People of good will

Both Shakes and Atrios take issue with the faux inclusive phrase "People of Faith." As Atrios puts it:

"People of Faith," despite its general acceptance as an inclusive term, is actually an exclusionary one, not just against nonbelievers like myself, but also against other non-dominant religions in which the concept of "faith," while usually present in some form, doesn't play a central role.

The context here was Mitt Romney's saying that, "We need to have a person of faith lead the country," only to find himself, shortly thereafter, the subject of a smear campaign based on the particulars of his great-great grandfather's Mormon faith.

Romney's full statement --

"One of the great things about this great land is we have people of different faiths and different persuasions. And I am convinced that the nation does need to have people of different faiths, but we need to have a person of faith lead the country."

-- reminded me of President Dwight Eisenhower's comment that, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith -- and I don't care what it is."

Such statements are obviously exclusive toward people of no faith. By explicitly excluding only those of that minority persuasion ("First they came for ...") such statements might seem otherwise inclusive, which is how they are intended to sound. But this appeal to a squishy, contentless "faith" -- this "kind of very comprehensive supreme being, Seeger-type thing"* -- also excludes those of us who believe that the substance of faith matters more than the depth of personal sentiment.

A bigger problem for Romney is that he takes the phrase "person of faith" at face value instead of recognizing that this is a dog-whistle term -- a code-word for "Christians like us and the few Jews who agree to play by our rules." This is another example of nominally religious language that also carries a great deal of unspoken cultural/political meaning.

Romney seems to hope that this phrase will endear him to the so-called "values voters" -- to use another phrase that means both more and less than it does on its face. "Values voters" does not mean "people who vote according to their moral values" any more than "people of faith" means "people whose lives are shaped by their religious faith." (As Shakes sardonically notes, "ask Keith Ellison about that.")

These phrases, when spoken to members of the religious right, both mean the same thing: People like you. As such they carry both a particular religious meaning -- certain kinds of Christians and Jews, and a particular cultural/political meaning -- antiabortion, antigay. Romney only meets the cultural/political portion of this (and that only suspiciously recently), so his faith isn't enough to qualify him as a "person of faith." As an evangelical Christian, I would qualify as far as the religious meaning, but I wouldn't pass the cultural/political portion of the test.**

But the biggest problem, both for Romney and for those who suggest that his Mormonism disqualifies him from seeking office, is that his statement is nakedly unconstitutional, directly contradicting Article VI:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Romney's statement that "We need to have a person of faith lead the country" directly contradicts the latter half of that sentence, thus disqualifying Romney himself according to the first half.

In the Roman Catholic Church, Papal encyclicals are written, primarily, for members of that church, but they are addressed more broadly, more expansively and inclusively. John Paul II's Laborem exercens begins typically:

To His Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, to the Priests, to the Religious Families, to the sons and daughters of the Church, and to all Men and Women of good will ...

I like that phrase -- "people of good will" -- and very much prefer it to "people of faith." It's a much more inclusive formula, and it does not imply or impose an unconstitutional religious test. But of course those very things are why this phrase would not be an acceptable substitute for people who prefer the other.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* See earlier, Under God-related program activities"

** Leading many VV/PoF types to conclude that I must not "really" be an evangelical Christian. I'd love to sit down with them over a couple of beers to talk about this, but unfortunately my fondness for said beverages only creates further problems.

Comments

[JS Bangs]

Romney's statement that "We need to have a person of faith lead the country" directly contradicts the latter half of that sentence, thus disqualifying Romney himself according to the first half.

Um, what? I think you've committed the common fallacy of confusing Congress with individuals in matters of constitutionality. Congress is forbidden from requiring a religious test for public office, but that doesn't mean that individuals and politicians can't say that they prefer religious people in office. They just can't make a law of it.

Plus, we should recognize this for what it is: a limp bit of religious sentimentalism, not an actual policy suggestion.

[the opoponax]

i dunno, this sort of thing still bugs me, though.

mainly because it indicates how little politicians understand about our country and the priciples it was founded on. it's kind of like the way it's been bugging me recently when Members Of Freaking Congress keep going on talking head shows and saying that, while they may have issues with the war in Iraq, as members of congress they are powerless to do anything, and this is an issue best left to the president.

say WHAT????? one of congress's major checks on the presidency is to have a say about whether we go to war. not to mention that they also have the power of the purse to influence the president's policy decisions.

it bugs me when our elected officials either A) lack a basic awareness of concepts taught in 9th grade civics class, or B) have no problem completely undermining them.

