Many people, especially among political conservatives, believe that most academics are secular, possibly even hostile to religion. However, a recent study of academics' religious beliefs by the Institute for Jewish & Community Research suggests otherwise (some of the study's results have already been cited in our discussion of supposed anti-religious bigotry in academia). It is indeed true, that academics are on average less religious than the general public. However, far more academics are religious believers than atheists or agnostics. The prevalence of religious belief in academia undercuts claims, such as Rick Hills', that "Secular academics typically do not know many religious believers — especially not many overly devout Christians — and their isolation leads to the most naively lurid fantasies about what religious belief entails." It also reinforces my argument that academics' unfavorable views of Evangelical Christians and Mormons are mostly due to hostility to these groups' conservative political ideologies rather than a generalized antagonism to religion as such.
The IJCR study shows that 66% of academics believe in God, while only 19% say that they don't. This is a fairly overwhelming majority of theists, even though smaller than the 93% of the general public who say they believe in God. Some 66% of academics (compared to about 85% of the general public) identify with a particular religious denomination such as Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, or Muslim. With the important exception of Evangelical Christians (33% of the general public, but only 11% of academics), most major religious groups are represented among academics in roughly the same or higher proportions as in the general public.
It is, of course, possible that many theistic academics are still "secular" in the sense that religion doesn't play an important role in their lives. However, the IJCR survey shows that 63% of academics say that religion is "very important" or "somewhat important" to them. This is a lower figure than the 85% of the general public who fall into these two categories, but still suggests that religious belief is important to a large majority of academics. Further, 44% of academics say they attend religious services at least once per month (compared to 56% of the general public), and 73% of academics (compared to 86% of the general public) want their children to receive religious training.
Moreover, the gap between the general public's religiosity and that of academics may be smaller than it appears. Members of the general public are probably more likely to overstate their religiosity in surveys than are academics. There is a great deal of prejudice against atheists and agnostics in the general population, with some 50% of the public believing that it is impossible for one to be "moral" or have "good values" without believing in God. In academia, by contrast, the IJCR survey found that only 18% of faculty have a "cool" or "unfavorable" view of atheists (compared to about 50% of the general public who expressed similar "unfavorable" views of atheists in other surveys). Thus, there is much less incentive for academic atheists to hide their beliefs than for those in the general public to do so. There is also less incentive for academic theists to exaggerate their religiosity, church attendance, etc., than for those in the general population. But although academics are far more tolerant of atheists than is the general public, the overwhelming majority are not atheists themselves.
Like many other studies, the IJCR survey finds that academics differ enormously from the general public in their political orientation, with academics being far more left-wing. That is where most of the really important attitudinal differences between academia and the general public lie.
This insulating social network transforms into a speaking box of sorts for some academic atheists, who are fully aware of the undeserved mistrust and general suspicion cast upon them by the general public. Those in academia with a "mainstream" faith don't necessarily see a need for any type of speaking box as they are well within the majority of Americans. The misgiving awarded to atheists are not as prevalent among these academics as is with the general public and perhaps a slight tinge of empathy is felt towards their atheistic peers, so internal protest is minimal in reaction towards an out-spoken atheist, provided he/she isn't too outspoken.
These are merely my own observations and should be taken as such.
Ilya, maybe you could conduct this privately and then just give the final numbers?
On the other hand, many "mainstream" Protestant churches, Reform Jewish temples, and "progressive" Catholic churches devote much more attention to "social justice," liberal political causes, and the platform of the Democratic party than to what would traditionally be considered matters of faith and religion. And in these churches, there is no reluctance to concentrate on the secular. For members of these congregations -- and anyone who lives in a big city or near a major university can name several local churches, the churches that academics are likely to belong to, that fit this description -- religious practice is simply politics in another setting. (Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ is certainly not typical of "the black church," but it is typical of these politically oriented churches.)
You are misrepresenting the major findings of the study to make it appear that academics are just like most non-academics in terms of their religious views.
From the “major findings”
1. Most faculty believe in God, but atheism is significantly more prevalent among faculty than the general public.
2. Faculty are much less religious than the general public
3. Religious beliefs of college faculty are highly associated with political identity and behavior.
4. The secular/liberal portion of faculty is much higher than the religious/conservative.
5. Faculty feel warmly about most religious groups but feel coldly about evangelicals and Mormons
6. Faculty feel most unfavorably about evangelical Christians
7. Faculty are almost unanimous in their belief that evangelical Christians (Fundamentalists) should keep their religious belief out of American politics.
8. Although faculty generally oppose religion in the public sphere, many endorse the idea that Muslims should express their religious belief in American politics.
This last one should be a shocker, but is not. The American faculty is notable for its cowardice in the face of potential or actual physical opposition. Note its reaction to the Mohammad cartoons.
Nice try putting lipstick on this pig.
Even if we imagine that it's true(and I tend to believe that it is), it's more likely that atheists/agnostics tend to declare themselves as non-religious rather than Christians. But if you look at the numbers, only 12% of non-academics are non-religious, while the total of non-religious academics are 25%(14% non-religious and 11% atheists). It's a great difference.
And you forgot to mention that 17% of academics prefered not to answer the question about God, while only 3% of non-academics choose not to answer. We really don't know if this people believe in God or not, but probably some of them don't believe.
He has overwhelming support among faculty in his run for the Presidency. Strangely enough, his church is not viewed, nor is his minister viewed as among the mainstream of American Christians. But if he were a faculty member taking part in this survey, he would be classified as a deeply religious churchgoing Christian.
