On the bashing of atheists/agnostics
November 28, 2011
I’ve been wanting to write a post here for a long time. There have been a few ideas that have come and gone, some even to the point where I started writing… but nothing to show for it. I’ve had an on-again, off-again relationship with blogging in general. There are periods where I write regularly, other periods where I come to see it as futile and give up. But I always come back to it, and over the years I’ve realized that while I do enjoy political blogging at times, it is other subjects, particularly those of philosophy and religion, that have always better aroused my passion.
While I make no secret of my non-faith, I’m not aggressive about it either. I’m not one of those non-believers that feels the need to call those of faith stupid or ignorant. I know good people of both faith and non-faith, and I certainly count among my closest friends many who take their religious views very seriously. As a rule, I try to be respectful of others’ beliefs, given that they do not try to force them upon me, and given that they, overall, make them a better person. Faith can do this, and does do this, for millions, and to deny that would be silly.
As a holder of a minority worldview – my own views surely deserving of further explanation but essentially coming down to non-theistic agnosticism – I’m used to politicians not exactly gunning for my vote. If I’m lucky, I’ll get an off-hand remark about how both those of faith and non-faith can be good people (for all his flaws, George W. Bush was remarkably tolerant). However, I’m not expecting much. What does get to me, though, is when a politician goes out of his or her way to insult me. It is not always a calculated move, usually a passing reference to the false belief that atheists/agnostics have no values.
The example that sparked this post came when I saw this brief comment made by Newt Gingrich in a debate last month. The moment did not get much attention at the time as it is hardly out of the ordinary to hear non-religious folks denigrated during Republican political events. But in seeing this, it made me think of two things. First, how profoundly ignorant Gingrich must be to think that those who don’t have faith have no values or judgment. Secondly, how utterly contemptible he is to essentially imply those without faith are, as a rule, of poor character and completely undeserving of trust and power.
Now, certainly, from a political point of view, bashing atheists/agnostics isn’t going to cost anyone many votes, and may in fact gain them quite a few from those who are prejudiced. Certainly among Republicans, it may indeed be a mainstream, majority belief that atheists are no better than Muslims – perhaps even worse. So in the grand scheme, Newt’s comments will not hurt him, if they have any effect at all. But it does, to me, shed some light on his character. Does he not know any non-believers in his personal life? If he does, does he treat them with suspicion? Or is he just throwing red meat to a base that is largely convinced that secular humanism is a force of Satan?
Throwing rocks at non-believers tells me a lot about a person. It says that person is willing to insult and slander one group in order to feed the worst instincts of the larger group. It says that person has not even bothered to understand or get to know non-believers. It says that person can and would prejudge those that they hire based on their faith and religious background. In the end, it says they are a fool – a small-minded person who simply cannot fathom how one can come to the conclusion that God does not exist without then becoming a mass murderer or rapist.
Whether or not believers like it, there are millions of us out there who find our answers and contentment outside of the cathedral, mosque, and temple. By many measurements non-belief is among the fastest growing groups in America. By no means at all does this mean religion is threatened. But it does mean that sooner or later, politicians will have to come to grips with the idea that we are out there. The sooner they shed their preconceived notions, the sooner they will learn how to connect with people regardless of their religious views or lack thereof.
Mitch Daniels and RTW
February 23, 2011
With Chris Christie apparently determined not to run and libertarian darlings Gary Johnson and Ron Paul unlikely to gain much support, Mitch Daniels has become a popular choice amongst fiscal conservatives. A lot of people I agree with like Daniels, and I have not heard anything that would make me seriously question his credentials as a fairly solid fiscal con.
So when a controversy erupted yesterday over Daniels’ decision to abandon “right to work” (RTW) legislation in favor of other issues, I was more than a little skeptical. I knew that in this time leading up to 2012, those who support or dislike a certain potential candidate are ready and willing to slime whoever is needed. I also knew that many social conservatives already disliked Daniels because of recent comments he made supporting a “truce” on social issues. Both of these reasons made me question whether some were attempting to create a row in order to damage Daniels.
After looking into the issues involved more, it is clear to me that that is the case to some degree. For one thing, those who are criticizing Daniels are ignoring some essential political facts that need to be considered. This article in National Review Online lays them out wonderfully. In short, Daniels faces a limited legislative schedule and a minority that holds significant clout. And in his years as governor, he has hardly been a slouch. His record stands as being quite impressive and his legislative priorities, such as education reform, should make conservatives happy.
