Blog Against Theocracy 2015

Over at Mock, Paper, Scissors, Tengrain has a stellar roundup for 2015's Blog Against Theocracy.

Control, Punish and Shame

As we've often noted here, most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean privilege. This trait isn't limited to social and authoritarian conservatives, but it's often more noticeable with them. Theocrats in particular are less likely (at least among their own) to hide their true beliefs about their own superiority and desire to control others.

Fred Clark of slacktivist has written a fair number of characteristically thoughtful pieces on the anti-choice abortion movement. Earlier this month, he received some pushback for a characterization of abortion opponents:

Last week we looked at an incident involving an evangelical college that fired a woman for having sex outside of marriage — offering her former job to the man she slept with. Examining San Diego Christian College’s double-standard, and the affirmation of that double standard in Christianity Today’s reporting on the incident, I wrote this:

Given the chance to choose between “saving babies” and controlling women, both the magazine and the college instinctively opt for controlling women.

Women who have sex must be punished. …

To defend this, Clark quoted a Right Wing Watch piece on a radio segment with Pat Fagan, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council run by Tony Perkins. (FRC's members can be labeled "conservative Christians," although I'd put it more strongly and call them right-wing theocrats.) In the segment, Fagan discussed an article he wrote on Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court case that "established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse." Fagan wrote that "Future generations may rank this as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court." In the radio segment (audio at the link), he said:

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have. …

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

Points for honesty, I guess, but this attitude is pretty astounding. Two major problems present themselves. First, Fagan's depiction of cultural mores on sex is laughably ahistorical. In the United States alone, as the Guttmacher Institute points out:

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

The new study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time. According to the analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12–29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active—which nearly everyone eventually will.”

(You can read the full study here. And as the joke goes, it's not "premarital" sex if you never get married.)

Consider Victorian Britain as well. It's was one of the most outwardly prudish societies of the past few millennia, especially regarding sex and female sexuality, and yet prostitution was rampant. The image did not match the reality. Similarly, Utah, the most Republican state in the nation, and outwardly socially conservative, consumes the most porn in the nation, and "those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption." We won't even delve fully into the Greeks and Romans, or the history of marriage, including polygamy or the concept of women as property (which continues somewhat to this day).

Second – Fagan really, truly thinks he should get to control sexual activity, whether it's through "society" or his church or the government. He's outraged by the idea that "single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse." Furthermore, "society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever." Bluntly, Fagan believes that his fellow citizens – adults – shouldn't be allowed to fuck without his permission.

This is a recurring trait among authoritarians (looked at in most detail previously here) – they truly believe that they should be able to control other people's lives and make decisions that are none of their damn business.

This attitude isn't limited to far-right social conservatives, however. Mitt Romney's campaign remarks about 47% of Americans being 'takers' focused more on economic/fiscal issues (also the idea of a social contract), but weren't that different. Like Fagan, Romney's accusations are grossly counterfactual, and like Fagan, there's a mean streak there – a sense of entitlement, and resentment, and a desire to punish his less-fortunate fellow Americans (certainly if one looked at his budget plan).

We can discuss all this in terms of the stupid-evil-crazy vortex, but the bottom line is that a significant portion of American conservatives are, well, delusional assholes. They believe things that simply aren't true, and they want some of their fellow Americans to suffer. Specifically, they want the Americans who already have less than themselves to suffer. ("Delusional assholes" may sound harsh, and use a more polite term if you like, but "jerks" seems too tame and "bastards," "scumbags" or similar words aren't that much tamer than "asshole." Meanwhile, "delusional" seems hard to contest.) Fagan is more of a theocrat and Romney more of a plutocrat, but both seek to place themselves atop a hierarchy, with most of their fellow citizens below, and they view that as the natural order. Even if one believes that they are nice or well-intentioned, people of this mindset should be prevented from gaining power over others – but I would argue that their desire to domineer others proves that they are not nice or well-intentioned. As we've noted many times before, theocrats aren't seeking freedom, which they already possess –they are seeking privilege, and power over others.

(This post is part of the annual Blog Against Theocracy, even if it's not an organized event this year, but check out Tengrain's posts for the occasion. Here are my archives for Blog Against Theocracy, the Religious Right and Religion, which naturally overlap significantly.)

My God Can Beat Up Your God (Defining "Tolerance")

(This post is part of the annual Blog Against Theocracy. The twitter hatchtag is #AgainstTheocracy.)

Tolerance is a worthy value, but it's important to recognize that different religious traditions do not share the exact same beliefs (not even under different names), that atheism is not just another faith (as the saying goes, atheism is not a religion any more than "not collecting stamps" is a hobby), and that not everyone believes in, or practices, religious tolerance.

Occasionally, someone (almost always a conservative) will complain that someone else (normally a "liberal") is being 'intolerant of their intolerance.' (For instance, see Kirk Cameron's complaints that his religiously-based anti-gay views are not tolerated by "those who preach tolerance.") At first glance, such situations may seem to reveal a paradox or hypocrisy, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it just ain't so.

Most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege." Typically, they do not recognize this, because they view their preferred power structure as the natural order. Theocrats and other religious authoritarians will raise a great hue and cry about their religious freedoms being violated. Most will honestly believe this, but they do not truly seek freedom of religion, which they already possess. What they seek is power and preferential status, the ability to impose their religious beliefs on others. Consequently, to use a shorthand, it's important to recognize the difference between personal beliefs – for instance, an individual's specific religious beliefs or lack thereof, that affect that person – and system beliefs – beliefs about how our overall system should be organized, including whether religious faiths (as well as no faith) should be treated equally and neutrally, or whether a particular faith or faiths should be given precedence. These are not equivalent, and when we discuss "belief" and "tolerance," we must put them in context. Individual, personal beliefs that affect that person primarily are categorically different from shared, public policies that affect everyone. The First Amendment contains both an exercise clause and an establishment clause regarding religion; theocrats consistently ignore the latter (in fact, that's one of the defining characteristic of theocrats). While the law makes a number of accommodations for religious beliefs (and individual communities may make far more), as a rule religious beliefs do not trump the law; a murderer could not successfully argue that prosecuting him was a violation of his First Amendment rights because he belonged to the Cult of Kali. Understanding these distinctions is crucial.

The Local House of Worship

Back in December, I took a family member to a Christmas Eve service. This particular church is not really my crowd, but so what, as long as my family member likes it and is treated nicely by the congregation and church staff? One passage in the sermon really struck me, though (emphasis mine):

We live in a time when people demand that we assign equal value to all religious viewpoints. People bristle at the idea of just "one way to God." Tolerance is a wonderful virtue which we all need, but even tolerance must kneel at the cross of Jesus.

If you believe the New Testament story that God willingly sent his only son to be rejected, spit upon, trampled upon, maimed and mutilated, can you possibly believe that God would have sent his son to this if there had been any other way of salvation? Would you send your child away for such a fate, if it could possibly be avoided? No, to turn away from the cross and say I choose another way is really saying, "God, the sacrifice of your son wasn’t good enough for me. I want another option, I think I have a better alternative."

Is that tolerance, or is it pride?

Someone is very unclear on the concept of "tolerance."

Now, if there is any place where proselytizing is acceptable, clearly it is in a house of worship. Some congregations are more tolerant and inclusive than others, and this will appeal to some potential members. However, when on their own turf, obviously it's that congregation's right to proclaim that theirs is the best faith or the one true faith, that they're right and others are wrong, to cheerlead and trash talk, or even talk seriously about important theological differences. To quote an earlier post:

My assumption is that religious people think their religion is the best. If they grew up with the religion, they've probably heard that it's the best, or just naturally assumed it. Those that reflect on their religion as they grow older and stay with it come to some conclusion that their specific denomination is the best – or else they'd change it. Those that convert to a religion obviously think their new religion or denomination is the best, or else they wouldn't have chosen it. Some may choose to be part of a place of worship more for the community, or convert for a spouse, and may not subscribe to all of a religion's tenets nor that communities' practices. Still, generally speaking, it's not surprising if a religious person thinks his or her religion is the best, and/or the truest path.

