Piety and Society

New at Reason: Do Americans want the President to believe in God, or just fear him? Julian Sanchez praises the Lord.

Comments

[fyodor]

Communism has been bad PR for atheism. Interesting that Julian's cites the "will to power" as a foil since I believe that is just what Bush attributed to the terrorists behind 9/11 in a speech shortly afterward.

[ed]

America's religiosity is certainly a paradox since, given our prosperity, we seem to have little need for a god. I suspect many American theists are secretly fence-sitting agnostics, content to keep their deity at arm's length until something bad happens to them. It's a just-in-case belief system, and they feel comfort in electing a leader who shares in their epistomological anxieties.

[Warren]

I'm constantly amazed at how similar people are to the other people that they insist must die. America is now embracing the sort of "God wants me to kill them" type of leader that makes killing "them" so necessary.

[Rick Barton]

it seems that voters care less about whether a candidate shares their religion than about whether he adheres to some religion or other.

we may want to ensure that our political masters are bound by ...an ethos characterized by humility and empathy with the powerless, one in which the "will to power" is suppressed.

This seems a reasonable conclusion since most folks don't seem to care if others, who usually have greater importance in their lives than presidents, for example; their doctors or stock brokers are "persons of belief".

[Osama and George...]

Good point Warren!

🙂

[Tom from Texas]

Religious belief requires a humility that forces you every day to admit that you aren't the sum total of existance, that your time here is transitory, and that ultimately you are accountable for your actions.

That's why I never bought Bill Clinton's religiosity.

[SM]

C'mon Tom. All those qualities could just as well be posessed by athiests, theists, deists, extropians, randroids, vegetarians and on and on unless you know someone who swigs immortality serum.

[ed]

"...ultimately you are accountable for your actions."

True enough, T from T, but reality is a far more potent and unforgiving force.

[Rebecca]

Unless vegetarianism is a new religion, you've gotten off the garden path, SM.

It is very important to me that my political leaders - those people I trust to protect my liberty and way of life - that they believe in a Being larger than them, more knowledgeable than themselves, one that will hold them accountable. It doesn't matter to me too much what religion the person adheres to, so long as he has a personal belief in that Higher Power. And that his beliefs guide his personal and professional behavior. I don't trust someone to work for the greater good, if that person does not believe in a Greater Good himself. The leader then has no focus, except on what is expedient for him and his personal goals.

The difference between Bush and bin Laden is that Bush invokes God as the author of our liberties and therefore we have a responsibility to defend what God has given us. Bin Laden wants to remake the world and claims God has told him to slaughter the infidel. As with any claim that humans make, one has to look at the results. Bin Laden's actions result in fear and death. Bush's actions have fear and death in the short run, but freedom for all religious groups in the long run. Obviously people will debate over whether that is a good thing in Bin Laden's mind or the Muslim world... but I'd much rather be alive than dead because I'm an "infidel" according to one man's lights.

[Rick Barton]

Tom from Texas,

Clinton was con who was fortunately held in check by a Republican congress who knew it.

But for Bush, perhaps he actually believed the lies that were foisted on him and the rest of us by the neo-cons before he gave orders that resulted in the death and maiming of tens of thousands.

Oh oh; veering off topic. We can pursue Iraq war debate one thread down.

[ed]

"It doesn't matter to me too much what religion the person adheres to, so long as he has a personal belief in that Higher Power."

That describes UBL, Rebecca.

[Warren]

"Religious belief ? forces you every day to admit that ? are accountable for your actions."

More often than not, I see religious belief used as a shield against accountability. Usually along the lines of "God hates you so it's right for us to, beat you up / throw you in jail / execute you. Religious people always seem think they know the 'will of God' and use it to justify their bigotry.

[ed]

Warren's batting a thousand tonight.

[thoreau]

As a left-leaning libertarian and a practicing Catholic, I want my leaders to believe in the teachings of a long-haired radical Jew who spoke out against the authorities and spent most of his time promoting peace and love.

But since I'll never get everyone to share my beliefs, I'll settle for leaders who leave me alone and don't interfere with peace and love.

[ed]

A man can dream, Thoreau.

[Warren]

"?my political leaders - those people I trust to protect my liberty and way of life- "
You are far far too trusting.

I don't trust someone to work for the greater good, if that person does not believe in a Greater Good himself.
Some of us would like to see the government work to provide the greatest freedom instead of oppressing us in the name of the Greater Good. Even so, professing religious beliefs doesn't seem to make politicians an less self serving.

The leader then has no focus, except on what is expedient for him and his personal goals.
Nonsense! Theism doesn't possess a monopoly on nobility and compassion. Furthermore, the proposition that faith deters leaders from pursuing "what is expedient for him and his personal goals" is patently false.

The difference between Bush and bin Laden is that Bush invokes God as the author of our liberties and therefore we have a responsibility to defend what God has given us.
Sounds pretty damned close to Osama's invocation too.

Bin Laden wants to remake the world and claims God has told him to slaughter the infidel.
Sounds pretty damned close to the last State of the Union speech.

Bush's actions have fear and death in the short run, but freedom for all religious groups in the long run.
There are none so blind?

[Les]

Thank you, Warren. I'd like to suggest to people who think that a belief in a higher power somehow makes them more responsible or "moral" check out the statistics regarding religious belief among prisoners incarcerated for things like theft, rape, and murder. You'll find a very small percentage of atheists among them. Which is not really surprising when you consider that God as described in the Old Testament was a fairly vicious, mass-murdering son of a bitch Himself.

That said, I'm not an atheist myself. I just hate it when people who haven't really bothered to read the Bible (and I suspect our President, who blissfully admits to not reading newspapers, is one of those people) pontificate on the superiority of religious people.

[Ruthless]

"But since I'll never get everyone to share my beliefs, I'll settle for leaders who leave me alone and don't interfere with peace and love."

I'm just skimming through here--my busy season is upon me--but, based on what you said, thoreau, I love you man, and, your bumper stickers.
A pox on yo vo biscuit. (pax vo bis cum)

[Andrew]

Rick and Thoreau

The question, I take it, is whether you prefer a candidate who is religious (or not) all other things being equal. That black Republican, Keyes(?) was, if I recall, fairly devout-- also quite libertarian: would that make you more or less comfortable with the guy?

