Betrayal and Pusillanimity
It is appalling that House Resolution HR847 (”Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith”) passed the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 372-9. Among the “aye” votes: 195 democrats! This unnecessary bit of empty symbolism is little more than political pandering, with the unfortunate consequence of reinforcing the mistaken notion that America is essentially a Christian nation. This resolution singles out one religious faith for special recognition while simultaneously and implicitly demeaning the many millions of other faiths and, of more concern here, those who value reason over faith.
As noted at No More Hornets, this resolution has formalized some very scary ideas: that America is a Christian nation, that Christians and Christmas are under assault and need Congressional endorsement, and that it is the mission of the United States to defend Christianity worldwide.
In an era where cultural polarization is becoming the norm, support of such an insulting and divisive measure by so many prominent and oftentimes rational Democrats is hugely disappointing, and betrays either a general lack of courage or an utter disregard for millions of nontheistic Americans.
Intolerance: it’s not just for Republicans any more.
Resistance is Not Futile
A thought-provoking article in a recent issue of Science magazine (Science 2 November 2007, Vol. 318. no. 5851, pp. 812 - 814) discussed the evolution of two mechanisms of host defense against pathogenic infection. These two conceptually distinct components of host defense are resistance, in which the burden of the infection is limited through the erection of barriers or by elimination of the disease-causing entity, and tolerance, in which the detrimental consequences of the infection are minimized. Notably, resistance has a direct negative effect on the infectious agent, whereas tolerance does not.
In light of recent exhibitions of intolerance by Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and other Republican presidential hopefuls, this article took on a meaning that transcended its scientific merit, and I began to ponder the applicability of these two mechanisms –resistance and tolerance – for defending society against the stifling influence of religious fundamentalism. Perhaps this conceptual dichotomy could provide a useful framework for evaluating atheist and humanist action in the current “culture war.”
Resistance against the encroachment of religion into our secular democracy – in the form of buttressing the wall separating religion from government, promoting critical inquiry and freedom of expression, and supporting the application of scientific methodology, for example – has long been part of the arsenal employed by freethought activists. Those currently labeled as New Atheists (or more derisively as atheist fundamentalists and militant atheists) go further, taking the offensive and seeking to actively to undermine the faith in irrational, religious, and superstitious ideologies.
Tolerance, though, is a more difficult principle to apply. While religious tolerance is a virtue frequently touted by humanists, it is notoriously difficult to draw bright lines between actions we should tolerate, and those we should actively resist. It has been said that the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance. The American philosopher John Rawls, in his influential book A Theory of Justice concluded that a just society must be tolerant, and that the intolerant must be tolerated – but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions. Clearly, we would not wish absolute tolerance. And, of course, our criminal and civil statutes are full of acts we will not tolerate.
But, what is tolerance? That question was answered by the French author and philosopher Voltaire thusly: “It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.” In an Aristotelian sense, tolerance is a virtue that falls between softheadedness, on the one hand, and narrow mindedness, on the other. Helen Keller said that “The highest result of education is tolerance.”
In 1995, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), issued its Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. In defining “tolerance,” this declaration states, among other things, that “it involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism” and “it also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.” These two ideas are central to a humanist conception of religious tolerance.
Religious tolerance, or religious “pluralism,” would, in accordance with the definition proffered by UNESCO, hold that no religion can lay claim to the only or absolute truth. Religious fundamentalists, though – whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish – leave no room for such pluralism. And, thus, we see a fissure in contemporary American society, drawn along religious lines – not pitting one sect against another, but pitting those with an absolutist, dogmatic, fundamentalist view against those who, I would argue, have a more enlightened and tolerant view of the role of religion.
So, in surveying the religious landscape in
While it is a simple matter to tolerate diverse (and even benignly absurd) beliefs, the matter of behaviors is more difficult. The situation has reached such an extent that atheists and humanists are effectively precluded from openly assuming public office. We are inundated with the chorus of God Bless
In a 2006 sermon from his church in
Atheists and humanists are (of necessity, to a large degree) tolerant of divergent religious beliefs. Moreso, it seems, than many supposedly tolerant Christians. But, even the most open-minded and ecumenical humanist would become justifiably intolerant of dogmatism and absolutism, especially where these views are imposed on others. While there is a place for both resistance and tolerance in defending our society against religious extremism, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue against those who have chosen a more direct, frontal assault on faith-based irrationality.