At most churches, Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday are the most heavily attended services of the year. This makes sense given those events' centrality to Christian belief, and it would be surprising if a sermon did not touch if not dwell on the core stories of the faith.

All that said, the view expressed above is that we will "tolerate" other religious faiths, but they are inferior. That's not really tolerance; it's advocating social politeness (if we're being charitable). I was also struck by how that passage was delivered with a sense of indignation – 'how dare you reject this wonderful gift?' Technically, I suppose the "if" gives an out, but that was not the tone at all. The preacher was expressing anger at those who do not subscribe to his particular interpretation of Christianity. I want to make it very clear – if I or any individual voluntarily attends a worship service, and we hear something we deem offensive, the proper response is to either speak with the leadership afterwards (if one is a congregant) or not to attend again (more likely if one is a visitor, or "church shopping" or similar). The congregation has every right to say what it wants in its own space.

However, the rules change when it comes to debating public policy; anyone can still say anything, but their views are not given automatic deference just because of religion. To quote a recent post, "of course people of faith have a role in the public square, they just shouldn't have a privileged role. They can propose public policies, but they don't automatically get to have their way by citing their religion. They don't automatically get to win."

I don't really care if a particular house of worship thinks its religion is the best; I expect it. In a sense, I don't care if they don't practice religious tolerance while on their own turf (even if that may turn off some potential congregants). I do care, however, if they don't understand or respect that other people exist with different faiths who also feel their beliefs represent the one and true faith (and that some people reject religion altogether). I do care if, when they enter the public square, they don't understand how tolerance and the establishment clause of the First Amendment work. Such failures have very real, negative consequences.

The Pope and Ms. Lopez

Recently, Susan of Texas wrote a good post on authoritarianism, National Review editor Kathryn Jean Lopez and Lopez' praise for the Pope's supposed "defense and explanation of the essential nature of religious freedom." If you're not familiar with Lopez, she is an extremely conservative Catholic. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, "Among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning. This figure is virtually the same among Catholic women (98%)." Lopez opposes both abortion and birth control, putting her far to the right, even among women in her own faith. (Anyone who truly wants fewer abortions shouldn't also oppose birth control, but the agenda is social control.)

In any case, while in Cuba, the Pope gave a homily. Follow the link to read it in full, but much of it is proselytizing:

Convinced that it is Christ who is the true measure of man, and knowing that in him we find the strength needed to face every trial, I wish to proclaim openly that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. In him everyone will find complete freedom, the light to understand reality most deeply and to transform it by the renewing power of love.

The Church lives to make others sharers in the one thing she possesses, which is none other than Christ, our hope of glory (cf. Col 1:27).

I'm not offended that the Pope would proselytize; that's a huge part of his job. Nor am I surprised he thinks his religion is true and the best one. I'm more struck by his lack of diplomacy and lack of understanding of "freedom of religion" elsewhere in the homily (but not truly surprised, given Ratzinger's track record on this front). This paragraph is probably the least obnoxious and most inclusive:

The right to freedom of religion, both in its private and in its public dimension, manifests the unity of the human person, who is at once a citizen and a believer. It also legitimizes the fact that believers have a contribution to make to the building up of society. Strengthening religious freedom consolidates social bonds, nourishes the hope of a better world, creates favourable conditions for peace and harmonious development, while at the same time establishing solid foundations for securing the rights of future generations.

This is rah-rah for religion, and doesn't mention non-believers, but okay. The rest of the piece is more problematic in terms of "freedom of religion," as when he says:

Furthermore, the truth which stands above humanity is an unavoidable condition for attaining freedom, since in it we discover the foundation of an ethics on which all can converge and which contains clear and precise indications concerning life and death, duties and rights, marriage, family and society, in short, regarding the inviolable dignity of the human person. This ethical patrimony can bring together different cultures, peoples and religions, authorities and citizens, citizens among themselves, and believers in Christ and non-believers.

Re-read that carefully. Ratzinger apparently believes you can't be truly free unless you're a Christian – and specifically, a conservative Catholic one. His view of religious tolerance is that everyone, including atheists and people who are religious but not Christian, should submit to the true faith, the Catholic Church. He's not just talking about being moral and leading by example, either. He both proselytizes and explicitly endorses proselytizing several times elsewhere in this piece. Again, it's not surprising, but this does confirm that he can be fairly viewed as a religious zealot (if an extremely prominent one) versus a person of tolerance. Religious zealots often seems terribly astounded that other people don't eagerly capitulate to their views and authority. This is not a good sales pitch to non-Catholics he hopes to win over. Ratzinger also says (emphasis mine):

When the Church upholds this human right, she is not claiming any special privileges for herself. She wishes only to be faithful to the command of her divine founder, conscious that, where Christ is present, we become more human and our humanity becomes authentic. This is why the Church seeks to give witness by her preaching and teaching, both in catechesis and in the schools and universities. It is greatly to be hoped that the moment will soon arrive when, here too, the Church can bring to the fields of knowledge the benefits of the mission which the Lord entrusted to her and which she can never neglect.

Of course he and the Church are claiming special privileges. It's not as if other faiths don't also feel they are serving a higher purpose, or for that matter, that many secular organizations don't feel the same. Members of the Catholic Church can preach all they want in their own churches and on street corners, and they can even be invited to schools and universities, but why should they be given automatic access? Furthermore, "special privileges" is precisely what American Catholic bishops have sought in trying to ban gay adoptions, and trying to ban insurance companies from providing women basic contraceptive coverage. What gives Catholic officials the right to interfere with legitimate medical decisions? Why should their beliefs be given precedence over those of their employees, and over the medical judgment of doctors? (Obviously, the contraception battles form a larger discussion, but likely you've caught some other pieces on it.)

Lopez herself ends with a laughable claim of religious persecution: "we ought to do our utmost to curtail our government’s eroding of our own first freedom." However, it's typical to hear such specious complaints from religious conservatives and authoritarians. More important is Lopez' selection of passages from the Pope (you can read her full post here). She could have just quoted the third paragraph she features about freedom of religion ("The right to freedom of religion..." quoted above). Instead, she says that the Pope offered a "self-consciously Christian statement — but one that highlighted why more than religious believers should care to insist on it..." and then Lopez quotes:

Convinced that it is Christ who is the true measure of man, and knowing that in him we find the strength needed to face every trial, I wish to proclaim openly that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. In him everyone will find complete freedom, the light to understand reality most deeply and to transform it by the renewing power of love.

The Church lives to make others sharers in the one thing she possesses, which is none other than Christ, our hope of glory...

Wow. More than religious believers should care to insist on it. Like her leader, the Pope, but even more blatantly, Lopez has just argued that atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and all other faiths should submit to her specific religion. Apparently to her, this constitutes "religious freedom." (As usual, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege.")

Now true, K-Lo is a chronically inept writer, so that may be a factor here. But she, like Ross Douthat, really does seem to think that everybody would be better off if they were Catholic and submitted to Catholic authority, and that, deep down, everybody else wants to (or should). Naturally they think their religion is the true one, the bestest ever, and all that. But despite being reasonably educated adults, presumably with some life experience, they still remain utterly flabbergasted by the prospect that other people might see things differently, and not eagerly want to subjugate themselves to K-Lo's own personal deity.

