It’s kind of fun to be treated like a marauding threat to civilization itself.
Via Sadly, No, Michael Medved wrote a rather revealing column. I mean, it’s stupid, but as this quote that Travis plucks out shows, it’s revealing.
Now that we’ve broken barriers with history’s first viable female and African-American candidates, opponents of organized religion hope for a new campaign in which a brave politician makes a credible run for the highest office even while proclaiming his non-belief.
Considering that this entire article is bashing atheists, you can piece together what he’s saying, which is that the country is going to hell now that black people and women can run for President, and now that he’s been deprived of an opportunity to bash either group, he’s going after atheists.
I almost feel bad linking articles where some wingnut is using atheists as the new boogeyman to rile up those who have weak minds and have to buy books like The Bell Curve to convince themselves incorrectly that their race/station in life makes them smarter than they are. Because I can’t see it as oppression in the exact same sense as racism or sexism. Atheism is an idea at its core, just like religion except more rational. Sure, people like Medved are actual bigots, because they want there to be socially sanctioned oppression of atheist individuals, whereas while I was accused of being an anti-Catholic bigot, I have nothing against Catholic people, and would happily vote for one and would throw a screaming shit fit if someone said that your religious affiliation (instead of your policy ideas) should have anything to do with your eligibility for office. But when I read stuff like this, it doesn’t get me going with the same ire that I have when I read one of the many fine pieces up daily at Townhall condemning half the human race to second class citizenship for having vaginas.
Maybe part of it is that I really think that atheists are winning. We may never convince all people to see things our way, to let go of superstitions and step into the light of rationality, but we can demand that secular humanism be respected as the best system for all people, regardless of faith, because it keeps the peace and allows society to function fairly. Atheism is the beneficiary of equality movements, as well, because once you deprive most of the people euphemistically described as “people of faith” the social space to bash racial minorities and women, religion loses some of its charm. The flare-up of the fundie movement seems to me to be a dying seizure of religion, an attempt to use religion as a shield for odious ideas. But already they’re learning that they can’t be racist in their own spaces anymore; once sexism goes, the whole shebang will shut down.
But I mainly think that it’s because atheist-bashing is a Trojan horse to smuggle in the scarier idea, the one that really needs to be addressed, which is the idea that the church and state should be blended. That’s the crux of Medved’s argument—atheists can be office holders, because that would undermine theocratic impulses we social conservatives are trying to cultivate. He has three reasons that atheists can’t be President especially, and they all go back to the idea that America should be some sort of theocracy, instead of a secular democracy.
As Constitutional scholars all point out, the Presidency uniquely combines the two functions of head of government (like the British Prime Minister) and head of state (like the Queen of England). POTUS not only appoints cabinet members and shapes foreign policy and delivers addresses to Congress, but also presides over solemn and ceremonial occasions. Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones.
This argument, that the President is the head of a church, no matter how “tolerant” or informal, is basically unconstitutional. The Constitution forbids establishing a church, period. It doesn’t make an exception for tolerance or informality. Considering that Medved’s final point is that you need a good Christian theocrat to compete with the threat of Islamo-terrorist-nazi-satanism, I’d like to point out that while America doesn’t have a civic but tolerant religion, Iran does. In fact, Iran’s take on religion is exactly what the theocrats at home are clamoring to have—a government that relies on religious dogma to make its laws (our theocrats call the dogma they’d like officially instituted “Judeo-Christianity”) while officially having freedom of religious minorities to practice their faith. I’m unsure if leaders in Iran want pats on the back for their benevolent tolerance like Medved appears to want, though.
Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”? If he did, he’d stand accused (rightly) of rank hypocrisy. And if he didn’t, he’d pointedly excuse himself from a daily ritual that overwhelming majorities of his fellow citizens consider meaningful.
Or perhaps we could revisit the idea of restoring the Pledge to its original wording. The phrase “under god” does undermine the rest of the Pledge, after all, because it blatantly gives the raspberry to the foundational concept of religious freedom. It was apparently added during the 50s, so we could distinguish ourselves from communists. Interesting how, when the official enemy is atheist, we tried to highlight our differences, but now that the official enemy is fundamentalists, conservatives are arguing that we need to be like them to beat them. (At least the communists were better defined as a group, too. Islamo-satan-commie-fascist-nazis are imaginary, even if based roughly on a disparate group of Muslims with terrorist designs.)
