Racism vs. Ageism vs. Atheism
Comments(11)
If you haven’t seen the videos of McCain trying to appeal to young voters after and before town hall meetings, you need to. It provides a good laugh.
But as funny as it looks, unfortunately, ageism will be a serious factor this year as McCain attempts to become the next leader of the unnecessary War in Iraq.
It’s impossible to predict whether racism exceeds ageism. Although, Newsweek attempts to poll their way to an accurate prediction. One thing is for sure — age, gender and/or race do not speak to a person’s moral character.
However, everytime I hear that idea, I think to myself — “they don’t got it half as bad as an atheist.” Now I don’t really think those like myself, who believe in non-belief, have it bad at all, but I do think faith plays a key role in politics. And unlike age, gender and race, I think a large group of individuals would say that a person’s faith directly correlates with their moral character.
Pesonally, when I hear people questing Obama’s judgment for staying at his church as long as he did, I take it as people questioning his moral character as a result of them thinking he shares beliefs with Wright and others. But what if we had a candidate who didn’t share the beliefs of any church. What if our president did not believe in God!?!?!?
Take a look at this Gallup poll from a year ago.
I would be interested to poll anyone and everyone that reads this. Tell me how you would react to a presidential candidate being an agnostic/atheist. Do you think that would be a higher glass ceiling than gender, race or age?
I believe you are 100% correct in your assessment about religion in politics. I also feel you are mostly wrong about others questioning Sen. Obama’s Moral Character for staying with Jeremiah Wright & TUCC. That ongoing decision of Obama’s was a question of Judgement, not a Moral Character issue. If Obama actually believes some of what Rev. Wright preached, and also Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko and William Ayers- those might be questions regarding his Personal Character.
Anyway back to your main thrust of this post….
As with most people, I would prefer a leader with religious beliefs similar to my own. An Athiest would be way down the list for me, if for no other reason than their sense of Right and Wrong – their moral compass as it were – is not driven by any set of Absolute Moral Truths. Their sense of Right and Wrong would have to be rooted in Humanism, because if man is the highest evolved being, their is no other Higher Authority to which one needs to be accountable.
Humans as the ultimate arbiter of Right and Wrong, is a very unpleasant concept. History has proven time and again, that left to our own influences Human activity and standards can easily devolve to the lowest common denominator.
I was talking about this issue with people at work today, and the nasty little word “bigot” came up. I thought it was interesting though, because some people felt “bigotry” only referred to intolerance to race or gender or age, because those are things someone does not have control over. Those are things they do not choose.
Now obviously bigotry is much broader, and applies to those who are intolerant of other peoples beliefs and opinions as much as anything else. I tend not to judge someone morally based on their political views. I also don’t judge someone morally on their religious beliefs.
But to that extent, MisterC, you have to understand how frustrating it is to feel like people don’t respect your ability to determine right from wrong just because you do not believe in God. On a personal level, my girlfriend was told at an early stage that I did not believe in God. One of the things I love is the fact that she accepted that without judgment. She is able to understand that my religious belief system does not define me, and it does not guide my “moral compass.”
I have to accept that some people will take that to believe my moral character is inferior to others. But I accept that as intolerance. On that note, I think religious intolerance has been a well-documented problem throughout history.
But on the other side, I would consider someone like Bill Maher, who I watch “religiously” (hahaha), is as much a bigot as anyone else. He seems to feel that he is superior to others because he doesn’t believe. That is just wrong, and I don’t support it.
But anyways, I hope that the overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t as intolerant as the polls suggest. In my opinion, if you refuse to vote for someone based on any of those criteria included in the 2007 gallup poll, you need to check your moral compass.
You are putting words in my post again. I did not say one cannot determine right and wrong if they do not believe in a god. I said that determination is (by definition) founded in Humanism if you don’t have a belief in a Higher Power; and not in an Abosolute Moral Foundation. Humanistic “right and wrong” is malleable, because is not based on a set of absolutes. Humans have shown a great proclivity to trend downward (religous types call that the Sin Nature; Athiests might call it Social or Cultural Entropy; maybe even Moral Entropy- but not likely), so I find that Human malleabality concerning as it pertains to Morals- maybe not on an individual basis, maybe not even in the short term, but certainly in the aggregate and over the long term I find it concerning.
And again, you put words in my post – I did not say I would refuse to vote for one who does not believe in a god – I said they would be low on my list, not off my list.
I made no judgement about you, nor anyone else in my post. I gave you an honest opinion about how the question you posed might affect my voting priorities and why. You in turn have (implicitly stated) made some negative judgements about me. From what little I understand about you so far, Matt, I expect that you would find it at least somewhat more difficult to vote for a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson or a James Dobson, based in part on their particular religous views. Using your own logic (and if you are honest with yourself) – how intolerant of you. ;o)
You seem to easily read into posts/comments offenses which are not there and subsequently pass judgement. That lends itself to a less than optimally enlightended discussion, but hey, maybe that’s what the ECM blog readers want.
I actually never put words in your post, MisterC. I have no idea what you’re talking about, as my only reference to you was asking if you could empathize with a situation where many believers are not accepting of non-believers (and that goes both ways). I never said you fell into that category. Instead, you’re getting hyper-defensive. I urge you to read my comment again, because I never attempt to suggest YOU PERSONALLY would “refuse to vote” for a non-believer, instead it is directed at the general audience “you,” but I see where that could be confusing. I immediately apologize for any confusion.
(MisterC, I hope you can re-read my post and understand I was not making reference to you as someone who supports bigotry. We do not need instigators, as again, I believe that is what PT is and he has had more than a few squabbles with the general public on these blogs.)
But in an attempt to take a step back, and not make this personal, let’s talk about the issue again.
It seems that the suggestion might be that a humanistic understanding of ethic and moral values would be inferior to written guidelines. I believe there are universal truths that spawn from rationality.
In a political sense, it seems that this quasi-theology would fit in as part of the Republican ideology… self-sufficiency.
But you accurately speculate that I would find it difficult to vote for a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson. In fact, I would not support anyone who strays from equality, and I believe that to be part of their religious outlook (We don’t need to go far beyond the issue of homosexuality here, although we could). I seem to be justifying my apparent intolerance for their religious views, but it’s an intolerance in response to an intolerance.
Ultimately, even if a human chooses to accept the word of God in determining right from wrong, they remain the “ultimate arbiter,” do they not? They are making the choice to follow the gospel. They are forming the opinion that the church’s understanding of right and wrong is the best choice. They are making the judgment that God makes the final judgment.
But, really, nobody can suggest that any specific religion has been more successful at producing loving and peaceful people more than any other religion (although Buddhists seem so cuddly).
Thou shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, covet… I believe these are universal truths. Believers stray from these truths as much as non-believers.
Fair ‘nuf. The personal reference to “MisterC” led me to infer it was directed personally this way.
Matt Perkins says-
“I seem to be justifying my apparent intolerance for their religious views, but it’s an intolerance in response to an intolerance.”
So your personal standard is, essentially, to be tolerant unless you find someone/thing to be intolerable. In this example, you find their intolerence intolerable. (ironic, that)
Why is it that you allow yourself to exercise intolerance because you find some thing(s) intolerable, but you don’t afford that option to others???? Unless, presumably, their intolerance is in agreement with your intolerance.
That standards seems a bit duplicitous.
How does that saying go, “Some people like to argue just for the sake of argument.”?
There are times I feel like blogs are not simply allowed to be places where opinions are voiced, shared, contemplated, and/or argued….but just plain argued.
I see nothing underhanded (the definition of “duplicitous”) in Matt Perkins’ comments…they are simply his comments/expressions about the given topic, meant to stimulate open dialogue, which is what I surmise is “what the ECM blog readers want.”
MisterC it’s amazing how your blog voice became eerily similar to that of PT in your latest comment.