My preference runs stronger (all other things being equal) with political persuasions I don't like. I would much rather have a liberal democrat who was a devout Catholic or evangelical. Giving atheism to statists, is like giving liquor to the Indians.

[Mona]

I am curious to know whether any of those who express doubts about the fitness of a non-theist to hold office, and/or who feel that only one who embraces a higher power can be trusted in positions of power, and/or who find that non-theists are prone to statism or make particularly dangerous statists, I wonder this: do you belong to or have you belonged to 12 Step programs?

Anyone familiar with such progrqams, and the 12 Steps themselves, might guess why I ask. I am deeply ambivalent about them, however much they help a samll percentage of those who use them, because they promote bigotry against non-theists and preach the doctrine of "have a higher power, any higher power will do." One hears sentiments like that a lot, and they are certainly manifest in this thread.

[AJMB]

Not having read the article, or any of the previous posts, I will say this: I want my elected officials to say what they are going to do during the campaign, so that I can make an informed choice, and follow through on those commitments if enough people vote for them. If some one will do that for the electorate, I don't care if he/she rapes goats in his/her spare time.

[thoreau]

Andrew-

I prefer candidates who think their faith or lack thereof is irrelevant to their duties as elected representatives.

How is giving atheism to statists like giving heroin to Jack Bauer? Is it that statists will run amok if they believe there is no power over them? Well, history shows that leaders who believe they are God's chosen can be just as dangerous who believe they are God.

I want leaders who don't believe they have an unlimited mandate. Whether they're true believers who think their mandate is divine, or busybodies who simply think they know what's best makes no difference to me, because the result is the same.

[AJMB]

Read the articles and the posts, so here goes. ed and warren: No one who truly believes in what the radical Jew had to say would ever justify their actions by claiming, "God hates you, so it's okay". By doing so they put the lie to their alleged beliefs. Either that or they had no idea in the first place what those beliefs were all about. Atheism is to be preferred over a misunderstood theism, as far as I'm concerned. The latter leads to UBL, and those like him.

[Peggy C]

Les states that very few prisoners are atheists. That's because atheists make up a very small percentage of the population as a whole, so one would not expect to find a larger segment incarcerated than exists in the general public. Unless one thought that atheists were criminals to begin with, and I don't think anyone here thinks that.

Whether people 'practice' their beliefs or not, a very large percentage of the population in the U.S. claims some sort of belief in god--I have heard statistics ranging from 80-90%.

[Jack]

Peggy, I think Les' point was that atheists make up an even smaller percentage of prisoners than they do of the general population. According to the site below, while 8 to 16% of the general population categorize themselves as atheists (depending on how the question is phrased), less than 1% of prisoners categorize themselves as such.

http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/crimestats.html

[Jean Bart]

Kevin Carson,

After a time, I got the same impression of American politicians (well most of them at least - there is a Senator from Kansas or some such that I think is insane); however, all of the "God talk" tends to scare the shit out of many Europeans as they take at face value. Of course they also ignore the fact that there is an element of European politicians who sound just like Bush (thus the parody of one in Jean Poiret's La Cage aux Folles - which Robin "No Humour" Williams butchered with a re-make).

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

BTW, it is interesting to note that while you attacked Hobbes, that his "contract" society was one based on the based on the order he viewed as ordained by God.

And regarding the monks and scholars of the High Middle Ages; if you read their writings, you will notice that what they were excited about when they visited these former Muslim libraries was not that they were eduifying God, but that they were learning the physics of Aristotle and Avicenna. Indeed, their religious leaders were often at their backs to get them to find evidence on the evils of Islam, etc., yet they were interested in Islamic science. Quite a few scandals erupted over this.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,

When the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in the Arab world the communist message even took on a bizarre Islamic hue!

[Andrew]

Ah Jean

You are the True Believer...and what you believe in are the shop-worn and discredited promises of the 19th Century Optimists: Michelet, Hugo and Zola. You see, the Pope was to be shut up in Vatican City and everything was going to be OK.
It didn't work out that way. They were wrong-- flatly, plainly and unmistakeably wrong.

The Anti-Clericals got essentially everything they wanted (and when they didn't, this certainly didn't prevent a decline in religious belief and observance) and...European society became more, rather than less violent.

Well, maybe that's because the Third Repulic didn't close Lourdes and issue a head-scarf ban?

[fyodor]

Andrew (assuming you've got time amidst your tete-a-tete with JB!),

Re: "I don't want to make Moslems Christians-- I want to make them Post-Moslem."

Well, that would be nice, I suppose, but how the hell to accomplish it? They'll get there someday, but I think in the meantime we're better served by trying to encourage them to be peaceful and/or even cooperative Muslims.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

Unfortunately the Chinese didn't take the same attitude with the Tibetans; "iconoclasm" hardly describes what they've done.

Vive la Tibet!

[SM]

JB -
"Voltaire was an anti-cleric; and refused absolution before his death. Trying to spin Voltaire into some friend religion is the grossest sort of lie."

I don't know about that JB. He may have been agaisnt clericalism but in "Letters from London" he praises the Quakers to high heaven & compares them to good advantage against the anglicans. He has several chapters on the Quakers and their godd works as i recall.

[Andrew]

Fyodor

I don't know!

"whiskey-whiskey sexy-sexy" I guess. And I believe the glimpse into the love-shack and the torture-chamber are going to have ramifications in the Arab World comparable to the Holcaust in the West.

But these are the stakes we are playing for. OBL knows it-- he isn't afraid of Christians (they beat THEM), he's afraid of secularists.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart:
"...which Robin "No Humour" Williams butchered with a re-make)."

Do you like Jerry Lewis?

[AJMB]

A hit! A palpable hit!

[Les]

Rick,

We need stats on deaths by commie atheists and religious nutjobs. There MUST be a website!

