God, these people annoy me
Sunday, February 21st, 2010
By: Chris Satullo
csatullo@whyy.org
The British scientist Richard Dawkins has gotten famous by bashing religion as benighted superstition. In this week’s audio commentary, Chris Satullo takes Dawkins and his ilk to task by telling them they’re the ignorant bigots.
Listen:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
It was too perfect. There I was, sitting at a light in the People's Republic of Mount Airy, looking at a bumper sticker. On a green Volvo, no less.
The sticker read: "The last time we mixed religion and politics, they burned people at the stake." How could I not take that as a sign from God?
You see, I'd been mulling a commentary on secular liberals, and how annoyed I get at the arrogant, wrong-headed take they seek to impose on all discussions of church and state.
I’d just read a piece about Harvard University, where some faculty fought to banish all study of religion, as unworthy of such a great temple to Reason.
You want to know where that Tea Party anger comes from? It comes in part from decades of listening to ill-informed secular snobs lecture the rest of us about what benighted superstition our religious faith is.
Back to that clueless bumper sticker. Let me rewrite it in ways that have a greater basis in American history:
"The last time we mixed religion and politics, we got Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."
Or: "One time when we mixed religion and politics, we got Abraham Lincoln."
Or Harriet Beecher Stowe. Or Dorothy Day. Or Sister Mary Scullion.
Religion has done just as much to bring moral courage and a passion for social justice to a nasty, selfish public square as it has to screw things up.
Haters love to cherry-pick from history. How many wars really were caused by religion, vs. being mayhem where good ol' human bloodlust merely used religion as a cover?
Human reason gets held up as the enlightened counterweight to superstitious, intolerant faith. Did you happen to notice that when reason got its chance to run the show in the 20th century, the results were less than spectacular?
"The last time we mixed faith in reason and politics, we got Pol Pot. And the Cultural Revolution. And the Gulag."
Sound harsh? No worse than the glib, faith-bashing gibes about the 30 Years War that believers such as myself have had to endure for years.
Ignorant? At Harvard, some people apparently think that one can be an educated person without having read St. Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal John Henry Newman, or theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.
Now, THAT is ignorance. And I, for one, am sick of tolerating such highly degreed bigotry in silence.
Oy. Usually i change the channel whenever i hear one of his 'commentaries' coming on. Ive suffered through his cyclical logic too many times to subject myself to it anymore. (Besides having a 'face for radio', his droning monotone should be used at CIA secret prisons to torture terror suspects).
Who told this guy ANYONE wants to hear his opinions? Program the station and shut yer pie-hole already.
… See More
For him to say 'Religion has done just as much to bring moral courage and a passion for social justice to a nasty, selfish public square as it has to screw things up" is to give it more credit than its due: on an EPIC scale.
To often people confuse ethics and morality with religion. They are distinct and can be mutually exclusive.
I will grant every single one of his examples as an example of ethical behavior that could have been done sans any particular religion (despite what any of the people he mentions thought). MLK stole all his non-violent ideas from Ghandi. who was a Hindu. "… I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew". So which religion was the cause?
If he wants to believe in one of the myriad myths about the world and the presence of some all-powerful God in his life, fine. It will make little difference when he's laying in that box in the ground getting eaten by worms like the non-believers.
Oh and lets not forget to add the following to his list:
Last time we mixed religion and politics "we got":
…the inquisition…we got the crusades…
the pogroms, jihads and genocides in Africa
….suicide bombers and 911…
Do i even need to continue?
Apropos of nothing:
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=Sbin
Good lord, Chris, your much anticipated follow up commentary early Monday morning has added even more to our spirited dialogue here. For that, I applaud you. Well, maybe.
For me, what remains missing in your comments is an acknowledgment of how crucial it is for a healthy democracy to encourage, or at least regularly support, rational criticism of supernaturalism/interventionism on behalf of us Earthlings by transcendent beings residing everlastingly in some meta-location we've all named heaven.
My guess, fwiw, is that what most disturbs lots of your fellow WHYY listeners (supporting members?) is a concern that the sort of pious, pre-scientific perspective referred to above might well have a home within the mind of the station's News and Information Executive Director, and by inference within the outlook of its management. One imagines that in his 02/11 editorial the Director might have heeded the call to duty presented in Luke 24:47. For why else would it have been deemed proper to make use of public, NPR, airwaves to share something so remarkably personal as his religiosity?
Many people understand, as should you, Chris, that the child is the father of the man. For the majority of religious true believers it is psychologically grueling to recognize, see, that the faith based mythology abounding in their minds derives, more or less, from mimicry; that it came to their ears by way of religiously fearful others who themselves were/are without an ability to see the connection between mythic fancy and their visceral personal interest in living forever. This is not to mention an apparent inability to see the disrespectfulness of proselytizing to formative young minds. (I refer here to pushing superstitiousness itself, not the crucial lessons of ethical behavior).
Resurrection? The here after? A forever 'you'? Take a break from peeing into the wind, Chris. The very fact that we, as persons, exist impermanently makes it possible to accord life it's greatest meaning. Yet, salvationist/survivalist religion (the psychology of my-me-mine) is by its nature structurally dependent upon a denial–in the minds of bishops, imams, rabbis, ayatollahs, cult leaders everywhere–of this most natural fact.
"People's Republic of Mt. Airy"? That was fantastic! Why on Earth would you apologize for that? Sarcasm, humor… these are things not to present in Mt. Airy. While Mt. Airy can claim to be the home of all the wonderful history listed above, many many warm and fuzzy feeling current residents had nothing to do with it, yet shamelessly claim a cloak of righteousness by simply having plunked down some of their trust fund for an old house with neighbors who feel just as strongly about smoking pot, slovenly landscaping and that recycling is all that is needed to save the planet.
