Bizarre parallel universes

The paper I read this morning had comments from assorted humanoids. One objected that the Democrats in Boston were exuding the usual “liberal poison.”

(FWIW, it was the Oakland Tribune)

1) someone who was distressed by his last experience with a poissonnerie (or doesn’t like fish)

2) expecting a Gaussian, confounded by a Poisson distribution

3) didn’t know what a German means by “gift”

e) huh?

I think this may be a misreading of what Burke says.

Burke isn’t claiming that Kerry will impose an extremist vision.

He’s arguing that Bush did impose such a vision and that if, hypothetically, Kerry were to do the same then we would know that political consensus would be impossible as the choice would be between two extremes.

It’s a subjunctive claim :-) – Burke doesn’t seem to making any kind of point that Kerry would in fact do so.

“I think this may be a misreading of what Burke says.”

I quite (in the American sense) agree. It looks to me like Burke is endorsing Kerry for president, when you read the whole thing:

“To choose Bush is to choose to impose the starkest, most extreme formulation of the agenda that Bush has come to exemplify on a population of Americans to whom that agenda is repellant. To choose Bush is to choose Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority (or even, judging from the popular vote in 2000, tyranny of the almost-majority). To choose Bush now—not in 2000, when he plausibly could have been many things–is to aspire to tyranny, to ruling your neighbors and countrymen. That some on the left have had or even achieved similar aspirations from time to time doesn’t change things: it’s wrong whenever it is the driving vision of political engagement, for whomever holds it.”

Kerry is going to renegotiate all the US free trade deals. I doubt the other parties are going to agree to that.

So I think it is fair to say that Kerry’s trade isolationism is “extreme” in this day and age (although not in the 30’s).

Holy baby Jebus, Chris, what do I have to do? Read the frikkin’ piece: I make it clear that I regard George Bush as the worst possible president we could have. Part of the argument of the piece is that he’s partially responsible for edging the United States towards a kind of undeclared civil war.

But the rest of the argument is aimed squarely at people who are already declared Bush supporters, because I actually think they’re a more important problem than Bush himself. I’m saying to them–pleading with them–to see what it is that they’d be doing by choosing Bush. Not just voting for the candidate they prefer, not just irrationally overlooking his failures in Iraq and elsewhere, but voting to impose a highly coordinated and connected totalizing social and political agenda on the other half of the population.

So the quote you’re taking exception to is about–and I think, re-reading, that this is screamingly clear–my plea to Bush supporters, particularly cultural conservatives. I’m saying, “Ok, to be fair, if you vote for Kerry, and he does the *same thing* I’m accusing Bush of doing, then maybe we’re at a final impasse in this country, and there’s nothing left but a take-no-prisoners fight for domination between two almost-majority voting blocs”. But it’s obviously not just that Kerry won’t be able, it’s that he wouldn’t, in my judgement. I’m simply trying to communicate to a strong Bush supporter that what I’m proposing is a general standard, that for their sake as well as my sake, a person who governs by considering each issue as it comes independently, by considering each issue on its merits, by NOT imposing a totalizing agenda, is good. Good for them and good for me. And since we know Bush is not that, it seems fair enough even if you knew nothing else about Kerry to give him a shot and see if he is.

Way to read the whole essay.

I’m getting that feeling a lot from the tv news reports on the campaign. Sometimes it really becomes hilarious. It seems the prevailing mantra is, how can Kerry with his rich privileged lifestyle appeal to the masses blah blah – insert footage of Kerry doing water-skiing, skiing, snowboarding, whatever – Sky News, to their credit, also offered footage of Bush’s “multimillion-dollar ranch”… only to inform us, though, that Bush likes to be seen doing very “down to earth” activities like, walking in the woods – insert footage of Bush walking around among very down-to-earth foliage – instead of fancy rich boy sports… so he doesn’t come off as such an aristocratic snob, like. Wow. Interesting! I guess playing golf is no longer a posh thing, then. If Bush does it.

I’d like to know, by what logic is the question of how a wealthy and privileged life can affect one’s relationship with the electorate only a problem for Kerry? In what parallel universe is walking in your own _private_ ranch more in touch with the working class than water-skiing? or is it what, more “American”? like they only water-ski in Monte Carlo?

I don’t know, they were picturing Bush as Gary Cooper and Kerry as Tara Palmer-Tomkinson. Three more months of such entertainment, you almost wish it never ended…

“as a uniter and not a divider. That’s his biggest lie of all” …Burke

I have never heard a single Republican who would not deny this, who would not say that Bush’s attempts at comity were ruthlessly spurned repeatedly by the Democrats. I say this as preface.
….
I, in the moonbat crowd, can think of conditions in which Kerry might get radical. Since I believe Repubs are capable of anything, a phrase I do not use lightly, they may attempt a scorched earth retreat if defeated in November. (Of course, since I really believe them capable of anything, I also think Bush will be here in February.)
….
For a hypothetical:after Bush loses in November, Greenspan and the Fed raise interest rates to 20% or default on debt; nukes Tehran and Pyongyang; rounds up American Muslims and inters them; does whatever is within his power to throw America into war and depression. Under such conditions, the new Kerry administration might do things that Tom DeLay and NRO and the Republican party would consider radical.

Chris Bertram wrote:

But the very idea that Kerry, who, in European terms is a moderate conservative

You miss the point, in American terms (the ones that matter since this is an American election), most European politicos are far left socialists. Generally, American politician considered “moderate” by European terms would be an “extremist” by ours and vice versa as evidenced by the attempt to paint Bush, who has pretty much governed as a center right President, as some of extreme conservative by the lunatic fringe.

Oh dear.

