Religion and politics--why am I dumb enough to bring them up?

[catsittingstill]

Well, because someone else did first.  There is an article on the Newsweek website by a guy named Jaques Berlinerblau asking why secularists are not up in arms over Barak Obama's religious musings.

I'll put most of this behind the cut.

A lot of it is just, in my opinion, poorly thought out.  He says:

These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists. (Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards).

Well, duh.  There's a world of difference between a candidate having personal religious beliefs and a candidate proposing to amend the Constitution to bring it into line with his personal religious beliefs.  How did you overlook this?

This absence of outrage goes a long way in demonstrating how thoroughly secularism in this country is entwined with, and supportive of, political liberalism.

Well, if you don't buy into religious conservative arguments in favor of oppressing women and gays, increasing inequality in this country, and using government power (and frequently government tax dollars) to promote religion, um, what other values are there that favor those things?  In the absence of many good reasons to be socially conservative, we naturally tend to be socially liberal. 

True, Obama did give a fleeting nod to the godless in his address. He urged Americans to “come together as Protestants, Catholics and Jews, believers and non-believers alike.” But anyone familiar with his rhetoric knows that Obama is perennially resolving seemingly insoluble American dialectical tensions (Red States/Blue States, Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, Yankees/Red Sox, whatever).

That fleeting nod to the godless (an indication that he doesn't think we can't be citizens, like, for instance, Reagan did) is far more than we will get from anyone who is polically conservative.  And someone who can resolve seemingly insoluble American dialectical tensions is perhaps just what we need after the present administration.

Obama’s speech—it wasn’t his best and much of it was rehashed—was filled with a variety of theological ideas (and ambiguities) that we will be discussing for months if he wins big tonight. One is that God has a plan—a plan that is apparently centered on America (but what about Canada?) Another is that the divine plan only comes to fruition if all citizens pitch in and do their part (but what about nonbelievers who won’t get with the program?).

Well, as a godless person, I am prone to evaluate plans the way I evaluate anything else--on the basis of reason and evidence.  If Obama has a good plan that will work, I don't care if he thinks he got it in communion with God, I'll be happy to pitch in and do my part.

So the short version is that the reason secular people also tend to be liberal is that most of the push to be socially conservative comes from a bunch of rules dreamed up by bronze age nomads.  If you don't buy into the supernatural nature of the rules, some of them look pretty silly, and some of them look downright mean. Discarding them, however, makes one socially liberal.  Social liberals are generally okay with working with religious liberals who have also discarded the silly and mean parts of the bronze age rules to achieve a common goal.  Like electing a president whose values come close to coinciding with our own. 

Comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Biggest problem I ever have with religious people -- really, the only problem of any importance -- is when they attempt to legislate their beliefs onto me and my friends. Unfortunately, this comes up a lot lately.

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

I so agree with what you're saying, Tom. It is so true.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I have a problem with them applying legal pressure to apply their beliefs to me and my friends. I also have a problem with them applying social pressure on me. Aside from that I'm willing to live and let live.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Mostly, I just roll my eyes when candidates talk about religion. I assume they're pandering for votes, and it annoys me. It's no different from going to the latino neighborhood and posing with a taco, or going to a factory region and posing in a forklift. It's dumb--who elects a President to operate machinery or to be our preacher?--but they all do it.

In Obama's case, I'm more inclined to forgive him, because the Republicans are spreading the fiction that he's not even a Christian. Seems to me, emphasizing his actual faith is an acceptable way to defend himself.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, he shouldn't *have* to defend himself from accusations of not being Christian, any more that I should have to defend myself from accusations of not being white. It shouldn't matter.

But it does, so he has to.

[min0taur.livejournal.com]

I'm sure Mr. Berlinerblau would love for there to *be* a monolithic Secular America, with its threatening godless hordes ranged in full uniform (Darth Vader Black, of course) so he'd have something to send the Christian Soldiers "onward" against. It would be so dramatic. Multitudes of tedious little men could get such an oversize thrill from signing on as spear carriers in the Big Dramatic Story of the (Self-)Righteous Versus the Unbrainwashed. As if that were really what being humanely human is about.

If this fellow figures it's fine "... that *we* [emphasis mine] amend the Constitution to God's standards", I have Tonto's for him: "What you mean, 'we,' white man?" I'm quite sure he doesn't mean to include me.

Please forgive my reflexive snarl in the direction of the commentator, who seems yet another tedious little man (coals to Newcastle these days). I do have Christian friends whom I consider fine human beings, who don't mind my not espousing their beliefs, and whom I would never require to espouse mine. Way too much of the wider drama going on out there is a tale told by an idiot. And they never seem to run out of idiots.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Prof. Berlinerblau seems to be Jewish, by culture if not belief, actually.

