Bradlaugh, in comments, responding to “Panopaea”, who’d invoked the old chestnut assigning collective blame to religious unbelievers for the Twentieth Century rise of totalitarianism:
* * *
Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss. (”An advantage humans enjoy over animals, and what may be the best proof of their superiority, is that they have grasped there must be the power of a creator.”) — Tischgespräche, Feb. 1942.
Hitler and Stalin both had excellent religious educations. (Stalin was a seminarian: the frequent occurrence of expressions like “Bog velyel” — “God willing” — in his speeches was the cause of much secret amusement.) Their people remained largely religious: the Germans noted how captured Russian POWs invariably had religious medallions and such secreted under their uniforms. (This is in Nikolai Tolstoy’s book.)
So — it looks as though religious education produced terrorist dictators, and religious populaces are rather easily subdued by those dictators. Doesn’t it? And why was not the most emphatically Christian nation in Europe — Franco’s Spain — emphatically on the Allies’ side in WW2? Etc., etc.
And there either are gods, or there aren’t. If there aren’t, what is your point?
* * *
[end of quote from Bradlaugh]
My response to Bradlaugh’s comment, which was directed at me, is here:
http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=736 along with other comments on this subject which would be difficult to duplicate – as in go over again – in this thread. So the field is open to the atheists who like to have an open field to run down, but for anybody else interested in the truth told in no lukewarm language follow the link above.
I guess as soon as militant atheists stop blaming Christianity for the Inquisition, militant Christians will stop blaming atheism for the Gulag and the Holocaust. I’m not holding my breath.
About this website: I see a lot of “secular,” but not a lot of “right.” Where is the conservative part, as opposed to the atheist part? Right now, this website seems a lot like a table in the CUNY lunchroom, circa 1935, with mad partisans railing not against fascism or capitalism, but against the real enemy, Trotskyite deviationists.
>the field is open to the atheists who like to have an open field to run down
I don’t think it would actually be all that difficult to repost on this thread the handful of relevant comments from the earlier thread, but if you would rather have the grievance to nurse, I understand and will respect that.
The subject of whether or not religion is (partly or wholly) responsible is hotly debated. There are good points on both sides.
One of the better points contra what you’ve said looks not at totalitarian leaders, but their voters. In Leftism Revisited, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn looks closely at voting patterns in the late Weimar Republic. While there was a general lack of Zogby / Gallup-type opinion polling at the time, in certain cases (e.g. the meteoric rise of a party coincidental with the collapse of other parties, and stable voting patterns for still others) you can pretty much tell what type of voter is voting for whom. As a certified anti-leftist, I’m sure he’d love to prove that most Nazi votes came from Communist and Social Democratic parties, but it’s not true so he doesn’t.
If I remember correctly (where is my copy of that book? I can’t exactly pray for it!) the parties that collapsed as the Nazis grew were the DDP (left-liberal), the Economy Party (centrist-liberal), and the German People’s Party (right-liberals). A pretty ugly verdict for self-described liberals, including right-liberals like myself! The thing these parties have in common, in K-L’s view, was that they had no fixed ideology. The parties that held the line – nasty leftists, watery leftists, and the (Catholic) Center Party (guess which one K-L likes) – had fixed ideologies that made their members resistant to The Brown Menace.
For folks who may not be familiar with mid-Century European political terminology, the thing that makes liberals liberals in that time and place is, put simply, anti-clerical and pro-capitalist stances. A few decades previously, they’d have been distinguished by their support of moderate extensions of the franchise (with radicals supporting universal suffrage, and conservatives generally content with the narrow franchise).
This is not a slam on the secular right. I love the secular right. Conservatism and skepticism (particularly, skepticism about the ability of the state to perfect man) should combine to defeat revolutionary thinking of both the brown and red varieties. It’s just that, the question of Did the church sit on its hands and/or support the totalitarians, is pretty complex and demands a nuanced answer. The leaders of the Nazis came disproportionately from the conservative Catholic south. Their voters came disproportionately from the liberal Protestant north.
(As to the Russian example, well, I know comparatively little about Stalin. The Orthodox Church was both steadfast and unsuccessful in its attempts to stop Bolshevism. Also a complex topic.)
“I guess as soon as militant atheists stop blaming Christianity for the Inquisition, militant Christians will stop blaming atheism for the Gulag and the Holocaust.”
Hmmm, let’s see, the Inquisition was run by an actual office of the Catholic Church, so you want people to stop blaming Christianity (of which the largest branch is the aforementioned Catholic Church) for it?
