onegoodmove

You would think with some 63,000 jobs lost last month, Krugman might write about stuff he actually knows about, rather than, say, voters perceptions of the stuff he knows about; his blanket assertions about health care are at odds with highly divergent and contested results of different health care policy experts, and the fact that neither candidate has provided enough details for sound--rather than merely speculative--fiscal projections. But screw it, just cherry pick, and ignore MA, which has actually tried a plan like Clinton's (and whose state budget is now strapped).

On the religion article:

True, Obama did give a fleeting nod to the godless in his address. He urged Americans to “come together as Protestants, Catholics and Jews, believers and non-believers alike.” But anyone familiar with his rhetoric knows that Obama is perennially resolving seemingly insoluble American dialectical tensions (Red States/Blue States, Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, Yankees/Red Sox, whatever).

For those who see the world in black and white (no pun intended) this must sound sound very convincing. Those slightly more appreciative of irony and nuance are easily remind of some of Clinton's stands: she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, but didn't want a war. She voted for a bill to help the credit card companies, but secretly "hoped it wouldn't pass." When there is a forced choice at issue--assault rifle bans and gun ownership--Obama does his best to cut a respectable middle course. When the decision is about an issue where there is no such ground--whether or not to go to war, whether or not to outlaw burning the American flag, both measured favored by Clinton--he takes a strong stand.

But what, more generally, exactly is the worry here?

Obama’s speech—it wasn’t his best and much of it was rehashed—was filled with a variety of theological ideas (and ambiguities) that we will be discussing for months if he wins big tonight. One is that God has a plan—a plan that is apparently centered on America (but what about Canada?). Another is that the divine plan only comes to fruition if all citizens pitch in and do their part (but what about nonbelievers who won’t get with the program?).

Only someone who equated religion itself with evil, rather than the sinister purposes to which it can be put, would be disturb by this kind of appeal. Whether you appeal to god or not to justify it, not pitching in is a problem. Whether you appeal to god or not, being a bigot towards those with different lifestyles is a problem. That is the "common program." As per usual with the kinds of religious bigotry on offer in this article, metaphysical issues are conflated with practical ones: the force of the appeal to "God" here is obviously to motivate citizen's to "pitch in", as the remarks themselves indicate to anyone not hell-bent on willful misunderstanding. Only an analysis that simply ignored Obama's many clear public statements on the separation of church and state, and his voting record, could distort his obvious intention here. As the example of Obama's remarks about the LGBT community before a strongly christian audience a few weeks also showed, it can also be a plea for toleration.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all had to pander to the religious right in order to win an election. Everyone was blah blahing about John Kerry and his failure to reach out to evangelists and this has changed the way that presidential candidates speak on this topic.

Hillary Clinton on faith-based initiatives

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills.

There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008

One last remark: surely there will be those who disagree with me on reasonable grounds about the religion and Obama issue. So let me state a challenge about what, to me, would be a convincing argument to the contrary.

Obama's position on the separation of religion and state, as Joann's many links on a previous occasion amply demonstrated, is roughly that no policy, program, or piece of legislation can be defended on religious grounds alone, but must defensible in terms of generalizable reasons and norms graspable and acceptable to those without the specific religious convictions at issue. In short, it is acceptable for religion to (privately) motivate commitment to a policy but it cannot be (publicly) justified in those terms.

Some examples: Pitching in to help the less fortunate seems to me to plainly fit that standard: maybe you are laboring under the utterly erroneous notion that the good Lord will ultimately reward you, but as an action, it is justifiable publicly in terms of reasons acceptable to those without believe in divine reward and retribution. Similarly, speaking out against discrimination (of, e.g., LGBT) also seems to me to fit that standard. Banning abortion does not, at least not in any obvious way, fit that standard.

So my challenge is this: find an appeal of Obama's to religion that, in context and in practical, policy terms, does not fit this standard of motivating in religious terms a course of action or program that is equally defensible on secular grounds and generalizable reasons.

Looks like Krugman has changed his mind about the "anxiety election" or what makes voters angry:

From April 2002

What are the angry people angry about? Not economics;

And in both cases this angry minority has had far more influence than its numbers would suggest, largely because of the fecklessness of the left

A slightly left-of-center candidate runs for president. In a rational world he would win easily

But everything goes wrong. His moderation becomes a liability; denouncing the candidate's pro-market stance, left-wing candidates -- who have no chance of winning, but are engaged in politics as theater -- draw off crucial support.

The result is a stunning victory for the hard right. It's by and large a tolerant, open-minded country; but there is a hard core, maybe 20 percent of the electorate, that is deeply angry even in good times

What France's election revealed is that we and the French have more in common than either country would like to admit. There as here, there turns out to be a lot of irrational anger lurking just below the surface of politics as usual. The difference is that here the angry people are already running the country.

And why is it Hillary and Ann who get relocated the most? Is it because they are strong women?

The Idea that people hate Ann Coulter and Hillary Clinton for the same reason seems remarkable to me, for some reason. I never put them in the same category before.

I wonder how often Oprah, Margaret Thatcher, and Nancy Pelosi have their books turned around. Is Sandra Day O'Connor back in the GRE study guides somewhere.

Jacques wrote re Obama and religious statements:

These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers

I am struck still by the fact that Obama grew up an atheist and converted at the age of 26 or 27 (Obama himself can't recall when before you jump on me). It is so rare of an occurrence. My belief is that he wanted a political career and that is tough to do in the US as an atheist. In short, it was an act of political calculation. He didn't to get married either which might have served as a catalyst. Still, I wish he would tone down the Jesus dial.