The dirty secret of Mt. Airy, west in particular, is the schools. Diversity? Come here some morning. 95% the white and Jewish kids are zooming outward to various private schools while lower income African American children come in to go to the public schools. Seems that great pioneering spirit fizzled out when it came to juniors education. Still, schooling is occurring for all, but the big lesson here is dripping in hypocrisy. Instead of actually working and god forbid, sacrificing, as a community to create diversity in our public schools, it is much less messy to shop at the coop and buy a few bumper stickers to display ones feeling of moral and cultural superiority.
I'd like to ask the theists a question:
Since you complain about how we Freethinkers criticize your religion, how *would* you like us to criticize your religion?
We point out the logical absurdities in your 'holy book', call for evidence to support your outlandish supernatural claims, point out the historical atrocities your religions have supported and encouraged…and you denounce us as intolerant, arrogant, wrong-headed…so just *how* would you like to be criticized if not on facts?
After Satullo's silly rant and subsequently snotty second piece, it's clear he doesn't have the courage or intellectual fortitude to participate in a discussion.
I vote that we all applaud Tom for his erudition and well written commentary. I would love to be the one saying such things, but I'm a busy student. Bravo Tom, mach weiter so!
Excellent question. I doubt you'll get an answer, though. It seems like all of the things you list make some people of faith feel foolish, and so they adopt a defensive position right out of the gate.
BTW, "Speaking of Faith" with Krista Tippett is a great program because she actually addresses these kinds of questions.
When does "Speaking of Faith" air?
Sounds like something I would get a lot out of.
I think Sunday morning. I listen to the podcast:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/
Mr. Satullo,
To suggest that Pol Pot, or the Soviet government were operations of "reason" suggests you know nothing of history, and fundamentally misunderstand "atheism." The lack of a "god" doesn't produce the horrors of those regimes. The lack of "reason" does.
Here is what we "annoying" atheists demand:
That without reproducible evidence which makes accurate predictions, please don't use religious "thought" to write laws, to dictate which humans have which civil liberties, or to rejigger an educational system towards religious "principles." Ignorance is NOT bliss.
We "atheists" are not to blame for the defensive backlash of folks like you who have no confirmation for what are, in fact, irrational "beliefs." Theists of ANY stripe hold "beliefs" that are consistently at odds with observable reality.
Call it annoyance if you want. It's really classic defensive behavior, and one would think it beneath someone of your position and stature.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this article is that the last time we mixed reason and politics, we got the United States Constitution.
Good point, but hardly the *last* time.
How about abolishing slavery? Public education? Public libraries? Social Security? The New Deal? Women getting to vote? The Environmental Protection Act? The United Nations? Strategic Arms Limitations Talks? Reparations for WW2 internees? Medicare? Child labor laws? Unions? The minimum wage? Food protection? The FDA? Seat belts? Emissions controls? Increased fuel and mileage standards?
Tom, these are good examples of humans' ability to evolve and sharpen their reasoning and their humanity.
The problem with religious thinking is it cannot grow and evolve because it is based on the reasoning and humanity of humans living during the birth of that religion by those wrote the religion's dogma. (Hey, how come the Christian god denied Socrates the chance to go to heaven and be with his maker. Doesn't this incongruity bother any good Christians?)
And each religion's dogma is a product of its time and not the product of an omnipotent being. Jeez, why would a real god have written an old testament? Rewrites like the New Testament or Vatican II are so obviously examples of a dogma that has found itself boxed into a corner. Why do supposedly intelligent people ignore such obvious evidence of a human hand? Dunno. But apparently a study just came out saying that atheists are smarter than religious people. We really needed a study to figure that out?
I had said:
"And you argued that one cannot claim that the Civil Rights Movement was religiously based. But when people of faith act on their understanding of that faith to achieve some larger secular goal, how can you claim — as you seem to — that it plays no role?"
Tom replied:
"Because of so many who were religiously motivated in SUPPORT of slavery, that's why."
With that, I don't think I need to take any accusations of faulty logic on my part from Tom seriously, for what he engages in here is pure guilt by association — one of the things both Satullo criticized and many of his critics blasted him for doing ham-handedly.
Following this logic, none of us here should be Democrats, for it was the Democratic Party — in particular, its Southern wing — that was the bulwark of the "Solid South" and the political home for the rabid segregationists for most of the last century.
Following this logic, their presence in the party delegitimizes Harry S Truman's desegregation of the armed forces — the act that spurred the "Dixiecrat" rebellion of 1948 — and LBJ's civil rights bills — the act that began the final separation of the unreconstructed Southerners from the party they called home since Reconstruction.
You miss my central point entirely with your — yes — prejudiced and ill-informed criticism.
And I'm not prone to making statements like this online.
Actually, Tom's point is valid.
Sandy, you are charging Tom with stereotyping, but your example is a flawed analogy. Democrats do not claim that they have received Truth and Morality from a God who is unerring. Humans make mistakes, and there isn't a political party in history that hasn't held some foolish notion at one time or another.
That is precisely what is wrong with religion. It tells it's worshippers that X is what their God says and if you don't believe and practice X you are a moral coward or an infidel.
Giving up your Free Thought to let a god do your thinking for you is foolish. Instead of looking to see what his god said about slavery, MLK had to think for himself. If he had used the Bible (and you can't wish away the old testament), he would have believed that some people can morally be enslaved by other people. It was MLK's rational mind which told him black people are human; therefore they deserve the same rights as white people. His religion failed to make that clear.