Disconnecting from the People. The United States remains a profoundly, uniquely religious society: “a nation with the soul of a church” in Tocqueville’s durable phrase. A president need not embrace one of the nation’s leading faiths: the public accepted two Quaker presidents (Hoover and Nixon) despite the tiny number of our citizens who identify with the Society of Friends, and polling on candidates like Romney and Lieberman indicated that the their devout membership in minority religions hardly disqualified them. There’s a difference between an atheist, however, and a Mormon or a Jew – despite the fact that the same U.S. population (about five million) claims membership in each of the three groups.
Actually, there’s not. We haven’t elected any members of any of those groups, and while there’s an off-chance a Mormon could pull it off, since their religion doesn’t actually look that different from Protestant Christianity at first blush, I’m skeptical about the likelihood of a Jewish President in our lifetimes. It would be more possible if the nation as a whole actually embraced freedom of religion officially, but the popularity of an official state religion of pan-Christianity has not really declined, as the email forwards of America demonstrate. Maybe it’s possible; this election shows that Americans aren’t nearly as backwards as wingnuts claiming to speak for the majority are always claiming Americans are. But still, it’s a bullshit argument, because the evidence shows that atheists have won as many Presidential elections as Mormons or Jews: 0.
I’m not even going to address the Islamo-satanist argument. I just have to continue wondering if Chris Hitchens has come around to realizing that most of his war-mongering allies feel the best way to win this battle is to become more backwards and superstitious.
65 Responses to “Unless of course the civic, tolerant god is a Disco Ball”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Heh. That was me as “Thomas Jefferson” in the comments.
Simply put, Michael Medved is anti-American.
Interesting how, when the official enemy is atheist, we tried to highlight our differences, but now that the official enemy is fundamentalists, conservatives are arguing that we need to be like them to beat them.
Communism, for all of its faults, is, like Liberalism, a rationalist ideology. Fundamentalism, of any sort, is, like Conservatism, a romantic ideology. So while Communism represented a true ideological conflict with the Conservatives, the conflict with “Islamo-fascism” is more of an intramural one.
Oh yea, and Medved is too stupid for words to adequately capture. I believe only liturgical dance could capture the true level of his dimness.
I remember exactly when they changed the wording of the flag pledge, and, after that, I always left out “under God.” I was in grade school, and I think it was in about 1952. Around the same time, the Cub Scouts, of which I was a member changed the uniform from blue with gold insigne, (”Blue and Gold!” had been a BS motto.), to blue with red and white insigne. Also, public mailboxes, which had formerly been a plain, chaste green, like storage mailboxes still are, to blue with white and red. This was more or less in the same period when my school’s public address system broadcast General McArthur’s farewell address.
I remember exactly when they changed the wording of the flag pledge, and, after that, I always left out “under God.” I was in grade school, and I think it was in about 1952. Around the same time, the Cub Scouts, of which I was a member changed the uniform from blue with gold insigne, (”Blue and Gold!” had been a BS motto.), to blue with red and white insigne. Also, public mailboxes, which had formerly been a plain, chaste green, like storage mailboxes still are, to blue with white and red. This was more or less in the same period when my school’s public address system broadcast General McArthur’s farewell address.
Medved’s point about our Quaker Presidents is also off-base for a number of reasons:
(1) How representative were Hoover and Nixon of Quakers? Could we elect a dirty-hippy-peacenik Quaker for President?
(2) The point about Mormons also applies to Quakers: I reckon most Americans know nothing more about Quakers than the guy on the oatmeal box is one.
(3) Some of the “religious test” mentality is of quite a recent vintage (e.g., Lincoln, who at the time was considered a master of manipulating the evangelical vote, today would be raked over the coals as a swarthy insufficiently Christian secret Muslim by the religious right) — I don’t think a Quaker — even Nixon or Hoover — could get elected today: there would be too much questioning of whether they were really Christian. Of course, Nixon here was being, not surprisingly, self-destructive … in his embrace of elements of the right, he laid the seeds for the current environment in which a Nixon couldn’t get elected.
Look at Garry Wills’ comments on Nixon’s quakerism in NIXON AGONISTES, still one of the best books on Nixon.
It’s fascinating to me (actually is frightening as all hell) that the Constitution is no longer considered (by wingnuts) to be a document anybody can and should read and understand.
In the age of Yoo, it’s apparent that if you’re foolish enough to take the words of the Constitution at face value, you are being misled. Rather than take that chance, we must have our social/political/religious betters interpret what the Constitution REALLY means, as opposed to what the actual words used might imply.
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” means that you can be told to shut your mouth at any time, regardless of the subject, especially if what you’re saying is embarrassing to the current administration. And if you print the wrong thing, they can and should shut you down and put you in prison.
