Just back from a weekend down in Baltimore, where I gave a talk to the H.L. Mencken Club. Nice people; well-organized event; good reception for talk. However, I can’t forbear noting some dissonances pertinent to the theme of this blog.
Among the things H.L. Mencken is best remembered for is his coverage of the 1925 Scopes trial in Tennessee, in which he dealt quite mercilessly with the creationists and their champion, William Jennings Bryan. Mencken was an atheist, though not an angry or obsessive one, except when confronted with extreme fundamentalism. Try his essay titled “Sabbath Meditation” (though note that the one in the original American Mercury is significantly different from the version printed up later in the Chrestomathy).
Well, so there I was sitting down to dinner on the first evening of this Menckenfest. Seeing a plate of salad in front of me, I applied some condiments and started eating. In between the second and third mouthfuls I heard an amplified voice coming from the speakers’ tables: “All right, everybody, we shall now say Grace. Bless us O Lord and these thy gifts …” I felt as if I’d been caught picking my nose on live TV.
Somewhat later I got into conversation with the lady who had given out the Grace. She was very charming and friendly, and had been instrumental in getting the conference organized, so is obviously very capable. It emerged, however, in the course of our conversation, that she is a Young Earth Creationist!
What Mencken would have made of this, I don’t know. What I make of it is, that the prospects for a godless American conservatism are not very bright. Still, at least we have a blog up and running.
And in fairness, I should say that a full range of religiosity was present at the conference, from God-is-dead-get-over-it Nietzscheans to Blue Scapular RCs. We actually had two fine presentations on the mustachioed metaphysician (the excuse being that Mencken was an early admirer and translator of Nietzsche).
In some of the other addresses and commentary I am pretty sure I detected efforts by RC ideologues to “recruit” Mencken. They have gotten awfully good at “recruiting” historical persons and movements, like Latter-Day Saints baptizing their ancestors. Did you know that the scientific revolution was inspired by Catholic teaching? That the American Founders were crypto-Catholics? (Yes, even Jefferson — see e.g. Damon Linker’s book, p.71.) That Shakespeare was Catholic? Etc., etc. Whether the RC ideologues have yet managed to recruit Nietzsche, I couldn’t say, but I bet they have tried.
All ideologues go in for this kind of thing. Homosexualists are perhaps the worst. From my review of Louis Crompton’s Homosexuality and Civilization:
Julius Caesar? Gay! Jesus of Nazareth? Gay! Leonardo? Gay! Frederick the Great? Gay! All of them — gay, gay, gay! I do not recall having seen it argued that George Washington was gay, but I have not the slightest doubt that the argument has been made by somebody, somewhere.
Communists do it too. I used to teach English literature in Maoist China from locally-produced textbooks. All the “approved” writers turned out, in the accompanying notes, to have been socialists and revolutionaries, or at the very least “friends of the common people,” though of course their revolutionary sentiments were often suppressed and muddled, not having the pure light of Marxism-Leninism-Mao-Tse-Tung-Thought as a guide. This was even the case — I am pretty sure I remember this right — with such specimens as Wilde and Galsworthy. To the committed ideologue, it is unbearable to think that any worthy person or project, from any time or place, was not inspired in some way by the Cause.
Was Mencken, in between hooting at the backwoods glossolalists of Tennessee and telling us that “my true and natural allegiance [is] to the Devil’s party, and it has been my firm belief that … all persons who devote themselves to forcing virtue on their fellow men deserve nothing better than kicks in the pants” — was he actually sneaking off to do his beads in some dark corner? I expect to see it confidently asserted, if it hasn’t already been.
A deathbed conversion, too. Godly ideologues are fond of conjuring those up. At least, I have seen deathbed conversions argued for David Hume and Charles Darwin. These stories have inspired Richard Dawkins to insist that his own death be recorded on film, to foil any attempts to recruit him into the company of those who see the Light just as the actual light is fading.
>> What I make of it is, that the prospects for a godless American conservatism are not very bright.
I disagree. In fact, I’ve long argued that the believers who fancy themselves conservatives are, in fact, liberals. They want to use the government to further their beliefs every bit as much as – if not more than – those on the left.
The key for us, I believe, is to keep pushing this message forward: Conservative beliefs are not compatable with imposed religious orthodoxy. People get it, but they don’t hear it nearly often enough.
I wish I’d have known you were going to be in Baltimore. Would’ve loved to have met you.
