Should we take into consideration someone’s religion when we decide to vote for him or her? I’ve decided that we should. All things equal, an atheist (especially one who gives good reasons for nonbelief) is preferable to a believer, especially an ardent one. And, among believers, some are more delusional than others: I’d prefer, for instance, a Unitarian Universalist over a Mormon, or a Quaker over a Jehovah’s Witness.
It’s especially important when one’s religion dictates beliefs that are in palpable conflict with reality. That includes, of course, creationism, but also religiously-motivated opposition to things like birth control, anthropogenic global warming, and mandatory vaccinations. I see it as perfectly proper to ask a candidate things like, “Do you think creationism is a valid view of the origin of life?”, and then, if they say “yes,” to ask, “Why?”
Those religions that we should worry about among politicians are those that mandate specific actions or views that we find invidious. It’s no worse to take into account that a candidate is a Mormon than his belief in UFOs or alien abduction. In both cases people believe foolish things on no good grounds, and that speaks to their probity and ability to evaluate evidence. A candidate is free to believe anything he or she wants, but we don’t have to dignify those views with our vote.
One of the Republican Presidential candidates has in fact expressed his religiously-mandated denial of reality: former pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who’s just declared that he’s a Republican candidate for President. Carson, now a surgeon emeritus, is also a Seventh Day Adventist and a creationist (his faith rejects evolution). Carson has claimed that evolution erodes morality (though he later denied he said that), that being gay is a choice, and of course he even denies that evolution happened. I’ve posted about him many times before (see here). Let’s review just two of his comments on creationism and evolution:
From 2004 interview in the Adventist Review:
How does this happen? What are the consequences of accepting evolutionary views of human origins? How does this affect society and the way we see ourselves?
By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there’s no reason for any of our higher values.. . . A few closing thoughts?
Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don’t have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, “I will make myself like the Most High.”
Lucifer! Later, in his 2012 commencement address at Emory University, Carson said this:
“Let me just at the outset say that I know that there was some controversy about my views on creation and somebody thought that I said that evolutionists are not ethical people. Of course I would never say such a thing [JAC: but he did!] and would never believe such a thing nor would anybody with any common sense; so, you know, that’s pretty ridiculous. But any rate, enough said about that.”
Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to “faith”–and I don’t have enough to believe in evolution. I’m too logical!
He doesn’t have enough faith to believe in evolution, for which there’s much evidence, but he does to believe in Lucifer, for which there’s none. The man is delusional.
Carson became a public figure when he dissed Obamacare at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, endearing him to Republicans. (Why do we even have a “Prayer Breakfast” in a supposedly secular country?). It’s also a plus that he’s black, for Republicans are traditionally rejected by black voters, who know which party cares more about the disenfranchised.
In fact, as I’ve noted before, every Republican Presidential aspirant refuses to affirm the truth of evolution, though some of them waffle more about it. But there’s no waffling for Carson, whose faith affirms creationism. That’s reason enough to reject him.
Finally, if you have any remaining respect for the Wall Street Journal, it should be gone by now, for they’re published an editorial endorsing Carson for President! Read an excerpt from that endorsement, “Ben Carson for President“, which extols Carson for his Two Big ideas. What are they?
Late in his talk he dropped two very un-PC ideas. The first is an unusual case for a flat tax: “What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he’s given us a system. It’s called a tithe.
Yep, a Biblically-endorsed flat tax. Sadly, the Bible (at least the New Testament) especially favors the poor, which is the opposite of what a flat tax does. 25% tax to a poor person is a much bigger burden than to a billionaire.
Here’s the other “good idea” in Carson’s words:
“Here’s my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed—pretax—from the time you’re born ’til the time you die. If you die, you can pass it on to your family members, and there’s nobody talking about death panels. We can make contributions for people who are indigent. Instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy, let’s put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. And very quickly they’re going to learn how to be responsible.”
Well, what kind of “contributions” are we talking about? If they’re enough to ensure decent medical care, then he’s actually endorsing Obama’s plan. But I’m sure he doesn’t mean that. What he’s favoring is the notion that you’ll get decent medical treatment only if you earn enough to afford it.
The only good thing about all this is that Carson is too gonzo for even Republicans, and doesn’t stand a chance of being nominated.
Barrel-scraping, indeed. Carson may just be the worst of the bunch. Wow.
Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Just sayin’.
I said ALL ELSE EQUAL!!!!
So was Herbert Hoover, but he distanced himself from Nixon way back, and a further little-known factoid, it was Hoover who convinced Nixon not to contest the 1960 election. I think the source on that is George Nash, but I’m not certain.
And Nixon was a liberal relative to these bunch, too – he met with protesters, worked on the EPA, etc. (This is arguably true of current democrats, as well, not just the republican candidates, I might add.)
Barack Obama, 2008:
United States Senator
Formerly Illinois state Senator
“Not enough political experience”
Ben Carson, 2015:
Zero political positions held
Spent most of a decade selling quack medicine
“He’s perfect!”
Republican logic. Hah!
Precisely.
Precisely. The party of “business”, where the only morality is that of the profit margin.
“that being gay is not a choice”
If he said that he was right. Possible slip?
whoops, a typo. I’ll fix.
I’m not sure I would consider Ben Carson “barrel-scraping” when you look at some of the other candidates of this and past election cycles. Carson’s surely fringe, but think of Herman Cain from 2012 – maybe not as outspoken on evolution, but more outspoken on “morality”. And there’s Rick Santorum, moralist extraordinaire, who’s apparently planning to run again. Getting past those, there is always Sarah “I could have been a Kardashian” Palin. And so on.
Republicans think they have a Big Tent but it is actually a Big Barrel.
I really can’t think of any reasonable motive for this guy to run for president. Even as crazy as his own ideas truly are, he must know himself, that his chances are zero. The African American pizza man who ran in the republican race a few years back had a much greater chance and it was still zero.
On the question of religious beliefs and should they be questioned in the campaign. Yes, just like all other issues should be questioned. Does not mean he or she has to answer but good luck if they refuse.
I’m pretty sure that a reasonable person who has much understanding of the political parties in this county (United States)would think, even if they won’t say it out loud — A black person even if well qualified, could not get elected president in the Republican party.
There is a perfectly reasonable motive for the guys like Carson: they can run for president to raise their profile to land a talk show on Fox and/or sell more of their books.
And meanwhile, by the time we get to the “serious” candidates, they’re bound to look saner and more palatable to mainstream voters by comparison.
It just shows that it’s a big barrel with a really big bottom.
Maybe it’s an Erlenmeyer flask?
oh we’ll need a flask to deal with this election alright, just not an Erlenmeyer…
It’s a petri dish. Nothing but bottom, populated by mold and bacteria.
Here’s a more recent statement by Carson on evolution. It’s from a Faith & Liberty podcast from last year.
Sorry. Blockquote fail. The part starting with ‘Aren’t surgeons required to take biology?’ is supposed to be outside the blockquote.
Good stuff, Jeff.
And didn’t he once say that women need to be re-educated? As in, shipped off to special “camps” in order to teach them the evils of abortion.
One of his beliefs that Jerry hasn’t mentioned is that we’re in the End Times. He’s an eschatologicist. If that doesn’t make him unelectable, nothing will. Trouble is, so many Americans believe that rubbish, and probably like the idea of a president preparing the country to survive the apocalypse!
Didn’t Ronald Reagan believe in End Times? Actually, maybe not, but he at least thought it was a serious possibility. He was a fan of Hal Lindsey, a popular end-of-the-world-is-nigh author.
Of all US presidents with a finger on the button, he’s the one who freaked me out the most. But maybe because I’m not old enough to remember earlier ones.
I think there’s a difference, if the data above are correct. Reagan believed that there *would be* End Times, not that we were living in it, IIRC.
My ammended claim was not that he believed we were in End Days, but that he believed we might be – that it was a serious possibility. That’s bad enough.
Over on ABCnews.com, I posted,
‘”Famed” neurosurgeon? I’m sorry, if I needed brain surgery and only he was available, I think I’d cut my throat.’
That post lasted about half an hour before being deleted by the mods.
What a bunch of wimps.
In fairness, all the evidence we have supports the notion that Carson was an accomplished neurosurgeon, perhaps even more then accomplished. However, as I have argued previously, although not necessarily on this blog, a surgeon is in many respects like an automobile mechanic who works on ICEs. Just as the mechanic doesn’t have to know anything about the physics of ICEs, a surgeon doesn’t have to know much about biology to perform his/her tasks.
Yeah, after looking at my comment, it can be _construed_ as a comment on his surgical skill. I wouldn’t want him near me because of his demonstrable lack of _logical_ (read: sociopolitical) skills.
My bad. I guess.
Yeah, I don’t get that either. He was such a great neurosurgeon, he became a politician??
Why do we even have a “Prayer Breakfast”
More’n likely because free pancakes for whoever voted for it.
The first was in 1953, so I’m going to assume it was part of all that making-a-point-of-difference-with-the-Soviets thing. That’s the same time ‘In God We Trust’ was added to th money, God was added to the pledge of allegiance, and your president of the time became a devout Presbyterian.
Along with his delusional and ignorant world-view, this man is also a megalomaniac. A trait seen in many of the Repub hopefuls. Only an arrogant narcissistic would proudly espouse these ideas as if they were actually credible. Carson knows he won’t get the nomination, but he loves the limelight, the money, the name recognition, and the praise he gets from like minded ignoramuses.
narcissist…the spell check added the -ic…grrr.
He’s so bad, he needs the extra syllable!
Isn’t it absolutely mind blowing that this guy is intelligent enough to be a neurosurgeon and yet so balmy that he believes that Lucifer and creationism are facts?
How is that possible? Is he mentally ill?
The neurologists I once worked with had a joke about brain transplants. The punch line was about getting one from a neurosurgeon, since it was unused.
Of course evolutionary theory predicts that a man will act to save his son’s life. Old Testament theology, not so much.
Yeah, I’m getting really tired of that 2nd grader’s argument about altruism.
Why does he run, or Huckabee? Is this just ego? Do they think they really have something to say? Are they really thinking “hey, I might be able to win this thing!”
I don’t know if it’s been talked about, but Bernie Sanders entered the primary. I kinda see him as the flip-side: Knows he can’t win, but has a lot to say. Maybe that’s just my liberal bias. I hope he gets many chances to have his say. And then Hillary will win the primary. Yea.
I think it’s a given that anyone who runs for President has a big ego. Its practically a requirement to get that far.
However the smarter “no chance” candidates do it because they want to shift their party’s Overton Window on one or more issues. For example, right now it looks like the mainstream GOP is going to try very hard to ignore SSM and let it happen. A major GOP political figure like Santorum who objects to this and wants them to keep fighting against SSM might run just so they can hammer the other candidates about SSM in the primary. He could run in order to force the mainstream candidate to make concessions to the right on it in order to get elected.
Exactly. I suspect Bernie Sanders is running to force Clinton’s economic policy to the left. The religious ones want to keep their opinion of God’s desires in the mix.
Some of these people are looking to be VP, rather than president too.
And as has been said before, long-term it’s a money making vehicle.
He may already be having an effect. Hilary just came out in favor of ‘ending mass incarceration.’ This is a somewhat surprisingly liberal position to take this early, because you know the GOP candidates are going to use it to scream ‘soft on crime!’ So why is she doing it? It could be because Bernie would likely say it if she didn’t, and she wants to appear to be leading on the issue rather than “me to-ing.”
Somebody– may have been Dennis Kucinich — talked about how running for prez is a fabulous experience even when you know you can’t win. People listen to you, reporters report what say, etc. major ego-stroking.
Don’t forget that people like Carson and Cruz and Huckabee and Santorum and Palin actually believe that their destinies are god-driven. “Nothing is impossible for god.” I think they truly believe that polls and political analyses are irrelevant, and that if god wants them to be president they will be elected president, no matter how great the odds against that may appear to us heathens.
“Should we take into consideration someone’s religion when we decide to vote for him or her? I’ve decided that we should. All things equal, an atheist (especially one who gives good reasons for nonbelief) is preferable to a believer, especially an ardent one.”
Do you worry that this principle is mirroring religionists or will be mirrored by religionists? Many religionists say, “Atheism is a sure indicator of a mental deficit; after all, the *fool* has said in his heart that there is no god.” Would a religionist be right (by his or her own lights) to vote against an atheist on the grounds that the atheist does not believe in any gods?
I’m nervous about endorsing principles whereby we take agreement or disagreement with respect to religion to be reason for voting for or against a candidate for political office. It seems to me that we should simply ask direct questions about the policies that matter to us. I don’t have to know that Ben Carson is religious to ask him about his views on abortion policy or homosexual marriage or the place of evolution / creation in public schools or tax policy or … And once I see enough of his substantive views about policy, I’m not sure that his religious beliefs even matter. I wouldn’t vote for an atheist who thought we should enact a flat tax, either.
This is not to say that I can see no reasons in favor of your view. Theism goes together with a number of policy positions with which I disagree, so knowing a candidate’s religious views might be statistically informative about policy views and hence a reason to vote for or against someone. (Though last I checked, the single most informative question for discerning a person’s political position is, “Are you in favor of gun control?”) More interesting and difficult to answer is the question of whether religious belief is actually a sign that a candidate will reason poorly in novel cases or will make irrational or non-optimal decisions when in office. You might be right in thinking that it is a bad sign that someone is religious. But again, I worry about what happens when religionists, who make up a much larger percentage of the population, think along the same lines. (Really, I suspect they already do and that this partially explains why one sometimes sees laws barring atheists from public office.) In any event, it strikes me as unwise to encourage people to care about the religious or anti-religious commitments of candidates for political office given current demographic facts and the fact that we can investigate candidates’ policy positions directly.
Do you share my worries here at all or do you think they can and should be ignored?
You seem to worry and then explain away the same worry in your discussion. If knowing the candidates religion could give you an improved idea of his policies why would you not want it.
Also, the reason for knowing the person’s religion may be the primary or one and only factor that the conservative republican uses in determining who to vote for but it is not mine or yours probably. It is simply a piece of info you can use. If you are dealing with nothing but conservative and right of center republicans, you may not need any additional information.
Oh, where is it that atheists have been barred from political office? I have not seen that law but if so, it would be illegal. At the national level anyway, there is no religious test, based on the constitution.
There are seven states that ban atheists from public office, but the ban has never been tested. Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas. In addition, Pennsylvania provides special protection to theists by stating that no one can be disqualified for stating their religious beliefs provided they acknowledge a Supreme Being.
how about if they acknowledge a burrito supreme? (although personally I prefer the 7-layer burrito)
I think you misunderstand the status of these things in the US legal system. They are not in the “never been tested” category: they are in the “invalidated but not removed from the books” category. Some other countries may do it differently and allow bureaucrats to ‘clean up’ legislation that has been invalidated by the courts, but unfortunately in the US it takes the same process to remove a law as it does to create one. The result is that many invalidated laws stay on the books, because legislators see no point in going to the effort of removing them. In some of your cases (such as Maryland’s), its even worse: the language appears in the state constitution. That would require an even more politically difficult effort to fix, so they just don’t bother.
“You seem to worry and then explain away the same worry in your discussion.”
I wanted to make clear that I recognized some reasons (good ones, even) for Jerry’s position. But on balance, I still think that his position is a mistake, and I wanted to know whether he had thought about his position in the context of “religious tests” more generally, since they have historically been used much more often to the harm of non-believers.
“If knowing the candidates religion could give you an improved idea of his policies why would you not want it.”
I’m actually not sure that knowing a candidate’s religious commitments (or lack of such commitments) *does* give an improved idea of the candidate’s policies. What I do accept is that it is a piece of evidence and maybe an important piece in the absence of other, better evidence. However, I think that direct statements about policy screen off (or at least practically screen off) religious commitments from policy positions. That is, in almost all cases, the probability that a candidate holds policy position X given that she has stated, “I hold position X,” is the same as the probability that she holds position X given that she has both stated, “I hold position X” and also has some specific religious commitment or lack thereof.
My point, then, is that we don’t really have to guess about a candidate’s policy positions or make inferences from their religious commitments. Since I think that religious tests are generally a bad idea and have historically been used against atheists, I want to be *very sure* that we are really gaining something by paying attention to the religious commitments of our political officials, as opposed to conscientiously refusing to pay any attention to religious commitments or affiliations.
I am inclined to believe that similar things can be said about thoughtfulness, competence, overall intelligence, knowledgeableness, and so on. Direct questioning about actual policies provides plenty of evidence about these things, such that knowing a person’s religious commitments is very unlikely to add anything.
Does that strike you as a silly position? Wrong on the facts? Overly cautious?
The way I see it, basic competency in various matters (what those should be, don’t know) should be regarded as the cutoff *by the public*. This is doubly not a religious test for office, since it is not directly religious at all. (If you deny evolution because you’re a Last Thursdayist, say, that’s the same as denying because you are like Ken Ham, for this purpose.) Moreover, it doesn’t make it a matter of law but of education. (Alas, this idea results in severe bootstrapping problems.)
I understand you’re using it as a proxy. I think its still a worse proxy than, say, political party membership. Let’s say you have a GOP atheist and a Democrat evangelical, and you have to guess their position on abortion policy. Which proxy label do you think is better for guessing? I’m going with stated party over stated theology.
