Yes, I'm an urban liberal

Joe,

I've read your essay "What the 'Left Behind' Series Really Means." I've got a couple of comments I think you might find interesting regarding just who these fundamentalists are and what can be done. I'm going a bit of a circuitous route, though, so be warned.

I was in Huntsville, Alabama round about 1995 on business with several other computer geeks from all over the world. In between seminars, I got to know a database programmer from Ireland who would come to alter my worldview somewhat.

I'm one of those people who are so often the brunt of your articles -- I'm an urban liberal. Yes, I do like wine and cheese. Deal. Much as you'd probably suspect, I consider religion to be primarily primitive superstitions. Back in 1995, I was considerably more sarcastic about religion. I was anti-religion. One thing I will have to tell you, though, that you are wrong about -- urban liberals very much know that those with our view of religion are very much in the minority. The black vote is a religious vote -- and without it, we'd be totally sunk. In the city, secular humanists aren't even the majority amongst fellow Democrats. New York and San Francisco are pretty much the only real population centers where they are the majority. Most people don't live in those two cities. Therefore, we are used to being quiet and deferential to these primitive superstitions. It's a matter of survival, at least in Baltimore. I'm sure that's the case in Chicago, St. Louis, etc.

Anyhow, this fellow from Ireland was called Cap -- and he was predictably Catholic. He was far more read in esoteric works than I would have expected. He was familiar with Teresa de Avila, the Gnostic gospels discovered in Nag Hammadi, etc. Normally the Christians I meet aren't terribly well-schooled in their own religion. They tend to be more indoctrinated than educated. I usually used that against them rhetorically. I've come to realize that European Catholics tend to be much more open-minded philosophically and well-read.

Now over here, open-minded and well-read almost always means un-religious. Cap was not unreligious at all. He was unashamedly Catholic. Being young and cynical and caring about very different things than I do now, I attempted to de-construct this. I polemically attacked his Christianity, albeit politely. He defended himself profoundly well. He didn't convert me to his religion. But he did convert me to tolerating his religion; something I am ashamed to admit I really hadn't done in the past.

The point he made that was most fascinating to me was when evolution came up. You can imagine that the Pennsylvania ruling on Intelligent Design as well as your recent article on Fundamentalists are the mother and father of this letter to you.

You see, Cap was a scientist, after all. That said, I felt I just had to ask a few things commonly held to be true amongst American Christians which seem to be completely at odds with science. You know the list. The two big ones are "how old is the world?" and "so what about evolution?"

He didn't answer me philosophically. He answered me politically, and it shocked me how right he was in his observation.

In his thick brogue, he gently answers about evolution, "Out of curiosity, then son, do you know what the Soviets taught their children regarding the origins of species of the world?"

"Well, certainly they didn't teach creationism," I answered. I didn't know the answer, but I figure Godless commies don't do creationism, right? I assumed evolution.

He looks at me and says, "Lamarck. You remember that one from biology class, don't you?"

"Lamarck? Isn't that the theory that said giraffes stretched their necks their whole lives trying to get at food in the trees and their bodies responded by creating children with longer necks?" I was proud of myself for remembering the theory. It was one that we were taught was primitive, disproven, and taught solely to show us predecessors to modern theory. "I mean, the Soviets were supposed to be all about science, why would they teach Lamarck?"

"Well, for one, it doesn't really matter where schoolchildren think they came from, does it? I mean, factory workers and clerks and farmers and mechanics -- does it really matter one way or the other for the vast majority of folks if they think they came from fish or from God or whatever?"

"I suppose not, but that doesn't explain why they would knowingly teach something known to be false science."

"No. It doesn't. But that's because it wasn't science they were teaching. Think about it. In a Lamarkian worldview, all the cells of the body are striving for a single goal which will only be realized by the next generation. All the cells of the body working together as a collective for a better future in which they may not even participate. They taught La Marck not because it was scientific or true -- they taught Lamarck because it made good little commies."

I felt relieved for a moment that I wasn't in a totalitarian state that valued faith to the state over truth. Unfortunately, Cap kept talking.

"And what type of a society do you suppose schoolchildren taught Darwin would create, lad? One where the best, the fittest, the strongest, the fastest luxuriate in the spoils of their victory at the expense of the ones they vanquished along the way? What is to be said of the losers? They were weak, weren't they? They didn't fight hard enough. They were stupid. If that's the world you want, you've got to teach the kids right, don't you?"

Sure, I knew about the popularity of Social Darwinism amongst the Gilded Age thinkers. It never occurred to me that we never really left that time. More importantly, for the first time it occurred to me that whether or not something is true doesn't determine if it is taught. There are plenty of true things that we don't spend time on in the class room. Why so much emphasis on some true things instead of others? Because they confirm our worldview. It's not a conspiracy or anything. It's just that we teach what we value.

