Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Nicholas Kristof has a NY Times column that makes an argument we hear frequently from the religious right:
At a New York or Los Angeles cocktail party, few would dare make a pejorative comment about Barack Obama's race or Hillary Clinton's sex. Yet it would be easy to get away with deriding Mike Huckabee's religious faith.Liberals believe deeply in tolerance and over the last century have led the battles against prejudices of all kinds, but we have a blind spot about Christian evangelicals. They constitute one of the few minorities that, on the American coasts or university campuses, it remains fashionable to mock.
But this is an absurd argument. He seems to just presume that ridiculing someone's race or gender is equivalent of ridiculing someone's religious beliefs, but that presumption is clearly false. He is committing a category error here. The difference is that religion is an idea (more properly a set of ideas) and ideas, unlike race or gender, deserve criticism. Someone's race or gender can't be wrong or absurd, but their ideas certainly can.
Kristof declares that scorning someone's faith is "intrinsically repugnant" but he says this as though it was self-evident, without a hint of an argument to support it. But does he really believe that? I doubt it. Is it really "repugnant" to scorn someone if they believe, for instance, that we should sacrifice virgins to the Sun God to curry his favor? That utterly barbaric idea deserves our scorn and so does anyone holding it.
I'm on record as saying that I firmly do not believe that merely believing in God is absurd. But when belief in God becomes belief in a particular religion - any religion I know of - then it inevitably comes with ideas that are patently absurd. And there is nothing wrong, much less "repugnant", with criticizing ideas. And the more stupid or counter-factual the idea is, the harsher that criticism is naturally going to be.
Does Kristof really think it's wrong to scorn the idea that if you die killing infidels you'll get 72 virgins in heaven? That idea is not just extraordinarily stupid, it's barbaric and dangerous and it has led to the deaths of untold numbers of innocent people. Can we really not scorn that idea merely because it comes labeled "religious"? Kristof has clearly not thought this through.
Kristof attempts a disclaimer to all of this nonsense, but he only defeats his own argument in the process:
Look, I don't agree with evangelicals on theology or on their typically conservative views on taxes, health care or Iraq. Self-righteous zealots like Pat Robertson have been a plague upon our country, and their initial smugness about AIDS (which Jerry Falwell described as "God's judgment against promiscuity") constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse. Moralizing blowhards showed more compassion for embryonic stem cells than for the poor or the sick, and as recently as the 1990s, evangelicals were mostly a constituency against foreign aid.
But Nicholas, you just did what you claimed was "intrinsically repugnant." You just scorned Jerry Falwell's religious faith just a few paragraphs after criticizing those awful liberals for daring to criticize Mike Huckabee's religious faith. And you justify going after Falwell but not Huckabee based on a position that isn't far from what Huckabee himself has said. If it's okay to scorn Falwell for saying that AIDS is god's judgment against promiscuity, surely it's okay to scorn Huckabee for saying that AIDS patients should be quarantined and that no tax money should be used to research treatments for that disease. Is Kristof seriously going to argue that criticizing Falwell here is justified while criticizing Huckabee's similar position is "intrinsically repugnant"? If so, Kristof is an idiot.
This notion that scorning people's religious views is wrong is just plain nonsense. It depends entirely on what those views actually are. If their religion teaches them that they should treat other people well, feed the poor and comfort the sick, there's nothing worth criticizing. But if their religion teaches them that it's okay to discriminate against others, harass and beat them, even kill them, then those religious ideas absolutely deserve our scorn. And comparing those willful beliefs to race and gender does nothing but show the utter illogic of the person making the argument.
Comments
Convincing the world that religion needs to be respected is probably it's greatest trick. Kristof seems to just be arguing that blasphemy is wrong, he should have just said it like that than dressing it up.
Posted by: apy | February 6, 2008 9:48 AM
NY Times, huh? I see stuff like that, and it makes me wonder if there editorialists actually read what they write, or if it's generated on some kind of auto-text code?
Posted by: Fastlane | February 6, 2008 10:00 AM
While I get you're point in Huckabee's case where his beliefs are his campaign, there is a grey area here.
There is and has been discrimination not based on religious beliefs, but no religious affiliation or the affiliation of one's ancestors. The fact that someone affiliates with a specific religion does not always mean they take all teaching of that religion as Truth. In fact, some religions include doubt and uncertainty.
Out of the political area, all too often, religious discrimination doesn't care about ones beliefs. Even a religiously identified last same or appearance was enough.
Posted by: bsci | February 6, 2008 10:00 AM
To look at it more simply, there's no rock solid reason to believe race or sex will significantly affect policy. There's every reason to believe Huckabee's faith will.
