Do I think both kinds of comment will appear in this thread? Um, yup, I do.

Kevin,
I would be happy to discuss this if you could tell me who "some liberals" are. Can you give me 10 examples of prominant Democrats, liberals, progressives, lefties, or even communist-leaning agnostics who are disrespectful to the religious. Thanks.

Cranky

>> Do you think both sides will show up in this thread as well?

Yes, just wait for those long posts to get typed!

Before the snarks jump in, allow me to say "Thank you." Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify what Obama said. The political Internet is altogether too much a place where people jump to conclusions before checking out the assumptions on which they are based.

So he's a uniter, then? Great.

Good point Kevin. Obama was simply trying to point out how much liberal Democrats hate people of faith by supporting gay marriage and murder of the unborn. Moderates, indepedents, and people of faith are unwilling to support liberals so long as they are against traditional American values. Unfortunately, Kos has already sent his army of secular atheistic leftists the marching orders to attack Obama and anyone else who stands side by side with people of faith in their defense of traditional American values. Once again the Kingpin Kos is the undoing of liberals and democrats.

Can you give me 10 examples of prominant Democrats, liberals, progressives, lefties, or even communist-leaning agnostics who are disrespectful to the religious.

The problem, inasmuch as I've seen it myself, isn't mostly with prominent liberals as with a substantial minority of "grassroots" liberals. Its a mistake to think that only "prominent" liberals shape the opinion people have of the movement.

As a "some liberal," what I object to is not religious discussion, but proseletyzing. And even that would be okay with me, if it weren't done with the purpose of establishing that all other religions but the one espoused are inferior and further, that their religion is one in the same with American patriotism, and that, therefore government should participate in their proseletyzing.

But the plain fact is that he was careful in his speech and also plainly correct: "some" liberals are uncomfortable with any mention of religion in the public square, and he thinks this is too bad.

Rather than saying he was "careful" with his speech I'd say he was careless -- he was deliberately vague with his references to "some" liberals because he doesn't have any real-life examples to use. That's not caution, it's recklesness, it's making a vague and unsubstantiated charge he can't back up.

Personally, I think this is a legacy of the New Left. Throw over anything traditional. The previous generation had people like Reinhold Niebuhr. Michael Lerner is trying to do something like that now, but he's kind of an insurgent which is different...

Of course it was all there before that. Bertram Russell's attitudes, etc. And I think the Net tends to attract Bertram Russell types...

What Cranky said at the top of the thread. I'm a born-again Christian, but I don't see who these "some liberals" are, other than a handful of secularists making snarky remarks on message board and blog threads.

This is one big difference between left and right: when some accusation is levied about the right, there are usually plenty of exemplars in Congress, in the media, and (in this Administration) in prominent positions in the Executive Branch to back up the accusation. But when some accusation is levied against the left, the right regularly has to reach all the way down to the Ward Churchills of the world, or the commenters and diarists at DailyKos, to find examples.

Cranky: You missed the whole point. Prominent Democrats are respectful to a fault, as I said in my very first paragraph. But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Maybe there's nothing to be done about this. I don't know. But denying that such people even exist just isn't a reality-based attitude.

"More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms."

The undeniable inference is that Obama thinks you can't speak in moral terms without discussing religion. This is inaccurate. The possible inference is that Oblama thinks there can't be morality absent religion. This is offensive.

Can you give me 10 examples of prominant Democrats, liberals, progressives, lefties, or even communist-leaning agnostics who are disrespectful to the religious.

Well, I can think of Baptist Sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Baptists Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Edwards, Methodist Hillary Clinton, Catholics and former altar boys John Kerry and Ted Kennedy....

Oh, wait. Those are all liberals who quite prominently identify themselves as religious. Well, I'm sure I can think of something.....

The thing is, not talking religiously has little to do with secularism.

Keeping your religious beliefs to yourself is a long-standing tradition. It's even conservative.

The effusive, intrusive, often-bogus religiosity is new.

It's not like the religiosity is very meaningful. Most often, it's used as a cheap way to impart an aura of morality to the speaker, which probably isn't deserved

At worst, it just cheapens the religion.

From that perspective, even non-secularists can and should support a reduction in public religiosity.

I agree with Cranky. Point out specific examples of prominent liberals or progressives who are openly hostile to religion in public life and we'll address it. Otherwise, it's a straw man.

snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

Hostile and SecularAnimist are the most prominent ones here -- you really need 8 more examples, Cranky?

The ACLU is a free actor, after all, and so is Jerry Falwell. The actions of the former reflect on liberals even if not all liberals agree with every court case they bring, and the actions of the latter reflect on conservatives even if not all conservatives agree with him.

Um, except that the second part isn't even close to true. When Falwell goes overboard - and when does he not? - where is this publicized? Where are the critical editorials? Where is the clucking TV news story? I guess intolerance is only worth discussing when it's secular.

The problems are these:
1. "Some liberals.." is exactly the rhetorical tool George Bush uses.
2. Liberals "leaving religion at the door" is exactly a Republican talking point.

The MF is lecturing his own party, using Republican rhetoric and talking points. We are supposed to be happy with this?

We know exactly what he's doing. He's pandering to the Red Staters. Fuggim and the Chicago train he rode in on. That goes for Obama, and Lieberman, and Harold Ford Junior, and Hillary...the whole bunch of them.

We need a black president some day. We need a woman president some day. We need a Jewish president some day. But we need NONE of the ABOVE.

We don't need Amy Sullivan's lectures, either.

One can be an atheist, but still hope that there's a hell for 'Al' (or rather, the 'Al' brigade) to burn in.

Also, one can be religious but still get ticked off when Pastor Amy Sullivan embarks upon one of her usuals.

Point is this: Democrats talking about talking about religion is ever so much bullshit. When Republicans talk about religion, it's all about hating teh ghey and sticking up ten commandments that they don't even know. Give me Democrats who talk about helping the poor and the weak and the downtrodden, regardless of whether it comes with the Jesus imprimatur.

As Cranky notes, there are NO prominent liberals who say religion doesn't belong in the public square. But according to Obama, there are "some". But "some" is a just a bullshit straw man.

After all, there are "some" conservatives that believe that it's proper to hold protests at soldiers funerals.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that it's OK to assassinate doctors who perform abortion.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that children should be taught as fact in public schools that Noah took two of all the species of animals that every lived (even dinosaurs!) onto the Ark about 4,000 years ago.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that blacks are inferior to God's chosen race, the white man.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that UFO's are manifestations of Satan and a sign of the end times.

There are "some" conservatives that believe that the UN plans to take all of our guns any day now.

Look, there are "some" numskulls on each side of the political spectrum. It doesn't mean that come even close to representing the majority. Obama is tilting at Republican talking point windmills by pretending that the incredibly few liberals that think religion should be banned from the public arena deserve recognition.

Do you think both sides will show up in this thread as well?

Thanks to Al (or fakeAl) for showing us the important third side of the debate: the morons.

Kevin,

Isn't George Bush also technically correct when he says that "'some people' would say that the Iraqis are not capable of establishing a democracy"? I'm sure someone somewhere believes that to be the case, but Bush's language is still disingenuous and self-serving in the extreme.

As for your preemptive strike against snarks, among whose numbers I proudly count myself: a clever ploy on your part, but one which will undoubtedly prove futile.

Now for the snarky part: this secular humanist doesn't demand that the devout stick their superstitions and delusions anywhere in particular, just as long as they don't wave them in my face, force them on our schoolchildren, or use them to delegitimize the courts and the constitution.

And by the way, your citations from Obama's speech conveniently left out the part where he directly mentioned the Pledge issue as an example of overreaching by us liberal atheist fanatics.

Cranky,

If you read Obama's speech, you'll see that he does provide one example of a prominent Democrat whose public positions were (in Obama's view) disrespectful toward religious believers: Obama himself. Its an interesting anecdote, you should read it.

I also want to thank Kevin for writing this post, which I think is a much needed corrective to the distorted view of Obama's speech that came through the Washington Post and other media outlets.

The other thing I want to point out is that the vast bulk of this speech is a religious critique of religious conservatives. As such, I think it is much more significant than the blog discussions I've participated in have acknowledged. Obama starts off his speech with an anecdote about Alan Keyes saying that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barrack Obama", and Obama's frustration with the advice of his consultants that he should not respond. This is exactly the kind of timid advice from consultants that drives most of us crazy, and its good to see Obama realizes that following such advice is a losers game. Attacks against Democratic cadidates just like Keyes' attack on Obama are going to keep coming, and so I think Obama is doing the party a real service in sketching out what an effective response might look like.

But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Yes, but who are they and exactly what effect do they have upon voters who aren't already inclined to view the Republican party as the party of religious values? Does the odd crank who files a lawsuit against the use of "under God" in the Pledge "represent" the progressive grass roots any more than, say, Coulter represents the views of conservative grass roots?

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of this argument. I'm going to pay more attention to what someone does than what they say, anyway.

To the contrary, Kevin, I think "Christian conservatives" and "liberal secularists" have been equally to blame for giving Zeus and Hera short shrift. All too often I find myself thinking that the world would be so much more civilized if we brought them out of their shadowy existence in Classics classrooms, and into the bright light of the public square. Just thinking about it makes you pine for the good old days, doesn't it?

Prominent Democrats are respectful to a fault, as I said in my very first paragraph. But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Oh, ok. So any secular type who misbehaves reflects badly on the whole of the progressive population, while prominent religious nutcases like Falwell and Dobson and the rest can say any damn thing they like, and it doesn't even reflect badly on them, let alone the population at large.

I give up.

But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

If you're buying into the GOP frame and redefining 'respect' to mean 'obsequious capitulation', then that's just tough.

This comment will follow the first thread and I will use and evidence your reference to the ACLU. You see the ACLU will take any side where a constitutional right is being violated. That includes groups that sue a school district that forbids students from using school facilities for a religious group when those same facilites are used by other groups and they will sue to allow the Nazi's to march in Skokie. Neither of these would qualify as "liberal" causes. Yet somehow the ACLU is branded as a liberal organization and you followed suit.

I interpret most of what Obama said to be personal. Or at least, what I think he means about not leaving your religious beliefs at the door is that look, if you're religious, you have a value system informed partially by that religion. Asking you to completely cut off that system of values in politics is silly.

One example as Kevin did document is Bob Casey, as best as Kevin could tell when he looked, Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views. Personally I don't think it is a good example, but that is a popular one.

Why do I feel it's important to help the poor, to make sure people aren't run roughshod by corporations, or lied to by politicians, because of my faith. As I've said before, the only problem I personally have with "liberal secularists" is when they equate my belief in God with idiocy.

Now I think in the current environment we are in especially, mentioning God in public speeches etc. is a very dicey proposition and should be done with caution if at all.

By your actions they should know you, not your words.

This whole thread is just Kevin's way of getting fireworks into his blog.

secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.

Um, isn't that the very definition of what secularism is? Secularism doesn't mean pretending that your religion doesn't exist - it means not trying to insert the specific elements of your religion into the lives of others, especially those who don't ascribe to it. I am always astounded by the boneheadedness of people (like Barack Obama and Kevin Drum - see, I can name names) who equate secularism with atheism - really, they are *not* the same thing.

Back on topic:

. . . the liberal message inherent in the Bible . . .

Once the early Church was established on said "liberal" message, didn't that then become the new conservatism?

One example as Kevin did document is Bob Casey, as best as Kevin could tell when he looked, Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views.

That's not really a good example; even granting, arguendo, that that was why he was stopped from speaking (ISTR that there were other issues) he wasn't stopped from speaking because the source of his views was religious, but because he disagreed with the party's platform on a major substantive policy issue.

> Cranky: You missed the whole point.

Well, no, Kevin, with all due respect I don't think I missed the whole point. First, you dismissed the Lakaovian "frames" analysis without engaging it. But from my perspective as a not-overtly-religious person who takes a non-confrontational approach to those who do profess religion, the ENTIRE objection to Obama's speech is that he used and reinforced an extremely effective Radical frame. And of course he was quoted on that and that alone in the national media. So at best Obama was careless.

Second, the fundamental problem for not-overtly-religious people who take a non-confrontational approach to those who do profess religion is that NOTHING we do can satisfy the extremely religious. If we nod and say "thanks for that viewpoint" we are being disrespectful godless athiests. If we engage them in discussion we are "talking down" to them. If we join another church (especially a non-Christian church) we are heathen. If we do nothing at all we are being "silently disrespectful". No action we take /or not take/ will convince them that we are not being "disrespectful". cf Amy Sullivan for a prime example.

Well, so what? Just this: the Radical frame is built on the attitude of the extremely religious and then trickled down to the great majority of quietly religious (well, not so "trickled" when Fox News and Limbaugh get involved - "war on Christmas" anyone?). So when Obama reinforced that frame he did 1000x times more damage than can ever be repaired by appealing to those on the margin who might be convinced not to hate Democrats.

Cranky

Libby and ahem:

I kinda like Amy Sullivan.

Once the early Church was established on said "liberal" message, didn't that then become the new conservatism?

Not really; once the Church became the state religion of the Roman Empire, and, to protect its association with secular power, frequently tempered that liberal message, at least part of the Church became a part of the new conservatism, of course, and that's been a source of ongoing tension within Christianity for a millenium and a half, give or take.

I am so fuggin fed up with these Showcase Democrats (Obama). What they SHOULD be doing with their platforms : Defending us, explaining to the Red States why religion should be left at the door, and pointing out how truly faithless the Repugs really are.

Instead, the Showcase Democrats use their platforms to publicly confess our alleged sins for us, providing grist for the wrongosphere's mill.

And Drum and Sullivan can always be counted on to chime in and defend these pandering confessors.

No wonder America thinks we are weak-kneed, latte-drinking, surrendering Frenchies.

It's interesting to read Al's comment above, as it points out a problem with Obama's positions and with his speech, as well. Al argues that Democrats "hate" people of faith by supporting, among other things the right of gay Americans to marry. Note that there is no acknowledgement that you can be a person of faith and believe in equal access for all Americans to basic rights. Note, also the equation of American "values" with the need to treat gay people as lesser under the law. Note, also, that there is no appreciation that some faiths bless marriages of same-sex members. Mine, for instance. Reform Judaism allows same-sex couples to be married by its rabbis and my husband and I were so married more than six years ago by our rabbi. The question then becomes why does the vision our faith have for us as a married couple get overridden in the law by the views of Southern Baptists, Catholics, Mormons and others who choose to disrespect our faith's views? In tv interviews I have seen, Obama has indicated he opposes the legal right for gay couples to marry because he is a "Christian." That's fine for him as an individual but it is crap as a reason for a position on the civil law. So much for the Establishment clause and so much for the free exercise clause for those who are not part of the Christian majority. So much for the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, as the supposedly "Christian" view gets translated into the inability to access truly thousands of protections other couples take for granted, from family medical leave to COBRA to social security survivor benefits.

Kevin, maybe the reason that liberal members say that you're falling into a conservative trap is that......well....we believe that to be true.

The famous Fox News "Some Have Said" seems to accept the line parroted by the right that liberals are anti-religion. I know you're not intentionally doing so, but this Straw-Man-Deluxe is then picked up the traditional media as "Ya know, the Dems gotta get religion" and we look foolish, no matter what happens.

Of course, if you dig long-and-deep enough, you will find a left-of-center person who disdains organized religion. Or two. Or three, etc. These people are *also* almost certainly.....

* Not elected officials.....
* Nor holding an Democratic Party post
* Nor the head of a major institution
* Nor an editor or publisher.......

....but instead an obscure commentator somewhere.

Now, this wouldn't be so bad....if the members of the Republican Party were, conversely, held personally responsible for Falwell/Robertson, not to mention Phelps/Dobson, et al.

But they are not. And that's because they don't accept the notion that their party bears any responsibility to assuage the feelings of the other side of the political spectrum. "Hey, I may not agree with what theyre sayiong, but by golly, they're got a right....." seems to work for them.

Now, I can understand Barack Obama's desire not to appear to demonize the entire anti-abortion movement; there are different levels of support for that belief and different motives. Fair enough; we all want to conduct ourselves in a civilized way (even if our opponents do not always).

Yet he has no right to take someone like myself to task; the "Some Have Said" claim should not be held like the Sword of Damocles over our heads.

One more thing - Obama's petitioner wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

...."at this point".....something tells me that - while Obama may have gained some points for now by his words - they will be insufficient in the future; the right always ups-the-ante and are never satisfied.

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views.

Myth. It was because he wouldn't endorse Clinton's candidacy.

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

There's the whole internet out there. Go read something else if you're so sick of it.

One more thing - Obama's petitioner wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."

My take on that was "Sure. You guys have to use nice language and reasoned argument. Our side - not at all."

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

Heh. Indeedy.

I am so fucking sick of this conversation. How many times?

That's the point. Why have this conversation over and over again, just for the benefit of Pat Robertson? Because that's who it's for. If your beliefs point you towards progressive values, then good. If your beliefs point you towards paying for stone tablets and gay-hating, then there's another party waiting to welcome you.

And if your beliefs point you towards progressive values, but you choose to vote for the party of the Pharisees, then I'm very sorry, but you are fucked in the head and the best place for you is a mental hospital.

ahem:

No "real" Christian would endorse Bill Clinton.

cmdicely:

I'm talking the "earlier" Church than Constantine -- think "The Book of Acts" -- that is still my brand of conservatism.

Cranky:

Did you miss this from Kevin's first paragraph: "Actual Democratic politicians — governors, senators, members of congress — never disparage religion, after all. In fact, they're never anything but respectful toward it."?

Actually, Bob Casey wasn't allowed to speak becasue he didn't back the party's nominee for President, but nevermind, make up what ever you want.

There's the whole internet out there. Go read something else if you're so sick of it.

Let me be clearer. I am so fucking sick of the Democratic party having this endless conversation with itself on this non-issue after letting Republicans set the rules of dialogue on it.

MNPundit:
One example as Kevin did document is Bob Casey, as best as Kevin could tell when he looked, Bob Casey was largely prevented from speaking at the convention because of his anti-choice views. Personally I don't think it is a good example, but that is a popular one.

It is bad enough when right-wingers repeat this canard, so please get your facts straight. Casey was prevented from speaking at the 1992 convention because he didn't endorse Clinton.

Dems opposed to abortion spoke at the convention, and did you notice the current minority leader opposes abortion?

Can you possibly imagine either happening in the Republican party?

The undeniable inference is that Obama thinks you can't speak in moral terms without discussing religion. This is inaccurate. The possible inference is that Oblama thinks there can't be morality absent religion. This is offensive.

If you actually read Obama's speech, you'd likely realize this is pretty far off. He brings this up specifically.

Personally, I've recommended a Democrat group work with religious institutions on issues with large overlap (e.g. poverty) and pretty much got ridiculed out of the place. Do I think Obabma's pushing a straw man argument? How can the left blogosphere ever be wrong?

Despite the hostility I have personally experienced from the left, I think the left, in general, is far more tolerant than the right.

Now, this is going to get confusing -- I will change my name to "Doug M." for the sake of some clarity.

I don't object to Obama identifying himself as a "person of faith." I do object to him using his faith as a basis for his political actions. Every vote he casts as an elected public official must serve a valid secular purpose. His religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Some group has been buying ads on Air America Radio featuring Julia Sweeney, the former Saturday Night Live comic, identifying herself as an atheist and author of "Letting Go of God" and calling for action to prevent the move toward theocracy.

Now I agree with her that we should protect secular democracy, but her spiel grates on my ears, and most of the 85% to 90% of Americans who go to church and/or have religious beliefs who hear that ad probably think: Atheist, mocks God, liberal, Democrat.

So mark her down as a prominent liberal who wants to take discussion of religion out of the public square.

So "some liberals" turns out to be the ACLU.

Great, not only does Obama confess our sins for us, Kevin Drum offers up the "sinners" for a sacrifice.

Shit. With Democrat friends like these, who needs Republicans?

Sorry Doug M. - I was so excited about the Casey not allowed to speak at the convention canard, I didn't check my sig line.

For way too long progressives have abandoned the moral high ground to "fundamentalists" who claim we are Godless barbarians believing in nothing worth while. We have even let the fundamentalists define the phrase "secular humanist" as a pejorative. When they sneer “secular humanist” they imply baby eating immoral monsters. Progressives buy right into the frame. No one wants to be thought of as a baby eating immoral monster. The religious humanists recoil thinking the word "secular" is the operative pejorative. The secularists recoil thinking all religious people are attacking them. The language itself creates a wedge. It is that wedge you will see on desplay as religious humanists and non-religious secularists banter back and forth.

At the same time the fundamentalists use the term to lump all progressives together, and to diminish the importance of human dignity and the rights of men. Their own followers don't realize that they are being fed some sort of hate filled judgmental old testament mumbo jumbo that has little to do with the message of Christ.

The fundamenalists laugh and laugh at how easily we are all distracted.

That's right, Friend of Labor -- the GOP would never stand for a Vice-Presidential candidate who still loves his lesbian daughter, or God forbid, a DARKIE as Secretary of State. Keep 'em coming, why don't ya?

I still think it's a New Left legacy. We lose the ability to dialog with people who might be our allies because of our distaste for religion.

There's a good Bloggingheads TV that mentioned this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/?id=98&cid=367

No problem, Doug -- there can never be enough "Dougs" in the world.

Boy these comments do pile up fast. The following was inspired by Cranky Observer, writing in Comment No. 2.

===========

Dear Cranky,

I can’t speak for Kevin. But, speaking for myself, I don’t know any successful Democratic politicians or party leaders who are openly disrespectful of religion, and I’m not surprised. In a country where 76.5% of the population identifies itself as Christian and only 13.2% identifies itself as Nonreligious/secular, people who candidly diss religion in public aren’t very likely to get elected to any government or leadership position. (Figures as of 2001, source http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions)

That said, I’ve been close enough to the action (a term as International Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad and, thus, a participant in meetings of both the DNC and the ASDC) to be fairly confident of what I’m about to say.

As a party we believe in separation of Church and State. As individuals (both religious and non-religious) we find it comfortable to treat religion as a topic that shouldn’t be raised in polite conversation unless the people involved are already good friends and comfortable with where each other stand. In more colorful words, we are in the habit of treating religion the way in which the mythical maiden aunt treats sex, a subject for blushes, giggles and whispers if anything is said at all, which, on the whole, we prefer doesn’t happen.

In addition, we have in our ranks a fair proportion of vocal atheists, folks who have bought so firmly into the Enlightenment proposition that religion is superstition or the stronger Marxist version that religion is the opiate with which the powers that be keep the people drugged. Their kneejerk snarkiness (the kind that Kevin predicts will fill this thread) is a barrier to civil conversation about how we, as a party, should talk with religious people about values that we share, so that they will vote for us instead of the other side. That’s a real problem for us since the other side then gets to wrap itself in God as well as Flag and Family--which may look stupid and vulgar to some of us but has been a real edge for them when it comes to fundraising and getting people to the poles.

Me, I take, for example, a look at something like Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics, and I know that I don’t buy into his theology. But somebody that concerned about topics like peace and poverty and protecting the environment, I can work with him. And I don’t feel bashful about borrowing his Biblical rhetoric when I’m talking to people who share his believes. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” lots of good stuff there. I remember a French king who said, “Paris is worth a mass.“ I also remember a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King, and I say to myself, “Damn,‘We can do better together’ is feeble. ‘We shall overcome’ is great.”

It's got very little to do with Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson is not the only religious person in the country.

Ron:

Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament, not abolish it.

Julia Sweeney is a prominent liberal?

Boy these comments do pile up fast. The following was inspired by Cranky Observer, writing in Comment No. 2.

===========

Dear Cranky,

I can’t speak for Kevin. But, speaking for myself, I don’t know any successful Democratic politicians or party leaders who are openly disrespectful of religion, and I’m not surprised. In a country where 76.5% of the population identifies itself as Christian and only 13.2% identifies itself as Nonreligious/secular, people who candidly diss religion in public aren’t very likely to get elected to any government or leadership position. (Figures as of 2001, source http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions)

That said, I’ve been close enough to the action (a term as International Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad and, thus, a participant in meetings of both the DNC and the ASDC) to be fairly confident of what I’m about to say.

As a party we believe in separation of Church and State. As individuals (both religious and non-religious) we find it comfortable to treat religion as a topic that shouldn’t be raised in polite conversation unless the people involved are already good friends and comfortable with where each other stand. In more colorful words, we are in the habit of treating religion the way in which the mythical maiden aunt treats sex, a subject for blushes, giggles and whispers if anything is said at all, which, on the whole, we prefer doesn’t happen.

In addition, we have in our ranks a fair proportion of vocal atheists, folks who have bought so firmly into the Enlightenment proposition that religion is superstition or the stronger Marxist version that religion is the opiate with which the powers that be keep the people drugged. Their kneejerk snarkiness (the kind that Kevin predicts will fill this thread) is a barrier to civil conversation about how we, as a party, should talk with religious people about values that we share, so that they will vote for us instead of the other side. That’s a real problem for us since the other side then gets to wrap itself in God as well as Flag and Family--which may look stupid and vulgar to some of us but has been a real edge for them when it comes to fundraising and getting people to the poles.

Me, I take, for example, a look at something like Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics, and I know that I don’t buy into his theology. But somebody that concerned about topics like peace and poverty and protecting the environment, I can work with him. And I don’t feel bashful about borrowing his Biblical rhetoric when I’m talking to people who share his believes. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” lots of good stuff there. I remember a French king who said, “Paris is worth a mass.“ I also remember a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King, and I say to myself, “Damn,‘We can do better together’ is feeble. ‘We shall overcome’ is great.”

Their own followers don't realize that they are being fed some sort of hate filled judgmental old testament mumbo jumbo that has little to do with the message of Christ.

Here we go again. Have you actually read "the message of Christ?" He said quite a few things no self-respecting liberal would endorse.

First of all, the major "blogofascist" reaction to Obama was to the NEWS COVERAGE of the speech. You can say we over-reacted, but at least give us the credit of accurately identifying what we were reacting to.

Second (and hopefully for the last time), Obama is a senator. Senators write laws. Whatever other jawboning they do is all well and good. But his job is to write laws. So I ask him--and other similarly-inclined Democrats: what LAWS do you plan to write to help fix the crisis of liberal intolerance towards Christianity?

That's what I thought.

What's funny is that if it weren't for a a single vote on the Supreme Court in 2000, or a few ballot boxes in Ohio in 2004, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Talk about a "winner take all" politics ...

Julia Sweeney is a prominent liberal?

Boy these comments do pile up fast. The following was inspired by Cranky Observer, writing in Comment No. 2.

===========

Dear Cranky,

I can’t speak for Kevin. But, speaking for myself, I don’t know any successful Democratic politicians or party leaders who are openly disrespectful of religion, and I’m not surprised. In a country where 76.5% of the population identifies itself as Christian and only 13.2% identifies itself as Nonreligious/secular, people who candidly diss religion in public aren’t very likely to get elected to any government or leadership position. (Figures as of 2001, source http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions)

That said, I’ve been close enough to the action (a term as International Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad and, thus, a participant in meetings of both the DNC and the ASDC) to be fairly confident of what I’m about to say.

As a party we believe in separation of Church and State. As individuals (both religious and non-religious) we find it comfortable to treat religion as a topic that shouldn’t be raised in polite conversation unless the people involved are already good friends and comfortable with where each other stand. In more colorful words, we are in the habit of treating religion the way in which the mythical maiden aunt treats sex, a subject for blushes, giggles and whispers if anything is said at all, which, on the whole, we prefer doesn’t happen.

In addition, we have in our ranks a fair proportion of vocal atheists, folks who have bought so firmly into the Enlightenment proposition that religion is superstition or the stronger Marxist version that religion is the opiate with which the powers that be keep the people drugged. Their kneejerk snarkiness (the kind that Kevin predicts will fill this thread) is a barrier to civil conversation about how we, as a party, should talk with religious people about values that we share, so that they will vote for us instead of the other side. That’s a real problem for us since the other side then gets to wrap itself in God as well as Flag and Family--which may look stupid and vulgar to some of us but has been a real edge for them when it comes to fundraising and getting people to the poles.

Me, I take, for example, a look at something like Jim Wallis’ book God’s Politics, and I know that I don’t buy into his theology. But somebody that concerned about topics like peace and poverty and protecting the environment, I can work with him. And I don’t feel bashful about borrowing his Biblical rhetoric when I’m talking to people who share his believes. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” lots of good stuff there. I remember a French king who said, “Paris is worth a mass.“ I also remember a Baptist preacher named Martin Luther King, and I say to myself, “Damn,‘We can do better together’ is feeble. ‘We shall overcome’ is great.”

Um, isn't that the very definition of what secularism is?

No.

Secularism doesn't mean pretending that your religion doesn't exist - it means not trying to insert the specific elements of your religion into the lives of others, especially those who don't ascribe to it.

I don't think that's accurate, either, unless one narrowly defines "specific elements"*, but even if it were, that's quite different from checking your religion at the door when entering the public square.

*I would say "secularism" requires that:

1) People should not be prohibited by the state from professing, teaching, or studying any moral or religious doctrine;
2) People should not be mandate to engage in any religious display, observance, or ritual by the state;
3) People should not be prohibited from any religious display, observance, or ritual by the staet on account of the religious content;
4) People should not be mandated or prohibited to engage in any activity by the state because of that activities effect on the spread of a particular religious or moral doctrine; and
5) People should not be mandated or prohibited to engage in any activity by the state because of private religious morality, that is, because engaging in that activity would (in the perception of some authority) injure their "soul", their "relationship with God", etc.

"Secularism" does not, to my eye, restrict the role of public morality—ideas, religious or otherwise, about right or wrong of actions affecting other people—except as is necessarily included in 1-4, above.

I think it's okay for a religious politician to say "we should vote for some bill because it's the right thing to do."

It's not okay to say "we should vote for some bill because my God says so."

I'm part of the "religious left" and every time I mention that fact on a progressive web site, there is a wave of disdain for my primitive, superstitious point of view. Obviously no prominent Democrat/liberal would ever disparage any religion, but among the progressive grassroots, religion is a whipping boy. I should say Christianity - nobody would attack Jews, Buddhists, or Native American shamans the way they attack Christians.

From the thread above we read:

"Does the odd crank who files a lawsuit against the use of "under God" in the Pledge "represent" the progressive grass roots any more than, say, Coulter represents the views of conservative grass roots?"

So now "some say" that Michael Newdow (and by extension the majority of the Ninth Circuit Court) are morally equivalent to Ann Coulter?

I find it sad that many folks on my side of the political fence still find it expedient to denigrate Newdow as a "crank" and an anti-religious zealot. In fact, his case was all about tolerance in the schools (yes, even of atheists!) and the constitutional principle that prescribes no establishment of religion by the government.

The fact that he is right on both counts doesn't seem to cut him much slack with the left, and it cuts him exactly zero slack with the Democratic Party and its elected representatives.

Sad, really.

I think Obama would have been more accurate had he said too many liberals are indifferent to religion/matters of faith.

This makes it easy for the devout to see (or caricature) liberals as hostile to religion.

