularity of Middle-Ages-based biblical movies." I am talking about a marketization of Christian fundamentalism that is repackaged for a New Age, and is, thus, far more effective in this context.

But this methodology is nothing new; the capacity to absorb institutions that have been previously dismissed as "pagan" is one that goes back centuries. After all, Christmas and Easter were modeled on pagan holidays as a means of co-opting the masses into a general acceptance of Christian themes and symbols. It is no accident, however, that some Christian groups have taken to beating up the ever-pagan Easter bunny, as I describe in my Rapture essay, just to set the record straight---while quite possibly doing immeasurable psychological damage to the children who witness it.

As such, the trends of which I speak are not simply "blip[s] on the radar screen." A $4.2 billion Christian merchandising market is not chump change. A $100 million video game business is not incidental. A $400 million gross for "The Passion of the Christ" places it among the highest grossing films of all time (and we know that it was fundamentalist Churches that got its congregations to see that movie in a fairly extensive and structured marketing campaign).

Oh, and, btw, Hollywood is actually considering a remake of the classic "Ten Commandments," but by Paramount, not MGM; see here. Please note however that I am not impugning the aesthetic of religiously inspired films. I made a point of saying that "Ben-Hur" was my favorite film. But there is a grand difference between how I interpret that film, and how others do.

Onto politics: I have not argued that there is a "messianic trend in American politics." What I've argued is that pietistic religious movements have influenced the convictions of those who are at the helm of political decision-making. Such decision-makers are using religion as a tool for the expansion of the institutionalized welfare-warfare state. I have not even doubted the sincerity of the convictions of individuals like George W. Bush. (And sometimes, the "devil" that you know is better than the "devil" that you don't know---which is another reason people might still stick with Bush...)

But make no mistake about it: Bush and his neocon advisors may have used WMDs as the most plausible reason for invading Iraq. But the culture-building and nation-building enterprises have been an intimate and explicit part of the administration's agenda from the beginning of the Iraq crusade; acknowledging that these premises (common to both pietist-fundamentalists and Wilsonian-Trotskyite neocons) are at the heart of these enterprises is rather uncontroversial. We're not talking about a bunch of wild-eyed messianic nutcases, in any event; we're talking about men and women who have their fingers on the levers of power, and who have drawn inspiration from ideologies that are not friendly to individualism or capitalism. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the implemented policies will be friendly neither to individualism nor capitalism.

The GOP, by the way, does not endorse "altruistic" interventionist policies "strictly for image reasons." The GOP has always advanced such policies. They are politicians. They were the "Me-Too" politicians for 40 years after FDR's New Deal; since the "Reagan Revolution," however, they have merely provided a limited-government ideological veneer to a fundamentally interventionist agenda that has now led to the highest budget deficits in US history.

But mark my words: The GOP is not going to ever make the mistake again of parading its fundamentalist base on national television. Its NYC convention will be dominated by eminently reasonable Northeast moderates (who are a small minority of the party), people like former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, NY Governor George Pataki, and others. That's the kind of cynical packaging that is common to both major political parties.

I can't say I disagree with you, Mr. Cordero, about any of the principles of truth, freedom, and reason that you extoll. Let's just hope that the Chapter 3 you describe in that book The Rise and Fall of the American Nation, is not part of a 3- or 4- chapter book. As some of my religious friends would say: "From Your Lips to God's Ears."

All the best,
Chris

(Edited by sciabarra on 8/14, 1:04pm)

Post 2

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 1:18pm

I wanted to thank George W. Cordero for a thoughtful, respectful, and lengthy response to my essay,

I am glad to read that – I was genuinely concerned that my article would appear to be a personal attack.

Just as an aside: I no longer identify myself as an Objectivist for reasons I describe

I stand corrected.

We are living in a nation that, for all its profoundly secular advances, is still among the most pious and religious in the industrial world.

Absolutely NOT. This is a common error accepted by the Western industrialized world. If religiosity is to be measured by the degree of ones dogmatism, subjectivism, irrationalism and devotion (piety) – then the atheistic hedonist/socialist European model leaves us as looking like, ‘church only on Easter and Christmas Christians.’

