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 5 of 8)
61. The Constitution restricts religion for a simple reason. Most of the people who wrote it clearly remembered what happens when a state approved and funded religion has its way with government. It gets so bad in that country that it inspires people to risk thier lives by boarding leaky boats and traveling across thousands of miles of uncharted ocean just to escape the place.
Plus, religion has started more wars then it has stopped because somewhere along the line someone starts to think "God is on my side. Or would be if He knew what I do about those heathens / infidels / pagans out there."
J.T. at 8:45PM on Aug 20th 2007
62. Knight of BWAA: Please produce your proof that "Christians hate atheists."
Not marginalized at 8:51PM on Aug 20th 2007
63. Here is a link to a survey that was done on the religious affiliation of inmates in US prisons:
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
I don’t know when the survey was conducted, and I don’t know whether the percentages indicated in the study are at all indicative of the current US prison population. I don’t know whether the methodology used in the study was the kind that one could reasonably expect would generate answers that were representative of the US prison population as a whole. Moreover, this is just the way people answered the questions. People could have been lying. Maybe a person who was atheist would claim he was religious because they think they would get better treatment from the prison guards.
In addition, even if the results are indicative of the religious beliefs of the US prison population as a whole, it is very important to note that the results do not suggest that being Protestant or Catholic makes it harder for one to not be ethical. Many of the people who commit crimes are poor, undereducated and come from difficult backgrounds. These factors make it harder for one not to be convicted of some US criminal laws. In the US, many of the groups that, according to the survey, have a small percentage of members (for instance, Mormons, Atheists, and Bahais) tend to come from situations were there would be factors other than religions, or lack thereof, that would affect whether one would commit a crime. For example, many Bahais tend to be well-educated and not poor.
Lastly, perhaps people who committed many crimes were atheists when they committed the crime, but they became religious after they were incarcerated.
Wes at 8:50PM on Aug 20th 2007
64. I wrote: "Many of the people who commit crimes are poor, undereducated and come from difficult backgrounds."
The causes of people violating US criminal laws are not those people being Protestant or Catholic. The causes are people being poor, uneducated and growing up in difficult circumstances. We know that.
Wes at 8:53PM on Aug 20th 2007
65. It really should not surprise us that liberal academia is shocked when the real world is different. We must also realize that secularism is not nutrality as many how support the removal of any religion from the public square or even the expression of religious beliefs in public. True religion is a worldview or a lense at which one views all of life. The secular humanism of liberal academia is a worldview and in reality, a religion of its own.
paquino3 at 9:34PM on Aug 23rd 2007
66. Did someone say the Democratic Party is full of lesbians and satan-worshippers? Wow, sounds like Amsterdam! who knew! sign me up! oh, that's right, I've been a member most of my life. Sadly, it's not quite THAT exciting.
Neither is today's piece by Dinesh. Ok, a pan for the lib writer, a push for his own book. . . business as usual. Not very interesting.
best,
mw
michael white at 9:19PM on Aug 20th 2007
67. 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."
It seems like you are suggesting that not being religious tends to make it more difficult to be ethical. But this doesn’t align with my own experience. Also, many of the societies that tend to have a relatively high percentage of non-religious people are relatively good societies. For example, Scandinavia and Iceland are good democracies that do well on the UNDP Development Index. And there is a relatively high percentage of non-religious people in those countries.
Wes at 9:45PM on Aug 20th 2007
68. Here is a story on the Nordic countries:
http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/UNreport.htm
And here is a link to the ranking of countries according to the UNDP Development Index:
http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/
Wes at 9:49PM on Aug 20th 2007
69. I guess mommy and daddy are letting Knight of baba stay up late tonight.........
John Gleason at 9:57PM on Aug 20th 2007
70. "There is no mathematical proof of god; you've just deluded yourself into believing that there is. If there is, you could show us. No, A = A does not prove that there is a god. It only proves that something is itself."Knight_of_BAAWA
Soory but lies by omission don't work with me. The mathmatical proof is A=A existence exists, 0+0=0, ergo there is no such thing as nothing or there could never have been something. That eternal something is what we call "God".
"And yes, christians believe in collective guilt. After all: it's what Paul says. Remember: we are all tainted because of what Adam and Eve did. Collective. Guilt. Deny that and you deny the foundation of original sin--you deny the sin nature of humans--you deny the need for salvation. I don't think you want to do that--DO YOU?"Knight_of_BAAWA
The Bible claims original sin is the legacy of Adam and Eve, that is not collective guilt, since the Christians do not preach that you will be called to answer for the sins of Adam, only those of yourself. Have you ever heard any Christian claim you will have to answer for Adam's sins?
"And I have never committed any sin at all. I cannot sin, for sin is a myth. It does not exist. No, immoral act is not the same as sin. Do not ever conflate the two."Knight_of_BAAWA
Your simply playing a game of semantics. Agression for its own sake.