Compounding our difficulties, we are uncomfortable talking about politics in transcendental terms. The technocratic/competence model of a Dukakis, say, is silent about the larger purposes of the American experiment.

Which is too bad. To be able to talk about liberalism in noble, uplifing terms, that may or may not be borrowed by religion, makes it that much harder to widen our appeal.

Well, I disagree with shortstop and craigie that we should somehow avoid this issue. We're going to be framed as religion-hostile secularists whether we debate ourselves about it or not.

Two observations which balance each other:

First of all, snarky secularism is real. Lords know it pops up like clockwork whenever the subject comes up. I've made my share of these comments to be sure -- and I'm an agnostic who finds the smug scientism of "many" atheists to be quite irritating.

I do think we could drop the displacement and at least honestly acknowledge this.

NOW -- that being said, there's another side to this which John H pointed out: Keeping religion to oneself used to be a conservative value.

The *religiosity* is fairly new -- and it is often applied as an attack on secularism. So it's hard to blame us too thoroughly for snarking back. We'd honestly be happy to leave people alone with their beliefs -- but the religiose stress the salutory *social* effects of being religious -- and too often screw with Separation in the process.

How do we avoid defending the vast middle ground who are religious without being preachy?

Realize, first of all, that we'll never, ever win over the religiose.

Bob

Doug M-

"SOME" conservatives aren't too fond of DARKIE Colin Powell...

http://www.resist.com/positions/Politics.html

CKT

I know several non-religious people who are obsessed with taking religion out of the public sphere. I understand their intellectual position, but I don't think its politically practical. As for the ACLU, in my experience it depends on the local chapter. In southern California, the affiliate, as it is called, is strongly secularist and jumps on the chance to fight minor skirmishes against public observation of religion. The fight over the Los Angeles County seal was one example. Meanwhile, this same group stayed silent when a Pasadena school teacher was censored and publicly humiliated for discussing race in an email message to his fellow teachers. That's not being neutrally supportive of free speech, it's being politically correct in the worst sense of the term. One local chapter was turned into a leftist anti-Bush group and continues. The fact that the Bush administration has been anti-libertarian in terms of privacy has resonated with that approach, to the extent that the locals might as well be a chapter of the revolutionary socialist party. We really do need an American civil liberties union, it's just that the ACLU isn't it, much of the time.

I think that Obama is more or less on the right track here: The goal isn't to push either extreme (atheism as public policy vs. a theocratic republic), but to work on the liberal impulse that at least some religious people have; It's not going to be possible to recruit southern Baptists in droves to the Democratic side, but it may be possible to mute some of the intensity of their devotion to the Republican Party. In other words, those of them who have some economic kinship with Democrats need some excuse to reject the political totalitarianism of the religious right.

As usual, a number of important distinctions have been effaced.

First, the Constitution precludes religion from the institutions of the *state*. QED.

It does that, however, precisely to ensure that no one's religion is excluded from *politics* (i.e., the public square), which I take it was the point of the good Senator from Illinois' speech.

However, religious people (at least the unhinged ones) often play fast and loose here. On the one hand, they want to be able to take their religion with them into the public square, to which they have a constitutional right. BUT if religious people are going to bring their religion with them into the public square, they cannot object when those ideas are subject to scrutiny, whether intellectual, rational, or moral scrutiny. They do not get a pass simnply because they have labeled a given idea "religious."

You want to bring your religious ideas into public debate? Fine. But if you're gonna claim that schoolchildren should not be vaccinated because of your religious belief, or that abstinence-only programs work, or that a woman does not have the right to choose, etc., etc., prepare to have your ideas countered. Whether that causes a crisis of faith for you is not a concern to me.

BTW, we could use a few more "Bertrand" Russells these days.

Big mistake: avoid defending = avoid OFFending

I know several non-religious people who are obsessed with taking religion out of the public sphere. I understand their intellectual position, but I don't think its politically practical. As for the ACLU, in my experience it depends on the local chapter. In southern California, the affiliate, as it is called, is strongly secularist and jumps on the chance to fight minor skirmishes against public observation of religion. The fight over the Los Angeles County seal was one example. Meanwhile, this same group stayed silent when a Pasadena school teacher was censored and publicly humiliated for discussing race in an email message to his fellow teachers. That's not being neutrally supportive of free speech, it's being politically correct in the worst sense of the term. One local chapter was turned into a leftist anti-Bush group and continues. The fact that the Bush administration has been anti-libertarian in terms of privacy has resonated with that approach, to the extent that the locals might as well be a chapter of the revolutionary socialist party. We really do need an American civil liberties union, it's just that the ACLU isn't it, much of the time.

I think that Obama is more or less on the right track here: The goal isn't to push either extreme (atheism as public policy vs. a theocratic republic), but to work on the liberal impulse that at least some religious people have; It's not going to be possible to recruit southern Baptists in droves to the Democratic side, but it may be possible to mute some of the intensity of their devotion to the Republican Party. In other words, those of them who have some economic kinship with Democrats need some excuse to reject the political totalitarianism of the religious right.

Democrats don't need to kow-tow to the far-right it's the Christians closer to the middle that still have their sanity and could possibly turn left. If Senator Obama and other Democrats continue to back up their words with their deeds--the complete opposide of what the far right does--then perhaps next November the Democrats efforts will be rewarded.

My instincts say Obama is a decent human being and that's what this country needs more of in politics--more flawed but decent human beings.

I do object to him using his faith as a basis for his political actions. Every vote he casts as an elected public official must serve a valid secular purpose. His religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Everyone has a set of moral values. To think that people can extricate themselves completely from any value judgement is pretty childish. You may not follow a moral code based on religion, but any time you talk about "the common good", you are making a value, normative judgement.

I'm talking the "earlier" Church than Constantine -- think "The Book of Acts" -- that is still my brand of conservatism.

While it has some relation to communal Christian societies that would be politically associated with both the "left" and the "right" today, the Church of Acts has very little clear political content of either "liberal" or "conservative" character.

I never though Bush was a particular religious man, unlike other's who say Bush has this problem, like Albright. Bush only uses religion as a poltical tool, a wedge issue for redneck following.

Bush is know to like telling dirty jokes according to board members of companies that have to have Bush on among them simply for favortism features. Bush has had a unsavory past, doing some pretty ugly things, like that part where Bush's tells about an African American woman on death row begging, according to Bush, "please don't kill me", which of course never happen even though Bush likes to pretend it did.

Why Obana is talking about this religious issue is frankly, the very least that Dems need to be worried about right now. All this focus on centrist BS issues is what is causing concern. This type of play to-the-rightwing centrist spinelessness is what's causings Dems to look just exactly like the same unpopular party in power, the GOP. Running on this issues are not what voters are looking for right now.

Everyone has a set of moral values. To think that people can extricate themselves completely from any value judgement is pretty childish.

More importantly, to think that any policy decision can be made without reference to morality, or to think that one can neatly compartmentalize religious from non-religious morality in the same person, is idiotic.

that's quite different from checking your religion at the door when entering the public square.

Is it? So what, exactly, does "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" mean? The phrase seems expressly designed to be vague and obscure rather than to express a clear position on meaning of the principle of separation of church and state. If politicians should not have to "check their religion at the door when entering the public square," does that mean they may legitimately use their religious beliefs as a basis for their actions as a public official? Or what?

I know several non-religious people who are obsessed with taking religion out of the public sphere. I understand their intellectual position, but I don't think its politically practical. As for the ACLU, in my experience it depends on the local chapter. In southern California, the affiliate, as it is called, is strongly secularist and jumps on the chance to fight minor skirmishes against public observation of religion. The fight over the Los Angeles County seal was one example. Meanwhile, this same group stayed silent when a Pasadena school teacher was censored and publicly humiliated for discussing race in an email message to his fellow teachers. That's not being neutrally supportive of free speech, it's being politically correct in the worst sense of the term. One local chapter was turned into a leftist anti-Bush group and continues. The fact that the Bush administration has been anti-libertarian in terms of privacy has resonated with that approach, to the extent that the locals might as well be a chapter of the revolutionary socialist party. We really do need an American civil liberties union, it's just that the ACLU isn't it, much of the time.

I think that Obama is more or less on the right track here: The goal isn't to push either extreme (atheism as public policy vs. a theocratic republic), but to work on the liberal impulse that at least some religious people have; It's not going to be possible to recruit southern Baptists in droves to the Democratic side, but it may be possible to mute some of the intensity of their devotion to the Republican Party. In other words, those of them who have some economic kinship with Democrats need some excuse to reject the political totalitarianism of the religious right.

BTW, we could use a few more "Bertrand" Russells these days.

Touche. It's been a while since college... He at least deserves to get his name spelled right.
And as I remember he certainly gets his points across quite capably.

"Good point Kevin. Obama was simply trying to point out how much liberal Democrats hate people of faith by supporting gay marriage and murder of the unborn. Moderates, indepedents, and people of faith are unwilling to support liberals so long as they are against traditional American values. Unfortunately, Kos has already sent his army of secular atheistic leftists the marching orders to attack Obama and anyone else who stands side by side with people of faith in their defense of traditional American values. Once again the Kingpin Kos is the undoing of liberals and democrats."

When you read stuff like this, its difficut to avoid the feeling that 30's commies sounded much like this, but with slightly different terminology. Its a different language. Like a Pat Benetar song, literally every line is a cliche. "You're a real tough cookie, with a long history..."

Everyone has a set of moral values. To think that people can extricate themselves completely from any value judgement is pretty childish.

I don't think, and didn't say, that people can extricate themselves from value judgements. I said that every vote a politician casts as an elected public official must serve a valid secular purpose.

Do you disagree? Do you think politicians may legitimately cast a vote that serves only a religious purpose?

Obama was simply trying to point out how much liberal Democrats hate people of faith by supporting gay marriage and murder of the unborn. Moderates, indepedents, and people of faith are unwilling to support liberals so long as they are against traditional American values.
Posted by: Al on July 5, 2006 at 12:28 PM

All I can say is that if Al is posting seemingly in agreement, giving you accolades for having a good point and such, this can't be good!

Now, this is going to get confusing -- I will change my name to "Doug M." for the sake of some clarity.

Just change it to Charlie and be done with it.

Religion: Of the delusional, by the delusional and for the delusional.

Put me in the "where the sun doesn't shine" group.

More importantly, to think that any policy decision can be made without reference to morality, or to think that one can neatly compartmentalize religious from non-religious morality in the same person, is idiotic.

To think that religious purposes and secular purposes cannot meaningfully be distinguished is beyond idiotic.

athos wrote:

So now "some say" that Michael Newdow (and by extension the majority of the Ninth Circuit Court) are morally equivalent to Ann Coulter?

I meant to make a facetious comparison. I was unclear. My apologies.

And I agree with your overall point. But...most people do view Newdow as a crank, even if they agree with him. Sorry if that hurts!

cranky wrote: snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

Doug replied: Hostile and SecularAnimist are the most prominent ones here -- you really need 8 more examples, Cranky?

I have never told anyone to "take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine" and I most certainly have never said that myth is "stupid". Myth is a powerful and important part of the human psyche and of human culture. Nor is myth antithetical to secularism or vice versa.

By far the most outspoken, aggressive, hostile and belligerent atheist and basher of religion to comment on these pages is Don P, who recently has been posting with the handle "GOP", who is a right-wing Bush-supporting conservative, and his attacks on religion have consistently been focused on liberal Christians.

To think that religious purposes and secular purposes cannot meaningfully be distinguished is beyond idiotic.

To think that they are exclusive is also beyond idiotic; any purpose which addresses an effect on other persons, or on the material world, is "secular" whether or not it is also "religious".

(Whether it is a valid secular purpose, of course, involves an additional question, whether or not it intrudes into an area in which government action is forbidden, secular purpose or not.)

Kevin,
Simple question, yes or no: should the resources of the United States Government (federal) be used to promote Christianity?

Cranky

Apologies for the multiple postings. I was having trouble getting the thing to upload and cancelled it (or so I thought) in order to try again. Apparently my cancellation is not the same as the web site's.

I have a problem with the big announcements that Democrats need to adres religion more, because of some shift of the country to the more religious or, as someone above, because of the 85% or so that go to church.

The religious shift is an imagined one, pushed by the media, not a real one, as one can see when looking at studies, one of which just cited in Esquire (Survey of the American man). Here you can read:

A"merica is an increasingly religious, increasingly conservative country, right?

Wrong. That was just one of many things that surprised us as we sifted through the results of Esquire's Survey of the American Man. In fact, while 78 percent of our panel of more than one thousand men said they believe in God, 64 percent either never go to their houses of worship or go only on holidays."

http://esquire.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&EXTRA_ARG=GO.X%3D0%00%26GO.Y%3D0&CFGNAME=MssFind.cfg&host_id=42&page_id=126&query=state%20of%20the%20american%20man&hiword=man%20of%20the%20AMERICA%20american%20AMERICANS%20AMERICAS%20STAT%20state%20STATEMENT%20STATEMENTS%20STATES%20STATIC%20STATING%20STATION%20STATIONS%20STATURE%20STATUS%20

Some religious people those are.

Kevin quotes Obama as asking: So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will?

Partnerships between religious and secular people of good will are longstanding, and strong. Just to think of two examples, they were crucial to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and to the opposition to the Reagan administration's murderous policies in Central America in the 1980s. And they have been the foundation of anti-war and pacifist movements throughout American history.

By far the most outspoken, aggressive, hostile and belligerent atheist and basher of religion to comment on these pages is Don P, who recently has been posting with the handle "GOP"

And, perhaps more relevantly to this thread, also the handle of "Atheist". But then, I don't think "Don P"/"GOP"/"Atheist" is a genuine atheist, and, at least in his "GOP" guise, he's abandoned the pretense of being anything like a liberal. His obsession with the most literal approach to the Bible suggests, to me, that he is a partisan Republican from a fundamentalist background whose principal purpose in posting is to sell the point that liberals (and Democrats) can't be Christians and vice versa.

To think that they are exclusive is also beyond idiotic;

I haven't seen anyone claim they are exclusive. A secular purpose may happen to coincide with a religious purpose, but only the secular purpose justifies a law. The religious purpose is irrelevant, and has no place in debates about whether the law is justified.

I am an atheist. I was religious as a kid, but innate skepticism and much education (science, anthro, history, comparative religion, daily news, etc.) have convinced me that religion is essentially mythology, like being told about Santa, but never having Mom admit that it was all untrue.

However, I am not "snarky", whatever the hell (there is no such thing as hell) or particularly critical of those who have been indoctrinated into religious belief and have not recovered (the majority of my friends and acquaintances have been). We all have our life histories, which to a large extent, are beyond our control.

So, how does this post fit into your dichotomy?

I have never told anyone to "take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine" and I most certainly have never said that myth is "stupid".

SecularAnimist believes in many stupid myths of his own.

Amy?

Seems pretty pointless to talk about "some liberals" with any sort of expectation that their positions and rhetoric can be altered. In my experience folks greatly alarmed by atheists or greatly alarmed by born-againers have been living in a thought feedback loop for decades. One side is convinced that without religion women would be fornicating with cacti and eating babies. The other side is convinced that religion is just a means of ignoring reality and excusing immoral and self-centered behavior. It doesn't help if they have personal experiences, like being sodomized by an atheist or loosing a foot to hungry preist.

The wackos are always going to exist -- so putting elected democrats in the dog house until the wackos see the light is simply a means of keeping elected dems in the dog house. It's kind of like telling the palestinians that they can't have peace until every last jihadist wacko stops throwing rocks . . . and for good measure having Sharon and a 1000 soldiers do the rumpshaker on the temple mount.

As an atheist, scientist, and conservationist I have my own moral beliefs about respect for human rights, culture, life, biological diversity, evolution, natural areas, the climate system, history, etc. If someone told me I couldn't bring these ideas up in public and government forums I'd be pretty angry. So yeah, I guess I understand what Obama's talking about.

But this isn't some argument you can win rhetorically. Your best bet is to ignore and marginalize the wackos. In the mean time, I see this speech as an ill-considered response to a right-wing slander. Unless, of course, he's taking cheap shots to curry favor with folks outside his party. Are you running Obama? Are you running?

Hey cmdicely, Libby, ahem, etc.

Shut your f####ing atheistic mouths. You call yourself secularists, but admit it, you're all ATHEISTS. Just like Atheist, another moron. Get over it. The rest of America...90% anyone...doesn't give a shit about you.

cmdicely is a rabid Roman Catholic who believes that all non-Catholics are in a "gravely deficient situation" compared to him with respect to their prospects for salvation.

DougM: So somehow the Republicans are off the hook for their public intolerance because Cheney loves his daughter and Condi's black?

Well, when Cheney speaks up for his daughter's right to marry the person she loves, and when Condi comes out strong for renewal of the Civil Rights Act, we'll know the republicans have made progress.

Meanwhile, can we expect a prominent pro-choice speech at the 2008 R convention? Or maybe a pro-choice R leader in the Senate or House?

So what, exactly, does "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" mean?

That's a good question. It isn't hard for me to imagine a religious person taking exception to the way it is phrased because it assumes that religion is superficial, a costume that can be put on and taken off at will--which contradicts the religious person's assumption that his or her religion is an ultimate commitment, an integral and indispensable part of what it is to be religious.

That said, it may be worth going back to what the Founders had in mind when they spoke about "Separation of church and state." They were responding directly to the European pattern of state churches, common since the Reformation. The Church of England, of which the King or Queen was head, is one familiar example. The state church was not only granted special privileges, every citizen had to pay the taxes to support it, and, worst case (before acts of toleration were passed), atheists and members of other churches could be denied civil rights, fined, imprisoned, tortured, even burned at the stake. The separation of church and state was specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing happening in the new United States. It was a measure intended to protect freedom of thought and expression, by no means an injunction to individuals to leave their basic assumptions and, at least in some cases, most cherished values behind when assuming public office.

I haven't seen anyone claim they are exclusive.

I have seen people&you, for instance, and even in the very post I am responding to—make claims that only make sense if they are exclusive, which is to say, if a single purpose may either be "secular" or "religious" but never both.

A secular purpose may happen to coincide with a religious purpose, but only the secular purpose justifies a law.

If by "coincide" you mean "be exactly the same purpose", you are correct, but then saying "only the secular purpose justifies a law" is meaningless, as they are the same purpose.

The religious purpose is irrelevant, and has no place in debates about whether the law is justified.

Leaving aside, as noted before, that it makes no sense to discuss which of "the religious purpose" and "the secular purpose" is relevant when "religious" and "secular" are not exclusive attributes of purposes, this, again, is wrong.

A valid secular purpose is a minimum Constitutional requirement for a law, to be sure, but that does not mean that arguments aside from that "valid secular purpose" are irrelevant, or even legally, morally, or otherwise inappropriate, in debate about which potential laws among the vast array of Constitutionally permissible potential laws should be turned into actual laws.

And, indeed, one party engaging in unilateral disarmament on that front would get us, well, the status quo.

I am not a fan of Obama's, but his excerpted remarks seem very insightful, and frankly, 100% accurate.

If the Democratic party is going to exorcise some of it's public-perception demons, and build toward a more (politically) productive future, they should encourage attitudes like Obama's.

To claim that there isn't a hostile attitude on the left toward religion is just a silly dodge, as Kevin Drum pointed out in his earlier post on this thread. In fact, if there was a search engine on this website, I could easily post links to hundreds of posts angrily attacking religion in pure principle, not even relating to any specific issue.

And, perhaps more relevantly to this thread, also the handle of "Atheist". But then, I don't think "Don P"/"GOP"/"Atheist" is a genuine atheist, and, at least in his "GOP" guise, he's abandoned the pretense of being anything like a liberal. His obsession with the most literal approach to the Bible suggests, to me, that he is a partisan Republican from a fundamentalist background whose principal purpose in posting is to sell the point that liberals (and Democrats) can't be Christians and vice versa.

A perfectly plausible possibility, even as it negates the tenability of a more fundamental one.

cmdicely is a rabid Roman Catholic who believes that all non-Catholics are in a "gravely deficient situation" compared to him with respect to their prospects for salvation.

This is false. Least importantly, because I don't have rabies. More importantly, because it engages in the fallacy of division. Perhaps most importantly, because it relies on deliberate selective presentation to implicitly distort my views on salvation that were discussed at length before it became clear that "Don P" (now known as "Atheist") wasn't interested in having honest discussions, but only interested in playing gotcha games.

Cranky Observer wrote:

Kevin,
Simple question, yes or no: should the resources of the United States Government (federal) be used to promote Christianity?

I think what you meant to say is "should the resources of the United States Government (federal) be used to promote Religion?"

But, the fact that you specifically cited the term "Christianity" is very telling. And also explains a great deal about the feeling of alot of people of faith toward liberal attitudes.

See Wally's post of 1:18 for a clear-cut example of this.

I read Obama's entire speech. It was the keynote speech of "Call to Renewal", a conference put on by Sojourners, a group Jim Wallis was instrumental in founding. Sojourners is a panreligious group which concerns itself with poverty and figuring out ways to lift people out of poverty, grounded in the fact that all the great religions believe that more fortunate people have a call to help those less fortunate than themselves.

As others have pointed out, Obama largely talked about his own spiritual journey. But he is also talking about how he, as a politician, can use his spiritual beliefs to inform his decisions and viewpoints.

In no way is he ever suggesting that anyone else, in the public sphere or not, must use religion to inform his/her actions or expressed views. One of the things he said is this: "In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that." Also, he mentions Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, at least twice in his speech, making clear that he is not talking about Christians alone.

I am a progressive Christian who believes that all people have their own unique spiritual journeys, and for some people that means NO spiritual journey. I respect the rights of all people to lead their lives as they see fit, as long as they aren't demonstrably harming others in doing so.

I also believe that it's possible for people of good will, regardless of personal faith or lack thereof, to come together and make common cause to tackle the dire problems facing us, such as poverty and too few jobs, education, health care, global warming, etc. And we can work together, informed by faith or not informed by faith, toward using war as a very last resort rather than a first response.

It's well-known that Christianity in this country is associated in many people's minds with a particular narrow belief system promoted by Southern Baptists and other fundamentalist denominations. And that these people believe they are the only true Christians. But they don't represent all Christians, and those of us who believe in a more inclusive way, whether Christian or of other faith, have the right to state our views.

I believe that we Democrats can start moving toward making our big tent include people of all faiths and those of no religious beliefs, with all free to articulate that their actions and opinions are grounded in their faiths if they have them, and that this does NOT imply that they are forcing those beliefs on others who do not share them. And that we can work together toward ameliorating the very serious problems that face us.

Hey cmdicely, Libby, ahem, etc.

Shut your f####ing atheistic mouths. You call yourself secularists, but admit it, you're all ATHEISTS. Just like Atheist, another moron.

I'm not an atheist. As Atheist points out in an otherwise inaccurate and deliberately misleading post, I am a Roman Catholic.

I am also a secularist, as I have defined secularism in this thread.

But Atheist is a moron, I'll give you that.

That's a good question. It isn't hard for me to imagine a religious person taking exception to the way it is phrased because it assumes that religion is superficial, a costume that can be put on and taken off at will--which contradicts the religious person's assumption that his or her religion is an ultimate commitment, an integral and indispensable part of what it is to be religious.

Yes. But I think that trivialization of religion is an inevitable consequence of the attempt by certain liberals to reconcile their view that religion has a legitimate place in politics with their committment to the principle of separation of church and state.

That said, it may be worth going back to what the Founders had in mind when they spoke about "Separation of church and state." They were responding directly to the European pattern of state churches, common since the Reformation. The Church of England, of which the King or Queen was head, is one familiar example. The state church was not only granted special privileges, every citizen had to pay the taxes to support it, and, worst case (before acts of toleration were passed), atheists and members of other churches could be denied civil rights, fined, imprisoned, tortured, even burned at the stake. The separation of church and state was specifically designed to prevent this sort of thing happening in the new United States. It was a measure intended to protect freedom of thought and expression, by no means an injunction to individuals to leave their basic assumptions and, at least in some cases, most cherished values behind when assuming public office.

This doesn't really answer the question. If politicians should not have to "leave behind" their religious beliefs when performing the duties of their public office, what role, exactly, may those religious beliefs validly play in those duties? Is it valid, for example, for a politician to vote to ban abortion, or to ban racial discrimination, on the basis of his religious belief that that is God's will?

Don P posting as "Atheist" wrote: SecularAnimist believes in many stupid myths of his own.

Don P posting as "Atheist" wrote: cmdicely is a rabid Roman Catholic who believes that all non-Catholics are in a "gravely deficient situation" compared to him with respect to their prospects for salvation.

One of the readily identifiable characteristics of Don P's rhetoric has always been his clumsy ineptitude at the fine art of the insult. For someone whose sole purpose in writing here appears to be the compulsive and repetitive expression of belligerent contempt for others to reaffirm his unfounded belief in his own superiority, this is indeed a "grave deficiency."

But Atheist is a moron,

cmdicely is a lying, hypocritical, idiotic fool.

Religion in the public square is controversial because people have forgotten their courtesy. It's just not polite to make others feel excluded.

A century ago, before mass media, a candidate might travel to a small town where everybody belonged to one church. He could deliver a religious message with no controversy, and nobody excluded. Today, a candidate's remarks can be broadcast around the country (approximately 75% Christian) and the world (approximately 33% Christian).

It is wise, and courteous, to consider the feelings of others. It is especially wise to consider how religious appeals could be misconstrued by members of other religions and cultures.

It is better for the candidate to appeal to morality and justice. This way invites everyone to join the candidate's vision, not just the people who believe in the same God he does.

cmdicely,

If by "coincide" you mean "be exactly the same purpose",

No, I don't mean that. I mean that the same law may serve both a secular purpose and a religious purpose.

but then saying "only the secular purpose justifies a law" is meaningless, as they are the same purpose.

No, they're not. A law that provides government welfare to the poor, for example, may serve both a secular purpose (such as securing the right to a minimal standard of living) and a religious purpose (such as implementing God's supposed will), but only the secular purpose justifies the law.

cmdicely is a raving idiot.

This post exemplifies the major problem with this country...way, way too many people put too much emphasis on religion and god. Forget about politics and how religion plays into the mix and start thinking outside that box, about how this planet may be destroyed over the next several decades by excessive warming caused by human activity. Religion (through the Christian 'bible') promotes the ideas that we are 'god's children', that we are masters of the earth, that ecological balance doesn't matter, that the earth and humans were created by god and seeded with flora and fauna for our exclusive ues. Religion and the arrogance of humanity go hand in hand. Gonna be some kind of futile prayin' going down when sea levels rise another
several feet.

Read Samuelson today in WAPO.

Kevin, give up on the pathetic side-show of American politics and start educating the masses about the coming world wide disaster.

Believe it folks, this freight train is rolling down the tracks and we've got to try to stop it.

Guess why Tom Ridge wasn't Bush's running mate in '00? He was from a swing state with a large number of electoral votes(as opposed to Wyoming), a very popular former governor, he would have easily won Pa. for Bush and avoided the whole recount debacle, and he was a loyal friend of Bush. But he was and is pro-choice.

As a religious-hostile secularist, I am looking for protection from the religiously fanatical, and the only place where I can find that protection is in the constitution, not politicians who are seeking office to fulfill their own personality needs.

I think leftists and liberals need to frame religious vs. secular issues as a protection of religious rights. For instance, support for Roe v. Wade is often brought up as a liberal, leftist, Democratic imposition of reporductive freedom that women should not have because some of the religiously fanatical think it kills the unborn. Democrats, liberals and leftists should frame the debate about R v. W as a protection of the religously fanatical from eugenicists, who want all pregnancies to be subject to a fertility board's authority to determine whether or not all prospective parents are worthy/capable/politically correct to bear children, and, if not, decree mandatory abortion or even sterilization. If the state has the power to make you not have an abortion, then the state also has the power to make you sterile. State mandated prayer in school should be framed the same way. Secular rights are a protection of religious rights.

Why are liberal/leftist/Democratic politicians unable to make this argument? The majority of Americans want to impose their religiously fanatical ideals upon the rest of us, and politicians are happy to pander to that majority in order to win elections and fulfill that part of their personality that needs adulation. It is also the reason why liberal Democratic politicians voted to give Bush war powers.

God's biggest mistake was to wire the human brain to seek him rather than be the rational atheistic beings that he really wanted them to be.

The problem with Obama's speech is not just that he accuses progressives of being uncomfortable with Christianity. It's that he blames "secularism" for our empty, consumerist lifestyle, and he believes that more faith is the answer. He even goes so far to say that "I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix." The idea that a government is incapable of addressing poverty, healthcare, and education is a frighteningly reactionary opinion for someone who calls himself a progressive.

It would be one thing if Obama were a preacher; it's quite another that he's a pro-corporatist Senator who's blaming intellectual secularism for our social problems. If he's serious about "empty consumerism" and this "hole in our hearts" then he can start by representing the interests of the people above those of big business.

I am not entirely unfamiliar with evangelical Christians, and this "concern" is just a foot in the door so he can start introducing his "liberal" brand of Christianity to my children.

No thanks.

No, I don't mean that.

Well, make up your mind. Are you now claiming that "religious" and "secular" are exclusive attributes of a a purpose or not?

A law that provides government welfare to the poor, for example, may serve both a secular purpose (such as securing the right to a minimal standard of living) and a religious purpose (such as implementing God's supposed will),

That it is "implementing God's supposed will" isn't a separate religious purpose, its just another way of saying that whatever the purpose is is religious. The religious purpose may still be "securing the right to a minimal standard of living", the exact same purpose as the secular purpose. The belief that doing so serves God's will may be an argument why that secular and religious purpose ought to be pursued.

I'd be glad to have a serious discussion about this.

However, to be fair, I'll wait till a dozen prominent Republican politicians give heart felt speeches about the negative impact of right-wing bloggers (i.e. their claims that liberals are terrorist-sympathizing traitors, their desire to drop nuclear bombs on "Hajis", etc.).

Two more points.

1. "Secularism" does not equal "atheism."
2. Believe it or not, I find it extremely offensive when people talk to me about their religion. It's like pulling down your pants and showing me the pimple on your butt.

I encourage you all to check out Crooks and Liars' item on a Delaware School District's approach to separation of church and state. You may find it as enlightening as it is depressing.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Religion (through the Christian 'bible') promotes the ideas that we are 'god's children', that we are masters of the earth, that ecological balance doesn't matter, that the earth and humans were created by god and seeded with flora and fauna for our exclusive ues.

Religion, through the "Christian 'bible'", promotes the idea that we are God's children, that we are shepherds of the Earth charged with stewardship over it and held accountable for what we do with all we are given, whether the material of the Earth or our own talents, for the good of others.

That the interpretation you refer to, most convenient to the immediate interests of the presently powerful, gets more play in the public sphere has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the application of the power of the powerful to distort the public debate to serve their interest, just like the way the clear consensus on global warming, for example, gets portrayed as a "scientific controversy".

cmdicely,

Well, make up your mind.

I already did.

Are you now claiming that "religious" and "secular" are exclusive attributes of a a purpose or not?

