Sharlett Letters
In my recent post on Bob Smietana, who wrote about Al Mohler, I mentioned Jeffrey Sharlett, who is a rising young star in journalism, with big pieces in Rolling Stone and Harpers Magazine this year, not to mention his book "Killing the Buddha," and his outstanding, though quite far left, religion website, The Revealer.
I probably overstepped my bounds by stating that I thought that Jeff is "often...very mistaken." Here is the full text of how I described Mr. Sharlett.
Well, Jeff posted a comment on that post, and then I emailed him, and he responded, and I emailed him back. It was an interesting dialogue, to me at least, with Jeff showing off his tenacious debating skills and razor sharp mind, and me simply getting an opportunity to articulate an idea that I think is very relevant to our modern debates over religion and the separation of church and state.
Here is the comment Jeff left on the post.
Then I emailed him this:
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005
From: "Stan Wastren"
Subject: your secular humanism
To: the.revealer@nyu.edu
Jeff
Thanks for leaving the comment. I'm flattered.
As for my comment about you, my praise was heartfelt,
and as for my characterization of you as "often
mistaken," perhaps that was too harsh. I guess that,
without going into hundreds of words, I feel like you
miss the main point of what you're writing about
because you have a very different belief system.
There is nothing spooky or conspiratorial about saying
you firmly believe in secular humanism. It's just
common sense that all of us have religion, because all
of us have a god or gods. All of us put our hope in
something or someone, and that is our god. I don't
presume to have any idea what kinds of things you put
your hope in. For me, I worship the God of the Bible,
but I do sin on a regular basis by placing other
things ahead of him in my heart and in my actions. One
of the main reasons I worship this God, however, is
that he forgives me when I acknowledge my sin and he
gives me strength when I ask his help to stop sinning
in that way.
You are right, I haven't read most of "Killing the
Buddha." I have tried to, but gotten sidetracked,
through no fault of the book's. I am judging you from
your magazine work in the last year. It's been well
written, insightful, and often far more sensitive of
any other secular religion writer. But it's also
assumed certain things--such as the fact that most of
what people at the mega church in Colorado believe is
not true, or irrelevant, or not really most important
to them. From that, I can only gather that you view
the material world as most real and meaningful. From
your focus on "rights" and issues common with some of
the most vocal "suppressed" groups, it seems you have
been heavily influenced, like most of us, by the
modern intellectual currents in the university and
major metro centers that seems to be mostly political
correctness masquerading as progress.
All right, I've got finances to do. I don't make the
big bucks freelancing like you, so I've got to figure
out how to pay the bills this month.
But merry Christmas, and happy New Year! I celebrate
these holidays, and I respect your right to not
celebrate them, but I still greet you with joy because
of my celebration, hoping that my celebration and joy
will bless or benefit you in some way.
If any of my critique or opinion comes across as too
harsh, I apologize. I have been reading Doris Kearns
Goodwin's new Lincoln bio, and I am inspired to be
principled AND gracious and humble, to stand for
something and to honor those who think differently
than I.
God bless
Stan
Hours later, Mr. Sharlett send me back my email after slicing and dicing it.
From: Jeffrey Sharlet
To: Stan Wastren
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005
Subject: Re: your secular humanism
Stan,
Thanks for your thoughtful message. Nonetheless,
it's a study in assumptions. My first instinct is to explain it away
via the popular persecution narratives of Christian conservatism,
but I'll try to tread carefully and simply point out you below where you
assume knowledge of my intentions. And do so very inaccurately.
you miss the main point of what you're writing about
because you have a very different belief system.
I may miss the main point of how you'd like me to
represent Christian conservatism, but I don't miss the main point of
what I'm writing about. Indeed, when I write about free market economics and
Ted Haggard's church, I'm making an argument that what is only one
aspect of his belief system is, in fact, one of the more
significant elements as far as outsiders are concerned. Think of it a like a
venn diagram. Ted and I share economic space, even if we don't share much
theological space. That overlap is therefore of concern -- indeed, it
is the public sphere.
