« Advice to Aspiring Pundits | Main | Whose Fault? »
June 09, 2007
Global Warming And Religion*
By Stephen of the Thinkery
On Thursday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held hearings on religious views of global warming. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called witnesses from Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant and Evangelical Christian traditions. James Inhofe (R-OK) of course representing not only his home state but the conspiracy contingency, adding to his idea of a worldwide cabal of scientists intentionally misinforming the rest of us on global warming, the possibility of a liberal plot to "divide and conquer the evangelical community and get people (moving) away from the core values issues."
Sometimes I do wish we liberals were capable of such planning, cooperation and organization.
What I really don't understand is how this can be such a divisive issue within Christianity. I can understand why evolution is such a hot topic: Creationists are able to point to the first chapters of Genesis, at least, for evidence of their point of view, even if they are wrong. But there's nothing in the Bible about this at all. Neither Moses nor Jesus ever said that if the "world becometh warmer, let it be unto you a sign to build bigger chariots and to feedeth yon beasts of burden beans and cheese."
People can certainly dispute the idea that the world is getting warmer. As I said, that means you also have to believe that thousands of scientists are cooperating with one another to deceive the Earth's population, but it is possible to take the word of an extremely small minority on this issue over that of the overwhelming majority. One can also dispute the idea that human beings are to blame for rising temperatures, though that's hardly an argument against taking action to reduce carbon emissions and other types of pollution, about which I have written before.
But you can't base those ideas on the Bible. Inhofe closed his remarks to the committee by quoting Romans 1:25 - "They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God’s creation instead of God who will be praised forever. Amen." It's probably no surprise that Inhofe didn't include the verses immediately preceding that quote, which explain what exactly Paul was saying:
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:21-23, NLT)
The closest that any Christian could possibly get to a biblical basis for opposition to the global warming consensus is the idea that environmentalism - excuse me, "secular" environmentalism - places the perceived needs of the environment above those of human beings. Inhofe referenced the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which is based upon this criticism of the wider environmental movement. And while it is necessary to factor human costs into any strategy we might take, Inhofe and the signers of the Cornwall Declaration completely ignore how the current concern over global warming is based upon the fear that millions of desperately poor people living on the world's coastlines will at best lose their homes in the coming years, if not their lives. Or the worry that many of the world's poorer areas will find it even harder to produce the food necessary for their residents to survive. Or that our children and grandchildren, even in this advanced country, will not have clean water to drink or air to breathe. The concerns of the environment are the ones not usually addressed when people decide it's time to clearcut the rainforest or drill new oil wells, or use dangerous chemicals as pesticides or fertilizers.
All of this, of course, doesn't address the fact that there's no compelling reason for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to invite a bunch of theologians to come in and discuss global warming - with the possible exception of Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefforts Schori, who holds a Ph.D in oceanography from from Oregon State University. (She also has an M.Div, speaks Spanish fluently and is an instrument-rated pilot. That's my Presiding Bishop, woot!)
*By religion, I of course refer only to Christianity and Judaism. At least, those are the only religions that count in this discussion according to the witness list for the committee hearings.
June 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Some people called C.S. Lewis a Christian apologist.
Funny -- as far as I can tell, he never met Inhofe.
Posted by: Harrison | Jun 9, 2007 12:00:02 PM
Some people want the world to end.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Jun 9, 2007 12:13:48 PM
Wow! It's very hard to be a Hindu in America. What with our trillions of Gods with human like faces.
Posted by: alien | Jun 9, 2007 12:23:35 PM
What I really don't understand is how this can be such a divisive issue within Christianity.
When you're practiced at denialism of basic science like evolution, it isn't a big leap spread that denialism to other areas. That is especially true in cases like environmental science, where the results are not convenient to political allies. There are some people who simply deny that humans can affect the environment, however much evidence is offered to the contrary. The attitude is that God made it the way it is, and only God can change it.
Posted by: John | Jun 9, 2007 12:56:17 PM
no compelling reason for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to invite a bunch of theologians to come in and discuss global warming
There's a political reason, though, to show that religious authorities, even conservative ones, are OK with fighting global warming, contrary to some popular impressions.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 9, 2007 2:00:06 PM
There's a political reason, though, to show that religious authorities, even conservative ones, are OK with fighting global warming
Certainly true, but disturbing that such a thing is even necessary.
There are really people out who won't believe in global warming unless some guy with a "Rev." in front of his name says it's OK? I guess so.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 9, 2007 2:26:12 PM
What I really don't understand is how this can be such a divisive issue within Christianity.
Christianity is irrational. Christian beliefs are not determined by evidence, so Christian denials of global warming aren't terribly surprising.
