Cognitive Misers

"Cognitive Misers" is a term Heather in France DC has been hearing in her classes. I think the old term was "sheep." This type of person is very frustrating to those passionate about government, politics, societal change, etc.

On Halloween, she posted about her appropriately strong response to a PBS documentary on churches in the midwest that were under IRS investigation for supporting political candidates. In her commentary (which she calls a political-religions rant 8-)), she expresses her frustration with:

"cognitive misers" ... these people who take every shortcut available to get to their goal, trying their darndest, it seems, to not actually have to learn anything and arrive at an answer. Basically, they don't use their brains, or waste their time thinking about things they can get easy answers to someplace else. I can see how these people exist, but I weep that they constitute about 70% of the public. (I really do.)

and with:

...preachers who are using the pulpit as a ground to recruit those who have similar political ideologies. The message is framed on moral grounds: God and the Bible speak out against homosexuals, abortion is wrong because it is taking a life - there are commandments against that ... etc.

But that isn't the worst part. The worst part is, that the people keep coming back. They have no pre-existing frame in their head, no ulterior message that says: STOP. We live in the United States of America. We live in a country where we are free from religious and political oppression (supposedly). We treasure the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to basically do whatever our little hearts desire without tumbling into anarchy. We live in a place with the separation of church and state. But these people don't know or remember that. Or they are just too lazy to care.

I posted a reply, which may put me in a bit of a minority, and thought I'd re-post it here (mainly so I'd have it for later reference.) I fear it proves my idealistic days are past.

Heather "rants":

I feel like our country was founded on the separation of church and state. In so many ways, the founders did basically everything in their power to keep the government from influencing religion and vice versa.

Might wanna re-read a bit. The Puritans (Massachusetts) and the Quakers (Pennsylvania) and perhaps even the Catholics (Maryland) tried to set-up what they perceived would be a perfect society where they were free from the persecution they had experienced for practicing their religions, and where everyone would be "free" to practice the new unofficial state religion (Puritanism, etc.)

The "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion" clause is followed by the "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" clause. We usually forget that part.

Churches who actively support candidates (or support slates based on issue-centered voter's guides) would say that they are completely within their rights (if the "free exercise" clause is honored) to support candidates whose policies or ideals that support the type of society that the churches would like to see created or maintained.

I personally see little difference between placing a Right to Life Voter's Guide in a vestibule and a church (usually this happens in black churches) giving the pulpit over to a (usually Democratic) political candidate at 11 AM on a Sunday morning. The IRS may enforce a distinction, but there is no effective societal difference.

We treasure the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom to basically do whatever our little hearts desire without tumbling into anarchy.

I don't know if you really believe that ... less of an outcome than anarchy should provide the STOP message on one's behavior.

As a representative democracy, the people choose leaders whose views most closely match their own.

• The Church teaches us that abortion is evil. Is She then wrong if Her priests and ministers campaign to enact legal limitations on this behavior?
• The Church teaches us that all life is sacred from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death? Is She then wrong to encourage Her members to work for the abolition of practices destructive to life, be they embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia or the death penalty?
• The Church teaches us that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Bride; is She then wrong to encourage Her members to work to maintain this understanding, at least in the genders of marriage partners?

I'd say She is within Her rights, under the "free exercise" clause.

The true beauty of the system in the US is that others with a different understanding are also free to work to enact their views of a perfect, free society.

BTW: I know scads of Evangelicals, many of whom are also NASCAR fans. They aren't all sheep or "cognitive misers."

Finally, Heather asks:

Please tell me there are other people out there who believe there is a separation [between church and state.]

Go forth and do.