Things We Wish Weren't True But Are

Posted by Andrew Tobolowsky on 04.09.2009

A new variety column.

I like this. I think about it a lot. These are just the kind of things that I think most of us make a business of pretending just aren't true. But of course they are. We'll start out with something easy, like:

Animals have feelings

Well of course they do. And not just the domesticated ones. Elephants get sad every time they pass an elephant graveyard. ELEPHANTS HAVE GRAVE YARDS.

There are pictures all over Youtube of squirrels fighting dogs who threaten their kids. That's not just trying to protect their DNA treasure.

It doesn't make me feel worse about eating them, frankly. But if that IS your excuse, I suggest getting a new one.

Now a little harder...

In a two party system where only one of them gets to make most of the decisions for four years in a row, you will find yourself unreasonable about things you would otherwise find reasonable.

Let's be honest folks. What do wishing the government were smaller and hating gay marriage have in common? Absolutely nothing. In fact, if you actually WERE for a government that intervened less, one would expect you wouldn't want it interfering in the private lives even of homosexuals. Likewise, what do wanting a bigger government and supporting abortion have to do with each other? Again, nothing. And again, if you wanted government to take care of people you could make the argument that supporting abortion decreases the burden on the state.

Don't think I don't get it. I mean, hey, it was five minutes after I believe the second debate before the GOP had that ad up about how Obama kept agreeing with John McCain, as if that were a bad thing. And as dumb as that particular ad was, they had a really good point.

The electoral college is one thing but, popularly, it's been a while since anyone won by a large amount. Candidates can't afford to lose any of their voting bloc and that means avoiding identification with the other candidate on pretty much any of the issues. You can't have voters saying "what's the difference" and you also can't have voters saying "he never mentioned the issues that matter to me."

(Please don't post to say that I'm picking on Republicans because I mentioned that this ad happened, and was stupid. If ever history becomes my fault, you'll all be in a lot more trouble than you currently are.
Also, if I have a second request please don't come on here to post things like "WHY DIDN'T YOU MENTION BIDEN SAYING SOMETHING STUPID TODAY INSTEAD OF THIS ARTICLE". Accusations of bias do not equal cogent points. I am politely asking you to have a problem with what I say and not whatever minor Democrat screw up I didn't mention. I don't think that's too much to ask.)

Come on Democrats. Even if you don't agree, you can't see why some people would consider abortion the murder of an innocent? I sure as hell can, and I'm pro-choice.

Come on Republicans. You can't see why someone might think a ban on gay marriage is discriminatory and therefore not subject to judicial review or vote?

Come on.


Biblical religion is dying, mostly because of its sins, second, because it is not a current document.

I very well understand the fear embodied by this concern. The idea is that god fearing people are good people and that without the Bible as a foundation, our nation is bound to lose itself in immorality.

This is actually, I believe, a legitimate concern. The political laws of this country were never meant to enforce morality, they were meant to protect citizens. Legally, the law cares that you killed a person not because it's wrong but because you infringed on that person's rights—and that such a precedent could have an awful effect on the community. This is why there are no laws against, for example, adultery.

And yet our community has always been able to recognize adultery as a sin in many places—and this is not to say that you have to believe in the Bible at ALL to realize adultery is a sin, because you don't—because there existed a code of morality in addition to the legal code that was at least generally recognized.
I would argue, as someone getting a PhD in Biblical studies, that there never was a time when the Bible was used as the perfect moral law people suppose it to be, which is a statement vehemently opposed by many people who have no idea what they're talking about. But that doesn't really matter. The actual Bible has been well served by the people who haven't read it and tell you what it's about anyway. It's become a much nicer document than it ever was. And people who have no idea about the history of Ancient Israel have made it into a much nicer place than it ever was.

But the fact of the matter is that the Bible does say many nice things about living in the world, and I don't care if you're an atheist or Hindu or whatever, that's still true. In two difference places, for example, it tells Israelite citizens to leave the corners of their fields and vineyards standing when harvest time comes for the poor and alien. That's nice. And there's not a single law in the United States legal code that's like that.

But another fact of the matter is that by and large the Bible is doomed not only because of what it is but because of those who espouse it. If you insist on it being a perfect, complete, document, you basically kill it.

For two reasons

1) If you force yourself not to separate the good from the bad you end up with an extremely xenophobic, bloodthirsty text not at all appropriate to the other parts about being good and helping people. This is because of a natural part of Biblical evolution which those who hold it to be perfect and complete can't acknowledge but is nevertheless true. The Old Testament, called the Hebrew Bible by people who don't want to be condescending, is a document with political, historical, AND religious purpose. There is, therefore a lot of politics in there. You really don't want to extract moral laws from political maneuverings. Imagine doing that from the recent presidential campaign.