A “well regulated Militia”, for example, means that anyone under any circumstances can and should be armed to the teeth.
The “prohibition” against “cruel and unusual punishments” means we can torture and kill anyone at any time under any circumstances.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” means that the Unitary Executive can declare the US a theocracy at any time and Congress is powerless to stop it. And he is well within his awesome powers to require mandatory church attendance and tithing, on pain of death.
See, you can’t understand it without a scorecard…
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
A hairy-armed marauding threat to civilization, mind you!
Then there’s the significant matter of the Pledge of Allegiance. Would President Atheist pronounce the controversial words “under God”? If he did, he’d stand accused (rightly) of rank hypocrisy. And if he didn’t, he’d pointedly excuse himself from a daily ritual that overwhelming majorities of his fellow citizens consider meaningful.
Really? The Pledge is a daily ritual that overwhelming majorities of Americans considering meaningful? For who? Elementary school children?
I am smack in the middle of D/FW suburbia and I’ve never once heard the Pledge recited anywhere except American Legion meetings and political events since I was a senior in high school. Not in college. Not in any job I’ve held in college or in grad school.
I’d say the rank hypocrisy is on Medved and his ilk who claim the Pledge is “meaningful” to “overwhelming majorities” of people who don’t recite it.
First, while one would never associate Nixon with Quaker values, Hoover’s creation and leadership of the Commission for the Relief of Belgium, which raised money, bought food, and shipped it past the German Navy and its U-boats during World War I was in the finest tradition of Quaker service and pacifism. Between 1914 and 1923, more than 80 million people in more than 20 nations received food allotments for which Hoover and his associates were at least partly responsible
Second, I guess by wingnut logic: Atheists are godless; the evil Commies were godless (which explains the insertion of “under God” in the 50s Pledge) therefore Atheists are evil Commies. (Which makes me wonder: if theism is so good, why do these same folks call monotheist Muslims Islamofascists?)
That was one of the stupider articles I’ve read.
But embrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn’t show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does
How does it? Atheists don’t necessarily have contempt for religion, they just don’t believe in it themselves. I’d guess the average Evangelical has more contempt for mainstream Catholics and Protestants than the average atheist. But that didn’t come up as an issue when Bush was running. (Although liberal Protestants having contempt for Evangelicals does come up… funny how it only ever works one way.)
The charge that our battle amounts to a “war against Islam” seems more persuasive when an openly identified non-believer leads our side
Right, because it was atheists who led the crusades. (And Islamo-Nazism? Is he joking?)
medved should be ignored, ostracized and involuntarily lobotomized.
all of that would come to pass in the world he envisions.
Medved spoke at my high school once, ~10 years ago.
And I hate to say it, but I agreed with him at the time, because I was a 15-year-old who hadn’t looked past the Monica stuff I saw on TV every day to understand how good Clinton was for society, and didn’t understand civic issues at all.
You know. I never really understood why a good upstanding Protestant with a basic understanding of their history would willingly make an oath to the state. Those groups that oppose the pledge on religious grounds (The Friends and Witnesses, and perhaps the Mennonites?) have exactly the right take on this.
But then I remember that these guys only history before the American Revolution is Jesus and maybe Moses.
If the guy is afraid of non-theistic presidents he should have spoken up a couple hundred years ago. Washington’s own pastor called him a Deist and he spoke like one. Jefferson is the epitome of American Deism and was called an atheist in his day. Abraham Lincoln was also accused of atheism, had some Deistic leanings, and certainly was not a devout Christian.
Heck, the granddaddy of political blogging, they called in pamphleteering back then, Thomas Paine, was called a “filthy little atheist” by none other than Teddy Roosevelt. Non-theism and non-theist bashing have a long history in this country.
Having “M.Medved” and “stupid” in a sentence verges on redundancy.
(let’s see if ‘blockquotes’ works today…..)
Thanks, Amanda. Now we know what Christian bigot and trampler of constitutional rights Monique Davis must be reading. http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/davis-anti-athe.html#comments
I’ll have to go read (shudder) Medved’s article, since the mere excerpts are causing my brain to bleed, but:
‘Basically’? BASICALLY??? Explicitly, specifically, and TOTALLY were the adjectives you were looking for there.
Goddamn, these assholes just don’t ‘get’ the whole concept of America, do they? And they’ll chip away at it ’til it’s gone, and then wonder where it went.