Thus, while we may be tolerant of parents and religious leaders inculcating children with biblical fairy tales that are at odds with reality, we must resist attempts to introduce the supernatural into public school science curricula lest we surrender to the frightening prospect of creating generations of Americans ignorant of essential scientific theories.
We may be tolerant of Christian fundamentalists who cling to a literal, simplistic understanding of the biblical account of the Creation, but must resist those who use a young-Earth, creationist theology as a premise to disavow scientific evidence for global warming or as an excuse to disregard concerns for loss of biodiversity, swelling global population, or deteriorating ecological systems.
We may be tolerant of the belief that marriage is a sacred covenant available exclusively to heterosexual couples, but must resist attempts to impose such patently sectarian views on the civil institution of marriage.
Balancing resistance and tolerance is not easy. Too much tolerance – to the point of being softheaded – endangers important civil liberties. Too much resistance – to the point of militancy – places a wedge between nontheists and liberal religious observers, deists, and others who are sympathetic to the humanist worldview but shun the label, and foments attacks by those who most fervently disagree with, or are most threatened by, a secular, rational outlook. A proper balance between resistance and tolerance will foster a robust defense against the intrusion of religious ideology into our society.
Intolerable Political Pandering
Writing at Salon, Joe Conason discusses the religious intolerance so sadly displayed in recent remarks by leading Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. In the process of pandering to the right wing they imagine to be in control of the Republican party, these two have few qualms in asserting the superiority of faith over reason, and seem to hold the separation of religion and government only in as high a regard as is necessary to protect their own questionable religious beliefs.
But Conason notes that in waving the flag of Christianity, both candidates invite rejoinder on that same subject.
If Romney is going to attack humanists and secularists as “wrong,” then let him explain why they were so far ahead of his church on the greatest moral issues of the past half-century.
As for Huckabee, let him answer a few pertinent questions about his faith, too. Does he actually believe in creationist dogma that insists the planet is less than 10,000 years old, and that humans once walked with dinosaurs? How would that loony idea influence his science policies as president? Is he a believer in “end times” eschatology, which holds that American foreign policy should be shaped by the coming Armageddon in the Middle East?
Finally, Conason makes the oft-overlooked point that although atheists may vociferously and passionately defend their worldview, they have historically shown more tolerance for religion than the other way around.
Phonies like Huckabee and Romney complain constantly about the supposed religious intolerance of secular liberals. But the truth is that liberals — including agnostics and atheists — have long been far more tolerant of religious believers in office than the other way around. They helped elect a Southern Baptist named Jimmy Carter to the presidency in 1976, and today they support a Mormon named Harry Reid who is the Senate majority leader — which makes him the highest-ranking Mormon officeholder in American history. Nobody in the Democratic Party has displayed the slightest prejudice about Reid’s religion.
In fact, where poll after poll shows that a significant proportion (a majority in some cases) of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist for any public office solely on the basis of their nonbelief, one would be hard-pressed to find an analogous position among freethinkers. But, then, there have never been enough admittedly atheist candidates to make such a position tenable.
Some day. In the meantime, I will address the issue of tolerance further in an upcoming post.
Peace on Earth and Good Will Toward Men
Tis the season, both political and religious. And it seems to be bringing out a nasty streak of intolerance in the name of religious tolerance. So, apologies for this disjointed compendium, but I need to clear a backlog of disturbing bookmarks. Some of this ground has been well trodden by others, but it’s worth an aggregated view just for the benefit of facilitating pattern recognition.
On 27 November 2007, presidential wannabe Mitt Romney, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, confessed his embrace of religious quotas and his apparent bigotry.
He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”
Somebody, please, send the good Governor a copy of the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey or the recent Barna survey that indicates 7% of Americans are atheist, agnostic or without faith. But, before we lay claim to a cabinet position, we should heed Mr. Romney’s remarks today, while seeking to allay concerns that his Mormonism could be somehow at odds with right-wing fundamental protestantism. As reported on the Washington Post web site:
Romney praised the practices of many faiths and underscored repeatedly the religious heritage that was at the heart of the Founding Father’s vision of the new country. He called for public acknowledgment of the Creator on currency, in the pledge and said nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in the public square… I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’”
Oh. So, he favors freedom of religion. Pick an ideology. Any Judeo-Christian ideology.