Lifelong immersion and indoctrination in beliefs that have powerful political ramifications – how are these people not Manchurian candidates?
As an aside, the only Republican candidate in 2012 who acknowledged he accepted evolution, Jon Huntsman, was called a Manchurian candidate by some fellow Republicans after he spoke a few words of Mandarin during a debate.
Have no fear of a flat tax: that’s just red meat for the GOP hoi polloi. The leadership has no intention of instituting any such thing, because a flat tax has no loopholes and the rich need their loopholes.
We know this to be true because the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) *IS* a flat tax, and they fight against and oppose it at every turn. So we have exactly what they claim what they want already on the books. They need to do nothing but simply let it work or expand it to get the system they claim they want. But they legislate against it, because they don’t really want a flat tax.
May I suggest that when you refer to another stellar article by Jeffrey Tayler again, that you implore your readers to at least click on the Salon link to the article, as a way of beefing up Tayler’s article page hits, which I’m sure are used as a meaningful metric by Salon management. More hits is better for Tayler’s ongoing contribution to Salon and rationality.
Yes, I believe I’ve done that in several previous posts; forgot this time. I did give the link, though, and Tayler gets read a lot more than my site: I believe the piece from yesterday has over 750 comments!
I can’t wait for the republican debates. Should be hilarious.
Ben Carson:
“And people say, ‘Well, you believe the earth is 6,000 years old.’ I didn’t say I believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I do believe in the Bible though. The Bible says ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth,’ period. Now we don’t know how long lapsed between that period and the next sentence. It could have been five years, it could have been 50 billion years. We don’t know the answer to that,” he continued. “But I tell you something else: God is God, and He can create the world any age He wants to. It is very arrogant for any scientist to say, just because they can’t explain it, it doesn’t exist.”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41804_Dr._Ben_Carson_Thinks_the_Earth_Was_Created_6000_Years_Ago
I posted the wrong link above. This is the source of the quote http://m.christianpost.com/news/ben-carson-defines-himself-and-makes-big-impression-at-nan-convention-in-nyc-pastor-a-r-bernard-says-hes-a-leader-137228/
Right, it’s not at all arrogant to say that if you can’t explain it, Goddidditt! Not to mention we actually can explain the things Carson finds inexplicable.
Carson doesn’t seem to know the Bible very well, for all his flagging at around. Jesus said that the widow who tithed a “mite”–all she had to live on–had given more than the rich people who were so proud of their tithing. This is an argument for proportionality. We also have the case of the New Testament church having everything in COMMON and giving from those in abundance to those in need. Yup, communism or socialism. Funny how Carson is satisfied to be a tick on the Bible’s leather cover, sucking from it only its more selfish and maniacal teachings, and leaving behind its three or four decent ideas.
Quaker…prayer breakfast…waffle…I’m sensing a theme. Or it could be because all I had for breakfast was a banana.
Carson might be a master at clipping aneurysms and removing brain tumors, but he knows NOTHING about the human body if he is and evolution denier.
He makes not sense. This paragraph is just nuts:
So many assertions and assumptions on assertions. You can’t prove evolution because evolution and creation are the same and creation is the logical choice. Riiiiiight.
If this guy becomes President I’m looking to go to Mars!
hell, if someone like him becomes president, we won’t be getting anywhere near Mars! With all the science budget cuts, we’d be lucky to have anything even close to the sophistication of the Pauly Shore Bio-dome movie!
Wait, giving someone an individualized, government sponsored catch-all identity and benefits card? How has no one drawn comparisons to the mark of the beast? Shoot, if a democrat were to suggest this sort of system they’d be annihilated by a very vocal group of well funded idiots as the “anti-Christ.” Just goes to further their cognitive dissonance. I’d love to know who the unabashedly racist conservatives (I’m from the south, it’s an immediate concern) would vote for if Caraon starts pickin up real momentum. I see him going out in a very early round of debates. Dudes got surgical chops, no doubt, but just because you’re popular enough to speak at the pulpit doesn’t mean any considerable amount of people actually give a shit. I’m sure Fox News has found a new pet, though.
Those damn babies born with terminal illnesses. They should be more responsible in properly funding their HSA accounts! Yeah, that’ll teach them!
YEAH! They need to pull themselves up with their own bootie straps!* That’s what Reagan did!
*Bootie, as in little baby shoes, not the idiot modern term for a butt.
Its hard to equate a man who is such gifted Surgeon, and he is, with the Idiot who spouts Creationist nonsense !