We can conclude that those who did not answer are more
likely to answer that they do not believe in God. The overall proportion of atheists among the faculty as a whole is actually more like 24% than the 19% shown by those who answered affirmatively.
Also, the age matters:
"Younger faculty, those under thirty-five, have a more positive view of atheists than those over sixty-five—30% percent and 16% respectively feel very warm/favorable toward atheists."
Also, as in an many spheres, the loudest voices are heard, even if they are only a minority. Thus, conservatives think all academics are atheist leftists; academics think all evangelicals want to make this a Christian theocracy.
@Moneyrunner43: He's hardly saying that academics are the same, he's saying that the differences are less than commonly perceived. 66%, while less than the vast majority of the general public, hardly makes academia an atheistic place. Especially when, as Ilya also noted, the reduced stigma of atheism makes people who don't really believe or don't care very much, much less likely to "go along with the crowd", and practice.
Further, a lack of religious belief hardly implies a hostility towards believers, the claim that got this started. While there is some hostility, it is no less than is felt among the general public. In academia, only 30% approve of evangelicals, but that appears to be the only group less accepted than in the general public; the presented data isn't complete, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and even Mormons are apparently more accepted in academia than mainstream society.
Also, only 66% of academics say they believe in God, but 73% want their children to receive religious training? There are academics who don't believe in God, but want their children to have religious training? That seems odd.
I don't mean to be normative about that, I'm just stating a fact.
Right?
2. An "unfavorable attitude" is a phrase open to many interpretations; I'd like to see a survey that put that question in a few different ways ("generally like/dislike," "agree/disagree with," etc.).
Religious traditionalists weren't out hunting homos for supper. They were merely responding to strong political action by queer civil rights groups. Traditionally, homosexual activity was disfavored (in Christian countries) but it existed, was known to exist, and was rarely punished. There were laws on the books (some draconian) but like the Leviticus death penalty provision were advertisements of displeasure rather than actual punishments.
Once the '60's hit, queers began to attack. Sodomy was derreged but they started pop cult takeovers (Disney cross-dressing, etc.), school takeovers (sexual ambiguity introduced in kindergarten), and anti-discrimination legislation. Most other OECD countries started locking up anti-gay believers (except for the Muslim ones).
Trads could see the writing on the wall so they responded. Evangelicals came from an antipolitical American tradition that had rejected the national churches of Europe. But eventually, they responded to commie-queer attacks.
Note that in the comments to the posts on the California Homeschooling Case, commentators recommended seizing the children of believers to counter indoctrinate them in mod values. When you advocate that level of aggression, you can hardly be surprised by an assertive response.
No one typically cares (***), from the standpoint of public policy interests broadly conceived, what academics who comprise the hard sciences believe, as long as they don't permit their ideological, philosophical and/or religious beliefs to adversely impact their rigorous scientific discipline. To take a premier example, the work being done at CERN and the recently inaugurated LHC will not be impacted adversely if the scientist in question is a philosophical materialist, a theist such as Einstein or a more decidedly "religious" person such as a Planck - as long as science and the disciplines that appertain to science are heeded. Even in the "less hard" areas of physics and mathematics, such as is reflected in string theory, as long as a genuinely rigorous internal discipline is maintained, no one cares very much, if at all, what their personal and social/political leanings are.
The rub comes in when philosophical, ideological and/or religious beliefs - both pro and con - are allowed to impact the discipline and research in question and are additionally allowed to impact public policy. This can certainly occur in the soft sciences (e.g., weren't "the group of 88" signatories in the Duke lacrosse case largely soft science profs?), and likewise can occur in other areas where ideological or philosophical dispositions can, subtly or more obviously, bias the rigor demanded by science and the public policy interests which can ensue.
Iow, addressing all academics in an undifferentiated manner can be of interest, but it serves to dilute the more critical and more specific aspects of the debate, where the devil is in the rubber that meets the road. Likewise, the soft sciences are merely the most obvious and blatant area where work resulting from quasi-disciplines and pseudo-disciplines are allowed to pass as far more scientific or authoritative statements than they in fact represent.
(*** People still care, for example around seven billion dollars was spent on the LHC at CERN and such amounts deserve scrutiny from all vantage points, but the point made concerns biases and more bigoted qualities that are allowed a veneer of "science," absent the rigor and discipline and substance demanded by better clarified conceptions of science.)
That should come as no surprise to anyone who reads this blog. I daresay that this series of posts about academics would find more extreme effects if the same analysis were applied to this blog's commentators.
RE: Consider the Possibilities
"It is, of course, possible that many theistic academics are still "secular" in the sense that religion doesn't play an important role in their lives. However, the IJCR survey shows that 63% of academics say that religion is "very important" or "somewhat important" to them." -- Ilya Somin
Not just possible. I'd suggest that it is highly probable. Or, as an alternative, their religion is vastly different from Christianity. I know a number of pagans, for whom their religion is "very important" or "somewhat important". I'm confident in saying that Wiccan and Satanists can claim the same.
The challenge is do they practice what they claim to believe?
If someone were to ask me, I could say I'm a progressive; were I a liar. And how would they know the difference? Unless they REALLY knew me? And who, not knowing me, would have the time to follow me about and watch what I do and hear what I say in order to corroborate my profession of political-faith with what I actually did?
This 'survey' has a major flaw, vis-a-vis what people claim. And I think the evidence is self-evident if you pay attention to what is going on in the world of 'higher-learning'.
