O.k., Romney's Out
Mitt Romney: "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."
These claims are almost too vague to rationally assess, but to the extent we can make sense of them, they are clearly false, in both directions. In fact, it's a fairly stupid thing to say in this day and age. You might be able to plead "cultural blinders" on this point in the eighteenth century, but not in the twenty-first.
I suppose Romney is talking about political freedom. Is he saying that one can't have a liberal state without a state religion? That would be absurd. Or without a religious majority? Again, absurd. Or that atheists can't be proponents and defenders of freedom? If anything, even more absurd. Is this guy really that much of a dumbass? Well, presumably he's just pandering. But bullshit is bullshit.
And nothing could be more obvious than that religion does not require freedom. In fact, religion has been one of the greatest violators of freedom throughout human history. Just to pick one particularly salient case, I can't believe that the Republican base is going to buy that our Islamofascist/ Islamosatanic/ Islamovampire /Islamozombie /Islamoeeeevil enemies are actually somehow secretly committed to freedom in virtue of being religious. Imagine a country in which Pat Robertson is king; imagine how much freedom there is there.
For future reference, Mitt: if you can't say something at least minimally intelligent, best not to say anything at all.
Mitt Romney: "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."
These claims are almost too vague to rationally assess, but to the extent we can make sense of them, they are clearly false, in both directions. In fact, it's a fairly stupid thing to say in this day and age. You might be able to plead "cultural blinders" on this point in the eighteenth century, but not in the twenty-first.
I suppose Romney is talking about political freedom. Is he saying that one can't have a liberal state without a state religion? That would be absurd. Or without a religious majority? Again, absurd. Or that atheists can't be proponents and defenders of freedom? If anything, even more absurd. Is this guy really that much of a dumbass? Well, presumably he's just pandering. But bullshit is bullshit.
And nothing could be more obvious than that religion does not require freedom. In fact, religion has been one of the greatest violators of freedom throughout human history. Just to pick one particularly salient case, I can't believe that the Republican base is going to buy that our Islamofascist/ Islamosatanic/ Islamovampire /Islamozombie /Islamoeeeevil enemies are actually somehow secretly committed to freedom in virtue of being religious. Imagine a country in which Pat Robertson is king; imagine how much freedom there is there.
For future reference, Mitt: if you can't say something at least minimally intelligent, best not to say anything at all.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:10 PM
28 Comments:
Let's try to be more charitable:
Religion might require freedom, if one uses "religion" in the analytically positive, fluffy sort of way it is usually used in American political discussion. Typically, religion is e4quated with faith, and faith is taken to be a willful, individual commitment to belief. Arguably, one could not undertake such committments for real at the point of a gun.
As for the latter, there is a long running notion in liberalism, going back to Locke, that the implicit contract underlying the liberal state - in which we agree to live and let live religion-wise, amounst other things - cannot be relied upon if people don't belive there is a higher power that guarantees that evil will be punished. For Locke, this theologically minimal God is needed to do the work that the sovereign does for Hobbes, only better since He's omniscient and always fair. Now, I don't actually think this is right, but the idea that God is needed to ensure promise keeping and that promise keeping is needed to ensure freedom is at least respectable, even "minimallly intellegent".
Imagine a country in which Pat Robertson is king; imagine how much freedom there is there.
Already been done: "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood.
Although it isn't Robertson per se.
Fair enough, A.
I posted in anger...
I agree with your first assertion, Anonymous, but I don't think I agree with the latter assertion.
I don't see how one could possibly think that God is required in order to "live and let live" based on what you said. You seemed to indicate that it is because he would be there to punish evil, but I don't know why it's necessary to have a punishment for evil in order to live and let live.
These claims are almost too vague to rationally assess, but to the extent we can make sense of them, they are clearly false, in both directions.
The philosopher Jurgen Habermas, who is a secularist, finds these claims quite easy to engage, and does so, even coming to some agreement. Those interested will look him up.
And Romney is on firm footing with the Founders and the American philosophical tradition of "civil religion":
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
---Washington, Farewell Address 1796
Now, it may be possible to run a republic on post-Christian, purely rational and material terms. But this has not been proven, and the early results are not encouraging.