Pingback: The Secular Right «
John (or should I say Charles?),
Interesting blog – thanks for posting a link to it at The Corner. I hope it keeps going strong…
‘Recruiting’ is a real phenomenon, and I’m sure you’re right that gay rights advocates have taken part. But I’d have hoped this coould the one part of the conservative blogosphere free from sneers at ‘homosexualists’!
Yours,
A non-conservative (and, FWIW, non-gay) secularist
Oscar Wilde is also supposed to have converted to RC on his deathbed. This from the same author that declared Shakespeare to be a closet Catholic. Given the low-level of participation and doctrinal adherence by Catholics these days, perhaps these writers should worry more about whether Roman Catholics are actually Catholic, rather than spinning tales about how Ayn Rand had a secret papist fetish (I made that last one up).
Derb:
Calm down.
JMC
A very interesting post, sir. I enjoyed reading it. How we need a Mencken today to hold at bay the army of virture-forcers that are getting political power! I am mainly here because, as a religious conservative (at Latter-day Saint, at that!), I wanted to welcome the newest blog in the conservative blogosphere and make sure that at least one comment from a religious person was welcoming and civil. Perhaps that is trivial. However, I believe that God works through people and it seems that our nation and civilization are in for a rough time. So, while I pray, I also reach out to other conservatives in the hopes that we can somehow work through all of this. A further note, if I may: one of the aspects of LDS theology I most cherish is that there are a great many good people, Christian, not Christian, religious, not religious, who do good work in this world and that they are noble and great souls.
Actually, Oscar Wilde (author of The Soul of Man under Socialism) and John Galsworthy (author of Strife – a hard-hitting play about a prolonged industrial strike) are not *all that* far away from communism…
Derb,
Good post. I think a reasonable case can be made for Shakespeare’s crypto-Catholicism (I don’t quite buy it, but it’s reasonable), and Wilde definitely converted (read De Profundis).
What I’d like to know is whether you continue to draw the distinction you used to between religion (the opposite of which is secularism) and theism (the opposite of which is atheism).
Oh, really? I had no idea that Copernicus & Mendel were atheists.
“In some of the other addresses and commentary I am pretty sure I detected efforts by RC ideologues to “recruit” Mencken. ”
Shocking! On the other hand Inherit the Wind’s account is all inaccurate, so you could say the anti-religious make the attempt to rewrite history before it’s written.
I completely disagree with this sentiment. There exists a segment of the population who would use the power of the government to move the country in a direction that is compatible with their belief system. Note however, that this is not “furthering their beliefs”, but simply preventing a discontinuity between their beliefs and the actions of others.
Having said that, I am a Christian who opposes using the power of the government to further any relgious agenda. It’s a simple proposition really. Following the laws of a government is not the same thing as following the laws of God. The results may be similar, but it is the intent behind them that matters. If I choose not to kill someone because Jesus said we should love our neighbor as ourself, from a religous perspective, that is wholly different than not killing someone because I may go to prison.
Now, if you are talking about abortion for example, the case isn’t so simple. While I subscribe to the notion that the US Constitution does not speak to abortion, that the so-called right to privacy under which Roe V Wade was decided does not in fact, exist, or does not exist in the manner in which it was used, I do believe two things. First, that it should be up to the states to decide the issue, and second, that protecting the innocent is not only morally correct, but fundamentally in step with the law. The argument can be made from a religous and non-religous standpoint.
Also, I would love to see exactly which conservative beliefs are not compatible with religous beliefs. Those sentiments are usually expressed by those who have a misunderstanding of what certain passages in the Bible mean. They are taken out of the context of the historical, geographical, and linguistics in place at the time they were written.
This religous conservative is both religous and conservative. Frankly, I don’t see how you can have conservatism without God but that’s why we have free-will.
Inventing bogeymen is also out of step with conservative thought. No one is seriously trying to impose religion on the country. That’s ridiculous. In fact, the nation has been getting more secular for a long time.
The real issue for conservatives is the divide between the snake handlers and the non-believers. Both sides need one another to survive, much less flourish. Somehow or other we’ve allowed the snake handlers to wander of the reservation.
We have to get them back into the conservative movement without joining some cult.
Isn’t the “devil’s party” a party of Whiggery rather than of atheism? I’d first heard that term from Blake referring to Milton, in turn to Lucifer. All of them believed in God. (Whether Lucifer actually existed is a technicality.)
Being of the “devil’s party” is inherently anti-conservative. Recruiting Mencken into the ranks of conservatives? Who’s next, Alinsky?
