OSC

So, one of my favorite authors is Orson Scott Card. And I'm not just talking about Ender's Game; I really do like almost all of his books. That's all well and good, but OSC happens to have a significant internet presence, and oddly enough for the S.F. community, he's an extremely conservative, extremely religious Mormon, and I find his politics quite revolting. This generates an internal conflict for me: how can he be such a good writer and yet display such extremely poor logical thinking skills?

I've been meaning to dissect one of his political essays for a long time, just for the fun of it. So, I'll start with this old one from last October. The overall point of the essay is that Islam is not a "civilized" religion, and therefore should not be afforded the same status as other religions in the U.S. While I agree with his characterization of Islam, the problem is that he tries to cast the problem as an Islam-only problem instead of one that is applicable to almost all religions. Secondly, I find his solution abhorrent: he essentially wants to limit the free expression of religion. It's typical; for all the screaming the religious right does about the "War on Christmas" and how the evil atheist conspiracy is oppressing them, it's almost always the religious right themselves that are trying to restrict religion... or at least the ones they disagree with.

Card starts by trying to separate his religion from barbarism (otherwise his "solution" might accidentally apply to him). In doing so, he completely glosses over any historical facts that might get in the way. Let's start with this gem:

"There are those who would like to tell you that no religion is civilized, but these tend to be people whose ignorance of history is so profound as to appear deliberate."

I believe there are religious people who are civilized, but in general most religions still promote bad things. Card's ignorance of history is on display here, no one elses. I'm a huge fan of John Shelby Spong, and there are many other religious people I admire, but even their religions have been historically bad. Even today, the Catholic Church prohibits condom usage in countries where HIV is rampant. The Church would rather see people suffer than prevent the spread of this disease. In Texas, where I live, the religious right successfully blocked legislation requiring that all girls get the HPV vaccine. That is uncivilized.

His defense of Christianity as a civilizing influence is even more preposterous.

"While the conquistadors busily planted crosses wherever they decided native Americans needed enslaving, there were in fact Catholic priests who labored mightily -- and with much success -- to prevent as much mistreatment of the native people as they could, and to preserve what they could of their culture. "

This is just laughable. There were such Catholic priests as he described (members of the School of Salamanca), but there were many more on the other side. The historical situation is much more complex than he describes. The Valladolid Controversy in Spain in the 16th century was a debate between Dominican priests about whether or not the American Indians were "natural slaves". Whether or not Card believes the conquistadors were "Christian" or doing "the Lord's work", they believed it. At the same time, the Spanish Inquisition was at the height of its power, and autos de fe were regularly held in Spanish America. He continues:

"No one could seriously argue that the conquistadors conquered because of their purported Christian faith. But the fact that in almost every place the Spanish conquered, large populations of Indians survived, can be credited to Christianity. "

No one would seriously argue that Christianity was the sole reason for the conquest of the Americas, but Christianity provided a moral justification for it. The conquerors were able to (and did) do whatever they wanted to further the spread of Christianity. His second sentence is almost trivially true -- in many cases, the natives were only allowed to live if they had converted to Christianity. Is Card next going to argue that the Crusades had no religious motivation or were less barbaric?

Next:

"That's because Christianity, like other civilizing religions, has an ideology that attempts to suppress warlike behavior and personal violence. So even though hypocrites could violate Christian doctrine and claim to be Christians while doing it, there were always Christians to openly contradict them, and the plain language of Jesus was on the side of those who abjured violence. "

No true Scotsman, much? To say that people who have committed atrocities in the name of God or Christianity lacked the true faith is just begging the question. Second, he says the "plain language of Jesus", which conveniently gets him around many of the worst atrocities in the Bible. Is he going to disavow the Old Testament entirely? Fred Phelps has good Biblical justification for his horrendous views. To ignore that is to be willfully ignorant. Third, many religions give much clearer moral precepts than Jesus did; to borrow a point from Sam Harris: Jainism gives a much clearer moral justification, in a single sentence, for not doing harm than Christianity ever has. Yes, Jesus also said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but this is mitigated by various other Biblical passages. People of faith pick and choose which things they live by. The contradictory passages in the Bible give people these loopholes. Let's see what else OSC has:

"That is, the plain language of the Quran justifies warfare and killing, and long tradition within Muslim culture takes those tenets literally. There are those who will claim that "Islam is a peaceful religion" and that jihad -- holy war -- is really about "personal struggle." I rejoice that some Muslims choose to take these passages in the Quran figuratively -- but the language is there, and Islamofascist murderers of Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, Hezbollah, and the theocratic government of Iran take it very literally. "

Hrm... Seems to be the same thing over again. If I took the above paragraph and replaced "Islam" with "Christianity", would anyone bat an eye? For 1800 years, Christians have taken a more literal reading of the Bible and committed equivalent atrocities. Were the Crusades any different than a jihad? They were certainly a holy war. It is only in the last two to three hundred years Christians have become more "civilized". And only 150 years ago in the U.S. were southern Christians using the Bible to justify slavery. I rejoice that some Christians choose to take the slavery-endorsing passages in the Bible less literally nowadays.

