A few days ago, I took note of Jacques Berlinerblau’s somewhat dyspeptic reaction to President Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. It turns out that his reaction was mild by comparison with some of his secularist and atheistic colleagues.
Consider this, from Rachel Ben-Avi:
Our president has, of late, been referencing God and Jesus more than usual. Even one such reference proves excessive. That his assuring us of both his Christianity and his deep beliefs in popular deities is pandering to the devout, reassuring the suspicious, not so subtly pleading with the electorate in our seemingly increasingly religious nation would appear obvious and depressing. Even mildly nauseating….
Our president seems, in his religious protestations, actually to forget that there are worthy people in this country who are not Christian. (There are many who are not even religious, but it seems these days to be an unspoken rule that we Americans, with the exception of Bill Maher, do not acknowledge that fact when waxing patriotic.)…
Thomas Jefferson, for The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, wrote, in 1777: “…all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” The statute became state law in 1786. Surely our president has read this.
The Constitution makes it clear that none of this fervency, devotion, belief or, certainly, affirmation of religious sect is either necessary or relevant in Mr. Obama’s role as our leader. And it is to our credit as a nation that it is not. Now, Mr. Obama is a constitutional scholar, if I am not mistaken. He is a smart man, smarter than most of the population of this country. I assume he is smarter than I am, yet this irrelevance, his spirituality, on which he repeatedly insists, is obvious to me as just that: irrelevant. How can it not be obvious to him? How can he mindlessly (I give him credit here) undermine one of our nation’s great virtues, kicking out of sight, behind him, into a black hole, a treasure of our democracy, every time he tells us he is Christian.
The only place in the Constitution of the United States in which there is a reference to religion at all is at the end of Article Six, which reads: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
In notes for a speech introducing the Bill of Rights, (June 8, 1789), James Madison wrote: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
This poor woman does not understand the Constitution. A President giving testimony to his faith–and some people taking note of that testimony, or preferring to vote for someone of whose religious beliefs they approve or regard as a sign of good character–does not amount to a religious test for officeholding or an establishment of religion or a violation of the proverbial separation of church and state. Indeed, the free exercise of religion applies even to the President; he can pray when he wants to and testify to his faith when he wants to. He can even pray for guidance before he signs a law, urges a policy, or commits the nation either to war with one nation or to peace with another. Ben-Avi is free, if she wishes, to regard such prayer as delusional or a sign of mental weakness. I’m free to regard it as some indication of an appropriate modesty (something of which the President all too infrequently gives evidence). Ben-Avi would clearly prefer to have Christians or other believers seen, but not heard, least of all in the Oval Office. Her view seems to constitute a certain kind of informal religious test, or, if you will, a kind of (anti-)religious prejudice. She’s entitled to her opinions; she’s even entitled to vote for or against people because they agree or disagree with her. Again, that’s what freedom of religion means. I disagree with her. I wouldn’t vote for her if she were running for office. But if she won and wanted to testify to her lack of faith, I wouldn’t be offended, so long as she did not call me (or rather, people like me) stupid or credulous. President Obama, like President Bush before him, has bent over backward to decouple religion and morality, at least in his public statements. By testifying as to who he is, he shouldn’t be offending anyone.
Then there’s this spirited atheist:
In a political sense, the most nausea-inducing portion of Obama’s speech was his embrace of Oklahoma’s arch-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R) as “a brother in Christ.” The president said, “Even though we are on opposite sides of a whole bunch of issues, part of what has bound us together is a shared faith, a recognition that we pray to and serve the same God. And I keep praying that God will show him the light and he will vote with me once in a while.” This remark got a big laugh from the good old boys and gals at the prayer breakfast but Coburn and his views are nothing to laugh about.
The godly Coburn, an obstetrician before he became a politician, is the same Tom Coburn who, in his senatorial campaign in 2004, declared that he supported the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions and “other people who take life.” If I were the president, I’d be careful about claiming anyone like this as a “brother in Christ.” Obama needs Coburn as a brother like Abel needed Cain….
What secularists lack, and have always lacked, is the kind of political organization that wields any real power. That is the major task facing American secularists today and only one thing is clear: we are wasting our time with internecine quarrels between those who prefer to call themselves “skeptics” and those who answer only to the name “secular humanists,” between so-called hard and soft atheists. We all have much more in common with one another than Obama does with Coburn, but you’d never know it from the disunited front we present. And as long as skeptics are taking swipes at humanists and atheists are calling one another out for being insufficiently caustic (or too caustic) about religion, we will never be able to mount an effective challenge to “sacred,” historically recent “traditions” like this inane prayer breakfast–or to the damaging proposals that various “brothers in Christ” are formulating to make their religious views the law of the land.
