Mitt vs. atheists, martyrs

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."

-- Mitt Romney, Dec. 6, 2007

I'll probably want to discuss Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech at greater length later, but the quote above was the sound bite so let's deal with that first.

That's a nice bit of parallelism. It pleases the ear even as it disturbs the brain. In a formal sense, the statement is valid. The first part is not true "just as" the second part is not true.

Romney repeatedly says in his speech that his topic is religious liberty and his own faith. Given that, it's not surprising that he would argue that "freedom" and "religion" are compatible or complementary. But he goes beyond that, arguing that each requires the other -- that religion is necessary for freedom and that freedom is necessary for religion.

Let's deal with the latter assertion first: "religion requires freedom." There are far too many counter-examples for this to be true. Think of China, where the government denies religious freedom to millions of Christians and Falun Gong adherents and Tibetan Buddhists. Yet despite this lack of freedom, despite this active oppression -- and, in a way, in response to this oppression -- these faiths are all thriving. This is what the early Christian theologian Tertullian was getting at when he said, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Religion can survive, and thrive, in the absence of freedom.

This part of Romney's statement only makes sense if you read it as meaning "religion deserves freedom," but this is a weird and unhelpful way of stating this truth. Consider, as another example, the statement "speech deserves freedom." Stating it that way makes it seem as though the freedom and the right in question belong to speech itself, in the abstract, rather than to the speakers. Likewise, Romney makes it seem as though religious liberty -- freedom of conscience -- is something that belongs to religion itself in the abstract, rather than to every person. (There's a reason why Jefferson did not write the Declaration of Independence this way. He did not write: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.") Every individual deserves religious liberty and justice requires that they be accorded that right, but religion does not require freedom.

But as potentially troubling and unfactual as the latter part of Romney's assertion is, the first part of it is worse.

"Freedom requires religion," Romney said. Had he said, "Freedom requires religious freedom," then I would agree, absolutely. Try to imagine if you can a society in which people were denied this most intimate of freedoms, the freedom of conscience, yet remained in all other respects free. Such a thing is impossible. This is part of the genius of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Take away any one of those freedoms and you take away the others as well. Each of those freedoms requires the others.

But Romney did not say that freedom requires religious freedom. He said, "Freedom requires religion." And that's a contradictory statement -- a very different, and very frightening, thing.

If freedom requires religion, then the a-religious and irreligious, the non-religious and un-religious are the enemies of freedom. Romney believes, in other words, that atheism is incompatible with freedom. Whatever it is he means by "religious liberty," he does not believe it can safely be applied to atheists.

Keep in mind that this is Mitt "double Guantanamo" Romney talking -- he's made it clear what he wants to do to those he regards as the enemies of freedom.

Much of the rest of Romney's speech recalls President Eisenhower's famous gaffe, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is." That is, essentially, Romney's strategy for coping with voters' suspicions about his Mormonism -- a vague appeal to the grand, but contentless, importance of "deeply felt religious faith." Yet this emphasis on sincerity over substance makes no sense when applied to his claim that "Freedom requires religion."

Whatever else that claim means, it seems to imply that freedom requires the right kind of religion. Having already established, in the case of atheists, that individuals are neither competent nor entitled to decide for themselves what they should or should not believe, it thus falls to the government to make this decision.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" implies that the government must protect religion's right to freedom by determining which believers have the right kind of religion (the kind that freedom requires) and which believers have the wrong kind of religion (the kind that threatens freedom by exercising it).

I'm a Baptist, which means that for me religious liberty is not only a human right and a constitutional right, it is also a religious belief. We Baptists believe in "soul freedom," meaning nobody else can decide for you what it is that you believe (that's why we don't baptize until you're old enough to choose baptism for yourself). So I'm pretty sure, from Romney's point of view, that I'm the wrong kind of believer with the wrong kind of religion. How about you?

Comments

[burgundy]

Ok, where did the blue gloves come in

I'm not sure if this will help any, but here's the picture un-cropped:
http://slit.livejournal.com/361283.html

[Jake]

Cavity search is what immediately popped to mind for me too.

it looks suspiciously like the logo for American Atheists, a well-known atheist group.

Oh, I see. Do they bother to check if the particular atheist they're burying is a member of that group?

[Jake]

The uncropped image is no help, now in addition to the cavity-search idea, the term "fudge-packer" also comes to mind.

When it comes to picture of people putting on rubber or nitrile gloves, there's just no escaping the anal-sex imagery, I guess.

[eyelessgame]

This is different from how law treats non-religious convictions. An adherent of the philosophy of Ayn Rand does not get concessions from their employer as a result.

That's only because the followers of Ayn Rand foolishly pretend that theirs is not a religion. If they just admitted the truth about what they believe about their Prophet and Her Book, they could not only get concessions from their employer, but also avoid paying TEH TAX ZOMG.

[Ecks]

I've been reading a lot of blogosphere critiques of the speech this morning and yours is the first to make the point about the falsity of the second part of the soundbite.

Really? Maybe it's because I'm an atheist and/or Canaedian, but the 2nd part was the one that immediately struck me as off-the-rails loony. Freedom requires religion, REALLY? So who's slave am I?!?

One of the papers (NY times or USA today, I don't remember, someone put them both next to me yesterday) had an interview with the guy who co-wrote the Kennedy speech, and when they asked him about this line he said something like "well I don't think anybody would disagree with that on the face of it, but..." and I nearly fell out my chair. How could anybody even START to agree with it? In any other western country that one line would instantly have sunk his entire candidacy, and THAT is all anyone would have been talking about. And the fundies think THEY are under attack in this country, ye gawds!

They could go to church, but what's the point of "saved" people constantly hectoring each other?

Hee hee. This is quite amsuing when you go back to old thread Fred linked in the comments above, and start reading the comments. Compare the tenor of the first dozen or so there with what you get now. Apparently slacktivist used to get a lot more fundy reactionaries posting. I think we've scared them all off now... which leaves us hectoring each other :)

There is no way to rationally evaluate a mystical belief system.... You can evaluate behavior rationally. Behavior can be directly observed, and it has obvious effects that can also be directly observed.

sure, but you can't evaluate the mystical implications of behavior. There is no rational basis for believing that there is anything the least bit wrong with the following behavior: ripping a crucifix into splinters and using them to shred an American flag, which pieces are then placed into a toilet bowl along with a picture of your mother then splashed with burning oil and defecated upon*. But many would still see this as bad behavior. Call it mysticism but it's still important to people.

I imagine a religious schism between the Protonians and the Electronites.

I know! Fucking electonite spliters! Sometimes I think Protons are the only really positive force out in this world.

Raka: you will always be welcome among the uNeutronian uNiversalists

I warn you Raka, you Neutronian's try splitting too, THEN we have trouble that'll make the reformation look like a picnic. Like nuclear apocolypse trouble! Don't let it happen neutronians!

I don't go to atheist meetings or follow atheist rules or teachings or participate in atheist charities or whatever

Woha Mr. Heresies, don't make me persecute you! I would hate you for making me have to do that.

McJulie:Because what they really hate is that having to include religions other than their own. They hate it so much they would rather remove all traces of religion from the public sphere.

Geds: That's an interesting and brilliant observation, McJulie.

McJ, I've had my differences with your religion posts in the past, but I want to second Geds here: Brilliant analysis. Props also to cautious man for his 3 point breakdown.

Most of the non-Christians that I know consider the Christmas Tree to be a symbol of Christmas. No, it's not a sign of Christ, but it is a symbol of the celebration of Christ's birth which makes it a symbol of a religious holiday. It is not a secular symbol to them or to me.

To me, as apparently with Rosina, it's a totally secular thing. Our family has always had them (though in the last 3 years a fake one), and my upbringing was pretty much a-religious. Maybe it's a Brit vs. American thing? Or an everyone vs. American thing?

I've got in trouble before for saying this here, but *to me* Christmas is a generic holiday of happiness and light and family and all that nice Disney crap, with some Christian tie ins that are part of its background flavor. But then I came from a place where religion wasn't about identity politics in the same way, and a nod to other people's religions is considered to be inclusive niceness, rather than a "this is ours, get away" type violation. YMMV.

Izzy: The Hollow Ones, in "Mage: the Ascension" terminology.

<3 This is the one RPG (the original version anyway) who's premise is so clever that I even like to think about it now, and have used it as an example in serious discussion.

"Hands of Blue"

Don't get it. Is that like balls of blue?

the term "fudge-packer" also comes to mind.

This I do get... er... one is aware that it is a term of abuse, yes?

*Other than the entirely rational possibility of clogging your toilet of course.

[Jos]

"Hands of Blue"

Don't get it. Is that like balls of blue?

It's a Firefly reference. The Creep Government Conspiracy Agents that were after River Tam were easily identified by their bright blue gloves (well... I assume they were gloves). Rather similar to the ones Romney is putting on up there.

[cjmr]

DrakPope:it looks suspiciously like the logo for American Atheists, a well-known atheist group.

Jake: Oh, I see. Do they bother to check if the particular atheist they're burying is a member of that group?

NO, when the family of the person they're burying requests the stone, they ask the family to choose from the entire collection of symbols which symbol they would like on their loved ones' tombstone. Here are the ones that they can choose from.

[Jos]

Here are the ones that they can choose from.

Ooh, I kinda like the Lutheran Cross. I suppose that means I'll have to convert on my deathbed in order to avoid getting that rather tacky atom. ;)

[Drak Pope]

Oh, I see. Do they bother to check if the particular atheist they're burying is a member of that group?

Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that adding a symbol is done upon request. If you or your family doesn't ask for anything, then your tombstone just has your identifying details (names and such).

At least, that's how I remember it working for police. I realize that the military might do it differently, but I doubt it.

[Bugmaster]

Hahah I love the atom ! I'll take that over the humanist insult to graphic design any day. But I have to give props to the Aaronic Order Church. They have a cross with more crosses on it. Now that's piety !

[Jos]

But I have to give props to the Aaronic Order Church. They have a cross with more crosses on it. Now that's piety !

Yeah, but I'm not sure I like that kind of piety. It makes the whole thing look like a sword.

Of course, I don't know anything about the Aaronic Order so I may just have horribly offended them.

[Rosina]

Ooh, I kinda like the Lutheran Cross.

Nah - that one looks like I *heart* crucifixion, which just doesn't seem right.

The Presbyterian USA looks as if they are burning a priest - which might be what they mean.

I might plump for the United Moravian Lamb and Flag - a good pub sign, if nothing else.

[McJulie]

To me, as apparently with Rosina, it's a totally secular thing ... *to me* Christmas is a generic holiday of happiness and light and family and all that nice Disney crap

It's easy to see it that way if you aren't a member of a traditionally persecuted religion -- if you aren't Jewish, for example. Or if you are an atheist or agnostic in the traditional "sure, I'll give lip-service to the dominant religion of my culture, because I really don't care anyway" sense.

I think Christmas is often a sore spot for Jews in particular. And I don't think it's my business to tell them "it's really just a secular thing, get over it."

[Rosina]

I think Christmas is often a sore spot for Jews in particular. And I don't think it's my business to tell them "it's really just a secular thing, get over it."

I don't think it's my business to say "Oh, I'm so sorry. I suppose we'd better stop celebrating Christmas, putting up lights and trees, buying presents, sending cards." I'd actually say: "It's a religious thing and it's a cultural thing, get over it, and celebrate whatever you want to celebrate." On the other hand, I've never know a Jew - or a Muslim, or an atheist - who felt threatened by Christmas. They may be different in England.

However Christmas trees are not part of the Christian rites, and are secular - as are lights, puddings, mince pies and chestnuts roasting by an open fire.

[Jos]

Nah - that one looks like I *heart* crucifixion, which just doesn't seem right.

Huh. Yeah, I guess that's one way of looking at it. Personally, I got a "Jesus = Love" vibe from it. Which is a message I approve of.

[cjmr]

Jos: Ooh, I kinda like the Lutheran Cross.

Rosina: Nah - that one looks like I *heart* crucifixion, which just doesn't seem right.

That's the Luther Rose. When it's in color, there is black cross on a red heart which is on a white five petaled rose, behind which is a sky-blue 'field' all encircled by a gold band.

(Actually the Wikipedia entry on that is quite accurate, as it mostly is a direct quote from Martin Luther on the meaning of his seal. I used to have that quote memorized, we had to memorize it in 7th grade Sunday School.)

[Ecks]

I quite fancy the SOKA GAKKA circle thing. I hope they're nice (in the sense that some groups we talk about here are not).

It's easy to see it that way if you aren't a member of a traditionally persecuted religion -- if you aren't Jewish, for example. Or if you are an atheist or agnostic in the traditional "sure, I'll give lip-service to the dominant religion of my culture, because I really don't care anyway" sense.

Er... no, I'm a non-traditionally persecuted atheist in the sense of growing up in a country where the local Christians didn't seem to feel the need to persecute everyone else*. We were taught in school about other major religions and their holidays (in the perfunctory surface way schools cover everything), and when they got to holidays like Christmas or easter, we would be told about how "Christians believe this represents..." just as we were told that "Muslims believe this represents..." about holidays like Ramadan.

The only time I ever felt at all awkward about it is in sanctioned events that would involve the singing of carols, some of which have explicit Jesus references. I honestly don't recall if schools avoided those ones, but I know that I did have to sing them some places. At the time I just put it down to one of those slightly awkward things you get through, and, I think, mumbled the JC parts of the lines. But because it didn't have a rammed-down-your-throat cultural backdrop, in some sense it wasn't any weirder than singing a verse in praise of Krishna, or the fictional entity of your choice. I think I'd have more articulate qualms about them as an adult than I did as a kid.

*This century anyway. Not including the N. Ireland thing from my time in the UK, tho that wasn't really a relgious war, so much as an ethnic do. Dublin was apparently one place in the world where the statement "I'm an atheist" would be followed by the serious question: "Yes, but are you a catholic atheist, or a protestant atheist?"

[Rosina]

Dublin was apparently one place in the world where the statement "I'm an atheist" would be followed by the serious question: "Yes, but are you a catholic atheist, or a protestant atheist?"

I think you meant Belfast. Dublin, like London, doesn't do hang-up.

While the Troubles were still on-going - Airey Neave had just been blown up - my husband and I were in Crete. They assumed we were English, so hubby explained that I was English, he was Irish. They asked if that meant that I was a Catholic. No, she's Protestant, he's Catholic. They were far more surprised than anyone in England or the Republic would have been, thinking that it was like Greek and Turk. But outside N. Ireland it was par for the course. Of the three next-door neighbours we had at the time, one was English Catholic and English Protestant, one was Irish Catholic wife and English Protestant husband, and the other were probably non-practicing something or other.

[Ecks]

However Christmas trees are not part of the Christian rites, and are secular - as are lights, puddings, mince pies and chestnuts roasting by an open fire.

The agriculture dep't student association thing was giving out roasted chestnuts for free on the street yesterday. I thought it was a cool gesture and tried one. Er, let's just say that seasonal treats have come on a long way in the last 200 years.

But anyway, I think the religious/cultural ambiguity is an interesting source of tension, with the situation here perhaps analogous to the one in Israel between orthodox and secular Jews. It's an explicitly religious country there, but there's still huge fights between those who want to keep the religious symbolism and observances strictly religiously enforced, and those who want to take them as part of their cultural heritage, but not quite so literally. Fundies there throw rocks at people who drive on sundays and such. It's worse.

If I this were a flamewar thread and a Thursday, I'd probably have a go at Christians for trying to steal Christmas trees and lights and the late-December timing (etc) from everyone else, and how dare anyone claim these things as exclusively Christian symbols... But after all these years, the two are so blended that trying to really separate them out would be very hard I should imagine.

