January 09, 2004
BONDAGE (via Robert D):
Gott Mit Uns: Shibboleths in presidential politics (Julian Sanchez, 1/07/04, Reason)
Perhaps, then, America's affinity for religious politicians has less to do with policy than with signaling affective bonds. Sociologist Rodney Stark has long argued that religion originates and flourishes primarily because of the social function it serves. According to Stark, "success is really about relationships and not about faith. What happens is that people form relationships and only then come to embrace a religion. It doesn't happen the other way around." Stark's research suggests that while new converts to a particular faith typically aver that their reasons for joining the group have to do with theological doctrine, they seldom even know precisely what those doctrines are until well after they've become members of the relevant religious community.Amy Sullivan, writing in the The Washington Monthly, credits George W. Bush's facility with this sort of signaling. In his 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush told the country that "there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." As Sullivan notes, Bush's language there echoes an old gospel song, which says "There is power, power, wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb." There's no obvious policy significance to the reference; it's what Will Saletan would call an associational framing technique. A piece of rhetoric which passes unnoticed by most listeners serves as a coded message to Evangelicals, a shibboleth. He's signaling: "I'm one of you; I speak your language."
But the Pew survey's findings suggest that this, too, can only be a partial explanation. Even among self-identified secularists, 58 percent believe that Bush's religious views influence his politics "too little" or the "right amount." At a time when Islam has, to put it mildly, a public relations problem in the United States, only 38 percent of respondents—the vast majority of whom were almost certainly Christians of one flavor or another—said they would be reluctant to vote for an otherwise well-qualified Muslim candidate. More than half would have similar reservations about electing an Atheist. In short, it seems that voters care less about whether a candidate shares their religion than about whether he adheres to some religion or other.
Perhaps we see religion as an answer to one of the oldest political problems. If we prefer the rule of law to the rule of men, we must ask, with the Roman satirist Juvenal, quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Who watches the watchmen? In other words, when we cede power to political authorities to protect us, who will ensure that they don't use that power to serve their own interests at our expense? Democracy itself provides one check, but a highly imperfect one.
The answer religion provides is that perhaps nobody needs to be actually watching the watchmen, so long as they believe that they are always being watched—and being held accountable—by a power more informed and perceptive than even the electorate. To borrow Nietzsche's provocative term, we may want to ensure that our political masters are bound by a slave morality—which is to say, an ethos characterized by humility and empathy with the powerless, one in which the "will to power" is suppressed. Social theorist Jane Jacobs suggested in her book Systems of Survival that everyday commercial life and the sphere of government are (ideally) governed by distinct "moral syndromes." We don't much object when private citizens act through the market to pursue their own self-interest; such behavior tends to benefit us all in the long run. But we want those who wield political power to play by different rules. So we may want political leaders to express deference to religious principles, even if we don't adhere to the same principles in our private lives.
That seems an exceptionally smart reading of the situation, that we want our leader to have a moral compass that he follows and which binds his use of power. Atheists having no such thing are thereby disqualified, but the particular sect of a religious person doesn't much matter. A politician with no religion, like one with no wife and children, suggests that he is not knit in any serious way into the society and must remain inherently untrustworthy. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 9, 2004 03:07 PM
It would seem to be a bare bones, or minimal kniting requirement, re: Clinton.
I agree that that appears to be the way voters think.
That, however, just shows how silly they are. Which way is the moral compass of the Catholic hierarchy pointing?
Who would you trust your young child with, a priest or an atheist?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 9, 2004 04:13 PM"Atheists having no such thing ..."
Oh, but they do. It is just as reliable and complete as the one religionists use.
History makes the point persuasively.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 9, 2004 07:38 PMIn Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Bolshevik Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia...
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2004 08:02 PMIt seems like you'd rather vote for a philandering Christian like Clinton than an honest agnostic or atheist. That's your privilege, but I find it odd.
Posted by: Erich Schwarz at January 9, 2004 08:08 PMThere are plenty of atheists in local and state office; This analysis applies only to Presidential politics, and to Congressional races in places where religion is more publicly flaunted or displayed.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 9, 2004 08:34 PMIf there were no need to watch the watchman for religious men, then why do we have a separation of powers? History has proved that belief is no watchman.
These polls are consistent in the 50% or so disapproval rating, but I really wonder if they would hold up in a real life election. People distrust athiests in the abstract, but in general have less problem relating to real life athiests that they know and who share their values. My wife and I are both atheists and are quite "well knitted" into our community. Our religious neighbors, aware of our religious status, have no problem accepting us. Get away from your computer once in a while OJ, and go meet some real atheists, instead of the straw ones you keep handy.
Jesse Ventura, while not an athiest, made a famously anti-religious statement when he called religion a crutch for weak-minded people. I don't think that it hurt him that much in the election.
Posted by: Robert D at January 9, 2004 08:35 PMof course they need watching, they're sinners.
Jesse "one term" Ventura?
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2004 08:53 PMSo if you have to watch them anyhow, what is the point of requiring them to be believers?
Reminds me of the Monty Python Cheeze Shop skit.
"Greetings, my fine candidate, I wonder if you could provide me with some strong moral leadership".
"Why, of course sir, I am a God-fearing believer!"
"Excellent! Can I trust you to resist any temptation to sell your influence for money?"
"..er. Clean out of that, sir! Have some more tomorrow!"
"I see. Perhaps you will provide an example of marital fidelity and rectitude to our young?"
"Ay yes,.. darn, cat's got it!"
"You do provide MORAL leadership, don't you?"
"Why, of course sir, I am a God-fearing believer!"
etc. etc.
You guys have this bizarre view of morality, as if simply recognizing right and wrong made folks incapable of doing wrong. It hopefully makes you less likely, but as the great man said: Trust, but verify.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2004 09:56 PMOJ, you have this bizarre view of morality, as if simply dis-believing in god prevents you from recognizing right and wrong. God is a philosophical proposition with no physical or experiential evidence to back it. Right and wrong are matters of the utmost practical importance to every living person, and requiring no philocophical grounding in a supernatural realm.
But if you make it a pre-requisite for high office, expect more smarmy, Dean-like pandering to the religious sensibilities of Joe and Jane Bloe of Red State, USA. Bill Clinton could open a school of religious fakery for aspiring candidates, and maybe Jimmie Swaggert could teach a class in pre-scandal confession.
Posted by: Robert D at January 9, 2004 10:35 PMAtheists can be moral to precisely the extent they conform to the ambient Judeo-Christian morality. The Democrats are welcome to nominate all the Deans and Clintons they want--they'll lose.
Posted by: oj at January 9, 2004 10:47 PM"There are plenty of atheists in local and state office"
But none in foxholes.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 10, 2004 01:29 AMRobert D:
Hilarious, and exactly on point. My hat's off to you.
Robert Schwartz:
Beware making absolute statements, because they are akin to trying to prove a negative.
There are atheists in foxholes. How do I know? I am one, and I've been in one.
What is more, it is difficult to think of a single line that more likely to simultaneously insult both believers and non-believers.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 10, 2004 12:05 PMThank you for your service Jeff! Mr Schwartz, of all the prejudiced stereotypes against athiests, this is one of the lowest. It belittles true patriotism and sacrifice. Though never in combat myself, I served my country in the Marine Corps and was willing and ready to go to battle, if asked.
Some notable athiests who have served in battle: Ted Williams & Kurt Vonnegut. It is notable that C.S Lewis saw battle in WWI while still an athiest, and didn't convert until later in life. No mention in "Surprised by Joy", as far as I remember, that his experience in the trenches was a factor in his conversion.
The trenches of WWI probably created more athiests than believers.
Posted by: Robert D at January 10, 2004 02:22 PMRobert --
What that saying means depends entirely on context. I've always thought it as much a diminishment of belief as of atheists.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 10, 2004 03:44 PMThe problem atheists face in getting elected is that, should their religious prediliction become known, it repudiates the religious beliefs of most voters.
Jews have that same problem. Christians and Jews have that problem in Utah, where Mormons don't.
Which is unfortunate, since one's religious beliefs don't appear to have a darn thing with what people actually do in office.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 10, 2004 04:10 PMHitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...
Posted by: oj at January 10, 2004 04:22 PMOJ:
I wasn't aware that the job position of Dictator was considered an elected office in the United States, which is clearly where I was confining my comments.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 11, 2004 09:00 AMThey're why we don't elect Rationalists.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 09:05 AMThat you know of.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 11, 2004 12:41 PM"Atheists can be moral to precisely the extent they conform to the ambient Judeo-Christian morality."
Which is my point. It's the morality that matters, not the belief.
And the ambient Judeo-Christian morality can be moral to precisely the extent that it conforms to True morality. The problem is, who represents the ambient Judeo-Christian morality? Eugene Robinson or Pat Robertson? Jimmy Carter or George W Bush?
Posted by: Robert D at January 11, 2004 05:36 PMRobert:
Yes, that's precisely the sense in which atheism freeloads.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 06:20 PMChristianity has no copyright on morality.
Posted by: Robert D at January 11, 2004 06:33 PMNo, that's right, you're allowed to ape it, since you can't arrive at any under your Rationalist view.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 06:47 PMYou still haven't answered my question. Which Judeo-Christian morality are you referring to?
Since the basic rules of morality arose in several separate civilizations which all predate Christianity, it's copyright application would seem to be a long shot. Sorta like Ford applying for a patent on the wheel.
Posted by: Robert D at January 11, 2004 06:58 PMRobert:
OJ refuses to acknowledge the possibility that Judeo-Christian morality is no more absolute or objective than the rational/materialist kind. So don't expect an answer to your question. Or a meaningful one, anyway.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 11, 2004 07:03 PMI'm not aware of any differences in Judeo-Christian morality across sects.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 07:40 PMWell, one particular sect seems to think it is OK to have an openly gay bishop. The rest don't.
Some sects seem to think there are cases where abortion is OK, others admit none.
Some think artificial birth control is OK, others don't.
Some don't mind capital punishment. Others do.
etc.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 11, 2004 09:14 PMNone diverge from classic morality. The pro-abortion churches are forced to deny personhood. Capital punishment isn't held to be immoral, just something we should not do. Ditto with just war theory. Etc. They're all rather conformist even when in error.