"With that, I don't think I need to take any accusations of faulty logic on my part from Tom seriously, for what he engages in here is pure guilt by association — one of the things both Satullo criticized and many of his critics blasted him for doing ham-handedly."
Ah, on with the name-calling and insults. I'll simplify it for you, then: Do you deny that many Christians supported slavery, yes or no?
"Following this logic, none of us here should be Democrats, for it was the Democratic Party — in particular, its Southern wing — that was the bulwark of the "Solid South" and the political home for the rabid segregationists for most of the last century."
I don't care about how some Democrats 50-100 years ago supported slavery and opposed civil rights. That isn't my Democrat Party.
However, if the current platform of the Democrat Party opposed reproductive rights, gay rights, civil rights, womens' rights, livable wages, clean air & water…I would not be a proud Democrat. Republicans openly and actively oppose all those things. The choice for me is very clear.
"Following this logic, their presence in the party delegitimizes Harry S Truman's desegregation of the armed forces — the act that spurred the "Dixiecrat" rebellion of 1948 — and LBJ's civil rights bills — the act that began the final separation of the unreconstructed Southerners from the party they called home since Reconstruction."
Your so-called 'logic' completely eludes me. You are building straw-men, coming up with ludicrously absurd extrapolations built upon things I NEVER SAID. That is completely dishonest.
"You miss my central point entirely with your — yes — prejudiced and ill-informed criticism."
Thanks for the descent into name-calling. You don't agree with the historical facts about Christians overwhelming support of slavery until the 1850s/60s as well as later opposition to civil rights and womens' rights and so decide it's easier just to call me names and make up lies about what I said. Well done. That's a very typically Christian tactic.
"And I'm not prone to making statements like this online."
Somehow I completely doubt that.
I invite you to rummage through the discussions on PhiladelphiaSpeaks.com and look for posts from "MarketStEl" to see how I usually respond in arguments. About the only other time I've gotten worked up like this is when I've come up against blinkered racists. Forgive me for the implication of that statement, but it does seem to me that you have similar blinders on.
No, I do not deny that the Old Testament justifies slavery or that many Christians defended the institution on Biblical grounds (in particular the "children of Ham" argument). But as we made God, in a sense, not the other way around — if religion did not fill some basic human need, it would have long since been discarded by now — we can remake Him as our understanding of the world changes. I brought up the Quakers, for instance, because their understanding of the divine eventually compelled them to oppose, rather than support, slavery, as did Dr. King's. If today's Democrats bear no burden from the Southerners of not that long ago*, why should today's liberal Christians?
And I'm afraid the comments you have made thus far do make this distinction between the two groups.
*"LBJ died for your sins."
Sandy,
Your understanding of God is not shared by most religious people because they know that it misses the point of having a God, rendering the God-idea redundant. You are absolutely right that God is not a reliable source for how to behave and people have to fix God's word "as our understanding of the world changes." So Why not get rid of that Middle Man and stop pretending where your ability to reason and treat each other fairly comes from?
That' what the bumper sticker says: don't mix in religion.
P.S. Comparing your opponent's tenacity to a blinkered racist does more harm to your reputation as some who can put together a thoughtful, rational argument.
I understood that the moment I wrote it, but frankly, I find some serious *logical* flaws in the argument he made, guilt by association — which he then ignored when it came to his own affiliations — being one of the biggest. The people I'm talking about seemed similarly blind to the holes in their own arguments and equally certain in their judgements, a combination I find most DISagreeable.
I also invite you to survey my posts on PhiladelphiaSpeaks.com — very few of which, BTW, deal with faith, spirituality, or reason, and a lot of which have to do with transportation — to see how I usually discuss issues.
As for your larger point: Of course, most religious people square this circle by saying that free will itself is a God-given quality, something that I'm sure most freethinkers find laughable on its face. But if we take a somewhat Deist position — understanding "God" as, say, the moment of creation, and her involvement in our affairs after that point minimal at best — then it may not be as far-fetched as it sounds.
Sandy, you sound rational to me. I believe you when you say your recent tone was not typical.
The deist's impersonal god was the god of most of our forefathers who most likely wanted a separation of church and state. There's no religion in deism. That's why it puzzles me that you supported Satullo's indignation at the bumper sticker.
The bumper sticker does not say that relgion has done nothing good. To jump to the conclusion that it must have said that because all people who want church/state separation believe there is nothing good about religion is to stereotype all atheists. Not even Richard Dawkins believes that religion has done nothing good. His claim is that on balance, religion has done much more harm than good. I agree with him.
Talk about cherry-picking hypocrisy.
How can a bumper sticker be a 'sign from God'? What is this 'God'? Your 'proof' is a bumper sticker?!?
Who are these 'secular liberals' who annoy you? How about some examples, some names? Nothing, huh?
Who are these 'some faculty' members at Harvard? Do they speak for all secular liberals? How so?
Who are these 'ill-informed secular snobs' you complain about? Names? References? Nothing again.
Slavery was a religiously and financially based and supported idea, so don't claim MLK's civil rights fight was religiously based. Your other example lack similar credibility.
Since when was Pol Pot, Mao or Stalin considered 'reason running the show'? Are you out of your mind?
Who has promoted that idea? Again, nothing. No evidence. So much for 'reason'.
Who are these people at Harvard you're talking about? No names, no references.
Now, THAT is ignorance. And I, for one, am sick of tolerating such highly degreed bigotry in silence.
Yep. I couldn't agree more…just in complete opposition to your idiotic commentary.
Tried to say the same thing, but I think you did a better job.
"Slavery was a religiously and financially based and supported idea, so don't claim MLK's civil rights fight was religiously based. Your other example lack similar credibility."
Sorry, it's you who are off base here. How can you claim that the Southern *Christian* Leadership Conference — the organization Dr. King headed — is NOT religiously based?
The black church, with *The Rev.* Dr. King as a central figure, played a major role in organizing the Montgomery bus boycott; black ministers, the people who created the SCLC, were involved in every facet of the Southern civil rights movement.
And back in the days of slavery, among its most vocal opponents were the Religious Society of Friends — the Quakers.
Let me make this point again: Great good and great evil have been committed BOTH in the name of a deity (or venerated person) and in the name of no deity (Communists were officially atheist, hence the inclusion of Stalin). The bumper sticker that sparked Satullo's ire argued that nothing good has come from religion in the public arena, and some of the comments here echo that sentiment.
Once again, church-state separation is necessary to avoid theocratic excess. But that doesn't mean that there's only excess in religion, or only restraint in its absence.
"Sorry, it's you who are off base here. "
uh…no. The Old Testament, for example, is full of statements about how to treat slaves, but not a single word saying that slavery is wrong. Many Christian groups promoted slavery. You need to learn history instead of trying to Disney-fy it.
What does the SCLC have to do with the political nature of civil rights? Just because a religious organization gets involved in politics doesn't make the issue religious.
"And back in the days of slavery, among its most vocal opponents were the Religious Society of Friends — the Quakers."
Yeah…the Quakers were REAL successful…NOT. Look into all the Christian groups supportive of slavery.
"and in the name of no deity (Communists were officially atheist, hence the inclusion of Stalin). "
No. Communism, a political/economic viewpoint, doesn't have anything to do with Atheism, which is a viewpoint on deities.
And Stalin wasn't a 'voice of reason', so the inclusion is idiotic, as I said.
"The bumper sticker that sparked Satullo's ire argued that nothing good has come from religion in the public arena"
No. it was one bumper-sticker. Stop extrapolating irrationally.
"Once again, church-state separation is necessary to avoid theocratic excess. "
Agreed.
"But that doesn't mean that there's only excess in religion, or only restraint in its absence."
Excess in *substitutes* for religion (such as communist/fascist dictatorships), yes, but absence of religion leads to tolerance, openness, growth and a thirst for knowledge.
When you respond to a sentence that begins "The bumper sticker…said…" with "No, it was one bumper sticker." I have to ask how closely you read what you responded to.
Except for correcting my conflating of atheism with reason (though I've certainly seen enough atheists do the same), nothing you said really refutes anything I said.
That the Quakers could abolish slavery only in the colony they established does not mean their faith did not inform their actions.
And you argued that one cannot claim that the Civil Rights Movement was religiously based. But when people of faith act on their understanding of that faith to achieve some larger secular goal, how can you claim — as you seem to — that it plays no role?
And you might want to check out what the *New* Testament has to say about slavery. True, there is no flat-out condemnation of slavery in it either, but it's clear that a major thrust of that part of the Bible is to say that a lot of those rules in the Old Testament no longer need be followed, er, slavishly.
"When you respond to a sentence that begins "The bumper sticker…said…" with "No, it was one bumper sticker." I have to ask how closely you read what you responded to."
Very carefully, thank you for asking.
"Except for correcting my conflating of atheism with reason (though I've certainly seen enough atheists do the same), nothing you said really refutes anything I said."
Actually, *everything* I said refutes your claims, especially where you present partial/incomplete information and extrapolate irrationally.
"That the Quakers could abolish slavery only in the colony they established does not mean their faith did not inform their actions."
I didn't claim it did. I said many Christians passionately supported slavery, using 'gospel'.
The Quakers seemed to have been quite happy having slaves for many years early on.
'Colony'…hmmm. What did the Quakers do to show respect for the people they were displacing and their culture? Nothing.
"And you argued that one cannot claim that the Civil Rights Movement was religiously based. But when people of faith act on their understanding of that faith to achieve some larger secular goal, how can you claim — as you seem to — that it plays no role?"
Because of so many who were religiously motivated in SUPPORT of slavery, that's why.
"And you might want to check out what the *New* Testament has to say about slavery. "
No, thanks. I tossed that book of lies, hate, intolerance and ignorance into the recycling bin decades ago and I suggest you do as well. Jesus cursing fig trees? Jesus the Magic Caterer? Please.
"True, there is no flat-out condemnation of slavery in it either, but it's clear that a major thrust of that part of the Bible is to say that a lot of those rules in the Old Testament no longer need be followed, er, slavishly."
And how nice it was for the slaves of the centuries following Christianity's founding.
I've never heard someone claim that the NT supplanted the OT. Usually, Christians claim the two groups of arbitrarily selected stories complement and supplement each other, so thanks for that eye-opening 'interpretation'.
"The last time we mixed religion and politics, they burned people at the stake."
Sandy,
You have misread the bumper sticker. It does not argue that "nothing good has come from religion in the public arena."
The bumper sticker says exactly what you believe: it says we should not mix religion and public policy.
Scott,
Thank you for touching this nerve that many folks, like me, with liberal and spiritual beliefs avoid. Your comments have sparked a discussion that is timely and essential.
Your essay encouraged me to join WHYY for the first time. Keep up the good work.
