Listening to this latest example of a prominent American evangelical Christian leader declaring a natural disaster a punishment from on high for America’s sins, I reflect on how selectively political red lines are applied post-9/11.
As I wrote elsewhere a while back in connection with the destruction of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina, I don’t find this genre of dime-store theodicy credible – indeed, I have to admit that atheists often have a point when they complain about how religionists seem to only detect God’s hand in events that happen to conveniently reinforce their own worldview; is God not equally in charge when the “wicked” prosper on the other side of the globe, or even right next door? – but on the other hand I don’t find such sermonizing, simplistic though it may be, inherently threatening, provided it doesn’t cross the line into demonizing those with whose moral choices one disagrees with. For people who subscribe to traditional religious values, believe that God has expressed his preferences for our lives in no uncertain terms, and prefer their homilies to be tame and intellectually bite-sized, viewing history through such a black & white prism is near self-evident and perhaps even inevitable. I don’t think respectfully admitting to harboring such beliefs is–or should be viewed as – a political matter (not that this is all that Robertson has done historically).
What I do find disturbing and what I do think should be the stuff of spirited debate is how such beliefs are treated by an entirely different standard in the case of Muslims today. We all know that an imam who went on TV and attributed a natural disaster to, say, the prevalence of alcohol consumption or premarital sex in American society would receive a lot of attention from Uncle Sam (and probably the NYPD).
In contrast, Christian religious conservatives need not fear getting themselves a free ticket to Guantanamo or targeted by COINTELPRO-style infiltration for expressing uncharitable theories about those outside the fold. Their penalty is merely social and – in extreme cases perhaps also professional – but the police, much less the intelligence community, never enters into the picture. When Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Jerry Falwell or others blame 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina on millions of fellow Americans guilty of nothing more than disagreeing with their politics, these gentlemen may sleep easy, knowing that the charge of politically-threatening theological extremism is in practice generally reserved for Muslims these days.
That is certainly true today. But I try to remember that how that habeas corpus has been effectively suspended, we are all on indefinite waiver. So none of us can be sure who will be targeted in the future, nor for what. Indefinite waiver could become indefinite detention.
So, the point of your article is to – what? Illuminate or complain? The cultural paradigm of this country appears to be dominated by a religion called “Christianity” which bears little resemblance to the recorded teachings of Jesus. I say “appears” because it is not an absolute “fact”. We’re talking about perceptions and these are varied and fluid. For instance, we DON’T all know that if an imam publicly stated that God was punishing America for it’s evil actions, etc. That would be your opinion on a hypothetical situation. Some of us don’t watch TV or pay that much attention to corporate controlled media. Some of us don’t care what the theists or atheists think about “God”. Yes, it seems unlikely that any civil authority is infiltrating Robertson’s church but I imagine the odds are better that someone is keeping tabs on the Westboro Baptist church.
You’ve highlighted an important point that I should have made, FC. These erosions in civil rights and due process ultimately put us all at risk. There was a time after 9/11 when one might have perhaps reasonably assumed that only Muslim groups were being inappropriately monitored, but all sorts of cases of non-Muslim pro-environment or anti-war groups (including a Quaker outfit in one particularly absurd case).
This post wasn’t really developed adequately and thus painted things with a broader brush than I would have liked, Randall, but I don’t think there’s any question that Muslims are being treated by a different standard. To my knowledge, for example, I don’t think there have been any cases of non-Muslim Americans being stopped and asked theological questions by border guards, which is really quite extraordinary. So, I see your point, and will even concede that some differences in treatment are perhaps inevitable at times under the circumstances, but there are a lot of double standards these days, and I doubt that many non-Muslim Americans find themselves having to debate the finer points of their own scripture or needing to defend themselves in the public square in the event they don’t happen to be ecumenical in their personal beliefs.
I happen to be very ecumenical–I don’t even accept the notion that there’s a water-tight distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim–but it’s frankly nobody’s business whether I believe they’re going to heaven or not. Even the most hardline evangelicals rarely find themselves having to debate the finer points of say, the Gospel of John’s view of Jews. Nearly every aspect of a Muslims’ personal belief today, in contrast, is under the microscope (and, ironically and perversely, often at the hands of people who themselves are quite doctrinaire in OTHER religious traditions) in American politics.
Well, you took on a big topic. The lack of development showed. Using broad strokes to paint a picture works fine until you get up close. I thought you made good points and I agree with them. Sloppy statements that begin with “We all know…” drive me up the wall. Maybe on the level of the Collective Unconscious it’s true that we All know but I don’t know that for sure I don’t believe that you do either. I usually try to make statements that can’t be quibbled with. These usually turn out to be the most effective and precise ones.