M,
I was agreeing with A's point only insofar as he was asserting that to hold a Romneyesque position was less than minimally rational. It's not correct, but it may not be completely idiotic.
T,
Well, Washington--astonishingly great and admirable man though he was--was no philosopher. And, as I said, there were excuses for thinking such things two hundred years ago. But by now it should be obvious that people can be moral without religion. In fact, the best people I know are atheists.
Also: non-Christian doesn't mean materialist.
Also: yeah, there does seem to be some link between Christianity and liberalism, much as I want to drag my feet in admitting it.
I mean, I've got nothing against rational Christians. Hell, I love 'em. Buddhists, too. Anybody who's willing to put reason before religious faith--or rational faith before religious faith--I'm totally cool with 'em.
I'm just sick to death of the kind of dogmatic, in-your-face, BS, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity that's so prominent in the GOP these days. It's surprising to me that more Christians aren't sick of it, too.
I mean, I've got nothing against rational Christians.
Amen.
I mean . . . er.
Anyway, this point came up the other day, when someone called me anti-Christian . . . and the thing is, I'm really not. I am in favor of Christianity when it does stuff I agree with and I am opposed to it when it does stuff I disagree with, just like everything else.
Not that hard, right?
---Myca
But by now it should be obvious that people can be moral without religion.
Washington concedes that. The question is whether it's many or most.
I give Washington's wisdom greater credence than philosophers'. And no, I don't think human beings have changed in 200 years.
Well, some philosophers. The dreary, modern kind. From somewhere:
While Jürgen Habermas is traditionally considered a secular philosopher with a Kantian approach to moral philosophy, The latest issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education's Chronicle Review includes an insightful piece by Richard Wolin called "Jürgen Habermas and Post-Secular Societies" (subscription). Wolin finds that Habermas,who he argues might be the world's leading living philosopher, has been writing more subtly on religious subjects and themes over the past few years and might be up to the great challenge of bridging religion with the secular world. Using both his writing and his life, Wolin takes a close look at the role Habermas is playing in our rapidly changing post-secular and moral universe.
Glance back at Habermas's philosophical chef d'oeuvre, the two-volume Theory of Communicative Action (1981), and you'll find that one of his key ideas is the "linguistification of the sacred" (Versprachlichung des Sakrals). By this admittedly cumbersome term, Habermas asserts that modern notions of equality and fairness are secular distillations of time-honored Judeo-Christian precepts. The "contract theory" of politics, from which our modern conception of "government by consent of the governed" derives, would be difficult to conceive apart from the Old Testament covenants. Similarly, our idea of the intrinsic worth of all persons, which underlies human rights, stems directly from the Christian ideal of the equality of all men and women in the eyes of God. Were these invaluable religious sources of morality and justice to atrophy entirely, it is doubtful whether modern societies would be able to sustain this ideal on their own.
In a recent interview Habermas aptly summarized those insights: "For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or a catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love."
On the one hand, religion's return -- Habermas, perhaps with the American situation foremost in mind, goes so far as to speak of the emergence of "post-secular societies" -- presents us with undeniable dangers and risks. While theodicy has traditionally provided men and women with consolation for the harsh injustices of fate, it has also frequently taught them to remain passively content with their lot. It devalues worldly success and entices believers with the promise of eternal bliss in the hereafter. Here the risk is that religion may encourage an attitude of social passivity, thereby contravening democracy's need for an active and engaged citizenry. To wit, the biblical myth of the fall perceives secular history as a story of decline or perdition from which little intrinsic good may emerge.
On the other hand, laissez-faire's success as a universally revered economic model means that, today, global capitalism's triumphal march encounters few genuine oppositional tendencies. In that regard, religion, as a repository of transcendence, has an important role to play. It prevents the denizens of the modern secular societies from being overwhelmed by the all-encompassing demands of vocational life and worldly success. It offers a much-needed dimension of otherness: The religious values of love, community, and godliness help to offset the global dominance of competitiveness, acquisitiveness, and manipulation that predominate in the vocational sphere. Religious convictions encourage people to treat each other as ends in themselves rather than as mere means.
