Can it be that the New York Times is finally recognizing that, yes, godlessness is an acceptable view in America? Perhaps, for they’ve published some atheist pieces lately, and the latest is Susan Jacoby’s “Sick and Tired of ‘God Bless America’” which is in this week’s Sunday Review section. Her pro-atheist-and-secularist piece is headed by the strange photo below. Did Jesus write that himself? If so, it’s Proof of Heaven!
Jacoby argues four points. I agree in principle with all of them, but I think it’s naive to ask for the first three right now.
a. There should be more nonreligious candidates; all of the ones we have pander to faith—even Democrats.
Hillary Clinton repeatedly refers to her Methodist upbringing, and even Bernie Sanders — a cultural Jew not known to belong to a synagogue — squirms when asked whether he believes in God. When Jimmy Kimmel posed the question, Mr. Sanders replied in a fog of words at odds with his usual blunt style: “I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we’re all in this together.” He once referred to a “belief in God” that requires him to follow the Golden Rule — a quote his supporters seem to trot out whenever someone suggests he’s an atheist or agnostic.
Yes, but Sanders is canny. A candidate who openly espouses nonbelief is a candidate who will lose, so I don’t have tremendous objections to Sanders’ waffling. We all know what he is. Remember, the latest Pew statistics show that half of Americans would be less likely to vote for an atheist for President and only 6% more likely. Nonbelief is the biggest liability a candidate can have:
So I think it’s premature for Jacoby to ask for candidates to be honest if they’re nonbelievers.
b. Candidates should woo the nonbelievers, as our number is substantial.
Yes, America is still a predominantly Christian nation, but evangelical Christians (including multiple Protestant denominations), at 25.4 percent, are the only group larger than those who don’t belong to any church. At 22.8 percent, according to Pew, the unchurched make up a larger group than Catholics, any single Protestant denomination and small minorities of Jews, Muslims and Hindus.
. . . Secularists remain politically weak in part because of the reluctance of many, especially the young, to become “joiners.” Rejection of labels may be one reason so many of the religiously unaffiliated prefer to check “nothing in particular” rather than the atheist or agnostic box.
True, but among the 22.8% of “nones” we find that just 4% of Americans describe themselves as “agnostics” and only 3.1% as “atheists.” Most of the “nones” seem to be either god-believers who haven’t found an established church, or those people who are “spiritual” and have a “belief in belief.” Courting that small 7% of voters risks alienating the much larger number of people who are watching what you say, and will suspect you of perfidious atheism! Even emphasizing that church and state should be kept separate risks losing some of your Democratic voters: you’ll never hear Sanders or Clinton taking even that moderate (and Constitutional!) stand.
c. Nonbelievers should ally themselves with liberal religious people, for we have common causes.
I suppose I must be a “soft” atheist for believing that there is a huge political upside to ad hoc coalitions with liberal religious groups.
Freedom of conscience for all — which exists only in secular democracies — should be at the top of the list of shared concerns. Candidates who rightly denounce the persecution of Christians by radical Islamists should be ashamed of themselves for not expressing equal indignation at the persecution of freethinkers and atheists, as well as dissenting Muslims and small religious sects, not only by terrorists but also by theocracies like Saudi Arabia. With liberal religious allies, it would be easier for secularists to hold candidates to account when they talk as if freedom of conscience is a human right only for the religious.
Even more critical is the necessity of reclaiming the language of religious freedom from the far right. As defined by many pandering politicians, “religious freedom” is in danger of becoming code for accepting public money while imposing faith-based values on others.
Anyone who dismisses the importance of taking back this language should consider the gravity of the mistake made by supporters of legal abortion when they allowed the anti-abortion movement to claim the term “pro-life” after Roe v. Wade.
I agree in principle, but how many candidates are going to publicly call for an end to persecution of nonbelievers, especially by “allies” like Saudi Arabia? Even Obama can’t bring himself to do that. While he and other speak of a need for “human rights,” they’re rarely explicit about the persecution of infidels and apostates. As for language, yes, I agree, but it’s more important to argue for abortion itself than about the terms people use. The reason Americans are becoming more abortion-friendly has nothing to do with language and everything to do with the arc of the moral universe.