If the guy is afraid of non-theistic presidents he should have spoken up a couple hundred years ago. Washington’s own pastor called him a Deist and he spoke like one. Jefferson is the epitome of American Deism and was called an atheist in his day. Abraham Lincoln was also accused of atheism, had some Deistic leanings, and certainly was not a devout Christian.
Heck, the granddaddy of political blogging, they called in pamphleteering back then, Thomas Paine, was called a “filthy little atheist” by none other than Teddy Roosevelt. Non-theism and non-theist bashing have a long history in this country.
I’m a godless, unpatriotic, rampaging threat to civilization myself, but I’ve always failed to understand the importance placed by conservatives on the ritual of the pledge of allegiance. If they really wanted to teach children to love their country, I fail to see how reducing the display of the love down a hollow, pointless ritual accomplishes anything other than undermining the goal.
Of course, I’m joking. The goal of conservatives is self-evidently NOT to instill any sort of meaningful love of this country (which would necessarily include the ability to critique its failings as well as a genuine concern for the people who actually live here) but rather to train children in blind obedience to symbols of authority.
That’s also why the Medveds of the world get so upset at the thought of atheists; at a minimum, non-believers have rejected the fundamental belief that obedience to tradition and authority are inherently desirable.
Are opponents of organized religion really hoping for an openly atheist president? Personally, I would be happy with a president that takes the constitution (and its limits on church-state cooperation) seriously.
Atheism is the beneficiary of equality movements, as well, because once you deprive most of the people euphemistically described as “people of faith” the social space to bash racial minorities and women, religion loses some of its charm.
I don’t think this is entirely fair.
It might be apt if you replaced “religion” with “fundamentalist religion” or “evangelical Christianity”. Or even, at a SERIOUS stretch, “organized religion.” (though that would still slight most non-Abrahamic ones).
But, no, sweetie, the fact that my metaphysical understanding of the universe involves something supernatural and yours doesn’t doesn’t mean you are more equality-oriented than I am or that I secretly hate women and minorities.
This is part of why so many less sophisticated religious folks think atheists are a threat to their way of life, or “anti-religion”, or whatever. Because you say completely thoughtless things like this which demonstrate that the only religion you’ve ever heard of is fundamentalist Christianity.
Does anybody else remember saying the pledge in school? I do. Or rather, I remember mumbling along the same way everybody else did in an effort to get it done and over with so we could sit down and find out if we were still getting tater tots for lunch.
I love how they always make a big deal about how important and proud good Americans are to say the Pledge of Allegiance when your average sleepy twelve-year-old doesn’t give a damn every weekday morning.
Somehow, this is also the fault of teh atheists:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24049997/
I read that different than you did, opoponax. I don’t want to put words into Amanda’s mouth, but I interpreted that statement to mean that people who like to use religion as a justification for bigotry, have to find something else when atheists achieve equal status with theists. That’s the whole point of Medved’s article. The religious trappings of the Pledge of Allegiance or “In God We Trust” loose their power when people no longer put any value in them. Religion can then no longer be used as a tool to oppress people.
I must have missed the last one. Can somebody send me an email in time for the next civilization destroying rampage?
Todd, I don’t want to argue, but read the sentence.
once you deprive most of the people euphemistically described as “people of faith” the social space to bash racial minorities and women, religion loses some of its charm.
Or, slightly paraphrased: Once you deprive most people who believe in God the social space to bash minorities and women, said religious folks become less into all that boring God stuff. In other words, half the point of believing in a higher power is that it gives you permission to be a bigot. Which, um, no. DO NOT WANT.
Though I agree that one emphasis of her post was that, given that women and minorities are considered pretty much off limits now, the right (which, btw, is NOT THE SAME THING as “people who believe in god”) has to find someone else to hate on. That is clearly not the meaning of the sentence I took issue with, though.
The quoted part of the post was in the middle of a paragraph listing off some of the many ways atheists are ‘winning’.
Jennifer,
EXACTLY. It’s amazing how quickly people forget what it’s like to actually be a student, and how much all of those trappings that administrators mumble through every day take up 0.0001% of your brain activity. The Pledge is not for the kids, it’s for the adults’ benefit, making them feel that they’re instilling national pride, when in fact it’s just another noise coming from a grown-up’s mouth that kids can safely ignore.
Also, re the pledge and students’ enthusiasm — I remember dreading my turn to “lead the pledge” because there was a better than 50-50 chance that I wouldn’t be able to repeat it without the cheat of just mumbling something vaguely approximating it.