[Ecks]

I think you meant Belfast. Dublin, like London, doesn't do hang-up.

Right you are. Sorry.

[Rosina]

It's OK. I can do a pretty good Ian Paisley imitation: so please imagine it

IP: "There will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth!"

Little Old Lady: "But I don't have any teeth."

IP "Teeth will be provided!"

[Jesurgislac]

I like the Soka Gakkai International. I have no idea what it means, but it's a pretty design.

[Jake]

Ecks: the term "fudge-packer" also comes to mind.

This I do get... er... one is aware that it is a term of abuse, yes?

Oh, right. Huh. I spend so little of my social time among straight people, I guess it's easy to forget that the terms my friends and I use ironically/jokingly are still actually used abusively by homophobes. Sorry! *cringe*

cjmr: NO, when the family of the person they're burying requests the stone, they ask the family to choose from the entire collection of symbols which symbol they would like on their loved ones' tombstone.

Oh, I see. Thank makes much more sense, thank you.

Ecks, again: Fundies there throw rocks at people who drive on sundays and such.

You mean saturdays. These are, after all, Jewish fundies.

[Rosina]

NO, when the family of the person they're burying requests the stone, they ask the family to choose from the entire collection of symbols which symbol they would like on their loved ones' tombstone.

What effort is made to confirm that the symbol chosen by the family is the one the dead soldier would have wanted? Isn't 'religion' one of the facts recorded on a service record?

[Ecks]

Oh, right. Huh. I spend so little of my social time among straight people,

ah, right. We established a while ago that everyone here is either gay, diagnosable, or Bugmaster [puts you into mental slot]. Welcome! You'll work out beautifully :)

Isn't 'religion' one of the facts recorded on a service record?

According to my brother in the Canadian army your christian options consist of "catholic" and "protestant". I don't know if they have such finely graded levels of tombstone iconography available tho...

You mean saturdays. These are, after all, Jewish fundies

DOH! That's two screaming factual errors, and nominating the same design as Jesu as pretty*, all on the same thread. This procrastination is killing me!

[need to close slacktivist! Need to work!]

*Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Drak Pope]

What effort is made to confirm that the symbol chosen by the family is the one the dead soldier would have wanted? Isn't 'religion' one of the facts recorded on a service record?

I believe the Department of Defense employs a trained squad of necromancers to commune with a dead soldier's spirit in order to confirm details like that.

[OK Toledo]

What effort is made to confirm that the symbol chosen by the family is the one the dead soldier would have wanted?

Why would that matter? The solider, as you've pointed out, is dead. It doesn't matter what he or she thought. The funeral, the grave marker and so on is for the living. With a few notable exceptions religions do not require anything of the mourners for the dead to get whatever reward or punishment is theirs.

In practice I suspect any conflict would be between friends or other loved ones, and family. If for example a young man is away from his family and falls in love with a woman from a different faith, the resulting argument may long survive his death. But it's hardly the military's fault that such problems arise.

[A Kennedy]

Why would that matter? The solider, as you've pointed out, is dead.

Ghosts, zombies, poltergiests -- have you never seen a horror movie?

[Cyllan]

@A. Kennedy: Yeah, but that will only come up if someone happens to build a house over the graveyard, right?

[Ember Keelty]

To me, as apparently with Rosina, it's a totally secular thing. Our family has always had them (though in the last 3 years a fake one), and my upbringing was pretty much a-religious. Maybe it's a Brit vs. American thing? Or an everyone vs. American thing?

I've got in trouble before for saying this here, but *to me* Christmas is a generic holiday of happiness and light and family and all that nice Disney crap, with some Christian tie ins that are part of its background flavor. But then I came from a place where religion wasn't about identity politics in the same way, and a nod to other people's religions is considered to be inclusive niceness, rather than a "this is ours, get away" type violation. YMMV.

Well, that's how MY family's always done it, and we're American.