I don't know the answer to this question but is his mother still an atheist? Does anyone read anything about her? I haven't, so I am curious. Thanks.

JoAnn: Krugman was talking about France in the bit you posted not the US. Apples and foie gras, if you will.

And speaking of foie gras, Adam you will enjoy this. Obama was peeved at the price of arugula just the other day. I was upset (still am) at the price of bread. What gets Obama's ire is the cost of arugula. No wonder he is winning over the "creative class" and not labour Democrats. Funny stuff. You can't make this stuff up. Arugula?

Charles

As the example of Obama's remarks about the LGBT community before a strongly christian audience a few weeks also showed, it can also be a plea for toleration.

I had a different read of that event if you and I are talking about the campaign event in Beaumont, Texas. Obama did talk equality but the crowd went silent. So he switched to Jesus, my personal lord and saviour. Big cheers. Not sure if his equality message, which is admirable, was lost in the shuffle.

My problem with him on this issue is that he keeps on referencing "the other side." I am not quite sure who he means by "the other side." For me (speaking for me), the other side is James Dobson. Why would I talk to James Dobson? That's a waste of time.

I do like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright on inclusion of the LGBT community but then again he is not talking about marriage equality, he is talking about not demonizing us.

Still laughing at the arugula comments.

Charles

And so I looked up Obama's Mama (sorry I could resist that alliteration).

Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune from March 2007. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703270151mar27,0,5157609.story

(if the link doesn't work google Obama's mother and look for the Trib article)

Now for the relevant paragraph:

"She touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she'd read about and could argue," said Maxine Box, who was Dunham's best friend in high school. "She was always challenging and arguing and comparing. She was already thinking about things that the rest of us hadn't."

So she has been an atheist for quite some time and pretty adamant about it too. Does she think that perhaps she has a wayward son? Surely that belief system would have been ingrained in her son.

And then this:

But the parental traits that would mold him -- a contrarian worldview, an initial rejection of organized religion, a questioning nature -- were already taking shape years earlier in the nomadic and sometimes tempestuous Dunham family, where the only child was a curious and precocious daughter of a father who wanted a boy so badly that he named her Stanley -- after himself.

An initial rejection of organized religion? Wow! How does one go from that to this Jesus is my personal lord and saviour crap?

I didn't realize that his mother died of cancer in 1995. Who then lives in Kansas? Grandparents?

Why is it every time I learned more about the junior Senator from Illinois I am left with even more questions?

Charles

One misstatement the Obama arugula comment is from both July 2007 and not the other day as I noted in my first post. I heard about it yesterday. Hence the error which I regret.

So he is a Whole Foods shopper. Fine chain. I helped them to do many deals in my i-banking days though CEO John Mackey is a bit of a free spirit. He was recently busted for blogging on Yahoo Finance under screen name trashing his competitors Wild Oats. When I covered the stock, he took off six months to hike the Appalachian Trail. We had a many memorable dinners together, a fine one at Kohkari here in San Francisco. WFMI is always ranked as one of the best places to work. John is a bit anti-union and I assume a Ron Paul supporter since he is a libertarian.

But seriously, arugula? To farmers in Iowa where there isn't even a Whole Foods store. Hy-Vee though is based in Des Moines and it is an employee-owned company. I wonder what they charge for arugula.

JoAnn: Krugman was talking about France in the bit you posted not the US. Apples and foie gras, if you will.

Wrong. Apparently you didn't even bother to read the article. He was talking about France yes, but he was talking about France as a way to compare it to the United States:

Did you read these comments that Krugman made?

If all this sounds like a post-mortem on the Gore campaign in 2000, that's intentional.

As I've implicitly suggested, there are some important parallels between the earthquake in French politics and recent political events in the United States. Let me draw out those parallels, then go to the big difference.

What the French election revealed is that in France, as in the United States, there are a lot of angry people.

Surely that belief system would have been ingrained in her son.

so, you do think atheism is a belief system?

Charles, I don't get it. Do you just somehow never see Clinton's religious remarks or do you just ignore them? Honestly, I want to know.

Do you just somehow never see Clinton's religious remarks or do you just ignore them?

I'll let Charles speak for himself, but I can tell you why I find Obama's religiosity more obnoxious than Clintons. First I think Obama injects it far more often and in much more detail than does Clinton. Then there is the fact that he grew up in an atheist family and then at 27 found god. It seems more likely a political decision than a heartfelt decision. So for me it seems hypocritical.

It seems more likely a political decision than a heartfelt decision. So for me it seems hypocritical.

So you would prefer Obama was a "true believer" like Hillary?

Hopefully you see what I'm getting at.

I would prefer an Atheist pretending to be a Jesus-freak got elected, rather than either a bona fide Jesus-freak getting elected or an Atheist not getting elected because they decided not to play the political pandering game.

That is not to say I respect two-faced bullshitting hyprocrites (quite the opposite) but seldom do I see any politicians without an overwhelming amount of that, and I am a strategic/pragmatic voter; idealistic voting doesn't keep people like Bush out of office.

It seems more likely a political decision than a heartfelt decision.

Could be. Seems more likely that it's both. Choosing to live in a community means desiring to live a particular kind of life, and in Obama's case, a political one. It doesn't strike me as any less heartfelt or more 'political' then someone who simply wants to live among their own kind.

I would prefer an Atheist pretending to be a Jesus-freak got elected, rather than either a bona fide Jesus-freak getting elected or an Atheist not getting elected because they decided not to play the political pandering game.

