Pharyngula::I'm relieved that he's not planning to execute or deport us

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

I'm relieved that he's not planning to execute or deport us

PZ Myers • 70 Comments (last page)

This is a typical muddled Bushism, but it sure sounds ugly…

"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.

…so he doesn't say that atheists are unpatriotic (although he's saying it here), it's "just the way it is."

He didn't really mean that, did he? Could it be that he's just so incoherent that his mangled syntax is misleading us? Nope.

"I fully understand that the job of the president is and must always be protecting the great right of people to worship or not worship as they see fit," Mr. Bush said. "That's what distinguishes us from the Taliban. The greatest freedom we have or one of the greatest freedoms is the right to worship the way you see fit.

"On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord," he said.

Ah. So atheists are allowed to exist, but they aren't quite qualified to be president. I guess he was trying to say that atheists are lesser Americans.

I appreciate the distinction from the Taliban. Under the Taliban, we'd be executed for heresy or something, while here in modern America we're just second-rate citizens.

(via MouseWords)

In other religious news, take a look at this op-ed by Prothero in the LA Times:

In Europe, religious education is the rule from the elementary grades on. So Austrians, Norwegians and the Irish can tell you about the Seven Deadly Sins or the Five Pillars of Islam. But, according to a 1997 poll, only one out of three U.S. citizens is able to name the most basic of Christian texts, the four Gospels, and 12% think Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. That paints a picture of a nation that believes God speaks in Scripture but that can't be bothered to read what he has to say.

Good ol' American anti-intellectualism…what happens when you have a People of the Book who don't read? It would be funny if the consequences weren't so terrifying.

(via The Washington Monthly)

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1801/aC2k95vY/

Comments:

#13144: monkey — 01/12 at 11:41 PM
I'm just going to sneak in here while no ones around. This post rings too true. The majority of christians I have spoken to know very little about the actual history of their faith. That is a scary thing when you consider how deeply these same people proclaim to carry that faith.

#13145: paperwight — 01/12 at 11:45 PM
The most extraordinary example of that which leaps to mind are all of the dispensationalists who don't know how often the end of the world has been predicted by different Christian sects over the last 2000 years.

#13147: monkey — 01/12 at 11:58 PM
Oh, can I please follow paperwight's comment with a little blogwhoring? Dispensationalists, otherwise known as Christian Zionists.
http://annatopia.com/monkey/archives/000986.html

#13148: — 01/13 at 12:13 AM
I guess it was inevitable that we would go from Shrub speaks to 'the end is near' so quickly. I know everytime I hear him speak I wish for his personal rapture.

#13149: — 01/13 at 12:56 AM
Not only do many of them fail to study their own faiths (let alone follow them)... they end up making unnervingly (even to an atheist) closed-minded interpretations of those passages which they do ruminate over (and use as "philosophy"),

They might has well have skipped the whole thing altogether, and admitted (if not to us, then at least God) that these principles are their own grand ideas for the perfect religion.

Even that explanation is a little more palatable than "God made me."

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia

#13150: monkey — 01/13 at 01:00 AM
On the subject of Bush' faith, this is the site of the guy who saved Bush's soul.
http://www.blessitt.com/bush.html

#13152: Mrs Tilton — 01/13 at 05:07 AM
It was Alexander Cockburn (himself subjected to mandatory religious education in Ireland) who wrote: 'The mind not immunised by compulsory religious instruction in its youth is later susceptible to all manner of religious enthusiasms'. Or words to that effect; I haven't the book in front of me.

I've often thought that, if one wishes to minimise the impact of religion on society, one should not persecute the religious (martyrs are notoriously effective PR). Instead, one should do as many European nations have done: put the clergy on the state payroll and make the weans sit through catechism in the state schools. Most of these nations are now sufficiently secular, I think, to satisfy even Prof. Myers's soul. Certainly they are far more secular than the USA, where religious instruction in state schools violates the constitution itself and every church is a 'free church'.

#13153: — 01/13 at 05:50 AM
In all seriousness, if someone claims you're not patriotic, why should you be insulted?

I happen to be patriotic, in that I think I would be significantly less satisfied with my life living in another country than in the U.S., I feel emotional attachment to the U.S. as a land, I feel more satisfied when Americans win in the olympics than others, and I feel more sympathy for Americans who suffer than others. However, I don't see why being patriotic makes me a more virtuous person. I also happen to like cauliflower. I enjoy eating it, and I think my life would be (somewhat) worse off I cauliflower didn't exist. However, if someone told me, "you don't have faith in God, so you can't truly enjoy cauliflower," I wouldn't be insulted. I would be dumbfoundedly amused. I think I could be just as good a person if I weren't a patriot, or just as good a person if I didn't like cauliflower.

I don't think it's true that being less religious makes you less patriotic, but if Bush thinks it does... well, he's wrong, but why should we be offended by his error?