[Lucia]

Remember Bush's statement following the 9th Circuit's declaration that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional? He said "we need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God." Leave aside for the moment whether the 9th Circuit was right -- here is the President coming right out and saying that he will apply a religious test for judgeships, and nobody except maybe Barry Lynn bats an eyelash.

When push comes to shove, the PoF crowd are pretty blatant that they don't really mean just any faith.

Maybe, Fred, you could have oinos (wine) while they have oinos (nonalcoholic grape juice)?

[Andy]

I think that's an overreaction on Atrios' part. The phrase "people of faith" does not to me imply people of any particular kind of faith; it doesn't mean "certain kinds of Christians and Jews" but all people around the world who have "faith" in the idea that there is something larger than themselves at work in the world; that might be a very broad definition, but "people of faith" hardly implies the kind of narrowness that has been attributed to it here. I think "people of goodwill" is useless and misleading; I'm a very progressive kind of Christian, certainly not in the Pat Robertson ilk, but I like to describe myself as a "person of faith" -- especially in the context of my LGBT advocacy. A "person of goodwill," well, that's just useless: who on earth would describe themselves as a "person of ill-will"? Is that a useful, meaningful subset of the human demographic? No, I think "person of faith" is the correct distinction to make about a person who adheres to a spiritual belief system, as opposed to a secular person who does not.

[the opoponax]

The phrase "people of faith" does not to me imply people of any particular kind of faith; it doesn't mean "certain kinds of Christians and Jews" but all people around the world who have "faith" in the idea that there is something larger than themselves at work in the world

i think this is an EXTREMELY optimistic reading of Romney's words. one that is virtually impossible to hold if you know anything about him, the current situation in the Republican party, the American Christian right, etc.

if Al Gore or Barack Obama or even Hillary Clinton had uttered those words, i might buy that. but from someone like Romney, in the position Romney is in here, it is impossible to imagine that is really what he means, at all.

[JS Bangs]

mainly because it indicates how little politicians understand about our country and the priciples it was founded on.

Not having religious people in public office is a founding principle of this country? Once again: the gov't is forbidden from requiring a specific religion of office-holders or voters, but it's completely acceptable and historically ubiquitous for politicians to use religious arguments and appeal to religious identity. You may not like it--heck, I don't like it most of the time--but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

[Andy]

Further re: "person of goodwill." It's too subjective to be useful. Both President Bush and I -- nearly ideological opposites, in many respects -- are "people of faith." Would I label him a "person of goodwill"? While being mindful of judging not lest I be judged, I would find that a poor description indeed of our president.

[LL]

I see where JS Bangs is going and will even follow a little bit, but ultimately, when someone is running for the highest elected office in the land, it would be nice if they seemed to have a passing familiarity with the Constitution. As president, Romney would be sworn to uphold the Constitution, regardless of his feelings on the whole "person of faith leading" thing. An acknowledgement of one of the foundational ideas of the Constitution would certainly go a long way toward making people believe that Romney is fit for the job. But he's done us the favor of proving he isn't. Good to know. One less name to remember. As Fred points out (sorta), Romney's trying to have it both ways, suggesting that he's cool with all "faiths" but that (wink-wink) his supporters needn't worry about that pesky Constitution getting in the way, at least where the good religions are concerned. The use of the word "but" in that sentence (unless Romney was misquoted) suggests that only people of certain "faiths" (TBD depending on the polls, I guess) need apply. And if you have no "faith," you're SOL. Thanks, Mitt.

And as for understanding that politicians throw out cheap rhetoric all the time, I say we as a country decide one of two things: 1) we take everything they say at face value and they get the blame or credit as necessary or 2) we believe nothing they say on the theory that most of it is bullshit anyway. But not both.

