The Long View 2007-12-24: Merry Christmas!
John J. Reilly lays out an argument here that religious tolerance in the United States doesn’t really have a neutral point of view as to what constitutes “religion”:
First, we should recall that religious toleration, at least in the Anglo-American tradition, is the legal embodiment of a Protestant notion that you cannot save a man by forcing him to pray. Coercing religious people into taking part in the wrong religious ceremonies, or forbidding them from religious expression in public, is at least offensive to God and at worst a peril to the souls of those coerced. For unbelievers, however, contact with a religious observance is like being asked not to wear white after Labor Day. If atheists angrily declare that their personal integrity is being violated, then they are unthinkingly manifesting a psychological trait of the theist era.
Second, theism really is important to the political culture of the United States, and to some extent of the whole Anglosphere. The point was recognized most especially by the leaders with the fishiest religious credentials: Jefferson, Lincoln, and Churchill. To put it briefly, American political culture assumes a transcendental link, that the law means more than it says, and that therefore historically novel calls for justice can be legitimate. The alternatives to this principle are artist-politician fascism or Rawlsian proceduralism, both of which have been found dishonest and oppressive wherever they have been tried.
In a way, for American politicians to give equal recognition to unbelief would be as mistaken as giving recognition to proponents of sacred monarchy or of Pol Pot Communism: people may hold these beliefs and even publicize them, but they are incompatible with the premises of the political system. (And were some of the political (as distinguished from civil) disabilities imposed on English Catholics after the Glorious Revolution justified, at least until the Church changed its attitude on certain political issues? The answer is not obviously "no.")
John didn’t use this word, but his argument is in part that for an atheist to complain about a religious observance they don’t like is an act of cultural appropriation. However, as John noted in other contexts, even purportedly secular movements in the United States are often similar in form and content to the faith of the past. Especially the line about how “historically novel calls for justice can be legitimate”.
Merry Christmas!
Atheists and agnostics feel doubly neglected this solstice season, according to many reports. On one hand, all the major presidential candidates of both political parties have lately taken pains to express their solidarity with all people of faith, and especially with people of Christian faith. But what about people of unfaith, eh? Don't they deserve the same consideration as Presbyterians or snake handlers? Furthermore, it is, well, Christmas, a dark time of the year in the northern temperate zone when people pretty much have to hold a party or go crazy. The excuse for it is optional. National Public Radio, therefore, in its tireless dedication to perfect balance in religion reporting, devoted a third of yesterday's evening news broadcast to this story:
A growing number of young people now identify themselves as non-believers, and some colleges have responded by adding so-called "atheist chaplains" to their staff. Harvard now has an atheist chaplain, who helps students celebrate the holidays without violating their core (non)-beliefs.
As for the larger question: no, atheists do not merit the same sort of consideration as Holy Rollers, for two reasons:
First, we should recall that religious toleration, at least in the Anglo-American tradition, is the legal embodiment of a Protestant notion that you cannot save a man by forcing him to pray. Coercing religious people into taking part in the wrong religious ceremonies, or forbidding them from religious expression in public, is at least offensive to God and at worst a peril to the souls of those coerced. For unbelievers, however, contact with a religious observance is like being asked not to wear white after Labor Day. If atheists angrily declare that their personal integrity is being violated, then they are unthinkingly manifesting a psychological trait of the theist era.
Second, theism really is important to the political culture of the United States, and to some extent of the whole Anglosphere. The point was recognized most especially by the leaders with the fishiest religious credentials: Jefferson, Lincoln, and Churchill. To put it briefly, American political culture assumes a transcendental link, that the law means more than it says, and that therefore historically novel calls for justice can be legitimate. The alternatives to this principle are artist-politician fascism or Rawlsian proceduralism, both of which have been found dishonest and oppressive wherever they have been tried.
In a way, for American politicians to give equal recognition to unbelief would be as mistaken as giving recognition to proponents of sacred monarchy or of Pol Pot Communism: people may hold these beliefs and even publicize them, but they are incompatible with the premises of the political system. (And were some of the political (as distinguished from civil) disabilities imposed on English Catholics after the Glorious Revolution justified, at least until the Church changed its attitude on certain political issues? The answer is not obviously "no.")
* * *
Speaking of English Catholics, readers will have noted that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was received into the Catholic Church in recent days. Not everyone was pleased at this development, including Damian Thompson of the UK's Telegraph:
Yesterday the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster received into the Catholic Church a politician who consistently voted in favour of abortion and, as Prime Minister, refused to countenance any reduction in the time limit for “terminations”. In the eyes of the Church, he has the blood of innocents on his hands.
Blair met Pope Benedict XVI in June
Don’t ask me for an explanation: I simply don’t understand. Has Tony Blair changed his mind about abortion? If so, why has he not said so publicly?
I repeat: I do not understand what has happened. Can anyone enlighten me?
We might recall the apocryphal story about the Anglican vicar who felt obligated to defend infant damnation. Sometimes, the vicar explained, God is required to take steps in his official capacity that privately he deplores.
Similarly, in this case, I think perhaps that different standards might apply to a former prime minister than to a sitting prime minister. It is no longer up to Tony Blair to say what the fertility-management laws of the UK should be. I don't know what his private views on abortion are now, but they would be the only question at issue.
* * *
My interest in the Lost series evaporated some time ago: there comes a stage when the further addition of mysteries suggests not creativity but absent-mindedness. Nonetheless, my admiration for the viral marketing campaign that producer J.J. Abrams created for the series remains undiminished. The antics of the Hanso Foundation online were much more fun than anything being taped at the film's site in Oahu (except the bits about Hurley), and even I made use of the myth of Alvar Hanso for the greater good. Now I see that Abrams has a monster film coming out next month, Cloverfield, which is also being promoted by a viral campaign (and no, I'm not being paid for this blog entry). It seems to be at least as high concept as Lost.
We have only some clips and a few online hints with which to judge the film, but the campaign's high concept seems to be that of The Haunting (the 1963 version) and Curse of the Demon (a.k.a Night of the Demon): the scariest monsters are the ones you make up in your head. If this idea does not have a name already, then I propose it be called The Bob Newhart Horror Show. It's like hearing one side of a telephone conversation:
"Hello? You say you have a what?"
"A what?"
"Well, how big is it?"
"Fifty stories, you say."
"Oh, this happened to a fifty-story building."
"Two, two fifty-story buildings."
"At once."
Actually, the key to the whole thing is supposed to be Slusho, but damned if I can tell why.
* * *
The Presidium of the Central Committee of the American Literacy Council is supposed to have a telephone conference this week to determine for all time the future use of "c" and "k" in English spelling. Your opinions are welcome at least as much as the European Commission welcomes citizen mail. (Also, I am supposed to become webmaster of the ALC site in 2008. Critiques and suggestions for that are welcome, too. Really.)
Copyright © 2007 by John J. Reilly
Support the Long View re-posting project by downloading Brave browser, and then trying it out. With Both Hands is a verified Brave publisher, you can leave me a tip too!
Comments ()