[burgundy]

re: the Christmas tree thing - I've known the occasional Jewish family that has Christmas trees, but for the most part, for me and for other Jews that I know, Christmas trees are still... well, Christmas trees. And I have a hard time seeing Christmas as a non-religious holiday. People may celebrate it out of tradition rather than faith or conviction, but come on, it's Jesus' birthday, there is no other reason for it. Possibly in the future it will be like Halloween, with a vague religious underpinning that no one gives a crap about, but for now you still have people (in America, at least) carrying on Save Christmas campaigns, and I don't think you can have, on the one hand, people trying to save it as a religious holiday, and also on the other hand people saying, no it's totally secular don't complain about it.

To me, Christmas is a religious holiday. It's a religious holiday, of the religion that is claimed or at least culturally familiar to the majority of the people in this country. I do not expect people to not celebrate it, or schools to not have holidays for it, or stores to not decorate for it. But when it comes to things like religious inclusiveness, I would prefer that the government and public institutions stay out of the mess altogether. I'm not bothered by, for example, municipal Christmas trees, but neither do I see what the point is, and I don't see why anyone should be bothered by there not being one.

When I was in middle school, my school attempted to be inclusive by putting things like dreidl ornaments on the school Christmas tree. Some of the Jewish parents pitched a fit, and they took the things off. I did find that offensive - if you want to be inclusive, then maybe you can do it by including symbols that are actually meaningful to the traditions you're attempting to include, rather than just appropriating them for your own culturally and religiously-bound display. But I don't see the point in school Christmas trees either.

[A. Kennedy]

@A. Kennedy: Yeah, but that will only come up if someone happens to build a house over the graveyard, right?

Have you ever heard the story of the house that was built on an ancient atheist burial ground?

On night, a lady who lived in the house was reading by a big fire, and yet she felt a terrible chill in the room. She heard footsteps coming up behind her, and a clammy hand was laid on her shoulder, and she heard a voice say: "I'm juuuuust a fiiiiiiiiigment of your imaginaaaaaaation!"

[Ecks]

I've known the occasional Jewish family that has Christmas trees

One of my old advisers was Jewish, but married a Canadian guy. Their compromise to put up a Christmas tree, with a Snoopy on top, rather than a star or angel.

I don't think you can have, on the one hand, people trying to save it as a religious holiday, and also on the other hand people saying, no it's totally secular don't complain about it.

I grew up with Christmas being far closer to Halloween than a religious observance. One had pumpkins and demons, the other had trees and angels, each its own form of kitsch*. I was somewhat aware that church type people would go to church on Christmas morning or eve as a special thing, but then going to church and telling earnest stories about their particular mythology is what church people DID, so this didn't seem odd. In this case the mythology and the kitsch were smoothly integrated, so, hey, everyone is happy.

This is how I've thought about it since I was a little kid, so I'm always see it as slightly absurd when I see talking heads on TV hyperventilating about it.

Last year I talked about this here (probably quite tactlessly), and some people took offense, seeing my secularization as stealing their deeper meaning. I'm sure this is true on some level. But I figure that once you move your celebrations out of your churches, and integrate it into the broader culture, and especially when you do so by coopting existing festivals, songs and iconography, you don't get to be upset anymore when those raised in it take their own meanings from the resulting hybrid. You don't get to be upset if they get attached to these meanings either.

Easter was always far more of an unambiguously religious holiday, and as far as I know it didn't steal much of anything from anywhere. If Christians were deeply offended at my being excited about the easter bunny, I think I'd be much sympathetic to their point. That one would be between them and the kids who don't get candy anymore. I'm open for bets on who'd win tho :)

* Kitsch, yes, but kitsch that gets a special place in your heart after you've grown up being excited about it every year since before you were old enough to remember, and that is still built into the traditions and rhythms of your family.

[Ecks]

Have you ever heard the story of the house that was built on an ancient atheist burial ground?

Oh, the way I heard it she was reading by her fire when she felt a chill and heard a 'tock tock... tock.... tock tock tock' noise from her window. So she turned up the thermostat, and had the trees clipped back from the house the next weekend.

[Jake]

Ecks: everyone here is either gay, diagnosable, or Bugmaster [puts you into mental slot].

That slot you put me in doesn't fit particularly well. Just sayin'

[Jake]

Ecks: One of my old advisers was Jewish, but married a Canadian guy.
None of whom are Jewish...

love ya ecks, just pickin yer nits. Okay, it's midnight. Bedtime.

[J]

I wonder if the "role" of atheists like me is not to irk religious people but to comfort them by making them feel good about themselves. As long as I'm here, there will always be someone to blame for whatever social ills are ailing us. Because you know that eventually they'll use up teh immigrants, teh gays, teh Muslims, etc. They've already used up teh Irish, teh Jews, teh Japanese and teh Chinese as potential scapegoats. Teh Communists is largely defunct. Teh blacks is well on the way out.

But as Mr. Romney has indicated, it is still fine to do a full-throated condemnation of at least one group of people and to attribute to them all that ails America: Unbelievers. That's the service we provide. Do your children not respect you? Is your wife a little on the zaftig side? Is your job unfulfilling (and underpaying)? Are you in a doomed ARM mortgage? Well not to worry. We unbelievers are here to take the blame so you don't have to.

So, Fred don't you worry about public officials openly equivocating unpatriotism with atheism: We're used to it.

We're so. Very. Used. To. It.

[Jake]

Oh, don't you worry J. Fat people are just as much fair game as atheists (as you so kindly demonstrated in your post).

[Ecks]

That slot you put me in doesn't fit particularly well. Just sayin'

Diagnosable is cool too :)

One of my old advisers was Jewish, but married a Canadian guy.
None of whom are Jewish...

busted. She was actually Israeli tho, so saying "she married a Canadian guy" is more descriptively meaningful than it sounded. In fact, she was an Israeli woman who'd spent some formative years in South Africa, then lived in Canada for a long time - her accent was nearly completely impossible to identify unless you knew.

it is still fine to do a full-throated condemnation of at least one group of people and to attribute to them all that ails America

Neo cons! Or did you mean nerds? Patriarchs? err... fat people? Umm... pornographers! Convicts? gotta be bloggers, stupid dot com morons. Libruls, the lot of them. Or maybe the corporate media owners? Hollywood? Oh, oh, oooooh, all the overpaid unscrupulous CEO's! And lawyers!

Unbelievers.

Oh yeah, unbelievers. Definitely. Why are we the one group everyone still picks on? It's not fair, *we* never hated on anyone else!

[Brian J.]

And just think, J: In another couple of decades, at current rates, we'll be in the plurality, maybe even the majority in the US (as we already are in most of western Europe). Then what will we do? ;)

[Rosina]

Me: What effort is made to confirm that the symbol chosen by the family is the one the dead soldier would have wanted? Isn't 'religion' one of the facts recorded on a service record?

Drak Pope: I believe the Department of Defense employs a trained squad of necromancers to commune with a dead soldier's spirit in order to confirm details like that.

You see why it is so important to get these little points of bureaucracy sorted out before sending the soldiers off to their death.

And OK Toledo: Why would that matter? The solider, as you've pointed out, is dead. It doesn't matter what he or she thought. The funeral, the grave marker and so on is for the living.

It should pay some attention to the in-life-expressed wishes of the dead. The phrase "I wouldn't be seen dead in that church", may not be enforceable, but should carry some weight, where perhaps the person has had a genuine conversion or merely fled abusive religious parents. Are you going to give him and his name and reputation back to them to make over as a good noble fundie sacrifice? Who gets to choose: the parents or the same sex partner for whose sake they left the homophobic church?

Oh, yes, he would be thrown out of the US military, even dead, for the crime of being gay - probably refused a military burial - and his same sex lover would have no rights not any chance of getting them.

[Rosina]

Burgundy: re: the Christmas tree thing - I've known the occasional Jewish family that has Christmas trees, but for the most part, for me and for other Jews that I know, Christmas trees are still... well, Christmas trees. And I have a hard time seeing Christmas as a non-religious holiday. People may celebrate it out of tradition rather than faith or conviction, but come on, it's Jesus' birthday, there is no other reason for it.

