Pragmatic Progressive Ethics and Penny-wise Issues

by Gary Berg-Cross

The observation of being penny-wise but pound foolish probably covers lots of example of poor reasoning, some of it public that misses the big picture because of things like niggling adherence to narrowly interpreted dogma. We don’t conduct witch trials anymore, although there is still a non-enforced, minority belief that the devil is abroad and the anti-Christ may be with us.  It is reassuring to observe that we’ve slowly come to the realization that religious beliefs, such as from the Hebrew Bible, change as our knowledge and understanding of reality advances. Religious prescriptions, such as women’s rights or the inherent evilness of people, are not anchored in granite; and thus do not provide an ethical basis for establishing just & durable laws. Instead a good portion of society has come to understand that ethics and morality can be and are best

separated from religion. There is a pragmatic element to laws which are based on experience with lessons than come to be rationalized and mutually accepted.  These are then empirical, rational and institutionally vetted beliefs that in turn ground ethics and morality. As Ron Lindsay (A featured speaker at our regional WASHcon15 in Lynchburg, VA., October 2-4, 2015.) put it in Future Bioethics: OvercomingTaboos, Myths, and Dogmas  we want 

"a well-reasoned, pragmatic approach" with substance.

One might talk about this in terms of pragmatic ethics , a theory of normative, progressive philosophical ethics going back to ethical pragmatists, like John Dewey. The idea is that some societies have progressed morally in a way that is similar to scientific progress. Progress is based on inquiry into testing ideas.  Is no fault divorce a good idea?  Let’s test it and if it proves useful future generations can refine, build on or replace is as social principle.

So as we still find enemies enough and have institutional cruelty in some areas of society there is preponderance of pragmatic sense and we’ve seen some cultural progress on a large scale.  One example is growing acceptance of gay marriage.  But bucking the trend are some penny-unwise spots of resistance on very narrow symbolic grounds provided by a blend of religious, emotional and ideological roots. 

In the gay marriage case it is some free floating belief in the idea of the “sanctity” of marriage. Exhibit A might be from fundamentalist Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis (she had served a deputy role in that office for many years) who pitches a penny-narrow definition of a religious, civil right. Indeed the Davis family has a long history in Rowan County, Kentucky.  She ran her election campaign to replace her mother who was Rowan County Clerk before her.  Among Kim’s arguments for the office was efficiency - the public needed a seamless transition from mom Davis and Kim could provide uninterrupted services including for things like marriage licenses. This sounds ironic now, but daughter Davis was (narrowly) elected in 2014 to be County Clerk.

Now in office, rather than keeping her “civil (religious freedom) rights” to herself, she seems to feel privileged as a public official to pick and choose from ancient prescriptions as her guide to public behavior.  This seems surprising since she was elected to a public, secular office she know well and there are laws governing behavior. We expect that public officials will understand that to operate efficiently we have a pragmatic, modifiable Constitution that is not based on faith this side of the Enlightenment.  Our founders themselves realized that basing laws and governmental practices on religious beliefs would be ultimately unworkable at the public level. But Kim’s penny foolishness, like others, anchors itself in frozen, fundamentalist ethical judgement on things like marriage.  And as Ron Lindsey points out they can defensively externalize their own real dogmatism to attribute righteousness on others:

"Any attempt by humans to control and shape their lives in ways not previously contemplated by some religious tradition results in the claim that we are trying to 'play God.'"

Projection may not be the only psychological process going on here. Pragmatic agreements take time, effort and compromise.  They require "thinking slow" and critically and taking many things into account.  It is not at all playing God to do the hard work and getting agreement. So one suspects that selective “articles of faith” provide an unreasoned rationalization for "believer's"  distaste for things just can’t relate to and don’t like. It’s part of the take back America and “making America great again” slogan we hear as part of the cultural wars.

Unfortunately articles of faith, such as the earlier belief in witches, provide ready-made, emotion-laden explanations rather than reasoned one for when “bad” things happen in the new America. Recently we had Bill O’Reilly explain away the phenomena of mass shootings. It’s not guns or mental illness he argued but atheism. This taps into a cauldron of witchy beliefs common among fundamentalists and perhaps Kim— that morality derives from religion. It follows that: "Bible good", "atheists bad", since they lack any real basis for ethics or morality and live empty lives in pursuit of pleasure in this world.

