PZ Myers. 2006 Jan 03. The mote which is in your brother's eye, but not the beam which is in your own. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/the_mote_which_is_in_your_brothers_eye/>. Accessed 2006 Feb 13.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, January 03, 2006
The mote which is in your brother's eye, but not the beam which is in your own
This is just plain weird. A piece in the NY Times chews out liberals for embracing religion.
A look at the tactics and theology of the religious left, however, suggests that this is exactly what American politics does not need. If Democrats give religious progressives a stronger voice, they'll only replicate the misdeeds of the religious right.
For starters, we'll see more attempts to draw a direct line from the Bible to a political agenda. The Rev. Jim Wallis, a popular adviser to leading Democrats and an organizer of the Berkeley meeting, routinely engages in this kind of Bible-thumping. In his book "God's Politics," Mr. Wallis insists that his faith-based platform transcends partisan categories.
"We affirm God's vision of a good society offered to us by the prophet Isaiah," he writes. Yet Isaiah, an agent of divine judgment living in a theocratic state, conveniently affirms every spending scheme of the Democratic Party. This is no different than the fundamentalist impulse to cite the book of Leviticus to justify laws against homosexuality.
When Christians - liberal or conservative - invoke a biblical theocracy as a handy guide to contemporary politics, they threaten our democratic discourse. Numerous "policy papers" from liberal churches and activist groups employ the same approach: they're awash in scriptural references to justice, poverty and peace, stacked alongside claims about global warming, debt relief and the United Nations Security Council.
You know, I agree up to this point—I think it's an awful mistake for the Democrats to ramp up their religiosity in an attempt to be Republicans Lite. It's not going to work as an electoral strategy, and it's going to corrupt our government yet more. We don't need any more bible-thumpers in office.
But here's the weird thing: it's written by Joseph Loconte, religious apologist and wingnut conservative of the Heritage Foundation, mouthpiece for the Religious Right and Intelligent Design creationist. While he's piously deploring the intrusion of religion into politics in an op-ed, in his day job he's the perfect representative of the theocratic wing of the Republican party. This is the same guy who previously said, "The positions of the religious left and secularists on crucial questions seem indistinguishable, and that hurts them politically." So now he's trying to argue that the positions of the left and the religious right on crucial questions seem indistinguishable, and that hurts them politically.
So which is it, Joe? Are the Democrats secularists or bible thumpers, and which position is bad for them? Truth is, Loconte is a two-faced hypocrite who will invent any rationalization to damn liberals, and will turn around and reverse his opinion to praise Republicans. True to form, after telling the Democrats to avoid pat Biblical babble, he indulges in his own.
Democrats who want religious values to play a greater role in their party might take a cue from the human-rights agenda of religious conservatives. Evangelicals begin with the Bible's account of the God-given dignity of every person. And they've joined hands with liberal and secular groups to defend the rights of the vulnerable and oppressed, be it through prison programs for offenders and their families, laws against the trafficking of women and children, or an American-brokered peace plan for Sudan. In each case believers have applied their religious ideals with a strong dose of realism and generosity.
The Religious Right has their administration in place, and what do we get? A "crusade" in the Middle East. Torture. Erosion of civil liberties. Televangelists on the "news" shows every night, damning liberals. The spectacle of the Schiavo case, which had the Religious Right barking like jackals. Assaults on reproductive rights of women, and a parade of anti-choice judges. A growing rich-poor divide. Abandonment of the poor in a city struck by catastrophe.
"The human-rights agenda of religious conservatives"? Don't make me laugh. A few international charities motivated by the missionary zeal of evangelicals do not impress me. What I see is a world that would be meaner, harsher, crueler in the hands of the religious than it would be otherwise. The faces of the religious conservatives are people like Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Reed; while the majority of their followers may have good intentions, their leaders are human rights disasters.
Let religious impulses encourage private acts of charity, but it's clear: give religion political power and it turns into the legislation of dogma and the amplification of the divide between the narrow band of the faithful and everyone else.
A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise - and a realization that politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven.
Not possible, perhaps, but desirable, certainly. And we don't need "the moral ballast of religion"; yet again, we find another mealy-mouthed religious smarm-slinger who suggests that those without religion are lacking in morality. Spare me the platitudes. Being a Christian is not a badge of trustworthiness, as we have seen over and over again in the parade of corruption in our current proudly Christian administration.
Loconte is a deluded moralist who wags his finger and clucks at the weaker party, while letting the outrages of the dominant gang slide by, forgiven; this was an essay that might have been a little less obviously dishonest if it had been directed at Republicans rather than Democrats. Partisan slug and lying hack that he is, though, Loconte couldn't possibly do that.
Godlessness • Politics • Rethuglicans • 1 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
PZ this may be among your finest work yet to date on the religious right. Two opposable digits up and I'm cranking my big toes also for everything they're worth.
#: Posted by DarkSyde on 01/03 at 09:19 AM
-
"the moral ballast of religion"?
So religion is bilge? Sounds about right.#: Posted by just john on 01/03 at 09:41 AM -
Hypocrite, thy name is Republican. So what else is new?
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 09:48 AM
-
I read it more as a "don't you DARE try to steal our base! Away! Away! It would hurt you at the polls; trust me on this, I have the best interests of liberals at heart, really I do!" type of hysterical screed.
Ah, no one does hypocrisy quite like a conservative christian fundie. Perhaps it should be an olympic event? More gold medals for the USA!#: Posted by on 01/03 at 09:51 AM -
The entire piece could have been summed up in the sentence, "Hey liberals, stop horning in on our racket!"
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 09:52 AM
-
Well...guess I'm going to play atheist advocate here. I think the article raises good points. I am suspicious of this sudden "add spirituality and stir" tactic. I think it's going to look really shallow to a lot of people. If Democrats are sincerely Christian and expressing it now, where were they before? (Of course, Jimmy Carter is one who has consistently asserted his Christian faith as the source of all his convictions.) As for me, I don't think that a purely secular sphere is undesireable, as that is what we really have now anyway, religion being a purely human creation. What other things, more just and fair policies, can we create if we admit that we are consciously doing it, and not ascribing it to revelation? I hate the whole "if we derive our rights from ourselves and not from God, life is meaningless" argument. I want the Democrats to directly challenge that--but they won't.
#: Posted by Kristine Harley on 01/03 at 10:05 AM
-
I agree with the main point of the post; Loconte is a hypocritical scumbag. But from what I read, evangelical charities have indeed done some great work in poor countries, among others helping the refugees from Darfur (alongside secular organizations like Doctors without Borders, of course.) They have been out front on this issue (e.g. Sen. Brownback) which most people, left and right, have preferred to ignore. So I think the assertion
"The human-rights agenda of religious conservatives"? Don't make me laugh. A few international charities motivated by the missionary zeal of evangelicals do not impress me.
is unfair. Evangelicals (at least a subset) do care about human suffering and do more than many other groups to alleviate it. That's not to say I like their agenda when it comes to science, or gay rights, etc, or agree with their proselytizing. But the world and people are always complex and a Bushian dualism does not capture that.
Dmitry#: Posted by on 01/03 at 10:08 AM -
...it's going to look really shallow to a lot of people. If Democrats are sincerely Christian and expressing it now, where were they before?
To be fair, Jim Wallis and the Sojourners community based in DC (http://www.sojo.net) have been very active in both practice and theory of faith-based social justice (eg pacifism, poverty activism, anti-racism) for about 30 years. Lately, it seems that the Religious Right has been claiming that their way is the Only Way (tm) for True Christians (tm), so perhaps the Christian liberals (who are not necessarily liberal Christians) now feel the need to provide more visible counter-examples.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 10:41 AM -
Old Southern agnostic saying: You can't trust Christians because they'll stab you in the back and get upset because Jesus forgave them and you didn't.