There's a political reason, though, to show that religious authorities, even conservative ones, are OK with fighting global warming
Unfortunately, yes, because so many Americans still think that religious authorities should influence government policy. Of course, when even Democratic presidential candidates talk about basing their political positions on "biblical injunctions" that doesn't exactly help in the fight to keep church and state separate.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 2:42:57 PM
Christianity is irrational. Christian beliefs are not determined by evidence, so Christian denials of global warming aren't terribly surprising.
A stupid and bigoted explanation. I know plenty of religious believers more rational than you've shown yourself to be about religion. As you might be able to figure out for yourself if you were paying attention to Stephen's post, this is really about politics, not religion. Conservative Christians are conservatives. Religion only comes into it indirectly, as religious people on all sides of any issue naturally look for some religious basis for whatever position they might have.
because so many Americans still think that religious authorities should influence government policy
Conservative Christians don't want religious authorities to have any special influence in government, no more than any other leaders who have views on politics. But they do push and vote for their their own beliefs, some of which are influenced by religion, like any other citizen is entitled to do. You have a basic misconception about the separation of Church and State if you think that's a violation of it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 9, 2007 3:58:57 PM
Sanpete,
A stupid and bigoted explanation. I know plenty of religious believers more rational than you've shown yourself to be about religion.
A characteristically stupid and nasty response. You are hopelessly irrational about religion.
this is really about politics, not religion.
No, it's about religion, science and politics. The fact that religious people tend to hold strong beliefs in the absence of evidence for those beliefs or in the face of conflicting evidence makes it unsurprising that many religious people hold beliefs about global warming that are inconsistent with the evidence.
Conservative Christians don't want religious authorities to have any special influence in government, no more than any other leaders who have views on politics. But they do push and vote for their their own beliefs, some of which are influenced by religion, like any other citizen is entitled to do. You have a basic misconception about the separation of Church and State if you think that's a violation of it.
All laws must have a valid secular purpose. A law may also happen to serve a religious purpose, but if so that is merely coincidental and does not in any way justify the law. That is why Barack Obama's appeal to "biblical injunctions" has no place in politics.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 4:19:06 PM
So "stupid" is nasty while "irrational" is just fine, Jason? Repeating your position without giving any additional argument at all doesn't improve it. Your silly argument would make it equally likely that religious people would favor fighting global warming as oppose it. You've given no evidence at all for your claim; it stands only as a reflection of your bigotry.
All laws must have a valid secular purpose. A law may also happen to serve a religious purpose, but if so that is merely coincidental and does not in any way justify the law. That is why Barack Obama's appeal to "biblical injunctions" has no place in politics.
Typically, your conclusion doesn't follow. There is nothing wrong with having and appealing to religious motives for political goals. What justifies a law in relation to a valid secular purpose doesn't in any way rule out the validity of other purposes for its supporters. The civil rights movement wouldn't have gotten very far off the ground by your silly standards.
You need to think beyond your prejudices about religion.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 9, 2007 4:41:36 PM
Sanpete,
Repeating your position without giving any additional argument at all doesn't improve it.
Repeating your claim of bigotry doesn't improve it at all. It just makes you even more of an idiotic boor than you've already shown yourself to be.
Your silly argument would make it equally likely that religious people would favor fighting global warming as oppose it.
Nonsense. It doesn't imply that at all.
You've given no evidence at all for your claim;
Religious beliefs rest on faith. Faith is belief unsupported by evidence. If they had evidence, they wouldn't need faith.
There is nothing wrong with having and appealing to religious motives for political goals.
As I said, all laws must have a valid secular purpose. Religious purposes cannot in any way justify civil laws. Laws cannot be justified by appeals to "biblical injunctions," God's will, the teachings of the Pope or any other religious authority.
You need to think beyond your prejudices about religion.
You need to stop being such an ignorant asshole. If you continue your ad hominem attacks on me, I'll continue to respond in kind.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 5:00:38 PM
Conservative Christians don't want religious authorities to have any special influence in government, no more than any other leaders who have views on politics.
Wow. I find myself agreeing with you a lot of the time, Sanpete, but this has got to be either one of the dumbest or most dishonest things you've ever said. No desire for special influence?
A is for "Answers in Genesis": Creationist ministry which has supported the campaigns of fundamentalist Christians in school board elections across the country.
B is for "Bauer, Gary": Former head of the Family Research Council, Republican presidential candidate, founder and head of conservative Christian lobbying group the Campaign for Working Families, connected to the Project for a New American Century, etc., etc.
C is for "Colson, Chuck": Watergate felon turned prison preacher and winner of the Templeton Prize, personal friend and advisor to Bush.
D is for "Dobson, James": Putting the "fun" in "fundamentalist Christian leader with an absurd level of influence on public policy" for over 25 years!