There is nothing spooky or conspiratorial about
saying you firmly believe in secular humanism.
No, there certainly isn't. As the old saying goes,
some of my best friends are secular humanists. Only, I'm not, not by
a long shot. And I can't imagine why you'd suggest that I am.
Everything I write proceeds from the argument that secularism is itself a myth.
I'm persuaded by the arguments of Radical Orthodoxy, the Anglican
theological movement, that secularism is a surface beneath which supernatural
belief roils. I happen to have quite a few supernatural beliefs. You
might say I'm a muddled polytheist. I don't worship many gods, but
I'm concerned that there are quite a few out there, not all of them
friendly. That doesn't play much of a role in my magazine writing, but it's
the core premise of Killing the Buddha.
It's just common sense that all of us have religion, because
all of us have a god or gods.
Not so at all. For instance, I don't "have" a god or gods, even though I
suspect they may exist. Meanwhile, a great many people truly, truly
don't give a damn.
All of us put our hope in something or someone, and that is our god.
Doubly not so. Not all of us hope (though I do), and much of what we put
our hope in is not divine. For instance: putting one's hope in the
democratic process, a fairly common move, is only
religious if one supposes that the process proceeds from some
supernatural basis. Once you start capitalizing Democracy and the Democratic
Spirit, you're on your way to religion. But if for you it means sitting through ward
meetings, it's just democracy, a means of organization. Calling it
religion would be like calling a card catalogue a god.
I don't presume to have any idea what kinds of things you
put your hope in. For me, I worship the God of the
Bible,
That's nice. Which one? I'm not being glib -- the Hebrew Bible is pretty
clear that Yahweh is THE god, but it's also clear that there are other,
no good gods. And even Yahweh has enough faces to populate a pantheon.
I am judging you from your magazine work in the last year. It's been
well written, insightful, and often far more sensitive
of any other secular religion writer. But it's also
assumed certain things--such as the fact that most
of what people at the mega church in Colorado believe
is not true, or irrelevant, or not really most
important to them.
This is genuinely confusing. As it happens, I don't believe that gay men
are possessed by demons with cat's eyes, but I kind
of left it to the reader to decide what to make of that claim. As for
irrelevant -- uh, did you notice that I spent 11,000 words arguing
that this is one of the most influential belief systems in the world. "Not
that important to them"? Huh? I think it's very important to them. And
as for whether or not it's true -- well, that's a case by case. But I
left it pretty plain. You can read my short biographical sketch of
Ted Haggard and assume it's all true, the prophecy and the witches.
I don't say otherwise, a point Ted readily conceded. I'm not
particularly interested in whether or not there are witches. I'm more
interested in the fact that for Ted there are, and that he draws certain
conclusions from this. Other elements of his beliefs -- that the Bible
endorses free market capitalism -- are, in fact, simply not true. One may
be a capitalist and a Christian, but don't lean on the Bible just
because you haven't read your Adam Smith.
From that, I can only gather that you view
the material world as most real and meaningful.
This is utterly perplexing. I spend 10 years writing
about the spiritual beliefs of people and you conclude that I think only
the material world is meaningful? I don't even know what the material
world is.
From your focus on "rights" and issues common with some
of the most vocal "suppressed" groups, it seems you
have been heavily influenced, like most of us, by the
modern intellectual currents in the university and
major metro centers that seems to be mostly
political correctness masquerading as progress.
Nope. I've been heavily influenced by fists, those
of the kids who beat me about once a month when I was little because they
thought I was a Jew (sort of) and my mother was a lesbian (she wasn't).
I don't like knuckle sandwiches. Is that politically correct? I did not
grow up near a university or in a major metro center. I grew up in
a working class Republican town of 5,000. As for race, I'm permeated
by bigotry, although I try to think otherwise. Not because of
the university -- I only went to college, and a very strange one at that
-- but because that's what I learned growing up in a union family.