[ako]

The phrase "people of faith" does not to me imply people of any particular kind of faith; it doesn't mean "certain kinds of Christians and Jews" but all people around the world who have "faith" in the idea that there is something larger than themselves at work in the world;

I think it indicates specifically religious faith, not just a general sense of believing in something. Depending on context, the intended message could be as narrow as "Christians and a few Jews" or encompassing all religious traditions that involve or value faith (a broader category than ones that require faith), but I have a hard time seeing how it could stretch to fit the non-religious.

[JS Bangs]

Romney's trying to have it both ways, suggesting that he's cool with all "faiths" but that (wink-wink) his supporters needn't worry about that pesky Constitution getting in the way

I think this is mostly right, although I have a bit more faith in the good intentions* of the evangelical voters he's trying to woo. I've never met an evangelical who actually wanted to abolish the Constitution; they just wanted to have an interpretative regime more to their liking. "Strict constructionism", or whatever they call it these days.

2) we believe nothing they say on the theory that most of it is bullshit anyway.

This is my personal theory.

* And we all know what great paving material they make.

[the opoponax]

thanks, LL, you said almost exactly what i wanted to.

i'll add:

the problem isn't that Romney himself personally is down with religion.

that's not what he said in the above quote. what he said was "...we need to have a person of faith lead the country." this is an idea that does, in fact, run pretty counter to the core ideas the US was founded on. our Constitution says that the religious affiliations held (or not held) by candidates for high office are not relevant. Romney says that they are.

thus, Romney is not qualified to be the next President, regardless of anything else we may or may not know about him.

[spencer]

I think that's an overreaction on Atrios' part. The phrase "people of faith" does not to me imply people of any particular kind of faith; it doesn't mean "certain kinds of Christians and Jews" but all people around the world who have "faith" in the idea that there is something larger than themselves at work in the world; that might be a very broad definition, but "people of faith" hardly implies the kind of narrowness that has been attributed to it here.

Given the context, I think this is an extremely naive interpretation of what Romney said.

Especially given the context.

[mom de plume]

Way way back in 2004, I remember Stephen Baldwin showing up on Fox or Fox-esque cable news coverage of the GOP convention, and describing his astonishment when he told others that he wanted a "person of faith" as President and some of them actually asked him: "Faith in what?"

I figure bottom line with Romney, if you have to ask, you ain't the audience.

[Louis]

What I'd like to ask the "People of Faith" crowd is: Do those of you who insist that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a theist include atheists in that description? If you think that only a "person of faith" is equipped to lead the country, do you count atheists in that or do you only consider atheism a faith for rhetorical purposes?

Also, how many of these "People of Faith" people would include neo-pagans with the same enthusiasm as "Christians and some Jews"?

[Arturus]

The construction "People of Faith" seems reminiscent of the muslim concept of "People of the Book", although I doubt Romney would appreciate that.

[SPIIDERWEB™]

I agree.

I like that phrase -- "people of good will"

However, I would suggest people with scruples and moral character. Morals aren't restricted to "people of faith". I could never, unless threatened and not even then, probably, kill another person.

Right is right. We know it deep down.

[Blackadder]

NONE of what Romney says here is sincere. He doesn't REALLY believe the country needs "to have people of different faiths"; he believes everyone needs to be a Mormon or roast in hell forever.

[Doctor Science]

I recently read Sen. John Danforth's Faith and Politics: How the "Moral Values" Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together, an IMHO very well-intentioned work that uses the "people of faith" refrain a *lot*. Although the Senator tries to use the expression broadly, part of his spiritual growth has been to realize that first, not all Christians agree, and second, Christians can disagree with Jews or Muslims and yet be wrong. This was a pretty opening up of his religious landscape, and he's not very good yet at not forgetting the Jews, Muslims, and even Catholics or Eastern Orthodox when he's caught up in the rhetoric.

So yeah, it's parallel to the Muslim use of "People of the Book", to acknowledge that certain spiritual practices are on the right track. I'm not sure if Hinduism, Taoism, Zen, or Wicca of the Thousand Faces would qualify.

Atheists and probably agnastics too don't count.

[Dean Booth]

I think what Romney really means by "people of faith" is batshit insane authoritarians. We've tried that, and tens of thousands have died as a result.

[Mabus]

NONE of what Romney says here is sincere. He doesn't REALLY believe the country needs "to have people of different faiths"; he believes everyone needs to be a Mormon or roast in hell forever.

