Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Why evangelicals like Christine O’Donnell sometimes claim to have explored becoming a Hare Krishna even though they never did

Why evangelicals like Christine O’Donnell sometimes claim to have explored becoming a Hare Krishna even though they never did

Last updated on: October 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm by Fred Clark

Why evangelicals like Christine O’Donnell sometimes claim to have explored becoming a Hare Krishna even though they never did 2010-10-06T18:07:03-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Bill Maher continues his weekly Christine O'Donnell video clip releases, with this week's showing the Republican Senate candidate claiming to have explored becoming a Hare Krishna.

"I was dabbling into every other kind of religion before I became a Christian," O'Donnell says:

I was dabbling in witchcraft, I've dabbled in Buddhism. I would have become a Hare Krishna but I didn't want to become a vegetarian. And that is honestly the reason why — because I'm Italian, I love meatballs!

To understand this bizarre, and untrue, statement, you have to understand the peculiar place that Hare Krishnas hold in the rhetoric of America's evangelical Christian subculture. "Hare Krishna" doesn't refer, specifically or literally, to the belief system that bears this name. It's a shorthand signifier representing something like "every other possible alternative that anyone could imagine."

As with her claim to have "dabbled into" a Warnke-esque form of Satanism, O'Donnell is here embellishing her "personal testimony" in an attempt to make it seem more compelling, more exciting and more authoritative. This kind of runaway exaggeration is encouraged in the evangelical subculture by giving such dramatic testimonies a more enthusiastic response than is generally provided to the more honest and accurate, but blander, sort of testimony that begins, "I've been attending this church my whole life …"

But these false embellishments aren't only intended to provide drama. More perniciously, this sort of artificially enhanced testimony is also encouraged as a debate tactic — especially in "witnessing," when one is attempting to argue someone into conversion.

Imagine you're at your local Ford dealer shopping for a new car. You've expressed some interest, but you're also looking at the Toyotas and the Hondas.

"Trust me," the dealer says. "I've driven them all. I've dabbled in every make and model there is and I know all there is to know about all of them, so trust me when I tell you that only the Fords are any good."

That is what this "Hare Krishna" business from O'Donnell is about. It's a tactic for discounting and dismissing the competition. She doesn't want to say that her evangelical faith is all she's ever known because she worries that might leave her vulnerable to the accusation that she simply doesn't know any different or any better. So she tries to head this off by making the implausible sweeping claim that she's test-driven them all — that she's experimented with every religion and found her own faith to be the best and only satisfactory alternative.

She hasn't really done so, of course, as evidenced by her continuing lack of understanding of what those other faiths actually believe. Plus she simply hasn't had time to carry out such a comprehensive spiritual journey. Her claim might be slightly more plausible coming from an older person — a late-in-life convert after decades of a Razor's Edge-style quest. But this claim is patently ridiculous coming from O'Donnell, who has been a vocally earnest evangelical since high school.

This claim of supposedly comprehensive experience also doesn't really carry the authoritative weight that those making it seem to think it does. What is intended to come across as experienced, expert and worldly wise instead just seems indicative of spiritual inconstancy, inconsistency and incontinence. Trusting such a person for religious advice would be like going to Larry King for marriage counseling. Who would you rather hear from for advice about quitting smoking: Someone who quit only once, 30 years ago? Or someone who had quit dozens of times in the past week?

Those who make this kind of argument imagine that they're improving their own religious testimony — making it both more exciting and more authoritative. But the truth is that it diminishes whatever power their own story might have had. A false testimony lacks conviction and honesty — the very things that make anyone's own story compelling. And it betrays a lack of confidence — a lack of faith — that one's actual beliefs honestly conveyed can withstand testing.

The false claim of comprehensive knowledge of every alternative is unbelievable because it is inherently duplicitous. It's like saying, "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and I thoroughly examined both of them so you must defer to me as an expert on all possible paths." That's obviously not true. Sorry, you could not travel both and be one traveler. To claim to have done so is to claim to have been more than one traveler — the very definition of duplicity.

Primarily, though, this line of disingenuous apologetics is not designed for external audiences. It can't and doesn't work for persuading others to choose the path you have chosen. But it does almost work — kind of, sort of, if you're willing to play along without thinking too hard — for internal reassurance. This is true of much of what evangelicals like to call "apologetics" — it's for retention, not recruitment. It's not meant to bring others in the door, but to keep those already inside from heading to the exits.

The O'Donnell video shows how painfully sad this whole subcultural self-reassurance seems when someone attempts to apply it to persuade others. O'Donnell gives the appearance of having said exactly this sort of thing before, making exactly these same claims internally, in the context of a hermetically homogeneous subcultural setting in which everyone knew the ritual responses and agreed to play along. "Yes, yes," they would nod, urging her to continue. "We are right and they are wrong and we know this is certain because we've tried all the alternatives, haven't we? We've dabbled and therefore we know that everything else can be ignored."

Once again in this video we see the desperate panic setting in as O'Donnell is confronted with the skepticism of an audience that doesn't follow the liturgical script of reassuring self-deception. "Everybody laughed and amen-ed when the guest speaker made that same exact Hare Krishna and meatballs joke at church — why didn't Bill get the joke? Why is he laughing at me instead of at the Hare Krishnas with their bald heads and robes and stuff?"

Why Hare Krishnas? Why do they always seem to be singled out as the punchline and punching bag in these kind of embellished testimonies? I suppose it's because of their flamboyant religious expression and exotic dress. Plus they're kind of a fringe group, small enough in number that they make an easy target.

For another example of this Hare-Krishna mockery as a form of ritual self-reassurance, let's look at the lyrics to an old Imperials song that was popular back in the 1980s, when both Christine O'Donnell and I would have heard it in our evangelical Christian youth groups.

These Imperials had nothing to do with Little Anthony or "Tears on My Pillow." They were an old Southern Gospel vocal group who had some crossover pop success in the emerging "contemporary Christian music" industry. One such success was a catchy, if aggressively rude, ditty called "Old Buddha." Here's the first verse and the chorus:

Well, Old Buddha was a man and I'm sure that he meant well
But I pray for his disciples lest they wind up in hell
And I'm sure that old Mohammed thought he knew the way
But it won't be Hare Krishna w

e stand before on The Judgment Day.

No, it won't be old Buddha that&
#39;s sitting on the throne
And it won't be old Mohammed that's calling us Home
And it won't be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune
And we're going to see The Son not Reverend Moon!

It's fairly clear that this song was not intended as a way to persuade Buddhists or Muslims to give Christianity a respectful hearing. You'd be foolish to attempt to employ such mockery as a form of outreach. That's not really what it was written for. It was written for internal use — for reassurance and retention.

The triumphalism on display in that song — and in O'Donnell's exaggerated claim to have explored and rejected every possible alternative — is familiar to those of us reading the Left Behind series. The central theme of "one day, they'll see — we're right and they're wrong" is exactly the same as in Tim LaHaye's vindictive victory dance of a story.

This emphasis on an eschatological "I told you so" is at least two steps removed from a healthy spirituality. Two huge steps. Two continents.

First, it's otherworldly, putting the focus on the afterlife rather than this one. We live here, in this life and this world. A faith that recommends itself only due to some promise of reward in another life and another world can't be very fulfilling here and now. Hope is necessary and, as all religions agree, that requires a component of eschatological hope because, as Reinhold Niebuhr said, "nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime." But if hope is exclusively eschatological, we are left hopeless in this life.

A healthy faith has to have something more to it than the promise of pie in the sky when you die. If that's all your faith offers you, then you're bound to lash out at people like the Hare Krishnas because — whatever it is they believe and not matter how kooky they may seem to outsiders — their faith gives them a reason to dance here and now.

But this triumphalism also doesn't seem to offer much of a reward even in the next life. It's not anticipating the glory of heaven, merely the bitter pleasure of seeing others get their comeuppance. It's a vision of heaven as a place of eternal schadenfreude.

When you're forced to describe heaven using untranslatable German words, then something has gone very wrong with your spiritual weltanschauung.

It's no wonder that such a faith requires constant reassurance via songs and stories mocking the fate of outsiders and through disingenuous testimonies claiming to have explored and ruled out every other possible option.

Such a fragile faith cannot withstand the give-and-take of Mars Hill. It might allow its adherents to go there and speak, but not, as Paul did, to go there and listen.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 4, 2010

TF: Tossing cookies

Next Post

October 8, 2010 Subsidiarity: Where responsibility begins

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2026 October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the first piece of the Armor of God mentioned in Ephesians 6?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Helmet of Salvation The Belt of Truth The Shield of Faith The Sword of the Spirit