I can't think of many grooming strategies more effective in engendering the explicit or implicit embrace of authoritarianism than the ideologies that proclaim that there's a sky daddy watching your every move and ready to punish you but only because he loves you.
The parallels between the conservative death cult and the religious death cults are not an accident. To HamNo's point, Dems trying to govern and campaign like conservatives is doomed to failure.
I'd argue they are doing this because they are, in actuality, conservatives! Or atleast conservative by any objective measure of that word and not just relative to the other side of the aisle.
Even Barry Goldwater said the religious right scared the shit out of him, and bemoaned the party being overtaken by them. Ayn Rand lovers marry Bible Thumpers. And their evil spawn rule.
You explained the inherent problem with any party using affiliation with religion during campaigns and then trying to extricate themselves for the duties of office very well. While there are some religious groups that have a history of supporting the separation of church and state as well as strong progressive positions as well (UCC, UUA primarily)they do these things from a position separate from the pulpit. It's been extremely disturbing over the course of my life to see the explosive growth of Evangelical churches. I'm not a believer, but I went to a Presbyterian church that was so progressive they taught us about every world religion and why those expressions of faith should be respected. As well as to be respectful of those that don't have any belief. I really didn't understand at the time how unique being taught given that freedom and taught that respect was. What happened, exactly? What caused so many Americans to choose such a limiting and profoundly punitive version of Christianity? I just don't see the lure.
I've lived in a theocracy - Saudi Arabia - for two and a half years (in the relatively privileged position of a US passport holder and licensed healthcare professional, but never the less.) It...um...wasn't great. My conclusion was that every one of these theocratic zealots should try living in those conditions. My wager is they wouldn't last much longer than I did.
I've found it hard to engage even members of your own family on politics when religious beliefs are on the table. But I also know that at their core, these are not people who like feeling used. I think there's a way to get through to *some* of them, by clearly illustrating that the Republican party does not actually care about abortion, or fidelity, or anything to do with any God—these are only means to manipulate votes out of people to get richer. Not all conservatives are zealots, many just do what their parents did as the reflexive habit that is easiest and most familiar.
The issue I see is inherent distrust; the call needs to come from inside the house, to be incepted by someone who isn't as much of an outsider to their perspective as I am. In my head, this would be Bill Burr with a cowboy accent.
Or can I use sports as a metaphor to get in? I strive to eliminate all subjective data from my analysis. After all, no one likes when a college opinion poll or clandestine room of businesspeople are the main reason why their school can't be in a playoff. Opinions are the religion of sports, data is the science. Baseball umpires are religion, strikezone cameras are science. And sometimes things can be better by letting science lead.
This argument isn't blanket and the hardliners will dismiss anything that shakes their worldview or tradition. So these are the types of cracks in the foundation I'd rather see political hopefuls examine rather than committing the also-pandering Hamilton has described so well here.
Not sure I’m on board with this take. As a slightly observant Jew, I remember thinking in 2000 at age 16 that VP Joe Lieberman’s Torah-thumping seemed like an Evangelical Christian affectation. But if a politician is deeply religious and it comes up authentically when they tell their story, there should be some room for it.
Point taken that the explicitly religious figures I can think of in politics - from MLKJ, William Barber, and Dorothy Day, to Jesse Rabinowitz (Nat’l Homelessness Law Center) and the Catholic immigrant advocates here in southeast IA - were/are not elected officials.
Beyond the separation of church and state, I look to the voluntary separation of church and child for two primary reasons.
First, I believe that we protect the right to and from religion in the exact opposite order. We steal the lives of children when we hand them off as ready-made adherents. Let religions advise and support parents as they raise their children. If that child walks in their parent's religious footprint, it is something to be proud of for setting a good example. And the same is true for the religion, if those children walk through the doors of their own volition, as adults, it is something to be proud of. Otherwise, there is nothing to be proud of. It is just the handing off of children as if they had a religious symbols stamped on their forehead when they were born.
We should protect the rights of children first. When we don't protect children first, it leads to my second reason: the proliferation of man-made tribalism and its ills. We tribalize children right out of the gate. I see this as the number one cause of our ills as a people.
We need to forge a compassion-based commons where children can grow together and adults can meet up with no reason beyond our humanity. We've relied too much on laws to buffer us from each other instead of putting in the work to build relationships in our supposed melting pot of colors and cultures. Laws were always going to fail us.
What i wish would be more emphasized in these kind of arguments is the coarsening and degrading effect that the business of a state will inevitably have upon religion. We can see this already, the way the corrupt oligarchic class of the "Basij" influences the hardline clerical government of Iran. So-called "theocratic" regimes (it ain't unless the Big Guy shows up to take the Oath) ruin both temporal and religious authority equally.
Hamilton, the way things are shaking out I have to believe any politician with the guts to do as you suggest would be putting a target on his chest, back, neck or wherever a bullet with scripture engraved casing would be deemed most effective.
I agree. They should also stop the practice of swearing in with their hand on a Bible. It obviously doesn't matter anyway. So remove religion completely.
Oliver Cromwell, who created the first modern army, deliberately added Christianity to the way he motivated the soldiers. He said that no matter how rational your motivation for fighting was, if you really wanted your army to fight, you should tie your reasons to religion. Sorry I don't have the actual quote, but this is from Christopher Hill's histories of the English Civil War period.
"...getting religion out of government requires asserting the fundamental belief that faith is not a proper ingredient of the public decision-making process."
We had "faith" that all parties would abide by the Constitutional Establishment Clause - until it wasn't. Wouldn't a party platform asserting that religion not be part of the decision making process be subject to haters saying the Dems were against religious practices? We're at the point where every "do' or "don't" has to be spelled out explicitly or the right, in particular, will steamroll the process.
was just gonna say...Counterintuitively, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't" is an extremely freeing position to BE in. You don't have to overthink everything. You don't have to wring your hands with pointless worry, or waste time and money and brain power on endless focus-group-testing, you don't have to plan what YOU are going to do based on how you think the other side is going to REACT to it. SO many obstacles and unnecessary details simply evaporate when you face this truth...It also ends your ability to make excuses, so there's THAT to consider.
100% agree. There's this mush headed liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity. Could liberals solve their "authenticity" problem? Yes, but it would depend on their ability/willingness to believe in something beyond their political careers, bank accounts and appearances of moral superiority.
Ask every current Dem politician if they believe in universal human rights and watch many of them viscerally react to the possibility of being hemmed into a definable position (beyond platitude or talking point) on Palestine, Sudan, the American working poor and unhoused, trans folks, etc.
They might then reasonably be expected to act, and THAT is not what the Democratic party is here for.
"liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity"
spot on.
One of two things are in play:
1. They don't trust their instincts
2. They really ARE trying to avoid doing the right thing by looking for reasons not to.
I'm going to be uncharacteristically gracious and suggest #1. Even though I'm considerably left of the democrat-mean, I know I'm guilty of overthinking shit to the point of distraction. Its kind of a lefty proclivity. For better or worse we need to start going 'against' our initial instincts
3. Their definition of the right thing would sound like an alien language to you or I if they tried to explain it plainly.
Yanis Varoufakis did an interview with Medhi Hasan where he talks about his time as Finance Minster of Greece. He goes on to talk about the overwhelming allure to justify betraying the left and that if it was him doing it may be ok. He also says that political power requires an incredible strength of character to resist that urge once you're actually in the room.
Sure, people should just comb through their beliefs to carefully disentangle the exact sources of their moral sentiments, then simply click the big "No" button next to any that might be related to religion. Oh shoot there goes my commitment to an egalitarian politics of innate human dignity because we're all made in God's image! Oh shoot there goes stewardship of the earth as a manifestation of God! There goes a significant history of anti-war activism! Maybe instead of arguing against the *sources* of politics - I personally don't care if one comes to the left from reading the Bible or from reading The Lord of the Rings - we can just argue against the bad politics directly?
Alternately, one could simply believe in human dignity and respect for the earth and abhor war *without* those beliefs needing to be divinely commanded. When being an obedient pet under threat of eternal punishment is the only thing that gets you to ascribe to these very elementary moral positions, you're actually abdicating your own human dignity.
1. Do you see anything about divine punishment in my post?
2. Do you actually believe that you independently reasoned yourself into believing in fundamental human dignity, or is it possible that you too came to this belief through non-rational means?
1. You don't need to mention the punishment aspect, it's intrinsic to the whole affair. If it isn't you doing the right thing for fear of punishment, it's you doing the right thing to receive divine benefit; either way, you're a trained seal performing tricks rather than a moral agent.
2. You only believe humans have innate dignity because god told you they do? Hard to think of a less respectful orientation towards oneself and one's fellow humans than that. Empathy for your fellow man doesn't require some sophisticated theological framework, nor does it need to be exhaustively rationalized, it's quite hard-wired in us and not by some divine creator who couldn't be bothered to workshop out the bazillion flaws in our design that point to natural selection and which incidentally make any claim of loving and careful divine creation downright laughable.