As I said, I agree with Jacoby’s sentiments, but I think it’s a bit naive to begin publicly arguing that American should curb its bias against nonbelief and secularism. And I’m not sure how valuable it will be to ally ourselves with the faithful over secularist causes. By all means we should work with the faithful who favor abortion, gay marriage, and other progressive causes, and we should certainly stand with religious people who are in favor of secularism. But the latter are few.
My solution is to keep publicly espousing nonbelief, criticizing faith, and pointing out (as Jacoby has) the unconscionable osculation of faith by politicians. Once nonbelief has reached a certain critical threshold, it will automatically behoove candidates to take it into account. But we’re not there yet. I will take the liberty of adding my own prescription, which is mine. It’s coming now. . . here it is (it’s mine):
Reporters should start asking politicians tough questions about their faith. If they say they place God over the Constitution (as Cruz has), ask them to clarify that. What if God asks them to do something against the Constitution? If politicans claim that they take orders or political advice from God, ask them what that advice is. Ask them what they think about teaching evolution in public schools, about the problem of climate change, or about the the growing number of nonbelievers in America. Reporters should do their jobs!
So I do agree with Jacoby when she says this:
Secularists must hold candidates to account when they insult secular values, whether that means challenging them in town hall meetings or withholding donations. Why, for example, would any secular Republican (yes, there are some) think of supporting the many Republican politicians who have denied the scientific validity of evolution? Politicians will continue to ignore secular Americans until they are convinced that there is a price to be paid for doing so.
It’s just that reporters have more of an opportunity and license to do this than does the average citizen.
d. Politicians should stop bringing up God all the time. Here I’m completely on board with Jacoby:
“God bless America” has become the standard ending of every major political speech. Just once in my life, I would like the chance to vote for a presidential candidate who ends his or her appeals with Thomas Paine’s observation that “the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.”
Remember: the use of “God bless America” to end a speech is a new phenomenon, for it wasn’t used until Nixon said it in 1973 when giving a speech from the White House about Watergate—not an auspicious beginning. And it didn’t become omnipresent until Reagan started using it. It’s time to retire that trite and useless phrase. Why should God bless America more than any other land—even if He does exist? And if he does exist, why are we so special? It’s like asking God to bless the Denver Broncos in the Superbowl.
And, for grins:
I just heard Ted Cruz's first words on his Iowa caucus win: "To God goes the glory."
That's Republican for "Allahu Akbar!"— hend amry (@LibyaLiberty) February 2, 2016
h/t: Greg Mayer, Blue
sub
I had no idea Jebus did digital smoke writing. Must be a miracle.
He needs to work on his penmanship though.
Yes, I am surprised that Jebus did not calm the winds to allow the smoke to stay in place, at least until the photo was taken.
D*g works in mysterious ways. The writing was for someone either several hundred feet above this photographer, or a half-mile or so forward and a little left of the photographer.
This photographer has stolen Jeebus’ message to someone else!
I think it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea to ally with liberal theists. The problem is, how many of them want to ally with us? They are generally terrified of their more conservative brethren, being reluctant to ever speak against them. They buy into the idea that atheists are somehow “bad”. I also have my suspicions that they realize their claims are just as much nonsense as the claims of conservative theists, and like any human being, don’t like to realize that they are wrong.
I’ve had mixed experience in this regard. Since I refuse to not respond when a liberal theist offers sanctimonious god-observations, I have had some decide I’m too “strident” and “un-friend” me. But there are some who are mature enough to understand the importance of secular public values and who manage to tolerate our difference since we agree on nearly everything of substance.
As an organist that works for a progressive, liberal congregation (until recently I’ve been trying to jump tracks to teaching or getting a different degree, but as I’ve received rejection after rejection I am beginning to think I am just stuck here), I agree that even liberal theists want to keep their distance from atheists. I don’t agree, however, that they are reluctant to criticize conservative, regressive theists. I see them do it all the time. It’s just that their criticism misses the mark. They only criticize the specific bad actions conservative theists engage in and don’t criticize the underlying causes: the idea that faith (sensu Boghossian) is a virtue, the idea that having strong convictions, regardless of what those convictions are, is a virtue, the idea that skepticism is a dirty word and that the scientific and/or unapologetically rational enterprises are too hubristic, etc.
As always, it comes down to exactly what is meant by “teaming up” with religious liberals. On what, and to what extent?
I don’t think I’ve ever met an atheist so “hard” that they refuse to ally themselves with theists ever, in any way, no matter what the situation. Such a straw man couldn’t even be propped up at a dinner table, to break bread or eat pie with a Dreaded Enemy.
The same may not be true if we’re talking about the other way around. People who believe in demons and Satan might very well avoid being in the same room with an atheist, let alone inviting a humanist organization to help raise funds for a new cat shelter, or whatever.
and we’ve had evidence of this with, hmmm, what was the big heart or cancer group that said essentially “we don’t want to be associated with atheists” because they didn’t want to evidently offend their goddy contributors?
I don’t think this is totally true. Yes, if you have a blah candidate, atheism would doom him. But what if Donald Trump admitted to being an atheist? It might well be forgiven in an eyeblink. Because motivated reasoning.
The polls, I think, are not relevant, because people aren’t being confronted with real candidates, but ones that their minds conjure up. Imaginary atheists only have flaws, no virtues.
Point C was debated at a Council for Inquiry symposium in 2006 with Sam Harris opposing alliances between secular humanists and liberal believers and my father (Van Harvey) speaking in favor.
Later a (2006) writeup about Sam Harris in the Washington Post quoted some remarks Pops made at that debate in the same short paragraph with something said about Harris by Reza Aslan giving the impression Pops and RA are largely in substantial agreement in their critique of Sam Harris.
They aren’t.
=-=-=
The song “God Bless America” is by Irving Berlin, a Russian Jew, born Israel Isidore Baline. At age 6, he saw his village destroyed by an anti-Jewish pogrom. How many singers of this song know or acknowledge this?
So, it’s still in copyright? And anyone who sings or intones it at anything more substantial than a family gathering, is due to pay the Berlin estate the appropriate fee?
Is the Berlin estate pursuing these fees?
I don’t think you see JLH’s point, Aidan.
IT’s a potential way of stopping them doing that?
Er, who doing what, now?
My impression of Jon’s point was that all the self-righteous, put-America-first, evangelicals and fundamentalists who just love hearing (and forcing others to hear) “God Bless America” should be a little humbled if they realized how unlike them (yet how classically American) the gifted author of this song actually was. (And I should have worked some dog-whistles for Judaism & immigrant in there somewhere.)
Oh, I was just thinking of a way of taking their ball away from them. If they like singing that song, and they’re not nice people, then pissing in their pot is a good way of getting them to turn a really delicate shade of purple as they build up to their apoplectic fit.
Doh! Sorry you had to put it in crayon for me.
Actually the royalties go to the Boy Scouts of American and the Girl Scouts of the USA.
Aren’t they both Christian organizations, BTW? You’d think the Weizman Institute of Science would at least get a cut.
Not the Girl Scouts. They pride themselves on their all-inclusiveness.
BSA is not Christian, per se. They are religious, though, and do not allow atheists or agnostics to participate. Mormons are into it big-time as are more traditional Protestant and Catholic types. You could be Hindu or Muslim, too. But no stinking atheists, thank you. It would undermine the morals of the kids, doncha know.
And when and where the advice was received and the manner of it’s delivery!
I’m afraid, in response to what God’s advice is, they’d simply list their own social agenda, likely to thunderous applause, whistles and cheers from their audience. Asking, how do you know that’s what God wants, might create some raised eyebrows. Especially if they say God speaks to them in the shower.
Indeed, we need to press for details. As Sam Harris says (paraphrasing heavily), “if someone says God spoke to him and told him to do a certain thing, no one questions it. But if that same person said God spoke to him through his hair dryer, everyone would think he’s a kook. Why does it take a dryer to realize that?”
“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency.”
I love Sam.
I know – his plain statement of facts is at the same time amusing and profound.
Yes! Thanks for finding the real deal!
Susan Jacoby is a very smart person but as the professor said, she is way ahead of herself on this one.
Bernie will have to duck and dodge a lot of crap from the media to leave people with the feeling that he is okay with religion. This will probably be an attack point for the Christian republican party if he should somehow happen to get the nomination from the democrats
The media is not going to go after the religious junk thrown out by Cruz and others in the republican party because they like their jobs and want to keep them.
Jacoby can sing that song from Sam Cooke, that a change is coming, regarding religion, but it won’t get anyone elected.
Yes, but think Overton Window! NYT op-ed, Sunday review section!
We’ve come a long way, baby.
Assume you are talking about GOP Holy War.
I can’t think of any other place in the media you would see even that and it is pretty mild. Explaining how one candidate questions another one’s religious creed is not the same as having a report say – just what kind of advice from g*d will you be taking as Commander and Chief.
The Times may stick their little toe in the door but mostly, we have a long way to go.
This is true.
The WaPo’s been pretty hard on the fundy right too, though. (Until she left to write her latest book, Jacoby wrote a regular column for them.)
I think the US has something odious like Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom (I think Canada got the idea from the US). If politicians can’t openly condemn the killing of atheists and apostates for political reasons (stupid ones as many political reasons are), they can at least kill this office and instead pledge to protect all human rights, including the rights of atheists and apostates to think and feel as they wish without persecution.
I’m really happy that it looks like our new government in Canada is going to let this dastardly office die a quiet death. Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephan Dion sees human rights and theocracy as I do:
I’m feeling nostalgic like never before since Trudeau.
“O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts …
O Canada, We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land, glorious and free!”
I see there’s a definite need for a minor change to the lyrics. How about:
“LET’S keep our land, glorious and free!”
My friend’s 3 year old daughter was taught “O keep our land” instead of “God keep our land”. I didn’t learn the God version at first but they changed it sometime when I was in public school and we were re-taught.
“they changed it sometime when I was in public school…”
Echos of the cold war against the godless reds.
I don’t think so since I grew up during the end of the cold war and if they were going to change it, it would have happened in the 50s. Canada didn’t partake in the red scare as much as the US. We still have a communist party and had one all through the cold war.
May your new government be contagious and flow south like a Thinka Virus.
That’s been my dream since the 1970s.
Oh, yes, I remember the first Trudeau ‘regime’ fondly, too!
There was a “Trudeau coin” of some sorts issued at gas stations. No idea what it was but I had one that I considered lucky and would bring it to exams. I don’t know what happened to it now. It wasn’t very good material and was mostly all rubbed off.
This weekend G*d is too busy listening to football fans to worry about politics. Here is the message from his answering maching:
typo apology: “answering machine
I’m sorry but I’ll have to continue sending my prayers to Joe Pesci, as George Carlin advised. The concussion bowl will go on as usual.
It’s never premature to ask that the right thing be done. Expecting it right now might be premature, though. There’s asking … and then there’s asking.
I suppose the idea of expecting politicians to be honest about anything, especially their non-belief, is naive. If more of them admitted that they don’t believe it would hasten the acceptance of Atheism and Agnosticism, but of course they believe getting elected is their most important task. My son worked for Pete Stark, a long-time congressman from Oakland CA. I was dismayed to find out that he was the only admitted non-believer in the House or the Senate. And that we do exist, I.e. Conservative Atheists, shouldn’t come as any great surprise. Although I hold many liberal opinions, in general I consider myself conservative and I know many others with similar views. The left has no monopoly on rational thinking. Conservatives are simply more likely to keep it to themselves.
“The left has no monopoly on rational thinking. Conservatives are simply more likely to keep it to themselves.”
Why on earth don’t you speak out? Are you satisfied having the Tea Party and Fox News represent you?
Indeed, where is the John Birch Society when you really need them? 😉
lol!
Now, now…
What I don’t understand is why religious insanity is acceptable in America. (belief in sky-fairies and the supernatural is completely wacko), yet that particular form of insanity is applauded in our country and most of the rest of the world. If I stand on a soap box and shout “I am Napoleon Bonaparte”, the guys with the butterfly nets are quickly called, but if I holler, I believe in jesus christ, allah, or the great spirit or something, people cheer and call me a holy man and wise. Personally, I think anyone who believes in the existence of things with out any rational evidence to support those beliefs needs to be kept in a rubber room and fed tranquilizers three times a day. Just sayin.
As dr. House said: You talk to God, you’re religious; if God talks to you, you’re psychotic.
“By all means we should work with the faithful who favor abortion, gay marriage, and other progressive causes, and we should certainly stand with religious people who are in favor of secularism. But the latter are few.”
I think there may be more liberal theists who are willing to work with secularists and for secularism than is readily apparent. I use the cited Pew Poll as evidence. 47% of the respondents are willing to vote for a person who doesn’t believe in God (6%+41%). This 47% is much larger than the 7% who identify as agnostics or atheists. Thus, it seems to me that 40% of the population (47%-40%) are theists of varying degrees of belief who most certainly have secular leanings, otherwise they would never consider voting for a non-believer. Atheists should reach out to this not inconsiderable chunk of the population and attempt to form alliances with it. For me, the primary goal of atheists in the political arena should be to remove religious influences from the public square. It seems to me that liberal theists believe the same thing. In any supposedly democratic society, coalitions of groups whose views are not identical on everything are absolutely necessary to get anything done.
Well said. When it comes to politics, the emphasis should be on secularism rather than theism/atheism.
Indeed. Secularism in fact works in theists’ favor. It ensures that no religious group is privileged over another. I desperately wish theists would understand this.
I know, right?! It’s like all those right wing anti-government loudmouths who’re yet so happy to have their Medicare, Social Security, civic services…
“Even emphasizing that church and state should be kept separate risks losing some of your Democratic voters: you’ll never hear Sanders or Clinton taking even that moderate (and Constitutional!) stand.”
Sorry, PCC, but I think that statement is demonstrably false. I guess it depends on how you define “emphasize,” but Clinton is on the record answering very clearly and directly on this issue. See, for example, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/01/hillary-clinton-defends-separation-of-church-and-state/
20% of people would be less likely to vote for a candidate who smoked pot? I don’t know if that’s more or less ridiculous than not voting for atheists. Surely, almost no one cares if a President enjoys a cocktail, and alcohol is far more detrimental to society than weed can ever hope to be.
And I would go so far as to guess that many of the people in that 20% have smoked it themselves.
W was the President that you could sit down and have a beer with. We should elect a guy who you could sit down in roll a joint and read the God Delusion with. That’d be progress!
Yes, but did they inhale?
Me — I tried it once in college, but I never exhaled. 🙂
Never exhaled? I find myself in a similar situation when watching the Republican debates. I just hope that holding in long enough will result in their statements seeming coherent, but it never works.
Here’s how I would answer the survey:
Has served in the military – Wouldn’t matter
Attended prestigious university – Wouldn’t matter
Is Catholic – Less likely
Is an evangelical Christian – Less Likely
Is Jewish – Wouldn’t matter
Has Longtime Washington experience – Wouldn’t matter
Has used marijuana in the past – More likely
Is Mormon – Less likely
Is gay or lesbian – More likely
Had personal financial troubles – More likely
Had extramarital affair in past – Wouldn’t matter
Is Muslim – Wouldn’t matter
Does not believe in g*d – More likely
Of course these answers are contingent on the notion of all else being equal. I wouldn’t vote for an atheist who was a social regressive, for example. I realize that my answers show a bias against certain religious
cultsdenominations. BFD.Since 9/11, many baseball stadiums have supplanted “Take Me Out To The Ballgame” with “God Bless America” at the 7th inning stretch. But not Wrigley and the Chicago Cubs!
I thought those who did GBA also did TMOTTB.
(I agree with you that they should get rid of GBA. Unfortunately that’s an easy tradition to start but not to drop, without stirring up a huge controversy…And I’d like to see baseball stay as apolitical as possible!)
I think the language we use to differentiate ourselves from the religious already puts us behind the eight ball. Most of the words seem to imply a negative, an absence of something, as though belief in the supernatural were the natural order of things, making us the odd ones out.
To combat this particular bias, I think we need to challenge the language used, just as the gender bias in languageis being challenged.
To this end, when asked if I am a believer, I say that I am a reasoner; when asked if I believe in god, I say that I believe in reason and logic.
sub
There are few things more uncomfortable to watch than Hillary Clinton responding to a question about her faith at a town-hall meeting.
For all I know, she may be (as she claims) a devout Methodist whose religious beliefs deeply inform her personal life and political philosophy (though you can color me skeptical). But even if so, the words she speaks do not convey this. Her responses are meant to accomplish just two tasks — to blunt any potential damage to her political ambitions, and to pick up any stray undecided voters by pandering.
Her insincerity in such situations is palpable.
Good to see these comments. By posting here I am going to imagine I’m on the front lines of the Culture Wars. Perhaps I am. I know I’d like to be because we are definitely in a war whether we’re fighting or not. To leave the field to those who would impose the equivalent of Sharia law on this country–those of us that is, who are not in thrall to ancient mythology–is defeatist, irresponsible and downright unpatriotic! Will we allow America to be dragged back to the Middle Ages? The fires of the Inquisition have never quite burned out. Did you catch the preacher who was presenting Ted Cruz talk about how gay people should be executed? Right, killed. Please. Next week, the Cargo Cult…