Marcus is an atheist friend of mine from NYC. He wrote me the following note the other day, and it made me wonder whether some unbelievers might have a closer grip on what we talk about at Mockingbird than our culture-war Christian cousins.
But most people I know seem to either not mind the endless endless endless angry rude nasty bickering (or be mildly upset by it, but “whatcha gonna do?”) — or they enjoy it.
Maybe if I’d played sports as a kid, I’d understand the thrill. Probably though, the reason I didn’t play sports as a kid is because I wasn’t built to feel the thrill.
What I do know is that I have to keep my mouth shut about the way I feel most of the time. If I am honest, I am no one’s friend. Both sides hate me.
If I voted, I would vote liberal on most causes, except for economic ones, in which I’m too ignorant to do anything other than flip a coin (and I’m skeptical that anyone has the ability to do anything more rational when it comes to macro-economics), but the second I hear a liberal abusing a conservative, I want nothing to do with the whole debate. I have this childish fantasy that any time anyone, on either side discovers that someone on the opposing team has cheated on his wife or done something illegal, he will get a powerful electric shock if he brings it up — unless it’s 100% certain that he would bring it up with the same gusto if someone on his own team committed the same act.
My problem is that I have NO stomach for the fray at all. Each tiny conflict I hear about or witness makes me feel more and more tired. I am starting to feel like one of those people who needs to go live in a hut in the forest to get away from it all.
COMMENTS
16 responses to “Civil War, Judgment, And Giving Up”
Leave a Reply
I have never seen or heard my personal feelings on this subject so well articulated. The post-healthcare cesspool that Facebook has become is driving me to feel even more cynical and alone. Thanks for this.
Hi. I'm the Marcus in question.
It's funny to me that John suggested atheists might have "a closer grip" on this than Christians. That's hasn't been the case in my experience. My atheist friends are pretty much all uber-politicized and rabidly defending their party and angrily denouncing the other party. I was thinking maybe I'd find more people who felt the way I do if I hung out with theists.
But I fear this is not an atheist/theist split. It's not even a split. Both believers and nonbelievers are acting like apes fighting over a water hole. And just a few outliers, like me, and maybe like some of you, are upset by it.
I was sickened today, reading a blog post, in which a liberal guy denounced the conservative extremists who were making death threats to the congressmen who voted for health-care reform.
That suggestion wasn't what sickened me, because, of course, I agree that those people are reprehensible.
What drove me to distraction is when someone pointed out that liberals had, in the past, also made death threats, the blogger and his readers got defensive and basically said, "that's different."
I have never felt vastly superior to people before, but these days I feel like the only grownup in a country full of little bratty children.
Marcus- thanks so much for sharing your thoughts. The phrase "little bratty children" has run through my mind all week as well.
Joshua- I've been so disheartened by what I've seen on facebook and also in the news (though I deeply appreciate the work that went into passing the bill and the long term access to healthcare it will give my family, which we haven't always had) and am more and more convinced that very few of the people representing our country have any interest but promoting their own self. I keep kicking myself for slipping into putting my faith in people and not in Jesus. I'll always be disappointed in people.
Seems to me that the fight is based in self-righteousness. For some reason, we all assume that we are the example of all things right, just, good and rational, and that those who oppose us must be thus wrong, unjust, evil and irrational. As a result we react that way to others.
The fact is that the evil we see in our neighbor exists also in ourselves. Unfortunately, I think that our distaste for the childish debate may turn us into yet another faction in the civil war.
Stephen,
You said, "I think that our distaste for the childish debate may turn us into yet another faction in the civil war."
I could not agree more; this is the tension that we here are constantly wrestling with.
THIS is the very thing that the Law/Gospel (in theory:) protects against. One of the tasks of any Christian (borrowing from 12 steps) is that of a "fearless moral inventory, and that fearlessness comes from the message that God has justified the ungodly. This is not, as we like to point out, the beginning of the journey towards godliness, but the state of those who wait, covered by his mercy until "he comes again in glory to judge the quick and the dead." Even as I sit as the ungodly, my temptation is always to say, "now, I've got it" or, like the Pharisee, "Thank God I'm not like_____." This attitude CAN even manifest itself in "Thank God I'm not so uptight or fired up about ______." While it may be objectively good for one not to be so uptight (at least from a blood-pressure perspective), this prayer is still much different than that of the tax-collector: "Lord, have mercy."