“Also, I would love to see exactly which conservative beliefs are not compatible with religous beliefs. Those sentiments are usually expressed by those who have a misunderstanding of what certain passages in the Bible mean. They are taken out of the context of the historical, geographical, and linguistics in place at the time they were written.
This religous conservative is both religous and conservative. Frankly, I don’t see how you can have conservatism without God but that’s why we have free-will.”
Sir,
I don’t necessarily think that conservative beliefs are incompatable with religious beliefs, I think that any believer who endorses or recommends policy based on his interpretation of the Bible (or whatever religious dogma he subscribes to) is doing conservatism no favors, and certainly anybody who believes in spending taxpayer money to do what he perceives as God’s will is no conservative.
As to your last point: I am a conservative without God and I can’t see how you need God to have conservatism.
Derb
You seem to be following the law that states that anyone who loses their faith will become increasingly hostile to religion (actually a corollary to the law that any organization that is not explicitly conservative will become increasingly leftist). I have read and enjoyed your writing for years but have seen you progress (regress?) from a doubter to a severe critic who refers to devout believers as yahoos and backwoods glossolalists (whatever the hell those are).
I personally am a doubter who desperately wants to be a believer. My wife is a very spiritual, religious person and she is my heroine. She is honest, tolerant, generous, and gracious. She encourages me to go to church and I meet many people there who are also good and striving to be better.
I believe that American religion, as opposed to that in much of the rest of the world, is a gentle, tolerant version. There are the fringe nutcases who are receiving enormous exposure due to the web and the desire of anti-religious groups to hold religion up to ridicule.
I would challenge you or any of the other people contributing here to go to a small town in America and attend a mainstream church service. Talk to the people and then come tell me they are a bunch of small-minded bigots and yahoos. If only the rest of the world were so bigoted.
Robs
I’m a conservative on fiscal policy and that government should stay small and out of my business.
I also think we should teach science in science class and that gay rights should not be defined by any religious text.
Republicans have sold their conservitive soul to a group of finatical christians.
“No one is seriously trying to impose religion on the country.”
Depends on what you mean by “impose religion.” To me, that would include such things as prayers in school, the term “under God” in a mandatory pledge of allegiance, teaching “intelligent design” in public schools, building and maintaining a Christian icon on a hill outside San Diego, putting copies of the Decalogue in parks and courthouses.
There are many people who are seriously trying to do these things.
jdbuko,
Your first comment was a significant overstatement: not all believers want to use the government to impose their beliefs. Indeed, those who would impose any form of broadly Christianist “Sharia” are rare to the point of non-existence for all practical purposes. For political purposes, however, they make a GREAT bogeyman for the left.
Your post #13 implicitly touches on an important point, which prompted my comment: we need a better way to talk about the role of values in politics. At bottom, all choices in law and politics are based on one’s values. It is not sufficient to say that your totally secular values are legitimate bases for your policy choices, but mine must be illegitimate if they are influenced by religious belief. In fact, we may largely share values though coming at them from different directions: whose illegitimate in that case?
I advocate a grand treaty on the Right: Christians don’t quote the Bible in arguing politics, just argue your values and their implications for policy; and secularists listen to what’s actually being said rather than assuming that Christians are out to impose a theocracy.
John Wayne was a deathbed conversion.
Makes ya wonder.
“I advocate a grand treaty on the Right: Christians don’t quote the Bible in arguing politics, just argue your values and their implications for policy; and secularists listen to what’s actually being said rather than assuming that Christians are out to impose a theocracy.”
I, for one, don’t see what’s in this treaty for me. I am not just bothered by the theists quoting their Bible in politics (although I am bothered by that), I’m bothered by their attempt to get their religious-based morality made into the binding law of the nation, regardless of whether they quote the Bible or not. The only legitimate issue is whether there is a legitimate secular reason for the law. If not, then it has no business being a part of the law.
1. Why would you be bothered by theists quoting their Bible in politics? I’m not bothered by atheists quoting their sources in politics. People love to claim that religious people are highly intolerant. I’ve often found quite the opposite. It is usually the non-religious who are highly intolerant of the religious.
2. Secularism, in effect, is a religion, only it substitutes the individual’s morality for that of the religious person’s authoritative reference.
3. The law exists to protect and preserve our unalienable rights. So long as those rights are being protected, the religious or secular underpinnings make no difference. The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. This includes the rights of the religious to fully participate in the processes by which are laws are developed and enforced. So long as those laws are not in violation of the Constitution, they are as legitimate as anything else.