Well, Paul, since you've twice now ignored what I'm actually saying in favor of what you want to believe I'm saying, I feel pretty safe concluding that this isn't gonna be a productive conversation. Maybe at some point in the future you can allow yourself the humility of considering that other people know more about their own beliefs than you. Have a good one.
Always tricky to discuss this stuff with people who piously talk about having beliefs but also decline to express what they actually are, lest they have to defend them on the merits. Don't even have the confidence for apologetics lol
I agree with this. Democrats who waive the bible around are offensive and ineffective because it's so obviously fake bullshit. I think a progressive with an earnest faith which informed egalitarian politics could do well, especially as I anticipate further backlash to the anti-human, anti-social slop of alienating tech nonsense being shoved down our throats.
The issue is empty suits, not leftists who have sincere religious beliefs.
Excellent article, but I find it puzzling that secular neoliberal adherents and their magical thinking aren't recognized as religious fundamentalists. After all, capitalism is the true national religion.
J. Stiglitz deserved a lot more attention for his 2024 book "The Road to Freedom...", and his unassailable and overlooked observation that the same type of magical "thinking" that informs religious fundamentalists also informs neoliberal policy makers:
"There was still one more way in which neoliberalism was like a fundamentalist religion: There were pat answers to anything that seemed contrary to its tenets. If markets were unstable (as evidenced in the 2008 financial crisis), the problem was the government—central banks had unleashed too much money. If a country that liberalized didn’t grow in the way the religion said it should, the answer was it hadn’t liberalized enough."
I can't think of many grooming strategies more effective in engendering the explicit or implicit embrace of authoritarianism than the ideologies that proclaim that there's a sky daddy watching your every move and ready to punish you but only because he loves you.
The parallels between the conservative death cult and the religious death cults are not an accident. To HamNo's point, Dems trying to govern and campaign like conservatives is doomed to failure.
I'd argue they are doing this because they are, in actuality, conservatives! Or atleast conservative by any objective measure of that word and not just relative to the other side of the aisle.
Elf On The Shelf. now in adult sizes!
Even Barry Goldwater said the religious right scared the shit out of him, and bemoaned the party being overtaken by them. Ayn Rand lovers marry Bible Thumpers. And their evil spawn rule.
You explained the inherent problem with any party using affiliation with religion during campaigns and then trying to extricate themselves for the duties of office very well. While there are some religious groups that have a history of supporting the separation of church and state as well as strong progressive positions as well (UCC, UUA primarily)they do these things from a position separate from the pulpit. It's been extremely disturbing over the course of my life to see the explosive growth of Evangelical churches. I'm not a believer, but I went to a Presbyterian church that was so progressive they taught us about every world religion and why those expressions of faith should be respected. As well as to be respectful of those that don't have any belief. I really didn't understand at the time how unique being taught given that freedom and taught that respect was. What happened, exactly? What caused so many Americans to choose such a limiting and profoundly punitive version of Christianity? I just don't see the lure.
I've lived in a theocracy - Saudi Arabia - for two and a half years (in the relatively privileged position of a US passport holder and licensed healthcare professional, but never the less.) It...um...wasn't great. My conclusion was that every one of these theocratic zealots should try living in those conditions. My wager is they wouldn't last much longer than I did.
I've found it hard to engage even members of your own family on politics when religious beliefs are on the table. But I also know that at their core, these are not people who like feeling used. I think there's a way to get through to *some* of them, by clearly illustrating that the Republican party does not actually care about abortion, or fidelity, or anything to do with any God—these are only means to manipulate votes out of people to get richer. Not all conservatives are zealots, many just do what their parents did as the reflexive habit that is easiest and most familiar.
The issue I see is inherent distrust; the call needs to come from inside the house, to be incepted by someone who isn't as much of an outsider to their perspective as I am. In my head, this would be Bill Burr with a cowboy accent.
Or can I use sports as a metaphor to get in? I strive to eliminate all subjective data from my analysis. After all, no one likes when a college opinion poll or clandestine room of businesspeople are the main reason why their school can't be in a playoff. Opinions are the religion of sports, data is the science. Baseball umpires are religion, strikezone cameras are science. And sometimes things can be better by letting science lead.
This argument isn't blanket and the hardliners will dismiss anything that shakes their worldview or tradition. So these are the types of cracks in the foundation I'd rather see political hopefuls examine rather than committing the also-pandering Hamilton has described so well here.
Not sure I’m on board with this take. As a slightly observant Jew, I remember thinking in 2000 at age 16 that VP Joe Lieberman’s Torah-thumping seemed like an Evangelical Christian affectation. But if a politician is deeply religious and it comes up authentically when they tell their story, there should be some room for it.
Point taken that the explicitly religious figures I can think of in politics - from MLKJ, William Barber, and Dorothy Day, to Jesse Rabinowitz (Nat’l Homelessness Law Center) and the Catholic immigrant advocates here in southeast IA - were/are not elected officials.
Thank you. I agree.
Beyond the separation of church and state, I look to the voluntary separation of church and child for two primary reasons.
First, I believe that we protect the right to and from religion in the exact opposite order. We steal the lives of children when we hand them off as ready-made adherents. Let religions advise and support parents as they raise their children. If that child walks in their parent's religious footprint, it is something to be proud of for setting a good example. And the same is true for the religion, if those children walk through the doors of their own volition, as adults, it is something to be proud of. Otherwise, there is nothing to be proud of. It is just the handing off of children as if they had a religious symbols stamped on their forehead when they were born.
We should protect the rights of children first. When we don't protect children first, it leads to my second reason: the proliferation of man-made tribalism and its ills. We tribalize children right out of the gate. I see this as the number one cause of our ills as a people.
We need to forge a compassion-based commons where children can grow together and adults can meet up with no reason beyond our humanity. We've relied too much on laws to buffer us from each other instead of putting in the work to build relationships in our supposed melting pot of colors and cultures. Laws were always going to fail us.
What i wish would be more emphasized in these kind of arguments is the coarsening and degrading effect that the business of a state will inevitably have upon religion. We can see this already, the way the corrupt oligarchic class of the "Basij" influences the hardline clerical government of Iran. So-called "theocratic" regimes (it ain't unless the Big Guy shows up to take the Oath) ruin both temporal and religious authority equally.
Hamilton, the way things are shaking out I have to believe any politician with the guts to do as you suggest would be putting a target on his chest, back, neck or wherever a bullet with scripture engraved casing would be deemed most effective.
Btw, happy Rapture day!
I agree. They should also stop the practice of swearing in with their hand on a Bible. It obviously doesn't matter anyway. So remove religion completely.
Oliver Cromwell, who created the first modern army, deliberately added Christianity to the way he motivated the soldiers. He said that no matter how rational your motivation for fighting was, if you really wanted your army to fight, you should tie your reasons to religion. Sorry I don't have the actual quote, but this is from Christopher Hill's histories of the English Civil War period.
"...getting religion out of government requires asserting the fundamental belief that faith is not a proper ingredient of the public decision-making process."
We had "faith" that all parties would abide by the Constitutional Establishment Clause - until it wasn't. Wouldn't a party platform asserting that religion not be part of the decision making process be subject to haters saying the Dems were against religious practices? We're at the point where every "do' or "don't" has to be spelled out explicitly or the right, in particular, will steamroll the process.
The Dems are already painted as being hostile to religion even though it's demonstrably not true.
Lean in and stake out a morally clear and consistent position. Something that centrist liberals are chronically incapable of doing.
was just gonna say...Counterintuitively, 'damned if you do and damned if you don't" is an extremely freeing position to BE in. You don't have to overthink everything. You don't have to wring your hands with pointless worry, or waste time and money and brain power on endless focus-group-testing, you don't have to plan what YOU are going to do based on how you think the other side is going to REACT to it. SO many obstacles and unnecessary details simply evaporate when you face this truth...It also ends your ability to make excuses, so there's THAT to consider.
100% agree. There's this mush headed liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity. Could liberals solve their "authenticity" problem? Yes, but it would depend on their ability/willingness to believe in something beyond their political careers, bank accounts and appearances of moral superiority.
Ask every current Dem politician if they believe in universal human rights and watch many of them viscerally react to the possibility of being hemmed into a definable position (beyond platitude or talking point) on Palestine, Sudan, the American working poor and unhoused, trans folks, etc.
They might then reasonably be expected to act, and THAT is not what the Democratic party is here for.
"liberal dogma that is inherently hostile to moral clarity"
spot on.
One of two things are in play:
1. They don't trust their instincts
2. They really ARE trying to avoid doing the right thing by looking for reasons not to.
I'm going to be uncharacteristically gracious and suggest #1. Even though I'm considerably left of the democrat-mean, I know I'm guilty of overthinking shit to the point of distraction. Its kind of a lefty proclivity. For better or worse we need to start going 'against' our initial instincts
3. Their definition of the right thing would sound like an alien language to you or I if they tried to explain it plainly.
Yanis Varoufakis did an interview with Medhi Hasan where he talks about his time as Finance Minster of Greece. He goes on to talk about the overwhelming allure to justify betraying the left and that if it was him doing it may be ok. He also says that political power requires an incredible strength of character to resist that urge once you're actually in the room.
The whole discussion is excellent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYBnSPX3BMo
I don't agree with your assessment, but I certainly don't begrudge your willingness to extend grace.
There's not enough of it around.
Lean on the Constitution. It's not hard, because it is the law of the land.
A well written article, and sorry for being pedantic: Architects do NOT design bridges. That is the domain solely of civil and structural engineers.
You're right about this, editing that.
Sure, people should just comb through their beliefs to carefully disentangle the exact sources of their moral sentiments, then simply click the big "No" button next to any that might be related to religion. Oh shoot there goes my commitment to an egalitarian politics of innate human dignity because we're all made in God's image! Oh shoot there goes stewardship of the earth as a manifestation of God! There goes a significant history of anti-war activism! Maybe instead of arguing against the *sources* of politics - I personally don't care if one comes to the left from reading the Bible or from reading The Lord of the Rings - we can just argue against the bad politics directly?
Alternately, one could simply believe in human dignity and respect for the earth and abhor war *without* those beliefs needing to be divinely commanded. When being an obedient pet under threat of eternal punishment is the only thing that gets you to ascribe to these very elementary moral positions, you're actually abdicating your own human dignity.
1. Do you see anything about divine punishment in my post?
2. Do you actually believe that you independently reasoned yourself into believing in fundamental human dignity, or is it possible that you too came to this belief through non-rational means?
1. You don't need to mention the punishment aspect, it's intrinsic to the whole affair. If it isn't you doing the right thing for fear of punishment, it's you doing the right thing to receive divine benefit; either way, you're a trained seal performing tricks rather than a moral agent.
2. You only believe humans have innate dignity because god told you they do? Hard to think of a less respectful orientation towards oneself and one's fellow humans than that. Empathy for your fellow man doesn't require some sophisticated theological framework, nor does it need to be exhaustively rationalized, it's quite hard-wired in us and not by some divine creator who couldn't be bothered to workshop out the bazillion flaws in our design that point to natural selection and which incidentally make any claim of loving and careful divine creation downright laughable.
Well, Paul, since you've twice now ignored what I'm actually saying in favor of what you want to believe I'm saying, I feel pretty safe concluding that this isn't gonna be a productive conversation. Maybe at some point in the future you can allow yourself the humility of considering that other people know more about their own beliefs than you. Have a good one.
Always tricky to discuss this stuff with people who piously talk about having beliefs but also decline to express what they actually are, lest they have to defend them on the merits. Don't even have the confidence for apologetics lol
I agree with this. Democrats who waive the bible around are offensive and ineffective because it's so obviously fake bullshit. I think a progressive with an earnest faith which informed egalitarian politics could do well, especially as I anticipate further backlash to the anti-human, anti-social slop of alienating tech nonsense being shoved down our throats.
The issue is empty suits, not leftists who have sincere religious beliefs.
“Religion is like masturbation. You are free to do it, but not on the floor of the legislature.”
Excellent article, but I find it puzzling that secular neoliberal adherents and their magical thinking aren't recognized as religious fundamentalists. After all, capitalism is the true national religion.
J. Stiglitz deserved a lot more attention for his 2024 book "The Road to Freedom...", and his unassailable and overlooked observation that the same type of magical "thinking" that informs religious fundamentalists also informs neoliberal policy makers:
"There was still one more way in which neoliberalism was like a fundamentalist religion: There were pat answers to anything that seemed contrary to its tenets. If markets were unstable (as evidenced in the 2008 financial crisis), the problem was the government—central banks had unleashed too much money. If a country that liberalized didn’t grow in the way the religion said it should, the answer was it hadn’t liberalized enough."
Excerpt from "The Road to Freedom..." here: https://lithub.com/survival-of-the-wealthiest-joseph-e-stiglitz-on-the-dangerous-failures-of-neoliberalism/
Science, facts, and logic are a threat to the certainty and security that fundamentalists of all stripes like to promise.