My grandparents -- Tennesseans, neither of whom went to college --
learned racism stinks by working with people of many races, and passed that
lesson down.
All right, I've got finances to do. I don't make
the big bucks freelancing like you, so I've got to
figure out how to pay the bills this month.
Uh, ok. Freelancing for Harper's works out at around
$18 an hour, but whatever.
But merry Christmas, and happy New Year! I
celebrate these holidays, and I respect your right to not
celebrate them,
What are you talking about? What do you know about
what holidays I celebrate? Christmas, if you care to know, with
midnight mass. Holy Jesus, indeed.
If any of my critique or opinion comes across as
too harsh, I apologize. I have been reading Doris
Kearns Goodwin's new Lincoln bio, and I am inspired to be
principled AND gracious and humble, to stand for
something and to honor those who think differently
than I.
You call wildly inaccurate declarations about what I
believe based on no evidence humble? Man, I thought humility had
somethign to do with not presuming to know it all.
Best,
Jeff
I don't think he likes me very much. :) So here is my response.
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005
From: Stan Wastren
Subject: Re: your secular humanism
To: Jeffrey Sharlet
Jeff
I'm not sure why you called my email thoughtful.
Yours was much more full of thought, and the thought was
on a much higher level than my own. I am not flattering
here. I may not be humble (I don't presume to be,
but rather want to be, and do attempt, daily, to be),
but the quality of your response is humbling.
I want to address only one point. I said all of us
have a god or gods, because all of us hope in
something. You wrote in some detail why you
disagree. I was very happy to see you expound your thought on
that. I wanted to push further in on this, to
clarify my thinking on this.
The key term here, in my mind, is hope. You wrote,
"Not all of us hope (though I do), and
much of what we put our hope in is not divine."
You went on to say that a political activist would
only be worshipping at the throne of politics if
their hope sprung from a supernatural basis, and if they
capitalized Democracy and the Democratic Spirit.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that many people do
not have hope. They are pessimists. Or they are
depressed. Or they have given up and given
themselves over screwing people over, and doing wrong. The list
is long.
But perhaps the word hope does not fully capture
what I was trying to say. I will try to round out the
portrait.
I do believe that each of these hopeless people puts
their trust in something. They find pleasure in
something. They make choices that reflect what is
most important to them.
Trust
Pleasure/delight
Priority/importance
I think all three of these words, along with hope,
give a fuller picture of what it means to worship.
There are other terms, but these will do for now.
I argue that whatever we worship is our god. And
just because we worship something doesn't mean it is an
actual, supernatural god. But we treat it as such.
It is our functional god. And all our important
decisions, and many smaller ones, are shaped by our
god or gods.
When you say that "putting one's hope in the
democratic process, a fairly common move, is only
religious if one supposes that the process proceeds
from some supernatural basis," you are speaking of
truly supernatural gods. (The Bible does say there
are many gods, but that there is one creating, ruling,
sovereign, true God.)
I am saying that even the atheist has a god. He has
put his trust in something. Often it may be himself.
He may say, "I have surveyed all around me and
inside me, and I choose to depend on myself, come what
may."
He may not be absolutely sure that his choice is
going to work, but that is why he is placing FAITH in
himself.
By the way, I didn't mean to sound like I begrudged
your success in the magazines. You deserve it. It
was more of a self-pitying remark than anything else.
And sorry for the Christmas remark. That was stupid.
I am full of those. But I like what Ray Bradbury wrote
in "Fahrenheit 451": “If you hide your ignorance, no
one will hit you and you’ll never learn.”
I guess what I like about you is that you still hit
in a day where many are afraid to say what they really
think.
Thanks
Stan
So far I haven't heard back from Jeff. But it was fun while it lasted.
I probably overstepped my bounds by stating that I thought that Jeff is "often...very mistaken." Here is the full text of how I described Mr. Sharlett.