Mencken developed his outlook in part from his reading of Nietzsche, but I’m wondering if Mencken wasn’t also influenced by Ingersoll — who seems to have anticipated Nietzsche’s most essential insight, that religious ideas are developed and used by the elite in order to exploit others.
And reading Ingersoll, Nietzsche, and Mencken I recognize a good deal in common between the mental conformity demanded by the left, and the used of that conformity by an elite to secure power.
Anyone else notice the same thing?
“Was Mencken .. actually sneaking off to do his beads in some dark corner?”
The answer is NO. Read his private diary, or his private memoir, or his letters, or any account written of Mencken by those who knew him, and you’ll conclude Mencken had not a religious impulse in his body.
Note well that Mencken suffered a massive stroke almost a decade before his death, and the man never wrote another word, and spoke few.
Mencken himself said he’d “died” at the moment of that massive stroke, and in an intellectual sense, he had.
Any “conversion” would have been the conversion of a dead man.
Sam Francis was also the victim of a “deathbed conversion.” Of course, no such thing happened. Sam was comatose. They may have given him Last Rights (no great harm and Sam probably would not have minded) but he did not “embrace Jesus” in his moment of truth.
But if there is a Heaven, may Sam be in it.
If there is a Hell, may his enemeies (I’m thinking of the SPLC and other McCarthyites) end up there craving ice water for eternity.
“1. Why would you be bothered by theists quoting their Bible in politics? I’m not bothered by atheists quoting their sources in politics.”
Because religious scriptures have no place in politics, precisely because not everyone agrees that they are authoritative, meaningful, valuable, wise or even sane. If one cannot make a policy argument without quoting bibles, then one shouldn’t be making policy arguments.
“People love to claim that religious people are highly intolerant. I’ve often found quite the opposite. It is usually the non-religious who are highly intolerant of the religious.”
I’ve found that religious people are highly intolerant (look at any mention of homosexual people, for example.) When non-religious people or people who are being attacked by the religious (such as the aforementioned homosexual people) stand up for their rights as Americans, they’re accused of being intolerant. I guess that’s true, if you mean intolerant of injustice.
2. Secularism, in effect, is a religion, only it substitutes the individual’s morality for that of the religious person’s authoritative reference.
First, secularism is not a religion, by definition. Second, even religious people often do nothing more than effectuate their own individual morality by picking and choosing among their religion’s teachings. Finally, there is nothing “authoritative” about the references they supposedly follow.
3. The law exists to protect and preserve our unalienable rights. So long as those rights are being protected, the religious or secular underpinnings make no difference.
But that’s the rub. If turning those supposed religious underpinnings into practice IS a violation of inalienable rights (such as the right to be free of compulsory religion, or laws regarding the establishment of religion) then that’s inappropriate.
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
It provides both. No establishment on the one hand, and free exercise on the other.
This includes the rights of the religious to fully participate in the processes by which are laws are developed and enforced. So long as those laws are not in violation of the Constitution, they are as legitimate as anything else.
Religious people have the right to fully participate, sure, but they do not have the right to turn their religious feelings and opinions into the law of the land. That is tyranny.
Wow – now is not the time to argue that religious people are intolerant, especially with regards to homosexuality. Surely you must be aware of what has gone on in California and Utah lately. The intolerance, and cowardice, is for all to see – check youtube.
You don’t think that putting people’s fundamental constitutional rights up for a public vote solely because of antiquated religious convictions demonstrates intolerance???
If Prop. 8 has led to any intolerance and cowardice, it is on the part of the religious, who don’t have the maturity and decency to respect the rights of their neighbors. If the religous people’s actions have sparked a backlash from those whose rights they took, they have no one but themselves to blame.
Treat others as you want to be treated; seems I read something like that somewhere. If only it was in the religious folk’s scripture books…
Thanks for proving that cowardice and intolerance are accompanied by blatant lies.
Just on a point of clarification: I distinguish strongly in my own mind between, on the one hand, people who merely do things and believe things, and on the other, ideologues. You want to go to church, worship God, believe in the Incarnation and Resurrection, jolly good luck to you — I’m fine with it. You want to push it in my face and harangue me about it, change public policy or public-school curriculums to accommodate it, you lost me.
Same homosexuality. Do as you please in the privacy of your chambers, but try to start a Gay Students’ Club at my kids’ school, I’ll be out there with a placard.