Mr Burke, I want to compliment you on a very enjoyable piece, suffused with idealism and sadness. As you might see by reading Mr Winston, we have most likely already passed your tipping point. We are at 1960, or even 1860. It is that damn South and Red States again, a conflict in the American Soul religious in nature, and deeper than slavery or racism.

There are men of good will on the other side who are frightened and sad. Like John Calhoun was frightened and sad. Your characterization of religion as a personal faith is part of the problem, they see religion as the foundation of a community. A totalitarianisn of personal liberty is unacceptable to them. I believe, on a reading of history, they have a case.
…
This conflict is most likely no longer succeptable to compromise. It would be best to realize this as soon as possible, but so difficult it will be accepted too late. John Kerry is likely, if elected, at best to play a role comparable to Buchanan’s.

Well, that’s my fear, Bob.

I suppose I am oddly enough casting cultural and religious conservatives as the North here, and pleading with them not to divide the Union. And I’m trying to be as understanding as I can about what I know their counter-claim is: that the Union is, in their eyes, already divided, that they cannot compromise with what they see as sin.

That’s as sensitive as I can be to how others see it–obviously I think the moral equation is completely reversed, and the immorality here is the tyrannous ambitions of cultural crusaders on the Right, that the moral and righteous thing to do is to defend a conception of American freedom that is secular and rights-based, that is about constraint on the powers of government to regulate the moral and cultural behavior of citizens.

But I do think that those of us who oppose Bush must try to communicate with his most ardent supporters, to get them to see what it is that they’re really proposing. I’m not talking here about those tattered remnants of older conservatisms that cling to Bush because they’re supposed to–I think a serious libertarian, fiscal conservative or foreign policy realist has no business even contemplating a vote for Bush. I’m not talking here about Americans who are fearful of terrorism and looking for whomever sounds toughest on it. Those folks are all persuadable that Bush doesn’t even represent their interests or beliefs, at least potentially.

I’m talking about the people that Bush really does represent, whose loyalty to him is well-founded. I hope they can see what they’re doing and what it will mean if Bush wins by a narrow majority. It really does mean that the other 49.99% (or even, based on 2000, 50+%) of the voting population has to face the fact that they’re disenfranchised in a very scary and structural way, that what is sometimes a local dilemma produced by gerrymandering has become a national dilemma.

In such circumstances, electoral politics will no longer even notionally or theoretically be the place where we struggle about the dispensation of the social.

Kerry is going to renegotiate all the US free trade deals

What “free trade deals”? What “free trade”? What is “extreme” about reassessing a failed trade policy? Why shouldn’t we revisit the agricultural subsidies reinstalled by Bush (after Newt and Bill had joined hands to pull them down)? Why shouldn’t we laugh at a phony shrimp-dumping crisis, manufactured by lobbyists? Why shouldn’t we be alarmed at American industries so coddled by purchased protections that they can’t compete abroad (and how is it that that protectionism has come to wear the name “free trade”)?
How is reassessing Bush’s selective isolationism (code named “free trade”) supposed to be “isolationism”?
Smarter false dichotomies, please.

Yes, bull. It’s OK to do these things. It’s not OK to talk about them.

Shhhhhh! You’re being divisive!
Why does accountability hate America?

steve: agreed.
What the hell is this place? Instapundit?
All it needs now is a superfluity of posts ending in “hmmmmmmm…”

If this is a new bandwagon, I’m not on it, certainly not pulling it. But Steve Carr is entirely right about Marc Mulholland’s piece. It may not have been an outright apology for Islamism, but anyone labelling “liberal Islamophobia… the most dangerous prejudice we now face” would seem to me a far likelier inhabitant of Chris’s “bizarre parallel universe” than his current (now withdrawn) candidate.

1) I don’t particularly believe that Bush is the worst president this nation has ever seen. 2) I don’t really agree with (much less appreicate) Timothy’s description of social conservatives as having “tyrannous ambitions”; federal funding for faith-based policy initiatives, the preservation of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and (yes, even) marriage laws which reflect the traditional moral perspectives of a majority of American citizens do not, I would suggest, a Christian theocracy make. (For whatever it’s worth, I say this as one who is glad that opponents of same-sex marriage have failed in their attempts to take the constitutional route…and for that matter, as one who doesn’t didn’t and won’t vote for President Bush, because frankly the man is a tunnel-vision incompetent.) In short, as Son Volt suggests, Burke’s plea, while thoughtful, strikes me as unjustifiably paranoid.

But still, thoughtful all the same. I cannot agree more with Burke’s intelligent point that any responsible thinking about progressive politics in the U.S. must begin with the “social fact” that around one-third of the electorate–mostly white, rural, socially conservative, religious, middle or working-class (that is, non-professional) voters–forms a “hardcore” base for Bush and his ilk. I think Frank is framing the “who lost Kansas” debate all wrong, whereas Timothy is essentially getting it right (though I doubt he agrees much with Frank’s thesis): how can one progressively engage the sensibilities of those who have convinced themselves (not without cause) that secular society is out to get them, and enable them to see that their (frequent, though I wouldn’t say consistent) absolutist partisanship is actually hurting them, in that it prevents them from appreciating how mostly Republican oligarchic policies have often impoverished their ability to economically and socially defend their preferred ways of life? Well, the first thing you do is grant them at the very least the legitimacy of recognition, something which the Democrats have long failed to do (though hopefully that is changing).