In high school, the AV class did video prayer (Catholic school), pledge, and announcements each morning, and everyone in the class had to take turns in front of the camera. Half the folks saying the pledge actually thought the pledge started “I pledge of allegiance…” for some reason. Rather than actually think about America or anything, I was more interested in determining who added the ‘of’ and who didn’t, and how they got that idea.
Wow, what a meaningful ritual…
Once I realized what the Pledge’o Allegiance was - certainly by middle school - I absolutely refused to say it and would instead stay quietly seated. I just never understood why saying words to a piece of cloth had anything to do with patriotism, never mind with being a good citizen.
Before that, sure I said it. We all said it without the slightest comprehension of what it was we were doing. There’s a reason that the pledge is always good for a segment of “Kids Say the Darndest Things.”
“But, no, sweetie, the fact that my metaphysical understanding of the universe involves something supernatural and yours doesn’t doesn’t mean you are more equality-oriented than I am or that I secretly hate women and minorities.”
No, but lets be honest-saying you do or do not support something (gay rights, abortion, etc) because some God/Teapot/Sky Fairy tells you so is a stupid reason by any account. I support comprehensive sex education not because God says I should. I support it because it WORKS to reduce STDs and unplanned pregnancies. I support gay rights and marriage not because the virgin mary came to me on a tortilla. I support it because every study ever done shows society, relationships, and people benefit by recognizing gay relationships as on parity with heterosexual relationships.
From Medved’s article:
For instance, Dr. Billy Graham has brought tens of millions to Christian commitment, but how could an unabashed atheist honor this achievement?
If anyone changed “atheist” to “Jew” in that sentence, Medved would have an absolute shitfit.
In any case, it’s a meaningless tempest. This country is far too God-addled to elect an atheist president.
saying you do or do not support something (gay rights, abortion, etc) because some God/Teapot/Sky Fairy tells you so is a stupid reason by any account.
That’s neither here nor there, though, because it’s possible to believe in god without deciding that you think everything you think because god tells you to. Not to mention, what does this have to do with whether believing in God makes you a bigot?
I support comprehensive sex education not because God says I should. I support it because it WORKS to reduce STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
Me too.
I support gay rights and marriage not because the virgin mary came to me on a tortilla. I support it because every study ever done shows society, relationships, and people benefit by recognizing gay relationships as on parity with heterosexual relationships.
Me too.
please let this work.
I’m not listening to Medved until he stops renting out John Stossel’s mustache.
But, no, sweetie, the fact that my metaphysical understanding of the universe involves something supernatural and yours doesn’t doesn’t mean you are more equality-oriented than I am or that I secretly hate women and minorities.
Sweetie, your personal spirituality isn’t relevant to my point. There’s clearly some room for alternative religious beliefs from people trying to straddle the gray area, but let’s be honest—religion’s momentum comes from its ability to justify social structures, especially those that have no other justification, like racism or sexism. So while it’s possible for non-racists or non-sexists to believe in god, it’s a hell of a lot harder to rally people to church without there being some usefulness to it. And in a just world, there’s not much use for church. It’s not there to uphold injustice, nor is there a reason for alternative religions that struggle against injustice to exist.
If anyone changed “atheist” to “Jew” in that sentence, Medved would have an absolute shitfit.
Well, Medved actually is Jewish… but he’d still have an absolute shitfit.
alternative religious beliefs from people trying to straddle the gray area
I hardly think that “all religions that aren’t fundamentalist Christianity and perhaps Islam even though Islam actually isn’t all that big into racism” can be justified as a few people with ‘alternative religious beliefs’.
Look, I agree with you on about 90% of everything you say about religion. Except when you get all Texan and assume that every theist on the planet is an evangelical Christian.
Other
Religions
Exist.
And a great many of them aren’t particularly invested in misogyny, racism, or any other form of bigotry you can come up with.
Scott: Yes, that was my point.
Medved did make a half-assed attempt to address this issue in his column…something along the lines of, a Jew still believes in God and so can be sort of an honorary Christian. It’s the sort of mealymouthed crap that fundie wingnuts sling toward Jews. Really sad and pathetic to see a Jewish person buy into it.
So, what happens if you stop saying the pledge in school? Do they call your parents? Send you to the principal’s office? I suppose it depends on how red your surroundings are.
I can still remember when they stopped saying the Lord’s Prayer in Ontario schools every morning. I’d stopped a few years earlier, on the grounds that I wasn’t a Christian, as well as refusing to stand and sing the national anthem, on the grounds that it was Christian and militaristic.
