MaxedOutMama
Monday, November 22, 2004
Now let's look around
.... the US. Nato and Lancelot Finn have been arguing over whether Europe may get in trouble by barring the religious influence in public life. (See the post below for an introduction.) In one of his recent posts, Lancelot Finn referenced and linked to this article by Jane Daley that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, in which Jane Daley says that the EU is moving away from popular democracy:
"That is why the EU is busily moving away from the idea of government being directly and transparently responsive to the popular will.
"The monstrous global crimes of the 20th century - the collective guilt which is still the motor force of European political consciousness - were all thought to have been generated (or at least condoned) by popular will.
"The political instincts of the people are far too inflammable and mercurial to be trusted. Better leave the serious business of law-making and governance to a professional class of administrators, an enlightened elite who will not be subject to the whims and volatile passions of the mob whose vicissitudes have brought such disgrace on our countries."
And thus European countries can logically come to the conclusion that the majority of the US voting population must be stupid because they voted for Bush. Now in one of Nato's posts he writes:
"So, saying that atheist states have a history of authoritarianism is something of a tautology, and applies to any state expressing any positive position on religion. As with most such pat chains of reasoning, of course, it elides some important distinctions. Norway is nominally Lutheran, for example, but it's difficult to really call it authoritarian, as the state works hard to avoid enabling Lutheran domination. Meanwhile the repression of any ideology that might conflict with "communism" in Poland was both brutal and onerous. The degree of interference with civil rights makes a big difference. In the very history of explicitly atheist states, of course, there are few examples of Norway equivalents and many Polands."
Nato wants religion to die a natural, unaided death by reason's hand, not the hand of a state. Lancelot Finn had earlier argued that inevitably a secularist democratic state would end up suppressing religion on the grounds of the general good, as the only rational choice available. If religion is superstition, than it is false, and why should the state permit the spread of damaging falsehoods? Nato concedes that such a development is possible but says it is not inevitable, and points to the Constitutional protections for religion in this country.
The Constitution is constantly reinterpreted on the basis of people's beliefs and ethical outlook of the time. I have no faith that the Bill of Rights will not be reinterpreted as excluding those with religious beliefs from public political life. This very interpretation is gaining grounds as we speak. Consider this thread from the Democratic Underground, in which the shocking news that Condoleeza Rice is religious is discussed under the header "The Religiously Insane Secretary of State:
"I think people who believe in a creator can never take themselves too seriously. I feel that faith allows me to have a kind of optimism about the future. You look around you and you see an awful lot of pain and suffering and things that are going wrong. It could be oppressive. But when I look at my own story or many others that I have seen, I think, "How could it possibly be that it has turned out this way?" Then my only answer is it's God's plan. And that makes me very optimistic that this is all working out in a proper way if we all stay close to God and pray and follow in His footsteps.
"I really do believe that God will never let you fall too far. There is an old gospel hymn, "He knows how much you can bear." I really do believe that.
"I greatly appreciate, and so does the president, the prayers of the American people. You feel them. You know that they are there. If you just keep doing that, it is so important to all of us."
Followed by various comments of which I give a sampling:
"It's official.... they are all crazy, and very dangerous."
"There is a global epidemic of religious insanity. The main symptom of the disease is that it alters brain chemistry to the point that the inflicted lose touch with reality causing them to manifest behaviors dangerous to their own survival. Unfortunately, their sickness causes harm to the healthy by way of spreading wars."
Someone objects:
"If she weren't the secretary of state and she had said this would she still be described as insane? I mean these seem like pretty mainstream religious sentiments. Describing them as insane seems pretty close to describing being religious as insane."
And others reply:
"You sound like honestly describing real or pretend religious zealotry as being insane is a bad thing."
"In a word, yes."
"Insane? Perhaps not. Self important & delusional? Sure. It's a great way to justify one's success with the pain and suffereing of others due to "God's Plan". Wait, I take that back, it's Insane and Selfish."
So there you have the fact, Nato, that the process Lancelot Finn describes is occurring in this country. You have already conceded that in Europe it is being used to suppress some religious ideas and symbols as being offensive, but you claim that we have constitutional protections in this country against such a development. Well, once those countries did too. Now the law is reinterpreted. Freedom of religious thought, belief and even speech in a church is being redefined to mean freedom of religious thought, belief and speech when it does not conflict with the prevailing secularist belief system. Why is it irrational for religious people in this country to look at these international and local developments and fear the suppression of their civil rights here?
(edited to fix the last question)
"That is why the EU is busily moving away from the idea of government being directly and transparently responsive to the popular will.
"The monstrous global crimes of the 20th century - the collective guilt which is still the motor force of European political consciousness - were all thought to have been generated (or at least condoned) by popular will.
"The political instincts of the people are far too inflammable and mercurial to be trusted. Better leave the serious business of law-making and governance to a professional class of administrators, an enlightened elite who will not be subject to the whims and volatile passions of the mob whose vicissitudes have brought such disgrace on our countries."
And thus European countries can logically come to the conclusion that the majority of the US voting population must be stupid because they voted for Bush. Now in one of Nato's posts he writes:
"So, saying that atheist states have a history of authoritarianism is something of a tautology, and applies to any state expressing any positive position on religion. As with most such pat chains of reasoning, of course, it elides some important distinctions. Norway is nominally Lutheran, for example, but it's difficult to really call it authoritarian, as the state works hard to avoid enabling Lutheran domination. Meanwhile the repression of any ideology that might conflict with "communism" in Poland was both brutal and onerous. The degree of interference with civil rights makes a big difference. In the very history of explicitly atheist states, of course, there are few examples of Norway equivalents and many Polands."
Nato wants religion to die a natural, unaided death by reason's hand, not the hand of a state. Lancelot Finn had earlier argued that inevitably a secularist democratic state would end up suppressing religion on the grounds of the general good, as the only rational choice available. If religion is superstition, than it is false, and why should the state permit the spread of damaging falsehoods? Nato concedes that such a development is possible but says it is not inevitable, and points to the Constitutional protections for religion in this country.
The Constitution is constantly reinterpreted on the basis of people's beliefs and ethical outlook of the time. I have no faith that the Bill of Rights will not be reinterpreted as excluding those with religious beliefs from public political life. This very interpretation is gaining grounds as we speak. Consider this thread from the Democratic Underground, in which the shocking news that Condoleeza Rice is religious is discussed under the header "The Religiously Insane Secretary of State:
"I think people who believe in a creator can never take themselves too seriously. I feel that faith allows me to have a kind of optimism about the future. You look around you and you see an awful lot of pain and suffering and things that are going wrong. It could be oppressive. But when I look at my own story or many others that I have seen, I think, "How could it possibly be that it has turned out this way?" Then my only answer is it's God's plan. And that makes me very optimistic that this is all working out in a proper way if we all stay close to God and pray and follow in His footsteps.
"I really do believe that God will never let you fall too far. There is an old gospel hymn, "He knows how much you can bear." I really do believe that.
"I greatly appreciate, and so does the president, the prayers of the American people. You feel them. You know that they are there. If you just keep doing that, it is so important to all of us."
Followed by various comments of which I give a sampling:
"It's official.... they are all crazy, and very dangerous."
"There is a global epidemic of religious insanity. The main symptom of the disease is that it alters brain chemistry to the point that the inflicted lose touch with reality causing them to manifest behaviors dangerous to their own survival. Unfortunately, their sickness causes harm to the healthy by way of spreading wars."
Someone objects:
"If she weren't the secretary of state and she had said this would she still be described as insane? I mean these seem like pretty mainstream religious sentiments. Describing them as insane seems pretty close to describing being religious as insane."
And others reply:
"You sound like honestly describing real or pretend religious zealotry as being insane is a bad thing."
"In a word, yes."
"Insane? Perhaps not. Self important & delusional? Sure. It's a great way to justify one's success with the pain and suffereing of others due to "God's Plan". Wait, I take that back, it's Insane and Selfish."
So there you have the fact, Nato, that the process Lancelot Finn describes is occurring in this country. You have already conceded that in Europe it is being used to suppress some religious ideas and symbols as being offensive, but you claim that we have constitutional protections in this country against such a development. Well, once those countries did too. Now the law is reinterpreted. Freedom of religious thought, belief and even speech in a church is being redefined to mean freedom of religious thought, belief and speech when it does not conflict with the prevailing secularist belief system. Why is it irrational for religious people in this country to look at these international and local developments and fear the suppression of their civil rights here?
(edited to fix the last question)
Comments:
<< Home
It's not irrational to fear it, for sure. Heck, I fear it in the distant sense I fear being hit by a meteorite. To think that it is actually happening in any significant way is, I think, much more difficult to argue. Compared to the legal and social opprobrium on atheism, that on public religion is nonexistant. Perhaps some snarky secularists will write some snide comments about it, but that doesn't amount to widespread oppression. As for people on the left wing, I can match every comment they make with those on the right saying many of the same things about atheists. That said, I still have a certain responsibility to clean up my side in very much the way the DNC failed to do with people like Mr Moore et al.
It makes more sense to be worried about the international direction of secular tolerance, for certain, though I still think a sense of urgency is somewhat premature. Of course, waiting until it's too late is also a pretty poor choice of action, so I say to all those who want to protest genuine oppression in other countries my blessing, if not my active support. Of course, no one's waiting for my help or approval; I'm merely saying that I'm too busy working on what I perceive as the much more intrusive flip side here in the US. I mean, my brother still can't get married in his state, there are still a lot of elected officials who want to pan abortion in one way or another and so on.
Post a Comment
<< Home
