In his latest column at Slate, Christopher Hitchens ponders the religious beliefs, religious pandering, and antiscientific attitudes of Texas governor Rick Perry.
. . . religion in politics is more like an insurance policy than a true act of faith. Professing allegiance to it seldom does you any harm, at least in Republican primary season, and can do you some good. It’s a question of prudence.
I’d add that so long as professing allegiance to God is not really, really extreme, and is limited to Christianity, it never does a politician any harm. Those disgusted liberals are more than counterbalanced by conservatives and accommodationists who don’t see faith as a flaw.
. . . As usual, though, there is some built-in wiggle room. In 2006 he said that he believed the Bible to be inerrant. He also said that those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell. Pressed a little on the sheer wickedness and stupidity of that last claim, the governor did allow that he himself wasn’t omniscient enough to be sure on such doctrinal matters. He tells us that he is a “firm believer” in the “intelligent design” formulation that is creationism’s latest rhetorical disguise, adding that the “design” could be biblical or could have involved something more complex, but is attributable to the same divine author in any event. Whether he chooses to avail himself of the wiggles or not, Perry can be reasonably sure that the voting base of the theocratic right has picked up his intended message . . .
Hitchens wonders whether Perry really believes the stuff he says, or is simply hustling votes.
. . . And this is what one always wants to know about candidates who flourish the Good Book or who presume to talk about hell and damnation. Do they, themselves, in their heart of hearts, truly believe it? Is there any evidence, if it comes to that, that Perry has ever studied the theory of evolution for long enough to be able to state roughly what it says? And how much textual and hermeneutic work did he do before deciding on the “inerrancy” of Jewish and Christian scripture? It should, of course, be the sincere believers and devout faithful who ask him, and themselves, these questions. But somehow, it never is. The risks of hypocrisy seem forever invisible to the politicized Christians, for whom sufficient proof of faith consists of loud and unambiguous declarations. I am always surprised that more is not heard from sincere religious believers, who have the most to lose if faith becomes a matter of poll-time dogma and lung power.
Of course Perry doesn’t know enough about evolution to pronounce on its validity. I doubt that, for instance, whether he could give a good example of a putative transitional form in the fossil record. I am surprised, though, that Hitchens thinks that asking those hard questions is the purview of religious people. After all, Hitchens was one of the New Atheists who claimed that moderate faiths are also poisonous, as they enable more virulent forms of religion. Why would “sincere religious believers”, then, have anything to lose if politicians loudly proclaim their faith at election time? In many senses religious people, fundamentalist or liberal, are all in the same boat to Wooville.
Well said – it is the purview of all voters to question
I have a sense that Perry has come out foursquare behind the doctrinaire Xtians far earlier vs. election time than others in past elections. If that’s correct, and his polling numbers remain high, he may well be setting himself up for some interesting questions like how he would respond to some situation paraphrased from some biblical tale.
Maybe the overall numbers aren’t changing much, but I think it’s also fair to feel that the numbers at the ends of both sides have increased. At least, I think there’s a growing sense that (blame it on being Saturday) reminds me of the SNL juice sketch, which was quite long. Finally, one character says “It’s time to end-a the sketch”
“Why”
“Audience is getting-a pissed.”
Do they, themselves, in their heart of hearts, truly believe it? … My bet would be that … Perry … doesn’t lose much actual sleep over doctrinal matters, personal saviorhood, and the rest of it. … Is it better to have a candidate who actually believes … or a candidate who half-affects such convictions in the hope of political gain? Either would be depressing. A mixture of the two—not excluded in Perry’s case—would lower the tone nicely.
When a politician says that they believe something, it’s prudent to take them at their word. Hitchens errs in applying to a Republic’s political candidates Machiavelli’s observation from The Prince:
Perry isn’t some clever Machiavellian prince—he’s a Mayberry Machiavelli. The relevant passage from Machiavelli’s Discourses that most applies to Perry’s demagogic appeals is:
Perry actually declared he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible?
