(Cross-posted at Daily Kos, my blog and My Left Wing)
Is it possible for those of us in the progressive ranks to have a conversation about religion as it relates to politics without getting into some huge flame war? I hope so. Because I saw an exchange on this week’s Real Time with Bill Maher that I think everyone should read and at least consider. After considering it, perhaps it is possible to simply discuss it without decrying this point of view or that dogma. Let’s make an honest effort at civility, because if we can’t talk amongst ourselves about religion and the importance of its presence or absence in some of our lives, I fear we will be severely hamstrung by this weird brand of emotional hysteria (both for and against) surrounding progressive discourse on the subject of faith.
More after the flip.
First let me tell you that the exchange I’m going to reference involved primarily Bill Maher and Andrew Sullivan. Benn Affleck and Salman Rushdie were also on the panel and some comments of theirs may be featured. I know that opinions about Andrew Sullivan among progressives can be harsh. Let me just set the stage a bit and highlight a comment he made prior to the one that most caught my attention. The comment is on the subject of Sullivan’s support for George W. Bush:
I will tell you I trusted him. I endorsed him in 2000. I trusted him that there were stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I trusted him that he was a conservative President who would restrain spending. He’s increased spending more than anybody since FDR. I trusted him when he went into Iraq and said “we’ve got to get this right” and he would send enough troops to actually get it right, and he didn’t. I’m never going to trust this guy again. And any conservative who has principles who hasn’t just sold out to the Republican establishment would have said last November “we’re voting for Kerry. Because we can’t trust this guy” and they all went along. And I’m sorry but I have no pity for them anymore.
So there you have it – a bit of stage-setting. Andrew Sullivan continues to withdraw support from the Presidency of George W. Bush and is doing so publicly.
Now those of you who are unfamiliar with Mr. Sullivan may not know that he is a conservative gay man of faith. He took an enormous amount of shit on some of Maher’s past shows for supporting the anti-gay Bush administration. I never got comfortable with his reasons. I disagree with him on the vast majority of the positions he takes politically, though I think he’s no hack and he is definitely a smart guy.
So now to the interchange that has inspired this diary:
[ MAHER ] I have to tell you what offends me most about this nomination [Miers] is that there’s no diversity of religion in this country. George Bush does have a diverse cabinet when it comes to race. They’ve done a pretty good job – Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and so forth – but, you know, I don’t think race makes someone as diverse nowadays as how you think about religion. And there’s no secular voice – there’s no voice of me in this cabinet. Everyone who gets appointed has to be not just Christy but Super Christy – double-dog Christy – twice born Christy – and you know what? That – people of faith – and when I hear ‘people of faith’ I think, well those are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe. Where is the diversity of the people who think like myself and perhaps you [indicates Rushdie]?
[ AFFLECK ] I… I think that’s oversimplifying it and probably a little bit insulting. You know, people of faith aren’t stupid by dint of their being of faith. I mean, I just disagree. I think that’s stupid, in fact, to suggest that. I think that ultimately you have…
[ MAHER ] It’s a mental block…
[ AFFLECK ] …well, there may be on some ends of the extreme of whatever religious spectrum you want to look at. But there’s certainly a gamut and just saying ‘well, somebody who is religious whether they are Jewish of the temple or Orthodox Jew or a Christian who goes to church once a week or four times a week or believes that every word that’s in the bible is literal or like the President thinks ‘well, it’s not all literal but I believe in it’ doesn’t inherently make them stupid.
–snip–
[ SULLIVAN ] Bill, I’m a person of faith and I rather resent being called stupid.
[ MAHER ] I’m not calling you stupid. I’m saying…
[ SULLIVAN ] Yes you did.
[ MAHER ] No I’m… I’m saying it’s a mental block. Because I know…
[ SULLIVAN ] You have a mental block when it comes to people of faith.
[ MAHER ] No – I had a mental block when I was a child when they taught me this nonsense and when I got to be an adult, I got over it.
–snip–
[ MAHER ] This week – let me just expand on why I feel this way – this week it just happened that God pulled off a hat trick. On the same day… the same day there were three major holidays. The feast of St. Francis of Assissi for the Christians, Ramadan started, and Roshashana all fell on the same day. Now if all three groups feel so fervently [Rushdie chuckles] – you know where I’m going – isn’t it obvious somebody’s wrong? And if somebody’s wrong, aren’t they all wrong?
–snip–
[ SULLIVAN ] Bill, they actually have drug tests to be in the cabinet for President Bush. That’s one reason why some people aren’t represented there. [laughter and groans] People of faith are not talking about what is known. They’re talking about what is not known and what we cannot know. And genuine people of faith are not going to make these assinine statements like Franklin Graham or these nutcases you point out. They’re going to be humble in front of God. They’re going to recognize that there are some things that science cannot tell you. The meaning of the universe, the point of our lives, what morality is, what happens to us after death, how we should treat our fellow human beings… Those questions, I think in true people of faith who don’t seek to impose it on other people are just trying to find a way to live their own lives in a good way. And by demonizing all people of faith, you.. you.. what you do is you play into the hands of these fundamentalists. The United States is based upon a separation of church and state and that’s why religion is so strong in this country [my emphasis added]. The Republican party has betrayed that tradition and you’re rigvht to call them on it. But don’t – don’t conflate that with the greatness of many religions and the greatness of many people of faith.
[ MAHER ] I’m sorry, but they are – excuse me – they are your fellow travellers. They – the people who believe in miracles and – and you know – impregnating people from a God and flying up to heaven – you either…
[ SULLIVAN ] And the people who are visiting prisoners in jail and the people who are feeding the hungry and the people who are caring for abandoned children and the people who do good every day of the week are also my fellow travellers – and they’re YOUR fellow travellers.
That was literally one of the most thought-provoking and interesting exchanges I have ever seen on teleivison. Just for the record, I believe in God and consider myself a Christian (though it has been suggested to me that my worldview fits more with Hinduism). I am not indoctrinated, however. Rather, my “faith” is something I just feel and isn’t something I can readily explain. I suppose that puts me somehwere in the mid-spectrum of the breadth of religious beliefs and disbeliefs across progressives.
Maher started with a very interesting point – he is an atheist and he feels totally unrepresented in his atheism. I think that that’s a legitimate statement that holds true across the history of American politics – if there’s a well-known atheist or politically atheistic group that has ever weilded influence as to atheistic values and concerns, I can’t name them (not that that means anything).
Yet Maher, who I think is brilliant and with whom I generally agree, is quite arrogant in his atheistic rhetoric. He does routinely impugn “people of faith” as being somehow unintelligent or, at best, woefully misguided. He lumps religious extremists in with all people who believe I think that’s a HUGE mistake, especially if progressives and Democrats want to reclaim the “big tent” supremacy.