Lots of philosophers offer lots of hand-wavy BS like this.
However, the irrefutable point remains: one does not have to be religious in order to be moral, and no amount of *argumentum Habermasum* will change that. Morality does not require religion: that's one of the few irrefutable conclusions from moral theory.
Does the egoistic rapaciousness of the market need to be counterbalanced? Yes, and conservatives would do well to realize that. Does it have to be done by religion? Absolutely not, and obviously not. Is religion the most salient social institution standing opposed to a world view in which market forces reign supreme and unchecked? Seems right. But not relevant, and not what Romney said.
So Habermas is BS, too. Fine, whatever.
lol Tom, unsurprisingly, I'm with WS on this one.
I have little time (Chinese exam in 15 minutes), but I really feel compelled to say something here:
We could go through it, but why? You would never believe us and you don't care. You set the bar SO LOW when it comes to accepting a belief you want to accept (Christianity is required for society) but you set it absurdly high when you don't want to accept it.
Habermas says things like "Habermas asserts that modern notions of equality and fairness are secular distillations of time-honored Judeo-Christian precepts. The "contract theory" of politics, from which our modern conception of "government by consent of the governed" derives, would be difficult to conceive apart from the Old Testament covenants. Similarly, our idea of the intrinsic worth of all persons, which underlies human rights, stems directly from the Christian ideal of the equality of all men and women in the eyes of God. Were these invaluable religious sources of morality and justice to atrophy entirely, it is doubtful whether modern societies would be able to sustain this ideal on their own."
All of that is merely plausible (unlikely, at that), and there's no evidence provided to believe it. You can't just say he said it and then accept it. There's zero reason to believe that government by consent of the governed would be unacheivable without the Old Testament. That's ludicrous. In fact, the REAL plausible source of our republic is Rome, which existed as a republic before Christianity!
So wtf!?
I'm sure you have some pseudo-quasi-plausible retort to it - I'm sure you won't accept it - but the fact is, a government by rule of the governed existed before Christianity, obliterating any notion that Christianity is required for that sort of government. Not to mention the fact that it's very clearly logically true that Christianity is NOT required for a government of that nature.
Just wtf man. It's not like Habermas is BS - it's that this argument you're giving is BS - saying that we ought to believe vague, loopy, RADICAL claims because someone you like said it.
Exactly right, M. Nobody said Habermas was BS. I said that there was a lot of BS like this floating around.
The idea of contracts has developed among people who have--gasp!--never heard of the old testament. Once you've the the idea of a contract, nothing prevents you from forming the idea of a social contract. Furthermore, you don't need social contract theory to have a democracy. That's obvious, but anybody skeptical of the claim should consider Athens.
Religion is not intrinsically pro-freedom, nor intrinsically anti-freedom. Rather, the relationship between any given religion and freedom depends on the particular nature of the religion. Christianity, for example, has had a very mixed history in this regard.
If you want my two cents, as a religious studies grad student:
Christianity and Islam are strikingly close when it comes to discerning how one ought to govern a nation using either of the religions. In fact, the majority of the punishments that are used in Islamic states that we find crazy (stoning to death the heretics, etc.) are taken from where? *gasp* The Old Testament! Christians used them constantly during the Spanish Inquisition. It's undeniable fact that Christianity has imposed many of the same ridiculous punishments and laws on its adherents as Islam, as they share the scriptures from which the vast majority of the laws and punishments arise.
Most people don't realize this, but Islam is understood by the majority of its followers as an ADDITIONAL REVELATION tacked onto the end of Christianity, just as Christianity is understood by the majority of its followers as AN ADDITIONAL REVELATION tacked onto the end of Judaism. Therefore, a proper understanding is that Islam views the revelation of Muhammed and the Quran to be superior to, but also to be taken to be in addition to and compatible with the New and Old Testaments. Christianity, likewise, views its scripture (The New Testament) to be superior to, but also to be taken to be compatible with and in addition to the Old Testament.