These people can claim to believe in God. But I have serious doubts as to their veracity. Or if their god is the same as the Judeo-Christian one. I'll wager the prof I encountered last year, the one cursing Christians, would say they believe in god. The question is which god do they believe in? The one they see in the mirror, perhaps?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A tree is known by its fruit. -- some Wag, about 2000 years ago]
"Younger faculty, those under thirty-five, have a more positive view of atheists than those over sixty-five—30% percent and 16% respectively feel very warm/favorable toward atheists."
Ahh a nice tidbit that gives hope for the future.
RE: Hypocrisy, Pure and Simple
"Although Faculty Generally Oppose Religion in the Public Sphere, Many Endorse the Idea That Muslims Should Express Their Religious Beliefs in American Politics
Faculty are far less likely to endorse Evangelical Christians expressing their beliefs in American politics." -- IJCR Report
This is the telling indicator that the academics are hypocrits of the first water. And an indication that they would 'welcome' violent, militant religious believers of ANY stripe. All you have to do to get these academics—as reported by the IJCR—to accept you is get enough of your fellow 'believers' to threaten them....physically.
Then you can hold marches and rallies and teach-ins on their campus. Look at what's going on at SanFranU.
Gutless wonders.....
And they're supposed to be teaching the future generation?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful. -- C. S. Lewis]
Proselytization is the act of telling others what to think.
Political activism in by mormons and evangelical xians is simply legislating religious belief into law....like, "homosexuals are evil" and "abortion is bad".
Another form of proselytizing.
However, perhaps it is just that we dont want to be told what to think about science, education, sex, and/or culture.
;)
RE: [OT] Interesting Philosophy
Is this written anywhere? Or did you just make it up?
There's an on-going discussion regarding critical thinking over at PJM. You might want to drop in there.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
After all, you, in and of yourself, are not a serious threat to their worldview. Christians, i.e., the REAL ones, are a different matter, altogether. [Please...no Airplane jokes.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]
No, proselytization is urging others to adopt your beliefs. Note how the taint of fascism is ascribed to Christians when the ones telling others what to think are the academics, the radicals who impose speech codes, the people who want to outlaw prayer from public functions; who want to shut believers up except in their smaller and smaller ghettos.
From the report:
Only a minority of faculty disagreed that certain expressions which which they disagreed should be banned in public functions.
Let’s examine that for a moment. Christian Fundamentalists have their ethics and morals informed by their religious beliefs. So 71% of faculty demand that these people should not be allowed to express their ethics and morals in the public sphere. At the same time, atheists, Buddhists, the Reverend Wright and Moslems are invited to express their deeply held beliefs in the public sphere and use these as the basis for our laws.
I am reminded of the line in the bar scene of “Star Wars” where Ob Wan refers to the creatures there as A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy But don't question their openmindedness.
;)
Separation of Church and State
When evangelical xians or mormons come to my door i tell them i'm a muslim or a satanist.
I despise proselytizers.
Proselytization and missionariism are great evils.
I also despise IDTbots, homophobes attempting to legislate their religious values into anti-gaymarriage laws and trying to legislate their proselytizing into high school science classrooms.
if you want to be treated like jews (by academe), act like jews.
;)
The Universalism is a little different. When folks say they are "agnostic," they aren't agnostic on everything. Very few people are "Zeus" agnostic. I'm not an agnostic on whether Allah really sent those highjackers in the WTC and rewarded them with Virgins (I actively disbelieve it). Likewise I actively disbelieved in eternal damnation as put forth by orthodox Christianity. I think if true, it's a terrible, terrible horrific Truth. Christianity turns into extremely "bad news" with a silver lining that you can escape the terrible fate that awaits most of humanity, necessarily including many of your loved ones.
Everything else about rewards and punishment sort of has to do with Karma or what goes around comes around -- "cosmic justice." I also flirt with the possibility of reincarnation.
Maybe the way I've synthesized these ideas are unique. But none of them are original to me.
The survey used a sample of 6,600 faculty from a master list purchased from MKTG Services of Wilmington, Massachusetts. Thus any faculty member who does not appear on this direct marketing list has zero chance of being sampled. However problems with the sampling frame are minor compared to the evident response bias.
The survey got 1,269 usable completed questionnaires giving an adjusted response rate of 24%. Evidently no attempt was made to do a follow-up sample the of the non-respondents to see if their opinions differ in any significant way from the respondents. I don't see any discussion of response bias other than a check to see if the respondents had the same distribution across regions and disciplines. Suppose atheists had a much lower propensity to respond to this poll than religious faculty? The survey would then dramatically understate the secular nature of the target population.
I would also like to know if religious colleges appeared in the master list.
Based on a quick look, I judge this survey as too defective to draw conclusions from. Perhaps I missed something, if so let me know.
I don't mean to be nitpicky here, but I have a couple problems.
First, where did the 93% statistic come from? According to 2001 Census statistics, about 14% of adult Americans who responded (about 11M refused to respond) to questions about religion are of no religious faith, with atheists accounting for ~900K, agnostics accounting for ~1M, and ~27M claiming no religion (those claiming "no religion" can't be assumed to be atheists or agnostics and can't be assumed to be believers, though I tend to believe that they might be more inclined to be atheists or agnostics (or some other branch of non-theism like unitarianism or humanism) considering that they could have answered any other way than "no religion" if they truly adhered to a religion). If there is a source for their assumption about how many people actually believe in God then I've missed it.
