“There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.”

By Hos
There are the words of Mitt Romney, delivered last May at the Liberty "University" founded by the late Jerry Falwell. This "University" is the hotbed of young Earth creationism where students pay regular visits to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, not to learn, but to dis science. But I could never describe Liberty  better than Bill Maher did: "this is the University you flunk out of if you get the answers right".
Oh, and the "Liberty" in "Liberty University"? They have a lot of that too, when it comes to politics.Not.
But would a conservative really heart an institution that got half a million dollars in federal assistance in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, topping the entire State of Virginia? Isn't that anathema to the very idea of liberty, per conservatives?
If you are a secularists, Jew, Muslim, or non-fundamentalist christian, you'll have to follow the events of the next few months very carefully.

Chicago/Conservative Views of Economics

by Don Wharton                 

Milton Friedman

Economic theories are to a great extent ethical claims. They assert that shared outcomes will be better if we engage in certain policies of governance, taxation and fiscal policy. The outcomes for people living under those laws will be vastly different depending upon which theories and which laws we adopt. Economics is asserted to be a science and in theory we should be able to compare the theoretical claims with the empirical data.

Milton Friedman was one of the central figures creating the conservative Chicago school of economics. A prime feature of this variety of economics is a belief in largely unrestricted free markets. This can be very effective in increasing or decreasing commodities, manufactured goods and services in response to changes in relative demand by our society. If there is a shortage of corn the price will rise. There will then be more land, labor, fertilizer and machinery allocated to corn production, satisfying the demand.

Friedman wanted an extremely minimal government and disliked things such as permits and licenses as a matter of almost quasi-religious belief. He was opposed to licensing medical doctors. Of course, this would have opened up the market for medical services to a vast variety of medical fraud and quackery. To be fair, there are laws against fraud and in principle Friedman would argue that these laws would limit misbehavior.

Alan Greenspan was a supporter of Friedman's views. He saw no problem with the proliferation of sub prime, low documentation loans for real estate or the slicing and dicing of bundled mortgages to finance the recent housing bubble. This fraud was endorsed by rating agencies that seemed willing to give AAA ratings to repackaged mortgage instruments sold to credulous buyers. The ratings agencies were in effect bribed by the financial institutions that were requesting the ratings. Once again laws against fraud in theory apply. A few people have been prosecuted under such laws but only a very tiny percentage of the army of people who built the housing bubble that destroyed many trillions in American assets. The fear of prosecution was almost totally absent during the building of the housing bubble. The very minimal current levels of prosecution suggests there would be no fear of consequences when future markets become similarly disconnected from reality.

Paul Ryan, the Embodiment of the Tea "Clashing Ideas" Party

Ayn Rand

By Hos

"I liked your Christ. I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ". (Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi)

The selection of Paul Ryan as Mr. Romney's running mate is a good opportunity to talk about a (rather bizarre) inconsistency in right wing politics, one that is, if anything, highly counter-intuitive: the marriage between the religious right and self-centered economics. While the quote from Gandhi could be apocryphal it does crystalize the ideological inconsistency of the Tea Party and specifically, Mr Ryan.

What we can learn from David Noise’s Revisiting John Dewey's God.

By Gary Berg-Cross
In the recent blog There is no Alliance Between Liberal Churches and Secularists,and Don't Try to Blame This on New Atheists Hos makes a point by referencing and quoting from David Niose’s, ( president of the American Humanist Association) Nonbeliever Nation.
I will quote below from an earlier 2009 article by Noise called Revisiting John Dewey's God. I think this better captures the complexity of the issues and puts the failure of secular humanist to thrive in context. Take this one small part from the larger quote as an example:

The semantic possibilities with humanism are innumerable, just as the semantic debates are so tiring to most of us, but the one point that most humanists should concur with is the importance of encouraging openness about atheist/humanist identity and beliefs. Many humanists adamantly insist that they are in fact religious, and that is indeed their right, but all should stand behind those who openly declare that they simply aren’t religious.