[min0taur.livejournal.com]

Interesting bio and publication titles. Thanks for the gloss.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Trying to organize secular people is a bit like trying to herd cats.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Actually, Prof. B. hasn't been paying much attention; there's been a lot of concern about Obama's religiosity on the left. And I think he knows very well--he could hardly have a university education and not know--that US liberalism has religious as well as secular roots; this has been so since the Friends and the Abolitionist movement. Me, I wish we'd stop trying to elect Moses, or maybe Aragorn. "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

"...he's oppressing me..."

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Maybe he thinks there isn't *enough* concern? You're right, I've certainly seen some secular posts that are unhappy with Obama's religious language.

I wish we could progress to the point where a non-religious candidate would seriously have a chance to be elected.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think you have the right of it--he wishes there was more attention paid. As a Jew, observant or not, he has a lot to be concerned with (and so do I). The sad thing is that the Framers were not, by and large, religious; they subscribed to something called "Deism", and were very much opposed to the involvement of organized religion in governance--the English religious wars were still living memory at the time. People of such views could not now be elected to the Presidency. I don't think that JFK could be, even, and he was Catholic. Chalk up one more loss to the Empire.

As for Obama, it's hard to say what he really believes. But if some of the religious right cross over to vote for him, he'll owe them and--like Berlinblau--I think we have cause for concern over the payment.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

As a practical matter, if it takes talking about religious issues to win over votes, so be it. The problem I have is the people who say "You can't be a good [your nationality here] unless you're also a 'good' [their religious identity here]."

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

But--"ya gotta dance with them what brung ya". Do we start putting up the "No Jews and atheists allowed" signs?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, be fair--as far as I can tell, Obama is totally *not* proposing that non-Christians be shut out of government.

That would be the Republicans.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I see your point.

[min0taur.livejournal.com]

The gambit seems to be "prove you have the same beliefs I do so I can be reassured that I don't have to fear what I think are yours (as I've been told to do) or change mine (as I've been told I must not do)."

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

So the short version is that the reason secular people also tend to be liberal is that most of the push to be socially conservative comes from a bunch of rules dreamed up by bronze age nomads.

The bronze age nomads are here, they want their dreams back! Seriously, that collection of memes has undergone so many metamorphoses that drawing a straight line from those bronze age nomads to the modern American evangelical right-wing is misleading at best. Enlightenment liberalism isn't a default state, either — it, too, is a set of ideas that came together in a place at a time, and some of those very likely trace back to the same "bronze age nomads".

Social liberals are generally okay with working with religious liberals who have also discarded the silly and mean parts of the bronze age rules to achieve a common goal. Like electing a president whose values come close to coinciding with our own.

Yeah, let's do that.

As the comments to the blog post in question have reminded me, fanatical secularists whose vision of an ideal society is one that's actively hostile to religion worry me only a little less than their mirror image on the religious right (except that the latter are a more present and credible threat, of course).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The bronze age nomads are here, they want their dreams back!
:-) and I say "render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's!"

Seriously, that collection of memes has undergone so many metamorphoses that drawing a straight line from those bronze age nomads to the modern American evangelical right-wing is misleading at best.

Well, yes. Bronze age nomads is the simple version; a complete version would be much too long to put into a post and would have to include some observations on the tendencies of social conservatives to cherry pick among the strictures laid down by the bronze age nomads (who were attempting to keep their young people from adopting the richer, more lively, more vibrant culture of the peoples they lived among--some things don't change very much) to, by strange coincidence claim that the ones their parents lived by are the holy and unchanging word of god while conveniently ignoring the ones about not eating shellfish or wearing clothing made of more than one kind of fiber. I went with the short version, but I grant that it is an oversimplification. I simply didn't have time to get into Luther and co.

As the comments to the blog post in question have reminded me, fanatical secularists whose vision of an ideal society is one that's actively hostile to religion worry me only a little less than their mirror image on the religious right (except that the latter are a more present and credible threat, of course).

I am confused. I don't understand how it is hostile to religion to object to a candidate proposing to amend the constitution to bring it into line with his religion. I don't understand how it is hostile to religion to want a candidate who is willing to admit that even people who aren't religious can be good citizens. I don't understand how it is hostile to religion to evaluate candidates plans, line anything else, on the basis of reason and evidence. And I don't understand how it is hostile to religion to point out that many religious rules look silly and even mean to someone who does not accept their supernatural origin.

Nobody is suggesting that religion be outlawed. We're only suggesting that it shouldn't be allowed to determine the content of science classes, as religious conservatives are presently trying to do in Florida. Nobody is suggesting that churches be burned. We're only suggesting that religious military officers shouldn't be allowed to pressure their subordinates to join their religion, as they are presently doing in both the Air Force and the Army. Nobody is suggesting that priests be deported. We're only suggesting that it is a bad idea to allow religious riots over cartoons to stifle freedom of speech.