I don't think an atheist can pretend to be a devout believer. If someone uses religious language with any fluency then they believe. If I were to speak in religious terms, it would come across as parody – and it would show. I don't see Obama cringe whenever he utters the word "God." I don't think any part of him is dying inside when he mentions anything regarding faith. From what I can tell, Obama is a religious pluralist; he may be a sceptical believer, but that's not unusual among believers.

"And speaking of foie gras, Adam you will enjoy this. Obama was peeved at the price of arugula just the other day. I was upset (still am) at the price of bread. What gets Obama's ire is the cost of arugula. No wonder he is winning over the "creative class" and not labour Democrats. Funny stuff. You can't make this stuff up. Arugula?"

"But seriously, arugula? To farmers in Iowa where there isn't even a Whole Foods store. Hy-Vee though is based in Des Moines and it is an employee-owned company. I wonder what they charge for arugula."

Whole Foods cannot compete with the locally owned crunchy granola shops In Iowa: Campbells (somewhat of a chain), New City Market and Gateway Market (Des Moines only) and the very good farmer's market. All carry arugula, mixed greens, spinach, and the like. Des Moines is starting to jump on the corporate wagon - in comparison to other sizeable/not large cities - but it hasn't been overrun yet.

If someone uses religious language with any fluency then they believe. If I were to speak in religious terms, it would come across as parody – and it would show.

Occasionally I speak to certain religious people I know using their "language", and they don't seem to pick up that I'm... "translating".

And I'm sure as hell not a "believer". But when I'm trying to make a helpful point to someone who frames every moral and spiritual topic in terms of the crap written in that crazy old book, I see myself as doing a pretty good job at getting through. Perhaps because I try to respect people even if they have weaknesses that have led them to assume a religious mindset (so long as they aren't hopeless assholes because of it).

Occasionally I speak to certain religious people I know using their "language", and they don't seem to pick up that I'm... "translating".

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I thought the issue was whether one could pull off, in your words, "pretending to be a Jesus-freak." Your observation that we often emphathize or paraphrase in order to make matters mutually understood is correct, but the person you're engaging with isn't exactly deceived into thinking you're a believer. If you were fluent in their language, there wouldn't be any need for translation. Am I missing something?

ah...

they don't seem to pick up...

I guess that's entirely possible. But could you sustain it? Don't they eventually catch on? Could Obama sustain it? I mean, sure, politicians are great at projecting personas, but taking it that far would be like...your fiance who's Jewish asking you to convert because it was really important to him, but then eight years later telling you that he was just kidding about the Jewish thing.

Charles, I don't get it. Do you just somehow never see Clinton's religious remarks or do you just ignore them? Honestly, I want to know.

Norm already covered the bases, so to speak. He hit it out of the park actually though he offers Obama the benefit of the doubt. Where I differ with Norm is the word "seems." I go one step further, perhaps off a cliff, but I actually accuse Obama of an act of cold political calculation. His is the audacity of blind ambition. He wanted a political career and so he sacrificed what he mother taught him and truly became the man he wails against, he without principles. No doubt, he could not have a political career on a national level as an atheist. We can't always have what we want unless you're the junior Senator from Illinois.

On Mrs. Clinton's faith. Two points. She was born a Methodist and has lived as one. It is a private faith. She rarely speaks of it unless pressed. You and I may disagree on the meaning of the word "rarely." I suspect a barrage of comments will unfold with evidence to the contrary.

The second point is her faith itself. If you don't know who John Wellesley is then read his wikipedia entry. The founder of Methodism, he was an English dissenter. Methodism is best described as the "good works" people. They believe that to do Christ's work is to perform good deeds, acts of social significance. If you remember her response to a question on religion (their favorite Biblical passage, Norm put up the video long ago) by Wolf Blitzer, she said "the golden rule." That is her faith. Do unto others. Her life is proof that she believes what she was taught. Her life is a series of "good works."

In defence of Obama, however, he answered that same question with the "Sermon on the Mount." That is a good answer. It is the crux of Christianity. Unfortunately for Obama, the Sermon on the Mount is actually a Buddhist text. He can't win even when he is right. The original predates Jesus' sermon by 450 years. I went to see that monastery back in 2001. The monastery, the Hemis Gompa, is outside the city of Leh in Ladakh, India high in the Himalayas. Worth a trip, go in September and catch the polo matches played with the carcass of a goat. Head towards the Tibetan border and see the rarest of creatures: Pashmina goats and Bactrian camels. Here is where Islam meets Buddhism. And on those Bactrian camel caravans, the Sermon on the Mount made its way West where some impostor quoted it and passed it off as his own. Christianity is such a farce but at least some do live their values. Mrs. Clinton lives hers, the junior Senator from Illinois does not.

Charles Lemos

I should add that I am highly critical of John McCain on the score of religion.

He gave up the relative insanity of the mainline Episcopalians and turned it in for the unadulterated insanity of the Baptists. Again for political gain.

The various assortment of kooks that are assembling around his candidacy are frightening. Just as frightening as the kooks surrounding Obama's candidacy. Louis Farrahkan and Donnie McClurkin.

Before you launch a tirade, the association with Louis Farrahkan and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright goes back to 1985. They went to Libya together. Both are anti-Semites, Farrahkan much more extreme obviously but Wright equates Zionism with racism. If heaven forbid I am stuck in some bizarre nightmare and some preacher starts that kind of sermon, I walk out and never return. Obama stays for the encore.

Now you know one way the right will attack Obama and why he won't win the Jewish vote to the degree Clinton would. The right will paint this as worse than it actually is. The Reverend Wright does not like Israel. Fair enough, I too have critical remarks to make but to equate Zionism with racism is an affront to American Jewry.

Religion in politics is a curse. Your religion is not my government.