Moving on from his comparison of Christianity to Islam, Card now takes up Constitutional interpretation. It's just as wrong.

"The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and while that has recently been twisted into an instrument of oppressing and suppressing American Christianity"

Boom, we immediately start out with a strawman. This is a typical canard from the Religious Right. Listen people, preventing you from using the government to further your religion is not oppression. Have your churches been burned? Worshippers forbidden from worshipping? Books prevented from being published? No. All that's happened is that you can't do it with government money and you can't force other people to go along with it. A very recent example of this phenomenon is Sally Kern who went on an anti-gay tirade and was recorded. She now claims that her right of free speech is being infringed upon and that she is being oppressed simply because she is being criticized! No, you moron, freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from criticism. By the same token, freedom of religion is not freedom to use the government to further your religion.

"... it is the belief of Muslims throughout the world that it is the duty of good Muslims to kill any Muslim who converts to a different faith."

Again, we see Card ignoring history. How many Protestants were killed in the Reformation because they tried to change religion? Oh, wait, Catholics aren't true Christians. That was just a corrupted ideology, right? Card needs to realize that most Christians don't consider Mormons to be "true" Christians, and that until 300 years ago, would have faced persecution and oppression, right along with Unitarians. Again, his criticisms of Islam are valid; while there are good Muslims and I know several; they find this behavior abhorrent as well. It's entirely unjust to apply this criticism across the board without levelling the same charge at Christianity.

For Constitutional justification of his solution (which we'll get to), he starts by examining current restrictions of rights. First, he presents a limitation on Christians:

"the Supreme Court decided that it is constitutional to ban kneeling and praying too close to an abortion clinic."

This wasn't done on religious grounds, but because it's harassment. It's Christians using intimidation tactics; plain and simple. It's the same reason there are restrictions on protesting or picketing too close to a business. You can do it across the street, but when employees or customers begin to feel physically threatened, you have to back off. It has nothing to do with religion.

What he's trying to do here is make the point that freedom of religion shouldn't be an absolute freedom. After all, some freedoms, such as speech in the case of libel, have been curtailed. What's his solution to the "Muslim problem"? Why, that Muslims shouldn't be permitted to practice their religion unless they specifically renounce violence and the notion of killing apostates. He then uses the example of the Mormon church being forbidden from practicing polygamy as an example of how religious freedom, like other freedoms, isn't absolute.

Excepting from the fact that I disagree with polygamy being illegal, we do already limit some religious practices -- female circumcision, animal sacrifice, etc. But no religion has been censured on the basis of ideas, no matter how repulsive. That is, it's still okay to believe that animals be sacrificed, as long as you don't actually do it. The KKK still preaches that blacks should be enslaved, as long as they don't do it. Fred Phelps advocates that gays should be stoned to death, and as long as he doesn't do anything about it, his belief is protected. Card's solution is nothing but making thoughts a crime. That is a dangerous, dangerous precedent.

In extreme cases of Muslim antagonistic preaching, we already have laws preventing some of that -- it falls under "incitement to riot". We do not need to introduce thoughtcrime into this. His conclusion?

"Meanwhile, however, it is time for is to stop extending the protection of the Constitution to those who, under the guise of religion, are actively promoting the right to deprive Americans of their civil rights -- including the right to continue breathing."

Now we can see his clear bias. His religion actively promotes depriving many classes of people of their rights -- gays the right to marry, women the right to their own bodies. Give me a break. That stench is rank hypocrisy. He claims that Islam needs to prove itself "worthy of the protections of the Constitution. " That position is positively insane. You don't have to be worthy of rights -- they are universal. Even the most heinous murderer is due the protection of the Constitution -- and can only be deprived of some of those rights after due process! Instead, he wants to summarily dispose of the rights to freedom of conscience to an entire religion. This screed amounts to nothing more than "The Constitution should only apply where I think it should apply." What a joke.

Book Review: Faiths of the Founding Fathers

I just finished reading the book by David Holmes, and I thought I'd post some thoughts. From a scholarship point of view, the book was pretty good, but was quite boring at times. Definitely worth reading if you're interested in a thorough analysis of ... what the title suggests. Most of what follows is summary from the book; some of it is my thoughts. I hope it's clear which is which.