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 10:59 AM
-
The Democrats are the victims of a well thought out and calculated (not to mention their own inability to find their voice) plan set in play by the Right. The Right has successfully wrapped their Christianity in Patriotism (or Visa Versa). Disigenuous as is it is, it has been served and consummed by the American people.
The Right has distorted the Constitution by their religious faith in an effort to steal this country away from individual rights. ID is only the latest attempt.
Attemping to appear more religious is well, disigenuous and will be viewed as a thinly vailed attempt that the Right will pounce on.
Democrats need to define their party as the party of US Constitution and of the people, not just as a voice for a select few.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 11:14 AM -
Yeah, what "moral ballast" of religion? I continue to be baffled by people who think you can get a sound system of morality out of a religion that is all about threatening non-compliance and non-membership with eternal torture. The Doctrine of Hell renders Christianity de facto immoral. Interestingly, I see an increasing number of Christians attempting to downplay hell, sometimes entirely denying it exists (!), despite some clear statements in John 3:18 and 3:36. As usual, the Bible is their Big Book of Multiple Choice, from which one can choose which "truths" they prefer.
#: Posted by Martin Wagner on 01/03 at 11:54 AM
-
<blockquote>evangelical charities have indeed done some great work in poor countries, among others helping the refugees from Darfur (alongside secular organizations like Doctors without Borders, of course.)</blackquote>
And quite a few of them tend to get caught telling people they *won't* help them unless they promise to read a bible first. Help that inherently comes with strings attached cannot be ascribed to them giving a shit about the people helped, save as a means to an end. Non-religious peoeple do that too. We call them gold diggers and other names, since their outward appearance of possitivity has jack to do with their intended goals. The fact that a lot of idealistic fools join up with these groups with a real intent to help, while failing to recognize that betrayal of supposed values that is behind it hardly excuses the reality of the situation.#: Posted by Kagehi on 01/03 at 11:54 AM -
<i>
Old Southern agnostic saying: You can't trust Christians because they'll stab you in the back and get upset because Jesus forgave them and you didn't.
<\i>
Never heard it before. However, it's perfect, and if it's not an old southern saying then it damn well ought to be one.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 12:22 PM -
On a barely related note: is it me or do you folks get the feeling that the Democratic Party PR strategists are just DUMB? And have been since 2000 at least. Can they find just one person to run for President who is actually charming?
(and who wishes they could wake up in another dimension where Senator Bill Bradley from New Jersey had beat Kerry and then beat Bush?)#: Posted by on 01/03 at 12:26 PM -
The liberal problem is deeper than the 2000 elections. They don't have a coherent message. Individual liberals do, I do, but I can't tell you what liberals as a whole want. some want socialism, some want capitalism. some liked the iraq war, some didn't. some want nationalized healthcare, some don't.
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 12:41 PM
-
It sounds like low level polical campaign.
Would it be because the current government has given religious zealots a political voice that they tend to use it more and more?#: Posted by on 01/03 at 12:53 PM -
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world:
Italian Case On Proving Existence of Christ Proceeds
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/01/italian-case-on-proving-existence-of.html#: Posted by Kagehi on 01/03 at 12:53 PM -
George Lakoff does a pretty good job explaining how religious impulses can be either conservative or liberal, and a large part of which it is depends on the framework used to view the world (either an authoritative or an empathetic one). I don't respond well to Democrats' adding religious elements to their messages, but I can understand why they want to: there's a lot of religious-minded voters out there. And there is a real difference between fundamentalist and progressive Christianity; it's not necessarily Republican Lite.
It actually speaks volumes to Republicans' ability to "frame" issues that all religious expression is automatically associated with them.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 01:41 PM -
Kristine Harley wrote:
I am suspicious of this sudden "add spirituality and stir" tactic.
What's sudden about it? I grew up in a liberal Catholic family heavily influenced by Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker, and sympathetic to the antiwar activism of the Berrigan brothers. In both cases, it was the religion driving the politics and not the other way around.
