Mark Lilla's "The Politics of God," from yesterday's New York Times Magazine, reflects the bafflement of the liberal intelligentsia in coming to terms with the worldwide revival of religion. Lilla is a respected political scientist at Columbia University, and his essay begins with all the pomposity of the secular liberal establishment. "We in the West are disturbed and confused...We find it incomprehensible that theological ideas still stir up messianic passions...We had assumed this was no longer possible...We were wrong."
Having discovered the obvious--that God is dead only in Manhattan--our campus Sherlock gives us a potted history of the religious wars. These wars culminated in what he terms the Great Separation. Yes, Lilla is genuflecting, as all approved New York Times pundits must, to the grand scheme of separation of church and state. "We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by divine revelation." Apparently Lilla has forgotten about the Declaration of Independence, which traces the source of our inalienable rights to none other than "the Creator." The doctrine that "all men are created equal" is derived from the theological concept that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
Nowhere does Lilla confront the obvious problem that his Great Separation is not even close to what the American founders had in mind. Even Jefferson, the least religious of the founders who first used the "wall of separation" phrase in a letter, permitted a far more public role for religion than we have today. Although Lincoln was not a conventionally religious man, his speeches were full of ruminations about divine providence and about God's active role in shaping the destiny of America. Lilla may disagree with the founders and with Lincoln, but he pretends like they were aberrations in some grand narrative of liberal enlightenment. He neglects to point out that today's Great Separation is a product of a series of Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1940s.
Consequently when Lilla accurately diagnoses "the revival of political theology in the modern West," he is not (as he thinks) identifying a rebellion against modernity or America or any of that. He is identifying merely a revolt against the extreme secularism that has captured academia and the courts in the past few decades. This extreme secularism has given atheists and unbelievers full control of the public square on the specious grounds that unbelief is politically safer than belief. As I will show in my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity, the ideologies of unbelief have littered the world with more corpses in a few decades than all the religions have managed over millennia. Isn't it time to stop crying over three-hundred year old denominational conflicts that occurred on another continent, not here in America?
Lilla's article contains one worthwhile insight. He recognizes that Islam is better tamed by traditional Muslims like Tariq Ramadan than by secular liberals who have little or no influence in Islamic countries. Otherwise he can do no better than end on a note of liberal self-congratulation. "All we have is our own lucidity," he writes without a trace of irony. "We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible's messianic prose than to try exploiting them for the public good." Put this way, I don't really disagree. But who is this "we" that Lilla keeps referring to? I suspect this is academia talking to academia, Manhattan liberals cheering up other Manhattan liberals. I hope the Supreme Court discovers that it is also wise to beware the revisionist doctrines of secular pundits like Lilla.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 8)
31. D'Souza is clearly attempting to subvert U.S. history to suit religious zealots and slam the country's secular tradition. He dismisses Tomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" because it's not part of the official Constitution, but then cites the Declaration of Independence ("...endowed by the Creator") which ALSO isn't part of the Constitution! Oops!
I also can't believe the hypocrisy of this statement:
"As I will show in my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity, the ideologies of unbelief have littered the world with more corpses in a few decades than all the religions have managed over millennia. Isn't it time to stop crying over three-hundred year old denominational conflicts that occurred on another continent, not here in America?
So, let me get this straight: D'Souza belittles us (secularists) for concerning ourselves with past events that happened far away, but is planning to write a book about THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF ATHEISTIC WARFARE??? NONE of which, I might add, happened on this continent. He'd better hope atheists caused a massacre in Newark yesterday, or it's going to be a pretty short book.
The number of people who have died in religious warfare that was waged--and is still being waged--throughout roughly 4,000 years of modern human history is nigh unspeakable. They are also hopelessly inaccurate because conquerors simply did not have the means to make any accurate measurements. Comprehensive records didn't even begin to exist until around 1900, and that was just for Europe and America. And because historians tend to frown on wild exaggerations, I believe that the estimates we have for those countless millions are conservative at best.
Superbad at 1:18PM on Aug 20th 2007
32. Bridget,
What if a person were jewish?
scottfother at 1:16PM on Aug 20th 2007
33. God Bless us, everyone.
Mary at 1:17PM on Aug 20th 2007
34. Good points all around, commentators included, but I cannot stress how important it is to leave out the word “they”. Who are these mystical “they” who all agree and act in accordance as one unit without dissent? This is another modern fallacy. Religion, Politics, any discipline or system of belief, is filled with dissent. Filled with debate and disagreement. Don’t turn the world into a series of sectarian wars. It is true that separation of Church and State is some what of a myth. But in a democracy there is no way to avoid that. A government ruled by people within it’s own boundaries, however poorly sustained or well maintained, will automatically include opinions of those people, liberal or conservative, secular or religious. The intent is to separate government policy from the decree of an institution that is beyond individual influence. The same happens in other countries. In Syria, the government is well influenced by the Alawi, a minority in terms of Islamic orthodoxy, and as a result they pursue a course of secularism. Intending specifically to keep their religious autonomy and validity in tact. In that case, secularism is the result of institutional liberalism and individual conservativism. The same is true in this country, religiosity is on the rise, yet the forms themselves are very dependent on technology and development that comes from very secular institutions. Separating those is an exercise in futility. As is making vast generalizations about the factions, as well as clouding the inherent complexities of such a system. In every group there are divisions on the issue of religion and its place within politics as well as it’s sway when intentionally excluded from all institutions, even on the personal level. It is also within are interest to remember that we ourselves live in a Liberal Democracy. Liberal meaning “belonging to the people” or “free”, Democracy meaning “the people” and “to rule”, in other words, allowing people to rule themselves while protecting what belongs to the individual as free, not allowing the majority to take those things.