Oh, and to blame atheism for the gulag is misguided. To blame atheism for the Holocaust — especially given the Christianity-based European anti-Semetism which lay at its base and the religous motivations of the National Socialists — is peverse.
I’m wondering the same thing, actually. I’d like to know more if and how secular rightists differ from religious rightists on other issues. I imagine the two camps largely agree on taxes and gun control, but what about immigration, affirmative action, etc.? Were I a contributor I’d start a poll to that effect (hint!)
Where is the conservative part, as opposed to the atheist part? Right now, this website seems a lot like a table in the CUNY lunchroom, circa 1935, with mad partisans railing not against fascism or capitalism, but against the real enemy, Trotskyite deviationists.
I think your impression is mainly due to the fact that there are a large number of theists in the comments section constantly espousing numerous variations on the “Unless you share my precise religious beliefs, you’re not a conservative” meme that has got the right into so much trouble in the States.
y81: “About this website: I see a lot of “secular,” but not a lot of “right.” Where is the conservative part, as opposed to the atheist part?
Two responses:
1) The GOP, and the Right is general, is kind of fractured at the moment as to whether the RR, in all it’s oogedy-boodgey Bush/Huckabee/Palin glory, has turned off large swaths of America (and contributed mightily to our the recent bloodletting), or whether the fiscal-cons, metro-cons, and generally all-except-social/religious-cons are more responsible.
Now, one might characterize this as a silly debate, and I’m not saying that this blog is “blaming” the RR for the recent bloodletting, but this site has become a bit of a lightning-rod for the intra-mural squabble that already exists between socio/religious-cons and other sorts of conservatives.
2) Since we are all (from what I can tell) more or less on the Right (or libertarian moderate….or just non-Lefty in general), there isn’t all that much to squabble about in terms of left-right politics (yet). Perhaps falling out of the above, there IS alot more to squabble about along the secular-religious spectrum.
Plus, we’ve been inundated by representatives of the RR, and are simply pushing back against them. If we were inundated by the Kossacks, we’d push back against their liberal politics too. But we haven’t, and it’s natural to wonder why…
My guess? The RR figures that Liberals are not really worth the effort to “save” since they’re already so far away from “The Truth” in terms of idea-space. They’re a lost cause, so to speak. But, on the other hand, we on the Secular-Right have got at least one part of the formula correct (so the RR thinks), so maybe it might be worth their while to whittle away at the secular part.
It will be interesting to see if denizens of the Secular-Left begin infiltrating the comments section, pulling us in the other direction (“See?”, they might say, “look at what all these crazy religious nut-jobs are pushing….join forces with us!”.)
But, I’m confident that those who feel at home of the Secular Right will have the stones to resist the temptation to give up “secular” or “right”, regardless of proselytizing from either direction.
Best,
I for one would like Our Hosts to explicitly state their definitions for ‘conservative’, as that word has been associated with many different ideas; it is difficult to compare and contrast meanings when people use it in different ways.
So — it looks as though religious education produced terrorist dictators, and religious populaces are rather easily subdued by those dictators. Doesn’t it?
If they were acting in accord with religious education, you’d have a point. In Franco’s case, there’s something to be said for that point, and there’s a stronger case in Romania.
The problem, though, is that a lot of these movements pushed anti-Christian agendas. Hitler’s theism was more akin, really, to the silly pagans you see running around these days. Himmler even had a similar preoccupation with the witches.
While I agree that trying to indict all atheists or atheism per se for the 20th century is wrong, I think it’s worth noting that simply destroying or undermining traditional religion without an alternative can be disastrous, because you don’t know what’s going to follow. This is, I believe, the big error of many of the 19th Century classically liberal atheists, who assumed they could get rid of Christ, but keep the social tenets of Christianity.
This feeds into Calendonian’s point: instead of attacking the religious (which their comments here, I admit, make tempting), it would be more productive to come up with a core of principles that secular conservatives could agree on. What should be conserved? The ideas of free speech, free markets and limited republican government are probably a good start, but there should be more to say than just that.
Well, what I’m looking for, but haven’t seen, is to know what a conservative atheist position would be on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, or the war in Iraq, or extraordinary rendition, or waterboarding, or abortion, or gay marriage, or the scope of an economic stimulus package, or something. As it stands, all I learn here is that conservative atheists believe in evolution. And, if I have understood her correctly, that Heather MacDonald thinks the poor could use a little more sexual self-discipline, though no one seems to have much of a plan for how that might be imposed.
“Hitler’s theism was more akin, really, to the silly pagans you see running around these days.”
