The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    The year of no Mormon president

    By Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 10:08am |

    A New Hampshire poll gives Obama a 51% approval rating and a 10 point lead over Romney in the general election. The last poll gave Romney a 3 point lead, so to be fair I call Obama's lead at about 6 points. The state's 4 electoral votes could be pivotal in the 2012 election. For example if Obama won several of the upper Midwest states plus NM, CO, and NV he could lose OH, VA, NC, SC, & Florida and be at 268 electoral votes, with a NH win putting him over the magic number of 270 electoral votes. 

    Obviously, the reverse would hand the election to Romney. Wouldn't it be a uniquely American story if two hundred years after a man left hard-scrabble Vermont, discovered a religion in New York, the religion so flourished out in the new West that the spirit of the man, Joseph Smith, would now return to New England to claim the U.S. Presidency? Perhaps we should detach ourselves from the raucous political process and look at both stories, Obama's and Romney's. Is there someone claiming that freedom in America has declined?

    The year the Smith family left Vermont, 1816, was known across New England as the Year of No Summer. Solar activity plus volcanic ash in the stratosphere most likely caused winter-like conditions which made crops fail. The Smith clan moved on down to Palmyra, New York, near where Joseph eventually unearthed the golden tablets. As I look at the massive hand hewn beams in the living room of my 1850's Vermont village house, 1816 doesn't seem so distant. In fact, 1844 seems quite close at hand---that was the year Joseph Smith announced his candidacy for President of the United States. Joseph Smith was mayor of a town in Illinois and had his own militia. He was arrested and then murdered while awaiting trial.

    Frank Rich has written an article which to my mind reopens the discussion of Romney's Mormon faith, in the context of whether his faith in itself is instrumental in masking the man. Rich said something else which startled me, that Ann Romney's parents were excluded from her own marriage ceremony. There is a certain point at which I focus on the odd thought of a President whose religion is completely off the radar. 

    In terms of the great private and inner religious life of a President, how much of a veil do I accept? The marriage of one of the President's children, for example. Not that I would want to attend, but for heavens' sake I can even watch a Royal wedding in Britain on television. Please don't bring up the Chelsea Clinton wedding.

    Frank Rich relates how contemporaries of Romney confessed to never really knowing him, and proffers that the absence of Romney being able to present himself in the context of his faith is part of what makes him seem so out of touch. Romney's campaign will brand with a scarlet letter anyone who dares to bring up Romney's Mormon faith. Don't go there. Fine. Except...

    I think there is another aspect to the hands-off Romney's faith strategy. The last thing Romney's handlers want is a biographical comparison between Obama and Romney, an essential fact of this uniquely American free for all---in other words, which biography do people relate to the most? It is perhaps a comparison which makes Obama look more like apple pie than Romney. Thinking in terms of New Hampshire, remember the words of Robert Frost, "A Yankee is a person who eats apple pie for breakfast".

    It is unfortunate that Romney's Mormon faith is off the table. The Mormon religion is history. It's bed rock. It's intruiging.

    As a book collector I once found an 1874 Book of Mormon in a small shop in Atlantic, Iowa. I talked the nice lady down from $15 to $10. When I researched it, I realized that it was the "Reorganized" church, a separate sect still head quartered in Missouri, and in 2001, renamed the Community of Christ. When I checked on the internet there was a listing of just such a book in a book store in nearby Missouri with an over-edit in caps---THIS BOOK HAS BEEN STOLEN.

    Intrigued, and remorseful for "stealing" a rare book for $10 in Iowa, I called the woman at the Missouri store on the off chance I had come by her book. I told her I would give it to her if she could describe it as the one stolen from her. I am larcenous but I have my limits. She asked me, "does it have snippets of family history written on the end papers?" I said no. She thanked me but said it wasn't the same book. 

    What had happened was that about a month after she listed the book---physically, she had put it in a box in her storeroom along with some other related books and family memorabilia, much of it about the early Mormons---she had an in-store sale and someone peeled off, went right to it in her store room and then snuck the box out a side door. 

    My 1874 Book of Mormon, in mint condition, has no written secrets and is not located at my house in Vermont. There are several more on the internet you can buy in the $500 range and you too can create history. First find some authentic old ink in someone's barn in New Hampshire. The trick is to get the ink to migrate into the paper at the rate which a forensic specialist would expect for a book of that age. Just jury-rig a vacuum cleaner to pull the ink through. (I can't believe I'm revealing all of this, but it's all in the book about Mark Hoffman, the ex-Mormon and master forger.)

    The Missouri reorganized church, or Community in Christ, founded by eldest son Joseph Smith III has an illustrious past. One of the more mysterious aspects of its relationship with the main church in Utah is contained in the book, "The Poet and the Murderer", about a man of Mormon heritage, a book dealer from Salt Lake City, a master forger, and now in prison for the brutal murder of two people---one Mark Hoffman. He gained entry to the secret archives of the mother church and stealing the end papers from old Mormon works, he forged documents meant to cast doubt on certain aspects of the Mormon faith, and related to the heritage of the Reorganized church in Missouri. 

    Hoffman was able to get the two churches competing for the purchase of the documents, the mother church having no lack of cash and winning the auctions. BTW, Hoffman forged an estimated thirty thousand signatures on childrens books which is why I will not give a signed Arthur Rackham a second look unless there is iron clad assurance it never passed through Hoffman's hands. Hoffman was so good that he composed an Emily Dickinson poem, forged it on archaic note paper and sold it as a new discovery to the Emily Dickinson museum for $30,000. I suppose it would be really taboo and or even cheeky to wonder if in the archives in Salt Lake City there is a prophesy of a Mormon winning the Presidency in 2012. 

    Worse than cheeky, my son-in-law, Bud, lives in Missouri and is an evangelical Republican voter. He has his own library of anti-Mormon literature. I'm thinking of calling him, "So, Bud, are you going to vote for a Mormon for President". I apologize in advance for such an un-liberal thought. Bud works in my company, so such a comment is untoward and possibly illegal, but I would really like to needle him about it. Obama lost Missouri by 4000 votes, but if he should win it this time around I might give religion a second go-around.

    We have been warned--- Romney's Mormon faith cannot be made part of the current political discussion, certainly none of its secrecy, intrigue or vibrancy in American history. But I wonder if Frank Rich is right---that trying to exclude the most driving force in Romney's life is what creates the feeling of his detachment. The strategy may well backfire, Romney remaining behind an impenetrable screen.  

    The recent Yankee poll gives me hope that Obama will win this November. A friend described Yankees as buying used cars, half-soling their shoes, and if they come by a swimming pool---using it to farm fish. I think the last place Adelson, the Koch Brothers and the rest of Romney's Super Pacs can buy an election is in New Hampshire---in fact, it's likely to cause the opposite effect and give a win to Obama. 

    Perhaps this will be the year where the spirit of Joseph Smith will return to New England and put a Mormon in the White House. But in keeping with the year of no summer when the Smith clan left nearby Vermont for greener pastures, I'd like to think that 2012 will be the year of no Adelson, no Koch brothers, no Romney, and by definition, no Mormon President.

     

     

     

     

    Comments

    While I am loathe to enter into another debate on the religion/politics dynamics, your post brings up some salient points of interest:

    Rich relates how contemporaries of Romney confessed to never really knowing him, and proffers that the exclusion of Romney being able to present himself in the context of his faith is part of what makes him seem so detached. Romney's campaign will brand with a scarlet letter anyone who mentions Romney's faith. Don't go there. 

    I know and count among my blessings many Mormon church members (casual acquaintances as well as good friends over the years).  I reside in a small, rural community and in the past decade, there has been a large growth spurt in Mormon residents.  The founding principal is quick to state, 'We are not of the Utah Mormons'.  (I will be seeking a more definitive explanation in the near future.)

    The Mormons (from other communities) I know who proclaim their troth to the Mormon temple from which the Romney's are members, have shared what they are able of their ideology and practices with me.  And it's the what they are able that accounts for a large part of my apprehensions.  I'm not aware of other mainstream religions that have processes and practices which the members are literally forbidden to speak of and have to attain a certain 'level' to even know themselves. 

    It's seldom that even those who are former Mormons will break their vows of silence to speak of the tenets that are not to be shared outside the faithful circle.  What I have learned from these (none were bitter or exhibited overt personal negative desire to vent or harm the Mormon church) is enough to cause me to be, at the least, uneasy about Romney becoming POTUS (as if in this political climate, being a card carrying member of the GOP conservative branch isn't more than enough).

    Romney was on the upper rung of the Mormon ladder and in 2007 stepped back from his role because he was entering the 2008 Repub presidential field.  This was done for two reasons; one being time and effort that needed to be directed toward the campaign and two because both the Mormon leadership and Romney understood that in order to succeed, distancing himself (at least in appearance) would better serve his/their political ambitions since Mormonism was/is seen as a negative by many voters.

    The intensity and absolute adherence to the Mormon dogma demanded by their sect's powers that be is absolute and must be evident in all you do, say and think is firmly entrenched in the dogma, both personally and professionally. To the extreme without any exceptions.

     


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 12:32pm

    Thanks, Aunt Sam. I had a business partner who was Mormon and we got along fine. But I knew him and he isn't running for President. Frank Rich's article got me thinking about it again. That's when I realized that there is a very bare knuckles aspect to the whole strategy---They don't want biographical comparisons to Obama. For more reasons than one---but this is one important one.  


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 12:55pm

    I'm not aware of other mainstream religions that have processes and practices which the members are literally forbidden to speak of and have to attain a certain 'level' to even know themselves. 

    Sounds like the Freemasons.  Many of the founders were masons.


    by D Kervick (not verified) on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 6:32pm

    And the ancient mystery religions, which I believe the Freemasons take some of their teachings from.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 8:46pm

    You're right, Dan.  And I should know that because when I was young (jr. high) and didn't know better, I was in Bethel (the young girl's organization for relatives of masons - think it was my great grandfather who was a member).

    But, while there was some cursory acknowledgment of religion, it concentrated (what I can remember) on acquiring 'ladylike behaviors' (don't think I lasted more than one year, didn't like it).

     


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:00pm

    'We are not of the Utah Mormons'

    You have to ask a Mormon who's not from Utah to get the answer.

    I worked in Nevada and there was a guy from Utah who was an ass. His method of managing people was to bully and mince words and so forth to his advantage regardless if he was wrong. One day I asked a secretary, who was Mormon, why he was such a dick. Her response was he was a Utah Mormon.

    Seems Mormons living in other states learned to associate with other non-mormons ... to live in harmony - something to do with always being permanent missionaries. Whereas, Utah Mormons having the state to themselves didn't have to develop coping skills necessary to create the civil harmony necessary to live amongst those not of their faith - they were only required to be civil to unbelivers when they were out of state on misionary work.

