Comments on: Bizarre parallel universes

By: mc

mc — Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:35:31 +0000

Ralph, you’re talking of dictatorships in China and the Soviet Union, you can extrapolate the atheist element, you can extrapolate the communist element, but the main element is “dictatorship”. Many people got killed and persecuted under those dictatorships and it had very little to do with religion. Today. We were talking of today. In the USA. Where are these “fanatical secularists”? Worldwide, persecutions – real persecutions, not imagined ones – occur in ethnic and religious and political conflicts between different groups. They don’t occur because of some “fanatical secularists” taking up rape and pillage of entire countries. In Sudan, it wasn’t the “fanatical secularists” who killed thousands of people. In Yugoslavia, it wasn’t “fanatical secularists” killing each other. In Latin America, it was religious powers that collided with right-wing dictatorships and torturers against a common target. Even there, we’re extrapolating a religious element where the causes of conflicts and massacres are more complex. So it’s not religion per se that causes anything. But today more than ever, it is religion, not “secularism”, that is so easily turned into fanaticism with such horrendous consequences. And churches are political powers. They do play dirty too, like all political powers. You need to take off those religion-tinted glasses before you tell anyone about history.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:55:33 +0000

Oh, and as an additional resource, and though I suspect most here will think me not sane for looking at it seriously. Aren’t our three favorite Sophoclean plays, Oedipus, Antigone, Philoctetes, based on the theme of the community being supernaturally punished for the immorality of its leadership?

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:33:53 +0000

“there can be no comparable dialogue as to Bush’s Godliness or lack of Godliness” ….burritoboy (There was a “Bob” and a “Bob McManus” in this thread, sorry for late response) Let me make very clear that I am not speaking of evidence or argument that would convince, you, Ophelia Benson, or myself. Nor is it publicly discussed loudly in the pulpits of even mainstream fundamentalist churches. And just in passing, for without some googling I will frame it badly, I had thought that some Protestant denominations did consider worldly success evidence of grace. Calvin? But to be more specific. I am sure we all remember Falwell blaming, and quickly retracting without denying, 9/11 on American licentiousness. And I saw a man named Marvin Olasky, from UT Austin, give a long lecture on the subject: “Human History is God working his Will on the World.” According to Olasky, WWI and WWII were God’s punishment on America for Woodrow Wilson’s 1905 adultery, just as God punished Israel for David’s adultery with Bathsheba. Again, I am not saying it would make sense to you or me, but I am sure intense googling could find sme discussion of George W Bush as the prodigal son, as David, as a person whose personal redemption has been rewarded beyond his apparent material efforts …and even stronger statements concerning the relationship between Bush, the Nation, and God. The essential question is I guess, is God an existential participant, even driver in human affairs. Most Christians say no. Most pre-Christians assumed yes. There, I hate to tell you, many people out there who believe 9/11 happened because of Clinton’s immorality, and that 9/11 was proof that Clinton was a bad Christian.

By: Ralph Luker

Ralph Luker — Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:02:03 +0000

Marky, You really should read about the fanatical secularism of the 1st French Republic or of the Soviet Union after 1918 or of China after 1949. Too bad you’ve so little interest in history. It’s full of illustrations. As for whether values “come from G_d” or not, you’ve far closer to the fundies than I am. Good for you!

By: marky

marky — Sun, 01 Aug 2004 20:47:17 +0000

Ralph, I assumed you were Jewish because of your spelling “G_d”. “Fanatical secularism”—-what a hoot! Bottom line: when you say that values flow from a complex social matrix (or whatever gobbledegookey phrase you used), you are accepting that they do not come from a deity. Sounds good to me. Cheers.

By: burritoboy

burritoboy — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 20:42:40 +0000

Bob, But I think you’re actually making my point. Ancient Israel, of course, was not a democracy. First, I don’t think you should conflate virtue and morality. Virtue is a term used by the ancients versus morality after the Enlightenment. They’re not the same things at all. Secondly, I think we could apply, for example, the standards of the ancient Greeks as to virtue, to our own democracy. We can readily and rationally observe whether a person is brave or cowardly, whether she does her civic duty, whether he sacrifices to the gods at the appropriate times and places, and so on. An ancient Athenian could argue that his fellow citizen K was impious and unvirtuous by showing that he had failed to perform the rites or broken the laws or failed in his civic duties (which of course were also religious ones). Conversely, citizen K could PROVE his virtue and piety by producing evidence of his courage in battle or his sacrifices to the Gods or the boats he’s donated to the city and so on. Kerry’s campaign explicitly uses many of these themes (i.e., Kerry is virtuous because of his bravery in the Mekong Delta, etc.) I don’t see anything irrational in that. An opponent of Kerry could rationally challenge this claim to virtue by discovering that Kerry’s acts were not in fact as heroic as Kerry’s campaign claims (which is precisely what the opposing camp has tried to do – though it’s failed to make the case). That’s a rational and democratic dialogue. But, in the Christian context (especially the American Christian Right context), since it’s so heavily based on “faith, not acts”, there can be no comparable dialogue as to Bush’s Godliness or lack of Godliness. There’s simply no evidence that could be brought forth to challenge that belief in Bush’s Godliness (baring a video tape of Bush repeatedly worshipping Baal or something). On a macro level, I would suspect that the political orders you speak of would not and could not be modern democracies based on Enlightenment thought. Ancient democracies are a different story, and, of course, are exceedingly different than modern democracies.