Wow. That was a big mistrake. He should have stuck with the dog whistles, instead, because Scylla and Charybdis are looking to become his best buddies real soon now.
He can’t back down from it, or else he’ll piss off his fundagellical base. But, as soon as it becomes apparent that he really hews to it, it becomes a legitimate line of inquiry. Does he really believe in Noah’s Flood? Adam and Eve? Talking animals? He has to admit he does, or he loses his base.
But the sweater might not stop unravelling there. If it becomes an issue — as it almost certainly must if his campaign has any legs — it’ll shine the full spotlight of media attention on the Bible, and I think that’ll shock all sorts of people in all sorts of ways that nobody’s expecting right now. What happens when Perry reaffirms his belief in Noah’s Flood in a debate, and the geologic column becomes the talk of the evening news?
If the press smells the blood I think they will, the whole notion of the Bible as reliable of anything will get blown out of the water. Hector Avalos’s journey will become the country’s. Jefferson’s dream of the equation of Mary with Minerva may actually become reality, precipitated by the fulfillment of the Christian Rights’s dearest wish.
Cheers,
b&
That would be wonderful, but you are dreaming. Having read your comments for a couple of years now I am sure you realize that you are attributing way too much to the general population of voters and the press.
Indeed- something like 40% of Americans believe that Noah’s flood actually happened, and enough of the rest think that it’s a harmless position for someone to hold (instead of being a sign of breathtaking ignorance) that such things do not negatively impact someone’s campaign.
The only people on TV who regularly mock someone for professing inane religious beliefs are the folks on Comedy Central, not CNN or NBC.
But then again, you will only find half decent journalists on Comedy Central, not CNN or NBC.
I mean, how often did you see someone displaying events now and events in history side by side to show how they are the same or different? This is something the daily show does often and to great effect.
When will any ‘real’ journalist start using the footage they have of the people they interview in their interview? As in: Ok, mister X. If you say this now, can you react to this thing a certain mr. X said in the past?
/rant off
I only wish this dream would come true, but I am afraid the “liberal” media would not touch any such examination of the Bible in a political context for fear of being denounced as anti-Christian.
See, that’s the thing. The press are like sharks; if they smell blood, they’ll go after it (unless reigned in by their corporate owners).
If Biblical literalism becomes a focal point of the campaign — and a Perry candidacy would make that more likely than not — then there’s bound to be a “…so we investigated” series of reports. And, in full “present both sides equally whether or not they have equal merit” style, there’ll be somebody from Robertson U machinegunning pulpit soundbites on the “pro” side, and the “con” side will have somebody like Avalos. And once that kind of a debate happens on prime time, a significant fraction public perception will shift from thinking that maybe the Flood referred to the inundation of the Mediterranean to thinking that the Bible is the Aramaic version of Homer.
And, assuming that the discussion goes the way one would expect, the press would think, “Hey, we got lots of ratings debunking the Flood; how ’bout some of these other Bible stories?” They’d smell fresh chum, and the tide will have turned.
Am I being somewhat optimistic? Yes, but I don’t think unreasonably so. It’s a train of events that I think would be hard to stop.
The ways out of it are Perry not becoming a viable candidate (most likely); Perry stepping back from his literalist position (highly unlikely at this point); Perry successfully downplaying the importance of his Biblical literalism (not so likely; it’s an exploitable weakness and downplaying it hurts him with his base); and Obama adopting a quasi-literalist stance of his own (sadly, not as unlikely as I’d wish it were).
Cheers,
b&
“unless reigned in by their corporate owners”
That’s the crux of the biscuit right there, ain’t it? Who do you expect will actually start this rationalist cascade? Even CNN is fairly conservative, so possibly Current, but no one watches that even if they get it. And I think you seriously over-estimate the ratings on a show like that. And the effect on an American audience. Will they be persuaded by actual facts? History says no. I admire your idealism, Ben, but if you want to accomplish something, the methodology needs to be much more insidious.