Charles Lemos

I don't see Obama cringe whenever he utters the word "God."

No, but I sure do. You ask if he can sustain it, well he has for 20 years. If he can learn the law, he surely learn the ins and outs of Christianity.

Just as frightening as the kooks surrounding Obama's candidacy. Louis Farrahkan and Donnie McClurkin.

Is there any evidence that Obama and Farrahkan have any direct relationship?

If so I haven't heard of one.

Obama and why he won't win the Jewish vote to the degree Clinton would.

Lieberman himself only showed a 2 or 3 % increase in Jewish vote in 2000. it's not a swing vote.

...In defence of Obama, however, he answered that same question with the "Sermon on the Mount." That is a good answer. It is the crux of Christianity. Unfortunately for Obama, the Sermon on the Mount is actually a Buddhist text. He can't win even when he is right. ...

You’re conclusion is invalid. Your initial defence of Obama is premised upon the Sermon having meaning in our present historical context. It is, as you put it, “the crux of Christianity,” because in the relevant context, it has a particular sense that resonates with other Christians. If you want to examine Obama’s answer on grounds of historiography, you must allow for the possibility that other historical contexts could bring additional meaning not presently aware to Obama or his intended audience. The query would have to be rephrased as “Name your favourite Biblical passage, and keep in mind that the passage you chose must be historically Christian, through and through.” Otherwise, you’re distorting the grounds upon which “good answer,” could have been good in the first place.

I find Obama's religiosity more obnoxious than Clintons. First I think Obama injects it far more often and in much more detail than does Clinton.

He is defending himself!! he is being accused of being a Muslim left and right!

How does that logic escape you?

Watch the NBC Bio on Clinton, she has her college friends trained to interject her "faith" into every description of her. If having Wellesley grads drone on about religion isn't obnoxious, I don't know what is.

Charles, Here are your characterizations of Obama and Clinton

He wanted a political career and so he sacrificed what he mother taught him and truly became the man he wails against, he without principles. No doubt, he could not have a political career on a national level as an atheist. I actually accuse Obama of an act of cold political calculation.

She was born a Methodist and has lived as one. It is a private faith. She rarely speaks of it unless pressed. Methodism is best described as the "good works" people. They believe that to do Christ's work is to perform good deeds, acts of social significance.

Here are mine:

Although he was born into an atheist family, like many young men, Obama sought some outside meaning and direction that he felt could guide him in his life. At the around the same time, he was developing an interest in serving his country on a political level. And while he was aware that many politicians could act in a way that was incompatible with the teachings of their faith, Obama felt that the underlying morality, embodied in religious text, was consistent with his own principles.

Clinton was born into a family that raised her as a Methodist, even though she privately held no interest in faith. As she grew older and developed an interest in national politics, she discovered that her association with the Methodist Church would be helpful for her political career, even though she personally didn’t have much of an opinion of the Church either way. She knew that such a career would require that she ‘do good work,’ but she soon discovered that such a work ethic, because it was similar to the one espouse by her Church, would solidify her image as a deeply committed religious individual.

Let’s be frank here. From what I’ve seen, the problem that some of you have with Obama’s religiosity stems from your assumptions about Obama’s atheist upbringing. Such an upbringing implies that there was critical discussion of the many pitfalls of spiritual elitism, the unhelpful introduction of metaphysical elements into common or moral discourse or the dangers of religious ‘first principles,’ and yet none of this is necessarily the case. We can just as easily assume that religion was never brought up in the Obama household. We could also assume that an exposure to numerous religious faiths fostered an openness to religion in general, without the need to commit to a single set of beliefs. There is nothing implausible about the possibility that Obama submitted himself to the authority of a faith simply because it resonated with him. I mean, people do this when their middle-aged and elderly. I even know of atheist philosophers who turn to Christianity when they retire.

If we insist that it is intellectually dishonest for Obama to have submitted to religious faith, do we also conclude that Clinton was dishonest for allowing herself to remain committed to her faith? Does the fact that she was ‘born into her faith,’ make her too dim to have been able criticize her own faith before having entered the political sphere? How cold of a calculation is it really, for a person (assuming the best in this person) to join a denomination so that he or she can effect change on a state or national level? Is it really that egregious?

Note: those characterizations aren't really mine. I just made them up.

Christianity is such a farce but at least some do live their values. Mrs. Clinton lives hers, the junior Senator from Illinois does not.

both norm and charles have pointed out repeatedly that there's something weird about obamas "conversion" from atheism at such a late age. norm has questioned the sincerity of said conversion, implying a pure political expediancy motive. (after reading the relevant section in the book, i lean toward this explanation myself- it's a "between the lines" kind of thing.) it even occured to me that subconciously norm resents this as an act of treason. :)

so i'm really curious: from the perspective of a "political atheist", and all other things being equal, which is preferable: an atheist president who assumes a false christian identity in order to gain office (and, to be fair, to open channels of communication with christians who would otherwise stop their ears to his heresy) and one who is strongly (if "privately"- charles) a believer.

i don't, of course mean to ignore melpomenhs' and others contention that obama's faith is sincere, which i admit is a possibility.

so i'm really curious: from the perspective of a "political atheist", and all other things being equal, which is preferable: an atheist president who assumes a false christian identity in order to gain office (and, to be fair, to open channels of communication with christians who would otherwise stop their ears to his heresy) and one who is strongly (if "privately"- charles) a believer.

Thank you.

And which candidates likley fall into what category in this election?

We can just as easily assume that religion was never brought up in the Obama household. We could also assume that an exposure to numerous religious faiths fostered an openness to religion in general, without the need to commit to a single set of beliefs. There is nothing implausible about the possibility that Obama submitted himself to the authority of a faith simply because it resonated with him.