Actually Suzanne, Chris Satullo's original commentary (posted above) sparked this lively impassioned discussion, I merely responded to it. I am very glad that it encouraged you to join though. WHYY is one of the great cultural assets of our community. On that I think we can all agree!
Religion is in people. Sometimes those people contribute greatly to politics and many areas of life.
Quote from his article "You see, I'd been mulling a commentary on secular liberals, and how annoyed I get at the arrogant, wrong-headed take they seek to impose on all discussions of church and state."
EVERYBODY has blind spots. Unfortunately, liberal political progressive are just as blind and hypocritical and any other group– but of course they don't think so.
The extreme reaction to this essay really hit a sore point. Reactionary responses indicate a defense.
I agree with Chris regarding the current trend of the Mt Aryitism toward hypocrisy and holier than thou-ism.
They are so afraid of their own shadow, that they are quick to cover up the wrongs they do by breaking laws, deny deny and are full of hot air giving self congratulatory banquets rather then get their hands dirty and DO something , like say , Mother Teresa would do.
Read the essay again. He's not saying make this an official religious state. He's saying religious people have offered a lot and the current "progressivism" smacks of close minded reaction and hypocrisy just as equally as a Nebraska Bible belter.
Many of you have just proved why he so annoyed.
Mt. Airyism? So, this is now your synonym for secular bigotry? Well, our commentator sure was successful on that front.
You decry bigotry by being bigoted toward an entire neighborhood and painting everyone there with the same prejudiced/myopic brush that you decry.
Look in the mirror. Didn't Jesus say something about throwing stones?
The Episcopal Church down the block from my Mt. Airy house is well-attended several times every Sunday. But now that you and Satullo have warned me – I understand that all those people are just pinkos planning a junta against the minister. I'll warn him for you.
Yeah Honey I literally got stones thrown at me in Mt Airy. The churches refused to help except for St Pauls. The Mt Airy Newspaper has been covering up illegally dumped chemicals in mT Airy for years to protect their friends Green , as in money not environment. I had to get detectives outside of the 14th district to pick up criminals because the local police were doing nothing to stop repeated crimes directed against me. Now I had to get the feds in to investigate the crimes the great community leadership of Mt Airy have been hiding, Yes, Jesus went in the temple and got angry and threw over the money lenders. He had an attitude too.
The community leadership did not step up to the plate and they broke laws. I don't have prejudice against everyone but the leadership who are generally proclaiming themselves to be progressives and have great PR have been hypocrites and criminals regarding the disaster at Sydney and Devon and they deliberately went after me like a witch hunt to distract from their crimes.
So true, reactionary responses do indicate a defensive posture. Surely you must characterize Satullo's response to a bumper sticker as reactionary.
So let me ask you why you believe it's okay to mix church and state and why you think that would not make the U.S. a religious state? Official or not, deciding laws based on superstitious religious ideas is the very definition of "religious state."
I never said I believe in mixing church and state. I don't believe in that and I don't think that is what Chris is saying either.
I said religion and spirituality is in people and whatever is in them will be brought into everything, including politics.
When people call this a Christian country– I say- no it's not. A lot of people try to make it Christian, but I don't.
The foundational documents of this country were prayed upon. They have people swear on the bible in court. I'm not sure if that is still required. I would refused to do so. Our Pledge has one nation under god. I change it to suit me.
I don't think spirituality is superstitious. I think it is something innate within us just like sexuality but we all experience it differently, often based on our culture and family. Then
throughout history , some people have taken innate spirituality and shaped it into their own vision and stuffed it into certain shaped boxes and then it becomes a religion. The organization of spirituality into religion can both give people a positive structure to grow spiritually and can also be the weapon of oppression and tyranny and blindness fortified by the power of the group.
I'm going to the movies now.
Did you hear that, Chris? Margaret doesn't agree with you and she thinks she does. Your writing isn't clear.
Margaret, I am not spiritual. It is not innate within me. You need to readjust your understanding of what it means to be human. Not all humans are spiritual.
To Susan who says she's not spiritual- This is the definition of Spirit-Definitions of spirit
the vital principle or animating force within living things
In other words, if your alive , you have spirit. That is why I say it's innate in all human. Now how your interpret your aliveness is up to you. Some people put it into frameworks of religion and others don't. However there is a global
and historical striving to make sense of Spirit (life) . A lot of people treat Science like a religion and look how often science changes.
Margaret, you are guilty of equivocating. In your first use of the word "spirit," you didn't just mean animating force. Why on earth would you have bothered pointing out that people have religion and are alive?
Science changes? I think you mean our ability to understand the world has changed because we have made better use of the scientific method. The scientific method has nothing to do with religion–except, yes, they are both words.
I think Chris was reacting to so called liberals bashing his religion and then claiming to be tolerant.
I react to so called Green community committing environmental crimes and then trying to cover their crimes by abusing me for reporting them. Therefore I have big reaction to Mt Airy hypocrisy.
Yes, Sutullo was reacting to intolerant liberals. But what's wrong with being intolerant of stupidity?
I am intolerant of religion forced upon me. I think it's stupid. How could I possibly be bothered if you kept your religion to yourself? It is only when you expect others to share your view–expect that all people have religion and spirituality in them–that I become justly intolerant of your ideas.
I can't judge whether or not Mt. Airy is hypocritically Green because I have no knowledge of the area or its politics. But judging from the way you apply logic to the Satullo piece and the irrelevance of the Green-ness of the area to the content of the bumper sticker, I'd be concerned that you may have a faulty understanding of environmental issues.