I would also like to point out that, as you yourself mentioned, the religious conservatives are a more serious threat. Perhaps by a larger factor than you are thinking, as it looks to me like religious conservatives are a much larger chunk of the population (25-30% compared to 4%) and much better organized (as far as I can see, organizing secularists to do anything is about like herding cats). So I really think you don't need to be scared of us secularists. We're not trying to uproot religion, just prune it back a little so we can see out the windows and walk out the door.

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

Oh, Cat, I'm sorry, I didn't mean you — you're not one of those extremists at all. I'm talking about the people with an atheism litmus test for public office just as limiting as the mainstream's (deplorable) faith litmus test. I'm talking about the people who jump from the sensible observation that most religions have some rules that are petty and mean to the conclusion that anyone who hasn't abandoned religion must be petty and mean, or at least stupid. I saw some comments along these lines on the post that you linked to, and they troubled me.

If I've come across as tarring the secularist camp with a broad brush, I apologize, as that was not my intent. I meant, rather, to draw a line between secularists who are interested in making common cause with sensible religious people for the sake of our shared liberal values (such as yourself, if I read you aright) on the one hand, and those who think "sensible religious people" is a contradiction in terms on the other.

I guess I am trying to find my place in this conversation, as a person who is on the one hand devoutly (if eclectically) religious and on the other hand in strong agreement with the secularist agenda and world-view on essentially all points (i.e. of science and policy) except for the whole bit (which not all secularists insist on, but certain notable ones certainly do) about all religion being bad and stupid.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I beg your pardon; I think I may have over reacted a little.

There are indeed some people who sometimes express the view that anyone who is religious is petty or mean or stupid or some combination. I think that in part this is due to a natural reaction against those religious people who say that anyone who isn't religious is immoral or stupid. Such people are hopefully rare, but they occasionally cluster on the internet, and the things they write about atheists---well, it's very hard for anyone to *stay* reasonable surrounded by unreasonable, and sometimes unreasoning, people.

In my, admittedly limited, experience, most atheists/secularists, if not presently being harrassed, don't despise religious people. They may, on the other hand, think that *religion*, the set of memes, is bad--tends to produce bad results when present at high copy number in a given society.

I'm having trouble imagining anyone seriously proposing an atheism litmus test for public office. I mean, it just wouldn't be practical. Sure, if there was an "out" atheist running for public office (not that I expect to see that in my lifetime--the American electorate is more prejudiced against atheists than just about any other minority group) I'd vote for her, unless there was some good reason not to. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone propose that only atheists be allowed to run. Atheists vote for religious candidates pretty much all the time. It could happen, I guess; there are all sorts of unusual views represented on the internet. But I have a hard time imagining that any noticeable fraction of atheists or secularists would support it. Do you remember where you saw this?

For what it's worth, if you're religious and agree with most of the secular agenda and world-view, you're probably a religious liberal. It's okay to disagree with parts of what you perceive that agenda to be. It's not like we have to agree on some kind of creed. :-)

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble imagining anyone seriously proposing an atheism litmus test for public office.

I had remembered one of the commenters to the WAPO blog you linked saying or implying that they, personally, would never vote for a religious candidate, that's what I was referring to — although I can't now seem to find a comment that unambiguously means that, so I may have imagined it.

you're probably a religious liberal

I knew that :-). What I wonder is, in a conversation that, despite the presence of moderate voices, is defined in terms of a face-off between the anti-religious and the anti-liberal, where should religious liberals stand? I suppose the answer could be, depending on the moment, "well out of the way" (too late for that) or "over here, with the sensible people, in a conversation that doesn't have to be defined that way".

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think "with the sensible people" is probably your best bet.

A silly story

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

If I may attempt to lighten the mood (and speaking of certain prominent secularists)...

Once Richard Dawkins gave a talk at Swarthmore College, sponsored by a local Freethought group. A friend and I went up to the blackboard before the talk began and wrote out a long screed which I forget but the gist of it was:

The replicators are coming to invade our minds! Our only hope of resistance is for you to warn all of your friends! (Or, for short, Stop the memes! — pass it on, which I suppose would make a good nancybutton...)

Dawkins seemed pleasantly amused.

Re: A silly story

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Stop the memes--forward this message to everyone in your address book! (which is admittedly too long to go on a button.)

I would love to get a chance to hear Dawkins speak someday.

Is a nancybutton a button made by someone named Nancy, or is there more to it?

Re: A silly story

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

It's a term I've heard used to refer to the wares of nancylebov specifically.

Re: A silly story

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Ah. Thanks.