More Believers Are Saying: It Ain't Necessarily So

The world watched as younger generations in Egypt rose up against the old guard represented by 82-year-old Hosni Mubarak, who had been their President as long as most could remember.

On February 11, his Vice President, Omar Suleiman, announced that Mubarak had resigned, transferring authority to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces following 18 days of protests challenging his nearly 30 years of rule.

Most mainstream American media tried to get us to understand what was happening in corporate media’s terms. Run by major multinational conglomerates and funded by huge corporate advertisers, they did their best to keep our eyes glued to their screens and our minds interpreting the events in ways they could understand.

The White House reportedly watched events on the English version of independent Arabic-language news network Al Jazeera, which scares American politicians to death. American cable censored their reporting of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Egypt from American eyes.

Corporate media filters ensured that Egypt would be seen in terms that are best for American business. Since we had propped up Mubarak by selling arms to his military, which made bokoo bucks for our arms industry, he was labeled s a “friend of the US,” which means “of US corporations.”

Like the ruthless old Shah, whom our CIA put back in office in 1953 by overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected president, Mohammad Mosaddegh, Mubarak could be counted on to spend money on us. It was about our oil companies then just as it’s about our arms-makers’ profits now.

In spite of criticism from the right to center-left, our President – thankfully -- stood back with a message of support for the workings of democracy. While media pundits encouraged us to interfere, Obama allowed Egyptian people in their squares to determine their own agenda.

So-called media experts from the right and center threatened us again with the specter of “radical Islam” or stereotypes of “Islam” in general. To be feared was “the Muslim Brotherhood,” officially the Society of the Muslim Brothers, which was founded in Egypt.

The Brotherhood actually condemned the 9/11 attacks as well as all terrorism, and has so far had little influence on these young protesters, but is invoked to scare. In reality, even this group’s actions were dominated by a younger generation that wants Egypt to be a more open society and is not the same type of group as “Brotherhoods” in other Arab nations.

One hero for these protesters was secularist, Muhammad al-Barada’i, who had fled Mubarak’s wrath. Not a “friend” of past US administrations, we vilified him for reporting there were no WMD’s in Iraq as head of the UN’s Atomic Energy Commission while the world awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize.

Another hero was Egyptian Google marketing manager, 30-year-old Wael Ghonim, who wants to bring Egypt into the 21^st century. Jailed for 12 days by Mubarak’s goons, he was a prominent leader of the protests. On January 25^th he Tweeted: “Dear Western Governments, You’ve been silent for 30 years supporting the regime that was oppressing us. Please don’t get involved now.”

If threats of scary Muslims weren’t enough, American media used the headline “Concern for WMD Research in Egypt.” Did corporate media prefer another Iraq-style invasion?

In reality, Egyptian options are open enough that the Wall Street Journal could begrudgingly editorialize: “An Egyptian Iran may also be the least plausible scenario.”

What scared the media and our power brokers most was the fact that this was a real grassroots movement. Using the new media such as Facebook and Twitter, twenty- and thirty-something professionals planned and led the people into the squares.

The same new media that multi-nationals hope will distract youth from challenging the powers, was used to orchestrate the downfall of one of the ruthless. Instead of tweeting about inane, self-centered egoism, Egyptian young people used it to empower themselves for political and social change.

These were not people waiting for top-down action to lead them to their future. They were not taught to believe that the solution to our problems is electing the right leaders from a very limited number of bought-out choices who will heroically bring “change you can believe in.”

Their educations and history were steeped in the stories of the uprisings of ordinary people, casting out colonial powers, and knowing how even presidents they supposedly elected were invested in protecting politicians’ powerful benefactors.

They weren’t convinced that effective education was measured in the useless, inherently conservative answers considered correct on standardized tests created and produced by profit-oriented corporations that fear change. They believed in themselves.

They actually had read some of our great, people-oriented writers like Noam Chomsky and historian Howard Zinn. You know, the ones considered too “radical” for official, approved, American education.

They therefore knew they could choose hope. They didn’t settle in as jaded pessimists as many of those in power hope we all will, and many of our young people tragically have.

“Pessimism,” Zinn wrote in You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train (1994), “becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; it reproduces itself by crippling our willingness to act.”

"That you can't change City Hall is a rumor being spread by City Hall," wrote African American lesbian writer-activist Audre Lorde. That there’s no hope for us to change things, she advised, is just what those with the power want us to believe.

Democracy can be messy and unpredictable. It’s scary for those who must wield control. In this case, though, it actually included cleaning up Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo after word of Mubarak’s fall.

Democracy has its victims. But when corporations kill, all’s very neat, tidy, and controlled.