In the review of Louis Crompton’s book that I linked to in my original post, I made it clear that I use “homosexualist” to refer to an ideologue, as opposed to “homosexual” for a person who is merely … homosexual. I wish this usage had caught on; and I wish we had similar usages to separate out other kinds of ideologues from those they claim to represent.
I couldn’t care less about people who are homosexual, Catholic, feminist, or of any other private conviction. I just really, really, really dislike ideologues.
>Wow – now is not the time to argue that religious people are intolerant, especially with regards to homosexuality. Surely you must be aware of what has gone on in California and Utah lately. The intolerance, and cowardice, is for all to see – check youtube.
Yes, because if you can identify any instances of members of group A misbehaving toward members of group B, you’ve refuted the idea that members of group B ever misbehave toward members of group A. Or something like that.
You don’t think that putting people’s fundamental constitutional rights up for a public vote solely because of antiquated religious convictions demonstrates intolerance???
The right was so fundamental that it didn’t exist in the first 225 years of this republic.
“The right was so fundamental that it didn’t exist in the first 225 years of this republic.”
The right to equal protection been a fundamental right for a long, long time.
I understand your position, but it is really sound? Would not one activist fighting for “gay rights” and another fighting for “family values” be dueling idologues? How does one then decide who to dislike and who not to dislike? If one dislikes both, then how is the issue decided?
The right to equal protection been a fundamental right for a long, long time.
Which certainly distinguishes it from the new-found fundamental right to state authorized sodomy.
There are no Constitutional rights. By that, I mean the Constitution guarantees the rights you already have, it does not grant them. Because they are guaranteed, and because we live in a democratic republic, they can’t be taken away by popular vote. The guarantees could be revoked, but that wouldn’t mean the rights don’t still exist so long as the constitution of the united states continues to exist.
In reference to homosexuals, there are no “homosexual rights” any more than there are “heterosexual rights”. Please stop calling things “rights” that aren’t. There is no right in any federal or state constitution to marriage, heterosexual or otherwise. That states and the federal government choose to codify laws regarding marriage is based solely on established precedents from history as well as the right of the government to use the law to promote certain outcomes and behaviors. Theoretically, there’s nothing stopping, constitutionally speaking, any state from banning heterosexual marriage either. Marriage has been a privilege extended to heterosexual couples who meet certain qualifications. This is why states require people who want to get married to get a marriage license. If marriage were a fundamental right, no such license would be required and in fact would be in violation of the constitution.
Treating others as you want to be treated is in regards to how you behave towards an individual. It doesn’t imply sanctioning things that you believe are wrong. It just means you still help them out in need, treat them with respect, etc. All those things can and should happen whether a person is hetero or homosexual. Whether the states and/or feds eventually recognize homosexual marriage won’t make any difference to me on how I treat individuals. But that doesn’t mean I have to support gay marriage, nor do I believe it to be constitutionally protected.
But assuming it is, why can the state then prevent a brother and sister from marrying, or a father and daughter, or a man and multiple women, or a woman and multiple men. Would not all of these be subject to the same constitutional right?
So what if they do? A secular conservative is not a libertarian or an atheist, by definition. If you are a libertarian or an atheist, then you have to make those arguments. They are not, however, conservative arguments.
As Dear Leader said, words have meaning. Conservative is a word with a definition. I’m not against “gay marriage” because an invisible man in the sky tells me it is wrong. I’m against it because it because the implementation runs contrary to conservative thinking. Having the court declare Bill and Bob “married” is no different than the court declaring slavery is freedom. It is an assault on rationality, tradition and objective reality.
As a non-religious conservative, I can readily accept all sorts of religious traditions, even though I don’t believe the underpinnings of those traditions.
My limit, however, is when those who claim transcendent authority resist or assault reason. If they want to teach creationism in social studies, fine. Kids need to know about the world. If they want to teach it in biology class, then we have a problem.
Bradlaugh : Do you believe Swetlana Allilujewa’s account of Lenin’s death?
OK, but I don’t see how someone starting a Gay Students’ Club is necessarily pushing anyone’s face in anything, unless by that you simply mean reminding others that gay students exist. I remember see you say (at NRO, I think) that most people were far more concerned with belonging to certain groups than you. Is this your problem with a Gay Students’ Club? Or would you be less distressed by a Latino Students’ Club or Ginger-Headed Students’ Club? If so, I’d be curious to hear how you can rationally defend this…
@Jonathan Schafer
You may believe that your constitutional interpretation is correct, but remember, it is merely your interpretation. Others have a different view.