"Christians hate atheists because they fear us. They fear what we represent: people who do not accept their self-hatred." Knight_of_BAAWA
I've never heard of any Christian who hates atheists and I seriously doubt there are any. Christians are full of gooey love for everybody and everything. They simply ooze and gush love all over the place. Every Christian I know is happy to the point of idiocy. It can be irritating, but it's by no means a threat.
Once again the Muslims will quite literally cut your head if they get a chance.
Darkmanwp at 10:10PM on Aug 20th 2007
71. My proof is Dinesh, not marginalized.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:14PM on Aug 20th 2007
72. Darkmanwp,
1. You keep saying that "muslims will literally cut your head off" as if that's supposed to make me happy that the christians aren't. Problem for you is: that's like saying "oh, just be glad you only have a mousetrap on your finger, rather than a beartrap on your foot".
2. I had no lie of omission, despite your lie that I did. Remember that I told you that I do not call that which has always existed "god"; I call it the universe. Ergo, you have lied when you made the unqualified statement that we call what which has always existed "god.
3. Original sin IS collective guilt. It is a guilt shared by all humans, passed down by all humans. Ergo, it is collective guilt. I don't know why you're trying to lie and say that it is not. And yes, Paul said we will answer for Adam's sins. You do remember that, don't you? If not, I shall quote to you from Romans, chapter 5, verses 12-14
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
No, I do not play a game of semantics when I say that I cannot sin, and that sin is not the same as an immoral act. I state the truth. And if you state that you've never heard of a christian who hates atheists, you've never read a word Dinesh writes! He HATES atheists with an unbridled passion.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:21PM on Aug 20th 2007
73. I guess mommy and daddy are letting little Johnny Gleason stay up late tonight.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 10:22PM on Aug 20th 2007
74. Christianity does not no ever did consist of a religious group such as Basptist, Catholic, Methodist and the list goes on. The first Christian church that believed in God, Jesus and The Holy Spirit was started by an Ital. emperor and was known as Western Gothic and all the churches we have in this country that are of christian belief stem from this with of course their own interpretation of God's Word as they see it. First learn to read and understand what you read and how to figure out what is an example and what is direct fact. Aprime example of this is most if asks how many commandments there are would say ten their are to be exact 364 commandments in the Bible from God, in the new testament we are given by Jesus Ten as we can't seem to abide by the others and now it seems not even these Ten can be abided by by mankind.Next off if one could read one could understand that the Romans did not kill Jesus but it was the request of the Hebrew leaders at the time as they did not believe in Him as the son of God. Next if one could learn to read God is a word written in English after several writings of the Bible, He is what He said His name was I AM, I am the Alpha and the Omega, I Am That I Am, as told to Moses. As far as Islamic belief there is still a belief of not believing in Jesus as His Son and in the Moslem belief it is the same. God is NOT DEAD anywhere unless one is an athiest or an idiot, mankind has a problem with this as mankind still wants to be the big daddy on the ant hill called earth.
Rocky at 10:31PM on Aug 20th 2007
75. "You keep saying that "muslims will literally cut your head off" as if that's supposed to make me happy that the christians aren't. Problem for you is: that's like saying "oh, just be glad you only have a mousetrap on your finger, rather than a beartrap on your foot".Knight_of_BAAWA
If you could demonstate what threat the Christians pose then one might believe you have a mousetrap on your finger. It's more likely you have a club behind you back to bludgeon a likely victim. Your agression is pointed and targeted, the mark of a predator.
"I had no lie of omission, despite your lie that I did. Remember that I told you that I do not call that which has always existed "god"; I call it the universe. Ergo, you have lied when you made the unqualified statement that we call what which has always existed "god."Knight_of_BAAWA
You omitted a mathmatcal statement. Unconcionable.
"Original sin IS collective guilt. It is a guilt shared by all humans, passed down by all humans. Ergo, it is collective guilt. I don't know why you're trying to lie and say that it is not. And yes, Paul said we will answer for Adam's sins. You do remember that, don't you? If not, I shall quote to you from Romans, chapter 5, verses 12-14
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."Knight_of_BAAWA
You simply prove the point. Paul contended that all men sin. Paul does not say that you will be called to answer for Adam's sin, thus no collective guilt.
"No, I do not play a game of semantics when I say that I cannot sin, and that sin is not the same as an immoral act. I state the truth. And if you state that you've never heard of a christian who hates atheists, you've never read a word Dinesh writes! He HATES atheists with an unbridled passion."-Knight_of_BAAWA
Semantics, no question.
I have read what Dinesh writes and he is neither fearful nor hateful. Unlike many Christians he understands that militant atheists attack Christians for political reasons and he counters in marketplace of ideas.
I have little interest in politics since I understand that politics is about the exercise of pure power.
I'm occasionally interested in philiosophical exploration, but you clearly are not.
Darkmanwp at 11:02PM on Aug 20th 2007