The vast majority of punishments doled out by religious governments in Abrahamic traditions are taken from the Old Testament. Given this fact, and the fact that the "Christian world" and the "Islamic world" are so different when it comes to style of governing and the notion of freedom, I'm inclined to believe that the relationship between religion and freedom, when it comes to Islam and Christianity, is dependent not merely on the nature of the religion, but in large part on the religion's interaction with the social situations taking place in the countries of its followers. If both religions share the same commandments, and yet the followers of those religions choose to enforce them differently, the source of the difference cannot be the religions, but the choices regarding enforcement, which I can only guess must stem from the politics and social situations of the countries.
For instance, Christianity spread with great success throughout Europe BEFORE Europe was democratic (in fact, it took a dictator to make it the state religion of Rome - its rise in Rome occurred after the Republic was gone). So, one can't say that Christianity spreads to those countries who are democratic, nor can one say that its spread entails a spread of democracy. Early in the history of Christianity's spread, there is absolutely zero evidence that democracy is in any way a part of it.
That is pretty solid. Below might be a little less so and more theoretical, but I'll say it anyway:
After Europe's adoption of Christianity on a wide scale (and the Crusades..and the Inquisition..etc.), there were rebellions against monarchies and dictatorships, resulting in new countries (America) and new governments (the Magna Carta in England, the French Revolution, etc.). Revolution was occurring in Europe and America for sure, but given that these rebellions were never overtly religious in nature (while religious freedom played a part - that most certainly does not stem from Christianity with its commandments to kill those who do not believe - see Leviticus and Deuteronomy), and given that it is obvious that religion is not necessary for the kind of freedom the rebellions were after, I'm compelled to believe that Christianity was, again, not the source of the democracy being spread. I say this because, although it has been clearly shown that Christianity initially did not entail democracy, one might argue that an evolution in the understanding of Christianity gradually brought Christianity to a state in which it necessitated democracy. This seems to be false.
So, in short, it looks to me, in my humble opinion, that the evidence points to the notion of the positive relationship between "Christian" nations and liberalism/freedom arising not because Christianity caused it to, but rather that Christianity has been the mostly unwitting benefactor of the rise of liberalism that occurred in Europe for reasons that were generally not religious in nature.
Given that Christianity and Islam share the vast majority of the ridiculous punishments and laws in their religious texts (as they are by far mostly drawn from the shared texts of the Old Testament), it stands to reason that, if one observes the Islamic world enforcing these rules more often and with more vigor than one observes in the Christian world, one should conclude that the difference does not lie in the largely similar religious causes, but elsewhere, in the social/political arena.
So my conclusions are the following:
1) Christianity and Islam share the vast majority of the crazy laws and punishments.
2) Each religion's nations and followers, however, enforce these laws in varying degrees.
3) If the religions' rules are employed differently regardless of the fact that they share the same claims, the cause of the difference must reside outside of the nature of the religions.
Noting that, one desires an explanation of the difference between Christian and Islamic nations:
4) Christianity did not entail Democracy when it initially spread throughout the world.
5) It isn't clear that a huge Europe-wide change in the way Christianity is conceived led to Christianity causing democracy.
6) The positive relationship between "Christian" nations and liberalism/freedom arising not because Christianity caused it to, but rather that Christianity has been the mostly unwitting benefactor of the rise of liberalism that occurred in Europe for reasons that were generally not religious in nature.
Hope that makes sense. I just kinda wrote it in 15 minutes and haven't given it much thought up until now, but it seems right to me at the moment.
Hope that makes sense. I just kinda wrote it in 15 minutes and haven't given it much thought up until now, but it seems right to me at the moment.
Yes, it does make sense, if you have no knowledge of Jewish and [particularly medieval] Christian thought.
The history of ideas, which Habermas knows quite a bit about, leads to some very interesting conclusions. I don't know where duffers get the impression that people like Habermas just talk out of their asses and can be refuted by 15 minutes worth of thought based on surface impressions of history.