Also, when did not believing in God constitute being an atheist. We atheists don't believe in any gods. God is a pretty specific god. God could probably be defined, at least it could be in the US, as the Abrahamic god; the god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. If I were a Buddhist, I might [possibly] be offended if someone called me an atheist because I said that I didn't believe in God.
No it doesn't. You haven't in any way ruled out that the unfavorable view is due to moralizing, proselytizing, and attempts to push their religious views into government laws - i.e. creationism in schools, stripping rights from gay citizenry, demonizing atheists and generally sticking their noses into other people's business (Schiavo etc.).
Well, that is, unless you claim that conservative political ideology indicates that you're a busybody who sticks their nose into everyone else's lives. Then again, that's why I stopped identifying with conservatives because I don't want to be associated with busybodies like that.
RE: It's Called....
"No, proselytization is urging others to adopt your beliefs. Note how the taint of fascism is ascribed to Christians when the ones telling others what to think are the academics, the radicals who impose speech codes, the people who want to outlaw prayer from public functions; who want to shut believers up except in their smaller and smaller ghettos." -- Moneyrunner43
...in psychological 'circles', 'Projection'.
They ascribe to those they oppose the very things they do themselves. It's a poor effort at pre-emptive strikes. Poor, at least, in the eyes of those who are better 'educated' and have a sense of personal integrity.
For the liars and cheats, it's their favorite 'tool'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Evil has many tools, but a lie is the handle that fits them all.]
RE: An Example of My Previous Comments....
...in other threads on this blog....
"Separation of Church and State" -- griefer
If you ask griefer to explain this statement, I wonder if he/she/it will describe the fact that government cannot suppress religious expression, vis-a-vis the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Three guesses. First two don't count.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Bit-phrase mentality is the favorite tool of those who cannot or will not—honestly—think for themselves. -- CBPelto]
RE: Try....
"You haven't in any way ruled out that the unfavorable view is due to moralizing, proselytizing, and attempts to push their religious views into government laws." -- Soldats
...not to be too ignorant.
ALL Law is based on morality. And morality is based on 'religious' worldview.
All you did here, with your statement, was proclaim that YOUR 'religious worldview', YOUR morality, should be the law of the land.
You're no different than the people you decry.
As I stated above, it's nothing but pure and unadulterated 'projection'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who would separate the law and morality will never understand one nor the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]
RE: Not To Put TOO Fine a Point On It....
"Also, when did not believing in God constitute being an atheist. We atheists don't believe in any gods." -- Justin Bowen
But from the distance, the atheists think themselve as gods; each unto himself.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Atheist, n., One hoping to God that He doesn't exist.]
P.S. I suspect it's because He is rather 'jealous'.
RE: The Survey Methodology
"The methodology here is defective for a number of reasons.
" -- A. Zardov
Interesting points, but I don't see them as totally corrupting the validity of the survey.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
The views of evangelicals are more visible, since they are showcased in IDT and samesex issue legislation. And ESCR legislation.
It is likely that academics reguard evangelicals as ...well...intransigently stupid on issues like the biological basis of homosexuality and ToE, paradigms well understood by the academics community.
I can say with confidence that vanishingly few academics believe that a fertilized oocyte or a blastula is "human life".
Proselytization is the act of telling others what to think.
Political activism in by mormons and evangelical xians is simply legislating religious belief into law....like, "homosexuals are evil" and "abortion is bad".
Another form of proselytizing.
If it's about proselytizing rather than the beliefs themselves (which I question), academics really are in no position to complain about it since many of them engage in it themselves.
I can actually somewhat agree with this. In my latest post, I quoted Allan Bloom -- a caution defender of "liberal democracy" bemoaning its excesses when he wrote:
But how do we "know" that freedom of religion specifically or "liberty" in general is non-negotiable: We defend with a moral passion as though it were God granted, whether such a God really exists or not.
There certainly were religious or metaphysical underpinnings to the moral claims of the American Founding, and of "liberal democracy"/republican government. However, arguably the political theology of the American Founding was not traditional orthodox Christianity, but something else.
The God of the American Founding, unlike the Biblical God who forbids it in His First Command, grants men an unalienable liberty right to worship no God or twenty gods.
Washington was a Free Mason.
;)
Moreover, there are plenty of theologians and the like with 'academic' jobs but when people talk about academics being atheists they don't mean to include this group either. Also the sense people have that most academics are atheists tends to exclude people who teach at business schools or teach other more skill based subjects.
I'd be much more interested to see the results of a survey of an ivy league university broken down by department.
Perseus, you are welcome to your religious beliefs as long as you keep them to yourselves.
By attempting to force them on others through proselytization or litigation, you open yourselves to public scrutiny, and public criticism.
I can say with confidence that vanishingly few academics believe that a fertilized oocyte or a blastula is "human life".
Well, this particular academic doesn't think that insights derived from biology are in any way dispositive of the moral and metaphysical questions concerning homosexuality or the definition of human life.
That's a philosophical disagreement on the basis of law. You think law is based on morality which is determined by religion. As such, you see any law you don't like as an attack on your morality and by association, you religion.
I can understand your view despite not agreeing with it. Just because I don't agree with abortion doesn't meant I'd want a law to prevent others from having one. It just means I wouldn't have one. I view it as something personal that the government should have no say in. Of course, you on the other hand would see the lack of such a law as an attack on your morality and religion.
So if my view is projection, it is no different that your's. And just attaching a quote to your post doesn't actually provide any factual refutation of what I stated.