#13154: — 01/13 at 06:10 AM
Julian, an apt metaphor: the caulifloration of patriotism. But you can't be so naive to think that that Bush's christian quantifier for patriotism is merely awkward or amusing. Bush is not</not> religious, he <i>uses religion. He uses religion like the Inquisition. This is a subtle attempt to destroy the lives of anybody who opposes him; well, to his followers it isn't so subtle. And he is in a position, a pulpit, where his condemnations have consequences. No, we shouldn't feel slighted. We should be outraged.

Trackback: Is Faith a Job Qualification for President? Tracked on: Lloydletta's Nooz and Commentary (67.18.73.162) at 2005 01 13 01:19:49
I personally, think that having faith in a deity is not a job requirement for President. I am not one to think that Agnostics or Athiests are evil people. It's a job requirement for a President of a Theocracy - but not a country like the US.

#13156: Ben — 01/13 at 07:08 AM
Who the hell wants to be "patriotic" anyway? What a fucking asinine and ephemeral concept.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#13157: Mrs Tilton — 01/13 at 07:13 AM
Who the hell wants to be “patriotic” anyway? What a fucking asinine and ephemeral concept.

That depends. If one defines patriotism as 'my country right or wrong', yes, that's asinine. But would not a better definition be: love of one's country that moves one to take pride in its virtues and to criticise its vices? By that definition, PZ strikes me as a patriotic American, and I see nothing asinine about it.

#13159: Ben — 01/13 at 07:37 AM
Exactly my point; it's a totally subjective term, to the point of meaninglessness. As indeed most catchcries are. The Creationists think they're driven by patriotism, as do the Neocons and the theocrats. Some people think you're not "patriotic" unless you recite a stupid pledge every morning, or unless you've been involved in a war. Your definition is certainly more liberal and acceptable, but who's more correct? I'd take the moniker of "Unpatriotic" slightly less seriously than "Bad Kazoo Player" or "Poor Dr. Seuss Reciter", particularly if it were coming from the lips of your moronic Head of State.

You, me, Dr Myers, Jeebus, Donkey, etc, aren't "patriots". We're just normal. Well, maybe not Jeebus...

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#13160: coturnix — 01/13 at 07:40 AM
That is the difference between patriotism and SuperPatriotism, at least according to this guy:
http://michaelparenti.org/

#13161: — 01/13 at 08:15 AM
I should make the obligatory mention of Samuel Johnson's utterance Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. which, according to
http://www.samueljohnson.com/refuge.html,</pre> was intended to indict scoundrels' false use of patriotism for their own ends.

#13162: — 01/13 at 08:29 AM
GW Bush's comments on religion should come as no surprise to anyone. I think I have pointed out that his belief is the same as that of many christian fundamentalists: if you don't believe exactly as I do, god will condemn you to burn in hell forever. That means muslims, jews and catholics as well as atheists. Bush believes that. As to what he meant by the first comment, by now we should all know that Bush has a hard time expressing himself. (I am being ironic here. I learned some time ago that people who have a hard time expressing themselves are actually expressing exactly what goes on in their minds. In other words, Bush is a moron.)

DD, be careful what you say. The secret state police I mean the FBI will come knocking at your door.

I think a distinction should be made between patriotism and nationalism. Bush is not a patriot. He is a nationalist. A patriot loves his country and the people in it; it's more like a feeling of family or community. A nationalist loves his flag and his government and his army; he wants his country to dominate everything, from its citizens to its neighbors in the world.

#13163: — 01/13 at 08:47 AM

[Patriotism] is a totally subjective term...

This is true. Each person's idea of patriotism is probably slightly different. So, I would hesitate to call other people's definition wrong, assuming at least that his/her concept had anything to do with loyalty/love of country.

The funny part is, that what Bush calls "patriotism" is not founded on love of country. He confuses this term with the Right's abominable ideas of what constitutes "morality."

Of course, for this President,

Morality = Faith in God
(or more specifically, Christian faith in God)

This is why I get upset when we are labeled as unpatriotic.

Neither morality, nor patriotism are inherently grounded in a belief in God (let alone in a specific religion).

Accordingly, the simple fact that one believes in God is not sufficient for being moral or patriotic.

When Bush says "a person couldn't be president without having faith in the Lord", he is moreover implying that a Godless person is intrinsically immoral and is unable to love his/her country.

This is much different than the JFK and Truman quotes (and others) that the Republicans have been throwing around to "cite precedence" for a religious White House - all in order to justify Bush's current policy of bastardizing the constitution, and making a shamockery of our democracy.

These former presidents had faith, but they did not shove it down our throats, nor did they base their policy on bigoted interpretations of their God's word.

Somehow, every other president has been able to refrain from allowing their beliefs to get in the way of doing their job - representing every citizen in the United States.

[Bush] What? Religious American presidents didn't try to systematically convert the whole world into fundamentalist Christians? Sounds pretty immoral and unpatriotic to me...[/Bush]

Tell me, Mr. President? Are all former presidents going (or have already gone) to Hell in a handbasket?