And Athens wasn't a social contract between individuals, but between city and man, which is why they banished people by poll and put Socrates to death. Let alone the sacredness of the individual which found form in the D of I and remains the irreplacable cornerstone for human rights, WS.
I don't mind disagreement, but these are arguments that require far more to refute than calling BS. The Enlightenment didn't happen in a sunny secular vacuum, and if one of the most influential philosophers of the last century can't get people to at least consider that possibility, then all is lost.
And the problem with dragging Islam in is that a reading of the Qur'an indicates it has zero understanding of Christianity, and only a surface one of Judaism.
One size does not fit all, and the fact that the Enlightenment occurred in a Christian milieu and in no other in history indicates that a deeper inquiry into that fact is required.
A study that Habermas undertook, and cannot be evaluated by a fragment of an essay about him that I popped into a comments section.
Imago Dei alone, a particularly Judeo-Christian concept, can be quite persuasively argued as the source of the human rights you enjoy today. This is where Habermas, and many many others are coming from, not the Inquisition.
Wow. That's the most ridiculous set of assertions I've ever seen you make, Tom.
The Quran shows that it has zero understanding of Christianity, eh? Wow. That alone demonstrates that there's no reason to continue this conversation.
Wow. I can't believe I wasted so much of my time typing that out. Hope others got something out of it.
I...I just can't help myself...you're so ridiculous that you compel me to type a response. I never cease to be utterly shocked and dismayed at how amazingly partisan and dogmatic you are about EVERYTHING.
You say the Quran has no understanding of Christianity, and you claim that I haven't read enough!? That's precisely how you operate - you don't like evidence opposing your view, so you just disregard. You want to think Christianity somehow accounts for freedom's existence - a radical and nearly laughably absurd proposition - and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. When you get to holding a belief like that, you obviously didn't get there via evidence. I don't know why we think evidence will convince you otherwise.
And then, of course, while the Quran and all Muslims are completely without understanding of Christianity, your boy Habermas has a WONDERFUL understanding of EVERYTHING. His radical propositions MUST BE TRUE!!!!
Typical TVD - devalue any source you don't like without any clear reason, increase the value of that which you do like astronomically without any clear reason.
Your point about Athens doesn't even make sense.
Your retort to my point about the inquisition is that that's not where Habermas is "coming from" - that has almost zero clear meaning and even less relevance. My point was that Christianity can clearly be seen to be equally conducive to tyranny as it can be seen to be conducive to democracy - evidence that the religion is being manipulated - not that the religion is causing these phenomena.
Hilariously, you say "I don't mind disagreement, but these are arguments that require far more to refute than calling BS."
Of course, alleging that the Quran bears no understanding of religion and that I know nothing isn't calling BS! Not when you're TVD!
LOL YOU'RE SO EFFING RIDICULOUS. I am right now promising myself that I am not going to even look at this thread after I post this because you're already wasting too much of my time.
Say all the lofty things you want about how "deeper enquiry" is required, but the fact is, you don't give a damn about truth, here. You've got your opinion, and that's what it'll be.
I'm out of this thread, and unlike others who say they are and then they're driven back by your laughable posts, I will not be. So post away and have your last say. I won't even look here to spare myself reading anymore nonsense.
See, if you were actually able to make a counterargument about the Qur'an, or the philosophical background of the Enlightenment, you would have. But you can't, because it can't be made.
So instead, you dismiss my assertions with a wave of your hand, becoming referee in a discussion you're taking part in. You're picking up some very bad habits from our host.
Yes, you are wasting your time, typing another content-free slam at my position. At least you gave your last one 15 minutes' worth of thought, although to paint Islam and Christianity with the same brush loses all understanding of their natures and underlying philosophies. Jesus chose the cross, Mohammed the sword. The distinction and difference cannot be anymore dramatically illustrated than that, and must be addressed and refuted on those grounds.
Once again, you miss the point, Tom.
What I noted was that democracy does not require religion, nor a social contract theory of the state. Again, obvious, no counterexample needed, but if you insist, Athens, a democracy, you'll recall, remains a perfectly good one.
There are other features of our view of government that Athens didn't prefigure, but that's irrelevant.