Suppose the 76% who didn't respond are really different than the 24% who did respond? The poll could be absolutely worthless.
Response bias really counts. The infamous Literary Digest poll in 1936 predicted Alf Landon would win, yet FDR carried all but two states. The problem in this poll was response bias. Landon voters were the ones who tended to respond more than FDR voters. Most commentary on this poll is wrong. They blame the error on the sampling frame. In other words, FDR voters didn't get sampled as much as Landon voters. But as the article "Making of a Statistical Myth," which appeared in the American Statistician, makes clear, the sampling frame was not the problem, it was response bias. Anyone with JSTOR access can get to this article. Sorry I don't remember the date, but it's somewhere in the 1970s.
There are methods for dealing with non-response, and this is an active area in survey research. You can get whole books on how to deal with missing data. But this survey doesn't even discuss non-response, let alone try and correct for it.
I'm inclined to think that this whole thread is discussing noise.
You are right: It was some sort of syncretic founding ear unitarian-universalism that was sort of in between traditional Christianity on the one hand and strict deism on the other. I wrote about it on a post that the CATO Institute reproduced as part of their symposium on political theology here.
This theology was not "strict deism" as some secularist argue. Rather it was an inclusive "warm theism" that held "traditional Christianity is just great," but so too are all sorts of other exotic world religions that preach Truth claims incompatible with orthodox Christianity. We all worship the same God and he wants us to be good one another, etc. etc.
Not exclusively. I know secular Jews who oppose SSM. Any Christian or Jew who regards the bible as authoritative should oppose SSM as well as homosexuality. Leviticus 20:13 says: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.". Is this simply a translation error, and the Hebrew really means something else? I doubt it. Islam too condemns homosexuality. So all three Abrahamic religions condemn homosexuality. I don't think opposition to SSM stems from Evangelicalism. Blame the bible.
By attempting to force them on others through proselytization or litigation, you open yourselves to public scrutiny, and public criticism.
I have no problem with public criticism of my pagan beliefs, but see how open to criticism your typical academic is if you object to their proselytizing on behalf of the dogma of, say, "diversity."
I'd just like to comment on this:
"Although Faculty Generally Oppose Religion in the Public Sphere, Many Endorse the Idea That Muslims Should Express Their Religious Beliefs in American Politics"
Speaking for myself, I endorse the idea that Muslims should have the right to 'express their religious beliefs in American politics' just like any other Americans. Of course, since I generally oppose 'religion in the public square', by which most people mean state endorsement of religion and public policies based on mainly religious grounds, I would probably oppose whatever policies said Muslims would support, but I'd still support their right to advocate for them. I don't necessarily see a contradiction there, nor do I see myself as a traitorous coward for so believing.
... but I suppose certain posters would beg to differ...
... actually, they probably branded me as a traitor as soon as I implied that Muslims could be Americans...
And yet, somehow, there are Christians and Jews and (maybe) Muslims who support same-sex marriage :)
(It's funny, by the way, that the same Christian rightists (including some commenting above) who will go on for days about how America is a 'Christian nation' are also eager to claim that Christian academics, Christian liberals, black Christians, gay Christians, etc, etc, are not genuinely Christian. They seem to forget that, if they're the only 'real Christians', then real Christians are a minority, and that America is not and never was a majority-Christian nation.
I know this is off-topic, but I noted how eager Chuck Pelto, Moneyrunner43, et al, were above to redefine Christianity to exclude liberals and academics. Just a thought
imposing your religion on the rest of us.
Truly, it is incomprehensible to me. Evangelicals despise intellectuals that acadame. The conservative Right has declared war on science. Why do evangelicals care that scientists and academics dislike them and think they are stupid?
If the Framers had wanted to make orthodox xianity a state religion they surely could have. I read somewhere they felt the best protection for any one religion was a multitude of religions. And also the best way to keep one religion from oppress less populous ones as well.
It seems that would have foremost in their minds coming a recent situ where minor variants of one main religion were persecuted.
Alright then, a religious idea. It is not, say, a scientific idea or a legal idea. ;)
academe doesnt proselytize.....they are being paid, they are solicited. and they teach knowledge, not superstition.
ToE, Theory of Everything? There certainly are a few academics who understand ToE paradigms, but I very much doubt many academics do. Beyond some surface level conceptualizations, it can be a highly arcane and abstruse set of topoi. As it happens, directly upthread I provided a link to one such overview, a link which amply demonstrates that fact.
In terms of "the biological basis of homosexuality," you're poorly informed or, if not, you're being disingenuous. As noted about a month ago here at VC, Sahotra Sarkar's commentary on the subject, emphasis added:
"Perhaps the most controversial application of [the allele-sharing method] has been to a type of male homosexual orientation. The original study reported that brothers who both exhibited such an orientation showed excess allele-sharing (thirty-three out of forty pairs) at the locus Xq28 (on the X chromosome). A follow-up study reported the same result, but with only twenty-two of thirty-two pairs now showing allele sharing. It also reported no such linkage for female homosexuality. However, in both cases there was an important caveat: while each pair of brothers was shown to share the same DNA sequence at the Xq38 location, different pairs did not necessarily have the same sequence. Attempts to reproduce this result have so far not been uniformly successful. As noted, the follow-up study provided confirmation, but with a lower degree of statistical significance. Another group failed to reproduce the result altogether. Moreover, methodological problems, possibly, the biased reporting of the data - have been alleged in the work of the original group."
Those latter allegations were originally advanced by E. Marshall ("NIH's 'Gay Gene' Study Questioned," Science) and C. Holden ("More on Genes and Homosexuality," Science), each in 1995 and each fellow researchers and scientists, not advocates. Also, see J.M. Bailey in Nature Genetics, "Sexual Orientation Revolution" where he indicates the data do not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.
In sum, to what extent you're 1) "intransigently stupid" vs. 2) merely intransigent and (conveniently) poorly informed vs. 3) disingenuous is not at all apparent. Personally, I'd tend to be generous and guess #2. Still, it's far less apparent than some would like to believe.
'religious' worldviewvalues.Much better.
If you are raised accepting your culture's values hook line and sinker and if those cultural values were based on religious values you may then think that all morals are based on religion. But if you are an individual who takes the time to be critical of the values you were indoctrinated into and have knowledge of history and other cultures values you may decide to re-organize your value hierarchy based on intellectual decisions. Your values and morals are then not religious based in the least. Guess what, we exist and we don't go rampaging around in selfish orgies just because religious values have no place in our life.
PNAS
"I don't think opposition to SSM stems from Evangelicalism. Blame the bible."
"And yet, somehow, there are Christians and Jews and (maybe) Muslims who support same-sex marriage :)"
Those Christians, Jews,and Muslims obviously don't regard the bible as authoritative, or they regard 18:22 as misinterpreted regarding homosexuality. Such is the stuff of theological arguments, but I would like to hear why the obvious interpretation is not the correct one.
Your view of academia is highly idealized, to say the least. And see what kind of reaction you get from all of the post-modernist academicians when you assert that the academy teaches "knowledge."
imposing your religion on the rest of us."
No, I'm just pointing out that anyone who regards the bible as authoritative is pretty much forced to reject homosexuality.
Of course regarding the bible as authoritative itself leads to logical problems if you believe in the law of the excluded middle. Deuteronomy 25:5 Now contrast that with Leviticus Chapter 18 Thus Deuteronomy mandates what Leviticus forbids. This contradiction complicated and delayed King Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine. Henry's advocates claimed his marriage was invalid because of Leviticus, while Catherine's advocates countered with Deuteronomy. Theologically I don't this contradiction has ever been satisfactorily resolved. So if the bible is authoritative, how come it contains at least one contradiction?
Of course polygamy is next. There is now no rational basis for maintaining the prohibition on it.
Soon thereafter, of course, incestuous marriages are quite forseeable, if only as an estate planning device. For example, currently, mega-taxes are imposed on transfers of wealth following death (estate taxes and inheritance taxes), including inter-generational transfers. However, federal and state death tax laws also recognize a marital exemption, allowing the estate to pass to a spouse tax-free.
As such, it would be legal malpractice for a lawyer to not advise widowed spouses to marry their children. By marrying their children, they obtain the benefit of a tax-free transfer via the marital exemption upon the death of the parent/spouse. By not marrying their children, such transfer at death gets taxed.
The fact that they never live together or never have sex is, of course, within the couple’s right to privacy, i.e., none of the government’s business.
I'm going to advise my wife, should she survive me, to marry my son and daughter to avoid the estate tax.
Reason #267 to read a libertarian law blog: Divine Judgment that allows credit for time served.
Actually, if you were a Buddhist and someone called you an atheist, you might agree.
That's why I said "might," not "would" agree. There's nothing necessarily doctrinally inconsistent with the term, though neither is it mandated. I know one Buddhist who calls herself an atheist. Her husband rejects the term, though he admits it's probably descriptively accurate.
And ...?
Your links reflect something, but what they reflect more specifically and in a positive sense is not at all obviously conducive to the pov you are forwarding. Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is merely one of the problems. Correlation vs. causation another. It may pass the Katie Couric and MSM test and make it to the nightly news cum infotainment shows, but that's about it. And that, in response to this, directly upthread?! Absolutely fatuous. Again, it may pass the Katie Couric test, beyond that it doesn't even pass the laugh-track test, it's so banal and fatuous that it's impossible to muster a genuine lol.
I will again note that it's not clear whether you're intransigently stupid or merely intransigent, as in willful. That, because stupidity as such can reflect either innate qualities or it can be a function of more willfully self-blinded and habituated/repetitious and enculturated qualities. This is worth noting not for personal or unkind reasons, but because the phenomenon in question is very nearly ubiquitous and is in fact ubiquitous in terms of its influence; recall Forrest Gump's incisive and too often unheeded commentary.
You would be wiser, or rather more tactically prudent, to positively avoid certain lines of inquiry.
"ALL Law is based on morality. And morality is based on
'religious' worldviewvalues." SenatorXYour "morality" and "values" are entirely synonymous, so you're forwarding nothing more than a tautology. That's merely your first problem.
I do tend to think of myself as a god. I control almost every single aspect of my life. I am the beginning and the end of all that happens in my life. I believe that other people should worship me.
I stand corrected.
With regards to this survey, could a person choose Buddhist and atheist as answers to the same question?
And there is the argument that, even if homosexuality is a sin, we are all sinners, so it should not be singled out for adverse treatment. Most churches don't screen their congregants for ongoing greed, or gluttony, or pride, or other sins.
How do you explain that unless there is some sort of biological basis for homosexuality?
The implicit Big Circus Tent of Conservative Inclusiveness could result in unintended guilt by association.