Jean Bart,

Robin Williams didn't make that movie, he was just in it (and he's been in a lot of shitty movies). Saying Robin Williams has "no humor" is like saying Cole Porter has no sense of melody.

But I digress.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

Not really, no. He's popular with the generation before mine.

Though I am not completely familiar with American comedians, I have enjoyed some of Adam Sandler's movies (especially "The Water Boy").

The French and American sense of humour are so at odds with each other at times that it is hard compare them; there was a great article in the Economist about this a month or so ago. I shall see if I can find it.

[Jean Bart]

Les,

He is a bastard all the same! 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Unfortunately the article is "Premium Content," but if you would like to pay for it, go here:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%298%24%24PA%23%27%200%20%5C

Apologies.

[JJB]

From the 1/8/2004 Boston Globe print edition (article will go into paid archives after 1 day) - http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2004/01/08/dean_says_faith_led_to_civil_union_view/

1st 2 paragraphs - "Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said yesterday his decision as governor to sign the bill legalizing civil unions for gays in Vermont was influenced by his Christian views, as he waded deeper into the growing political, religious, and cultural debate over homosexuality and the Bible's view of it.

"The overwhelming evidence is that there is very significant, substantial genetic component" to homosexuality, Dean said in an interview yesterday. "From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

This is what you get when religion enters politics. You get religious rationale for governing secular matters. (Whether Dean actually believed this at the time of the legislation is another matter, but that's what he's claiming today according to this article.) Religion has no place in a secular government as governed by the US Constitution.

[SM]

I have to wonder if Julian hasn't arrived at the wrong conclusion.
For one thing, aren't there polls which show that Americans are uncomfortable voting a single man into the oval office ? Or that people would not vote for someone with a history of even garden variety psychiatric disorders ?
Seems to me that the "even the muslims" part of his article & the like, on which he appears to found his conclusions, may have it completely wrong. Anyone remember how people answered the "would you vote for an african-american for Governer" question in CA and elsewhere & what they actually did in the polling booth ? Or for that matter the episode in "King of the Hill" where Hank Hill takes a racial sensitivity test ? Most people want their publicly voiced opinions to make them look good.
My impression has been that people want for their President to be a responsible family man, someone who can take tough decisions & for any number of historical reasons the archetypal American family man is a church going patriarch of some sort, with corrections applied for contemporary mores (read Clinton, though its difficult to correct for BJ's in the oval office).
Basically what Kevin Carson said.

[SM]

Or to state it differently, I doubt that a deeply devout Raelian with a commitment to the Greater Good is electable.

[dhex]

and yet it is impossible to separate. the people demand it.

was it spartacus or some other movie where one senator tells another that even if there were no gods he would still believe in them because the public demands it?

i've never been much of a movie person.

[AJMB]

Jean Bart: Adam Sandler?! ADAM SANDLER??!! You need help

[Andrew]

Although it isn't anything I am terribly committed to, and I am quite comfortable living in the post-Christian West, I think as a matter of historical honesty that the case of religion generally-- and Christianity specifically-- is more pro than con. The influence of religion on human beings has been (where it has been an influence, rather than an hypocrisy) more saluatory than baneful.

That the Will-to-Power can exist independent of any supernatural beliefs is manifestly true...is manifest in the bloody history of the last century or so, when very little of the killing was done by people especially inspired by religious beliefs.

I think the damage done by religious triumphalism is more than off-set by the degree to which spiritual beliefs act as a nugatory sense of decency...an escape hatch. The twelve-steppers are probably right, that a spiritual awakening is required to escape addiction-- including an addiction to a delusional ideology.

It is a good thing when a leftist politician restrains himself, or acts inconsistently. It matters less to me when a Conservative or Libertarian is some sort of skeptic, because a sound ship has less need of a life-boat.

(A caveat on that...I have never met an ardent atheist who wasn't personally a fool-- this blog supplies NO exceptions!-- it is a sort of personality flaw.)

At the risk of being terribly un-PC, it is simply a matter of intellectual honesty to observe that in human history, enlightment values arose and systematically triumphed in a Christian context, and that the problem of religiously-inspired aggression and persecution (beyond localised examples) is confined almost exclusively to Islam.

[Oops]

Ever heard of the crusades, or the Inquisiton?

[ed]

"...the Village Atheist is the Village Idiot."

Andrew, an atheist simply refuses to allow the arbitrary, and the arbitrarily asserted, into an argument. No atheist I know claims that "nothing exists." No intelligent atheist will fall into the trap of attempting to disprove a negative.

Incidentally, it's the agnostics who are the moral and intellectual cowards, for they assert nothing, they take no stand, they attempt to sit safely on the fence. In this regard they are worse than theists; there is no crime in making a mistake, but it's inexcusable for a human being to say, "Who am I to know?" When he does, he admits: "Who am I to think?"

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

The Enlightenment was largely at odds with religion; read Voltaire moron.

Its always enjoyable to watch someone argue that Christianity was the ground for this or that, when Christianity at the time was opposed to the evolution of this or that.

"...that the problem of religiously-inspired aggression and persecution (beyond localised examples) is confined almost exclusively to Islam."

Warfare has been part of Christian history since early in its history. To name a few:

French Wars of Religion

Spain's Attempted Invasion of England

Thirty Years' War

German Wars of Religion (the Thirty Years' War was but one of them)

English Civil War

And these were simply during the Reformation/Counter-Reformation. I don't know what you mean by localised, but I would say European-wide conflicts are hardly "local." Are you really that ignorant of the historical record?

Regarding the Crusades, these not only included the Levant, but the Tuetonic Knights invading Eastern Europe, the crusade against the Cathars in France, and the combat in Spain during the "Reconquista."

[Andrew]

To clarify for the (most likely, deliberately) obtuse:

In the CONTEMPORARY world, Islam is the only religious tradition to contain a potent and crusading threat to liberal democracy. Hindu fundamentalism is deplorable in India, but limited in scope (and probably already in decline). Same thing, and moreso, with Buddhist fundamentalism in Sri Lanka. Other examples are too trifling to address.