We can probably agree here, but note this is one of freedom to say you are not a believer is not the same as advocating a focus on attacking religion to the exclusion of promoting humanism. Noise makes a point about people not “shunning atheistic rhetoric in public discourse.“ And we can probably agree here, after don’t you see such language on this blog? It is more of a type – this is what I believe in, rather than “you are silly to believe in anything else.” Those “semantic possibilities” again to use Noise’s phrase.
I like the Noise article because it includes the unintended consequence of Dewey naturalistic humanists strategy regarding religious language – “ humanists simply needed to wait patiently, focusing attention perhaps on timely social and political issues but letting the religious landscape progress on its own.
As Niose says “none of ….the effects of his approach should have been foreseeable to him. You can read below about this and his analysis of what happened and what Dewey would approve of now. Much of this is consistent with the snippets of history I proved on post WWII American and its turn away from intellectualism.
So with that here is the full section of the quote:

But forthrightness isn’t the issue here, because the real problem with Dewey’s zealous usage of religious language is not the underlying intent but the effect. If even atheists were shunning atheistic language and labels in favor of traditional religious dressing, then clearly the real winner was traditional religion. Dewey, as spokesman for naturalistic humanists, established the norm that still stands today in the United States—religious language is condoned and viewed favorably, whereas atheistic language and identity are shunned.

In Dewey’s defense, none of this should be interpreted as suggesting that the effects of his approach should have been foreseeable to him, and in fact there were good reasons in Dewey’s time to believe that religious progress was leading society in the direction of naturalism. If so, humanists simply needed to wait patiently, focusing attention perhaps on timely social and political issues but letting the religious landscape progress on its own. Given the rich intellectual atmosphere and remarkable scientific advances of the times, Dewey and his contemporaries understandably saw little need to publicize atheism or tend to its public image. A more subtle naturalism complemented them, while also serving as what appeared to be a proper incubator for the religious views that they expected would eventually grow more prominent.

But as all humanists today know, a massive trend towards humanism did not occur by the end of the twentieth century. Just three decades after Dewey’s death, the Moral Majority had emerged as a powerful political force, born-again Christianity was flexing its political muscle, and organized humanism was unable to mount any serious resistance. We soon saw the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and of course the election (if we use the term loosely) of George W. Bush, the darling of the religious right. Religious conservatism has thrived in modern America, enjoying enormous wealth, great numbers of followers, and significant stature as a political demographic.

Perhaps more significant than the emergence of religious conservatism in the latter decades of the twentieth century is the relative absence of organized humanism as a political force during those same years. In fact, even today the word “humanism” is rarely used in public discourse and few Americans can define it. Moreover, though atheism has captured some public attention in recent years, the general image of atheists has remained very poor. Hence, while the religious right was resurrecting itself, humanism and atheism were making little progress.

To attribute these disastrous events solely to the overuse of religious rhetoric by early twentieth-century humanists would be to oversimplify phenomena that are in fact quite complex, but surely today’s organized humanists must reconsider all aspects of the strategies use by prior generations. Whatever those strategies were, they obviously didn’t work. As such, any fair analysis would question the wisdom of validating religious rhetoric while simultaneously shunning atheistic rhetoric in public discourse.

Clearly, those who embrace a naturalistic lifestance should be able to declare as such without fear of being ostracized, vilified, or scorned. To the extent that American culture still frowns upon such openness, a cultural shift is needed. Nonbelievers should be part of the landscape, capable of being open about their views without suffering repercussions or limitations. Open nonbelievers should be viable candidates for public office, respected in public ceremonies, and seen for what they are—valuable contributors to society. The Dewey approach, while no doubt helping to promote liberalism generally, didn’t achieve this.

This doesn’t mean that many of us won’t sometimes use religious language. (See Neil deGrasse Tyson’s defense of the term Godspeed in his article in the September/October Humanist.) The semantic possibilities with humanism are innumerable, just as the semantic debates are so tiring to most of us, but the one point that most humanists should concur with is the importance of encouraging openness about atheist/humanist identity and beliefs. Many humanists adamantly insist that they are in fact religious, and that is indeed their right, but all should stand behind those who openly declare that they simply aren’t religious. Surely even those who identify as “religious humanists” (and many naturalists do) would enjoy seeing a candidate for public office openly declare, “I’m not very religious.” And even those who follow the Dewey standard by using the term “God” in a naturalistic sense would surely smile at seeing an open atheist elected to office.

The biggest fear of the religious right is not abortion on demand or the end of faith-based initiatives, but the emergence of openly nontheistic Americans as a respectable demographic recognized as such by the public, the media, and public office holders. This can only happen if secular Americans unite—whether they be humanists, atheists, agnostics, or some other classification—as decent citizens who embrace a naturalistic worldview. Being a man of empiricism who valued learning from experience, John Dewey would no doubt approve.”

