I seem to be one of the few utterly non-theistic, non-religious people I know who has absolutely no fear or loathing of Christianity. Unlike many, I also have absolutely none of the fear of the "mixing of politics and faith" that seems to scare the bejeezus out of some intellectuals. Indeed, as I think I've said many times before, I believe such sentiments bespeak a not-so-subtly-hidden anti-Christian bias in much of America today--a bias that some Christians have internalized, and that's come about mostly due to lack of reasonable education about religion in most of our schools and universities here in the U.S.
Indeed, I think it not only defensible, but actually self-evident that religion has had a very positive influence throughout human history, one that greatly outweighs its negatives. I think the positive influence of both Judaism and Christianity on the West are even more obvious. I think it's cheap and shallow to concentrate on the negatives of faith, and not give equally serious contemplation to the positives. Especially when those positives are so profound and lasting--and the record of atheism, agnosticism, etc. so mixed and murky.
This doesn't come from a theistic viewpoint either. My actual views on religion, its origins, its driving forces, etc. would strike most people as deeply cynical if not outright offensive, even though I mean to be neither.
So it was with all this in mind that I read Reverend Brill's recent commentary on Democrats and religion. I think his advice to Democrats is mostly spot-on. I also think the current crop of Democrats are, sadly, unlikely to take his advice.
That said, I think I'd also point out to Rev. Brill that the fear of imposition of religion appears to me to be an obsession with only a minority of people in the U.S. It's easy to get caught up in that fear when everyone you know seems to share it, but I think a lot of people are as unafraid of such a bogeyman as I am. Americans, in my view, always get the big issues right sooner or later. We've never been a theocracy, and are farther from one today than we ever have been--indeed, some of us think we've gone so far in the opposite direction it's getting downright psychotic.
I'll also point out that, as Rev. Brill rightly notes, both of our last two Democratic Presidents were very open and forthright about expressing their faith quite jubilantly and proudly in public. What I'll also point out is that Bill Clinton, in 1992, openly advocated an amendment to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. He, of course, won, and never recanted that view. Yet strangely, the raging fear of imposition of a theocracy was never a serious factor in his Presidency.
Some would view this with cynicism, but I'd merely note that it probably has to do with the fact that fear of an impending theocracy is an obsession of a small minority.
Dean,
To judge good from bad, doesn't one need some sort of standard to compare to? If that is the case, as a non-theist, how do you judge that Judaism and Christianity have had a "positive" influence on the world?
I think so many a-theists are terrified of and prejudiced against religion for the simple reason that they hate that voice in the back of their mind that whispers "you might be wrong, the theists might be right". Just as Communists, in their terrible uncertainty, banned all "recidivist" speech and even had massive re-education (indoctrination) campaigns. If Communism was so obviously scientific and superior, those would not have been necessary. By the same token, if religion was really so old-fashioned and foolish and obviously wrong, there wouldn't need to be such stridency to oppose it.
Dean:
"Theocracy"? "Theocracy"??! Oh gee, if I'm seeing the word "theocracy," then I must be in the blogosphere again. <eyes glaze over> ;)
Seriously though, interesting thoughts. Though I'm still waiting for your promised response to the non-fundamentalist, non-literalist Christians who commented on your recent piece on why you renounced Christianity. Now you'll have to excuse me, I have a funeral this morning, gotta run.
Just as any discussion of what the Framers meant by the Second Amendment must start with the awareness that this nation was started by an "armed rabble", so too, any discussion of the establishment clause must start with an historic awareness of the role of the Church of England.
Most of my knowledge of this role comes from a little more recently, the Napoleonic era. I understand that there had been some minor relaxations by this time.
Marriages performed by Methodist and Unitarian ministers had no legal standing. Jewish and Catholic weddings (also Presbyterian, but only if performed in Scotland) but the adherants were second class citizens in other regards. For one thing, they could not hold political office. The swearing process for Parliament included an oath that one held the adoration of Mary and the Saints, as practiced by the Church of Rome, to be idolatry.
Right now, in the 21st Century, in the country the Framers were correcting for, a letter from your vicar (but not, if I read my source correctly, your pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam) is one of the prerequisates for a "firearm" (meaning a halfway decent air rifle) permit.
This is what the Framers saw as an established religion, and what they wanted to avoid. If they learned that it would be used to block firefighters from decorating their place of employment they would have been disgusted; if they learned that it was being used to defend a government school monopoly they would have been appalled.
I think so many a-theists are terrified of and prejudiced against religion for the simple reason that they hate that voice in the back of their mind that whispers "you might be wrong, the theists might be right".