First, a quibble. Throughout the book, Holmes refers to the religion (in some cases, more broadly, belief system) of founding fathers as Deism. Yet, clearly, many of the Founders believed in a personal God (Holmes reiterates this many times), which I've always found to be contradictory to Deism. Everything I've read equates Deism with an impersonal God (see a dictionary, the wikipedia, britannica). While there were many Deists during the time (Thomas Paine was an outright Deist), the FF were more accurately general Theists. Holmes breaks down the beliefs into three categories: Deism, Christian Deism, and Christian. He generally means "real" Deism by the first, but what he calls Christian Deists would more accurately be called either rational theists (on the Deist side of the spectrum) or Unitarians (a la John Adams). Anyway, I think it's a pretty semantic issue, and maybe I'm misreading, but the other terms seem more accurate.

In the first section, Holmes analyzes the religious beliefs of the colonies as a whole. Although much of the general population was unchurched, religious belief was quite high. Coupled with this, there was a large amount of religious intolerance in much of America. Excepting for Pennsylvania most of the colonies had at least a few laws criminalizing or marginalizing some faiths (atheism was way out). So, yes, there was a lot of religiosity in early America.

What the Dominionists¹ today don't understand is that the leading intellectuals who would become the founders were exactly opposite of this. While several of founders (Adams and Washington) believed that religion was necessary for the common man to be moral, they believed that any religion was an equally valid way to find morality and that religion was good for the common man. Christians today may point to this ideal and say "Look, even these great men believed in religion itself." Yet, this doesn't make the opinion valid. At the time, many rational people still fell back on religion as an explanation for the universe -- science was yet in its infancy. We should judge these men not by the common shortcomings of their time, but by how much they transcended those shortcomings. After all, we do not reference their views on race; while Adams was a staunch abolitionist, we would (hopefully) find his thoughts on the inferiority of non-white races abhorrent today. Yet, for his time, he was far ahead of the curve.

Yet another fact that ought to have Dominionists shaking in their boots is that prior to the American Revolution, many of the colonies had state-sponsored churches, and these were dismantled in the time span around the Revolution. On what basis then do they argue that the Founders wanted a "Christian Nation"?

Next is an analysis of Deism and its roots in the Enlightenment, and the impact that Thomas Paine had on many of the founders. Holmes points out how much Deists, and the intellectuals of the time in general, valued reason over all else -- this led them to abandon much of Christian orthodoxy. Critical to his later analysis of individual Founders' beliefs is a careful examination of what language Deists of the time used to refer to God:

In place of this Hebrew God, Deists postulated a distant deity to whom they referred with terms such as "the First Cause," "the Creator of the Universe," "the Divine Artist," "the Divine Author of All Good," "the Grand Architect," "the God of Nature," "Nature's God," "Divine Providence," and (in a phrase used by Franklin) "the Author and Owner of our System." The Declaration of Independence displays precisely this kind of wording and sense of a distant deity.

Far too often I run into someone who presents a random quote from Jefferson, Franklin, or whoever, that refers to God in this way; this is offered as conclusive proof of our country's foundation in Christianity. This is a way to quickly identify someone who needs to read more American history.

... Deists despised political and religious despotism. Their fundamental belief in reason and equality drove them to embrace liberal political ideals. In the eighteenth century, many Deists advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state.

(emphasis mine)

The next few sections are an in-depth analysis of the religious views of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Holmes has gone through much of these men's correspondence and compiled an excellent overview of their belief systems. Next is a look at the wives and daughters; excepting for Abigail Adams, most of the Founders' wives were far more orthodox than their husbands. In a later section, Holmes discusses why Deism failed in the U.S., and this turns out, at least in part, to be that because while Deism took hold among the men, it failed to gain traction with the women. Children were almost exclusively raised by their mothers, especially during the Revolution. Of course, there were orthodox Christians in the revolutionary movement, and Holmes takes a look at three -- Samuel Adams, Elias Boudinot, and John Jay. Holmes closes the main sections with a few pages looking at how the past is different; included in this is:

Today many Americans are concerned that their presidents be sincere men and women of faith. These founding men and women were often sincere believers. But their faith differed -- often markedly -- from that which many Americans have held in later centuries. Writers need not revise history to align the founders' beliefs with their own. Americans can tell their story unhesitatingly, warts and all.

The implication here seems to be that the Founders' religious beliefs are a wart -- something I'd take issue with. The epilogue is then a depressing illustration of recent presidents' evangelism and how much religion has played a role in presidential elections. Today, American politicians pander to the religious crowd. We've come far since the Revolution, but in the wrong direction.