“Seem to be” and “apparent” are words that attempt to concede a point you were likely to make. So to regurgitate that statement is pointless. MisterC, if you cannot talk about the issue without attempting to make it personal, I would appreciate if you would not post comments on my blogs. This is an open forum, however your comments seems to be discouraging discussion and encouraging confrontation. There is a big difference.
If you feel the need to be an instigator, or to be confrontational, please go post on PT’s blog. Besides, he never gets any comments so it would be nice if someone would give his ego some attention.
(MisterC admits error)
I used the word “duplicitous” erroneously – my apologies. This is blog commenting, not essay writing, so I hope I don’t get a failing grade now.
I saw nothing underhanded nor deceptive in the previous posts. What I intended to say is that I saw a double standard. However, just making that observation is not provocative. I had hoped for a good discussion about (in)tolerance. As noted above, the use of an incorrect word was unfortunate and I admit fault in that.
There was no intent to instigate or be confrontational. Just commenting with a differing opinion than Mr. Perkins and pointing out what I perceived as a double standard on “tolerance” is not discouraging discussion- it encourages it. I suspect Mr. Perkins will disagree about the double standard, and comment to that end, but that makes for good (even enlightened!)discussion, if we all take a collective deep breath and not assume the worst in each other’s posting and comment.
This is my last word on this post. So be kind in any follow-up comments(or not, as you see fit).
I certainly do not mind you posting if you want to stick to the issue, and supposedly you were simply trying to filter the issue towards a discussion on (in)tolerance.
If so, I will certainly comment. By admitting that I am interolerant (do not agree with Falwell, Hegge, Robertson) to someone else’s intolerance (these so-called religious leaders whose beliefs in regard to homosexuality lead them to inhibit equality) I am following suit with the many Americans before me and like me that seek change. We seek equality. If someone admits they are intolerant of someone based on that persons age, gender, race, sexuality or religious beliefs, than I certainly find myself unable to tolerate their intolerance.
But that goes back to a trend in history. If we always tolerated those who were oppressors, those who did not allow equality, the world would be a horrible place. And that certainly does not suggest their currently is a satisfactory state of equality, because there is not.
I can tolerate people who do not agree with me, though at times it would certainly seem otherwise. But when I feel someone is promoting inequality, make no mistakes, I will not tolerate their actions (or sermons, in the cases listed above).
That would lead me back to the original point of this post, that I hope people aren’t intolerant to the extent that they would not vote for a person based on the color of their skin. I hope they aren’t intolerant to the extent that they would not vote for a woman. I hope they aren’t intolerant to the extent that they would not vote for someone over the age of 70. I hope they aren’t intolerant to the extent that they would not vote for someone based on their religion… etc.
To say that you would not vote for a Morman is not basing your decision on who that person is.
To say that you would not vote for a woman, is not basing your decision on who that person is… etc.
To say that you would not vote for a woman because she did not believe in gays should be allowed to marry, is a whole different level of so-called intolerance.
So I am ADMITTEDLY intolerant. You heard it here, from me and nobody else, first. I am intolerant of those who are intolerant of gays and lesbians. How dare I !?!?
The topic of this particular blog was:
“I would be interested to poll anyone and everyone that reads this. Tell me how you would react to a presidential candidate being an agnostic/atheist. Do you think that would be a higher glass ceiling than gender, race or age?”
Not: “I had hoped for a good discussion about (in)tolerance.”, as MisterC had hoped to discuss. Perhaps, MisterC, ‘(in)tolerance” will be the topic of discussion at a later date. (and perhaps erroneous choice of words just might earn points off on the grading rubric :)!!!)
Regarding the subject of this blog I would not, NOT vote for an “agnostic/atheist”, nor would my vote be swayed by “gender, race or age”. I am looking for someone, anyone, that is concerned for humanity and the issues that are plaguing our economy. I am looking for someone, anyone, who I believe means what they say and who I believe will act upon those promises once elected. Religious beliefs, gender, race, sex, etc… are all issues that make up our human race…..the strength of their probity and their resolve to do what they say they are going to do are the most important factors to me.