Posted by: oj at January 11, 2004 10:39 PMOK. What is this "classic" morality you speak of?
It seems they are all taking considered, moral, positions on various issues. If the morality is in fact objective, there isn't any room for feeling strongly both ways on these things.
There are always people who want to get out from under morality--it's a pain to adhere to. And we are capable of extending legal protections--ending slavery, opposing capital punishment--even where morality does not require it. But the morality is unchanging.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 08:16 AMOJ: What is it, this morality that is unchanging?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 12, 2004 12:39 PMThe Commandments.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 12:40 PMHairsplitting, Orrin. What people do is what they really believe. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it, would they?
Nobody who believes in Hell steals hubcaps.
What people say their moral beliefs are frequently has nothing to do with what their moral beliefs are.
And I am aware of fundamental differences in morality across sects. The requirement for a personal salvation through Jesus, for example.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 12, 2004 12:45 PMHarry:
That's complete nonsense. People who believe in morality still sin--we're all sinners--and people hide their sins from one another precisely because they don't believe it's okay to engage in them
And personal salvation isn't a morality.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 01:25 PMSome people who steal hubcaps believe in Hell, but, they:
Believe that they can make it up later, through better living or monetary contributions or deathbed repentance.
Are too carnally driven to care about eventual spiritual consequences, such as drug addicts.
Believe that they are not worthy of Heaven.
Think of themselves as already damned.
Although, I would agree, believing in a morality that one doesn't follow is only slightly better than not knowing any morality, and can actually be worse from a spiritual standpoint.
Posted by: THX 1138 at January 12, 2004 04:15 PMSo what is it about the 10 Commandments that distinguishes Judeo-Christian morality from all the other religiously based moralities on the block?
And it does rather seem that whole graven image thing is taken less than completely seriously.
Never mind elements of morality that don't appear in the Commandments. Homosexuality for one, witches for another, heretics for a third.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 12, 2004 05:07 PMWitches worship things other than God, which is what the graven image provision forbids.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 05:34 PMMore hairsplitting, Orrin. If we are moral only to be saved, and if we can be saved only by accepting Jesus as our personal savior, then personal salvation is morality.
It's a behavior. Morality is nothing but behavior. If a person fails to worship graven images out of slothfulness, he's just as moral as one who refuses to worship them from conscience.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 12, 2004 05:56 PMMore hairsplitting, Orrin. If we are moral only to be saved, and if we can be saved only by accepting Jesus as our personal savior, then personal salvation is morality.
It's a behavior. Morality is nothing but behavior. If a person fails to worship graven images out of slothfulness, he's just as moral as one who refuses to worship them from conscience.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 12, 2004 05:56 PMMore hairsplitting, Orrin. If we are moral only to be saved, and if we can be saved only by accepting Jesus as our personal savior, then personal salvation is morality.
It's a behavior. Morality is nothing but behavior. If a person fails to worship graven images out of slothfulness, he's just as moral as one who refuses to worship them from conscience.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 12, 2004 05:56 PM"And we are capable of extending legal protections--ending slavery, opposing capital punishment--even where morality does not require it"
OJ, you don't think that morality required us to end slavery? You've just repudiated the founding principle of our nation if that is the case.
Posted by: Robert D at January 12, 2004 06:23 PMRobert:
Not if they weren't Men. That's the same way we get around abortion--simply deny babies are Men.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 07:10 PMHarry:
Being moral doesn't save you. We're required to be moral becauuse God ordered it, not because there are any benefits attached.
Morality isn't a transaction. Man can not bind God simply by acts.
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 07:12 PMI'm still waiting for some guidance on what it is about the 10 Commandments that distinguishes Judeo-Christian morality from all the other religiously based moralities on the block.
And where in the Ten Commandments homosexuality and heresy are condemned, or that God directed burning at the stake women who, in some prelates fevered imagination, were witches.
Oh, and while you are at it, perhaps you could give some guidance on which 10 Commandments. It seems there is some disagreement over just which ones they are.
Depending on which you read, graven images are a very bad thing, or no thing at all.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 12, 2004 08:59 PMThou Shalt have no other God...
Posted by: oj at January 12, 2004 09:07 PMA graven image is not God.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 13, 2004 07:35 AMPrecisely, so when people worship material things--as with folks like you elevating Nature and yourselves to the status of a God--the commandment is violated. Only God is God.
Posted by: oj at January 13, 2004 07:44 AMHe's lost interest then. He used to smite the worshipers of graven images pretty hard. Nowadays, we get a pass.
What changed his Mind?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 13, 2004 11:43 AMOJ:
"... as with folks like you elevating ...yourselves to the status of a God."
If the word "God" has any meaning, that statement is both pointlessly insulting, and ridiculous.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 13, 2004 12:52 PMJeff:
It is insulting, but blasphemy of your type is accepted vbetter nowaadays, as Harry points out. Personally, I'm pro-smiting.
Posted by: oj at January 13, 2004 02:21 PMWhat blasphemy?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 15, 2004 08:01 AM