Ceremonial Deism

The Republican candidates have, of late, put me in mind of “ceremonial deism“.

Atheists are sometimes accused of making mountains out of molehills, of making a big deal out of the pledge of allegiance or “in god we trust” when there are bigger fish to fry. Really, though, it seems to me that it is the handful of god-bothering republican candidates who are keeping a trivial god in the public eye.

I am reminded of the following, from the old blog:

The motto is “In God We Trust”;
Display it everywhere, we must!
In doing so, recall, it’s just
A hollow little phrase.
It’s on our money, even though
It lost religion long ago—
Rote repetition made it so
It’s meaningless these days.

If you’re like me, you find it odd
That those who claim to love their god
Would fight to keep this cheap façade,
Especially on money!
But now, in congress, start the fight
To grow the phrase in public sight—
Replacing God with new “God lite”
You must admit, it’s funny

Remember Teddy Roosevelt
Opposed the motto, cos he felt
It sacrilege to put on gelt,
Insulting the creator
But that was then, and this is now;
We’ll push our god; we don’t care how,
With every method we allow.
And jobs? Well, maybe later.

According to CNN, the crazy season is upon us the House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote this thursday, reaffirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto. The Supreme Court has held that ceremonial use of religious language does not constitute a violation of the establishment clause, in cases where rote repetition has rendered the language meaningless.

That is, the phrase is legal if it is meaningless. If lawmakers wish to argue that “In God We Trust” actually refers to their particular choice of god, their usage would apparently violate the First Amendment.

Of course, the real motivation is likely to be considerably more secular; the brilliant legal mind of Michele Bachmann, with the tenacity and quickness of a barnacle, has latched onto President Obama’s use of E Pluribus Unum as more representative of our nation. It is, of course, more inclusive, and less pandering toward any particular religious view. Which makes it utterly unacceptable to Bachmann.

Plus, of course, it’s much easier to score points with one’s constituents this way, than to tackle the important issues.

Another Pledge?

What is it with the GOP and pledges? The Pledge to America, the No-Tax Pledge, abstinence-only “virginity pledges“, “under god” in the pledge of allegiance… and now, an anti gay marriage pledge. Erm, I mean a pro-traditional marriage pledge.

The nice thing about pledges is, pledging is easier than thinking. Perry, Bachman, Romney, and Santorum no longer have to consider the merits of the idea. They have pledged. They are honor-bound. For Perry, this represents a change from his earlier states’ rights stance. States’ rights is a dog-whistle, but the baggers missed it and accused him of being soft on gay marriage. So…

When he said that it might
Be a state-by-state right
The teabags accused him of hedging
In a matter of days
He was ditching the gays
And to make it official, was pledging
The republican plan
Is one woman, one man,
In the view that’s supported by Perry
Keep the government small
Till eventually, all
It can do is say who you may marry
Cos in matters of love
When a push comes to shove
It’s the government’s job to determine
That there’s one group—the straights—
Who deserve to have mates,
While another, the gays, are mere vermin
There’s no need to decide,
For a groom or a bride,
Cos the pledge means the choice is preempted
The decision’s been made
And it must be obeyed…
On the off chance the governor’s tempted.

If you can’t hold a pen, is it still mightier than a sword?

Though the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword speaks louder and stronger at any given moment—The Mouse That Roared


Image: Washington Post/Facebook

Making fun of politicians
Is a noble, grand tradition;
In the freest of societies, it’s cherished as a right
Elsewhere, though, if you’re outspoken
You can get your fingers broken
As this Syrian cartoonist, in the hospital tonight.

The photo above is of cartoonist Ali Ferzat, Syria’s best-known political cartoonist. He is in hospital tonight with broken hands, as a warning not to continue lampooning Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Ink is powerful stuff. In the long run, Ferzat and other critics may find they had the power to help topple a government. In the short run, he’s in the hospital with two broken hands.

Franken vs DOMA

First, a message from Al Franken.

It’s time.

There’s no good argument against marriage equality. There’s no good argument in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. And there’s no reason we should wait one more day to repeal it.

DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, represents bigotry and discrimination against millions of Americans who want the same rights the rest of us cherish. We don’t need to wait for a study. We don’t need to read a poll. We know right from wrong. And we know it’s time for DOMA to go.

So let’s do it right now. Repeal DOMA. It’s time.

(Go ahead, follow the link. It’s his petition to repeal DOMA.)

****

Next, one from earlier this year:

In the constant chase for headlines
Given fast-approaching deadlines
Politicians fight each other for the top spot on the news
In this rough-and-tumble scrimmage
As they fight to hone their image
Some conservatives may think they’ve found an issue they can use

It’s that goddamn gay agenda
The republicans expend a
Lot of energy in fighting, as they pander to their base
If a legal stance looks funny
Often, following the money
Shows the underlying logic (as, of course, the present case)

In this mess, if you’re litigious
Then you’re probably religious
And it’s blasphemous that marriage should be offered up to gays
And republicans get boners
Over big financial donors
(If the dollars were sufficient, why, I’m sure they’d swing both ways)

It’s a match that’s made in heaven
For Two Thousand and Eleven
As the campaign is upon us and we’re choosing sides, of course
Let the Democrats disparage
Us, we’re standing up for marriage!
It’s a sacred institution… like Republican divorce!

NPR’s Morning Edition reports on the political posturing surrounding the Obama administration’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Conservative Republicans are on the wrong side of history here, but it looks like they are hoping they are on the right side of their own base. I’ve argued over marriage issues for years, and have never yet found an objection to same-sex marriage that did not boil down to a religious view. From my perspective, then, it comes down to a First Amendment issue: if the government takes a stand opposing same-sex marriage, it favors one religious view over others.