For once, on this subject, I agree with Sullivan. His statements about what is unknown ring true with me on an emotional level, and I didn’t feel that he was trying to impose his point of view on people who don’t share it. He seemed, to me, to speak for the majority of “people of faith” who are totally drowned out by extremists of their ilk. Moreover, I thought his observation about playing into the hands of fundamentalists was absolutely spot-on. Perhaps, just perhaps his statement about religion being so strong in this country is because of the separation of church and state is one where we can find some common ground. Perhaps it is a winning message, one that welcomes the diversity of religious beliefs out there in the wonderful American democratic experiment yet also reinforces the legislative necessity of protecting religion by keeping it out of government and public institutions. It doesn’t seek to impose a particular viewpoint of any variety yet reinforces the Constitutional imperative of the separation. Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Sullivan may have just hit upon what can unite us in our differences around this incendiary topic.
A disclaimer: I am not a proponent of Andrew Sullivan’s views, generally speaking. Moreover, I think it’s important to note that I don’t equate his comments on religion with a broader discussion of religious extremism and the damnable creep of religiousity back into our government.
Is this not a point on which we can have some discussion and reach some semblance of common ground? I fear an religious split in our party that will substantially weaken our ability to accomplish the one thing to which we all are so dedicated – winning elections in the future.
Comments are welcome. Please be considerate even if you don’t agree.
Just kidding.
I’m with you; I’ve watched the flame wars over religion the last week or so and just been disgusted. I’m an atheist, and understanding my belief structures has made me understand even more clearly that being opposed to religion itself is an enormous waste of time, energy and passion. The point to atheism is that I don’t think belief in a supernatural matters; so as Babs Bush would say, why would I waste my beautiful mind on it?
Sully has it exactly right; as Democrats, we love to claim Martin Luther King Jr. and Thomas Jefferson, but we pretend we don’t have a Lieberman and disown the Dixiecrats. We pretend that good, giving and loving Christians (Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) don’t exist or don’t matter, and focus all our energies on the fundamentalist jackholes like Pat Robertson who is not representative of any kind of religious majority. We allow ourselves to embrace the Republican fantasy that Al Qaeda and Osama represent all of Islam, when overwhelmingly it is a peaceful faith built around giving of oneself to the needs of others.
Religion isn’t going away, so we need to learn to coexist with it and stop picking fights that don’t need to be fought. There are bad religious people – they should be called bad people, and leave it at that. But there are many, many more good religious people who live their lives serving what they believe to be a higher power and higher purpose, and doing great good in the world as a result. Why would I ever waste my energy lumping those people together with Frankling Graham?
Great diary, Rena.
Bill Maher is funny. Most of the time. But he absolutely does impugn everyone who believes in God; calling them simpletons or whatever. I get very uncomfortable when I hear things like that because I think it does play right into the hands of those religious conservatives who need to feel that they are being threatened and persecuted in order to rally the troops. And by virtue of him being a liberal, or a progressive, or a secular or whatever you want to call him, he reinforces the opinion that libers are godless heathens who want to banish all traces of religiosity from public life.
My husband was (maybe still is) an evangelical Christian and he is the smartest person I know. He used to be quite sure the Bible was to be taken literally, and that the only people who were going to heaven were born again Christians. This caused great problems in our new marriage because I couldn’t understand how a highly educated engineer could believe that polar bears and sperm whales and penquins came down from Antarctica and spent months on a boat during a great flood. THat’s the nature of faith though. At some point you have to suspend reason. Sometimes that point is way too soon, though, IMO.
Anyway, he is not as strident in his views these days and I think he would agree with me that there are many paths to the same God, or to salvation, or eternal life, or what have you. That is a big step for him.
As for me, I was raised Catholic and I do believe there is a higher power at work in the universe. Is it the Christian God? I have no idea. But I do know that the times that I felt it’s presence most were not in a church, nor reading the bible.
I guess it is kind of like politics; people will vehemently argue about different points of view, trying to prove that they are right and the other person is wrong despite the fact that neither POV can be proven. Why can’t we just realize that we each have our own take on it for our own reasons and move on to more important things like vacuuming the living room?
I used to be an atheist until I realized I was just being arrogant. Now I call myself an agnostic because I think most people who are atheists have just as big of a ‘mental block’ as people who are of any other faith. In my experience, that ‘block’ is not a failure to understand evidence or principle, as Maher seems to think, but a failure to be able to understand how or why someone else might be able to have a different view on faith. And that having different views is OK. Well, not just OK, but wonderful.
Personally, I think we’d all be better off if we could just chill out and not feel like we’re being attacked just because someone else is echoing a different viewpoint. But I guess it is just part of human nature to get defensive when you’re forced to reinterpret / reaffirm your own assumptions.
you say:
Why can’t we just realize that we each have our own take on it for our own reasons and move on to more important things like vacuuming the living room?
followed by:
I used to be an atheist until I realized I was just being arrogant.
Doesn’t that imply atheists are arrogant?
It implies that my reasons for being an atheist were arrogant š
Okay. Now I don’t have to take you out to the woodshed. š
That’s a fate I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy!
Although a couple of names do come to mind…
Interesting. I don’t get Maher’s show, unfortunately, but as I read his comments I didn’t have the same reaction as Affelck or Sullivan.
If you step away from that and distinguish “faith” from “religion” and read that statement objectively, it can be seen as being true. “Faith” isn’t about what is ie. what is rational. It’s about hoping, wanting, believing. I can have faith in the idea that I’ll wake up in Hawaii tomorrow but that doesn’t make it so. I can also have faith that something will happen based on past experience ie. I have faith the car will start because it started yesterday, but that’s not rational either.
I don’t really see why Affleck and Sullivan became so defensive. They reacted to an attack that didn’t even occur.
If that was the point that Bill was trying to get across, he certainly could have made it with some slightly less condescending language than ‘nonsensical bullshit’, don’t you think?
But one man’s “nonsensical bullshit” is another man’s “lack of logic”, is it not?
But I still maintain that he could have chosen less provocative language if that was indeed the point he was trying to make.
Isn’t what you’re saying basically saying that racial slurs are ok too? I mean, one man’s (insert ethnic group here) is another man’s (insert racial slur here), based on the speaker’s own beliefs and prejudices.
But I don’t think that necessarily makes it ok to refer to them that way because the word choices imply a derogatory tone.
I don’t see how you can equate Maher’s language with a racial slur. They’re not even on the same wavelength. One is about a person’s logic. The other is about a person’s race.
If he would have chosen less provocative language, he wouldn’t have been Bill Maher.
I call bullshit on people’s facts all the time. No one has ever taken it as a personal slur. They take it as a challenge to prove their asserted facts.
about tone, not content.
Sure, so do I. But getting involved in discussing faith and religion is a conversation that often times moves out of the realm of simple fact, and into observation and perception of the world around us.