IMNSHO: With regards to politics and red state/blue state, the level of animus is tied to the depth of the curse of "identity and control" that these debates hinge on. Socialism vs. Capitalism, Right vs. Left, Man vs. Women, Paper vs. Plastic, etc. . the anger and vitriol behind these arguments lies not in what is actually going on (because most of the people involved, if not all of them, have absolutely no real control), but in the very fact that these things bring a sense of order and control and identity to a person's life.
This is why it is seemingly easy for many to not get interested in something that does not "bother them." It is not that they can't be bothered, but that whatever is being discussed is not impinging on their own areas of "slavery to the law."
Nevertheless, if these arguments touch the "Holy Trinity of Identity: gender, ethnicity or class/money," then, I suspect, the argument would get a whole lot more heated. For Americans, we don't really (ideally) have a concept of ethnicity the way the Europeans do (thank God), so we've substituted political ideologies for ethnic boundaries. . .
At any rate, I'm not a political scientist or even a historian, but I am interested in preaching to Gospel (and hearing it myself) in hopes of freeing and being freed from "the chains I wrought in life," and some of these chains are of my own creation, and some, like "gender, ethnicity and class" have been placed on me whether I like it or not.
. . not incidentally, these are the three that the Apostle Paul, in Galatians 3, addressed: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Our prayer here at Mockingbird is always that it may be so with us!
Once again, Mockingbird speaks to the deepest concerns of my heart. What would I do without you guys? I just wrote a column for my newsweekly yesterday about this very subject. How I wish I'd read this post before turning it in! (Maybe I'll link it here once it's online…) Like Marcus, I don't enjoy being on a 'team," especially if there are firm, unbendable rules for membership. Unlike Marcus (who's an atheist), the deeper I wade into my Christian faith, the less comfortable I feel claiming either political party as they are currently defined. I share some "core values" with each party, but am so sickened by the mutual bad will between the two that I can barely stand to follow the debate anymore.
There's a fascinating article, here, about the ethical systems of Conservatives and Liberals, and how the two systems differ:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
According to the article, if you do a cross-cultural and historical study, there are certain morals that people seem to have, regardless of their religion, culture, time-period, etc.
Those include caring about others, a ethos of fairness and reciprocity, a commitment to group loyalty, a respect for authority, and a devotion to purity and sanctity.
Liberals tend to only feel passionate about caring, fairness and group loyalty. Conservatives tend to embrace all five, but respect for authority and devotion to purity are especially important to them.
I realized, recently, that though I am a social Liberal, I have the Conservative yearning for purity (though not for authority), which I am able to fulfill in various ways.
But the key, in terms of this discussion, is that with a tiny bit of thought, I completely get where Conservatives are coming from.
My Liberal friends don't understand, because they don't care about purity or sanctity. On the other hand, as soon as I bring up my views re gay marriage or whatever, I alienate Conservative friends.
I also recently listened to this fantastic course, about the history of Conservativism — a big eye-opener for someone like me, the son of a socialist dad: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=4812
The terrible thing about listening to that course and reading that article is that both experiences moved me even further into an isolated cave. Now, when my Liberal friends start railing at Republicans, I have all these facts and theories swirling around in my head, which lead me to be even more understanding of Conservatives than I was before.
But I don't dare speak up about these ideas.
I used to do that. I used to foolishly jump into the middle of passionate debates between Liberals and Conservatives and try to mediate. That did achieve a kind of unity: it briefly united both sides into a mutual hatred of me.
Ha, Margaret! It seems, though you're a believer and I'm not, that we BOTH share some of the core values of both parties.
