New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | April 4, 2005

Tim Cavanaugh notes that, as the coverage of JPII's death reminds us, the mainstream media isn't biased against religious people per se: It thinks they're just the cutest little things.

Comments

|4.4.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Tim notes (quite rightly) that it is religious fervor that once inspired and in many ways till inspires the arts, charitable organizations, and the fortitude of its followers to stand up against the evil of tyranny and bigotry.

He seems not to mention, however, that it is that same religious zealotry that "inspired" true believers to burn witches, jail homosexuals, slaughter Muslims, and torture non-Christians into converting. And, as with most institutions, the Church has a multi-century history of corruption, depravity and a sense of power inebriation that undermined its humble and noble origins.

I suppose in the end it's all a matter of perspective, depending on which side of the Pearly Gates you happen to be standing on.

|4.4.05 @ 5:24PM|#

Paging Gary Gunnels!

Paging Gary Gunnels!

|4.4.05 @ 5:28PM|#

SPD-I imagine he chose not to mention religion's spotty track record because it's already known and understood. Rehasing the same points made by countless others just makes for boring writing.

|4.4.05 @ 5:29PM|#

This one's MINE, motherf*ckers:

Ahem:

"Can we thump Christopher Hitchens on the head three times with a mallet to make sure HE'S dead?"

Tap tap tap. Is this thing on?

|4.4.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Rehashing, that is.

|4.4.05 @ 5:39PM|#

joe, don't tell me you escaped the land of snow and ice just to sit at your computer! Post some phonecam shots of girls on the beach at least :-)

|4.4.05 @ 5:48PM|#

I don't fully understand Tim's argument at the end of his article: Is he saying that removing the separation of church and state (a basic principle for which, I assume, both religious and non-religious fought and died) is the least we can do to reward those who did their patriotic duty in the spirit of religious fervor? I know some say "there are no atheists in foxholes," but I feel safe in imagining there were quite a few. Why, then, should they have to see religious symbols on public grounds?

If those who wish to express their religious beliefs are to do so without the tyranny of government involvement, then they should be free to do so on their own property, not property paid for by taxes taken from both religious and non-religious citizens. And for their right to express their faith, this agnostic would gladly sacrifice his life.

|4.4.05 @ 6:31PM|#

Todd, if I wanted beaches, I'd go to Cape Cod, home of the world's greatest beaches. And no, I'm not provincial. Care for some pics of my mother in law in her housedress?

SPD, I think he's just trying to feel their pain.

|4.4.05 @ 6:43PM|#

I can't even make the italics thing work, and you want me to post i

|4.4.05 @ 6:47PM|#

...pictures?

|4.4.05 @ 6:49PM|#

SPD--I too am a little confoosed:

"There's something of a bait and switch at work here. We're happy to let the religious put bodies on the line against colossal enemies or provide the charity work a secular state can't handle, but we're so stingy we won't even let them mount a City Hall nativity scene or a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments. There are legally sound reasons for that stinginess, but legal soundness is not the only ingredient in a successful culture or country. Without the irrational energies of religious believers, the Russians would still be in Afghanistan and Poland, and separate but equal would still be the law of the South."

So, we should, um, abandon the "legally sound" Bill of Rights, because of a couple anecdotes about good things that religious people have done? This is nothing of bait and switch, as Tim asserts. Yes, religious followers of different stripes may, if they so desire, do charity work or fight to defend the country---just the same as anyone else can. But with so many competing beliefs, how does something as universal as the justice system decide which to allow? For example, how does it reconcile allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted, but not allowing my own list of religious rules?

The problem with Tim's paragraph is that he seems to come to the conclusion that legal ambiguity towards religion is some sort of slap in the face to religious followers. This is simply untrue; the other option would be to recognize certain popular religions---which would simply offend everyone else. Take Tim's manger scene on public property, for instance. I'm sure Tim would love to see that manger scene, but quite a few people might not like seeing the equally legal satanic worship scene right next to it.

Getting the government involved in religion (which is exactly what Tim seems to be advocating) would not be a favor to the good religious folks, it would be a burden to them. And that is as sound as it gets. What Tim needs to realize is that allowing religious folks to have the same freedoms as non-religious folks is not "baiting"---and refusing to allow the ten commandments in courtrooms is not "switching". Last time I checked, the government wasn't advertising a damned thing---and religious organizations know exactly what they're getting.