I read an article about an old man who is a master glass blower. He said that, often times, when he is creating one of his works he feels a higher force helping to guide his hands. I would say that, one way or another, he is merely physically and mentally predisposed to creating works of art out of glass, and his body is wired to make it so he can do it almost instinctually.
Logic and observable fact point towards my conclusion, but who am I to say that he is wrong?
I’m not saying there aren’t many unknowns in this world. How does intuition work, for example? I don’t know what Maher believes in terms of psychic phenomena or other things that appear to be faith-based. My point was just that I could see his point.
But he isn’t talking to one man. He’s talking with thousands (millions? I’m not sure) of viewers, and the point would be better made in a more clear fashion, rather than leaving it open to interpretation. Because my interpretation wasn’t like yours, and that makes me feel left out of the show.
Are you saying his definition of faith as “nonsensical bullshit” leaves it open to interpretation?
Not really.
My point, not very well articulated as usual, is that if he intended “nonsensical bullshit” to be open to interpretation, he’s a really stupid broadcaster. If he meant “not sharing my view of rational logic” or whatever started this line, I believe he would have said it.
If he meant “not sharing my view of rational logic” or whatever started this line, I believe he would have said it.
But he’s Bill Maher. That’s not the way he operates. He has a potty mouth.
he went there after Affleck and Sullivan got on their holy high horses and attacked him for questioning the worth of faith completely, instead of addressing the point Maher was making. They flat-out ignored that a secular perspective has been disappearing from political discourse for DECADES. Instead, he was confronted with the conceit that it was off base to question the primacy of faith in politics.
He lost his temper a little, I think, b/c (and I feel much the same way) once again the discussion was being DIVERTED from dicussing a very real problem into yet another circle jerk about how wonderful the faithful are.
They did do that. In the diary I hope it was clear that I think he has a very real point and one that made me stop and think – if someone was an “open” atheist or even an agnostic, could they get elected? I don’t think so. If a President (not this president) wanted to appoint someone who had been an open atheist or agnostic, would he/she be able to do it? I don’t think so. So I did see Maher’s point. And they did divert it.
However, if you’re a watcher of Maher you know that the subject is not always diverted and he does tend to be pretty hostile and often condescending to the faith based folks. That’s his whole schtick and I appreciate it because he’s brilliant (imo) and the discussions are always thought-provoking (as this one was).
well, it’s hard not to attack them, especially if you were brought up around it and you’ve done everything you can to get away from it, only to see religion take over the country.
I still can’t figure out why “the faithful” are so thin skinned. What do they care what a bunch of hellbound folks think of them? Jesus and his followers were harrassed and tormented. Early Christians were hounded for many years before they roped themselves a Roman emperor. Seriously, they say they know all the answers, they’ve found Peace and the Truth and Everlasting Life … why the hell are they always fucking whining about people “disrespecting” them?
Speaking only for myself, and I’m hardly an expert, I will say that I don’t buy into the idea that any one person’s belief system (and imo, not believing is a belief system) means that they are “hellbound”. The very nature of the unknowable is that it is… well, unknown! I can’t adhere to a particular organized religion because they seem so intent on dictating to me that this group of people are right or that group of people are wrong. The very nature of having some flavor of faith indicates a willingness to accept some portion of the unknown. Therefore, I find it utterly disingenuous for a person to say that they “know” they are right and that they “know” someone else is wrong. The only thing I “know” is that I’m not personally comfortable with the idea of rejecting “God”. Maybe that’s why I’m not thin-skinned… I don’t know (heh).
I agree with you on the point that I don’t think Christians (especially) are persecuted. The fact that school prayer was made taboo does not mean they are persecuted. I wonder often if the more zealous purveyors of that particular mantra would have their view altered if they visited a place where persecution was real. At the same time, I think the far right has done an expert job of convincing people that separating church and state is persecution. I adamantly deny that, but I see the creep of “why do you hate Christians” particularly during this Administration.
I would like to think that progressive people who would consider themselves religious are not so thin-skinned but I am frequently yanked back to reality when I see the now 600+ comments at dKos asserting the exact opposite. I am so naive on some fronts.
I think both Affleck and Sullivan were, in part, reacting more to Maher’s past statements than this one, and they muddled his point. I also think Affleck is an idiot… and a terrible actor. I caught about 15 minutes of “Gigli” yesterday. Wow. I can’t believe there are Democrats who want to run that mannequin for Senate.
Really? I don’t watch many movies, and had a passing negative impression of Ben Affleck as just another self-absorbed actor. But I’ve seen him on The Daily Show twice and was frankly shocked by how articulate, smart, and funny he was.
I don’t know his specific politics well enough to say if I’d vote for him. And I do think the “Ahnold-ization” of politics is dangerous. But I usually dismiss all Hollywood folk as dolts, so I just wanted to play devil’s advocate by saying that Ben Affleck has impressed me as being far more clueful than his People magazine persona would suggest.
and don’t forget he co wrote Good Will Hunting, not shabby by any means.
Lest my comment be misunderstood, I meant to say I agree with you U. about Ben, there’s a lot more to the guy than actor…I have been impressed by him also.
We are talking about a man who became a spokesperson for getting out the vote, who had never voted before. This political thing is a persona he’s adopted. I’ve heard him talk politics. He makes reasonable points, but he still always manages to strike me as an empty suit who has grocked a few liberal talking points. He’s a phony, and rumor has it, not a nice person. Just ask Kevin Smith, his good friend and director, whom he totally dissed. He not only didn’t he invite him to his wedding. He didn’t even tell him he was getting married.
I think there are a number of Hollywood types who are genuinely smart and politically aware: Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Janeane Garofolo… I’d vote for any of them. But Affleck is useless.
I echo ubikkibu’s thought. I thought he really made his points quite well and also that he had a command of the facts.
But he is a shitty actor.
Christianity for example is a conversion religion. Jesus is quoted in all the gospels as telling his followers to spread the faith.
Add to this the concept of the Holy Spirit, the vehicle through which some individuals can be literally speaking and acting for God.
Naturally different sects and different individual practitioners will have their own interpretation of this, but we’re stuck with the fact that it makes Christianity ripe for idealogical imperialism that can be quite aggressive, and can mobilize numbers of people who will not question their leaders in a democratic way.
If we look at times when we didn’t have much trouble from some populations, to my eye we find that those were times when liberal enlightened society worked better for those people than a broad practical implementation of their less enlightened beliefs.
So the only strategy I know for dealing with religious imperialists is to create a society that induces them to join in and cooperate or at least keep to themselves rather than to come at us as conquerors.
in the wrong thread. It belongs up above re: understanding “some people.”
