Represent
Irradiated by LabRat
Here we have an op-ed by Lawrence Krauss about Rick Perry’s call-to-prayer event, which pretty much everyone but the dishonest and the mentally handicapped understand to be a run-up to his expected Presidential bid. Krauss thinks the event is problematic for a number of reasons, chief among which is the way the event goes out of its way to outline its beliefs, including reiterating that all non-Christians are damned.
The predominant strain of comment on this editorial seems to be thus:
1) Krauss is an atheist who voted for Obama and therefore has nothing to say about Christians or Republicans
2) The first amendment protects freedom of religion and expression, including this one
3) Krauss and people like him would JUST LOVE IT if it were a Muslim or atheist doing the same thing, despite the fact that Krauss used specifically those hypotheticals to demonstrate that the event is uncomfortably exclusionary.
Point one is essentially nonsensical- people who disagree with people or institutions comment on them all the time and it isn’t particularly controversial when they do- and point three shows a fair amount of having sheerly not read the article. Point two, however, is absolutely correct; it just isn’t the point of the article.
Perry is entirely free to believe as he chooses, associate with whom he chooses- the saved versus the damned, as it were- and hold assemblies dedicated to those beliefs. The first amendment does indeed protect all faiths and all messages, exclusionary ones or no. As long as Perry is acting in his capacity as a citizen and not the Governor of Texas, holding the event is not Constitutionally problematic. All of it is completely normal and ordinary in a country of a dozen or a hundred faiths, any one of which may believe that all the others are damned to follow so long as nothing is done to hasten them on their way to their ultimate destination.
The reason Krauss’s critique hits home as “problematic” isn’t because of who Perry is or what he believes, but that it’s extremely likely he’s doing it to open his campaign to run for the President of the United States, which is essentially that of chief executive representing the entire populace, not just the Christian one. It’s entirely possible that Perry would govern in the secular fashion appropriate to the office and the civic structure of the US, showing no favoritism or bias and always conscious of what’s appropriate for a chief executive as opposed to a national pastor, but just as he is free to send whatever messages he wants to the saved, the damned are equally free to read anything into the messages he sends about the likelihood of that.
As Krauss points out, the irreligious and the nonChristian combined represent about 21% of the population of the US- and he did not bother to point out, perhaps not feeling it necessary to do so, not all of them vote for Democrats as a matter of course. While it may be possible to win the governorship of Texas with that kind of screw-you-heathen messaging, it is extremely unlikely that it’s possible to win the presidency without that 21%. Remember, Obama’s winning percentage was a decisive win at 52% of the popular vote- and a REAL blowout would be more like the 60% by which Nixon defeated George McGovern in 1972, or the 58% with which Reagan defeated Mondale in 1984.
Perhaps Krauss is dismissable because he’s a Democrat himself anyway, or at least likely to vote for Obama, but it’s unlikely this atheist would vote for Obama either unless he undergoes a major personality transplant and political realignment. I would not, however, be capable of voting for Perry either, and would be staying home with a big bottle of whiskey and a big bottle of aspirin for the next day. Just like every election year without the stop at the polls first.
July 25th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I think the biggest thing is whether his RECORD shows he can separate his faith from his Constitional responsabilities. If he can, then he is probably viable for me. If he can not, he’s out.
July 25th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Recordwise he’s an intelligent design education supporter who appointed a creationist to the State Board of Ed who has been a major issue ever since.
That may not be a dealbreaker for you on “separates faith and office”, but it is for me.
July 26th, 2011 at 4:39 am
I actually feel a lot of sympathy for Republicans this election cycle… their candidate lineup so far seems to range between “literally crazy” and “boring as fuck”, with a stopoff in Ron Paul.
July 26th, 2011 at 5:25 am
Any bets if this had been a Muslim call not a damn thing would be said??? This is NOT the time to be a WASP in the USofA… I also have to agree with Ozy… dammit
July 26th, 2011 at 5:45 am
A small addendum to the Rick-Perry-and-the-Texas-State-Dept-of-Ed story is here.
Per the main story, I have to wonder if Perry is doing this only as a political ploy.
Being a politician, he will use it to this event to great political advantage. He will also likely do his best to stay on the publicly-acceptable side of not using his political office to support religion, while also using his personal religion to burnish his personal image among religious voters who agree with him politically.
I wonder if he actually believes that prayer meetings have a chance of changing the course of the nation for the better.
The religious community in America has some memory of the events known as the Great Awakening (v1.0 and v2.0), and the cultural changes that followed in the wake of those events. (Even secular historians would say that the advance of Abolitionism in America followed in the wake of both Great Awakenings. However, Prohibition movements also followed in the wake of v2.0…)
I still don’t know if Perry’s actions are defensible, or even allowable mistakes, from the perspective of an atheist. But I can see how they may be defensible from the perspective of a believer.
For comparison, are Gov. Perry’s official deeds more ‘Christian’ than were Gov. G.W. Bush’s? Are there any odds Perry would appear better or worse if he also became President? (In the narrow field of influence on interactions between the religious and non-religious in America, that is.)