No one would ever call me an apologist for the LDS, Blackadder, but your description blatantly contradicts Mormon doctrine, which allots the vast majority of people to one "paradise" or another. Only a tiny handful "roast in hell". Although the "telestial paradise" does not sound particularly pleasant to me.

[Chris C]

Speaking as one of the faithless, Romneys statement is only moderately exclusive. If you want something really exclusive, there's Bush 41's take on faith and citizenship :

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

-- then Vice President Bush speaking to a reporter during the '88 campaign.

And there's always the Boy Scouts with their none-of-the-above-isn't-a-choice stance.

[Deoridhe]

From the OP:
"People of Faith," despite its general acceptance as an inclusive term, is actually an exclusionary one, not just against nonbelievers like myself, but also against other non-dominant religions in which the concept of "faith," while usually present in some form, doesn't play a central role.

This is a really interesting quote because I belong to one of those religions where Faith isn't central. In fact, there are a few members of my religion who don't HAVE faith in the gods, but like the practices and worldview and morals and so belong. I have faith, a faith which lead me to my religion, but I'm not representative, and increasingly my faith has meant less and less in terms of what I focus on. What is important is what you DO and how you BEHAVE not what you BELIEVE.

And I've been pitied for it by people who can't imagine an existence without faith as center stage. I try very hard to not return pity for pity, since I can't imagine an existence where I assumed my experience was the only one. ;)

Chris C
And there's always the Boy Scouts with their none-of-the-above-isn't-a-choice stance.
My brother is an Eagle Scount; I'm the equivelant in the co-ed gorup associated with them. He's also an atheist; religion was never mentioned in mine. The Minister at the Church is Troop was associated with decided that his respect for religion despite not believing in it, and his years of being an exemplary role-model to the other Scouts, made him worthy of the highest honor the Scouts award. My grandmother didn't attend in protest, but the rest of us - including his troop and the minister - were there.

Not all Troops are made of the same cloth.

I can't help feeling that the word "faith" itself is being perverted by statements like Romney's.

I'm reminded of George MacDonald's classic children's book, "The Princess and the Goblins." A little princess has been sent to stay at an old country manor, where she encounters a magical, goddess-like being in the upstairs rooms who gives her help in countering the goblins who are plotting from underground to attack the manor. However, the reality of this magical "great-grandmother" is never certain -- the princess only encounters her when she is sick or otherwise in an unusual state of consciousness, and when explored in a more rational state of mind the attic holds merely dust and ashes and broken furniture.

At one point, the great-grandmother sends the princess into the goblins' mine tunnels, telling her to follow a golden thread that will lead her through the maze. The boy who is with her can't see the thread -- so that is also of questionable reality. And yet it does lead the two of them safely and correctly.

For me, that is the definition of real faith -- following a possibly non-existent thread placed by a possibly non-existent divine being and trusting that it will get you where you're going. Or, to put it another way, "faith" means the trust that some incomprehensible and unimaginable power is guiding you rightly, but only so long as you can have the innocent acceptance of a child.

In contrast, the Romneys of this world want to get us hung up on arguments about the reality of golden threads and of great-grandmothers, and proclaim that nobody who doesn't believe in the literal existence of both is fit to be president.

I'm not sure whether the proper word for that sort of thing is "idolatry" or "blasphemy" -- but either way, it seems very far from any act of faith that is rooted in genuine innocence and humility.

[straight]

I don't understand your bringing in the Pope's "men and women of good will." It's not really in the same category at all. "People of faith" is an attempt to say "religious people" in an inclusive-sounding way. I think it's derived from the equally awful "people of color." But it is a (wrongheaded) attempt to describe a particular category of people

(Wrongheaded, in part because it's often an attempt by westerners (often not religious themselves) to stuff all religions into a Christianity-shaped box. Like talking about "faith communities" instead of "churches" under the assumption that synagogues, mosques, and buddhist temples are really just churches with different labels on them.)

"Men and women of goodwill" is just an eloquent way for the Pope to say he's addressing anyone willing to listen.

[JMiller]

On the one hand "faith" is better than "good will" because nobody running for public office is going to admit that, deep down, they are cold, brutal, nihilistic thugs -- the "good will" in people trying to get elected is implicit. On the other hand, we've got plenty of "faith" in the oval office right now, and we still seem to have cold, brutal, nihilistic thugs...

