Writing Boots

On communication, professional and otherwise.

Nothing to kill or die for. And no Santorum too.

03.13.2012 by David Murray // 4 Comments

Rereading President Obama's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, I ran across an idea I'd like to dismiss:

"If we leave our values at the door," Obama said, "we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel—the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action—sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance."

He's saying, in purposely uncertain terms, that when it comes to social good, Religious People Get More Done.

Now, Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens have spent the last decade saying the opposite, that spiritually deranged religious people do much of the harm in the world, too. The atheists have a point, of course, and they've made it. And made it, and made it, and made it.

And I'm glad.

But mustn't a New York Times-reading, cocktail-snarfing, motorcycle-riding, golfing liberal agnostic writer like me acknowledge, if only in a parenthetical pause from my pontification, that when it comes to drawing a line and laying their life on it, religious people are more reliable than I?

For me—as for most of us, I suppose—Darfur bleeds into the Taliban's treatment of women who make me think about the lives of suicidal Chinese workers who made the computer from which I blog today's outrage (and schedule tomorrow's, a day ahead)?

I certainly don't want to go to0 far with this, but it does occur to me that a religious person might be more likely than a non-religous person to seize on a problem and commit a life to its solution. I honestly wonder whether Lincoln, Addams, King, Day and Heschel would have made their moves and maintained their movements without an explicit moral framework for justification and a church community for backup.

Douglass would have been fine without religion, because he was one bad-ass emmer effer. As were and will be any number of secular, non-religious American heroes.

But can't we all at least acknowledge that religion can be psychologically and socially useful as a provider of bright lines in a world of moral gray?

And if we can acknowledge it, shouldn't we do so, if only so that we may continue to claim to have more intellectual honesty than Rick Santorum, and to undercut his manipulative claims of cultural persecution?

I know Christians can probably never say out loud that atheists are good for the world. But sometimes you just have to be the bigger person.

Categories // Uncategorized Tags // Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, non-religious, President Obama, religious, Rick Santorum

“The national custom to sentimentalize the dead”

08.27.2009 by David Murray // 8 Comments

I'm watching all the Ted Kennedy stuff like everybody else, trying to swallow as many of the tributes as I can get down, as we all do during such ritual outpourings. (Remember when Reagan died? My God, you'd have thought he was Tim Russert!)

I'm willing to believe Kennedy was a really nice guy, a charming colleague and an effective legislative negotiator. And there were several times during his career when I wanted to stand up and cheer at his sturdy and sometimes lonely defense of what seemed to me to be commonsense bedrock liberal positions.

But Kennedy aside—during these slobberfests, I can never help but devilishly wish we still had an H.L. Mencken around—Bill Maher doesn't cut it—who dared to write an obituary like this one, published immediately upon the death of William Jennings Bryan in 1925:

Did he accomplish any useful thing? Was he, in his day, of any dignity
as a man, and of any value to his fellow-men? I doubt it. …

Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant,
bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him
into contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company
of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe … that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies,
that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod
like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an
almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all
beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the
dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that
he was not.

The job before democracy is to get rid of such canaille. If it fails, they will devour it.

In his obit, Mencken acknowledged that it is "the national custom to sentimentalize the dead." But it's also our personal obligation to keep it real.

Categories // Uncategorized Tags // Bill Maher, H.L. Mencken, Ted Kennedy, William Jennings Bryan

Out March 2, available for preorder now.

An Effort to Understand

Preorder Now

Sign up to receive blog updates

About

David Murray writes on communication issues.
Read More

 

Categories

  • Baby Boots
  • Communication Philosophy
  • Efforts to Understand
  • Happy Men, and Other Eccentrics
  • Human Politicians
  • Mister Boring
  • Murray Cycle Diaries
  • Old Boots
  • Rambling, At Home and Abroad
  • Sports Stories
  • The Quotable Murr
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Log in

  • Preorder An Effort to Understand
  • Sign Up for Blog Updates
  • About David Murray