It’s not a matter of what is good for the children. My lesbian neighbors have raised a fine son, despite not being recognized as a real family; real concern for the well-being of children would lead to support for gay families. It’s not that marriage is designed to promote procreation; my sister-in-law is hoping for her third childless marriage. Since she is heterosexual, no one has a problem with that–least of all, the Republican front-runners, who [at least as of last month] sport more ex-wives than candidates.

It’s not even freedom of religion. There are a good many churches that recognize, welcome, and celebrate same-sex marriages. These conservative Republicans would want these churches overruled.

No, it’s money. There is money to be had by fighting on the wrong side of this battle. If that money can keep a handful of politicians in the headlines for a bit longer, they can keep the positions of power they hold. When they eventually are swept aside, that same money will be available for speeches and appearances. Ex-senators and ex-representatives will make more for one speech than I do in a year, railing against the moral decline of civilization.

Meh. I’ll take that, if I can go to my neighbors’ wedding.

The Politics Of Religious Identity

The majority of Christians have no beef with evolution;
They are perfectly accepting of the facts.
They may say, “it’s how God did it”; it’s an elegant solution,
And it’s how the sane majority reacts.

But it puzzles me immensely that so many are aligning
With the anti-science faction on their fringe
Who use Genesis as text to show the fact of God’s designing
Though their evidence and logic make one cringe

And despite their disagreement over how to read the Bible,
Over teaching it as science in our schools,
The majority stays silent. I suspect it might be tribal,
And “protect your own” is chief among the rules.

With beliefs in disagreement, but “we’re Christians” all the same
It’s the labels now determining the roles
So they vote against their interests, and it really is a shame
When it’s “onward, Christian soldiers” to the polls.

With the one nominally pro-science Republican candidate now polling at about 1%, behind a herd of creationists, I begin to doubt the surveys that say biblical literalism is a tenet of a very small fraction of Christians. Of course, in a Venn diagram, that small fraction nicely overlaps the most likely voters in the Republican base, so if unlikely voters are also unlikely to talk to pollsters (I love talking to them. I ask them questions.), the polls are likely to be extremely biased at this point.

I hope that is the case. If the polls are representative, then an awful lot of people are currently planning to vote against the things they themselves believe. Why? Perhaps because they label themselves “christians” before they label themselves pro-education, or rational, or independent, or whatever. As vastly different as two people might be, as vastly different as their belief systems might be, if they both identify first as “christian”, a creationist has a foot in the door. Throw in years of identity politics and punditry, and well-educated people will vote against their interests, and against the interest of the country.

Turns Out, Rick Perry Loves Science After All

Governor Perry’s reliance on science
Seems counter-intuitive, don’t you agree?
He’s oftener known for denying, or lying,
To hold the positions his base wants to see
His stances on, say, evolution, pollution,
Or greenhouse effects of traditional fuels,
He quickly, as soon as he spies them, denies them,
So “science is wrong” appears one of his rules

But now he has “eggheads” controlling his polling
And visits to rallies that might make the news
His skeptical take on campaigning is gaining
Advantages over traditional views
With randomized campaign conditions, their mission’s
To optimize use of his money and time
It’s science that gives the most power per hour
It’s science that gives the most impact per dime.

From the New York Times’ “The Caucus” blog, a preview of an upcoming book: The Victory Lab. Turns out Rick Perry loves science–experimental social psychology, though, not evolutionary biology or climate science. The “soft” sciences are where he can see the power of the scientific method, and his opponents need to pay attention now.

The good news (from my perspective): Obama has been on board with scientific approaches to campaigning for some time now. His advisors include behavioral economists, including some big names from within experimental social psychology (Robert Cialdini’s book, “Influence“, is a classic in the psychology of attitude change and persuasion, for instance).

The bad news (again, my perspective): Perry’s team appears to be the only one actually applying experimental control to his on-the-ground campaign events. It is one thing to know that the literature predicts X, Y, and Z, and to make campaign recommendations based on that literature; it is quite another to test your own campaign (through random assignment and control of variables) to be certain that the literature (often experiments on undergrads) applies to your own populations (less likely to be undergrads).

So, yeah, Rick Perry loves science. He knows it works. He has seen its power, and has put it to his own uses. And he is applying it directly, not abstractly, which makes a very real difference–I can’t emphasize enough, general findings may not apply to any given subset of the population. It is important to test the actual operations on actual populations. Rick Perry (or his people) know this, and the rest of us ignore it at our peril.

Headline Muse, 8/21

He’s captured; he’s cornered; he’s fled
He’s packing, surrendered, or dead
I’m skipping the headlines—
No journalist deadlines—
I’ll read it on Twitter instead

Headline: Rebels Close In On Libyan Capital

The real story is that news organizations are, as they were with the death of Bin Laden, clearly a second or third in the race to report. Of course, Twitter is more of a rumor-storm than a news outlet; CNN half an hour behind, but are they using that time to be more certain?

Attack Of The Texans

“George Bush on steroids”? No, more insidious than that.

They breed them and train them in Texas, to vex us,
Political candidates, year after year;
Because of their vast preparation, the nation
Is helpless to stop them, and trembles with fear.
Like mutant quadrennial locusts, they’re focused
On taking as much, and as fast, as they can
The seventeen species of schmoozing they’re using
Are only one part of their devious plan

The primary process should winnow the minnows
And leave us with only the biggest of fish
But somehow the Texans survive all their rivals
No matter how strongly against it we wish
If only some cowboy from Austin had lost in
A recent election, I’d feel more at ease—
But all bets are off, till we vote us a POTUS…
So I’m curled in the corner and whimpering “please….”