I probably have a far more different concept and belief system than 98% of those who profess a “Higher Power or God.” That being said, I also know that there are a multitude of paths to whatever anyone chooses to believe in or NOT believe in. Everyone is on their path of current choice. It is not for me or any of us to decide what is “right” for another, we have enough concerns and sometimes struggles with finding what is right for ourselves.
There is no inherent right afforded any of us to decided anything other than what is right for us in this moment. I see things far differently from most. There are many who would have in their view of my ways as crazy, nonsensical bullshit, woo-woo, unsubstantiated beliefs, ridiculous mysticism, just plain evil. . .all depending on their perceptions of what is truth for them.
What we should all be able to agree upon is that Religion or lack of one should have no place in government or some litmus test as to ones fitness for government service. We should also be able to agree that I will not attempt to convince you to my process and thought of spiritual beliefs, and you will allow me the same respect. I honor whatever gets you through this life in an affirming and uplifting way. I expect the same from others.
Every single one of us have our own version of what is truth to us. . .and it does not matter what any perceives that truth to be. . .Not one of us believes exactly the same immutable truths. . .for there are none. Our variances of perception of truth is singularly because each of us sees things through our own individual perspective.
Is it worthy of argument? Never!!! Is it worth discussing? Perhaps, if we can maintain a place of honoring each others views and beliefs and know that it is not our job to attempt to change anyones choices. Most agree that this is a Free Will planet, yet they are anxious to violate the free will choices of anyone that sees things differently than they do. That will never be productive or bring forth understanding.
I think the solution to Maher’s complaint is to put a Black/Hispanic/Asian/Native American, atheist, Lesbian on the court and more of them in the halls of government. . . .and yes that was an attempt at some humor.
Good topic Rena. . .a very courageous and intrepid of you to wade in. Brava!
When I hear/read discussions of faith in America, I get the impression that most people use “faith” as a synonym for “Christianity.”
Sullivan focussed on one statement uttered by Maher and took it out of context: when I hear ‘people of faith’ I think, well those are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe. But Maher’s point, as I read it, was that the “double-dog Christys” have coopted the whole notion of faith and twisted it to one worldview and one alone: that of fundamentalist Christians. And I agree with him that by definition fundamentalists suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit. He was not demonizing people of faith. But to even suggest that fundamentalism of all creeds tends to encroach on the religious freedom of non-believers or other-believers is to invite accusations of “arrogance.”
However, going one step further, to a loud segment of society which claims absolute divine revelation for one particular mode of thought, even to question that mode of thought invites accusations of arrogance…
In the (too many) years since college theology classes, no one has ever raised a question about religion which was driven by curiosity about my beliefs. No one who has ever raised the question has ever regarded my beliefs as anything but an inconvenience to be bulldozed out of the way to make room for the spreading of their own.
And they want to call me arrogant because I will not be bulldozed, because my relationship with the Divine does not require, or submit itself for, their approval..
My position’s simple: Believe, practice, think as you will. You will not EVER find me on your doorstep or interrupting your day or your dinner to tell you that God sent me with a message for you. If the Divine wants to talk to you, or has rules for your life which you must follow, the Divine knows where to find you and how to make Itself clear… and in any case, as I have been told MOST explicitly, that’s ITS job, not mine. And I demand only that the evangelists and fundies leave me alone. I don’t much care what they think of me, but they ARE required to keep that to themselves.
But they won’t. And while I dislike the reflexive responses that the raising of the question evokes in the back of my mind, and I recognize that hostility towards evangelists and proselytes isn’t particularly constructive, it remains that for most Fundamentalists, anything short of abject surrender to their point of view constitutes an attack on their faith… they are not themselves free to practice so long as anyone, anywhere, is free NOT to do so.
Today’s Fundamentalisms, by very nature, work in the direction not just of total dominance…social, political, moral… but of absolute control of each and every individual, and by insisting that society MUST conform to THEIR standards, they DO encroach on the freedom of non- or other-believers. If I have a theoretical right to believe freely and practice as I wish, but in daily life I must live and act as though I followed the great and true Shrub, how much freedom do I REALLY possess?
Freedom without the means to exercise it, or without the practical ability to do so, is no freedom at all.
So where is the arrogance, really? Among those who argue that nobody has exclusive grasp of the One True and Only Way? Or is it to be found among the attitudes and arguments of those who presume that the Divine speaks ONLY to them, and ignores everyone else?
Since faith is such an individual, personal, unprovable thing, I would rather have us stand in solidarity with those who would “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”
I saw the responses to this post at Kos, and hope if there’s another war it occurs on that soil.
Peace.
I don’t know what there is to have a war about in the lefty blogoshphere over this.
The neocons and extremist evangelicals are on their way out. Glory be. Now, let’s get back to reality-based politics again.
Here’s good news from the front page of the Washington Post
And some from Radar Online’s “Fresh Intelligence”
That’s funny. Earle’s indictment of DeLay is a political conspiracy from the left and now Frist’s problems are a political conspiracy from the right? Those poor guys – they can’t trust their enemies or their friends. It’s lonely at the top. š
Oh I don’t know…. let me think for a moment…Jeb Bush???
Bush’s legal crony, and SEC Chairman (and former Republican congressman) Chris Cox, has observers on both sides of the aisle wondering if it’s an effort to kneecap the senator before he can announce his 2008 presidential bid.
That was my first and immediate thought when this story hit.
Oh well. Pass the popcorn. :<)
I watched the show and this is my take:
First of all it is a comedy show and there was lots of that, things seem different when they are read rather than watched. Some of it was outrageous as the shows seeming purpose, some of it was grandstanding as in Afleck and Sullivan, when they had the chance.
Afflect jumped in first I think, he likes to be heard, he may be gearing up for a run for office as has been reported and is getting out there with his message.
The best part of the show was Ann coulter interview, during which much laughter could be heard from the audience, especially when Maher asked the question, ‘aren’t you happy now you supported Bush’, and then cut, from her to a commercial, leaving her there mouth agape and no sound.
A few thoughts:
-it is simply unreasonable that it is assumed in this culture that the only way to be a moral person is to be a religious person. Now, I’m not saying that attitude is held by all people of faith, but it is common enough that yes, people tend not to vote for those who don’t go to church, particularly in some kind of Judeo-Christian tradition. This is simply unfair, untrue, and speaks to a misunderstanding about the meaning of “morality”, IMO.
-While I have known many people of various faiths for whom this is not true, I have also noted that many people I have known go to church to be told what to think. I’m not, personally, a fan of organized religion for this very reason. Now, “to each his/her own” is a personal motto of mine, but it is hard to watch so many people be told what they should believe and not come out of that thinking that religious folks are either too stupid or too lazy to try to come to their own conclusions. Note that I don’t personally think this way, and I know that the majority of people of any faith are not simply little parrots of whatever their church officials say. But I do understand where that perception comes from.