No doubt….You may have seen Noise’s article “9 Great Nonbelievers In U.S. History” John Dewey he lists as #5.

Image credits:

Noise: http://www.meetup.com/humanistfellowship/events/64995092/
Non Believer Nation: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/12/20/future-book-alert-nonbeliever-nation/

There is no Alliance Between Liberal Churches and Secularists,and Don't Try to Blame This on New Atheists

David Niose, AHA president

By Hos

Over on salon.com there is an article on political Left ignoring the secularist movement. It is fascinating and well worth the read. But for now I am interested in just a part of it, which is a quote from the book Nonbeliever Nation, by American Humanist Association president David Niose, and how this affects the relations between secularists and liberal religion. 

Snapshots from an Historical Perspective

By Gary Berg-Cross

One topic that heats up debate involves a family of concepts like “liberal” or moderate religious communities and what interactions non-theists might have with them. Are moderate religions as bad as fundamentalist varieties? It’s not exactly a new topic but perspectives may change with the times especially as they involve strategic and tactical action. I thought it interesting to provide some snapshots on circumstances that humanists have faced in the US over time. This is just a smattering, but part of the story.

Early fundamentalist American colonizers like the Puritans were neither liberal, not easy to converse with, or moderate. They were not admirers of intellectual enlightenment. John Cotton, wrote 1642:

"The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee".

Over 50 years late the rigid, faith-guided atmosphere in Boston drove out a young, pragmatic and freethinking Ben Franklin to the more tolerant climes of more tolerant Quaker in PA (not that he was wholly enamored with them). There he developed a more humanist view of an ethical society and built institutions to support this vision. He founded the very secular Philadelphia library & in 1744 set up the very intellectual American Philosophical Society. Franklin finding few minds to stimulate his thought found a way to spark more reflective thinking in others. His letters show engagement with all sorts of believers, but in an enlightened way that suggests he had a Franklin Bible in mind that twined Jefferson's later version.

While intellectualism grew in the East with the help of a variety of Susan Jacoby's freethinkers. an anti-intellectual atmosphere was spreading on the early 19^th century frontier. Baynard R. Hall, wrote in 1843 about his Indiana neighbors:

"We always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness."

The civil war and a reaction to the Gilded Age's plutocracy and poor social conditions came under harsh attack from what would later bloom as the Social Gospel movement. These preachers implicitly allied with reformers in the Progressive Era. Should we not give some respect to the Social Gospel movement? I like it better than the Gospel of Wealth....Mark Twain, for example, engaged  issues of Christianity and the Social Gospel,  as documented in Mark Twain and the Spiritual Crisis of His Age. 

While Twain's writing and large progressive movements changed things a bit around the turn of the century, Robert Ingersoll, a leading figure in the Free Thought movement writing in1896, could still say of the religious fundamentalism:

“I heard hundreds of these evangelical sermons—heard hundreds of the most fearful and vivid descriptions of the tortures inflicted in hell, of the horrible state of the lost. I supposed that what I heard was true and yet I did not believe it. I said: ‘It is,’ and then I thought: ‘It cannot be.’”.

I would add that Ingersoll's genius and the times of a Social Gospel allowed him to be one time the most popular speaker on the U.S. speaking circuit at that time. According to Rachel Ozanne in ‘Heretics’ or ‘Atheists’? A Response Ingersoll was:

“ well known for being a loving family man and an ethical leader in his community—as a public unbeliever. Though he criticized Christianity and religion in general, he did so from a place of sincere engagement with its ideas. And while he was a self-styled agnostic rather than an atheist, his positive leadership is something all of us doubters and unbelievers could aspire to.”

One point to be made here is that Ingersoll was able to be heard by many because his thoughts were valued by a wide group. Such a positive approach has been in the Humanist tradition and fits an enlightened approach that values tolerance, but of course this is all challenged in difficult times. The more recent perspective comes from the early days after WWII. There was a progressive spirit in the air riding on the recent experience of combating right-wing fanaticism. There was the often delayed hope of a more modern, progressive & democratic world - one that would be free, tolerant & open to inquiry. Secular leaders after World War II included the likes of Corliss Lamont and Paul Kurtz, with a broad vision of an enlightened society where people peacefully and cooperatively manage group differences. 

