The Weakness of Faith

Alan Jacobs, writing in the WSJ:

... I can't universalize my own experience -- but that experience does give me pause when people talk about the immense power of religion to make people do extraordinary things. When people say that they are acting out of religious conviction, I tend to be skeptical; I tend to wonder whether they're not acting as I usually do, out of motives and impulses over which I could paint a thin religious veneer but which are really not religious at all.

Most of today's leading critics of religion are remarkably trusting in these matters. Card-carrying members of the intelligentsia like Mr. Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris would surely be doubtful, even incredulous, if a politician who had illegally seized power claimed that his motives for doing so were purely patriotic; or if a CEO of a drug company explained a sudden drop in prices by professing her undying compassion for those unable to afford her company's products. Discerning a difference between people's professed aims and their real aims is just what intellectuals do.

This point, I think, dovetails nicely with the argument I was making in this post on the disproportionate fear inspired by apocalyptic religious beliefs, whether they're being professed by Pat Robertson or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The proportion of religious believers who insist that their conduct is motivated by the imminent end of the world is vastly larger, so far as I can tell, than the proportion who actually behave in ways designed to hasten the apocalypse, as opposed to advancing some rather-more-worldly interest. Now of course it only takes one such person with a suitcase nuke to do an awful lot of damage - but as I said before, I think such people are sufficiently rare, and sufficiently unlikely to ascend to positions of great power, that they ought to be further down our list of worries than many secularists suppose.

Comments

This post is a straw-man. No one is arguing that religion is the source of all evils or that apocalyptic beliefs, secular or religious, is the greatest problem facing civilization today. We are arguing that Apocalyptic beliefs are A PROBLEM, among many other problems. It's a serious issue not to be dismissed and especially not to be apologized for. There are literally millions of Americans walking around believing that the Rapture will happen at any moment. No, they're not killing people, but ideas have currency, and the direct political ramifications for example (influence on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East) are significant. A repost from the other thread: "It's not clear to me how Douthat can pen screeds lamenting the sexualization of our culture while simultaneously dismissing the truly corrosive and dangerous damage that end-time ideology causes to a functioning society."

Posted by Korha | June 6, 2008 4:38 PM

One oughtt to be skeptical of folk who wear religion on their sleeve. The best of religious writers including C.S. Lewis and R.J. Neuhaus write well in favor of religion, though they are reluctant to claim any personal religious virtue. As I understand Christ, he spent a lot of time with sinners and had much to say about the self righteousness of the Pharisees who were much like the unctuous modern liberals.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 6, 2008 5:31 PM

Even if Jacobs is correct, I don't think this removes the substance of the criticism. I'm sure a Richard Dawkins would concede that religion is used as sheep's clothing or as a stalking horse some of the time, to help promote other, baser motives or objectives. Still, it's a powerful rationalization, one that is often widely credited as legitimate, when justifying acts that otherwise violate basic religious tenets of compassion and mercy.

Sure, hypocrites and tyrants may try to cast a veil of sanctity over their own selfish acts. But why do so many people accept these pronouncements?

Posted by anonymous | June 6, 2008 5:31 PM

Interestingly, the opposite is true of pro-lifers. The number who swear that they are acting out of purely secular motives and without regard to their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality is vastly larger than the number who actually are acting out of purely secular motives.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 6, 2008 6:31 PM

Kortha:

I agree with you. I will add that also not all forms of milleniarism relly on the inminent end of the world. You only need the idea that "the end is near", where near is not specific, to have very specific consequences (i.e, the religious right and specially fundamentalism rise to power in the US. Also think in what it implies for example to justificate policies concerning israel etc...)

Posted by Segio Méndez | June 6, 2008 7:02 PM

Petey Leavitts: "As I understand Christ, he spent a lot of time with sinners and had much to say about the self righteousness of the Pharisees who were much like the unctuous modern liberals."

Really? They seem more like the religious right to me, what with all of their masturbatory praying in public.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 7:47 PM

Korha,

I think this isn't quite so urgent a problem as you - the kind of apocalyptic present in some varients of fundamentalist and evangelical protestantism is very quietist - almost no believer in the apocalyptic really believers that there is anything at all they can do to advance the date of the apocalypse - it is in sacred time, even if you get all sorts of efforts to pin down the date.

And I think you and Sergio are both conflating Protestant Christian Zionism with apocalyptic beliefs too much - while they are connected, Christian Zionist proclivities began before the widespread interest in the apocalyptic.