For example: Mt. Vernon, OH., 8th grade public school teacher, John Freshwater, who adamantly refused to teach the stipulated curriculum, and after receiving many complaints about him, the school board contracted with a consultancy firm to investigate allegations about Mr. Freshwater's teaching methods, which included ritualistic physical punishment of students.
Those miscreant liberals, always interfering with Christian teachers, whose faith compels a conservative political world view... A friend and former colleague views this as a form of religious persecution:
The cross-burning "episode" was reported as being multiple incidents in the investigative report, but it isn't a sin to engage in fuzzy antinomian rhetoric in defense of light mutilation, when it is the everlasting souls of children at stake. Are you claiming that this arse, with his multiple violations of his employment contract, and his criminal acts of physical violence, perpetrated against minors under his supervision, is a "conservative values" kind of guy?
The potential for use as sarcastic ordnance is at least as great as Craiglike Conservative's tendencies to Peep in the Public Potties.
The whole concept of "Religious Freedom" has been exaggerated far beyond any rational application of original intent. It was meant to mean that all humans were free to privately practise their matters of conscience without societal interference. It was never meant as a rock to shield civil/criminal offenses, providing a safe-harbour defense of religiosity for individuals who believed their faith superseded the civil authority in The Nation. It was grounded in and expanded upon the teachings of John Calvin, the philosophy of John Locke, and a historical understanding of the profound bloodshed resultant from European wars waged by Christians of oppositional sects.
America was founded by persons, who were in great majority, believers in various Christian sects, who also understood the reality, that there was never and will never be a warm and fuzzy totality of a Christian gestalt. The vast schisms can never be breached, because they are caused by irreconcilable foundational beliefs in the requirements for salvation.
Contemporary conservatism deserves to be derogated. It is naught but a pale shell of its greatness, that existed before it had embraced the radical right and former Trotskyists, welcomed them into their camp as kin, and then slatternly acquiesced to repeated rapacious victimisation at the hands of these guests, all for the cause of political expediency. In this, there can be no honour, and is instead, preponderating moral relevancy.
Irrespective of your intentions, calling someone stupid isn't civil.
Not at all true. I can't believe you would comment upon something you know nothing about. You make is sound like we had it easy until some uppity gays started demanding more.
Persucution of gays has waxed and waned throughout the centuries. At times, such as during the late Italian Renaissance, gays were hunted down and burned. Other times, there was basic live and let live, at least if you were of the aristocracy. Often, though, if you were found out to be gay, your were simply killed by whoever happened to find out.
Or perhaps you don't know about Oscar Wilde, who was sentenced to two years of hard labor, the maximum penalty, as recently as the 1890s?
During the 50s and 60s, gay bars were regularly raided and gays were beat up by police, and THAT was what gays were rebelling against during the Stonewall riots.
As recently as just a few years ago, gays were actaully arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home, which directly led to the Lawrence v. Texas case.
I suggest you do a little actual research before you start spouting off on gay history, Duncan.
As for the Bible's statements on gays, it's great that everyone is so into Leviticus and it's laws. Do you know that there are over 1000 laws just in that one chapter? They cover all sorts of things, like prohibiting eating shellfish, pork, oysters, lobster and shrimp. They prohibit you from wearing clothes made with the mixed fibers of wool and cotton. You can't sit on a chair that a menstruating woman has sat on. You must kill your child for mouthing off to you.
If you want are going to demand that everyone else live according to the laws of the Bible, then you have a pretty heavy burden. I suggest that before you insist that everyone else follow these laws, you do so yourself first. If you can, then you might, MIGHT, have a right to impose them on someone else.
DEUTERONOMY22:13-21 If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
• DEUTERONOMY22:22 If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
• MARK10:1-12 Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
• LEVITICUS18:19 The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. • MARK12:18-27 If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
• DEUTERONOMY25:11-12 If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
And many scholars agree with this analysis:
Now what do the Leviticus passages say about homosexuality? I’m convinced those passages say nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today. Here’s why. Consider this single Bible passage that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation: “He spilled his seed on the ground... And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also” (Genesis 38:9-10). For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times? Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man’s sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder. The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk “wasting” even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.
AGree or disagree, but at least there is an analysis as to why we don't have to follow Lev.
But evangelicals have forcibly inserted their religion into politics, so their idealogy has become more visible, and therefore more offensive to academics.
Dr. Ken Miller and Dr. Francis Collins are academics AND catholics.
;)
With regard to a man's wife dying without issue, Deuteronomy mandates what Leviticus forbids (see my post for my detail). That's a logical problem as opposed to a "that's too strict" problem. But I see no way out of Leviticus 20:13 as the text seems plain on its face. We can go back to the original Hebrew if you want. Just because some parts of the bible might be ambiguous, mistranslated or misinterpreted does not necessarily mean all other parts have the same problem. Nor does it matter that no one measures up to every single mandate. Just because people frequently cheat on their income tax does not mean every part of the penal code is rendered inoperative.
All that being said, people who want to regard the bible as authoritative and perfect have to grapple with its logical contradictions (see my example). If it's not perfect can it still be divine? I leave that to the theologians.
Here you are arguing from authority using the bible on a law blog!!!
to some of us its sillie, to some of us its offensive, and to some of i bet its stupid.
Are you claiming that Michael shouldn't be allowed to post at all? If you take rambling insults away from his rhetorical toolbox, what would be left?
Agreed. And any one who has studied the history of the Bible knows that it is filled with errors and mistranslations, making any literal reading a foolish endeavor. So in my opinion, anyone who takes anything literally in the Bible is basically a willing fool or an ignorant student. And those people should not be going around telling everyone else how they should live their lives.