July 26th, 2011 at 6:56 am
Damn, these Republican candidates just keep on doing crap that makes me want to just stay the hell home on election day. I like Palin, but I doubt she has any chance whatsoever. Bachman goes and signs that ridiculous pledge thing. Perry’s apparently a religious zealot. None of the others have emerged as credible. Where’s the candidate who wants to put our financial and economic house back in order, and has the will to stay that course and avoid the social engineering distractions? That’s the one I’m looking for! Is everyone doing their damnedest to hand Obama the election on a silver platter?
July 26th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Did Obama not go out of his way to have pictures of himself going to church to attract the religious? It is something every presidential candidate tries to do. Appeal to the religious base while not alienating the non-religious. Is this group the best choice for Perry I don’t think it is. While I am hetero my gay friends claim this group represents the Pray the Gay away theme. That being said if a candidate were a devout atheist the religious groups would be making similar statements about that person ignoring God. That the Cristian faith is part of our founding and the founding fathers were Christians and God included in our founding documents. The big thing that needs to be remembered is that as long as he doesn’t try to impose religion or lack there of then his record is what matters.
As far as intelligent design vs evolution I tend to follow evolution. However his appointment to the board of Ed is for Texas. Remembering that most of TX is religious his appointment kept with the traditions. As you may or may not be aware this caused an uproar when the texts were selected. This is a huge rift and a huge pill to swallow for either side of the debate to accept the others view as fact or even plausible however it is a topic that must be addressed and taught.
Here in TX the news trotted out the loonies for both sides and put them on display when the issue was debated.
Before I’m accused of being a religious zelot. I am Catholic. I do not agree with the church on the entire doctrine and am by no means strict. I believe in the basics. As far as evolution vs creationism I tend to evolution.
As far as Perry. There are things that I can’t stand that he had done or tried. The Trans Texas Corridor for one.
However, of the candidates available that have a chance of making it to or in the big show he is one of them. If it comes to him or Obama. I will definitely go stand in line and vote for him. The alternative is too grave a risk. I would vote for any of them against Obama. The choice has to be made in the Primary. So far other than Paul and Palin who I feel have no chance. He beats Romney hands down, him or Pawlenty I need to research, Cain I think is a non starter so realistically what are our options.
July 26th, 2011 at 8:26 am
Rick Perry is the Texas Republican version of Bill Clinton….and a quick Google Search will show how many times Clinton used “prayer” to push his political agenda…..
As much as I loathe the Obama Administration….if the GOP puts Romney, Christie, or Perry as their POTUS nominee, I’ll have to vote third-party…..all four are pushing our nation in the same direction….the same direction Rome headed just before Julius crossed the Alps…..
July 26th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Teke: Don’t drink the anti-Palin kool-aid.
That “she can’t win” bullshit is being peddled by the RINO establishment.
They fear her. The first thing she did when she was elected governor was to start jailing old guard Republicans for corruption.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:25 am
@Kristopher : Trust me she is one of what I feel to be the better choices. I just think there are too many that will drink the Kool-Aid and believe the media presentation of her. After All they wouldn’t lie to us would they?
July 26th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Y’all, my point wasn’t that this is a nonbelievers versus believers thing. I don’t have an issue with believers for believing, for publicly believing, or with publicly believing while holding high office.
Appeal to the religious base while not alienating the non-religious.
When a candidate goes that far out of his way to put in the FAQ for his “prayer for guidance of America” event, right before he runs for the highest office in the land, that all non-Christians are damned just to make it perfectly clear we all understand what terms we’re praying on? THAT QUALIFIES AS ALIENATION. I have serious difficulty understanding why this is apparently a “atheists will never be satisfied with Christians” hard thing to understand. You don’t have to pretend to be something or not or try and tone down your faith, all you have to do is not say fuck you to people who don’t share it.
The big thing that needs to be remembered is that as long as he doesn’t try to impose religion or lack there of then his record is what matters.
As far as intelligent design vs evolution I tend to follow evolution. However his appointment to the board of Ed is for Texas. Remembering that most of TX is religious his appointment kept with the traditions.
Errrr….? The entire point of intelligent design and making it part of the curriculum in the state of Texas is making it part of the educational standard THAT GOD EXISTS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE. Just because it’s “traditional for the state of Texas” does not somehow not make that not enshrining religion- and a particular religion at that, the leaders of the ID movement specifically aiming at education have gone on public record multiple times saying the God of the Bible is the one they have in mind- in public life, and using the authority of public office to do so.
“I am the majority, that makes it okay for us to do whatever because almost everyone agrees with us, shut up minorities you’re just being sensitive” is EXACTLY the logic that minorities fear.
Palin is actually an excellent example; her religiosity doesn’t bother me at all. She is an evangelical with some beliefs I pointedly disagree with, but so far as I’m aware she’s NEVER gone out of her way to spit on nonbelievers, never tried to actually make her beliefs about abortion or creation into law in any way.
There may not be that big of a difference from inside the tribe, but from outside it’s a BIG one.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Too bad Gary Johnson has about as much chance of being nominated for the GOP as George Soros does. He’s just far too rational and not bugnuts to ever be a viable Republican presidential candidate.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:59 am
I like Johnson a lot, but I think he’s in about the same position Fred Thompson was last election year- the sanest candidate and thus the one with the least energy and bloody-mindedness to do the shitslog that is campaigning.
July 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Labrat, I was reading and nodding my head - right until your comment above about Sarah Palin never having publicly wished her religious beliefs on other Americans. Well, may be not ensconced in law she didn’t, but very close to it - she did (I am very, very sorry to say).
Here, in an old post and thread dated 2009, I discussed that exact instance, triggered by post @Samizdata.
I have to agree with Dirk, right down to his last sentence (and am very sad doing that). And I also have to agree with Labrat re: Gary Johnson - but not so much that he’s the one with least amount of energy and will to fight, as his program is the closest one to my views in all aspects except his immigration and partially foreign policy.
July 26th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
What a pity. I managed to miss that episode. It still bothers me quite a bit less than Perry’s dog and pony show, though.
July 26th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Definitely, she has a bit more taste and tact than announcing a prayer from a public office position.
July 26th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
What bothers me is that Perry was apparently interviewed by the Bilderbergers and emerged from that with their approval and encouragement. I could deal with a Deist like Jefferson (that is my default religion, anyway) but there are some right evil people out there who profess Christianity.
July 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
The question is always, in Presidential elections, either to vote your conscience and vote as if you were the only one voting, or to consider how the Electoral College actually works.
I have toyed with the idea from time to time of officially running as a “faithless elector”, but I have no desire to have my bloated dead body found floating in a canal.
Actually that wouldn’t happen around here. We have gators in our canals
July 27th, 2011 at 7:33 am
If it did come down to Perry versus Obama, then that would just underscore the reason we have to have a None of the Above option on the ballot. There’s a huge difference between voter apathy and voter disgust. As it stands now, the only way to show your disgust is to not vote at all, and then that is likely to just be interpreted as “the voters just don’t care”. Which couldn’t be further from the truth in many cases.
Even if the None of the Above option wasn’t counted against the other candidates, at least it would give a clear measure of the number of voters that do care but do not support either candidate. And that’s a number we need to have hammered home to the major parties as much as possible.
July 27th, 2011 at 7:57 am
It would also go a long way toward blunting any pretense at ‘having a mandate,’ if future Presidents had to contend with the idea that they “won” with 35% of the vote.
July 27th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Agree 150% with Tatyana as I usually do. Always amused by Gary finishing his term and going off to climb Everest. SANITY by my odd standards.
There is a thesis somewhere in how our state happily elected Johnson AND Fat Bill. A bit of cognitive dissonance there…
Enthusiastically support the None Of The Above Option.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:44 am
I’m sorry, but I can’t agree with “I’ll just not vote if if X is the candidate” unless there is absolutely no measurable difference in any way between any of the available candidates.
There have been a *LOT* of elections where I had the choice between two candidates I really didn’t like. And in every case, even if I couldn’t find a candidate I liked, I could pretty easily find a candidate who I disliked *more* to vote against.
Sometimes - most of the time - politics is the art of the possible, and trying to reduce the Bad Things happening now in hopes of having another shot at eliminating them later is the best we can do.
Bluntly: Obama has been a disaster as a president. At this point, much as I don’t like her I’d vote for *Hillary Clinton* rather than the current bonehead-in-chief. I’m not thrilled about any of the current Republican field, but as long as they put up a candidate who’s even marginally less horrid than the incumbent I’ll go out and vote for “marginally less horrid”. And take a couple of strong drinks afterwards to clean the taste from my mouth.
Campaign for the best possible candidate in the primaries. In the general election, go for the best one still available. And try harder next time.
July 29th, 2011 at 10:52 am
There is a point at which it is possible for a reasonable adult to reach the point where conscience does not allow the vote, even if it can be charted as somehow “least bad”- especially if you think they would be just as bad in their own way.
I voted for McCain. I voted for Bush. I thought both were awful by my own lights. I do have my limit and for that matter I WOULD pull a lever for Hillary before Obama- but not Perry. You can disagree with me and that’s fine, but it’s my vote and my business.
July 29th, 2011 at 11:38 am
If you really feel that they are equally bad, I can’t argue. Your vote, your call. And if you really see them as totally equivalent in badness, I can see your point even if I disagree with your weightings.
In this case, I don’t like Perry’s religious leanings at all, and don’t plan to vote for him in the primaries. But I still see him as less-bad than Obama, and would - with severe misgivings - vote for him if the general election were held today and he was the only alternative offered.
Of course, I’m one of those irritating folks who insists on fighting a losing game of chess or go to the very end, just to see if I can force it a few moves further than expected.