And it should be noted that the secular apocalypticism of some environmentalists is more alarming because they are convinced that there are many concrete things we must do, including having few to no children and limiting economic growth, that will have much stronger and immediate consequences than the activities of Apocalyptically minded Fundies have had for the
last 50 years.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 7:51 PM

Is is virtually a truism that millenial or apocalyptic religion seldom keeps one from signing up for the company retirement plan. It is equally true that many nations that claim to be driven by religion or ideology actually behaves quite, well, nationalistically.

There are those few exceptions to the rule that are troublesome: Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh.

We are urged to consider Iran as some sort of 'special case' because they are apparently centrifuging unanium and expecting the 12th Imam.
But their behavior has mostly been 'political' instead of 'fanatical'.

Rev's Hagee and Parsley also have actually behaved like completely normal 21st century American celebrities: The million dollar income, the chartered jets. Therefore one reasonably doubts the 'religious' grounding for their actions.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 6, 2008 7:54 PM

Jim Jones, David Koresh, Tim McVeigh.

Jim Jones killed a bunch of his similarly deluded followers but hardly posed a threat to society at large. David Koresh ran a wacky, creepy, and oppressive cult but wasn't blowing up buildings and probably would have been content to stay in his compound if the government hadn't come after him. And Tim McVeigh was an atheist animated by completely secular anti-government animus. None of these are good examples of the dangers of religious-inspired end-time thinking to society at large.

Unexamined religious belief does pose some danger to society, but it's greatly overstated, particularly relative to the danger that other, less amply documented forms of uncritical belief (e.g. certain political orthodoxies both left and right) do.

Posted by Xeynon | June 6, 2008 8:36 PM

David: "And it should be noted that the secular apocalypticism of some environmentalists is more alarming because they are convinced that there are many concrete things we must do"

Good point. The increasingly powerful enviro-wacko movement is indeed alarming and dangerous.

Posted by Korha | June 6, 2008 8:39 PM

Xeynon claims: "Tim McVeigh was an atheist animated by completely secular anti-government animus."

McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic who at one point claimed to be an agnostic, but he had a Catholic requiem mass performed before his execution which was attended (at McVeigh's request) by a Catholic chaplain.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 8:46 PM

One can't help but wonder animated Tomás de Torquemada. One supposes it was not secular in nature.

Posted by ed | June 6, 2008 9:53 PM

Let Timothy McVeigh speak for himself.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,109478,00.html

An atheist? Apparently not. A Catholic? Again, apparently not. A nut with some kind of vague ideas about some kind of God (ideas that had little or nothing to do with his crimes)? Yep.

Posted by astorian | June 6, 2008 10:21 PM

Can you actually hasten the apocalypse? I think an awful lot of modern Christianity, America-firster-division, isn't remotely Biblical, and is just some pretty odd wish-fulfillment crap invented in the nineteenth century. Am I wrong?

Posted by Little Boots | June 6, 2008 11:57 PM

Korha, regarding your first post, and to paraphrase Dr. Dre, your lips are moving, but you're not saying anything.

I might add something of substance myself, but I just wish everyone would read the WSJ article, the post from a few days ago, and understand what's being said before you reply. There's no straw man here - this post directly addresses the laundry list of fanatics and their movements, which some people on here are using to 'prove' the danger of religion, and counters that religion is not the motivation, but an excuse.

Without religion, something else would suffice, and would be used just as shamelessly to do evil.

Ross's point, and Jacobs' point, went sailing over our heads, apparently.

Posted by Ferrell | June 7, 2008 1:29 AM

Re: ? I think an awful lot of modern Christianity, America-firster-division, isn't remotely Biblical

There's a long, long tradition of people thinking they've solved the "code" of Revelations and are able to predict when the End will come-- almost always in their lifetime with the prophesies shoehorned into their current events. Nor has it been unusual for people to suppose that their own country has some very special role to play in that drama. None of this is biblical of course, but it's not something newly invented either.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 7:03 AM

Having read Dawkins extensively and Hitchens sporadically, I think I can fairly say that what worres them is not that claims of religious motivation are necessarily always true, but that those claims immunize individuals and their actions from serious scrutiny. Once religion is invoked, words and actions are granted a respect that would not be countenanced if the motivation was political or financial.