But this vision hardened to a defensive Cold War mentality. For the US the adversary was an expansive, atheist communism. Richard Hofstadter writing about Anti-Intellectualism in American Life could look back in 1963 on these roots finding fertile ground to grow in Joseph McCarthy's 1950s. To an intellectual like Hofstadter (who saw a The Paranoid Style in American Politics) post war intellectuals like Dean Acheson were disdain as academic "eggheads." As to learning from them ceremonial president of Columbia university Dwight Eisenhower (or his speech writer) spoke disdainfully of them 1954 - an intellectual is "a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.” Not exactly an opening for deep conversations.

To a disappointing degree this cold war climate has continued. The rise of militant, fundamentalist efforts, such the Moral Majority, which was at the height of their power in the 80s and 90s, often embed themselves in a primitive nationalism. This mixture makes it hard to attack and encourages defensive posture by non-believers. Paul Kurtz writing back when new, modern American fundamentalism used it growing power to massively assaults humanism, noted that it was also an attack on the humanities and modernism itself:

“They are opposed to modern science and the scientific revolution of our day. They are opposed to modern literature — everyone from Shakespeare to writers as diverse as Kurt Vonnegut, D. H. Lawrence, and Vladimir Nabokov. ...The fundamentalists are attacking modern education, including science, literature, the arts and philosophy. We must grant that the curriculum of modern education expresses secular values. But that is the nature of the modern world; it is not secular humanism per se that is at the root of all evil, as fundamentalists define it.”

These are still modern things under attack and which we still might reach out to others including the Social Gospel style Christians that Michael Ruse was talking about in his July 27, 2012 article: Should Atheists Reach Out to Christians?  

The article was linked to in previous blogs on New Atheist but it is interesting to actually read what he said in that article.

“I live in a country – a country of which a couple of years ago Lizzie and I voluntarily and with joy became citizens – where at least half of the people are genuine, believing, practicing Christians – and with others sympathetic or as committed to other faiths like Judaism. My neighbors go to church on Sundays and believe that Jesus died for their salvation. So did the teachers of my kids and many of the folk that we interact with every day. Lizzie’s closest friend is the youth coordinator at First Presbyterian and I am co-teaching a course this fall with one of my good friends, an ordained Presbyterian minister.

I don’t believe what they believe and they know that and most of them respect it. Nevertheless we want to get along as neighbors and as parents and as teachers and as friends. I don’t want – they don’t want – differences to lead to hatred and suspicion and working against rather than with.

The great tragedy in America today is that we do have these uncompromising differences. Look at politics and at the damage that the Tea Party has done, not only to the country but to its own party. There is massive unemployment. Economists know full well what needs to be done. Remember the New Deal? But we are paralyzed because of the ideological rigidity of people in power.

A smart way of finding allies on some shared values that is perhaps not so different from what Kurtz was talking about earlier in defending humanism against its Fundamentalist critics, where he could find some agreement about the problems to be dealt with.  We need to find the signal of commonality that can stand out  from even the most extreme noise of radical positions. 

As Kurtz said earlier “we cannot simply reject the Moral Majority and say that nothing they claim is meaningful.” What they and their latest incarnations say speaks to problems that confront people. It is there approaches to problems and with the way they reason that we disagree with. It is important to take on these errors, but in ways that others besides us (freethinkers etc.) and them (fundamentalists) understand. 

Image Credits:

http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/page/26/

21st Century Genocide: Secularists, Condemn It

By Hos
The uprising of the people of Syria against the Assad dictatorship has been in the news for awhile. And, like anything that we see again and again, it has produced some kind of fatigue.

"Televenge"

--- a book review by Edd Doerr

Televenge, by Pamela King Cable (Satya House Publications, 2012, 578 pp., $19.95 [Oct])

This novel, of Dickensian length and melodrama, is the story of one woman's years-long struggles and confrontations with with a sleazy, disturbed pentecostal televangelist and megachurch pastor. (Appropriately, the original meaning of the word "pastor" is a herder of sheep.) The author grew up in a Southern pentecostal milieu that is reflected in her writing style.

I would not dream of giving away the complicated plot. Let me say only that although the novel is overly long, it is a real page-turner. The author is a somewhat conservative Christian, and that lends her work a certain air of verisimilitude.