Depends what you mean by "exclusive attributes." As I said, a law may serve both a secular purpose and a religious one. But only the secular purpose justifies the law. If the law serves only a religious purpose, it is unconstitutional.

That it is "implementing God's supposed will" isn't a separate religious purpose,

Of course it is. The religious purpose of implementing God's will is obviously separate from the secular purpose of securing the right to a minimal standard of living. The latter purpose does not require any belief about God's will, or even the belief that there is a God at all.

The religious purpose may still be "securing the right to a minimal standard of living",

No, "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" is not a religious purpose. It doesn't require any religious belief whatsoever.

Anybody who supports their positions in the public forum by quoting what they feel to be the definitive passages from the holy Comic Book, defeats the very purpose of the public forum.

Nothing like the good ol' God topic to tear the Democratic party apart at the seams.

I think some of Obama's critics here are just twitching their knees reflexively. In context, he's trying to appeal to both secular and religious people, criticizing the worst examples of both sides, and urging people to work together toward progressive ends. I honestly can't fathom how any progressive who would like to get more than 20% of the vote in the next presidential election could take exception to this. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Oh, and Halfdan, if you know of a government program that can get young men to stop killing other young men for "disrespecting" them, then please share it with the rest of the class. Religion may not be the solution to this problem, but I don't quite see how anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with recent US history could think that welfare, medicaid, and public education are the only tools we need to solve deep cultural problems.

It seems to me that many people with good intentions get suckered by bad-faith religious conservative rhetoric about cultural problems because secular liberals (and I'm one of them) generally don't have much to say about cultural problems at all.

cmdicely,

Still waiting for you to describe what your phrase "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" is supposed to mean, specifically with respect to the issue of the separation of church and state. What test, standard or principle do you propose we may apply to a politician's votes or other actions in public office to determine whether or not they are constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Believe it or not, I find it extremely offensive when people talk to me about their religion. It's like pulling down your pants and showing me the pimple on your butt.

I know a lot of people who could talk about their 'religious journey' in Tolkien, but this isn't going to get any respect from the people Obama wants to build a bridge to.

While I can appreciate the pragmatism of Obama's speech, religious frootloops suffer from a subjective exclusivity that leaves them incapable of reasoned thought, or serious respect for others.

And the fundamentalists reading this thread laughed and laughed. "What fools those progressives are? They all want religious freedom for all, responsibility, human dignity, civil rights, opportunity, but we have them convinced they should hate each other. They will never mount an effective opposition to our goal of establishing a state religion." They laughed and laughed.

Any single religious person by themsleves may seem reasonable and alright, but put them together in a mass and you have Islam.

> Naturally, you're entitled to your opinion,
> but I think this is Exhibit A in the case that
> "some secular progressives are uncomfortable with
> religion."

So in your opinion it isn't sufficient that "some liberals" are comfortable with you having your religion; they must also be comfortable with you turning the force of your religion on them? Otherwise they are being "disrespectful"? I have a hard time seeing how anyone who fits the classical definition of liberal could meet that test.

What do you do when you meet a Christian who belongs to a denomination that considers overt proselytization a sin?

Cranky

The problem I have with evangelists is NOT their faith in a god, rather it is their inability to let people be. Their mission in life is to bother people because those people just aren't good enough in their eyes. They have to convert them,they have to harass them, they have to chastise them, all for the greater glory of a being whose existence is UNPROVABLE! Hey, I don't smoke and I believe that second hand smoke PROBABLY causes cancer, but I don't run around slapping cigarettes out of peoples mouths or pushing pictures of cancerous lungs in their faces or shooting tobacco CEOs. I practice the "live and let live" philosophy which is amazingly unconfrontational.

Even though I can't believe in something without evidence I have no beef with anyone who can... right up to the point when they start legislating THEIR beliefs. If you are against abortions, which I completely understand by the way, then don't ever have one but THAT"S WHERE IT ENDS! You are not infallible and you do NOT get to make decisions for EVERYBODY ELSE what is best for them! If homosexuality makes you uncomfortable then look away but do NOT make laws designed to discriminate then justify them with passages from a book mistranslated through the centuries and purported to be dictated by an invisible all powerful entity. Your morality is YOUR morality and if I want any of it I will come to you. Until then kindly keep it to yourself and I... I will not bother you with my freethinking ways.

Is that too hard?

The religious purpose of implementing God's will is obviously separate from the secular purpose of securing the right to a minimal standard of living.

That would be the case, I suppose, in the bizarre case that someone believed that God's will was to have the policy itself, rather than to take action to acheive the end of securing the right to a minimal standard of living. (Certainly, that's arguably the case where civil prohibitions are urged to mirror perceived divine prohibitions, rather than to acheive a material purpose with religious motivation.)

But they would not be "separate" in the case where "serving God's will" merely explained why the person seeking to "secure the right to a minimal standard of living" thought that such a right existed and ought to be secured, rather than providing an independent reason for the policy.

No, "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" is not a religious purpose.

Well, then we just have a fundamental, intractable disagreement and there is no point in further discussion; if you don't believe that "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" can be a religious purpose, depending on the beliefs of the person seeking to secure such a right about the nature and origin of the right, then we have nothing to discuss on that matter.

This is an obviously unresolvable debate, but I would contribute to it as follows:

1. The Democratic base contains a fair number of atheists and agnostics and religious skeptics, many of whom tend to believe that mainstream religion is implausible and superstitious.

2. Many who are devoutly religious are offended when their beliefs are called implausible and superstitious.

3. There are also many Americans who profess belief but who are NOT devout, but are instead engaging in a form of Pascal's Wager (i.e., figuring there is a potential upside and no downside to Christian faith). These Americans HOPE there is an afterlife, and they are also offended when someone contends that such a hope is implausible and superstitious.

In saying these things, I don't mean to put down people in groups 2 or 3. I realize they hold these beliefs and that they have a First Amendment right to hold them. Nonetheless, I think once you get past the fact they are offended (which is the electoral problem that people like Obama and Amy Sullivan are addressing) and ask yourself WHY they are offended, it would seem to me that one of the messages that it would benefit liberals to send is that religious believers should not be threatened by atheists and agnostics and skeptics, and that there is room in America for both religious people and people who think that religion is implausible. What frustrates the more snarky of the secularists is the idea that somehow any rhetoric criticizing religious beliefs-- as opposed to other ideologies or moral frameworks-- is off limits and should never be expressed.

ajl,

While I believe in and practice tolerance for religion (insofar as said religion is not screaming for my atheist hide), I certainly don't feel comfortable conversing with an otherwise sane individual who tells me that each Sunday he/she literally drinks the blood and eats the flesh of a long-dead fellow human being. My discomfort stems from many sources, the almost universal taboo against cannibalism not least among them.

One thing (among an embarassingly long list of others, of course) that Dems don't understand is that for the GOP religion is not a matter of some high minded principle or high falutin philosophical or even moral discourse but just one more political club with which to hit the Democrats.

Sadly the Democrats's respond by fighting the issue on the Republicans' terms, just as Obama seems to be doing, and therefore inevitably suffer electoral losses.

aji:

Liberals don't talk about cultural problems much for the very good reason that while consensus morality has a bearing on society, the acceptance of morality is personal and existential.

It's when you're alone with your conscience or creator or the Categorical Imperative or whatever it is that produces an I-Thou relationship with something greater than yourself.

This is why legislating morality rarely works. Expecting that "teaching the Ten Commandments" is going to reduce the number of gangbangers who pop each other over a dis is like expecting Prohibition is going to work -- or expecting the religious training of a Catholic priest would rule sexually immoral behavior off the table.

There are other factors at work here.

Bob

I should slightly qualify myself on religious frootloops, perhaps I should say 'Yahwistic frootloops'. No other religious genre seems to produce so many candidates for hell.

There is no coherent system of thought in the Bible outside submission to patriarchal authority and the cult of personality. After this anything referencing the Bible is just as 'Biblical' or just as 'Christian' as anything else.

Half the people in the US don't vote because their values are simply not represented by any candidate.

nut, Sadly the Democrats's respond by fighting the issue on the Republicans' terms, just as Obama seems to be doing, and therefore inevitably suffer electoral losses.

Exactly.

A non-snarky progressive atheist weighs in:

I appreciate the social narrative and cohesiveness value religion has for many liberals and conservatives alike.

That said, I'm also a card-carrying member of the ACLU and insist on a high church-state wall.

Part of Obama's argument was trotting out a DLC version of Constitutional originalism on First Amendment issues. And that just won't fly. Maybe we still have the Baptists of the 1600s, but the nation's largest Baptist denomination, while still officially wanting a high wall as for state-religious denomination issues, wants a very low wall for state-religious doctrine issues.

And, back to the originalist issue. In the 1600s-1700s, atheists were less conspicuous for reasons of safety, not just political expedience. Plus, we had no Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims.

Still waiting for you to describe what your phrase "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" is supposed to mean, specifically with respect to the issue of the separation of church and state.

1) It's not my phrase; and
2) You've provided me no reason to explain it to you; so
3) Keep waiting.

What test, standard or principle do you propose we may apply to a politician's votes or other actions in public office to determine whether or not they are constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Is this intended as a separate question? Because the two have little to do with each other; the discussion in which I reused the phrase you ask about was not about minimal Constitutional requirements, but about what is fundamentally a semantic question ("what does secularism mean?") and perhaps a moral question (assuming that "secularism" is held to be a proper goal).

But, as to the right Constitutional test for the Establishment Clause, I'd say the Lemon test is appropriate.

As a religious-hostile secularist, I am looking for protection from the religiously fanatical, and the only place where I can find that protection is in the constitution, not politicians who are seeking office to fulfill their own personality needs.

The effectiveness of the former is, of course, entirely dependent on the actions of the latter.

libby sosume, who do we need? the handful of people who see the world exactly as you or i see it? you think that will put a liberal in the white house or put a majority in congress? politics is all about persuasion and you don't persuade people by dismissing them off hand as idiots or ideologically mpure. if you don't think that "some liberals" do exactly that then you live in a vacuum. you ain't reading these pages. or perhaps you're happy with george w. bush in the white house and bill frist as senate president.

This is why legislating morality rarely works.

Except for the abstract possibility of random legislation, how can any legislation be anything but legislating morality?

Cranky, I find it interesting that you assume from my comment that I'm discussing "my" religion. It's also interesting the way the original description of people "talking about their religion" is conflated in your post with proselytizing and "turning the force of their religion on" other people. Very interesting indeed.

For the record, I'm an agnostic.

I just happen to have a good many churchgoing friends and family members who dislike the President and agree with most liberal policies, but for some strange reason they all seem to think that the word "liberal" is synonymous with "someone who looks down on Christians." I can't imagine where they get this idea, can you?

I'm also really, really tired of losing elections. Aren't you?

It seems to me that putting up with a little bit of God talk is a small price to pay for ending the Republican Party's ironclad grip on rural America.

Mind you, I would draw the line at a politician who actually wants to put prayer back in public schools or funnel taxpayer funds to churches. But a politician who occasionally talks about religion shouldn't be a problem.

cmdicely,

That would be the case, I suppose, in the bizarre case that someone believed that God's will was to have the policy itself, rather than to take action to acheive the end of securing the right to a minimal standard of living.

No, it's the case because "implementing God's will" is a religious purpose, while "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" is a secular one.

But they would not be "separate" in the case where "serving God's will" merely explained why the person seeking to "secure the right to a minimal standard of living" thought that such a right existed and ought to be secured, rather than providing an independent reason for the policy.

If the purpose of securing the right is to implement God's will, then the purpose of the law is religious and it is therefore unconstitutional. But the purpose "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" does not itself rest on any belief about God's will, or on any religious belief at all. I don't know why you can't understand this crucial distinction.

What becomes obvious about Barack Obama in this particular speech when one reviews these specific religious comments is this. He accepts without argument the truth to the idea that there is a sectarian conspiracy against the religious of America when it comes to the public square. He purposely evades the argument that this paper monster was created by the Republican machine to benefit their camp on a whole range of real issues that they truly care about.

For Obama to take the time to play real with this card board figure makes it clear to me that he is not the leader that America needs to bring us to our collective senses - you know the leader we visualized in his inspiring speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. The politics contained in these religious statements of this speech are more then obvious. They say in very simple terms that he, like most career minded politicians, is trying to find the most expedient path to personal success. Of all the men that could inspire him at this point in his service to America who would have guessed that he pictured himself as a Democratic John McCain.

"So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration."

Tensions and suspicions that are only exacerbated by politicians who are too afraid to risk their careers by pointing out that reality is more aptly confronted by what you know - rather then by what you feel.

Part of Obama's argument was trotting out a DLC version of Constitutional originalism on First Amendment issues.

I don't think it is at all, and I think this is the point where many liberals get all tied up in self-destructive knots.

Nowhere does he talk about any weakening of the law as it applies to Church and State.

He is talking about public debate, and not being afraid to be open and honest about moral values and their origin, religious or not, in discussing policy.

Oh, and Halfdan, if you know of a government program that can get young men to stop killing other young men for "disrespecting" them, then please share it with the rest of the class. Religion may not be the solution to this problem, but I don't quite see how anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with recent US history could think that welfare, medicaid, and public education are the only tools we need to solve deep cultural problems.

Well if you don't think religion is a cure for these problems, then don't blame these problems on secularism. Obama is living in a paradox where the majority of Americans are people of faith, yet are also desperately in need of some purpose in life. Therefore I submit that "more faith" is not the answer. As for "government is not the answer," let's take away all social programs then and see what your response is.

Also I am not uncomfortable with religion, but let me reframe the issue so that you can understand. I find it RUDE for people to ask me about my faith. I find it RUDE for people to assume that everyone wants to hear the tiresome details of their conversion experience. I find it RUDE for people--even friends--to invite me to a church when they know I do not share their faith. And I find it beyond RUDE for evangelicals to insist that my preference for a secular government is somehow a personal insult.

Obama can take his stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

If the purpose of securing the right is to implement God's will, then the purpose of the law is religious and it is therefore unconstitutional.

And, again, that's why I say we have an intractable fundamental disagreement on definitions; "securing a right to a minimum standard of living" is a secular purpose, whether or not it has a religious motivation (if it has a religious motivation, it is also a religious purpose.)

There is, really, no purpose to the two of us continuing to repeat our positions on this issue.

It's when you're alone with your conscience or creator or the Categorical Imperative or whatever it is that produces an I-Thou relationship with something greater than yourself.

Ironic that Obama trots out the I/Thou relationship as well.

cmdicely,

1) It's not my phrase;

You said: "... that's quite different from checking your religion at the door when entering the public square." So you obviously have some belief about what the phrase means. What do you think it means?

Is this intended as a separate question?

Yes, although it's strongly related to the first one.

But, as to the right Constitutional test for the Establishment Clause, I'd say the Lemon test is appropriate.

The first part of the Lemon Test is the requirement that a law must have a secular legislative purpose. So if you think this is the appropriate test you must agree with me that secular and religious purposes can be meaningfully distinguished and that a law that serves only a religious purpose or purposes is unconstitutional. So, again, what exactly is your phrase "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" supposed to mean? What role do you think a public official's religious beliefs may legitimately play in his duties of office?

What becomes obvious about Barack Obama in this particular speech when one reviews these specific religious comments is this. He accepts without argument the truth to the idea that there is a sectarian conspiracy against the religious of America when it comes to the public square.

While that may be true exactly as you wrote it, it doesn't seem to be true the way you seem to mean it (in which it seems you mean "secular" as opposed to "sectarian"). Inasmuch as their is a conspiracy—a deliberate plot—the only one he refers to is from the "Christian" Right:

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Note that he refers to a setup by the right, a trap they've set that liberals have unwittingly fallen into.

The only conspiracy against the religious he paints is the conspiracy by the leaders of the Right to mislead the religious to hold onto their votes.

cmdicely to Don P (posting as "Atheist"): ... then we have nothing to discuss on that matter.

Don P never really has anything to discuss. All he ever has to offer is empty sophistry, in the service of maliciously wasting people's time.

cmdicely,

And, again, that's why I say we have an intractable fundamental disagreement on definitions; "securing a right to a minimum standard of living" is a secular purpose,

Huh? That's what I said. "Securing a right to a minimum standard of living" is a secular purpose, different from the religious purpose of "implementing God's will."

cmdicely:Except for the abstract possibility of random legislation, how can any legislation be anything but legislating morality?

because, any law can be broken or not followed, and morality is doing the right thing because it's the right thing, not simply because there's a law which codifies communally defined consequences for not doing it.

cmdicely:

Reading your comments elsewhere on this issue, you're obviously making a polemic conflation. It's one thing to say that all legislation is made within a framework of consensus morality (obviously and trivially true) and another to attempt to legislate morality directly.

So-called sin taxes are great at raising extra revenue, but they have a less-than-optimal effect on reducing the sinful behavior in question. Prohibition obviously didn't stop drinking. Drugs, prostitution and gambling occur whether under state purview or not.

Now if aji wonders why liberals don't talk much about "cultural problems" and cites as an example the tendency of inner city youth to overreact violently to gestures of disrespect -- how would the state go about remedying the underlying conditions that foster this kind of behavior? He didn't say so directly, but he seems to be implying that a dash of moral teaching would ameliorate this problem, which is exacerbated by the kind of do-your-own-thing nihilism implicit in a secular, consumerist society.

And that's the nub of the religious activist critique of secular society.

Do you really think that teaching The Ten Commandments in a classroom (as opposed to, say, improving economic conditions and real opportunities) would be the way to go? If children aren't taught moral values at home (patiently, one-on-one, and through the important example of moral parental behavior) -- can the state or private religion be expected to fill the breach?

And just how moral was the poorly-educated yet highly religious jim crow Deep South, anyway?

Bob

This is disturbing. (from slate.com)

Obama began with a story about his 2004 campaign for the Senate. In the last months of the campaign, Obama's opponent, the volatile Republican Alan Keyes, declared that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Against the counsel of his political advisors, Obama fired back. He now admits that his volley was weak. "I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates," he told the crowd at Jim Wallis' Call to Renewal conference. "I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another." Obama's statement was reasonable, but he now thinks it was the wrong one. "My answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs," he said last week.

So Obama is accepting a litmus test for Democrats: it's not enough to say that religion is a personal matter, but a politician has to testify about his own faith.

I think this is backwards. His first answer was and should be the correct response.

The modified answer is nothing but pandering to those who want everyone to wear his/her religion on the sleeve. It will be shameful if such a state of affairs comes to pass.

I just happen to have a good many churchgoing friends and family members who dislike the President and agree with most liberal policies, but for some strange reason they all seem to think that the word "liberal" is synonymous with "someone who looks down on Christians." I can't imagine where they get this idea, can you?

It couldn't possibly be because religious Democrats are so quick to agree, leaving the only people left to insist that Democrats love religion the very Democrats who don't, actually, love religion? If religious Democrats *really* wanted to talk more about faith, then they would do like Bill Clinton did and *talk about faith.*

If Obama had merely said, "Jesus talks about helping the poor, so we should help the poor" I would be the first one to stand up and applaud.

Acutally we are all totally off on the wrong foot here already.

Speaking of 'religion' in this context is always code for the Scots-Irish. The problem isn't anything to do with religion, it's the Scots-Irish.

That's what Democrats and progressives largely don't get.

Obama is just prepping Democrats for a time when faith-based funding for social services and eventually even school choice become conventional wisdom, even for members of his own party.

That time is not so far away.

The Dutch ended their culture wars by giving the Christian right school choice and faith-based funding. The left (in the end) got abortion rights, gay marriage, drug decriminalization, legalized prostitution.

That's the way it will play out here as well.

Why do I feel like I'm watching Article Six, clause 3 of the Constitution being run through a paper shredder?

Just what part of "no religious test for any Office or public Trust" don't "some of you" understand?

Bob

cmdicely writes of Obama's speech: "Nowhere does he talk about any weakening of the law as it applies to Church and State."

In fact, Obama addresses directly the unconstitutional law requiring the insertion of the words "under god" into the Pledge of Allegiance:

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't."

I am comforted to know that as a little Christian boy Obama didn't "feel" he was being oppressed or brainwashed by the two little words. But I can tell you from experience that little secular boys and girls did indeed feel oppressed and excluded. The daily incantation of a formula conflating godliness with patriotism is an insult to all of us, not just the atheists and non-theistic faithful among us. The fact that Obama can't or won't acknowledge this is a disappointment, but hardly a surprise. There is not a single Democrat in Congress who supported the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Newdow case.

evolvedreason: The politics contained in these religious statements of this speech are more then obvious. They say in very simple terms that he, like most career minded politicians, is trying to find the most expedient path to personal success. Of all the men that could inspire him at this point in his service to America who would have guessed that he pictured himself as a Democratic John McCain.

I am very much afraid that you are correct.

What Kevin misses about this controversy is that those bloggers who objected to this speech in most cases didn't even read the speech itself, but rather the press coverage of it, usually the Washington Post. And while liberal attitudes were not the focus of Obama's speech, they were the focus of press coverage of his speech. It is unsurprising to me that out of the whole speech the parts that the media would find interesting are those that reinforce the conventional wisdom that Democrats don't really like religion.

So which is what really matters? What Obama actually said, or the soundbite version of it that will be all most people will hear of it? I want it to be the former, and Kevin clearly went on that assumption, reading the speech rather than the articles about the speech the other bloggers have linked to. However, in terms of what damage Barack Obama may or may not have done to the Democratic party, it is the latter that matters more.

Don P posting as "Atheist" wrote: If the purpose of securing the right is to implement God's will, then the purpose of the law is religious and it is therefore unconstitutional.

One of the Biblical "ten commandments" is "You shall not murder." Clearly, according to Judeo-Christian belief, this expresses God's will that murder is prohibited. Therefore, according to Don P, any law that "implements God's will" by prohibiting murder has a religious purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.

This is a good example of the vapid sophistry that pervades all of Don P's writing here, in which he maliciously wastes people's time with bullshit in his never-ending quest to prove to himself -- over, and over, and over again -- that he is superior to others.

cld:Speaking of 'religion' in this context is always code for the Scots-Irish. The problem isn't anything to do with religion, it's the Scots-Irish.

That's what Democrats and progressives largely don't get.

so how screwed up am I: Scots-Irish(+), atheist, 3rd (poss 4th) generation Democrat, bleeding heart liberal. ;-}

It's a funny thing. When I post about religion, I usually get two kinds of comments. The first is people telling me that I'm falling into a conservative trap by even entertaining the idea that some liberals are contemptuous toward religion. The second is snarky liberal secularists telling everyone else to take their stupid myths and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. Do you think both sides will show up in this thread as well?

A more common complaint might be that these discussions elicit reflexive mental regurgitations that gives us all a terrible sense of deja vu. That said, I'll enter the fray to say it's somewhat counter productive for prominent Democrats to perpetuate such party-effacing naval gazing in their speeches. There are so much more positive ways to bring up religion. Granted, it's more challenging. But how many points should you get for dissing the irrational and non-pragmatic 1%.

Maybe there's nothing to be done about this. I don't know. But denying that such people even exist just isn't a reality-based attitude.

That's sort of a strawman isn't it? I don't think anyone has claimed that there isn't a vocal minority of liberals hostile to religion.

Personally, I think there is a good fraction that can not be re-eductated. If you did want to change their opinion you'd probably be better off being a little more indirect. Demonstrate how religious politicians can be non-threatening and tolerant. How their morals can be rational and how they can make decisions without saying things like "god wanted me to."

I agree that, as someone stated above, Obama is trying to be a McCain wannabe of the Democratic Party.

Any one who says that no child feels opressed by the the phrase under God in pledge of allegiance is either a knave or a pandering politician, for even if you replace under God by under Jesus only the kids of the militantly religious non-Christians will feel offended.

Pretty disingenuous post.

The early part of Obama's speech says:

"Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. [Kevin leaves out the first sentence that completely undermines his "some Dems" hypothesis. Weak Kevin.] At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness."

This whole section is Obama acting as if Dems do not know this. Why does Kevin distort Obama's speech?

I'm studiously trying to avoid discussing Obama or his speech. I didn't read it and I'm not terribly interested. But from what's been said in this post, his remarks don't trouble me. Whether or not I personally agree, there are a lot of otherwise good Democrats out there who feel comfortable using a vernacular of faith. I don't get a sense that Obama is either being either insincere or sanctimonious, a la Lieberman.

There -- now I just violated my own rule.

What interests me in this debate is the proper way for the state to address issues of personal morality -- proactively, before they lead to crimes.

Should liberals believe that the state should attempt to go there at all -- or is this best left in the private sphere?

Bob

EricL @ 3:51, you make a good point.

i heard some idiotic thing on CNN about Obama saying "not all expressions of faith in the public square are unconstitutional" and what a fuss that had caused in the "liberal blogosphere." then read an oped in WaPo essentially chastising the aforementioned liberal blogosphere. only then did i decide to read the actual speech. and found nothing to be offended by.

the question is, how many people actually went to read the speech, vs just accepting the MSM interpretation. as though we shouldn't know better than that by now.

You said: "... that's quite different from checking your religion at the door when entering the public square." So you obviously have some belief about what the phrase means. What do you think it means?

I think that it is fairly clear, requires no additional explanation, and that you've provided no reason for me to provide further explanation.

The first part of the Lemon Test is the requirement that a law must have a secular legislative purpose.

Actually, its that it must have a legitimate secular purpose, which is considerably more narrow.

So if you think this is the appropriate test you must agree with me that secular and religious purposes can be meaningfully distinguished and that a law that serves only a religious purpose or purposes is unconstitutional.

As I've already explicitly agreed with each of those points, I don't see why you are focussing on my agreement with the Lemon test as evidence that I agree with those points, except perhaps that you aren't reading the posts you are responding to.

Our point of disagreement, again, seems to be that you think that not only can "secular" and "religious" purposes be meaningfully distinguished, but that "secular" and "religious" are exclusive attributes and a purpose cannot be "secular" and "religious" simultaneously, whereas I see the two as, while distinguishable, essentially orthogonal categories: "religious" deals with a kind of motivation, "secular" deals with subject matter.

So, again, what exactly is your phrase "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square" supposed to mean?

Nothing relevant to the Lemon test; why do you ask?

What role do you think a public official's religious beliefs may legitimately play in his duties of office?

The exact same role as moral beliefs more generally, for the most part; I think this is adequately answered by my description of secularism upthread. If there is some specific additional question you have after you read and understand that, let me know.

Liberals don't talk about cultural problems much for the very good reason that while consensus morality has a bearing on society, the acceptance of morality is personal and existential.

It's when you're alone with your conscience or creator or the Categorical Imperative or whatever it is that produces an I-Thou relationship with something greater than yourself.

See, this doesn't strike me as a particularly progressive viewpoint. We're the ones who believe in the power of public institutions to change the world for the better. We're not the ones who believe in a sacred and inviolable right to wall ourselves off in our own property and tell the rest of the world to go fuck itself. To me, libertarian conservatism is the only purely amoral political philosophy. The rest of us are simply arguing about what the moral values of our government should be.

The acceptance of religion is intensely personal. And any liberal worth his salt will only support legislation that serves a secular, empirical purpose. From a strictly legislative viewpoint, Medicaid exists because it serves a public good, not because some people believe that Jesus wants them to serve the poor. But from a pragmatic political view, the people who believe Jesus wants them to serve the poor were essential to the fact that this legislation passed.

And by the same token, my own belief in the importance of programs to fight poverty is a moral concern. It's based in humanism, not Christianity, but it's still a moral value. What is progressivism, if not a moral belief that it's important for citizens in a democracy to work together to make their country a better place? There are many paths to this moral viewpoint, and it seems foolish not to build a coalition with the people who believe it's God's will to support progressive government programs, and that will require both sides to tolerate some rhetoric we find annoying.

This is why legislating morality rarely works. Expecting that "teaching the Ten Commandments" is going to reduce the number of gangbangers who pop each other over a dis is like expecting Prohibition is going to work -- or expecting the religious training of a Catholic priest would rule sexually immoral behavior off the table.

I don't entirely buy that argument. The problem with those sorts of stupid programs is not that they're "legislating morality"... it's that they're legislating empty morality. The Endangered Species Act is an example of legislation that limited individual freedom to serve a moral purpose, but it was not an exclusively religious purpose, it was based on empirical principles to achieve a measurable public good, and it didn't violate anyone's freedom of conscience.

Some of the ten commandments serve a secular purpose and correspond to lessons that all children should learn. Don't steal. Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't screw around irresponsibly. Treat people with respect. Etc. Etc. There are plenty of ways for community leaders to emphasize these moral values without being explicitly religious.

All liberals should understand by now that legislation is only part of political leadership. Talking about cultural problems and trying to find ways to address them is important. Culture matters. And we shouldn't abdicate that entire terrain to the people who have a reactionary cultural message that purports to be the solution to these problems.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. [Kevin leaves out the first sentence that completely undermines his "some Dems" hypothesis. Weak Kevin.]

The "some Dems" (actually, "some liberals") "hypothesis" Kevin presents (its actually a direct quote from Obama's speech, not a "hypothesis" of any kind) refers not to the "Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait", but to the second category of ways in which the bait has been taken, "At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant,..."

You deliberately misrepresent Kevin's position. Weak, Armando.

This whole section is Obama acting as if Dems do not know this.

Er, no, the whole section is Obama acting as if, whether they know it or not, Democrats have been ineffective in responding to the interests, needs, and desires that exist among the electorate that he describes, whether their error has been ("At best...") tactical avoidance of religious issues or ("At worst...") disparagement of religion, he sees the Party as having given ground to the Republicans that the Republicans haven't earned.

None of which undermines anything Kevin said.

Kevin wrote:
"Prominent Democrats are respectful to a fault, as I said in my very first paragraph."

You forgot about the Chief Theologian of the DNC, The Very Right Reverend Howard Dean, whose favorite New Testament Book is The Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Church of Job. Then there was his dismissive "Guns, God, and Gays" comment. He should have left the God part out of it.

You may have a point about "prominent" Democrats, but there's so much anti-religious condescension coming from the left. And I'm not just talking about criticism of the Religious Right. Kos, Atrios, Doc Marshall, and TPM Cafe all displayed the ad for "The God Who Isn't There" this last Easter. It's been discouraging to see the recent outbreaks of Amy Apoplexy...now comes the Barack Attack. Too many folks on the left are doing everything they can to hunt down heretics instead of looking for converts. Sullivan and Obama know what they're talking about.

What interests me in this debate is the proper way for the state to address issues of personal morality -- proactively, before they lead to crimes.

Should liberals believe that the state should attempt to go there at all -- or is this best left in the private sphere?

It is absolutely appropriate for the state to attempt to prevent crime. But the state is acting unconstitutionally if it assumes that morality requires offical affiliation with an established religious institution.

That's why Obama scares me so much. He's not content with aligning public policy with religious teaching. He wants to use the Bible as a *basis* for public policy. And then he wonders why non-Christians are suspicious of his motives.

posted by "sportsfan79" at 2:20p.m.

cmdicely is a raving idiot.