That’s simply not true. While he was enamored of ancient German folk relgion (probably more in tone than in substance), he was clearly not a pagan as Himmler is believed to have professed to be. He was absolutely a monotheist of the Christian stripe, and was a life-long member of the Catholic Church. However, his beliefs were not orthodox (or Orthodox) in any sense of the word. He had distain for organized Christianity, but did believe in God and in Jesus.
All that said, religion, per se, was not a driving or motivating factor in Hitler’s actions. His irrational ideas about race and ethnic supremecy were.
See, now that’s the problem right there. Effective social change is not imposed. We cannot force anyone do to anything.
Note: when I say this, I do not mean that it is possible but cannot be permitted. I mean that it isn’t possible in the first place.
If you’re still looking for someone or something to fix all the broken parts of society, you’re already on the wrong track. Everyone fixes themselves. Some members of the poor may restrain themselves, some may not. The key is not to interfere with the natural rewards and punishments of reality. Do not lay a heavier burden on those who act wisely, and do not lift the burden from those who act foolishly.
I don’t think there can be any question but that the leadership and the official position of both the Nazis and the Bolshevik/Communists were
atheist, despite whatever might have been the upbringing of either the leaders or the followers. There’s no case to be made that their belligerency and warmaking were inspired or particularly informed by atheism—just that, in both cases, their sought-for utopias were envisioned as devoid of and untroubled by religion. The truth of the foregoing is not lessened by leaders’ appeals to existing prejudices on the part of those exhorted nor even of accomodations reached in some cases with religious leaders. Politics and pragmatism always count to those in or seeking power.
It has always seemed to me that totalitarian states (Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Mao’s China, North Korea) tend to organize themselves into personality cults that are themselves religious in nature, elevating the leader into something of a god-king in the manner of Pharonic Egypt.
This is not to blame Stalin on either religion or atheism, but to observe that religiosity is a human tendency that will manifest itself as it will, despite the official labeling of a regime as atheist.
While he was enamored of ancient German folk relgion (probably more in tone than in substance), he was clearly not a pagan as Himmler is believed to have professed to be.
But neither the Nazis or the current crop of “pagans” truly adhere to the older paganisms in the truer sense. They view divine essence as a some sort of theosophistic, life-affirming force that always–mirabile dictu–affirms their own whims. So Hitler’s monotheism is far closer to today’s silly “polytheism”, which usually isn’t very “poly” when examine it closely, as it reduces to simple nature worship.
Actually, in the case of the Nazis, there can indeed be question — consider, for example, that Wehrmacht soldiers wore belt buckles with the slogan “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”) emblazoned on them.
Again, not so much with the Nazis — many of their leadership held various odd mythic/supernatural/occult views about the German race.
I think it is clear that the Nazis were not motivated by mainstream Christianity, but that is hardly the same as saying they were atheist.
Actually, to out myself here, I am definitely not in that category. The reason I am here is out of a hope to re-engage in genuine dialogue with those on the right, unencumbered by the shouting matches and idiocy that permeates the Religious Right.
Tulse: Damn!!! A deep-cover operative…. 😉
Kudos to your “fessing up”, so to speak. I hope the RR commenters haven’t disabused you of your notion that we can be reasonable over here on this side.
Precisely…
Panopaea, et al
I am rather curious as to your motive for coming here to pester us. I, for one, am uninterested in debating atheism vs. Christianity anymore – been there, done that, more often than I care to admit. I can only speak for myself; but I would venture to guess that most hereabouts are more interested in discussing ways of promoting individual Liberty, and limiting the influence of government over our lives and endeavors.
Most of us would agree with the conservative principles enumerated in the recently discussed “The Sharon Statement” of 1960. In what way would you not?
If one accepts the Left/Right dichotomy perpetuated by the politicians (I do not), does that not place us to the Right of center? Shouldn’t this make us allies in the battle against the statist Progressives who are now clearly winning? I should think so, for they have just attained virtually complete control of the levers of power in our country, and I fear we soon shall not recognize it as the land of our fathers.
Some of us think that the pitched moral battle, between the Politically Correct dogma of the Left, and the Piously Correct dogma of the Right, are not proper matters for the Federal government to address. In a word, we want a minimal secular government that cannot enforce any particular moral code on non-adherents to the doctrine that espouses it. I hope you can acknowledge that this is not an alien concept to our country’s founding principles and documents.
It happens that some, but by no means all, of the libertarian and/or conservative anti-Marxist secularists attracted to this website are not Christians. Why does that bother you so? Yes, some of us are even godless; but we are not militant ACLU type atheists bent on suppressing your public displays of piety. We are focused on the evil of Marxism, and the threat that doctrine poses to our individual Liberty, and free market capitalism.