I think this is mostly correct. If Obama is to be believed, his conversation came about during his time as a community organizing, when people kept asking him, "What church do you belong to?" It seems to me overwhelmingly likely that there was some resonance between the principles orienting his ethical commitment to improve the lot of those less fortunate, and some of the doctrines of Christianity.

But let me re-iterate my point to the skeptics, since you insist on bring up irrelevant issues about arugula, which is tasty and not particularly expensive, and speculations about "sincerity", which is empty.

Find an appeal of Obama's to religion that, in context and in practical, policy terms, does not fit this standard of motivating in religious terms a course of action or program that is equally defensible on secular grounds and generalizable reasons.

On Clinton: I think there is good biographical evidence that her methodism is sincere (too lazy to link to this again). But again, I hold her to the same standard I hold Obama: what does that faith mean in policy terms?

The difference between them is this: Are there occasions where either makes bare appeals to Christian metaphysics, without at the same time including a tacit appeal to christian values that are compatible with secular, leftist values like helping the poor, ending discrimination, etc.

I think Obama, so far as I know, has never done so. Clinton I suspect so.

so i'm really curious: from the perspective of a "political atheist", and all other things being equal, which is preferable: an atheist president who assumes a false christian identity in order to gain office (and, to be fair, to open channels of communication with christians who would otherwise stop their ears to his heresy) and one who is strongly (if "privately"- charles) a believer.

I don't think either is preferable to the other, formulated in those terms. I don't care what someone's faith is, on its own; what I care about is their policies, and how they plan to enact them. Which is to say, the religion issue is mostly a red-herring issue in the context of discussing the Democratic candidates, or an occasion for bigotry. The suggestion seems to be that it would be OK to discriminate against a candidate with a particular religious faith, and that, on its own, without mention of how such a faith might influence their policies and decision making, seems to me to be both empty and appalling.

And let me add: We are no better than the Christians who refuse to vote for atheists, merely because they are atheists, if we ourselves would favor an atheist politician over a christian one, based on no other standard than their religious faith. That too counts as holding a candidate to a religious test for office (the standard changing to which religion they have, to whether they have a religion at all).

What is most appalling in the absurd charge that Obama is a Muslim is not only that it is obviously false, but that it is intended to suggest that someone with that faith would be unsuitable for elected office in the U.S.

The suggestion seems to be that it would be OK to discriminate against a candidate with a particular religious faith, and that, on its own, without mention of how such a faith might influence their policies and decision making, seems to me to be both empty and appalling.

And thank you,

I would say though that because of the discrimination that exists we will not be seeing an outed atheist president anytime in the near future. With that, Atheists have a choice to make, do we declare those that seem to not believe but adopt religion to get elected are "closeted".

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The suggestion seems to be that it would be OK to discriminate against a candidate with a particular religious faith, and that, on its own, without mention of how such a faith might influence their policies and decision making, seems to me to be both empty and appalling.

just to be clear: i didn't mean to imply it was ok, just that it was likely. and of course, anyone who would make the distinction at all as a vote determining factor would be concerned about how faith, or the lack of it would "influence their policies and decision making".

my curiousity about this was thrown into sharp focus for me by an article i read recently about sabbateans (followers of the jewish false messiah shabbtai tzvi, who converted to islam on pain of death at the end of his life)in turkey. there are apparantly about 20,000 of them, many holding influential positions. a scholarly friend of mine claims attaturk himself was one of these. i can't get the link to the article to work, but here's a relevant quote:

Ross believes that there are a number of secret Sabbateans who hold key positions of influence in the Turkish parliament, legislature and executive branches of government, including the foreign minister himself. This, he observes, may help explain the close relations that exist today between Israel and Turkey.

so, i'm wondering, if secret,twisted kabbalists can cause a muslim country like turkey to have relatively good relations with israel, what could a secret atheist as president of the u.s. do?

but now that i think about it, and as others have pointed out here before, there have probably been quite a few of them already so.....never mind.

charge that Obama is a Muslim is not only that it is obviously false, but that it is intended to suggest that someone with that faith would be unsuitable for elected office in the U.S.

this certainly looks good on paper but it makes me wonder what you would think about a real situation (admittedly farfetched) where a real, practicing and believing (i believe the term around here is "faithhead") muslim were to attain the highest office in the land? i realize that according to standard (and legitimate of course imo) liberal ideology it would be impossible to object. but you have to admit the potential complications in these "extenuating circumstances" (whatever their real causes) would be pretty...interesting.

i mean, it's complicated enough that obama is already considered an apostate (since his father was born muslim) and deserving of the death penalty according to sharia law. roll up, roll up for the mystery tour...

where a real, practicing and believing (i believe the term around here is "faithhead") muslim were to attain the highest office in the land? i realize that according to standard (and legitimate of course imo) liberal ideology it would be impossible to object. but you have to admit the potential complications in these "extenuating circumstances" (whatever their real causes) would be pretty...interesting.

Jonathan: I have set clear guidelines for how I think that assessment should be made. Are they clear on the separation of church and state, that is, are they clear that any policy motivated out of religious reasons must also be justifiable in secular terms, in language and by standards graspable and acceptable to those who do not share their religious beliefs? I have also been clear what those general reasons would look like. If they meet that standard, I am fine with a Muslim executive because their religion would, for public and practical purposes, then be effectively irrelevant to policy decisions. And if this is so, that is, if they play no practical and public role, then pointing out that someone has some kooky beliefs does not seem to me to be much different than pointing to someone's different lifestyle, or skin color, which also typically need not effect public policy decisions.