    I was assigned to Hill AFB outside of Ogden, Utah (about 90% mormon) in the mid-70's and all the locals made sure you knew where you stood with them. It was as if being there was an unwanted occupying federal force. It was easier to drive to Salt Lake City (only 50% mormon) for a beer and a few games of pool whereas in Ogden just sitting at a bar pouring a soda in a glass and drinking from it would make the police suspicious and you'd end up getting hauled off to jail to get both a blood and breath test. And yes, the police did walk thru bar's and ask who was the designated driver.

    Utah mormons are a strange breed.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:49am

    I may have provided this link before. It is to Bloggingheads TV and in this installment Robert Wright interviews Joanna Brooks who teaches literature at San Diego State and is the author of "The Book of Mormon Girl". Subtopics of the interview which can be clicked on separately include:
    The roots of evangelical anti Mormon sentiment.
    Mormonism's Theological innovations.
     Mysteries of the Mormon Temple.
    The underwear question.
    Everyday life alive with divinity.
     
    I know that some people can read a thousand words quicker than they can watch that much conversation and would rather do so, but I often like to watch a person who is making a point and I feel I sometimes get hints from their expression, body language, etc.
     Anyway, Ms. Brooks struck me as completely non-deceptive and she answered a lot of questions about the LDS faith.

     

    http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/8837?in=44:52&out=48:40


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 1:37pm

    Thanks, LULU. 

    I had a friend whose daughter began dating a Mormon guy and she felt like she had completely lost her. She knew parents who had been excluded from functions and the thought was upsetting to her. When I heard Rich's comment, I recalled the conversations. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 2:09pm

    Well, Mitt is Mormon but he does not talk about it.

    Now Santorum talks about his religious beliefs all the time and one belief he has is that thee should be laws against those who do not share his beliefs.

    So Santorum scares me more than Mitt.

    I could get paranoid and start worrying about Mitt having some secret agenda.

    I just refuse to do that.

    I have plenty of reasons to dislike Mitt and religion has nothing to do with it.

    This is an interesting blog though about cults and sects though.

    George Romney's dad is interesting. His family fled America because of polygamy--that would be George's grand  dad. George's dad brings the family (with one wife) back to America when George is a kid which is interesting because I read nothing in the 60's concerning George's citizenship.

    There is an interesting family history there along with the religious history.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 3:25pm

    The family history is part of what we are missing, especially given his father's try for the Presidency---and as you say, who questioned his birth certificate?

    As far as "fair game" is concerned, here is a quote from Rich's article.

    ""...the questions are about the Mormon church's political actions during Mitt Romney's life time and about what role Romney, as a leader and major donor, might have played or is still playing in those actions. Given how often Romney himself cites his faith as a defining force in his life, voters have a right to know what role he played when his faith intersected with the secular lives of his fellow citizens." 

    Romney is free to wear the existence of his faith on his sleeve, like any other good Republican. But to then clamp down on any further parsing of his faith in terms of how it influences his decision making---well, I guess I'm getting a little impatient with that. Especially when I think it is simply Rovian politics to keep all things Romney out of the biographical sphere---which Rove himself has admitted wanting Romney to do. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 3:53pm

    Seems to me Muddy Politics got trashed for noting Mitt had a "Mormon problem" among conservatives - wonder what people would have said had he written this post.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 5:05pm

    Eminently fair question.  Seems to me this is yet another inexplicable example of certain folks who fail to see the inherent bigotry in delving into the relationship between a candidate's religion and his or her qualifications to be president.  Concededly, oxy hasn't led with this kind of stuff from the get-go, e.g. no pictures of Romney with "MORMON" stamped on his head, but it remains incredibly disheartening from my perspective.  And why is it OK to delve into this here?   I guess the point is because Frank Rich opened the door and talked to some folks who speculated that Romney was difficult to get to know, perhaps because he was Catholic, I mean Protestant, I mean Muslim, I mean Jewish, oh wait, I mean Mormon.  I mean Frank Rich gets to establish what's kosher?  Please. 

    I loathe this entire line of inquiry.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 5:36pm

    I think we all know your feelings about this topic by now, but what's puzzling is why you keep commenting and paying attention to it.cheeky


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:05pm

    Because I believe my comments are important and touch on what is most sacred about American society.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:29pm

    Hmmm.  I think it's usually a good thing to be secure in your convictions.  And to acknowledge with respect that sometimes we just agree to disagree after stating our cases.  And you're right (Geez, first Dan and now you! Who'd a thunk I would have to concede to both in one day?) about .....

    are important and touch on what is most sacred about American society.

    Take care and God Bless.


    by Aunt Sam on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:38pm

    Bruce, today Romney said we're taking back the Presidency from Obama in order to "regain the soul" of the country. Does this pseudo religious language not offend you?Their entire approach is to define Obama as something "other". I am simply pointing out that it is unilateral disarmament to allow Obama's narrative to be distorted as something foreign to the American experience while Romney's is kept off camera, as if his history is sacrosanct and off limits. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:48pm

    I think Romney is a douchebag, and he certainly doesn't reflect anything near to what I consider to be the soul of this nation.  But I don't think he's the first Republican to challenge Obama with similar statements.  And I think they're all douchebags, regardless of how they believe the heavens and the earth were created, or what happens when we die, or if they, like me, let some stranger turn our eight-day-old sons' ding dongs into shmekels.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 10:07pm

    Oh no, Romney said one of the sacred (oops, too religious) 37 words that allows us to delve into his personal beliefs. "Soul", not to be confused with Marvin Gaye or Beatles Rubber Soul or Eldridge Cleaver Soul on Ice or Jamiroquai's Soul Education.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:36am

    I am aware of your views from the previous threads.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:23pm

    • I was replying to the challenge posed by Peracles, a frequent adversary, far less frequent but occasional ally, and long-time associate of mine on the internets.  I was not trying to convince you of anything, and I was not requesting a response from you.  I understand your views on this issue having read your well-written post.

    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:41pm

    I considered not writing it out of respect for your views, which I respect a great deal. I have no idea who PP is, didn't know the history. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:52pm

    I have no history, I have no future - I am stuck in the present. Aum. Be Here Now.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:56am

    Thanks, Peracles. That leaves you, or have I missed something?

    Your perceptions are growing sharper, not just pot shots, and I have new respect for your wit and sophistry. Give a new post a shot, and maybe put in something personal, I might like to get to know you better. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 9:33pm

    My registration continues to be bogged up for 2 email addresses, and didn't feel like creating a 3rd. Some day, one day, alas!!!


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:39am

    However, to summarize, there seem to be a few takes on looking at religion in politics:

    1) Never appropriate (bslev, et al)

    2) Appropriate only if it affects serious policy (peracles, et al? note that "affect policy" balanced against all other beliefs & cultural factors that affect policy)

    3) Appropriate only if it's weird (maybe genghis if I understood him well?)

    4) Always fair game, especially if a Republican ( register below )


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:45am

    That's not my view.  I believe in the First Amendment.  I am opposed to the establishment of any particular state religion, for example. 

    This is about making presumptions about one's qualifications or eligibility to serve as president based upon the religion he or she practices.   That is what I find absolutely offensive and bigoted.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:01am

    Mmmm, okay, that's not what I took away from our other long thread.

    So it's okay to look closer at abortion attitudes from Catholics and racial attitudes from Southern Baptists, and taxation/respect for the Constitution from self-proclaimed libertarians?


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:54am

    You really need to pay better attention then.  This is not so complicated.  I don't care if the source of someone's views on abortion is that he or she is Catholic.  I just care about what that person's position is on that subject.  If, on the other hand, someone wants to make Catholism the official state religion, I would have an objection to that.  


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:53am

    Maybe what is driving all of the discussion isn't so much that Romney is Mormon, but that he is a Mormon who was once ok with abortion and now isn't.  I don't think if Huntsman was the front runner, his Mormonism would be nearly the issue it is with Romney.  Huntsman has been pretty consistent about where he has stood on the issues from what I can tell.  But Romney is a question mark.  So people are trying to figure out just who he is and where he would stand on the issues if he was put into the White House.  After three decades of the conservative right telling everyone that one's faith not only is a major influence on one's believe, it should the core influence, people are naturally turning to Romney's faith as a source to understanding him.  In this sense, it is not bigotry.  Which is not to say there isn't a bunch of bigotry mixed in to the discussion in the media.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 12:11pm

    As much as some here toss around the term bigotry, I'm wondering if we all have the same definition of this term. 


    by Aunt Sam on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 12:13pm

    I would say this is sums it up for me: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. 

    A bigot is someone who would discount Romney simply because he is a Mormon, regardless of his policy positions.  And this is different than discounting Romney because of a certain set of policy views he has and coming to the understanding that he holds these views because of his religion.  And it is also different than having a negative (yet respectful) view of Mormonism because of its interpretations of its scriptures and what it would mean for the community.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 12:49pm

    Appreciate and I agree.  Wonder if all support this definition?


    by Aunt Sam on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 1:14pm

    Trope, this is a very good working definition of bigotry in my view.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 3:21pm

    Well done, Trope. 

    One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    Your explanation is top notch, too.


    by Ramona on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 3:39pm

    Well, nowhere in my position did I say people should be judged simply on their religions, but certainly religious adherence along with other club memberships frequently indicates preference on certain key issues - warranting a bit closer look.

     

    We went round and round before on lines like:

    Honestly, I don't understand how anyone with a progressive bone in his or her body doesn't get that that a Mormon--including a guy like Romney with a long and open public record--should not have to bear the burden of proving that he or she will not make policy on the basis of his or her religious beliefs.  That's just nonsense and I have no respect for that argument and I think it's as bigoted as any argument one might hear down at the John Birch clubhouse.

    Which I explained over and over wasn't my position as long as Romney wasn't an obvious advocate of some pretty common policy-affecting Mormon position. (the only one I can think of is Mormon funding against Prop 8, which position isn't so unusual among Christians and other religious groups). And that's just one of many issues to consider, so I don't see his being Mormon very relevant to his campaign. Bain Capital is quite a different issue.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 12:33pm

    I know we've had this discussion before, and I wasn't that hard on MuddyPolitics about it, and I'm not going to be hard on Oxy about it, and I definitely understand the rationale behind "looking closer" at certain positions once you've learned someone's religious affiliations.

    What makes me anxious about it is how people (one is a regular poster here) would use that against atheists, for example. Since I'm an atheist, then perhaps you should take a closer look at whether I have a conscience.

    What I remember you bringing up the most was the abortion question (which at least is more concrete than conscience), but for almost all politicians there's already a history there separate from their religious affiliation, and if there's not, then how are you going to get it by "looking closer"? So, I do understand the motivation, but I fear the result.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 1:03pm

    I'm an atheist, but I"m drawn to Hillary's phrasing of abortion as a "tragic choice" - it's usually a sad but often necessary choice. 

    Still, the ones rabidly anti-abortion are usually there because of religious beliefs.

