The American Taliban

I understand why Xarker mentioned the American Taliban page in his most recent post about the dangers of theocracy in this nation.  There are many quotes in there from people openly and frankly calling for the country to be ruled by Biblical law and deny citizenship no non-Christians, which is a position that I find, quite frankly, un-American.   And for those who continue to insist that this is what the Founding Fathers fully intended, consider this:  There have been Jews in this country since well before the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, and the Founding Fathers knew it.  The reason we have one of the largest Jewish populations in the world is because this is one of very few countries that have always afforded full rights and citizenship to Jews.  Get over yourselves.

But the American Taliban page goes well beyond supporters of theocracy.  Quite a few of the quotes are entirely about the evils of homosexuality.  Many of the quotes don't even expressly call for it to be illegal - we might presume that these people would support such a legislative move, but argument by implication is a lousy way to offer evidence.    Yes, I totally disagree with people who call homosexuality immoral, but what does it say about us when we start associating people with the Taliban just because they take a position that we disagree with?  Doesn't that at least flirt with un-Americanness as well?

And while we decry and mock Christians who believe in the Biblical inerrancy, when is the last time you've heard someone say the same about an Orthodox Jew, who also generally believes the earth is 6000 years and who follows the Torah - those first five books where most of the mentions about homosexuality occur - literally.  Biblical inerrancy and Orthodox Judaism consider those rules to be decreed by God and independent of the culture at the time.  When someone believes that God has specifically told them to do something, it's not unreasonable to think that this person would be hard-pressed to disobey.

I vehemently disagree with their position, and I disagree with how some of them express it.  But to attack these people simply for believing it and communicating it, that smacks of at least as much intolerance as what we're accusing them of harboring.  And what about the guy whose only quote concerns the fact that God doesn't hear the prayers of Jews?  How is it not his right to believe that? 

Furthermore, by presenting them altogether, the American Taliban page suggests that everything presented is one big problem, and it's not.  The theocracy and homophobia are not identical issues.  They're not even always the same people: theocrats are generally homophobes but homophobes are not nearly all theocrats.  And some of those quotes just seem to be looking for trouble, such as quoting Rev. Phelps.  Every group has it's crazies, and he is one of them.  He offends not just me but many, many deeply conservative Christians as well.  He's not a politician or leader of a national organization.  He's a guy in charge of a small congregation that travels the country being obnoxious and getting a lot of press for it.  What he says and what, say, Ronald Reagan has said are just not in the same league on any level.

Quite frankly, I would be thrilled if I never saw Dubya's quote on witchcraft ("I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision.") repeated ever again.  At the very least, I wish it would be kept in some sort of context.  For all of Dubya's faults, his interest in religious freedoms has alienated some conservative Christians.  The quote was in response to a question about his thoughts on Wiccans being allowed to practice their faith on military bases.  The fact that he gave an answer about witchcraft, not Wicca, indicates that this is a quote stemming more from ignorance than intolerance.  Many Wiccans would agree that witchcraft is, indeed, not a religion.  It is a magical practice, an art and a craft.  I have no idea what was going through Dubya's head when he said that.  (Mostly nothing is my usual impression.)  The point here is that unless one claims to read minds, no one else knows either.  Moreover, in the seven years since he has said that he has made no move to have Wicca banned from military bases.  Was it a dumb comment?  Yes.  Was it hate speech?  No. 

Comments

[Tim]

Excellent post.

I think Dan falls into a Rawlsian hole trying to distinguish "publicly accessible" speech by citizens and officials. Linking to the American Taliban page was bad kairos given his stated goal(s).

In an attempt to add foundational theory to the debate:

Religion and Morality

It seems false that we can respect persons and at the same time tell them to leave their fundamental commitments behind in public discourse, and it seems false also that some purely rational component can be separated off from these competing substantive conceptions of the good (c.f. Wolterstorff, “An Engagement with Rorty”). It is true that religious commitment can produce the deliberate targeting of civilians in a skyscraper. But the history of the twentieth century, the bloodiest century of our history, is that non-religious totalitarian regimes have at least as much blood on their hands. Perhaps the truth is, as Kant saw, that people under the Evil Maxim will use any available ideology for their purposes. Progress towards civility is more likely if Muslims, Christians, Jews, (and Buddhists and Hindus) are encouraged to enter ‘the public square’ with their commitments explicit, and see how much common ethical ground there in fact is.

Instapundit

I also felt that his talk would have been easier to follow had he made clear why invocations of religion by Lincoln and Martin Luther King were good (as he seemed to think), while the singing of "God Bless America" by members of Congress on the Capitol steps after 9/11 was bad. Stout seemed to regard it as self-evidently bad, and many in the audience seemed to agree, but I think that point would have done better with more explanation.

Ernest Miller at PressThink

If we approach the question of what role religion should have in our public discourse with the assumption or premise that people are trying to eliminate religion from public discourse, we're going to have a different discussion than one simply asking what role religion should play in public discourse.