But that doesn't mean that non-Christians either want to ban Christmas trees, or Christmas, or demand less religious content.

Maybe things are different in England.

[Jesurgislac]

I think in the UK (not just in England, Rosina...) people are clearer about the trappings of the winter festival being different from the religious side of Christmas. Everyone knows (well, for a given value of "everyone") that Christmas trees came into the UK as a tradition with Prince Albert, because they used to be a German tradition. Everyone knows (again, for a given value of "everyone") that exchanging vast quantities of presents and eating a lot and drinking a lot isn't actually Christian, because there is a familiar strict Christian tradition to either ban it or feel strongly against doing it. (The Scots are famous for celebrating New Year because until relatively recently, the Presbyterian tradition was to treat the 25th of December as a Christian festival and go all out with food, drink, and parties for the 31st/1st... which is why Scots get the 2nd of January as a Bank Holiday to recover in.)

A part of Christmas (or New Year) is, in the Northern hemisphere, really just the very human impulse to have a really big warm cheerful celebration right at the turn of the year when the days finally start getting longer again. And that part isn't tied to any religion, in particular, though you could call it pagan if you wanted to.

[Rosina]

Sorry about the 'England' thing. I do actually remember when Scotland didn't 'celebrate' Christmas as we do down here in the south (10 miles from the border, but still in England). But in the UK it doesn't really matter whether Christmas decorations or customs are secular or religious because people of other faiths or none don't feel that Christmas is threatening - nor is it a 'sore point' as McJulie described it.

I'm off to send a Get Well Soon card to my pre-ordered turkey.

[hagsrus]

Cavalcade of Bad Nativities

http://www.goingjesus.com/cavalcade.shtml

[hagsrus]

Cavalcade of Bad Nativities

tinyurl.com/yoh5s2

(TypePad doing its "sp*m" flag thing so I've minimized the URL in case that's what bothers it.)

[Jim]

I'm an atheist reading your blog for the first time. This post is so excellent that I am adding your blog to my Google Reader list for future reference.

[Rosina]

Cavalcade of Bad Nativities

I weep and snivvel in thanks.

All that is missing is beatified Jesus (or Mary) in a string'n'gloop temple. If anyone can find one of these, please let me know.

[Mrs Tilton]

Excellent post, Fred.

I'm not a baptist, not even really a Christian any more. But I'm pleased to see there are still baptists in the tradition of Roger Williams rather than Jerry Falwell. Too many people these days are unaware that the (ana)baptist movements, being among the earliest examples of radical liberalism, hold an honoured place in the history of human progress.

Ecks:

[The NI situation] wasn't really a relgious war, so much as an ethnic do

Not even all that ethnic, actually. The main streams of population that make up the Irish (of both sorts) -- Gaels, Norman French, English, lowland Scots and highland Scots (themselves the descendants of Gaels) plus various misc bits and pieces -- had been mixing for centuries, and in many cases it was down to happenstance which side of the sectarian divide one ended up on. Unionist Ken Maginnis and the (dead, happily) loyalist Lenny Murphy have Gaelic Irish surnames, for example, whilst nationalist John Hume's and republican Gerry Adams's are Scots and English, respectively.)*

Unless, of course, one understands "ethnic community" not as a matter of real shared descent but of shared tribal myths. In that case, of course, you are right.

* For those who very understandably don't follow this sort of thing: in the context of the NI "troubles", unionist means one who advocates remaining in the UK but did not use terrorist violence towards that end; loyalists support the same goal but used or condoned terrorism to achieve it. Nationalist and republican are their respective mirror images on the anti-union side. (And here's hoping the past tense continues to be valid.)

[indifferent children]

> ripping a crucifix into splinters and using them to shred an American flag, which pieces are then placed into a toilet bowl along with a picture of your mother then splashed with burning oil and defecated upon

Safety Tip: defecate on the mixture, before igniting the oil.