I also hope that the mindset of many of my fellow Christians can be changed, not necessarily because I think we may be on our way towards civil war, but because the deeper they (and others) help to unintentionally entrench a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post, a-bare-majority-equals-whatever-mandate-you-can-grab approach to politics, the harder it will be for any candidate to plausibly break out of the crude dividing lines which distinguish the two major parties, and actually propose a different agenda. As someone who’d like to see a different mix of progressivism and conservatism as an electoral option, that is an end much to be desired, and something which thinking like Timothy’s is a crucial part of.

Secular society gonna get yo momma.

“how can one progressively engage the sensibilities of those who have convinced themselves (not without cause) that secular society is out to get them”

Nice bit of pompous periphrasis there. I wonder what it means. What ’cause’ do ‘those’ have for convincing themselves that secular society is out to get them? Unless the claim is so periphrastic that it just doesn’t mean anything – unless ’cause’ in that context means because they feel like it, which is indeed a cause to convince oneself of something, as is almost anything.

In short – rhetoric in action. Imply, but in such a tortuous way that you can deny it if queried, that something naughty is being done by someone somewhere, but be careful not to say anything specific.

Let me briefly support Russell Arben Fox.

Look, how do we read the aggressive reading of separation of church and state by courts as directed by secular interest groups? As a secular attack on religion, obviously.

What about claims advanced by some academic liberal theorist(and Robert Reich!) that religious ‘reasons’ can’t be included in political debate because they aren’t subjcet to the requirements of “public reason.” Same thing.

Now, you may believe that in both these cases, the secular left is right and the religious right is wrong. Bully for you! That doesn’t mean there isn’t a seed of a greivance here.

And let’s not forget the big event in the polarization of the religious right: Roe v. Wade. I’m honestly confused that anyone would not see what religious conservatives found objectionable about that ruling. It changed the state of play, it gave very little room for manuever by opponents, and it proceeded essentailly undemocratically. So question out there to Ms. Benson, do you understand why religious conservatives might feel threatened by secular society?

Do you think they have tenure on the Discworld? If so, I may be moving to Ankh-Morpork.

Here’s a tougher one: how do you “progressively engage” the sensibilities of those who have convinced themselves (not without cause?) that the Second Coming is near and who view US global policies in that light? What about people who literally believe the Bible stories are literally true, and, again think politics should adapt to that thinking?

Did they actually “convince themselves” of that, all of their own, or was there someone else helping along with the convincing part? Maybe with some self-interest of their own?

Do we need to adopt or justify an extremist way of thinking to “engage” people who fall for it? Are we so afraid that otherwise we’d be insulting them?

The mere “social fact” that there are people holding extreme partisan or paranoid views, whether in politics or religion or both, and in all varying degrees of extremism, does not in itself require any acceptance of it, or adaptation to it. Sure, you can’t ignore it. But you can’t ignore that when people are really on the extremes, then they are usually not open to engaging in political dialogue on a rational, logic basis at all. Renouncing that basis only to hope to be able to reach them is not a way to communicate. It’s a way of giving up on the idea that there just IS a rational position vs. an irrational one, and that it’s not a crime against freedom of opinion to say it clearly. There are differences of opinions, and then there are far bigger differences of entire approaches and entire worldviews and some are really so far out they cannot be brought back to reality. They can only be confronted and counteracted and neutralised at a cultural level first of all. If everyone prefers to pander to the extremes instead, they will most certainly grow stronger.

Why would anyone who’s not an interested party and fishing for votes or money want to do that? Sheer delusion? Fear of confrontation? I don’t know, but if there is something that needs to be confronted, it seems preferable to have that cultural “civil war” out in the open than to avoid the questions.

Another point. It’s rhetoric to talk of assumptions unless you’re really certain they are in fact assumptions. And there are good grounds for saying that secularism is indeed neutral ground – because it doesn’t require belief or non-belief. And in a world where different people have different metaphysical beliefs (or none), there is a case to be made that a ‘neutral’ ground where none of those metaphysical beliefs play a role is both safer and more fair than one where some do and others don’t. That’s not an assumption – it’s an argument.

Oh, well there, I needn’t have bothered, Walt Pohl and MC said it for me.

“I’ve had people ask me “If you’re really an atheist, why don’t you commit murder?””

Yup. I’ve had very similar conversations.

Ralph: Are you saying, “Only one group can rule, so it might as well be my group?”

Russell, Thomas Frank making a false consciousness argument does not a serious secular attack on Christianity make. I’m sympathetic to you’re argument, maybe. But I’d like to see a more concrete example of a serious and not paranoid threat to Christianity.

A quasi-Rawlsian argument by Robert Reich doesn’t constitute such a threat. If cultural conservative Christians feel persecuted by being asked to translate their religous reasoning into public reasoning, they’re expecting priviledged position in political discourse that the rest of us don’t get. That no one expresses any shame (or even concern) about the fact that an atheist could never be elected to high office is an example of just how priviledged Christians are in our discourse and society. Simply being used to a little more priviledge than they have now doesn’t make their complaints just or appropriate (although it does perhaps make them sociologically predictable, which ought to make us a little more sypathetic, maybe.

Well, I didn’t necessarily mean it as a strategic argument. On a personal level, I’m more apt to be forgiving of unreasonableness if I have good reason to believe that a solid majority of humans confronted with a similar situation are quite likely to respond in similarly unreasonable ways. Maybe what I’m saying is not that we should concede merit to their grievances, but rather that we should be as understanding as possible (even when we’re boiling with righteous rage at their utter myopic lack of a sense of fairness and political equality) when we explain why they don’t have a greivance. Which seems rather banal now that I’ve actually spelled it out.

I think there are good grounds for regarding secularism, as I understand the term, as neutral, not as “my values”. It allows the religious to be religious and it allows me to be me.

But perhaps secularism is the wrong way to put it, because secularism definitely does have a value system, broadly speaking.