To use a more mainstream example, what about Martin Luther King? What about the civil rights movement in general? Nobody had to tack on the religion. The vitality of the movement came from the fact that it was in synch with the pre-existing beliefs of many involved. This can also be said of peace vigils and anti-death-penalty vigils.
Personally, I'm not that big on religion, but it's a lie to suggest that it is an exclusive property of the rightwing. It is a motivating force for many people that ought to be applied whenever it's effective. I agree with the posting that said Loconte's main point was don't move in on our racket. He's basically telling liberals: please keep being all squirmy and embarrassed about religion because if average Americans start identifying with you again then you might win elections.
It's only commonsense that when rightwingers start offering advice to liberals, they have some agenda other than helping us out.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 01:44 PM -
please keep being all squirmy and embarrassed about religion because if average Americans start identifying with you again then you might win elections.
You captured Loconte with much greater brevity than I did.
There's also a corollary from some of his previous screeds that I could encapsulate thusly:please keep being all squirmy and embarrassed about secularism because it hurts you to be ashamed of so many of your fellow liberals.
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 01/03 at 01:57 PM -
You got to reach people where they live. However uncomfortable you might be with Christians, they vote and they influence policies. If you want to influence their affect on these things, you're more likely to succeed using the tools provided by their faith than by attempting to relieve them of that faith.
I'd be amused at liberal's reactions whenever the righties attempt to distract them from pragmatism by waving the red flag of "principles" in front of them if it weren't so damn effective.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 02:09 PM -
PZ, it would be a wonderful piece were it not burdened with mild profanity . . . can you edit it for use with the ladies of the church? I think they'll buy your arguments, but not your presentation.
Don't hide your light under a bushel, please.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 02:58 PM -
While I'm thinking of it, I think you hit almost every serious problem with the Loconte, except this: He credits liberal theologians for political action only in the past tense. Specifically, he urges Martin Luther King, Jr., as an example of how liberals might use faith to promote good political ends.
That's handy for Loconte. King is dead, and King's positions now are unlikely to embarrass Loconte, say opposing torture policies, or advocating widespread use of a vaccine that will ultimately prevent cervical cancer (which has earned the enmity of the right wing in one of the most salaciously hateful campaigns of recent times).
And Loconte expects us not to remember that his groups generally opposed King in King's life, and since. I'd grant him an iota of credence were he to point approvingly to a liberal position in today's world that is, by his terms, inspired by faith.
He's saying we should let the Heritage Foundation do our praying for us. The guys seems genuinely unaware of the purposes behind the First Amendment.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 03:09 PM -
Hmmm. Can you suggest a different noun that carries a similar weight of contempt that will not offend the delicate ears of the Vestal Virgins?
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 01/03 at 03:13 PM
-
It's not at all weird. Atheist scientists can be dismissed as poor benighted heathens of no consequence, but the wrong kind of Christians are heretics.
#: Posted by on 01/03 at 03:18 PM
-
Perhaps any of these would work:
lout, boor, bounder, clown, cur, churl, dog, heel, knave, louse, lout, maggot, rat, rogue, rotter, scoundrel, sleazeball, slimebucket, stinker, worm#: Posted by on 01/03 at 03:39 PM -
Thanks, I came up with my own that is a little less generic.
#: Posted by PZ Myers on 01/03 at 03:49 PM
-
Well, here in Texas I have had some traction from "anal orifice," which is technically correct and stuns the listener long enough to get to the next sentence.
But I see your deftness with language has cured the problem.
Thank you. It's off to the church ladies now . . .#: Posted by on 01/03 at 04:15 PM -
I subscribed to Sojourners (the magazine published by Wallis & friends) for a number years. While I was generally in sympathy with the religious and socio-political views it expressed (as opposed to the Falwell/Reagan/Bush message, which I loathe[d]), at times it seemed to me they uncritically adopted various "leftist" positions -- anti-nuclear power, anti-GMO, "organic" foods, etc. -- out of ideological rather than evidential motives. The take-home lesson is that "God likes X" is at base no better coming from the Left than from the Right.