-it is hard to argue that humans aren’t the most imaginative species ever, and that we don’t need something big and convincing to make us think there’s a meaning to it all. On the other hand, saying that humans seem to need Meaning and will go to any length to invent some also doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t any Meaning anyway. We could be right for the wrong reasons. We could be wrong for the right reasons. I personally find chaos theory and the like to be more inspiring than God. But the fact that it is my source of inspiration shouldn’t make it somehow less valid regardless of my comfort, if that makes any sense.
-It is often thought by atheists that it is completely illogical to be religious. Note that I sort of agree with this statement while I nonetheless am myself quasi-“religious” (though I don’t follow any specific tradition but my own). The problem for some atheists, IMO, is that they miss the point that nowhere does the philosophy behind science, logic, or math say that everything that exists can be shown to exist. You can believe that, certainly, but it is at best a statement of… yes, faith — faith that nothing exists that is not observable. So it can also be kind of illogical to be an atheist, IMO. But that’s the thing — logic isn’t really the point.
-Occam’s razor is a good rule of thumb, a good thing to consider. But it’s not always correct to go with the simplest answer — not in the nature we live in. That’s something that should be taken to heart by some on both “sides” of the debate, IMO.
Random thoughts, no particular order.
Spit, well said! I rest my case, as mentioned in an earlier comment, that you and I seem to have a lot in common in the way we see things.
Jodie Foster (love her) was the star and was based on the Carl Sagan book of the same name. We watched it yesterday so your comment about Occam’s razor was just very timely for me.
Really intelligent film. Very poorly marketed. But it does take on questions of science, religion, their connection as a search for truth and their connection as a means to dominate and exploit.
Okay. I think I’ve behaved quite well so far. Can I flame someone now?
You can flame me — but I’m agnostic so it probably won’t be very much fun. :p
Thanks for stepping up you half-believer you. š
You can Flame ME!!! I haven’t been flamed since the very early days on dkos when I got an FU to one of my opinions. It was rather stimulating. Especially when I thanked him because it had been soooooooooo long. LOL
You can flame me. It’s really all my fault, isn’t it? I’m usually good for a really brutal fight, but flaming me right now will find me in a tired and vulnerable position (sleeping!) so flame away.
I consider myself liberal, progressive Democratic in my orientation politically. I consider it to be a characteristic of these folks to be non judgmental and free from prejudice when talking to people of different faith than they might happen to be. I get the impression when listening to Mahr, (a very funny man often) and the reaction to him, that my view is in reality not the majority view of progressives. That might make an interesting poll for another Diary. What do you think ReanRf?? Oh, and thanks for posting this.
I don’t think we can totally separate religion & faith from politics. I think whatever people believe about the meaning in their lives, whether it’s bestowed from on divine and/or created within and through each individual, is necessarily at the root of the approach and perspective they bring to their politics. Because of that, religion and faith (of wide variety) will always seek to influence politics and will be variably successful in doing so. The more freedom in a given society, the more discourse there will be in this intersection.
Accepting those things to be true, I also accept that much of that discourse will be loud and unpleasant. People will be offended. They will get angry, and they will cry. And it’s all for the best. Eventually.
A lot of things about life seem to be done best when done the messy way. I know it sounds flippant, but I’m serious when I say that I think this is just one of those messy things.
… in fact, I’m not an agnostic or a “person of faith” (whatever the fuck THAT means) … but I felt a swelling joy when Maher said that.
Let me explain why.
I, frankly, avoid the idea that there is some external answer that EVERYONE will agree on to the following questions:
The answers that work for me:
I think the entire religious framing of “truth” is anti-human and a waste of time. However, I also think the athiests insistence on making these kinds of blanket assertions is every bit as stupid as the religionists. There are things we can’t know, thanks to the limitations of our senses and our ability to actually directly share experiences with one another.
However, I do understand that there are mysteries, limits to our experiences, that leave people feeling adrift and searching for some kind of anchor. In that sense, I’m fascinated by religion, since I view it as a sort of collective art project. A group/society finds some shared imagery, language or value, and constructs something that has the appearance of something eternal.
In these times, in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society as ours, it is very dangerous to try to impose one particular religion on the group as a whole. In a diverse and huge country such as this, with so many viewpoints and experiences that make mutual understanding dauntingly hard, it is for the best to stick with things we can measure, things we can touch and taste and feel. Rationality. Mathematics. Science. I can write an equation out and someone from anyplace in the world can understand it, once we find the translation for each other.
After generations of effort, after repeated efforts by some of the religious and the superstitious to IMPOSE their POV on other groups were beaten back, they are dangerously close to succeeding, and after they are done with us unbelievers THEY WILL COME AFTER YOU.
I have great admiration for the Jimmy Carters and Johnny Cashs and MLKs and Dali Lamas who ground their works and actions into the particular frame they place around the mysteries of life. History shows that for those who need it, for those who find the right one, it can be enormously powerful. The difference is that folks like that focus on what their beliefs demand of THEM to do. Too often, the loudest of the religious instead forget what Jesus said in Matthew 6:
THOSE people follow modern day Pharisees, and THOSE are the people that Maher was plainly talking about.
You can, I think, talk to someone like MLK or Jesse Jackson: they will be driven by their faith to find common ground with others who are motivated by other beliefs. The religious people Maher was talking about don’t believe in common ground, but only divisions and punishments and rewards.
Finally, I’m constantly amazed by how thin-skinned so many believers are. You KNOW you have eternal life. You’ve got the recipe. Why isn’t that ever enough? What the hell does Sullivan care what some smart assed athiest like Maher says?
Jesus would have smiled and laughed.
This was long and late, but I needed to get it off my chest.
All hail Madman, the keeper of truth and the witty phrase!
collective art project… why isn’t eternal life enough…
I can now die happy.
thanks …
say that won’t come across the wrong way, but there isn’t any, so here:
When I read this:
have a conversation about religion as it relates to politics, I have to ask WHY?
Religion should not relate to politcs (I know, I am not being “reality-based” here). Religion should have nothing whatever to do with governing a people, a society, a country.
Of all the things I have read here, a combination of what Madman says in his long post and what shirl says come closest to how I feel about the whole thing. I have always said, whatever works for you, just don’t cram it down my throat, in my face or up my ass and all will be well.
Unfortunately, I live in country that does NOT in the least bit respect or represent my beliefs that religion should stay the hell out of my government. Religion is crammed down my throat, and in my face everywhere I turn, and it makes me sick to my stomach, and often times really, really angry.
None of this should be taken as a slam against INDIVIDUALS who practice whatever faith or non-faith that suits them. It is not. It is a railing against the inane and untenable combination of religion and politcs — the antithesis of freedom.
I’m about as windy as one of those crazy preachers!
You’ve obviously never heard those guys get really wound up. ;>
Some of them… make Castro sound succinct.
(Besides, you make sense and not infrequently the really long-winded ones don’t.)
