The religious left

Reading this article about the religious left fighting back this morning made me think about how easily Americans are divided.


Are you left or right?

Are you red or blue?

Are you gay or straight?

Are you religious or secular?

Do you support or oppose the Iraq war wholeheartedly?

Are you an environmentalist or a defender of ecocide?

Are you for or against guns?

Are you for or against abortion?

Are you for or against unions?

Are you for or against corporations?

Are you with or against France?

And so on...

The trouble with this politics of divide-and-conquer is that people start looking at every issue in black and white terms, and that is moronic.

For instance you can be an environmentalist, as I consider myself, without being against logging. I am for logging because I would rather people use bio-degradable, renewable, all-natural building products and an outdoor career strikes me as enjoyable (at least on some levels). I am, however, against indiscriminate harvesting techniques which plunder the landscape murderously. I am against spraying thousands of acres of forest land with herbicides which poisons the landscape and the wildlife. I am for wind-power wherever it can be installed, and the quicker the better.

I am both for and against guns, which some people call wishy-washy, but I consider practical. I am a gun owner and I hunt, however I see the folly of allowing guns in the hands of children, the insane, violent criminals, or urban settings (here I am speaking only of use, not ownership).

I am secular, but like most secular people (I think) I haven't convincingly disproved the notion of God to myself (i.e. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). I have only rejected the more popular religious views of God's benevolence. I guess you could say I look at organized religion like a community of the superstitious, but I feel no need to persecute them any more than people that are afraid of black cats crossing their paths. However, I do live an ethical life and try to treat others as I myself wish to be treated, not because I expect a Heaven exists, but because I believe that to love and to be loved is the only way to be happy.

When it comes to abortion I prefer to keep such a deeply personal decision out of the hands of government. In instances of rape, or when the well-being of the mother is in question I believe it is morally correct to allow for abortions. I view nothing so sadly as an unloved child (since I argue they turn out like neo-cons). Also, when a child will be born with a debilitating deformity (i.e. a hole in the brain or incurable painful conditions) then I also believe it is morally correct to allow for abortions. I believe the morning-after pill ought to be readily available, particularly to the young as they learn to cope with the most powerful of emotions. I argue that this does not "cheapen life" as many anti-abortionists charge, but rather allows prospective parents to choose to raise a family when they are prepared to act selflessly on behalf of their children, or in other words to cherish them. I also believe that most people are good people and do not treat the procedure of having an abortion lightly and that assertions to the contrary are propaganda.

When it comes to France, perhaps I am a clear-cut supporter. They are a free and open society that loves good food and good fun, they're cantankerous and argumentative and fantastic bakers. They sent us the statue of liberty. Their citizens resisted the Nazi's with more success than their army. They have a love/hate relationship with the British. And finally, when it comes to Iraq they did what a true-blue friend should, they told us we were wrong.

When it comes to unions I am mostly for them. My grandfather was an early union-man in the textile industry. When I asked him about it he said the mill wanted him to work seven days a week, with no overtime pay, when he was already working six days a week. Sunday, it should be pointed out, was an important day of worship to him and also the only day my grandfather had to spend with his family (8 children!). So, in response to corporate abuse (in my opinion) people joined and formed unions as a matter of self-defense (there is strength in numbers). My dad was also in a union, but he was a member as America's steel-industry went into decline (eventually he had to find a new career). In his case unions had already established the 40-hour workweek and a living wage, but had then started to fight for things uncompetitive like complicated seniority systems, over-zealous job protection (i.e. there was to be no picking-up-of-slack or cross-training). I also believe that in Poland unions turned a nation into a democracy, and that if we encouraged Iraqis organize into unions we'd be promoting deep democratic roots there.

I haven't touched on everything, but you see what I mean don't you? When presented with an either-or yes-no with-or-against choice you must reject the question.