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Specifically getting to the point where the actual question matters beyond the mere phrasing?

[adam]

Don't just leave it there. There are all sorts of things that would make Romney almost as bad a President as Bush. The biggest thing, in my mind, is not that he's got a deeply flawed view of religion's role in society-- most Republican politicians on the national level seem to-- but that he doesn't actually seem to have any consistent views beyond "I should be President." Unlike Dubya, he's articulate; like Dubya, he's got no goals beyond personal power.

His term as Gov. of Massachusetts was highlighted by criticism of his constituents; governing MA, he once said mid-term, was like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention. Besides obviously unfair (he got elected because people saw him as someone likely to undo some of the cronyism in the state government), it's fundamentally insulting. Imagine if he behaved the same way as President; would he go to Europe and Asia to insult Americans? What would that do to the United States?

Chances are we'd get more divided over his leadership. Romney, and the GOP with him, feeds off of disorder among rivals. Massachusetts figured it out, and even the third-party types mostly voted for Patrick last election, who, despite missteps in the first couple months, is still more likely to govern the state properly. So there is hope, if his opponents don't all kill each other.

[Andy]

Do those of you who insist that being an atheist requires as much faith as being a theist include atheists in that description?

No, because I'm guessing there isn't an atheist alive who would choose to categorize himself as a person of faith, even though, as you are correct to point out, one must take atheism on faith, as well.

I think this is an extremely naive interpretation of what Romney said.

I don't doubt that Romney had a narrow definition in mind; to me, that's not nearly a good enough reason to abandon a useful, sensitive and appropriate phrase. Those of us who refuse to check our brains at the door when we go into church are tired of letting "faith" be defined by the Republican party; I won't let them have this phrase to themselves.

[the opoponax]

the equally awful "people of color."

what's so awful about "people of color"? to my mind, it's a more polite way to say "non-white". it's often handy when talking about ALL racial minorities, together, especially because it doesn't sound like some kind of dry demographic term.

though i have to say i've always wondered at the way that "people of color" is PC, while "colored people" is most certainly not.

[Jeff Weskamp]

Every human being is a "person of color." White is just as much a color as black, brown, yellow, or red. To be outside the "people of color" category, you would have to have colorless skin, like a deep-sea fish. (Or like the ghouls from the World of Nehwon!)

[straight]

what's so awful about "people of color"? to my mind, it's a more polite way to say "non-white".

Precisely because it's a sugar-coated way of dividing people into "whites" and "non-whites."

[the opoponax]

Like talking about "faith communities" instead of "churches" under the assumption that synagogues, mosques, and buddhist temples are really just churches with different labels on them.)

maybe i'm way off base here, but i always understood that use of "faith" to derive from "faith" as a synonym for "religion", "creed", "sect", etc. for instance, "people of all faiths can agree that the Golden Temple in Amritsar is an example of world class architecture." i have never understood the word in that sense to mean that the speaker assumes that a christian-like concept of faith is central to all possible religions. it's just shorthand for "religious belief".

though let's keep in mind here that a great many world religions do center on ideas of faith and devotion that have a lot in common with the idea as understood by a western Christian. not all do, of course, and nobody is trying to diminish those that don't, but Christianity is hardly unique in that respect. so the use of the word "faith community" to refer to other religions' analogues to a church or congregation isn't as reductionist as you'd think.

[ako]

No, because I'm guessing there isn't an atheist alive who would choose to categorize himself as a person of faith, even though, as you are correct to point out, one must take atheism on faith, as well.

Only a specific, narrow stripe of atheism. If you're talking about a hypothetical atheist who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there cannot and must not be a deity of any form, and bases all their conclusions on that deep inner conviction, they'd be taking it on faith. I've never met any atheists like that, though.

Most of the atheists I've known, including myself take the non-existence of gods as the best conclusion based on the evidence, and perhaps a very strongly-supported conclusion that it would take considerable evidence to invalidate. Some people characterize this position as agnostic, but I don't think it makes any more sense to categorize atheists who aren't absolutely certain as agnostics than it does to do the same for theists.

I wouldn't categorize myself as a person of faith, though, and I have a hard time seeing a reasonable definition the phrase that would include me. Though I think a person can honestly intend to include atheists as "people of faith", I'd have trouble regarding them as anything but seriously mistaken.