Liberal values arose in the Christian world-- that's just fact. I would like to believe that humans, absent a Christian civilization would have arrived at the same insights anyway, but we can't know this. I'd like to believe broadly congruent values would find expression anywhere in the universe intellegent live comparable to ours might exist. Who knows?

I will pass on the "moron", "ignorant" etcetera, except to offer Jean Bart, himself, as the consumate example of the Atheist=Fool equation.

[Andrew]

Voltaire praised the Jesuits (who educated him-- perfectly illustrating my point) and the Reformers.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

It is the job of the author to be clear; and given that at least two readers were left with the same interpretation of your statements, well, I think that is evidence enough to demonstrate that you were not very clear in your statement. Furthermore, given your gross errors (historical and otherwise) in the past, its not beyond the stretch of the imagination to assume that you were wrong here again. Furthermore, I don't accept your correction; at this point I think that you are just backpeddaling.

For such a "liberalizing" force, it took quite a long time for it become so "liberal." And to be frank, given that non-Christian societies have readily adopted liberalism, it seems that whatever force Christianity had to play was small.

In the main, it was not God-centric positions which led to liberalism, but human-centric ones. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment in the end were not about glorifying God, or even spreading religious doctrines, as had been previously true of preceding Western intellectual movements, but were strictly placed on dealing with the issues of humans in the world and not the after-world.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Voltaire was an anti-cleric; and refused absolution before his death. Trying to spin Voltaire into some friend religion is the grossest sort of lie. Indeed, most of the latter part of his life was devoted to the writing of anti-religious tracts.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Indeed, how strange that the Renaissance and the Englightenment would use as their ultimate models of a "good society" not a Christian society, not the Christian past (they were labelled in the Renaissance the "dark ages" for a reason after all), but the past classical past, mean Greece and Rome, as well China (Voltaire was quite fond of China as a model for European nations) and the American Indians (think Rousseau). Such a categorical rejection of the ignorant, blighted, barbaric Christian past is telling.

[Lesley Stevens]

SM: There is a big difference between answering a question "Would you vote for an African-American governor" and a question of would you vote for a particular individual. I would certainly vote for an African-American for any office. But I would not vote for Al Sharpton, Carol (sp?) Mosely-Braun, or Jesse Jackson. Polls I have seen show strong support for "a democrat" vs. George Bush, but when the current democratic candidates are compared -by name-, the support is not nearly as strong. It is not fair to malign the voters of California for saying they would vote for a black candidate and then not voting for those offered. That is hardly proof of hypocrisy or racism.

[Andrew]

Oh hell

It took a long time for the human race to arrive at the ideas of the enlightenment, and to actually re-pattern culture and society around it. The advent in Europe was fairly brisk, if you subtract the disarray of the Dark Ages (worsened by the Moslem pressure).

From the High Middle Ages to the Enlightenment was what? 5 or 6 centuries (tops). From the Enlightenment till now? Another 3?

Pretty fast-paced compared to anything you can compare it to.

What does it mean? I am not sure-- but the Atheist Mythology is intellectual pulp...strictly for second-rate minds.

[Lesley Stevens]

Before anyone takes the time to point it out to me, yes, I'm aware that people do answer polls in a way to cast themselves in what they perceive as a more favorable light, I just object to SM's particular example.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

"It took a long time for the human race to arrive at the ideas of the enlightenment, and to actually re-pattern culture and society around it. The advent in Europe was fairly brisk, if you subtract the disarray of the Dark Ages (worsened by the Moslem pressure)."

Yes, during the classical period there was a lot of development in Europe; sans Christianity I might add. Indeed, the height of Christian piety was during the so-called "dark ages."

"...strictly for second-rate minds."

Well this "second-rate" mind continues to best you, so I'll keep it.

[Russ D]

"do you belong to or have you belonged to 12 Step programs"

I had to go to grades 1-12, so I guess that's a 12-step program.

To paraphrase what Kevin posted and what Julian basically said in his article, lots of people are suckers for symbolic gestures. Like voting.

Any-ism is essentially a religion. We treat the US constitution with the same regard as many Muslims treat the Koran. But hardly any individual wants to voluntarily suppress the "will to power". When the will to power creates a paradoxical hardship, people will wash their hands of blame by affixing it to some sort of -ism. The most popular ones seem to be "God's will", "It's good for the economy", and "It's for the children."

[mak_nas]

At the risk of being terribly un-PC, it is simply a matter of intellectual honesty to observe that in human history, enlightment values arose and systematically triumphed in a Christian context, and that the problem of religiously-inspired aggression and persecution (beyond localised examples) is confined almost exclusively to Islam.

this speaks to such a deep contextual ignorance that i don't really think it can be addressed as a rational statement. i suppose it is an article of your faith, andrew.

but if you think the enlightenment is the only rediscovery of prior culture and knowledge in the history of man -- or that islamic culture was not indeed the very repository of western thought, philosophy and knowledge during much of the middle ages -- man, more reading, less believing.

[mak_nas]

but the Atheist Mythology is intellectual pulp...strictly for second-rate minds.

again, an article of your faith which can't be challenged or evinced rationally.

i would concur that atheism is every bit a faith or a mythology -- just as christianity is. the belief that nothing exists has to be a faith, given that there's no evidence in any direction. i would say anyone interested in being rational has to be agnostic -- simply put, "i don't know".

and THAT is a statement of humility, far more than anything i've heard from any zealot.

[Les]

Ed, the point of agnosticism is that it is impossible to KNOW whether or not there is a god. That type of humility is upsetting to the faithful on both sides of the issue.

[Andrew]

mak-nas and Jean

Interesting to note how little an acquaintance with the civilization of the Greek and Roman world effected the the society of Moslem world.

mak-nas-- you appear to have confused the renaissance with the Enlightenment. Two seperate though related periods.

The Christians of the late empire did little to the civilization of Rome other than to close the games and suppress the (largely dead) public cultus of paganism.

The Dark Ages was caused by the influx of barbarian marauders. Their absorption into Christian society, and the creation of written forms for their barbarian languages, brought on the High Middle Ages.

The rediscovery of ancient learning, and other contemporary civilizations, produced a lot of cultural progress during the Renaissance...but this had little impact on government and society.