Vaguely related-I recently read Daphne Du Maurier’s Rule Britannia (it’s about the UK and USA joining together-essentially the US military occupies the UK) and there was a bit about how the Americans were introducing ‘Jesus Talks’ at school, and the British found it a bit…silly and childish, and simply ‘not done’. And the book was written in the 1970s, so I guess American Chrsitianity has had a reputation as being…childishly overenthusiastic for a while.
You have teachers try to tell you that you are required to at least stand for the pledge (umm, no) and other students simultaneously call you a fascist commie. Then when you point out the hypocrisy and unconstitutionality of rote recitation of the pledge and the phrase “under God”, they mostly stammer at you incoherently and eventually shut up. But you can feel their glare on the back of your neck.
At least, that was my experience when I was in high school.
there was a bit about how the Americans were introducing ‘Jesus Talks’ at school
According to a friend of mine who grew up in London and went to school in the 70’s, the British school system involved a required religion course, which was mandatory for everyone including non-Christians.
So I’m not sure that Du Maurier is poking fun at Americans for bringing religion into the classroom, but for dumbing it down or something (”Jesus Talks”, as opposed to “Scripture and Morality: A Theological Perspective”, or somesuch).
It might be apt if you replaced “religion” with “fundamentalist religion” or “evangelical Christianity”. Or even, at a SERIOUS stretch, “organized religion.” (though that would still slight most non-Abrahamic ones).
Why can’t the non-Levantine faiths be criticized for their inanities as well? Hinduism is extraordinarily racist and sexist and both Shinto and Confucianism/Taoism are, if not exactly racist, culturally exceptional (and quite sexist). Buddhism - especially Mahayana - might be the exception but while it is not specifically bigoted the cultures it exists in certainly are and it hasn’t done much to stop such beliefs. Combine those four faiths with the Religions of the Book and that IS the vast, vast majority of people of faith on this planet.
I’m not exactly an atheist myself, but I find it hard - as a materialistic pantheist - to identify with any member of any organized religion (and if it ain’t organized it ain’t really a “religion” but, rather, a belief). Any dogma is a dodge from having to think for yourself and is, thus, an inroad for having hateful and stupid people think for you.
And, honestly, I find this sort of “But WE aren’t like THEM” bullshit to be a kind of intellectual cowardice. The Fundies claim to speak for the religious. ALL of the religious people. And the liberal believers don’t say jack all about it until someone criticizes the moronic shit the Fundies claim to be part and parcel of religion as a whole… and then it’s “WE aren’t like THEM!”
Yea? Go tell THEM that.
(Sorry, not meaning to sound like I’m dumping on you personally Oppo, I tend to dig your contributions, but this one is a bit close to an issue that pisses me off to no end.)
eh as a kid we did the pledge, we also went outside and sang songs played on a record player such as that one “youre a grand ol’ flag youre a high flying flag” and America the beautiful and so on, guess thats what you get when the school is run by WW2 vets. I didn’t mind it as a kid and looking back on it it irks me but I understand the motivation behind it. I know this will sound idiotic and mushy but as an atheist, if I believe in anything I believe in a lot of the ideals America is “supposed” to be about. For all the heinous shit that goes on here, all the shit we support overseas, all the -ism’s and so on, I also think this is the only place in the world where we can reach and attain all the goals we have on a massive scale, a 300 million person entity that is capable of righting its wrongs? hell yes, we might not ever get there but damn it, as much muck as we walk through and for all the inequities I think some day we can get there, thats where my “faith” is but i get crap from people all day long, especially when I was in the military, because I don’t believe in their person in the sky, follow their path, or believe in reincarnation.
the cultures it exists in certainly are and it hasn’t done much to stop such beliefs
Wait, now that’s just pushing the goalposts.
I say ‘guys, seriously, most religions are not specifically founded in order to promote bigotry’, and the response is “well sexism exists, so therefore all religions specifically exist to promote it”.
Oh, hm. OK.
I’m not really looking for a fight, here - I’m pretty much pro-atheism in general (Amanda’s point about ’straddling the grey areas’ is a pretty good description of my own feelings). So I’m not going to belabor the point. But c’mon, guys. If you’re going to talk about how atheism is better because atheists are more rational than those superstitious god-botherers, then you should probably try to, like, actually be rational.
Yeah, Opo, it wasn’t about introducing religion in school, it was about the way it was done. It was both too important to reduce to Jesus Talks, and something private.
In public school in a small Ontario town, we’d listen to/say the Lord’s prayer and national anthem over the PA, and then the younger kids would have their teachers read ‘Fuzzy (Fluffy?) Bunny’ stories, usually with a moral, and the older kids would get stories from the bible. And in one of the grades, some religious group would come in and hand out little red new testaments.