I didn’t talk about homosexual rights. I was talking about the rights of people who are homosexuals.
Which is your opinion. However, your opinion has no weight in our legal system. Those whose opinions actually count, however, have established that there is a right to marriage. Your disbelief in the law does not change the law.
Governments don’t have rights. Governments have powers, interests and obligations. People have rights.
Except for, you know, all the legal precedent that says that there is a fundamental right to marriage. That would not prevent, absolutely, such a state action, but the state would have to pass the strict scrutiny test to do so. Doubtful that it could do so. (Yes, Bork disagrees, but Bork’s opinion isn’t the law.)
Nonsense. Fundamental rights are subject to reasonable regulation and yet still remain fundamental rights. (See, e.g., the entire corpus of law on the First Amendment, for example.)
And if, for example, you get together with the Mormons and Knights of Columbus and put the rights from people who are homosexuals up for a vote, you are behaving against them as individuals. If, as you’ve previously appear to argue, there is no such thing as rights possessed by a group, then the only effect such an action can have is against individuals.
Imagine, for example, a proposition to outlaw any non-Catholic marriage. It would be insane to argue that proposing such a proposition does not consitute action against those individuals who are parties to such non-Catholic marriages.
They are permissible because the state can past the strict scrutiny test with regard to those regulations. A government can show that there is a compelling government interest in the regulation, that it is narrowly tailored to address the interests, and constitute the least restrictive means of effectuating those interest.
(And I would bet that within the next 50-100 years that consensual plural marriage will be recognized in the US.)
It would depend on how one defines “conservative”, and with all its iterations, from paleo- to neo- to crunchy- to whatever-, it is clear that there is no clear cut defintion. It believe that there is room in the definition for one who does not believe that those things are violations of fundamental human rights, protected by our Constitution. If conservatives aren’t for THAT, then perhaps we all should rethink the word.
Having the court declare Bill and Bob “married” is no different than the court declaring slavery is freedom. It is an assault on rationality, tradition and objective reality.
Oh, crap. Screwed up the formatting. Damn the lack of a preview button!!!
@Bradlaugh
Derb,
“Just on a point of clarification: I distinguish strongly in my own mind between, on the one hand, people who merely do things and believe things, and on the other, ideologues.”
From your other writings, as well as this post, I infer that what you object to is not so much idealogues as neo-Victorianism. The problem is not how strongly the view is held, but whether someone wants to impose his views on you. (“Extremism in the defense of liberty,” and all that.)
It’s great to have a blog for secular conservatives, and I hope that believers are and will remain welcome. However, it is important to keep in mind that, at an operational level, the cutting edge is not secular vs. believing but rather conservative vs. nanny-state, PC thought police, etc. I predict that you’d not like such neo-Victorianism from a secularist much (if any) better than from a believer.
I get your point, regardless of the formatting. This site would be better served with a message board, I think.
Anyway, I think you are confusing libertarian arguments with secular arguments. In matters of culture, the conservative man, secular or religious, thinks the people are the final say. If government reflects the collective will in such matters, that’s proof of sound governance.
So, if the town government where I live wants to put up Christmas decorations, good for them. Most here are Christians and celebrate the holiday. If the next town over is mostly Jewish and they do not decorate for Christmas, good for them. They have their traditions, we have ours.
It is not up to you to decide what traditions people hold, regardless of the underlying reasons for those traditions.
To #14:
“… have seen you progress (regress?) from a doubter to a severe critic who refers to devout believers as yahoos and backwoods glossolalists (whatever the hell those are).”
Would you please direct me to any place where I have referred to devout believers as “yahoos”? Or, if you can’t, will you please apologize for misrepresenting me?
Read Mencken’s pieces on the Scopes trial. He goes into, literally, the backwoods. He finds glossolalists (those who speak in tongues — don’t you own a dictionary?) He mocks them. What have I said wrong here?
Pingback: Secular Right » From comments
Mencken can be fun to read, but it’s important to avoid putting too much credit in his reporting and opinion. The Monkey Trial is a good example. Jennings had a good grasp of Darwin and what his writing implied. He pretty much followed the same line of thought you do, Bradlaugh: the fact of evolution pretty much closes the book on serious religious belief. At any rate, the actual trial was not how it was shown in the movie at all.
Carol Iannone’s piece on it is fascinating, albeit written from an anti-evolutionary POV:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9702/articles/iannone.html
as is Bryan’s own closing statement in the trial:
http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/wjb-last/wjb-last.htm