Obviously some faith traditions are more amendable to a distinction between private and public life. Islamic extremism, with goals of instituting Sharia law, plainly does not meet the requisite criterion. I think your worry is unmotivated.

As an atheist, I frankly find no use for distinguishing, in terms of superstition, between Muslims or Christians. Or some atheists, who, while the may lack belief as I do, have mostly ignorant idea about the content of most religious doctrines--which they've usually never bothered to study, because somehow, without empirical study, we can just conclude that they're all pretty much the same--such as Richard Dawkins. See here.
(Dawkins feeble response is here, which appears to claim we don't really need empirical study of religion to know how to combat it, or understand its influence on society). Or who try to make room for other superstitious gobbledegook, such as Sam Harris' weird ideas about Buddhist meditation. Or who propose untestable but putatively "scientific" models--that is, pseudoscience--for how religion works, such as Dennett (like Dawkins, an otherwise brilliant and wholly admirable figure, when talking about stuff he actually knows about). (For how a real cognitive scientist views this general approach, see here)

I'm sure I'll come under attack for questioning the holy trinity of atheism, but so be it.

I would say though that because of the discrimination that exists we will not be seeing an outed atheist president anytime in the near future. With that, Atheists have a choice to make, do we declare those that seem to not believe but adopt religion to get elected are "closeted".

I agree that it unfortunate that atheists cannot usually be successful in being elected to public office. But the reason I find it appalling is for the same reason I find it appalling to hold anyone's philosophical beliefs that have no direct connection to their policy proposals against them. The prejudice, in both cases, is the same.

All of which is to say: The issue matters to me only to the extent that atheists are being prejudiced against, and this is unfair. But assuming they could be, that is, assuming no such prejudice existed, I do not care whether my elected leader is an atheist or not because there is no evidence that their policy proposal would be better, more humane, or more effective based on that single criterion alone.

And so I looked up Obama's Mama (sorry I could resist that alliteration).

"Obama's Mama" is a rhyme. "Obama, Oh Mama!" would include both a rhyme and alliteration.

[McCain] gave up the relative insanity of the mainline Episcopalians and turned it in for the unadulterated insanity of the Baptists. Again for political gain.

That it was for political gain was transparent, and you're right, he's put himself in some unsavory company. Those issues aside, the suggestion that being a Baptist is somehow more politically ominous than being Episcopalian seems to me absurd. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister. And there is such a thing as 'liberal evangelicals' , and I hope they start gaining more prominence in the evangelical community.

adam, thanks for your reply, and i'm sorry if i missed your previously having laid out your policy on this matter- there's been an awful lot of material here in the comments of late to read and digest, and i confess to having gone crosseyed on more than one occasion and merely skimming.

i am, i guess, more skeptical than you in terms of the value of a declaration of support for separation of church and state, or even toing that ideological line in practice when it comes to overt challanges. i just don't trust the s.o.b.'s whether christian or muslim. i wouldn't expect leiberman to completely ignore his faith when making political decisions, either. look at george bush- i'm sure he supports separation of church and state on paper too.

having said this, i think your position is a reasonable one because what, after all do we have to go on besides the various public statements of the candidates (and of course their voting records).

i think my bottom line is "who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men", and yours is "we have nothing to go on but the public evidence of how a leader actually leads, and this is ok, and reasonable". i don't think these approaches are in any way mutually exclusive. thanks again.

Adam: I've been giving your challenge some thought, but I'm having a problem with the reconstruction of Obama's position of separation of church and state, and the difficulties presented when applying 'hard cases' like a ban on abortion. Here's what I have (I'm pretty tired, so my apologies if I end up bastardizing your comments):

A).Proposed legislation based on commitments or claims motivated by religion are justifiable only if it is defensible on secular normative terms.

B). Banning abortion does fit b/c religious moral claims overlap with normative conceptions of one's right to life.

C). Banning abortion doesn't fit b/c there are conflicts between norms (rights of women, right to life), b/c there are no stable norms regarding what moral status should be designated to the fetus.

D). Which would indicate that while religious claims do succeed in being justified in terms of secular norms and/or generalizable reasons, it is completely without consequence because in all cases (including the easy ones), secular norms, and the agreements among norms will always be decisive.

This is where I end up. I think I've fucked up somewhere. But if I take the conclusion seriously, then I'd be inclined to say that the only kind of policies that might merit your challenge would be foreign policies.

More tomorrow.

Oh wait. Your challenge is restricted to Obama. Nevermind then. Forget the second to last sentence.

Jonathan and Melpomenh: I think both of your responses were brilliant, each in its own way; I know we disagree, but I just want to say I appreciate how intellectually generous and thoughtful you've been to my remarks.

Jonathan: You are right, but I think some of your qualifications, such as "on paper (and voting record)" are important. But to sum up my own case: evil may lurk in the hearts of atheists as well, religion just often (not always) gives people bad reasons to do the evil things. But generally speaking, I share your moral skepticism, and a previous history of solid public statements and actions only give a prima facie basis, not an absolute guarentee. My basic point was that, to my knowledge, every time Obama has made a religious appeal, he has always been careful to tie it to a practical issue, and defends the practical issue in terms that would be available to a non-believer: such as criticizing discrimination against the LGBT community. Surely Bush does not do any such thing: 'the good Lord told me to go to Iraq' is not a reason amenable to non-believers.