Jeff Sharlett, a hugely talented and smart young writer who is at times very insightful on religion, but often also very mistaken, because he is trying to write mostly about Christianity as if he is a dispassionate observer, when actually he believes in his secular humanism/materialism as strongly as any Christian does in Christ.
Well, Jeff posted a comment on that post, and then I emailed him, and he responded, and I emailed him back. It was an interesting dialogue, to me at least, with Jeff showing off his tenacious debating skills and razor sharp mind, and me simply getting an opportunity to articulate an idea that I think is very relevant to our modern debates over religion and the separation of church and state.
Here is the comment Jeff left on the post.
This is a digression, since the real discussion here is about Bob and Mohler. But still, I can't help asking: How did you manage to peek in my secret secular humanism/materialism diary? I thought I had adequately disguised it by writiing "Protocols of the Youngers of Brooklyn" on the cover, but you've outed my nefarious humanistic/materialistic plan!!!
Oh, wait a minute -- I was just smoking crack. Your kind words are genuinely appreciated, but A)you've got me all wrong; B)you characterize my views without asking me about them -- and in direct contradiction to my lengthiest writing on the subject, Killing the Buddha.
Then I emailed him this:
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005
From: "Stan Wastren"
Subject: your secular humanism
To: the.revealer@nyu.edu
Jeff
Thanks for leaving the comment. I'm flattered.
As for my comment about you, my praise was heartfelt,
and as for my characterization of you as "often
mistaken," perhaps that was too harsh. I guess that,
without going into hundreds of words, I feel like you
miss the main point of what you're writing about
because you have a very different belief system.
There is nothing spooky or conspiratorial about saying
you firmly believe in secular humanism. It's just
common sense that all of us have religion, because all
of us have a god or gods. All of us put our hope in
something or someone, and that is our god. I don't
presume to have any idea what kinds of things you put
your hope in. For me, I worship the God of the Bible,
but I do sin on a regular basis by placing other
things ahead of him in my heart and in my actions. One
of the main reasons I worship this God, however, is
that he forgives me when I acknowledge my sin and he
gives me strength when I ask his help to stop sinning
in that way.
You are right, I haven't read most of "Killing the
Buddha." I have tried to, but gotten sidetracked,
through no fault of the book's. I am judging you from
your magazine work in the last year. It's been well
written, insightful, and often far more sensitive of
any other secular religion writer. But it's also
assumed certain things--such as the fact that most of
what people at the mega church in Colorado believe is
not true, or irrelevant, or not really most important
to them. From that, I can only gather that you view
the material world as most real and meaningful. From
your focus on "rights" and issues common with some of
the most vocal "suppressed" groups, it seems you have
been heavily influenced, like most of us, by the
modern intellectual currents in the university and
major metro centers that seems to be mostly political
correctness masquerading as progress.
All right, I've got finances to do. I don't make the
big bucks freelancing like you, so I've got to figure
out how to pay the bills this month.
But merry Christmas, and happy New Year! I celebrate
these holidays, and I respect your right to not
celebrate them, but I still greet you with joy because
of my celebration, hoping that my celebration and joy
will bless or benefit you in some way.
If any of my critique or opinion comes across as too
harsh, I apologize. I have been reading Doris Kearns
Goodwin's new Lincoln bio, and I am inspired to be
principled AND gracious and humble, to stand for
something and to honor those who think differently
than I.
God bless
Stan
Hours later, Mr. Sharlett send me back my email after slicing and dicing it.
From: Jeffrey Sharlet
To: Stan Wastren
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005
Subject: Re: your secular humanism
Stan,
Thanks for your thoughtful message. Nonetheless,
it's a study in assumptions. My first instinct is to explain it away
via the popular persecution narratives of Christian conservatism,
but I'll try to tread carefully and simply point out you below where you
assume knowledge of my intentions. And do so very inaccurately.
you miss the main point of what you're writing about
because you have a very different belief system.