I was hoping for a more direct analysis of the "Christian Nation" nutjobs, and I'm always on the lookout for a comprehensive book on the subject (instead of random snippets around the web). This book makes a strong and convincing positive argument for the U.S. being founded on secular principles, and a positive argument is critical to any position -- an opinion cannot be formed on a negative argument alone. Yet, reading a negative argument against a position you disagree with is so much more fun.

¹ I'm going to commit my own nomenclatural blunder here, and use the convenient term "Dominionists" even though there are clearly people in the U.S. today who do not necessarily want an all-out theocracy, but still believe in the "Christian Nation" concept.

Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright

Yes, there’s lots of talk about how Jeremiah Wright has said offensive things, and I’m not the first to point out that the religious right leaders have said similar things (see here), but I wanted to pull a bunch of these comments together into one place and do a direct comparison and talk about who is offended and why. And a bunch of other things.

---

Wright vs. Prominent right-wing religious leaders

For one thing, I don't see how this is, for lack of a better term, new news. I remember some flap back in November about this, so it makes me wonder why this has come up again. But, let's review what Wright has said that's got people so up in arms.

Wright: "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." (link)

Wright: "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied." (link)

That's pretty harsh -- he wants God to damn America for treating some people very badly. I'd think God could do something better, like fix things. But anyway. He's definitely a nutcase, but is he any different from many other religious leaders? If not, why does it seem like the religious right are the ones with the bunched-up panties? Let's compare.

Jerry Falwell(speaking just after 9/11): "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen." (link)

So, unlike Wright, he's not asking God to damn America, he's saying God already did. I'm not sure which is worse. Plus, Wright, at least in the first quote, seems to think it would be punishment for treating people unjustly, while Falwell is saying it happened because we treat people justly. Wow. Let's move on.

Pat Robertson: "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." (link)

Do I need to comment on this? He's advocating destroying Washington, D.C. with a nuclear bomb. I don't care if he intended it to be a joke (and it doesn't seem like it), that is a statement from a whackjob. Lest you think that is an anomaly, take a look at this article (via Ed's blog) about Francis Schaeffer by his son:

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany. When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "Wow, I'm glad something like that doesn't happen these days". *sigh*. Yeah, it does. Let's look at the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. He believes he is the second coming of Jesus, and held a coronation ceremony anointing him as such. Oh, and he was crowned by Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.)

Moon: "There is no doubt that this kingdom is one that the children of God's direct lineage can reign over by upholding the heavenly decree. In other words, it is a nation in which they rule on behalf of God's commands and kingship. Democracy and communism cannot exist in such a kingdom. Once established, it will remain as an eternal state system. Considering these things, isn't it mortifying that you have not yet become the citizens of that kingdom?" (link)
Moon wants to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. He owns the Washington Times!! Neil Bush travels with him!

This issue could doom Obama's candidacy, and, yet, Republican leaders (and a few Democrats) suffer hardly at all for arguably worse associations. Not to mention that these right-wing evangelists have much more power than Jeremiah Wright. Scared yet?

---

Obama's Response

A couple of days ago, Obama gave a speech in response to the furor about Wright. It was a pretty good speech -- I thought that it was a good move politically to face this head-on.

I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Well, it's a start. I'm still unconvinced -- after all, Obama has attended Wright's church for a long time. I do not trust him on religious views -- he isn't much different from Mike Huckabee on that score (an excellent overview is here). Obama claims that his religion won't affect how he acts as president, but I don't see how that could be possible. Obama, while in favor of "civil unions", is still against gay marriage -- on religious grounds. Regardless, I find the attacks on him about Wright to be intensely ironic, especially given the next section...

---

McCain and Hagee

McCain has recently accepted (and was "honored" by it) the endorsement of John Hagee, yet another right-wing televangelist. He has condemned Harry Potter as witchcraft (the ability of these people to determine fact from fiction astounds me).

Hagee: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." (I cannot find a primary link for this, but it was said on NPR's Fresh Air on Sept 18, 2006)

This makes me sad -- after all, McCain had called Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance" during his 2000 campaign. Presumably, this would include Hagee as well. That was one of the things that raised my respect for McCain. Now? Has he recanted that statement? Does he not realize who Hagee is? Or is he simply pandering to the religious right? If the last (and let's be realistic), how much should we crucify a politician for doing what a politician does? Yet, part of his appeal (and Obama's too) is that they don't fit the traditional politician mold.

---

I'd like American politicians to be far more secular, but I'd settle for a little less hypocrisy.