That being said, I still have some limited respect for what Wallis et al are doing: Americans are overwhelmingly Christians of some kind, and are more likely to respond to an appeal based on an alternate spin on that tradition, than to wholesale trash-talking of the tradition. So pragmatically, breaking the Right's usurpation of Christianity is a good thing IMHO.
Moreover, democracy is not about getting everyone to agree about metaphysics; it's about hammering out some common ground that lets as many of us as possible pursue our own definitionof personal well-being, with minimal mutual interference. So I'm happy to make common cause with those who advocate the same practical policies as I do, be they driven by whatever philosophy.
(And BTW, let's not conflate the terms "secular" and "atheist" here -- a religious person can also be a secularist, if they recognize that their God's will is not to be imposed by legislative fiat).#: Posted by on 01/03 at 04:20 PM -
I knew that there had to be a simple answer.
God said . . . "Let there be light." And, then everything just evolved from there. The rest is editorializing. That editoralizing from the "Let . . . is even infurential. Who would have had time for inferences what with all the procreating that had to get caught up with. You know the stank had to be overpowering.
Speaking of stank. Is there anything new with regard to the methane cycle at depths of a particular range in the continental shelves. I believe that is where the babies are burried in this whole dustup.
LB#: Posted by on 01/03 at 04:53 PM -
I'd grant him an iota of credence were he to point approvingly to a liberal position in today's world that is, by his terms, inspired by faith.
Can you name one such position? Don't include positions held by minority groups inside American liberalism; rather, name a position that is held by most American liberal activists that is inspired by religious faith.#: Posted by Alon Levy on 01/03 at 08:56 PM -
rather, name a position that is held by most American liberal activists that is inspired by religious faith.
How about the position that a rich country like ours has an obligation to provide for its poor. A utilitarian argument won't get you there. People still try to make one, but more and more, technology makes it possible for the middle class and up to insulate itself from the poor. There's also some validity to rightwing incentive arguments: people will generally not work as hard if they believe they can get the same outcome with less work.
Therefore, about the only honest backing to the position that poverty is a shocking condition and we ought to provide a social safety net even at some cost in incentive reduction can only be backed by assumptions of compassion and human dignity. These notions are not exclusively Christian, but my guess is that they entered Western culture through the adoption of Christianity. It any case, they are consistent with a certain religious view.
So basically I think that a fairly mainstream liberal position "We ought to be doing more on a national level to help out the poor." is in large part inspired by particular value judgments, in some case faith-based, rather than reasoned argument.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 09:48 PM -
Professor Myers
Much as I agree with much of what you have said, if you say that those without education in evolution should not criticisize evolutionary concepts, those without education in theology should not criticize theology concepts. You may have a doctorate in your specialty, but unless you document education to the contrary, you are an undegraduate freshman who has yet to attend a first theology class.#: Posted by on 01/03 at 10:53 PM -
Indeed, even astronomers should refrain from questioning the claims of UFO believers.
#: Posted by on 01/04 at 01:57 AM
-
Faith positions of liberals?
1. Eradicate poverty: We each need to donate money and time to take care of the poor -- especially since this runs exactly counter to the von Hayek/Friedman economic view.
2. Protect the environment: We have a duty to act as stewards for the planet, its resources and all life on and in it. (God issued this commandment twice in Christian literature -- once to Adam, then again to Noah.) Clean air and clean water are godly things -- only the wicked foul the resources of others.
3. Work to liberate people: Education is important, to prevent oppression and keep people free.
4. Protect our heritage, and pass it along: Knowledge of lore is important -- heritage is a gift to future generations if we live honorably. History is important, with all its warts.
5. Support hard science: Know God by studying God's creation. Tell the truth about what you discover. (IDists and creationists disbelieve this fervently.)