So your attempted refutation missed the target.
What we have here is basically an open-and-shut case. Words can be thrown up to prolong it, but length isn't depth.
You open then shut every case, declaring opposing arguments nonsense.
This American republic, founded on inalienable rights, is far more than the mechanism of democracy. Democracy can be anything, even the "general will," or Putin's Russia, which probably did legitimately carry 60% of the vote.
Democracy can quite legitimately puts Socrates to death. Not open and shut at all.
Try to focus, man:
My claim was about democracy.
Your argument is against a claim about something other than democracy.
See the problem?
You picked out the "democracy" part. My first words were on the republic.
Now, it may be possible to run a republic on post-Christian, purely rational and material terms.
referring to the reality of America [and the West], not abstraction.
There is no problem. That you acknowleged there *might* be some link between liberalism and Christianity is plenty for me, and the basis for good faith inquiry.
The rest is just the usual internet squabbling again.
My claim was about democracy, etc., etc. Any other claims you might want to make are irrelevant to this claim.
Focus, focus...
Whoever denied such a possible link? They developed in the same region of the world, and have clearly influenced each other. It's clear that Christianity is in no way required by liberalism, but the two views were well-positioned to influence each other, and almost certainly did.
If you still want to fight, fine. Greek democracy isn't the same as liberal democracy, or what Habermas [yes, I've been doing more reading on him of late] calls "bourgeois" democracy. Putin's is a democracy, as is Chavez', at least for the time being.
Therefore we must have a tighter focus what "democracy" we're talking about for it to be a meaningful concept. The Catholic Church elects its pope, but "democracy" isn't a word we usually associate with it.
But me, I'm more concerned about religion and the republic, which is the real topic with this Romney thing.
This isn't going to work. There's just no conception of democracy or the liberal state that *requires* Christianity.
There MAY be some types of liberalism or democracy that Christianity--as a matter of more-or-less contingent historical fact--facilitates...and there are equally likely to be types of liberalism and/or democracy that Christianity impedes. Certainly Christianity was, as a matter of fact, an impediment to liberalism and democracy for much of Western history--by, for example, supporting the "divine right [note: not an actual right] of kings."
The actual fact is probably something like this: certain conceptions of Christianity are in some sense promoted by liberalism and democracy, and vice-versa. Certain conceptions of the respective views tend to impede each other. My guess is that we're better off with Christianity than we would have been with Islam, but Christianity had a lot longer to get its act together, so its hard to say for sure. We might be even better off with Buddhism, and there's no doubt that there are lots of imaginable religions we could make up that would be way better than Christianity, so far as democracy and liberalism go.
If given the chance to trade away either Athens or Jerusalem, I wouldn't do it, since things have worked out so well in the end. Christianity, as a kind of cornerstone myth of the West, has been a mixed blessing. But that's better than most religions have been, I'll bet.
For the record, divine right of kings was something James I of England was pushing. Suarez, the Jesuit, following Aquinas, opposed it, and James burnt his book.
"Christianity," strictly, being needed, no. But Habermas thinks that a secular version of its principles is required. Neither will you find its principles, especially its emphasis on the individual, as prominent in other religions.
My question would be if it's possible---love your neighbor, the essential dignity of the human person, virtuous self-governance, all that stuff liberal democracy requires---to have The Church of Christ Without Christ, as Flannery O'Connor put it.
We'll see. In the meantime, having a sizable chunk of the population believing they'll go to hell if they don't do the right thing is a boon for stability. Unless we're sure we can replace that with its secular equivalent, we mess with it at peril.
It's easy to have other myths that do the same thing the Christian myths do. Once the question is reduced to the psychological efficacy of myths, it's an open-and-shut case. Some version of karma would do fine, for example. Stories of eternal punishment don't require a God to carry it out.
But, furthermore, it's also important to note the Christianity hasn't done a very good job as such a myth. Better than some, yes, but neither the best of all possible myths, nor even an excellent one.
But, again, once we're reduced to talking about the power of myths, this game is too easy for the non-theist to win.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home