Finally, there is a very compelling argument to be made for not supporting RTW laws in the first place, so Daniels is hardly taking a position that is unheard of. Tim Carney in the Washington Examiner makes a good, succinct case that such laws stand against the rights of free association and the rights of employers to hire whom they wish. I’m quite sympathetic to this particular line of reasoning, being a firm believer in the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts of their choosing. Also essential to point out is that these laws concern private unions and not public ones as in Wisconsin, so these are really two vastly different animals we’re talking about.
Regardless of the facts, there’s a fair point to be made that Daniels had a communications failure here, which in some minds is enough in and of itself to damage him. But I think the bigger force at work here is conservatives who already resent Daniels for abandoning social issues. No matter how much some social conservatives talk about focusing on fiscal issues at this point in history, when it comes down to it many are simply not going to tolerate a candidate who does not at least pay lip service to abortion and “traditional marriage”.
At the end of the day, I remain convinced that Daniels is a strong candidate who I could support. If abandoning a bill that splits even those on Daniels’ side is what it takes to get other items through the Indiana legislature, I’d say that’s a very fair bargain. And if Democrats continue to act like children, it will be clear to the public that they are at fault and that the Governor is making a good-faith effort.
Reality vs. Unreality
February 17, 2011
This past week has been a revealing one for anyone wondering who is on the side of reality, and who hopes to keep living in a magical land where deficits don’t matter and spending can go on unabated. It is amazing how stark the difference has become. We have clearly reached a point in this country where some have stood up and acted like adults, while others have stuck their heads deep into the sand in hopes the big bad debt will go away.
On Team Reality, we have a slate of recently elected Republican governors – Chris Christie of New Jersey, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Rick Scott of Florida. Each of these state heads has, in the past weeks and months, shown a rare and praiseworthy willingness to actually say “no” to unsustainable spending. Christie has been a hero since his election two years ago, canceling a proposed NJ-NY tunnel that would have cost taxpayers billions, and taking on the entrenched unions and interests that no leader has ever dared to challenge. Governor Scott just this week refused federal money for a new high-speed rail that would have surely overrun costs, leaving Floridians with the bill. And most notably, Governor Walker has raised the ire of thousands by proposing modest reforms on public union bargaining powers.
Meanwhile, on Team Unicorn, President Obama dropped on the world a budget worthy of laughter in its unseriousness. The budget even includes INCREASES in some types of spending, and even with some cuts, adds trillions to the debt over the next ten years. Some estimates even suggest it would be worse to pass his new budget than continue the current one. Joining Obama in the Lollipop Corner are the unions and other interests acting as if any cuts whatsoever are the moral equivalent of leaving children to starve and poor people to die in the streets. These folks are the ones parading in the streets of Madison and Trenton demanding they be able to keep their cushy arrangement without the smallest bit of sacrifice.
The difference between the two teams could not be more glaring. While Team Reality is busy making tough choices and being serious about our issues, Team Unicorn is off promoting the delusion that there is no crisis and that no changes are needed. Luckily, it seems right now that the public is acting far more adult that these fools. We shall see if this trend continues as more and more people are affected by the necessary cuts. But hopefully, the public will be smart enough to realize that Team Unicorn is smoking the strong stuff while Team Reality is being blunt and honest.
Palin steps in it… again
January 13, 2011
The past week brought many of Sarah Palin’s normal detractors to her defense as those on the left leveled the absurd suggestion that she was somehow linked to the shootings in Tucson, AZ. Many of us who are not normally fans spent more than a little effort arguing with those accusing her with such an absurd charge. Indeed, until she finally decided to speak yesterday, this was looking like a good week for Palin as she was clearly a sympathetic figure.
But as she is wont to do, Palin managed to make me regret supporting her. Yesterday’s speech was almost entirely defensive. And perhaps in one of the worst word choices in recent memory, Palin deployed the term “blood libel,” a very specific reference to a long-standing line of anti-Semitic defamation. The fact remains that there are two possible explanations for using this phrase, and neither is good. One possibility is that she did not know what it referred to, which represents a profound ignorance and massive neglect on the part of her speechwriters. The other option is that she DID know the meaning, and chose to compare her “suffering” to one of history’s great slanders.
Whatever the case, she has proven again that in her mind, everything is about her. She has once again stepped into the limelight and contributed to making the story focused on Sarah Palin. And she demonstrated extremely poor judgment in needlessly choosing an inflammatory and insensitive term. One wonders if Mrs. Palin even understands this or cares. But at the very least, her staff failed her miserably.
New at PL: The Competing Concepts of Freedom
December 21, 2010
This past weekend saw the Senate vote to repeal the 17-year-old policy banning open gays from military service, known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It was surely an historic moment, whether you considered it good or bad. The final passage was secured by a number of Republicans who eventually came to the same conclusion that most of the country has come to – that it was time to repeal this policy.