I'm, quite frankly, surprised that Tim is advocating, in essence, allowing exceptions to the rule of law in exchange for some good deeds. That's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.

|4.4.05 @ 6:54PM|#

Joe,

There are better ways to "feel their pain" than advocating circumvention of the Bill of Rights and rule of law. Oh, shit, my grandma died---maybe, in an attempt to "feel my pain", the government should just, um, look the other way when I rob a bank. That paragraph was assinine, quite simply.

Warren|4.4.05 @ 7:01PM|#

I'd only say that I would not want my country defended by an army of rationalists, nor would I like to live in a society governed to the specifications of social scientists (even libertarian social scientists), nor do I think the head of UNICEF or a Harvard president or two former Beatles would have been as effective in opposing the Jaruzelski regime as was John Paul II.

Well Tim, I'll only say that I'd prefer that my political philosophy not be articulated by starry-eyed heretics such as yourself. Rationalists take a back seat to no one in defense of their family/home/way-of-life, when they are truly threatened. Better yet, they disregard the call to arms when they are not. And for the love of all that's sacred please PLEASE tell me where I can find so much as a hamlet "governed to the specifications" of libertarian social scientists. Even JP-II's venerated opposition to Polish communism was more about empowering, mother-church than the Polish people.

|4.4.05 @ 7:11PM|#

Cape Cod, home of the world's greatest beaches.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. joe funny.

|4.4.05 @ 7:49PM|#

"Against that, I'd only say that I would not want my country defended by an army of rationalists" - Tim Cavanaugh

"and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." - Winston Churchill (The River War)

|4.4.05 @ 8:31PM|#

Nice quotation, SM.

Without the irrational energies of religious believers, the Russians would still be in Afghanistan ...

...and the Twin Towers would still be standing.

|4.4.05 @ 9:25PM|#

Northern Ireland, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Middle East, The Salem Witch Trials, the World Trade Center, the plethora of religious wars that pockmark history...you don't have to be Chris Hitchens to acknowledge that religion is the chief cause of death and mayhem among our species.

|4.4.05 @ 10:18PM|#

Jim,

The case can also be made that non-religious motivations are at the core of many of those bloody conflicts. The Salem witch trials, for one, was perpetrated mostly against wealthy, but unmarried women landowners. You can find similar economic motives for many of the other wars as well such as plunder and empire. The name of God is usually invoked just to make the soldiers feel better about it. It's easier than killing deserters.

|4.4.05 @ 10:57PM|#

It's not religion per se that is the chief cause of war; rather, any ideology that is taken too seriously and uncritically by followers will eventually produce fanatics willing to kill. The twenthieth century is rife with examples of the latter. A conservative estimate on the combined death tolls of Stalin and Mao reaches anywhere from 30-50 million; far more than any religious conflict last century. On top of that, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Bosnian genocide, and the Northern Ireland troubles were largely ethnic conflicts with religious overlays.

|4.4.05 @ 11:01PM|#

The Tai-Ping rebellion in China also had religious and economic undertones, and killed a hell of a lot of people.

|4.4.05 @ 11:04PM|#

thoreau,

Sorry, I was busy writing a cert brief.

Number 6,

Or is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

On balance, God, religion, etc. are some of the worst things man has ever invented.

SPD,

There have been plenty of atheists in foxholes and there will always be. Its too bad that atheists who fought for our nation are always shat upon by theists who make such remarks.

See:

http://www.maaf.info/

http://www.mindspring.com/~alutiiq/atheists-in-foxholes.html

|4.4.05 @ 11:11PM|#

Evan Williams,

One of the problems with the Ten Commandments case out of McCreary and Pulaski counties (which I am no intimately involved in) is that the petitioners (the counties) argue that the Ten Commandments have some deep and significance influence on American law, which is ahistorical non-sense.

Tim Cavanaugh,

You're a fucking scumbag for insulting the atheists who have defended this country in every war.

|4.4.05 @ 11:17PM|#

Jamie,

The idea that the good folks of Salem didn't believe in witchcraft, etc., which is what you imply, illustrates a complete ignorance of the society which you discuss. Heretics, accused witches, etc., were burned at the stake largely for religious reasons, as the documentation of the time fully illustrates. The secular excuse you describe simply does not cut it.

|4.4.05 @ 11:22PM|#

Deus ex Machina,

On top of that, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Bosnian genocide, and the Northern Ireland troubles were largely ethnic conflicts with religious overlays.