Of course, the world is now well-familiar (and suitably disgusted) with the story (e.g. here and here) of Gillian Gibbons, the British school teacher working in Sudan who faced prison, fines, and 40 lashes for blasphemously permitting her seven-year-old pupils to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.” Following her conviction, Ms. Gibbons was pardoned by the Sudanese president. Such leniency could not be tolerated by some citizens in Sudan.
The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was sentenced to 15 days in jail last week for insulting Islam and was to be released next Monday. Under Sudanese law, Ms. Gibbons could have received 40 lashes and been jailed for six months. On Friday, hundreds of Sudanese in Khartoum, the capital, protested what they considered a lenient punishment and called for her to be put to death.
On 29 November 2007, the Austin American Statesman reported that Chris Comer, the Texas Education Agency’s director of science curriculum for more than nine years, tendered her resignation under pressure after being accursed of creating bias against the teaching of intelligent design.
Comer was put on 30 days paid administrative leave shortly after she forwarded an e-mail in late October announcing a presentation being given by Barbara Forrest, author of “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse,” a book that says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Forrest was also a key witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case concerning the introduction of intelligent design in a Pennsylvania school district. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities, saying, “FYI.”
As noted at Panda’s Thumb:
Apparently, not being a team player in the The Republican War on Science
is a firing offense at the TEA. Why forwarding an announcement concerning a talk whose topic is highly relevant to the conduct of science education by an internationally recognized speaker should cause TEA administrators a problem escapes me. One is forced to wonder whether Ms. Comer would be looking for a new job if instead she were forwarding emails announcing talks by DI fellows about “intelligent design” creationism.
This issue is also well-treated at Pharyngula and The Austringer. Details on the story may be found at the web site for Texas Citizens for Science.
On 30 November 2007, The Independent reports that the Turkish publisher of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion may be subject to imprisonment on the basis of increasingly frequent application of laws restricting freedom of expression.
Erol Karaaslan, the founder of the small publishing house Kuzey Publications, could face between six months and a year in jail for “inciting hatred and enmity” if Istanbul prosecutors decide to press charges over the book, which has sold 6000 copies in Turkey since it was published this summer.
See additional stories here and here.
On 3 December 2007 the Guardian reported on continued protests against humanist author and activist Taslima Nasrin, who announced several days ago her intent to remove supposedly offending passages from her autobiography.
But the offer to remove the paragraphs from new printings of the bestseller was not enough for Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric of New Delhi’s Jama Masjid mosque, who suggested earlier today that Indian Muslims should “not tolerate the infamous authoress Taslima Nasrin on the Indian soil” unless she offered a written apology for what he called her “anti-Islamic publications”.
“The apology must bear her assurance that in future she will desist from repeating such venomous writing that may have any inkling of blasphemy,” he said in a statement.
“India is a democratic nation and the constitution here neither does permit any citizen nor allow any foreign national to be irreverent to the tenets of any religion,” the cleric continued.
On 4 December 2007, The Rational Response Squad reported on the encyclical letter Spe Salvi promulgated by the Vatican on 30 November 2007, noting that the Pope has chosen to villify atheists by attributing to them some of the great moral lapses of the recent past.
The attempt to correlate atheism with violence, hatred, and genocide is the faithful fall-back argument for theists looking for a scapegoat. As in many other situations, their best defense for their beliefs and the resulting atrocities throughout history is something like, “Atheists did it, too! Just look at Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. You’re just like us!” Well, I beg to differ. Those three well-worn examples did not commit those crimes because of their lack of god-belief. That is where the fundamental difference lies.
The encyclical letter Spe Salvi itself, while not as inflammatory in its rhetoric as the above implies, says:
Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice. If in the face of this world’s suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope.
Of course, reasonable people might disagree. Those who rely on reason over faith certainly will.