Neither did the Enlightenment, at first. Enlightenment ideas turned the intellectual curiosity of educated europeans away from theological speculations toward more secular subjects, but the politics of guys like Hobbes and Voltaire would seem odious to most moderns.

The real cradle of liberty was England, where notions of common-law fairness, and the consent of parliament, go back deep into the middle ages. The huge event for the revolutionary generation in France was the preceding American revolution.

[Jean Bart]

Russ,

That was very humorous. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Hmm, the Greek and Roman world was highly influential on the Islamic world for quite a long period of time; indeed, the recovery of most of the work of Aristotle (completely lost to those pious Christians) was via the Moslems (ergo the raiding of Muslim libraries in Spain and Sicily after they were conquered by the Spaniards and Normans respectively). A fatal reaction against this learning, and indigenous learning as well, occurred in the Muslim world which blotted out this effort.

[Jean Bart]

BTW, post-Milvian Bridge Rome was just as harsh on the "Pagans" as "Pagan" Rome had been to the Christians; indeed, the late empire in this period had seen a revival of the "Pagan" rites. Just in time have be executed for practicing their religion that is.

[Rebecca]

I thought that was Skepticism.....?

Regarding the confusion over my earlier post:

Religion should be separate from political life. Period. Mixing the two often leads to corruption of religious faith, oppression, and tyranny. I do not vote for someone of a certain faith because he is of that faith, just as I do not vote for a woman simply because she is a woman, or a black simply because he is black. I look at character. The place of religion in public life is very small - it is personal. But the effects of adherance to a moral and spiritual code are observable in the life of a public figure. The reason religion is important to me is *not* because "they believe the right thing" but because it can demonstrate fidelity. Has the person claimed commitment to a cause or a belief, and then treated it as a thing of no consequence? Adherance to religious faith can demonstrate strength of character, honor, dedication to a stated path. If such a politician says, "I will do this thing," how likely is it we can rely on his word? *That* is why I pay attention to religious observance on the part of public figures.

Additionally, focusing on the failures of people professing a religion does not necessarily prove that the religion is wholly bad, or even dangerous. Religion seeks to order man's thoughts, energies, and natural impulses to a certain goal, to a certain standard of behavior. One of the promises extended by Christ (gasp! I used his name!) is that of peace: "my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world" (John 14:27; John 16:33). This means that we are not to seek to impose peace on others, but to obey God and trust that he will order things. (Okay, granted, that's based on a further understanding of other scriptures, not just these. But anyway.....)

Not everyone chooses the way of peace. Large numbers of people in all cultures, religions, and times have chosen conflict over peaceful co-existance. Christians are no more guilty of such than other religious groups; only we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Religion has always been twisted by ambitious and greedy people to their own ends: political, economic, xenophobic. So long as man exists, will be tempted to harm others, to force his ideas onto others. Christians are not exempt from this temptation. Rather, they are humans who have adopted for themselves a very demanding moral code, one that emphasizes thoughts and intents as equivalent to actions.

So I do not look for someone of a particular creed - I look for a person who has committed to something, and has kept that commitment to the best of his ability. Why? Because it tells me something about his character that all his campaign promises cannot.

And that is what is called a nuanced understanding. 😉

[dhex]

i think the true power of america is to take religious adoration and turn it into kitsch. people obviously realize that most of their elected officials pay lip service to religious beliefs, no matter how obscure or indirect. or how little it impacts their actions during the rest of the week, as mr. carson pointed out.

it really is quite funny. and rather sad and horrible, especially if one actually has religious faith. it would probably be somewhat unsettling to see it used so callously. thankfully, i have no such problems, being filled with all sorts of delusional ideals as mr. andrew so helpfully pointed out.

i have resigned myself to living in this environment, despite some worry about religions with expiration dates (someone should have told john not to eat *those* particular mushrooms, eh?) and how much that may filter into the otherwise secular actions of our citizens, because we've reached a cultural point where the more authoritarian aspects of religious moralists have been blunted. (we have not yet figured out a legal way to blunt the secular moralists, unfortunately) namely by teenage lesbians, thongs, 808 kick drums and other assorted fruits of a market largely free of the spectre of "obscenity" and the invisible 800lb gorilla of "decency."

having been drafted unwillingly into a papist matrimonial scheme of sorts ($300 for pre-cana? in rockville centre no less!!!) i've observed one direct result of all these midriffs and chord riffs hasn't changed in years, and that's a feeling of being under attack by the central values of the culture - the same culture which requires at least a smidgen of god with their politicking. william donohue syndrome, if you will - though until someone levels RICO charges against some of these diocese for aiding and abetting child molesters for decades on end (including the one my dollars helped fund so recently, much to my shame) i'll remain unconvinced that america is anything but a gosh durn great place to be whatever whackjob religion you want, some local rednecks and dipshits aside.

[Jean Bart]

dhex,

Worried about the next Hale-Bopp incident? 🙂

[dhex]

and it should be pointed out that the western tradition has a long-term love affair with burning books - muslims wipes out quite a bit of hindu religious texts during their invasion of india, utilizing the traditional "burn em burn em burn em" invocation to get rid of unwanted paper.

[Rick Barton]

Andrew:
"The question, I take it, is whether you prefer a candidate who is religious (or not) all other things being equal."

One of the many, wonderful things about separation of church and state as well as limited government is that we don't have to worry much about a candidate's religion. I can't imagine all other things being equal enough to care about religious affiliation.

In other countries it's a different matter. In Iran or Israel I fear candidates who are Muslim or Jewish fundamentalists respectively or are too influenced by fundamentalists because in both cases they believe God gives their governments sanction for the persecutions they commit against others.

"I would much rather have a liberal democrat who was a devout Catholic or evangelical."

Aren't you concerned that they might promote the welfare state with a religious zeal because they believe that God wants them to?

"Giving atheism to statists, is like giving liquor to the Indians."

Addressing the second part of your comparison: If Indians actually do have a lower toleration for alcohol (I think I might have read some where that there is a genetic basis) implies nothing, as I'm sure you agree, negative about them.