I didn't write that, cmdicely. My best guess is that "Atheist" wrote that post. If that's true, it can only mean that 1) He's incredibly childish, and 2) He must be losing his argument to resort to those tactics.

e1,

I know the Scots-Irish produce a noteworthy subset of very liberal people, like Lyndon Johnson, but on the whole Scots-Irish culture is feudalistic and reactionary. Not that it doesn't have a fascinating and distincty history. They are the only ethnic group to have almost totally relocated to the US, and they have remained, for the most part, intransigently disctinct and cloistered culturally.

Liberals and Progressives almost completely ignore the fact that Republican rhetoric is nearly 100% couched within terms of Scots-Irish dialect and cultural references. Outside the south hardly anyone even realizes the Scots-Irish exist as a distinct ethnic group.

What interests me in this debate is the proper way for the state to address issues of personal morality -- proactively, before they lead to crimes.

Should liberals believe that the state should attempt to go there at all -- or is this best left in the private sphere?

In a sense this is a leading question; by suggesting that the issues of "personal morality" involved should not be defined as crimes, it suggests that they are likely outside of the role of the state.

But I'd suggest that truly private morality—that is, acts or omissions that do not involve material harm to others—ought to be outside of the purview of the state except through education and persuasion, and that this is one case where religious motivation is explicitly is at its lowest ebb in terms of acceptability, under the Establishment Clause.

ajl,
I find your refusal to answer my questions disrespectful. And what is worse, you have made me uncomfortable. I will never vote for you again no matter how badly my own party hurts me.

Cranky

And, on a less snarky note, I do find it interesting that those arguing for the Obama question haven't answered any of the three rhetorical questions I have posed in this thread. Now, rhetorical questions are made to be ignored, but the refusal to even engage those questions tells me something.

And any liberal worth his salt will only support legislation that serves a secular, empirical purpose. From a strictly legislative viewpoint, Medicaid exists because it serves a public good, not because some people believe that Jesus wants them to serve the poor.

There is no such thing as an empirical "public good"; good is a value judgement.

ajl:

We don't have any disagreements on the politics of this. Clearly, secular ethics and religious morality overlap, and the two sides should be working to find common ground to tackle problems we both agree need to be solved.

As I said above, I wasn't troubled by Obama's remarks. If talking extensively about one's faith becomes a prerequisite for public office, I begin to see a problem with Article Six of the Constitution -- but I suppose I shouldn't be overreactive about it.

What triggered my response was your phrase "cultural problems." That's a right-wing buzzword which is easily stuffed with any number of odious subtexts. What, exactly, is a "cultural problem" separate from behavior, upbringing and environment? Which cultures have more "problems" than others -- and why? Do you see where I'm going with this ... a few steps down this slippery slope and we're into The Bell Curve terrain ...

Liberals don't deny that cultural problems exist. We just don't believe they're easily tackled, as culture is a massive, all-encompassing gestalt. How do we combat, for instance, the values of narcissistic instant gratification implicit in consumerism without challenging the entire economic order?

The religious find this discourse much more comfortable than secular people. They offer an alternative narrative, with a concrete telos.

And that's a difference of philosophy that's very difficult to paper over.

Bob

And, on a less snarky note, I do find it interesting that those arguing for the Obama question haven't answered any of the three rhetorical questions I have posed in this thread. Now, rhetorical questions are made to be ignored, but the refusal to even engage those questions tells me something.

Plenty of people posted about your questions and why they were the wrong questions; that's hardly a refusal to engage them.

He wants to use the Bible as a *basis* for public policy.

Where are you getting this, Halfdan? I just don't see this anywhere in Obama's speech.

Here's what bothers me. The only way for liberal politicians to get elected to national office is to overcome the widespread perception that liberals are hostile to Christianity. And every time a liberal politician tries to do this, secular liberals jump all over him and simply give more ammo to the Karl Roves of the world.

Lieberman's self-serving attacks on his fellow liberals are contemptible, but surely there's a happy medium somewhere between Lieberman and Mike Dukakis that can satisfy both secular and religious progressives. Seems to me that Obama is trying to locate that territory and we should support him.

Liberals don't deny that cultural problems exist. We just don't believe they're easily tackled, as culture is a massive, all-encompassing gestalt. How do we combat, for instance, the values of narcissistic instant gratification implicit in consumerism without challenging the entire economic order?

What's wrong with challenging the entire economic order?

And by the same token, my own belief in the importance of programs to fight poverty is a moral concern. It's based in humanism, not Christianity, but it's still a moral value. What is progressivism, if not a moral belief that it's important for citizens in a democracy to work together to make their country a better place? There are many paths to this moral viewpoint, and it seems foolish not to build a coalition with the people who believe it's God's will to support progressive government programs, and that will require both sides to tolerate some rhetoric we find annoying.

I absolutely agree with you on this point. As I've said before, I will embrace religious Democrats empowered by their faith to support social programs. But I will not suffer the undermining of our secular society if that's a consequence. That's just not negotiable, and it has nothing to do with my feelings toward individual Christians.

"At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant.."

But what if it is? What if religion in the public square IS inherently irrational or intolerant? The use of the word "dismiss" is politically charged. We're to understand that these "at worst" liberals are, themselves, intolerant.

The unwillingness to compromise is, presumably, inherently intolerant. So when we, these worst liberals, are deeply offended by the insistence that we can only be patriotic if we're Christian --- why, we should compromise, and learn how to be only a little offended.

I'm curious --- are we to understand that these people who are insisting on thrusting Christianity into the public square --- are they deeply offended, as well? Do we both end up only a little offended.

Perhaps we should also compromise with those southerners who want to fly the Confederate flag --- perhaps if we fly it at half mast, blacks need only be a little offended.

Perhaps if, in Hitler's Germany, they had only persecuted the Jews a little, that would be a reasonable compromise between the many people who hated Jews and those who didn't.

Democratic politicians never risk offending Christians. They all get together on the steps of the Capitol to sing God Bless America at the slightest provocation.

What is the point of this speech of Obama's, except to further marginalize those of us who believe that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be displayed in public squares and that school children shouldn't be forced to pledge themselves to God? Shouldn't the liberal party be at least sympathetic to our beliefs, if unwilling to outright support them (just as they aren't willing to outright support gay marriage at this time)?

Apparently Obama is ready to toss us out, to dismiss our concerns as the worst of liberalism.

Is this really the right direction for the Democratic Party to take?

ajl wrote: And any liberal worth his salt will only support legislation that serves a secular, empirical purpose. From a strictly legislative viewpoint, Medicaid exists because it serves a public good, not because some people believe that Jesus wants them to serve the poor. But from a pragmatic political view, the people who believe Jesus wants them to serve the poor were essential to the fact that this legislation passed.

I observe that discussions that attempt to distinguish between a secular vs. religious "purpose" of some legislation use the term "purpose" in such a way as to conflate results with motivations.

Clarity is improved by distinguishing on the one hand between a secular vs. religious result or outcome, and on the other hand, between secular vs. religious motivation for wanting to obtain that outcome.

Legislation which has a religious result or outcome is an "establishment of religion" and is unconstitutional.

Legislation which has a secular result or outcome -- such as the examples given in this thread relating to government assistance to the poor, or environmental protection -- is not an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" since its effect or outcome has nothing to do with religion.

On the other hand, legislators who vote in favor of government assistance to the poor, or environmental protection, may have secular motivations or religious motivations for doing so; but in neither case does the motivation of a particular legislator have any relevance to the constitutionality of the legislation itself. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what motivations members of Congress are permitted to have.

SecularAnimist:

You may a good point with regard to motivations vs. results/outcomes; I might extend that by noting that "purpose" in the relevant context is best read as "intended result/outcome" rather than "motivation".

sportsfan79 wrote: I didn't write that, cmdicely. My best guess is that "Atheist" wrote that post. If that's true, it can only mean that 1) He's incredibly childish, and 2) He must be losing his argument to resort to those tactics.

Don P pulled the same thing on me on a thread a few weeks ago, when he began posting numerous comments under different names (stealing the handles of other people who had posted on that thread) screaming at me that I was a "virulent anti-semite" and had a "long history of attacking Jews and the state of Israel" in these pages, neither of which is remotely true.

Don P does these things for a simple reason: because he is an asshole.

cmdicely:

I really wasn't trying to implicitly plump for an argument in favor of getting the state out of regulating so-called "victimless crimes." While I'm pretty civ-lib, I don't necessarily believe that hard drug use or prostitution are essentially victimless, though a person may start out indulging in them "innocently" enough ...

But if they tend with a high correlation to produce dissolution which produces other, less victimless problems in their turn, then I'm perfectly willing to allow a state role in ameliorating them or even stopping them before they start.

I might decriminalize drugs, but I'd never advocate warehousing and maintaining addicts at public expense a la Holland.

And I'm very interested in what the state's role should be in fostering the kind of personal morality that would lead to less of this personally destructive behavior.

How does a secular state teach personal morality?

Bob

He wants to use the Bible as a *basis* for public policy.
Where are you getting this, Halfdan? I just don't see this anywhere in Obama's speech.

The part where he talks about gang-bangers, and the part where he talks about people having "holes" in their lives. He's very clearly stating that secular public policy is not enough to help these people. And that leaves faith-based policy. He may not publicly state that evangelical Christianity should be that faith, but that's how everyone knows it will play out.

The only way for liberal politicians to get elected to national office is to overcome the widespread perception that liberals are hostile to Christianity. And every time a liberal politician tries to do this, secular liberals jump all over him and simply give more ammo to the Karl Roves of the world.

I think you're wrong. What secular liberals "jump all over" is the repetition of the *talking point* that liberals are hostile to Christianity. And Obama does that quite clearly in this piece when he discusses the "Under God" controversy. He does that quite clearly when he talks about secular Americans wanting to keep religion out of the public square. He does that quite clearly when he makes reference to his policy stands on his website.

Again, if Obama wants to talk about God, he is perfectly able to do so without running down his allies in the process.

cmdicely wrote: I might extend that by noting that "purpose" in the relevant context is best read as "intended result/outcome" rather than "motivation".

Thank you ... I agree that that is very clearly what the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". It says nothing about whether or not legislators are permitted to be motivated by religious belief or religion-based values when voting on laws that in themselves have nothing to do with religion.

If a member of Congress or a Senator says outright "I am voting in favor of increasing Medicaid benefits to the poor because I believe that is God's will", that legislator's motivation does not turn the Medicaid legislation into a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

But what if it is? What if religion in the public square IS inherently irrational or intolerant? The use of the word "dismiss" is politically charged. We're to understand that these "at worst" liberals are, themselves, intolerant.

No, we're not. I think you are misreading Obama badly if you think one is to infer a moral judgement of those liberals from this; rather it is a practical judgement of the effects of their actions in the "at worst".

He saying that the fact that almost the only Democratic messages that come through on religion is, on the one hand, careful avoidance of offense and on the other, outright dismissiveness, serves the Republican effort to paint themselves as the only party that really respects "people of faith" and their interests and values.

So when we, these worst liberals, are deeply offended by the insistence that we can only be patriotic if we're Christian --- why, we should compromise, and learn how to be only a little offended.

Christian liberals can be deeply offended by the suggestion that there is any necessary connection between Christianity and Patriotism; no one suggests—certainly Obama does not suggest—that there should be compromise with intolerance, with the idea that you must follow a particular religious creed to be a real American. Stop inventing strawmen.

What is the point of this speech of Obama's, except to further marginalize those of us who believe that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be displayed in public squares and that school children shouldn't be forced to pledge themselves to God?

That's certainly not even part of the purpose. The point is quite clear:

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. ...

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

This isn't about hanging the ten commandments or any of the other Republican shibboleths with which the trap is set for Democrats on religion; its about getting beyond those and dealing with the rhetorical and substantive disadvantages that aversion to values language from fear of religious discussion has, in Obama's eyes, produced.

So much talk about religion... so little talk about morality. It is ironic that this is occurring at a time when our conduct as a nation is highly immoral...

Just one example: Starting bogus wars by knowingly presenting false information.

And our tolerance of this behavior says much about us as a people whether we call ourselves religious or something else.

How does a secular state teach personal morality?

Music lessons?

But the plain fact is that he was careful in his speech and also plainly correct: "some" liberals are uncomfortable with any mention of religion in the public square, and he thinks this is too bad.

Some Democrats are also Holocaust Deniers. So what? Would it make any sense for Obama to contrast himself with every disagreeable position held by "some" unnamed Democrats? No. Why not? Because few, if any, are held by Democrats with any influence or power. By contrasting himself with what "some" Democrats believe, he sends the message that he thinks this belief is important enough to deal with and held by powerful people who must be taken seriously. By keeping them unnamed, he avoids actually having to support that message.

And that's why he's wrong. I'm speaking, by the way, as an actual godless liberal who does argue that religion can be very irrational. I would know if there were any powerful liberal, Democratic figures promoting such a position. Obama is simply internalizing a GOP talking point about how Democrats generally are "godless" and anti-religion.

Do you think both sides will show up in this thread as well?

How about the comments which call you on the intellectual dishonesty of complaining about "some" Democrats and liberals without naming names and thereby having to justify why you're concerned about their positions in the first place?

rmck1:How does a secular state teach personal morality?

through an institution that the "Religious Right" seems to have forgotten all about {except for the whole gay marriage thing}: the family. each family, unto it's own code of morality teaches it's children the same code.

Halfdan:The part where he talks about gang-bangers, and the part where he talks about people having "holes" in their lives. He's very clearly stating that secular public policy is not enough to help these people. And that leaves faith-based policy.

see, i read that as a Combination of secular public policy and faith institutions working together, not an either/or proposition. and Obama later says this "Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." so i wouldn't be so sure he'd devolve into just christianity.

cld: a serious response, and i was just trying to make a joke. (but everything i said is true)

So dead on--let's read it again!

Halfdan: What secular liberals "jump all over" is the repetition of the *talking point* that liberals are hostile to Christianity. And Obama does that quite clearly in this piece when he discusses the "Under God" controversy. He does that quite clearly when he talks about secular Americans wanting to keep religion out of the public square. He does that quite clearly when he makes reference to his policy stands on his website.

Again, if Obama wants to talk about God, he is perfectly able to do so without running down his allies in the process.

Speaking of straw men, Catherine's references to "the insistence that we can only be patriotic if we're Christian" and "these people who are insisting on thrusting Christianity into the public square." Those are right-wing, fundamentalist Christian views, and that's not the issue here. Right-wing fundamentalists are probably a minority of all Christians. The point here is that there are a whole lot of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians who are on the Washington Monthly's and Obama's side but are routinely insulted as superstitious morons. Just scroll up and down here. Go to any web site where religion comes up, directly or tangentially. Mention evolution at a chat site and you'll have people lining up to tell you that ALL Christians are deluded. Never mind that millions of Christians have no problem whatsoever with evolution. Ultimately, I blame all of this on the Falwells and Robertsons who have perverted a message of peace and compassion, but an awful lot of liberals are using the same black and white paint as the right wing.

Cranky- I pointed out that your first question is a straw man. Neither Senator Obama, nor I, nor cmdicely, nor anyone else in this thread has implied that it is disrespectful for secularists to feel uncomfortable when someone "turns the force of their religion on" them. The mere mention, in a speech, of his own religious faith and his opinion that this faith might be beneficial to other people hardly constitutes "force".

As for your second question, I honestly have no idea how such a hypothetical situation is relevant to this discussion.

Bob- I think we agree, by and large, on the big questions. And your concerns about the difficulty in discussing "cultural problems" generically are certainly valid. I was referring to Obama's "man with a hole in his heart" example, but "cultural problems" was admittedly not a terribly good word choice.

And yet, and yet... I think part of what ails liberalism today can be summarized by the attitude you express here, despite the good intentions:

"What, exactly, is a "cultural problem" separate from behavior, upbringing and environment? Which cultures have more "problems" than others -- and why? Do you see where I'm going with this ... a few steps down this slippery slope and we're into The Bell Curve terrain ..."

I don't think that the existence of people willing to exploit "cultural problems" for racist ends justifies an unwillingness to discuss real issues that affect real people. If nothing else, it gives the impression that the Bell Curve crowd are the only ones who care about these issues at all.

Upbringing and environment are extremely important. Violent behavior, gang mentality, misogyny, anti-intellectualism, and vacuous consumerism can't be addressed with money alone. These attitudes are passed down from generation to generation, and older children to younger children. These are nationwide concerns. They aren't confined to racial minorities or the inner cities.

Obama is one of the few contemporary politicians who is willing to talk about these matters in terms other than reductive right-wing black-and-white morality or complaints about "those people", and I personally have a great deal of respect for him.

This isn't about hanging the ten commandments or any of the other Republican shibboleths with which the trap is set for Democrats on religion; its about getting beyond those and dealing with the rhetorical and substantive disadvantages that aversion to values language from fear of religious discussion has, in Obama's eyes, produced.

But that's where you're wrong, rhetorically it's about respect for the Scots-Irish hegemony in US national politics, and nothing else, and through that respect for Republicanism and corporate feudalism as the basis of wit and national conversation.

Something that starts wrong, ends wrong, and that's why more than half the people in the US don't vote.

rmck1 asked: How does a secular state teach personal morality?

This is actually two distinct questions.

One is the question of what if any role the "state" (however you define "the state" -- Congressmen? Presidents? Police officers? School teachers?) should have in "teaching" personal morality. I won't address that.

The other question is what is the basis of personal morality for "secular" individuals, i.e. those who do not believe in or accept a personal morality mandated by God or the equivalent.

I believe the basis of secular morality is (1) the awareness that other sentient beings, like ourselves, can experience well-being or suffering; and (2) the awareness that our actions can cause other sentient beings to experience well-being or suffering; and (3) caring about the well-being and suffering of other sentient beings, which is the naturally occurring capacity of empathy.

If you know that others can experience well-being or suffering, and you know that your actions can cause others to experience well-being or suffering, and you care about whether others experience well-being or suffering, then you will try to act in such a way as to cause them to experience well-being rather than suffering.

This is essentially the basis of Buddhist morality, as set forth in the Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts: "moral" or ethical actions are those that tend to increase the well-being and reduce the suffering of all sentient beings. And Buddhist morality is essentially "secular" in that it does not derive from any "divine" or "supernatural" source (e.g. God) nor does it have any "divine" or "supernatural" consequence (e.g. reward or punishment after death). It simply says, do these things because they tend to produce well-being, for yourself and others; refrain from doing these other things because they tend to produce suffering for yourself and others.

cmdicely writes:

"Christian liberals can be deeply offended by the suggestion that there is any necessary connection between Christianity and Patriotism; no one suggests—certainly Obama does not suggest—that there should be compromise with intolerance, with the idea that you must follow a particular religious creed to be a real American. Stop inventing strawmen."

Sorry, cmdicely, but you are flat out wrong here. Obama expressly suggests that the conflation of religion and patriotism is a trifling matter in the section of his speech discussing the Pledge of Allegiance ("no one feels brainwashed etc.") I included the full quote in a previous post.

Spontaneous Ken Lay stories: a)he faked his own death, was shuttled into the hospital for emergency plastic surgery and is now roaming the streets dressed like Jeff Bridges in the Big Lebowski with secret millions at his disposal,

b) he was about to rat on the Bush crime family to stay out of jail and lightning struck.

Is it valid, for example, for a politician to vote to ban abortion, or to ban racial discrimination, on the basis of his religious belief that that is God's will?

Absolutely. Elected representatives are empowered to vote as they like. Democracy is a process for removing them from office if enough people don't like the way they vote.

One of the strongest arguments for the system of checks and balances created by the authors of the Constitution is that it makes no assumption whatever that politicians will not be driven by mania, greed, ambition, whatever. Elections ensure only that if things get out of hand, their constituents have regular opportunities to throw the buggers out.

How does a secular state teach personal morality?

Bob

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that all morality must be tied to a religious belief system? But if religion based morality is "more" moral than secular based morality, how do you explain the various atrocities committed in the name of major religions?

Also, do you really mean "teach" or do you mean "ensure obedience"? Teaching morality doesn't seem that difficult, but you seem to be infering that unless there is a divine authority acting as a source for a society's system of law and justice, that system won't be obeyed, or will be obeyed but not as well as when tied to religion.

bob,

I may have sounded snippy above, but I meant it. Music is the ideal model for getting along well with others.

A well-made secular education should have about twelve years of music lessons.

And no gym.

=== Cranky- I pointed out that your first question is a straw man. Neither Senator Obama, nor I, nor cmdicely, nor anyone else in this thread has implied that it is disrespectful for secularists to feel uncomfortable when someone "turns the force of their religion on" them. The mere mention, in a speech, of his own religious faith and his opinion that this faith might be beneficial to other people hardly constitutes "force". ===

Cranky

By the way, I am in part Scots-Irish.

Shortstop and halfdan--

I think the crux of this argument, every time it comes up, is a matter of interpretation.

I just simply don't see Obama's speech as a "repetition" of a Karl Rove talking point. Just as I never saw Amy Sullivan's articles in that light. Karl Rove has already won the last two rounds. Many people *really do* believe that liberals are hostile to religious faith, and Obama is addressing this as a real political problem for the Democratic Party. Ignoring the talking point, or saying "of course we aren't hostile to religion" don't seem to have been effective responses.

Obama discusses this in terms of a "trap" set by the Republicans that liberals "fall into", which I think is deadly accurate. He points out that "at best," liberals tend to be unwilling to discuss the subject, which is also probably accurate.

He also calls out those nefarious nogoodniks known as "some liberals" who "dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith."

Now, I personally think he should have taken greater pains to explain that he's talking about a small group within the liberal base, not a bunch of influential party leaders. But otherwise, I think this is an obviously true statement. There are comments in this very thread that fit this description.

Cranky- Your definition of "force" is a new one to me. I am also a secular American, and I simply don't feel put upon by liberal politicians who discuss their faith in a generic way and expect other liberals to respond politely. It just doesn't strike me as something to get upset about in a country that right-wing numbskulls are actively running into the ground.

The story of the Scots-Irish in the US is reasonably complex, but essentially it boils down to: As both England and Scotland had spent a thousand years or so exploiting them in proxy wars, so after the Revolution the Scots-Irish transferred their resentment, distrust and general malice from London to Washington. This was recognized and exploited by the Tory interest evolving into the bedrock of Conservative power we have today.

Ironically these Tories were the very people who had been so successfully exploiting the Scots-Irish for the previous thousand years.

cld:

You didn't sound snippy at all. Your comment made me chuckle -- and I wouldn't rule it out as part of a solution. Music teaches pro-social values.

As for my question about how would a secular society go about teaching personal morality -- there was much misunderstanding. Lemme try again:

First, I didn't ask at all how secular people could have a personal code of ethics; that's a no-brainer. SecularAnimist offers Buddhism, I'd throw out the Kantian Categorical Imperative, others might say conscience and good socialization. Whatever squeaks yer rubber duckie. I also don't believe that there's any meaningful correlation between being raised in a faith and bahaving morally.

I'm not quite comfortable with ajl's (and Obama's) belief that there are some so-called cultural problems that can't be solved by money alone. That smacks too much of knee-jerk anti-governmentism. While you're not likely to get a government program to prevent, e.g., fathers from abandoning families or that a Personal Morality program in highschool wouldn't be a class everyone would cut -- I do think that the single most important thing the government could do to address these sort of "hole in your life" problems is to foster an economy dedictated to working-class prosperity.

But I also brought up addressing "victimless crimes" with cmdicely, and that's where my question came from. Clearly, our society is awash in a lot of antisocial, self-destructive impulses out there -- which we apparently can't count on the family anymore to keep in check.

Aside from directly addressing meaningful economic opportunity and offering a future to the currently futureless -- what should the government do to step in the breach and teach what would amount to a remedial class in right and wrong?

Bob

So in your opinion it isn't sufficient that "some liberals" are comfortable with you having your religion; they must also be comfortable with you turning the force of your religion on them? Otherwise they are being "disrespectful"? I have a hard time seeing how anyone who fits the classical definition of liberal could meet that test.

What do you do when you meet a Christian who belongs to a denomination that considers overt proselytization a sin?

No Christian considers overt proselytization a sin. In the Bible, Jesus' last words to his disciples before ascending to heaven were to go forth and preach to all nations, making disciples in all the world. Overt proselytization is a direct order from Jesus. Any Christian who thinks otherwise has frankly written his own Bible.

Halfdan, do you think it is some kind of secret that many Democrats snicker about the stupid fundies who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ? Are you angry at Obama for exposing this 'secret' ? All you have to do is look at the agenda of the ACLU to see what the activist wing of the Democratic Party feels about Christianity.

The astonishing thing about this thread is its sheer whiteness. Obama is a Black man. He is the product of a very deeply fundamentalist religious community. African Americans. No Black people would find anything in his comments the least bit disturbing or unusual. No Black people would be the least bit astonished at frequent and plentiful religious references in political speeches (did not the struggles against slavery and Jim Crow begin in churches ?). No Black people would buy the idea that 'separation of church and state' means the complete silencing of the Christian voice in the public sphere (tell that to Wilberforce and Martin Luther King). The idea that it does is entirely for White secularists who have taken the peculiar position that they speak for the Democratic Party on religious issues (since secularists are oh so smarter than people who believe myths about the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Obama reflects completely the normal mainstream view of a community that is fed up with the open contempt for their deeply held beliefs among White latte liberals.

For the Black urban mother religion is the only thing standing between her children and street culture once they are 13. You see, once her children hit 13 they are pretty much lost to her. Their adolescent peer group has them. If she can give them a moral foundation, a religious foundation, maybe when they are 13 they will not be lost to street negativity. In her world religion is the one and only source of moral order and positivity and a desparate need for a community whose #1 problem isn't the discomfort of latte liberals at the mention of God but the carnage among its out of control sons.

Speaking of the ACLU, here is some interesting reading about those atheistic rascals who keep embarrassing us:

Jewish Family “Forced to Move” Over School Lawsuit

Would somebody please tell those religion-hating bastards at the ACLU to stop doing this stuff and thereby giving liberals a bad name? Tell 'em Kevin Drum says.

Think of a place where everyone had twelve years of music lessons. It would be a different country.

Charles Warren:

Excellent points.

Question: What should the government do here -- if it's Mom and her faith vs the mean streets?

Bob

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't."

I may never be able to support Obam afer this. I dont want religion treated as assumed for everyone in public school, period. This position by Obama clearly shows that he thinks that opression and brainwashing are ok with him as long as the victim doesn't "feel" opressed or brainwashed. Who is going to decide how kids should feel about being told to participate in relgious speech at school? What about the family? should they have any say?

This speech DOES stab Democrats like me in the back, saying that my concerns for my child and family are unjustified and petty. A little religion isn't going to hurt anyone.

I feel good when I hear Kerry or Clinton talk about their relegious values and the importance of religion in their upbringing. It is important to try to speak from conviction and speak from the heart. Obama's view is as if an athiest Democrat like me cant support someone like Kerry who says he is religious. That is simply NOT TRUE. What U vigourously fight is decisions and policy based purely on religion shoved down my throat. Obama is speaking as if he doesn't want my support, but people like me are an important component of the Democratic party because we give a damn about what happens in the world and do a lot of foot-work. So, his reaching out to the bigotted evangelicals is another DLC like move to gut the base and criticise the Dem part for some fantasy of getting part of that wacko-right to go along with the Democratic party.

I suspect now that he is selfishly triangulating in Liebermanesque way that I find disturbing.

ChetBob:

I'm an escaped Catholic and lifelong agnostic.

I didn't feel oppressed by "under God," either.

We need to pick and choose our fights. This really shouldn't be one of them.

Bob

Question: What should the government do here -- if it's Mom and her faith vs the mean streets?

I have come around to the position of supporting voucher programs because the inner city school systems are completely and totally dysfunctional. For the most part they are patronage mills. I have no problem of any kind with parochial or religious schools because the work here isn't just readn' writn' and 'rithmatic. It is the creation of civil society and the foundation of civil society in urban America is the churches. It can't be done without them. ACLU secularism is emphatically NOT what the inner city needs.

Sorry, cmdicely, but you are flat out wrong here. Obama expressly suggests that the conflation of religion and patriotism is a trifling matter in the section of his speech discussing the Pledge of Allegiance ("no one feels brainwashed etc.") I included the full quote in a previous post.

No, Obama expressly claims that something you feel conflates religion and patriotism is not a breach to the wall of separation; and particularly, that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance do not feel "oppressed" or "brainwashed".

(Now, I disagree with his apparent basis for the minor conclusion that children don't feel "oppressed" or "brainwashed"—"I didn't"—and with the implicit argument that the test for whether something which involves state-sponsored religious indoctrination violates the separation of Church and State is whether the children subjected to it feel oppressed or brainwashed and, finally, with his major conclusion that it doesn't breach the wall of separation between Church and State; OTOH, I while I disagree with the example, the point he is arguing for is not the generalization you make, rather, it is that "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation—context matters", which I agree with; similarly, I agree with his other example "Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats"&msdash;of course, if voluntary student anti-religious, areligious, or non-Christian religious groups are treated differently in that regard than Christian groups, even if only through unequal practical application of a facially-neutral policy, such as a requirement to secure a faculty sponsor, there is still a problem. But we can't have an honest discussion if you are going to deliberately take an example that was used to make a particular express point and, just because you disagree with the example, mischaracterize the argument he was making with it to some other generalization that someone might argue for using the example you dislike.)

Charles Warren:

Further question: The pre-civil rights jim crow Deep South was notoriosly both poorly schooled (blacks and whites) and highly religious.

It took the leadership of a few special people -- most importantly Dr. King of course -- to break the back of centuries' worth of bogus religious justifications for immoral behavior.

Why do you think that reinvigorated churches would reverse social trends primarily driven by our economic system?

Bob

Bob,

I'm really happy that neither you or Obama felt oppressed by "under god." That's not really the point, however. Either you stand up for the Constitution or your don't. That applies to small issues as well as large.

As expressed above, I don't feel that a ritualized conflation of religion and patriotism is a trivial matter. Evidently you and Obama and many others disagree. But the fact remains that the inclusion of the words in question is unconstitutional.

So you choose your battles as you see fit. But if your roster of causes worth fighting for doesn't include the Bill of Rights, then I grieve for your political soul.

So, his reaching out to the bigotted evangelicals is another DLC like move to gut the base and criticise the Dem part for some fantasy of getting part of that wacko-right to go along with the Democratic party.

ChetBob, why are white "Will and Grace" secularists convinced that they and they alone speak for the Democratic Party ? Last time I checked African Americans tended to be "bigotted evangelicals" who do not have particularly liberal views on abortion or gay marriage. Why have White knowlege worker secularists appointed themselves 'the base' as if Blacks and working class whites don't matter ?

Why do you think that reinvigorated churches would reverse social trends primarily driven by our economic system?

Just because people are poor doesn't mean that they turn into Crips or Bloods or Mara Salvatrucha. There is no question that in a culture that sells the notion that if don't have X, Y, and Z you are dirt envy produces murderous rage. But murderous envy occurs in a moral vaccuum. Poor and underclass are two different things.