Azrael at 1:22PM on Aug 20th 2007
35. Either God died creating the Universe or he is a lousy engineer. The concept that God is watching everything and is helping us day to day is a farce.
All one has to do is look at the laws that God created to govern the Universe, govern our galaxy, govern our solar system and govern our earth and one will see a very benign absentee landlord type approach to the creation and reproduction of stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, planets and life itself on earth. Survival of the fittest is the force that governs life on earth....with each species killings its own or others to feast on them or control them at every level from bacteria, to man to beast to fish to insect...there is no nice guy approach to life. So why would a benevolent God allow that to happen? He is either not here, did not finish his or her task or is really not a nice creator. The chaos that seems to be the order of creation throughout the universe is not the mark of an organized God who has control....rather it is the work of someone who could not finish the job or did not know how. Humanity would be better off trying to understand how the Universe was created and then try and find out why. No one has ever come back from Heaven or Hell to prove the other various religious reasons so science is our only hope. Using relgious Fear to control humnanity does not work for intelligent people.
Rockwell at 1:29PM on Aug 20th 2007
36. Darkman, you really need to back all of your claims. But, because I'm so nice, I'll destroy all of them for you.
I do not call that which always existed "god". I call it the universe. The hatred of atheists by militant christians has everything to do with fear and doubt on the part of the christians. Christians destroy the belief that the individual matters by proclaiming that the individual is unworthy of god, and that we are all held in some collective guilt. Militant atheists do not destroy the belief that the individual matters. There is no savior.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 2:02PM on Aug 20th 2007
37. Not even Manhattan can escape from God and realize it is appointed for men to die once.
The living God and our High Preist, “Christ Jesus then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” (Hebrews)
One day we shall know the truth both those who believe and those who think God is dead, or have cooked up their own version of God.
Alan Klaus at 2:11PM on Aug 20th 2007
38. # 5 - Dr. Will...
So all liberals want to "restrict the free worship of religion?" Exactly what study says that? How could any study measure such nonsense?
Your fancy history recitation really means one thing to someone like you I am sure - that church going folks are superior to non church going folks.
As to restricting the free worship of religon, there plenty of hard line fundamentalists out there who would love to force their religion on all of us - when and where to go to church, when to genuflect, when to praise God.
I find these folks far more scary than any atheist/agnostic I have ever encountered.
David S. at 2:57PM on Aug 20th 2007
39. Was'nt the phrase " Render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's ",
attributed to somebody named Jesus? And isn't this
one of the earliest calls for separation of church
and State?
Just asking.
BOB JOHNSON at 3:08PM on Aug 20th 2007
40. A Poem:
Jesus loves me, yes I know
Cause the Bible tells me so
That is all I need to hear
And so I know I'll never fear
Nothing else is in my head
Except a book by guys long dead
Science isn't telling me
What I can and cannot see
I never, ever take a look
Since I only own one book
Jesus is my only thought
When others ask me what I've bought
I’d rather pluck out both my eyes
So that I can't see the lies
That Science tells us are the truth
I think that Science is uncouth!
Telling me that things fall down
And how a cricket makes a sound
And how planets spin around the sun
And how the gears in watches run
I do not need to hear the facts
I only need religious tracts
And prayers to our Great Lord above
Who blinded me with Bible Love
It feels so good to be so dense
To live behind an iron fence
To shelter fragile minds from truth
(Indoctrinate them in their youth)
Feed them tales of God above
And all of His undying Love
And how he put things in this place
Plain as the nose there on your face
That seem to say that He's not real
That's just the lying Science deal!
He put them here to fool us guys
When we try to use our eyes
We know better, yes we do
Science is at best, untrue
At worst a strange Satanic plot
To show what is real, and what is not
Why should we care what is real?
We still have the Christian deal
Believe in God, at any cost
And look to others like we're lost
Hope for God to make it clear
When the Rapture cometh near
With nonbelievers left behind
You'll all be sorry that you whined
Of how we're descended from some beast
(I don't believe it in the least)
“No Thanks” I say to Science stuff
I think that I have had enough
Of facts and reason, Truth and Hope
I'd much prefer to be a dope.
Brian at 3:25PM on Aug 20th 2007
41. Dinesh wrote: “Mark Lilla's ‘The Politics of God,’ from yesterday's New York Times Magazine, reflects the bafflement of the liberal intelligentsia in coming to terms with the worldwide revival of religion.”