The new left is a religion unto itself, it has its saints and martyrs (Che Guevara, Evita Peron), it has its own dogma – socialism, its piety is displayed in the reverence it holds for eco-systems over mankind, its church is attended not every Sunday or so – but every day within their hedonistic cathedrals. Crusades you say, they have these too – an unending war against un-restricted capitalism and Christian values. The latter is especially important to them. Secularized American Christianity, for all its inherent flaws and contradictions, has a greater focus on the individual, and worse of all it requires the necessity to make value judgments. This is something that the hedonist/socialist church can’t continence – it is a direct threat to their moral equivalency and desire to evade moral judgments at all cost (unless of course those judgments are condemnation of Christianity or capitalism). The continued secularization of American Christianity especially presents a threat to them – they would far prefer America to be locked in dark-age dogmas. With every incremental step in the secularization of American Christianity, they rightly conclude that the focus on individuality, personal responsibility, and value judgments increase while the mysticism decreases, thus the less we mirror their own religious dogmatism the greater a threat we become.

The percentage of actual church attendance is inconsequential – what is important is the overall content of what the church is espousing. Here is where we especially part ways. I see the increasing secularization of the church as a whole (barring the usual lunatic fringe) while you see the lunatic fringe as the rule as opposed to the exception. I can only say this, that is has been my experience with many of my friends and acquaintances to notice a definite trend in the secularization of their religious convictions, and as a consequence their political ones as well. Those who have become increasingly pious or dogmatic over the years are in the vast minority. I ask the readers to ask themselves; that Church going Archie Bunker type man you have known the last 20 years – how would you compare the mans ideas today to when you first met him? And, do his sons, Archie Jr., ideas pale in comparison to his father’s level of irrationalism?

I have no doubt that the left dominates some sectors of mass media; but the sectors that draw some of the biggest numbers are Talk Radio, overwhelmingly dominated by conservative hosts, and, in cable TV networks, the Fox News Channel, overwhelmingly conservative in its political orientation.

Sorry Mr. Sciabaara but that is flat out wrong. No reasonable person can compare the degree of influence of the media left to the media right. It’s not even close. Notwithstanding those exceptions you gave me – the catalogue of leftist newsprint, books, television shows, movies, teachers, actors, pop stars, magazines, professors, anchormen, reporters, self-help gurus, and political activist is so profoundly overwhelming and entrenched, that any comparisons are superfluous.

Christian fundamentalists are not imbeciles. They are media savvy individuals who have learned to package their pietist messages for the MTV Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers. If they hadn't adapted their message to the medium, they would have risked falling into utter cultural irrelevance. This is not a victory for secularization, however; it is the use of technologically sophisticated instruments of marketing that attempts to both reflect and alter popular cultural idioms for the benefit of Christian fundamentalist ideology. That packaging is potentially far more insidious in its effects than the Bible Thumpers of Old Time Religion.

Excuse me sir, but that is a completely over the top statement. The likelihood of a hi-tech fundamentalist conspiracy (this is the general tone of your last statement), as opposed to the alternative of a waning American fundamentalism, is immensely improbable. I offer you this other alternative; the position of the mainstream churches have become so secularized that many segments of our society that previously felt unwelcome or uncomfortable to participate within them – no longer feel that way. Since these people, like all human beings are seeking a set of moral values grounded in some form of Philosophy they are now dabbling with a Christianity they despised before. Never before in the history of this nation could a homosexual, minority, immigrant, or career oriented woman feel more comfortable within many of the mainstream churches. The growth of the church is at the expense of hedonistic/socialist left alternative – and the only reason for the reverse in trend is the greater secularization of mainstream religion in America.