On 4 December 2007, A Thinking Man pointed out the cries of blasphemy regarding a Red Bull commercial that aired in Italy (see also the New Humanist Blog).
Father Marco Damanti, from Sicily, wrote to the makers of the caffeinated energy drink denouncing their commercial as “a blasphemous act” and said yesterday he had received a prompt reply promising to remove it from Italian television. The advert depicted four wise men, instead of three, visiting Mary and the Baby Jesus in Bethlehem. The fourth wise man bore a can of the soft drink.
Even those challenged at recognizing patterns can glimpse this growing and paradoxical trend in which free speech is squelched in the name of religious sensitivity and tolerance, while overt discrimination against and rampant disrespect of atheists continues unabated.
Situation normal.
A Constant Problem for Physicists
A New York Times op-ed by physicist and communicator of things scientific Paul Davies proclaims the faith of the scientist.
All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.
This will surely be spun as heresy in the scientific, rationalist, and nontheist blogosphere, with ample finger-wagging at the absurdity of arguing that each hypothesis amounts to an exercise in faith. But, there is a constant problem in physics that lends comfort to those clinging to a deistic view of the universe.
Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.
If there is any faith among scientists, though, it is perhaps that continued investigation and exploration will yield answers to these mysteries, and a rational explanation for the existence of these seemingly arbitrary (albeit anthropically “fine-tuned”) properties of our universe.
In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.
Alas, Timaeus’ demiurge may be relegated to the purgatory into which all gods of the gaps are ultimately banished by science. But such discourses on the quintessentials of metaphysics abet a deistic understanding of the universe. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Accumulated Wisdom 2007.11.22
According to the Associated Press, the “little people” may be in line for more equitable treatment.
The Colorado Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for an anti-abortion group to collect signatures for a ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person… If approved by voters, the measure would give fertilized eggs the state constitutional protections of inalienable rights, justice and due process.
Clearly, such a measure, if passed, would be the end of legal abortion. And it would wreak havoc on the next census.
The Wall Street Journal reports on Dr. Arthur Matas, a transplant surgeon actively promoting a change in U.S. policy that would permit the sale of kidneys.
“There’s one clear argument for sales,” Dr. Matas told a gathering of surgeons earlier this year. The practice, currently illegal in the U.S., “would increase the supply of kidneys, save lives and improve the quality of life for those with end-stage renal disease.”
With thousands of patients on the kidney transplant waiting list dying each year, and a significant public health burden associated maintaining patients with kidney failure, the merits of this proposal are coming into clearer view. Others point to the fact that current donors are given inadequate (i.e. zero) compensation for the loss of a kidney and the discomfort of a surgical procedure, with the only consideration being that warm fuzzy feeling one gets from altruistic deeds. It is not, however, without controversy, centered primarily on the possibility that those of lower economic status could be exploited. At least the issue is being discussed (e.g. here or here). Links to some additional information may be found at here, here, or here.
The Center for American Progress has launched a multi-year media campaign.
The first part of the campaign involves a pilot experiment to begin defining progressivism in the public’s mind through a series of distinct advertisements that explain the progressive movement’s core values and policy ideas, its historical accomplishments, and its philosophical differences with conservatives.
The first of these videos can be viewed here (Quicktime movie). This is progress, but it would be nice to see a similar effort to recapture the dreaded “L” word, which has become a term of opprobrium when passed over the forked-tongue of the neo-radical right wing.
This is Your War, On Drugs
A New York Times editorial recalls one of America’s other perpetual wars - the so-called War on Drugs - and applauds tentative steps by the USA to collaborate with Mexican officials to stop the flow of illegal drugs.
If Washington is serious about stopping the northward flow of cocaine, heroin and other drugs, it must begin an aggressive campaign to stop the southward flow of money and high-powered weapons that finance and arm the cartels. And there must be a far more serious effort to curb Americans’ use of illicit drugs.
The last point is perhaps the most salient. Just as military intervention in Iraq is unlikely to break the growing tide of anti-American public sentiment in the Middle East, military interdiction efforts are not going to solve what is, at best, a public health problem, and at worst an artificial problem fueled by political expediency.