So that brings us full circle to the world of Evangelicals. Commies taught their kids Lamarck because they valued collectivism; even after they knew that the theory was faulted. Capitalists teach Darwin; even after the statistical success of anti-Darwinian programs like Social Security and the Interstate Highway system. What type of person -- what type of a worldview values creationism?

What is to be said of creationism and values? I mean, beyond just the "it's what's in Bible" stuff. What worldview does it espouse?

Things are as they are and always will be as they are because God made it that way and wills to keep it that way.

I'm here where I am in this place and this position in life because this is how I was made by God. I was divinely willed to push this broom, so I have to learn to deal with it. Whining is for the faithless.

Humans aren't powerful enough to harm the environment.

It doesn't matter how much this world sucks.

The wealthy and powerful are where they are because God wants them there. George W is president because God wants him to be so.

Creationism is the value system of the monarchists, is it not? I would go so far as to say that incredible and rapidly spreading distance between rich and poor in this country is related to this type of thinking. It's a chicken or the egg thing, I think -- I don't know if creationist thinking is leading to the new aristocracy or if the new aristocracy is advocating a worldview (and making manifest) a creationist population. Maybe it doesn't matter, but it sure would explain why pro-business groups like American Enterprise are pro-Intelligent Design. What does matter is that it is real and palpable. Sports stars, celebrities, politicians -- they are all SO much further from us now. They are the hyper-wealthy whose power is very nearly godly to us. They were rich before, but not like this. The commoners money is heading up to the rich. And what does it matter if the ruling class has amassed as much foreign held debt in this administration as in all previous ones combined? The only existence that matters is the hereafter! How bloody convenient.

Which leads me back to your "what do we do with all these dumb ass fundamentalist mofos?" question.

I don't know. It's like watching an iceberg come at a ship which is too large to steer out of its way. You know it's coming. You know it will kill you. You just can't do anything about it, but wait for it to kill you.

You see, I disagree with you about education. Well, that's not true. You are absolutely right that education is the only cure to this. I just don't think it can happen. Read that carefully. I didn't say it's unlikely. I said it just can't happen. Americans don't value education, they value money. Americans, frankly especially the ones you're talking about, really kind of hate education. They won't vote for it. They don't vote for it. They are in favor of abolishing the Department of Education.

And also to be frank, you already know the cause is lost. You know YOUR answer -- get the fuck out of America with your book advance. Can't say I blame you. America will be destroyed in our lifetimes by these miserably stupid motherfuckers; but some of us urban liberals can't afford to do anything but watch it all go down.

You mentioned that John Kerry didn't "get it". We DO know that. None of our guys are sale-able to the South. The only Democratic presidents in the last 37 years were Southern moderates. I contend that this is due to more of that monarchist thinking.

A while back, I was tangentially involved in Northern Ireland politics. From conversations with Loyalists, I've found that most people in America don't really understand what royalty means to countries that have it. I didn't. The English queen is thought to somehow to be racially the "most English." She is the model upon which Englishness is to be judged. She sets the rules, hence terms like "the queen's English" means THE proper way to speak. The people are still subject to this as they ever were -- maybe not in a political way any more; but in a somehow racial way. It's still very real. It's quasi-religious, almost. She has an authority which is universally accepted; it just doesn't have a political value -- it has a cultural one. She is not the Queen of the political body known as the country of England; but she is definitely the leader of the tribe of the English. It's really quite difficult to describe. She's head whitey.

We don't have royalty in America like that. Yet. But we do have cultural archetypes -- especially in the South. Y'all won't vote for someone who ain't "one of us." Northern politicians are bureaucrats (and if it's possible to understand, I sincerely don't mean the term "bureaucrat" pejoratively). It doesn't matter if Giuliani is a guy like me. He's decidedly not. It matters that he gets the job done effectively. It's different in the South. Southern politicians are leaders of their people.

Look at the examples. Trent Lott's career in politics started when he was a cheerleader at Ole Miss. During desegregation, Southerners (as always) felt persecuted by them evil Northern libruls who wanted to do away with their precious Southern way of life. It's something like the war on Christmas, but year-round. Trent the cheerleader made himself a celebrity by running out on the football field at half time with a large confederate flag. He parlayed THAT into a political career. His credentials? He's one of us!

Remember those maps that came out last election that showed the United States of Canada and Jesusland? Jesusland is a monarchy. As they are always quick to point out, their constitution and their rights are derived from God. Their leaders represent not competent governance but instead ideals of shared identity. I genuinely believe that many politically active fundamentalists on some level worship George W., whether they know it or not. He is their king, their pharaoh, the president of the Evangelicals. Their head whitey.

The United States of Canada is a mess, too, mind you. Our cities are decrepit, our school systems are in a shambles, and we manufacture nothing. I still love my Baltimore and I wouldn't move to the country if you paid me -- but I know what serious problems we have. As Paul Krugman said brilliantly, America has economy based on selling each other's houses with Chinese money. Hell, it's all on borrowed time, North and South. It's a good a reason as any to drink

Peace,

Brad
Baltimore