Perhaps the better thing is to talk about a constrained state, about the Bill of Rights, and so on. That’s probably more resonant with many Americans, of all convictions, than secularism per se.

35% of the population isn’t a fringe or a margin or a constituency you can just ignore. I think some people adopt instead a strategy of rule: that such a group will just have to settle for not getting things their own way. Which, I suppose, in the end my position also equates to. But I think there’s a big difference in how you get there, both in terms of the relative willingness of that 35% to accept limitations on what they can and cannot have and in terms of the degree to which the 35% are able to make inroads on any potential “swing” constituencies who might be sympathetic to them.

Among the many things that went wrong with the institutionalization of some kinds of identity politics in the 1970s is that those politics handled whatever meager sources of social power they laid their hands on like blunt instruments. That this power was always vastly less than today’s critics of “political correctness” pretend is immaterial: what is important is that the crudity with which it was pursued was a major contributor to the widespread popular reaction to anything understood as “pc” today.

For example, how far do you think you’re ever going to get at convincing people that evolution is not just another theory if your standard-bearer is Richard Dawkins, say? Or even Carl Sagan? If I were going to set out to try and kick the legs out from underneath creation science, I’d first want to understand why it has the credibility that it does have–and that requires not approaching everyone who believes in it as if they’re demonic fiends or slack-jawed hillybillys. If you just know you’re right and don’t care what anybody else thinks, then why talk about it at all? Because, of course, creation science threatens the minds of innocent children yet to be born who deserve better, because it is a public issue–because in the end the thing that’s wrong about creation science is not what it says about evolution, but about how it breaks the rules of a free society by demanding equal time in those institutions where it’s not owed equal time.

This pretty much goes for everything in the core social and cultural agenda that drives that 35%. People here are probably right that I’m seeing things too apocalyptically; I’m certain that I’m seeing too stark a contrast between the core support for Bush and the rest of the United States. In that respect, as I noted, the Times polls showing a less partisan divide among Americans than it might appear are perfectly right. Barack Obama is perfectly right, too–the red states and the blue states are not really so different.

But that is why you can’t just dismiss that 35% as extremists that you can ignore or rule over with a polite form of force majeure–because they’re not so different from the 35% that lives next door to them ideologically, and maybe not so different from the 35% that thinks of themselves as utterly different. What they believe now could be prologue of what more people might believe tomorrow, precisely because we do share so much.

All I care about is getting us all back (or forward, if you like–I don’t want to engage in inaccurate nostalgia) to a civil society where all the players are respecting some common rules–and where no one is trying to win the game so finally as to force all the other players out.

Mr Burke & Ms Benson, meet Paul Cella

Religious War

“What I mean specifically to reprehend in this strain of libertarian thought is the tendency to equate intellectual or moral criticism with an appeal to or longing for action by the State. Thus, the traditionalist or Christian or social conservative who castigates the mass-produced ugliness and nihilism of American entertainment appears to the clouded eye of our libertarian as nothing but a stale Statist. Now I suppose I number among the adherents of each of the above-mentioned philosophies, and indeed I do think that the enormous American entertainment industry accounts for a kind of ubiquitous and uniform intellectual rot unparalleled in history; but I most emphatically do not propose to replace said industry with the State.”

a quote from an essay on Cella’s Review. I really sometimes enjoy watching this fight, between the righteous Benson’s and the righteous Cella (and I think both righteous and worthy of respect), since historical forces probably make their arguments moot. I suspect Ophelia will “win”, and I predict it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

djw, I grant that reich/frank do not consitute a major cultural threat to anybody. They are, however, quite indicative of a mindset that is very common in academic life, and hence among lawyers. I suspect you’d also find it common among journalists, and generally in “blue” metropolitan areas. (at least it sure is where I live). I’m not a conservative christian myself, but my acquaintances who are certainly have war stories to match those advaned by atheists on this thread.

The courts, however, really have been significant. Not just in the prayer-before-the-football-game and pledge cases that are explcitly religious, but in rulings on abortion, homosexuality, and (almost) on assisted suicide. Whatever you think of these issues on policy grounds, it’s been a pretty imperious process. Are those “legitimate” greivances? If not, what would qualify, I wonder?

Timothy – that’s all very well said but what if the people who are really extremist do not want to join you at all, not one bit, in that effort to make things more civil? What do you do?

It’s not about not caring or dismissing. It’s that you can’t dilute your own views just because they may alienate those who are already extremists.

Aside from political differences, differences in voting, etc. On really fundamental issues. Like indeed creationism and education. How on earth can you change the minds of creationists and creationism advocates, for instance? You can only try and counteract their influence. I don’t see how toning down criticism of creationism (that’s what it sounds like you’re suggesting – sorry if I misread it or read it too grossly) would make any inroads. If it has prospered so far, it means there has been too little criticism and too weak.

Tone it down some more, and the effort towards civility risks becoming an effort towards capitulation.

I understand what you mean but from my point of view I do get the impression the problem with politics today (and not just in the US) is there is _not enough_ hard and open fighting and protesting. Too much extremism, yes, too much paranoia and rhetorics, but too little serious open frank confrontation (and as a consequence, accountability). Confrontation in itself is not divisive, it’s just necessary.

MC:

Not so much toning down, but trying to understand why something is important to those who disagree with me in a way that has genuine curiosity, rather than assuming I know the answer. Why is creationism important to the ordinary people who are attracted to it? Why has it become a synecdoche of faith for some? I don’t want to concede anything to that importance, but I want to approach it as if I don’t already know the answer, in the spirit of dialogue.