This rears a particularly ugly head when religious people claim the right not to be offended (by hostile criticisms or even cartoons). Why should faith in Mohammed be treated any differently than faith in Bush? Why should following tenets of the Old Testament be subject to less scrutiny that followig the tenets of National Socialism ("at least it's an ethos")?

Posted by Blutarski | June 7, 2008 7:13 AM

Dear Blutarski,

I've also read Dawkins (couldn't muster the strength for Hitchens' book - "How Religion Poisons Everything" suggests too high a rant to revelation ratio for my taste - but I've read enough of his other writings to think that I can comment on his general aseertions about faith) and Dawkins goes much further than simply saying the problem with religion is that it immunizes people from reflecting upon their actions. They both regard religion as a deep mental defect and problem that deserves at least public censure and even better legal discrimination and persecution. Dawkins wants to stigmatize the religious upbringing of children with the brush of child abuse, and has on at least one occasion expressed the hope for the criminalization of teaching religion to minors (a very Soviet style of social control), while Hitchens has spoken quite approvingly of the 1905 Separation of Church and State laws in France which were quite Orwellian in the degree to which the state presumed to control religious property in spite of solemn treaty commitments, and contrary to any kind of basic religious freedom when they drove religious orders out of France.

Religion has undergone the kind of scrutiny for which you are calling, and religious believers have often divided among themselves in how best to pursue their understanding of faith and their social responsibilities, so this idea that religious faith turns one into a mind-numbed robot doesn't hold up, especially when one looks at the tremendous efficacy of secular forms of indoctrination in producing a great deal of social conformity. If Dawkins and Hitchens would restrict themselves to raising concerns about the power of religion to shut down rational argument (and make the argument with less contempt for fact than either of them usually show when it comes to religion - their basic ignorance on the subject is appalling) then they would be doing nothing new. But when they support repression in the name of enlightenment and flirt with the idea that without religion all would be heaven on earth they are being quite foolish, and I am alternately gladdened and appalled by their popularity in atheist circles. The worst part of me is gladdened, because like everybody else I like to think I'm correct in my beliefs, and if these people are held up as some of the biggest guns on the other side I think the future of faith is so bright I've gotta wear shades. I'm appalled because I miss the thoughtful cultured atheists whose wit, insight and humanism really could make me and those who believe ask ourselves tough questions. Believers are often in the forefront of coming down hard on errent preachers like Pat Robertson, etc. when they make absurd statements - t'would be nice to see some effort by thoughtful atheists to realize how little credit Dawkins, Hitchens and the like do to their side.

Posted by David | June 7, 2008 9:01 AM

Re: I think I can fairly say that what worres them is not that claims of religious motivation are necessarily always true, but that those claims immunize individuals and their actions from serious scrutiny.

Really? I haven't noticed folk like Robertson, Dobson et al being given such pass. If anything, arguing from religious motivations immediately brings out cries of "Invalid!"

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 9:57 AM

David writes: "If Dawkins and Hitchens would restrict themselves to raising concerns about the power of religion to shut down rational argument (and make the argument with less contempt for fact than either of them usually show when it comes to religion - their basic ignorance on the subject is appalling) then they would be doing nothing new. But when they support repression in the name of enlightenment and flirt with the idea that without religion all would be heaven on earth they are being quite foolish, and I am alternately gladdened and appalled by their popularity in atheist circles."

Neither Dawkins or Hitchens has ever been stupid enough to say or suggest that "without religion all would be heaven on earth." David is simply lying here.

"Believers are often in the forefront of coming down hard on errent preachers like Pat Robertson, etc. when they make absurd statements"

The remarkable scarcity of "progressive" Christians calling out the Religious Right on their bullshit over the past 30 years in this country has been appalling. I give Barry Lynn full credit for being a lone brave voice for much of that time.

Of course it would be a full-time job calling the maggots out every time they make an absurd statement, and that would take time away from fundraising. Can't have that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 2:41 PM

Re: The remarkable scarcity of "progressive" Christians calling out the Religious Right on their bullshit over the past 30 years in this country has been appalling.

The problem here is that Mssrs Robertson, Falwell etc. either own media outlets or have enough money to purchase plenty of time on media they don't own. I'm not in the that poistion, nor are very many other Christians. So while plenty of us reject the Robertsons of this world, people like you don't really hear our voices because our only real outlet are blogs like this.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 3:46 PM

JonF replies: "The problem here is that Mssrs Robertson, Falwell etc. either own media outlets or have enough money to purchase plenty of time on media they don't own. I'm not in the that poistion, nor are very many other Christians. So while plenty of us reject the Robertsons of this world, people like you don't really hear our voices because our only real outlet are blogs like this."

Sorry Jon, but that response is pathetic and disingenuous. Where have the leaders of the large denominations been? They're rolling in dough. Granted the Catholics have been busy dealing with the infestation of baby-rapers and their allies in their midst, but where are all of the prominent Episcopalian and Lutheran and Methodist and Congregationalist and Flapadoodalist ministers? Other than the aforementioned Barry Lynn I can't think of a single one of the collared bunch who spent significant time confronting the snakehandling con-men of the Religious Right.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 4:22 PM

Dear ML&J,

I did overstate Dr. Dawkin's views on a world without religion as a heaven on earth - he is sure the world without religion would be better, but he did not use that formulation. My apologies to this forum for the misstatement and the injustice of it. I did not mean to lie but you are correct I am wrong.

A question however, - Dawkins had plenty of time to research his book and that has numerous, significant errors on subjects about which he is proudly and self-confessedly ignorant. If I can be scored as a liar for a mistatement of his position, how much worse is Dr. Dawkins for hawking a book that is so grossly misinformed?

David

Posted by David | June 7, 2008 4:37 PM

David asks: "Dawkins had plenty of time to research his book and that has numerous, significant errors on subjects about which he is proudly and self-confessedly ignorant. If I can be scored as a liar for a mistatement of his position, how much worse is Dr. Dawkins for hawking a book that is so grossly misinformed?"

I don't know, Davey, and I don't particularly care. I don't regard myself as a member of some atheist club and I don't feel compelled to speak on behalf of other atheists. Try writing to Dawkins yourself.

I suspect you and he would have very different ideas about what constitutes a significant error, though. For instance he and I might say that in Christian mythology Jesus takes his own mother's virginity, and you would probably say that is not true.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 5:12 PM

Back before Ross was blogging at the Atlantic, I think he made some comment about the New Atheists along the lines of "well, at least they take our faith seriously", in contrast to less combative secularists and religious moderates for whom religion is just vague rituals and social gatherings.

I guess here Ross is asking us to stop taking faith seriously. ;)

Posted by Consumatopia | June 7, 2008 6:42 PM

I think Blutarski above nailed it, but it looks like he was largely passed by.

I had the pleasure of hearing Richard Dawkins debate theologian John Lennox in Birmingham, AL, within the last year. I have not read "The God Delusion" or any other volume in the so-called "New Atheist's" ever-expanding library.

I think we miss the point when we focus on technical errors in books or who says who used what as a motivation to do bad things (the subject of the original post). The idea is just that religious faith - as defined by many as the belief in something that is not subject to reason - builds a dangerous wall in the mind.

Science consistently moves towards consensus. Differing theories compete for a time until - eventually - the better argument wins out. Religion does not move in this direction. As long as people can say "I believe what I was taught at a young age and I don't have to explain myself and shame on you for asking me to," there will be no progress and no consensus.

There are other problems with religious faith in general, and specific teachings of the various religions, but I think what I have mentioned is the big one.

Posted by Peter | June 8, 2008 2:32 AM

Peter writes: "Science consistently moves towards consensus. Differing theories compete for a time until - eventually - the better argument wins out. Religion does not move in this direction. As long as people can say "I believe what I was taught at a young age and I don't have to explain myself and shame on you for asking me to," there will be no progress and no consensus."

Yup. The poor stupid bastards really think that we should consider their fantasies about angels and debbils and sky fairies to be supported by evidence because "the bible tells us so." The complete and utter absence of any true support for these fantasies doesn't faze them at all.

I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't - on balance - such a malignant factor in national affairs.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 3:30 AM

Science has an advantage in moving toward consensus in that it deals mostly with measurable matters in the material world, though my scientist friends tell me that heated polemic is not unknown in their literature.

Religion deals with spiritual matters that are much more difficult than science to reconcile, though at its highest levels among ecumenical minded theologians there is a fine spirit of accomodation.

secularism itself in some quarters has become hard edged and polemical with little intellectual tolerance; cf., Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harriss.

Of course, among true scientists and religious people, one would not find the sort of crude vulgarians who term those who differ from them poor stupid bastards.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 8, 2008 7:11 AM

Petey writes: "Of course, among true scientists and religious people, one would not find the sort of crude vulgarians who term those who differ from them poor stupid bastards."

