While I managed to correctly re-set the clock yesterday, in the process, I turned my alarm off, so I’m running late. Which means no lengthy science blogging this morning. Even running late, though, I can’t pass over Fred Clark’s message to the evangelicals who organized an anti-pop-culture rally in San Francisco:
Stop it. Just stop. Stop pissing on trees. Stop “reclaiming America for Christ.” Christ already has a kingdom, an upside-down, mustard-seed kingdom without a flag. And while you people are so busy trying to create an alternative kingdom called “Christian America,” the prostitutes and tax collectors and Samaritans are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. And so are a lot of those couples who got married there at City Hall.
There’s more like that, and it could extend to other members of the Christian Victim Front.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you want to counter the pernicious influence of religion on politics, this is the best way to do it. Pointing out that the antics of Falwell/Robertson/ Phelps ought to be an embarassment to any post-Enlightenment society (let alone one founded so squarely on Enlightenment principles) is all well and good, but won’t necessarily win you any support with middle-of-the-road relgiious folks with real concerns about the state of society.
Having somebody with some real religious credibility point out that what they’re doing ought to be an embarasment to anyone calling themselves a Christian has a better shot with the people we really need to reach. It’s not going to convince any of Fred Phelps’s subhuman mob of picketers, but those people are a lost cause anyway. It just might carry some weight with the people who are basically decent folk, with some reliously based concerns about the state of the world that aren’t likely to be assuaged by a ranting atheist response to religion in politics.
When I read Fred Clark writing about religion in politics, I think there’s hope for the Republic. He’s doing his part, so how about giving the man some publicity?
Few people take such position because it is very inconvenient: you’re not accepted by both sides. No. You are hated by both sides. Religious nuts will condemn Mr Clark as a traitor and a “weenie”. Warrior atheists will hate him for presenting a moderate religious alternative to total rejection of religion (which they advocate) or for being a “religious apologist”.
It’s safer to be a radical.