OTOH, Perry will probably be taken down by his extreme views.
If it happens, I would expect it to start innocently enough. “Rick Perry says he literally believes that Noah’s Flood submerged Everest. What do geologists have to say about that?” It’s something they’d pretty much have to do if he ever gets caught on camera saying as much — and you know that somebody, somewhere is going to challenge him on it.
I could almost feel sorry for the Republicans right about now. It’s too late for anybody else to declare, and they don’t have an electable candidate in the whole lot.
Now, if only we could get somebody to challenge Obama from the left….
b&
Rachael Maddow would probably take a moment to point out how silly all the Bible talk is, but remember that the majority of the viewers also going to be religious, even if they’re “moderates” and Americans have had “you’ve got to respect other people’s religion” drilled into them enough that taking a hard-nosed stance on Rick Perry’s religion would be too likely to backfire.
Ben Goren wrote:
I could almost feel sorry for the Republicans right about now. It’s too late for anybody else to declare, and they don’t have an electable candidate in the whole lot.
That’s a mighty optimistic view, considering that the latest national poll shows Perry 44%, Obama 41%. Of course polls at this stage are less significant than later ones, but I think it shows, at the very least, that Perry is electable.
I can’t help thinking of Heinlein’s sci fi books, there was at least one where the USA was taken over by a bunch of religious nutters and the results were not pretty.
Ben, you forgot Reagan.
The press never went after him, no matter how much chum he threw into the water. The press didn’t go after him because the public didn’t want them to.
The public doesn’t want to be disabused of their religious fantasy, or even of the compromises with common sense that they make to keep their fantasy. Ergo, the press is not going to go after Perry on this issue.
The press didn’t go after George W Bush until his seventh year in (usurped) office, either! No matter what lies he told. No matter how ridiculous and foolhardy his actions.
Or coal rake, seeing the press could get into burning his bunions with whatever means.
Phun aside, are you saying this hasn’t happened in US politics before? It seems unlikely.
I’m pretty sure we’ve never had a major party put forward a literalist candidate. It’s pretty much a requirement that all candidates profess their deep religious beliefs, but they rarely get more specific than that. When they do, they generally paraphrase the non-revolting bits of the Sermon on the Mount.
Get much more specific than that, and you’re guaranteed to piss off multiple denominations with conflicting views.
Cheers,
b&
Ah, thanks! Yes, that makes sense.
Now Perry doesn’t (besides the religious flimflam, I mean). :-/
I suspect untrue grit. All smoke and no content.
“He also said that those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior would be going to hell.”
I saw a clip somewhere this week where Perry said unless everyone accepted Jesus as their savior, no one would be saved. So it’s not enough that he and his supporters are delusional. Everyone else must be too. By force, I imagine.
Yes, that was it. I think it was on Olbermann.
I have started to note that people stop believing in the Yule tomte [en: Santa Claus; sw: jultomten] at 5 years of age, but some still believes in “the god tomte” [sw: “gudtomten”] as adults.
At least some seems to see the equivalence for what it is.
Curiously enough, that’s also the age at which children stop believing in talking animals and wizards with magic wands.
They often enjoy stories about such for at least another five years, and many never get tired of playing make-believe.
Except, as you note, when it comes to religion, in which case even the most insane stories are seriously treated as fact.
But the really bizarre part is how they all dismiss as insane each other’s serious belief in faery tales while simultaneously defensively apologizing for their own belief in faery tales. That’s the bit I still haven’t figured out.
How on Earth can a Christian laugh at a Muslim for thinking that Mohammad rode a flying horse into the sky but take seriously the Ascension?
Cheers,
b&
Generally, religious people rarely take enough time to reflect that the stuff in their holy book is every bit as silly as the stuff in everyone else’s.
I think Microraptor may be on to something. Unconditional faith means ducking cognitive dissonance, and one way to do that is refusing to reflect.
In for a penny god, in for the whole pound of cognitive dissonance.