Susan, what is missing here is love. I need to stop trying to connect with people with no love. That is why I left Mt Airy and the lack of love makes me reactionary but now, at the end of the day I get it.
Maintaining the legal boundary between church and state is different than keeping religious voices out of public dialogue. Freedom of speech is protected.
Katie, you make an excellent point. The bumper sticker was against mixing the legal boundary of church and state.
And the bumper sticker was wrong on two accounts: we didn't burn them; we hanged 19 and pressed to death one. The second reason the bumper sticker was wrong is that at that time we were a colony of England.
None of this was what irritated the author.
The author is annoyed that atheists have begun to exercise their free speech.
His annoyance is childish.
Also, the author assumes that the owner of the car with the "offending" bumper sticker was an atheist. Desiring the separation of church and state is not the sole provenance of atheists and agnostics. Plenty of religious people, the kind that wish to practice in peace and not have the state inflict a specific religion on them, also believe in the separation of church and state.
However, these are "liberal" religious people – the kind that most of the Fox News set dismiss as not religious at all and mere pretenders.
You are wrong on many levels, but let me point out a few. First, religion is in SOME people, not people in general as you put it. And the reason this piece received so many negative responses is because it rightly deserved it. Not only was his reasoning illogical, but so was his history and his petty attempts to claim moral superiority for religion by equating secularism with the Gulags and Pol Pot. I would not deny that there are some positive aspects of religion, but that is almost exclusively on a personal level to the individual believer, not for society at large. Trying to apply religion (at least certain aspects of it) to society writ large leads to such things as open discrimination against many groups of people, the teaching of pseudo-science to children, and the belief in tribalism, myth, and superstition. I would not go so far as to say the secularism/science/progressivism, or whatever you want to call it, has all the answers, but it certainly has more answers than religion. I'm all in favor of open discussion, but there is a limit to what should be considered reasonable, and certain people, namely the blindly religious, bible literalist types, should be rightly mocked and laughed off the stage of public debate. So no, anyone who responded to this negatively didn't prove his point at all.
As a proud citizen of the People's Republic of Mt.Airy I have to say Satullo has unfairly painted a stereotype of us. Volvos are so passe here–hybrids are the ride of the hood.
But Chris is right about Mt. Airy having a reputation (and I would say deservedly so)of liberal commitments and tolerance of oppositing viewpoints. Since the Battle of Germantown begun on the Avenue here we have resisted those who would bully us into submission and conformity. Penn's Holy Experiment in diversity took serious root here, and groups who had persecuted each other back in Europe set up shop here and learned not only to share space but to respect and interact with each other. Tolerance and pluralism are in our neighborhood's DNA.
Fast forward to the 1950's and 60's. While white people were fleeing cities to move to the suburbs, many people of Mt.Airy made conscious decisions to remain, and to foster cultural and economic diversity here. The result is that we are one of the most studied urban neighborhoods in the country because of a healthy representation of races, religions, ages, classes and lifestyles. But the gift of our diversity is not accidental. It was the result of decisions and strategic interventions organized by faith communities. The Germantown Jewish Center and several Christian congregations led efforts to put pressure on realtors who had much to gain by block busting and other tactics which encouraged white flight. It was one of our finest hours, as well as being an example of how it is possible for religious people to enter the public square and, motivated by their faith, help bring about positive social change–change, in this case, which fleshes out the very pluralism which is needed for a robust democracy and is at issue in this blog debate.
Religious voices should not be silenced in the public forum. But like all voices they are best heard when they are informed and responsive to the voices of others. We get to a better place as a community when all voices are invited to the public conversation.
I have to look back at myself to discover why I find the words of Chris Satullo so disturbing. Part of my family was murdered by Hitler in Germany because they were born of Jewish parents. My mother survived. She often speaks of fear that a government would again favor one religion, or for that matter, no religion, over any belief system. This is why she came to America after the war. For freedom from a government that would attempt to suppress any part of it's population. She is Lutheran, believes in God, and tolerates those who don't hold the same beliefs as she.
Since Mr. Satullo has a forum to express his beliefs (sorry that WHYY has him on staff), he should also look back at himself to find out why he is so "bigoted", "ignorant", "glib", and a "hater". Why does he "cherry-pick" his facts (incorrectly at that) to make his point.
This is the kind of journalism that belongs on the FOX network. This is not the journalism of the likes of Terry Gross and Marty Moss-Coane.
Finally, to show how uninformed Chris Satullo is, (and I think many of the comments here demonstrate this) he say "Did you happen to notice that when reason got its chance to run the show in the 20th century, the results were less than spectacular?" Later he invokes the scholarship of St. Thomas Aquinas. Well, Chris, The major thrust of the work of St. Thomas Aquinas was to reconcile the split between Philosophy and Theology, hence "Natural Theology". He attempted to reconcile the works of that Secular Liberal Aristotle with that of Christianity. Chris, maybe you would not be so "annoyed" if you learned a little more about people whose names you invoke. If you opened your mind to the value of opinions opposite yours, maybe you would not be so bigoted. And Chris, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a book. She influenced public opinion. She was not a politician.
"the arrogant, wrong-headed take [secular liberals] seek to impose on all discussions of church and state."
Glass houses, anyone?
Just let him keep throwing his rocks. It will all come crashing down at some point.
Susan: As I can't reply directly to you in the sub-discussion, I'll follow up anew: The part that was omitted from my original quote was "as it is for those who believe in one (or more) to do so." That was the parallel construction.