Not all religious folk are like that and at least think through what is ethical for them and could step aside if religious values kept them from doing their jobs.  United Church of Christ's Rev. Emily C. Heath described how she handled the dilemma of private belief vs public service. She decided not to apply for a job with the Federal Bureau of Prisons because she of the death penalty, which went against her religious beliefs. As she observed:

"Religious liberty is guaranteed in this country. But that does not mean that every job needs to bend to your particular interpretation of your faith....If you really believe doing your job is violating your faith, then stepping aside would be a small price to pay for the love of the Gospel." 

But, unfortunately a rational stepping-aside approach is not what we see as faith intrudes into our civil processes.

You could hear more pragmatic takes from the WASHcon15 speakers:

·                     Ron Lindsay, Center for Inquiry President and CEO , 

·                     Julien Musolino, author and scholar 

·                     Tom Flynn, Executive Director Council for Secular Humanism 

·                     Dr. Andy Thomson, author and psychiatrist

·                     Dr. Jason D. Heap, United Coalition of Reason Executive Director , and 

·                     Linda LaScola, author and researcher .

What do People Want: Things, Truth, Safety, Esteem and Power?

Gary Berg-Cross

Bill O'Reilly, had a public lament over the recent election night.  Part of it was a rationalization about what people want which was rolled up in the idea that the higher values driving the " white establishment (who) is no longer the majority" These largely unstated values are being lost it is implied. That growing non-white traditional population rolled into the  50+ percent of the public voting  for Obama and  they, declared O'Reilly, have a different motivation. What motivates them  What are their needs? They:

“want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President

Obama."

This seems such a naïve, boiled down theory of people and their motivation that it seems an unlikely argument even in politics.  But there it is embedded in many conservative Pols claims:

• "You either get free stuff or you get freedom. You cannot have both," Sarah Palin September 2012.
• "Offering Americans a check is a more fruitful political strategy than offering them the opportunity to take control of and responsibility for their own lives," wrote National Review's Kevin Williamson after the election.
• "You have two generations now who believe that the government owes them something," said conservative columnist Cal Thomas.
• "If you're looking for free stuff you don't have to pay for, vote for the other guy," said Mitt Romney simply during the campaign. Followed by his infamous on taped comment about those 47% of people who think they are "entitled" to government benefits.

Campaigns simplify things down to sound bites.  But freeze drying a political philosophy into these types of motivational theories seems a dangerous mixture for a modern society. It is perhaps less surprising, but still disappointing from a secular or freethinking perspective. There seems little truth in such claims which can be quickly challenged by facts, scientific understanding of human motivation etc.

I think that a quick look this way will suggest that the groups that conservative politicians and thinkers point to have more complex needs than some stuff or entitlement. In additon the supports of politically conservatives,including wealthy backers, have their own "stuff" needs. As Chris Mooney points out conservatives and liberal have different psychological needs on average.  Conservative have more of a psychological need for closure, or said another way, given some evidence conservatives such as O'Reilly have a need to be more definite about that  belief and need to  feel certain.  This is in the cognitive need category which is a "higher" need and appeals to many of the listeners of conservative media.  But let's understand this need in the context of still more basic ones.

A starting point for a better understanding of the dynamic complexities of human motivation is  Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often portrayed in the shape of a pyramid as shown in the above Figure.  At its base are the large set, of the most fundamental levels of needs which start life in infancy and childhood motivations. Maslow called then "deficiency needs" and include Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, but also the security from elements. We need shelter, warmth, sleep, order (provided in part by law), known limits, stability, etc.

OK money can buy some of these basic needs and a society that does not help provide such an ordered base is lacking in humanity.  These are not gift benefits to buy votes.  You can ask people on the NY and NJ coast if the aid they are receiving are gifts or the result of some understood social process needed by healthy societies discussed under such general ideas and implied values as maintaining order, hope and the pursuit of happiness.

In Maslow’s formulation, one satisfies lower level and more basic needs before progressing on to meet higher level growth needs. And supporting this striving for constant betterment is what we want in society and support with society.  We want a floor to meet people’s basic needs so they can move on to handle the need for belongingness, love along with the built in need for sex, group & family friendship along with affection, and meaningful relationships.