    As far as what being atheist changes, not much - atheists have ethics, can still get moral lessons out of religious books (as well as Aesop's fables or The Tin Drum or La Peste), can still fight and die for a good cause, can even plan for the future without contemplating the rapture. Or even defend religious people.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:21pm

    As far as what being atheist changes, not much - atheists have ethics, can still get moral lessons out of religious books (as well as Aesop's fables or The Tin Drum or La Peste), can still fight and die for a good cause, can even plan for the future without contemplating the rapture. Or even defend religious people.

    Obviously you and I see it that way, but many (most?) don't. Although the person questioning whether we had a conscience was an anomaly here at dagblog, I'm afraid he's not an anomaly elsewhere in the United States, and I fear he represents the majority. (I base that on a poll some time back where of all of the hypothetical scenarios asked about presidential candidates, including being homosexual or Muslim, only being an atheist was enough of a reason for the majority of people not to vote for someone for President.)

    I could also argue that being a Baptist (for example) doesn't change much. They can still be pro-choice, even if they despise abortion, as you've readily acknowledged, as I understand your point merely to be that we should "look closer".

    People who are Baptists tend to have certain world-views. So do people who are atheists. (I suspect that we agree on the vast majority of things, even if we do occasionally get into drawn out arguments over gray areas.) There are big exceptions to both.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:36pm

    You could argue that being a Baptist doesn't change much, but not effectively, based on the facts. Yes, there are pro-choice Baptists, but certainly in the US, that number is relatively low compared to say Lutherans or Episcopalians or Atheists.

    Probably more important, being Baptist tends to line more people up with political policies in the US that I find abhorrent, so if there's a Baptist candidate, I'm going to be triply aware of attitudes of might (God) makes right in foreign wars, anti-acceptance to gays, hidden racism, et al. We of course had Clinton, Gore and Carter as examples of inclusive Baptists or similar, so obviously our stereotypes aren't 100% solid - they just perk up our radar.

    Of course meeting a Baptist out of a serious evaluation for president doesn't require all this intrigue - you just say, "howdy".


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:54pm

    We of course had Clinton, Gore and Carter as examples of inclusive Baptists or similar, so obviously our stereotypes aren't 100% solid

    Strikes me that those are examples that your stereotypes are like 5% solid.

    meeting a Baptist out of a serious evaluation for president doesn't require all this intrigue - you just say, "howdy".

    Maybe you  should think about saying more than howdy, and finding out how, (like with a lot of other religions,) stereotyping people via what the leadership of that religion says isn't often very good radar at all.

    I think many Americans are notoriously apt to say they are members of the religion of their parents  or grandparents, when they are actually not regular church goers and/or haven't thought about the tenets of that religion since grade school, but still attend from time to time as like, part of their cultural activities. You wanna know someone's views on abortion, safest way to know for sure is to ask them, and not guess by what religion they claim they follow, mho.

    An anecdote of a one person example, really.just for fun, because I remember the lady fondly. In the period after Clinton/Gore won the election but before they were inaugurated , I made friendly acquaintance with a cleaning lady at a business I was doing work at a couple times a week; we would chat while I was waiting for a meeting and she was, as she called it, "pushing dirt from one end of the earth to the other." I soon found out  she also was a Deacon in her Baptist church, after noting she often quoted the bible in conversation. One time there was a watercooler conversation about abortion among some employees, and she interrupted with "it's the woman's right to choose," as if she had just made a pronouncement direct from God to the world. It stopped the conversation cold. I don't think she was a big fan of Clinton/Gore, though, she seemed quite cynical about them, said something like "change change change, keep hearing about change, ain't seen none yet."


    by artappraiser on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:36pm

    True enough.  But what an Atheist can't do is get elected President.  He/she probably won't make it into Congress, either.  The days of "no religious test" probably never really existed.


    by Ramona on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 3:42pm

    Oops, sorry, Peracles, you already said that!


    by Ramona on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:14pm

    Shouldn't there be a difference in how we regard a positive belief claim, which is what religious belief claims typically are?  Atheism, at least as I understand it, is nothing of the sort.  If we accept that distinction, then there's a big difference between judging how someone's specific belief claims strike us in a moral light and judging someone who isn't necessarily making any specific claims.  The latter would seem to me to fit Trope's definition of bigotry above - namely, prejudging someone because of a perceived difference in tribal affiliation.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 3:26pm

    I know it's not true for all self-described atheists, but my atheism is very much a positive belief claim. I claim that there are no gods, no supernatural. Some people define atheism as a lack of a belief in gods, but I've always labeled that as agnosticism. That's a semantic question, of course. My point is that there are self-described atheists with positive belief claims.

    That doesn't answer your fundamental question, however.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 3:48pm

    There are all sorts of people with all sorts of labels with positive belief claims.  But you're right that you didn't really answer my question.  To me, what you describe is antitheism.  Dawkins describes a seven point scale of belief, with the denial of the existence or possibility of the existence of god or gods as being the most extreme end of of the non-belief side, though some will argue that this constitutes a positive belief claim.  It seems you would agree.

    However, the sixth level is more in tune to what most prominent atheists actually claim is their point of view.  It's basically Russell's teapot.  Sure, there could be a lovely teapot in the rings of Saturn, but there isn't one lick of evidence for it.  So, I not only reject that claim, but I place all such claims in the same category.  In other words, it's not the rejection of all possibilities or notions of the "spiritual," but simply the requirement of supporting evidence for positive claims.

    This is not the same as someone who just isn't sure one way or the other, which is the working definition of agnosticism that I've typically encountered.  It's also not a mere semantic difference.  I think your formulation of atheism as a positive belief system is problematic for exactly the reason that Sam Harris outlined in this talk.  In a nutshell, Harris argues that this formulation is problematic culturally and strategically because it makes "atheists" do something that no one else has to do, something that is very much a blunder with respect for forwarding notions of rationalism and skepticism - defining themselves as pseudo-positivists when actually the position is one of critique of positive claims.  Harris asks us to consider that no one bothers to contemporaneously identify as a non-astrologer or, in a much more stark example, as a non-racist.

    In this view, atheism is a positive belief system like off is a television channel.  Religious belief claims are no different than any other positive belief claim.  My job as a thinking individual is to evaluate those claims based on the evidence.  Those that are not supported by the evidence don't make the cut.  Those that are can be accepted, albeit always provisionally.  But it makes no more sense to define myself as a positive atheist in the face of unsubstantiated belief claims that in does to define myself as a non-birther in the face of those unsubstantiated claims.  All I'm doing is applying the same standard to all belief claims, whether they be labeled "religious" or not.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:24pm

    I'd never call myself an antitheist exactly because Richard Dawkins uses it to describe me. wink In all seriousness, there's a connotation in my mind from that word that I'd be strident, against other people having religion, etc., that's absolutely not true about me, but this is just semantics and semiotics.

    I reject Dawkin's categorizations and instead use one where there's a strong atheist (positive belief in the absence of gods), weak atheist (lack of belief in gods), strong agnostic (positive belief that the question of whether gods exist is fundamentally unknowable), and weak agnostic (one who doesn't personally know whether gods exist). In that categorization I am both a strong atheist and a strong agnostic. It's worth pointing out the distinction between "belief" (associated with my atheism categorizations) and "knowing" (associated with my agnosticism categorizations), which is hardly well defined. These aren't original with me, of course, but I can't recall where I first encountered them. Anyways, that is still about semantics and semiotics.

    As for Harris's arguments, there's validity to them, but to me, it's largely semiotics - the symbolism inherent in defining ourselves with respect to what we don't believe. In addition to their other positive beliefs, almost all Christians would also state (if asked) that they have a positive belief in the absence of Shiva. In fact, as Dawkins has pointed out many times before almost all religious people have a positive belief in the absence of most other gods that have been postulated at one point or another. That they don't define themselves in terms of those positive beliefs in the absence of other gods is a valid couner-argument, but think how great it could be if they did! Almost all religions would realize that they agree on about 99% of the stuff, and atheists could be recognized as the ur-religion! (I.e., the "religion" that would be in the center of a graph depicting how many changes you would have to make to go from one faith to another.)

    To me, the off "channel" analogy works better with complete agnosticism—someone who has no opinion on whether gods exist, if you can find such a person.

    I enjoy this discussion with you as I don't think either of us get upset discussing it. smiley


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:04pm

    Prominent personalities aside, I think you're deploying these terms in ways that other people don't really use or understand them.  That's fine on a personal level, but it's problematic conversationally, which is what he's getting at.  In fact, if you read far enough into his talk you'll see that he addresses your stance pretty directly:

     

    Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.

    Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”

    Agnostics have not turned the television off.  Maybe they're not sure if there's something to what's on the Christian channel, maybe some days they like to see what's happening on the Wiccan channel, maybe some days they don't watch anything.  But conflating someone who is making a distinct positive belief claim, or set of claims, with someone who is doing no such thing is not a semantic preference.  It's an epistemological mistake and it has consequences for the conversation.  One such consequence is having to do the dance Harris describes above, where "atheism" has to be defended as a positive belief system, another religion, instead of merely the consistent application of reason.  The point Harris is trying to make is that this makes no more sense, either semantically or strategically, to claim the mantle of "atheist" here any more than it would to claim the mantle of "non-alchemist" or "heliocentrist."  Nobody puts these terms in their bios, and yet they are precisely analogous.

    What "atheism" is to me cannot possibly be conflated with the assertion of a positive belief system.  To the contrary, it is the point of view that arises by way of requiring the evidentiary justification of positive belief claims.  There is no more need to label the resulting point of view "atheistic" simply because some belief claims are "religious" than there is to label it "anti-lunar-landing-conspiracy-ist" or any other semantically equal label.

    The world I want to see is not some where these labels somehow culminate in some kind of "ur-religion."  Religion, to me, is not even really a thing.  It's a label given to certain belief claims.  I don't have positive belief claims that have any place on a graph of changes of faith by degree.  Faith, to me, is the absence of skepticism and reason from the mind.  It is the assertion of positive beliefs without evidence.  I don't want more of that, I want less.  I want more doubt, more inquiry, more skepticism, better evidence.  I want to live in the world that Harris describes, where the term "atheist" has simply ceased to make any more sense than "round-earther" does as a personal label.

    And I think that the way we get there is, at least in part, by having dialogues like this.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:38pm

    Reply below, beginning with "DF:" (the margin is getting too narrow here)


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:30pm

    Excellent, DF. More doubt, more skepticism!


    by acanuck on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:05pm

    In thinking about it some more, I think it's also true that if you're an atheist, you're more likely to believe in evolution, accept anthropogenic global warming as a fact, and be far less likely to accept the idea of Manifest Destiny. For some people, that's a problem…


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:16pm

    Apropos of nothing, I encountered this excellent comment on reddit today.  I think it does a pretty good job of explaining how religion functions in American culture, particularly w/r/t mainstream Christianity, and where the nexus with contemporary politics lies.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:40pm

    Atheists (as well as liberals) are often pretty antagonistic towards Christians.

    I can understand a Christian being wary. I'm less accepting of a Christian being dismissive.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:58pm

    ...and there are plenty of "Christians" who are antagonistic towards all sorts of groups, which is sort of weird since that's pretty un-Christian, but whatever.  Who are the true Scotsmen again?