Can you say 'projection'? Personally speaking, I find that evangelists are more likely to 'hate and fear' non-believers than the other way around, ironically, for similar reasons that communists hated religion: non-believers are heretics. Going to hell and whatnot. Don't tell me there aren't large sections of the religious community who don't feel that way, who don't subscribe to the various 'end-of-days' theories and who view non-believers with suspicion and distrust, because I've had personal experience of it.
I think it's cheap and shallow to concentrate on the negatives of faith, and not give equally serious contemplation to the positives.
Hear, hear. Democrats are losing the public relations war wrt religion, no doubt about it. There are many staunch believers who vote Democrat but we're losing them by allowing ourselves to be demagogued by Republicans on abortion, homosexuality, and various and sundry culture issues. Its vital that we start talking about the positive sides of belief, just like Clinton did, and that we find some way to frame the wedge-issues so as not to alienate devout Christians etc...
Actually, I know a lot of Democratic activists who bring their deep religious beliefs with them into politics - there's a very strong complementary message that can be summed up as 'give aid and comfort to the needy' which gels very much with the Democratic platform, and they do feel that the Democratic leadership should be doing more for them. They also deeply resent what they consider the hi-jacking of religion by demagoguse such as Pat Robinson and Jerry Fallwell.
Interesting post though. Here's a good discussion of the issue from the left of the blogosphere.
The force in the West which ended the greatest barbarisms of the Roman Empire, which enshrined mercy and humility as great virtures, which in the last few centuries ended slavery, ended child labor laws, formed the backbone of the civil rights movement--the force which today runs more hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, and orphanages than any other force--would be, of course, Christianity.
By the way, you can also thank Christians for Western-style democracy and little things like the 1st Amendment.
It's time that non-Christians stop being so paranoid of Christians.
And by the way, Max? I personally find that self-righteous atheists and rigid secularists are far more likely to hate and fear evangelical Christians than the other way around. If anyone's projecting here, I think it's you. Just because you may have run across a couple, or seen some Christian Moonbats online doesn't give you license to stereotype a religion of between 1.5 and 2 billion people.
I think Clinton was just using that as a cheap ploy knowing that the chances of such an amendment was close to zero.
Being even handed I will offer that both Reagan and Bush did or are doing the same. Reagan with abortion and Bush with Gay marriage.
"The force in the West which ended the greatest barbarisms... would be, of course, Christianity."
No. You're talking about Christians. Its irrelevant to me what belief system people motivates people to do good things. Whether someone helps out at a homeless shelter out of deep religious conviction or because of their secular humanism, it doesn't matter to me. Each act is equally laudable and I believe the psychology behind each act is the same - just a different set of building blocks. That, by the way is the main thing that puts me off about religion - this idea that belief in Christian teachings makes you more moral than people who don't believe. Note, I'm talking exclusively about people who actually think like this and not 2 billion Christians. Just to clear that up.
By the way, you can also thank Christians for Western-style democracy and little things like the 1st Amendment.
Or you could thank the enlightenment thinkers who thought that critical thinking and empiricism would lift up the human race. Makes no difference to me.
It's time that non-Christians stop being so paranoid of Christians.
Um... agree with the sentiment, but not quite sure how it applies to anything I've said.
And by the way, Max? I personally find that self-righteous atheists and rigid secularists are far more likely to hate and fear evangelical Christians than the other way around.
Well if they're self-righteous and rigid then thats a bit of a self-selecting criteria. Its like saying I find bigoted and racist people to be more likely to hate and fear black people.
If anyone's projecting here, I think it's you. Just because you may have run across a couple, or seen some Christian Moonbats online doesn't give you license to stereotype a religion of between 1.5 and 2 billion people.
Look, I responde to somebody who was comparing athiests to communists. My criteria was 'evangelic', so I suppose it depends on what your definition of evangelic is. So maybe that was another self-selecting criteria. But I do find that the more emphasis the person puts on dogma as opposed to action the more likely they are to be suspicious and fearful of non-believers.
And somehow I just stereotyped 2 billion people. Go me.
Yeah, except that the Enlightenment was made up primarily of Christian thinkers, not deists and atheists and whatnot.
Furthermore, it's a bit of mental sleight-of-hand to lump in all the good works specifically done by the Christian movement as things that "good people" do whether they're Christian or not. Nuh-uh. Let's get it straight: most everything I described stems straight from Christian thinking, Christian advocacy, and was led primarily by Christians more than any other identifiable group. And that's simply an historical fact.
