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 6 of 8)
76. My creator is the universe and my mother and father. I have no need of a supernatural god to be a decent and caring human being.
c w foster at 11:10PM on Aug 20th 2007
77. You are living proof that man can reproduce by urinating in the reproductive organ of the female.
Don Emerson at 11:18PM on Aug 20th 2007
78. Darkmanwp,
I merely have to reference Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps for the dangers that christians pose to the US.
I did not omit a mathematical statement, despite your lie.
And Paul does say that all will be called to atone for Adam's sin, since Adam's sin is passed to all humans. Therefore, we are all called to answer for it. I don't know why you're being so deceitful.
And yes, Dinesh is hateful toward atheists. His vitriol and invective toward atheists knows no bounds. And from your dissembling, I can see that you're not interested in a rational discussion.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:42PM on Aug 20th 2007
79. Um...Rocky? You do know that the ten commandments were given by Moses, not Jesus, right? Haven't you ever seen the Charlton Heston movie? And the Last Supper was a Passover seder for Christ's sake!
Not that any of that stuff actually happened...unless you believe in a fairy tale. As for me, I'll trust evidence over old, poorly written fables any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
David at 12:05AM on Aug 21st 2007
80. "I merely have to reference Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps for the dangers that christians pose to the US."Knight_of_BAAWA
Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps? LOL, What are you afraid the 700 club will pray away a tumor? Faith healers and prayer vigils a threat? Give me a break. Even when Robertson was running for president he was no more a threat than pudding.
"I did not omit a mathematical statement, despite your lie."Knight_of_BAAWA
You did, A=A, existence exists, 0+0=0, ergo there is no such thing as nothing and there has always been something. That something is what we call "God". You omitted 0+0=0. Unconcionable.
"And Paul does say that all will be called to atone for Adam's sin, since Adam's sin is passed to all humans. Therefore, we are all called to answer for it. I don't know why you're being so deceitful."
Paul does not say that, he says all men sin. The legacy of Adam is sin. You are called to answer for your own sins, not Adam's. No collective guilt. For an atheist you seem to take the concept of Christian sin quite personally.
"And yes, Dinesh is hateful toward atheists. His vitriol and invective toward atheists knows no bounds. And from your dissembling, I can see that you're not interested in a rational discussion."
Knight_of_BAAWA
The vitriol and invective comes from you. Your agression is blatant. Your rants do not qualify as anything approaching a rational discussion, it's simply a spew of irrational hatred towards the Christians, a lock step mentality following a political drum beat.
Once again the obvious leaps out. Militant atheists attack Christians for political reasons, not philosophical reasons.
Darkmanwp at 12:14AM on Aug 21st 2007
81. Darkmanwp,
There are actually people who believe the nonsense that Robertson and Phelps spew. That makes them dangerous.
And you're still lying when you said that I omitted a mathematical formula. I didn't. And you're still lying when you say that something that has always been we call god. I don't. I call it the universe. It is unconscionable for you to keep lying like that.
Paul DOES say that all are called upon to atone for Adam's sin. That is what the sin nature is all about. Why must you persist in lying?
Nothing you have written qualifies as rational discourse. Lies and dissembling to not qualify. Once again, the obvious leaps out: Militant christians attack atheists for emotional reasons, not philosophical reasons.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 1:17AM on Aug 21st 2007
82. I actually found Dinesh interesting the few times I had heard his commentary prior to this. The "argument" he poses though really is a specious construction. It's laughable. Stanford? Hoover Institute Fellow? To be generous, it's drivel.
Only "Mannhattan Liberals" hold these supposed terrible views? Dinesh, you completely miss the genius of this country. You are free to practice any religion or not practice any religion. Just because religion can't be woven into the governmental affairs there is no injustice, no big whoo-hoo athiest victory.
Geoff at 1:28AM on Aug 21st 2007
83. Dinesh,
Your position has little to do with GOD and much to do with religion and religion makes a poor case for God. Once you accept that you know nothing then you might learn something
Brdmartin at 3:23AM on Aug 21st 2007
84. well said....I'm looking forward to your book.
joe g. at 5:45AM on Aug 21st 2007
85. Knight@70: Surely you jest! Dinesh cannot be your proof. You've made a categorical statement about Christians hating atheists. Now prove it up categorically and properly, or take it back. On second thought, don't worry about proving it. You can't.
If you were to say, for example that "Christians would like to convert atheists to the Christian 'team,'" I might go along with you. (And even that would be hard to prove.)
Not marginalized at 7:42AM on Aug 21st 2007
86. BRAVO Dr. Will Pantin! Well written!
Danis at 7:42AM on Aug 21st 2007
87. Yet again this guy is trying to stir up some more crap for people to argue about. When will people get it through their heads that people like him who permeate or culture both on the right and left seek to divide this country in any and every way possible. A divided country is a victim waiting to be victimized. To all you idiots who walk around trying to out christian the next man you better pick up the good book again. That little part where God says judge not least ye be judged, wasn't put in the Bible just to take up space. Oh and the part where God says to his followers, "if you give my enemy cause to attack me, you become my enemy." Just a thought to you people who infuse your prejudice and arrogance into his words, those who truely hate christianity will sight you and your ilk as justification for attacks on God and his word. I find it hard to believe that a person like Dinesh has the audacity to try and speak on the behalf of God or his followers, in all things this guy's actions regularly rails against the ways of God. Yep, keep up the good work, when we all die Dinesh,Franken,Coulter, and O'reily, won't be able to do a damn thing for you when you stand before He who judges all.
Logan at 8:31AM on Aug 21st 2007
88. I'm not jesting, not marginalized. Dinesh is my proof that all christians hate atheists, just as many christians like to say that Stalin and Mao prove that all atheists are communists and that atheism leads to immorality.
I trust that you see my point.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 9:23AM on Aug 21st 2007
89. Knight_of_Baawa #14:
Allah is NOT the same god as Jehovah. The God of the Bible taught the Jews and Christians such things as love your enemies, welcome foreigners, be good to one another, etc. In the Koran, it teaches that Allah turned some Jews into rats and monkeys, and commands muslims to kill Christians and Jews. Muslim children in the Middle East are taught by their Muslim parents to say "Death to Israel" and "Death to America."
And don't you think it's mildly strange that God called several men (and even a few women) to be His prophets (Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Sammuel, Nathan, Ezekiel, Joel, Jonah, Huldah, etc.) and Islam only has ONE prophet? Look at the history of Mohammed. He was a barbarian who spread Islam with the sword--meaning he held a sword to one's throat and said, "convert to Islam or die." He was also an extortionist and a pedophile (he had a 9-year-old wife!). Another one of his wives was another man's wife (adultery is forbidden, except for Mohammed I guess). Also, many people believe that the word "Islam" means "peace." It does not. It means "submission."
Allah the same as Yaweh? I think Israel and the Jewish community will strongly disagree with you on that one. So will Christians.
James at 3:04PM on Aug 21st 2007
90. In the entire recorded historyof the world there has never been a moral theocracy.
eric at 11:53AM on Aug 21st 2007