I may miss the main point of how you'd like me to
represent Christian conservatism, but I don't miss the main point of
what I'm writing about. Indeed, when I write about free market economics and
Ted Haggard's church, I'm making an argument that what is only one
aspect of his belief system is, in fact, one of the more
significant elements as far as outsiders are concerned. Think of it a like a
venn diagram. Ted and I share economic space, even if we don't share much
theological space. That overlap is therefore of concern -- indeed, it
is the public sphere.
There is nothing spooky or conspiratorial about
saying you firmly believe in secular humanism.
No, there certainly isn't. As the old saying goes,
some of my best friends are secular humanists. Only, I'm not, not by
a long shot. And I can't imagine why you'd suggest that I am.
Everything I write proceeds from the argument that secularism is itself a myth.
I'm persuaded by the arguments of Radical Orthodoxy, the Anglican
theological movement, that secularism is a surface beneath which supernatural
belief roils. I happen to have quite a few supernatural beliefs. You
might say I'm a muddled polytheist. I don't worship many gods, but
I'm concerned that there are quite a few out there, not all of them
friendly. That doesn't play much of a role in my magazine writing, but it's
the core premise of Killing the Buddha.
It's just common sense that all of us have religion, because
all of us have a god or gods.
Not so at all. For instance, I don't "have" a god or gods, even though I
suspect they may exist. Meanwhile, a great many people truly, truly
don't give a damn.
All of us put our hope in something or someone, and that is our god.
Doubly not so. Not all of us hope (though I do), and much of what we put
our hope in is not divine. For instance: putting one's hope in the
democratic process, a fairly common move, is only
religious if one supposes that the process proceeds from some
supernatural basis. Once you start capitalizing Democracy and the Democratic
Spirit, you're on your way to religion. But if for you it means sitting through ward
meetings, it's just democracy, a means of organization. Calling it
religion would be like calling a card catalogue a god.
I don't presume to have any idea what kinds of things you
put your hope in. For me, I worship the God of the
Bible,
That's nice. Which one? I'm not being glib -- the Hebrew Bible is pretty
clear that Yahweh is THE god, but it's also clear that there are other,
no good gods. And even Yahweh has enough faces to populate a pantheon.
I am judging you from your magazine work in the last year. It's been
well written, insightful, and often far more sensitive
of any other secular religion writer. But it's also
assumed certain things--such as the fact that most
of what people at the mega church in Colorado believe
is not true, or irrelevant, or not really most
important to them.
This is genuinely confusing. As it happens, I don't believe that gay men
are possessed by demons with cat's eyes, but I kind
of left it to the reader to decide what to make of that claim. As for
irrelevant -- uh, did you notice that I spent 11,000 words arguing
that this is one of the most influential belief systems in the world. "Not
that important to them"? Huh? I think it's very important to them. And
as for whether or not it's true -- well, that's a case by case. But I
left it pretty plain. You can read my short biographical sketch of
Ted Haggard and assume it's all true, the prophecy and the witches.
I don't say otherwise, a point Ted readily conceded. I'm not
particularly interested in whether or not there are witches. I'm more
interested in the fact that for Ted there are, and that he draws certain
conclusions from this. Other elements of his beliefs -- that the Bible
endorses free market capitalism -- are, in fact, simply not true. One may
be a capitalist and a Christian, but don't lean on the Bible just
because you haven't read your Adam Smith.
From that, I can only gather that you view
the material world as most real and meaningful.
This is utterly perplexing. I spend 10 years writing
about the spiritual beliefs of people and you conclude that I think only
the material world is meaningful? I don't even know what the material
world is.
From your focus on "rights" and issues common with some
of the most vocal "suppressed" groups, it seems you
have been heavily influenced, like most of us, by the
modern intellectual currents in the university and
major metro centers that seems to be mostly
political correctness masquerading as progress.
Nope. I've been heavily influenced by fists, those
of the kids who beat me about once a month when I was little because they
thought I was a Jew (sort of) and my mother was a lesbian (she wasn't).