E is for "Epperson, Stuart": Radio magnate (he owns over a hundred stations around the country) who offers a nice mix of Christian music, Christian talk, Christian ministry, Christian advice, Christian commentary... and the promotion of ultra-right-wing issues and candidates.
F is for "Faith-Based Initiatives, Office of" and "Family Research Council" and "Focus on the Family" and "Federal Marriage Amendment".... do I really need to go on?
If you want to make the argument that the religious (read: Christian) should continue to dominate public debate and policy, fine, make that argument and JasonR, Thomas Jefferson and I will all argue that with you. But it's absurd to pretend there is not a determined, and very successful, effort to have conservative Christian leaders exert more influence over all three branches of government, at every level.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Jun 9, 2007 5:46:31 PM
And, just for good measure, the very top story on Yahoo's homepage right now: Bush meets with the pope, of whom is is apparently "in awe." I love it when people meet with the president in order not to have any special influence in government.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Jun 9, 2007 5:55:22 PM
I think the influence of the Religious Right on American politics is clearly in decline. It peaked around the late '80s, when the power of Dobson and Falwell and Robertson was at its height and has been gradually subsiding since then. Unfortunately, there's also now a Religious Left, represented by people like Jim Wallis and Amy Sullivan, who are trying to infect politics with their leftist brands of religion.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 6:08:14 PM
Jason, you've made derogatory claims against religion and religious believers without the slightest hint of evidence, and contrary to arguments. If you've got some better explanation for that than bigotry, give it. The idea that faith is belief unsupported by evidence, besides being false in general (and applying to your views on religion rather well), doesn't imply that religious believers' views on global warming are unsupported by evidence, any more than those of other people.
Why doesn't your silly implication that religious believers' beliefs on global warming are irrational, like their religious beliefs, not also imply they're just as likely to be for as against fighting global warning? If their views are just irrational, and, as Stephen points out, there's no religious reason to oppose fighting global warming, why should that position be favored over the other?
As I said, all laws must have a valid secular purpose. Religious purposes cannot in any way justify civil laws. Laws cannot be justified by appeals to "biblical injunctions," God's will, the teachings of the Pope or any other religious authority.
As in the last thread where you asserted a ridiculous view related to religion, you quickly move to ignoring what's said against it and just repeating it. As I already pointed out, laws can be justified to their supporters for any number of reasons, including religious ones, without in any way crossing any line of separation of Church and State. The Civil Rights Movement was a high-profile example of this. That a law has a valid secular purpose doesn't rule out religious appeals and motives as well. Would you like to repeat your bad argument again, or do you have some reply?
Unfortunately, there's also now a Religious Left, represented by people like Jim Wallis and Amy Sullivan, who are trying to infect politics with their leftist brands of religion.
Maybe you oppose the way Martin Luther King and his colleagues operated too. Brilliant.
You need to stop being such an ignorant asshole. If you continue your ad hominem attacks on me, I'll continue to respond in kind.
You think this is the playground after school? I've given reasons for what I've said about you. You have an obvious prejudice against religion and it's making you stupid, as prejudice generally does.
Mr. Ghost, your examples don't contradict what I said. Those people and groups don't have any special status that other people and groups can't and don't have as well. All kinds of pressure groups and people are welcome to participate in our system. The religious (read: Christian) don't dominate public debate and policy in any way not due to their simply being numerous and politically active, nor do I think they should.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 9, 2007 6:30:07 PM
Sanpete,
Jason, you've made derogatory claims against religion and religious believers without the slightest hint of evidence,
No I haven't.
If you've got some better explanation for that than bigotry, give it.
If you've got some better explanation for your behavior in this thread than moronic assholeness, give it.
The idea that faith is belief unsupported by evidence, besides being false...
It's not false.
...doesn't imply that religious believers' views on global warming are unsupported by evidence, any more than those of other people.
As I said, Christian denials of global warming aren't surprising in light of the fact that Christian beliefs are a matter of faith, not evidence.
If their views are just irrational, and, as Stephen points out, there's no religious reason to oppose fighting global warming, why should that position be favored over the other?
Why should which position be favored over the other? What does "that position" refer to, "oppose fighting global warming," or "fighting global warming?"
As I already pointed out, laws can be justified to their supporters for any number of reasons, including religious ones, without in any way crossing any line of separation of Church and State.
A law can only be justified by a valid secular purpose. Religious purposes cannot justify civil laws. You really believe that a law banning contraception on the grounds that allowing contraception is contrary to the will of God would survive a First Amendment challenge, do you? You obviously know nothing about constitutional law.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 7:11:52 PM
Sanpete,
Mr. Ghost, your examples don't contradict what I said.