Posted by: FireWalk | February 6, 2008 10:01 AM
Well, if their religion teaches you should treat other people well (because Magic Man healed lepers), and feed the poor (because Magic Man fed 5,000 with only a few loaves), and comfort the sick (because Magic Man died for your sins), then I think one could justifiably admire the sentiments and the good morals being reinforced, but still scorn the superstitions being attached to the morals and argue that believing in a Magic Man is not a very firm philosophical foundation for ethics. Sometimes I get the feeling that good morals are used by some religious apologists as merely a vehicle for conveying superstitious beliefs (which is their real intention). "If I can just attach this nonsense to some desirable moral sentiments, then people will accept the nonsense along with the morals."
Posted by: Wes | February 6, 2008 10:03 AM
Hear, hear.
This is a very important question. It often lead me to think that religious freedom should not be specifically protected. It seems to me it is already protected by freedom of speech. Race, gender, maybe sexual orientation, are not things that you control or things that have a real impact on the quality of your being, of how good you are at your job, of how intelligent or hardworking you are. Ideas, on the other hand, can have these impacts, it fair to criticize them. And religion, as you put it, is an idea and should be criticized. If your religious views prevent you from doing a job, you shouldn't be surprised if don't get that job. Is it discrimination? It looks like common sense to me.
On the other hand, freedom of speech is protected (as it should). This means that you have the right to say what you think, but should be aware that you could be criticized. If someone doesn't like your ideas (political, religious, scientific...), he can criticize you, but can he fire you? Can he prevent your hiring? I often wonder were the line is drawn...
(Sorry in advance for the poor english, I am french canadian.)
Posted by: Alex the Canuck | February 6, 2008 10:24 AM
My problem with Huckabee isn't that he's an evangelical Christian; my problem with Huckabee is that he wants to make evangelical Christianity the law of the land. He's perfectly welcome to talk to whatever magic invisible daddy in the sky he wants to on Sundays, or any other time; I don't care. But when his ideas about what his magic invisible daddy in the sky wants, suddenly become binding on me.... um, no. Facts, please, and reasons, not legends and superstition.
Same argument with the others... Yes, they're smug, self-righteous, moralizing, bigoted zealots. That's reason enough to scorn them right there. The fact that they use Jesus as an excuse for their self-righteous moralizing is a minor point; there are certainly smug, self-righteous, moralizing, bigoted atheists out there as well. (One of them works 2 offices down from me, in fact.) I don't scorn them because they're religious, I scorn them because they're smug, self-righteous, moralizing, bigoted zealots. Isn't that reason enough?
Posted by: KCProgramr | February 6, 2008 10:32 AM
Exactly - Huckabee's religion is not merely a faith, it is a platform for political office. Once the evangelicals got in bed with the GOP, declared that their followers must use their religion to judge politicans (and judge all non-"Christian" politicians as immoral), and began dumbing down the concept of morality to being anti-gay and anti-abortion, they opened their beliefs to political ridicule.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 6, 2008 10:43 AM
Alex, And religion, as you put it, is an idea and should be criticized. If your religious views prevent you from doing a job, you shouldn't be surprised if don't get that job. Is it discrimination?
While ideas may prevent someone from doing a job, a job might also be inappropriately designed to prevent someone with certain ideas from taking it. For example, a person refuses to work on the Sabbath for religious reasons. A manager has a large pool of possible workers, but insists on setting policy that any worker must be also to work any day of the week. Is that appropriate discrimination based on ideas? How about if a parent believes it's his responsibility to spend one full day a week with his children when they aren't at school. Assuming others are willing to work on that day, is this unreasonable? Should he be fired for his ideas.
More gray areas are in things like appearance and attire in jobs where some flexibility is possible.
Posted by: bsci | February 6, 2008 10:47 AM
He's trying to draw a fine line between "criticizing" and "scorning", saying the first is okay and the second isn't. I'm not sure I agree with him, but he's not as hypocritical as you make him out to be.
Posted by: The Ridger | February 6, 2008 11:21 AM
I'm finally getting around to reading Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. His main premise is not that religion itself is necessarily "wrong" but that the taboo of total non-criticism around religion is what is actually extremely dangerous.
Any form of ideas that is immune to criticism, religious or not, can be used to justify all kinds of heinous things.
Posted by: David Durant | February 6, 2008 11:44 AM
Kristof isn't confused himself. He's trying a sneaky dodge, trying to pass religious choice off as blameless as is genetic inheritance. One may be born an albino, or born left-handed, but no one is born religious. Or born a Klansman. Religion and bigotry are bad things themselves, bad choices to make, and people who made those bad choices are guilty.