Yes, certainly, some non-Christians took part. So what? That's not the point. People don't get to sit around sneering and bashing Christians and Christianity and then pretend that the good parts--which I think pretty clearly are much bigger and more influential--do not exist.
Most "secular humanist" values are, at root, Judeo-Christian values stripped of their theistic roots. Does that make them invalid? No. But it's the height of arrogance not to acknowledge those roots. Because the world is replete with secular movements that are far more nasty and sinister.
As for stereotyping: Okay, you're right. Most Christians don't qualify as "Evangelicals." So you're just guilty of stereotyping hundreds of millions of people and not billions. Having known many evangelical Christians, almost none evince the paranoia and intolerance you speak of.
Furthermore, it's a bit of mental sleight-of-hand to lump in all the good works specifically done by the Christian movement as things that "good people" do whether they're Christian or not.
I didn't do that. I said the belief system that motivates people to do things is irrelevant to me. It basicly come back to the idea that I don't think that belief in a virtuous religion is in itself a virtue. Actions speak louder and all that.
Most "secular humanist" values are, at root, Judeo-Christian values stripped of their theistic roots. Does that make them invalid? No. But it's the height of arrogance not to acknowledge those roots.
I'm sorry, but that's pathetic. Look, Christianity was one of the earliest religions - of course it reflects the culture and people who were its genesis. And of course these people exhibited fundamental human values like altruism and 'love your neighbour' and whatnot. Christianity doesn't have a copyright on altruism. Some of my beliefs and values overlap with Christianity. So what? I'm my own man and my beliefs and values are my own - I don't 'owe' any organised religion anything.
So you're just guilty of stereotyping hundreds of millions of people and not billions.
Why don't we go back to what I actually said: "Personally speaking, I find that evangelists are more likely to 'hate and fear' non-believers than the other way around". It was a response to a rather hateful and fearful comparison of athiests with communtists. You see that bit about 'personally speaking' and 'more likely'? Well read it again, just in case you still think I was talking about hundreds of millions of people. It is my personal experience. I actually don't many athiests who hate and fear religious people - but I do know evangelics who hate and fear athiests. Scrap the 'hate and fear' bit actually - 'distrust and are suspicious of' is closer. Its my personal experience. Its not yours obviously. And of course there are elements of Christianity I have 'fear and loathing' of. Some elements of Christianity utterly deserve fear and loathing.
Well, Dean, I've enjoyed the conversation - although you could be a little less confrontational - but I have to go.
p.s. Great blog!
This argument has come up before, but since Theists represent the vast majority of society, I don't know how you can fairly compare them with atheists. If it was the other way around and atheists were the vast majority, are you saying all that good stuff you mentioned wouldn't be attributed to them? If so, could you please explain this reasoning? What, other than sheer odds, makes Theists better at positively changing the world?
I would like to register my objection to the use of the article "an" in front of the word "historical" by commenters (including Dean) in this thread. I think "a historical" sounds much less stilted.
Don't mean to throw the thread off track. . .
As an atheist, I personally am not threatened by Christians or Christianity as long as they stay away trying to legislate morality to the rest of the population. Our nation depends and functions on the rational (secular) not the spiritual (sacred) aspect of governing. Christianity may have been the base this nation's laws and governing principles evolved from - aren't they just a pragmatic way to ensure social control and stability?
Western civiliation used to believe that the earth was the center of the solar system, and that the earth was generally flat, but we have come to learn differently. Theists tend to believe not out of true faith but because they were taught to believe in the same way children believe in Santa Claus. Santa is a nice concept, he makes us happy (jolly), but that doesn't make him exist. Well, maybe it does. If enough people believe in the existence of God and conduct their lives accordingly, whether God exists or not is irrelevant because to believers s/he exists. Ah, there's the rub. Most theists DON'T conduct their lives according to biblical teachings, they may try (not very hard) but it's just an exercise in futility. As Mark Twain once said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't true." My sentiments exactly.
Going back to Dean’s post and link, I think my advice to anyone running for political office would be: if you are a person of faith, be willing to talk about it because it is part of who you are and how you approach your life and the decisions you make. If you are not a person of faith, be willing to talk about it for the same reason. (I use the term “faith” to cover all religions or spiritual inclinations, including those that are not considered “theistic”.) To my mind, there is nothing worse than a politician who tries to be a Christian, but not “too” Christian. (Christianity is only an example here – insert any theology at will.) It’s pandering. I’d rather hear a candidate say he or she is not really sure. I’d rather hear them honestly say they don’t go to church because they’re not a believer. That should not disqualify them.