As for what happens if people who I don’t think want to play by the rules refuse to play by the rules when the plea to them is made, well, I think my piece makes that fearfully clear. When there’s a large constituency that won’t come inside what I consider to be the outer bounds of a rights-reserved civil society, when there’s a large constituency trying to capture the state, and I’m sure there’s no hope, then the game itself is cancelled. And there’s nothing left except me-or-them, no-rules struggle.

I think that would be extraordinarily bad for them and for me. I fear it, perhaps unreasonably.

Bob’s mention of Cella’s Review is interesting, though, and another issue to sort out–where’s the line between cultural or religious conservatives merely seeking to persuade others (forcefully) of their views, and an attempt to capture the state? To my thinking, that’s exactly why I focus on this election and the vote for Bush. The line is between voting for Bush and not voting for Bush. A cultural conservative who votes for Bush now–not in 2000, but now–is in my eyes trying to capture the state. Which is why I’m pleading with people not to vote that way even if they think Bush represents their values.

I don’t see how toning down criticism of creationism… would make any inroads. If it has prospered so far, it means there has been too little criticism and too weak. Tone it down some more, and the effort towards civility risks becoming an effort towards capitulation.

Ok, what if we substituted the word “Islamism” for “creationism”? What I don’t understand is why the “moderate” Islamists get “understanding” from some people and “moderate” creationists don’t. (Just to be clear, neither group would would get a pass from me.)

P. hollahan: Ok, what if we substituted the word “Islamism” for “creationism”?

Yeah, what if?

Did you see me make an argument in praise of Islamism? Or anybody else on this thread for that matter?

So why bring it up?

It’s raining straw men, halleluja?

What I don’t understand is why the “moderate” Islamists get “understanding” from some people and “moderate” creationists don’t. (Just to be clear, neither group would would get a pass from me.)

Just to be clear, what and who are you talking about? What “moderate Islamists”, and who is giving them a pass that isn’t giving “moderate creationists” (?) a pass?

(I didn’t know there’s moderate creationists. So what are extreme creationists like? I thought, you’re either a creationist – you believe the biblical creation story is literal – or you don’t believe that it is literal and think it is allegory – so you’re not a “moderate creationist”, but simply, not a creationist at all. Theres not any alternative definitions of “literal” that you can embrace.)

Timothy: ok, I do understand what you mean about dialogue.

But it’s not easy to avoid conceding while trying to engage people who just don’t want to be engaged.

Often you don’t even realise it, and you’ve already conceded, given legitimacy to something, involuntarily, even just by elevating it to worthy of being discussed at the same level as something else that is not extremist. (This in the case of things like creationism being taught in schools – not just political disagreements in general).

You can be far more objective about the reasons for believing in creationism than someone who believes in it, you know? So why pretend you don’t know the answers. You don’t need to hide your views in order to listen to other people’s. Unless you’re just doing a reportage rather than having a political debate.

But I’m referring more to extreme viewpoints, not so much that 35% you refer to, or just Bush supporters in general. I wouldn’t assume everyone who votes for him (or for Republicans in general) is an extremist! Or that they have such catastrophic intentions. I do think you’re exaggerating. At least I hope so.

It’s wider political trends that are scary in certain aspects, I don’t even see them overlapping exactly with voting for Bush.

Just to be clear, what and who are you talking about? What “moderate Islamists”, and who is giving them a pass that isn’t giving “moderate creationists” (?) a pass?

Who? Among others, you, MC. Most recently in posts in the “Liberal Islamophobia” and “Justified Assassination” threads.

Last year I taught briefly (filling in for colleague) at a religious college that espoused a fudged theory of creationism — mostly hinging on a metaphorical interpretation of biblical “years”. Many in the community espouse a more literal interpretation. I’m a scientist and see any form of “creationism” as a threat to science and to secular liberalism, but anyone who equates apologies for creationism with, say, the blood-curdling stuff that Al-Qaradawi spouts (to Muslim audiences, only, to be sure), must be living in one of Chris’ alternate worlds.

MC: If separation of church and state in the United States is “proof” that it is a secular society, I have to assume that you believe that an established church in England is “proof” that it is a theocracy. What nonsense will you not hold forth?
Walt: Secularity as neutrality between belief and non-belief and among beliefs doesn’t work well. The state _will_, like it or not, promote beliefs which are conducive to its interests. That should not go disguised as neutrality. And separation of church and state is rightly understood as protecting the church from the intrusive influence of the state.

p. hoolahan: MC: Just to be clear, what and who are you talking about? What “moderate Islamists”, and who is giving them a pass that isn’t giving “moderate creationists” (?) a pass?
p. hoolahan: Who? Among others, you, MC. Most recently in posts in the “Liberal Islamophobia” and “Justified Assassination” threads.

Ha, really? Says who? How, where exactly? I’m afraid you have to bring up a more precise example of how exactly I defended or supported Islamists, Islamic fundamentalists, extremists.

I might as well make wild claims about your views too, but just saying so doesn’t make those claims any valid, does it?

I didn’t take a pro-Islamist position at all, in either of those threads. The “Justified Assassination” thread involved discussion of the Israeli assassination policies. If _that_ is enough for you to read a “free pass for Islamism”!, then wow, you won the straw man award. Ridiculous. In the “Liberal Islamophobia”, I made comments on the Mulholland piece, I didn’t like it, both for its confused definition of “liberalism” and its patronising about Islam as one single entity, one single society, that was to be considered a rounded expression of humanity etc. etc., I thought it was untrue to both liberalism and Islam and the issues involved, and if you’re referring to my “almost makes me want to become a fundamentalist”, which was not literal, doh, and I don’t think that needed clarifying but I already did in that thread… you do really need some reading comprehension aid.