Though I am an atheist, I've had Christian friends all of my life. I'm deeply drawn to theism, even though I can't seem to share in it. And I have this gut feeling that (smart) religious people are my family.
But, of course, I will never totally fit in around them. And I DEFINITELY don't fit in with the Dawkins-ish atheists, who seem to delight in belittling (and often misunderstanding) theists.
Again, it's teams, teams, teams! When people find out I'm an atheist, if they're religious, they are usually turned off. They may be tolerant of atheists, but, with some reason, they suspect I'm going to attack them or try to reason them out of their faith.
Meanwhile, the atheists want to claim me as a team member, which would be fine, if that didn't require theist-bashing.
On the most simplistic level, Conservatives are people who are suspicious of rapid, monumental changes. They RIGHTLY think that such changes are risky. Even if there really is a problem, if you jump to a knee-jerk solution, you may leave things worse off than they were before.
Liberals realize that trap in that idea: if you are too scared of change to try anything, terrible problems won't ever be solved. That's also right.
To me, it's really easy to see the sense in both those arguments, and how the only reasonable way to proceed is by achieving a balance.
I even see how it helps society to have those two strong voices (Change! Change! Change! vs. Don't change! Don't change! Don't change!) acting as checks on each other, since most people can't seem to hold both in their minds at the same time.
I just wish there was a way they could check each other without bashing each other over the head.
Hello, Marcus – I realize you made this comment along time ago, but I just read it today. I think your judgment of conservatives/liberals based simply on desire to change is naïve. Some change is good, some change is bad. Some of the status quo is good, some is bad. Change simply for the sake of change can be detrimental.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."
William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming"(1919)
It seems that just as I can be a pharisaical anti-pharisaicalist, I am also deeply proud of my humility! I am properly convicted.
I ought to feel grateful for (rather than proud of) my distaste of political enthusiasm. After all, in light of the cross, politics can only be penultimate. In this life there will never be a plot of ground for me to plant my flag. I hope to be found hiding in the shadow of the cross.
"For Americans, we don't really (ideally) have a concept of ethnicity the way the Europeans do (thank God), so we've substituted political ideologies for ethnic boundaries. . . "
Jady, that's too insightful!
So then is an a-political stance simply another form of identity? I think of how so many Americans identify themselves as "Independents." As if to say, "I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a unique individual."
That's a great question, Todd. For me, it doesn't feel like identity. In order for it to feel that way, I would have to feel membership in a group (Oh no! a TEAM!). And although this blog is proving me wrong, for a long time, I've felt alone.
I guess you could say that I'm identifying as a loner, but you then start to get into tautological territory in which ANYTHING you feel about yourself is your identity.
I don't even feel like "Yup, I'm a loner, just like…" with reference to various figures from history or literature. I just feel like the whole world is fighting and I'm standing outside, horrified.
Todd. . . I hesitate to paint with too broad a brush, but it seems that, theologically speaking, there are similarities to "independents," and people who are "spiritual but not religious." (I bet there are some real overlaps there:)
I share Marcus' horror at the level of vitriol and rancor in today's politics; however, I'm most disturbed by the way God is marshalled in defense of both political sides. God is either a champion of all that is blue or red, it seems, and people will not rest until their God is vindicated.
From a law/gospel perspective, this is fascinating to watch, because people are much more willing to die for their politicized God than to face up and deal with the implications that God had to die for them. . .
"I just wish there was a way they could check each other without bashing each other over the head."
You and me both, Marcus. I remember reading an article (possibly the same one you mention) that described the differences between liberals and conservatives (the same qualities you noted) and suggested that these qualities are basically innate. In other words, we're born that way. But, while we're drawing ever closer to a point at which nobody approves of "bashing" someone for his OTHER innate characteristics (i.e. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) we seem to think it's a-okay to be "biased" against someone who hails from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Why can't we just celebrate THOSE differences along with all the other "diversity" we claim to hold so dear? Shouldn't it be obvious that a healthy society actually NEEDS both liberals and conservatives? Why must there be such stigma attached to each "side" by the other?
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"
Elvis Costello