I am what most people term an evangelical Christian. Yet, Christianity is not a prerequisite to get my vote and less of a factor than many might assume. I certainly wouldn’t vote for someone simply because he/she is a Christian. Voting is a secular act for a secular position. I think of some of the wonderful people I know who are Christians, try to imagine them as President, and cannot help but laugh. They’d be completely incompetent. As would many non-religious people I know.
On a side note, I don’t disagree with Max M. on a lot of his comments (especially his statement that belief in a virtuous religion is not in itself a virtue – a Reformed pastor couldn’t have said it better) – although my personal experiences have been quite different. I do find some of my atheist, agnostic, whatever friends to be disdainful and downright hostile regarding my faith (a la Tim the Soldier). Note the word “some.” It means I’m well aware it’s not all, and that I cannot make a generalized statement based on my own experience.
Tim the Soldier:
With respect, most legislation involves "legislating morality." There are laws that exist because we have to have rules just to make society work at all, and there are laws that exist because people are convinced that some actions (oh, say, rape, theft, murder, torture) are wrong and should be stopped.
[A]ren't they just a pragmatic way to ensure social control and stability?
No they aren't. You can have a very stable slave society, for example; ours is a stable society without slaves, and the reason it's without slaves is very largely that some Christians urged that slavery was incompatible with the preciousness of every soul in the sight of God. Chesterton put it best, though long after our Abolition, when he said that a chair with wings was about as workable a thing as an immortal chattel.
As to your point about theists being theists because they've been taught to believe in God as in Santa Claus: Well, I was early taught to believe in Santa Claus by my agnostic parents; I came to believe in God in my early twenties, not because anyone proselytized me but because I stumbled on Chesterton. Yep, it is possible to be converted by a dead man ;-)
Michelle,
I guess we disagree. I've always believed that proper laws were enacted to protect citizens as opposed to enforce morality. C'mon, let's get back to the reasonable person standard. Of course things like murder, rape, embezzling and the like are illegal and immoral, but it didn't take Christianity to reveal that social fact. Morality existed before, during, and after Christianity is a significant social force.
While yours in an exception to the rule just as is mine. I was raised in the Church and almost became a United Methodist minister until I realized that there is no God. I didn't rejoice in the discovery, in fact, I fought against it every step of the way. It took nearly two years to accept what I had discovered. I wanted to believe - I still want to believe, but deep down inside, I know that it's not true.
Laws that protect my rights to life, liberty, and property are moral, ethical, just, good laws. Laws that violate my rights in order to enforce somebody else's Taliban-like morality are immoral, unethical, unjust, bad laws.
I acknowledge my debt to the great men and women of the West who called themselves Christians. I also acknowledge my debt to the men and women who lived before Christianity, to the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians, to the Greeks and Romans, to my Celtic and Norse ancestors. In short, to the past as such. Those who have no past have no future.
BOO!!! Here I come! Goona Get Ya! I'm a Believer in the Lord.
Na, Dean is right in what he posted here today. A couple of months ago he posted an article about a little town in California that had a beautiful old rugged cross that had been there since the 1700's I believe. A local politician was going to tear it down and the people that had their roots, their heritage in that little town in California were beside themselves.
Their grandparents that were still alive had told them many a story about how that cross had come to be bulit there and why. The parents had already shared it with their children and were now sharing the story today.
It is absolutely true that America's foundation was established by christian roots. Did you know Christopher Columbus had his men erect a cross on this land when he arrived? Well, he had them erect a cross in Cuba, and every other land they set port on.
The Declaration of Indepence -"appealing to the the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions" and "with a firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence".
Young Jefferson did most of the composing, borrowing heavily from the phraseology of popular sermons of the day-except for the two phrases above. Those two phrases were insisted upon by the congress.
Jefferson was a confirmed "enlightened rationalist," soon to become privately a Unitarian. Jefferson was so resentful that he sent his original draft to his personal friends.
Before the Constitution came into being with its Bill of Rights, and before the union was assured, there was a lot of discord going on (a lot of shaking going on). The believers in God did get our Constitution established
It was under George Washington's careful shepherding, and in his diary he wrote his deepest and utmost prayers to God. They are quite moving.
AHH BA HUM BUG! Janelle is nuts! Hey, if you have ever seen me here in Deans World, then you know I can be a real goof ball or down right serious.
I appreciate how you do post things for those of us that do have an abiding faith Dean. I do so love the Ten Commandments and DAG NAB IT!! I AINT Perfect. Ask my kids, Oh brother, they are all grown up, they will say this! WEll, I am not going to raise my kids to do this or that, or eat this or that, the way you made me!
