America's Smartland
Nov. 1st, 2005 11:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nemorathwaldFollowers of Christ did not get the label "Christian" until several decades after Christ. The term was coined by non-Christians in Asia Minor as a derisive term, meaning "little Christ ones." In a stroke of genius, the followers of Christ adopted the term as their name and it came to mean something good. I saw a similar opportunity in a newspaper editorial by Orson Scott Card. Mr. Card refers to the non-Heartland derisively as "Smartland." Don't you love that name? America's Smartland. Let's start using it. In fact, let's think of ways to spread it as a meme. I think I'll make a banner for people to post on their sites and blogs. Perhaps it will feature an image of Mr. Card with a word balloon saying, "This site a proud resident of America's Smartland."
The problem is that there is seriously a non-Smartland in America. Sane, responsible Christians and religious people who are members of Smartland are much better than American Christians and religious people who are not. This is often used as an excuse to not try to reach out to insane and irresponsible forms of religion in non-Smartland, and cut off one of its major weapons by proving God doesn't exist. For instance, Marshall Brain, who runs HowStuffWorks.com, recently put out a gentle and incisive online book that intends to help with that goal, and John Scalzi (an agnostic) wrote a blog post to lambaste it as a waste of time because we're hurting the feelings of Brother Guy Consolmagno and other religious residents of Smartland. Never mind that the book is not aimed at religous residents of Smartland. We are taking weapons out of the hands of those who abuse them. That's what matters.
John is correct when he says there is just as much of a problem with 20th-century secular dictators as there had been with the Inquisition, Crusades, and witch trials of earlier centuries. But nobody who thinks faith-based cultures are more virtuous and socially stable than secular cultures knows about the comparison with Sweden.
Sweden is the most atheistic country per-capita in the world, and yet somehow not only don't they descend into genocide, they have better rates on just about everything than do highly religious nations. More to the point, according to this article (which reports a systematic study that found current global statistics the exact opposite of religious assumptions), this and countless other recent comprehensive studies show dramatically that the less religious a nation is, the more virtuously its citizens act. The article says,
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the United States "the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest" have "markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the Northeast where ... secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
"the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have ... come closest to achieving practical "cultures of life"."
What could cause this? I like this quote from the article as well: "We know that the most dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt, and that self-doubt is more likely to be absent from the mind of the believer than the infidel."
I'm pleased that there are so many positive exceptions, of course. I myself see very critically-thinking, and independently conscientious Christian individuals around me-- several of them are on my Livejournal friends list, in fact-- but their fellow Christians, especially in this country, are leaving them a minority. Religious progressivism is wonderful but the vast majority outside Smartland will read what the words of scripture plainly say, instead of the intellectual's balanced and nuanced scriptural interpretations.
Consider this article by David Crowe on Belief.net in which he says Hurricane Katrina was a well-deserved judgement from God. This is a minority view among American believers in God, possibly because they ask themselves, are we on the side of the suffering or on the side of an authority figure who inflicts suffering? Just because a man can raise his fist to a woman doesn't mean she owes him allegiance. This kind of might-makes-right morality, based on authority, fits hand in glove with the style of god-belief that is not already conscientious independently of religion. And yet when it's spelled out explicitly, the vast majority of religious people recoil in horror from such a view. It is not at all what they intended. But it makes perfect sense as a result of belief in God.
EDITED TO ADD: John Scalzi made an important point that the study is not scientific proof of what I originally said here, as the study's authors have said, because correlation is not causation. Given the blance of the evidence, I will still lean toward the lessening of theism as a solution which, while not overwhelmingly conclusive, is merely more likely to improve the world than the alternative of leaving the "supply chain" in place for hardcore faith junkies.
The problem is that there is seriously a non-Smartland in America. Sane, responsible Christians and religious people who are members of Smartland are much better than American Christians and religious people who are not. This is often used as an excuse to not try to reach out to insane and irresponsible forms of religion in non-Smartland, and cut off one of its major weapons by proving God doesn't exist. For instance, Marshall Brain, who runs HowStuffWorks.com, recently put out a gentle and incisive online book that intends to help with that goal, and John Scalzi (an agnostic) wrote a blog post to lambaste it as a waste of time because we're hurting the feelings of Brother Guy Consolmagno and other religious residents of Smartland. Never mind that the book is not aimed at religous residents of Smartland. We are taking weapons out of the hands of those who abuse them. That's what matters.