Posted by: WTFWJD | February 6, 2008 11:45 AM
"I'm on record as saying that I firmly do not believe that merely believing in God is absurd. But when belief in God becomes belief in a particular religion - any religion I know of - then it inevitably comes with ideas that are patently absurd."
Are you saying that all ideas of a particular religion are absurd? Or are you saying that all religions have certain absurd ideas in them?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 6, 2008 12:45 PM
Great post Ed. This reminds me of the confusion between "respecting religion" and "respecting religious belief". No one has the right to have their particular religious beliefs respected merely because they are religious, but everyone has the right to have their religious beliefs. Too many people take the latter to imply the former.
Posted by: Bruce | February 6, 2008 12:54 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
The latter, not the former. There are also good ideas in every religion I know about. In fact, they tend to have the good ideas in common.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2008 1:00 PM
bsci, of course it is normal to accomodate religious obligations to a certain extent, just like we accomodate people for plenty of reasons (medical and family reasons, even hobbies). It is an essential part of being an open and just society. But my poorly worded and slightly off topic question was how to determine were is it ok to accomodate or not.
Here is a non-religious example : Bob is a card carrying member of the KKK (do they even have cards, I wonder...). He works in accounting in a big corporation and has no contact with the public. He crucnches number all day. In a simple lunch conversation Bob goes on about how the white race should eliminate all the others. His boss hear him and find his views utterly despicable. Can he disciplined him? Or fire him? Even though it does not really affects its job? If he knew that before hiring Bob, would he have been justified to throw his resume away? Now change the story and say Bob if a member of the first church a Satan. Are the conclusion the same as in previous example? If he happen to be protestant and the boss is catholic and really dislike the whole concept of personnal relation with god? Should there be some guidelines? Where does one draw the line?
Posted by: Alex the Canuck | February 6, 2008 1:38 PM
The problem with fundamentalism and fundamentalist Christians particularly, is their belief that the Bible is the literal word of God as opposed to a document of instructional parables for people living two thousand years ago. The other problem is the Millennial bent that many evangelicals espouse which places a scary emphasis on the "end times" aka The Apocalypse, and would no doubt shape public policy to that end.
We don't need leaders who won't believe in Evolution and who do believe that Jesus is gonna be here soon, to clean the place up only for fellow Christians who share their narrow worldview.
What's so wrong about being intolerant towards Religions that build their foundations on intolerance?
Posted by: scott | February 6, 2008 2:01 PM
I haven't read all the comments, so excuse me if I'm repeating what someone else has already said.
However, the plainest error in his reasoning is that no one chooses their race or their biological gender. They do choose their religious views, however.
Posted by: Tim | February 6, 2008 2:39 PM
Mr. Brayton,
I'm going to disagree.
Sex is a biological definition.
Gender is a concept. It is an idea and a perception, not a physical element. Gender proponents hold that their valuation of gender is axiomatic, giving it the quality of deity. (Not that it is worshipped like God but that it exists outside of, apart from, and above traditional and historic religious, esp. Christian, criticism.) It has that religious character, and is correctly classed as essentially "pagan".
The strawman in your last paragraph does your position no justice.
Scorning someone's religous beliefs is repugnant, but your friends over at T2A do it all the time. Fred Clarkson said clearly that any Christian world view discussion indicates an impending theocracy. One young lady tried to pit Pauline salvific phrasing against American liberty. And Rob Boston would deny certain jobs to those who accept special creation. Their message is both false and repugnant.
Scott clarified the problem with his self-contradiction:
What's so wrong about being intolerant towards Religions that build their foundations on intolerance?
Whether you say that the position lacks self-referential coherence or whatever, the modern Tolerance doctrine has some serious weaknesses. Criticism and disagreement are a part of life. But what the Left is putting out these days is beyond the pale of civility.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | February 6, 2008 3:04 PM
Tim,
In my experience, most fundamentalists have been culturally conditioned from birth. By the time they are seven years old, having been subject to that environment, the likelyhood of them ever being able reject their training is greatly diminished, possibly near zero.
Posted by: dale | February 6, 2008 3:07 PM
Collin said:
Oh yes, criticizing people for worshiping a magical fairy in the sky is so much worse than: preventing people from getting married and persecuting them based on their sexual preference, saying that AIDS patients don't deserve medical treatment, lying over and over and over about this being a Christian nation, lying over and over and over again about evolution and other sciences, attempting to break the law by forcing religion into public schools, attempting to ban speech because you don't like it, and on and on and on and on and on.