ROFLOL
Thanks for that stormkite!
I think the cramming you refer to is why I think the conversation needs to be had amongst progressives and liberals. The cramming is what none of us want (or if not ‘none’, at least the vast majority of us). For people who are atheist and agnostic, the cramming is offensive. For people of some faith and/or spirituality, it’s embarrassing because those who practice the cramming don’t PRACTICE THE FAITH. I’m referring to the religious politicians, not the average person.
But they’ve set this playing field up for us, brinnainne, and our leadership has been asleep at the switch while it has been allowed to take hold. They have convinced a great deal of people in this country that Christians in the US are somehow oppressed (I almost want to spit when I say that). The conversation about the juxtaposition of religion and politics as it relates to our liberal and progressive values is now a necessity to staunch this fundamentalist flow. We can’t be the party that thinks everyone with a faith-based belief system is stupid and sheep-like. We’ll have a small and irrelevant party if that’s the case. At the same time, however, we can’t have a party that cow-tows to religion to the point that it ignores the purpose of the Constitution. We shouldn’t be talking about compromosing on how much we can let religion into government without it being too much – NO – we should be having the conversation between the religious and the atheists and the agnostics as to how to frame the winning argument that will ensure religion backs out of politics and government.
That was why I posted the diary and, respectfully, I think we’re foolish if we don’t try ot achieve some baseline or stasis in this argument. The other side is going to keep talking about it – if we don’t have our views spelled out, they’re going to catch us with our pants down. AGAIN.
How about separation of church and state? That has served us well until the religious right take-over. I, for one, will not play on their field. They appeal to the lowest common denominator, destroying our solidarity so they can win.
I don’t want to win based on divisiveness or personal issues. I want what’s best for my country, for all people regardless of faith. Religion and politics don’t mix well, and I refuse to enter the trap of the religious right.
John Kerry said it quite well. He believes God loves everybody. I agree. I also respect the views of those who don’t believe or haven’t decided whether there is a God. None of these arguments are amenable to proof, thus they are personal, not political.
All the best to you.
I suspect what we (the great majority of us at the pond, regardless of our personal beliefs) have a problem with isn’t the specifics of someone’s faith, so much as the attitude of religious imperialism that says “I’m right, you’re wrong, convert or things are going to get unpleasant (either my God will do it to you, or I’ll do it for God if need be), and I’m going to remake society in my God’s image.”
If it were just a personal belief, I would no more care if someone were fundamentalist than I would care what their favorite flavor ice cream is. I might find their views ill-informed, but would probably be polite enough to keep my opinions to myself unless asked, or approached to convert.
It’s only when someone else presumes to legislate based on religion in ways that infringe on my privacy, attempt to subvert my children’s science education with sectarian ideas, or prevent the development of medical cures that me or my family might need because of their religious beliefs that they cross the line. When their freedoms infringe on mine we have a conflict, and I will defend my views. I have that right.
Hopefully without “being a prick.” š
I understand the frustration with religion and politics from the irreligious and religious alike.
One thing to keep in mind is that the purpose of these talks isn’t to make us feel better about our own positions. Its to consider how to bridge the gap.
After all, there are lots of “truths” in play here. Those who feel they are in the “reality-based” (gah, I hate that condescending phrase) community might just want to consider all of them.
I see the religion and politics discussion to be similar to the Democrats and Liberals discussions.
The Liberals can prevent Democrats from winning elections simply by staying home. But they can’t deliver elections on their own. We could get them to respect our positions by emphasizing this fact, if we really tried.
But in the case of religion, one of the biggest difference is the simplest one. In order to have a viable coalition, there has to be respect. That doesn’t mean concessions, backburnering issues, or anything else.
I get the anti-religious sentiment. The fighting back. The feeling disrepected and ignored.
But hold on a second!
Are we judging progressive religious folks based on the actions of the rightwing religious folks? Do we even bother to make a distinction?
Until we can talk about religion without mocking it, there isn’t any chance we’ll make progress with it.
It doesn’t cost us anything to enter into the discussions with respect. There are forums for sharing our experiences with bad religion. For comisserating on bad experiences and bad situations.
But if we want to make progress and make our case heard, the first step is to get the other side to listen.
If we treat them like shite, we shouldn’t expect them to take our concerns seriously.
the thing is … the “respect” thing is a one-way street. Tell someone religious that you’re NOT and you can see the disrespect, or pity, on their face. You prescriptions and beliefs, at least in my experience, become immediately suspect and unfounded.
Respect is a two way street.
I usually agree with you, but here you’re basically saying the situation is hopeless.
I don’t think it is. I wonder if you’re painting Democratic and progressive religious people with the same brush as the fanatical republicans.
Sure, if you tell a religious person that you aren’t, you may see pity, or whatnot on their face. But to be honest, if someone says they’re Republican, they’ll probably get the same or worse from me.
The point is, you non-religious types, take the chip off your shoulder, already. Respect is a two-way street. But going in saying “they don’t respect me” is you removing one of the two ways.
If you tell a Christian you’re anything but christian, you’ll get that look — if they’re devout. Is it bad for them to be devout? Heck no! If they don’t have the freedom to be devout, our society has failed. Separation of Church and State does lots of great things for the non-religious. But its also there to ensure America is a land where people can be devout. Or not devout.
A devout person has their internal beliefs organized around their religion. Its what ties it all together for them, by answering the unanswerables.
Others have other beliefs to fill the gap — game theory and sustained societal needs to build a moral construct, or whatever works for them.
But anyone using a different belief system is often viewed with suspicion or worse from others. Atheists aren’t the kindest people to religious folks either.
Beliefs are more defining than politics. Of course people with different beliefs are going to need to earn each others respect before they unite.
But some of the comments I’ve read here convince me there is a long way to go before that happens, and as superior as many atheists consider themselves, they have just as far to go as any religious person would.
They just have the additional baggage of being the “oppressed minority”. They’ll have to work through it before they’ll make any real progress.
Atheists are outnumbered. And contrary to some of their beliefs, they aren’t superior. The only pratical way they’ll get more political recognition for their beliefs (or lack thereof, if they want to see it that way), is to get allies and work towards it. Right now, the only pool of allies I see athiests having to draw from is religious progressives.
So why piss them off, unnecessarily?
The thing is,
us chip carting atheists aren’t the ones running around trying to convince everyone they will die a fiery death with much knashing of teeth if we don’t convert to their particular brand of religion.
Neither are the progressive religious types.
But don’t let that deter your anger š
Seriously, this is kinda sad. Rena’s diary experiment seems to have failed even here on Booman Tribune.
Religious types aren’t the only ones touchy about their beliefs.
Until we all get over our discomfort, it isn’t going to get any better.