But having to pledge allegiance to your country, and a flag, every morning, is just so…well, the kind of thing you’d imagine happening in a communist dictatorship. So you’d think the US would have a problem with it.
Amanda,
Sorry to be picky, but there’s a problem with this:
“religion’s momentum comes from its ability to justify social structures, especially those that have no other justification, like racism or sexism.”
The two aren’t parallel or equivalent. Racism is probably only about 500-600 years old. Sexism, i.e., male domination is older, much older, and isn’t just something religion justifies. Religion, in its prevalent patriarchal monotheist manifestations, grows out of the experience of male dominance and is meaningless without it.
Hmm…if your only definition of racism is white western Europeans and their power structure hating and oppressing people of colour, then yes, racism’s tenure on this planet is fairly short.
And I’d say religions can justify racism and white male dominance quite well. I remember in my Old Testament class, learning that one of the proposed reasons for the food restrictions was to separate Us and Them. I’d get into more detail, but I have an appointment to go to.
And the liberal believers don’t say jack all about it until someone criticizes the moronic shit the Fundies claim to be part and parcel of religion as a whole… and then it’s “WE aren’t like THEM!”
UMMM, what?
1. Personally, yes, I do say ‘jack shit’ about it. I absolutely don’t stand for religious justification of bigotry, and I’m very vocal about that. I’m very much a ‘fellow traveler’ with you guys in terms of fighting theocracy and religious fundamentalism. Especially as it threatens to take over the USA.
2. Since atheism is a relatively new concept, and until recently there hasn’t been a large and vocal atheist movement, calling out bigotry and fundamentalism in religion has thus far pretty much always been the responsibility of liberal believers. There are liberalizing movements in just about every world religion, not to mention a great many people who have started new religions which are specifically egalitarian. If you think you’re alone in this fight, it’s because you’ve decided to see yourselves that way, not because you really are. If you don’t want our help, fine. But don’t insist we aren’t doing anything.
3. Seriously, hon, we AREN’T like them.
4. It’s not even so much of a “we” thing, considering I only consider myself “spiritual” (and sometimes even agnostic) and generally don’t see eye to eye with organized religion at all. But even so, I know enough about religions that aren’t evangelical Christianity to know that not ALL religions are built on bigotry in the way that evangelical Christianity is.
OK, re-read Amanda’s post. It says the momentum - I read that as current resurgence of interest in - which means rightwing/fundie sites offer a ocmmunity to the racists, sexists and homophobes all of which somewhere or other end up quoting scripture to justify said isms.
Some of it is the structure set up by the government to (unfairly and irrationally) favor religion.
For example - don’t want to send you kid to school - claim you have a right to homeschool (or protect Little Johnny from such ideas as “evil evolution”) you may find that right is based on “religious objection.”
Don’t want to vaccinate your kids? - forget well-reasoned arguments about the testing of vaccine safety being inadequate or biased. But cliam a religious exemption - no problem.
Want to have a big house, good income, really nce car and not pay taxes on same? Get a mail order divinity degree and found a church to own same - making yourself ceo for life of said church.
Want to make a good $ living? Extort $ from the gullible by claiming they have a supernatural defect which only you can take away. Call yourself a fortune teller (recent Illinois case) and you get arrested - call yourself a priest or minister and it’s, again, no problem.
Sorry for above typos. Cat got involeved with posting as I was proofing.
When I was kid I remember a couple of kids getting out of the Pledge nonsense because they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. They would go out in the hall when it came time to say it.
It was the only time I’ve ever envied a Jehovah’s Witness.
Our local elementary school had the kids practicing songs for months for a spring concert they gave after 9/11. The teachers requested the kids wear red, white, or blue T shirts and jeans. And sure enough, the songs were “Grand Ole Flag”, “God Bless America”, etc etc etc.
It was then that I learned the word jingoism from my spouse…
Because EVERYONE hates Atheists!
Grrr…
Oppo,
Organized religions are bigoted. The individuals who are involved may not be, but that’s b/c they aren’t blindly adhering to dogma, and could very well be punished. Look at the bishops threatening to excommunicate politicians despite the fact that Catholic dogma says that a person’s conscience is paramount, even over the Pope. Francis George, Chicago’s archbishop, is quite content to damn anyone who doesn’t listen to him to hell.
It’s hard for me b/c I had relatives who were religious (priests and nuns) and I know what it’s supposed to be. But any organized religion gets power, and power always corrupts and demonizes someone as “other”.