By: mc

mc — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:34:59 +0000

Besides, whatever you mean by ‘fanatical secularism’, I don’t see how it can even come close to having 1/1000th of the influence that religious fanaticism currently has, worldwide, and across different religions. Where are all these fanatical anti-clericalists demanding churches are converted into public libraries, faith schools abolished, religion banned from tv, film, books, political discourse? Where? No, we’re not getting anywhere, Ralph. We’re still talking of parallel universes. And you are still using the word “secularism” only in the hostile meaning. Where’s your acknowledgement of a shared neutral ground? Let’s just forget about it. We’d only be going round in circles.

By: mc

mc — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 13:15:48 +0000

Ralph: see, I don’t know exactly what you refer to as ‘fanatical secularism’. Especially in an American context. I get the feeling it can mean anything you want it to mean. Every term is loaded when we’re talking religion and its role in society. We’re not “getting anywhere” until all who identify strongly with religion recognise that a (neutrally) secular system and cultural mentality is what guarantees the best balance for all, religions included. You may have people who confuse religion itself with religious brainwashing. But you also have people who confuse anything secular with anti-religion. Besides, even overtly hostile positions need to be considered. Anti-clericalism is not necessarily fanatical. Aren’t there valid criticism of the influence of churches?

By: Ralph Luker

Ralph Luker — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:52:19 +0000

Now we are getting somewhere, MC! Just acknowledge the historical reality of fanatical secularism and we’ve got it.

By: mc

mc — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:27:50 +0000

Timothy Burke, I think you put the finger on the source of misunderstanding on “secular” and “secularism”. In French or in Italian, for instance, the distinction is clearer because the word laicité is more neutral and never has a connotation of hostility to religion. That hostility would be described as anti-clericalism, which has had its good uses too (and a great tradition, all the way back since the Renaissance), especially in a historical context where you have had an overwhelming presence of a powerful church. I’m more used to that history and that context so I tend to take that distinction for granted, but in English it is more ambiguous, because secularism can also have that extra meaning of anti-religion, both in its definition and its use… That said, I think there’s a point to the kind of provocation like marky’s. It does force you to consider how much religion is a system of beliefs that is acquired, and how it is not in itself a necessary basis for ethics. Ethics are independent from religion, and it’s depressing to see people conflate them. Even if you are religious. It’s a poor idea of religion to reduce it to morality, and it is completely wrong to use only religious arguments with kids to show approval or disapproval of certain behaviours. But usually, people who are not fanatically religious won’t do that. It’s not religion per se, it’s too much religious indoctrination that is damaging. Religion doesn’t have to mean brainwashing. It’s all a matter of measures and balances. I’m not keen on faith schools precisely for that reason, because I think it’s best, even if you want to give some religion to your kids, that they have a neutral environment for education. It’s a fanatical mentality, not religion itself, that is the problem. Any system of belief can be used in fanatical ways. But there’s no worse combination than fanaticism and religion. No, actually, there is. It’s fanaticism, religion and politics…

By: Ralph Luker

Ralph Luker — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 06:14:54 +0000

Marky, I’m happy to be mistaken for Jewish. As it happens, I’m an evangelical liberal Protestant. Typing the word “fact” in caps doesn’t make it so; nor does understanding that values flow from a complex matrix which may include religious references necessarily validate secularist claims.

By: marky

marky — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:56:20 +0000

Well, Ralph, You claim that your worldview has plenty of mechanisms for handling disagreements of the sort I laid out. Let’s hear them. I don’t think the answer to these questions is obvious at all. About other religious practices: I don’t think you understand my point. What I’m saying is that if you think morality flows from religion, then you need to be able to explain how morals such as I described above fit into this prescription. Now, to say that female circumcision does not flow from a religious value system is facile—-I disagree—- and saying “blah blah.. complex social.. blah blah”.. is rather ceding ground to a secularist viewpoint, don’t you think? As for my stereotype of religious instruction—-that is a FACT. I was raised in a very liberal faith, but I still got the message about avoiding eternal damnation. I can only imagine what it’s like for true holy rollers. Apparently you are Jewish. I would have expected more subtle reasoning from you. I took you for a Pentecostal type on reading your first post.

By: Ralph Luker

Ralph Luker — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:22:49 +0000

Marky, You choose to blame religion for female circumcision and for killing gay people. There’s good reason to believe that those practices grow out of a social/phychological soil in which particular religious beliefs are a component but not necessarily the crucial element. There is something twisted about your insistence that I must defend practices which I find reprehensible. So, I won’t do it. G_d wouldn’t want me to. You’ll just have to accept that answer. I have no interest in defending your stereotype of what you call religious instruction. My “worldview” has plenty of “mechanisms for coping with disagreements”. One is just to let you know that I’m not interested in playing your mindgame.

By: marky

marky — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 04:45:57 +0000

Incidentally, while implementation of my moderate proposal is not remotely possible, the religious extremists in large parts of this country are gutting science education and replacing it with utter trash. Who is forcing their views on others, here in the US? Not the atheists.

By: marky

marky — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 04:40:11 +0000

Ralph, It’s a thought experiment. Try it sometime——it might do you some good. Apparently you don’t find female circumcision or honor killing to be good values—-but they are religious. What I’m getting at is the difficulties that arise when religion is considered the source of values. Since there are different religions that have different values, your worldview has no mechanism for coping with disagreements. And please—-about killing fags: ever heard of Fred Phelps? Murderous hatred toward gays is fanned by religious extremists in this country. Hatred of gays is not a secular value. Incidentally, you still haven’t defended the specific type of religious instruction I find objectionable. Is is beyond you to do so?