The chip and the anger are your description, not mine. I have zero anger toward religious people of any sort. I certainly don’t consider myself better or more enlightened than religious people, just different. Like I said, the agry, chip toting athiest is the label you ascribed to me.
Ugh. I’m sorry supersoling. That wasn’t my intent. I was pretty sure I used ‘some athiests’ like Scribe said, to not cast generalizations. Because clearly, some do.
I’m not having a very good night. I’ll just add this thread to the list.
(FWIW, nothing I’ve posted says I’m not an atheist, chipped or chipless. Its interesting the reactions one gets when they’re ambiguous — so far every time I’ve done this in the past, just by dint of showing any support for any segment of the religious, I get lumped in with them. At least tonight I can see how I’d leave that impression. Like I said, not having a good night)
Hey,
tomorrow’s another day :o)
the thing is, I’m not trying to convince them God is dead. I don’t think it’s any of their business what I think, and I don’t give a shit if they dance with snakes or wear a hairshirt. Whatever.
The thing is, I’m not allowed to participate in the conversation seriously as a faithless person. I have to put up with even liberal Christians spouting their scriptures as the reason to do this or that, a stance which precludes any common ground, since they’ve established some eternal source as the standard. The debate and conversation ends right there.
This is, of course, not all people of faith, but it’s far too many. I’m noticing a disturbing trend for the lefty believers to mimic the style of speaking of the fundies, thinking that is the only way to be heard.
We have massive dislocations in this country, growing numbers of starving children, the same children not being educated, and we’re wasting enormous amounts of energy on religion.
Seriously, look how this thread started. Bill Maher started out saying something serious and true: there is little or no secular imput in the US government right now, and that’s been true for sometime. That this fact is bad for the country and bad for religion. The two Christians sitting across for him IMMEDIATELY got in his face and attacked him for attacking faith. He wasn’t talking about that, he was talking about the oversized influence of the winger fundies, but his whole point withered on the vine because Sullivan and Affleck had to puff their chests out and declare how wonderful faith was (which was about them declaring how wonderful THEY were, since they shared this characteristic with the admirable faithful they were celebrating/defending). They acted as the people Jesus described in the verse I quoted, and they felt just wonderful about themselves.
Again, I have to ask: eternal salvation, harps and clouds … why so damned bitter? Leave the bitterness to us that think this is it.
We’re blessed with this beautiful gift and mystery of our lives. We’ll never really know why, at least not in this mortal coil, yet it’s not enough. Has to be more. Surrounded by beauty, the possibilities of love, minds with which we can think and learn and contemplate our world and look into someone else’s eyes and feel love. None of that is enough, b/c so many people aren’t happy unless their’s a book telling them what it’s all for.
I don’t get it.
I believe you mean well. Do you believe I do as well?
Bill Maher said something you don’t hear everyday, thats for sure. I know you agree with his point. Heck, I do too. But people are people, and feelings come with that. So its not just what a person meant, or what he said, but how he said it.
The fact this is your take on it, explains how you’re seeing this differently than say, me (and possibly others).
[ AFFLECK ] dI… I think that’s oversimplifying it and probably a little bit insulting. You know, people of faith aren’t stupid by dint of their being of faith. [ed: again, italicized portions mine]
That’s the best I could do in lining your version up with the original.
Lets take a closer look at c:
cEveryone who gets appointed has to be not just Christy but Super Christy – double-dog Christy – twice born Christy – and you know what?
Well, that’s a pretty big slam on Evangelicals. Some of those folks are progressive (I only said some). Bill’s point? “Everyone who gets appointed has to meet some sort of religious litmus test”. The point isn’t offensive. The point is a blatant fact, one that’s just as upsetting to some religious folks as it is to most non-religious folk.
However, unless we’re campaigning for the repeal of religion by the government (which would mean we don’t give a crap about the Constitution or Amendments after all), it doesn’t do us any good to openly mock one faith in front of the others. That’s like using one racial epithet in front of a group of another race. Or as Affleck later says, its just plain stupid.
But there was more to part c
That – people of faith – and when I hear ‘people of faith’ I think, well those are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe.
Ouch. So much for only attacking one sect. Lets just carpet bomb them all. Bound to have been some religious fundamentalists in there somewhere. Again, to an atheist, maybe all faith is just nonsensical bullshit. But are those atheists actually expecting everyone to go along with that belief? Are they really that comfortable telling others what to believe? Does hypocrisy ring a bell?
Its a free country. Say what you want. But don’t be surprised when d follows c.
What if Bill had said:
“That – atheists – and when I hear ‘atheists’ I think, well those are people who claim there isn’t a God simply because he hasn’t knocked them upside the head and introduced himself, and since they creator of the universe won’t do parlor tricks for them, they declare superiority and hide behind the skirts of science to support their bullshit ‘non-beliefs'” (hey, I’m no Maher, so sue me…)
Point is, I don’t even need to make up something offensive. We’ve all heard it first hand before, from someone who “loves us” and wants to “see us saved”. Not just offensive, but rejecting our right to believe or not believe simply because it doesn’t mesh with their own belief structure. Heck the religious sects do it to each-other all the time.
Point is, if that’d happened, it’d be offensive. And we’d probably let him know. And we wouldn’t exactly have any interest in discussing whatever his agenda was (a,b) after he treated us that way.
d was a natural consequence, and it’s what I was saying before.
I wish Maher would have discussed a and b. He could have. He’s the host! He’s the one who sidetracked his own discussion, for the sake of making some cheap points off the very folks he wanted to discuss them with.
Maher was PLAINLY talking about the Fundie evangelicals. He’s not talking about Jimmie Carter. Again, they let the right’s conflation of faith trick them into reacting as though Maher was talking about THEM and people they know. In the context of what he said, he was plainly talking about a certain type of evangelical. Jimmie Carter, and most liberal evangelicals, talk about what faith demands of them, the wingers talk about what their faith demands of YOU.
It’s a trick other religious people fall into. It’s a trick that makes it impossible to call out the religious right, b/c if we don’t respect THEIR psychosis, then we’re not respecting ALL faith.
Does Maher push it? Yes, but again I think they expanded what he said way beyond his context.
When you start out with some precondition that “respect” has to be paid to non-rational beliefs FIRST, you’ve locking out rational secularists. That was Maher’s whole point. There was a time when religious people didn’t demand that. They do now.
Jimmie Carter, and most liberal evangelicals, talk about what faith demands of them, the wingers talk about what their faith demands of YOU.
Excellent.
But I agree w/ Yaright on this–if anything, he gave them an opening when he talked about “nonsensical bullshit” because it went from taking on the fundies to seeming that he was talking about all Christian. (And to be sure, they were talking about Christians, not the faithful of any other religion.)
If nothing else, it gave them Sullivan and Affleck to fall back on the standard talking points, instead of focusing on why there are next to no nonbelievers in public life and the absolute obsession of wingers to infantilize adults and insist that you do as they say.