Charles Warren: All you have to do is look at the agenda of the ACLU to see what the activist wing of the Democratic Party feels about Christianity.

The ACLU has no connection whatsoever to the Democratic Party, "activist wing" or otherwise, except in the minds of right-wing ideologues.

Also, a fact ignored by right-wing ideologues who like to demonize the ACLU "agenda" for political advantage is that the ACLU has sued local governments to force them to permit privately sponsored religious services in public places, where the government in question had banned such events from public facilities that were open to other, non-religious, privately sponsored events, with the ACLU taking the position that such a ban violates the First Amendment protection of the "free exercise" of religion.

The ACLU is non-partisan and is not anti-religion. Its sole purpose is the protection of every American's fundamental, Constitutionally-protected rights. Claims that the ACLU is associated in any way with the Democratic Party or that it is anti-religion are nothing but ignorance or cynical fraud.

Could today's Dems, libs and bloggers have the stomach for the driven-by-God moralism of MLK III? Would his words have been seen as a Trojan Horse for the religious right?

Gandi wasn't exactly an atheistic moralist either.

Right now, liberals can be outraged, angry, motivated, whatever, as long as "G" "O" "D" is left out. Add those letters in, and whatever point you were trying to make is drowned out in the kvetching about simply bringing the idea of a supreme being into it.

The reality of the situation is that there are many religious, or devout or even holiday-only liberals smart enough to understand the difference between faith and what 's preached by Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson. But what we can't understand is why some of our idealogical brethren feel the need to shut us down in a similar manner.

Morals can exist without religion. This should make many of these commenters happy. But isn't one of those morals tolerance?

I really wasn't trying to implicitly plump for an argument in favor of getting the state out of regulating so-called "victimless crimes." While I'm pretty civ-lib, I don't necessarily believe that hard drug use or prostitution are essentially victimless, though a person may start out indulging in them "innocently" enough ...

I think drug use per se (except when its smoked in a public place) is usually "victimless" in the sense that the only victim is the supposed criminal, though it may be an "occasion of sin" contributing to other crimes; I don't think making such substances contraband is categorically in inappropriate use of government resources, though empirically it seems generally a failed use.

Prostitution is generally similar; and in both case criminalization often makes the problems worse. But that's not really the point I was making, I certainly was no more looking to get into a debate on specific "victimless crimes" and the right policy response than you were.

And I'm very interested in what the state's role should be in fostering the kind of personal morality that would lead to less of this personally destructive behavior.

How does a secular state teach personal morality?

I think (and, ironically enough, this is something of a religious belief) the first problem is jumping to the assumption that the fundamental problem here is one of personal morality; certainly, there is a moral failing involved, but circumstance clearly has a role, as well.

The state's role, as I see, it is to what can be done to understand and deal with the circumstance, to provide a strong general education that enables people to make responsible moral decisions considering consequences to themselves and others, and largely to get out of the way while the marketplace of ideas deals with the development of personal morality—and to deal appropriately when someone becomes, or is imminently threatened with, harm.

athos:

So I'm either with the Constitution or I'm against it, huh.

Is that like either being with the terrorists or against them?

Such simpleminded dichotomization ...

"Under God" is not unconstitutional, since it's a generic phrase not the property of any particular church. I wouldn't have included it in the Pledge to begin with (especially in response to McCarthyite pressure) -- but I'm not going to bust a nut over it either. It's only words, bro.

BTW -- why are you attempting to pick a fight with a guy who's nearly as secular as you are?

What do you want me to do -- fear for your rhetorical soul or something? :)

Bob

see, i read that as a Combination of secular public policy and faith institutions working together, not an either/or proposition. and Obama later says this "Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." so i wouldn't be so sure he'd devolve into just christianity.

This is where Obama just reeks of naivete. Do you know how many Christian adults are in this country? 159 million. Do you know how many Hindu adults are in this country? 766 thousand. Buddhist? 1 million. Muslims? 1 million. Jews? 3 million. Do you really think that if we opened this pandora's box with a gentle warning against "sectarianism" that everyone is going to hold hands and play nicely together? No. Evangelical Christians are once again going to dominate, and it will only deepen the divides between different people.

Let's say that we relax the rules on prayer in school, and we invite everyone to participate. Are Muslim children really going to drop down on prayer rugs and pray several times a day while at school? Are Hindu children really going to pray publicly in school, with the graven idols and the flowers and the chanting and the incense and all the rest? Maybe in a particularly enlightened urban environment, but in the vast majority of the country it's beyond ridiculous even to contemplate.

Obama's view is as if an athiest Democrat like me cant support someone like Kerry who says he is religious.

No, I think you miss the point.

Obama's view is not that no atheist Democrat can support a religious candidate.

It's that (among other things; there are some policy as well as political issues) the general poor handling of values issues, particularly when it involves religion, makes it hard for religious Democrats, like me (or more importantly, religious swingable voters) to get enthusiastic about many Democratic candidates.

cmdicely,

I think that it is fairly clear,

There is nothing remotely clear about the phrase "checking your religion at the door when entering the public square." Your continued evasions when asked what you mean by that phrase suggests that you don't even know what you mean by it yourself.

Actually, its that it must have a legitimate secular purpose, which is considerably more narrow.

No, the Lemon Test states that the law must have a secular legislative purpose. The secular purpose must obviously be legitimate, rather than just some ruse or pretext for a purpose whose true nature is religious.

Our point of disagreement, again, seems to be that you think that not only can "secular" and "religious" purposes be meaningfully distinguished, but that "secular" and "religious" are exclusive attributes and a purpose cannot be "secular" and "religious" simultaneously,

A purpose cannot be both secular and religious simultaneously. The two categories are mutually exclsuive.

whereas I see the two as, while distinguishable, essentially orthogonal categories: "religious" deals with a kind of motivation, "secular" deals with subject matter.

No, that is not the difference in meaning between the terms "religious" and "secular." A purpose that is both secular and religious is an oxymoron.

Charles Warren wrote: why are white "Will and Grace" secularists convinced that they and they alone speak for the Democratic Party ?

And what exactly is the basis of your claim that people that you stereotype, disparage and sneer at as "Will and Grace secularists" are in fact convinced that "they alone speak for the Democratic Party"? Beyond the fact that some people express values and views that differ from yours and prefer to vote for elected officials whose values and views are similar to their own, and not yours?

Do you really have anything to offer to the discussion beyond ignorant comments about the ACLU, sneering stereotypes of liberal Democrats, and patronizing comments about poor black people?

Halfdan, do you think it is some kind of secret that many Democrats snicker about the stupid fundies who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?

Oh I have no problem admitting my hostility to fundamentalism, if that's the question.

"Under God" is not unconstitutional, since it's a generic phrase not the property of any particular church.

So? Neither is the Nicene Creed. I'm pretty sure you'd reject having public school teachers read that, with students encouraged to participate, at the beginning of each day.

The Constitution prohibits the government from directing religious indoctrination, whether the doctrines are particular to a single church or merely common to a particular broad kind of religion.

A hundred years ago abortion was legal. The Pledge of Allegiance had just been written, by a Socialist, but was not a required genuflection at every public gathering. In western Washington we had socialist communities, anarchist communities, free-love communities, and nudist colonies.

Fifty years ago most of that variety was illegal. The ratio of FBI men to communists was about one-to-one, all schoolchildren were required to pledge allegiance under god, contraception was illegal in Chicago and many states, and, perhaps worst of all, the blacklists and redbaiting had pretty much destroyed the American film industry, creating a vapid wasteland of bible classics and Elvis Presley movies.

Today we are ruled by morons who think the legitimacy of our government comes from god, when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly state it is derived from the consent of the governed.

Why is it radical to think we should back this train up before it goes over the cliff?

SecularAnimist: You should know by now that Chuckie has nothing to add short of a replay of his favorite rave. No use asking him for evidence or reasoned argument.

the general poor handling of values issues, particularly when it involves religion

You mean like the "sacred" institution of civil marriage? Sacred institutions belong in churches, not in courthouses.

A purpose cannot be both secular and religious simultaneously. The two categories are mutually exclsuive.

Atheist, look, I identified that as the fundamental disagreement that made our further discussion of this issue pointless some time ago. If you've got nothing to add besides repeating, ad nauseum, your position on this issue, please STFU.

Don P wrote: A purpose that is both secular and religious is an oxymoron.

Your entire post at 6:35PM is nothing but vapid nonsense intended to lure cmdicely into another of your endless, pointless, meaningless arguments-for-the-sake-of-argument by which you nourish your diseased, bloated ego's insatiable craving to feel superior to others by impressing yourself with your ability to maliciously waste people's time with bullshit.

I have no problem of any kind with parochial or religious schools because the work here isn't just readn' writn' and 'rithmatic. It is the creation of civil society and the foundation of civil society in urban America is the churches.

And Moral Oral is the ideal world.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the sociology of the development of African-American culture out of Scots-Irish culture seems plain.

The problem that Obama is trying to address is quite difficult. The US is unique among post-industrial nations because it is, like the others, becoming more religiously, culturally and ethnically diverse AND it has a large population that is deeply religious and patriarchal even to the point of Christian nationalism (a true sign of being alienated from tradition). Something similar to Falangism in Spain in the time of Franco.

The strong reaction against religion in the public sphere is really a reaction against exclusive nationalism masquerading as religion. It is certainly not a denunciation of fair-minded faith and religion.

As I have pointed out many times before, traditionalism has been on the decline for about 600 years. What cultural conservatives defend as traditional life is really a shadow of the patriarchy of 1950 and certainly 1850 and they will continue to loose ground. Americans are now very gnostic and quite syncretistic in their beliefs. Anyone who reads the evangelical literature is aware of this fact.

The sad thing is the modern Republican Party has cynically exploited religious belief in the never-ending culture war to gain power and money for their real base- the rich. Traditionalists vote to block gay marriage and instead they get tax cuts for haves and the have-mores.

cmdicely:

Your Nicene Creed example was pretty overdrawn, don't you think? It excludes Judiasm, Islam and all the Eastern religions. It also excludes (if I'm not mistaken) the Orthodox Church as well.

"God," OTOH is a generic concept common to all religions -- save for a few abstract flavors of Buddhism. Heh, maybe Unitarian Universalism too, although I don't know if even Unitarians are quite sure about that :)

If you're correct -- is "In God We Trust," on currency printed by Congress as authorized by Article I, unconstitutional as well?

How is indoctrination possible when the indoctrinating concept is so broad as to be vacuous?

Bob

"Do you really have anything to offer to the discussion beyond ignorant comments about the ACLU, sneering stereotypes of liberal Democrats, and patronizing comments about poor black people?"

Patronizing comments about poor black people ?

I grew up a poor black person. I was a landlord for 20 years in Newark, NJ and saw the mothers in my building struggling, Bible in hand, to keep their sons out of street negativity.

You see my comments as patronizing because only stupid people in your view could be religious and to 'imply' that Blacks are overwhelmingly fundamentalist can only mean to you that Blacks are overwhelmingly stupid.

You are angry because I question your right to speak for the Democratic 'base' as if Blacks don't exist or were "Will and Grace" secularists.

To a very considerable extent, people like you have driven me out of the Democratic Party. I wanted an alternative to Bush in 2004, but when I realized how yoked he was to people like you I realized that I could not vote for Kerry.

How does a secular state teach about personal morality.

It's not the function of the state.

cmdicely

The exact same role as moral beliefs more generally

Now you're contradicting yourself (gee, there's a suprise). You just claimed that you agree with the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test holds that a law must have a secular purpose to be constitutional. If a law has only a religious purpose, it is unconstitutional. Therefore, under the Lemon Test, religious beliefs about morality cannot play the same role in a public official's duties as secular beliefs about morality. A law may be constitutional if its only purpose is to serve secular morality, but it can never be constitutional if its only purpose is to serve religious morality.

Bob,

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to make the point that we can't afford to incrementally give way on the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure you will agree that there has been a disturbing erosion of of these protections under the current administration. I simply feel that to acquiesce to one depradation is merely to open the door a little wider for the next.

As you say, we need to choose our battles. I just think you've already ceded to much ground to the "enemy" if you are willing to allow governmentally mandated religious speech in the public schools.

You mean like the "sacred" institution of civil marriage?

Actually, yes, though not in the way you seem to mean; the hemming and hawing around the edges rather than coming out and making a principled stand on what civil marriage ought to be and why is a huge political problem (as well as a major barrier to substantive policy progress.)

Sacred institutions belong in churches, not in courthouses.

Agreed. Unfortunately, rather than saying that, most Democratic politicians engage in turtling-up avoidance exercises and mumbling about "civil unions" and other separate civil institutions from marriage, in order to attempt to avoid offense by not taking the values debate offered by the horns. Liberals—particularly, those in office—need to be less afraid of making values arguments, whether they stem from religion or not, whether the conclusions they seek match the doctrines of popular religion or not. Indeed, particularly when the conclusions contradict the doctrines of popular religion, because there much of the electorate already sees a principled reason to say no. They need to be given a principled reason to instead say yes.

Obama: “It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed...”

This statement illustrates the shallow and Pollyannaish nature of Obama’s speech. I realize that you can construct a “political” argument that Obama’s speech is smart politics, but you can do that with a lot of positions, which are truly repugnant.

Look at the substance of that statement. Is it even true? Of course not. Reverse the meaning of the God part and tell me it’s innocuous, i.e., require the children to recite “One nation, not under God...” Still say it has no brainwashing component?

If you want to create a permanent fight, inject religion into American politics. The original pledge was secular and popular. School children recited it. Then, in the 1950s, some folks decided to add a religious component (“under God”), and people have been fighting about it ever since.

Same was true of the “In God we trust” fiasco on money. Was not there originally. The founding fathers created a secular nation were intentionally. Try actually reading the constitution. It’s a very obvious break with Devine Right and any other religion-based concept you can name.

We don’t agree about religion. So, we created a secular government.

As to the above question about how a secular state teaches personal morality. Gee, just teach the laws of the land, morality is built into them. These laws have evolved through the ages and we do have mechanisms to come to agreement about the law.

"SecularAnimist: You should know by now that Chuckie has nothing to add short of a replay of his favorite rave. No use asking him for evidence or reasoned argument."

Friend of Labor (?) who wants to drown American workers in a wave of cheap labor, how many times do you have to get your butts whipped before you suspect that maybe the reason isn't "THE DIEBOLD MACHINES ARE FIXED !!!!" but maybe the American people just plain don't like what you stand for ?

Dawne Touchings,

Great point when you said:

"So much talk about religion... so little talk about morality. It is ironic that this is occurring at a time when our conduct as a nation is highly immoral... "

What do you think the implications are from this perspective?

Regards,

As near as I can tell, Obama and Kevin's complaint is not that some liberals are hostile to religion. As commentators have pointed out, this mystical "some" doesn't exist in any meaningful form.

The problem that Obama seems to have (and Kevin seems to be behind him) is that some liberals are secular. The Democratic party may have a big enough tent to welcome a lot of groups, but people who aren't willing to vocally profess their love for an Abrahamic diety are being told to shove off.

bellumregio:

As per usual, an extremely trenchant post.

That's precisely why I feel so ambivalent about this issue and appear sometimes to be arguing both sides of it.

On the one hand, I shudder at the subtext of a "special Christian nation" and abhor the idea of a religious test.

On the other, I don't want to gratuitously offend voters in the Democratic Party whose beliefs have become so generic that they no way fit the playbook of the political fundevangelists I genuinely fear.

Bob

cmdicely,

Atheist, look, I identified that as the fundamental disagreement

You can "identify it as a fundamental disagreement" as many times as you like, but that doesn't support your nonsensical claim that a single purpose can be both "religious" and "secular." How is "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" a religious purpose? Where is the religious content of that purpose? There is none.

You just claimed that you agree with the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test holds that a law must have a secular purpose to be constitutional. If a law has only a religious purpose, it is unconstitutional. Therefore, under the Lemon Test, religious beliefs about morality cannot play the same role in a public official's duties as secular beliefs about morality.

A belief about morality that involves the relation of multiple entities in the material world is "secular". A belief about morality that is motivated by religion is "religious".

It is possible for the same belief to meet both these criteria.

But, yes, I know you believe "religious" and "secular" are exclusive traits, and that belief of yours makes our discussion on this issue unproductive. I pointed out this fundamental disagreement and that it was an absolute barrier to productive conversation a long time ago.

Liberals—particularly, those in office—need to be less afraid of making values arguments, whether they stem from religion or not, whether the conclusions they seek match the doctrines of popular religion or not.

While I agree with you, the problem is that when Democrats follow your advice they're accused (by fellow Democrats no less) of being hostile to religion and offending so-called values voters.

Somewhere upthread rmck1 says he might support legalizing drugs, but not "warehousing addicts" and goes on to ask about some moral creed for Democrats.

How about the secular moral creed, AKA RTFM. When heroin addicts are able to get regular doses legally, most of them live regular productive lives that are little different from anyone else. The real warehousing takes place in the U.S., where we stack them like cordwood in prisons for the rest of their lives, because "Christian" morality dictates that people be caged like animals and raped or beaten regularly.

I'm tired of faith-based solutions.

Bob,

"How is indoctrination possible when the indoctrinating concept is so broad as to be vacuous?"

Vacuous is in the eye of the beholder, I guess...

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but the very point of inserting the words "under god" in the first place were to reinforce the idea that deistic religion and patriotism are synonymous. For atheists and non-deists that was offensive and oppressive, and it continues to be offensive and oppressive to this day. If you don't want to take the word of an atheist on this, at least acknowledge the Ninth Circuit ruling in the Newdow case and explain why the court was wrong in ruling as it did.

As near as I can tell, Obama and Kevin's complaint is not that some liberals are hostile to religion. As commentators have pointed out, this mystical "some" doesn't exist in any meaningful form.

The problem that Obama seems to have (and Kevin seems to be behind him) is that some liberals are secular.

Obviously, then, you aren't reading; Obama's problem is that even the liberals who aren't hostile to religion (and those that are, btw, do exist in a "meaningful form") often avoid religious issues (this is by far more common among the publicly visible leaders) and the combination of hostility and avoidance serves the partisan issues of the Republican Party in claiming to represent the overwhelming religious majority of Americans.

You can disagree with Obama, that's fine. But what's the point of just outright making up false positions for him so that you can argue against them?

Wolfdaughter,

Excellent point:

"I am a progressive Christian who believes that all people have their own unique spiritual journeys, and for some people that means NO spiritual journey. I respect the rights of all people to lead their lives as they see fit, as long as they aren't demonstrably harming others in doing so.

I also believe that it's possible for people of good will, regardless of personal faith or lack thereof, to come together and make common cause to tackle the dire problems facing us, such as poverty and too few jobs, education, health care, global warming, etc. And we can work together, informed by faith or not informed by faith, toward using war as a very last resort rather than a first response."

I am of the same mind as you and would suggest that commenters give this essay by Dr. Robert Jensen a read. He is a secularist who made himself a member of a local church.

What he had to say speaks very much to your points above and then some. It cuts through this widely meandering discussion too.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whyiamachristian.htm

Regards,

cmdicely,

A belief about morality that involves the relation of multiple entities in the material world is "secular". A belief about morality that is motivated by religion is "religious". It is possible for the same belief to meet both these criteria.

This is nonsense. First, a "belief about morality that involves the relation of multiple entities in the material world" is obviously not necessarily "secular." The moral belief may be religious regardless of what "entities in the material world" are involved in it. And a belief about morality that is "motivated" by religion is necessarily a religious moral belief. A purpose of advancing or supporting or codifying that religious moral belief is therefore necessarily a religious purpose rather than a secular one.

Your Nicene Creed example was pretty overdrawn, don't you think?

Nope. It doesn't belong to a particular church, which was the standard you suggested justified "under God".

It excludes Judiasm, Islam and all the Eastern religions. It also excludes (if I'm not mistaken) the Orthodox Church as well. "God," OTOH is a generic concept common to all religions -- save for a few abstract flavors of Buddhism.

There are quite a few other religions that might have problem with singling out "God" for the United States to be a nation "under"; particularly, any that aren't monotheistic.

If you're correct -- is "In God We Trust," on currency printed by Congress as authorized by Article I, unconstitutional as well?

Perhaps, though its clearly a less significant violation.

How is indoctrination possible when the indoctrinating concept is so broad as to be vacuous?

The idea that:
1) a single Supreme Being of some kind exists, and
2) The United States is, as a nation, subordinate to that Supreme Being
is (a) not vacuous, and (b) clearly religious, and (c) clearly antithetical to the values in the Constitution (which last is a policy, rather than Constitutional law, reason to oppose it.)

Atheist,

I think we've established by now that we disagree on fundamental definitions here and that further discussion is not productive.

In fact, I think that was established quite some time ago. I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing by simply repeating your position.

On the other hand, legislators who vote in favor of government assistance to the poor, or environmental protection, may have secular motivations or religious motivations for doing so; but in neither case does the motivation of a particular legislator have any relevance to the constitutionality of the legislation itself. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what motivations members of Congress are permitted to have.

Nonsense. If the purpose of the law is religiously motivated then the purpose of the law is religious. Or are you now claiming that there's such a thing as a religiously-motivated secular purpose?

Look, the Democratic Party is a political party concerned with running the government. If Democrats by and large think the government shouldn't tell us what to think about religion, what is so darn bad about them not talking about religion? Most of us also belong to churches and that's where we talk about religion.

Is Obama saying you should pretend to endorse religion to get what you want? Given most of the religious examples before us, it would not be hard to think that's what he's saying.

And just how much future is there in believing in angels instead of evolution? Americans may have learned that it is safer to pretend they believe in religion, but it's pretty obvious that almost nobody actually thinks they'll face St. Peter at the gates of heaven. Televangelists make their money the old-fashioned way, by advertising, putting on a great show, and promising something for nothing. By their works ye shall know them.

cmdicely,

How is "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" a religious purpose? Where is the religious content in that purpose?

athos:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I just think that we on the left have much bigger fish to fry, and if avoiding offending religious people on the left (like the estimable cmdicely) for the sake of working together on issues that are more than symbolic -- then squelching my personal view for that reason is worth it.

You have to give a little to get a little in politics. That's the way it works.

serial catowner:

I dunno if the thread should veer off into drug policy, but here's what I'm saying.

In Holland, if you're a heroin addict, you can get a steady dose from the government. On top of that, you can go on welfare. While not all active heroin addicts lead unproductive lives -- many of them do. The upshot is that there are a whole bunch of junkies in Holland who eat, sleep and shoot up -- while doing precious little else -- on the public dime.

Is that less dehumanizing than imprisoning them? Perhaps.

But it strikes me as being no less soul-destroying (I use that phrase metaphorically) in the long run.

I don't think that lifestyle should be carried by taxpayers. Much rather that money go to -- student loan grants, you know?

Bob

cmdicely,

"No, Obama expressly claims that something you "feel" conflates religion and patriotism is not a breach to the wall of separation; and particularly, that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance do not feel "oppressed" or "brainwashed"."

I cannot of course claim to be entirely objective, but in this instance I am pretty confident that my "feelings" about the Pledge in its current form are a pretty accurate reflection how the Pledge actually functions. Given the stated intent of the legislators who originally mandated the inclusion of the words "under god," combined with my subjective experience of the pledge as a young atheist, I think it is a fair characterization to say that the Pledge conflates godliness and patriotism.

Really, I don't see where you and I disagree substantially about the import and intent of Obama's comments on the Pledge issue. And I do agree that the use of school rooms for religious groups is not necessarily a breach of the "wall." I didn't mention it merely because it wasn't germane to my argument. There were a lot of other things in the speech with which I had no problem, either.

Again, I am not trying to pick a fight on this issue, but it is one about which I feel strongly.

I was a landlord for 20 years in Newark, NJ and saw the mothers in my building struggling, Bible in hand, to keep their sons out of street negativity.

Bible in hand and failing still?

Bob and cmdicely: I have no interest in gratuitously offending voters about religion or anything else. So, there have been times when I have gone silent after somebody expresses an obviously uncompromising religious belief. What else is there to be said after you express disagreement? I am not hostile toward religion at all...until someone tries to use it in a coercive fashion.

Really, what can you say about and absolutely unalterable position taken by someone else? The Evolution issue illustrates this. It happens to illustrate how people often allow their “religious beliefs” to make themselves pretty foolish.

cmdicely: I would comment that religious beliefs, perforce, cannot be questioned; at least not basic religious beliefs. Therefore, it’s a real problem when religious belief collides with secular law. And that does happen.

cmdicely,

How is "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" a religious purpose? Where is the religious content in that purpose?

Posted by: Atheist on July 5, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

I'll take that.

In the Old Testament there was the Year of Jubilee. Every 50 years, bond slaves and prisoners were to be freed, debts forgiven, and ancestral lands restored. This was because God did not want wealth to congeal at the top with the Israelites divided into a hereditary landed aristocracy lording over debt peons.

And didn't St Paul say, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" ? And the entire concept that EVERY Christian of whatever class is your brother in Christ impacts how you are to treat him. Ephesians goes into reciprocal obligations in authority relationships.

I don't think that lifestyle should be carried by taxpayers. Much rather that money go to -- student loan grants, you know?

Except that the alternative—imprisonment of addicts, the related cost of the criminal justice system, and their resultant criminal acculturation—is no less expensive in a narrow analysis, and probably far more expensive in a broader analysis that includes the crime it promotes, so "student loan grants" aren't the alternative use of the money.

Charles Warren:

Good answer from a Christian POV.

The Kantian Categorical Imperative commands that people should never be treated as a means to an ends, but always as an ends in themselves.

The Ten Commandments says not to kill, steal, act with envy or commit adultery.

The two -- one secular, the other religious, clearly overlap to the extent of in essence, saying the same thing.

Bob

Really, I don't see where you and I disagree substantially about the import and intent of Obama's comments on the Pledge issue.

We disagree pretty obviously about the intent of the comments. You think he's making a broad claim about compromising on the wall of separation; I think that—as he explicitly claims—he's using it as an example [and, again, I think its a bad example] of the principle that context counts when evaluating whether a particular action which seems to involve the public sphere and religion really breaches the wall.

I think the principle is correct and important; I think he's wrong on that particular illustration.

I was a landlord for 20 years in Newark, NJ and saw the mothers in my building struggling, Bible in hand, to keep their sons out of street negativity.

Bible in hand and failing still?

Spoken like a bourgeous whitey.

You have no idea how enticing the street can be to an adolescent of less than heroic character and less than ironclad principles. How desparately important it is to teenagers to be cool and accepted by the crowd. You can only resist it if you listen to a higher voice that tells you that what "everybody says" is wrong. And that voice has to come from a higher authority than Mom. You can't fight the gang alone.

I saw mothers fail and I saw them succeed. People have to make their own choices. There is such a thing as free moral choice. But all mothers knew they couldn't fight the street alone.

lil ole jim from red country nails it. The senator seems unable to view the debate from the other side - the very behavior he is ascribing to others. He is happy to listen to his christian anti-abortion doctor, but doesn't believe that an atheist protesting about "under god" might have a reasonable view also. He doesn't see that "faith-based" programs with coersive proselytizing can in fact be seen as a threat to people who don't believe, need the treatment, but aren't offered an alternative that meets their beliefs (and there are programs of that sort).

This is basically a "can't you just pretend to be a christian and fit in" plea, even as he says it isn't. Who decides the "sense of proportion" in what is acceptable - it's only a little bit of God after all, be reasonable you unbelievers.

And this for Patrick Briggs - Jansen's essay is the height of this hypocritical view. He had to disguise himself as a "chistian" in order to be able to speak to other people of faith? How he sees nothing wrong with what he wrote, I do not know?

"In his 1927 lecture “Why I Am Not a Christian,” the philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “A good world … needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead.” I couldn’t agree more, and I joined a Christian church to be part of that hope for the future ..."

Which bit of this doesn't set his alarm bells going?

In the Old Testament there was the Year of Jubilee. Every 50 years, bond slaves and prisoners were to be freed, debts forgiven, and ancestral lands restored. This was because God did not want wealth to congeal at the top with the Israelites divided into a hereditary landed aristocracy lording over debt peons. And didn't St Paul say, "The laborer is worthy of his hire" ? And the entire concept that EVERY Christian of whatever class is your brother in Christ impacts how you are to treat him. Ephesians goes into reciprocal obligations in authority relationships.

I don't understand how you think this answers the question I asked. The purpose I described was "securing the right to a minimal standard of living." There's no mention in that purpose of God, the Bible, St Paul or any of the other religious entities you describe in your response. You seem to be substituting a religious purpose along the lines of "implementing the teachings of the Bible" or "implementing the will of God" for the secular purpose I described.

Charles Warren:

Are you saying that religion is the only possible alternative?

cmdicely:

I absolutely do not believe in imprisoning addicts merely because they're addicts. The human cost of the so-called war on drugs is both tragic and obscene to contemplate.

I'd rather those addicts get treatment. I'd rather drug addiction be treated like a disease rather than a moral failing.

But that being said, I don't believe the public has any obligation to subsidize substance abuse a la Holland.

Bob

Spoken like a bourgeous whitey.

Yeah, because being middle class and white means you have no experience of adolescence. Puh-leeze.

You have no idea how enticing the street can be to an adolescent of less than heroic character and less than ironclad principles.

Is this somehow uniquely true of black adolescents because of some moral defect? Or is it, perhaps the difference in results here a matter of circumstance for which the correction the government ought to pursue is changes to the circumstance rather than trying to change the morality of the people involved, since the moral character of the people isn't the problem?

You can only resist it if you listen to a higher voice that tells you that what "everybody says" is wrong.

Its a lot easier when what everyone says really is wrong, and manifestly so, and the idea that the system is stacked against you, the laws, or at least their enforcers, are set against you, and that there is no reasonable opportunity for material success within the system isn't the overwhelming message—not from the pulpits (there are always plenty of preachers selling good living), but from experienced reality.

I saw mothers fail and I saw them succeed. People have to make their own choices. There is such a thing as free moral choice. But all mothers knew they couldn't fight the street alone.

Certainly, it doesn't take being a mother to see that; the question, of course, isn't whether they need help, but what kind?

cmdicely,

context counts when evaluating whether a particular action which seems to involve the public sphere and religion really breaches the wall.

Since you've already agreed (until your later self-contradiction--but let's ignore that for now) that laws can only be justified by secular purposes and not by religious ones, why are Obama's religious beliefs relevant to his duties as a lawmaker at all? They cannot justify any of the laws he supports. Only secular purposes can do that. So why bring them into it at all? What's the point?

Atheist:

Everyone who has commented on this is correct. You deliberately misread things for the sake of provoking pointless arguments.

Periodically forgiving debts for the sake of forestalling the development of an entrenched wealthy class directly speaks to the right of all to earn a living.

If you can't see that, you're either stupid or perverse.

Bob

But that being said, I don't believe the public has any obligation to subsidize substance abuse a la Holland.

I don't think the public has an "obligation" to do many things that, nevertheless, produce a net social utility and which the public is better off doing.