Can’t think of anything else that you could have distorted so grossly into ‘support for fundamentalists’.

But, hey, well done on dodging the discussion on _this_ thread.

I’m a scientist and see any form of “creationism” as a threat to science and to secular liberalism

So… what are we arguing about? What is your problem with other people saying the same thing?

but anyone who equates apologies for creationism with, say, the blood-curdling stuff that Al-Qaradawi spouts (to Muslim audiences, only, to be sure), must be living in one of Chris’ alternate worlds.

But it was _you_ who did it! Are you pulling my leg or what now? :)

You brought up Islamism in the first place, and I quote word for word: “Ok, what if we substituted the word “Islamism” for “creationism”? What I don’t understand is why the “moderate” Islamists get “understanding” from some people and “moderate” creationists don’t.

You made that comparison. Not me!

p. hoolahan: MC: Just to be clear, what and who are you talking about? What “moderate Islamists”, and who is giving them a pass that isn’t giving “moderate creationists” (?) a pass?
p. hoolahan: Who? Among others, you, MC. Most recently in posts in the “Liberal Islamophobia” and “Justified Assassination” threads.

Ha, really? Says who? How, where exactly? I’m afraid you have to bring up a more precise example of how exactly I defended or supported Islamists, Islamic fundamentalists, extremists.

I might as well make wild claims about your views too, but just saying so doesn’t make those claims any valid, does it?

I didn’t take a pro-Islamist position at all, in either of those threads. The “Justified Assassination” thread involved discussion of the Israeli assassination policies. If _that_ is enough for you to read a “free pass for Islamism”!, then wow, you won the straw man award. Ridiculous. In the “Liberal Islamophobia”, I made comments on the Mulholland piece, I didn’t like it, both for its confused definition of “liberalism” and its patronising about Islam as one single entity, one single society, that was to be considered a rounded expression of humanity etc. etc., I thought it was untrue to both liberalism and Islam and the issues involved, and if you’re referring to my “almost makes me want to become a fundamentalist”, which was not literal, doh, and I don’t think that needed clarifying but I already did in that thread… you do really need some reading comprehension aid.

Can’t think of anything else that you could have distorted so grossly into ‘support for fundamentalists’.

But, hey, well done on dodging the discussion on _this_ thread.

I’m a scientist and see any form of “creationism” as a threat to science and to secular liberalism

So… what are we arguing about? What is your problem with other people saying the same thing?

but anyone who equates apologies for creationism with, say, the blood-curdling stuff that Al-Qaradawi spouts (to Muslim audiences, only, to be sure), must be living in one of Chris’ alternate worlds.

But it was _you_ who did it! Are you pulling my leg or what now? :)

You brought up Islamism in the first place, and I quote word for word: “Ok, what if we substituted the word “Islamism” for “creationism”? What I don’t understand is why the “moderate” Islamists get “understanding” from some people and “moderate” creationists don’t.

You made that comparison. Not me!

Ralph, in your response to Walt, you say “The state will, like it or not, promote beliefs which are conducive to its interests.”

But the ‘state’ in the widest sense is the system of political organisation, and its interests in the widest sense are the interests of all citizens, religious and non-religious alike, of different religions or none.

Religion does not belong to the same sphere the “state” does.

Separation is to the end of coexistence, not of conflict.

There’s no disguising anything. You may be thinking of the meaning of secularism as an active effort to eradicate religion, that’s not the meaning I was using at all, and it’s not the meaning of the word secular when used to define a state system.

Perhaps there is an extra ambiguity here because in English the term secularism itself does also have that meaning of hostility to religion. I think this definition is clearer:

… implies free exercise of religion, but no special status for religion: religious activities should submit to about the same set of laws as other activities and are not considered above the law. The government refrains from taking positions on religious doctrine and only considers religious subjects from their practical consequences on the inhabitants’ lives.
… Laïcité does not imply, by itself, any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is essentially a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant both to protect the government from religious organizations pushing their agenda on the public, and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies.

That is what I’m talking about.

I’m not sure what you are talking about, when you say such an approach is no good. Which other approach would you envisage, then?

And separation of church and state is rightly understood as protecting the church from the intrusive influence of the state

It does go both ways, it is also meant to protect the state from intrusion of the churches. That’s actually the main motive that historically led to the development of secular democracy.

I’m not sure how the difficulty of even referring to common established definitions and historical contexts relates to Timothy Burke’s argument, but it’s an interesting addition to it, perhaps…

Ralph – “When I quote you back to yourself, you repudiate the argument that you made”

No, it’s more likely we’re not communicating very well and you did not understand the argument I was making.

I’m sorry if I may have sound confusing, for my part. I just find it hard to have to explain things that are quite obvious to me and that I would have assumed were obvious to everybody because there are indeed accepted definitions for them.

I mean, I didn’t invent the definition of secular. I didn’t invent its being applied to _all_ western democracies.

“but you keep coming back to assertions that the United States must either be a theocracy or a secular society.”

I’ll try again. You seemed to be refuting the very basic idea that the US is a secular system. All I pointed out is that it definitely is.

But not just “because it’s not a theocracy”, of course, that’s not all there is to it, it was a simplification. It’s because of facts, history, laws, etc. the system, how it’s conceived. It’s a secular system. That’s established. I’m not making that up myself. Ok?

I mean, I don’t see why you would dispute that or find it troubling at all.

“I’m telling you that there are complex gradations between those two things. It isn’t simply one or the other.”

Both things are true. It is indeed that simple at the _basic_ level of definitions. Of course it is more complex at the level of how much a role religion plays at a cultural, social, political level, that is where the disagreements and debates occur.

