Michael Hoover wrote:
>
> > moreover, while the religiously orthodox ascribe to 'living by the book', fundamentalists 'actively' read sacred texts in ways that fit their politics (called 'dynamic interpretation' in islam), dilemma of different interpretations resolved by appeal to who is doing the interpreting... michael hoover
This 'problem' was central to a good deal of 17th-c religious disputation: (a) Scripture is the ONLY source of truth (b) Smith has one interpretation, Jones has another! (I'm crudely summarizing here.) It seems that a divinely inspired text requires a divinely inspired _reader_. But if the reader is divinely inspired -- why need Scripture! (The label for this is Antinomianism.) I forget the exact text now, but Calvin was (a) aware of this problem (b) bothered by its democratic/anarchist implications, but (c) nevertheless insisted on the complete adequacy of Scripture as a source of truth. We have here a parallel to Marx's point that where equal rights conflict, force decides.
The Temptation of Athens in Milton's _Paradise Regained_ revolves in part around this. The Son of God is replying to Satan's offering of the wisdom of Athens:
However many books Wise men have said are wearisom; who reads Incessantly, and to his reading brings not A spirit and judgment equal or superior, (And what he brings, what needs he elsewhere seek) Uncertain and unsettl'd still remains, Deep verst in books and shallow in himself, Crude or intoxicate, collecting toys, And trifles for choice matters, worth a spunge; As Children gathering pibles on the shore.
(P.R. iv, 322-31)
Here Milton extends the paradox of inspiration to _all_ reading. You can only get out of a book what you bring to it -- and if so, why do you need the book anyhow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Needless to say, this passage, and the Temptation of Athens as a whole, has driven many Milton scholars out of their fucking minds. :->
And this brings me back to my questioning of how directly influential religious belief is on politics. There is a long history of men & women adapting their religion to their politics and other prejudices, not the other way around. That is, on the whole, political/social convictions come first, then there is a recourse to religion to provide the slogans to explain those convictions.
If we want to change the religious opinions of americans, we have to concentrate not on their religious opinions but on their social context.
Carrol