Actually, I want to establish the religion of Pastafarianism
According to this article in Talking Points Memo, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, known for his non-Christian religious beliefs, has some uncomplimentary things to say about those of us who do not subscribe to any:
Now, this is of course not the first time I've heard social-conservative types making an argument along the lines of what Romney said, but let me just point out a few things that are wrong with it, since he brought it up.
Secular behavior is by definition not a religion, or a lack of one, but a lack of reference to religion. So "religion of secularism" is an oxymoron. It's not unusual for religious types to try to make the claim that "secularism" is a religion, thus putting it on equal grounds with actual religions so far as the law or the tenor of the argument is concerned. The argument's patently bogus, but that doesn't keep people from using it.
Which brings up another problem, the conflation of "secular" with "atheistic." Those are different things. Atheism may be a set of claims or beliefs regarding religious matters, and a person could certainly widen their definition of religion to include atheism. I claim that this would render the definition of religion so broad as to be essentially meaningless, and it certainly wouldn't match the currently accepted definition, but a person could do it. To say that some group is secular, however, is not to say that they have a set of beliefs at all, but that they've made a policy choice: the choice to not make reference to religious matters in either a positive or a negative way.
And for that matter, there's the word "secularism," carefully constructed to define the terms of the argument to presuppose the speaker's conclusion: note the "-ism," a tacit claim that it is a set of beliefs we're talking about, rather than a policy choice. Certainly people who favor a secular state as a policy have some beliefs as the basis of that. (For my part, they would be that it's better for the state to not refer to religion at all, on the grounds that whatever reference the state makes to religion, it's going to annoy and marginalize someone, which I'd rather the state not do. There are good reasons for the anti-establishment clause in the constitution, and that's one of them.) However, that does not mean that the policy is itself a belief system akin to a religion, or that any religious person should be threatened by the implementation of that policy. Very much the opposite. See Europe, circa 1700.
There's also a personal attack in there, an attempt to ascribe questionable motives to atheists and agnostics. We must be engaging in these deplorable acts (presupposing we actually are doing that) because we're trying to make atheism/agnosticism the state religion of the United States. It couldn't possibly be that we're just tired of the people to whom Romney is pandering shoving their religiosity down our throats from public podiums across the land, and would like them to stop, and feel that it is constitutionally required that they stop. No, we must be bad people with nefarious motives.
Finally, if it's wrong for people who hold a certain set of beliefs to attempt to slant the behavior of the people or the federal government toward actions and policies that are in line with those beliefs, then I would just like to point out that the same social conservative types who presumably were the ones applauding Romney's statement are among the worst offenders.
As a side note, I wonder if Romney would come out saying that those whose actual, stated goal is the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the United States are wrong. Somehow I doubt it.
"It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in
America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said...
Now, this is of course not the first time I've heard social-conservative types making an argument along the lines of what Romney said, but let me just point out a few things that are wrong with it, since he brought it up.
Secular behavior is by definition not a religion, or a lack of one, but a lack of reference to religion. So "religion of secularism" is an oxymoron. It's not unusual for religious types to try to make the claim that "secularism" is a religion, thus putting it on equal grounds with actual religions so far as the law or the tenor of the argument is concerned. The argument's patently bogus, but that doesn't keep people from using it.
Which brings up another problem, the conflation of "secular" with "atheistic." Those are different things. Atheism may be a set of claims or beliefs regarding religious matters, and a person could certainly widen their definition of religion to include atheism. I claim that this would render the definition of religion so broad as to be essentially meaningless, and it certainly wouldn't match the currently accepted definition, but a person could do it. To say that some group is secular, however, is not to say that they have a set of beliefs at all, but that they've made a policy choice: the choice to not make reference to religious matters in either a positive or a negative way.
And for that matter, there's the word "secularism," carefully constructed to define the terms of the argument to presuppose the speaker's conclusion: note the "-ism," a tacit claim that it is a set of beliefs we're talking about, rather than a policy choice. Certainly people who favor a secular state as a policy have some beliefs as the basis of that. (For my part, they would be that it's better for the state to not refer to religion at all, on the grounds that whatever reference the state makes to religion, it's going to annoy and marginalize someone, which I'd rather the state not do. There are good reasons for the anti-establishment clause in the constitution, and that's one of them.) However, that does not mean that the policy is itself a belief system akin to a religion, or that any religious person should be threatened by the implementation of that policy. Very much the opposite. See Europe, circa 1700.
There's also a personal attack in there, an attempt to ascribe questionable motives to atheists and agnostics. We must be engaging in these deplorable acts (presupposing we actually are doing that) because we're trying to make atheism/agnosticism the state religion of the United States. It couldn't possibly be that we're just tired of the people to whom Romney is pandering shoving their religiosity down our throats from public podiums across the land, and would like them to stop, and feel that it is constitutionally required that they stop. No, we must be bad people with nefarious motives.
Finally, if it's wrong for people who hold a certain set of beliefs to attempt to slant the behavior of the people or the federal government toward actions and policies that are in line with those beliefs, then I would just like to point out that the same social conservative types who presumably were the ones applauding Romney's statement are among the worst offenders.
As a side note, I wonder if Romney would come out saying that those whose actual, stated goal is the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the United States are wrong. Somehow I doubt it.
posted by Craig at 9:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home