On the contrary, his examples absolutely contradict what you said. I also agree with his evaluation that the statement of yours he quoted has got to be either one of the dumbest or most dishonest things you've ever said. And that's saying something, given your track record of stupidity and dishonesty.
Those people and groups don't have any special status that other people and groups can't and don't have as well.
Now you're trying to move the goalposts, another dishonest ploy you frequently try. Your statement was about what they want, not what they have.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 7:17:23 PM
JasonR, I wish I could agree with you that the power of the religious right is on the wane. While there is certainly a much stronger movement dedicated to combating the pernicious influence of the Falwells, Dobsons, etc. Just for example, the commencement speakers at Falwell's Liberty University for the last four years have been likely presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, presidential candidate John McCain, Sean Hannity, and presidential advisor Karl Rove. So yeah, I guess Sean Hannity's not in government, but it sure seems like a lot of very prominent and powerful Republicans feel the need to kiss Falwell's ring. I don't think his death will change much.
OK, SanPete, let's pretend for a minute that the religious right does not have any special status in the halls of power. You also seem to think that they don't seek it, that whatever influence they have is entirely appropriate, and that nothing they do is meant to undermine the separation of church and state. Here are three quick ones for you to ponder:
Pat Roberston: "There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."
James Dobson: "The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a Christian order."
Mitt Romney: "We need to have a person of faith to lead the country."
Do I have a "basic misconception of the separation of Church and State" just like JasonR?
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Jun 9, 2007 8:10:55 PM
I see you're clean out of arguments, Jason. Didn't take long.
You really believe that a law banning contraception on the grounds that allowing contraception is contrary to the will of God would survive a First Amendment challenge, do you?
No, and I haven't said anything like that. What I have said is that if a proper secular purpose can be shown for a law, it can be promoted on other bases as well. I've said that clearly enough. You just want to preserve your simplistic views too much to even read correctly.
Mr. Ghost, you would need to provide the contexts for the quotes. I'm pretty sure Robertson is referring to the usual liberal view that the First Amendment mandates that government not promote religion. That's far from obvious from the text of the amendment and its history. He's not a legal scholar, of course, but it's a respectable legal view that the Establishment Clause refers only to the establishment of a state religion. I'm pretty sure Robertson is against establishing a state religion, but in favor of the state promoting religion in more generic ways. Which it does and always has done, along with other causes deemed worthy of support.
Who knows what Dobson means by "Christian order," and how he thinks it should be maintained.
Romney's comment has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State doctrine, even if you take the strong view that the First Amendment bans all state promotion of religion. His remark is about what the country needs, not what should be required or promoted by the state.
This isn't to say that there aren't religious believers who do want clearly improper advantages, but they're not typical.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 9, 2007 8:41:02 PM
Also, I think you're deliberately misunderstanding what JasonR was trying to say. His point as I see it is that, because religious faith is not considered to be governed by the same rules as science, logic and normal political debate, religion can be used to justify anything and is not a reliable basis for public policy.
For the current topic, it works like this: The faith of our brave liberal believers, true disciples of the sweet, merciful Christ, leads them to support acting on the climate crisis out of compassion and concern for their fellow man. OTOH, those mean ol' Christian conservatives have this book that contains Teh Literal Word of God(TM) and it has them convinced that they are entitled to complete dominion over the Earth, and they also have faith that the world will end soon anyway so it doesn't matter, or that God will look out for us and fix things if we screw up too badly, or that Man Can Not Alter God's Creation, or whatever nonsense excuse it is this week.
So Christian faith is not a reliable basis for deciding what to do about global warming (or whether it exists, or is anthropogenic, or fixable). Science, on the other hand, gives us this great mountain of evidence about the cause, scope, nature, and possible solutions to a crisis of global proportions. So I, and I assume JasonR, can see perfectly well why there is a split within the Christian community and, furthermore, that we should be looking elsewhere for answers for this and all other problems.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Jun 9, 2007 8:44:35 PM
Sanpete,
What I have said is that if a proper secular purpose can be shown for a law, it can be promoted on other bases as well.
No, you didn't say that. But that statement is as confused and poorly-worded as your previous ones. Sure, religious purposes "can" be "promoted" for a law (free speech is a right), but any such purposes are irrelevant to whether the law is justified. A law can only be justified by secular purposes. A law may also happen to serve someone's religious purpose, but if so that fact plays no role in the law's justification. It is entirely incidental. That is why politicians of both the left and right should just shut up about their religious beliefs and discuss whatever secular goals they seek to advance.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 9, 2007 8:53:29 PM
Sanpete,
I'll take the last part first: Romney. One of the totally boss things about the Founding Fathers is that, when they saw a potential problem, they usually tried to curtail it in more than one way simultaneously. So, along with the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion, they also gave us this: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Whatever the context, Romney's statement is plainly inconsistent with that sentiment.