Melpomenh: You are right. There are hard cases, and one could reasonably have secular arguments against abortion (and if there are such arguments, I think we should take them seriously and engage with them). But (1.) I guess my ultimate point is not that translation into secular reasons will automatically settle hard cases, but that they provide a common context where disagreement can be clarified in terms acceptable to both sides, and neither is allowed to appeal to claims whose authority consists in anything other than reasons and evidence (e.g. some special book or prophet). Again, this will not always settle the hard cases, but I think it undermines a lot of obfuscation and dishonesty. Also: (2.) the central worry, I take it, with religion motivating a policy is that a law will be imposed on people who may disagree not only with the law, but its very basis (the authority of some God they do not recognize). You can disagree with secular reasons that justified any given law; it is not intelligible, to my mind, to disagree with its basis: reason-giving itself, and evidence.

Now, to be sure, religious people sometimes try to disguise their religious motivations behind secular discourse. But the force of their having to translate their case into secular terms, in many cases, shows the patent absurdity of some of their claims. Before moving on to the harder case you suggest--which is an excellent one--take what I consider to be an easy case: there is no good (secular) reason whatsoever to prohibit homosexual marriage, at least none that I can see. No doubt, people will sometimes try to pretend that homosexual marriage undermines the supposed "sanctity" of traditional marriage. But obviously that begs the question: what is so especially sacrosanct about the legal bond between a man and woman? Or they might claim that it opens the door to bestiality: but that's a pretty absurd claim unless one is specifically thinking of those passages in the Torah which explicitly make that comparison, and proscribe both at once. Or they might try to claim that gay couples raising children creates psychological trauma (which is empirically false), or that turns them into homosexuals (also patently false, and besides, who cares if there's nothing wrong with homosexuality?).

Now, abortion. You capture well the difficulty, I think, and in fact, basically state my own view: that there are conflicting, basic values at stake, neither of which is absolute. One is the right to life. The other is the commitment to granted each individual the right to determine their own destiny, including their own reproductive destiny. The question is whether the appeal to a 'right to life' applies to the case at issue. Once right to life claims are put in the form of secular reasons, it is open to challenge whether (specifically human) life begins at conception. I see no obvious secular reason for endorsing that claim. Perhaps there are such reasons, but at least the burden of the argument has shifted, away from pointing to some passages in Genesis where some patriach 'wastes his seed', the demand to justify that claim. Surely there is biological life even before there is a zygote, because there are reproductive cells, but I don't see why these should be given any more special status than any other kind of cell: say, the billions of skins cells you lose in the course of a year. Our slogan could be: mitosis is not murder!

Oh wait. Your challenge is restricted to Obama. Nevermind then. Forget the second to last sentence.

Oh, and I was applying, and trying to justify, a general normative principle to the specific case of Obama's public statements. If I'm wrong about the general principle, my defense of Obama also fails. So your worries about the general normative principle are perfectly pertinent, Melpomenh, and to the point.

This is tongue in cheek yet serious, so read with that in mind.

Sometimes I wonder if JoAnn works in an orchard, for she sure does like to cherry-pick. Any unlike the Founding Fathers for whom she has little affinity, she's not averse to let a cherry tree of truth stand in the way in pursuit of a vendetta against Paul Krugman.

Let's review from the first cherry-picking minute. After she chastised Krugman for apparently changing his mind (he actually didn't but more on that later) I wrote that the column that Paul Krugman wrote back in 2001 and his were not exactly the same thing. Apples and foie gras.

JoAnn begs to differ. She notes that I was, well, wrong:

Wrong. Apparently you didn't even bother to read the article. He was talking about France yes, but he was talking about France as a way to compare it to the United States:

Yes I did read the article. And thank you for confessing that it was about France. And yes he compared the situation to the US but that actually proves his point of an angry, anxious electorate but in the crusade to attack all things Krugman, that presume slayer of the Obama messiah, some fail to see the cherry trees from the cherry forest.

But first the cherry picking. She quotes:

If all this sounds like a post-mortem on the Gore campaign in 2000, that's intentional.

She cherry picked for the next sentence reads:

But I'm actually describing Sunday's shocking election in France, in which the current prime minister, Lionel Jospin, placed third, behind the rabid rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Once more: "I'm actually describing Sunday's shocking election in France. Sacre bleu!

The next cherry she picked was quite the plum. Quelle delice pour moi!

As I've implicitly suggested, there are some important parallels between the earthquake in French politics and recent political events in the United States. Let me draw out those parallels, then go to the big difference.

More apples and foie gras. Same but different as they say in Delhi. Here's what she left out:

What the French election revealed is that in France, as in the United States, there are a lot of angry people.

However, Krugman adds that slice of foie gras:

What are the angry people angry about? Not economics; peace and prosperity did not reconcile them to Bill Clinton or to Mr. Jospin. Instead, it seems to be about traditional values. Our angry right rails against godless liberals; France's targets immigrants. In both cases, what really seems to bother them is the loss of certainty; they want to return to a simpler time, one without that disturbing modern mix of people and ideas.

Perhaps he tops if off with some of the bitter Obama green, arugula:

Now for the important difference. Mr. Le Pen is a political outsider; his showing in Sunday's election puts him into the second-round runoff, but he won't actually become France's president. So his hard-right ideas won't be put into practice anytime soon.

Vive la difference!

Now let's step away from the cherry tree and look at the cherry forest. Put down the axe and read what Krugman said. The point of both articles was an anxious and angry electorate. The first article about the events in France and the latter article about the upcoming election here.

Krugman is remarkably consistent. He is speaking about an undercurrent of anxiety and anger in the electorate across the globe. The difference is the causation.

