it's not a blue or red thing

I just read an infuriating article in Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8092015?pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1) about the recent "Intellegent Design" court battle in Pennsylvania. Reporter Matt Taibbi characterizes the battle as an amplification of a cultural and political devide that began, in his mind, at the Scopes trial: "the political echo from the Dayton courtroom has grown exponentially louder. The modern right-left, Bush/anti-Bush, red-blue, Hannity-v.-Air America paradigm more than ever mirrors the courtroom geography of the Dayton trial, which pitted the urbane, Europe-loving intellectual of the north against the defiant God-fearing patriot of the south." He believes that there was a victory of ideas for conservative creationists here, though a courtroom defeat. He feels that Intellegent Design is "having a coming-out party as a deliberate satirical echo of the great liberal lie of the modern age: the idea that progressive science and religion can coexist." He believes that liberals are kidding themselves, or at least erecting a massive public facade: "We teach our children the evidence-based materialism of science and tell them they can believe in God and a faith-based morality in their spare time if they like."

Fundamentalism teaches that faith is the absence of doubt. This "faith" does not need proof; it does not operate under the rules of logic. Fundamentalism teaches that if one tenet is proved true, all must be true. In the world of fundamentalism, if we discover that the world is millions of years old, and do not believe that it was literally created in 8 days, we cannot believe that anything else in the Bible can be true, either.

I was brought up in a Christian church, but I was never taught that the world was as simple as that. I was never even presented with the idea that science and religion were not compatible, or if I was, I don't remember it. I was never taught that using the scientific method somehow weakened my faith. It's so hard to describe my faith - sure there's a strain of mysticism, but it's not counter-logical. My religion has always been more about morality than belief in specific miracles. Did Jesus rise from the dead? I like to think so. Would it shatter my faith if I was shown absolute, irrefutable truth that he didn't? Not really. To me, the resurrection is about the victory of good - this peaceful guy got put to death just for saying things that scared people, but they couldn't keep him or his message down. But I've seen the victory of good for myself - I've seen my uncle come back from literally laying in a gutter during the heighth (depth?) of his alcoholism, to playing keyboards in a band and coming to every one of my concerts. I saw my grandfather, a lifelong racist, find a trusted friend in a black trucker, near the end of his life. I know what God can do, firsthand. I put my trust firmly in the world's potential for positive change, rather than its potential to forward its own demise.

John Lennon said, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." That's what I call faith.

The idea that everyone is either a cynical, urban, liberal interllectual, or a bible-thumping, family oriented, rural traditionalist should be obviously ridiculous, but articles like these serve to perpetuate that myth. And it isn't a divide that's exsisted since the Scopes trial - it's a new, artificial division created by the religious right by their propagandized use of issues like abortion and gay marriage to push their agenda. And for some reason, this false division is embraced by a lot of liberals.

The battle of creationism vs. evolution is not about faith vs. logic, republican vs. democrat, religion vs. atheism. It's about people trying to control other people with lies. So why is the left believing them?