While, of course, if the public has an obligation to do something, it ought to adopt that thing as a policy, the absence of an obligation does not mandate the absence of the policy.

cmdicely:

Nice response to Charles Warren.

I was essentially trying to lead ajl down that path and away from the "cultural problems" analysis.

Bob

Charles Warren,

You're putting the cart before the horse,

Societies Worse Off When They Have God on Their Side,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

cmdicely:

Okay I'll rephrase (I need to be careful with colloquial rhetoric when I'm posting to you :)

I think it is neither morally correct nor wise as a matter of policy to subsidize drug addicts who persist in their addiction.

Bob

Rick Santorum: "I am voting to ban abortion because of my religious belief that abortion violates God's teachings about the sanctity of life."

Barack Obama: "I am voting to ban discrimination against gays because of my religious belief that discrimination violates Jesus' teachings to love one's neighbor."

Why is Santorum's vote the unconstitutional imposition of his religion on other people, but not Obama's vote?

Religion is simply an abnegation of personal responsibility, Yahwistic religion particularly so.

rmck1,

I have no idea what statements of mine your post of 7:43pm is supposed to be addressing.

Since you've already agreed (until your later self-contradiction--but let's ignore that for now) that laws can only be justified by secular purposes and not by religious ones,

No, I haven't. First, I've never agreed with the implied exclusivity of secular and religious purpose, in fact, we've disagreed at considerable length in this thread on that point. Second, while I've agreed with the premise of the Lemon test that a law, in order to be Constitutional, must have a legitimate secular purpose, I've never argued that that is the only thing which can justify a law, indeed, I've specifically argued in this thread that non-secular purposes may well inform priorities among potentially acceptable laws.

So, the premise of your question is completely wrong, and not only that, but dishonest as well.

why are Obama's religious beliefs relevant to his duties as a lawmaker at all?

Mainly, I think that his ability to honestly discuss his motivations are relevant to his effectiveness as a lawmaker and politician, given that building popular support is necessary to effectiveness in those endeavors, and I think that that's the broader argument he is making about liberals and Democrats in general, as well; this is somewhat tangential to your question, but you'll just have to live with that, since I didn't claim ever that it was otherwise related to his duties.

Though he does argue about how approach to religious issues (distinct from religious beliefs) may also be relevant to duties, particularly, in not missing certain kinds of explanations for social problems.

Atheist:

Because a legislator's motives are irrelevant, as has been pointed out many times on this thread.

He could be voting to ban abortions because the Easter Bunny came into a dream and told him to do so.

Santorum's move is unconstitutional because it violates the rights of women who are seeking abortions.

Bob

I think it is neither morally correct nor wise as a matter of policy to subsidize drug addicts who persist in their addiction.

To the extent someone "persists", which suggests a free choice, the problem isn't "addiction".

Religion is simply an abnegation of personal responsibility, Yahwistic religion particularly so.

While certainly religion (like many other things) can be used as an excuse to abrogate personal responsibility, I certainly disagree that it fundamentally is such an abrogation.

Why is Santorum's vote the unconstitutional imposition of his religion on other people

Its not, its an unconstitutional usurpation of powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution.

Have you taken an oath never to ask any question without a false premise?

cmdicely:

I think I need to start calling you cm slicely 'n' dicely :)

C'mon, bro ... do you really need to pull out the tweezers here?

An addict who refuses to get treatment and continues to use his/her addictive substance is persisting in their addiction.

And supporting that -- rather than treatment to stop using the addictive substance -- is morally wrong and wrong as a matter of policy.

And every goddamned addiction counselor in the country would agree with that.

Bob

The main problem is that “religious” in this context, means monotheistic religions of Semitic origin, centered on the Bible and Koran. These people and their my-way-is-the-only-way beliefs are dangerous. Typically, whenever one of them obtains a strong majority, they try to marginalize or eradicate all other points of view. The most important challenge is not to keep religion separate from government, but to keep those voracious monotheistic religions separate from government.

My picture of paradise is to have free exchanges between all ways of seeking the Absolute. My city would have a manger scene on the courthouse lawn, a great Buddha in the public square, statues of Einstein and Bertrand Russel in the park and a giant idol of Shiva down in the river. Let the discussions begin!

The Buddhists and Hindus would join in, but would the monotheistic religions participate with those “devil worshippers”? Not on your life.

cmdicely:

Pre-emptive clarification:

Obviously an addict, by definition, has no willpower control over his/her use of the addictive substance.

"Free will" has no meaning here.

Bob

cmdicely:

An addict prior to being in recovery that is.

According to the 12-step program, there are no ex-addicts, only recovering addicts.

The distinction is important. And addict can't "get better" and start casually using again someday.

Bob

I think I need to start calling you cm slicely 'n' dicely :)

C'mon, bro ... do you really need to pull out the tweezers here?

When we're making moral judgements about addiction policy, I don't think that precision about the relationship between addiction and volition is mere nitpicking.

An addict who refuses to get treatment and continues to use his/her addictive substance is persisting in their addiction.

Okay, we'll work from that.

And supporting that -- rather than treatment to stop using the addictive substance -- is morally wrong and wrong as a matter of policy.

I think you present a false dichotomy here: one need not fail to subsidize treatment for those who seek it if one subsidizes narcotics for those who don't; though clearly, yes, it would be a bad idea not to have policy supporting treatment, in any case.

And I think the utilities involved are debatable, and I'm not sure what non-utilitarian moral principle you are appealing to if I understand correctly the import of your separate listing of "morally wrong" and "wrong as a matter of policy".

According to the 12-step program, there are no ex-addicts, only recovering addicts.

The 12-step program is, its worth noting, a faith system of its own.

According to the 12-step program, there are no ex-addicts, only recovering addicts.

The distinction is important. And addict can't "get better" and start casually using again someday.

Well, certainly that's the creed of the 12-step program, and certainly the fact that their appears to be a genetic component to addiction suggests that a recovering addict is more likely to be unable to casually use their substance without reverting to addictive behavior than the average person on the street. But I've certainly known people who have had addiction problems with legal drugs that have returned to occasional casual use without returning to having the behavior problems associated with addiction, so the "can't" in that religious creed is, I suspect, flawed in the way such absolutes usually are.

Tomblue,

Why does this have to be about always feeling your non-religious beliefs are threatened? This isn't such a black and white issue.

Dr. Jensen isn't hiding his beliefs in his essay. He told the church he didn't believe in God or Jesus. He joined the church to affect change that is consistent with both Christianity's core morality and his own non-religous morality. In fact, he hopes to convert those in the church to a more authentic religion, compatible with what he sees are the best aspects of secularism.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/whyiamachristian.htm

"the task of Christians -- and, I would argue, all religions -- is to make themselves more relevant in the short term by being a site of such political and moral engagement, with the goal of ensuring their ultimate irrelevance. The task of religion, paradoxically, is to bring into being a world based on the universal values that underlie most major theological and philosophical systems -- compassion, empathy, solidarity, dignity. Such a world would be truly based on love and real solidarity, a world in which we would take seriously the claim that all people have exactly the same value."

Atheists, people of other religions...none need come to terms with the above by joining a Christian church. They just need to see the bigger picture of a better world instead of making religion an either/or proposition - seeing that secularists and people of faith both can be on the same page.

Regards,

The Buddhists and Hindus would join in, but would the monotheistic religions participate with those “devil worshippers”?

I would, but I don't pretend to be a typical Catholic.

While certainly religion (like many other things) can be used as an excuse to abrogate personal responsibility, I certainly disagree that it fundamentally is such an abrogation.

I'm not terribly familiar with religions further afield than those directly involving Western civilization, and the little I've read of Buddhism certainly sounds like an improvement over anything from the Middle East, but I cannot see how someone who grew up in an environment that had an imperative idea of a religious order to the world, an order that over-riding the mere selfish trivia of the world as it appears to be, could have a real sense of responsibility outside his immediate peer group.

Though I suppose the evidence is strong that many posters here prove me wrong.

cmdicely,

Its not,

So you think a law that bans abortion on the grounds that abortion violates a religious doctrine is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, do you? You're contradicting yourself again.

Does anyone agree with cmdicely?

its an unconstitutional usurpation of powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution.

Why? And if that's true, why isn't Obama's vote also "an unconstitutional usurpation of powers not granted to the federal government under the Constitution?"

cmdicely:

It's very important to be as precise as possible when discussing addiction and recovery; unfortunately it's a topic often misunderstood by the general public. I don't *knock on wood* have direct personal experience in this area, but I have indirect experience in spades, unfortunately.

That's why I wrote you two further clarification posts.

So let's clarify the issue of why it's both immoral and inutile to support an addict in his/her addiction.

It's wrong because it's wrong to provide the means for another person to harm themselves. It's wrong to provide a person contemplating suicide with a loaded gun. I'm a cig smoker, and I have friends who will do absolutely nothing to help me get another pack, even if they're going to the store anyway and I offer to pay them for their trouble.

With substances more harmfully addicting, it's a horrible thing to facilitate the waste of another human being's potential. Imagine a father who so loved his child he couldn't bear to see them suffer -- and so provided money he knew that they were spending on drugs. Say he did this because he couldn't bear the thought of his child in withdrawal.

Is that genuine love ... or is that something weaker and more dysfunctional if the alternative was to commit his child to a treatment program?

It's socially inutile because this money is being spent to keep a person in a position where his full potential as a productive human being is deadened. If there are two programs -- one subsidizing addiction and one offering treatment -- many many more addicts will use the first because a great deal of physical suffering is involved in kicking a heavy addiction and it's much easier to just keep using.

Bob

I am not a religious person although I try to behave in a moral, constructive way. I think being "politically" informed and involved is part of my responsibility as a moral person.

I had no preconceptions about what religious people would do with political power. In fact, this experience with George Bush is the one instance in my lifetime of “religious” people having considerable political power and so much access to political power. Many have worked hard to further their religious beliefs through the political process. Isn’t that what the “religious right” means?

I had assumed that religious people with power would govern humanly and ethically. I had hoped that our society would improve with their religious stewardship. Isn’t that a logical assumption? If not, what is religion all about? Is it merely a country club with prayers?

I think the religious right has some explaining to do. How is it that under the leadership of their man, George Bush, that an war based on false information has been waged and global warming -- the overwhelming ethical issue of our time has been ignored … no trivialized? What is important to these religious people? Gay marriage? Abortion? Meanwhile their man in the white house has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and his right hand man, Dick Cheney, has profited from it.

Please tell me which religious people I should be reaching out to? Which ones should I admire? And why?

Cmdicely, there is only one way out of the ghetto. And that is deferred gratification. Staying out of trouble, not getting pregnant, ignoring the 'acting white' taunts, not wasting money on hip hop conspicuous consumption. Everything the street laughs at. That is why immigrants like West Indians and Africans make it out of the ghetto because they have not allowed street culture to demoralize them. All Bill Cosby is doing is saying out loud what we say among ourselves quietly. Poor and underclass are two different things.

I don't expect white America to spend tons of money to clean up the ghetto. It won't. White America has washed its hands of the War on Poverty. So I'm not going to waste my time demanding 'reparations' or waiting for something that is not going to happen. NOBODY is going to save us but us.

The point of religion is that in the end the good guys win. No matter how much evil you have seen in your life, God is stronger. This creates a fundamental optimism about life and the world in which deferred gratification makes sense. The essence of street culture is a short life of conspicuous consumption, promiscuous sexuality, and open violence. In street culture there is no room for innocence because there are only predators and chumps. No amount of government money can change the psychic dynamic of street culture. Only a stronger outside psychic force can free people from bondages like drugs or alcohol or street negativity.

Without a fundamental optimism about life it is not possible to build social capital. And it sure isn't going to come from government.

cmdicely:

I have my issues with 12-Step, to be sure. If I ever needed a program, I'd probably choose Rational Recovery. But that's me; I'm inward-directed, introverted and intensely skeptical.

That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for 12-Step for the simple reason that it works. Not every single time, but the vast majority of times addiction is a disease of the will. For many people, admitting that they're powerless over their addiction is the only way.

That this occurs with people buying into rigid ideas about the nature of addiction is a small price to pay, IMHO, for the sobriety they maintain through it.

If other ways work for other people, that's absolutely fine as well.

The utilitarian calculus is all I'm about on this one.

Bob

cmdicely,

No, I haven't. First, I've never agreed with the implied exclusivity of secular and religious purpose,

You said you agree with the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test holds that a law must have a secular purpose to be constitutional. A law is never constitutional if it serves only religious purposes. But you then contradicted yourself when you said that you believe that a public official's religious beliefs play "the exact same role" in his duties of office as "moral beliefs more generally." That claim expressly contradicts the privileged status Lemon gives to secular purposes.

in fact, we've disagreed at considerable length in this thread on that point. Second, while I've agreed with the premise of the Lemon test that a law, in order to be Constitutional, must have a legitimate secular purpose, I've never argued that that is the only thing which can justify a law, indeed, I've specifically argued in this thread that non-secular purposes may well inform priorities among potentially acceptable laws.

More vacuous rhetoric. You cannot make an unconstitutional purpose constitutional by rephrasing it as a matter of "informing priorities" rather than justifying laws. Either your "priorities" are justified on secular grounds or they are not. If they are, then any additional religious grounds you may have for those priorities are irrelevant, since it is the secular grounds that matter. If they are not, then your "priorities" rest on religious grounds alone, and if those "priorities" make a difference to the law, that difference also rests on religious grounds alone, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Dee Tee,

Assuming your question isn't a rhetorical one, you can reach out to anybody that has an open mind - be they religious or not. Your being informed and civic-minded already means you are reaching out with your actions.

Putting yourself out there in the public sphere in word and action is something a minority of Americans do. It isn't easy because of this.
We just have to hope that we are creating ripples in the community pond, so to speak, that will help enable the creation of a better place.

I'm a person of faith. Episcopal, but I honestly don't care which version of Christianity it is. There are a lot of us out there - too many have been silent for too long. Many of us find common cause with those of different faiths...and no religous faith at all.

We're all in this together. It's really true.

Regards,

cmdicely,

Mainly, I think that his ability to honestly discuss his motivations are relevant to his effectiveness as a lawmaker and politician, given that building popular support is necessary to effectiveness in those endeavors, and I think that that's the broader argument he is making about liberals and Democrats in general, as well;

Translation: Obama is being a typical oily, dishonest politician by trying to be different things to different people, rather than taking a clear position that he knows will offend a significant proportion of his potential supporters. In this case, he's trying to cultivate support amoung voters who favor greater involvement of religion in government without alienating voters who oppose such a change. And he does this by using intentionally vague and ambiguous language and phrases that can be interpreted to mean very different things depending on what the audience wants to hear. He's vaguely insinuating that he wants more religion in politics without actually saying it explicitly, giving himself lots of room for plausible deniability when his bluff is called and he is asked the hard questions about his position on the meaning of the Establishment Clause and the principle of separation of church and state.

I wish Obama would echo my sentiments exactly, but total agreement or not, he is the savior of our country. A bit over the top? I actually think not. He is the only person alive who can state policy in ways that have regular people on both right and left nodding in agreement. Not the outer ends ends of the political spectrum of course, but President Jesus and VP Chomsky wouldn't satisfy them.

America has had very good karma in its leaders. We have had a half dozen or so who have no parallels in world history. Whenever a bad situation (Bushism in this case) threatens to derail our great experiment, a savior is born among us. (Jokey language maybe, but a real sentiment.)

Interesting how, for the last century, the conscienses of humanity have been Brown men. Gandhi, King and Mandela, specifically. I think another one is forming as we watch.

One thing (among an embarassingly long list of others, of course) that Dems don't understand is that for the GOP religion is not a matter of some high minded principle or high falutin philosophical or even moral discourse but just one more political club with which to hit the Democrats.

Sadly the Democrats's respond by fighting the issue on the Republicans' terms, just as Obama seems to be doing, and therefore inevitably suffer electoral losses.

我向大家推荐:要想寻找阳澄湖大闸蟹信息请访问 阳澄湖大闸蟹 网，各种阳澄湖大闸蟹应有尽有。您想要了解 镀膜企业 吗？请到中国镀膜企业网来寻找镀膜企业。北京 滤光片 厂向广大客户提供滤光片产品及滤光片服务。中国 光学镜片 网，打造光学镜片领域专业搜索平台，提供全球光学镜片品牌公司及产品展示。北京 鲜花 厂向广大客户提供鲜花产品及鲜花服务。要想寻找饰品信息请访问 饰品 网，各种饰品应有尽有。要想寻找不锈钢台面信息请访问 不锈钢台面 网，各种不锈钢台面应有尽有。您想要了解 冲压件/拉伸件 吗？请到中国冲压件/拉伸件网来寻找冲压件/拉伸件。自动门 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的自动门,丰富自动门行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找楼梯信息请访问 楼梯 网，各种楼梯应有尽有。您想要了解 藏獒 吗？请到中国藏獒网来寻找藏獒。北京 上海健身器材 厂向广大客户提供上海健身器材产品及上海健身器材服务。上海 竹炭 公司专业生产竹炭产品，欢迎选择竹炭。航空障碍灯 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的航空障碍灯,丰富航空障碍灯行业资讯助您成交。贴纸相机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的贴纸相机,丰富贴纸相机行业资讯助您成交。上海 太阳能热水器 公司专业生产太阳能热水器产品，欢迎选择太阳能热水器。您想要了解 家居装饰 吗？请到中国家居装饰网来寻找家居装饰。要想寻找缝编无纺布信息请访问 缝编无纺布 网，各种缝编无纺布应有尽有。您想要了解 肠衣 吗？请到中国肠衣网来寻找肠衣。要想寻找除垢信息请访问 除垢 网，各种除垢应有尽有。上海 首饰 公司专业生产首饰产品，欢迎选择首饰。上海 不锈箱水箱 公司专业生产不锈箱水箱产品，欢迎选择不锈箱水箱。上海 缝编无纺布 公司专业生产缝编无纺布产品，欢迎选择缝编无纺布。北京 厂房 厂向广大客户提供厂房产品及厂房服务。北京 家居装饰 厂向广大客户提供家居装饰产品及家居装饰服务。您想要了解 肠衣 吗？请到中国肠衣网来寻找肠衣。上海 毛刷/制刷 公司专业生产毛刷/制刷产品，欢迎选择毛刷/制刷。您想要了解 珠宝首饰 吗？请到中国珠宝首饰网来寻找珠宝首饰。要想寻找月历信息请访问 月历 网，各种月历应有尽有。北京 羽毛球 厂向广大客户提供羽毛球产品及羽毛球服务。北京 缝编无纺布 厂向广大客户提供缝编无纺布产品及缝编无纺布服务。要想寻找LED灯信息请访问 LED灯 网，各种LED灯应有尽有。除垢器 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的除垢器,丰富除垢器行业资讯助您成交。上海 鞋垫 公司专业生产鞋垫产品，欢迎选择鞋垫。北京 紫砂 厂向广大客户提供紫砂产品及紫砂服务。北京 办公家具 厂向广大客户提供办公家具产品及办公家具服务。您想要了解 十字绣 吗？请到中国十字绣网来寻找十字绣。北京 首饰 厂向广大客户提供首饰产品及首饰服务。贴纸相机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的贴纸相机,丰富贴纸相机行业资讯助您成交。

I'm a person of faith. Episcopal, but I honestly don't care which version of Christianity it is. There are a lot of us out there - too many have been silent for too long. Many of us find common cause with those of different faiths...and no religous faith at all.

There's fewer and fewer of you all the time, and there will never be an organized Religious Left comparable in size or influence to the Religious Right because you reject the very values and beliefs necessary to sustain such an organized religious political movement. If you think it doesn't really matter which religion a person belongs to, or if they even belong to a religion at all, then you're not going to put a lot of effort into fighting for beliefs or values that are distinctively religious or distinctively of your own religion.

Army refuses to allow Wiccan soldiers religious symbol on his tombstone,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/03/AR2006070300968_pf.html

Prominent Democrats are respectful to a fault, as I said in my very first paragraph. But there are plenty in the rank and file who aren't, and that reflects on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Kevin, without at least some poll numbers, this is really weak. For one, we can't quantify the number of rand-and-file Democrats who are disrepectful towards religion. For all we know, there may be just as many, or even more libertarian leaning Republicans, who are disrespectful as well. More importantly though, since they don't really have a voice (or may not even exist is significant quantities), they can't explain why or to what degree they hold their views. So even if you are not blowing over a strawman in the traditional sense, you are certainly trying to blow over something you don't seem to know very much about. I'd think someone might do a poll to find out rank-and-file liberal opinions on religion, but I don't know of one off of the top of my head.

Army refuses to allow Wiccan soldiers religious symbol on his tombstone

How odd. The U.S. military discriminating based on ignorance and politics. Huh.

Of the 44% of people who claim to go to church once a week, the evidence of church attendance reveals that only half those people actually do so. So that's less than a quarter of the country actually attending church once a week.

Yeah, that number of people tells me that we need to rush out and be accepting (accepting defined as shutting our mouths and pretending to believe, even if we're not religious) of the religious costumery in US politics.

"Sadly the Democrats's respond by fighting the issue on the Republicans' terms, just as Obama seems to be doing, and therefore inevitably suffer electoral losses."

There are many Democrats like Kevin who flatly refuse to understand that American is not a Western European country. Without winning the trust of fundamentalist Christians, the Democratic Party cannot win national elections. It's as simple as that. This is not something that can be ignored or 'reframed' away. Fundamentalist Christians flatly will not let the Democratic Party get away with trying to change the subject away from abortion or gay marriage to global warming.

For once Atheist made sense. The Religious Left will never be a force that actually matters. It is a handful of dying mainline churches run by left wing activists with no discernible Christian faith. It posits a God of such uncertainty that he is not worth the bother of getting up early on Sunday. And I can't imagine what faith(?) of Bishop Spong's there would be to pass on to one's children. Fundamentalists make lots of babies and see raising them in the faith as a parental responsibility no less important than food, clothing, and shelter.

Blank, the response to Obama's speech on DU was hostile. That is because the left blogosphere is dominated by a lily white 'base' of secularists. One need only glance at DU to see how white left activists feel about religion.

Patrick,

Look at your quote:

Why does this have to be about always feeling your non-religious beliefs are threatened? This isn't such a black and white issue.

This topic is about religious beliefs being threatended. The idea that the democrats/left/secularists/atheists should soften their language to less offend the christians of this country is what is being requested. That any push back against this view is seen as being defensive is exactly the point I'm making - it's never seen the other way around is it?

Dr. Jensen isn't hiding his beliefs in his essay. He told the church he didn't believe in God or Jesus.

If he doesn't believe in god or jesus, then why not use the accepted definition - atheist/agnostic/ckeptic/secularist/whatever. That he chooses Christian is the point - he is hiding his beliefs. Why are you so defensive about this?

Atheists, people of other religions...none need come to terms with the above by joining a Christian church. They just need to see the bigger picture of a better world instead of making religion an either/or proposition

You don't get it do you. Atheist means "doesn't do the Christian thing" Why would they join a christian church. You can join the red cross for example, without ever having to express a religious opinion. Why should a person have to expose and suppress their spiritual core in order to help other people, or improve society?

This whole thread is about not labelling all christians for the sins of the bigots. It's a shame that the christians putting forward this view seem to go out of their way to stereotype all non-christians as lacking in morals or social good works, and of attacking christian institutions, all the time saying that they aren't. The word for this is hypocrisy.

I am constantly disrepectful of religion. I don't believe in any of it, I think people need to grow up and get over their fairy tales, and it is constantly and pervasiveley jammed down my throat. I do not think religion has any place in rational or tasteful political debate, and it is used as an excuse for many human failings -- as in "I was possessed by a demon and it made me do X".
Much of what passes for religion in public discourse is obvious hypocricy. Do you really think that George W. Bush is a more sincere Christian than Jimmy Carter?

Recent polls say that people who believe as I do are among the most despised minorities in America. Good luck stating anything like the above and then running for office! And for that reason, it is hardly the relgious who are the "victims" in our political discourse, so I would really appreciate it if people like Amy Sullivan would stop whining. In my own utopia, candidates would state their positions on substantive issues and if people want to use their religious sensibilities to judge the candidate's policies, well it's a free country (in my utopia at least, maybe in real life even if Bush is doing his best to change it).

With all that said, I am torn in one major way: There may very well be an measure of incommensurability between what works in our very superstitious society as opposed to the Ideal that I yearn for and will never see. And I end up having to accept that if liberals and progressives need to appeal to the religous and spiritual to get the wingnuts out of office, than so be it, however distasteful.

But I still want Amy Sullivan to give it a rest.

"Of the 44% of people who claim to go to church once a week, the evidence of church attendance reveals that only half those people actually do so. So that's less than a quarter of the country actually attending church once a week."

There are weeks when I have missed church but that doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. Not every Christian goes to church each and every Sunday. So that is a very, very thin reed to base political secularism on.

The areas that are dominated by secularists are seeing considerable emigration. The areas dominated by the religious are seeing continuous immigration. The power of religion in American life will only grow as fundamentalists flatly outbreed secularists and Americans continue to vote with their moving vans for the quality of life in Christian-dominated red America.

Atheist,

You bring up a good point. It's far easier for dogmatic people to rally around something.

Why wouldn't this also hold true for the progressive movement? They too respect diversity, operate on an adult level in dealing with life's complexity, and seek out making a world where all human beings will fully realize their potential.

Regarding one's supposed need to be part of a rigidly defined belief system, I'm not so sure you're correct. Certainly not with me.

I'm motivated by a groundedness in who I am and a morality that sees the infiniteness of God (not the dogmatic finiteness that the fundamentalists see). There are actually many more of us than you would realize. People like us have changed the world, whether they were Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Archbishop Desmond Tutu - we required no dogmatic religion to do it.

Regards,

That's expose or suppress, sorry.

One problem though, a lot of what will appeal to conservative fundamentalist Christians is anathema to the most cherished progressive values.

I think we can win without giving up our most important values. If we can't, the country is truly fucked.

I just finished reading all of Obama's speech, and it was particularly moving. In my opinion, one of the main things he does in his speech is attempt to reframe dialogue about religion as apolitical dialogue. Much of the speech admonishes Christian conservatives for holding onto fringe Christian beliefs (and by fringe I mean those that are not central to the Christian faith, such as anti-homosexuality) and allowing those beliefs to interfere with open dialogue about pressing social issues. He also admonishes liberals who put up a dialogue barrier the moment that they realize they are talking to a conservative Christian.

In general, I thought the speech was powerful and belies simple characterization. IMO, it recasts dialogue about religious beliefs and the relationship between religion and politics, and it does so in a way that strikes me as both reasonable and productive.

You bring up a good point. It's far easier for dogmatic people to rally around something. Why wouldn't this also hold true for the progressive movement? They too respect diversity, operate on an adult level in dealing with life's complexity, and seek out making a world where all human beings will fully realize their potential.

I think the far left is just as dogmatic and closed-minded as the far right. They're just dogmatic and closed-minded about different things. But the point I was making was about religiously-motivated political movements specifically. Religious liberals don't have any distinctively religious or sectarian message to rally around. Any religious doctrine that smacks of exclusivity, or the superiority of one religion over another, or of the superiority of religion over secularism, tends to be sacrificed to the sacred cows of diversity and pluralism and egalitarianism. So you end up promoting broad, inoffensive, lowest-common-denominator liberal principles that religious and non-religious liberals alike can agree with. That's why you don't have, and never will have, any distinctively religious organized political movement comparable to the conservative Christian movement.

I'm motivated by a groundedness in who I am and a morality that sees the infiniteness of God (not the dogmatic finiteness that the fundamentalists see). There are actually many more of us than you would realize. People like us have changed the world, whether they were Ghandi, Martin Luther King or Archbishop Desmond Tutu - we required no dogmatic religion to do it.

I suspect you have less in common with those men than you like to think. I also think the reason they had as much influence as they did was precisely because their messages were not primarily religious or sectarian but were instead about notions of rights and justice that are independent of religious teachings and doctrines--the injustice of apartheid, the injustice of racial segregation, the injustice of colonialism.

America will never again have a social justice movement with even the religious window-dressing of the civil rights movement, or with a leader like Martin Luther King. Religion just isn't remotely as important in people's lives now as it was to the black community in America in the 1950s and 1960s. And the leadership of all of today's social justice movements--women's rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, animal rights, etc.--is decidedly secular, and much of it is openly hostile to religion.

Tomblue,

You think

This topic is about religious beliefs being threatended. The idea that the democrats/left/secularists/atheists should soften their language to less offend the christians of this country is what is being requested.

I don't see it entirely the way you do. I do understand your point about it never being the other way around. It seems like Christians never get held to account for not softening up their language to respect non-believers (of any religion for that matter).

In the paradigm you seem to be focused on, it's a battle of opposing sides. It's a paradigm that religious folks and athiests find themselves in too often.

There are more ways to look at this issue and Obama's speech than through one lens, wouldn't you agree. You raise valid issues which I respect but I'm saying those aren't the only valid issues nor are they (nor mine) the most important.

What I'm focused on in contributing to this discussion is that we have some sleeve-rolling up work to do. We must find common cause with people regardless of their beliefs - to fight the undermining of this country's democracy and this nation's sense of community. Secularist and religious alike, our aims to remake this society from a "you're on your own" one to a "we are all in this together" one, are what we should be fighting together on.

No Christian of the Left is going to argue against the vital need for separation of church and state. Tolerance is more what we are about than the those on the Right. We are very aware of the dangers of the State co-opting religion - Constantine style.

Jensen wrote the essay with a theme of a secularist being a Christian to startle and make readers think outside of the normal paradigm. I've heard him speak and read him enough to know how proudly and demonstratively he is about his morality and belief system.

Yet he is also one who respects religious peoples' morality and belief systems in equal measure. He can see where common cause - to the point that religion could make itself irrelevant were it to achieve its aims of making this a world in which all human beings could achieve their fullest potential - is important to find with secularists and religious folks.

I'm not defensive about this. But you may call it what you may.

When did you get to define what Atheism is? I understand that in this life there are many shades of color to truth and what something is. There are all kinds of Atheists. Some, like Jensen, find religious people interesting and engaging. I'm not sure why that would be surprising. Some, like some of the other posters in this thread, find religious people quite the opposite. It depends on one's experience and journey has been in life.

Fundamentally true is the need to respect differing views and experiences. Fundamentally true also is the need to see this life less in finite terms and more in infinite ones.

Senator Obama gave voice to something people should discuss as we are doing. He's succeeded in that much. Our job is to conclude with as many ways as we can to make this a better place to live for all people of all beliefs - and get to work with one another doing it.

That's where I'm coming from and I don't doubt the same from Dr. Jensen or Senator Obama.

Regards,

There are weeks when I have missed church but that doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. Not every Christian goes to church each and every Sunday. So that is a very, very thin reed to base political secularism on.

It's not just church attendance, although that is clearly in decline also. Virtually all measures of religious belief and practise are in decline. The decline is happening faster in Europe and Canada and Australia than in America, but it's happening here too. And amoung Americans who still profess to belong to a religion, their religious beliefs are much more likely than those of their parents to be unorthodox or heretical, much more likely to combine different elements or influences from a variety of religions or philosophies. People today are exposed to so many more religions and worldviews and belief systems as they are growing up than their parents or grandparents were it would be surprising if this kind of mixing and matching and melding didn't occur.

