'Friendly Atheist': I Get Angry When Told It's Wrong to Attack Candidates for Their Religious Faith
Writing today at the Chicago Tribune's "Seeker" religion blog, "Friendly Atheist" Hemant Mehta explained why he's angered by admonitions to not hold a presidential candidate's religion against him or her (emphasis mine):
Last week, I was part of an interfaith gathering. One of the participants made very clear the message she wanted to spread: As this election season gets underway, I want to make sure people are not attacked for their religious faith.
She was suggesting that Mitt Romney‘s Mormonism, for example, shouldn’t be held against him. If you want to go after his policies, fine, but don’t attack his faith. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable stance.
The Constitution says we don’t have a religious test for public office, and people have the right to believe whatever nonsense they want. Maybe a couple years ago, I would’ve said the exact same thing.
The more I thought about it, though, the angrier I got…
Mehta went on to explain what he told this woman:
So I spoke with her after the event was over. This is basically what I said:
Let’s say Mike Huckabee is running for president. He’s an Evangelical Christian. Because of that label, I already know certain things about him. I know where he stands in regards to evolution, and I can’t trust him to support good science.
I know where he stands on abortion, and I can’t trust him to protect women’s rights.
I know he believes homosexuality is immoral and I can’t trust him to fight for civil rights for the LGBT community.
So, yes, knowing Mike Huckabee is an Evangelical Christian is all the information I need to make a decision about him. I don’t need to know the rest of his politics. I’m going to hold his faith against him by not voting for him.
(Remember when three Republicans raised their hands in a 2007 debate, admitting they don’t accept evolution?)
One has to wonder if Mehta would be comfortable with religious voters automatically disqualifying atheists out of a presumption about how their atheism would influence their stance on any number of issues.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why is an atheist participating in an "interfaith gathering"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:43pm.
Because I've been told here on NB on a number of occasions that atheism is neither a faith or a religion.
It's usually around Christmas, if I recall.
Not strong Mormons
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:44pm.
I don't believe that Harry Reid or Mitt Romney are strong Mormons. Romney refused to sign a pro-life pledge. Reid supports abortion. I feel the same way about Pelosi, Kerry and all those liberals that claim to be Catholic. I feel the same way about any Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.
i do support good science, not junk science like gobal warming. Most Christians believe the Genesis account of creation not a theory of evolution.
ricklail
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 4:10pm.
Do you believe in the theory of relativity or quantum field theory?
Oooo
Submitted by Riled on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 9:09pm.
Well, we have a genius here.
Bow before the undeniable logic.
No need to cogitate long to devise any support for a failed theorem; just spout a few one-liners to impress the ladies.
All of us know that there a varying degrees of theories, and why they are called theories. Once proven invalid, they are abandoned. Scientific progress allows for stronger theories to replace the failed ones. But, the followers of evolution blindly follow their religion no matter the supreme lack of evidence, data that refutes, and no way to perform or adhere to the scientific process:
• A scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.
• Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.
• Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.
• A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.
Evolutionary theory fails on every point. It cannot be tested, and increasingly relies on the fanciful interpretation through the dogged evolutionist world view.
Science, and we do mean proper (good is a subject term), when perform in strict adherence to scientific process will arrive at the truth. Data that contradicts or does not support a theorem or a hypothesis should not be discarded. Nor, should a complete unscientific fairy tale be used to explain the incongruence. That is exactly what we now see from the apostles of Darwin.
IF the truth/data leads to a supreme being as a creator, or a seeding of the planet by aliens, or we all were hatched from a giant cosmic egg, it should be followed. Academic freedom is being stifled because of this nonsense, and to the detriment of all. Even Darwin laid out the conditions where his theory would fail; yet the acolytes keep promoting it regardless of the mounting data against it for the last 100 years. Every scientific field from probabilities to astronomy shows the impossibility of evolution, and adherence to doctrine discounts theistic evolution.
Secular scientists and non-secular alike are abandoning it. I have, when I took a closer look, and have been for over 20 years. I am no longer an Atheist.
A candidate's faith is important as our founders knew. I would much rather see a person of faith then one of no faith whatsoever. Most deaths in the last 1000 years can be laid at the feet of godless government or secondly those using religion as sword or control mechanism.
Riled
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 11:21pm.
So your contention is that when ricklail wrote "Most Christians believe the Genesis account of creation not a theory of evolution" that what they were really doing was implicitly making all of the points you made in your post?
Given the way you addressed me in the opening of your post, I find it pretty ironic that rather than taking my post to ricklail for what it was - an attempt to make clear that simply pointing out that evolution is a theory isn't enough to dismiss it - you felt compelled to go off on a pretty pedestrian lecture about what science is about. So who exactly where you trying to "impress"?
The fact is that I don't really know that much about evolution and I'm in no real position to judge its merits or the merits of the criticism leveled against it. I do, however, know something about science and since you did bring it up, let's get into some of your points...
You say that through science, we can arrive at the truth. Could you explain how scientific models which make use of induction - which is most of them - can arrive at the truth when induction isn't truth preserving?
You bring up the scientific method. Anyone who isn't totally ignorant of the history of science knows that the so called "scientific method" is a gross oversimplification of how science actually works. I suppose guys like Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos were just over-complicating things, right?
And as a final note, I'll point out something I did in another post here - how exactly would a field of study which can't use supernatural agents (like science) generate a model which incorporates the idea of God? Granted, it isn't clear from your post if you are suggesting this, but I figured I'd ask just to make sure.
Those little things aside, I actually agree with your other general observations about science.
I would, however, be interested to know who exactly "probabilities" and "astronomy" and every other scientific field (as you put it) shows the impossibility of evolution. In particular, could you explain how physics does this? I ask since that's sort of my area of work and I can't say I've ever seen anything in physics which contradicts evolution, let alone shows it to be impossible.
But you sure are smart, so I'm sure you can provide me with some insight on this issue.
Riled
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 2:45am.
This is a link to where the bulk of Riled's response to me came from.
I PMed him a couple of days ago asking if he was the author of that site and got no response so I guess these are the options:
1) Riled is a plagiarist
2) Riled is the actual author but doesn't really feel compelled to actually defend his views
3) Riled is a plagiarist who doesn't really feel compelled to actually defend his views
If there's an option that doesn't make him look like a total dick, let me know.
same only different
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:47pm.
Atheism is just another belief system.
Anyone who says there is no higher being have absolutely no proof and logically the idea that homo sapiens are the highest order of creation is highly suspect.
The only people who have any standing against organized religion are the agnostics. They profess their doubts but don't enlarge those doubts into opposing beliefs as do the atheists.
Liberalism is a mental disorder
Submitted by FreeEnterprise on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 12:58pm.
I love how atheist pretend that they are all "for science". Let's look at the issue that brings up. We know that universes have a starting point (as well as planets, stars, life, plants, ect). To date science has not proved that this life was created...
Although, we also know that life can only make life, and matter doesn't come from nothing.
So in the future if science decides that the evidence of a Creater is too strong to continue to ignore...
Will the atheist then continue to believe in science or will they instead believe in their "non-religion"?...
The basis of science is to learn from it's discoveries. Ignoring future discoveries because of an internal bias is in itself the antithesis of science.
Oh and since the democrats have been in charge of the budget for 785 days and STILL NOT PASSED or even provided ONE... Does that mean that if someone has a (D) next to their name we can all write them off as "a liar who won't do their job and follow the law?"...
FreeEnterprise
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 4:30pm.
If it turns out that God exists and is the ultimate cause of the universe and life, then the origin of the universe and the origin of life would becomes topics which fall outside the realm of what science can talk about.
People seem to think that science is simply the search for truth. It isn't - it's more restricted than that. It's the search for explanations to describe the behavior of empirically testable systems using only natural agents. Science (at least in its current form) can't incorporate supernatural agents since doing so undermines the methodology science uses.
You bring up some topics which scientists are still working one (and there are scientific proposals to answer them, though they are speculative at this stage) and it might seem obvious to you that the answer to those questions is God. But no scientific theory can work its way toward an explanation which involves a supernatural agent like God.
When Atheists Attack
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 1:46pm.
Gallup has been asking people about whether they would vote for atheists for president for quite some time. Here are the numbers who have said "no" over the years:
February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%
In 2003, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on "religion and public life" which asked people about their attitudes towards a variety of groups, including atheists. People's opinions of atheists break down:
Very Favorable: 7%
Mostly Favorable: 27%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 33%
Here are the percentages of Americans who, according to this Pew Research Center survey, would refuse to vote for someone based on the relevant characteristic:
Catholic: 8%
Jewish: 10%
Evangelical Christian: 15%
Muslim: 38%
Atheist: 50%
Atheists are of a lower order than even Muslims.
Conclusion: People are terrified by the atheists.
You have no faith, so I don't trust your judgement.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 2:41pm.
Hemant, you have no faith, so why should I trust you when you claim you're concerned about the faith of another and how it affects their decisions? In other words: who really cares what YOU think about someone else's faith and how it guides their decisions? Your lack of faith itself makes me question your judgment. I place no faith in those who have none.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Because he is an atheist we can say this about him:
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 3:11pm.
1) He relies on science to answer every question even in the absence of accurate methodology
2) He openly displays intolerance of differing opinions
3) He is bigoted towards those of religious faith
drsamherman
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 4:48pm.
On the assumption that your post wasn't meant to be tongue-in-cheek, I should point out that being an atheist doesn't entail any of those things.
If, however, your post was - then kindly ignore this reply.
It was.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 9:29pm.
Making assumptions based solely on one's outward characteristics is something that the practice of psychiatry will immediately eradicate.
He is a bigot, though.
Disjointed Commentary
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 4:43pm.
Maybe it's been a long day, but I can't figure out what Mehta's point is.
He starts by saying it's OK to assign certain views to a person based on their religious "label" but then he goes on to admit that he didn't do that for Obama and even hopes that people wouldn't do that for an atheist.
And in the end, the basically says we shouldn't use labels to judge people but rather, we should learn about their actual views on a given topic.
OK... so what was the point of the article? That our support or lack of support of a candidate should be based on looking at their views on individual topics.
Well, dah.
Mehta's point has nothing to do with anything
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 5:05pm.
In the meantime it seems this story was posted most simply to open a forum for people to bash atheism and evolution. I posted several poll numbers above revealing the distaste Americans have for non-believers and the likelihood an atheist could become president. Which amounts to zilch.
Zombie Brains
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 5:42pm.
I think you are right about the purpose of this post.
Don't get me wrong - I love this site. I think its work in providing evidence of liberal bias in the MSM is important and I think even the posts that (or is that which?) deal with the affects of that bias (in the MSM as well as the entertainment industry) on social values have a place here.
But posts like this just seem to be put up to allow - as you said - people to bash atheism and evolution (and let's throw in Big Bang).
But whatever. I'm just some nobody member here who's allowed to post. I can either ignore it or dive in with an opposing view and have fun with it.
It's a pleasure
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 7:05pm.
What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is this constant demand for respect of one's beliefs, while having little or no respect for the other guy. And it goes both ways. And I expect it from a conservative-based blog, but at the same I think it's about time someone notices the hypocrisy.
I noticed an entry above attacking atheism as a belief and evolution as just a theory. You made a great point regarding the acceptance of theory in science. What I have learned during my studies is that evolution has yet to be disproven. The reason evolution is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists is because no one has been able to bring about a tested counter-theory. And discoveries in the field of evolutionary science continue to confirm the theory, which is precisely why the majority of scientists do in fact support evolution.
Atheism and Evolution don't go hand in hand. A person who doesn't believe in the supernatural doesn't automatically believe in the tangible. And while evolution is still just a theory, it can be argued that it's all bunk. Atheism can be both a disbelief or a lack of belief, but a belief system it is not. I would bet most atheists do believe the theory of evolution, but the belief is not limited to atheists. Believers of many faiths follow evolution. Some even choose to believe the parts that fit in with their established notions, even going so far as to combine the Bible's telling of human origin with pieces of evolution theory that are too obvious to argue.
Some thing to do with everything
Submitted by Riled on Fri, 06/24/2011 - 9:42pm.
Perhaps probabilities…
What are the implications of atheist’s claim that someone of faith, that has a moral compass predicated on religious doctrine, are not qualified to hold office. Why? Because they may cause or start religious wars? Impose a set of laws to govern our nation; as our founding fathers did? Egad!
“Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!”
-Vox Day
Maybe this is why a cautionary article was written.
Any thoughts of your own?
Submitted by Zombie Brains on Sun, 06/26/2011 - 9:04am.
This is fascinatingly boring and factually wrong.
What you have quoted is in actuality not a cautionary article but a published work of a conservative Christian political commentator.
Who are these 52 atheists who used their belief in atheism to slaughter 148 million people?