$4.2 billion Christian merchandising market is not chump change. A $400 million gross for "The Passion of the Christ" places it among the highest grossing films of all time

Mr. Sciabarra, isn’t it just possible that the Passion was a cultural phenomena as opposed to a cultural trend? Blockbuster movies on religious or politically charged themes come and go – their actual influence is negligible. Their popularity is understandable considering the enormous media hype that precedes these types of films. I can assure you that the sales of action figures for the Lord of the Ring trilogy has already waned – I have a feeling that the number of ‘crucifix nails’ pendants or necklaces is not going to be on everyone’s Christmas list this year either.

I made a point of saying that "Ben-Hur" was my favorite film. But there is a grand difference between how I interpret that film, and how others do.

I disagree; I believe that exactly those same things that inspire you to like the film are the ones that appeal to others. The difference being that those others are unable to articulate it, for them the reaction is far more on a sub-conscious level. Mankind is far more benevolent than most people would assume.

The GOP, by the way, does not endorse "altruistic" interventionist policies "strictly for image reasons." The GOP has always advanced such policies. They are politicians. They were the "Me-Too" politicians for 40 years after FDR's New Deal; since the "Reagan Revolution," however, they have merely provided a limited-government ideological veneer to a fundamentally interventionist agenda that has now led to the highest budget deficits in US history.

Again Mr. Sciabarra, it’s a matter of ‘degree’. The degree to which the GOP endorses such things is far less than their rivals, and their reason far less ideological and far more pragmatic. The oft-quoted highest deficits in US history are highly misleading. As a percentage of GDP they are approximate to many of the past. Furthermore, one must take into account these factors: the burst of the internet bubble which massively reduced government revenue, the 911 attacks, the timid war against Islamic terrorist, and the standard deficit spending that has occurred in every major American war of the last 100 years.

But mark my words: The GOP is not going to ever make the mistake again of parading its fundamentalist base on national television. Its NYC convention will be dominated by eminently reasonable Northest moderates (who are a small minority of the party), people like former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, NY Governor George Pataki, and others. That's the kind of cynical packaging that is common to both major political parties.

Mr. Sciabarra, they are not going to ‘parade’ their fundamentalist because these men are no longer popular among the majority of Americans – just as the Demos hid away their Michael Moore types. Besides, if the cultural trend is as you say, then why would they NOT parade these people? You can't have it both ways; an upsurge in fundementalsim as a mainstream phenom, AND the need to hide this force that has become so dominant? As Americans have continued to become increasingly educated and politically moderate, both parties have had to adapt to that reality. There is no fundamentalist base to parade sir – its power and influence have so declined that the rank and file GOP supporter is nearly as derisive of a Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan as the majority of all Americans. Its not that insidious, it’s not that deep – they are just being typically pragmatic. They ran the numbers and ran the polls – the result is what you will see.

Let's just hope that the Chapter 3 you describe in that book The Rise and Fall of the American Nation, is not part of a 3- or 4- chapter book.

I knew you would say that! –rofl-

I suppose it’s a matter of perspective sir – from where I sit I have never had more reason to be prouder and optimistic about America and its future.

Sincerely,

George W. Cordero

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/14, 1:23pm)

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/14, 2:44pm)

Post 3

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 8:23pm

George (I don't think there is a need to be quite so formal here at SOLO HQ... so please feel free to call me Chris): I sincerely doubt we'll come to any agreement on these issues. Nevertheless, a couple of points in response:

It is extremely difficult to compare "stats" on how we measure "religious" influence in society; by any measure, for example, Russia---even in its so-called "atheistic" and "materialistic" phase of Soviet communism---was among the most "mystical" in the world. I was measuring religious influence in terms of church attendance, and cultural impact. It is certainly a debatable point, depending on what "measure" you use. But even if we go strictly by what the church espouses, that too is a complicated issue---which is why I focused on one manifestation of Christian church teaching: pietist fundamentalism.

I also think we have clear differences concerning our view of the character of today's media. After seeing uncritical "embedded" journalists swallow, hook, line, and sinker, the administration's case for the Iraq war, I am very wary of broad generalizations on ideological character. Nevertheless, I do not believe that we are dealing with either a left-wing "conspiracy" or a "vast right-wing conspiracy": we are simply dealing with broad cultural trends that should not go unnoticed on either end of the political spectrum.