Like Jacques Berlinerblau, Susan Jacoby thinks that community flows from political agreement. Barack Obama and Tom Coburn can’t be brothers in Christ because they disagree about things like abortion. Or, more precisely, being a so-called “brother in Christ” must be meaningless if it’s accompanied by disagreement about something as momentous as abortion. Well, that’s interesting. If I don’t agree with Jacoby, are we entitled to disrespect or indeed hate one another? Do we belong to different nations or communities? (“Jesusland” and “the United States of Canada”?)
My own view is that if “brother in Christ” means anything in this context, it offers the President a ground for loving and respecting the Senator despite their disagreements. It holds out the possibility of agreement down the road. How far down the road, given our fallenness and fallibility, is another question. Indeed, I’d argue, following St. Augustine, that the only perfect community is the City of God or, if you will, brotherhood in Christ. I don’t know that Barack Obama and I mean quite the same thing by this; he has spoken, after all, about creating the Kingdom here on earth. I prefer to regard this sort of language as an indicator of the limits of politics and of any contingent community based solely upon political agreement. Barack Obama and Tom Coburn are larger than the roles they play as President and Senator. And that’s a good thing.
Lastly, I can’t resist commenting on this, also from Jacoby:
The newly emboldened religious right is also taking on state constitutional provisions that bar organized prayer in schools. On Feb. 1, the Virginia House of Delegates passed a measure that would amend the Virginia constitution so that “the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage and traditions on public property, including public schools, shall not be infringed.” This is particularly Ironic, because Virginia led the way–and provided a template for the federal constitution–by passing a law in 1786 that banned taxation for religious instruction in public schools, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, originally written by Thomas Jefferson and supported by a coalition of Baptists and freethinkers, became the first state law to definitively establish separation between religion and government institutions.
Like Ben-Avi, she seems to misunderstand religious freedom. The Virginia House of Delegates has approved an amendment that would protect prayer on public property, but not require that anyone pray. Indeed, she conveniently forgot to quote this part of the amendment: “however, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions, including public school divisions, shall not compose school prayers, nor require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity.” Permitting people to pray, but not requiring them to do so, would seem to be the very essence of religious liberty. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
I was accustomed to this sort of criticism directed against George W. Bush. That Barack Obama is also on the receiving end of this kind of vitriol bespeaks a certain disappointment in him on the part of his (erstwhile?) supporters. They can’t believe that he would stoop to such pandering (as they have to understand it).
I know that conservative Christians have often been accused (sometimes rightly) of being ungenerous to their political opponents. But they can, one hopes and prays, be called to the better angels of their natures. How do you address those who are ungenerous, but don’t believe that there can be better angels of their natures?
February 10th, 2011 | 4:54 pm
Rachel laments:
“The Constitution makes it clear that none of this fervency, devotion, belief or, certainly, affirmation of religious sect is either necessary or relevant in Mr. Obama’s role as our leader. ”
The Constitution also does not say whether a president should brush his teeth, wear pants, or employ profanity in mixed company.
The Constitutional also does not instruct us on grammar, good manners, or civility, but each in its own way is necessary so that we may carry out what the Constitution’s commands in a civil society.
For most of us, the ideas of equality and justice that Constitution presupposes make little sense without the rich philosophical anthropology of the Christian tradition. Religious liberty, for example, makes sense if it is in fact a good whose acquisition leads to human flourishing. So, it is a mistake to read the Constitution as an ahistorical text delivered to us untainted by the theological and secular traditions from which it emerged.
Apparently, then, Rachel is a sola scriptura atheist.
February 10th, 2011 | 5:16 pm
We need a single standard – one that all can, if not agree to, then at least adhere to – when it comes to expressing the values of our faith and personhood.
People on the left like to pretend that their belief-set is somehow exempt from the criticisms of “religion”, since their belief is “not a religion”. But their belief is a religion when it suits them; they turn it on and off at their own convenience. Go to any specifically secular or atheist event and what you will see is a celebration of the values of Unitarian Universalism, whether they choose to call it that or not. Gay Pride parades, for example, specifically celebrate humanist values: the desire to experience the parts of nature that are pleasurable, and control the parts that are limiting, is the essence of the Unitarian or humanist “faith” – a belief that no other major religion shares, outside of the religions that gather under the Unitarian banner. Most religions emphasize that some things must be accepted, some things are inherently mysterious – the rejection of these beliefs is the essence of humanism or Unitarianism.