Can individual Christians be good? Sure, and your more likely to find good folk among the laity than the clerics nowadays. Can an organized religion be good? I’m not so sure. No, they aren’t specifically founded to be discriminatory, but that’s what they end up as, even if it’s just discriminating against people who aren’t members of the club.
I beg your pardon?
But don’t forget Christopher Hitchens, here to prove that atheist sexism is alive and well. I think a lot of the “science for choads” crowd may well be atheists, trying to find a science-oid justification for their bigotry.JPlum, I believe an example of what you referenced is the prohibition about mixing meat and milk in Jewish law, which was derived from the injunction against cooking a kid in its’ mothers’ milk as was done by the worshippers of Astare.
Articles like this make me wish, wish, wish an atheist was a major candidate so I could vote for them. >
I love Fred and Ginger as much as the next person, but there’s no way I can watch a movie and hope my kid is gonna hold still long enough in the pot for me to squeeze out enough from these titties to make a good sauce…
What temp to bake in oven- 350 or 300? Onions or scallions? Covered pot to keep from drying out or just a nice butter crumb casserole topping?
Gah, bring on Friday music; these Thursday cooking blogs are confusing me!
Because I can’t see it as oppression in the exact same sense as racism or sexism. Atheism is an idea at its core
Also, atheism, like religion, is very easy to lie about effectively, because it’s in your head, not on your face (like race or gender) or in what you do (like sexual orientiation). So a systematic discrimination is hard to implement.
Of course, lying carries it’s own cost…
This argument, that the President is the head of a church, no matter how “tolerant” or informal, is basically unconstitutional.
This “Church of America” idea is very funny, starting with there not being such an entity, continuing with the image of all kinds of sectarian shehengians, and not ending with the (not very comfortable, but still funny) idea that these things have historically (after causing much bloodshed) led to a very secular populance.
JPlum: I guess American Chrsitianity has had a reputation as being… childishly overenthusiastic for a while.
I noticed that in the mid-eighties, when I first met people who had actually been to the US. It was kind of traumatic, though not as much as discovering that all those die-hard reactionaries were right about Amercian militarism.
We had religious education in school for years, and while it was one of those easy-way-to-improve-your-average-grade classes, calling it “Jesus talks” would have made the average fourth grader feel that their intelligence was insulted. (Also, it taught the useful skill of reading text for meaning instead of plot, and introduced the class to non-literal readings and metaphors. Looking back, well worth it.)
I just have to continue wondering if Chris Hitchens has come around to realizing that most of his war-mongering allies feel the best way to win this battle is to become more backwards and superstitious.
Amanda, you give Hitchens far too much and far too little credit: he’s smart enough to know exactly what his allies believe, and he’s opportunistic enough to not care. Hitchens is a funny figure, a perfect foil for his erstwhile nemesis Bill Clinton: one is a writer and one a politician, but they share a mercurial ability to assume whatever position they think will win them the most attention at any given time, regardless of the merits of that position or its incompatibility with their past positions or present beliefs.
They both, in short, have what I and some of my friends refer to as “fat boy syndrome”: a sort of laziness, narcissism, insecurity, and desperate need for approval and attention (sexual or otherwise) that seems to be universal among men who grew up as pudgy little bookworms. My friends and I first recognized this contellation of symptoms through self-diagnosis, of course, but once you recognize it you start seeing it all over the place. Clinton is an extreme example, and relatively benign; Hitchens is the syndrome in one of its darker manifestations.
Washington’s own pastor called him a Deist and he spoke like one.
I just moved to Savannah, GA where there are a ton of markers and monuments to Pres. Washington’s great Southern tour. While he may have been a deist, he certainly was one to pour the religious rhetoric on thick when giving speeches at churches.
Ugh, please stop talking about Hitchens. The scotch-flavored stupid, it burns…
“We don’t care if you’re not an atheist as long as you admit you’re a fucking moron and we’re smarter than you”? Jesus, come out and say it already.
If what you mean is that a secular government is the best system for all people, that’s kind of a different thing.
I can kind of see what was meant there, mythago. Even outside of government, per se, ’secular humanism’ is a pretty good default mode for relating to other people. It’s not a bad approach for any institution or business to opt for, because it respects the beliefs of most people without forcing religion on them. Even if the individual in question happens to be a believer.
A secular-humanist approach would mean, for instance, having employees who interact with the public say ‘happy holidays’ instead of ‘merry christmas’, or not opening meetings with a prayer, or avoiding religious imagery in product packaging. Things that transcend government.