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:30am

    I hear Mormons are required to wear strange un-American underwear.  Who knows what else they are hiding in their skivvies.


    by D Kervick (not verified) on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 6:40pm

    Thanks, Dan, not verified, doesn't sound like you, but in this virtual world, who knows.  Anyway, if you run across a vintage bottle of ink up there in New Hampshire, save it for me. 


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 02/06/2012 - 10:43pm

    It's me.  I sent it from my cell phone and logging in is a pain.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:33pm

    I guess I might be the only person at DAG related to Mormons, so I am going to weigh in.

    The problem of course is proselytizing.

    My own relatives, as they were converted Mormons tried to convert me and my cousin when we were little kids, just visiting them for an evening. We'd come back from the PI on a summer vacation and my younger cousin and I were invited over to my Uncles house, he and his wife were Mormons, both converted. So they brought out the comic book of Mormon. But even at our ages we knew something wasn't right about this, so we picked up our stuff and walked back to my aunts house. They simply had no respect for boundaries. None, relationships be damned.

    This guy, who I'd known for more than 30 years couldn't back off though, he couldn't stop himself, he preached on my facebook page, preached when I saw him at reunions, questioned my independence, (my husband and I are not attached at the hip) He simply couldn't stop. He went on and on, I'd asked him to stop, begged him to stop, he could not stop himself. I don't think he even tried, it ended our 30+ friendship.

    But these are all personal examples.  It has no relation to MR and what route he would take as President when it comes to his religion. But he has bigger problems than being a Mormon, he who likes to fire people, he who claims corporations are people too, he who claims the poor have an adequate safety net, etc. He was, to quote Ann Richards, "born with a silver foot in his mouth" and I think it is those mistakes that will affect his ability to be elected.

    Very interesting blog Oxy.

    Now I have to get back constructing my Comicon Costume.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:46am

    Are you gonna be a Golden Plate?


    by Donal on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 12:35pm

    I was thinking about either going as a board game or War Gingy from Shrek. I have the costume foam and I've oiled my sewing machine. Heh.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:38pm

    I was hoping you could explain the difference between a proselytizer and a vampire.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:05pm

    I only know that real Vampires come from Transylvania not Forks Washington. laugh


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:46pm

    The taste.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:16pm

    Right. The proselytizer is artless.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:09am

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/29/mitt_and_the_white_horse_prophecy/


    by Kudra on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 2:43pm

    That article sounded a little too much like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for my taste, sorry.  Thanks for linking to it, though, it was good to know it exists.

    I think Sally Denton might benefit greatly by seeing Book of Mormon on Broadway, to get her head a little bit around the ways most people find to deal with the cognitive dissonance between their religious beliefs and their actual everyday life on 21st-century earth. (And also too about Mormon love of Orlando, Florida.)

    While reading, I was thinking how Mormons have "infiltrated" the FBI for decades now and they haven't managed to do diddly squat there in taking over the US government (also had a bit of a hard time protecting it from Islamic terrorists, I hear--oh wait, maybe that was part of the White Horse plan?)

    Where does Howard Hughes and Marriott hotels' glass elevators and pretty-colored restaurant food fit in?


    by artappraiser on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 10:17pm

    I posted this link in a comment up above to VA, but skimming through this talk given by Sam Harris at an atheist event in 2007 I found this commentary on Romney, Mormon beliefs and the presidency:

    Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:47pm

    I stayed out of the two previous discussions on religion and the presidency. But the topic isn't going away, so let me lay down a marker. (Apologies to anyone who thinks I have no right to comment on American politics, but you're an asshole. Not you, Oxy.)

    I'm what you might call an atheist. No God, no church, no liturgy, no hierarchy. But of course it's more complex: I have a conscience, I have a sense of spirituality, I have precepts and a moral code. They just don't require a sky creature and an earthly infrastructure that interprets his will and tries to enforce it.

    I respect people who argue religious beliefs are off-topic and off-limits in an election. But for me as an atheist, it's totally simple: beliefs are beliefs. Sticking the adjective "religious" in front means squat. Knowing what a person really believes is key to understanding who he/she is.

    Freedom of religion as set out in the Bill of Rights has been elaborated on over time into laws against discrimination. Cool. But those are laws against discriminatory actions, not judgments and assessments. So I can't refuse to sell a Mormon coffee, or tell him to sit at the back of the bus. I can decline to vote him into office.

    In an ideal world, this wouldn't be done just on the basis of the label "Mormon" or "Jew" or "Catholic." But ignorance and bigotry abound, and it's part of a politician's job to address his beliefs frankly and honestly. JFK did it and won; Obama did it and won. Keith Ellison did it and won twice.

    I see where Verified Atheist is coming from when he wants to downplay religion, in part because the game is stacked against atheists. I agree there's a de-facto religious qualification demanded (especially) of presidential candidates. I'd like to see some atheist boldly go the JFK-Obama-Ellison route. 

    Probably won't happen in my lifetime. Given the current U.S. climate, I personally give candidates an automatic pass: go ahead and lie. Express vague belief in both marital fidelity and a supreme being. I'm with Huguenot king Henry IV on that: "Paris vaut bien une messe." (Paris is well worth a Mass.)


    by acanuck on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 4:51pm

    I couldn't possibly co-sign this with any more agreement.  This is a cultural issue, a conversational issue, and it has come up here at Dag before.  The divide is this: some people think that by labeling a belief claim, or system of belief claims, as "religious" that this should somehow, usually from conventions of what is "polite" or not, insulate those beliefs claims from scrutiny.

    Sometimes this is formulated as the universal respect for beliefs.  But this, too, is a fallacious notion.  It is to conflate a person with a belief claim.  We require this conflation in convention, in culture, in conversation, literally nowhere else.  If I declare that I think the claims of birthers are fundamentally idiotic and without merit based on the lack of evidence for their claims, no one calls me impolite or will claim that I am anti-birther or, worse, generally a bigot.

    There are countless such unsubstantiated beliefs: we didn't land on the moon, Elvis is still alive (so are Pac and Biggie), there are four simultaneous days in one Earth day rotation, PowerBalance wrist-bands increase athletic performance, homeopathy is actually a thing, etc.  And always and everywhere, except where belief claims carry the "religious" label, we generally all accept the same standards of reason, of required evidence, of critical thought.

    Beliefs are just claims.  Claims to certain knowledge, certain truth.  They aren't special just because they are claimed to be "religious" in nature.  All claims should always be subject to the same requirements - the more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence required.  That which can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 5:09pm

    Thank you both.

    For me, positing the atheist candidate seems to be the best way to understand what or what is not appropriate in the scrutiny of a candidate.

    The atheist candidate would be scrutinized on all his belief claims, including his religious belief claim that he doesn't believe in God. Would anyone, including the atheist, disagree with so scrutinizing the candidate? (I assume our resident atheists would agree to this, otherwise I haven't understood anything)

    If not, the question then becomes, why would we treat any other candidate differently?

     


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:32pm

    How can I argue that religious beliefs are no different than someone who believes in the tooth fairy?  I can't.  Because it's matters of faith versus matters of logic.

    Now do I think it's fair that atheists can't get a fair shake?  No.  Would I fight like hell to elect an atheist if I believed that he or she was the best person for the job?  You bet.  But do I believe that we respond to bigotry against atheists with a tit for tat approach respecting folks who belong to an organized religion?  No, I do not. 

    Somebody suggested I had expressed myself too much on here about this issue.  She is correct.  And the logical win. So it is OK to presume from the get-go that someone who is Mormon deserves to be grilled about his or her beliefs, without question, regardless of prior record.  And, of course, it is OK to question or to not vote for the Jew, the Catholic, the Muslim, and the Atheist.  Because the U.S. is no different now than it was in 1960, 52 years ago, when JFK ran for president.  And it is logical.  And, of course, logic trumps faith.

    I surrender on this issue, and I apologize for those who now have shown, through the power of logic, that it is OK to go after Mitt Romney--not because of his public record, but because he was raised as a Mormon and he professes to be a person of faith. 

    I especially apologize to Muddy Politics, and do so publicly.  I am obviously out of step.  Stamp that Mormon label on Romney's picture because it's OK to believe that anyone who professes faith is no different than the guy who believes that Elvis is in the house.  And Mormons are especially weird, right?  

    So anything goes.  How do you beat logic with faith?  Can't be done.  But I would be lying, in any event, if I denied being anything other than completely distraught about where we as a community have ended up on this issue--not only as a proud member of a religious minority, but as a proud member of this and other progressive communities.

    I am incredibly troubled by the inextricably intertwined relationship between logic and the slippery slope.  So be it.

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York

     


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 6:46pm

    Bruce, I want to offer some of my personal thoughts here in response to you.  First, in case it is not obvious, I hold no beliefs that I would describe as religious (I actually don't even really like the notion of "belief," but that's a philosophical bridge even further for most people).  Having that said, I thoroughly share your concern over bigotry and over protection of minorities - really, the equal protection of all people.

    However, I have a problem with a notion that I have seen forwarded here at Dag.  Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your point of view, but I have come to read it as consistent with "Pluralism requires respect for the beliefs of others."

    I could not possibly disagree more with this notion.  Pluralism, or more importantly a society based on pluralism, requires nothing of the sort.  It requires that I respect that you are an equal human being.  It requires that we both have a right think and even to believe, if we wish.  It requires that we both have a right to express what we think.  It requires that we be from harm or retribution for expressing ourselves.

    It does not require that I respect the specific things you choose to express or believe.  Those things could strike me as simply wrong on the evidence or entirely repugnant on a moral level.  It does not require that I shut my mouth when it comes to raising such criticism, the right to which shares the same justification as your right to express your religious beliefs in the first place.  Raising such criticisms does not make me intolerant.  I am not a bigot simply because I am capable of applying the same critical thought that I apply elsewhere to religious belief claims.

    And though your beliefs might feel sacred to you, this is a meaningless notion for those outside your belief system.  And, here's the rub for me, this is the way that everyone operates when it comes to every other belief claim, save those labeled as "religious."  No one calls me a bigot when I tell a birther that their claims are nonsensical, no matter how personal or heartfelt those beliefs might be to the people who hold them.  No one regards me as some kind of anti-pluralist, bigoted violator of all that is polite and decent and fundamentally liberal if I criticize baseless belief claims at any time - except in the case that those beliefs carry the label "religious."

    I share your concern when you see "Mormon" pasted across Romney's head.  I can imagine that your mind easily substitutes the word "Jew" in that image, with all of the horrifying history that goes with it.  When it comes to opposing all forms of persecution, I am right there with you.

    But there's a vibrant contradiction afoot in the notion that Mitt Romney's beliefs, embodied in an institution that has been an integral part of his entire life, are somehow beyond scrutiny - that there's no daylight between vulgar bigotry, which is base in pure prejudice, and actually assessing what the belief claims of the Mormon church actually are.  That's not prejudicial or bigoted.  It's the same standard that we all generally apply to all belief claims that we encounter.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:09pm

    DF,

    Thank you for your response.  How does your logic fit with your notion that we stand together when it comes to opposing all forms of persecution?  For example, as much as you might understand how I might feel or whatever, wouldn't your logic and understanding of pluralism condone the tagging of someone's picture with a reference to his religion?   Why is there any reason to respect that person under your vision of things?   That is what I don't get.  Or maybe I do get it, and if I do it scares the crap out of me, because what you are saying in my mind is that it is OK to mock and chide the Jew, or the Catholic, or the Atheist, or the Mormon, if that is what you believe in your heart to be correct.  And, scarier still, why have laws against discrimination against black people?  Don't folks have the right to believe that blacks should not swim in the same pool with your kid under your vision of pluralism?

    DF, another cliche' comes to mind, forgive me, but sometimes the perfect really is the enemy of the good.  

     


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:28pm

    I think we need to drill down into a couple of words here.  One is "respect."  In my previous response, I described as one that requires respecting people, but makes a distinction between people and their belief claims.  You ask why I should respect a person, who I guess in this case is MuddyPolitics, who posted a picture of Mitt Romney with the word Mormon pasted across his head.  My response is that "respect" is not even a word that comes to my mind in that scenario.

    It does leave me with a couple of impressions.  The first, is honestly that it's a silly image.  Everyone knows Mitt Romney is a Mormon.  But that leads to the second impression, which is the one I alluded to earlier.  I think that impression is probably very similar to yours.  Even though I find Mormon beliefs to be incredible on the merits, I still don't enjoy the image because it too quickly conjures up posters that say things like "Juden Aus Rotten."  What I'm saying is that I think we both agree that there's something ugly about it.

    The other word is "right" or "rights."  Do folks have the "right" to believe that blacks should not swim in the same pool with my kind under my vision of pluralism?  Bruce, I kind of can't believe this is a sincere question, but I'll treat it sincerely nonetheless.  First, of course my vision of pluralism allows this belief.  I cannot control the things that people can think.  There is no functional version of anything that I think might reasonably be called "pluralism" in this discussion without allowing people to believe whatever they want to believe.

    But the thing is, your versions of pluralism requires this, too.  If you think it doesn't, all I have to do is call my abhorrent beliefs "religious."  Recognize, please, that fundamentally the defense of "right" to "religious" belief is nothing more than the right to think and express whatever you want without any factual or evidentiary justification or test.  It's the right to pure personal conviction and the unrestricted expression of that conviction.  That's all that a racist requires, too.

    What's good, Bruce?  Is the status quo "good" for people like me?  What about my friends who have been kept from being legally married by, at least in part, the powerful coalition of belief that is the Church of LDS?  Am I allowed to criticize the Mormon beliefs that they use to justify their crusade in public without being labeled a bigot?  Is it just okay to criticize "religious" beliefs when we find them personally offensive?  Can I talk about how disgusting I think Wahhabism is in its treatment of women, or does that make an anti-pluralist?  How do these possibilities factor into your notions of pluralism?

    I likewise have friends that are Mormon.  I grew up in CA and went to high school here.  There we plenty of them around.  Some of them were the best people I knew in those years.  One Mormon friend once stopped a teacher during class who had claimed that nothing was certain in life but death and taxes.  My friend said, "Bullshit, all I have to do in this life is die."  So my teacher tries to explain what the consequences of that will be, but my friend was entirely prepared for that.  Within about 30 seconds, they had gamed out a scenario that saw my friend surrounded by the federal authorities and holed up in his house with plenty of firepower.

    My friend is now lawyer.  And I still love him.  He's a great, terribly funny person and a loving family man.  I would rather live next door to him than many of the people I encounter in this world.  And some of the things he thinks are, to me, objectively batshit.  Yet I still love him.  That's my vision of pluralism: one that provides always and everywhere for safety and security and membership in the human tribe, regardless of the crazy things we might think or say one day to the next.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:17pm

    Well--using another cliche' and sorry about that--I just still don't understand where you draw the line DF.  We can agree that we cannot control what people believe, but I'm not sure we have any agreement beyond that. I used a "slippery slope" argument not because I question your commitment to oppression, but honestly I don't see where your line is drawn.  I'll give you the last word, because I really need to finish up at the office and I'm honestly drained by all of this, but I am remain genuinely frightened by the logic behind requiring a candidate to explain his or her bona fides to serve this country based on the faith or lack thereof that he or she subscribes to or was born into.  And I guess I need to buckle up and prepare myself if there are good people like you, who I've come to genuinely respect over many years, who appear to be prepared to take on Romney or someone else on the basis of the tenets of his religion, and without regard to what they've done or have not done in life, or what positions they take in the public realm.  I guess I just know that if some guy beats his wife I wouldn't vote for him even if the guy says that he's supposed to do that as a matter of faith.  So I guess we can agree on that too.  

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:37pm

    I'm not sure what the line is that I'm supposed to be drawing here is, Bruce.  Muddy posted what he posted.  You spoke up and said you had a problem with that.  In my view, you both had equal "rights" to express what you wanted, but personally I had a lot more "respect" for your view, at least as far as the use of the image is concerned.  But a conversation was had and, in my view, no one was oppressed.  That seems pretty good to me.

    Where I've disagreed is simply with the characterization that criticizing religious belief claims on their merits is somehow a fundamentally bigoted act.  I simply reject that religious belief claims are special or privileged to quarter from scrutiny in discussion.

    Additionally, I've never advocated that a candidate needs to subjected to a religious litmus test per se, especially not if we're talking about legally qualifying candidates or not.  But I don't believe what Romney believes, unless he doesn't actually believe Mormon doctrine, which is a possibility I'm more than willing to entertain.

    However, Romney has a big, powerful organization out there that forwards his beliefs.  I'm just one guy.  If I feel like Romney doesn't represent me, even if it's expressly because he holds beliefs that differ from, that doesn't make me a bad person or a bigot.  I haven't done anything other than what I do with every other candidate vis a vis every other facet of their candidacy - namely, assess them based on fact and evidence.

    I felt the exact same way about George W. Bush.  He espoused a bunch of beliefs that I didn't agree with, religious and otherwise.  I'm not a bad guy or a bigot for disagreeing with his views, even the ones people choose to label as "religious."  I'm also not required to keep quiet about my criticisms, which are my views.  I have the same right to express my views as anyone else, even where my views contradict beliefs "labeled" religious and dearly held by others.  Even when others claim to be "offended" by my views.  That's the kind of conversational chilling effect that one  could​ argue represents a ​prejudice​ towards non-believers that the proselytizers don't usually have to answer for.

    So, I'm not sure what line I'm supposed to be defining here.  Personally, I think Muddy's picture was probably in bad taste at best, but I also think it's completely viable to scrutinize all of Mitt Romney's beliefs, including his religious beliefs.  You can bet your sweet bippy I would have a much, much harder time getting anywhere near the Oval Office than would Mitt Romney if the criteria is belief alone, but I doubt you would hear much of an outcry over bigotry against non-believers.  That's probably a valuable question to ask yourself: Would you feel the same about believers saying they just couldn't vote for an atheist?

    I guess it comes down to this: I don't not agree that public scrutiny of beliefs, religious or not, is tantamount to persecution.  I particularly do not agree that this is the case for public figures and especially not for people seeking to be the most powerful person on the planet.

    Regardless, I do​ appreciate the discussion, Bruce.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:00pm

    I'm fascinated that you don't seem to differentiate between "go after someone" because of their beliefs, vs. evaluate the role those beliefs play in policy.

    The famous line on JFK was whether he would defer to the Pope on any issues - the answer was "no". That seemed to be a reasonable question and answer to close the issue.

    I would ask something similar of Jews towards Israel, but these days everyone in Congress panders to Israeli opinion, regardless of creed, so it's hardly worth mentioning.

    (And again, I balance the issues, as someone like Alan Grayson is one of our hardest hitters on financial reform, health care, and other daily important issues. But still, would he row against the current on Iran if a war or embargo made no sense? Would his affections cloud his normally good sense on those issues? He seemed to when the US supported the Israeli attack on the Turkish "peace" flotilla)

    If I see someone like Santorum wearing his religion on his sleeve, warning flares go off. But then again, these guys aren't even subtle - they parade religious bigotry and exceptionalism as a positive. Nothing about private, contemplative belief in their book.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:12pm

    I would ask something similar of Jews towards Israel, but these days everyone in Congress panders to Israeli opinion, regardless of creed, so it's hardly worth mentioning.

    Really?  Notwithstanding the extraordinarily available objective evidence that the views of American Jews on such matters are all over the map, from Chomsky to Lieberman?

    But even still, really?  It's OK to ask us if we are Americans first?

    Res ipsa loquitur.   But I do appreciate your candor because I couldn't have explained my concerns any better than you have just articulated.  Let there be no mistake about what you have just written--that you believe it would be OK to look beyond a candidate's stated position on Israel, and to make sure that that person means what he or she has stated. . .because he or she is a Jew.   And the fact that you also believe that it is hardly worth mentioning given political realities in Congress does not alter the underlying point you have made.

    Forget bigotry.  This, my friends, is truly terrifying.

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 6:48am

    Bruce, we put John Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court because idiot "liberals" accepted the bullshit they were being fed as true and refused to ask tough questions of snake-oil salesmen. Of course I would question what a politician tells me - Jewish, Buddhist, Rastafarian. Politicians are supposed to lie out of both sides of their mouths, and they seldom disappoint.

    If someone comes from Texas, I think about what I know about Texans. If they're Bronx Italians, I calculate a bit of that - I don't see Irishmen using Scalia's dismissive "vaffanculo".  Calculating in the ethics of people from New Jersey seems to help in predicting how often a governor will resign.

    No, stereoptypes aren't completely accurate, and sometimes grossly misleading. But character types, regional types, religious types, educational types all work together to form a composite to understand someone better. Leave out one's religion? there's an important gap in your understanding.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:33am

    Sorry, but I just can't resist point out that Santorum is Catholic and his book most certainly ​does​ saying something about quiet, contemplative belief.  From the book of Matthew, chapter 6:

    5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

    That's from the Sermon on the Mount.  So Jesus said that.  I'm no theologian, but I'm guessing that's a fairly authoritative doctrine given the source.  (I'm looking at you Tim Tebow.. Jesus says you've already gotten your reward in full...)


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 2:44pm

    DF: I think the point being made is mostly about the strategy, but perhaps my goal differs from yours and Harris', and thus so does my strategy. I'm not sure I can adequately express my own goals with respect to my terminology choices, but I'm sure I have them, and I'm not going to even try to guess what your goal or Harris' goal is if I can't state what my own is. I just feel that perhaps they differ. I do think that calling myself an antitheist would be counter to my goals.