To be clear, once again I fully support the right of the Pope and Lopez to believe whatever they want in terms of religious faith, and proselytize to their hearts' content. However, it's important to note that they do not truly understand or practice religious tolerance, nor do they respect "freedom of religion" as it is commonly understood (certainly not in terms of the First Amendment, not that its approach is unique in the world).

Kirk Cameron

If you missed the Kirk Cameron story, here's a pretty good summary from the New York Daily News (emphasis mine):

Kirk Cameron, who has come under fire for calling homosexuality “unnatural,” says he’s the one who’s a victim of “hate speech.”

The 41-year-old “ Fireproof” actor has been on the defensive since igniting an uproar after saying same-sex marriage was “destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization” during an interview Friday with CNN’s Piers Morgan.

Though he became a break-out star on the 1980s sitcom “Growing Pains,” Cameron has since become an evangelical Christian who is vocal about his religious.

“I spoke as honestly as I could, but some people believe my responses were not loving toward those in the gay community,” he told ABC News in an emailed statement Tuesday. “That is not true. I can assuredly say that it’s my life’s mission to love all people.

“I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years — without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.”

Cameron added that he has been encouraged by the support of gay friends...

“Saying that gay people are ‘detrimental to civilization’ might be ‘loving’ in Kirk Cameron’s mind, but it’s gay youth and victims of bullying who truly suffer from adults like Cameron who espouse these ideas,” said Herndon Graddick, GLAAD’s Senior Director of Programs and Communications...

“So many Americans, popular celebrities and Christian leaders have stood up and said his views are out of touch. The fundamental dignity of gay people should no longer be a debate in this country.

“Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points, just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.”

John Aravosis had a similar reaction (echoed by many commentators):

First off, if you want to talk about 2,000 year old traditions that were supposedly rooted in the Bible, let's talk slavery. Should we have been tolerant of that, Kirk?

Second, speaking honestly doesn't preclude you from being a hateful bigot.

As for your right to free speech, what about our right to free speech? You have every right in America to be a bigot, and a loud spoken one at that. No one is taking that right away from you. But we have the right to call you on your bigotry.

As for your supposed gay friends who are supporting you in this, name one.

The slavery comparison is very apt, because Cameron isn't just expressing a personal belief that affects his own personal religious life; he's expressing a system belief about how society should be organized. He's seeking to impose a power dynamic and control other people's lives. His personal beliefs cannot override their personal beliefs without their consent. He is not automatically allowed to dictate to others how they should live. He can certainly state his opinion, and proselytize all he wants, but his claims of persecution reveal his ideological narcissism; he is discounting others' beliefs, and saying his trump theirs. He is not simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong," which is common enough in debates. That's to be expected. He's saying (even if he doesn't realize it) that gay people are lesser beings who do not deserve equal footing with him. When discussing "tolerance," power dynamics and the actual consequences of "beliefs," the system aspect, should not be ignored.

These discussions can play out something like this:

Tolerance Advocate: I believe we should all have equal rights.

Intolerant Person: No, you're a second-class citizen.

Tolerance Advocate: Go to hell.

Intolerant Person: Why are you so rude and intolerant?

Civility Troll: Yes, why are you so rude?

Cameron's First Amendment rights have not been violated. The government has not banned him from speaking, and he can practice his religion all he wants – up to the point when it conflicts with the law and public policy. For instance, it's legal to be a bigot in terms of thoughts and speech, but not legal to racially discriminate in hiring practices. Cameron's personal beliefs are unfettered, but his system beliefs about how the overall system should work, including his rude, intolerant notions about gays being second-class citizens, do not need to be given any respect. They can and should be challenged.

A System of Tolerance

It's worth taking a step back to consider the big picture on tolerance, as we've looked at before (in "The Social Tolerance Charts" and "The Religion-in-Society Charts," among other posts; I'll be using graphics from both of them here). Within the context of the law, a tolerant person says, "I will live my life the way I like, and you can live your life the way you like." An intolerant person will say, "I will live my life the way I like, but you must also live your life the way I want you to." These are not equivalent. It is absolutely essential to recognize this and point it out whenever this distinction is obscured (as it is often). Talking about different individual beliefs, and tolerance for them, is crucially different from discussions about the overall system and whether it is tolerant or not. Political discourse often ignores power dynamics, or assumes that a dominant culture is the norm. A tolerant system looks something like this:


(Click any graphics for a larger view. These aren't drawn to scale, naturally.) A tolerant system allows room for both the personally tolerant and the personally intolerant. Since there can be competing intolerant groups, we can further picture the system like this:


In contrast, what intolerant people want (this would include theocrats) is to set up a hierarchy with themselves at the top:


Needless to say, this is a lousy system for "everybody else."

Because freedom of religion means that the government is neutral when it comes to matters of faith and no faith at all, America has something like this, with the religious, non-religious and anti-religious all equal when it comes to the law:


If we want to contrast a religiously tolerant society with a theocratic one, it would look something like this:


Finally, since I do know nice religious folks who feel a bit persecuted, I offer this slightly exaggerated and tongue-in-cheek graphic:


Change the terms slightly if you wish. (This version substitutes "authoritarian" for theocrat[ic].) "Liberal" is, as noted, liberal in the Enlightenment sense, which would include tolerant small "c" conservatives and the like, anyone who is committed in general to basic social equality. As for "smug hipster asshole," basically, if a religious person or anyone else feels, say, Bill Maher is an asshole, that's perfectly fine. It's fine for them to condemn Maher or others for being obnoxious to them, or personally "intolerant," as the term is commonly used. However, Maher does not support locking people up for their religious beliefs (unless I've missed something). He supports a legal system of tolerance, no matter how obnoxious he may be personally. Meanwhile, there are "friendly but misguided theocrats," religious authoritarians who may be fairly nice on the interpersonal level, but truly believe the country would be better if it was a theocracy. There's nothing wrong per se with hanging out with them socially, but any theocratic measures they take politically should be opposed. (The same goes for theocratic assholes, obviously, and they tend to be a very nasty bunch.)

As I've written in previous posts, I have some sympathy for nice people who are religious and wind up in a situation where they feel someone is degrading all people of faith as idiots or zealots. (I've spoken up for them in some cases.) However, the solution to such situations is social in nature, not legal. When it comes to politics, I'm much more concerned about theocrats and others who don't support a system of tolerance. Unfortunately, these two types of "tolerance" are often conflated, and this makes for needlessly poor discussions.

Yet again, most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege." Anyone is free to bring his or her religious beliefs into the public sphere, but when it comes to public policy and debate, those beliefs don't automatically "win" because they're religiously-based. Last year's post explored this in more depth, but a world of difference exists between bringing in religion into the public sphere in an authoritarian way – "We must help the poor because God commands it" – and having faith inform one's beliefs, or even citing scripture, to invoke a greater, shared principle that is not dependent on specific religious beliefs, like so:

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. And I know that a lot of people are the least of my brothers because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and they have no rights.

Stephen Colbert cites scripture obliquely here, but this is not a theocratic argument; he's invoking a greater principle of compassion which does not depend on specific religious beliefs. (However, such beliefs may be a given individual's way of coming to compassion and understanding it. Meanwhile, let's also note that religious authoritarians rarely concern themselves much with the poor.)

Privilege, Not Equality

The difference between privilege and equality deserves more discussion, particularly the fact that theocrats seek the former, not the latter. Bob Altemeyer's book The Authoritarians (2006) is extremely helpful for explaining how authoritarians (and specifically, religious authoritarians or theocrats) think regarding freedom of religion, personal conduct and public policy. Chapter 4, "Authoritarian Followers and Religious Fundamentalism," is particularly relevant. Consider this extended passage:

“In the United States [Mark Noll] writes, it is simply impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual.” “Modern American evangelicals have failed notably in sustaining serious intellectual life.”

I have found nothing in my research that disagrees with this assessment. Indeed almost all of the findings in the last chapter about the authoritarian follower’s penchants for illogical thinking, compartmentalized minds, double standards, hypocrisy and dogmatism apply to religious fundamentalists as well. For example, David Winter at the University of Michigan recently found that fundamentalist students, when evaluating the war in Iraq, rejected a series of statements that were based on the Sermon on the Mount--which is arguably the core of Jesus’ teachings. Fundamentalists may believe they follow Jesus more than anyone else does, but it turns out to depend a lot on where Jesus said we should go. And we can augment such findings by considering the thinking behind three of the fundamentalist’s favorite issues: school prayer, opposition to evolution, and the infallibility of the Bible.

A. School Prayer: Majority Rights, Unless... Suppose a law were passed requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in God, pray together in school several times each day, memorize the Ten Commandments and other parts of the Bible, learn the principles of Christian morality, and eventually be encouraged to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. How would you react to such a law?

The great majority of people in my samples who answered this question, including most of the Christians, said this would be a bad law. But most fundamentalists liked the idea, for this is exactly the kind of education they would like to see public schools give to everyone’s children. When I asked fundamentalists about the morality of imposing this learning on the children of Hindus, Jews, atheists, etcetera, they responded along the lines of, “This is a Christian country, and the majority rules. If others don’t like it, they can pay for private education or leave.” (As I said, most people do not favor this proposal, but since the days of the “Moral Majority” fundamentalists have tended to overestimate their numbers in society.)

What do you think happened when I asked people to respond to this parallel scenario?

Suppose you were living in a modern Arab democracy, whose constitution stated there could be NO state religion--even though the vast majority of the people were Muslims. Then a fundamentalist Islamic movement was elected to power, and passed a law requiring the strenuous teaching of religion in public schools. Beginning in kindergarten, all children would be taught to believe in Allah, pray together facing Mecca several times each day, memorize important parts of the Koran, learn the principles of Islamic morality, and eventually be encouraged to declare their allegiance to Muhammad and become a Muslim. How would you react to such a law?

Again, a great majority of my samples thought this would be quite wrong, but this time so did a solid majority of Christian fundamentalists. When you asked them why, they said that obviously this would be unfair to people who help pay for public schools but who want their children raised in some other religion. If you ask them if the majority in an Arab country has a right to have its religion taught in public schools, they say no, that the minority has rights too that must be respected. Nobody’s kids should have another religion forced upon them in the classroom, they say.

So do fundamentalists believe in majority rights or minority rights? The answer is, apparently, neither. They’ll pull whichever argument suits them out of its file when necessary, but basically they are unprincipled on the issue of school prayer. They have a big double standard that basically says, “Whatever I want is right.” The rest is rationalization, and as flexible and multi-directional as a reed blowing in the wind.

[pp.115–117]

Incidentally, Altremeyer found that atheists overwhelmingly opposed laws:

...requiring strenuous teaching in public schools against belief in God and religion…

Atheists typically hold that religious beliefs/practice have no place in public schools, and that includes their own point of view. No double standard there.

[p. 117]

I still remember reading this chapter for the first time, because it (and another passage) answered some questions for me about theocrats. I wanted to assume, charitably, that some religious authoritarians were merely cloistered and unreflective, and had not really thought through the logical consequences of their positions. (Similarly, I'd say that a deep understanding of civics is severely lacking in America.) The what-if-you-lived-in-a-Muslim-country question is fairly obvious. (I've posed a similar question in the past, as have many other writers.) Clearly some theocrat leaders were acting in bad faith (no pun intended, although it works), but perhaps that did not apply to all of their followers. However, the studies indicated otherwise. True, religious authoritarian followers are not a reflective bunch, but apparently, even when starkly confronted with the choice between equality and privilege, they choose privilege.

The Threat of Theocracy

Apologies for the occasional repetitiveness of this post; I may be beating a dead horse, but I find myself frustrated by the seemingly constant complaints from social conservatives that others are 'intolerant of their intolerance.' (Sometimes they say this almost verbatim.) It's a ridiculous argument if one adds a little thought and nuance to the notion of "tolerance," and points out the role that power dynamics play, or the difference between "personal" and "system" beliefs (pick other terminology if you like). Alas, thought and nuance seem to be very rare when dealing with social conservatives and authoritarians, religious or otherwise. They have a sense of aggrievement, but little command of history, and no commitment to a fair system.

The ultimate point is that theocrats already possess freedom, but they are pushing for more – privilege and power over others that infringes on others' freedoms. They may be sincere, and some may even be nice on the individual level, but they are also dangerous and dead wrong about how society and the government should be organized. If their personal practices are wonderful, there is nothing to prevent them from saying so and winning converts. But their preferred power structure is inherently unfair, and historically, has lead to horrible abuses. Truly upholding freedom of religion necessitates opposing theocracy.

(Revised slightly for clarity. For more on the notion of tolerance, see the paradox of tolerance, John Rawls on tolerance, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry. For more VS posts on this general subject, see the categories for Blog Against Theocracy, Religion and the Religious Right. The most pertinent posts may be "The Social Tolerance Charts," "The Religion-in-Society Charts," "The Conservative Brain Trust Takes On: Freedom of Religion!" "You Damned Kids Get Into My Church" and "I'll See Your Jesus and Raise You 10,000 Buddhas.")

Surely the Constitution Must Match My Theocratic Beliefs

(This post is part of the annual Blog Against Theocracy. The twitter hatchtag is #AgainstTheocracy.)

Rick Santorum's understanding of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state matches his understanding of almost everything else. Santorum's corruption should not be overlooked, nor should his vengeful hyper-partisanship, but what truly defines him is his combination of belligerence, zealotry and ignorance. It's what makes him an authoritarian's authoritarian. He can be completely, utterly wrong on factual matters, even matters of basic civics and history, but he will not let that temper his relentless attacks on his perceived foes. (Being one of the Righteous has its perks.)

It's hard to keep up with all of Santorum's factual inaccuracies, but Blue Texan summed up the highlights back in February:

It's difficult to recall a presidential candidate who had such a poor grasp of the basic facts of history [as] Rick Santorum. He's mangled the Crusades. Less than two weeks ago, he botched the French Revolution. And Saturday, he revealed an astonishing ignorance of U.S. history as well with his remarks on public education.

That list doesn't even include his amazing claim that the Dutch euthanize their elderly.

Certainly Santorum's political views are also extreme, including his positions that contraception is a "grievous moral wrong" and abortion should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest. Instead, women should be forced to just "make the best of a bad situation." Because, holds Santorum, life is precious (not counting people we kill overseas), and "The right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you."

Santorum's religious knowledge doesn't seem any more impressive. As Mike Lux asks, What Bible is Santorum reading? Meanwhile, Juan Cole points out the top ten Catholic teachings Santorum rejects while obsessing about birth control.

There's plenty more to be said about Santorum, but for the moment, let's focus on his misunderstandings about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. As a reminder, the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The actual phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" appears in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, echoing earlier writers, and further explains the establishment clause. Freedom of religion was further defined by the highly-influential Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, penned by Jefferson, with the help of James Madison. (More on this later.)

So where does Santorum stand on all this? On Sunday 2/26/12 on This Week, Santorum defended his previous remarks that John F. Kennedy's famous speech upholding the separation of church and state made him want to "throw up":


Here's the transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, "I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute." I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won't consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison—

STEPHANOPOULOS: You think you wanted to throw up?

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: -- the perfect remedy. Well, yes, absolutely, to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can't come to the public square and argue against it, but now we're going to turn around and say we're going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

Santorum cites the exercise clause, but conveniently completely ignores the establishment clause. While Santorum defended his "throw up" line several times with Stephanopoulos, he later said "I wish I had that particular line back." However, he stood by everything else. Moreover, some readers may recall Santorum attacking JFK's speech before. Steve M. chronicles at least five occasions Santorum has done just that, dating back to 2002. This was not a one-off; Rick Santorum is a theocrat, and his misrepresentations of the First Amendment and Kennedy's speech have long been central to who he is as a political figure.

You can watch the video of Kennedy's speech here, or read a transcript and listen to the audio here. The context is important; as NPR reports:

On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.

Here's the key section Santorum was criticizing:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Clearly, Santorum has grossly misrepresented Kennedy, who was expressing a fairly mainstream and historically sound understanding of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Kennedy never said that "people of faith... have no role in the public square." He said precisely the opposite. This should be glaringly obvious to anyone who actually reads Kennedy's speech (plus, Kennedy was publicly a person of faith himself). He's also an odd figure for Santorum to attack since Kennedy, the only Catholic to be elected president to date, remains a source of pride for many American Catholics even if their political views differ.

So who exactly is Santorum's audience? And why does he misrepresent Kennedy so badly? Scroll back up and read what Santorum said again, and it is truly astounding to see how utterly, completely wrong he is. This makes his anger even more disturbing. Discussing his motivations, we're entering the old stupid-evil-crazy debate. Obviously Santorum is a theocrat, a far right religious authoritarian, and his views on JFK should play well with other religious authoritarians in the conservative base. But he doesn't seem aware that his take on this speech is far outside any mainstream reading. It won't play with the general electorate, and it would be hard to disown all his theocratic statements later. In truth, his reading is strikingly anti-textual. Is he just dumb? The evidence to date suggests Santorum isn't a bright man, and stupidity probably is a factor, but I think that the dominant factor here is "crazy," or zealotry.

There's a tendency among some people to project their own notions of wisdom into exalted works. It is common for people to cite the Constitution, the works of Shakespeare, and sacred texts such as the Bible or Koran as sources of wisdom. People of very disparate views will agree that these works contain wisdom, but they will often disagree vehemently about what that specific wisdom is. Among people of reasonable intelligence and good faith, there's room for disagreement and earnest debate, of course. However, not all interpretations are created equal. Nor is the level of effort that goes into those interpretations equal. Certain people never really take the time to read these works carefully and reflect on them, or to study their history and context. Certain people take an anti-textual approach, projecting whatever they consider wisdom onto the work itself even when the text directly contradicts their views. Needless to say, this is a highly ideological approach. Subconsciously, it goes something like this: "The Constitution is wise, and my views are righteous and correct, so surely the Constitution must match my beliefs." (Who actually needs to read the damn thing?)

I think that's part of what's going on with Santorum here. What we're seeing is zealotry fueling pure denial. He simply cannot accept the words in front of him, nor the concepts behind them. He hears "separation of church and state," and to him this is dangerous and threatening. If we're feeling especially charitable, we could say that because Santorum feels his religious beliefs are under siege, he interprets "separation of church and state" as an attack, and this irrationality overwhelms him. Of course, he has a B.A., M.B.A., J.D. and is an adult, so he should be able to follow a logical train of thought. (Nor is this cognitive collapse an isolated incident.) Fundamentally, the First Amendment promises religious equality and neutrality, and that is precisely what Kennedy espouses in his speech. This is only a threat to theocrats, for people who don't want equality, but dominance. Most of the time, when conservatives say "freedom," they really mean "privilege," and that is definitely operative here. Of course people of faith have a role in the public square, they just shouldn't have a privileged role. They can propose public policies, but they don't automatically get to have their way by citing their religion. They don't automatically get to win. That's really what Santorum objects to; he opposes any sort of meritocracy when it comes to policy and ideas. He believes his faith is the true one and he knows the truth. Therefore, he is entitled to impose it on others. In his fevered mind's eye, equality is a threat; anyone who does not capitulate to his righteous order is a threat. This is why he can stare at Kennedy's words and transmogrify Kennedy's defense of religious freedom into an attack on it. Santorum is a poster boy for belligerent opposition to the reality-based community. Even when Santorum's completely, absolutely wrong, he'll angrily fight for his beliefs, and if anyone has the temerity to push back, why then, he believes they're infringing on his freedom of religion. Santorum's petulant, stunningly anti-textual approach to these and other matters may fairly be called ignorant, but his is a hard-won, hard-fought ignorance full of pride and driven by religious zealotry.

On that note, let me return to one of my favorite attacks by Rick Santorum against JFK and freedom of religion, from back in March 2011:

Rick Santorum told about 50 members of the group Catholic Citizenship that he was “frankly appalled” that America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, once said “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

“That was a radical statement,” Santorum said, and did “great damage.”

The Boston Globe reports that Santorum, who is Catholic, criticized the increased secularization of politicians, which he related back to a speech Kennedy gave at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960. Kennedy had made the speech to a group of Protestant clergy as a presidential candidate, in order to allay fears that the Catholic church would influence his decisions if elected.

“We’re seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process,” Santorum said Monday.

“Jefferson is spinning in his grave,” he added.

He actually said Jefferson. It's hard to think of a worse choice among the founding fathers (maybe Thomas Paine) for Santorum to invoke. I believe Santorum said "Jefferson" because of his poor understanding of the Declaration of Independence and childish demonization of government. However, Jefferson was a deist, who rewrote the Gospels (the so-called "Jefferson Bible") to take out the supernatural elements (basically, he admired Jesus' moral teachings, but disliked what he viewed as evangelical additions). He studied theology and owned a Koran. (Jefferson was also a fierce advocate for public education, contrary to Santorum's beliefs that the founding fathers opposed it, so his ignorance on Jefferson specifically is particularly impressive.)

Most importantly, Jefferson actively fought for the separation of church and state that Rick Santorum so despises. As mentioned before, the very phrase "wall of separation between church and state" comes from a letter by Jefferson, even if similar sentiments were expressed by earlier writers. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the three accomplishments he listed on his tombstone (being president was not one of them), and the statute was highly influential. (You may also recall that Kennedy mentioned it in the speech Santorum so distorted. Apparently, this did not prompt Santorum to study more about Jefferson and freedom of religion in America.) Susan Jacoby provides some important background.

In America, where the great debate over the federal Constitution was just beginning, Virginia's law was hailed by secularists as a model for the new national government and denounced by those who favored the semi-theocratic systems still prevailing in most states. As the Constitutional Convention opened in 1787, with George Washington as its president, legally entrenched privileges for Protestant Christianity were the rule rather than the exception in most states. The convention could have modeled the federal constitution after the Massachusetts constitution of 1780, which extended equal protection of the laws , and the right to hold office, only to Christians. And not all Christians: Catholics were only permitted to hold public office if they took a special oath renouncing papal authority "in any matter, civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual." Even that restriction was not enough for the most committed descendants of the Puritans; sixty-three of Massachusetts towns registered official objections to the use of "Christians" rather than "Protestant," bearing out a prediction by Adams that "a change in the solar system might be expected as soon as a change in the ecclesiastical system of Massachusetts." State religious restrictions were grounded not only in old prejudices but in the relative political strength of various religious constituencies. The 1777 New York State constitution, for example, extended political equality to Jews -- who, though few in number, had considerable economic influence in New York City -- but not to Catholics (who were not allowed to hold public office until 1806). Maryland, the home state of Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed full civil rights to Protestants and Catholics but not to Jews, freethinkers, and deists. The possibility of equal rights for non-Christians had not even occurred to Carroll. In this old age, he wrote, "When I signed the Declaration of Independence, I had in view not only our independence of England, but the toleration of all sects professing the Christian religion, and communicating to them all equal rights." In Delaware, officeholders were required to take an oath affirming belief in the Trinity, and in South Carolina, Protestantism was specifically recognized as the state-established religion.

But the framers of the Constitution chose Virginia, not the other states, with their crazy quilts of obeisance to a more restrictive religious past, as the model for the new nation. The Constitution is a secularist document because of what it says and what it does not say. The first of the explicit secularist provisions is article 6, section 3, which states that federal elective and appointed officials "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." No religious test. This provision, much less familiar to the public today than the First Amendment, was especially meaningful and especially sweeping in view of the fact that the necessity of religious tests and religious oaths for officeholders had been taken for granted by nearly all the governments of the American states (not to mention those of the rest of the world) at the time the Constitution was written. The addition of the affirmation is significant, because it meant that the framers did not intend to compel officeholders to take a religious oath on the Bible. The intent could not have been clearer to those who wanted only religious men -- specifically, Protestant believers -- to hold office. As a North Carolina minister put it during his state's debate on ratification of the Constitution, the abolition of religious tests for officeholders amounted to "an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us."...

The significance of Virginia's religious freedom act was recognized immediately in Europe. News of the law was received with great enthusiasm -- not by the governments of the Old World, with their entrenched state-established religions, but by individuals who wished to promote liberty of conscience in their own countries. The Virginia law, translated into French and Italian as soon as the text made it across the Atlantic in 1786, was disseminated throughout most of the courts of Europe, and, as Jefferson wrote to Madison, "has been the best evidence of the falsehood of those reports which stated us to be in anarchy." Expressing his pride in Virginia's leadership, Jefferson observed that "it is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles, and it is honorable for us, to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare, that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."

Notice that had religiously intolerant forces in 18th century America had their way, Rick Santorum's Catholic faith would have been officially persecuted. Instead, the Convention voted for religious freedom and neutrality, a separation of church and state. It would be one thing if Rick Santorum and other theocrats made an honest argument, and said, "Even though the Constitution forbids theocracy, and centuries of legal decisions uphold that, we want to impose theocracy on America. We seek to overturn the establishment clause of the Constitution." But honesty and basic civics literacy are not their style. This is always the way of theocrats – they yell and whine about being oppressed, but they already have freedom – what they really want is privilege and power over others. They are petulant, dangerous bullies, and this is why, in the democratic process, they must be prevented from gaining power. They do not truly know or care about the actual founding of America and freedom of religion. Rick Santorum is free to exercise his own religion, and free to express his own bigotry and ignorance, precisely because the founding fathers he knows so little about chose a different and better path.

(On a related note, a 2007 post looked at Mitt Romney's "anti-JFK speech.)

Blog Against Theocracy 2012

If you didn't know, this weekend is the annual Blog Against Theocracy. I'll just go ahead and quote Blue Gal:

This is a blogswarm dedicated to the separation of church and state.

It is not a blogswarm against religion. Bloggers who believe in religion, and those who don't, are equally welcome here. What we share is a common commitment to the First Amendment to the Constitution and its guarantee of church-state separation.

This is also not a blogswarm against a particular candidate or party. But this year the Republican side has attacked both the reproductive rights of women and the marriage rights of LGBT citizens in the name of religious "liberty." It is the position of this blogswarm that separation of church and state protects both, and that freedom of, or freedom from, religion is a choice every American has the right to pursue. We are for marriage equality, and also insist on the rights of every American family and individual to pursue their own reproductive choices without uninvited clerical interference.

Blog Against Theocracy uses the hashtag #AgainstTheocracy on Twitter and Facebook to promote our posts.

We are not affiliated with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, but we highly recommend their website and organization as a resource for church state issues, and we deeply appreciate their commitment to the cause of church state separation.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of material to work with this year, and that makes participation all the more welcome, if you feel so inspired. If nothing else, you can always tweet a relevant older post. (I have a couple of posts in the works, but we'll see how many I can finish this weekend.)

The Meek Shall Inherit What's Left of the Earth the Mean and Dumb Destroy

For this year's Blog Against Theocracy, I wanted to revisit some infamous remarks by Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) during a set of March 2009 hearings held by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:



The key remarks are:

The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

Shimkus has said plenty of other dumb things. However, these particular remarks were both dumb and theocratic, and therefore of greater concern. They're problematic – or dangerous – for at least three reasons.

One, environmental and energy policies for the United States should not be dictated by any religious text. The same goes for all public policy, but the problem is especially glaring for any policy involving science. (We'll deal with some caveats in a bit.) Shimkus was pushing a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. Passing a law that said, "You can't regulate pollution because the Bible says so" would not pass constitutional muster.

Two, Shimkus is on shaky religious grounds as well. The passage he cites only refers to what the God of the Bible will or will not do - human beings are quite capable of destroying the planet all on their own. (More specifically, human beings are quite capable of destroying humanity, but the planet would survive.) Additionally, Shimkus is picking and choosing what he wants from the Bible in his Appeal to Religious Authority. He's not asking the Food and Drug Administration to ban eating shellfish, or asking Congress to abolish a few amendments to bring back slavery, or trying to outlaw certain types of clothing, or otherwise trying to enforce many other precepts in the Bible.

Three, assuming Shimkus is sincere in his stated beliefs, his religion makes him a less reflective, less responsible human being. He has spouted beliefs that dictate that he, and other human beings, and the government of the United States of America, do not need to act responsibly when it comes to energy and the environment, because God will sweep in to save the day.

Shimkus' views are not uniform among religious conservatives, but they are far from rare. At least one conservative pundit considers the global financial collapse a divine mystery rather than the completely predictable result of human skullduggery. Meanwhile, Ann Coulter has attacked environmental responsibility:

The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet — it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars — that's the Biblical view.

Some biblical scholars argue that "dominion" is better translated as "stewardship," which better fits the spirit of many other Biblical passages (not to mention Adam's trade as a gardener or farmer). This is basically the stance of evangelical environmentalists, who oppose the views of Coulter and Shimkus. It's hard to imagine Jesus urging anyone to recklessly strip-mine, raze a forest or pollute the world. That fits better with the cult of Ayn Rand.

It can be useful to discuss religious beliefs, or atheism, less in terms of "What do you believe?" and "Why do you believe that?" and more in terms of "How do your beliefs shape your actions?" Some individuals approach religion in a way that makes them more reflective, more considerate of others, and more engaged in their communities. Many others approach religion in a way that makes them less reflective, less tolerant, and more reckless. I would argue that Shimkus, Coulter and their ilk on wrong on religious grounds, and it could be useful to challenge them in these terms. However, they're wrong for many other reasons, too. It's more important to note that, implicitly, they are preaching theocracy, religious rule – and even more importantly, to point out that they are preaching recklessness and irresponsibility. When some people say they believe "everything happens for a reason," what they really mean is, "you should try to make the best out of a bad situation." What others mean is, "you shouldn't question anything that happens, and you definitely shouldn't challenge the people choosing to screw you over"... or in this case, you shouldn't challenge the people despoiling the planet and polluting public air and water in the name of greed.

Public policy in the United States should not be dictated by any religious text. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate in government, nor does it mean they can never cite religious passages in public, but the manner in which it's done is very important. Consider Stephen Colbert's remarks in September 2010 on behalf of migrant farm workers:

CONGRESSWOMAN JUDY CHU: Mr. Colbert, you could work on so many issues, why are you interested in this issue?

COLBERT: I like talking about people who don't have any power. And this seems like some of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. And, you know, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, these seem like the least of our brothers, right now. And I know that a lot of people are the least of my brothers because the economy is so hard, and I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish it or anything like that, but migrant workers suffer, and they have no rights.

(Notice we're back to tilling the land and taking care of the planet again.) Colbert references a famous passage from the Bible here, but look how he does it. He never mentions the Bible, nor Jesus. It wouldn't be utterly horrible if he did, but it's notable that he's trying not to proselytize. Instead, he's invoking a principle, one of compassion and the social contract, that a particular passage happens to express. Compassion is not a religious idea – while some religions emphasize it, compassion does not depend upon religion whatsoever. Colbert's biblical reference might carry additional weight for Christians, and it might also turn off some other listeners. That's a rhetorical choice. However, his argument is hardly dependant on his audience sharing his religious beliefs. He's outlining a grander principle.

That's in sharp contrast to what Shimkus says – an Appeal to Religious Authority. Shimkus' argument cannot hold unless the listener both shares a) Shimkus' religious beliefs, and b) his particular, idiotic interpretation of the Bible. While that makes it a poor argument due to its limited appeal, the main problem is that it's a theocratic argument. Shimkus is asking us to obey rather than question or debate. We shouldn't look at the scientific evidence, because God – according to Shimkus – says we shouldn't. (Shades of the Catholic Church and Galileo.) Even if America didn't have a separation of church and state, that'd be a horrible way to run a country. Put another way, Colbert is asking us to be more thoughtful, while Shimkus is asking us to be less so.

This fits into a common pattern, both with conservative arguments in general and environmental issues specifically: climate scientists are asking us to be more thoughtful about the planet, global warming, and empirical evidence, while climate change deniers are seeking to sow confusion and obfuscate careful study and decision-making.

There are many ways to challenge someone like Shimkus, and there are many reasons to do so. It can be entertaining and effective to refute fools and scoundrels who cite scripture with scripture. However, the more important battle is to fight back against theocracy and authoritarianism in general. As we've examined in previous years, theocrats are not fighting for religious freedom, which they already possess – they are fighting for privilege, and power over others. Shimkus is an authoritarian, and in addition to shilling unchecked corporate greed and pollution, he's preaching unquestioning obedience, ignorance, recklessness and irresponsibility. That's standard for movement conservatism. However, since this is Blog Against Theocracy weekend, let's remember that it's no accident that theocrats often shill horrible ideas; that's a feature, not a bug.

Theocracy is Authoritarian

(It's the weekend for another Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm. Blue Gal has more information. The twitter category is here. Here are my previous entries for Blog Against Theocracy and religion.)

As First Freedom First points out, Freedom of Religion means "the freedom to worship – or not." The essence of theocracy isn't religion per se; it is power over others and authoritarian rule. In America, people are free to practice religion as they choose, but their religion does not allow them to break the law, nor may they impose their religious beliefs on others through the government. Those opposed to theocracy include both religious and non-religious people. They are united by their recognition of the theocrats' dangerous goal - using the government to acquire power and privilege based on religious beliefs (specifically, theirs).

Normally I've discussed religion in more general terms for the Blog Against Theocracy. However, thinking of theocracy and authoritarianism this year, I couldn't help but think of all the recent news about the Catholic Church – and some of the more noxious apologists for it. Nearly every problem of theocracy can be illustrated by looking at news this past year about the Catholic Church as an institution. Some of these issues are not unique to the Catholic Church, and I'm merely using it as an example. In other cases, the problems are more particular to the Catholic Church specifically, even if they illustrate the greater perils of theocracy. I'm thinking about the office of faith-based initiatives, religious organizations lobbying Congress, religious organizations setting public policy, and religious figures punishing political figures for disobedience. I'm also thinking of the widespread, long-standing sexual and physical abuse of children, the cover-up of that, and the infuriating apologists for that. Almost everything centers on sex and power, and the domination of women and children.

Obviously there are good people who identify as Catholic. There are Catholic churches that do valuable work for their communities. There are Catholic charities that likewise do useful work around the world. Bill Donohue and Ross Douthat, among others, probably don't speak for the majority of American Catholics. Nor does the Pope speak for most American Catholics, at least on some issues – for several decades, roughly 80% of American Catholics have favored the use of birth control (Catholics for Choice puts the number far higher). There are Catholics who have criticized some or all of the actions and abuses I'll be discussing.

However, all this still leaves us with the institution that is the Catholic Church. Just as I'd love it if conscientious, "reasonable" Eisenhower Republicans (those few that are left) took over the Republican Party, I'd love it if those more conscientious, practical Catholics took over the Catholic Church. The problem is, the Catholic Church is by its nature extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. Catholics can send messages to their bishops or the Vatican, but they don't get to elect their pope, who is supposedly infallible and God's emissary on Earth. There is a firm power structure in place, and it's extremely unlikely that will ever change. Even if papal infallibility and other matters of church dogma are sometimes debated internally, the fact remains that the pope or others of high rank issue orders to those below and expect obedience. The Catholic Church is not a democratic institution; it is an authoritarian one. It can do some good when well led, but is prone to the abuses encouraged by authoritarianism and unaccountable power.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a whole section on the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, started under Bush and unfortunately further funded by Obama. The big issue is that the Office gives money to religious organizations who violate federal discrimination laws in hiring, most often by only hiring members of their religion, or by banning homosexuals. Additionally, some religious charities proselytize and seek to convert others to their religion. As private entities they're entitled to keep doing both these things, but shouldn't be given taxpayer money to do so; it's unconstitutional. In contrast, Habitat for Humanity is a Christian organization that does public charity building homes, and has long been given government money because (to my knowledge) it's avoided crossing either of those lines.

In Washington, D.C., gay marriage was legalized. As a result, the organization Catholic Charities decided to drop spousal benefits for its employees so it wouldn't have to give benefits to gay couples. Otherwise, Catholic Charities would have run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, because they receive "$22 million from the city for social service programs." They had previously transferred their foster care program to another organization, presumably because gay couples would have been eligible to participate. But if these are essential social services, why give $22 million in funds to a religious charity in the first place? Why not expand the public systems for these services instead, and avoid these theocracy issues altogether? Similarly, why grant government funds to a proselytizing religious group to run a homeless shelter when secular organizations are also available?

On the lobbying front, we've previously covered how some Catholic organizations opposed health care reform while others supported it. However, there's the question of their tax status, and that applies to other religious organizations as well. Individual can of course speak out, and organizations can as well – but this becomes more problematic if they are tax-exempt. (The big no-no is endorsement or opposition of a specific candidate.) Religious organizations can do some limiting lobbying. I'm not an expert on tax exemptions and lobbying restrictions, so I don't know about the precise legal lines on lobbying by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other organizations on health care reform. However, it is troubling if members of Congress are effectively giving veto power over legislation to a religious organization (or any organization, for that matter). That flies in the face of John Kennedy's famous speech on his religion and the importance of the separation of church and state. America is not a theocracy. Effective government should respond to all constituents, but represent the public interest – which is not necessarily the same as those of any specific religious organization.

Catholic officials have been most vocal about opposing and punishing abortion. Ironically enough, it was Kennedy family member Patrick Kennedy who Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin banned from receiving communion. This was because, as one account puts it, "Kennedy criticized the nation's Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation's health care system unless lawmakers included tighter restrictions on abortion." Chris Matthews, also a Catholic, had Tobin on, and quoted John Kennedy's speech to him. Watch it for yourself - but Tobin truly doesn't seem to understand Matthews' point that Tobin was violating the principles expressed by JFK. Tobin's action was theocratic, and it'd be naïve to think he has no influence on Catholics in his diocese. John Kerry ran into similar issues during his presidential run, being denied communion because he is pro-choice. Again, it would be naïve to think this had no effect on Catholic voters – or that such an edict wasn't designed to influence them.

