I just reread “The End of Faith” and picked up on an internal inconsistency in Sam Harris’ logic with respect to torture. In an early part of the book, Harris chides many on the left for comparing Bush to Hitler and/or Saddam Hussein because Bush has been indirectly responsible for the deaths of innocents due to “collateral damage”. He uses the concept of a “perfect weapon” to characterize the differences. This mythical perfect weapon gives the wielder the ability to kill only the intended target with 100% precision. Harris asks: How would Saddam Hussein have used such a weapon and how would Bush? The answer, I should hope, is clear: despite all of Bush’s faults, he’s not a homicidal or genocidal maniac. Hussein would have wiped out the Kurds and pretty much anyone else.
Archive for the 'Religion' Category
Several related topics have come up in just the last couple days that I’d like to clarify my position on. People still seem to labor under the impression that libertarians, in general, should be opposed to government interference in just about anything. My last post about Orson Scott Card contained this quote from me:
“In Texas, where I live, the religious right successfully blocked legislation requiring that all girls get the HPV vaccine. That is uncivilized.”
To which Robert O asked:
“Wouldn’t that be a good thing, considering your otherwise libertarian leanings? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point.”
So, one of my favorite authors is Orson Scott Card. And I’m not just talking about Ender’s Game; I really do like almost all of his books. That’s all well and good, but OSC happens to have a significant internet presence, and oddly enough for the S.F. community, he’s an extremely conservative, extremely religious Mormon, and I find his politics quite revolting. This generates an internal conflict for me: how can he be such a good writer and yet display such extremely poor logical thinking skills?
I just finished reading the book by David Holmes, and I thought I’d post some thoughts. From a scholarship point of view, the book was pretty good, but was quite boring at times. Definitely worth reading if you’re interested in a thorough analysis of … what the title suggests. Most of what follows is summary from the book; some of it is my thoughts. I hope it’s clear which is which.
First, a quibble. Throughout the book, Holmes refers to the religion (in some cases, more broadly, belief system) of founding fathers as Deism. Yet, clearly, many of the Founders believed in a personal God (Holmes reiterates this many times), which I’ve always found to be contradictory to Deism. Everything I’ve read equates Deism with an impersonal God (see a dictionary, the wikipedia, britannica). While there were many Deists during the time (Thomas Paine was an outright Deist), the FF were more accurately general Theists. Holmes breaks down the beliefs into three categories: Deism, Christian Deism, and Christian. He generally means “real” Deism by the first, but what he calls Christian Deists would more accurately be called either rational theists (on the Deist side of the spectrum) or Unitarians (a la John Adams). Anyway, I think it’s a pretty semantic issue, and maybe I’m misreading, but the other terms seem more accurate.
In the first section, Holmes analyzes the religious beliefs of the colonies as a whole. Although much of the general population was unchurched, religious belief was quite high. Coupled with this, there was a large amount of religious intolerance in much of America. Excepting for Pennsylvania most of the colonies had at least a few laws criminalizing or marginalizing some faiths (atheism was way out). So, yes, there was a lot of religiosity in early America.
What the Dominionists1 today don’t understand is that the leading intellectuals who would become the founders were exactly opposite of this. While several of founders (Adams and Washington) believed that religion was necessary for the common man to be moral, they believed that any religion was an equally valid way to find morality and that religion was good for the common man. Christians today may point to this ideal and say “Look, even these great men believed in religion itself.” Yet, this doesn’t make the opinion valid. At the time, many rational people still fell back on religion as an explanation for the universe — science was yet in its infancy. We should judge these men not by the common shortcomings of their time, but by how much they transcended those shortcomings. After all, we do not reference their views on race; while Adams was a staunch abolitionist, we would (hopefully) find his thoughts on the inferiority of non-white races abhorrent today. Yet, for his time, he was far ahead of the curve.
Yet another fact that ought to have Dominionists shaking in their boots is that prior to the American Revolution, many of the colonies had state-sponsored churches, and these were dismantled in the time span around the Revolution. On what basis then do they argue that the Founders wanted a “Christian Nation”?
Next is an analysis of Deism and its roots in the Enlightenment, and the impact that Thomas Paine had on many of the founders. Holmes points out how much Deists, and the intellectuals of the time in general, valued reason over all else — this led them to abandon much of Christian orthodoxy. Critical to his later analysis of individual Founders’ beliefs is a careful examination of what language Deists of the time used to refer to God:
In place of this Hebrew God, Deists postulated a distant deity to whom they referred with terms such as “the First Cause,” “the Creator of the Universe,” “the Divine Artist,” “the Divine Author of All Good,” “the Grand Architect,” “the God of Nature,” “Nature’s God,” “Divine Providence,” and (in a phrase used by Franklin) “the Author and Owner of our System.” The Declaration of Independence displays precisely this kind of wording and sense of a distant deity.
Far too often I run into someone who presents a random quote from Jefferson, Franklin, or whoever, that refers to God in this way; this is offered as conclusive proof of our country’s foundation in Christianity. This is a way to quickly identify someone who needs to read more American history.
… Deists despised political and religious despotism. Their fundamental belief in reason and equality drove them to embrace liberal political ideals. In the eighteenth century, many Deists advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state.