Since Lincoln's been mentioned, there is a quote attributed to him that I think more of those who claim to worship God should take to heart: "Let us not pray that God is on our side, but that we are on God's side." I fully understand the secular *and religious* liberal criticism of those who invoke a deity to justify their own prejudices.
However, prejudice is also a pretty widespread human vice, and often those who claim to be free of it simply do not see their own.
While it's inappropriate to use faith to explain that which reason can handle, as another poster I've engaged also noted, there remain areas that reason cannot adequately reach. As far as the past is concerned, since reason as a historical force is of relatively recent provenance and can only be said to have been truly ascendant beginning somewhere around 1500, we do ourselves a disservice if we wish to understand human history and philosophy without dealing with religious thought.
Sandy:
While I substantially agree with your point about faith playing an important role in human experience, I cannot agree that philosophy or reason began around 1500. That would be news to the pre-socratic philosophers, Confucius and Aristotle.
I stand properly chastised for my Modern Western Civilization bias.
See what I meant about prejudice?
Sure, it's "inappropriate to use faith to explain that which reason can handle." But you seem to implying that there are then things left for faith to explain. But reason tells you that there are many faiths and since all of them contradict each other in important ways, reason trumps faith: they can't all be true.
Can you better explain the logic behind your point about our ability to explain and understand our world? Are you really claiming that something is more moral, true or valuable just because it happened first? Shouldn’t we all be Hindu then since that is the oldest religion?
Onward Holy Warriors! Slay the infidels! If thou canst not slay them, then vituperate against them! Thy holy vituperation shall make them shake in their liberal boots, and crash their Volvos into the Pyramids, as they recognize the error of their ways!
Wow, Chris you touched a nerve.
So there are ignorant secular liberals, just as there are bigoted religious leaders? Who knew?
As a secular liberal, I do think the idea that the separation of church and state issue tends to be terribly confused. The increasing securalization of Easter is one awful result, with Christmas already sacrificed at alter of money.
Not to entirely disagree with you, but the separation of church and state has very little to do with the secularization of Easter and Christmas. The commercialization of both holidays could actually be attributed to religion, as making certain things symbolic of each (such as chocolate bunnies) was an attempt to get people tied to the holiday's "religious" nature. Plus, both holidays were important pagan celebrations before they were Christian holidays.
Yeah, what a coincidence that Christmas is near the solstice and Easter near the equinox, huh? Almost like it was on purpose.
A coincidence indeed…
Both Christmas and Easter are simply Christian thefts of earlier religious celebrations.
Your remarks about Martin Luther King Jr. and Lincoln betray your utter ignorance of history and the lives of these two men (as do your remarks about Pol Pot, the Cultural Revolution, the Gulags, etc.) First off, the question of Lincoln's faith and religiosity is still being debated by historians. While it would be safe to assume that he was a man of faith, his faith developed late in his life. He was never a church-going man and he was widely criticized as being anti-religious during his day. Also, if you actually study his political career, you will notice that he never did anything to publicly support or endorse religion. He followed the constitution to the letter, and his politics remained completely secular. As for MLK Jr., while he was undoubtedly a religious man, he was also deeply influenced by many secular people and ideas, most of which could be classified as socialistic or communistic. Also, he was not a politician, despite his political advocacy. And like contemporary conservative religious people, who cherry-pick the bible to find quotes against gays or whatever else it is they are hating against, King only spoke about the nicer side of religion, that being primarily the message of Christ, albeit only the humble, meek and mild Christ, and not the one who swore to bring the sword. The few times he used imagery from the hate-filled and genocidal old-testament, he primarily used well-known stories as metaphors because it was a way to get his message out to the widest audience. So, before you try to claim the moral high-ground for religion, as you people always do, try actually reading a bit of history. That way you might begin to understand who totally idiotic you sound.
Read the Bible and see how it influences you. I suppose you would get rid of the 10 commandments because you have…
I have read the Bible, and it didn't influence me in the least, most of it actually gave me a headache due to its tribalism and reliance on myth and superstition (especially the old testament). As for the 10 commandments, they are nothing special. Similar ideas about not killing, stealing, lying, etc. had been around in other Eastern belief systems and even law codes prior to the old testament. So please, don't make yourself look more ridiculous than you already have by trying to say that the 10 commandments are something foundational to western civilization.
Actually, only three of the commandments have anything to do with a person's external behavior: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. The rest are religious precepts or just good ideads: respect your elders, don't cheat on your spouse, etc.
Very true. I was just pointing out that I can't stand how people make the argument that if we didn't have the 10 commandments somehow everyone would go out and cheat on their spouses, steal, kill, and disrespect their parents. It's such a non-sequitur.
Don't read it…toss the bible in the recycling bin where it belongs. So much hate, ignorance, intolerance, nutty stories…enough!
I think a lot of writers want to get in on the Steven Colbert bandwagon. Colbert makes it look so easy. But satire is tricky.
It helps if your can do it with humor. There's nothing clever in this writer's style. Loudly declaring that your supposed opponent annoys you isn't funny. One way to make it funny is to exaggerate your supposed opponent's claims. Instead of saying professors at Harvard "think that one can be an educated person without having read" a bunch of Christian religions leaders, you have to dig up some crazy cult leaders, such as Jim Jones or L. Ron Hubbard.
Only then do you make your point.
Gosh, a state that allowed these religions to make laws would be dangerous!
You know, you never see Colbert getting all snitty because people misunderstand his humor. He expects many of his targets not to get the joke, and he certainly expects the targets who do get the joke to be pissed off at him. If they weren't, he wouldn't be good at his job.