[the opoponax]

@ Jeff Weskamp and straight:

yeah, but try writing a paper on race relations or immigration for a sociology or anthropology course without using the term. if the ONLY word you can use without sounding sugar coated is "non-white", well, it's just not going to be a very well written paper. seriously, there is probably a break in the spine of my thesaurus on non-white's page. "of color" fills a pretty important function in that situation. even though, yeah, of course white people "have color" too.

[Jesurgislac]

ako: If you're talking about a hypothetical atheist who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there cannot and must not be a deity of any form, and bases all their conclusions on that deep inner conviction, they'd be taking it on faith. I've never met any atheists like that, though.

*waves* Me. There is no God.

I am annoyed, however, to have this absence of belief defined as a belief: that's reifying a negative with a vengeance.

Of course atheists have belief systems. Those belief systems, however, do not include a god or gods, and it is a nonsense to declare this absence to be a presence.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

This is precisely why I think it's important to get religious language out of our country's ceremonial texts. "Under God" in the Pledge may seem like a battle not worth picking, but I don't like giving people that kind of ammunition. When someone who goes on to hold the office of President uses that allegedly "unimportant" quasi-religious ceremonial text as a reason to consider a subset of US citizens not citizens, it tells me that that little piece of text is being considered important by the wrong political movement.

*waves* Me. There is no God.

I am annoyed, however, to have this absence of belief defined as a belief: that's reifying a negative with a vengeance.

Continue to be annoyed, then. Either you have faith in the non-existence of God, an assertion whose veracity can no more be tested than ID's statement "God did it", or you are asserting As Fact something which you know you merely hold as a reasonable assumption based on the evidence at hand. Having faith, or having dishonest debating tactics--which is worse?

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Clarification: Jesu, I deny that "There is no God" is accurately characterized as "absence of belief." I counter that it is a statement of belief, or an assertion of fact.

"Absence of belief" would be more like, "I do not believe in the existence of a God." But you said, "There is no God." You asserted the non-existence of God, rather than refusing to assert the existence of God.

Just so it's clear exactly what bit of your post I take issue with.

[straight]

yeah, but try writing a paper on race relations or immigration for a sociology or anthropology course without using the term. if the ONLY word you can use without sounding sugar coated is "non-white", well, it's just not going to be a very well written paper. seriously, there is probably a break in the spine of my thesaurus on non-white's page.

Well, I have problems with that too. All kinds of errors get made if you try to lump together the experiences of African Americans, American Indians, Hispanics, and Asians all under the heading of "non-white."

If it's the case that in some particular context these different groups do have something in common such that it makes sense to lump them all together, why not refer to them by whatever that thing is they have in common? It's not just the color of their skin, unless you're writing about melanoma rates.

[Jesurgislac]

straight: it's the case that in some particular context these different groups do have something in common such that it makes sense to lump them all together, why not refer to them by whatever that thing is they have in common?

The absence of white privilege. Racism. Which is to say, the color of their skin...

[bad Jim]

Supposedly, a recycling bin at Berkeley had its "colored paper" label corrected to "paper of color". The powers that be Were Not Amused.

Atheism is as much another variety of faith as "Off" is another channel on television.

[bad Jim]

Practically speaking, disbelief in any god is equivalent to denying the existence of such entities. One does not take their possible existence into account or make obeisance, as by praying, sacrificing or ritually abstaining.

To the extent that someone at a bus stop "believes" that a bus is coming, a weak atheist like me "believes" that no god exists. Faith is not involved.

I will bet, though, that some day a teapot will be launched into solar orbit in memory of Bertrand Russell.

[Jesurgislac]

Nicole: I deny that "There is no God" is accurately characterized as "absence of belief." I counter that it is a statement of belief, or an assertion of fact.

It is the assertion of a fact. There is no God.

"Absence of belief" would be more like, "I do not believe in the existence of a God." But you said, "There is no God." You asserted the non-existence of God, rather than refusing to assert the existence of God.

Certainly, by pure logic I could make the following statements:

"I do not believe in the existence of a God."
"I do not believe that the building I see out of the window will ever turn to jelly and melt in the sun."
"I do not believe in the existence of elves."
"I do not believe that elephants can teleport."
"I do not believe that Left Behind is a work of great literature."
"I do not believe that my mom is telepathic."