BTW, I don't think "Passion" was a singular cultural phenomenon, precisely because I presented it as only one example of a much larger trend, one that includes, for example, the sale of 60 million books in the Left Behind series. Moreover, the "numbers" for "Passion" were not spontaneously generated; the audience that showed up was brought into the multiplexes through a rather concerted marketing effort, by which the director Mel Gibson worked with churches of various denominations to bring in high box office stats.

With regard to the GOP, let's be clear: the fundamentalist bloc is part of the GOP base. But the GOP base is not the only voting bloc in America; America is much more "centrist," and a convention is nothing more than a gigantic infomercial designed to appeal to that "centrist" audience. We saw the same dynamic at work in last month's Democratic convention. Just because fundamentalism has been mainstreamed does not mean that it is the only, or even the dominant cultural trend. I argued in my essay that it had gained a troubling influence on cultural and political affairs, not that it was the "dominant" cultural or political trend in the USA.

In any event, George: stay proud and optimistic. I too believe that America and mankind are capable of great benevolence. I am not of the belief that the only way is down. But I'll continue to call 'em like I see 'em, especially when I see trends that do not portend well for the future stability or progress of the republic.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 4

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 6:57pm

Good strong interchange between Chris and George, and I enjoyed the level of intelligence exhibited by both. I would say both contestants have made strong points, and only the future will decide the acuity of vision of both. But whatever the case, I would say to George that Chris has an independent view, and it is not necessary to tell someone of his talent and ability that he is "wrong" when he is expressing his "take" of a cultural trend. You definitely see him as "wrong" but that is what makes for an interesting world, as to which view will prevail, and in the meantime, respect for his view, and a simple, "I disagree" works to grease the wheel of interchange.

My own point of view would include the failure of a strong current of thought along Objectivist lines in the mass media at this juncture of history, over 50 years after the publication of The Fountainhead. Whether the threat is from the left or the right, where are the great articulators of a Randian position in the media?

I agree with Chris that ARI is strongly influenced by neo-conservative positions and thoughts, and this is not Ayn Rand speaking. In the end, I don't think it is important who is the main opponent, if there is a strong Objectivist-oriented current in the media, or in society as a whole, as an answer to both positions. And personally, I see Michael Moore as a blessing in disguise, a graphic illustration of left-wing mediocrity that will never appeal to young, intelligent minds.

In my view, the great threat comes from our own silenced guns, the muffled voices of Rand's children, who are not being heard in the cultural wars.

