Wednesday, March 07, 2007


Sam Smith

I recently quoted from correspondence I had as a 20-something with a born-again Christian. In one of my letters I wrote:

"You have a clear understanding of what you believe to be the nature of God and Christ. I have not. Does that set us so far apart? I believe not, for if God is the kind of God that I would wish him to be, he will accept my lack of understanding of the infinite and settle for a human attempt at carrying out his dictates as I am able to comprehend them. Whether a man is a missionary of God, as you are, or a human involved in worldly affairs, like myself, the task remains much the same. We each in our way, bungling as we go, must make a brave effort to elevate the human race an inch to two."

Last night, browsing through Sartre before bedtime, I came across this:

"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God does not exist. Rather it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. . . Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."

It struck me as I read this that here was the key to the currently inflated battle between church and state: in the end it doesn't matter. The moral Christian, Jew or Muslim and the moral rationalist will follow much the same path. Keep them away from the pulpit and you may not be able to tell them apart.

The difference lies not in their actual life but in what they believe about it. The existentialist, for example, believes that existence - and behavior in it - precedes and defines essence. The religious true believer thinks it's faith, or what is known in science as speculation and, in gambling, a bet.

Now one can have an interesting debate about this, but the point here is that as far as politics and social policy are concerned the difference should make no difference once it moves to the level of actually doing something rather than just talking about, celebrating or praising why you're doing it.

Of course, politically, it does make a difference. One reason is that there are a hell of a lot more registered practicing Christians than there are registered practicing existentialists. Another is that politicians, aware of this demographic, find it much easier to pander to the faith that drives these voters rather than to the works the faith demands.

Thus, whether in the White House or in Selma, you never hear politicians described themselves as "works-based Christians," because it is much easier to associate oneself with unchallengeable holiness than with intended products too simple to observe and assess.

There was a time when there are a lot more works-based Christians around to serve as models. At one point, for example, we had Father Drinan in Congress, Father Baroni in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Father Kemp on the DC school board. During the war on poverty I found myself constantly in the company of preachers, some of whom became close friends. When I asked myself why, my answer was in part that while the engines driving us were different, our intended routes were the same. We accepted uncertainty, honored inquiry and persisted in the hope that what we did that day might make a difference.

Today's obsession with faith is driven by a number of causes, among them the deterioration of American culture and democracy, a desperate searching for certainty, evangelical abuse and heresy, political cynicism and deceit, as well as a media that perpetuates the illusion that it is better to raise one's hands in prayer than to use them for good in this life and on this day.

Of these forces, it is the media that often wields the greatest clout - a media that pretends to be fact-based and objective yet all but writhes in the aisle, screams Hallelujah and shouts Jesus' name when a fraudulent pol mounts the pulpit or a president declares some carefully concocted connection with the Almighty for his war or budget policy. This adulation of false faith and the indifference to true works is not only cynical but is helping to destroy America.

It has also helped turn the press from being reporters to being mere acolytes at the holy communion of America's powerful. If, on the other hand, the media followed the lead of Sartre, it would do us all a great service. Instead of telling us what politicians pretended to believe it would report on what they actually did. . . moving, one might say, from faith-based to fact-based reporting


At 10:22 PM, Blogger dlfg13 said...

One of the biggest problems with all religions is that the practitioners of these religions pick and choose which parts of their holy texts to believe or implement in their lives (as opposed to disavowing them altogether). If you search the Bible or the Koran long enough, you can find positive and love-filled messages, but you can also find countless messages of hate. People choose which of these messages to believe, whether to love thy neighbor or condemn homosexuality and people of other faiths. Upon inspection, the supposed morals in these holy texts, given to us by an almighty God, prove to be nothing more than the morals of the people who actually wrote the texts, and are products of the times in which they were written. Take the example of slavery: condemned throughout most (but not all) of the world today, but supported through all texts of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faiths. All of this is to say, basically, that I agree that religion should not be an issue. All of us, whether atheists or evangelicals, are (for the most part) moral, not because the Bible tells us so, but because it is the way we are. It has been argued that morality (including the desire to help others) is, in fact, a product of evolution. The bottom line is that you do not need to be religious to be involved in "works-based" projects. The problem today is that religions are focused primarily on messages of hate (homosexuals, abortion doctors, infidels, etc...), and very little effort is dedicated to helping those in need. Look at the leaders of this country: supposed "born-again" Christians, but they prefer to dedicate more time and money to destroying Islamic nations than helping the victims of natural disasters right here at home. The sad fact is that religion, in today's world, probably does more harm than good.

At 2:08 AM, Blogger Sean O'Neil said...

To dlfg13,

None of the people leading the USA is a Christian. They may profess such things on the road to election, but I would defy anyone to give me solid proof that anyone in the Bush/Cheney Administration is following the teachings of Jesus Christ as those teachings are set forth in the New Testament.


To Sam,

An excellent essay. I spent the first 37 years of my life agnostic. For 2 years I experimented with Christianity in a Presbyterian church. But that 2-year experiment reminded me mainly of the points you made above. Religion isn't what makes people behave ethically or morally. Those people would behave as such with or without their religious affiliation.

Religion which extends beyond the private becomes an institution for division and oppression.

At 10:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We would be better off to just throw out the old testatment and everything in the new testament except the gospels, preferably while adding back the various gospels such as that of Thomas which were censored out of the canon at Nicea. That would leave us with the basis for a religion that could lead to a better world.

Unfortunately the christian extremists of the US don't have any use for the most positive teachings of their savior such as these principles:

love your enemy as yourself

turn the other cheek

public praying is pure hypocrisy and has no value to god; private praying is the only thing that counts

erase every speck of sin from yourself before you start concerning yourself with the sins of others

when you mistreat others, even sinners, you are doing the same to god; when you help elevate the less fortunate, you are doing the same to god


Post a Comment

<< Home



Your editor has been a musician for many decades. He started the first band his Quaker school ever had and played drums with bands up until 1980 when he switched to stride piano. He had his own band until the mid-1990s and has played with the New Sunshine Jazz Band, Hill City Jazz Band, Not So Modern Jazz Band and the Phoenix Jazz Band.


Here are a few tracks:





APEX BLUES   Sam playing with the Phoenix Jazz Band at the Central Ohio Jazz festival in 1990. Joining the band is George James on sax. James, then 84, had been a member of the Louis Armstrong and Fats Waller orchestras and hadappeared on some 60 records. More notes on James

WISER MAN  Sam piano & vocal

OH MAMA  Sam piano & vocal