The areas that are dominated by secularists are seeing considerable emigration. The areas dominated by the religious are seeing continuous immigration. The power of religion in American life will only grow as fundamentalists flatly outbreed secularists and Americans continue to vote with their moving vans for the quality of life in Christian-dominated red America.

Then why haven't the fundamentalists taken over already? Why, in fact, is the country growing more secular, less religious? That's not just happening here, it's happening throughout the developed world. There are obviously other influences on whether and to what degree a person is religious besides his parenting and upbringing, and those influences are clearly pushing liberal democracies towards increasing secularism. Just today I saw this piece in The Times of London reporting that the Roman Catholic Church in Britain is facing what it calls the "greatest pastoral and demographic catastrophe" since the Reformation, 400 years ago. The same basic story is happening throughout Europe, and would also be happening in America were it not for the large influx of Catholic immigrants from Mexico and other Latin countries.

Atheist,

You said,

"o you end up promoting broad, inoffensive, lowest-common-denominator liberal principles that religious and non-religious liberals alike can agree with. That's why you don't have, and never will have, any distinctively religious organized political movement comparable to the conservative Christian movement."

and also said,

"I suspect you have less in common with those men than you like to think. I also think the reason they had as much influence as they did was precisely because their messages were not primarily religious or sectarian but were instead about notions of rights and justice that are independent of religious teachings and doctrines--the injustice of apartheid, the injustice of racial segregation, the injustice of colonialism."

I think it's possible to have a movement that opposes the Christian fundamentalists and does not use their dogmatic, fear-based, finite view of Creation of our opponents. We just may disagree here.

You're right, these leaders were able to include all people (religious or non-religious), (white or black), (colonizer or colonized) into their movements for peace and social justice by using resonating of universal rights and justice. This was not independent of their faiths however. In fact, it was what gave them an ability to persevere, command attention, and moral authority with people. Groundedness in one's being is not something to underestimate. We may disagree here too.

Regards,

Patrick Briggs:

Thanks for acknowledging my post! I followed the link to the essay by Robert Jensen on why he joined St. Andrew's Presbyterian in Austin. My church also has many members who are seeking and questioning about their faith and how they want to live it in our world.

A picture comes to me from reading the posts here, and on the other discussions in Political Animal occasioned by Amy Sullivan's blogging and that of others. This picture is that many of you here have little experience with progressive Christians, progressive Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists. I get the idea that your main experiences have been with fundamentalists, mostly in this country Christian fundamentalists. But all religions have fundamentalists (yes, even Buddhists, and I realize that Buddhism isn't a religion per se).

Many fundamentalists do believe that they have found the ONE TRUE WAY and that they must share this. The more benign just attempt to share. The more malignant attempt to force their views on others, to the point of torturing and killing people who don't accept their beliefs. Many of them also believe that if you disagree with them or question them, that in and of itself is disrespecting them.

But not all religious people are like this. Many of us believe and live and let live, and as I said upthread, that each of us follows our own path, and no one else has the right to force a different path. Now, I LIKE to have religious discussions with people who allow mutual respect for differing views. I LIKE to hear other takes on God or the Presence or whatever term you prefer, as well as all other aspects of religion. But if I encounter people who do not respect my views, I avoid them.

Our country does currently have, among other many pressing problems, a subset of Christians who are bent on forcing their ways on all of us. These people have a Constitutional right to express their opinions, but they use their rigid beliefs to try to pass legislation, such as overturning Roe vs. Wade, which are anathema to me and to other progressive peoples of faith I know, and I know a LOT of such people!

Obama is not suggesting or implying that we liberals MUST be religious. He specifically said that. I personally think that his example of under God in the Pledge was a poor choice. I am old enough (60) to have learned the Pledge before that phrase was introduced, and stumbling over saying the Pledge as I tried to remember as a schoolkid to include the phrase. I would favor an effort down the road to remove it, but I question if now is the time. That said, Athos and others, if you want to see it removed, have at it, and do your best through legislation and the courts.

Please, folks, it really is possible to have strong religious beliefs and yet feel no necessity to force those on others. We liberals pride ourselves on inclusivity. Let's band together, secularists and religious people, to take our country back, and to reign in the more destructive acts that the fundamentalists do. And lets work together to find ways to overcome our REAL problems like global warming, poverty, drug addiction, health care, good schooling, etc., etc.

I want to say something else.

There are many laws which have been passed, and others which sorely need to be passed, to redress various social problems for the benefit of all rather than a few. I very much support raising the minimum wage, for instance.

These serve secular good purposes. It is also possible for people to support good secular purposes for religious reasons, and if politicians state that they support these for religious reasons, as long as they aren't forcing these reasons on anyone else, they have the right to support good secular laws for religious reasons. Just as others have the right to support good secular laws for secular reasons. It doesn't matter what the motives are. The results matter.

Also, none of us can really know for sure what another person's motives are. (For that matter, we aren't always sure of our OWN motives!) So can we agree to not worry about other people's motives, and look for results?

That's not to say that when someone advocates a particular action or law on religious grounds that you aren't perfectly free to question them about those grounds. All part of the 1st Amendment. For instance, I REALLY REALLY question the motives, and soundness of political beliefs, of those who support the Iraq "war", or war in general, citing religious reasons for the support. Or any other actions/laws which do clear harm, maiming, or killing other other human beings.

Quite frankly.. I don't care if a person is religious or not and I am quite happy to embrace (I mean reach out to) anyone of any religion but I do believe in accountability.

The religious right has had unprecedented power in the last 6 years... and unprecedented access to power AND to our tax money.. Billions have been given to them for faith-based initiatives…. So what has happened??

Have they done a more ethical job of governing than the rest of us? Have they done a better job of solving social problems.. of easing the pain of the less fortunate and distressed?

Patrick,

Fair call. I can understand that the article in question is indeed a challenge to conventional thinking. I understand that Dr. Jensen is is definitely sincere about his chosen philosophy, and I am in admiration for his overall goals.

But I didn't define atheism (hence my usual atheist/agnostic/whatever wording). What I did try to suggest is that if I meet any of those standard accepted terms, I can't generally describe myself as a christian. And therefore to do so in ernest, is what I can only see as hypocritical behavior, especially in a thread suggesting that religious views should be dealt with out in the open, honestly. I appologise if that does not mesh with what you were trying to suggest.

It's not a question of opposing sides - if it were, well, I believe the quote is that "God is on the side of the big battalions". It is about tolerance. But a two way street of tolerance. Senator Obama made the point about faith based programs. About Americans being a religious people. But his language is never inclusive of the other religions. He is as guilty of talking down to the non-christians as he says they are of the christians. And in that, he is not "putting the matter up for discussion".

The one that really sticks it, is the suggestion that "the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms." This attempts to take the high ground in every debate of this sort, suggesting that non-christians have less of a moral position. If you can't discuss morals without resorting to God, you are saying that God is a requisite in a conversation about morals - and therefore, that if you don't believe in God, that you can't have morals. There is no discussion there - it's not up for debate, as God can't be argued with. Where is the two way dialog that you suggest the senator is proposing?

Finding common cause usually only happens when both sides reach across the aisle, not when one is forced to join the others side, even if only superficially.

Build bridges to religion? NO.

To tell the people who believe in imaginary friends, that we can kind of see them too, that's just pandering.

Appeasement did not work for Neville Chamberlain and it’s not got much better since.

There can be no hoist dialog if you are not hoist about the truth. So in truth I have to tell you that your god does not exist, no gods exist.

Theists may, in their own minds, think they have a right to be, or to act stupid. We should feel under no obligation to agree with them.

We do have some common ground, but it’s they who must drop their superstitions and come into the light of reason.

Modern man should not have to have to give up an inch of our logic, reasoning or values to accommodate religions. Morals and laws derived from evidence and reason, stand on firmer ground than fairy tales. We should stand our ground, and let the religious people come to the truth.

The only compromise one should make, is should the religions should be allowed to meander on, hoping that they will eventually coming to the logical truth, or should we quickly put an end to them with targeted education?

Think of it like AIDS, is not the truth and education the best antidote? So why do we act coy and tell them it’s fine for theists to believe in their gods? What would you do if they were your children and they got dangerous ideas in their heads?

It’s like math, answers derived by the use of logic and method are right. While there may be a group who like to guess, and they may get a few right some of the time, we are not going to add extra correct answers just so the guessing population feels they are not being discriminate against. Wrong answers are wrong, and you get an F.

I really don’t mind what you loonies do on Sunday. You can go to church, or join the red cross, or go sailing: It’s your Sunday and you can do as you like.

Come Monday morning, leave your mystical beliefs behind. Don’t bring them into the office or city council meeting. You may be working for a better afterlife, but the rationalists are working to enjoy, and improve, life here on earth.

Religion gives you a warped vew of the world. By rights it should come with a warning label. It makes people light headed and irrational. While under the influence don’t operate heavy machinery or attempt to make serious decisions. Not for me, or for you.

When you start to believe that gods are talking directly to you, or you are talking to them, and at the same time you are wishing the god would talk back to you, a little voice inside your head, then I’m afraid you are ready to be committed.

I don’t want the country, or my state, or even my city run by people of unsound mind. Belief in religion is a demonstration in a lack of critical thinking, and an ability to ignore the current evidence. Not attributes any person would want in a judge. Be it a judge in a court, or a man elected for his judgement. Oh, I forgot, this is America, we don’t elect them for their good judgement, but for their ability to shovel it, just like the priests.

Royalblue,

Point taken on Senator Obama's implying that morality is for religious people. It's a very good point.

Susan Jacoby has a book out called "Freethinkers: A history of American Secularism".

http://www.susanjacoby.com/

I've yet to read the book but certainly morality is is something that non-religious people can speak to on an equal level. I've seen Kant referenced often in this regard.

Finding common cause happens also when people see beyond their differences (there will always be significant differences between religious and non-religious) for the larger similarities.

In the scheme of things, marginalizing these fundamentalists, changing the paradigm of "you're on your own" to "we're all in this together, and reigning the military industrial complex are of paramount importance.

It's been a nice discussion with you, wolfdaughter and atheist. I like to post here and at this site:

http://www.streetprophets.com/

Yeah, it's a religious blog but with a great lefty point of view.

Look forward to more of this discussion!!

REgards,

Patrick Briggs,
Pasadena, CA

JM,

So much hostility. Who died and gave you the answers to the meaning of life?

Intolerant views that project your own intolerance on an entire group of people (religious people) aren't worth debating.

You should consider showing a little more grace and less hostility. You'd be more persuasive.

People like me aren't hostile to the non-religious and in fact consider the opposing views part of learning what this life is all about.

Regards,

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it a thousand times again. You atheist/materialists who decry “religion” in general, only have a superficial understanding of the Christian/monotheistic religions and none at all of the others. Thinking you know all when you know only one is a huge mistake. The Eastern paths are not dogmatic. They do not ask anyone to accept irrational beliefs that can’t be verified through experience.

Religion and spirituality are conflated in the atheist dogma, but they are not the same. Spirituality is the seeking of Truth through experience. Religion is the uncritical acceptance of dogma and belief. Also off your radar screens are the teachings of the yogis who have direct experience of the Absolute through practises such as breathing and meditation. A whole world is there to be discovered and atheists reject it all. They are much the poorer for it.

The only party I've seen who cannabalize anyone within its own ranks, and especially those outside of it, when they voice an opinion in opposition..is the GOP.

I scanned this article, so maybe I've missed the point, but the democratic party some members as traitors, I have not seen. Is that really an issue?

The bottom line is always the Constitution for me.

Words such as In God We Trust, and mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance were added relative recently in the history of the country.

Separation of Church and State, undeniably good for both entities involved; there is no debate about that. So why is this even an issue?

Your religion is in my government!

"America will never again have a social justice movement with even the religious window-dressing of the civil rights movement, or with a leader like Martin Luther King. Religion just isn't remotely as important in people's lives now as it was to the black community in America in the 1950s and 1960s. And the leadership of all of today's social justice movements--women's rights, gay rights, immigrant rights, animal rights, etc.--is decidedly secular, and much of it is openly hostile to religion."

And that is why the Left in America, leaving aside the echo chambers of white leftists such as DU or Kos, is so weak. It has lost all contact with non "Will and Grace" America because identity politics doesn't put one dime in anybody's pocket.

Atheist, America is not Europe, so why go into an extended meaningless rant about what is happenning in Europe ? And the future of Europe is NOT secularism. It is Islam. Indeed, what makes Europe's future so dire is that European Muslims see nothing in atheist, secular Europe that is morally worth assimilating into. Red zone America is like pre-1914 Europe where people believe in things like duty, honor, patriotism, God, and marriage. That is why the most consistent population movement over the past several generations has been American families moving from the moral chaos of secular America to the moral order of red zone America.

Why haven't we taken over ? All we control is the parts of America that are vital and growing and actively making babies. Secularists control the dying blue cities with the dwindling newspaper readership which remain the media centers. In fact, it can be argued that gay political strength comes entirely from their status as last gasp tax base of cities where the families left long ago.

God's Song (That's Why I Love Mankind)

Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for 12-Step for the simple reason that it works. Not every single time, but the vast majority of times addiction is a disease of the will.

No, its generally a disease of the body that requires will to maintain the regimen that maintaining health with the condition requires. Its no different, really, than diabetes in that respect.

You could improve treatment compliance for any chronic disease requiring ongoing vigilance by building a cult around the treatment regime, but that doesn't convert the disease into a disease of the "will" or "spirit".

Reading your comments elsewhere on this issue, you're obviously making a polemic conflation.

I don't think so.

It's one thing to say that all legislation is made within a framework of consensus morality (obviously and trivially true) and another to attempt to legislate morality directly.

I'm not sure what the distinction is you are trying to draw here, but it sounds like it is not a real substantive distinction.

So-called sin taxes are great at raising extra revenue, but they have a less-than-optimal effect on reducing the sinful behavior in question.

So-called sin taxes are not levied to discourage sinful behavior, but either to raise general revenue from the fact that price increases have little effect on the behavior, or specifically to internalize the perceived externalities of the "sinful" activity.

Prohibition obviously didn't stop drinking. Drugs, prostitution and gambling occur whether under state purview or not.

Yes, and there is some evidence, IIRC, that certain behaviors (such as pornography consumption in, IIRC, Sweden) may have actually been increased by certain regulatory regimes involving prohibition.

But, it seems to me, that every law seeks to influence behavior, and every law that does so seeks to directly regulate morality. That laws that are poorly considered often have perverse effects is certainly true, but has nothing to do with "regulating morality", specifically.

The one that really sticks it, is the suggestion that "the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms." This attempts to take the high ground in every debate of this sort, suggesting that non-christians have less of a moral position.

I think you very much misunderstand what was said here. It was not a moral claim (that the non-religious—where you get "non-Christian" is even farther beyond me—are less moral), but a pragmatic one—that the discomfort of progressives (including many prominent religious, even Christian progressives) with publicly discussing issues that even touch on religion has made progressives ineffective at discussing issues in moral terms (because such discussion naturally often either directly involves or touches on religion.)

Its hard for me to understand how so many people could misunderstand this if you read the whole speech, as its very clearly laid out very clearly at length following the line in question. Its not at all ambiguous. The only explanation I can see is that people have something they expect to see that, and as soon as they find a line that can be interpreted to reinforce that expectation, everything else is tuned out.

In fact, what astute folks like Wallis and Obama do is give the growing number of moderate believers room to get progressive without losing their religious bona fides. Now the faithful say, with increasing confidence: If Wallis, Campolo, et al, still see room for improvement for the Left, then maybe I can care about the environment, poverty, etc.

Merely fighting the "secular" shibboleth" often works to reinforce its presence in the minds of our opponents. When moving moderate minds, it helps to take control of a familiar term and then wield it for a higher purpose. Perhaps we can reframe not just words but the whole debate, and thereby acclimatize moderates to the heady ideals of progressivism.

http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org

"No, its [Alcoholism] generally a disease of the body that requires will to maintain the regimen that maintaining health with the condition requires. Its no different, really, than diabetes in that respect."

Diabetes in no way interferes with someone being a good parent, a good spouse, a good employee, and a good friend. Physical debilitation and total irresponsibility are two different things.

Well, I'm of two minds about this. One "mind" says, yeah, you and Barack Obama are right. . .there *are* "certain liberals" who seem entirely uncomfortable with *any* mention of "religion" in the public square. I belong to an e-mail list that has a lot of stuff I believe in and work for, but some of the people are positively *hostile* to any religious expression. Some family members are like this, so I know the syndrome well.

On the other hand, there is a reason for at least some of this hostility: "religion" is often used as a club to beat those who don't agree with you, into some sort of submission. This is what Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others of their ilk are attempting to do. They want *their* kind of religion(if that's what you can call it) --- everywhere. And they want theirs to be the *only* sort of religion allowed. At best, everybody else will exist on sufferance, so to speak. This is potentially extremely dangerous, although it has never really happened --- yet --- in American history.

So if people are objecting to the latter sort of religion(and I can't imagine Barack Obama *not* objecting to this sort of clubbing into submission), then I think thes unnamed liberals have a point. If, however, they are just objecting to the fact that some politicians have, and practice, some religious faith tradtion, and some of their values are rooted in that religious tradition, then that is a different story. And I part company with such liberals at that point.
Anne G

Diabetes in no way interferes with someone being a good parent, a good spouse, a good employee, and a good friend.

Actually, yes, if you don't maintain the appropriate treatment regime, it can interfere with all of those. As can many other physical ailments.

Sure, with diabetes and many others, other people may be more understanding and forgiving when failure of will to maintain a treatment regime results in impacts on other responsibilities or areas of life than the same thing with drug addiction. And that is certainly a disorder of the will, personality, spirit, or whatever you want to call it.

Physical debilitation and total irresponsibility are two different things.

Yes, they are different things. So? Addicts in treatment are similarly prone to inability to follow management regime resulting in return of problems that the treatment regime otherwise would have prevented to people being treated for other chronic conditions.

cmdicely,

Its hard for me to understand how so many people could misunderstand this if you read the whole speech, as its very clearly laid out very clearly at length following the line in question. Its not at all ambiguous. The only explanation I can see is that people have something they expect to see that, and as soon as they find a line that can be interpreted to reinforce that expectation, everything else is tuned out.

It is precisely Obama's focus on political pragmatism ("We need to talk more about religion to attract additional supporters") and the complete absence of any serious discussion in the speech of his position on the proper limits of religious involvement in government that sets off alarm bells in people who care about the separation of church and state.

If, however, they are just objecting to the fact that some politicians have, and practice, some religious faith tradtion, and some of their values are rooted in that religious tradition, then that is a different story. And I part company with such liberals at that point.

It's not merely "having a religious faith tradition" or having "values rooted in a religious tradition" that secular liberals object to, it's when that religious faith or those religious values are used as a basis for civil legislation or other public duties that's the problem. I don't care if the religious value in question is "The Bible teaches that homosexuality is a perversion" or "Jesus teaches that we should feed the poor" or "God wants us to protect the environment" or whatever else it may be. It doesn't matter whether the religious value is liberal or conservative. Religious values don't have any legitimate place in determining civil legislation. It is secular purposes, and only secular purposes, that can justify civil law.

We've all noted that their are scary Christian fundamentalists out there. Some of these people have suggested that death should rain down on cities which support gay marriage and on countries where people hold other beliefs.

What does the moral person do?

Does she lie about her own beliefs, to try to entice some of those who are troubled by these fundamentalists to regard her with favor?

Or does she act morally, and fight against these extremists by telling people that these extremists are immoral and are hiding it behind their religion?

If the Democrats in Congress were to decide to begin acting in a more moral fashion, standing up for what they believe in, whatever the consequences to their long-term job prospects, would that action be following Obama's advice?

What I see in Obama's speech is not a plea for Democrats to become more moral. I see a plea for Democrats to marginalize those who believe in separation of church and state for strategic reasons. If they do that, I assume Obama believes that they will get elected and be able to do better things.

Now, at the moment, many of us probably agree that it is as well for Democratic candidates not to come out and say they support gay marriage. They simply try to avoid talking about it. Obama is asking Democrats to no longer avoid talking about religion, but to come out in favor of it in government. The equivalent of aggressively saying gay marriage is wrong.

I understand that strategy is reasonable to consider. I understand that a candidate shouldn't come out and say that they're atheist and that they don't want "under god" removed from the Pledge. But I don't understand them going after us, who do have those beliefs.

This sounds to me like the Congress as usual, busy protecting their jobs, instead of fighting for liberal ideals.

This sounds to me rejecting our obligation to fight against people like Falwell for political reasons.

What if instead of this strategy of religious appeasement, Obama had said in a speech that it is time progressives declared war on the hate being spewed by a few fundamentalist Christians? If he said Americans aren't going to put up with that kind of thing any more? If he suggested we worry about a real problem, instead of a strategy to get elected?

The few times atheists get mentioned in the press, it's always in a derogatory way. The battle against atheism has already been won. How about taking on a far worthier challenge, against religious fundamentalism? Don't we all agree that those people are bad? Why aren't we willing to back that up?

It is precisely Obama's focus on political pragmatism ("We need to talk more about religion to attract additional supporters") and the complete absence of any serious discussion in the speech of his position on the proper limits of religious involvement in government that sets off alarm bells in people who care about the separation of church and state.

So, what you are saying is, the fact that his speech is not about political dialogue and not about, except tangentially, the parameters of religious involvement in government is what makes it worrisome?

If nothing else, that certainly demonstrates the very problem Obama was identifying. Or, at least, it would if you were a liberal.

cmdicely:

>> That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for 12-Step
>> for the simple reason that it works. Not every single time, but the
>> vast majority of times addiction is a disease of the will.

> No, its generally a disease of the body that requires
> will to maintain the regimen that maintaining health
> with the condition requires. Its no different, really,
> than diabetes in that respect.

Third-stage alcoholism is equatable to diabetes to the extent
that a suite of unhealthy behaviors had managed over the years
to become a full-blown life-threatening physical condition. It
is, however, much more severely challenging to maintain control
over it than it is to alter one's diet, no matter how extensively.

"Disease of the will" is not, obviously, a medical concept. It may
not even have a terminological analogue in the DSM-IV. But it is
nonetheless a commonplace understanding to millions of recovering
addicts. It is how *they* talk about their illness. And since I
was *describing* the 12-step recovery paradigm, I think I should be
allowed the courtesy of doing so without being flatly contradicted.

It *doesn't matter what you think* about this, Chris.
Their understanding of it, as people wrestling with a
serious life problem, is much more important than yours.

I mean, do you flip on National Geographic and start
criticizing the cultural practices of Bushmen?

> You could improve treatment compliance for any chronic
> disease requiring ongoing vigilance by building a cult
> around the treatment regime, but that doesn't convert
> the disease into a disease of the "will" or "spirit".

Chris, we can debate anything we'd like, but this is an
unhelpful comment. There may well be substance abusers lurking
or posting on these threads who are thinking about going to a
first meeting and would use any excuse they could to blow it off.

Look -- I've never had to recover from an addiction. But my
mother died of alcoholism. I had a close friend as a young
adult who was a third-stage alcoholic who never went to treatment
(his life becaame so chaotic we lost touch). My ex-fiancee's
Dad had 10 years in AA and I've dated women in AA. My knowledge
of this is a tad deeper than yours. You've known this or that
person who managed to pull back from the brink without treatment.
Great. I've known people who've sailed off the fucking cliff.

I don't think we need to get into some stupid intellectual debate
over whether or not 12-Step is a cult. There are lives at stake.

The comments I made earlier in that post -- which you blew
off acknowledging -- were critical of 12-Step. There are
strong-willed people who can't reconcile themselves to the
Higher Power stuff. Some think that being dogged by a sponsor
is creepy and Big Brotherish. Whatever. To extrapolate from
this that 12-Step is a cult according to the common definition
thereof is ignorant nonsense, if a commonplace. And those
are probably the strongest words I've ever directed at you.

12-Step groups are collectively financed on a shoestring
and make no profit. They are decentralized, adhering only
to a general guideline. There are no charismatic leaders.

Yeah, Chris, that really resembles Scientology, doesn't it.

I am ACOA, so I am in this sodality whether or not I have ever
attended a meeting. And I will defend it to the death because
every year it rescues lives from a hell I lived through as a child.

Bob

What I see in Obama's speech is not a plea for Democrats to become more moral. I see a plea for Democrats to marginalize those who believe in separation of church and state for strategic reasons.

Strange, I see exactly what you claim you don't see. I don't see a plea to marginalize anyone, but I do see a rather explicit advocacy that Democrats need to get better at articulating moral vision behind policy stances, including already religious Democrats not being afraid to articulate their connection between their faith and their positions, and non-religious Democrats not be afraid to articulate their moral principles without compromise or pretense; and, whatever the origins, being able to articulate these principles in universal ways which are accessible to those of divergent faiths and those of no faith at all.

Obama is asking Democrats to no longer avoid talking about religion, but to come out in favor of it in government.

No, Obama is asking Democrats to not let opposition to religion in government (in the sense of excessive Church/State entanglement) extend to reluctance to use honest, strong moral language (including, where it is honest, religious langauge) in political advocacy.

The equivalent of aggressively saying gay marriage is wrong.

Hmm. What? Strange, then, that he would say:

Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

This sounds to me rejecting our obligation to fight against people like Falwell for political reasons.

It seems to me that Obama sees more effectively using moral language, etc., to explain our ideas as important in order to fight against the influence of people like Falwell. Indeed, that's not just something that it "sounds like", he says it directly:

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

What if instead of this strategy of religious appeasement, Obama had said in a speech that it is time progressives declared war on the hate being spewed by a few fundamentalist Christians?

He doesn't advocate religious appeasement; he advocates getting beyond "declaring war", and getting to the point of actually having a strategy for that war that has some credible chance of winning. He suggests improving the alliance between religious and secular progressives, in order to defeat, not appease the "Christian Right".

If he said Americans aren't going to put up with that kind of thing any more?

Well, then, he'd be lying. Until progressives get better at communicating with the the electorate, a large portion of which is religious, Americans are going to, from all evidence, keep putting up with that kind of thing, despite the fact that on all kinds of substantive issues, polls have long showed majority support for essentially progressive positions.

If he suggested we worry about a real problem, instead of a strategy to get elected?

In a democratic regime, the inability of a faction with good ideas on how to deal with substantive problems to effectively communicate those to the voting public is a "real problem", and a substantive barrier to implementing solutions. A strategy to get elected, and to build public support for solutions, is part and parcel of dealing with every real problem.

Plus, Obama also argues that avoidance of religious and moral discussion impedes progressive understanding of the policy aspects of some substantive issues, though (I'd say) that's one of the weaker points in his speech.

The few times atheists get mentioned in the press, it's always in a derogatory way. The battle against atheism has already been won.

Certainly the non-religious aren't treated that way in Obama's speech; perhaps he's not interested in fighting any "battle against atheism".

How about taking on a far worthier challenge, against religious fundamentalism? Don't we all agree that those people are bad? Why aren't we willing to back that up?

I don't know who "we" refers to, but Obama clearly believes Robertson, Fallwell, Keyes, et al. are selling bad ideas (albeit effectively) and that we need to do a better job at fighting them.

You seem to want Obama to be arguing against atheism, perhaps because it fits well with your canned response, moaning about how the wrong problem is being focussed on. But you'd do better to read what he is actually arguing for and against.

cmdicely,

So, what you are saying is, the fact that his speech is not about political dialogue and not about, except tangentially, the parameters of religious involvement in government is what makes it worrisome?

No, what I am saying is what I said: Obama seems to be calling for greater involvement of religion in government, on the grounds that it will help Democrats win elections, but gives no clear indication of what he thinks the proper limit of that involvement is. For people who take the separation of church and state seriously (you're obviously not one of them), that's worrisome.

"Disease of the will" is not, obviously, a medical concept. It may not even have a terminological analogue in the DSM-IV. But it is nonetheless a commonplace understanding to millions of recovering addicts. It is how *they* talk about their illness. And since I was *describing* the 12-step recovery paradigm, I think I should be allowed the courtesy of doing so without being flatly contradicted.

"That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for 12-Step for the simple reason that it works. Not every single time, but the vast majority of times addiction is a disease of the will."

That doesn't seem to be a description of the paradigm, it seems to be a factual claim about the objective facts in the real world:

1) The system works, (implicitly because)
2) Addiction is, generally, a "disease of the will"

I don't see how it was discourteous, in any way, for me to respond as if it was a claim of objective fact.

It *doesn't matter what you think* about this, Chris.

That addiction is largely a disease of the body—one with specific physiological components, genetic contributions, etc.—that requires an exercise of will to manage like any other chronic disorder is not a matter of opinion, its a fairly well demonstrated empirical conclusion.

Chris, we can debate anything we'd like, but this is an unhelpful comment. There may well be substance abusers lurking or posting on these threads who are thinking about going to a first meeting and would use any excuse they could to blow it off.

There may well be relapsers reading the thread considering suicide; the implicit moral judgement in your characterization, I would argue, is more unhelpful to them then my factual portrayal of addiction as a chronic, relapsing disease of the body that needs management like any other would be to someone considering entering treatment, either specifically through a twelve-step program or otherwise.

Look -- I've never had to recover from an addiction. But my mother died of alcoholism. I had a close friend as a young
adult who was a third-stage alcoholic who never went to treatment (his life becaame so chaotic we lost touch). My ex-fiancee's Dad had 10 years in AA and I've dated women in AA. My knowledge
of this is a tad deeper than yours.

I'm not interested in getting into an qualifications competition here, but I'll just say that making comparative statements justified by your knowledge of only one side of the comparison is unwarranted; you are hardly alone in having a family member die from alcoholism, nor in having close contact with people with addictions, both those in recovery and those with no treatment at all.

I don't think we need to get into some stupid intellectual debate over whether or not 12-Step is a cult.

Then, well, don't.

There are lives at stake.

I doubt very much there are any lives hanging on the line of whether or not we have such a debate.

The comments I made earlier in that post -- which you blew off acknowledging -- were critical of 12-Step. There are strong-willed people who can't reconcile themselves to the Higher Power stuff. Some think that being dogged by a sponsor is creepy and Big Brotherish. Whatever. To extrapolate from this that 12-Step is a cult according to the common definition thereof is ignorant nonsense, if a commonplace.

"Cult" doesn't have a consistent common definition, and I wasn't extrapolating from anything in your description, nor was I describing 12-step as a cult; I was making an illustrative analogy regarding the invalidity of extrapolating the validity of the "disease of the will" concept from the fact that 12-step works.

That being said, that 12-Step is right on the edge of cult status (which is not a moral judgement) and functionally very similar to a cult by at least one reasonable and useful technical definition is a point made well in Marc Gallanter's Cults: Faith, Healing, and Coercion—the principle defining features it lacks, is personal charismatic leadership.