As to your point; I have to agree that Commie Atheists are probably accountable for more carnage then any other group in history.

[Jean Bart]

AJMB,

Christianity is as much a religion of "peace" as any other religion is.

Here are some examples to illustrate:

Violence Against People of Other Faiths

Acts 13:6-11 "...they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus...[who] withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then...Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand."

Blaming Jews For the Death of Christ

Thessalonians 2:14-16: "...ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

For more see: J.D. Crossan, "Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus," Harper Collins, (1995)

Inferior Status of Women

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

One can go on ad nauseum; suffice it to say that Christianity as a religion is no more merit worthy from an aspect of individual liberty, or "liberal" values than any other religion in its genesis. That it has been generally forced by modernity to curb itself is not really praiseworthy; as it was the changing culture, and not the change in religious doctrine, which did it.

[Rick Barton]

I meant to say:
"In Iran or Israel I fear some candidates who are Muslim or Jewish fundamentalists..."

note to self: The "preview button" is your friend.

[AJMB]

Jean Bart: My point was not to promote one religion over another, or indeed over none, as it were. I simply meant to imply that, if a preference WERE required, I would prefer an atheist to someone who does not truly understand the faith he purports to support. I am born and raised Roman Catholic, but find much to admire in Islam. You, as I recall, are an atheist. So what? Religion is not even on the radar, for me, when I cast my vote.

[Andrew]

I don't know what anyone assumes to be the case about my own religious convictions...so I will just tell you.

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I might think of myself as some kind of non-sectarian Theist...and on all the other days that end with "y" I am just a hopelessly optimistic agnostic-- a valence I have become more and more comfortable with as the years pass.

My observations about the intellectual history of mankind I simply believe to be true-- the values (usually) celebrated in this blog had there origin in the civilization of Western Europe, and the societies created by Western Europeans, and until recently had an exclusive home there.
That this had something to do with Christianity (rather less to do with Eastern Christianity) is a plausible surmise-- like ANY historical theory it can't be assessed in any way analogous to a proposition in mathematics, or an empirical hypothesis.

The Atheist Mythology I alluded to was the Skeptics Version Of History...which is decidedly shallow, middle-brow, pedestrian.

I meant what I said...a lifetime of experience has taught me that the Village Atheist is the Village Idiot.

9/11 has made me more emphatically attached to the Post-Christian West. I don't want to make Moslems Christians-- I want to make them Post-Moslem.

[Les]

Rick,

"I have to agree that Commie Atheists are probably accountable for more carnage then any other group in history."

Yeah, but once you get into the tens of millions, doesn't it get somewhat academic? If the commies killed 30 million and the religious nuts killed 20 million, they're both pretty equally bad groups. The religious nuts just weren't as efficient as the commie atheists.

And maybe my reasoning is fuzzy here, but it seems to me that the Commie Atheists killed so many primarily because they were commies, whereas the Religious Nuts killed so many because they were religious.

[dhex]

JB - not until the hale-boppers get their hands on nukes. eschatology and atom-splitting just don't freakin' belong together! 🙂

honestly, i do get a bit paranoid if i think about it for too long on too little sleep.

andrew - might not the issue then be the true believer, rather than the substance (or if we're kicking it murray-o'haire AA dipshit style) or lack thereof?

post-moslem might be a good goal if you're into social engineering. i would prefer they just hack up their own and leave us secularist monsters alone. it would be preferable if people could find a way to practice their religions without having to control the lives of everyone else in the process, but this seems pretty unlikely. it's unlikely in a secular context as well - if people conducted their own army of one wars on drugs, we might cease to be vexed by this and other incursions into all sorts of shit. similarly a communist nation of one would be preferable to all those mass graves.

sometimes i get the feeling it's not reality for humans until someone else acknowledges it, usually with a boot on their neck and the business end of a gun in their face.

[Rick Barton]

Jean Bart,
The same with fundamentalist Judaism, for violence Against People of Other Faiths, inferior Status of Women and the inferior Status non-Jews. For all of these see: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" by Israel Shahak. Shahak also discusses the harmful effect that fundamentalist Judaism has on Israeli politics and the way that the Israeli government views its neighbors.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Well, when you actually address my arguements above there may be some merit to your comments.

Here are some thoughts:

(1) Other cultures have readily adopted these values; whatever was special about the West wasn't so special as to preclude the transferance of values to non-Christian cultures. Accordingly there is something of a "so what" factor involved; indeed, the constant harping of folks about the "specialness" factor in light of this transferance appears to illustrate a certain degree of insecurity with the idea of the non-West doing as well as the West.

(2) I could make equally simplistic and facile claims as Andrew has made, except I could make them about writing. After all, writing only was independently invented in perhaps three or four places on the planet. What is that those other cultures lacked? And does it matter? After all, writing is now ubiquitous.

(3) The reason why you claim religion is important is due to your biases; you can't demonstrate a causal connection. Indeed, the difficulties with said connection you've admitted to when describing Eastern Christianity (indeed one wonders why various forms of Christianity would differ).

(4) There are other, far more powerful explanations that don't require religion as a component; for example, the divided nature of Europe politically as opposed to Han China may have been the most important factor. Or it could be the geographic make-up of Europe; its rivers allowed for greater ease of commerce for example than any other continent.

The fact is that you are the one being low-brow here not me or anyone else; your wilfull disregard for other factors as a means to prop up your biases proves such.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Indeed, you are a perfect example of what Eric Hoffer called the "True Believer."

[Rick Barton]

Les
"If the commies killed 30 million and the religious nuts killed 20 million, they're both pretty equally bad groups."

I agree; but have the religious nuts really killed two thirds as many as the commies have?

"it seems to me that the Commie Atheists killed so many primarily because they were commies, whereas the Religious Nuts killed so many because they were religious."

Yeah, I think the commies might have committed their mass murders even if they were theists. Atheism might have made it easier though...no God to answer to. Of course religious nuts in power can kill because they think a God wants them to.

[SM]

Rebecca wrote -
"It is very important to me that my political leaders - those people I trust to protect my liberty and way of life - that they believe in a Being larger than them, more knowledgeable than themselves, one that will hold them accountable."