It’s not just cognitive dissonance, though that’s part of it. There’s also the positive reinforcement effect of having all your peers voicing the same beliefs as you.
If you have some nagging doubt about, say, whether Noah’s flood happened, but Pastor John says it did, and so does Sheriff Smith and Mayor Brown, and your parents, and your wife, ect, it’s easier to convince yourself that those little nagging feelings really aren’t an indication that there’s a serious flaw with the explanation.
I’m not sure what difference it makes if Perry is a true believer or not. If he’s going to sell out to the conservative christians in his party then what he “believes” is about as relevant as a asking what any believer believes. Politicians sell out to the highest bidder and their policies generally have more to do with money in the US than actual belief systems. Christians in Texas have money. But he will push through policy that aligns with Conservative Christian belief in order to keep the cash coming. What does it matter to him if anti-abortion policies hurt young women? It keeps his constituents happy and it’s money in the reelection coffer.
Declaring one’s religious credentials does not seem to harm a politician’s prospects in the US but it certainly would in the UK. Tony Blair held his religious cards very close to his chest while he was still seeking election. Had the public been aware earlier what a complete godidiot he is, he would have been unelectable.
I just finished reading the latest Washington Spectator of Sept 1, 2011 (www.washingtonspectator.org), a four-page dissertation on Rick Perry’s politics. It is so radically upsetting, I can’t at the moment worry about religion-and-politics, except to surmise that political professions of religion are soldered to political robbery of public treasuries. (Although the Spectator now has a blog, I don’t know what they’re publishing on the blog; I subscribe and read it in hard copy).
Lawrence Wright’s New Yorker profile of Perry: “He is among the toughest campaigners the state has ever seen. He specializes in stirring extremist passions, which helps him in primaries. … Stewart were clearly talking past each other—to audiences in two Americas who are no longer within shouting distance of each other.”
This is partly a reply to Ben’s optimism that the press will go after Perry on this, which I don’t share. The press seem to me largely a bunch of accommodationist. However, if all moderate Xtians were like Tony Norman at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a large percentage of the posts on this entire website probably wouldn’t exist:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11228/1167583-153-0.stm
That said, if this Dominionist connection can be substantiated, I think the press will be far more interested in pursuit on those grounds than over evolution.
It will be interesting to see in Australia at the next election, if Tony Abbott is still leader of the opposition, whether his catholic faith is an issue. He trained as a priest for a while and is known (in his own party!) as “The Mad Monk”. Also during his tenure as health minister in a previous government he blocked the approval of RU486, presumably on covert religious grounds. Even my least left wing friends say they wouldn’t vote for him. It would be amusing to go from an atheist to a rabid catholic for PM in one fell swoop!
As an Australian,Tony Abbott isn’t trusted, however the right wing will go with anyone who will win for them. He was Health Minister in a former government and his catholic efforts were foiled. Evolution isn’t an issue in Australia, however, however global warming is.
(subscribing)
Seriously though folks; we don’t believe anything else politicians say. We know they’ll say whatever it takes to get elected. Why would we believe perry on this subject?
Any sort of religious faith should automatically disqualify you from holding any public position that involves decision making. For the simple reason that if you believe things without any evidence to support them on such a grand scale, you can not be trusted at all to take rational, informed decisions in the best public interest.
That it is exactly the opposite in the world we live in means we have a lot of fighting to do, not that we should keep silent about it
Makes sense to me!
(Unfortunately, I think we have a lot of data showing that many people who think/proclaim that they’re strongly religious still behave and decide on a more rational basis. Well, actually that’s fortunate, I guess, but it does allow the cognitive dissonance to persist.)
Rick Perry prayed for rain.
He got fire, instead.
For those who don’t believe in god, there’s the ineffectiveness of prayer in a nutshell.
For those who do believe in god, it certainly says something about whether Rick Perry’s prayers are being listened to.
Were I a good political operative, this would be something I’d use behind the scenes among the tea baggers. If Rick Perry is so favored by god, why are there wildfires in Texas? Why is the drought worse, not better?