- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"This, I assert, is the flaw of the non-religious person attempting to criticize religion. They simply don't get it... they think that if they can prove a historical inaccuracy in the Bible, they will have brought Christianity crashing down around the ears of its followers. For those of us who read the Bible in an enlightened, allegorical, historical-critical fashion, we would only raise our eyebrows at such a degree of shameless literalism."
Thing is, it's hardly ever enlightened, allegorical, historical-critical Christians who spout literalist nonsense. It's a fond fantasy of the non-religious: if only you could prove that fundie jackasses are factually wrong, then maybe you can lance the boil of irrationality swelling in their heads. That's not going to happen, precisely because those people are as indifferent as you are to the relationship between hard historical facts and mystical faith.
Sure, you can claim to be different from Donohue and Dobson, and yes, be a little irritated to be tarred with the same brush. But can't you people cast a bigger media shadow somehow? All of your polite enlightenment is drowned out by Donohue and their kin. What good is it if it isn't heard?