But it’s not a question of what is in between two extremes.
At that _basic_ level of how a state system is organised vis a vis religion, secular and theocratic simply are the two opposite ways of dealing with it – but secular systems are not an extreme in the way theocratic systems are.

Those gradations are the different levels at which religion is present in public life, how it interacts with it, _within secular societies_. In theocracies, there’s no such gradations at all!

So, two countries with different degrees of presence and influence of religion (say, France vs. USA) are both still secular.

Whereas, without a basic secular system to guarantee freedom of religion and separation of church and state, you do get theocracy.

Is it clearer now, perhaps?

Put it this way. America can still be seen as profoundly religious, if you like, if you want to define a predominant influence of religion on a whole country. For the sake of argument, let’s say America is the most Christian country there is in the entire world. But it’s both religious, _and_ secular. Just like, at a different level, individuals can be both religious and secular. Because secular is not elimination of religion.

The varying degrees are varying degrees of secularism – ie. more or less visibility, influence, social power, political power, of a religion or more. That’s where the issues arise.

Beyond that, I’m telling you that the complexity — the lack of pure form — is a good thing.

It depends what you mean. Again, this secular notion you seem to resent is precisely what allows complexity. The complexity of all religions being allowed to coexist and practice freely in a secular system, being granted this special “religion” status that no other system of belief has (Scientology people should be more thankful, don’t you think?). That has to go hand in hand with the acceptance that religion, while it obviously influences society and even politics insofar as it relates to common issues, is not and cannot be a political or legal system in itself, or, the foundation for a political and legal system. When people no longer accept this, the complexity can become very problematic, and a secular society can be undermined from within. It requires a leap of imagination, however, to argue that religions can be undermined by secular systems, especially today, when even fundamentalists are mainstream.

Oh here we go again with the assumptions and distortions…

tj henley, where do we start. I was commenting on the context of the reactions to that visit, on the hypocrisy of people who are suddenly shocked by Livingstone welcoming Qardawi, but not by other politicians welcoming other Islamic fundamentalists.

I never expressed all of my views on Islam vs. Islamic extremists and the complex relationships thereof and how they should be addressed. I don’t even know how that can be addressed, I do know I have absolutely zero sympathy for Islamic fundamentalists.

I was not endorsing Qardawi’s views. What I heard about those views was contrasting takes. I saw an interview where he denied supporting such extreme views, but then again, of course, I’m not inclined to trust his own smiling proclamations of moderateness in front of a BBC reporter. I just thought the idea of banning that visit was nonsense, the whole uproar from the Conservatives was completely opportunist, Britain has entertained relations with even worse kinds of extremists, and radical Islamists are well free to preach within British territory, as anywhere else. Amongst other things, that is what struck me as making the political reactions rather hypocrite. That was the point. The reactions. Not Qardawi’s views per se.

If you want to insist on taking that out of context as ‘support for Islamists’…

On the Ramadan thread, just so it’s clear, I also never meant any endorsement of any views, I was commenting on a specific point, and the interest was in how he views the issue of religious traditions and modernity. It’s got nothing to do with giving “free passes”. I don’t even know about his views so well. I know he advocated the veil in schools, I don’t. I support the French ban completey. I know he is not that concerned primarily with human rights and feminism and gay rights and secularism. I happen to be concerned by all those things quite a lot.

You have no right to infer any apology for any extremism of any kind, ok?

This thread started with a discussion on how to engage people with hardcore views, and that moved from Bush supporters to creationists, and that’s what we were talking about. I don’t know where I have said anything that can be construed as seeing creationism as an equal or worse evil than fanatical Islamism and its terrorist offspring. I just don’t know. I never even brought up the comparison. I don’t think there is such a direct parallel. I don’t see the point of positing one, if not to _avoid_ talking about creationism per se, or the mindset of hardcore fanatics, within the US, which I believe was the original topic.

But let’s pursue that parallel – if there was ever a choice, and some Aladdin genie could ask us “you are given the option of having either creationist advocates or Islamic fundamentalist preachers completely and painlessly removed from this earth, like they never existed, who do you choose?” – of course I’d go for removing the latter.

But we’re not given that choice. I think the really fanatical Christian fundamentalists of the kind who want to change laws, education, politics to suit their own ends are relatively dangerous _within_ the context they operate. Of course, it goes without saying, they’re not as dangerous as bin Laden. Doh. They’re not even the same kind of fundamentalists. They don’t act the same way. They don’t have the same power. So? Does that mean they can be ignored? Or excused? or tolerated?

I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting, so why all those assumptions and absurd conclusions? Is focusing on creationism in a discussion about creationism giving other extremists a free pass? Is criticising the political opportunism of the Tories a free pass to Islamists? Is being interested in making one’s mind up on whether someone is a moderate or a ‘theocrat in disguise’ a free pass to extremists?

Of course hardcore Islamism is a far heavier affair than creationism. I don’t think anyone who is not fundamentalist-inclined would dispute that. But the fact that there’s always something worse than x does not excuse or justify ignoring the existence of x. I’m sure you can see that.

I’m also sure you haven’t missed the hypocrisy of those extremist Christians who love to switch the discussion about extremist Islamists so that _they_ can get a free pass. That does happen. It’s the favourite trick of any fundamentalists. Islamists point the finger at “crusaders”, Christian fundies point the finger at Islamists, and the audience is supposed to, what, pick one target of criticism only? why not both?

“Moderate Creationism”?
Is this something compassionate conservatives have as an apertif before dining on 3rd world babies?