While not pious, chances are that our personal moral codes are not all that different from yours. Yet, you seem more agitated by our disbelief in your preferred god, than those who would force their alien morality upon you, given half a chance. How can this be?
Please understand that we did not come here to do battle with Christianity. There are almost unlimited venues available for those inclined to enjoy twisting fundamentalists in knots. There are also a multitude of Progressive websites where activist Progressive atheists, who seem to live for ranting about, demonizing, and challenging the beliefs of Christians, could do with an articulate proponent of your faith, to smack them around a bit.
One wonders why someone of your talents chooses to waste them on pointless criticism of potential allies, who have demonstrated remarkable restraint in responding to you, rather than to better effect among your real enemies. Surely, you do not harbor any illusion that you could talk us out of our reasoned secular viewpoints, much less into adopting your faith. Will you please explain your motive? ◄Dave►
Absolutely not — it is my fervent hope that places like this are an indication that such reasonableness is possible. As much fun as schadenfreude might be, I think it is hugely unhealthy for a democracy to have two parties that effectively are incapable of rational, “good-faith” discussions (however ironic that term may be in this context). I think it is vitally necessary for the right in the US to remove the grip of evangelicals on its levers of control in order for it to be able to engage in such dialogue (while admitting that the left has some problems of its own in this regard).
I also think that it is necessary in general for conservatives in the US to reclaim their intellectual heritage, instead of (to use an admittedly biased characterization) wallowing in anti-intellectual populism, the nadir of which was Sarah Palin. I think these issues of religion and anti-intellectualism are intimately related, although others of course may disagree (or may not buy the anti-intellectualism charge in general).
Dave: Thank you for your most recent comment. It was very subdued and well-written. Perfect tone.
You ask: “And there either are gods, or there aren’t. If there aren’t, what is your point?”
I guess the “point” is this: (1) society is better if people practice religion, (2) people are more likely to practice religion if they believe that their assigned god actually exists, (3) the more athiests out there poking holes in people’s faith, the more people will start to lose faith, So… (4) stop talking like there is no god or we could end up with a really big vacuum to fill!
To continue the metaphor, you’re the kicker and you’ve already missed the tackle. The open field naturally follows after that.
I think it’s pretty funny that you use Soviet Russia as an example of evil that Christian nations have fought against. In this universe at least, the only Christian nations to actually kill Soviet troops on the battlefield were, ironically enough, Nazi Germany and her puppets. All the others seem to have been animists (Japanese), Muslims (Afghans, Chechens), or something else. Actually, if memory serves, the “Christian nations” that you claim were responsible for defending freedom actually fought alongside the Soviets when the two were actually on the same battlefield.
Actually, if memory serves, the “Christian nations” that you claim were responsible for defending freedom actually fought alongside the Soviets when the two were actually on the same battlefield.
Actually, the European West did fight the Soviets when it half-heartedly intervened in the Russian Civil War.
“wallowing in anti-intellectual populism, the nadir of which was Sarah Palin”
I think anyone who believes that is letting the New York Times do his thinking for him. There is no particular evidence that Sarah Palin is dumber than, say, Joe Biden, who was 75th in a class of 85 at, God help us, Syracuse Law School. The man is a total moron who couldn’t have gotten an interview at Harriet Miers’s or Michael Mukasey’s law firms. Similarly, George Bush had higher grades than John Kerry at Yale; John Ashcroft went to Yale and Chicago, and thus stacks up fine against Eric Holder, Hank Paulsen has a Harvard MBA and was the freaking CEO of Goldman Sachs, etc. Nonetheless, the Sandy Levinsons and Paul Krugmans of the world will always believe, and proclaim loudly, that liberals are smarter than conservatives. Those who identify intelligence with academic appointments or jobs at newspapers will always be persuaded by that claim. There is nothing the Republicans can do to change that, and it isn’t worth trying.
Despite being an atheist conservative, I must agree with our theistic friends against Bradlaugh’s comment. So the crimes of socialism, “national” and otherwise, are to be placed at the door of religion because of Stalin’s verbal tics, Hitler’s Deism and the Wehrmacht’s morale-raising slogans. Come on, this is strawman at its worst. The files of religion and Christianity are already filled with crimes (as are of most human institutions), there’s no need to blame them for the ones they did not commit.
The swipe at Spain at the end is particularly unjust. May I suggest a few reasons?
