This morning after reading my email from, and the comments to, yesterday evening's post -- "New York's human-rights exception" -- I must protest some rather vast misreadings and gross misinterpretations.
First, I scarcely argued against such an "exception," if that was the pragmatic step required to complete this much greater and much worthier journey. Indeed, my opening observation mirrored my acceptance: "Only the poisonous reactionaryism of organized religion could contaminate the human-rights ecstasy of NY's new law." One should note -- rather, should have noted -- that I did not philosophically disallow the contamination. I merely observed it. If coddling the parsons and priests of organized delusions is what it takes to guarantee all of New York's citizens their full citizenship, then by all means coddle away.
Second, at no time, and in no place, and certainly in no words did I advocate a state dictatorship over organized religion. The latter institution may require Kierkegaardian leaps of faith to sustain itself -- and that's perfectly fine with me, since I adore the contemplation and debate of the abstract and metaphysical -- but only a gratuitous leap of logic could have landed on the conclusion that I had advocated, or even suggested, the secular regulation of religion.
Third, it is genuinely odd that for all the indignation expressed over what I did not write, there wasn't a whisper of deliberation over what I did so clearly write: my resentment -- and the resentment of millions of other Americans, be they agnostics, atheists, or the believing but fiscally distraught -- of organized religion's exemption from taxation. This has long existed as a subject of legitimate debate: Does the Constitutional phrase of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" necessarily mean that, say, revenue-starved municipalities are barred from taxing the profits of sprawling, locally housed corporations of a spiritual twist? I think not, but then again I'm no lawyerly Constitutional authority; yet some who are, think not as well.
Now, do the above opinions suggest an unmistakable anti-organized-religion point of view? You bet your etymologically corrupted Bible and Augustine's epistemologically corrupted City of God they do. As one participant to the scholarly "Jesus Seminar," I believe it was, once opined, and I paraphrase only from memory: Christianity is spent. It's had 2,000 years to prove itself as a positive world force and it has failed. I would add the same holds true for Islam, Judaism, and, as earlier denoted, any other organized delusion. Until these collective mythologies go the way of Zeus, Jupiter, Baal, Molech and Osiris -- and they most assuredly will -- however, than they can, by God, render unto Caesar -- i.e., pay taxes.
Again, does any of this mean I would have opposed the "exception" under discussion, if only the insertion of such a characteristically small-minded religious exception meant the state of New York could thereby join the modern, authentically spiritual and humane world? Of course not. Nor did I say so last night.
***
postscript: I shouldn't have to add this, but, odds are, otherwise someone would come along and express the additionally illogical objection that the above arguments are likely founded on a godless abomination. In every discussion of the merits of organized religion I've ever experienced, that rude illogic has intruded: the popular conflation of opposition to organized religion and a disbelief in some higher, universal power. So, just to clarify before any such folly takes cyberflight, I stand firmly on the first ground of opposition to man-manufactured "religion," but hold open and even largely accept the possiblity of the second.
The cultural fact that such a testament is not uncommonly required for full admission to "theological legitimacy" only indicates how intellectually oppressively organized religion has strutted throughout the course of human history. As Montaigne either did or would have observed, his cook would know as much about God as the priest, but for profoundly vague reasons, the priest is granted an irreproachable, epistemological edge. Go figure.