The Church's opposition isn't solely to abortion – it's to any form of reproduction control other than abstinence. A bishop barred an Oregon hospital from calling itself "Catholic" anymore because it performed tubal ligations on women. For years, the Catholic Church has inexcusably lied about condoms preventing the spread of STDs, including AIDS. Sometimes the children of disobedient Catholics are punished as well. Mary Ann Sorrentino writes that she was excommunicated because she worked with Planned Parenthood, but the Church threatened to deny her daughter's confirmation as well. Sorrentino claims she replied:

"Let me understand this, Father. Because of my work with women at Planned Parenthood, you don't want me to come to the rail and take communion from the hands of a man who sexually abuses children? Is that what you're telling me, Father?"

Meanwhile, in one of the more infamous recent cases, in Brazil the Catholic Church excommunicated the doctor who performed an abortion on a 9-year old rape victim. The mother and the rest of the medical team were excommunicated, too. At least one bishop has since questioned this action. However, if your morality leads you to harshly condemn the people helping an abused child, it's time to re-examine your morality.

It's the children that have suffered the most, from an institution that has systematically raped and tortured children, and then systematically covered it up. Newly revealed incidents of abuse, and the news that the current pope may have known about some of these abuses, reveal an even deeper level of corruption than was previously known. The Catholic Church denies that Ratzinger knew, but there have been so many allegations of sexual abuse in Germany this strains credulity, and at best it shows a horribly dysfunctional system. However, questions are not limited to the current pope; Raw Story reports on the Vatican knowing about widespread sexual abuse of children by at least 1963. Rather than tending to the children, the victims, church officials sought to protect the priests involved and protect the institution. Guilty priests have generally not gone to jail.

After such revelations, it's rather bad form to compare outrage toward the Catholic Church to the persecution of the Jews (as a senior Vatican spokesman did) or to claim that the Pope faced 'some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus' (as Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan did). As John Cole remarks, "Can someone show me in the bible where Jesus was unjustly accused of covering up systematic pedophilia?"

Bullying blowhard Bill Donohue of the Catholic League claimed molesting priests weren’t pedophiles because most boys were post-pubescent. (Yeah, he really did.) If this is your best argument, you're in serious trouble. Donohue then doubled down on this claim, and ran an ad in the New York Times claiming Catholics were being persecuted. Michael Tomasky (among others) pointed out the biggest flaw in Donohue's argument – it was still illegal, and still wrong. This scandal belongs to the Catholic Church, not the gay community. (Update: Pharyngula also posted on Donohue.)

Meanwhile, Ross Douthat's column "A Time for Contrition" received plenty of just criticism, particularly for the first two of these paragraphs:

This hasn’t prevented both sides in the Catholic culture war from claiming that the scandal vindicates their respective vision of the church. Liberal Catholics, echoed by the secular press, insist that the whole problem can be traced to clerical celibacy. Conservatives blame the moral relativism that swept the church in the upheavals of the 1970s, when the worst abuses and cover-ups took place.

In reality, the scandal implicates left and right alike. The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy. (Again and again, bishops relied on psychiatrists rather than common sense in deciding how to handle abusive clerics.) But it was the church’s conservative instincts — the insistence on institutional loyalty, obedience and the absolute authority of clerics — that allowed the abuse to spread unpunished.

What’s more, it was a conservative hierarchy’s bunker mentality that prevented the Vatican from reckoning with the scandal. In a characteristic moment in 2002, a prominent cardinal told a Spanish audience that “I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign ... to discredit the church.”

Douthat is a Catholic, and the third quoted paragraph makes a decent point. He does criticize the Catholic Church at other points in the op-ed. However, this doesn't excuse his attempts to spread the blame. He loves playing the mushy argument and false equivalency games, but these charges are just infuriatingly dishonest or dim-witted – not to mention whiny. Yes, the Catholic Church's well-known hang-ups about sex, including celibacy for priests, probably did contribute to some of the problems - because the priesthood has been more likely to attract people with unresolved sexual issues. However, the real problem isn't celibacy; it's (duh) that Catholic priests raped and tortured children, and rather than turning those priests in to the police, the Catholic Church covered it up. This is not a mystery that passeth all understanding, or a series of crimes that can only be seen through a glass darkly.

Meanwhile, blaming "moral relativism" is pathetic and laughable. Is Douthat seriously arguing that the Catholic Church was sexually permissive in the 1970s? Even if that preposterous claim were true, what about the many cases of sexual abuse that occurred before and since? What about the Toledo police colluding with the Catholic Church to cover up sexual abuse in the 1950s? Douthat tries to shill two false notions here – that the media have been incorrect, and that any conservatives blaming culture have a point. (Apparently, they're blaming the culture of several countries, too, since it wasn't just in America.)

No, the scandal in no way "implicates left and right alike." If ever proof was needed Douthat was a hack, this is it. The scandal implicates Catholic priests who abused children, and the Catholic officials who covered it up. This isn't hard. Even Catholic doctrine holds that human beings are free to choose between sin and virtue. The demon rock 'n' roll did not drive them to molest children. While I'm sure there are Catholics who wish Douthat was not representing their faith, his arguments are poor, ass-covering, unconnected with reality and unconscionable. It's outrageous that he tries to lay the blame on anybody else but the perpetrators. Yeah, he bemoans what the church has done, but in his ridiculous arguments he also becomes a disingenuous, whiny, apologist scumbag for horrible abuses. He ends his column talking about "repentance," and maybe Douthat can repent for bearing false witness against his neighbors.

Other responses to Douthat include Truth Wins Out, TBogg, Sadly No and Susan of Texas. (Update: I forgot Non Sequitur.) The thing is, Donohue and Douthat actually think they're helping the Catholic Church. There are responsible, honest ways for Catholics to respond to these newly-reported scandals – but Donohue and Douthat's infuriating, blame-shifting responses just make things worse.

Plenty more needs to be uncovered. But keeping with the theme of the weekend, the Catholic Church can be viewed as a theocracy, because the Vatican City is technically a nation. The Catholic Church is also extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. It has abused power and covered up those abuses, as is the nature of authoritarian groups. Of course non-religious groups can abuse power as well. But the essence of authoritarianism is obedience to those in power, and the enforcement of dogma – which inevitably extols the righteousness of the group, and particularly its leaders. Organized religion fits in very easily with those dynamics, and gives an even greater dose of righteousness to the whole endeavor. We don't have to imagine the dangers of theocracy and authoritarianism in America. We can study history, or we can just read the news.

Again, there are plenty of individual Catholics who are good people, and worthy of respect. I hope they can reform their church, to the degree that it's possible. However, maybe they'd be better off starting their own. And given recent (and past) revelations, if anyone church-shopping decides to forego the Catholic Church, it would be hard to blame him or her. Meanwhile, I really have no patience for the Donohues, Douthats and high-ranking Catholic officials of the world complaining their church is being unfairly criticized. This one's pretty easy - stop the systematic rape and torture of children, expose the truth, and punish the guilty – and then you won't be criticized. Taking ownership is a step in the right direction; trying to blame others is maddening and unconscionable. There can be no forgiveness without confession and repentance, correct?

For more, check out Richard Dawkins on the Pope, Katha Pollitt, Ed Brayton, The Daily Show, John Amato, DougJ at Balloon Juice, Amanda Marcotte and a personal response to the scandal. DeDanaan has posts on the Pope's cover-up of the priest who molested about 200 boys, as well as Christopher Hitchens and Sinead O'Connor.

Finally, from the public debate "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World?" I thought Stephen Fry was easily the most persuasive speaker:


The Intelligence² Debate - Stephen Fry (Unedited)
Uploaded by Xrunner17. - Classic TV and last night's shows, online.

(Added the pic and fixed some typos.)