I have a moderate suggestion for ameliorating religious extremism—very moderate.
We need to recognize that a choice of religion is something no child can make for himself; on the other hand, if his parents choose for him, he will be so bound by the emotional constraints of the religion that he will find it almost impossible to consider the question rationally.
My moderate proposal is to make religion a choice that can be made at majority. Frankly, telling children they are going to burn forever if they steal a cookie is a form a child abuse. The sooner we recognize that religious indocrination of children is abusive, the sooner we will arrive at a moderate, reasonable society.

Should be simple, right?

Unless you’re the sort of hard-core evolutionary psychologist who thinks that morality and ethics are completely instinctive, non-cultural and largely non-learned (can’t think of anyone credible in that field who goes that far out on the limb), then you surely wouldn’t advocate that children be kept scrupulously away from ethical or moral questions and lessons until they’re 18, whereupon they can be allowably introduced to ethical problems.

But the ethics you learn and operationalize is partly path-dependent on your parents; your parents thus choose it for you, in some way, either through conscious teaching or through setting examples (good and bad).

Why is that different from the religious instruction of a child? I don’t think you *can* make a categorical distinction of any kind–you can only make what is effectively an anti-religious argument, that religion is bad morality. If you’re against it on the grounds that it is wrong entirely to force a given morality on a child before the age of majority, then you’re also against teaching children to share, or be polite, or abjure violence, or any number of other things.

You’re certainly entitled to shrug and say, Ok, religion IS bad morality, and all those other things are common-sense virtues to which everyone subscribes because they’re rational, but that is most certainly NOT a moderate suggestion. Indeed, it is precisely that kind of suggestion that makes it hard to maintain that secularism is mere neutrality–as long as people who argue on behalf of secularism are essentially also making this kind of back-door anti-religious argument at the same time, then I think honesty compels us to say that secularism is a value system for some of its advocates, though I think it need not be.

One part of my previous post that I didn’t get to write up a few days ago was that most of the commentary here seems to be trying to transform the demands (or desires) of the tyranic-souled into demands that are of the same type as democratic demands. That’s a mistake. The desires of the democratically-souled are interest-demands: I want a school in my neighborhood, the highway should go here rather than there, I’d like the procedures for certifying unions to be this rather than that, and so on. These are desires that can actually be processed through a democracy. Of course, you may not get your way, but a democratic process can rationally deal with such desires and give you rational answers as to why your desires were not fulfilled.

The desires of the tyranous-souled are of different characters entirely. Our current tyrant-wannabees yell such things as “[well, everyone can fill in the blanks here]!” – which are NOT even in the class of desires that actually can be fulfilled in the current democratic order. These claims cannot be understood or grappled with democratically because they are not really of the class of democratic interests.

To put it in a current light, in our upcoming election, the Kerry campaign relies on democratic-class arguments: on arguments such as Kerry is very competent, Kerry is very experienced, Kerry has been successful in previous projects A, B and C; Kerry proposes policies X, Y and Z that satisfy your interests 1 2 and 3 and so on. Of course, these arguments may be false, but one can rationally evaluate them and provide rational arguments for acceptance or rejection.

The Bush campaign has obviously offered many democratic-class arguments as well. Nothing unusual in most of those (though I believe that their arguments are false, again, at least the arguments are democratic-class arguments and thus amenable to rational examination). What’s far more worrisome is that very many of his supporters have provided arguments of a wholly different nature: “Bush is a Godly Man”, “Kerry is a Godless Communist” and so on.

I would argue that there is essentially no real way for a democratic system to handle such arguments, because they are statements of a non-democratic class. If you believe that Bush is a Godly man, there is no evidence on either side that can be produced, nor any rational dialogue that can convince one either way. The entire statement is divorced from democratic dialogue: what policies are promoted or avoided because of Bush’s Godliness? are my interests served or harmed by Bush’s Godliness? It’s not that I don’t know the answers to these questions – it’s that there are no answers to these questions.

Judging from the inability to fit these sentiments or beliefs [these things aren’t arguments] into a democratic process indicates to me that they are being generated by persons whose souls no longer easily function within a democratic framework.

I personally don’t see any rational accomodation or measure that can be made to easily bring such psyches back into a democratic framework – such believers aren’t looking for small changes in policies or laws but a change of regime, a transformation of modes and orders (tip hat to Machiavelli).

I would point to the experience of postwar Italy as a case study of what I’m thinking. I’ll leave that for a later post, I think.

“If you believe that Bush is a Godly man, there is no evidence on either side that can be produced, nor any rational dialogue that can convince one either way.”

I like your stuff, burrito, and the first post about what happens when a democracy falls reminded me of some especially horrific sections of Thucydides.

But to this I sez, “Sez you”. There definitely have been communities with standards used to measure the Godliness or virtue of men. They are definitely often subjective, but they exist.

I have often thought that Bush’s fans believe that even with the utterly obvious unworthiness of the idiot boy, the fact that he became President proves he is blessed by God. What other explanation makes sense? Y’all hoity-toity types laugh away, but how should Saul and the Israelites have looked at David?

Kiwi, What is dopy here are your caricatures of religious belief. They are the sort of ignorance that prides itself as emancipation from folly.

Marky, Your “taking it” that I approve of female circumcision and of “the killing of fags in Texas” is just the sort of attribution of unworthy opinion to those with whom you don’t agree that is the essence of caricature and just the sort of polemical unworthiness that Tim Burke has criticized. Your desire to outlaw religious nurture is just the sort of secular humanist extremism that I have warned against here and which some of your allies here have denied even existed. It is leaves me thanking G_d for the Bill of Rights. What you propose is unconstitutional.

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.

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.

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…

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?

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.

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!

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?