You poor persecuted Christian. Someone points out that most of the world doesn't share your beliefs, and you take offense. Someone points out that this is *not* a nation founded by Christians, and you take offense. Someone says that evolutionary biologists should, you know, understand evolution, and you take offense. Someone points out that gay people really are people, and deserve all the rights that everyone else does, and you take offense.
Take your false indignation and your self-righteous bullshit and go pray to your big fake sky fairy. Maybe he'll burn out all of us non-believers. Hold your breath.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 6, 2008 3:28 PM
I think you've got a good point, but are off on the argument.
Nobody can make fun of the jews (Mel Gibson) without getting hammered. Nobody can make fun of Muslims without being suspended or having to sit through "tolerance" classes.
But you can make fun of Christians all day long. Anywhere you want to. Even at work.
There ARE NO classes to teach people 'tolerance' of Christians. Period. NAME ONE anywhere in this country? You can't. Tolerance of Muslims? Probably available in almost every public university in the U.S.
I think may be more of the argument that needs to be made, the author used less related items as you mentioned.
Posted by: shanester | February 6, 2008 3:37 PM
Jason... Calm down there, big boy. Did a priest molest you? Why all the hate? People who are Christians are not all boogeymen. Trust me.
Here's your ignorant rant:
>>>preventing people from getting married.
***Marriage IS a religious term. A HUGE majority of Christians believe civil unions with all rights should be available. They want 'their' religious term of marriage protected. They CAN get what they want, religious folks don't want them having THEIR religious term. That's all.
>>>persecuting them based on their sexual preference
****Persecuting? Who? By having parades? Pretty general statement. Like me saying that all Democrats are druggies. Pure ignorance.
>>>>saying that AIDS patients don't deserve medical treatment
****Who said that? Name MORE than one evangelical TV idiot. Get your head outta the sand. Do you know who is the LARGEST treater of AIDs patients in Africa? The Catholic Church. Look it up. Again, maybe one freaking idiot said this and you paint everybody with that brush.
>>>>lying over and over and over about this being a Christian nation
*****What, 80% or so say they're Christian? I think that means it's a Christian nation. Founded by deists, but they were believers and we're now a huge majority of Christians. Sorry that upsets you.
>>>>attempting to break the law by forcing religion into public schools
****What law is broken by teaching religion/theology in schools?
DO NOT SAY THE Constitution. The words: Seperation, Church and State -- DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION. Read it sometime. It was written to not only protect gov. from religion, but ALSO religion FROM government.
>>>attempting to ban speech because you don't like it, and on and on and on and on and on.
****Not sure what speech and who wants to ban anything?
HA! Where? What? You probably want to ban Creationism because YOU don't like it. You're NO better than your argument and you just proved it in the prior sentense.
I am sorry you hate people that go to church. The nice thing is, if you live in a community of all nice, church-going people, you can leave your doors unlocked. I've lived in one. You can walk around at midnight. 99% of them are good people. There are some wack-os, but there are in any 'group'. I lived in a community like that (no, I am agnostic) for 3 years. Almost never locked my door. Really. Almost perfect. Moved back to Denver, not even downtown and my car has been broken into three times in 6 months and my apartment once. I kinda miss the wack-os.
Maybe if YOU don't want to be lumped into an unfair category, etc... you shouldn't do the same.
Posted by: ster | February 6, 2008 3:56 PM
Shanester,
But do we really want another Tolerance class? I realize that's not what you're proposing, and we certainly don't need one. The popular "unitarian" or "public religion" view is fairly consistent with the old Roman Pantheon -- an idea against which the early church reacted and separated -- and for which they were severely persecuted.
The discussion of homosexuality has gone beyond non-violent responses to celebration and promotion. Mr. Brayton's straw man was a b&w fallacy, allowing only two options. There are more options than violence vs. celebration.
When sexual recruitment is part of curriculum, that's an issue. Is it intolerant? Yes. Is opposing it intolerant? Of course it is. But so what?
All orthodoxies are intolerant because doctrine (whether the secular Tolerance doctrine or any of the Christian varieties, or any other) both divides and unites. But using curriculum to recruit children to sexual behavior used to be considered either criminal or at least inappropriate ;) .
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/02/florida_school_bans_progay_spe.php?utm_source=mostemailed&utm_medium=link
It should still.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | February 6, 2008 4:00 PM
Um, no.
Try doing a cursory study before speaking so ignorantly. You may get a better reception.
Posted by: gwangung | February 6, 2008 4:07 PM
ster, I have no hate for people that go to church, no hate for Christians, no hate for anyone. I'm just sick and tired about hearing how persecuted the Christians are.
