Against religiosity in politics

I’m Richard Bennett and I approve this message: At least two important conservative thinkers, Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, were unbelievers or nonbelievers and in any case contemptuous of Christianity. I have my own differences with both of these savants, but is the Republican Party really prepared to disown such modern intellectuals as it can … Continue reading “Against religiosity in politics”

I’m Richard Bennett and I approve this message:

At least two important conservative thinkers, Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss, were unbelievers or nonbelievers and in any case contemptuous of Christianity. I have my own differences with both of these savants, but is the Republican Party really prepared to disown such modern intellectuals as it can claim, in favor of a shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity?

Perhaps one could phrase the same question in two further ways. At the last election, the GOP succeeded in increasing its vote among American Jews by an estimated five percentage points. Does it propose to welcome these new adherents or sympathizers by yelling in the tones of that great Democrat bigmouth William Jennings Bryan? By insisting that evolution is “only a theory”? By demanding biblical literalism and by proclaiming that the Messiah has already shown himself? If so, it will deserve the punishment for hubris that is already coming its way. (The punishment, in other words, that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson believed had struck America on Sept. 11, 2001. How can it be that such grotesque characters, calling down divine revenge on the workers in the World Trade Center, are allowed a respectful hearing, or a hearing at all, among patriotic Republicans?)

Then again, hundreds of thousands of young Americans are now patrolling and guarding hazardous frontiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is there a single thinking person who does not hope that secular forces arise in both countries, and who does not realize that the success of our cause depends on a wall of separation, in Islamic society, between church and state? How can we maintain this cause abroad and subvert it at home? It’s hardly too much to say that the servicemen and -women, of all faiths and of none, who fight so bravely against jihad, are being stabbed in the back by the sunshine soldiers of the “crusading” right. What is one to feel but rage and contempt when one reads of Arabic-language translators, and even Purple Heart-winning frontline fighters, being dismissed from the service because their homosexuality is accounted a sin?

Thus far, the clericalist bigots have been probing and finding only mush. A large tranche of the once-secular liberal left has disqualified itself by making excuses for jihad and treating Osama bin Laden as if he were advocating liberation theology. The need of the hour is for some senior members of the party of Lincoln to disown and condemn the creeping and creepy movement to impose orthodoxy on a free and pluralist and secular Republic.

No more mixing religion and politics, please. Voting your moral values is fine, but following the literal text of the Bible is delusional.

H/T Pajama Media czar Roger Simon.

UPDATE: See also James Taranto’s defense of the Religious Right, in many ways a better-reasoned piece than Hitchen’s amusing broadside. Taranto argues that the courts have imposed specific policies on the country, such as legalizing abortion, that are actually the province of the legislative branch. Like good citizens are supposed to do, the Religious Right has organized and elected politicians who represent their values, with a long-term goal of removing “activist” judges and returning policy prerogatives to the branch of government that actually owns them under our system.

It’s hard to argue with that.

11 thoughts on “Against religiosity in politics”

  1. It’s hard to argue with that.

    I think it’s trivial to argue with it:

    When the legislature makes a law that is unconstitutional, such as laws that ban all abortions, even in the life of a mother, it is well within the court’s purview to overturn it and render the law null and void.

    There is no policy without law, nor law without policy implications. Policy is actually shaped and executed by all 3 branches of government then.

    One can make the parallel arguments- hate to do the Godwin’s law thing, but the historical parallel is undeniable-about the Germans who gave the Nazis enough of a plurality to basically provide the executive branch with unlimited power, “correcting the excesses” of the pesky legislative and judicial branches there.

    Actually, the tendency of democracy to fall sway to demagoguery is exactly why we put braking mechanisms such as giving the Senate almost unlmited sway in deciding its rules.

    Finally, they may be organizing votes, but they’re organizing in other ways too, and some of it’s not so pretty. I just don’t get the idea of going to church to see a “pastor” who is the unfortunate result of over-consumption of pork products foam at the mouth to get a rise of rage out of his congregation, such as the way John Hagee does. Reminds me too much of Triumph of the Will.

  2. When the legislature makes a law that is unconstitutional, such as laws that ban all abortions, even in the life of a mother…

    There’s actually quite a bit of controversy about the constitutionality of abortion laws. Even the Supreme Court that handed down Roe v. Wade reversed itself and found a completely different justification in Griswold v. Connecticut. When an issue such as this is not clearly constitutional or not, it’s best to leave it to the legislature.

  3. While Roe may have been badly written, I for one think that it was largely correctly decided because of the implicit nature of individual liberty.

    Of course, that line of reasoning would invalidate some drug prohibition laws, too, and in general I don’t have a problem with that. The courts do make mistakes; it’s an imperfect system we have.

    There’s a good op-ed today in the NY Times that gives a bit of background on the appearance of Federal circuit courts. It’s good reading.

  4. More like Roe was badly reasoned. The Constitution is a pretty limited document, and those who find secret rights in “emanations and penumbras” are generally wrong.

    If the abortion question were left to the states, most would allow it today and judicial appointments wouldn’t be so contentious.

  5. Good thread Richard. Of course, any return to restrictions on abortion will simply mean that those with means will get abortions that are medically sanitary while those who do not have the means will be in danger of medically inadequate procedures.

    (And babies will be abandoned instead of being given to homes that want them.) there is a no-fault law that a baby can be left at any fire station or emergency room with impunity, no charges will be filed against the mother/father.

  6. Abortion laws have a number of consequences, that’s true, but it’s not really the issue. The question before the house is whether these things should be decided by elected representatives or by guys in black robes with lifetime appointments. The end doesn’t justify the means, to coin a phrase.

    Assuming Roe were struck down today, abortion would still be legal in a dozen states or so. And some interesting discussion would ensue in the other states relative to the responsibility the state should take on for “unwanted” babies if abortions are banned. That sort of thing could seriously shakeup welfare laws.

    It’s that whole “culture of life” thing.

  7. Thanks for including the Taranto reference – it clearly defines why many of us are far less concerned about the religous right than the frothy mouthed left.

  8. “How can it be that such grotesque characters, calling down divine revenge on the workers in the World Trade Center, are allowed a respectful hearing, or a hearing at all, among patriotic Republicans?”>

    Funny that for all their talk of blasphemy they feel free to slander God with impunity. Just don’t criticize the church or the “people of reason faith”. That would be blasphemy.

  9. Richard, you say “the Religious Right has organized and elected politicians who represent their values, with a long-term goal of removing “activist” judges and returning policy prerogatives to the branch of government that actually owns them under our system.”

    Of course, you are quoting. So am I, then, in today’s WaPo lead article on stopactivistjudges.com leader Rick Scarborough:

    “While Christian right leaders such as Scarborough employ the usual Washington special-interest tactics — collaring lawmakers, issuing press releases, appearing on political talk shows — their real power rests in their unique access to millions of voters “who happen to go to church,” as Scarborough puts it. “It’s straight to the heart of people from men and women they trust,” he said.”

    Yikes.

  10. Yeah, churches are a ready organizing place for political causes, which we all learned from Martin Luther King. Union halls and schools are pretty good too, and with the Internet everybody can organize.

Comments are closed.