I take it you would be comfortable voting a Raelian into office ? Or to riff off George Carlin, if I claimed an ardent belief in the Guardians of OA then etc.

[Kevin Carson]

I read a scholarly article a long time ago about the "official American monotheism" appealed to by American presidents (I picture God looking something like Eisenhower), but I can't recall the author's name.

Americans like a lot of talk about "God," as long as the politician doesn't seem to take it too seriously. They want somebody who puts on his nice clothes, goes to church once a week, and sits there for an hour trying to look edified--and then completely disregard everything he heard for the next six days.

[Jean Bart]

Rick Barton,

Well, even the commitment of Communists to atheism has to be questioned; certainly Communists were willing to use religion (and nationalism) when it suited them. Both of which probably had Marx turning in his grave. Indeed, many scholars have faulted both Marx and Weber for failing to understand the power of nationalism.

[TJ]

Too bad I got to this thread so late. Ah well, probably best for my blood pressure anyway. My take on presidents, and any politician worthy of the name, is that they are smart enough and cynical enough to realize the truth in the following quote:

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." Napoleon Bonaparte

On the other hand, those politicians that strike me as "true believers" scare the crap out of me.

On a side note, I wonder what the international take was on Ronnie and Nancy using astrology as a "guide"?

Oh yeah,
Keep up the good work, JB. Excepting rare occasion, I haven't the patience for dealing with people such as Andrew.

[Jean Bart]

SM,

You miss-read his "Letters From England." Indeed, they are not really about England, they concern France; England is a foil upon which France is criticised. This is a common technique of Enlightenment authors (partly as a means to combat cenosrship and keep oneself out of prison - secular or church prisons). Montesquieu used the same technique in his "Persian Letters."

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

No, you are the "true believer."

European society is the most peaceful it has ever been; yet it is also in a period in which it is the least religious it has ever been. Indeed, this lack of religiosity is largely a post-WWII phenomenon. Furthermore, most Christian churches wholeheartedly promoted the slaughter of WWI; that is the slaughter perpetrated by the country they resided in. And in WWII, even the Nazis were able to find support from the local Catholic, Lutheran, etc. churches in Germany. Indeed, one of the most dispicable things in WWII was the level of support that the Catholic Church in Vichy France gave to the Vichy governmnet. If you want to know a reason why the Catholic church in France has fallen into disrepute among Frenchmen, its due to its actions in WWII. Anti-semitism in the Church sprung to full-flower at that time; the moral bankruptcy of the Church was wholely demonstrated then.

[Jean Bart]

ed, les, etc.,

The terminology is generally stated in this way:

Strong atheists

Weak atheists

Agnostics

Non-theistic religious (think of varius forms of Buddhism)

The theistic (whether they belong to a religion or not)

Andrew makes the rather facile and stupid assumption that I am a strong atheist; when indeed I am a weak one.

Here is a FAQ on the strong v. weak divide: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_strongweak.htm

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

BTW, I am still waiting for you to address at least one of my arguments; however, I suspect, I will be left waiting in vain.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Also, it should be noted that it was the Catholic Church which supported and fomented the persecution of Dreyfus; indeed, much of the anti-clerical reaction after the Dreyfusards gained victory was driven by the Church's bigoted support the anti-Dreyfusard crowd. And rightly so. An institution which shows itself to be so morally bankrupt as to trade in that sort of anti-semetic bigotry deserves to be attacked. And Hugo and others were right to do so. In a way, by attacking Hugo, you are indeed supporting the Church's anti-semetic policies of the time; though in your moronic ignorance, doing so likely unwittingly.

[Andrew]

Well

I've come back to this thread after sleeping for six hours to find my case made for me...Jean Bart displays a whole set of odious traits of character and personality-- without any "benefit" of a formal religious adherance.

When a man is a crank, his religion will be cranky. He is not a crank because he is religious. Jean Bart is a crank without any religion. Nuff said.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

More psycho-babble from you? I'm still waiting for a counter-argument. I suspect, aside from psycho-babble and armchair psychology you don't have one.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Furthermore, whether I have odious personality traits or not is beside the point, and has nothing to do with my argument. Indeed, I could be the most foul, odious, despicable person on the planet, and that would have nothing to do with my argument. Thankyou however for demonstrating for the viewers both a genetic fallacy and the argumentum ad hominem. 🙂

[JJB]

To Rebecca:

"Rather, they [Christians] are humans who have adopted for themselves a very demanding moral code, one that emphasizes thoughts and intents as equivalent to actions."

Then keep your moral code to yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. Stop trying to force your moral code onto others by using the power of the government and the law. Believe whatever fairy tales and myths you want, congregate to pray however you want, and have whatever customs and cultures you want. Those are your First Amendment rights. Just leave the rest of us alone and don't force anyone else to support you.

I do not want ANY politician to be telling me how to live my life. So, I don't care how religious a politician is in his/her personal life. But if/when politicians use their religious beliefs as justifications for infringing on my (and other Americans') freedoms via their governing, then I have a major problem with that.

[Andrew]

"stupid" "moron" "ignorant"

JB-- As far as I can tell, you are the only person who posts regularly in these forums who regularly uses language like that. It is childish, and unique to you.

That is all anyone needs to know about Jean Bart.

[Jean Bart]

Rebecca,

"Christians are no more guilty of such than other religious groups; only we hold ourselves to a higher standard."

What sanctimonious bullshit. From what I can tell, Christians try to weasel out of their religion's past actions all the time. And lots of people hold themselves to high standards; indeed, being a Christian is not neccessary in that regard.

"So I do not look for someone of a particular creed - I look for a person who has committed to something, and has kept that commitment to the best of his ability. Why? Because it tells me something about his character that all his campaign promises cannot."

Osama bin Laden and Hitler and Atilla and the Khans were all very committed to "something." Excuse me whilst I drive the TGV right through your argument.

[Jean Bart]

"JB-- As far as I can tell, you are the only person who posts regularly in these forums who regularly uses language like that. It is childish, and unique to you."