Otherwise, I thought his points were great.
Of course I do. Because that’s how people define themselves, by their belief systems. You don’t have to respect their belief systems, but it does no good to mock them. Its about respecting the people. Generally, its the people you’re seeking agreement with. And if your not seeking some sort of agreement with them, don’t expect them to listen to your concerns.
But as much I as love and agree with other stuff you post here, on this one we might have to agree to disagree.
Atheisism is a perfectly valid belief system. And if its yours, I’d expect you to consider it superior to others, because it clearly is for you.
But expecting others to pay a lick of respect to your belief system, when you won’t return the favor, is the definition of irrational.
Eh, I should address the part of the sentence you emphasized, too.
FIRST? Is that what it comes down to?
You really feel locked out until they respect your beliefs FIRST? How many of them? Which ones?
Is that how the civil rights movement worked? Did the oppressed minorities wait until they were given their due before they joined the conversation? I always thought they appealed to the shared humanity of their oppressors, and decried the actions involved as unjust.
You wish we could go back to the good ol’ days before the pushy fundies demanded religious loyalty purity tests. So do I. But lets not kid ourselves. Those days are lost. Maybe they’re easily reclaimed, but they aren’t here now. If we want them back, so can’t go asking some rational impartial body to redo the entire government. There isn’t one that can do it for us. Supreme Court isn’t going to do it.
So like it or not, if a more secular government is what we want, that’s the government we’re going to have to ask for (or fight for). That’s the rational approach to the situation.
The leverage of atheists alone is nil. That’s the rational assessment. To gain more leverage, we’ll need more support. Reaching out to allies is the rational course of action.
Now, you tell me how its okay to use loaded phrases like Maher’s nonsense-poppycock-whatever to describe some folks (the fundies who oppress us all) and more specifically aimed at attacking their beliefs (a higher power, named God, who tells them to remake the govt in their own image) — and somehow that’s not supposed to offend the “good” religious folks like Jimmy Carter (who also believes in a higher power, named God, who asks them to humbly live their lives…).
Both the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ religions share the characteristics you’re being condescending toward. A belief in an unprovable power.
Personally, I find the whole “rational belief system” argument silly. Yes, its a moral belief system founded on humanist philosophies or general truths. But it sure looks like some are trying to assume some of the weight of science by assuming the loaded term “rational”. At least, that’s how it comes across when some of its adherents use the term. As if things that can’t be proven by science today are automatically barred from existing. But that’s not what science says — that’s a preposterous position. Science is continuously expanding what is understood. Pick any point you like along the timeline of science. Did anything coming after that point actually not exist prior to that point? There is nothing in science that precludes religion — some of the particular beliefs or histories, perhaps, but not the core. There is nothing in science that supports religion either — some of the historical events or beliefs perhaps, but not the core.
Generally, when someone is acting irrationally, there is something considered wrong with them. Irrational thought is easily dismissed, out of hand. That’s kind of a heavy-handed way to deal with other beliefs.
You don’t want to believe your belief system (atheism) is an arbitrary choice. Born agains don’t want to believe theirs is either. ‘Good’ Christians like Jimmy Carter don’t either.
The founders knew all that belief systems were of primary importance to individuals, and in their wisdom solved the problem by restricting government from picking a winner. They set up a system where all beliefs could get along in the civic business of govt. Insert “separation of Church and State” here. They didn’t spell out how this was to be maintained, but they thought the principle important enough to be enshrined in the Constitution.
If you really expect that in order to respect your belief system (atheism), others have to disown their own (religion/spirituatlity), you’re being irrational. If a precondition of accepting atheism is accepting the belief that belief in all higher powers is inferior, don’t expect folks to jump up in support of atheism.
So if you want them to respect your system, you have to leave them room to retain their own.
Mocking or attacking any other belief system simply for existing won’t get it done.
I wasn’t clear (typing quickly before running out to work). I meant to say that believers demand some kind of “respect” for the idea of faith. Prayer before court, sessions of Congress, etc. Just today, the Supreme Court refused the appeal of a Wiccan priestess being denied the opportunity to say a prayer before local government meetings:
The Supreme Court let that stand!
Anyway, here we see yet another example where a narrow range of faith, the Abrahamic line, are given gov’t support, and no others need apply.
I’ve enjoyed the debate, and thanks. Oh, and I’m not an atheist. I’m a secular humanist. I reject the entire IDEA that these are questions we need to worry about.
This was fun, thanks. And thanks to Rena. I may flesh out more of my thoughts on this in a future diary. I’d like to emphasize that people can believe what they want, but their beliefs shouldn’t be elevated above common secular grounds, as the workaday secular world is the ONLY thing we all share.
You missed prosletizing and attempting to convert “the poor heathens.”
Just the title “Let’s Talk God” is prosletizing.
How about if I wrote a diary entitled:
Let’s talk Lao Tze!
Wouldn’t that be prosletizing The Tao?
Let’s not.
Just to reiterate, if anyone’s still checking this thread. My goal in this diary was simple. To open a dialogue, preferably without flaming, on religion and non-religion and everything in between. I believe without question that wold progressives, liberals and Democrats contains each end of the extreme and every small point in-between. Perhaps foolishly, I also believe that the vast, wide majority of progressives who do consider themselves “religious” are not of the proverbial “fundie” variety which we all seem to agree are damaging to the phrase “religious”, generally speaking. When there have been invocations of anger at extreme right/religious points-of-view, they have been fairly uniformly aimed outside of the realm of progressives.
I have learned much by reading the comments here, at Booman Tribune, and at Daily Kos. Specifically:
That list is not exhaustive. I continue to contemplate and, hope, will continue to learn. While flame wars have occurred, I want to state for the record that I think by far more people in the progressive blogosphere approach this topic from the perspective of learning. In other words, I have learned something generally about many different schools of thought and have learned something in particular about other bloggers. For that I am eternally grateful.
Please don’t lose sight of the fact that I think it is imperative that we achieve some level of common ground on this issue politically lest we tear the party apart, ironically, over the very target the Republicans have set for us. If we can all agree that, generally (and I am NOT speaking of either extreme here), a) religion is ok and religious people aren’t evil; b) agnosticism is ok and agnostic people aren’t evil; and c) atheism is ok and atheist people aren’t evil then we have a baseline from which ot launch substantive discussion. We need to be able to talk about this without animosity if we have any hope at all of convincing Democrats (for God’s sake) not to allow religion to encroach into our government.
My thanks to you all, flamers and discussers alike. I’ve taken a great deal of heat for incenting another blog-riot. My theory is this: we become inured to what becomes commonplace. We (sadly) aren’t as phased by all the death in Iraq because we see it so often. I’ll defend anyone who opens the dialogue to the extent that it’s aimed at winning elections in the final analysis.