Post 5

Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:50pm

I have noticed personally a strong Christian influence lately in popular culture, as Chris notes, from the LEFT BEHIND series to that Christian rock cd advertised endlessly on tv. And of course in politics we hear lot of rhetoric about religion in the discussion of gay marriage (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, etc.) But I don't know that, as an atheist, I feel particurly threatened by it. I have worked in book stores for several years, and can attest that the LEFT BEHIND series has lost some steam after the Y2K crash didn't happen. (Which makes me wonder if much of the upswing in religion in America wasn't based on millenial fears; notice that the MATRIX trilogy lost steam after Y2k also.)
As a gay male, I don't feel threatened by Christians in regarding marriage, since I am not asking their permission. They can't stop me from having a ceremony.
As for religious Americans, how many Americans have actually read the Bible? My roommate, who is Hispanic, grew up in a Catholic household, and he wears his cross, and believes in God and Heaven and Hell...but only because he was told to as a Child, and never questioned it. As an atheist, I know more about the Bible than he does. Am I taking religion more seriously than he is? Yes. And I think most Americans pay lip service, but don't really think about it. (Which can be scary when people who really don't know influence a vote based on unquestioned beliefs, but otherwise is it harmless? I want to think so, but I am reminded of the quote that says the best feat the Devil has accomplished is convincing people that he doesn't exist...[Roark said, "But I don't think of you," but it seems O'ist's do nothing but...])...
As for the Passion of the Christ, I haven't heard much about that after some months have past.
What I think Chris really puts his finger on is the idea that the religious right realizes the power of popular culture so spread ideas, but then again, the Church has long realized that power, and used morality plays to great effect. It does seem that Christianity has been appearing more lately, though. The LEFT BEHIND series continues, and has even included a children's series...but could it be that since the initial bump in interest from the Y2L scare has died down, the Church needed to compete a little harder? I think back to Rand's essay on the space program, when she went to watch the shuttle launch, and noticed that there were a lot of churches with modern designs, as if to compete with the space age. But being that ideas in this country are on the free market and open to competition, we've seen some bold responses to the rise in Christian propaganda (the boldest being, of course, from SOUTH PARK, which has lampooned the Christian pop bands with Cartman's band FAITH PLUS ONE, and moreso with their response to the PASSION OF THE CHRIST, which will debut on video at the same time as THE PASSION.)
Or is what Chris seeing really the shadow of our country's response to the war on terror, which includes a reaction to fundamental Islam? It's easy to see the worst in Islamic thought right now, especially if you're an American Christian, but not so easy for said Christian to see their own dark sides. Being neither an Orthodox Christian nor an Orthodox Objectist, but instead a dialection, it is easier for Chris to see the dark side to the response of the Christian and O'ist response. It is no coincidence that the religious right has been compared to to the Nazi's. Is it possible that Christian America's response to the Islamic jihad is not merely one of self defense, but one that Jung would describe as a shadow projection? After all, the Christians have a history of Crusades, and have committed much travesty in the name of a monotheistic religion, but are most Christians accepting of the idea that they still could? Monotheistic thinking is dangerous, and can lead to a onesided reaction resulting in apocalyptic thought that even Objectivists are capable of. "Dr. Diabolical Dialectic" knows this, and I think his best summation of such appears in RUSSIAN RADICAL, at the end, with his story of the elephant and the dangers of reification. Maybe Chris is overemphasizing the strength of the religious ferver, maybe not. But I do think he sees something real, that if true, should be checked.

Post 6

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 6:13am

Chris,

One last point and then I will move on. You stated in your last response:

“With regard to the GOP, let's be clear: the fundamentalist bloc is part of the GOP base. But the GOP base is not the only voting bloc in America; America is much more "centrist," and a convention is nothing more than a gigantic infomercial designed to appeal to that "centrist" audience.

Of course its part of the GOP base, there is no denying that. My only contention is that the part that it represents of that base is nowhere near the level it was a mere 10 years ago. More importantly however, is not the actual size of this constituency but its fundamental ideology that matters. Within that bloc there exist sub-blocks, and it was one of these sub-blocs that was the focus of your argument. In this case it was the sub-bloc that you placed under the heading of, ‘pietistic fundamentalism’. This is the sub-bloc that has not changed over the last ten years; therefore your arguments as it relates to this sub-bloc cannot be refuted. My point is that to focus on this particular sub-bloc as representative of the whole will lead to a conclusion that fails to take into account the dramatic ideological shifts that have occurred within the totality of the group to which this block is a part of. Shifts which in my opinion clearly indicate an overall secularization of American Christianity as a whole, and a moderating influence on Christian Conservatism itself.

Okay - That’s enough of that!

I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond to my article and the follow-up post. I’ll have you know that I am one of the people that found your book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, to be insightful and especially enlightening in regards to Mrs. Rand’s background and intellectual influences. So, since I am one of only 12 people that bought your book – you owe me! –lol- just kidding!

Sincerely,

George W. Cordero

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/15, 6:14am)

Post 7

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 7:22am

I was preparing a very brief response to some of the points made by the other gents when George's reply popped up here... so I'll just address everything, and call it a day.

One thing we all must remember is that however "mainstream" Christian fundamentalism has become, we are really not talking about the vast majority of people who are Christians. Nor are we talking about the vast majority of Americans, thank God. I went out of my way in the article to suggest that this was not an indictment of religious people.