I acknowledge that one can hypothesise the existence of a God or of elves, the capacity of elephants to teleport, my mom has frequently given me the impression that she can read my mind, I know that other people have defined "great literature" to include Left Behind, and I myself have just hypothesised the possibility that the building I can see could transform itself into jelly and will then melt and collapse all over the street in a jellified catastrophe.

But, practically speaking: There is no God. Stone and brick and iron do not transform to jelly. There are no elves. Elephants cannot teleport. Left Behind is not great literature. My mom is not telepathic.

[wintermute]

Ah, this old discussion.

If you will excuse me, I'll leave you all to it while I engage in my hobby: Not collecting stamps.

[Jesurgislac]

If you will excuse me, I'll leave you all to it while I engage in my hobby: Not collecting stamps.

Ha. Not collecting stamps is for paperweights. I don't collect coins.

[Chris C]

Deoridhe

Not all Troops are made of the same cloth.

I and most of my peers were Boy Scouts. Even back then, 20 odd years ago, there was a marked difference between troops. My comment was about the BSA administration, which has become increasingly intolerant, rather than a condemnation of individual scouts or troops.

The fact that scouting was largely a largely a positive influence on me makes their stance on religion all the more galling.

[straight]

The absence of white privilege. Racism. Which is to say, the color of their skin...

Right. I just wish we had a term that made it clear we're not talking about biological differences, but people's experiences and treatment by society. Something more like "outsiders" or "minorities." And something that makes it clear that different subgroups have had very different experiences (maybe saying "peoples of color" would be a little better?). And of course, there have been white-skinned people (Irish, Catholics, etc.) who have been outside the circle of white privilege.

I sometimes see people write about "people of color" when they're really mostly talking about African Americans (and either ignoring other people outside the circle of white privilege or assuming their experiences are essentially the same). And I see the same thing happening with "people of faith" and Christianity.

[A. Kennedy]

Nicole: I deny that "There is no God" is accurately characterized as "absence of belief." I counter that it is a statement of belief, or an assertion of fact.

It is the assertion of a fact. There is no God.

You're wrong. There is a God.

See, two can play at this game :P

In this case, I guess I am also not a person of faith. I don't "believe" there is a God. There is a God, plain and simple.

[the opoponax]

straight, i'm sorry your experiences with the term have been so uninformed, but part of the reason i'm down with "people of color" is precisely because it describes more than just African-Americans.

if i'm writing something, and i'm talking about African-Americans specifically, i'll say African-American or maybe Black.

but if i'm writing something that is about the experiences of a range of non-white groups, and i've used the word "non-white" already in that paragraph, yeah, i'm going to try to substitute it with "people of color" or another synonym so that the writing quality is up to snuff.

furthermore, can you REALLY not imagine an instance where we might need to talk about more than one non-white race at a time? ok, seriously, you need to take a social sciences class and then come back and we can have this discussion.

as for wanting to see a term that speaks to the experiences of people of color and not necessarily something "biological", well ok, i agree. but no such term exists. and if i were to coin one, all the white dudes who make themselves arbiters of this sort of thing would insist that it's incredibly dumb for one reason or another, just as you're currently doing with "people of color", which, other than being a term that is associated with Political Correctness, is not an inherently good or bad term, or at least no better or worse than any other.

part of me thinks this is a sort of unconscious white supremacist conspiracy. if you can keep a wide range of intelligent and useful terms for race out of the language (by virtue of "sounding stupid" or whatever), then you prevent people from speaking and writing eloquently on the matter, and thus keep such discourse out of the public eye. if you force discourse on race to be inelegant and overly wordy, you get the race studies equivalent of Judith Butler.

[A. Kennedy]

part of me thinks this is a sort of unconscious white supremacist conspiracy.

My brilliant friend, a top editor of Wikipedia, says often "never attribute to malice what can be reasonably attribuuted to stupidity."

[A. Kennedy]

Like for example the two "u"s in atributed above.

[Jesurgislac]

A Kennedy: You're wrong. There is a God.

See, two can play at this game :P

It does take two, yes. *declines tempting offer*