You can't be a cutting satirist and then cry persecution, hurt feelings and martyrdom when your targets fire back at you either with sharpness of their own or, worse, reasoned arguments.
And while I'm a big fan of Swift, Colbert and Carlin, I don't think any of them would should have been or should be in charge of civil discourse at a respectable media outlet.
Although, perhaps Mr Satullo's title is satirical, and I'm just not picking up on the joke.
I am a supporter of WHYY. I've always believe that the editorial staff has tried to promote a balanced and fair view on all topics. I am deeply troubled by Chris Satullo's editorial. It's insulting tone is unproductive and detracts from some good points made. I heard that the main points in the editorial were separation of church and state, and views on secular liberalism.
The fact is that secular liberals are people with some good points and bad points and should be free to express their opinions in a free society. The deeply religious are people with some good points and bad points should be free to express their opinions in a free society. They should debate their differences. The problem here is that intellectual debate can't occur when both sides don't enter the debate with a mutual respect for the people with the opposing opinion. Chris Satullo's comments were stated in such a way to personalize the debate. If he is unable to discuss the topic in an objective way, then he should not be on the staff of a fair and balanced news station.
My opinion on separation of church and state is that it is a principle that protects both. We are a nation of many religions and philosophies. We formulate our morality and belief systems in many ways. That is why the United States is on of the most moral nations on earth. Just as in genetics, a mixed gene pool makes the organism stronger. In society, a mixed philosophical and religious population makes our society stronger. The state should not promote or suppress any of those views. In the same way, our democracy, while not perfect, has proved itself to be one of the greatest of all time. Part of that success lies in the reality that it attempts to serve all the people. If we allow Mormon, Islam, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, or any belief system to dominate, the system will break down. All religions need the protection of a secular government to protect them from suppression or control. Government needs to stay out of issues of religion. The Pilgrims came to the new world for religious freedom. Now, this is a nation of many religions and philosophies.
Chris Satullo sounds more like a Fox news journalist and does not belong on WHYY. Even the tone of his voice in the piece was offensive and dismissive of open debate. Terms such as "secular snobs" show his close minded approach to the topic.
Mr. Satullo:
Like many listeners I too was distressed by your “God these people annoy me” commentary, not because I disagree with its message but because of its tone. It seems to me that you are guilty of the same self-satisfied glibness that you decry in “secular liberals.” Lost in the sarcasm and populist rhetoric is the fact that religious dogma creates very real suffering for groups and individuals in our society.
Both secularists and religious people wrongly caricature those who disagree with their positions. The real problem here is not religious conviction or the lack of it, but intolerance and demagoguery – found on both sides of the political and religious divide.
Your piece conflates secular-liberalism with secularism proper. The latter can be defined as indifference or opposition to religion. The former is resistance to orthodoxy or authoritarian principles particularly in public discourse or politics. When secular liberals raise concerns about mixing politics with religion, they are usually criticizing the misappropriation of faith in contexts where reason is the more judicious approach (as in social and political policies or where people of goodwill might have disparate approaches to faith-based arguments).
Taking a bumper-sticker or random group of educators as a cipher for a vast nuanced body of ideas that includes David Hume, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft, Maynard Keynes and others is deliberate hyperbole. While I might disagree with your argument or the reasoning behind it, as a liberal I take issue with my peers who question your right to say it, for free public discourse is an esteemed principle of true liberals.
In our society you and I may have different beliefs. As a liberal I passionately defend your right to express and practice your religious beliefs as you see fit, but I become less sanguine when you seek to impose those beliefs on me through policy or inflammatory rhetoric (hate speech).
Like you I agree that without faith we would not have Bach Cantatas or Michelangelo’s Pieta. The heavy-handed denunciation of faith is just as myopic as its imposition on unbelievers. Faith plays an extremely important role in many of our lives: it gives us meaning, inspiration, moral courage, but it also has a shadow side that can justify chauvinism and bigotry.
What I am saying is that both faith and reason have their place in our lives and in our society, but there is a difference. Faith is by nature a closed system. There is no evidence gathering or testing of hypotheses in religion. Science on the other hand is a self-reflexive system that questions its assumptions, results and conclusions. That is why when it comes time for my triple bypass or knee replacement I want a surgeon who understands the mechanics of anatomy and physiology, not merely philosophy or moral doctrine.
When faith usurps reason in the public arena however, it is no mere abstraction to be debated lightly. It has real and specific consequences that affect our lives: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the murder of Matthew Sheppard, or Uganda’s shameful Anti-Homosexual bill are a sampling of the baleful results. The real enemy of our democracy is when dogma is deployed to justify imposition of the will of one group of citizens against another group.
Invoking Tea Party ire is a particularly grievous tactic. The Tea Partiers have no right to their allegations of discrimination and moral outrage. Cries of victimization have been an overused ploy of Christians since the KKK; that it has been adopted by right wing Conservatives is especially chilling to those who really have faced discrimination in employment, housing and civil liberties.
Religious assumptions not only reflect our individual biases, they also help create them. Some people raised in loving Christian homes may feel compelled to deny their sexuality. As adults they lead lonely lives tormented by guilt.
There are even therapies claiming to be able to change sexual orientation, though such therapies have been repudiated by every major professional body. Evidence suggests that people who do not come to accept their sexual orientation lead lives truncated by depression, self-hatred or suicide. This is the human cost of unquestioned religious dogma in the public arena: dividing our society, separating parents from children, and isolating people from themselves.
I totally agree with you, Scott. Is it not amazing how people are often guilty of the very traits they aim to decry?