We can see the difference when we walk into the neat, controlled, corporate-certified environment of Starbucks where even access to local media is limited, but then go next door where a local coffee shop provides its unique atmosphere and a disorganized variety of citizen-produced media that remind us of the messiness of true democracy.

“Hope,” workers’ writer Studs Terkel reminds us, “has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.”

Members of older generations have worked hard against seemingly overwhelming odds to end the bigotry that has long gripped this nation. They have brought us to this place.

But the older generations clinging to positions of power are still the ones holding back change. It’s still true that babyboomers and their elders control the political and religious institutions that dominate American culture.

Yet, no matter how we slice the data, the younger the respondent to polls, the less likely they are to oppose issues such as marriage equality. While 26% of those 65 and over and 32% of those 50-64 favor marriage equality, 57% aged 18-29 do, according to a May 2011 survey of - of all people - church-goers by the Public Religion Research Institute.

This new study is revealing. Among church-goers, 69% of those 65 and over respond that sex between adults of the same gender is morally wrong, while only 41% of millennials do.

In addition the study tells us, when it comes to millennial as well as 30-64 year old church-goers, there is no significant difference on their views of abortion from the general public – around 60% agree it should be legal in all or most cases. However, for those 65 and over, only 43% respond positively to the same question.

In fact, the majorities of all but one major group agree that at least some health care professionals in their own community should provide legal abortions. The lone exception is among white evangelical Protestants.

Again, when it comes to teaching comprehensive sex education in the public schools, Americans are in disagreement with their more conservative religious leaders. Nearly eight in ten favor it including among millennials: 62% of white evangelicals, 74% of black Protestants, 78% of Catholics, and 85% of white mainline Protestants.

Even those 65 and older support comprehensive sex education in public schools by a solid 62%. And over eight in ten Americans also favor expanding birth control for women who can’t afford it, with strong support across all political and religious demographics.

There is little question that the number one answer usually given when asked what is holding us back on these social issues is religion. That’s why the news here is especially encouraging.

There is a refreshing and important independence growing in the ranks of believers. The fact that they are people who identify with a religious institution and yet believe they can disagree with their leaders indicates that their views on marriage equality and abortion cannot be taken for granted because of their religious identity.

And even the standard labels used in the political/religious debate are inadequate for those surveyed. Seven out of ten Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them somewhat or very well while nearly two-thirds simultaneously say they could also identify with the term “pro-life” and not see these as contradictory.

72% report that it is possible to disagree with their religion on abortion and 63% on homosexuality while considering themselves in good standing in their faith. And about six out of ten Catholics and almost half of white evangelical Protestants say it’s wrong for religious leaders to publicly pressure politicians on abortion.

Interestingly, more than two-thirds of white evangelicals believe it’s possible to disagree with their religion’s teachings on abortion and still be a good Christian, but they are the only group in which less than a majority (47%) says they can disagree faithfully with their religion’s teachings on homosexuality.

Also surprising is that Catholics are just as likely as any religious group (68%) to respond that being a good Catholic does not require you to agree with the Church’s teaching on abortion, and a larger number (74%) say the same about not needing to agree with the Church on homosexuality.

Little has changed in terms of American’s views on abortion with 57% saying it should be legal in all or most cases in 1999 and 56% today. Yet the percentage of Americans supporting marriage equality has jumped 18 points in that same period to 53%.

All of this reinforces the tactics we have been using for the last half-century when working with religious people, except that it indicates that the work that has been done has moved some in that moveable middle even though their religious leaders and institutions hate that whole idea. The millennial generation’s difference from older folks is a tribute to the persistent work of activists of all ages.

It continues to remind us that there is a moveable middle even in those religious institutions that refuse to budge in their official pronouncements. And conversations with those believers who are open to facts and personal stories must continue to be the focus of our energies.

We cannot judge the possible outcome of our work by church membership. Many right-wing religious leaders push on while their congregations are changing, as the poll tells us.

Among Americans who attend church at least twice a month, majorities still report hearing their clergy talk about abortion and homosexuality in church.

There are still those believers who are stuck. They’re just unable to face a change in thought or to stand up and admit that their religious leaders could ever be wrong.

It’s not surprising that this last group would be larger in older generations not just because of the broader education of the young. Those who’ve been members the longest are the ones who feel they have the most to lose.

They have relied on their religious institutions for security for more years. They may have become religiously-addicted.

And there will be a percentage in every generation that uses religion as an addiction as long as addictions are needed to cope with our society. They will be hard nuts to crack.

Fighting with those immovable ones though will sap the energy for changing the majority and prevent us from appreciating the progress that is taking place.