    My experience, and this is clearly anecdotal, is that most self-described atheists do believe that there are no gods, and thus trying to shift the discussion to the lack of a belief in gods is somewhat of a sleight-of-hand. Sure, there are people who honestly just have that lack of belief. My wife is one, but then not only will she not call herself an atheist, she doesn't even like the word. Perhaps you are as well, but if you're tempted to make the flying teapot analogy, then unless you really think there's a chance such things exist… In other words, almost everyone I know would be willing to state that they believe in the absence of that orbiting teapot. In practice, there's very little unsureness.

    Perhaps our disagreement centers around the word "belief". My work with neuroscience has certainly shaped my respect for beliefs. We all have to make "best guesses" about how the world works, and these are what I call beliefs. These are things that we can't use logic to arrive at, but instead have to accept as axioms. Some axioms seem to describe our world better than others. You give your definition of faith as "the absence of skepticism and reason from the mind". For some, this is certainly the case. Faith can also be, however, making a decision what to believe in the absence of complete information. Just to be clear, these don't necessarily have to be religious matters—I have faith in my wife, even though I don't know what she does when I'm not with her. I believe my wife loves me and will always be faithful. Other people believe that about their spouses and are wrong, of course. Later information can cause them to change their beliefs. And of course, there's a bunny hole that I'm dancing around labeled Descartes, but we don't need to go there.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 7:49pm

    Okay, I think I see where we might be talking past one another and it's definitely because of how we're using the words we're using.

    The purpose of the teapot analogy is to illustrate how the religious belief claim is received by the non-believer.  Perhaps we swing in different circles, but I never encounter people engaging in positive belief claims about all the things they don't think exist.  And, if you think about it, it's easy to see why: I can imagine infinite things that do not exist.  But people don't go around saying they have a positive belief in not-stuff and certainly no one goes around defining themselves by the not-stuff they fervently believe in, like saying that you a firm not-believer in the 12th planet orbiting the sun or that they are not-believers in the ancient Lemurians who live underneath Mt. Shasta.

    Wait, you did​ know about them, right?  But how can one even cultivate a positive belief in all the not-stuff that one has not even heard of yet?

    And there's good reason that no one really thinks or talks like this, which is because it poses huge epistemological problems.  As I'm sure you know, science never proves not is.  Science isn't capable of proving can't be.  Everything is provisional.  Everything has error bars.  It's all analysis, all carefully hedged - and for good reason.

    Surely, you have to acknowledge that the way you're using terms like faith and belief in your final graf just don't reflect how people who are actually making religious belief claims regard them, which is what I'm concerned with and certainly what Sam Harris was addressing.  What you call belief can simply be called "information."  Belief, and especially faith, is meant to import a certitude that, on the the insistence of some, isn't even subject to scrutiny.  That has absolutely no bearing on what you're talking about when you say you have "faith" in your wife.  Whatever your "faith" claims at the present, if someone showed you pictures of her being unfaithful (assuming you don't have an open marriage here) then I assume you would find yourself lacking religion so to speak.  Not so with the people I am talking about.  Their "faith" stands resolute despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Also, it seems that you transition here in your meaning.  At first, belief is equivalent to "best guess," but I'm going to take my best guess ;) here and venture that you wouldn't exchange the words "It's my best guess that my wife will be faithful" for "I have faith that my wife will be faithful."  Is belief, or faith if you prefer, tantamount to the "best guess" claims that are made by science?  Because I don't think that's a very germane meaning for this discussion.  That's not how people making religious belief claims mean it at all.

    Descartes is useless to me philosophically beyond the initial observation in his Meditations that perception is fallible.  Dualism?  Via the pineal gland?  Nah, dude.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 8:39pm

    And Jesus on the cross cried out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

    As the saying goes: In the beginning God created the journey.  Then he created doubt and nostalgia.

    People who claim there is a pure faith are either liars or deluded or in denial.  No one wants to think their faith is a "best guess" but that is what it is - except that the guess is driven by a source not totally reason or emotion.  Call it the soul or something else.  What resonates within in - like hearing a distant song and sometimes the notes are so faint we wonder if we ever heard anything at all.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:00pm

    At the risk of pasting more Sam Harris, I'm going to do it because, to me at least, one of the most interesting parts of his talk was when he addressed spiritual experience toward the end.  That's something that gets him in trouble with fellow travelers, but I think that's because what he has to say is more challenging than simply dismissing all things spiritual:

     

    One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

    As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.

    What if we could have a new discussion, rooted in science and reason, about what these very real human experiences are?  To me, this is one of the things that makes Harris a far bolder thinker than his contemporaries.  That's the world I dream of - one where we can progress beyond stale arguments about old beliefs.


    by DF on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:12pm

    Personally I would agree with the basic gist of his statement.  As someone who has from time to time struggled with prolonged meditation sitting, I would say I totally agree with the notion one "experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection."

    Yet the problem is that once one returns, and attempts to articulate that experience it is lost (or so says my belief).  It is of consciousness, if achieved, which is not translatable into our words since it is the place where the words have dropped away.

    At the same time, science and Buddhism have been engaging one another, especially over the past four or so decades as Buddhism came in its latest wave over the western world.

    Heck, who can forget The Tao of Physics.

    And at the same, in the aftermath of the modernists, the limits of reason were finally embraced.  As Camus wrote:

    • If I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers. I can sketch one by one all the aspects it is able to assume, all those likewise that have been attributed to it, this upbringing, this origin, this ardor or these silences, this nobility or this vileness. But aspects cannot be added up.

    I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I cannot know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me — that I understand. And these two certainties — my appetite for the absolute and for unity and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle — I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my conditions?


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:37pm

    Well, atheists are often quite well read, and often interested in religion and other belief systems of man even if they reject them as being factually true. 

    And it doesn't require God to hold the door open for someone.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:15pm

    Harris goes there and then some.  His point is to reject "atheism" as a label because it lacks content and obscures the real point of advocating skeptical inquiry.  It's that sort of inquiry that allows me to enjoy reading, say, the book of Mark.


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:34am

    I have used that line several times in my blog; however...

    There have been times that I was rather depressed; I mean things did not seem to be working for me; and scourging brings out our worst animal traits and all.

    So let us give JC the benefit of the doubt.

    He knew not what He was speaking of; at the time of course.

    hahahahahah


    by Richard Day on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 2:48am

    Perhaps we swing in different circles, but I never encounter people engaging in positive belief claims about all the things they don't think exist.

    Not explicit claims, but when considered, they do have those positive beliefs about things they think don't exist. I have a similar positive belief in the absence of unicorns, and a ever-so-slightly less positive claim about the absence of a Yeti-like creature living anywhere on Earth. As far as the 12th planet, if you're of the Pluto-is-a-planet camp then surely there are far more than 12 planets orbiting our sun (i.e., that's more of a semantical issue than a scientific one, but I digress…). Anyways, there are two types of negative beliefs: a lack of belief in things you've just never considered (e.g., Mt. Shasta), and a lack of belief in things you've considered, but rejected. Most (but not all) of the latter have corresponding positive beliefs in the negative of that thing (e.g., the absence of gods). As for science not proving "not is", it does prove that to the same degree that it proves "is" (nothing's ever truly proven, of course). If you've kept up with the search for the Higgs Boson, it's been a long slog through "not is (a)" and "not is (b)", with, as you say, copious amounts of error bars.

    As for your point about faith in my wife, you make a good point. I went for what I thought was an easy example (because faith in one's spouse is a common terminology) and it turned out to be not such a good one. So, I'll go a little deeper: I've done work with space-time metrics that solve Einstein's equations but that lack the singularity that defines the event horizon of a black hole. I.e., I've created a tweak to general relativity that eliminates black holes. I have faith that my solution is correct, even though numerous scientists are convinced that black holes are all over the place. I know I could very well be wrong, but without faith in myself I wouldn't have been able to finish my Master's thesis on the topic. Similarly, many, many scientists that push frontiers have to have faith that they're right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong. Most of the time the rest of the scientific community is right, of course. But sometimes…


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 7:00am

    Let's start with unicorns.  You keep insisting that you have a "positive belief" in the non-existence of things like unicorns.  For what reason, I remain unsure, but what is clear to me is that is, as you say, a matter of semantics, but not ​mere​ semantics.  The problem I have with the way you're using "belief" or "positive belief" is that it actually resembles in no way the concept of "religious belief," which is what is salient to me in this discussion.

    You say that you have a positive belief in the non-existence of unicorns.  I do not think this is actually so.  First, I think that what you really mean here is something like, "Having examined the evidence, having understood history and mythology and biology, and having never seen any evidence that a unicorn exists, my confidence that the proposition 'Unicorns do not exist' is true is trivially close to 100%."

    We need to be clear about two things here.  One, this formulation doesn't actually correspond to a positive belief claim like, "I am standing on the planet Earth right now."  This claim is different because it is irrefutable based on the evidence, not because of a lack of it.  I am observed.  Earth is observed.  Here we are.  In other words, it is a formulation that posits testable propositions.  Surely you recognize the importance of the distinction between testable and non-testable propositions.  That is what I mean when I say "positive belief claim."  Negative belief claims cannot even be tested.  "Cthulhu doesn't exist."  How can I test or prove it?

    The second issue is that neither of these notions gets at what is going on when we talk about religious belief and its attendant claims.  Consider someone who says, "I believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old."  Their thinking does not match up with the thinking present in either test case above.  They are not saying they considered all the evidence.  They saying, in spite of the evidence, I choose to believe what I choose to believe because that's just THE TRUTH and always will be, evidence be damned.  Their claims are not only lacking in evidence, but absolutely refuted by it.  Their insistence on a contrary truth in the face of overwhelming evidence, their faith, is furthermore seen as a personal virtue in religious culture.  This is not a notion that would allow the thinking that has allowed you to conclude that there are almost certainly no unicorns.

    To put just a bit of a finer point on it, let's consider another majestic animal, but a real one: the narwhal!  Let's assume you had never ever seen or heard of a narwhal before.  Maybe nobody has.  Maybe there's only fantastical sounding stories from old sailors of the north seas about a porpoise with a horn - except those guys tell all sorts of tall tales about ghosts and mermaids and what not.  So it's just as reasonable to make the exact same calculus you've made about unicorns.  Literally the same.  No difference.  Mythical stories, no biological evidence, etc.

    Then someone discovers a narwhal.  Alive.  They're everywhere up there!  Okay, so now what do you do?  I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you revise your stridently held "beliefs," which hopefully by now are starting to sound much more "opinions held with confidence because they have been carefully scaled against the evidence" and much less religious faith, which is decidedly different.  That's the kind of belief that says no matter the overwhelming evidence for evolution that is right in front of my face, I will maintain that God created all the creatures of the Earth in one fell swoop.  I will likewise deny all geological eras, including most of the present one, etc.

    Hopefully I don't need to say too much more about your last graf.  You don't have "faith" in your work in this way.  You have confidence because you've done the work and weighed it against the evidence and maybe, just maybe, are a bit personally invested in being right.  That's fine.  Though I'm sure some part of you would be crushed to be refuted by the evidence, you wouldn't be the first to suffer that fate and you still would have made a valuable contribution to science.  But you wouldn't be able to do that with religious faith.  That's a different thing and we shouldn't confuse it with what is really opinion or conjecture, no matter how confident.  Doing so obscures a very important difference in thinking.


