Sara Palin “speaking in tongues” cartoon deemed offensive by Beliefnet
I’ve never really read the comments on a Beliefnet story before, but it seems like the kind of politically correct place where everyone is super tolerant and accepting and respectful of other people’s belief systems. That is so not appealing to me—I reserve the right to be publicly appalled by irrational superstition any time I encounter it!
So I came across a story on Beliefnet about a Washington Post political cartoon featuring Sarah Palin speaking in tongues. This is a plausible scenario for a joke, because Palin was a Pentacostal at one point in her life, later switching churches like she switched colleges. Pentacostals “believe”—although apparently there’s some skepticism about that in Christian circles—that they speak Glossolalia, the language of angels.
[I know, I said Christian skepticism...even other Christians don't buy it.]
From the Skeptic’s Dictionary: “According to Dr. William T. Samarin, professor of anthropology and linguistics at the University of Toronto:
Glossolalia consists of strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly …. Glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like. (Nickell, 108).
When spoken by schizophrenics, glossolalia are recognized as gibberish. In charismatic Christian communities glossolalia is sacred and referred to as “speaking in tongues”.
So, anyways, it’s not real. That’s not the point though. What was interesting was the editorial viewpoint of the Beliefnet blogger Steven Waldman. He said “…if you look closely, every religion’s practices and beliefs seem idiotic to those who aren’t part of that faith. Yet they’re profoundly meaningful to those who believe.” I mean, so? Is that a reason to accept them as valid—that people really like them?
There’s a continuum of stupidity on which all beliefs fall, and the word “beliefs” itself is the key. Actions and decisions based on facts should be respected; unfounded beliefs (read: “imaginary stories”) about the world and the laws and proscriptions they lead to should not.
The blogger felt it unfair to attack Palin’s inferred extreme religious practice without also mocking the other candidate’s convictions, as if hers were more extreme and stupid. I’d suggest they are more extreme and stupid, and belie a dangerous ideological attachment to manifest destiny-fuelled decision making.
American politicians have to assert religiosity because self-identified non-theists make up only 15-20% of the population. It’s just marketing. We can’t fault them for insincerity; it’s the actually religious ones whose judgment we should question.
El-oh-el! The wikipedia entry for “glossalalia” opens with “The neutrality of this article is disputed”.
Recent Comments