It’s problematic to say that there is a worldwide revival of religion. There probably is a larger percentage of non-religious people in the world than there ever has been before in recorded human history. According to Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman: “the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already” (Why the Gods aren’t winning). Here is a link:
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
Moreover, there are 1.3 billion people in China, and a lot of non-religious people there. According to the New York Times:
“A recent poll by East China Normal University estimated that 31.4 percent of Chinese 16 or older are religious, putting the number of believers at roughly 400 million.
“In recent years, official estimates have placed the number of believers at around 100 million, but the fact that the new survey's results were not only made public but were also reported by the government-controlled Chinese news media suggests that the survey has been given at least some official credence.”
If this poll is accurate, it would mean that a majority of Chinese are not religious. And there are 1.3 billion people in China. Here is a link to an expert from Phil Zuckerman’s 2005 book Atheism: Contemporary Link and Patterns:
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
And here is a link a quote from an article by Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman entitled Why the Gods are not Winning:
“The evangelical authors of the [World Christian Encyclopedia] lament that no Christian 'in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism...and in the Americas due to materialism...The number of nonreligionists...throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000...Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism...Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians" (italics added). (The WCE probably understates today's nonreligious. They have Christians constituting 68-94% of nations where surveys indicate that a quarter to half or more are not religious, and they may overestimate Chinese Christians by a factor of two. In that case the nonreligious probably soared past the billion mark already, and the three great faiths total 64% at most.)”
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html
There are clearly significantly more religious people in the world than non-religious people. But most definitely there are a larger number non-religious people in the world than there ever has been before, and I suspect that the percentage of non-religious people in the world is higher than it ever has been in recorded human history.
Wes at 3:46PM on Aug 20th 2007
42. Jewish God is not dead in Manhattan - in fact it thrives and is nurtured. The Manhattan based Media tries at every turn to murder Christian God - from Piss Christ art to unflatering documentaries about how "evil" Christians are. Most of this anti-Christian movement is funded by Jews who want to be religious and traditional but goad everyone else into being be "cool" atheists and unspiritual. Which is a recipe for disaster for our youth. There are liberal, pro-gay Christians - but the Media NEVER runs stories on them. It is all an anti-Christian PR campaign.
John at 3:59PM on Aug 20th 2007
43. Can anyone doubt that, during the religious wars of the 1600's, if the different factions had possessed tanks, poison gas, or the capability to perform incindiary bombardment, and a population density like ours, they would have easily surpassed the carnage of the two World Wars?
Remember, it was a Christian (Papal Legate Arnaud of Aumury, during the crusade against the Christian sect of Cathars)who said, "Kill them all, God will know his own!"
Bruce Peterson at 4:54PM on Aug 20th 2007
44. John wrote: "Which is a recipe for disaster for our youth."
Could you elaborate on that? And what reason is there to believe that having people not be religious would be "a disaster for our youth." I'm not religious, and I'm a good guy.
Wes at 4:03PM on Aug 20th 2007
45. Dinesh wrote: "As I will show in my forthcoming book What's So Great About Christianity, the ideologies of unbelief have littered the world with more corpses in a few decades than all the religions have managed over millennia."
Dinesh, are you suggesting that the cause of this killing was that the people doing it were not religious? My experience is that, in general, non-religious people are as ethical as religious people. I'm not religious, and I'm ethical. So, I’m skeptical that the cause of the unethical acts were that the agents were not religious. In other words, if being non-religious would make it harder for most people to be ethical, then I would expect to see more unethical acts perpetrated by non-religious people than by religious people. And I don’t see that.
Or, are you saying that, if the majority of people in the world were not religious, there would be more death in the world -- and a less good world -- than would be the case if most people are religious? If so, I disagree. As I said, my experience is that, overall, non-religious people are as ethical as religious people.
Perhaps some people think that not being religious makes it harder for SOME, though not all, people to be ethical. So even if not being religious does not make it harder for MOST people to be ethical, it makes it harder for SOME people to be ethical. So, one might conclude from this that, if the majority of people were not religious, it would result in a less ethical world overall. For some of the non-religious people would engage in more unethical acts in virtue of their not being religious.
However, I think that it is unlikely that being non-religious makes it harder for anyone to be ethical. For I can’t think of anyone personally who I have reason to believe has done unethical things IN VIRTUE OF he or she not being religious. But maybe there are some. However, I think, overall, the world would be no less ethical if the majority of people were not religious; for even if not being religious makes it harder for some people to be ethical, not being religious makes it easier for some people to be ethical and being religious makes it harder for some people to be ethical. So any increase in unethical behavior that came from an increase in non-religiosity would be balanced out by an increase in ethical behavior that came from an increase in non-religiosity.
The key to bringing about people who make ethical choices is good nurturing, good mentoring, good education, and ensuring that people have the material goods necessary to flourish. My experience is that these things are highly correlated with people who are able to be good human beings and good citizens.
Wes at 4:20PM on Aug 20th 2007