No, religion was at the very core of those conflicts. In these case ethnicity and religion were fused together (as has often been the case) to create a religio-ethnic identity.

...rather, any ideology that is taken too seriously and uncritically by followers will eventually produce fanatics willing to kill.

No, its that any communitarian ideology will lead to this. Those outside the community are ripe for the slaughter. In the case of religion non-believers are those outside the community. This is perfectly illustrated in the Catholic and Protestant massacres of the French "wars of religion." Each side had a religio-ethnic vision of themselves and those on the opposite of the chasm could be killed withour mercy because they were an offense to God.

|4.4.05 @ 11:29PM|#

No, its that any communitarian ideology will lead to this

Are you sure it's only communitarians? I seem to recall some really crazy objectivist saying it would be kosher to indiscriminately nuke Muslim countries. I know, I know, maybe he's not a REAL objectivist, but he is at least loosely aligned with an ideology that is, well, definitely not communitarian (to put it mildly).

|4.4.05 @ 11:43PM|#

...but we're so stingy we won't even let them mount a City Hall nativity scene or a courthouse display of the Ten Commandments.

Of course this is a fabrication. We do in fact allow both to happen. Its unfortunate that Tim Cavanaugh is so utterly ignorant of the case law on these matters (as much as Cathy Young is as far as I can tell).

Ten Commandments case which upheld their posting at a courthouse: Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester Co., 334 F.2d 247 (3rd Cir., 2003). Note that the Supreme Court has not taken up this case.

Creche case: Lynch v. Donnelly, 645 U.S. 668 (1984).

Its context you idiot. There are no outright bans on either.

Without the irrational energies of religious believers, the Russians would still be in...Poland...

Its something of a mistake to claim that the basic energies of the Polish people were driven wholly by religion. See Davies' excellent work on Poland.

...and separate but equal would still be the law of the South.

Of course numerous non-theists were involved in the events leading to the end of segregation. I suggest you read Parting the Waters. You'll find that many, many of the folks from the North coming to the South had very secular attitudes.

|4.4.05 @ 11:45PM|#

thoreau,

Objectivism is a cult.

And as to nuking Muslims, I see talk about that all the time from the religious. Shit, visit the Winds of Change or Command Post blogs sometime.

|4.4.05 @ 11:47PM|#

On the Ten Commandments display note that language which set their placement in motion and continues to justify even the modified displays was religious in nature. It urged that their placement would further the good work of all Christians in converting non-believers, etc. Why the fuck should I, an atheist, have to tolerate such motives in public places that I am forced to pay taxes for?

|4.4.05 @ 11:49PM|#

I refer everyone back to Madison's Remonstrance for the view that if the establishment clause means anything, it means that I may not be forced to pay for religious teaching.

|4.4.05 @ 11:50PM|#

Gary-

You are correct in both points. But objectivism most definitely eschews communitarianism in the sense of obligations to others, even if it draws lines separating the "good" people from the "bad" people.

Maybe this is just a semantic point, but doesn't any ideology, if taken too far and too zealously, lead to calls for murder? Is it really only the communitarian ideologies that do so? OK, maybe you could say that any ideology becomes communitarian if taken too far, or that the people who do it become communitarian, but that's a rather fine distinction.

In the end, there will always be a few people who go crazy over some shit and start calling for slaughter. They'll all cite different motivations, but the common thread is obsession with an ideology and a conviction that those who don't agree are worthless.

The only condolence is that most of them don't act on it. I haven't see any Objectivists nuking Mecca (yet).

|4.4.05 @ 11:52PM|#

Tim Cavanaugh,

I suggest that before you start commenting on the Ten Commandments cases out of McCreary and Pulaski counties that you research the issues a bit. You're just like Walker and his Schiavo conclusions. You jumped to a conclusion in a state of ignorance.

|4.5.05 @ 12:02AM|#

thoreau,

My sort of individualism doesn't. :)

In the end, there will always be a few people who go crazy over some shit and start calling for slaughter.

Its never just a few. That's what is most nightmarish about atrocities like the Nazi holocaust, St. Bart's Day massacre, the Victorian holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, etc. The majority of the population agreed (often quite passionately) with the measures.

Since I read Koonz' The Nazi Conscience it has radically changed my perceptions of historical atrocities. They aren't driven by amorality or a lack moral fortitude, but by moral fortitude; by the ethic of community life and a politics of virtue built on that community life where the "other" becomes an immoral beast ripe for the slaughter. Thus, when the Pope argues that homosexuals are part of an "ideology of evil" it is the same sort of ethic of community life I see at play.

|4.5.05 @ 12:05AM|#

I believe we like to think of it as a few because its easier for us to imagine just a few bad apples than an entire society committed to genocide, but entire societies have been so committed.

|4.5.05 @ 12:20AM|#

BTW, until recently (early 2004) the VFW required that its members be theists; an atheist who happened to win a Congressional Medal of Honor was excluded.

|4.5.05 @ 12:57AM|#

On top of that, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Bosnian genocide, and the Northern Ireland troubles were largely ethnic conflicts with religious overlays.

No, religion was at the very core of those conflicts. In these case ethnicity and religion were fused together (as has often been the case) to create a religio-ethnic identity.


I would argue that in these cases, the initial religious disagreements were subsumed by issues of ethnicity, to the point were at least some of the participants identify themselves primarily on the basis of ethnicity. For example, some of the fiercest Zionists in Israel are secular. And the IRA has a largely Marxist ideology. In these cases it's not so much religion anymore as identity politics.

|4.5.05 @ 1:10AM|#

Gary-

I completely agree that your ideology doesn't lead to calls for mass murder. The problem is that most others do.

So, the world would be a better place if everybody just embraced your ideology.

In fact, I get pissed off when people don't embrace your benign ideology.

(Other people start to concur and join the club. It catches on, and eventually a crowd is chanting in unison)

"There is only one correct form of individualism! Death to the conformists!"

|4.5.05 @ 1:15AM|#

Oh, and FWIW, religion might be the ostensible cause of many fights, and it might be a convenient recruiting tool, but somebody has to write the checks to fund these fights. And writing a large check tends to sober one up real fast. Usually there's something else in play.

I know, I know, not always, I'm sure that somebody could find a purely religious quarrel. But in all cases that I can think of there's usually an underlying matter of money, power, or resources.

For instance, whatever one might think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (yes, Rick Barton, I know), my understanding is that a lot of the battle is, in the end, a battle over water. They might say it's about religion and ethnicity and whatnot, but it's not like there's a shortage of land in the Middle East. There's tons of land, it's just that there isn't a lot of water. So people fight over land with proximity to fresh water. Oh, a lot of people might believe that God really wants them to kill the people on the other side, but if there was plenty of other land to go around I have a hunch that they'd find a more peaceful resolution. Or at least most of them would find a more peaceful resolution.

Or so I've been told.

|4.5.05 @ 2:01AM|#

Deus Ex Machina,

I would argue that in these cases, the initial religious disagreements were subsumed by issues of ethnicity...

I would argue that a religio-ethnic ethic continues to control them.

For example, some of the fiercest Zionists in Israel are secular.

And yet many of the most radical Zionists in Israel are very religious; this is especially true of the settlers, the guys who present some of the most serious problems.

And the IRA has a largely Marxist ideology.

Well, the IRA isn't the only organization that causes problems in Northern Ireland (try denying the religiosity of Ian Paisley for example), and Catholic identity is strong even amongst the Marxists (as strange as that may sound).

thoreau,

A generation ago historians tended to discount the sincerity of the faith of those involved in conflicts. Historians as a rule don't do that any more. Where I was partly suckled as a graduate student, in the field of early modern Europe, taking religion seriously lead to a significant reappraisal of that era. I continue to take the religious beliefs of individuals seriously because of this influence.

|4.5.05 @ 2:08AM|#

Gary Gunnels,

You're a fucking scumbag for insulting the theists who have never actually embraced any of the ideas that you're attributing to them.

Seriously, give it a rest, will you? You're painting with an awfully broad brush, and at this point you're essentially being a troll. You're just insulting people for the sake of insulting people, and you're not actually responding to any of the arguments that are being made against your position. When other people speak in generalities, you bring up specifics, and when they bring up specifics, you bring up generalities. You're making an ass out of yourself, and you're way too fucking smart not to know it. So just let it go for a while, and find something else to argue about for a week or two. For the sake of everyone's sanity.

|4.5.05 @ 2:26AM|#

grylliade,

When did I do that? :)

You're just insulting people for the sake of insulting people...

Actually, no I am not.

When other people speak in generalities...

But I am being quite specific, especially with regard to the history of religious faith and workings of communitarian minded groups. Your problem is that you don't like the conclusions I draw from this. Tough.

Anyway, I am not going to censor myself because it upsets your P.C. inclications. If its too hot in the kitchen, then leave. :)

|4.5.05 @ 9:31AM|#

The only condolence is that most of them don't act on it. I haven't see any Objectivists nuking Mecca (yet).

Man, thoreau, we'd love to, but we can't get the nukes - North Korea won't sell 'em to us. Fucking Communists...

|4.5.05 @ 9:34AM|#

I like it when someone calls Gary on something, and he responds with a content-free "nuh-uh!"

How does Gary's theory that atrocities spring from communitarianism explain the comfort that so many individualist capitalists displayed with sending Pinkertons and National Guardsmen to slaughter striking workers?

And Gary, you are aware of the Irish Church's history of excommunicating people involved in resisting the English. Right?

|4.5.05 @ 9:44AM|#

joe,

What, pray reveal, have I been called on? No one so far.

...that so many individualist capitalists displayed with sending Pinkertons and National Guardsmen to slaughter striking workers?

Its an interesting question, but in many cases the strikers were in fact attacking the property of the owners of the businesses. A business person has every right to defend his or her property from thugs and vandals. That's something they don't teach you leftists at university.

Of course if a capitalist were attack Union workers (or whomever) off their property without provocation, that would be an entirely different matter.

It should be noted that the philosophy of the "robber barons" was anything but individualist. Further, many of them were as interested in social control via morals laws, etc. as any hardshell Baptist might be. Their attitude was paternalistic (that's a kind word for it) and not individualistic in other words.

|4.5.05 @ 9:45AM|#

"There is only one correct form of individualism! Death to the conformists!"

thoreau,
Pretty funny.
Note the Catch 22 nature of your quote, which prevents death from happening, thank goddess.

|4.5.05 @ 9:52AM|#

joe,

That is certainly the case (indeed it had been the case since Michael Collins and friends were fighting the English), but that doesn't mean that members of the Irish church and Irish priests didn't aid the IRA in its early manifestation or its later one.

|4.5.05 @ 10:02AM|#

thoreau,

Of course I never stated that there was some "correct" form of individualism.

Furthermore, you're the one obssessed with killing a class of people, not I. After all, you were the one who went apeshit and started foaming at the mouth about lawyers; claiming that if you could get away with it, you'd kill some.

|4.5.05 @ 11:26AM|#

iirc, fenians, white boys and many other nascent uprisings were wholly denounced by the church. maybe it was an attempt to stave off the brunt of the penal laws, or the usual venal politicking.

|4.5.05 @ 1:36PM|#

Of course I never stated that there was some "correct" form of individualism.



Furthermore, you're the one obssessed with killing a class of people, not I.

I never said you obsessed with killing anybody. You said that only communitarian ideologies can lead to calls for slaughter. I brought up the counter-example of some crazy objectivists (hardly communitarians, even if they are messed up in their own way) who who called for indiscriminately nuking Muslim countries. I suggested that any ideology, communitarian or not, can lead to calls for slaughter if the people who espouse it become too obsessed with their own superiority and the inferiority of others.

Then you said (with a smiley face at the end, I note) that your form of individualism could never be taken that far. So I responded with a satirical post about a cult forming around your ideology of individualism ;)

After all, you were the one who went apeshit and started foaming at the mouth about lawyers; claiming that if you could get away with it, you'd kill some.

Yes. And then I put aside the bad memories and calmed down.

|4.6.05 @ 9:44AM|#

Gary, anyone who would approve of killing human beings on behalf of money and material goods is either deliberately evil, or in the throws of an extreme ideology.

Human Beings. Stuff. It really shouldn't be that hard, even if you sympathize with some variation of such a materialist ideology.