6. Make peace: Peace is better than war, but it takes a stronger person to work for peace than it does to go to war.
7. Do not bully: Wit is better than brute force.
8. Tell the truth, always.
9. Heal the sick; comfort the afflicted.
There are many others, I'm sure.#: Posted by on 01/04 at 04:24 AM -
Mr. Buchanan, please go fuggoff. I am not going to stay silent just because I don't have a degree in theology (or evolutionary biology or economics or whatever). I'm a citizen of this nation, I've got a perfectly legitimate right to express views and opinions on religious topics (especially when religious people want to impose their religion on me without my permission). If you've got a problem with that... Well, I don't really care. I ain't shuttin' up just because you want everyone without a theology degree or an ordination to keep quiet and not criticize.
#: Posted by Wally Whateley on 01/04 at 10:32 AM
-
I suspect the conservative Evangelist promotion of the Dafur crisis (and I'm not arguing that it isn't a crisis) is that it fits into their Arab Muslims vs. Non-Arab Christians clash of civilizations worldview.
#: Posted by on 01/04 at 12:37 PM
-
I am not going to stay silent just because I don't have a degree in theology (or evolutionary biology or economics or whatever).
And apparently he completely missed the article I linked to in an earlier post where someone that was studying to be a priest reached the conclusion it was all bullshit, turned atheist and is not sueing a church for hoaxing the public in Italy. Is *his* education sufficient to comment? lol
Its not like any of 99% of the idiots going after science have any qualification, or that the one that do wouldn't have been sued for malpractice by now if their PHDs where is medicine instead of mathematics or "I just made it all up one morning" biology, like Dembski and Behe.
How about this Buchanan, lets have one of the many people on here with *multiple* copies of the Bible in numerous languages go to some theology school, get an official degree, then chew you up and spit you out. Would them having a piece of paper stamped by a charlatan (sorry "priest") to prove they knew what they are talking about, instead of merely **years** worth of *real* examination of the Bible, actually history and evidence, make you feel better? Somehow I doubt it...#: Posted by Kagehi on 01/04 at 01:12 PM -
Fred at Slacktivist has a good smackdown of Loconte's op-ed from a liberal evangelical perspective: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/01/joe_loconte_doe.html
#: Posted by on 01/04 at 01:52 PM
-
I think most priests and so forth shouldn't talk about biology, not because they aren't qualified biologists, but because they tend to make jaw-droppingly stupid remarks about it that I, as a child, could shoot down. And, of course, many of those involve propaganda techniques and logical fallacies.
Of course, most priests I've heard complaining about biology had obviously never read about the subject. Other than it being bad, m'kay?
Biologists are free to talk about theology. I tend to find their arguments on the matter more insightful than the theologists'.#: Posted by BronzeDog on 01/04 at 03:58 PM -
Ed, PaulC, do most liberals who hold these positions hold them because of religious reasons? That's the standard I said I was looking for. For example, although some secularists believe that Islam is evil, and there are certain secular justifications of this position (just ask Harry Eager), the vast majority of Westerners who hold this view have come to it via Christianity. Hence, it makes sense to say that Muslim-bashing in the West is a Christian- rather than a secular-inspired position.
Similarly, although some people support science because of religious reasons, the overwhelming majority of people who actively do do so for secular reasons, and in fact a good proportion of them if not a majority are not religious at all.
Even poverty-reduction isn't really a Christian belief. Sure, some Christians support it; but not all do, and I suspect that because of the secularism-liberalism connection, you'll find that in the USA there will be a positive correlation between secularism and support of social and government measures to help the poor. Even if you look at the organizations that do most to combat poverty, religious ones aren't as strong as you would like them to be. The main reason people support within-country poverty reduction seems to be that they're poor themselves.
Third-world poverty reduction is more complex, but some of the most proactive measures taken for it are utilitarian, and most of the rest are completely secular. The main organizations pressing for slicing farm aid, possibly the only poverty-reduction scheme with a negative cost, are the UN and various free-trade organizations. As far as increased aid and debt forgiveness go, I don't see any overrepresentation of Christians among the activists pushing for these measures. Anyone who can be convinced by the it's-our-religious-duty argument to support more development aid can be convinced by Live8live's it's-our-human-duty.#: Posted by Alon Levy on 01/04 at 09:22 PM