Each of those terms were used in line with an argument, and were not used as an argument; indeed, you are an idiot, but you are an idiot for the reasons I have stated. In other words, there is nothing particularly wrong with pointing out that someone has made a moronic statement, etc., or that they are an idiot; just as long as one establishes that this is the case (which I have). You do the opposite; you use the term "idiot," etc. as the argument itself.

Furthermore, I'm getting the hint that you are claiming that two wrongs make a right here; or rather, that since I have engaged in an act which is a wrong (which I haven't), you can as well. Another logical fallacy on your part.

[dhex]

to be fair, don't we all want some sort of integrity in our political candidates? that "commitment to something" could be a commitment to free markets or drinking really good belgian beer, etc.

whether rebecca was necessarily relating this only to religious observance or not, i don't know, but i think it holds true for the most part.

[Jean Bart]

dhex,

Efficacy may be a more important value. Indeed, one can have an idiot or ineffective person for a national leader who had a great deal of integrity.

[Rebecca]

JJB - A moral code of some sort is necessary for societies to remain vibrant, for a nation to be coherant. The moral code of most Western people - religious or not - largely developed out of the Western and Christian tradition. For many decades now, people have been working to remake the agreed-upon moral foundation for our society, and trying to do it without the "oppression" or "interference" of religion. Very well, these people have the right to try to influence the path of their culture. But so have I. You with your non-religious beliefs have the right to speak up and attempt to influence policy - therefore I, with my religious beliefs, have the same right.

By speaking up, by attempting to persuade and expound on themes central to my being, I am not "forcing my moral code onto others". The absence of a professed religious belief does not mean one is more open-minded or devoted to the common good. Nor should a non-religious person be granted greater credibility or lee-way because he has no "dogma" to uphold: people tend to find things to have faith in, whether God, or money, or politics, or science, and they will adhere to their beliefs with the same tenacity and grit as any Bible thumper.

I am the first to oppose using religion in politics. Some people quote God to justify a certain policy move. That is wrong. But referencing our nation's roots in religious belief, or referencing one's own personal beliefs in explaining a point of view, *that* does not violate the 1st Amendment. I agree with you in your objection to "politicians [using] their religious beliefs as justifications for infringing on [our] freedoms" - but I also object to using the 1st Amendment to demand that religion be not even mentioned by a public official.

To sum up: it matters to me the level of commitment a politician has to his beliefs; what those beliefs are specifically, matters less to me. And no politician is justified in using the government to enforce his personal religious views, but no person is justified in using government to prohibit the expression of a politician's personal religious views, either.

[Rebecca]

Jean Bart:

"What sanctimonious [garbage]. From what I can tell, Christians try to weasel out of their religion's past actions all the time"

No, most Christians acknowledge the abuses of Christianity by people who profess it. However, I am not responsible for the sins of Christians from the 12th or 16th centuries. I am only responsible for *my* actions. Additionally, a central tenet of Christianity is forgiveness - not holding on to bitter feelings after suffering a wrong. Impossible? No, but very difficult to do alone.

"And lots of people hold themselves to high standards; indeed, being a Christian is not necessary in that regard."

Certainly not; but the converse is also true: being a Christian does not necessarily mean one is less likely to adhere to high standards, or that one is incapable of thinking for himself.

"Osama bin Laden and Hitler and Atilla and the Khans were all very committed to 'something'...."

Certainly: power over other people; imposing their beliefs on others. Yet again, you use the worst examples of humanity to justify your condemnation of millions of decent people. Since we are every day reminded that Islam is a religion of peace, bin Laden's belief in "something" is a corruption of that peaceful religion, and therefore is not defensible. Hitler was committed to himself. *His* view of the world *would* be imposed because *he* knew best. Religion was a tool, not a mold: he used it, he did not conform to it.

Your attempts to use examples of corrupt, depraved, and wicked men (in the examples of Hitler and bin Laden at least - I know less about the Khans and Attila) to define sincere religious belief are flawed, just as was Freud's attempt to define normal human behavior from some examples of abnormal human behavior. Evil cannot be "converted" into good, but good can and often is converted into evil.

[Rebecca]

TJ --

"On the other hand, those politicians that strike me as 'true believers' scare the crap out of me."

Depends on how you're defining it. Are you defining 'true believer' as Jerry Falwell? As Jim Bakker? As Osama bin Laden? Or maybe you refer to Bush?

People define 'true believer' in many ways, either as a person who is zealous and outspoken in their beliefs, or someone who proclaims from the rooftops what he believes, or someone who works constantly to convince others of 'the errors of their ways' as he sees them. I have a different understanding: that a person has spent time in private study and contemplation of the tenets of his faith, that he *lives* according to his principles, instead of simply talking about them, that he lets his deeds be his witness, not his words.

In that regard, I might agree with you if you identified Bush as a 'true believer' - even though my faith is different than his. Now, one could argue from some standpoints that OBL is also a 'true believer' according to that definition - but one would have to have a level of familiarity with the faith he professes to then be able to discern whether he is obeying his faith, or whether he has developed a 'faith' that permits him to harm others.

[Topdogchad]

Rebecca wrote:

To sum up: it matters to me the level of commitment a politician has to his beliefs; WHAT THOSE BELIEFS ARE SPECIFICALLY, MATTERS LESS TO ME. (Emphasis mine)

Just in case you weren't paying attention:

"WHAT THOSE BELIEFS ARE SPECIFICALLY, MATTERS LESS TO ME.

Oh.....My......God!!!!!(joke intended)

Of all the nonsense thats been posted on this thread (a bunch BTW), that line is the one that scares me the most.

Values matter.

[Rebecca]

Topdogchad - You're right, I need to specify. Yes, I DO care what their beliefs are; but as concerns *religious* beliefs specifically (the point of my comments), I don't care as much whether they're Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Mormon, Jew, etc., so long as they have demonstrated a fidelity to their stated beliefs. Now, if a person has certain beliefs that I find dangerous to the continuation of liberty in the country, certainly I would care.

I do care what a person believes, but I do not get uptight about (comparatively) minor theological differences.