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 3:12pm

    It is easier to prove positive things than negative things. I recognize that. However, I'd argue that science has disproven the existence of phlogiston and the aether. It's definitely much harder to disprove the existence of an entity capable of making itself unknown. Of course, I have no desire to prove it. I have faith that no such entity exists.

    As for religious faith, a personal question that means no offense: did you ever have religious faith?

    I did. I was raised a Methodist, and wrestled with my faith for decades. When I studied quantum physics, I tried to apply that to my faith, and I did similar things when I studied special relativity. I examined some of the deep philosophical problems such as why would a benevolent god allow certain things to happen. I read the Bible, and considered it fully. I decided that I did not want to be a lukewarm, cafeteria-style Christian, and thus really dug into it. My change in religious belief was much as you describe the process with the narwhal. I examined the evidence and came to a conclusion that no gods exist.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:02pm

    I can't say that I've necessarily had or felt religious faith.  I was brought up by an ex-Catholic and a tepid pantheist.  Interestingly though, they took me to a bunch of different churches, most of them of various Christian denominations, as I was growing up.  The reason they did this, they say, was that they didn't want to be any more closed-mind in their rejection of religion than the religious are in their rejection of other faiths or the lack thereof.  Later, when I was a bit older, I used to go weekly to a Unitarian church.  I'm actually thinking of going back.  I hear they have a pretty decent zendo going these days.

    So maybe that's some useful context.  However, even though I wouldn't say I'd necessarily experienced the conviction of religious faith, I have certainly experienced feeling so goddamned right that there was no possible way I could be wrong.. until I was obviously, painfully wrong.  Going through that enough times has tempered my character, my thought and my statements - all for the better, I would argue.

    These days, the only propositions that I am anywhere near 100% confidence on are that I am mortal and that my knowledge and perceptions are as limited in scope as my existence is in time.  Beyond that, I can be certain of nothing.

    But I've found certainty of that variety is actually unnecessary for living.  Where once uncertainty might have provoked fear or anxiety, it's now simply a constant working principle - the very soup that I swim in.  I would not go back for anything because I know that underneath proclamations so certain lurks fear.  I think that the vehemently faithful are likely proclaiming their faith so loudly for the benefit of no one moreso than themselves - specifically, to shout down the doubter within.


    by DF on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:54pm

    Rosencrantz: Do you think Death could possibly be a boat?
    Guildenstern: No, no, no... death is not. Death isn't. Take my meaning? Death is the ultimate negative. Not-being. You can't not be on a boat.
    Rosencrantz: I've frequently not been on boats.
    Guildenstern: No, no... what you've been is not on boats.

    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 9:52pm

    And yet both these guys ended up dead. After foolishly getting on a boat. Ironical.


    by acanuck on Tue, 02/07/2012 - 11:42pm

    I prefer to think about it in 4-dimensional space-time. I will have always existed in the past. (Is my past-future-perfect tense correct?)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 7:03am

    I don't really understand a lot of the stuff the really smart folks write about when we have this long digression, and I'm not just being cute, even though I can't help being adorable--ask my Jewish mother.  Seriously, I do think I'm a fairly intelligent guy, but sometimes I get lost in certain intellectual discussions.

    But I do think I know how to crystallize issues in terms that are easily understood.  Upthread my friend Peracles did us all a favor with commendable candor--namely, that he believes that, if the American Congress, Jews and non-Jews, was not already in the tank for the State of Israel, he would think it appropriate, if not important, to inquire into a Jewish candidate's views on Israel. . .and specifically because that candidate is a Jew.

    Now I'm not talking about the relationships between boats and death or different dimensions here; I'm talking to each and every one of you who has opined on this issue and asking, begging you, to address this real issue offered up by Peracles.  Get off the boat and leave Descartes out of this and address the real issue that now is joined.   Please, for the sake of the community.

    And I leave you with this.  Ordinarily, presenting "proof" about the diversity of the Jewish community is something I would loathe doing.  But, G-d forgive me, take note of this.  On October 11, 2002, 23 United States Senators out of 100 voted for the so-called Iraq War Resolution; four of those Senators were Jewish.   

    To be perfectly fair, I quote Peracles in full, including his reference to a Jew, Grayson, as being one of the good Jews based on his analysis (with caveats and continued questions about what the guy would do in a pinch on Iran--because the guys a Jew):

    I'm fascinated that you don't seem to differentiate between "go after someone" because of their beliefs, vs. evaluate the role those beliefs play in policy.
    The famous line on JFK was whether he would defer to the Pope on any issues - the answer was "no". That seemed to be a reasonable question and answer to close the issue.
    I would ask something similar of Jews towards Israel, but these days everyone in Congress panders to Israeli opinion, regardless of creed, so it's hardly worth mentioning.
    (And again, I balance the issues, as someone like Alan Grayson is one of our hardest hitters on financial reform, health care, and other daily important issues. But still, would he row against the current on Iran if a war or embargo made no sense? Would his affections cloud his normally good sense on those issues? He seemed to when the US supported the Israeli attack on the Turkish "peace" flotilla)
    If I see someone like Santorum wearing his religion on his sleeve, warning flares go off. But then again, these guys aren't even subtle - they parade religious bigotry and exceptionalism as a positive. Nothing about private, contemplative belief in their book.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:48am

    I similarly think it's ill-advised to ask someone to defend or declaim aspects of their religious faith, but I also understand DF's concern that religious faith gets an advantage over non-religious faith (e.g., faith that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii). For me, the distinction is largely cultural, but possibly not entirely. The distinction is definitely not entirely logical, but there it is. I feel stronger about it when it's a faith someone was born into than when it's a faith someone's adopted, but that's not entirely logical either.

    Does that clear my position up, or just make it muddier?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:50am

    I'm honestly not sure VA.  Could you apply your position to Peracles' comment?


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 8:57am

    I would not ask a Jewish politician a question about their views towards Israel that I wouldn't ask a non-Jewish politician. Another way of saying that is, I would ask a non-Jewish politician the same questions I would ask a Jewish politician about their views towards Israel.

    I would require that any politician not be beholden to outside leaders, whether that leader be in Salt Lake City, the Vatican City, Jerusalem, Moscow, Berlin, or the Cayman Islands. I think possibly what Peracles' is getting at, however, is that he'd want to be specific about which outside leader a politician is not beholden to (e.g., a Mormon and a leader in SLC, a Jew and a leader in Jerusalem). To me, I don't want my leaders beholden to any outside leaders, regardless of their religious affiliation, and to assume that a non-religious individual isn't prone to the same issues as a religious individual is in my mind as fallacious an assumption as to assume that a suicide bomber must have brown skin.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:04am

    I think I can just read what Peracles wrote.  And I think that you are giving him a little bit more of the benefit of the doubt than he's entitled to--because that's your nature and it's one of things I admire in you--the dude knows how to express himself.  And Peracles has stated unequivocally that the questions he might ask Grayson are different than the questions he might ask a non-Jew.

    And just to be clear, I don't think Peracles has any idea how "religious" Alan Grayson is; he just notes that the guy is a Jew.  


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:22am

    "benefit of the doubt" - oh my, hurt me.

    Yes, you're right - I don't know how religious Grayson is, but with Jews, it's both a religion and an ethnic group, so even atheistic Jews can feel strong ties to the state of Israel (while of course religious Jews may not care about Israel at all, depending on level of Zionistic fervor and other factors).

    And yes, I would ask evangelical Christians about their attachment to Israel (or the post-Israel rapture and all that - they seem to be waiting for Israel to get wiped out so they can all get to heaven, which isn't pleasant either for practical/humanitarian issues as well as national policy)

    But these days, it's sine qua non that everyone in Congress must support Netanyahu more than the US Constitution, so fuhgettaboudit.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 9:28am

    Peracles,

    I wasn't taken an unnecessary shot or trying to hurt you.  More importantly, I believe that I've accurately portrayed your viewpoint.  Most folks have focused on Romney and similarly-situated politicians and the extent to which they subscribe to the "hocus-pocus" components of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.   I took and take issue with that, and still do--and vehemently so.  But you've gone down that slippery slope that I fear in a manner that is crystal clear and doesn't require a PhD in rhetoric.  Because, with you, it doesn't matter how "spiritual" the Jew is, or what his past record is, because if he's a Jew you think it's OK to make a special inquiry into what the guy is thinking on Iran or the Flotilla, or Iraq, or any issue that you might define as an Israel-centric issue (and there must be a great deal of them since you believe that everyone in Congress is more subservient to Israel's prime minister than they are to the American Constitution).   

    I'm interested, still, in how folks apply their Mormon-based positions to the position you've so capably expressed.  I think then we make progress.  And I raise your comment because I believe it crystallizes the issue more than anything written on this thread--in straight-forward and unambiguous terms.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:09am

    "Because, with you, it doesn't matter how "spiritual" the Jew is, or what his past record is"

    Completely wrong - it makes ultimate difference what his past record is. If an Al Sharpton or Anthony Weiner rushes out to play identity politics/constituency politics consistent every time, you can just roll your eyes and know the direction it'll take (though Sharpton's gotten much more careful).

    But if it's someone who takes more measured steps, thoughtful evaluation of issues even touching on their identity points, then you can feel more assured they'll do that in the future. Ain't that tough.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:54am

    And because you're consistent, when an immigrant Saudi Wahabbi candidate runs for some office, you won't ask him about about his 3 wives and why they only have a slit for their eyes and can't drive or leave the house unescorted by a male. Because we wouldn't want to be prejudiced, would we? ;-)

    Religion simply shouldn't matter, unlike people's diet and how they handle a hot dog while shaking hands and kissing babies. Which is why we get effective leadership and candidates who care about our serious needs.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 10:10am

    I agree with you Bruce, but only in that PP has offered the classic criticism of Jewish Americans, that you cannot be trusted and maybe you aren't a loyal American because your Jewish. And because you are Jewish as PP intimates in his diatribe, you are loyal to Israel first, therefore you simply cannot be trusted, because you are probably not a loyal American and even Alan Grayson, who holds the appropriate purist views can be questioned over his loyalty to his country, because he is Jewish.

    The thing is, no one is making that argument about Mitt, everyone accepts he is a loyal American, but lots of people, who don't know anything about his religion, want to know if he is like evangelicals who want to impose their religious views on the rest of us.

    The views are different I think because you simply aren't accepted as an American first because you are Jewish, and that is beyond offensive, too many people who refer to themselves as progressives seem to believe such BS.

    I actually hold dual citizenship myself, Irish and American. No one cares, no one questions my loyalty to this country. Jewish Americans, are held to a much different standard and your loyalty is always questioned, even Alan "the pure" Grayson, wow. Mitt has never experienced the type of prejudice and he never will.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 11:05am

    Really this is a question about AIPAC effectiveness, not about bigotry.