As for Dobson, I don't have the imagination required to conceive of a perpetual Christian order that is not flatly unconstitutional and un-American. You do know who Dobson is, right? He intends to create and maintain this through his political advocacy and direct influence over elected officials. That's the whole point.
Here's some more from Robertson, to give you a better idea of where he's coming from: "Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him." For context, I'm pretty sure this is from his presidential campaign days, describing the kind of government he would run. I think it's safe to say that "submitting to God" is going to push up against the establishment of religion now and again, not to mention that Robertson's got the whole religious-test problem Romney has.
Romney is a front-runner for the Republican nomination with an enormous base of support, Dobson and Robertson are two of the most influential leaders of the religious right, and each has millions of followers. You can say they're "not typical," but they sure seem to speak for a whole lot of people.
And Mr. Ghost was my father's name, man.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Jun 9, 2007 9:13:43 PM
Ghost, Jason has had plenty of chances to say something else if he meant something else. What he's actually said isn't very much like what you're trying to make him say.
Even if he had meant something like what you say instead of what he said, it isn't at all clear what you're getting at, or that it means what you think it does. If disagreement shows lack of reliability, then science, logic and normal political debate aren't reliable political guides either.
Even in the area of global warming, where we rely on science for basic information about the phenomena, science can't settle what ought to be done, not in any obvious way. That involves values in a big way, and lots of economics and politics and such that science has been pretty poor at helping us with. If you only mean religion isn't a reliable way to decide if the earth is warming, I'm not aware of anyone who disagrees with that, or of any religious arguments that have been offered on that question.
If you think it's plain that not relying on religion, along with science and whatever else, would be better overall, that's far from clear. Maybe you can give me your assessment of the Civil Rights Movement in that regard. And explain what rational basis you have for the values you apply in politics.
Romney wasn't even remotely suggesting a religious test requirement for government service. You're taking what he thinks is needed and treating as though he thinks it should be a legal requirement. He no doubt thinks we must elect a Republican too.
Your comment about Dobson doesn't clarify what he was getting at. He might only mean that the Founders believed that if the Constitution were followed it would continue to promote good Christian order. So?
There's nothing wrong with pressure groups trying to influence officials.
Your new quote from Robertson doesn't help at all to interpret the other one. He thinks only Christians, and maybe Jews, should be elected, and that they should submit to God? Fine. Not a very promising idea, but as long as he doesn't call for any laws requiring that, he's not crossing any lines with respect to the doctrine of separation of Church and State. Particular ways of submitting to God might or might not be problematic. Jimmy Carter surely saw himself as submitting to God, and never had any trouble with crossing the line that I was aware of.
Sure, religious purposes "can" be "promoted" for a law (free speech is a right), but any such purposes are irrelevant to whether the law is justified.
Jason, you continue to refuse to consider any justification other than that which would be at issue if a law were challenged. In politics, that's not even close to being all that matters, nor is there any reason it should be. You continue to avoid the question about Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, which is an enlightening example, or ought to be.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 9, 2007 10:16:28 PM
I think Romney's statement implies something more dangerous than that. If he thinks the country should be led by a person of faith, then I find it hard to believe he does not think, say, the Secretary of State should be a person of faith also. And if the president is excluding anyone he does not consider a person of faith (Robertson later clarified his remarks to show that he meant pretty much exactly that), that is a religious test, and that is blatantly unconstitutional. It is not equivalent to promising to appoint Republicans.
I want these religious leaders out in their churches, on the streets, preaching about global warming and urging the faithful to take action. I just find it unseemly for the Senate to take testimony from people who have no relevant knowledge, on the basis of their religious beliefs. Climate scientists, economists, energy industry representatives -- these people have special knowledge that can help Congress make better decisions about the risks of global warming and how best to confront them. Seminary graduates do not.
And as for the Civil Rights Act, call me back when the movement to deny civil rights to gays and lesbians stops being led by preachers.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Jun 9, 2007 11:27:54 PM
"Conservative Christians don't want religious authorities to have any special influence in government, no more than any other leaders who have views on politics."
Wow. I find myself agreeing with you a lot of the time, Sanpete, but this has got to be either one of the dumbest or most dishonest things you've ever said. No desire for special influence?
Well, I don't think that the Bible Thumpers necessarily want clerics or whatever to have special influence. They want public policy to conform to their often twisted view of morality, but I don't think they're exactly advocated for a Guardian Council or anything.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 10, 2007 12:10:17 AM
Ghost, I think you're reading too much into what Romney said. I doubt very much that all of his major appointments, if any, in Massachusetts were screened for faith. He's aware of the Constitution.
I just find it unseemly for the Senate to take testimony from people who have no relevant knowledge, on the basis of their religious beliefs.