The final nail for DADT
December 16, 2010
This morning, word came that Scott Brown would support the stand-alone repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that just passed the House (again). This, combined with the votes of several other Republicans, would provide the votes needed to break a filibuster and approve the bill. The problem lies in the fact that Harry Reid has tried to jam so much into the lame duck session of Congress that there might not be enough time for the vote.
The reasons that DADT might finally be repealed are many. The public now supports repeal, due in large part to the fact that Americans are much more comfortable with open gays than they were at the time DADT was enacted. The military also supports it, including many of the top officers. And now that these things are in place, the politicians are finally finding that they support it.
But the final nail may be the support of Pat Toomey, Senator-elect from my state of Pennsylvania. While Toomey cannot actually vote for repeal as he is not yet in Congress, his support is huge because of the mainstream conservative cred that he commands. Long a darling of conservatives in the Commonwealth, Toomey’s support represents a major moral victory for fans of DADT repeal. If someone like him can support repeal, then other conservatives might follow suit.
And all of this, quite frankly, is good to hear. DADT is a policy that has long outlived any usefulness it once had. Soldiers report they have no problem with it. The public is ready for it. And finally our leaders are coming around to the realization that it’s time for DADT to go. I’m sure if Harry Reid really wants to do so, he will surely find the time to hold a vote before Christmas and give a nice present to gay rights supporters.
New at PL: No labels? Or no courage?
December 14, 2010
My latest post over at Pundit League:
As someone who often finds the typical left-right divisions to be somewhat lacking, I can understand the desire to define oneself apart from the oft-used labels of conservative and liberal. For better or worse, in many ways one can be shoehorned by using those terms, whether fairly or unfairly. So when I see the launch of a new campaign called “No Labels,” a part of me gets the type of person who would support such an effort. They are by and large folks who call themselves “moderates” and “centrists” and try to stand apart from the typical sides.
And we’re the greedy ones?
December 10, 2010
Throughout the time I have been involved in politics, I have been told that greed is the exclusive province of conservatives and right-wingers. The story goes that capitalists would gladly destroy the environment and wreak havoc on society all to fill their pockets with filthy lucre. Whereas liberals, of course, are generous and compassionate and only seek to help the downtrodden. This narrative is so imbued in our social consciousness that to your average person uninvolved in politics, it is most likely taken as conventional wisdom.
Yet the current uproar on the left about President Obama’s recent tax cut deal tells us something different. To be sure, the deal is far from great – the additional thirteen months of unfunded “unemployment” payments are wholly irresponsible. But in the end, it represents a compromise that I can swallow, though I might need a chaser afterward. However, to hear liberals complain about it, you’d think Obama had done something drastic like cut a government program or praise Fox News. Columns and blogs have been livid about Obama’s “betrayal.” There’s even been talk of a primary challenge.
It is worth it to take a minute here and think about what is precisely the source of said ire. To put it simply, what has gotten liberals so furious here is not a cut to a desired program, or anything that even affects their daily lives. It is the fact that taxes are NOT going up on the rich. So wedded to the class warfare mindset are these folks that they become irate when the government decides to steal less from upper-class Americans. It’s a concept that most people can’t understand – why does someone even care so much about how much is taken from those better off? Can’t they just be happy with what they have instead of always envying others?
The answer comes down to two simple human concepts – greed and control. It is nothing more or less than rank greed that compels a person to take pleasure in the forced robbery of his countrymen for the benefit of his preferred interest group. And it is nothing other than need for control and lust for power that drives someone to view tax cuts as a “giveaway” or “bonus,” as I discussed in my column at Pundit League earlier this week. The people who talk this way all have a severe case of wannabe tyranny; their ideal world is one where government is massive and all-encompassing, doling out money and rights as it chooses.
The perfect example of this comes in this column by E.J. Dionne, Jr. at the Washington Post. One line that I found particularly galling was this throwaway sentence:
Other liberals would go along if the estate tax cut could be made less munificent.
Perhaps E.J. did not pass English class, but “munificence” in my vocabulary means “generosity”. It naturally requires that you OWN something that you can be generous with it. Which is exactly how liberals like he and many others view your money – it is naturally theirs, and they have the right to take as much of it as they want, even stealing the already-taxed, hard-earned wealth you spend your whole life accumulating upon your demise.
It seems, then, that when we talk about greed – the all-consuming need to get more and more, consequences be damned – that there is one group in this country that exemplifies it consummately. That is the liberals and other statists who view all control and money as theirs to hand out. For me, as a capitalist, I long only to keep my justly earned money and to build a better future for myself and my future family. I do not desire others’ property that they legitimately worked for. Yet I’m supposedly the greedy one?