So I am really curious why it is that nobody can figure out how to challenge the double standard where the same people who are pushiest about the “right to self expression” for their own beliefs, feel that Christians should be closeted.
February 10th, 2011 | 7:45 pm
I have question: Does the Virginia amendment requires that schools organizes prayers(regardless if people are or not forced to participate on it)? Or is just that it allows students to pray on public schools? I If it is the first I can see why it is problematic (why should people pay techers and school directives to organize religious events?), if it is the second one I suspect it is redundant and unnecesary.
February 10th, 2011 | 10:18 pm
Actually, she’s claiming that community among ‘secular’ types hasn’t flowed from political agreement.
February 10th, 2011 | 10:21 pm
Well, they can believe in better natures even if they don’t believe they’re angels…
February 10th, 2011 | 10:30 pm
RBA wrote:
In notes for a speech introducing the Bill of Rights, (June 8, 1789), James Madison wrote: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
Perhaps I’m making a big deal out of nothing, but my recollection is this was the LANGUAGE that Madison originally proposed for the First Amendment, but was voted down.
February 10th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
All Obama is doing is pandering. He is running for re-election and thinks we are all stupid enough to think if he all of the sudden adopts “conservative-speak” we will go for it. I hope not.
February 11th, 2011 | 8:32 am
That prayer breakfast is a tradition of pandering.
February 11th, 2011 | 9:20 am
I’ve thought for a while now that the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment was the idea of religious freedom. We humans, though, keep going back to the long-established idea that our belief system is the “True” one. That much is fine as why believe if we don’t think it’s true. The problem comes when we think we should impose our beliefs on others so they too have, or at least claim to have, “True” beliefs. Too many secularists, skeptics, atheists (pick the one you like) seem to be pre-Enlightenment on that score. Not a few theists have the same problem, of course. I believe it’s part of our fallen nature. But theists have a bit of an advantage there, as God’s ways are not like our ways (Isaiah 55:6-11). That God has all the answers allows us to let go a bit on claiming all the answers for ourselves.
February 11th, 2011 | 9:28 am
“President Obama, like President Bush before him, has bent over backward to decouple religion and morality, at least in his public statements.”
Could you please provide an example of either President doing this ?
February 11th, 2011 | 10:07 am
How many is “too many”? I don’t deny that dogmatic atheists exist, as Knippenberg ably demonstrates (“There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks.” – Larry Niven) but – honestly – I don’t see them as being dominant.
February 11th, 2011 | 10:29 am
“The only place in the Constitution of the United States in which there is a reference to religion at all is at the end of Article Six, which reads: ‘[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.’”
I suppose Ms Ben-Avi’s forgetting that the First Amendment, by dint of being an Amendment, is also by definition part of the Constitution?
February 11th, 2011 | 10:58 am
It strikes me as significant that when Susan Jacoby needed a metaphor to express her expected animosity between the President and Sen. Coburn she chose–with no irony that I perceive–a Biblical story, that of Cain and Abel.
Perhaps she needs to stop bashing us over the head with the Bible and get the log of religion out of her own eye before she criticizes the rest of us for the specks in ours…
February 11th, 2011 | 11:36 am
Mr. Kippenberg’s last question here explains the strong temptation to feign religious piety even when a politician really has none (whether or not this is the case with President Obama). That is, if Joseph Kippenberg thinks one needs “better angels” to justify civility, just imagine the superstitions of the less educated masses!
If you want less pandering, stop enlarging the appetite for it.
February 11th, 2011 | 12:15 pm
In response to the query about “decoupling” religion and morality, I had in mind the occasons on which President Bush said, in effect, that you could be just as good a citizen or patriot if you had or didn’t have religious belief.
Here’s a link to one example of this:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62944&st=belief&st1=no+religion
As for President Obama, we need go no further than his Inaugural Address.
“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. And because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.”
T
February 11th, 2011 | 9:48 pm
[...] Dispirited Atheist by Joseph Knippenberg. See here. Posted in Atheism, Politics | No Comments » Leave a [...]