They were testifying about religious beliefs, something about which they do have expertise.
Religion obviously played a very positive, even central role in the Civil Rights Movement. That religion can also play a very negative role hardly shows it should play no role. Like ordinary political discourse, which can work for good or ill, we should try to get this powerful force to play a role for the better rather than the worse. That's part of what the hearings were about, to show that religion can and should be a net positive in this.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 10, 2007 1:22:04 AM
Sanpete,
Jason, you continue to refuse to consider any justification other than that which would be at issue if a law were challenged.
No, I don't "refuse to consider" anything. I'm telling you, for the umpteenth time, that laws are justified by secular purposes, and only by secular purposes. Any law that serves only religious purposes is unconstitutional, period. It doesn't matter whether the religious purpose in question has to do with abortion, feeding the poor, homosexuality, racial segregation, or whatever else it might be. No religious purpose can justify a civil law. Period. Comprendez?
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 10, 2007 3:54:32 PM
JR, facts make no impression on you. You don't even bother to address them. You just repeat your ideas, no matter what arguments and facts are adduced against them. You're faith-based in just the way you claim the religious are. Ironic, but not surprising, as those with strong prejudices often project their own defects onto those they're bigoted against.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 10, 2007 4:37:34 PM
Sanpete,
You haven't made any kind of coherent argument or cited any relevant facts at all. You just keep mumbling words to the effect that you think religious purposes have a legitimate "role" in government (or that religion is a "basis" for "promotion" of civil laws, whatever that's supposed to mean). You haven't even provided a clear statement of what this alleged legitimate role is, let alone an argument in support of the proposition. You also constantly conflate factual claims about the role of religion with normative ones.
The test for deciding Establishment Clause cases is the so-called Lemon Test. The first part of that test requires that a law have a legitimate secular purpose. If the law does not have a valid secular purpose, it is unconstitutional. Period. Even if it does have a valid secular purpose, it will still violate the Establishment Clause if it fails either of the two other parts of the test. If Barack Obama thinks there is a secular purpose justifying new laws to help the poor, he should state it, instead of going on about "biblical injunctions" to help the poor, which are not a legitimate purpose for civil laws, any more than "biblical injunctions" regarding abortion or homosexuality are a legitimate purpose for laws in those areas.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 10, 2007 7:43:19 PM
If Barack Obama thinks there is a secular purpose justifying new laws to help the poor, he should state it, instead of going on about "biblical injunctions" to help the poor, which are not a legitimate purpose for civil laws, any more than "biblical injunctions" regarding abortion or homosexuality are a legitimate purpose for laws in those areas.
As I keep pointing out, and you have shown a remarkable ability to overlook it, this simply doesn't follow from your premise about the Constitutional test for the Establishment Clause. Not even close. You just leap from the current constitutional test for a state action to a conclusion about invoking religious motivations and allusions in politics. You don't show or even suggest how something like Obama's appeal to religion in arguing for laws to help the poor would violate the Lemon Test or, if his appeal doesn't violate it, why the test is relevant to judging his appeal to religion, let alone determinative that it's wrong. You've had plenty of chances to explain the leap, but you just keep repeating it instead.
You've also had ample opportunity to respond to the example of the Civil Rights Movement, chosen precisely because it's regarded by most as a positive norm for religious involvement in politics. You could deny that it was a legitimate use of religion if you want, but you haven't done it. Failing a willingness to do so, I see no coherence in your view.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 10, 2007 8:38:06 PM
JasonR is killing the comments section.
Posted by: JasonR fan | Jun 11, 2007 3:09:29 AM
Why isn't Boxer running for President?
She knows how to reach out to work-a-day, church on Sunday, middle 'murkins in ways which even more so-called centrist Democrats don't.
Posted by: DAS | Jun 11, 2007 5:19:32 PM
The closest that any Christian could possibly get to a biblical basis for opposition to the global warming consensus
Certain Christians are pre-millenialists. Saving the environment, to them is like reforming capitalism would be a Leninist (indeed, Leninism has some pre-millenialism to it) -- if anything, the goal is to "heighten the contradictions" (make the environment worse or make capitalism more oppressive) to help bring on, resp., the apocolyptic end of the world as we know it when Jesus returns or the revolution of the proletariate.
Posted by: DAS | Jun 11, 2007 5:22:52 PM
Sanpete,
After you finally get around to describing just what legitimate "role" you think religion has in civil law, and presenting an argument to support that position, you can then explain why you think "biblical injunctions" qualify as a secular purpose.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 11, 2007 5:34:50 PM
JR, you made a claim that's false on its face, repeated it forcefully several times despite the obvious problems with it being pointed out to you almost as many times, and this is what you come up with: completely ignoring the challenges to your falsehood and adding another falsehood, implying I've implied biblical injunctions qualify as a secular purpose. What are you trying to accomplish? What you're actually accomplishing is an ever better illustration of my point that prejudice makes you stupid. How much thought have you really given your prejudices about religion and its place in public life? You ought to have been able to see without others pointing it out to you that your ideas about this are half-baked at best, but now that it has been pointed out, I hope you'll learn to be a little more skeptical of your own prejudices and assumptions.