Sorry, not even close. Marriage imparts benefits given by the government, therefore it's not strictly a religious term. Also, I want it explained to me how a straight marriage is going to be ruined by a gay marriage. And whether or not a majority of Christians believe civil unions should be available, the loudest voices of the religious right don't.
Uh, that would be homosexuals. Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, Huckabee, any other number of highly visible and vocal people. They condemn gays, rail against them, and say there should be laws against homosexuality.
I was referring to Mike Huckabee, who said that AIDS patients should be quarantined. I don't think he actually said they shouldn't receive medical treatment. My apologies for the misquote.
The Christian Nation reference is about all the religious people that claim the founders were Christian. They've been flinging it around for a long time, and it's pure lies.
Thank you for proving my point. Teaching religion in public schools is against the Constitution. It's called the Establishment Clause. Read it sometime.
How about a principal banning pro-gay speech? And no, I don't want to ban creationism, that's your ignorant assumption. I think it would be great to be taught as part of a mythology or world religion course, as long as all the other major religions' myths get taught as well.
You draw the ignorant conclusion that I must hate everything having to do with religion, because the most vocal proponents of it are currently attempting to do all sorts of heinous things. Whether you like it or not, the religious right is currently represented by a group of bigoted, ignorant assholes who want nothing less than to turn this country into a Christian theocracy.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 6, 2008 4:22 PM
I think the point of Kristoff's piece is being missed - and I am by no means of fan of Nicholas Kristoff.
Personally, I look askance at the "liberal" disparagement of Christian fundamentalists because it seems to be directed at anything BUT the religious beliefs of those who are, yes, the subjects of Enlightened bigotry - their accents, their buying habits, their socioeconomic status, and so on.
Mr. Brayton mentions the "72 virgins in Heaven" idiocy, who will greet suicide terrorists such as Mohammed Attah, as an example of why it is acceptable to criticize someone's religion, rather than their sex or race.
Perhaps Mr. Brayton is different from other "liberals", but I find that those who are so ready to criticize Christian fundamentalists (for non-theological reasons) - to find these individuals guilty as a group for acts allegedly carried out in their name (ie. the murder of abortionists) - are the first to scream "racist" when anyone attacks Islam.
Islam is, of course, a religion, not a race.
Thanks
A Canadian reader
Posted by: Bohemian Redneck | February 6, 2008 4:22 PM
two differences between criticizing someone's religion vs. criticizing their gender/ethnicity/whatever.
First, a man does not try to convert other people to manhood, nor a woman to womanhood. An Italian, or a German, or a Hispanic person does not try to convert others to their ethnicity. Evangelical religious activity is offensive on the face of it.
Second, as Ed pointed out, religion brings with it goofy ideas that ought to be criticized. By that, I mean that the ideas of any particular religion are almost always goofy to people not brainwashed into that religion. Mitt may not believe that Bigfoot is Cain, but I'm sure that he does believe some, at least, of the goofy things Mormons believe.
Posted by: BaldApe | February 6, 2008 5:10 PM
Colin Brendemuehl wrote:
That may be the single most confused and meaningless paragraph I've ever read. I've read it a dozen times and don't have the foggiest idea what it could possibly mean.
I call bullshit. I know for a fact that Fred Clarkson does not believe that; we've discussed many times the importance of distinguishing between those versions of Christianity that are theocratic and those that aren't.
Another sentence that appears to be utterly meaningless. Is English your first language?
So would I. So what? I would not allow a creationist to teach evolutionary biology any more than I would allow a geocentrist to teach astronomy.
Huh? That link has precisely nothing to do with using curriculum to recruit children to sexual behavior. It had nothing to do with curriculum at all. It had to do with the exact opposite, with a school principal who believes he has the authority to tell a gay student she shouldn't be gay and that her friends shouldn't have a right to defend her against bullies by standing up for her.
And I simply don't believe you when you say you think that scorning someone's religious beliefs is repugnant. Do you really think it's "repugnant" to scorn someone if they believe that blowing up innocent people will get them 72 virgins in heaven? If you do, I would suggest that you're confused over where the label "repugnant" applies in this situation. That belief is repugnant; scorning that belief is rational. I don't think you really believe that scorning someone's religious beliefs is repugnant; I think you just think that scorning your religious beliefs is repugnant.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2008 5:24 PM
Bohemian Redneck writes:
Not only do I not agree with that, I've scorned that idiotic belief repeatedly and will continue to do so. Islam is no different than Christianity. When I said that all ideas are open to criticism and all idiotic ideas should be scorned, I meant it. I reprinted the Danish cartoons on this blog. If anything, Islam needs criticism far more than Christianity does. Christianity has already been at least partially defanged by mixing with enlightenment thinking, Islam has not.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 6, 2008 5:33 PM
An important distinction is whether or not an individual believes that Christianity has any redeeming value. So while Ed may disagree with this or that Christian belief...he acknowledges the positive as well. Most non-Christians that I know have the same attitude. As a Christian I have no problem with that viewpoint.
However every once in awhile you meet someone who is hostile towards Christianity to the point of been irrational. But those people are pretty far and few between.
Posted by: Cheddar | February 6, 2008 9:58 PM
"A HUGE majority of Christians believe civil unions with all rights should be available."
I find this claim very hard to believe. Are there any poll(s) out there to back this up?
Posted by: daniel rotter | February 6, 2008 9:59 PM
CPT_Doom:
"Exactly - Huckabee's religion is not merely a faith, it is a platform for political office. Once the evangelicals got in bed with the GOP, declared that their followers must use their religion to judge politicans (and judge all non-"Christian" politicians as immoral), and began dumbing down the concept of morality to being anti-gay and anti-abortion, they opened their beliefs to political ridicule."
First, I agree with this 100% if you narrow it just a bit more to evangelical political groups (moral majority and on down the line). How much of this was pushed for originally by evangelicals or how much was an RNC strategy is unclear, but public activism and political action activities are and should be open to public criticism.
Second, inevitably many paint all evangelicals with this brush and many include all christians just to make their position feel better and reduce the mental work load. But so many christians I know abhore right wing politization of their faith, whether they are democrats or republicans. They can be as critical of religion as anyone--their faith is not in a religious structure.
I ask though: is Mike Huckabee's religion his platform? When I turned on meet the press two weeks ago I watched Russert (whom I tend to think is quite objective) question Huckabee for a solid hour about religion. His position relative to Mormons, on gay rights, aids, on and on. By the end of the show I was disgusted. Should he be asked about these topics? YES. He has run on religion. We all should hear his answers. Still, this is a republican candidate that has a wide range of views and policy positions that diferentiate him from the field. He governed quite diferently than most of the field would have. From taxes to education I find him interesting. Appearently when one meets the press though, none of that matters. I have no issue with those who won't vote for him because of his religion. Some of us may want to vote based on other parameters and our media is busy making sure those ideas aren't heard.
Posted by: Rich | February 6, 2008 10:42 PM
Ed, you're quite correct - but perhaps overly wordy. You didn't need all 722 words of this post when just four of them would have done the job - to wit: "...Kristof is an idiot."
Has Nicholas Kristof ever made a cogent argument for a plausible conclusion? I don't recall ever having encountered a single example.
But keep calling him on his bullshit anyway. It's a public service. I just wish the NYT had better sense than to give him a platform to spew his idiocy so it wasn't a necessary public service.
Posted by: G Felis | February 6, 2008 10:49 PM
Ed, i read your blog every day and enjoy reading what you have to say each day. It's been part of my daily routine for years now.
Yet, i can't help but notice that when it comes to gay equality issues you are adamant and robust in your criticisms, yet when it comes it to, God forbid, abortion and "women's issues" it seems you have much less interest.
Surely, you know (far better than i) the constant, whittling away at Rowe vs Wade that has occurred over the past twenty years or so.
Obviously, it's your blog and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone.
Yet, you are so "on the ball" and relentless with your critiques of homophobia and anti-gay silliness, that i felt compelled to ask you what about all of the women (whose numbers far exceed that of gays) who every year, seem to lose a little bit more of their reproductive autonomy.
I don't want to be a prick, but i guess after reading post after post of you defending equality for gays (which i totally admire and respect) when it comes to women and contraception and abortion, you seem, well, a lot more silent about it.
I say this only because, well, defending gay rights and issues of equality, you are a "knight of shinning amour", yet when it comes to women's rights i get the feeling that you don't want to go into that domain for fear of upsetting liberal Christians or something.
If I've missed it, i concede to being a prick. It's just that i don't see you advocating for women rights with the same vigor that you advocate for gays.
I know you can't be all things to everyone, but i just wish you'd chime in more about women's issues, because i mean, fuck, who the hell else is going to address it? Obamma? Clinton? I doubt it....
Posted by: Caliban | February 7, 2008 12:10 AM
Caliban wrote:
It's certainly true that I write more about gay rights than women's rights, but that's largely because I think we far more advanced in the struggle for equality for women than we are in the struggle for equality for gays. As for abortion, I am pro-choice and have said so many times. I've certainly done more than my fair share of criticism of the various conservative legal theories under which abortion would be denied to women. Perhaps the fact that I don't think everyone who is against abortion automatically hates women is coloring your perceptions a bit here?
Certainly, though I can't say that I disagree with all of those limitations either. I don't have a big problem with restrictions on abortion after the point of fetal viability. I don't think it's as simple as "it's a woman's body and she can do anything she want as long as it's insider her body." There are legitimate debates over how to balance those rights after the point of viability. I don't get too up in arms about such restrictions at the margins, nor do I buy into the "women are all going to be turned into mindless incubators against their will if we pass a 24 hour waiting period" rhetoric. I certainly think abortion should be legal, but there are legitimate issues that revolve around that central issue as well. So how you choose to view my position depends very much on your own point of view. To someone who thinks that any abortion after the point of conception is murder, I'm a murderer. To someone who think that any restrictions at all on any facet of abortion is a misogynist nightmare that turns women into incubating automatons, call me a misogynist. I'm perfectly comfortable with both of those positions, which is to say that I find them equally laughable.
I have no idea where contraception entered the conversation. I am for absolutely unfettered access to contraception. I am a harsh critic of abstinence-only sex education. I'm even in favor of having bowls full of condoms on every teacher's desk, in every school bathroom, hell even on the lunch counter.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 7, 2008 12:35 AM
Thanks you your swift reply Ed. I actually wasn't expecting that. It's late after all.
I don't doubt your progressive stance on women's issues, just the frequency with which you express it on your forum.
I get the sense, among progressives, that "women's issues" are SO yesterday. Yet having had someone close to me attempt to get a legal abortion in my state was a real eye-opener. It's a very difficult and nasty endeavorer. If you go to a Planned Parenthood Clinic near you for instance, it's not uncommon to be spit upon. Trust me on this. The thing is, a procedure that is very difficult and painful to make is always compounded by jackasses who know how to harass and intimidate women before the police arrive.
I see this as just as much a legitimate issue as gay rights are. And even though "women's rights" has fallen out of fashion with progressives, etc. I can't help but look towards people like you who have the ability to articulate the plight of those who cannot (or those who have given up).
Alright, i promise i won't be a pesky bastard anymore.:) Anyway, I love your blog and look forward to many more interesting discussions. Cheers!
Posted by: Caliban | February 7, 2008 1:19 AM
I'm atheist and frankly for me it boils down to this: Christians have all the power in this nation and yet they whine and moan all the time about persecution. I'd be happier if they just admitted it and told me, "Hey, we've got the power. We control everything. Neener neener neener." rather than just whining.
Posted by: JYB | February 7, 2008 1:51 AM
Why is it any more repugnant than scorning any other type of belief? Perhaps I'm missing some subtle connotation to the word "scorn" that makes scorn repugnant in general, but how is it any different than scorning somebody's opinion on politics or the geographical location of Paris?
If you don't want people to make an issue of your religious beliefs, here are two good places to start:
1) Don't use them to make testable claims about reality.
2) Don't make them part of a platform for public office.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 7, 2008 3:16 AM
A reasonable challenge: Cut the censorship!
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | February 7, 2008 8:57 AM
Ok. Let's try this again ...
It seems that I'm going to have to present you with proofs.
#1 The subject of the religious belief systems is covered very nicely in Roy Clouser's work The Myth of Religious Neutrality It's not at all confusing. If you raise a principle to transcendence, it is then religious.
#2 Fred lies continually. In this instance I assume only that you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's a quote and reference:
For example, whenever you hear the now ubiquitous term "Biblical worldview," you are hearing an articulation of Reconstructionism or someone influenced by it.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/10/181013/686
#3 Perfectly clear:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/12/7/212233/078
If there is no attacking evangelicalism in general then why go after evangelical doctrine and no the specific content of postmillennialism?
#4 Do you really view everything so b&w?
I'll wait to see your petition to fire from their jobs those who believe in special creation. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.
#5 How is promoting homosexuality not recruitment to particular sexual involvement? How do you separate the two?
At least Carlos delved further into history and got a better grasp of the times and Bill Berkowitz was willing to apologize for publishing some nonsense.
Finally, something from the leading Christian college where I did my undergrad work: One principle in missiology is that it is not a good approach to demean the religion of others. If we are to win them, we might challenge but never demean or otherwise humiliate the religion of the other person. So while I disagree with Hindus, Muslims, and atheists, making fun of them or making otherwise derrogatory remarks is out of the question. But I challenge them as I do you.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Collin Brendemuehl | February 7, 2008 9:23 AM
By "race" I assume you mean ancestry? Since race is an inbreeding sub-group, it is a behavioral characteristic that, at least for humans, can be changed by choice. Whereas, ancestry is ones genetic lineage.
