I suggested the other day that I think it’s stupid and misguided to treat criticism of religious ideas and doctrines—even harsh, sarcastic, mocking criticism—as a form of “bigotry” akin to racism. I think Atrios nailed this pretty well last week, and even before I read his captivating and deft The Elementary Particles, I had a soft spot for Michel Houellebeq for this:
France’s most controversial writer, Michel Houellebecq, appeared in court in Paris yesterday to defend his right to call Islam a “stupid” religion. […] Yesterday he was asked whether or not he still thought Muslims were stupid. “I didn’t say that,” he said. “I said they practise a stupid religion.” Asked if he was racist against Islam, he answered: “You can’t be racist against Islam.”
But this cuts both ways. So I have to disagree with Andrew Sullivan when he regards as “bigotry”—or perhaps even a “religious test”—Mitt Romney’s recent comment, in response to an anti-Mormon heckler, that “We need to have a person of faith lead the country.”
First, at the risk of stating the obvious, the kind of “religious test” barred by the Constitution is any institutional requirement of faith for holders of public office; it doesn’t mean that candidates or others can’t suggest that voters should take faith into account (as polls show many do). There are surely plenty of reasons to hope this doesn’t become a more prominent theme in American political rhetoric. Nevertheless, there’s a huge qualitative difference between suggesting that a president ought to have a certain kind of belief system and suggesting that, say, the president must be of a particular race.
A few years back, I wrote a piece for Reason looking into why voters care about candidates’ faith. And one major factor surely is a kind of pure tribalism that might well deserve the epithet “bigoted.” But polls suggest that even secularists often prefer a little religiosity from their elected officials. Among some of the reasons I consider, aside from the obvious places where people might take faith as a proxy for certain policy positions: Given how powerful the presidents are, and how much leeway they often have to use that power secretly, some people might take solace in the thought that their leaders regard themselves as accountable to an omniscient judge as well as the verdict of the ballot box. I think this is misguided—there’s little reason to suspect that the religious are in general more moral than the secular—but it’s not the type of consideration that’s inherently suspect.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Tano // Feb 18, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I think you need to deal with the country you have, rather than the country you wish for.
The fact is, that writing off a candidate because of their faith system is considered bigoted behavior by the mainstream in this country, and that is a good thing. JFK had to deal with people who would never vote for a Catholic – he addressed the issue, he was elected, served, and since then Catholics have been generally accepted by the public – which means they endure the normal scrutiny that anyone else does, but the average person knows that it is socially unacceptable to dimiss them out of hand.
Romney is going through that process right now with his Mormonism. Trying to get past the tendency of many people to write him off for that reason alone. The movement to support him in that effort is using the bigotry card to beat back that tendency in some people. It is a good thing – Romney should be evaluated on his merits like anyone else.
I think it would be a good thing if athiests were to benefit from such a campaign. Over half of all Americans will dismiss any thought of voting for an athiest – that is not only unfair to the individuals involved, it is also irrational for the country as a whole since it denies possibilities for potentially excellent leaders.
This is not to deny that many people may continue to have qualms about someone who is not grounded in a faith tradition – and there isn’t anything inherently wrong with people responding to such concerns as they do their calculations. But if atheists are granted entry into the big tent, and given serious consideration, rather than just being dismissed out of hand, that would be a good thing.
2 Reality Man // Feb 19, 2007 at 1:08 am
I’m not sure the quote (France’s most controversial writer, Michel Houellebecq, appeared in court in Paris yesterday to defend his right to call Islam a “stupid” religion. […] Yesterday he was asked whether or not he still thought Muslims were stupid. “I didn’t say that,” he said. “I said they practise a stupid religion.” Asked if he was racist against Islam, he answered: “You can’t be racist against Islam.”) backs up your second point. When someone says that people who don’t believe in god are immoral, they are saying that atheists themselves are immoral. This is different than saying atheism is immoral. Similarly, Houellebecq said that Islam was stupid. He didn’t say Muslims are stupid. The polls I’ve seen have found that Americans are more uncomfortable with their children marrying atheists more than any other group because they find atheists to be immoral.
I think the whole issue of the “cafetaria Catholics” approach to religion also complicates this. Such Catholics, Reform Jews, liberal Muslims and Hindus, etc. tend to pick and choose which parts of their given religious doctrine they follow. A Muslim like Fareed Zakaria can be a wine critic and not have really strong religious faith and still be a Muslim. Such liberal religionists can still say they get some of their morality from their religion while living a lifestyle identical to atheists while avoiding the same smears. In atheism, a belief about a deity not existing, such a dynamic is missing. There is no atheist Bible that espouses an atheist doctrine from which one can deviate while still saying they are a good, religious atheist. A single belief – that God does not exist – defines one as an atheist. When being judged by society, the very fact of atheism leads to an individual to be judged differently than someone of religious beliefs but identical behavior. Now, admittedly I don’t think this applies to the Romney quote, but it does apply to larger societal views of atheists. It may not exactly be bigotry, but it is in the vicinity.
3 Michael B Sullivan // Feb 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I think that Reality Man touches on an important point that relates to the whole issue: there is no atheist’s bible, and atheism is defined by a single belief (non-belief, really). I think that that’s what’s problematic for a lot of theists.
If someone says, “I’m a Christian,” even if they tag a lot of caveats onto that, I think a lot of people take it to mean, “I basically support most of the same values that you do. Core stuff: murder is wrong; we should at least attempt not to lie about important things; it’s not immoral to have children; it’s okay to accumulate some money and try to pass it on to your kids.” And if the “Christian” doesn’t believe that, then there’s a standard that you can hold him to, and repudiate his behaviour from.
In contrast, when someone says, “I’m an atheist,” all you know about him is, “I don’t believe in God.” Does he think bestiality is okay? Well… maybe! Some people do! I mean, probably not, but how do you know? And if he does have some belief that you consider deviant, maybe he just says, “I never professed to believe in that,” and avoids criticism.
Obviously, this isn’t the most rational or rigorous or even fair way to judge someone, but I think it has something to it. We don’t have time to sit down and decipher every damn person’s personal code of beliefs, and there really are people out there who have beliefs pretty far from the mean (I may be one of those people). Religious membership, I think, functions as a sort of way of saying, “I agree about what field we’re playing on and where the goalposts are. I may have an unconventional take on the offsides rule, or argue about whether that was really a contact foul, but we’re playing the same game.” And I don’t think any of those things have anything to do with God — they just happened to get wrapped up in a package with theism.
In any event, I think it’d be interesting to see what would happen to people’s feelings on atheism if someone founded an atheistic religion, complete with dogma, relatively accessible “holy” (profane?) books, and some kind of authority who was willing to stand up and say, “That’s acceptable under this religion, and that’s not” — all without professing to believe in anything supernatural. My intuition is that in relatively short order (a few years, maybe), its practitioners would shed something like 50-75% of the stigma currently associated with atheism.
4 asg // Feb 19, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Atheists don’t do too well with dogma. But your point is well taken. What would be a good name for such a religion/belief system/etc.?
5 Julian Sanchez // Feb 20, 2007 at 10:42 am
It strikes me that we already have what Michael is talking about; they’re called “codes of ethics” or “moral systems.” We don’t really need to invent anything new, just make sure people know what it means if someone says “I’m a Kantian” (or whatever).
6 asg // Feb 21, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I think that was Michael’s point — no new philosophy is needed, just marketing, with the implication that religion is mostly marketing.