UPDATE: It seems the Democrats are at it again, larding up the tax compromise with pork. And a few Republicans are playing the game as well. I can’t express how sick I am of this stuff. If the crap sandwich also comes with a side of metal shards, I say Republicans torpedo the whole thing. The time for these corrupt games is over.
The worst column ever?
December 1, 2010
Anyone who regularly subjects themselves to columns by Tom Friedman at the New York Times knows what to expect – childish reasoning, adoration for totalitarian control in China, quixotic obsession with everything “green,” and general dislike for the fact that anyone dares oppose the Democrats. Friedman, like his colleague Paul Krugman, has never met a government project or spending initiative he did not support. Yet his dislike for democracy extends even beyond Krugman’s. He seems genuinely annoyed by the fact that we even HAVE a free society.
In this light, today’s column should come as no surprise. In it, Friedman attempts to write what he feels would be a realistic leaked “cable” from the Chinese Embassy in the US back to its masters in the People’s Republic. Within a few sentences he demonstrates the sheer ignorance he possesses. First, he bemoans the fact that Americans dare complain about being groped and molested by government agents. His frustrations then continue to include the opposition of some Republicans to the new START treaty, which apparently is so fundamental to American security that Congress is waiting until the last possible minute to consider it. Next, he whines about the fact that we actually have free elections where candidates can raise and spend money and, on occasion, say things that aren’t true.
But Friedman is just getting started, because just in the next paragraph, he goes on to kvetch about how bad Amtrak is, as if America and China have exactly the same need and practical use for high-speed rail. And then of course comes those darn dropped cell phone calls, because this is a surefire way to measure the greatness of a nation. After all, I’m sure any rational person would come to the conclusion that Zambia is a more advanced society because their cellular network is allegedly superior.
And no condescending liberal column would be complete without continuing the fiction that Americans are just ignorant, unworldly rubes who sit inside their shacks cleaning their guns without daring to learn about the outside world. This nonsense has been disproven thoroughly so it’s hardly worth the time to do so, so no point bothering. Yet it is not the end of Friedman’s gibberish. After spending a paragraph complaining about our presence in Afghanistan (which, of course, liberals supported when they were opposing the Iraq War), good old Tom levels the tiresome charge that anyone who questions “climate change” science must be stupid and crazy. And, of course, against all the wonderful Magical Unicorn Flying Cars powered by Fairy Dust we could all be driving if we’d just support cap and trade.
Which all raises the question – why does Tom Friedman still live here and not in China?
A little consistency, please?
November 29, 2010
The long trip that led to me to excusing myself from both the left and the right began to accelerate quickly upon the election of Barack Obama. As his presidency began to take shape, I noticed “my side” doing many of the things they had mocked the “other side” for doing just months prior. They started coming up with insane conspiracy theories, accusing the President of being a secret Muslim born in Kenya. They began to see evil motives in every action and believe the government was suddenly out to get them.
The reverse, of course, started taking place on the left. What were once “affronts to civil liberties” became nothing to worry about. Efforts by the government to chill free speech were suddenly fine and dandy. Spending and debt on a level that would shame any president other than George W. Bush became not only acceptable but desirable. War critics were more measured, and once-heroes like Cindy Sheehan were discarded like so much garbage.
This point was nailed perfectly by Ross Douthat at the New York Times today. In contrast with some of his fellow columnists at the Gray Lady, Ross has consistently been fair-minded and reasonable. Which, of course, has made him a favorite to no partisan on either side. But in the interests of allowing all sides to properly see the proverbial plank in their own eyes, his piece today is more than worth reading. I found this paragraph to be particularly powerful:
Now that a Democrat is in the White House, the pendulum is swinging back. In 2006, Gallup asked the public whether the government posed an “immediate threat” to Americans. Only 21 percent of Republicans agreed, versus 57 percent of Democrats. In 2010, they asked again. This time, 21 percent of Democrats said yes, compared with 66 percent of Republicans.
These results are striking and reveal that partisanship is a very powerful determinant in one’s own political opinions. As someone who has tried to step outside the left-right prison I find so many colleagues trapped in, it is clear that consistency is something severely lacking from our discourse. It’s why I’ll never call myself a Republican again – it simply means nothing. And until more people start freeing themselves from the lie of the left-right paradigm, we will continue to have pundits twist themselves into pretzels trying to oppose what the Other Team is doing while still rooting for the Home Team when they do it. It’s sad and frustrating.