Let's remember that Petey supports torture and a pointless war of aggression that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. He may not be a vulgarian but he is an obscenity.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 11:29 AM

Re: Where have the leaders of the large denominations been?

First off I fail to see your point at all. The presiding bishop of, say, the Episcopalian Church, has no responsibility for guys like Robertson or Dobson-- they aren't members of his church and he has no control over them. In fact, that's why you see this sort public wingnuttery mainly among self-organized, decentralized churches: the practitioners aren't under anyone's jurisdiction but their own. And while you may find it hard to believe, most churches are not hotbeds of political activism, in fact most are very apolitical, for the good reason that God's kingdom is "not of this world" and the pragmatic reason that a politicized church will end up losing people whom it offends with its stridency. Again, that's why "ministries" like Robertson's and Dobson's are based on media empires not actual churches: they'd fail miserably as local pastors (not to mention could not live in the style to which they have become accustomed). So try again: I don't see that you have a valid point.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2008 11:55 AM

JonF replies: "First off I fail to see your point at all. The presiding bishop of, say, the Episcopalian Church, has no responsibility for guys like Robertson or Dobson-- they aren't members of his church and he has no control over them. In fact, that's why you see this sort public wingnuttery mainly among self-organized, decentralized churches: the practitioners aren't under anyone's jurisdiction but their own."

I see the same sort of wingnuttery from the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, so that excuse doesn't quite work. And having no responsibility for or control over the kooks doesn't explain why the leaders of other churches never call the bastards out. You're retreating here, Jon - first you say not many Christians have the money or the media outlets to make their differences with the nuts known. I point out that the ones who do don't seem to be interested in doing so, and all of a sudden I get this sort of answer? Spare me.

"And while you may find it hard to believe, most churches are not hotbeds of political activism, in fact most are very apolitical, for the good reason that God's kingdom is "not of this world" and the pragmatic reason that a politicized church will end up losing people whom it offends with its stridency."

On the contrary - churches are very much involved in politics in this country and they always have been. Are you new here?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 12:30 PM

MoeLarryJim, I favor the Iraq War, as it is serves the fundamental security interests of the U.S. I, also, have no problem with tough interrogation of the mass murder non combatant terrotists in our custody.

I, also, agree with the following remarks of Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former senior CIA analyst of Middle East affairs:

An uneasy and healthy tension now exists between rhetoric and reality, guaranteeing that Americans will continue to debate what has gone wrong and right in the Muslim Middle East. Whether America escapes another 9/11 or not, the president deserves credit for understanding that the region's murderous anti-American extremists, both secular and religious, had to be confronted on the battlefield. Sanctions, cruise missiles shot at rock huts and empty intelligence-service buildings, and close liaison relationships with foreign internal-security services were not enough. If the United States is brutally struck again by holy warriors, President Bush will seem prescient and wise--about the need for reform in the Middle East's autocracies, about the strategic shortsightedness and immorality of pre-9/11 American foreign policy toward Muslims, and about the imperative to use ugly tactics against mass-casualty terrorists. Given the forces arrayed against him, his administration's failures, and his own limitations, these are achievements even Ronald Reagan would envy.

What you call an "obscenity" is a point of view that merely differs from your anti-war view. You may think you're funny and clever with this crude,vulgarian style of debate, though in truth your reputation as a fool held by most on this blog is rather well deserved.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 8, 2008 1:30 PM

Re: On the contrary - churches are very much involved in politics in this country and they always have been. Are you new here?

I go to church rather regularly (I was there just this morning). In all my years of church-going I have once heard abortion condemned (in passing only) from the pulpit and twice heard the Iraq War condemned (again, in passing). Also, back in Sep 2001 my church had prayers for the victims of 9-11, if you want to stretch the point and say that was "politics". And in 1996 my priest (mildly) scolded the congregation for letting political differences of opinion in that year's election cause friction in church matters.
I suspect that this is fairly normal for most church-goers. Indeed, I'd be surprised if even the Rev Jeremiah Wright harped on politics more than a tiny fraction of the time at his church-- and Black churches are famously politicized as for many years they were the only place Blacks could organize themselves as a community for political goals.
A fair amount of religious political action is self-interest: churches seeking to influence matters that pertain to their own existence. The number of churches that engage in gratuitous politicking is quite small. To be sure there are a few para-religious organizations, like Focus on Family that are furiously (and often toxically) political but those are not churches. Your average church just can't afford to be political, in part because that's not its mission and because most churches are too diverse in their congregants' opinions on current events.
Bottom line: The Wizard of Oz just called; and he's missing a straw-man.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2008 1:32 PM

Petey leavitts: "MoeLarryJim, I favor the Iraq War, as it is serves the fundamental security interests of the U.S. I, also, have no problem with tough interrogation of the mass murder non combatant terrotists in our custody."

Why be such a pussy, Petey? You approve of torture, so why not be honest about it? Using a euphemism like "tough interrogation" marks you as a coward as well as a fascist.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 2:22 PM

JonF replies: "Bottom line: The Wizard of Oz just called; and he's missing a straw-man."

So when you wrote the following in response to my question about why we heard so seldom from "progressive" Christians in opposition to the Religious Right -

"The problem here is that Mssrs Robertson, Falwell etc. either own media outlets or have enough money to purchase plenty of time on media they don't own. I'm not in the that poistion, nor are very many other Christians. So while plenty of us reject the Robertsons of this world, people like you don't really hear our voices because our only real outlet are blogs like this." -

You were just blowing smoke up my ass. Evidently you're all too busy playing nice with yourselves. But then I already knew that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 2:29 PM

MoeLarryJim, having learned a few things about hand to hand combat while training to be a Marine officer at Quantico, you wouldn't want to call me a "pussy" to my face. Unfortunately the Ethernet lets jerks like you run off at the mouth without consequence.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 8, 2008 3:31 PM

Petey leavitts: "MoeLarryJim, having learned a few things about hand to hand combat while training to be a Marine officer at Quantico, you wouldn't want to call me a "pussy" to my face."

It's truly sad that a Marine officer degenerated into such a torture-loving pussy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 3:41 PM

Peter:

Whatever this CIA analist says, it doesnt change two facts:

1- That the US started this war based on lies
2- That the US has used and still insists in using torture on prisoners accused of being terrorists, and people like this guy try to disguise it using euphemisms.

Now, I can add that maybe this call upon moral judgment, something you religious people love to make. You know, like saying such acts are obsene, criminal, unworthy of civilized people etc....But then I always forget morality for

Posted by Segio Méndez | June 8, 2008 4:33 PM

Peter,

Would you waterboard Moe?

Or is that not 'real' torture?

Posted by James | June 8, 2008 4:57 PM

Also, I think that makes it Harvard graduate, Marine officer, investment banker, and I'm sure other qualifications for Peter Leavitt.

You're either bullshitting, or you've really not made the most of your experiences if you're posting with us mooches. At least Ross and MY get paid for talking nonsense.

Posted by James | June 8, 2008 5:10 PM

James writes: "Also, I think that makes it Harvard graduate, Marine officer, investment banker, and I'm sure other qualifications for Peter Leavitt."

He slept with Elvis, too.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 5:50 PM

Peter,Would you waterboard Moe,Or is that not 'real' torture?

Nah, Moe is not worth water boarding. Bush/Rumsfeld selected four of the most egregious mass-murder terrorists for water boarding.Moe, being an Ethernet jerk, would simply rate a cold cocking or two.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 8, 2008 5:51 PM

Petey leavitts: "Moe is not worth water boarding. Bush/Rumsfeld selected four of the most egregious mass-murder terrorists for water boarding."

Imagine being Petey - someone so dedicated to sucking Dickless Cheney's ass that he seriously believes only 4 prisoners have been waterboarded.

A-fucking-mazing.

"Moe, being an Ethernet jerk, would simply rate a cold cocking or two."

The only cocking Petey does involves sticking his dick in street prostitutes. He likes the ones that look like Charles Barkley wearing a bouffant wig.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 6:06 PM

James, actually, Ross is paid little given the quality of his education. I actually admire him for submitting to the absurdity of, as you say, the mooches on this blog. I enjoy the blog mainly to get a feel for the reality of post-modern perspectival absurdity that reigns in our culture, which even Ross has submitted to, though his Catholic religion and- admittedly malleable- conservative views somewhat counter. Fortunately there are plenty of writers on this blog that understand the virtues of religion, a free economy, and a robust defense of Western civilization, most notably Fitz.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 8, 2008 6:10 PM

Petey leavitts: "Fortunately there are plenty of writers on this blog that understand the virtues of religion, a free economy, and a robust defense of Western civilization, most notably Fitz."