Here's one left-of-centre voter in Spain today complaining the PSOE Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero isn't socialist enough:

"In the affluent Madrid neighborhood of Salamanca, Gloria Perez, a 58-year-old librarian, said the poor economic performance of Mr. Zapatero's government prompted her to shift her vote this time from the Socialists to the United Left, which is led by the Communist Party.

"Zapatero has not done enough to bring down the price of rents, control mortgage costs, help young people and get us workers better salaries," Ms. Perez said. She added that she was unimpressed by tax incentives offered by both of the main parties, including the Socialists? promise to give every taxpayer a tax rebate of 400 euros (about $600).

"What good is 400 euros going to do me?" she said. "That's bread today, hunger tomorrow. We need reforms that will help us in the long term: better work contracts, better salaries, less inflation."

Bread today, hungry tomorrow. That is one anxious angry voter. Paul Krugman nails it. Here's his latest point:

"But polls and Hillary Clinton's big victory in Ohio suggest that if the Democrats want to win this year, they have to focus on economic anxiety."

So voter anger in France has some similarities: an anxious electorate like the US but at that point in time back in 2001, France was also angry about immigration and loss of what it means to be un fils de France.

Cherry-picking is a dangerous thing to do with me around. The beef I think some have is that Krugman isn't an Obamamaniac or which ever adjective the kids are using to describe themselves these days. La jeunesse, qu'est que on fait?

You can serve up more cherry picking if you wish. I like my cherries with a dollop of sour cream and a dash of sugar. Mon cherise.

But might I suggest that on this topic you throw in the towel JoAnn, ma tres belle jeune fille. Paul et moi, nous sommes gagne.

Paul did not change his mind.

Still your biggest fan,

Charles Lemos

ma tres belle jeune fille

Je ne suis pas une jeune fille. Je suis une femme. And you accuse Obama of sexist comments!

Still your biggest fan,

Riiight... Tu fumes la moquet non?

Once more: "I'm actually describing Sunday's shocking election in France. Sacre bleu!

Using the term "Sacre bleu" is one of the biggest clichés used by Americans which annoys the French. The French haven't used that term for a long long time. I'm surprised that you didn't address me as "mon amie", another annoying cliche used by Americans when they attempt to speak French.

You serve up a lot of cherry picking here yourself and when you quote Obama, so don't tell me that you never cherry pick.

Also, you accuse me of cherry picking and then cherry pick yourself in order to make your point.

I wrote that the column that Paul Krugman wrote back in 2001 and his were not exactly the same thing. Apples and foie gras.

This is what you said:

JoAnn: Krugman was talking about France in the bit you posted not the US. Apples and foie gras, if you will.

You claimed that they weren't the same thing because he was talking about France. Thank you for confessing that it was actually about the U.S. and using France as an example.And the article was written in 2002. The reason that I "cherry picked" the quotes was to demonstrate to you that the article was not just about France, but was only using France as an example to discuss the United States. I find it disgusting your attempt to twist what I was saying. Seems that you'll use just about any disingenuous manner to win an argument. Is this perhaps why you like Hillary Clinton so much? ;) Being disingenuous is a dangerous thing to do with me around

Your hero Krugman also said:

And in both cases this angry minority has had far more influence than its numbers would suggest, largely because of the fecklessness of the left and the apathy of moderates. Al Gore had Ralph Nader;

The point that Krugman was making in his 2002 article is why a "slightly left-of-center" candidate who ran for president lost the election and why the hard right has so much influence in the United States.

And I apologize Charles for my comment above being so harsh now that we're all now attempting to sing Kumbaya and shit. ;)

JoAnn, I think you are Cherry-Picking that Kumbaya shit. ;P

JoAnn, I think you are Cherry-Picking that Kumbaya shit. ;P

All of this talk about picking cherries is making me both hungry and horny.

Really, though, I do have a few cherry trees and many other fruit trees, so in one aspect Charles is right. I do work in an orchard... my own personal orchard.

All of this talk about picking cherries...

I find Charles does a bit of reverse Cherry picking. He ignores all the fact based counter arguments and Selects to respond to only the emotion and opinion.

He is also guilty of writing series of comments, each longer then I can read at work and still be employed. I have lost hope of ever winning such battles.

Hey, now that we're all sitting around having a nice little Kumbaya, sis, bum, ba, and picking cherries, eating cherries, popping cherries--or whatever the hell we're doing-- I just gotta ask:

Charles--did you realize that when you post a comment, a little icon appears underneath it that says 'Posted by: Charles Lemnos'? I'm just curiuos: Why do you sign your full legal name each time at the bottom of every post in addition? Are you worried we'll confuse you with the other rabid Clinton supporter who makes unfair attacks midstream of a muddle of irrelevant asides, one who is also, as fate would have it, incredibly pretentious, long-winded, colicky, and named Charles Lemnos?

Just kidding, buddy. Nice to see we're all getting along again.

Vive la differance!

Adam

Vive la differance!

Lol

I am going to sign all my future comments "just kidding" to avail myself of possible rules violations.

Just Kidding

the burden of the argument has shifted, away from pointing to some passages in Genesis where some patriach 'wastes his seed', the demand to justify that claim. Surely there is biological life even before there is a zygote, because there are reproductive cells, but I don't see why these should be given any more special status than any other kind of cell: say, the billions of skins cells you lose in the course of a year. Our slogan could be: mitosis is not murder!

Biomedical ethicists have great fun with these kinds of arguments. Men, who regularly wank their chud, turn out to be mass murderers. Babies, whose brains undergo synaptic pruning as part of neural development are accessories to murder...and so on.

I'm in agreement with all of your points.

I'm in agreement with all of your points.

That's pretty unusual actually. You're pretty smart. Do you read? I have a feeling you read 'books'. :)