John is correct when he says there is just as much of a problem with 20th-century secular dictators as there had been with the Inquisition, Crusades, and witch trials of earlier centuries. But nobody who thinks faith-based cultures are more virtuous and socially stable than secular cultures knows about the comparison with Sweden.
Sweden is the most atheistic country per-capita in the world, and yet somehow not only don't they descend into genocide, they have better rates on just about everything than do highly religious nations. More to the point, according to this article (which reports a systematic study that found current global statistics the exact opposite of religious assumptions), this and countless other recent comprehensive studies show dramatically that the less religious a nation is, the more virtuously its citizens act. The article says,
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion ... None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction." Within the United States "the strongly theistic, anti-evolution South and Midwest" have "markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the Northeast where ... secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms."
"the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have ... come closest to achieving practical "cultures of life"."
What could cause this? I like this quote from the article as well: "We know that the most dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt, and that self-doubt is more likely to be absent from the mind of the believer than the infidel."
I'm pleased that there are so many positive exceptions, of course. I myself see very critically-thinking, and independently conscientious Christian individuals around me-- several of them are on my Livejournal friends list, in fact-- but their fellow Christians, especially in this country, are leaving them a minority. Religious progressivism is wonderful but the vast majority outside Smartland will read what the words of scripture plainly say, instead of the intellectual's balanced and nuanced scriptural interpretations.
Consider this article by David Crowe on Belief.net in which he says Hurricane Katrina was a well-deserved judgement from God. This is a minority view among American believers in God, possibly because they ask themselves, are we on the side of the suffering or on the side of an authority figure who inflicts suffering? Just because a man can raise his fist to a woman doesn't mean she owes him allegiance. This kind of might-makes-right morality, based on authority, fits hand in glove with the style of god-belief that is not already conscientious independently of religion. And yet when it's spelled out explicitly, the vast majority of religious people recoil in horror from such a view. It is not at all what they intended. But it makes perfect sense as a result of belief in God.
EDITED TO ADD: John Scalzi made an important point that the study is not scientific proof of what I originally said here, as the study's authors have said, because correlation is not causation. Given the blance of the evidence, I will still lean toward the lessening of theism as a solution which, while not overwhelmingly conclusive, is merely more likely to improve the world than the alternative of leaving the "supply chain" in place for hardcore faith junkies.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
"....the most dangerous human trait is an absence of self-doubt......"
Date: 2005-11-01 09:47 pm (UTC)Karma vs. Dogma
Date: 2005-11-01 09:53 pm (UTC)In other words, supposed "religiosity" which has more to do with adherence to strict rules and social norms is primarily Dogmatic, and completely lacking in what I consider to be honest spirituality, if that makes any sense. There is no balance.
I am clueless as to how to establish an acceptable balance, but I think we may have passed a point beyond which it's necessary to scrap the whole thing and start over.
Re: Karma vs. Dogma
Date: 2005-11-01 09:58 pm (UTC)I believe you're over-generalizing
Date: 2005-11-01 10:13 pm (UTC)Which version of God? The deity I worship, for example, does not "smite" people in any way.
The reason I bring this up is that, IMO, when one uses the all-inclusive term, "God," one is making a concession to the Christian fundies on at least one point - monotheism. And, usually, there is an implied concession that the god which is the focus of discussion is the one which is described by the Judeo-Christian tradition.
There are lots of versions of deity out there, from the Shamanic point of view that deity is father/mother/spirit to the seemingly pantheistic point of view of Hinduism. Of course, there is also Buddhism, which is a non-theistic religion.
If you are saying that any belief in any deity contributes to societal issues, you may well be correct. But please be more explicit. I tend to feel that the problem is not necessarily belief in some deity, but the "personality" that one ascribes to one's deity. In that respect, the JudeoChristian heritage is one of the worst.
Re: I believe you're over-generalizing
Date: 2005-11-01 10:21 pm (UTC)Re: I believe you're over-generalizing
Date: 2005-11-01 10:32 pm (UTC)I've been noticing, and been increasingly irked by, mainstream media's use of the word "god" as though there can be only one definition of the term. Do that, and you've already conceded one point that the Religious Wrong in this country ought to have to defend. In the copy I turn in at BTL now, I always make a point of saying that, (to use an example):"According to so-and-so (insert your favorite figure from the anti-gay industry here), the *Christian* god used hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for that city's tolerance of homosexuality."