1st) Spain was devastated by the civil war and militarily worthless. If Franco declared war on anyone, he’d lose, and he knew it. And yet he had the nerve of denying Hitler’s demand for Spain to join the Axis at Hendaye. That was much more helpful for the Allies than having Spain openly side with them – for the result of this would be an easy Nazi conquest of Spain and the opening of yet another front for the Allied war effort.
2nd) MYOB. Why would Spain enter a war in which it did not have an interest? Whatever the Nazis, the Reds, and everyone else, did, as long as it was outside of Spain and respectful of Spanish sovereignty, it was not Franco’s damned business.
Fair enough. So for a moment at the beginning of the Soviet era, western Europeans fought actively against the Soviets. For the rest of history, they joined them, paid others to fight, or were just mad at them.
Achh, Poland also fought a sharp war with the Bolsheviks in 1920-21[?].
There is no particular evidence that Sarah Palin is dumber than, say, Joe Biden…
Palin’s problem was and is that she’s provincial. She knows Alaska well enough, but, until a few months ago, hadn’t really given serious thought to national issues. Further, she had to back up a man whose political philosophy was more incoherent than Battlestar Galactica‘s plot arc. Very few people could keep that many balls in the air, even with all sorts of experience and smarts.
Tulse, welcome aboard. I hope to have many well-grounded, friendly and good-spiriting sparrings with you over many matters!
@◄Dave►
Well done.
For the rest of history, they joined them, paid others to fight, or were just mad at them.
Given the examples of Napoleon and Hitler, I don’t see what else they could have done. Given the problems with Communist ideology, something seen by many as early as the 50s, waiting them out, with a bit of proxy fighting, was the most prudent and least bloody solution.
Ditto to what Tulse said. I’m definitely not of the right, and while my background is pretty hardcore scientific and secular I am becoming more open to sane versions of religious ideas. My goal in commenting here is to get into intelligent arguments with intelligent people. Or get them to come on over to my blog and do it on my own turf.
The way I see it, the memes line up in the following order in terms of the number of people they have killed:
1) Communism
2) Nazism
3) Christianity
4) Islam
5) Imperial Japan
Totalitarian worldviews come in many different flavors, secular and religious. The common root that I have noticed about all totalitarianism is the assumption that the individual does not own his or her own self. That the individual does not have the right to pursue his or own dreams and goals in life and to live life on their own terms. That the individual exists as part of and to serve some greater whole or entity.
It was precisely this line of reasoning that drove me to reject all non-libertarian philosophies and religions at the tender age of 17. I became a libertarian before I even knew what libertarianism was. I still subscribe to this worldview today.
I bet Joe could name at least one national newspaper.
Let me be clear — I am not saying that the right does not have a long and established intellectual tradition, or that there are not currently very smart and thoughtful adherents of conservatism. For example, I would put our congenial hosts into that category. But seriously, Palin is a phenomenal lightweight, barely able to string together coherent sentences, much less articulate complex policy. And to pretend that there is not at present a strong populist and anti-intellectual streak in the Republican party is to doom your party to irrelevance.
>Let me be clear — I am not saying that the right does not have a long and established intellectual tradition, or that there are not currently very smart and thoughtful adherents of conservatism.
Oh, go ahead and say it. Chances are you’ve read zero of them anyway.
>For example, I would put our congenial hosts into that category.
That’s why you – a self-identified liberal – are over here, because you detect sharp conservative minds, and this is what you crave and need to keep your intellect alive.
>But seriously, Palin is a phenomenal lightweight, barely able to string together coherent sentences, much less articulate complex policy.
Like Ronald Reagan she knows which direction is up. That puts her ahead of the curve right there. As for articulating complex policy… Less taxes more revenue. There, I just articulated complex policy. Maybe you’re not able to recognize complex policy.
>And to pretend that there is not at present a strong populist and anti-intellectual streak in the Republican party is to doom your party to irrelevance.
Good God, did you see the documentary and accompanying Zogby poll on the average Obama voter? You can be illiterate and be a liberal. Show me your birth certificate, OK, you’re a liberal.
Read Paul Johnson on Intellectuals for a good initial take. That’s what we’re anti.
You would agree with Plato and Leo Strauss, then, on the utility of the “noble lie”?
My personal experience has been that religious people do not act any better than non-religious people. These experiences are also reflected in national statistics as well. Oregon and Washington are considered the least religious parts of the U.S. Yet, crime and other anti-social acts are not any higher here than any other part of the country and may, in fact, be lower. In surveys where people are asked if they consider religion important in their lives, East Asians have the lowest level of positive responses to this question, African Americans have the highest level of positive responses to this question.
I do not think the evidence supports the contention that religious people behave better than non-religious people.