Posted by: George | February 7, 2008 12:18 PM
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
I don't see how that quote supports your claim. He is saying that the phrase "Christian worldview" was invented by those of a reconstructionist bent. I'm pretty sure he's right. The first place I ever heard that term was from Greg Bahnsen, who was a reconstructionist. It's possible that's wrong, tht someone else used the term first, but I believe he's right in saying that it originated with theonomists like Bahnsen and that its use reflects their influence.
Who said anything about not attacking evengalicalism? He (or I) can attack evangelicalism and reconstructionism without believing they're the same thing. I've written many times of the need to understand the distinctions between the different theologies among the Christian right and label them correctly. I recently took a fellow reporter to task for claiming that Huckabee is a reconstructionist and explained to him the difference between premillenialism and postmillenialism to help him distinguish between them. I know that Fred agrees that such distinctions are important because we've discussed this many times.
It depends on what job they do and how they do it. I wouldn't fire someone from the vast majority of jobs for this, but from a job teaching evolutionary biology? Sure. I suppose hypothetically it's possible for someone to be a creationist and still teach evolutionary biology well, but in the real world it's quite unlikely. And I've been involved in far too many situations where science teachers have shirked their responsibilities and just decided not to teach evolution, in contravention of the curriculum, because they just didn't like it. No, those people are not qualified to teach that subject, any more than an astrologer is qualified to teach astronomy.
For crying out loud, the link you gave was to a post about the exact opposite, about a teacher who violates the free speech rights of students to announce their support for their friend. How in the world is that "promoting homosexuality"? And how about separating the idea that people have the right to be gay and that gay people have the same rights as others "promoting homosexuals"? Like most of your ilk, you seem to think that if we promote equal rights for gays we're saying "hey, you should all go have sex with the same gender." That's bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. This whole notion that gay people and those who defend their rights are trying to "recruit" people to be gay is absolutely moronic. I've been around gay people my entire life, from my librarian as a little kid to some of my closest friends. Not one of them has ever suggested that I should be gay. You know why? Because I'm not gay. Gays and those who support their fight for equality don't want anyone who isn't gay to be gay; we only want those who ARE gay to be allowed to be who they are without bullying, intimidation and discrimination. No one wants to make you or anyone else be gay, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 7, 2008 12:53 PM
Caliban -
I think the problem here is one of both competing interests and focusing on what one really knows. For my own part, I blog about issues that I either have a very solid understanding of, or philosophical abstractions. There are a number of issues that are important to me, that I do not, or cannot write about. Issues that are often times more important than the more abstract discussions I try to foster a discussion about.
For some (abortion rights included) I don't get into it, because there are plenty of folks out there that articulate it far better than I can, in part because they have a much stronger, fundamental understanding of the issue. Or, I simply an not as capable as others to articulate a reasonable response to critiques of my position.
Others, such as the war in Iraq, or previously the genocide in Darfur, I just can't write about, because doing so has a profoundly negative emotional impact on me. To whit, an ulcer actually lacerated, when I was writing heavily and reading heavily about the genocide in Darfur (ironically, it was a Kristof piece that really got me the worse).
I am not saying that these are the reasons that Ed doesn't write prolifically about certain topics. Merely that there are a lot of reasonable reasons one might not, that do not assume the issues in question are not important.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 7, 2008 1:07 PM
G Felis
As bad as Mr. Kristof appears, he stands head and shoulders above other moronic NY Times columnists such as Maureen Dowd and Tom Friedman.
Posted by: SLC | February 7, 2008 1:25 PM
I can't believe that you're honestly missing the point so badly, so I'm going to have to assume that you're just being dishonest and trying to score rhetorical points with people who don't know what's going on.
Nobody is "promoting homosexuality" at all. People are promoting the idea that gay people should be left alone and treated with the same respect we give everybody else. There's a world of difference between, "Don't beat the tar out of me every day after school" and "You should be gay, just like me!" If you really find the former that offensive, you should probably reconsider how serious an offense "scorning" somebody's religion might be.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 7, 2008 1:29 PM
Ster said "Marriage IS a religious term". No, the religious term for marriage is "Matrimony" - that's your term. Marriage is a secular term.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | February 7, 2008 6:48 PM
DuWayne said:
Huh? I thought you WERE Caliban... didn't you used to use that name on this blog?
...or perhaps I'm confusing you with another of the Brayton clan... lol
Nevermind.........
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 7, 2008 7:27 PM