When these are met we move on to esteem needs, such as self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.
One doesn’t have to accept Maslow’s list or the idea that we have to satisfy all elements of a lower motivation to move to a higher one.  But the list is more of a 3D version of people and when we compare it to a summary philosophy on a large block of voters being at the “wanting thing level” it is stunning to see how thin some pols are in their view of people. Well some people.  Why assume such base needs driving the mass of people? To think of them so denies them personal worth, which we all need.

Such simplified view of human nature abound in religious cultures and serve, among other things, to define what is claimed as a positive group identity. Others have very base needs and want low level “things”, while we are the group that has higher needs and understands the truth is some way others do not. It’s a bit of “I’m Ok, You’re not OK.”

To challenge the truth of such claims based on science, facts, ethical grounds, history etc. is to challenge group identify and supporting feelings of loyalty and honor among true believers.  It also challenges an ideological perspective on the world but also their sense of self and group worth. The belief is, "We are a better group and to have votes against our group values has to be explained in some way. " Beliefs about others,despite what the data might says, is that have to be operating from “lower” in needs than "us".   Don’t even look at the data that says that red states are getting more “things’ from the federal government than blue states. Chris Mooney, the WASH MDC speaker this Dec. 1 at Wheaton Library( see WASH Events for more)  has written on conservative biases and how they often engage in motivated reasoning very strongly.
He cites for example:

 "denying the science of climate change (to preserve their belief in “individualism”), in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (to preserve their belief in George W. Bush), in believing that President Obama was not born in the United States (for reasons that you can guess about) and so on."

There seems to be other needs at play here too - esteem and the desire for power.  The idea here is that the majority “white society” has achieved good self-esteem and the recognition of others. Here it might be useful to leverage ideas from Fred Hirsch’s  1976 book Social Limits to Growth.  Hirsch looked at  what some  people do when they have their basic needs satisfied in a consumer society.  Based on cultural values they start engaging in comparative consumption/ownership of things like cars, homes, travel - what he called positional goods. Why buy/consume a sporty car with wealth?  Well it is something I can do and others can’t.  I’m better in comparison with them. So a Honda is probably adequate for most needs but a Mercedes or Audi gives me status. I have some esteem needs satisfied above and beyond the need to drive to work. It’s a status symbol.

Going along with this is a confidence in abilities such as leadership. A desire for power if often at the center mixed in with other concepts like independence, acceptance, order, safety, and honor. Power, especially esteemed power allows us to mitigate necessity and control events around us as part of a group effort. And that status car, well that shows that I  should have the esteem that goes along with power.

With power and an esteemed leader  the group is safer when exploring possibilities and policies, which in turn affect the other needs and how society deals with them.   But in a zero sum situation, loss of leadership and/or group power cedes it to another group with different values and different polices. Worse yet is the transfer of esteem to the new group. As a group loses status it starts on a downward spiral into dishonor with possible losses of order, group safety etc.  Those “things” that showed one leader is better, or at least not worse off than one’s neighbor,  well they may be lost now too. A dreadful group prospect and something that seems perculating in the back of people’s minds despite the current, simplified sound bites about others affinity to  "gifts" and "entitlements". Society functions are  never as simple as the bumper sticker slogan one sees and it is  important to look under the labels thrown about to understand what is really motivating groups and their leaders.

Higher taxes on the wealthy doesn’t drive the ruling class to lose the ability to feed and cloth themselves.  But buying that vacation house and the esteem it brings may be a concern.  Maybe esteemed ownership of such things and their place in society is being called into question. Hirsch argues that most goods (things) consumed in advanced economies have, at least partly, the character of positional/esteem enhancing goods.  So who is it in society that wants things and what needs do they satisfy?  Can esteem be earned in other ways? If we are to satisfy human needs, which we all have, let’s start with the basics and give more of us a chance for the higher needs on a sustainable basis.

Images

Hierarchy of Needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

Esteem: http://hopechoice.com.au/?Self_Esteem_Building

There they go again: Chopra & O’Reilly Pay Back Try on Richard Dawkins

By Gary Berg-Cross

In an earlier article, Magic of Reality Part 2 –Why are You so Insensitive About my Real Myths?, I discussed an exchange between Richard Dawkins (RD) and Bill O’Reilly on his Fox show. I thought that Bill got much the worst of that exchange, but he is at Dawkins again, without having Richard there to defend himself. Instead he had mystic, spiritual author Deepak Chopra as a guest, who was hawking his new book, “War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality,” on the “O’Reilly Factor”. As you can imagine this book is quite a contrast with Dawkins Magic of Reality. And Deepak did spend some time contrasting his book to Dawkins'. But Chopra had more to say about Dawkin personally and this seemed pretty emotional, perhaps because the only time that Chopra had met Dawkins previously, was in an interview for Channel 4 in Oxford. He called that engagement an ambush since he did not know beforehand that he would be interviewed by Dawkins for TV. You can see a small snippet of that exchange about Chopra’s ideas on psychic healing, quantum theory and the arrogance of fundamentalist science on YouTube. And, of course, it is not the only time that Chopra’s belief about belief has been held up to critical thinking –see the snippet on belief and insecurity.

One way to make sense of what took place on the “O’Reilly Factor” was payback from Chopra and O’Reilly for being shown up by someone who really understands Science. Here is a bit of the phrases that O’Reilly used to characterize his first interview with Dawkins:

• Dawkins thinks that we are idiots.

• There’s more emotion in them (atheists),

• they get really upset and ticked off and
• I kicked his butt

Pretty emotion laden phrasing and you can watch Chopra's appearance on The Factor here and decide for yourself on whether reason or emotion was the main player in their discussion.

What I saw is that both O’Reilly and Chopra used some mind numbing ideas to discuss Dawkins. At one point they argued that he was “hypocritical” to insist of using only using “facts and logic.” when really his discussions are emotional. One can go back to the transcript and original video to see how the shoe is really on the other foot here and we are in Big Lie territory.

Later on The Factor show Chopra also played a payback game accusing RD of “camouflaging his bigotry” by parading his scientific credentials to make himself seem credible.

After what seemed to me an emotive payback session it was time for a meeting of the Christian right and what some call "Eastern mystique in credible Western garb." So, as you might imagine loose, emotion-grabbing ideas flowed freeing in the mystical summit of pop-thinkers. They discussed what O’Reilly called a flashpoint tension between believers and non believers. Chopra was more on book topic responding to Bill’s leads stressing how people have to listen to the heart and understand the great prophets. O’Reilly went back to his claim that Judeo-Christian principles were central in founding the United States, and how the Ten Commandments were the basis of the U.S. justice system.

It's certainly a debatable point but my guess is that O'Reilly is not likely to have a on a secular guest to discuss - too emotional a topic for Bill. I'd guess that in the future these 2 guys will stay away from debates with Dawkins and his kind. Rational secularists are just too emotionally committed to facts and critical thinking. This makes them hard to content with and they don't rattle easy unlike .

Magic of Reality Part 2 –Why are You so Insensitive About my Real Myths?

By Gary Berg-Cross

As I mentioned in my earlier blog not everyone is happy with Dawkin’s Magic of Reality book and its gentle debunking of myths. When Sally Quinn published a favorable review and profile on Richard Dawkins in the Post’s Oct. 4 Style (“Outspoken atheist explains magic of science to the young”) it was met by an angry Letter to the Editor by Jim Fowler, Ashburn. Jim largely ignores the science-centric nature of the book and started down the religious path arguing that Dawkins is no expert on religion:

“Mr. Dawkins himself is quite a contradiction. His understanding of science is truly profound, and his ability to communicate its truths is quite enthralling. Yet when it comes to the topic of religion, he exhibits a far less sophisticated comprehension, and his rants can come across mean-spirited. If he would only stick to science instead of veering into a domain where he is apparently not well-trained, his considerable gifts could be far more broadly appreciated.”

What rants he may be alluding to are unclear and how he veered into religion, at least in this book, is also unclear. Perhaps it is that not all myths are created equal. It may be OK to critique other people’s myths and knock Scandinavian Thorists but the story of Genesis, elevated by Hebrew tribes in the Middle East and enshrined in a claim of one true God is not to be treated this way.

Or it could be that the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is not being criticized, but Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist and bestselling author of “The God Delusion” is. With this book he may have made permanent, vocal enemies who want to shout down anything he says. It’s analogous to what happened to Michael Moore and Al Gore when they exposed certain inconvenient mass beliefs as erroneous. that It doesn’t matter that he’s written what Sally Quinn called:

“a book for 12-year-olds, although with its entertaining clarity and beautiful illustrations, it’s also appropriate for adults who lack a strong science background.”