(emphasis mine)
The next few sections are an in-depth analysis of the religious views of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Holmes has gone through much of these men’s correspondence and compiled an excellent overview of their belief systems. Next is a look at the wives and daughters; excepting for Abigail Adams, most of the Founders’ wives were far more orthodox than their husbands. In a later section, Holmes discusses why Deism failed in the U.S., and this turns out, at least in part, to be that because while Deism took hold among the men, it failed to gain traction with the women. Children were almost exclusively raised by their mothers, especially during the Revolution. Of course, there were orthodox Christians in the revolutionary movement, and Holmes takes a look at three — Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot, and John Jay. Holmes closes the main sections with a few pages looking at how the past is different; included in this is:
Today many Americans are concerned that their presidents be sincere men and women of faith. These founding men and women were often sincere believers. But their faith differed — often markedly — from that which many Americans have held in later centuries. Writers need not revise history to align the founders’ beliefs with their own. Americans can tell their story unhesitatingly, warts and all.
The implication here seems to be that the Founders’ religious beliefs are a wart — something I’d take issue with. The epilogue is then a depressing illustration of recent presidents’ evangelism and how much religion has played a role in presidential elections. Today, American politicians pander to the religious crowd. We’ve come far since the Revolution, but in the wrong direction.
I was hoping for a more direct analysis of the “Christian Nation” nutjobs, and I’m always on the lookout for a comprehensive book on the subject (instead of random snippets around the web). This book makes a strong and convincing positive argument for the U.S. being founded on secular principles, and a positive argument is critical to any position — an opinion cannot be formed on a negative argument alone. Yet, reading a negative argument against a position you disagree with is so much more fun.
1 I’m going to commit my own nomenclatural blunder here, and use the convenient term “Dominionists” even though there are clearly people in the U.S. today who do not necessarily want an all-out theocracy, but still believe in the “Christian Nation” concept.
Yes, there’s lots of talk about how Jeremiah Wright has said offensive things, and I’m not the first to point out that the religious right leaders have said similar things (see here), but I wanted to pull a bunch of these comments together into one place and do a direct comparison and talk about who is offended and why. And a bunch of other things.
Wright vs. Prominent right-wing religious leaders
For one thing, I don’t see how this is, for lack of a better term, new news. I remember some flap back in November about this, so it makes me wonder why this has come up again. But, let’s review what Wright has said that’s got people so up in arms.
Wright: “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” (link)
Wright: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.” (link)
That’s pretty harsh — he wants God to damn America for treating some people very badly. I’d think God could do something better, like fix things. But anyway. He’s definitely a nutcase, but is he any different from many other religious leaders? If not, why does it seem like the religious right are the ones with the bunched-up panties? Let’s compare.
Jerry Falwell(speaking just after 9/11): “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.” (link)
So, unlike Wright, he’s not asking God to damn America, he’s saying God already did. I’m not sure which is worse. Plus, Wright, at least in the first quote, seems to think it would be punishment for treating people unjustly, while Falwell is saying it happened because we treat people justly. Wow. Let’s move on.
Pat Robertson: “If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that’s the answer.” (link)
Do I need to comment on this? He’s advocating destroying Washington, D.C. with a nuclear bomb. I don’t care if he intended it to be a joke (and it doesn’t seem like it), that is a statement from a whackjob. Lest you think that is an anomaly, take a look at this article (via Ed’s blog) about Francis Schaeffer by his son:
My dad’s books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the “respectable” evangelical community and he’s still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he’d take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad’s Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler’s Germany.
When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
Now, you may be saying to yourself, “Wow, I’m glad something like that doesn’t happen these days”. *sigh*. Yeah, it does. Let’s look at the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. He believes he is the second coming of Jesus, and held a coronation ceremony anointing him as such. Oh, and he was crowned by Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.)
Moon: “There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God’s direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God’s commands and kingship. Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn’t it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?” (link)
Moon wants to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. He owns the Washington Times!! Neil Bush travels with him!
This issue could doom Obama’s candidacy, and, yet, Republican leaders (and a few Democrats) suffer hardly at all for arguably worse associations. Not to mention that these right-wing evangelists have much more power than Jeremiah Wright. Scared yet?
Obama’s Response
A couple of days ago, Obama gave a speech in response to the furor about Wright. It was a pretty good speech — I thought that it was a good move politically to face this head-on.
I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Well, it’s a start. I’m still unconvinced — after all, Obama has attended Wright’s church for a long time. I do not trust him on religious views — he isn’t much different from Mike Huckabee on that score (an excellent overview is here). Obama claims that his religion won’t affect how he acts as president, but I don’t see how that could be possible. Obama, while in favor of “civil unions”, is still against gay marriage — on religious grounds. Regardless, I find the attacks on him about Wright to be intensely ironic, especially given the next section…
McCain and Hagee
McCain has recently accepted (and was “honored” by it) the endorsement of John Hagee, yet another right-wing televangelist. He has condemned Harry Potter as witchcraft (the ability of these people to determine fact from fiction astounds me).
Hagee: “All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.” (I cannot find a primary link for this, but it was said on NPR’s Fresh Air on Sept 18, 2006)
This makes me sad — after all, McCain had called Robertson and Falwell “agents of intolerance” during his 2000 campaign. Presumably, this would include Hagee as well. That was one of the things that raised my respect for McCain. Now? Has he recanted that statement? Does he not realize who Hagee is? Or is he simply pandering to the religious right? If the last (and let’s be realistic), how much should we crucify a politician for doing what a politician does? Yet, part of his appeal (and Obama’s too) is that they don’t fit the traditional politician mold.
I’d like American politicians to be far more secular, but I’d settle for a little less hypocrisy.