February 12th, 2011 | 3:05 pm
Prayer on public property, especially school property, demonstrates a tacit establishment of that religion. When we are talking about schools-one of two centers of life for young people with impressionable minds-we always have to err on the side of caution when it comes to religion. This is a well-established legal train of thought, and I think that the Virginia law will be struck down because of it. When it comes to other public property, one can be a little more relaxed. But because this law has schools amongst the places where prayer will be protected, it will most likely be struck down.
February 12th, 2011 | 11:48 pm
Eric Mann, I would agree that the public square should be neutral territory and welcome for all, except that this “cautious of religion (except for mine)” approach is being used by humanists and Unitarians to push their religion onto the square and grant themselves a state-backed monopoly.
If secular people have a right to not have to share the public space with Christian beliefs, then I have a right to not share that public space with state-sponsored affirmations of humanist, secular beliefs.
As long as we can have Gay Pride in the public square, there will be an equal right, morally and ethically, for Christian Pride in the public square. You cannot celebrate one faith and then turn around and say that “pushing” one’s faith on others is somehow “bad”. The square belongs to all of us, so there’s no reason why one side should submit to hiding their faith, huddle in the closet – and yet bow down to the minority which views it as a “basic human right” to “express” their beliefs, using the commons and the taxpayer dime? Either we all express or we all refrain. I don’t care which way we go, but I won’t settle for “you refrain, but we don’t refrain” – it’s all or nothing.
I do not mind sharing the public square with any religion or religious iconography if there are enough local citizens in the area to justify the desire and the need. However, as long as one religion is allowed to “claim the turf” and “plant their standard”, then we all have a right to do so. To settle for less would be to pervert the spirit of the law.
February 14th, 2011 | 7:45 am
Blake:
Excuse me, but Gay Pride parades usually occurr in the street, not in public schools. As I remember, religious right manifestations or religious motivated ceremenies occur in the street to, not in public schools.
February 14th, 2011 | 5:26 pm
Sergio: gay students have hijacked proms as well as public streets.
They now claim the right to make a spectacle is an essential basic human right – for them, of course, but not for Christians.
February 14th, 2011 | 5:29 pm
Also note that gay rights activists have firmly planted their flag in the classroom, demanding the right to teach that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” and an “identity”, taking children on field trips to things like a “lesbian wedding”, teaching from pro-homosexual books in the classroom, etc.
If Christians proselytized their faith-based values half so blatantly, humanists would have a fit. But humanists believe that they are exempt from expectations. They think the pleasure of recreational sex is important, therefore anyone who believes in sexual restraint is subhuman and doesn’t deserve to be treated with respect.
February 15th, 2011 | 5:15 pm
Blake –
Well, attended proms, anyway.
You might find this interesting: http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/02/15/has-the-weight-shifted/
Eric Mann –
Not when the students are doing it and the officials are not endorsing or condemning it.
February 16th, 2011 | 9:27 am
Ray,
The question is whether one is allowed to redefine the dress code in order to prioritize one’s right to “express one’s true identity”.
There’s one standard if “one’s true identity” is as a secular humanist, who worships sex, pleasure, and control over nature (for instance, asserting dominance over nature in pretending to be a male instead of a female, or a female instead of a male).
There’s a different standard if one worships something spiritual, instead of physical.
We can have it either way – a right to self-expression, or an expectation of restraint. I would just like one standard – one set of rules – to be applied consistently.
February 16th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
I’m for consistency, too. I’m also for as much self-expression as possible (including, yes, religious self-expression).
For example, I’d be for the least-restrictive dress code consistent with the school’s purpose of educating students. And since a dance is a social rather than educational event, I’d say the dress code can be even less restrictive than the day-to-day code.
(Oh, and BTW, I’d – um – dispute the idea that one either worships something spiritual, or else something physical. One might not worship either.)
February 17th, 2011 | 9:31 am
Blake –
Can’t believe I missed this before. How does one ‘hijack’ a “public street”?
February 17th, 2011 | 10:11 am
Can’t believe I missed this before. How does one ‘hijack’ a “public street”?
One hijacks a public street the same way gays hijack whatever they want: by demanding what they want, then threatening with “if you don’t give it to me, I’ll shame you publicly as being an enemy of black people”.
Thank goodness the power to invoke false comparisons with the KKK is losing its power. I guess that proves “co-evolution” is real, eh?
February 18th, 2011 | 12:47 pm
I am completely unable to parse this.
What do “gays” “want” when they “hijack” a “public street”? What do they do with it? Take it home and put it over their mantel?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact