People will generally agree that discrimination based on religion is wrong and akin to discrimination based on race -- but opposition to religious discrimination can take a person to some really absurd conclusions. The reason should be obvious: religion isn't exactly like race. Race is a neutral, superficial characteristic that is partially biological and partially sociological. Religion, in contrast, is an ideology with a large number of dogmas and implications for various political, social, economic, and philosophical positions.
The problem is that religion has become so politicized that it actually gets in the way of providing that moral clarity. Yet liberals and conservatives alike have fallen for the idea that a candidate's religious beliefs are the key to predicting how they will govern.
I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I taped a segment for On the Media about how reporters cover religion on the campaign trail. In an unaired portion of the interview, I got into a debate about the relevance of candidates' theological beliefs with host Bob Garfield, who argued that everything should be on the table.
"Shouldn't we know if Rick Santorum believes homosexuality is a sin?" asked Garfield. No. The only thing we should care about is whether a candidate like Santorum would seek to ban gay marriage as President. So just ask him that. In the end, his motivation for taking the position is irrelevant.
Source: Swampland
Steven Benen agrees, saying "That sounds about right to me." So Steven Benen agrees with Amy Sullivan that it's "right" to claim that "motivation for taking a position is irrelevant". Really? Motivation doesn't matter at all and shouldn't be taken into account at all when evaluating a political candidate?
I'm sorry, but that's stupid -- not just a little stupid, but stupid to a degree that strains the capacity of the concept "stupid" to fully contain it.
If we were to take such a position seriously, then to would be irrelevant whether a politician opposes affirmative action because they are racists who hate black people or because they think it's a good program that's outlived its usefulness. It would be irrelevant whether a politician supports increased defense spending because they sincerely feel that national defense has deteriorated or because they think they've received psychic warnings of an impending alien invasion. It would be irrelevant whether a politician supports investment in a new technology because they are convinced of its future promise or because their astrologer advised that the stars were in alignment for new discoveries.
So, does anyone out there really think that all those motivations are completely irrelevant -- that we should look at nothing but the final policy position and completely disregard everything that led up to it? I would hope not. I honestly have trouble believing that anyone is that irredeemably dumb.
Ideas matter. Beliefs matter. Everything we do is predicated on our beliefs and our beliefs are the foundations for how we act. Amy Sullivan is right to reject the idea that a candidate's religion is "the key" to predicting how they will govern, but she's wrong to conclude that a candidate's religion or religious beliefs are completely irrelevant and so should be disregarded entirely. It's a false dilemma to portray this as a choice between "the key" and "irrelevant."
Lots of things feed into how a candidate will govern, how they will make decisions, and what their policy positions are like. Religion is one of them. For many candidates, religion may be the most important element. In fact, when a candidate goes out of their way to tout their religious faith over and over and over, we should oblige them by treating their religion as the most important foundation of their policy positions. If they don't like that, then maybe they should stop hyping their religion so much.
I can understand the desire to encourage people to stop focusing on religion too much because so many people are unable to weigh the implications of a person's religious ideology fairly. Religion is such an emotional issue that once it's brought in, it can easily lead to an "evaluation" that is little more than religious bigotry. So for example instead of looking at a candidate's Catholicism to see how it would influence their decisions on social issues, they might simply see "Catholicism" and conclude "Whore of Babylon." That's not helpful.
But then again, people do the same thing when it comes to secular ideologies as well. How many already look at "secularism" or "liberalism" and immediately conclude something like "satanism"? So while there is a problem, it's a problem with the way in which people judge based on labels generally. It might be a bit worse with religion, but it's not a problem with religion in particular.
All I see in the statements from Amy Sullivan and Steven Benen is an attempt to excuse religion from the normal standards and procedures that every other ideology is already subjected to. They aren't advocating that we disregard a candidate's political or economic ideologies when evaluating them -- they both probably recognize just how asinine that would be. So why do exactly what with religion? In order to preserve a special status for religion.
I'm not surprised to see Amy Sullivan doing this -- Sullivan has invested a lot of time and effort over the years to establish for herself a solid reputation as an apologist for religious privilege in America. She has spent more time blasting atheists for daring to critique religion than most other self-righteous pundits. Amy Sullivan has even gone so far as to condemn calling out religious bigotry as a form of "intolerance".
I am, however, a bit surprised to see Steven Benen going down this same path. I had thought him a bit more intelligent and informed than that.
Well, live and learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment