The diary below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal.
I was raised Jewish but my personal beliefs are agnostic. I’m not so arrogant to reject the concept of a higher power. I don’t claim to know what the divine truth is and reserve the right to have a deathbed conversion when I reach old age.
For the time being I’m inclined to believe a higher power is really a more evolved life form that doesn’t respond to prayer or monitor my personal morality meter. In my opinion John Lennon put it best:
“God is a concept by which we measure our pain.”
However, I respect religious people. Furthermore I believe it makes sense for Democrats to persuade those motivated by the social responsibility component of religion to be part of a progressive coalition. It’s always better to add members to a coalition and not subtract. We progressives need all the numbers we can get.
Individuals motivated to promote social justice because of their religion are natural allies for the progressive movement. Those of us on the left who snicker at religious individuals should take a hard look in the mirror: many religious people travel to dangerous hot spots to save lives because of their faith based moral compass. How many of us are feeding impoverished people in Sudan?
While phone banking prior to the mid term elections I met a fellow volunteer studying to be a minister and angered by the Christian Right’s homophobia. He explained that part of his motivation to get out the vote was reclaiming a piece of the national conversation for the religious left. I respect that.
That said I believe too many religious people don’t respect secular individuals such as myself. Sadly, if you believe the polls, many religious people in America will not cast their vote for a secular minded person regardless of their other virtues. This is a taboo that must be addressed head on.
Consequently I would like to see an atheist emerge as a national candidate in 2008. Who that could be I have no idea. Nor do I expect such a candidate to prevail. It is my hope that an eminently respectable citizen with stature would illustrate that non-religious people have values and can be entrusted with power. A vital contribution would be made to our society if such a candidate emerged.
How about an old fashioned conservative who believes in personal responsibility, fiscal discipline and civil liberties running in the Republican Party? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if an attractive atheist candidate with a photogenic family took on the GOP’s radical Christians? I suspect many secular minded civil libertarians would be both relieved and appreciative.
How about a Democratic candidate that aggressively courts civil libertarians who have traditionally supported the Republican Party? Perhaps many of these libertarians might give the Democratic Party another look if an avowed atheist championed the banner that Americans don’t require a morality police regulating personal choices.
Among the more painful memories I have from 2004 was Howard Dean attempting to appeal to religious voters and misquoting the New Testament. Dean who otherwise was refreshingly authentic appeared to be a fish out of water. How terrible that preserving the viability of his candidacy required not appearing overly secular.
Again, I respect religious people and have no problem with candidates articulating how their faith motivates them to achieve social justice. Nevertheless, secular people are also moral, have families and should not be embarrassed by what they are. Put another way: I’ll compare my morals with Pat Robertson’s anytime.
If neither party welcomes an atheist candidacy than a sensible self-financing independent might be what is needed. Typically, I am an advocate of a strong publicly financed campaign system. However, any independent candidacy that hopes to make a statement about atheists having a place in the national conversation will require funding outside of public financing.
Barriers of race, gender, minority religions and sexual orientations are finally being tackled in our politics. Hillary Clinton is considered the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008. Barack Obama is also considering a run for higher office and could have a realistic shot at the nomination. Several years ago President Clinton appointed the first female Secretary of State in Madeline Albright. In 2000 Al Gore had a Jewish running mate.
President Bush’s first Secretary of State was a black man and currently a black woman fills the position. Minnesota just elected the first Muslim congressman in Keith Ellison. Congressman Barney Frank, a homosexual is about to assume the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee.
Regardless of how you feel about any of the names referenced above their symbolism is important. For example I’ve heard Keith Ellison say he hopes to be viewed as a congressman who happens to be Muslim instead of a Muslim congressman. By breaking a barrier he makes it possible for other Muslim citizens to be accepted as candidates. Hopefully future Muslim candidates will be voted up or down because of their credentials, character and experience instead of their religion.
Every time I read a poll that says candidates must be people of faith to be considered viable by religious voters I cringe. It shouldn’t be that way. First we need to break a barrier and have an atheist throw their hat in the ring. Hopefully a courageous trailblazer will enable the public to perceive future individuals as candidates who happen to be atheists instead of an “atheist candidate.” And that will be better for everyone.
I would prefer the word “secular” to atheist, so that the candidate’s religious views are not disclosed.
The survey reported this August by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Research was interesting.
I’d like to see an agnostic. Someone who can eloquently make the point that it’s not your beliefs about the divine that matter when seeking office, it’s your beliefs about how we should treat each other.
An atheist could do that too I suppose, I just like the idea of someone who can see everything in shades of grey, including the existence of a higher deity.
What’s wrong with believing that no divine being exists at all? And wouldn’t an atheist who acknowledges a believer’s right to believe already be capable of seeing things and other’s beliefs in shades of gray? It sounds like you are applying a religeous test to the atheist. The same test that requires any candidate for president to believe. S/he would never be seriously considered if they were to say that they don’t know if there’s a divine being or not. They have to either believe or not. And if they don’t, they couldn’t and wouldn’t have a chance.
There’s nothing wrong with believing that. In fact, it’s the way I trend most days.
But both atheism and theism are absolutes. Either can respect the other as much as they want, but deep down at their core is the notion that they are right, and the other is wrong.
My point isn’t that someone should say they believe or not, but that they can adequately make the argument that it really just doesn’t matter.
I think an agnostic could do that best without being (intentionally or unintentionally) condescending or patonizing.
Work with me EJ…buddy :o)
Why can’t an atheist say in a thoughtful, non patronizing way that he has respect for the beliefs of all people? Don’t you see how he or she is being disqualified because you see an inherant condescension in believing oneself to be right? I can be a gay man who believes that being gay is a matter of biology, not a choice or an illness, and believe that those who say otherwise are wrong. But how does that make me less able to express that belief without being disrespectful or threatening? Do I have to acknowledge the possibility that I’m wrong to be credible? And why?
Sorry EJ. I’d rather argue over how much the Braves suck than this :o)
I think you’d have a much easier time making the case for the Braves sucking…hell, after last year the case practically makes itself 🙂
First, I’m not disqualifying anyone for any reason. If an avowed atheist running for President made that statement, good on him / her. Congruently, if a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Satanist, Pagan, etc did the same, good on him / her as well. I am fully supportive, as long as they mean it.
I was making the case that my ideal choice would be an agnostic. Perhaps I am biased because that’s how I would qualify my beliefs. To me, it’s like choosing the mediator in an honest debate : ideally, it would be someone impartial, without bias either way.
One of the ways my own agnosticism manifests itself is to look past differences and instead focus attention on solving problems. That’s why I said above that I want someone who will recognize and elucidate that either theism or atheism is beside the point.
To use your analogy of a gay man*, I would say that I would ideally want someone who didn’t care why people are gay, but was interested in working for equal rights for them.
But I would be satisfied with someone who could work with others of differing beliefs toward that goal.
* – note: I know you were making that analogy as an individual with respect to your personal beliefs and credibility. To suit the discussion I slightly changed it to choosing an advocate for that particular cause. I am not talking about the validity / credibility of one’s personal beliefs, I’m just making the case for an ideal advocate.
I don’t know if that clears anything up…maybe I’m just muddying up the waters and we’re talking past each other?
Muddy Waters rocks! :o)
We’re not talking past each other. And I understand now that you were talking more about your ideal candidate. We agree 100 percent that it shouldn’t matter at all. I just don’t believe that my certainty about my beliefs should make me inherantly less able to treat others of all beliefs fairly and with an open mind.
Thanks
You’re right, they wouldn’t have a chance.
I have reported for jury duty for 40 years. I have NEVER been seated. I always ask to affirm rather than swear, and I’m instantly out.
I hope those shades of gray progress in tiny increments.
A am always puzzled that belief vs. non-belief in the supernatural seems couched as a 50/50 proposition, so that agnosticism is the middle ground between the two. Are both really equally likely ? How about the Easter Bunny ? Shall we prefer someone who can see everything in shades of grey about the rabbit’s existence, or would you concede that, given a total lack of evidence to support it, atheism concerning egg bearing bunnies is far more sensible than Easter Bunny Agnosticism.
I only bring this up to demonstrate how religion has cowed us. We must “respect” other people’s irrational delusions, and nod politely, as if we entertain the possibility that they may be right. I suggest that we do this only because they are dangerous, in the majority, or because we don’t want to hurt their feelings. I know of no agnostics who doubt the mythological nature of Baal, Zeus, or the FSM. It is only the god other people believe in whose possibility is given credence. This may be kindness or good policy, but it’s hardly rational.
It is the inherent nature of every religion to believe it is the only right way. How could it be otherwise? The question of tolerance of other beliefs is an entirely different matter that speaks more to the civility of the believers rather than to the fact that they think they are right and everybody else is wrong.
This continuum of tolerance is best illustrated by comparing Puritans to Pequots. Pequots believed that their society and religion were the best way to live a human life. And anyone who wanted to live this life was welcome to join them. Puritans also believed that their society and religion was the best way to live a human life but with one fundamental difference, and this difference is the source of evil in the world. The Puritans believed that their way was the only way and that all others they encountered had to convert to their way or ultimately be killed a program which they carried out with a vengeance.
Religion is an incredibly futile way to try to “save” the experience of faith. Faith is a human experience, the human response to a divine pull, that fills an individual with an experience of awe and the notion that we belong to a greater One. Faith is universal and inclusive. Religion is ridiculously particular and exclusive.
Excellent, phronesis. “Faith is universal and inclusive. Religion is ridiculously particular and exclusive.”
That says it all for me. It’s Religions: the man made organizations of faith that have always been one the most divisive and destructive forces on this planet. All the good any of it’s members may ever do cannot make up for the hellish destruction of wars fueled by “Religion”.
Plus, the idea that one must be a theist to be a good human being is utterly and completely ridiculous.
There’s a difference between religion and spirituality.
I consider myself an agnostic, and no, I don’t doubt the mythological nature of Baal, Zeus, the FSM. Nor do I doubt the mythological nature of a God as described in the Bible, the Qur’an, or any other organized religion.
However, what I’m not willing to write off is the possibility of some higher power that these man made myths are all attempting to explain.
Out of curiosity, have you read Asimov’s The Last Question? Definitely one of my favorite short stories, and certainly relevant to this discussion. I can dig up a link if anyone is interested.
I think I read everything Asimoz ever wrote, but I don’t remember that one. I’ll find it and (re)read.
Cool 🙂
I just did some scoping about, and found an online version here.
Sadly, I suspect we’re more likely to have an atheist supreme court justice first, to get the majority of the public “used to the idea.” Not that an atheist on the Supreme Court is something to sneeze at, LOL.
I wish the entire question would go away. Call me an atheist or agnostic … I don’t care. I’m a humanist. I think the here and now matters, and couldn’t care less about things that are outside verifiable human existence. We’re mortal. We’re lucky enough to have a beautiful world to live in, to explore, to gaze upon in wonder. Why isn’t that enough?
So much time and effort is wasted arguing about crap that serves only to divide people. I frankly don’t care what someone’s religion is. It’s interesting in the way folk music is interesting, but it’s basically just a question of esthetics and imagination. If it motivates them to live morally amongst their neighbors, that’s all I need to know. WHY he/she does it might be fun to discuss over a beer, but it doesn’t belong in political debate.
Lets just get on with it, and agree to talk about things we can all agree that we can measure and see and weigh and affect. I frankly don’t care if you worship Zeus, Yahweh, Cosmic Muffin, Flying Spaghetti Monster or a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars.
Also, I’m sick of being chided that I have to respect people’s religions. NO ONE is nastier about what OTHER people believe than someone of faith talking about ANOTHER faith. The Pope is every bit as frightening and dangerous as Rev. Moon, and every bit as ridiculous.
I think it would be wonderful for an atheist/agnostic to run … but it’s not going to happen.
In case you’re unsure that your deity is meeting your needs, please fill out this Post-Purchase Deity Evaluation Form (hat tip Pharyngula).
LOVE the Post-Purchase Deity Evaluation Form. Thanks, Madman.
Something tells me you’ll never gain public office in this country :o)
Repent!
LOL … too much of a “purist” anyway!