Understanding the way it is like a cult, and the ways cults are often effective at managing behavior and relieving dysfunction (even while often being simultaneously enhancers and relievers of stress), is a part of understand why it works, where it does.

Just as understanding what addiction is is part of understanding how best to respond to it, and understanding why approaches to it work (or don't), and how to improve them.

No, what I am saying is what I said: Obama seems to be calling for greater involvement of religion in government, on the grounds that it will help Democrats win elections, but gives no clear indication of what he thinks the proper limit of that involvement is.

The only references he makes to examples of acceptable involvement of religion in government (rather than in rhetoric) are things that are already accepted in the status quo, but to which a minority of progressives have objected (at least in one case, IMO, rightly, but that's neither here nor there.)

He nowhere calls for any expansion of the religious role in government.

So, to me, it seems that your characterization of what he "seems to be" calling for is just what you want to argue against, rather than any actual content in his speech.

For people who take the separation of church and state seriously (you're obviously not one of them), that's worrisome.

I take the separation of church and state seriously; part of taking an issue seriously involves discernment of where there is an actual threat rather than jumping at phantasms the same way one would jump at a genuine threat.

I would say it is you who lack seriousness on the issue.

A diabetic is a trustworthy human being.

An alcoholic, like a drug addict or compulsive gambler, is not.

Alcoholism IS a disease of the will because it destroys the moral character of the victim. A diabetic my be physically unable to be as good a parent as he would wish to be.

An alcoholic will flatly not wish to be.

cmdicely,

He nowhere calls for any expansion of the religious role in government.

Huh? The central claim in his speech is that Democratic politicians should appeal more to religious beliefs and religious values in the context of their public duties as an elected representative. How is that not an expansion of the religious role in government?

I take the separation of church and state seriously;

No you don't. If you did take it seriously you would also be concerned about any attempt to further entangle religion and politics, and any attempt to substitute religious purposes for secular ones.

In a democratic regime, the inability of a faction with good ideas on how to deal with substantive problems to effectively communicate those to the voting public is a "real problem", and a substantive barrier to implementing solutions. A strategy to get elected, and to build public support for solutions, is part and parcel of dealing with every real problem.

I wonder how many of the "our obligation to fight Falwell" atheists on this board go into their workplace and pick fights with fundamentalist Christian coworkers.

In the workplace if you cannot get along with your coworkers it doesn't matter how good you may be at what you do. You are a troublemaker and will be fired. In politics the quality of your ideas will not matter if you persist in antagonizing a majority of your fellow citizens who are Christian. Those are the politics of the insufferable know-it-all and a know-it-all is a fool because he doesn't know how to communicate in a way that others will listen. Indeed, such an attitude is an excellent indicator of incompetence.

Isn't it fascinating how the atheists on this thread flatly refuse to recognize that if they want to lead the Democratic Party on a crusade against traditional Christianity, they can count Blacks (who agree with Dobson and Falwell on cultural issues vastly more often than not) out ?

cmdicely,

No, Obama is asking Democrats to not let opposition to religion in government (in the sense of excessive Church/State entanglement) extend to reluctance to use honest, strong moral language (including, where it is honest, religious langauge) in political advocacy.

You previously (and stupidly) claimed that "securing the right to a minimal standard of living" is both a religious purpose and a secular purpose. Yet it is devoid of "religious language." It contains no mention of God, Jesus, Allah, the Bible or any other kind of religious entity. So what's the purpose of "religious language," except to substitute religious purposes for secular ones, or to try and fool people who think civil laws can be justified by religious purposes into thinking that you agree with them?

cmdicely,

By the way, no one here seems to agree with you that a law that bans abortion on the grounds that abortion is forbidden by religious doctrine is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. That alone should tell you how screwed up your position is.

Huh? The central claim in his speech is that Democratic politicians should appeal more to religious beliefs and religious values in the context of their public duties as an elected representative.

I disagree. The central claim in his speech is that progressive activists visible in the public sphere should not be afraid to use moral language, whether religious or areligious, and moral analysis in understanding policy problems, analyzing proposed solutions, and ariculating their policy recommendations and principles to the public.

No you don't. If you did take it seriously you would also be concerned about any attempt to further entangle religion and politics, and any attempt to substitute religious purposes for secular ones.

Since Obama argues for making more honestly and effectively communicating existing purposes and motivations, religious or not, and not avoiding frank moral analysis in examining policy problems, not for "entangling religion and politics" or "substituting religious purposes for secular ones", I don't see how this is anything but utterly irrelevant. Again, you are jumping at phantasms.

By the way, no one here seems to agree with you that a law that bans abortion on the grounds that abortion is forbidden by religious doctrine is not a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Hardly anyone commented on the issue at all.

That alone should tell you how screwed up your position is.

You're resorting to arguing popularity is the measure of validity, now?

So what's the purpose of "religious language," except to substitute religious purposes for secular ones, or to try and fool people who think civil laws can be justified by religious purposes into thinking that you agree with them?

You are, again, confusing purpose and motivation. Honest moral language (which includes religious language only if the speaker is, in fact, religious and, in fact, has a religious motivation relevant to the issue at hand) is just a component of simple honesty; avoiding it out of fear leads to clumsy justifications and the perception that the speaker is untrustworthy and dishonest (in part, because the speaker is being dishonest.)

cmdicely:

>> "Disease of the will" is not, obviously, a medical concept. It may
>> not even have a terminological analogue in the DSM-IV. But it is
>> nonetheless a commonplace understanding to millions of recovering
>> addicts. It is how *they* talk about their illness. And since I was
>> *describing* the 12-step recovery paradigm, I think I should be
>> allowed the courtesy of doing so without being flatly contradicted.

>> "That being said, I have a tremendous amount of respect for 12-Step
>> for the simple reason that it works. Not every single time, but the
>> vast majority of times addiction is a disease of the will."

> That doesn't seem to be a description of the paradigm, it seems to
> be a factual claim about the objective facts in the real world:

> 1) The system works, (implicitly because)
> 2) Addiction is, generally, a "disease of the will"

And indeed it was, and indeed it is. The system works precisely
because people *consider it* a disease of the will and thus
consent to publicly proclaim that they're powerless over it.
And that's precisely why this paradigm is so threatening to a
certain sort of strong-willed individual. As I stated earlier,
it's also probably why I'd probably choose another treatment
venue than 12-Step, because I have an inherent distrust of groups
and cringe hard at anything that resembles "pod person" behavior.

> I don't see how it was discourteous, in any way, for me to
> respond as if it was a claim of objective fact.

Sorry for getting on my high horse about it, Chris. I didn't
feel you were characterizing either addiction or 12-Step fairly.

>> It *doesn't matter what you think* about this, Chris.

> That addiction is largely a disease of the body--one with
> specific physiological components, genetic contributions,
> etc.--that requires an exercise of will to manage like any
> other chronic disorder is not a matter of opinion, its a
> fairly well demonstrated empirical conclusion.

Except that this is both a half-truth and an oversimplification.
Third-stage alcoholism is precisely that; both liver and brain
chemistry have been modified by alcohol consumption. But prior
to that point, nobody can really trace the aetiology of a drinking
problem to a generalizable set of factors. Why does one person
drink the same amount as his/her peers in the same settings and
become an alcoholic while the others don't? Is there a genetic
component? Sure -- northern European stock seems capable of
assimilating a lot more alcohol than other groupings, and it
may be that Native Americans have a genetic factor that makes
them so suceptible to abuse. But factoring those out -- what
are the causes? Mostly psychological? Why some and not others?
Environmental? Again, same question. If it's physiological, it
surely hasn't been isolated in a biological mechanism like diabetes.

I am hardly plumping for the Charles Warren line here, Chris. The
most progressive thing to happen in addiction therapy was to replace
the character failing paradigm with the disease paradigm. "Disease
of the will" amounts to a folk understanding which needs to be judged
in terms of whether or not it works. If a person chooses to understand
his/her addiction that way in the practical and constructive interest
of maintaining control over it -- who am I to criticize that?

And if it's *not* a "disease of the will" -- then, at least
prior to third-stage addiction when it *becomes* a physical
disease -- nobody can say precisely *what* it is, either.

>> There are lives at stake.

> I doubt very much there are any lives hanging on
> the line of whether or not we have such a debate.

Point taken.

>> The comments I made earlier in that post -- which you blew off
>> acknowledging -- were critical of 12-Step. There are strong-willed
>> people who can't reconcile themselves to the Higher Power stuff.
>> Some think that being dogged by a sponsor is creepy and Big
>> Brotherish. Whatever. To extrapolate from this that 12-Step
>> is a cult according to the common definition thereof is
>> ignorant nonsense, if a commonplace.

> "Cult" doesn't have a consistent common definition, and I wasn't
> extrapolating from anything in your description, nor was I
> describing 12-step as a cult; I was making an illustrative
> analogy regarding the invalidity of extrapolating the validity of
> the "disease of the will" concept from the fact that 12-step works.

Well, this is a little disingenuous. "Cult" is an odiously loaded
buzzword; use it as a descriptor without qualifying what you mean
and people will think of Charles Manson or Heaven's Gate. The sense
you used "cult" could apply to any support group -- including one's
friends and family members. And they surely share "cultic" qualities
in this broad, and I would argue, vacuous, sense that you mean it.

> That being said, that 12-Step is right on the edge of cult status
> (which is not a moral judgement) and functionally very similar
> to a cult by at least one reasonable and useful technical
> definition is a point made well in Marc Gallanter's Cults:
> Faith, Healing, and Coercion--the principle defining
> features it lacks, is personal charismatic leadership.

Either you or Gallanter left out another important difference;
there is no hierarchy and no exploitation of new recruits.
I've read cult-tracking websites that have cited the Marines
as a potential and controversial example, but nothing about
12-Step. However, if you'll check out the Rational Recovery
website, it is chock-full of rants against 12-Step accusing it
of being more than a little culty, and David Foster Wallace's
huge novel Infinite Jest, half of which is set in the Boston AA
community, is full of the thought processes and sometimes scathing
criticisms that people new in recovery go through as they jostle
with the notion of giving up a chunk of their sacred *self-will*.

> Understanding the way it is like a cult, and the ways
> cults are often effective at managing behavior and
> relieving dysfunction (even while often being
> simultaneously enhancers and relievers of stress),
> is a part of understand why it works, where it does.

It's very obvious to me why 12-step works and why people
(erroneously, in my view) consider it a cult. It's a support
group that works by getting people to acknowledge that a part
of their will -- their personal autonomy -- is dysfunctional.

Some people see that as a quintessentially cultic mechanism -- drop
a significant chunk of your own personhood, which is shit, and become
absorbed in the group, which is wonderful. Obviously all kinds of
exploitative odiousness can arise out of that, everything from Lyndon
LaRouche to suicide bombers. But 12-Step isn't totalistic. It doesn't
aim for a complete breakdown of the self -- just the part of it that
can't control its desire to abuse substances. It also tries very hard
to keep personal boundaries clear and not exploit new relationships.

> Just as understanding what addiction is is part of
> understanding how best to respond to it, and understanding
> why approaches to it work (or don't), and how to improve them.

Which is what motivated my initial comments on the subject.

Again -- if people choose another method of
recovery than 12-Step, that's perfectly fine with me.

Most -- perhaps nearly all -- recovering addicts would doubtless
assent to the view that their original problem with substances
reflected poorly on what they would characterize as willpower.

Bob

cmdicely,

The central claim in his speech is that progressive activists visible in the public sphere should not be afraid to use moral language, whether religious

It doesn't matter whether it's progressive "activists" or progressive politicians (they're often the same thing anyway). The point is that he's calling for more appeals to religious values and religious beliefs in support of civil laws and public policies. How is that not an expansion of the religious role in government?

Hardly anyone commented on the issue at all.

I explicitly asked if anyone agrees with you that a law that bans abortion on the grounds that abortion is forbidden by religious doctrine is not a violation of the Establishment Clause, and not a single person has said that he does.

Of course, this claim also contradicts your previous claim that you accept the Lemon Test, under which a law cannot be justified by a religious purpose, but then "self-contradiction" is your middle name.

You are, again, confusing purpose and motivation.

Ha ha ha ha. So what's a "religiously-motivated secular purpose" supposed to be? How can the purpose be secular if the motive is religious?

Atheist:

Real easy. Here's an example:

Say a bunch of Congresscritters want to propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Gee, why does this sound familiar?) Everybody -- from their most fervent supporters to their most hated opponents -- knows this is being done for religious reasons. It says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination.

Nobody tries to deny this, either. It's a known fact that they're doing it on behalf of the red-state religious voters who lobbied them hard for it, and told them they'd be punished if they didn't do it.

But notice something.

By the time it gets to the debates, none of the supporters talk about religion. God's name doesn't come up once in the legislation. Nobody reads Leviticus into the Congressional Record for the C-SPAN cameras.

Instead, they make a utilitarian, greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number argument, based on what would be practically good for the country, not what's morally correct in itself.

They stay away from personal morality altogether (they don't want to *gratuitously* piss off gay voters). Instead, they make a historical argument that every great civilization that grew to sanction gay conduct went into decline and fell. They argue that straight marriage is the indispensible cornerstone of civilization, and that it exists specifically to produce children. They bring in statistics which allegedly show that children raised with a mother and a father do better than kids raised by gay couples.

And then they conclude with a states' rights argument that ultra-liberal areas of the country like NY and San Francisco have no business making the citizens of Alabama accept a gay marriage license issued there.

In other words, they argue that gay marriage would be bad for the country, not that it's morally wrong because God said so.

Now whether the legislation passes or not -- it's clear to see that there's both an undeniable religious motive for passing it and a trumped up -- but still plausible -- secular justification for it.

And that's only one of countless examples of how religious motives and secular purposes can, and do, coexist all the time.

Bob

Ok, I have thought some more about what bothers me about Obama's speech.

Word up. There's something I'm not sure he appreciates: think of all those "religious” folks on the “right”. They would not consider voting for Jimmy Carter. They will not seriously consider voting for Mr. Obama.

Why? Because of his politics. Some, because of his ethnic background. Just as they have done with Carter, they will find reasons to oppose Obama. It’s politics, not religion. They may be hypocritical and accuse him of not being a true Christian, but what they really won’t like are his politics.

So, his time and effort spent trying to assure the religious right of his faith will be wasted. The only people who will believe him are the moderate religious who were not against him in the first place. The moderate religious do not need all those assurances.

I think he is wasting his time. I grew up conservative Baptist and that’s what my instincts tell me. But unlike GWB, my instincts have been reinforced and corroborated by experience.

rmck1,

I don't know how you think your gay marriage amendment scenario is an example of a "religiously-motivated secular purpose." I'm talking here about a real secular purpose, a genuine secular purpose, not a fake "purpose" invented to try and fool people. As you described it, the true purpose of the amendment is religious ("It says in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination"). The secular "purpose" ("gay marriage would be bad for the country") is just a ruse, a pretext invented to try and attract political support for an amendment whose true purpose is religious.

The Supreme Court has dealt with exactly this kind of situation before, in a case involving a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in public school classrooms. I think it was in Kentucky. The state lawmakers invented some phony secular "purpose" about promoting national unity or somesuch (and even had it printed on the bottom of each posted copy of the Commadments), but the true purpose of the law was religious. The Supreme Court saw through this subterfuge and struck down the law precisely because its true purpose was religious.

So again, how can a secular purpose (and I mean a genuine secular purpose, not a pretext for a religious one) be religiously motivated? If it's motivated by religion, if the reason for doing it is religious, then it's necessarily a religious purpose.

I can't imagine the Supreme Court would accept a claim that "Our purpose is to feed the poor, and our motive for feeding the poor is that Jesus commands it" qualifies as a secular purpose.

rmck1,

Perhaps the absurdity of the notion of a "religiously-motivated secular purpose" would be clearer with an example of a conservative law.

Suppose state lawmakers passed a law banning contraception. The purpose of the law is as follows: "Our purpose is to promote procreation, and our motive for promoting procreation is that holy Christian scripture teaches that we should go forth and multiply."

Do you really think that qualifies as a secular purpose?

I would think that when religious and secular purposes agree, or reinforce each other, that it is a coincidence, not a matter of one “motivating” the other.

The religious and secular are in different realms. Both can claim moral foundations, but the secular has no problem with logic. The religious can utterly defy logic, thus it must fall back on faith. Faith is not logic, nor is it demonstrable fact. If you are religious, you gotta live with that.

I should have said "appear to reinforce each other".

Atheist:

The key phrase in my whole post was "but still plausible."

Thing is -- *you* don't get to define what's plausible. As long as religion stayed out of the debate and out of the language of the legislation, it's going to be hard to overturn it -- even in a SCOTUS challenge -- on the grounds that it was inappropriately religious.

And I picked that example *precisely* because it's so flat-on-its-face ridiculous that the legislators were being sincere with a secular argument for its passage.

You really can't read things into the letter of a statute that aren't there. If a law passes on the merits of the secular argument -- on what ground are you going to bring in relgion? -- even if, duh, everbody knows that it was there as a motivating force. The arguments for its passage were secular. The language of the amendment was secular.

Motives are a tricky thing. Why does a legislator support anything? Because he sincerely believes in the bill? Because a constituent group pressured him to? Because a constituent group pressured him *not* to, but he cut a deal in caucus to support it in exchange for momentum on another bill? Because he happened to be in the chamber that day instead of playing golf?

The great recent failure of this for religious forces was, of course, the scathing decision in the Dover Intelligent Design case. The ID folks followed the playbook; they attempted to make an entirely secular argument in the name of highcshool science education.

And the argument failed on the merits. In fact, it failed so *badly* that the judge excoriated them for their ulterior religious motives -- and goddamn righteously so.

My point being that the secular arguments would have to be weak enough, in themselves, for that to happen.

Bob

cmdicely:

One final point on 12-step and the disease paradigm of addiction:

By calling alcoholism "a disease of the will," this isn't a return -- as Charles Warren seems to imply -- to the bad character paradigm of addiction. AA was more responsible than any other entity in legitimating the disease paradigm -- long before the medical profession. If you ever get a chance to see the early 50s Ray Milland movie "The Lost Weekeend," it's the first pop culture portrait of alcoholism as a disease rather than an attribute of a lout.

If alcoholism amounted to bad character, it would simply be a matter of making bad choices -- choices that could have and should have been made differently. The disease paradigm relieves a person of that horrific responsibility -- and the attendent lascerating guilt and self-loathing -- because it allows that the disease of alcholism makes that choice impossible -- and well before body and brain chemistry have been permanently altered by the drug. How and why does this happen? We're still studying it. It's probably safe to say that there's going to be a whole suite of factors involved: body chemistry, personality type, environment and upbringing. Except in its final phases, it will never be a simple monocausal disease of the body.

That's why "disease of the will" is such an apt metaphor, and one that doesn't challenge, but rather compliments, medical and psychological research into alcoholism.

Bob

rmck1,

The key phrase in my whole post was "but still plausible."

No, the key phrase in your whole post was "trumped up." The issue is not whether a court might ever be fooled by dishonest legislators into thinking that a religious purpose is a secular one, but whether a religiously-motivated purpose could, in fact, be a secular purpose.

Thing is -- *you* don't get to define what's plausible. As long as religion stayed out of the debate and out of the language of the legislation, it's going to be hard to overturn it -- even in a SCOTUS challenge -- on the grounds that it was inappropriately religious.

It is unlikely that religion would have stayed out of the debate if the true purpose of the law were religious, or even if the law's opponents merely suspected that the true purpose were religious. If the true purpose were religious and the courts upheld the law after being fooled into thinking the secular pretext was the true purpose, then that would be a case of judicial failure. No one is claiming that our judiciary or legal system is perfect. That doesn't alter the fact that the true purpose in that case would in fact be religious, not secular. So again, how is this an example of a religiously-motivated secular purpose, rather than just a secular pretext for a religious purpose?

You didn't answer my question. Do you really believe that a purpose such as "Our purpose is to promote procreation because the Holy Christian Scripture teaches that we should go forth and multiply" is a secular purpose?

I'm not asking if you think it's possible that a court might ever be fooled into thinking that such a purpose were secular if the religious motive were hidden. I'm asking if you really believe that the purpose as stated is secular. Do you or don't you?

Atheist:

Look -- if you're going to continue to conflate purpose with motive when they're clearly separable, if you're going to turn the argument into a trivially true tautology and win it by definition -- there's little that I, or anybody, can say to you.

You can't play chess with a guy who'll knock over the board.

I give up, Atheist. You win.

You'll have to pick the pieces up yourself.

Bob

10 anti-religious liberals. It's easy.
1. George Carlin
2. Bill Maher
3. Gore Vidal
4. Jeneane Garrofolo
5. Billy Joe (Americans are idiots) Armstrong
6. Michael Newdow
7. Marylin Manson
8. Christopher Hitchins
9. Peter Singer
10. Sam (The End of Faith) Harris

Not any office holders, but that's only because they couldn't get elected.

Well, this is a little disingenuous.

No, it wasn't. It might have been unintentionally distracting, though.

"Cult" is an odiously loaded buzzword; use it as a descriptor without qualifying what you mean and people will think of Charles Manson or Heaven's Gate.

Which interpretation, though not what I had in mind, wouldn't particularly have been a problem unless one also grossly misread my use of "cult" (which was not remotely attached to a description of AA) as a description of AA; where I actually used it such a misinterpretation wouldn't alter the meaning of what I wrote substantially.

The sense you used "cult" could apply to any support group -- including one's friends and family members. And they surely share "cultic" qualities in this broad, and I would argue, vacuous, sense that you mean it.

Er, no. The most essential feature lacking would be a substantial boundary control function, which is certainly not present in many formal support groups I've been involved in that are not 12-step programs, and even less present in at least my friends and family; while AA's boundary control is certainly weaker than that of, say, the Unification Church, its substantially and notably stronger than that of many other formal and informal groups, which is a distinctly cult-like quality (as Gallanter identifies the defining features of "cults"), and one that directly contributes to AA's function.

Many other support groups also do not create a dependency relationship by creating stress and relieving that same stress, though that's probably the feature of cults most likely found in families; that's also a cult-like feature of AA, and also one that contributes to its success.

Either you or Gallanter left out another important difference; there is no hierarchy and no exploitation of new recruits.

Neither of those are, as I recall, defining features of "cults" in Gallanter's understanding (except insofar as "charismatic leadership" itself implies a certain degree of "heirarchy"; "exploitation", particularly, is a moral judgement rather than an objective feature; Gallanter's exploration deals with objective features and their connection to function.

I've read cult-tracking websites that have cited the Marines as a potential and controversial example, but nothing about 12-Step.

Cult-tracking websites reflect peoples efforts to fight things they think are bad. So?

It's very obvious to me why 12-step works and why people (erroneously, in my view) consider it a cult. It's a support group that works by getting people to acknowledge that a part
of their will -- their personal autonomy -- is dysfunctional.

I think a deeper analysis is possible and useful, and think Gallanter's exploration both of how cults influence behavior and (brief) examination of the features AA shares with cults and how they relate to its function is, if not the end of such analysis, certainly a step in it.

cmdicely:

> Many other support groups also do not create a dependency
> relationship by creating stress and relieving that same stress,
> though that's probably the feature of cults most likely found
> in families; that's also a cult-like feature of AA, and also
> one that contributes to its success.

This is the nub of most criticism I've seen about
12-Step -- certainly from Rational Recovery -- and
while it's certainly based on observable behavior, I
think it rests on a premise which is a false equivalency.

12-Step groups have been spun off to manage any number of behaviors
that may or may not be closely comparable to substance addiction;
here I'll keep my remarks to AA, because this may be a more salient
critique of groups that try to manage sex or shopping compulsions ...

And just as you threw out the word "cult," I'm going to use morally
loaded language. Deal with it :) IMO, it's not possible to discuss
cultic behavior without doing so, since all behavior critique is
premised within a moral framework -- just as you argued that
"legislating morality" is vacuous as a separate category.

The premise is that these groups "prey" on vulnerable
individuals to "use" their vulnerabilities to bolster
the group. In this sense, vulnerability is a tool with a
valuable purpose, not a problem to be effectively managed
by an individual. This is what makes cults self-perpetuating.
If people got better, there'd be no reason for the group.

If a person believes that alcoholism can be effectively managed by
individual self-control, then AA looks precisely like a group with
a vested interest in creating stress around the idea of being an
alcoholic and then presenting the relief that only it can offer.

But here's why the equivalency is false. Alcoholics aren't like
the vulnerable college kids that LaRouche groups trawl for at tables
on the quad. They're on the balls of their ass, Chris. They're
often in trouble with the law and/or have lost their jobs and their
loved ones. Their familes and personal relationships are already
stressed to the breaking point. For nearly all of them, it has
literally become a binary choice between continuing to live their
lives on their own terms, or realizing that their "own terms" have
utterly failed them. Does AA exploit this to aggrandize itself?
Did this "dependency relationship" arise because AA created it?

That's the rap. That's what most notorious cults, in
fact, do -- and that's precisely what makes them dangerous.

And while that dynamic is certainly operative -- I
don't think the balance sheet weighs unfavorably.
AA and NA produce far more positive good in the
world for the loaded "cult" label to be a fair one.

>> Either you or Gallanter left out another important difference;
>> there is no hierarchy and no exploitation of new recruits.

> Neither of those are, as I recall, defining features of "cults"
> in Gallanter's understanding (except insofar as "charismatic
> leadership" itself implies a certain degree of "heirarchy";
> "exploitation", particularly, is a moral judgement rather
> than an objective feature; Gallanter's exploration deals
> with objective features and their connection to function.

Well, you've just discredited Gallanter in my eyes (though I still
should have a look at him) with this "objectivity" canard. While
we should all work to avoid fright language, is it possible to talk
about, e.g., sex trafficking without referencing "exploitation"?

I don't think so, Chris. Charles Manson brainwashed some street
people into hacking off the body parts of a movie star. Can we be
"objective" in discussing this? Obviously, any discussion of cults
brings with it an implicit moral framwork. Autonomy, human rights,
equality, fair treatment, are inevitably woven into the discourse.

Most cults I've read about (and I've read about a few) heavily use
hierarchial features, both to the direct benefits of the leadership
and as a means of control. Scientologists want to progress up a
ladder to eventually become thetans. AmWay and other MLM schemes
(which have strong cultic features) are explicit about this. The
Marine Corps needs no mention. The Unification Church preaches
a kind of equality but puts its new recruits through an intense
hazing process until their selves are broken down enough to back
off a bit. Lyndon LaRouche was legendary in the 60s and 70s for
using petty rivalries and dogma-reciting cutting contests to instill
discipline by keeping everyone watching their backs while aiming
to be the office favorite. The Noyes Onieda commune used "complex
marriage" ostensibly to annihilate hierarchy, but which effectively
created a rigid sexual allocation over which Noyes had total control.

AA shares none of these "exploitative" features. To the extent
that boundary control is an issue is largely the extent that the
disease makes addicts different from other people. And the fact
that the "13th step" makes it a no-no for veterans to hit on or
form intense personal relationships with newbies shows that the
group has struggled admirably with a destructive but natural
"cultic" tendency that dogged them from the beginning.

>> I've read cult-tracking websites that have cited the Marines as a
>> potential and controversial example, but nothing about 12-Step.

> Cult-tracking websites reflect peoples efforts to
> fight things they think are bad. So?

And Gallanter's book reflects ... what?
Oh that's right; "objectivity."

Please, Chris. Google "cults," find a site, tell me what it
is, we'll read it, and then maybe you can offer a knee-jerk dis.

I don't remember the name of the site I read -- but I do recall
that all the contributors had strong academic credentials and
that the material presented was heavily footnoted and researched.

>> It's very obvious to me why 12-step works and why people
>> (erroneously, in my view) consider it a cult. It's a support
>> group that works by getting people to acknowledge that a part
>> of their will -- their personal autonomy -- is dysfunctional.

> I think a deeper analysis is possible and useful, and
> think Gallanter's exploration both of how cults influence
> behavior and (brief) examination of the features AA shares
> with cults and how they relate to its function is, if not
> the end of such analysis, certainly a step in it.

Well, while my initial reaction to your cult remark was
inappropriately self-righteous and melodramatic, I still feel
that what you're offering is neither deeper nor more helpful. "AA
is cultlike" is not exactly some new insight; more like a cliche.

Examining the ways in which AA and NA are *not* like
a cult -- deconstructing this piece of conventional
wisdom -- might be a better way to go if the goal
here is to foster more effective addiction treatment.

Bob

rmck1,

You still didn't answer my question. Do you really believe that a purpose such as "Our purpose is to promote procreation because the Holy Christian Scripture teaches that we should go forth and multiply" is a secular purpose?

If your answer is "no," how can there be such a thing as a "religiously-motivated secular purpose?"

Atheist:

Aww, geez. You realize, I hope, that this thread is off the main page. I came back to see if cmdicely had a response, and this is what I get instead ...

Atheist, that question would normally be known as a rhetorical question.

But if you're insisting that I answer it, it has become something else:

It's a leading question. A question, IOW, which has been pre-programmed to get a certain answer.

That's why it's utterly pointless to answer it. It's not an honest question because you really aren't interested in the answer.

I will say this, though.

It's entirely possible to imagine a wholly secular purpose for wanting to increase the birthrate among citizens in a country like the US -- most, but not all, having to do with the economy.

If they happen to coincide with a rather strident religious reason -- that says exactly nothing about their validity one way or the other as reasons in themselves.

Bob

Relative to Osama's comments about people's reliance or dependence on their particular religion in the public square, I understand why so many people are reluctant to embrace people with such strong convictions. Think about how the (secular / mainstream) media has "conditioned" listeners and viewers over the past 35 years or so. The North East Coast elite, predominately Democrats and blue bloods, have put their pocket books up in exchange for a "loyalty to them through a sense of journalistic integrity", which, by North East Coast standards specifically excludes ANY reference to organized religion (unless it is the religion of Mother Gaya worship, environmentalist extremism, fanatical animal rights activism, homosexual, gay, transgender recruitment, anti-conservative tirades, anti-Christian programming, etc).

It's sad that we (as Americans) can no longer disagree with someone's opinion or views while simultaneously expressing our own. No, we must have the politically correct "thought police" scrutinize our every syllable, and find us guilty of violating some one's First Amendment Rights. Forget about OUR First Amendment Rights because we are obviously some kind of right wing, fanatical, Jesus-freak type Christian who lives in a bubble and doesn't have the caring and compassion of every bleeding heart, tree-hugging, ultra-vegetarian, dope smoking, "free love" promoting, anti-war chanting liberal.

And God forbid that we, as a nation, should ever put our political differences aside long enough to actually "debate" the real issues facing our country today: Poverty, unemployment, outlandish taxation, forced acceptance of abberant alternative life styles, vomitious pornographic filth, out-of-control government interference with our daily lives, and religious persecution. If we could only focus on these real issues instead of constantly hiding behind our political parties skirts' to lambast and crucify our current (or former/future) leaders.

Prescription drugs online prescription drugs online

Prescription drugs prescription drugs

Drug prescription drug prescription

drug online prescription drug online prescription

drugs store drugs store