I've already given you a prime example that I and most others see as a legitimate mixing of religion and politics, the Civil Right Movement. (I assume you're familiar with the various ways religion played a role in it.) I've made it clear that I think what Obama has said is just fine. I've said that religious motivation and allusions are perfectly legitimate parts of politics. As long as there's no crossing of the line of separation of Church and State (the Lemon Test is a good enough view of that for my purposes), it's a matter of freedom of speech and religion. I see no reason to give any special argument for what has been a vital and constitutionally protected part of this country's political life for over two hundred years. If you think there's a problem with the way religion has always operated in politics, you need to give some kind of good reason. Even better, why not try to figure out why the mixing of religion and politics is constitutionally protected, what wisdom underlies that, and why it would be really stupid to try to change it?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 11, 2007 9:07:34 PM
Sanpete,
... and adding another falsehood, implying I've implied biblical injunctions qualify as a secular purpose .... I've made it clear that I think what Obama has said [invoking "biblical injunctions" to support his public policy positions] is just fine.
The irony is breathtaking.
Still waiting for that clear description of the legitimate "role" you think religion has in civil law, and a clear argument justifying it.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 11, 2007 9:17:02 PM
Sanpete,
I've said that religious motivation and allusions are perfectly legitimate parts of politics.
Hmmm....a religiously-motivated secular (i.e., non-religious) purpose. Interesting concept. Kinda like a four-sided triangle.
The problem is that you don't even have any coherent idea of what role you think religion should play in government. You're just sure that it should play some role. Whatever that is, exactly.
Let's see: Religious justifications for civil laws banning racial discrimination are just fine and dandy, but religious justifications for civil laws banning abortion or contraception or gay sex are invalid. And the crucial difference is what, exactly?
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 11, 2007 9:31:43 PM
JR, you're still improving as an illustration.
Catch your breath and consider the suppressed premises that make you think there's irony in what I said. What Obama said is a religious justification, not a secular one. It doesn't qualify as a secular purpose. I never suggested it did.
There is no contradiction in there being religious purposes that coincide with secular ones. You're trying too hard not to understand how this works.
religious justifications for civil laws banning abortion or contraception or gay sex are invalid
I never said that or anything like it. There's nothing wrong with religious justifications for any law (that is, nothing wrong with their being religious justifications). The law must also have a valid secular purpose to be legitimate and constitutional.
Again, you're the one with the kooky views on this. There should be no need to for me to give arguments for or even explain the obvious points of the standard, well established views you're opposing. I've already explained more than you should need to figure this out.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 11, 2007 11:43:29 PM
Sanpete,
What Obama said is a religious justification, not a secular one. It doesn't qualify as a secular purpose.
Congratulations. Then, since you accept the Lemon Test, you agree that Obama's religious justification is utterly irrelevant. Any laws he may propose stand or fall on secular purposes, and secular purposes only. Whatever he thinks the Bible says on the subject is completely irrelevant.
I never said that or anything like it.
You agreed that laws cannot be justified by religious purposes. So you therefore agree that, whatever justifies the Civil Rights Act, it has nothing to do with any appeals by Martin Luther King, or anyone else, to the Bible, the Will of God, Christian teaching, or any other religious purpose.
So I'm still waiting for your description of the legitimate "role" you think religion has in civil laws. You've already agreed that religious purposes do not have a legitimate role, so what exactly is this alleged legitimate role of religion? Spell it out.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 11, 2007 11:59:13 PM
since you accept the Lemon Test, you agree that Obama's religious justification is utterly irrelevant
Irrelevant to what? To establishing a secular purpose? So what? Have you even read my responses to your comments? Have you thought about the examples of how religion and politics intersect at all, for even a minute? Establishing a valid secular purpose isn't even remotely the only legitimate kind of political activity in relation to a government act. That a secular purpose is necessary doesn't imply it's the only thing that matters. Nothing about the Lemon Test implies that. I've said this several times already. Where have you been?
You agreed that laws cannot be justified by religious purposes.
Again no I haven't. Governmental acts must have a valid secular purpose. That doesn't imply they can't also have religious justifications, especially indirectly.
So you therefore agree that, whatever justifies the Civil Rights Act, it has nothing to do with any appeals by Martin Luther King, or anyone else, to the Bible, the Will of God, Christian teaching, or any other religious purpose.