    It's not like you can't find a number of Jews who are anti-AIPAC, or at least unswayed by AIPAC's hysterical worldview. But almost none of these sane Jews are holding office. None are forced by campaign contributions and the Beltway Powers that Be to anoint Netanyahu's feet when he talks to Congress.

    So again, we're back to the question - "does it affect policy?" And yes, even Grayson the normally sane starts freaking out about Iran and Turkish peace flotillas.

    And it's been stated over and over again, there's more political dissent about Israel in Israel than there is about Israel in the US. Here we have to march in lockstep. But call that bigotry if you must - everything needs a name, even if it's not the right one.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:45pm

    You wrote:

    it's not like you can't find a number of Jews who are anti-AIPAC, or at least unswayed by AIPAC's hysterical worldview. But almost none of these sane Jews are holding office. None are forced by campaign contributions and the Beltway Powers that Be to anoint Netanyahu's feet when he talks to Congress.

    Oh great the AIPAC dogwhistle, yeah everything boils down to AIPAC and how they control our government and Jews, wait insane Jews not sane Jews like you wrote up there.

    Nice troll, but it is utter BS. According to you, in order to be a good loyal American Jew you must be unswayed by AIPAC's hysterical worldview otherwise you are probably insane. Oh and there are almost no sane Jews holding office in America but this isn't bigotry at all. 

    Wow.Just.Wow.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 1:22pm

    If you have some amazing figures showing AIPAC really doesn't have strong influence in Washington, show it.

    Otherwise blow your condescending attitude out your petard. 

    (and yes, my "sane Jews" is over-the-top, but the sheer dominance of AIPAC issues on elected Jewish officials I don't believe is - prove me wrong with more than your typical tut-tut-tut - there's an internet out there, Google it).

    And I don't think AIPAC's influence extends to non-Israeli issues. But if it's about trumping up a war with Iran, I'm concerned.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 3:35am

     

    And in case you weren't aware, Congresspeople do identify with religion, gender and ethnicity to get what they want - so I'm still puzzled why it's beyond the pale to understand what exactly these groups want if the groups themselves do - Jewish, black, progressive, women's, Hispanic... -even before they're elected. And it seems the Catholic caucus continues in ascendance even over what I once naïvely thought was plain common sense and beyond debate in public policy, contraception.

    That 1/10th of the Senate and 6% of the House meets with the President because they're Jewish kinda means this isn't quite a secret, and the President does seem aware of what will tickle these folks' interest....

     

    The President's Meeting With Jewish Members of the Democratic Caucuses, May 18, 2010

    The president met with Jewish members of the Democratic caucuses for approximately an hour and a half this afternoon to discuss a range of issues important to U.S. foreign policy. The conversation included an update on proximity talks and administration efforts to strengthen Israel's security, including the administration's recent decision to provide Israel with an additional $205 million in funding for the Iron Dome missile defense system. They also discussed today's announcement of a consensus P5+1 draft of an Iran sanctions resolution. The president and the members had a wide-ranging and productive exchange about their shared commitment to peace and security in Israel and the Middle East.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:34am

    Peracles,

    Relax dude.  You went completely overboard yesterday, and it helped to clarify the issue of consideration of the religious beliefs of candidates.   If I could have a five-spot for every time I've gone over the deep end I'd be a rich guy already.  

    So you done good, now let's just move along.

    [Message per instructions from AIPAC Centeral wink]

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:42am

    I think I disagree with you on this Bruce, pretty much root and branch. 

    It's the difference between believing the only way to treat people fairly is to erase all a person's particularities and perspectives, versus taking them out and very squarely and precisely looking at them. 

    And we don't need to go too deeply into Theories of Justice and analytical approaches to Rationality to find that the latter view has large numbers of adherents. Like me, for instance. A consequence of which is that I Peracles' attackers to be the ones who are, in my view, both irrational and unjust.

    To take an example, you, Bruce, have a particular set of views about Jews, and about Israel, I believe. As does my Mum. If you two were running head-to-head, I'd question both of you quite deeply about these views.

    And in fact, my Mum more deeply. Why? Well, because she's a screaming Fundamentalist Baptist of the most violently pro-Israel type. She's not a faker of these views as previous Presidents have been - she's the real deal. (Think Maggie Thatcher, but without the pleasantries.) And thus, she would, given a chance, drive the Palestinians into the sea. And then the Iranians, the Saudis, and so on. And when I say "into the sea," I mean "kill them."

    So to those of you who think you shouldn't be questioning the ass off of every one of these mouth-breathing Fundamentalist/Evangelical Baptists running for office, vigorously, no holds barred, at their very mention of the terms "Evangelical" and "Baptist" - then you are an absolutely clueless, deeply irrational, individual. 

    And that's MY faith background, ok? 

    Now. That said, I believe that if I gave you a Geography and History test, today, which involved picking one of Nepal, Israel and Baluchistan to describe in detail, and if you failed you would lose your house, then I'm feeling fairly safe in guessing you'd pick Israel as an example. 

    And you know what? Just that, just being deeply immersed in a particular topic, is enough to give a person a particular perspective on it that should - should - then be drawn out by questioning during campaigns. You see, good and bad, I want to know a person's experience, learning, reading, thinking.

    Let's say the City of Toronto is going to fund a new arena for the Leafs. And I've been a vicious Leaf fan since I was a child. Am I likely to see things differently than someone newly immigrated to the City, from a warm climate, who has 4 children and no access to a car? Mmmm, probably. 

    So I'd be asking ME my views on the Leafs. Vigorously. 

    And if you're a Jew, I'm going to ask you a fair bit about Israel. Amongst your views on 101 other issues. But damn right, I'm going to zoooooom in, during Deep Questioning in Round #2, precisely on those areas you seem very knowledgeable about or to care deeply about - like Israel - as well as those areas that I consider important, but that you don't. 

    Seriously, Bruce. Baluchistan or Israel? You couldn't give a shit either way? "These nations are as a coin toss in my mind?" And because "you're an American" - as someone up above said - these questions can't be raised? 

    Well, only if you really deeply desire to be irrational, ignorant and thus, unfair, in your choice of elected officials.

    There's a difference between simply waving the bloody rag and stamping Mormon or Jew on someone's head. But to not be able to raise questions? And extra special questions? Like... I don't want to ask a woman candidate about women's issues I feel have been given short shrift? Are we kidding here?

    I say, let's bring all the differences out, let's discuss them full bore, let's take all our particularities and have at them... and then, vote. 

     


    by Quinnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:24am

    Well Q, 

    If I were you or anyone on here, and you were considering voting for me on a matter touching foreign affairs, I'd think you'd be nuts not to question me about this stuff, especially Israel.  And that's because I've expressed my views once or twice. 

    But if  you sat at my Seder table on Pesach --and that is a genuine and open invitation and it would be a pleasure to have you sample my matzo ball soup because it really is second to none and it's good for what ails you--and you listened to the heated conversation my family and guests have about all things Israel, then I would just restate that the notion that a Jewish guy should be questioned about Israel anymore than the non-Jewish guy down the street becomes something I take extraordinary exception to.

    On the other hand, I understand what DF and maybe a few others have written, and that is that I would be silly to rest on some absolutist notion that it's wrong to have curiosity in one's heart about someone professing strong religious beliefs.  Because that really would be foolish.  On the other other hand, I'm I don't think I would come out the same way about the Joe Foonyatz guy who just happened to have been born Jewish and never mentioned a word about that fact in 40 years of public service.

    I  just don't like to  place presumptions or issue a burden of proof to a candidate for public service solely on the basis of religion.  More than that, I think it's wrong.

    So, tell me, when are you going to forgive us for all of our transgressions and come back home here officially.  That's what Jesus would say.  angel

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 10:40am

    There's an insight I read when I was younger, tried on, and which has grown longer and longer legs over the decades. This:

    That the simple act of paying attention to something is actually taking a stance. It is a way of saying, "This is important." We may feel negatively or positively about it, but we are making it IMPORTANT. And that's a big deal.

    Which is why I find reporters to be so ridiculous when they claim "objectivity" in how they treat the news, when their simple act of picking a subject out - of paying attention - foregrounds that concern, and lets the rest fade to black. 

    Now, this isn't saying it means we will treat that thing WELL. We may be harsh as hell to it. It just means we give it our time and attention, and find it important.

    Let's apply this to Israel. You and your family may well have an enormous range of opinions about it. Which is great. 

    But. It makes Israel IMPORTANT. And yes, more important than Nepal. Or Baluchistan. 

    And the result would almost certainly be that, if you sat on a Foreign Affairs committee, you would want to learn more about, pay more attention to, and act more readily in relation to... Israel. Now, you might want to interfere with it, bust it into 17 little states, fund various programs there, establish a base there, whatever. 

    But its 8 million people would likely receive more attention than the 29 million Nepalese. 

    And... MAYBE WE WANT TO DO THAT. As a nation (or nations!) And that's OK. Maybe for geo-political reasons. Or historic ones. Or ethnic ties ones. Or religious ones. Or trade ones. 

    In  fact, if it's me, I'd have Israel firmly in the Top Ten of my foreign policy concerns. And it's ok if I'm asked WHY. And asked how much my views resembled those of my Mother and my early faith, as a psycho Fundy Baptist. Or those of my Jewish Father. Or those of my immensely tolerant and mystical Step-Father. 

    Otherwise, thank you for your kind invite, and when I'm next in the region, I will absolutely let you all know. That said, life has had its own rhythms and reasons, and I'm not blogging more than once or twice a year these days. Still, always good to drop by and brawl a bit. ;-)


    by Quinnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:13am

    Well love when  you do drop by Qster, even when we disagree.  But just so you know, the family fights about anything and everything, and not just Israel.  Indeed, my kids think I'm crazy for all kinds of reasons, and not just because of my pontificating about some country 7,000 miles away.  We're equal-opportunity squabblers, I can assure you of that.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 12:43pm

    Romney is out on the campaign trail talking about his work as a lay minister in the Mormon church. Also, in the attempt to humanize himself, he spoke yesterday about how his father was able to spit out nails. Frank Rich's theory is sinking in---that Romney's reluctance to talk about himself in the context of his Mormon faith is what's making  him seem detached.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 9:53am

    Helluva cocktail party, Dag. We've been talking religion and politics for what seems like three straight days, and nobody's thrown a chair yet. A few raised voices, maybe, and a spilled drink or two. But a little club soda and some paper towels and that stain will come right out. What, the carpet's Persian silk? Oh, that's not good.


    by acanuck on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:22pm

    Like I told ya....keep the damned Juice outta Persia. ;-)


    by Quinnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 5:42pm

    Good point. Thanks are due to the hosts for the hassle of maintaining a site for longer- term discussion when more every day just give all that up to a Facebook monopoly. And, as has been pointed out ad nauseum in hundreds of ways pro and con, it's usually a different kinda cocktail party when people like bosses, family and coworkers are in attendance.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:25pm