Perhaps this is too subtle a point, or one that is less important generally than it feels to me specifically. But it seems to me that monotheism itself ought not be a given, let alone any one sect's view of who and what that deity is.
Re: I believe you're over-generalizing
Date: 2005-11-01 10:37 pm (UTC)Re: I believe you're over-generalizing
Date: 2005-11-05 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 04:25 pm (UTC)By labeling people you take away their humanity in your mind. In that you are joining the great "us and them" mentality that you despise.
Essentially, by using the term "Smartland" you really mean people that are either like you, that you can generally agree with or at least tolerate, and insinuate the idea of there being a "Supidland" which I find humorous for some reason.
More importantly, by grouping people like that, a line in the sand is drawn, and a person reading your statement has to categorize themselves on one side or the other. The fact it is, it's a sort of trap, because which side are most people going to want to belong to, Stupidland or Smartland? Obviously, there is plenty of room in between. Absolutes rarely exist.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 05:08 pm (UTC)As for labels, "Christian" is a label which draws a line in the sand, and I don't see you removing that.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 06:57 pm (UTC)It seems that "Smartland" was a poor choice of words for OSC, eh?
The first thing that we have to set straight is that this isn't a black and white issue. Between Stupidland and Smartland there are many shades of grey between the accedemic crowd and the blind-faith crowd.
The next thing to keep in mind is that the only ones that perpetuate this kind mental meme littering are those that stand the most to gain. There's the sheep and then there's shepherd, and it does no good to scold the sheep for grazing on your lawn. There was a time, not too long ago, when the religious right didn't exist as a political entity.
By pointing the stick at a group of people, who have basically had their world hijacked for political gain and labeling them negatively, you have provided the real enemy with ammunition to further be used against you. Many of these people won't or can't get what is going on and there will always be people that will never get it (some of the people all of the time?), but the only way to beat them is through non-offensive opposition. Explain your viewpoint, don't force it. Know your enemy and understand them fully. Draw your oppenent out into the open and into the light of day then they can be seen for who they are.
Name-calling only brings short-term gain and only with the people that already agree with your viewpoint.
That having been said, I think that the religious right movement (or fundimentalist fascists, and yes that's name-calling, I'm not immune) is beginning to lose ground in America. Particularily since their heroes are beginning to fall from grace.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 07:22 pm (UTC)"the only ones that perpetuate this kind mental meme littering are those that stand the most to gain."
This is a powerful point. But I have to disagree with the historical factuality of the following statements:
"Christian is a label which doesn't have a negative opposite. My point is that Christian, historically ... hasn't been used as wedge to divide people into "us and them" categories."
Yes it has, probably more than any other group label in the history of the English- & Spanish-speaking world. It's been the ultimate in-group for centuries, during which "unchristian" or "godless" were common slurs. "Not being Christian" was a synonym for "being bad."
This label is also one of the most black-and-white, since when you name yourself after a person it's kind of a package deal. That's why folks like
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 08:14 pm (UTC)When I hear the word "Christian" different things come to mind.
I appologize.
Is Catholic a bad word? Just kidding.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 09:27 pm (UTC)The picture of christianity in my mind, as a Buddhist, is of the crusades, and Salem, of Salvery of the blacks in the name of christianity. . . . Of the Inquisition . . . .
But, of course, I rarely think of Pearl Harbor when I consider my Buddhism . . .
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 07:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 08:10 pm (UTC)These people can be thoughtfull, well intentioned, intelligent people, but their lot in life is to be led around by the nose. It's just the way things are, to get angry or annoyed over it is pointless as that's how social systems work. Most political wrangling is over the hearts and minds of this group of people.
Fortunately, these people also tend to be wishy-washy and go whichever way the prevailing wind is blowing. Hence, Pres. Bush is beginning to lose favor.
Touche
Date: 2005-11-02 08:22 pm (UTC)Still, I will admit to being somewhat idealistic on this matter. I wish more people would be responsible, independent, thinking human beings.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-02 09:22 pm (UTC)They are simply willing to let themselves be led a long way from their ideals, as long as it get's them protection from the fear of standing out.
I just wish I could show them the joys of standing out.