Again no.
You've already agreed that religious purposes do not have a legitimate role, so what exactly is this alleged legitimate role of religion?
You continually amaze me. Again, I've explained more than enough. Try reading what I've already said.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 12, 2007 12:40:39 AM
Sanpete,
Irrelevant to what?
To the issue of whether a civil law has a legitimate purpose or not. Religious purposes do not qualify, remember?
Again no I haven't.
Yes, you have. You endorsed the Lemon Test, which holds that a law must have a legitimate secular purpose to be constitutional. Religious purposes are irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether the law has a valid secular purpose. That is why politicians should keep their stupid, irrational religious beliefs out of politics.
Establishing a valid secular purpose isn't even remotely the only legitimate kind of political activity in relation to a government act.
Well, I keep asking you what legitimate role you think religion has in civil government, and you keep evading the question. You insist that religion does have a legitimate role, you just cannot figure out what you think that role is, can you? You are completely lost.
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 12, 2007 1:56:23 AM
Wow, Jason. You continue to amaze.
To the issue of whether a civil law has a legitimate purpose or not. Religious purposes do not qualify, remember?
I responded to exactly this and the rest of your repetitions my previous post (which you really ought to have read), and the ones before it. You continue to infer things that don't follow at all from your own premises or from what I say, and just blithely ignore it when it's pointed out. Is that what you mean by "faith"?
Well, I keep asking you what legitimate role you think religion has in civil government, and you keep evading the question.
I've answered your question more than well enough to show you're wrong, with both general comments and examples, which you ignore even the most obvious significance of. Let's stick with the Obama example. As I pointed out, he obviously isn't trying to provide a secular purpose in those remarks. He's motivating people to support good governmental acts by appeals to shared principles, which just happen to be religious beliefs, but could just as well be shared moral values or some logical argument based on self-interest. The Lemon Test obviously doesn't preclude such appeals, or make them illegitimate, as I've pointed out to you several times. You haven't even tried to show it does. Yet you keep bringing it up as though it did:
You endorsed the Lemon Test, which holds that a law must have a legitimate secular purpose to be constitutional. Religious purposes are irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether the law has a valid secular purpose. That is why politicians should keep their stupid, irrational religious beliefs out of politics.
"Stupid" and "irrational" apply here, just not they way you imagine. Religious purposes are indeed irrelevant (or close enough for our purposes) to making a government act constitutional. Your conclusion doesn't follow. It's as obvious as can be, and I keep pointing it out, and you keep ignoring it, that being constitutional isn't the sum of all legitimacy. Helping veterans is a legitimate purpose, but it's not the same purpose as making an act that's constitutional. Regressive taxation is constitutionally legitimate goal but not a legitimate purpose in other ways. Constitutionality and legitimacy are obviously not the same ideas; yet you keep acting as though they are.
Obama's appeal can be perfectly legitimate even if it's not intended to establish the constitutionality of helping the poor. Establishing constitutionality isn't the the only important kind of legitimate goal in politics. Establishing that we should help the poor and motivating us to do it are also legitimate political acts. This is all really obvious stuff.
Again, the upshot is that nothing in all your talk about the Lemon Test shows that religious activity in politics is illegitimate.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 12, 2007 7:00:27 AM
sanpete,
I've answered your question ....
No, you haven't. You have ignored it every time I've asked it. Answer the question. What legitimate role do you believe religion has in civil law?
[Obama is] motivating people to support good governmental acts by appeals to shared principles, which just happen to be religious beliefs,
More nonsense. "Biblical injunctions" is a sectarian religious purpose. It is "shared" only by people who believe the Bible to be a moral authority. It is completely irrelevant to civil law, which can be justified only by secular purposes. Obama needs to keep his stupid, irrational religious beliefs out of politics, period.
Establishing that we should help the poor and motivating us to do it are also legitimate political acts.
So we're back to your nonsensical notion of a "religiously-motivated secular purpose." What the hell is that supposed to be? How is it supposed to differ from a religious purpose?
Posted by: JasonR | Jun 12, 2007 12:22:17 PM
Look, Jason, it couldn't be plainer that you're determined to remain stupid about this. When you quote me completely out of context and ignore almost every point I actually make while picking one or two (seemingly at random) to say something irrelevant or idiotic about, that's a very clear signal that you lack the good faith necessary to have an honest discussion. That's been clear for a while, since before this thread actually, but my curiosity about how far you could stretch it is now outweighed by my annoyance at the extent of your willful prejudice. You impress me on this topic the same way Fred Jones did in regard to same-sex marriage. He has nothing on you in terms of lapses of rationality and good faith in regard to favored prejudices.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jun 12, 2007 1:36:58 PM
