Freedom--from what? For what?

I have noticed that the New Yorker has developed quite an interest in religion. Perhaps it is like what CS Lewis said about devils. There are two errors that one can make, the first of which is to disbelieve in them entirely which would be the Christopher Hitchens mistake; the second error is to believe in them and to have an intense and unhealthy interest in them. In fact, in some Christian circles we refer to a "spirit of religion," as being a pernicious influence meant to distract and draw some away from Christ Himself or perhaps even more significantly, the Holy Spirit Himself.

Anyway, one of the lead cartoons in the last issue shows a group of parishioners coming out of church with those big foam mitts pointing skyward emblazoned with "#1" and a woman is talking to a man with an Elvis hair cut and a mismatched suit and tie, saying, "It's true-- we totally have the best religion!"

The point is made by exaggeration of course, I have never seen anything like this in church or outside of it -- but Americanism tends to wave flags and banners and when Christ is crucified afresh by being made the equivalent of our favorite team or gridiron hero, Americanistic Churchianity seems to deserve all the scorn due to it for being idolatry.

I have found that religion is only mentioned twice in the New Testament and half of those references are not favorable! James basically says that religion is limited in scope and has to be judged by its fruits not by its doctrine. Therefore, not too many churches really talk about being a religion at all, especially in these days.

On the other hand, even a brief survey on Internet strongly suggests that Islam would say exactly that -- that they are the best religion and do not mind being regarded as a religion, and as religious or even super-religious. There are unfortunately many inside and outside of churches who say, "Lord, Lord!" to whom Jesus must eventually say, "I never knew you." If this does not give a religious person pause, I don't know any stronger way to put it.

For all the interest in religion, I do notice that the New Yorker does not print cartoons about Mohammed or Islam. Interesting. They do not seem to have the same bravery as, shall we say, "South Park", who, to be fair, also mock Jesus and take pride in being a "team" who mocks everyone equally. This also sounds like a religion to me -- they believe in the show! And they certainly live for it!

Christopher Hitchens, naïvely, seems to think along the lines of Voltaire and that "freedom from religion," is actually an achievable goal-- by human effort alone. It seems wise to abandon this train of thought which is almost akin to saying that religion does not exist, only ignorance and anti-scientism. And to maintain that the world is less religious than it was 50 or 100 years ago, or since Darwin, Marx, and Freud, is quite easily disproven. But to say that most of religion per se is reactionary may be closer to the point; mainly a reaction to our own inadequacies and our drive to seek interpersonal approval for our "good works." But also to say, "That's all there is, folks," is equally reactionary and equally religious, not based on evidence or logic but simply the heartfelt desire to be autonomous and accountable to no one, as we see in "The Plague." -- In virtually everyone, thief and doctor alike. Christopher Hitchens does have a particular dislike for Islam -- but he seems to be getting over it, under pressure from his colleagues. But does it not seem ironic that the New Yorker supports Salman Rushdie but dares not imitate him--esp. in the cartoon section. The Danish debacle and the murder of Master Van Gogh in the Netherlands has had a palpable impact on the "nether lands", has it not?