2) Whether you believe God wrote the thing or not, either He wrote it for a much less scientific and cosmopolitan world than the one we live in or else it was simply written by someone with much less scientific knowledge and cultural awareness than we all have. Either way, attempting to use this book as if it were perfect in its cultural and scientific knowledge is neither a smart thing to do, nor a welcoming one.


And also quit adding stuff like "God hates gays", because it's pretty poorly attested. You'd have a much better shot at "God hates women".

The message I'd like to get across, if I'm allowed, is that religion itself still has a chance. Those religious figures who have recognized the limitations of the Bible and updated their own personal opinions, and those who have used it as a tool to reach out, forgive, and teach where the modern world is considerably more cruel are winning converts every day. This is because they are not out of date, and have moved with the times.

There is still room in the 21st century for a teaching of love, respect, consideration to supplement the things that you're simply not ALLOWED to do—allowed doesn't teach behavior.

But if you're wasting your speaking space on gayness and not using condoms, you are pretty much wasting any hope for your religion. That's not what it's there for. An old message WILL die a natural death unless it embraces the new world.

In short: The Bible has some good stuff in it and--because it is a book that was composed over centuries for a variety of political, cultural, and ,yes, religious purposes, some bad stuff. You are losing out, I would estimate, on 90% of people who are willing to go with the good stuff by refusing to let go of the bad stuff even though the damn thing is nearly 3000 years old.

I'm not saying religion is dying, because I don't think it is. There are no amount of attacks on the Bible or on what religious people have done which can be used to mean "God doesn't exist". All of those complaints boil down to "you're doing it wrong", and often they're right. But that actually isn't proof of anything either way.

And, second---the most Christian people seem to apply the whole Bible the least. They get very serious about things like homosexuality, which is barely mentioned, and ignore about 500 of the other laws. I would take a minute to decide just how much of what you're doing is really just you, huh? Not a bad book. Really, not. Unless you refuse to use your (also?) God-given sense and humanity to pick and choose, rather than bigotry.


And lastly, may I just say yes, it would be super great if there WAS a magic book which told everyone just how to live their lives and knew how to deal with everything. This would make life a thousand times easier. But there is not, and life is scary. Quit being pussies.



The demographic voting blocs in this country are probably not what you would wish they were.

Republicans first so I can end on an anti-democratic note and seem fairer.

People think I write about Sarah Palin so often because I'm afraid of her. Which isn't so, because I'd be more than happy if she ran for president because it would save the DNC a lot of money and effort.

But it's actually usually out of an honest confusion.

Look, I can completely understand someone thinking that Sarah Palin was the best choice for the next President of the United States. Of course I do. That doesn't make you a bad person, in fact in some ways it may make you a good person. I disagree with her fundamentally on basically every issue but a lot of people support her because she seems to be standing up for decency---and who am I to argue against someone wanting more decency?

So, yes, I can completely understand someone thinking she was the best choice.

What I can't understand is someone thinking she has a realistic shot. Because she just doesn't, and I'm not saying that to be a dick. Not enough people want fundamentalist Christian values. Not enough people want someone who doesn't articulate policies or views on the world but sells only herself as a human being and a vague message of getting back to the basics.

It wouldn't make any more sense if I were convinced Ross Perot were going to win in the nineties even if, and I wasn't really old enough, even if I thought he was the best candidate. You can like her. You can think she's the best candidate You can love her. But think she can win?

The numbers aren't there. I think we can all admit that the section of the population Sarah Palin appeals to may be tight-knit and vocal but is still smaller than even the Republican party as a whole, right? And since the Republican party lost both the last presidential and the last two senatorial elections, how exactly does that add up to a victory.

Right? I mean, people basically have to realize that they can be convinced of the right of a certain mode of thought and STILL recognize reality, don't they? Can the republicans win in 2012? Absolutely they can. If the economy hasn't turned around, could be no problem. But that still doesn't make Palin, who ONLY appeals to hardcore christian conservatives a viable candidate. I am not (right now, anyway) insulting her, or her beliefs. I'm saying most people don't share them.

On the Democratic side of things, I'd really like to point out that Democrats have a huge problem no one is talking about. The strength of the Democratic party is largely in minorities. But minorities, largely, have Republican cultural values. It was a powerful combination of African-Americans and Mormons that put a stop to gay marriage in California. And if that combination looks absurd to you it's because we're supposed to think it is. In this case, their social values aligned exactly.

We're going to be charitable here and suggest that Michael Steele's tenancy of the RNC chair is the first faltering step in the RNC's realization of the potential to take those minority votes away and capitalize on them. I've had fun with Michael Steele because he's so, so bad at it but awareness of the possibility is the first step towards exploiting it. And there is zero reason that with intelligent application Republicans can't be
successful in appealing to these conservative voting blocs that have heretofore voted liberal.

Big problem, guys.

Thas' all.