Let’s draw another parallel: our failure to curb our thirst for petroleum-based energy has not only made the quest for oil a driving national security interest, it has put untold billions of dollars (now euros) into the hands of despotic leaders and Islamist states. As noted in the Times editorial, America’s demand for illegal drug imports similarly funds cartels with enormous power.
According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, between $8 billion and $23 billion in proceeds from the drug trade flowed illegally across the border into Mexico in 2005. The cartels have used that enormous financial clout to corrupt Mexican law enforcement on an unparalleled scale. The traffickers’ firepower — likened to what American soldiers face in Afghanistan and Iraq — also eclipses the puny arsenal of Mexico’s police forces. Mexican officials estimate that 90 percent of the guns they confiscate are smuggled in from the United States.
When politicians can have a serious national dialog about our efforts to eradicate drug abuse, without fear of appearing soft on crime, we may one day see the development of a rational drug policy. When politicians can have a serious national dialog on our efforts to curb Islamic radicalism without seeming soft on national defense, we may one days see a rational foreign policy.
Questioning Theocracy
In Saturday’s Secular Sermon at Daily Kos, tbrucegodfrey discusses the sad, persistent attempts of some religious conservatives to impose biblical values on American governance and jurisprudence, noting (among other things) the the difficulties in applying “traditional” religious values as law when there are numerous competing religious traditions and no small amount of inconsistency within and between them.
Ultimately, the question of whether, and if so which, religious traditions govern our society’s public morals, i.e. laws, remains to be seen. To claim stupidly, however, that America needs to “return to the Bible” is asinine; not only does the Constitution bar Congress from establishing a religion and guarantee freedom from Congressional interference in the free exercise of religion, it bars all religious tests for federal office.
And, of course, there is the huge issue of whether whatever moral code one might glean from an ancient text written when heliocentricity was an unknown concept, slavery was an accepted practice and the subjugation of women was routine could possibly be applicable to contemporary society. But the point of this sermonette seems to be that candidates should be called to account for pandering to those who would impose theocracy on America.
What does this have to do with Democrats winning elections? I think that we should start asking theocratic Republicans - meaning those who take public support from theocratic organizers - which Bible passages should become statutes. I think we should ask their opinions of Biblical stoning, whether adultering men should be stoned as well as women, whether the government should be in the business of promoting Christianity or whether that is a church’s day job.
Such questions do not seem out of bounds, especially in cases where a stance is based on a selective reading of the Bible. It would be wise, though, to avoid over-generalization; the goal is to drive a wedge between religious fundamentalists and religious moderates, not between all religious adherents and atheists. Not all Christians are biblical literalists lacking the sophistication to appreciate allegory and metaphor.
Carnival of the Godless #79
Carnival of the Godless #79 is now online at Aardvarchaeology. This “bi-weekly collection of good blogging from a perspective unclouded by notions of friendly guys in the sky who provide pie when you die” contains links to a number of worthwhile posts of interest to the nontheists among us.
Status Symbols
The Atheist Alliance International has posted a new web site called Atheist Symbol. The purpose of this site is to promote yet another symbol for the freethought community.
This symbol is not the symbol of AAI or of any of its member organizations. It is meant to be a generic symbol of freethought for the world. The symbol shows how atheists fit into our world and are an integral part of it. The “A” is capitalized because we are important. It is attached to the circle (a globe) in the same way we are attached to our world.
This newest entry into the growing collection of freethought icons comes in a variety of colors and styles. It joins the recently released “Scarlet Letter A,” which is part of Richard Dawkins’ Out Campaign,
the symbol of yesterday’s upstart incarnation of freethought known as “The Brights Movement”
and, of course, that venerable standard from American Atheists:
And the point of these symbols declaring one’s lack of belief in some theistic construct? Building a sense of community and shared purpose, I suppose. But, the use of these symbols suffers the same weakness as self-identification as an atheist; it is at best an uninformative statement of the negative, imparting nothing of one’s values or beliefs. Why the compulsion to proclaim this lack of belief?
A preferable approach might be a symbol of rationality, reason or skepticism. Or something whimsical, like the interrobang (a hybrid of a question mark and an exclamation point).
For those atheists of a progressive bent, the symbol of humanism seems a worthwhile alternative.
Posts