Turds of a feather.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 11:35 PM

"Fortunately there are plenty of writers on this blog that understand the virtues of religion, a free economy, and a robust defense of Western civilization, most notably Fitz."

For what I have seen, I am sure that:

- They understand the virtues of religion, yet are incapable of seeing its weakness and dangers...

- They certainly don´t believe in "free economy", but rather in a state oritented capitalism (if you excuse me for being redundant)

- I am sure they love western civilization. What I suspect is they fail to distinguish between the values that western civilization has created and the civilization itself. My bet is they pretend defending the former just as an excuse to impose the later....

Posted by Sergio Méndez | June 9, 2008 4:07 AM

Dear Sergio,

If it is fair to presume that you are referring to more than Fritz and Peter L in the above note, I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that most people aren't aware of the dangers of religion. Many of us have acknowledged the capacity of people of faith to do wicked things out of religious motivations and the crimes of the religious. The wretchedness of too many long stretches of the past makes me for one glad of separation of Church and State, freedom of religion, etc. But there is a real and nasty secular fanaticism as well, tolerated by too many atheists in the name of speaking "honestly." This fanaticism does not strike me so much as fair criticism (too much of it has been simple name calling) but seems to be simply about venting at the unfairness of being part of an unrecognized irreligious minority. I think it will fuel the worst in believers to be confronted by such secular fanaticism, but also, it reflects badly on atheist insecurity to constantly need to simply attack believers or mischaracterize them ("they are incapable of seeing the dangers of religion" being a case in point).

And yes, I agree that imposing Western Civ is a danger, one that Burma and Darfur are blessedly free of right now. It is hard to distinguish between the values and the content of that civilization when confronted by the damage of diversity. I'm growing more and more willing to accept that we will continue to leave the people of Burma to rot and those of Darfur to butchery and slavery (just as we stood by in Rwanda and Chechnya), if only because we collectively will not help them. Any effort to intervene will never be perfect and hence will be fodder for those who want to attack those who are in power. So the price of our divisions is the horrible death of many tens, if not hundreds of thousands. At least we'll be "pure" and not risk imposing our values.

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 5:08 AM

David:

First at all, is not that I have a problem with believers. I am not fond of evangelical atheists, and I couriously agree with most criticisms of the Dawkings, Hitchens and co that conservatives make. My problem is not with believers, again, but with CONSERVATIVES who are trying to push their religion on us, using the power of the state or any other force-threat based attempts.

Concerning western civilization, I think you haven´t got my point. My point is not about US or western nations interventionism on other countries. My point is that such interventions are made in the name of western civilization values, but only as way to masquerade OTHER interests. Concerning conservatives particulary, I usually find hard to believe that the values they reject at home (liberalism, secularism, diversity), all values they despise, are suddendly desirable to export when it is about any other country. Maybe intervention in other parts of the world is called, but not by nation states and not by the rulling classes that govern them. And certainly not when intervention is about an excuse to bring war and destruction on people that are already afflicted with the pest of their own goverment.

Posted by Sergio Méndez | June 9, 2008 10:32 AM

Dear Sergio,

I understand you better. Thank you. I do worry about the problem of how polarized and politicized we as a people are becoming. It seems harder and harder for liberals and conservatives to find people on the other side of issues whom they can nonethelss admire, or even to want to bother trying.

As for intervention, I presume when saying it should not be done by nation states or the ruling classes that you mean the U.N.? If so, this seems to me a prescription for inaction that seems troubling because there is a tension between treaties like the anti-genocide convention and the realities of current great power politics in places like Darfur. Should we not, for honesty's sake as a country withdraw from this convention? In the current international order this convention is completely unenforcable because we are a very, very long way from being in a situation when effective intervention can be managed by entities other than ruling classes and nation states?

Take care,

David

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 11:38 AM

Speaking of suicide bombers, Mr. Douthat writes, "I think such people are sufficiently rare, and sufficiently unlikely to ascend to positions of great power, that they ought to be further down our list of worries than many secularists suppose."

On September 10, 2001, I too thought they were sufficiently rare (or at least sufficiently far away). And there's no need for them to "ascend to positions of great power", they need only be willing to descend at greet speed.

Posted by Al Cyone | June 9, 2008 4:35 PM