Another thing we must remember is that there are geographic and demographic issues that must be addressed. I suspect that people who live in New York City, or in Philadelphia, or in Seattle, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or any of the major cities in the United States really don't see much of this fundamentalist streak at all. (Indeed, the only "fundamentalist" streak that one might find in urban cities probably centers around the black Church, which is traditionally "Democratic"; but, as Zev Chafets points out here, the Democratic "Party's support for gay rights [is] a turnoff for black religionists," who might not vote for Bush, but might actually sit out this election if the Dems push the liberal social agenda.)

The real "fundamentalist" streak that has gained favor, and that has, in my view, grown, still resides in the South, the Southwest, and parts of the West and Midwest, mostly those "red" states that have gone Republican, and that delivered the Presidency to George W. Bush in 2000, and that might still deliver it to him in 2004.

My article never suggested that this fundamentalist movement was a majority movement in America; if it were, I would have already left this country to reside elsewhere. But we need to remember one truism: As Fareed Zakharia said this morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos": "History is made by angry minorities not by passive majorities." All the more reason to stay vigilant in the face of things that we perceive as troubling, and dangerous.

Oh, George, one other thing: Thanks for being among the purchasers of Russian Radical. I do indeed owe you! Still... I don't like getting into numbers games as you know (we already got into trouble on that question, as it pertains to church attendance figures! :) )... because they don't necessarily prove much. But I'm proud to say that Russian Radical long ago passed the 12 thousand book sales level, and remains one of the best sellers in the history of Penn State Press.

But it's interesting you picked the number 12. Another number with religious significance. It must be a conspiracy! :)

Cheers,
Chris

Post 8

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:02am

I suppose if I were one of your twelve - i would be stuck playing the role of Judas!

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/15, 8:03am)

Post 9

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:05am

How about you cut me a break, and let me play 'doubting' Thomas?

George

Post 10

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:34am

ROFL ... okay, George. Very fair. From now on I shall call you Doubting Thomas. But that's better than Mr. Iscariot. :)

Post 11

Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:35am

(Edited by sciabarra on 8/15, 8:36am)

Post 12

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 3:21am

American Christian religiosity tends to be compartmentalized--people do their Sunday thing and then it's over. They do not seem to be as devout as, say, Muslims in the Middle East (or even in America) or Catholics in even early 20th century Europe (who would attend church twice, three times a week). American Christians tend, to act like deists rather than fundamentalists, even when it is the latter that they profess. On the other hand, the influence of, say, the 700 Club of Pat Robertson in Africa is growing by leaps and bounds. So, it is a mixed picture on the global front. And in my view the reason is that in the contemporary popular philosophy of scientism/materialism there's no room for genuine ethics, for the meaningfulness of concerns about how we all ought to live, so since that question does strike ordinary folks as quite reasonable, never mind official popular philosophy, they go to religion to make room for it, thus giving the religious what it needs to be triumphant (enough) in contemporary culture.

Post 13

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 6:43am

Tibor,

"And in my view the reason is that in the contemporary popular philosophy of scientism/materialism there's no room for genuine ethics, for the meaningfulness of concerns about how we all ought to live...."

Not true.

1) There are the environmental scientists who think that to espouse any science that suggests that human beings are not responsible for destroying the earth is just downright irresponsible and immoral. No matter what the consequences to the economy, human beings pollution must be stopped. This type of science to back up these claims has reached religious cult status.

2) There is "anti-drug" medical science. To make a claim that in any way illegal addictive drugs could have a positive effect on human health is seen as immoral. All science must be interpreted to support the idea that these illegal substances must be banned and deemed to be irresponsible to use. Almost reached religious cult status.

3) Anyone that questions the medical science of eating your greens, cutting out fat and regular exercise is also held to be irresponsible and reckless. Not yet a religious cult, but medical doctors and politicians are working on it.

You see, when science is used to take an ethical stand on how we ought to live our lives -it is used to justify a state enforced agenda - of fat taxes, smoke-free pubs and restrictions on pollution and waste emissions.

I agree that scientists (and science) should take ethical and philosophical positions, but they shouldn't replicate religious dogma as many have as in the above examples.

Post 14

Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:13pm