Perhaps it is that Richard can be wonderfully direct in interviews that accompany the book. For example creationists, as Dawkins acknowledged in a recent interview, “might have trouble with it.” Talking about believers in the Adam and Eve myth, Dawkins was expressed himself clearly:

“What baffles me about people like that,” he says, “is how they can get in a car, fill out tax forms, go to the grocery store or run a life, harbor these delusions and still be so ignorant and stupid? How do they navigate their way home without driving over a cliff?”

All of this directness can be seen and read in an exchange with Bill O’REILLY on his Fox show. A portion is reproduced below and you can decide who is playing “semantic games” and who is being clear thinking:

O’REILLY – You may remember about two years ago we had an atheist, Richard Dawkins, on The Factor. He was on a crusade to convince believers they’re idiots. Well now, Mr. Dawkins’ new book, partially aimed at children, called The Magic of Reality – I talked to him earlier this week.

Now, you wrote this book, and this book, you know, is marketed somewhat toward children, adolescents, correct?

DAWKINS – It is, yes.

O’REILLY – And you want them to not only believe in science – which I think is a good thing – but reject God and religion.

DAWKINS – No, this is a book about science. It doesn’t talk about God.

O’REILLY – It mocks God. I looked at it.

DAWKINS – No it doesn’t.

O’REILLY – Come on!

DAWKINS – Which page have you looked at?

O’REILLY – I mean I went through that book and basically you’re saying that everything can be explained by science. Correct?

DAWKINS – Well, everything about the natural world can be explained by science. But where does it mock God?

O’REILLY – It basically says that these things are myths. They’re not really true…

DAWKINS – Every chapter has myths at the beginning of it.

O’REILLY—Ah-ha!!!

DAWKINS – Some of them are Aztec myths, there are ancient Egyptian myths, the … {inaudible}.

O’REILLY – You're playing semantic games. You know what you’re doing. You’re trying to get to the kids and say you’re an idiot if you believe in God.

DAWKINS – It has nothing to do with God. I am talking about myths from all over the world. The Judeo-Christian myth is thrown in occasionally, as one of many myths that come from around the world.

O’REILLY – The Judeo-Christian philosophy isn’t a myth. It’s reality. This country is based on it.

DAWKINS – Whew! That’s not true.

O’REILLY – Yes it is. Throughout history, some of the worst regimes ever have been atheistic. You know that. Communists, under Stalin, Mao Tse Tung …

DAWKINS – That’s nothing to do with atheism……

****************************************************

And the story doesn’t end there. After the interview and later on his book tour Dawkins was scheduled to speak at a $95-a-plate dinner event at Wyndgate Country Club organized by the Center for Inquiry Michigan, along with the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

But the country club of cancelling his appearance after the interview on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” where he discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

Why? In a phone interview Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan of the Club said simply that the club owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins or his philosophies.

Dawkins told the Detroit Free Press.

"This is sheer bigotry. If the country club had said, 'I'm not having Dawkins speak because he's a Jew, or because he's black, or because he's gay,' they would never get away with it,"

CFI is pursuing legal remedies against Wyndgate Country Club.

Christian terrorists, Right-wing extremists and Madman

by Gary Berg-Cross

Edd Doerr provided a perspective on size of the right-wing terrorist attack in Norway and its mix of large humanist culture and Lutheran tradition. One argument that is still unfolding is the role of Anders Behring Breivik’s faith in his actions. At the Washington Post’s On Faith blog Mathew N. Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies at College of the Holy Cross, posited 3 possible categories to explain Breivik:

• Christian terrorist?
• Right-wing extremist?
• Madman?

While the question seems posed as alternatives he might be all 3 and maybe more. It is perhaps illustrative on how several factors play out and reinforce one another.

At first news reports first described Breivik as a “Christian terrorist.” These seem to have been based of things you could on his Facebook profile (now shut down). But people also tracked postings to Christian fundamentalist Web sites. On his Facebook page he described himself as a Christian, leaning toward right-wing Christianity according to an early report by Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen.

This was supported by quick browsing of Breivik’s 1500-page manifesto, “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”. Breivik e-mailed the document to thousands of people hours before he detonated a bomb outside Norway's government headquarters. It suggests that he saw himself as some form of Christian Knights Templar crusader. I’ve seen one report (not by Dan Brown) that he allegedly attended a 2002 meeting to revive the Templar order.