I don't like knuckle sandwiches. Is that politically correct? I did not
grow up near a university or in a major metro center. I grew up in
a working class Republican town of 5,000. As for race, I'm permeated
by bigotry, although I try to think otherwise. Not because of
the university -- I only went to college, and a very strange one at that
-- but because that's what I learned growing up in a union family.
My grandparents -- Tennesseans, neither of whom went to college --
learned racism stinks by working with people of many races, and passed that
lesson down.
All right, I've got finances to do. I don't make
the big bucks freelancing like you, so I've got to
figure out how to pay the bills this month.
Uh, ok. Freelancing for Harper's works out at around
$18 an hour, but whatever.
But merry Christmas, and happy New Year! I
celebrate these holidays, and I respect your right to not
celebrate them,
What are you talking about? What do you know about
what holidays I celebrate? Christmas, if you care to know, with
midnight mass. Holy Jesus, indeed.
If any of my critique or opinion comes across as
too harsh, I apologize. I have been reading Doris
Kearns Goodwin's new Lincoln bio, and I am inspired to be
principled AND gracious and humble, to stand for
something and to honor those who think differently
than I.
You call wildly inaccurate declarations about what I
believe based on no evidence humble? Man, I thought humility had
somethign to do with not presuming to know it all.
Best,
Jeff
I don't think he likes me very much. :) So here is my response.
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005
From: Stan Wastren
Subject: Re: your secular humanism
To: Jeffrey Sharlet
Jeff
I'm not sure why you called my email thoughtful.
Yours was much more full of thought, and the thought was
on a much higher level than my own. I am not flattering
here. I may not be humble (I don't presume to be,
but rather want to be, and do attempt, daily, to be),
but the quality of your response is humbling.
I want to address only one point. I said all of us
have a god or gods, because all of us hope in
something. You wrote in some detail why you
disagree. I was very happy to see you expound your thought on
that. I wanted to push further in on this, to
clarify my thinking on this.
The key term here, in my mind, is hope. You wrote,
"Not all of us hope (though I do), and
much of what we put our hope in is not divine."
You went on to say that a political activist would
only be worshipping at the throne of politics if
their hope sprung from a supernatural basis, and if they
capitalized Democracy and the Democratic Spirit.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that many people do
not have hope. They are pessimists. Or they are
depressed. Or they have given up and given
themselves over screwing people over, and doing wrong. The list
is long.
But perhaps the word hope does not fully capture
what I was trying to say. I will try to round out the
portrait.
I do believe that each of these hopeless people puts
their trust in something. They find pleasure in
something. They make choices that reflect what is
most important to them.
Trust
Pleasure/delight
Priority/importance
I think all three of these words, along with hope,
give a fuller picture of what it means to worship.
There are other terms, but these will do for now.
I argue that whatever we worship is our god. And
just because we worship something doesn't mean it is an
actual, supernatural god. But we treat it as such.
It is our functional god. And all our important
decisions, and many smaller ones, are shaped by our
god or gods.
When you say that "putting one's hope in the
democratic process, a fairly common move, is only
religious if one supposes that the process proceeds
from some supernatural basis," you are speaking of
truly supernatural gods. (The Bible does say there
are many gods, but that there is one creating, ruling,
sovereign, true God.)
I am saying that even the atheist has a god. He has
put his trust in something. Often it may be himself.
He may say, "I have surveyed all around me and
inside me, and I choose to depend on myself, come what
may."
He may not be absolutely sure that his choice is
going to work, but that is why he is placing FAITH in
himself.
By the way, I didn't mean to sound like I begrudged
your success in the magazines. You deserve it. It
was more of a self-pitying remark than anything else.
And sorry for the Christmas remark. That was stupid.
I am full of those. But I like what Ray Bradbury wrote
in "Fahrenheit 451": “If you hide your ignorance, no
one will hit you and you’ll never learn.”
I guess what I like about you is that you still hit
in a day where many are afraid to say what they really
think.
Thanks
Stan
So far I haven't heard back from Jeff. But it was fun while it lasted.
posted by stan at 8:45 AM
4 comments