Well, this ole granny loves BILL COSBY,Oh and I do believe in humor and of course watching the reruns of those kids growing up! OH THE THRILLS OF BEING A GRANDMA, that is a Melancholy baby and Sanquine nut, a bonified sane/insane.
Tim, you are funny giving us a rub! It's so hard when you are a christian because you all trhrow a bible at me and say, "LA,LA,LA,LA,LA,LA" Well! She's no CHRISTIAN! Well Timothy, why do you think I keep on trying? Do you know about the stupid little lamb that keeps finding a little place to dig his front feet into because he is so curious? He sneaks under that fence to go out there where the grass is greener or something. He finds out it isn't so. Then he runs back, hits his head on the fence, and, THE GOOD SHEPHERD lets him in!
That's all.
Priests, Pastors, Ministers, Rabis Muslims, and anybody of faith have these difficulties. None of us are perfect.
Politicians are all faiths and dog gone it I, like Dean, feel they need to get it together. There is nothing wrong with a politician when mentions his faith.
In the end when as a country we are striving for a greater good, America does get it right.
Very Good Post Dean!
Steven:
Laws that protect my rights to life, liberty, and property are moral, ethical, just, good laws. Laws that violate my rights in order to enforce somebody else's Taliban-like morality are immoral, unethical, unjust, bad laws.
Of course, one man's "rights to life, liberty, and property" are another's "Taliban-like morality". Which is why it's good to debate such things, and not assume that morality enforced by Christians or Muslims is "Taliban-like" and morality enforced by atheists "protect[s] my rights".
If religious folk have an advantage in moral thinking, it is likely because religious folk have a breadth of experience in moral thinking that is orders of magnitude beyond that of secular folk. Not only that, but my observation seems to confirm that the gap grows every week.
Nevertheless, I readily grant that secular morality has served a valuable purpose in countering the excesses of piety. It is, perhaps, that very purpose that now makes secular morality so suspicious of religious morality. As an explanation, this view of the world satisfies me, but not as an excuse or, heaven forfend, as a justification.
Michelle,
Actually, all laws are an enforcement of morality. They are what we agree shall be our public morals - from serious things to not killing, to smaller matters like not jaywalking. Our secularist friends always want to script the debate as being between freedom and "imposed morality" because it sounds good, but its a specious argument from start to finish...what they want is their morality imposed rather than our morality.
Most believers these days just want a compromise - we'll grant the secularist's point about, say, free-flowing sexuality, but how's about they acknowledge our right, as citizens, to erect a Nativity display at City Hall? Our secularist friends are, generally, having none of this - the problem stems, of course, from their inability to genuinely acknowledge something greater than themselves...thus they feel impelled to enforce their worldview upon everyone.
Tim the Soldier:
Of course things like murder, rape, embezzling and the like are illegal and immoral, but it didn't take Christianity to reveal that social fact. Morality existed before, during, and after Christianity as a significant social force.
Fine; but then don't try to tell me in the same breath that murder, rape, theft, &c. are obviously "immoral" and that "legislating morality" is wrong.
I repeat that law basically divides up into procedural conveniences (like, say, which side of the road people should drive on) and morality (meaning how people ought to conduct themselves).
You haven't answered the point about slavery, and really we needn't stop there either. Things like torture and clitoridectomy and foot-binding and sati and any number of other degradations have flourished quite happily in stable societies. (I list a bunch concerning women only because they're readiest in my mind; IMO men have suffered quite as much.)
So is it "legislating morality" to do away with such things, or not?
Mark,
Nah, I don't buy it. Murder is wrong whether a law exists forbidding it or not. Jaywalking is wrong only because there exists a law against it. They don't belong in the same category. (Mind you, I say this as someone who hesitates to jaywalk on a totally deserted street at 2 a.m. — I think some lesson from my parents must have sunk in rather too deeply.)
You ought not sneer at "our secularist friends." What you describe as "compromise" seems to me not to touch the real issues on either side. Christians as Christians ought not to be occupied in prohibiting "free-flowing sexuality" or whatever by law.
Dean, you're not the only one. Heck, I'd say that the rhetoric of the militant atheists and the radical Muslims makes me appreciate Christianity all the more; I certainly know which I'd rather have as neighbors.
I'll take Mark Noonan's compromise gladly. Respect my right to "free-flowing sexuality" with a consenting adult in my own home and I'll cheerfully uphold your freedom of religious expression everywhere else, including prayers, "Under God", "In God We Trust", and Ten Commandments monuments. See, Dean?, I'm not so hard to please.