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia

#13164: Mrs Tilton — 01/13 at 09:06 AM
Jeebus:

Accordingly, the simple fact that one believes in God is not sufficient for being moral or patriotic.

Not sufficient, and not necessary either. (Well: maybe belief in the state's god is necessary to be a patriotic citizen of a theocratic state. I do hope America won't come to that.) But in any event belief in a deity (and I say this as a theist) is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.

JM:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. [Johnson]

Yes. But Johnson wasn't using the word 'patriotism' as it is used today.

#13167: Ben — 01/13 at 09:47 AM
Accordingly, the simple fact that one believes in God is not sufficient for being moral

Many would argue that it's insufficient, unless you believe that the ends justify the means. Which is a more acceptable ethical argument? "X is moral because I was told so" or "X is moral because I have reasoned it to be so"? I suggest that anyone adhering to the second scenario would actually be considered more moralistic than one adhering to the first for the simple reason that it necessitates pre-established coercion, and is hence predicated upon immoral conduct.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#13168: PZ Myers — 01/13 at 09:55 AM
Just to clarify, I do consider myself patriotic and consider patriotism to be a generally desirable trait. It's definitely not a "my country right or wrong" sort of patriotism, though, and is more of an "aspire to see your friends and neighbors and fellow countrymen do what is right" kind of patriotism.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#13169: — 01/13 at 09:56 AM
I prefer the term "ethics" to "morals." Morals has a religious connotation. Ethics does not. I much prefer ethical to moral behavior, since, if one bases one's morality on religion, it become's possible to justify almost any action as "moral." After all, the Nazis prayed to the same god that the Allies did.

Also, I don't think much ethical or moral behavior is actually reasoned. I suspect that most people who want to act ethically do so because they are basically decent people. A lot of what we call rationality is actually rationalization. I can rationalize ethical behavior, including altruistic behavior; that is, I can think of rational reasons to behave so. However, since we can observe altruistic behavior in what we think of as non-reasoning animals, I suspect our altruism, too, is not rational.

#13173: Ben — 01/13 at 10:12 AM
It’s definitely not a “my country right or wrong” sort of patriotism, though, and is more of an “aspire to see your friends and neighbors and fellow countrymen do what is right” kind of patriotism.

But do you not also aspire to see such honourable traits in those who don't happen to be your countrymen? If so, doesn't this constitute more of a humanism than a patriotism? If not, erm, why?

I prefer the term “ethics” to “morals.”

Same. That's why I don't use the term "moral" unless someone else specifically brings it up.

Also, I don’t think much ethical or moral behavior is actually reasoned. I suspect that most people who want to act ethically do so because they are basically decent people.

So what differentiates "decent" from "non-decent" people if not their actions? Which came first, the ethical action or the basically decent person?

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#13175: — 01/13 at 10:25 AM

Many would argue that it’s insufficient, unless you believe that the ends justify the means...

Yes. It would appear that "Ends justify the means" is a central tenet of all religions. It's their methodology, their alibi.

And, I agree with Mrs. Tilton. Godliness is certainly not necessary for having good morals/ethics or being patriotic.

Ironically (and hypocritically), religion - via this (misuse of) Machiavellian "methodology" - is serving to drain our moral, ethical, and patriotic standards, at least in the United States.

Not to mention what it can do to one's skills of reasoning (or should I say, one's desire to use his/her reasoning skills).

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia

#13177: — 01/13 at 10:27 AM
My personal view is that patriotism is an emotion, whereas nationalism is an ideology. Establishing a universal public healthcare system or invading foreign countries to acquire lebensraum is an expression of nationalism: i.e., it follows from a rationalistic framework of how the state and people should behave. Getting homesick in a foreign country or feeling worse about a disaster that kills your own nationals (that you don't know) than one that kills foreigners (that you don't know) is an expression of patriotism.

I think most nationalists are patriots, and in the modern times of rational-legal authority from which nationalism arose, many patriots are also nationalists. (on the other hand, in, say, legal times, most people were probably patriotic, but not nationalistic, because the nation-state and the rational-legal authority underpinning it did not exist) I'm not quite sure whether my political views are nationalistic or not: certainly, I would like my views to be enacted by my nation-state, but I'm not sure whether that's because I think that's fundamentally the right way of doing things or the United States happens to already exist and be convenient.

The thing that gets me about this Bush quote is, allegedly Bush is in contact with God, and He has given him such wonderful bits of intelligence as how the U.S. would encounter little resistance in post-war Iraq. Does Bush ever notice that this God fellow doesn't have a very good track record?

#13179: — 01/13 at 10:30 AM
Oops, I meant that in medeival times most people were probably patriotic but not nationalistic.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

Next entry: Sorry, Madison, not today

Previous entry: Skell again

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

I'm relieved that he's not planning to execute or deport us

Info