After a few days many media sites moved from the Christian terrorist explanation to more of a right wing extremist. He posted to right wing web sites too and wrote of being influenced by right wing extremists like Robert Spencer, author of 10 books, including "Islam Unveiled" and "The Truth About Muhammad.". The threat of Islam is a dominant motif of his posting on Pamela Geller's website Atlas Shrugged. of “Obama birth certificate is a fake” fame. “Muslim Guns Down Six Daughters To Cleanse Family’s “Honor”” is a typical blog post there

There are sites reporting on the blogging. Breivik apparently guest blogged for other right wing extemeist sites like Jihad Watch and Gates of Vienna. So there is lots of evidence for explanations 1 and 2. They are not mutually exclusive.

But the 2^nd angle has allowed some commentators to develop a defense of the Christian connection and move to make it more of a political thing. They soften the religious factor by making an argument that is often missing when people are blaming Islam for terrorism. They argue that Breivik was just a “cultural” rather than “religious” Christian. Even more extreme is Bill O'Reilly's tautological statement that it was "impossible" that Breivik is a Christian. As he said:

"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder…The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith...we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way."

A reader of the manifesto countered this claim by going all the way to page 1403 of Breivik's manifesto, where it states flatel : “At the age of 15 I chose to be baptized and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian.” One can add to that that in later life Breivik seemed to champion the Catholic Church as purer than the one he was baptized into.

A weaker formulation is the idea that Breivik’s religious beliefs are just a cultural background that is set in the political context and dominated by political goals. A central goal was, yes, a more (or less) Christian Europe but one predicated on expelling the real evil - Muslims. In this formulation the real goal is to stop the “Islamization” tide in Europe. The tide was enabled by a Europe enfeebled by the women’s movement, “multiculturalism” and its fellow traveling secular ideas.

I think that the religious defense is getting away from the intricate and reinforcing relations between political and religious forces. Jeff Sharlet, contributing editor to Harpers and author and expert on right-wing movements in the United States, dispensed with all of these arguments by a close reading of the entire 1500 page document. You can see his a long interview on Democracy Now goo.gl/WVfoV. Like other scholar Sharlet rejects the suggestion that Anders Breivik was/is insane. Instead, Sharlet , like others sees him as the extension of a virulently xenophobic narrative that has deep roots in the US. What struck him most about Breivik’s manifesto is just how like the fused American relgio-political view it is in every way. Sharlet put it this way:

“I mean, a huge amount of it is from American sources. He’s a great admirer of America, because he says United States, unlike Europe, has maintained its 'Christian identity.'”

Among the people Breivik admired is Robert Spencer and his Jihad Watch site. Sharlet sees such Islamaphobes as walking up to the edge by stirring up people, telling them what to do and they say, Fox-like, you decide. Sharlet addressed whether or not the writers, like Spencer, that Breivik quotes bear some responsibility for his rampage.

“It’s silly to say that any writer is responsible for the actions of others — Breivik pulled the trigger, not Robert Spence — but it’s an oddly relativist argument to suggest that we don’t ponder the ingredients Breivik used to make his toxic stew. As the conservative saying goes, ‘ideas have consequences.’ ”

Breivik is not the only one to browse Web sites to see the Christian identity story and calls to action. On the sites he browsed you find plenty of storylines that merge Christian nationalism, American exceptionalism, conspiracy theories, anti-intellectualism, and xenophobia. Light Christian extremists, like Pat Bachmann, have been on our scene for a while and their descendents are more extreme. Bachmann, Palin and others continue the march to infuse religious views into politics with nary a rational-empirical thought. You can see the relative importance of the US Constitution versus the Bible to see how powerful religious culture and its beliefs can be.

Among other things you can see Breivik’s vision as a European version of the class of cultures issue framed in the US some time ago. These were developed in part by the U.S. Christian Right Free Congress Foundation, founded by Paul Weyrich, in the early 1990s. These warned of an erosion of “Judeo-Christian values.” They were embodied in Pat Buchanan’s who warned about dark-skinned immigrants who drain resources but also fill the culture with alien ideas and religious formulations. On Monday, Pat Buchanan updated his views. He wrote at The American Conservative site:

"As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right,"

It’s all of a piece and has come home to bite.