They should also rewrite the Ten Commandments, since they are so obviously out of date. Get rid of that one about graven images and replace it with No Abortions under any Circumstances, No Sex Outside of Heterosexual Marriages, All Homosexuals must be convert to heterosexuality or remain closeted, All people Must Get Married, Divorce is Outlawed, All Fun Drugs Other Than Alcohol are Prohibited, etc.
You get the point. The Bible today simply isn't sufficient for their needs.
I'd be curious to see what the numbers look like once you filter out all of the bullshit professors.
"Here you are arguing from authority using the bible on a law blog!!!"
What? You have obviously not read me very carefully.
RE: [OT] Exclusion? A Digression
"I know this is off-topic, but I noted how eager Chuck Pelto, Moneyrunner43, et al, were above to redefine Christianity to exclude liberals and academics." -- Tyrant King Porn Dragon
Show me where I said that.
Rather, I suspect you're projecting, as academics, according to the IJCR report want to exclude Christians from the political venue. It's documented there in the report's Major Findings
I have no problem with liberals and/or academics being christians. Indeed, I welcome them. But I say that a man is known by his actions more than some label he applies to himself. I could call myself a progressive. But would I be telling the truth? Despite the idea that I might consider my approach to life and politics as 'progressive'?
Progressives recognize each other by their actions. Why shouldn't christians?
No. A liberal or an academic can be a christian, but their works will tell the truth about them.
So. Please. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It just makes you look either ignorant or worse.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A tree is known by its fruit. -- some Wag, about 2000 years ago]
P.S. Likewise, many people who call themselves 'christians' are not. You can tell it by what they do...or don't do.
The conflict between Leviticus and Deuteronomy with regard to the question of affinity received considerable attention because of King Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine. Advocates for Henry and Catherine generated an immense quantity of scholarly writing, particularly from Bishop John Fisher. The contradiction appears to be genuine and not the result of errors, omissions and mistranslations.
Of course Kurt Godel who gave us the famous incompleteness theorem, claims he found a logical contradiction in the US Constitution. But no one I know claims the Constitution is the perfect product of divine creation.
I don't know how much theological study has gone into the question of Leviticus and homosexuality; all I can say is the text seems clear.
RE: [OT] Contradictins Anyone? Another Digression
"And any one who has studied the history of the Bible knows that it is filled with errors and mistranslations...." -- Randy R.
I think I've read that Old Book and studied it more than the two of you put together.
As for the concept of 'mistranslations', I'm well aware. And I point them out in my Friday Morning Mens' Bible Study group. That's why I prefer the King James Version.
As for other 'errors', I've yet to see anyone point out anything particularly significant.
Show me this contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You may be a 'first' in my books.
RE: [OT] A Fool's Errant
".... making any literal reading a foolish endeavor." -- Randy R.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." -- Exodus
Tell me, Randy, why is that hard to take 'literally'?
Or are you REALLY that 'ignorant' about what is written in that Old Book? I would guess that is the case, based on your error.
What do YOU think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The field behind rhetoric is oft mined with equivocation. Let the back-peddling begin!]
RE: [OT] Michael, LM and Civility v. Stupidity
"'Irrespective of your intentions, calling someone stupid isn't civil.' -- LM to Michael
Are you claiming that Michael shouldn't be allowed to post at all? If you take rambling insults away from his rhetorical toolbox, what would be left?" -- Bad
What would be left? How about the truth?
I've engaged LM also and he is either 'ignorant and proud of it'—my working definition of stupid—or much, much worse, e.g., a liar.
But I do agree that calling someone 'stupid' IS rather uncivil. It is much better to ask them not to be so stupid. Although it doesn't seem to work; as far as some people on THIS blog are concerned. So maybe calling them 'stupid' at least gets their attention. [Note: Reminds me of a joke my Father used to tell me about a mule and a 2x4. Whacking the mule in the head with the 2x4 doesn't stop the mule from doing stupid things. But it DOES get its attention.]
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupidity is ignorance with pride.]
RE: Contradictions
Also, with respect to the claim about a contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, be advised....I'm a Christian. If it a contradiction about the laws the Hebrews must abide by, it's not going to carry much weight in my Christian opinion. For example, the sanction against eating pork. Or issues relating to slavery.
But, please, show me the contradiction....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Leviticus forbids what Deuteronomy mandates. See my prior posts on this thread.
"If it a contradiction about the laws the Hebrews must abide by, it's not going to carry much weight in my Christian opinion."
Absolutely not. Medieval Christian theologians have studied this matter extensively. It was the central issue in the canon law regarding Kind Henry III's divorce from Catherine.
So now I'm either stupid or a liar? Two days ago I was stupid and a liar? How did I win you over so quickly?
Whichever one you think is better, they both violate the norms of civil discourse. More to the point, they both violate the guidelines set by this site's proprietor, of whom we're all just guests. Guidelines which I've called to your attention twice already, apparently to no avail. Guidelines which, by the way, one of the principle bloggers has asked us to police as a group.
Oh, and not to belabor the obvious, but asking someone not to be so stupid is calling them stupid.
RE: Leviticus v. Dueteronomy
"Leviticus forbids what Deuteronomy mandates. See my prior posts on this thread." -- A. Zarkov
I've seen them and I'm not seeing the much mentioned 'contradition'.
I see you've cited Leviticus. But I have not seen where