The Good Brooks

Via Mark Kleiman, the good David Brooks delivers an excellent column on Mitt Romney and "The Speech":

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.

Yessiree.

Meanwhile, from the point of view of a basically secular person who nonetheless holds to certain retrograde notions about human dignity, there continues to be something staggering about the extent to which the politicized "faith" crowd believes that it is a right and just thing to do to, say, keep a man shackled naked in a standing posture in a freezing room and then, later, strap him to a board and force water down his throat so as to induce a sensation of drowning before using evidence obtained by such methods as perhaps a basis for detaining further individuals and treating them likewise.

Comments

Not to mention that it is right in their minds to lionize a person who went to war that was sold on on false pretenses and caused deaths of a few hundred thousands of innocent human beings and displaced a few million.

Weird sense of morality these people of faith have.

Posted by gregor | December 7, 2007 12:22 PM

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself.

Theology isn't terribly important to anyone who's not a theologian. Most religious people - and atheists who study religion and understand its community-building appeal - get this on some level. You and Brooks, on the other hand, are talking out of your ass.

Posted by Christmas | December 7, 2007 12:23 PM

...the extent to which the politicized "faith" crowd believes that it is a right and just thing to do to, say, keep a man shackled naked in a standing posture in a freezing room and then, later, strap him to a board and force water down his throat so as to induce a sensation of drowning...

Yes, but the important question is, do those interrogators have the freedom to say "Merry Christmas" instead of the awful secular whining alternatives?

Posted by El Cid | December 7, 2007 12:25 PM

It seems strange that torture is OK with the holier than thou group. I admit it pisses me off that I am not considered moral by Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney.

Posted by cheflovesbeer | December 7, 2007 12:28 PM

This month's Harper's has an excerpt from a piece by David Lewis and Philip Kitcher about "Divine Evil" -- in a nutshell, suggesting that a "God" who would subject persons/souls to eternal torment merely for insubordination (i.e., nonbelief) is in fact a perpetrator of the most monstrous evil imaginable and that, therefore, the followers of such a God are similarly tainted by that evil. In that light, it's not terribly surprising that a little torture doesn't bother them.

Here's a blog that has posted the article (Harper's is subscription only).

http://endlesslyrocking.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/insert-evil-laugh-here/

Posted by Glenn | December 7, 2007 12:30 PM

strap him to a board and force water down his throat so as to induce a sensation of drowning

Waterboarding is not "a sensation" of drowning. It is drowning, simple and straightforward. Water fills the lungs and makes it impossible to breathe freely. (The World Health Organization defines drowning as "the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid.”)

It is not necessarily drowning that results in death, but that does not make it "not drowning" anymore than, say, being pierced with a knife short of death is only "a sensation" of stabbing.

Posted by Stefan | December 7, 2007 12:39 PM

While the Good Brooks (or at least the less-evil one) was definitely let out of his cage for this piece, he does miss something:

"There was no hint of. . .the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings."

That's what the 'no freedom without religion' thing was about, imho - at least in part.

Also, this
"Yesterday, I called around to many of America’s serious religious thinkers — including moderates like Richard Bushman of Columbia, and conservatives like Neuhaus and Robert George of Princeton. Everyone I spoke with was enthusiastic about the speech, some of them wildly so."

is pretty amusing. Speaks volumes about MSM coverage of religion . . .

Meanwhile - well, perhaps if the bible depicted Jesus being waterboarded and stress-positioned to death, instead of being tortured to death the old-fashioned Roman way . . . nah, probably wouldn't make a difference . . .

Posted by Dan S. | December 7, 2007 12:46 PM

sorry, meant to end boldfacing after "conservatives" - ie
"including moderates . . . and conservatives . . ."

Posted by Dan S. | December 7, 2007 12:49 PM

Brooks appears to have forgotten to include some information about Bushman that others might have found relevant as regards Bushman's reaction to Romney's speech:

Bushman is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He interrupted his undergraduate studies at Harvard to serve as a missionary in New England and Atlantic Canada, and has held various lay positions within the Mormon Church, including Seminary teacher, bishop, stake president, and Stake Patriarch.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 7, 2007 12:57 PM

Theology isn't terribly important to anyone who's not a theologian. Most religious people - and atheists who study religion and understand its community-building appeal - get this on some level.

So it doesn't really matter to America's religious whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a man? Whether there is any kind of continued existence after death or not? Whether there is one god, many gods, or no gods at all?

Actually though, I agree with you for the most part. For most Americans who would claim to be religious or to belong to a religion, theological questions--even basic ones--just aren't very important. Religion in America is no longer much about beliefs regarding what is true. It's more like a hobby, an interest, a social club, a family tradition.

Posted by Mixner | December 7, 2007 12:59 PM

Matt, this is the central existential irony of absolutist, foundational ethics: They're constantly ranting that nonfoundational, pluralistic pragmatists have nothing to stand on to keep them from sliding down the slippery slope to animalistic nihilism. BUT it is their very absolutism that blinds them to their own fallibility and enables every violation of their own moral creed. As long as they have their white hats on ("it depneds on who's doing it"--R. Giuliani when asked about waterboarding), they can merrily slide down...the slippery slope to animalistic nihilism. It is people who have a more pluralistic, conditional, and pragmatic view of the world and their conduct in it who stand a better chance of stepping back from the plunge into self-righteous barbarity. Now, that's irony, with a capital "I".

Posted by elle loco | December 7, 2007 1:05 PM

Most religious people - and atheists who study religion and understand its community-building appeal

I don't think that's true, but even if it is the people he is courting are extremely hostile toward ecumenicalism. I had a month class in religion at an assemblies of god school on "cults" and the LDS got a weeks worth of working over.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 7, 2007 1:10 PM

Let me get this right.

First, Brooks is so tone deaf that he makes a comment about Romney not giving a shout out to the non religious and draws the inference that Romney is just trying to irk the "liberal press." The fact that Romney would get lynched by the religious voters he's trying to court if he acknowledged atheists doesn't enter into Brooks' mind.

Then, Brooks makes a quite insightful point about how Romney hopes to define groups of believers purely on the basis of a shared sense of victimization. Good point.

But to make that point he needs to stop making snide comments about the "liberal press." Brooks feeds the same absurd sense of victimization that he decries.

Posted by Patrick | December 7, 2007 1:31 PM

"Meanwhile, from the point of view of a basically secular person who nonetheless holds to certain retrograde notions about human dignity, there continues to be something staggering about the extent to which the politicized "faith" crowd believes that it is a right and just thing to do to, say, keep a man shackled naked in a standing posture in a freezing room and then, later, strap him to a board and force water down his throat so as to induce a sensation of drowning before using evidence obtained by such methods as perhaps a basis for detaining further individuals and treating them likewise."

Er--I think I would qualify as one of the "politicized 'faith' crowd," insofar as I consider my politics to be informed by my [mainline Protestant] faith. And, like most Christians I hang out with, I find torture reprehensible and consider myself obligated to
stamp it out.

" . . . a "God" who would subject persons/souls to eternal torment merely for insubordination (i.e., nonbelief) is in fact a perpetrator of the most monstrous evil imaginable."

Sorry, but this is just ignorant. In Christian theology, eternal torment is what we *all* deserve, not because of unbelief, but because we're all jerks. To be Christian is to believe in salvation through grace, not to think that you don't need any. And, BTW, that's also why the pro-torture position isn't Christian; if we have received undeserved grace, we owe it to others as well, even [alleged] terrorists. The notion that certain people can be tortured because they're "evil" [and we're not] has nothing to do with any teaching of Jesus Christ; quite the contrary.

Posted by David | December 7, 2007 1:50 PM

David, I'm having a hard time seeing your point. Do the insubordinate people receive eternal punishment or not? If so, then Glenn's point stands, regardless of whether everyone *deserves* it. If non-believers receive eternal punishment for non-belief, then the assertion that those saved through grace deserve it but don't receive it is moot.

Posted by eriks | December 7, 2007 2:15 PM

In Christian theology, eternal torment is what we *all* deserve, not because of unbelief, but because we're all jerks.

Sorry, but this is just stupid. We "deserve" eternal torment? And somehow your God had nothing to do with it? If he created us in a state of deserving eternal torment unless we profess belief in him, I think the point still stands.

Look, I'm not ignorant of "Christian theology" -- I was steeped in it my whole life. Bottom line, at least in the church I grew up in, is this: You believe, you spend eternity in Heaven; you don't, you go to hell. Period. David, maybe that's not your "Christian theology," but it damn sure applies to most. And you can rationalize that anyway lets you sleep at night, but the effect is still the same: If you don't believe in God, he will send you to suffer torment for all eternity. (Unless, of course, you're claiming that God doesn't decide who goes to hell and who goes to heaven, i.e., isn't omnipotent.) Sorry, but that's evil in my book.

Posted by Glenn | December 7, 2007 2:16 PM

David,

And, BTW, that's also why the pro-torture position isn't Christian; if we have received undeserved grace, we owe it to others as well, even [alleged] terrorists.

How does that follow? If we're not "owed" grace from God, why are terrorists owed grace from us? And even if we did "owe" grace to terrorists, why would that preclude torture but not, say, execution or life imprisonment or some other lesser infliction of suffering? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

The notion that certain people can be tortured because they're "evil" [and we're not] has nothing to do with any teaching of Jesus Christ; quite the contrary.

Jesus Christ is repeatedly quoted in the Bible as stating that the wicked and evil deserve, and will receive, eternal punishment in hell. I think it's pretty disingenous to claim that these teachings cannot plausibly be understood as an endorsement of torture. Hell is the ultimate torture.

Posted by Mixner | December 7, 2007 2:29 PM

Look, it all boils down to this:

Romney had an opportunity to give a speech embracing the First Amendment and denouncing the idea that there is a "religious test" to be President of the United States.

Instead, he gave a speech in which he strongly implies that there IS a religious test to be President of the United States, but he passes the test.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 7, 2007 2:29 PM

Christian in America: someone who hates gay marriage, but is not bothered by homosexual rape at Abu Ghraib.

Posted by mq | December 7, 2007 2:40 PM

Whoops, should have said right-wing Christian, there are plenty of Christians out there far more thoughtful and moral than I am, who take the New Testament seriously.

Posted by mq | December 7, 2007 2:42 PM

"Jesus Christ is repeatedly quoted in the Bible as stating that the wicked and evil deserve, and will receive, eternal punishment in hell. I think it's pretty disingenous to claim that these teachings cannot plausibly be understood as an endorsement of torture. Hell is the ultimate torture."

Mixner, I'm guessing that you're just being a smartass, but surely you aren't insinuating that George W. Bush is the earthly manifestation of God? The point of Christ's hellfire and damnation speeches is that God's judgment is the only one that matters. It's a bit of a stretch to suppose that Jesus thought crucifixion was fine and dandy as long as it happens to someone other than him.

I would have thought that the symbolic power of the Gospel, in which we experience the passion and suffering of an unjustly-tortured and wrongly-executed man, might carry more moral weight than "it's ok for Caesar to torture 'cuz God does it, too."

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 7, 2007 2:44 PM

How fitting that Romney was introduced by George H.W. Bush, who famously declared, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

In his over-hyped address Thursday on "Faith in America," Romney sought to disarm evangelicals' fears about the role of his Mormon faith. But while he likely failed in that task, Romney assuredly succeeded in redefining the U.S. Constitution's ban on religious tests for political office. According to Romney's notion of public service, Muslims and atheists need not apply.

For the details, see:
"Mitt Romney Creates His Own Religious Test."

Posted by Furious | December 7, 2007 2:57 PM

Well the atheists and agnostics can take solace that they're not alone. I'm pretty sure Hindu's are not welcome in the "community" either. Notice that when these clowns are trying to be all ecumenical, they mention Jews and Muslims, both monotheistic faiths. Hindu's are of course idol worshiping pagans who must also be exluded (converts like Bobby Jindal and Ramesh Ponnuru are welcome, natch)

Posted by ramster | December 7, 2007 3:42 PM

Mixner has got to be putting us on. The central message of the Gospels is that we human beings don't know who is truly wicked and who is truly good, because goodness depends on what's in your heart, not on external behavior. Those who pray publicly are impious; lusting in your heart is the same as adultery; etc. Anyone who takes the Sermon on the Mount --"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" -- as an endorsement of torturing our enemies is simply insane.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 7, 2007 3:50 PM

Progressive,

The point of Christ's hellfire and damnation speeches is that God's judgment is the only one that matters.

How do you know that was the point of it? In any case, regardless of Jesus' purpose in saying those things, the message is that eternal punishment is the just fate of the wicked and evil. Whatever you personally think the purpose of that message was, the claim that it is not likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of the infliction of suffering is incredibly dishonest. If God truly does not want us to hurt one another, one would have thought he would have been able to communicate that message more clearly. If God himself is so monstrous that he inflicts everlasting suffering on people, anything we might do to them is childsplay by comparison. In fact, this was the explicit justification of the Inquisition: Better that a few men suffer the earthly tortures of the rack than that millions be condemned to an eternity of suffering in hell by believing their heresies.

The doctrine of hell also makes one wonder what kind of twisted mentality a person must possess to believe an entity so cruel is worthy of respect, let alone worship.

Posted by Mixner | December 7, 2007 4:05 PM

Mixner, you've missed the point of Christianity completely. I don't really blame you, lots of American Christians have too.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 7, 2007 4:29 PM

Whatever you think "the point" of Christianity is (there seems to be little agreement on that question even among Christians), its sacred scriptures, including the Gospels, teach that eternal (eternal) punishment in hell is the just (the just) fate of the wicked. You believe that, do you?

Posted by Mixner | December 7, 2007 4:42 PM

"If God truly does not want us to hurt one another, one would have thought he would have been able to communicate that message more clearly."

Luke 6:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also...Do to others as you would have them do to you... Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful... Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you."

Seems pretty clear to me.

If you can find an equivalent passage along the lines of "Strap your enemies to a board and pour water down their throats until they proclaim the glory of the Lord," then I'll freely concede the point.

To answer your question, no I don't agree that eternal torture is the just fate of the wicked. I think that's a fairly disgusting view, and that's one of many reasons why I'm not a Christian. But you're being silly. Nothing in the Gospel can be honestly read to justify state torture or execution. Quite the opposite. That many Conservative Christians believe this says more about American Conservatism than it says about Christianity.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 7, 2007 5:08 PM

Whatever you think "the point" of Christianity is (there seems to be little agreement on that question even among Christians), its sacred scriptures, including the Gospels, teach that eternal (eternal) punishment in hell is the just (the just) fate of the wicked. You believe that, do you?

I was raised Christian and while I'm not a churchgoer these days I guess I'd still wear the label. In any case, your premise is wrong. Jesus said very little -- almost nothing -- about hell and punishment. That stuff came later.

Look: In Roman times -- as at many times -- religion was a matter of rituals and regulations, good fortune was seen as divine providence, and the powerful and prominent were seen as morally superior to ordinary people as a matter of course. Jesus said, God doesn't care about what you eat or how you make sacrifices, he cares about what's in your heart. the important thing is not to feel angry or jealous or proud. It's about actually being a moral person, not going through the motions. And a poor person or a criminal or a prostitute is just as capable of cultivating their inner goodness as anyone else. Don't worry about advancing your self-interest, worry about being a good person.

That was an incredibly radical message for that time and still pretty radical today.

Don't take my word for it, just read the Gospels with an open mind. There are some weird bits in there but by and large they're quite clear.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 7, 2007 5:21 PM

Progressive,

Seems pretty clear to me.

Well, that's because you've cherry-picked a single passage that's conducive to your own beliefs. You're ignoring all the ones that aren't. Such as all the passages in which Jesus goes on and on about how the wicked deserve to burn in hell. And the scriptures in which Jesus states that divorce and remarriage is adultery. And the ones in which Jesus says that he comes as a sword to set sons against fathers and daughters against mothers. And the ones in which Jesus says the most important commandment of all is to love God (so much for atheists, deists, polytheists, etc.). And so on.

And that's just the Gospels. The Old Testament is largely a catalog of atrocities ordered, perpetrated or condoned by God. And yet we're supposed to believe that none of this can plausibly be interpreted as approval of the mistreatment of people by other people. It's absurd.

Posted by Mixner | December 7, 2007 5:22 PM

Jesus said very little -- almost nothing -- about hell and punishment.

Nonsense. There are numerous passages in the Gospels in which Jesus talks about hell and punishment. It's one of his most frequently-repeated themes. I can give you chapter and verse if you like.

Posted by Mixner | December 7, 2007 5:25 PM

Re Waterboarding. Let's be very clear on this. When you waterboard someone, you do not "give him the sensation of drowning," you are drowning him. Water is entering the lungs. If you keep it up long enough, the victim dies. Waterboarding is slow-motion murder.

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | December 7, 2007 5:30 PM

"In Christian theology, eternal torment is what we *all* deserve, not because of unbelief, but because we're all jerks."

Actually, that sounds a lot like the radical Transhumanist position. Maybe I should reconsider becoming a Christian...

Well, no, on second thought - because radical Transhumanists don't want you to suffer eternal torment. We just agree that you're all jerks.

We just want you to go away - either by transmogrification into Transhumans, extermination (quickly and efficiently, not bothering with torment), or us leaving you to torment yourselves (which is really what you deserve and is in fact the punishment you're getting day by day.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 7:18 PM

"It's a bit of a stretch to suppose that Jesus thought crucifixion was fine and dandy as long as it happens to someone other than him."

Actually, there is a hypothesis that in fact it WAS someone other than Jesus who was crucified. The whole Longinus story appears to be a coded suggestion that a deal was made with the authorities to spare Jesus and allow him to go underground and another person - presumably a volunteer - was crucified in his stead. The part where Longinus spears Jesus and his blindness is cured is supposed to be a code for his realization that it was not Jesus on the cross at all. This is hypothesized because supposedly the way Roman crucifixion worked according to other historical descriptions does not match the events described in the case of Jesus - something to do with the amount of time he survived or whatever, which led to Longinus spearing him. I forget the details.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 7:27 PM

Nice to see Mixner establishing the source of his torture lust.

He's right in this case, amazingly. Christians have absolutely no history of politically or theologically opposing torture.

Which of course merely establishes once again that torture is incorrect, since these bozos have always used it to counter "heresy".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 7:30 PM

I might just add that Jesus, being a good, indeed fanatical, Jew who was apparently a stern supporter of the Jewish Law and had no intention of forming a new religion, let alone one that would persecute his own people in his name for the next two thousand years, well, it's really irrelevant what he said as an indication of what Christians believe he said.

Christianity was invented by Paul, a Roman double agent, after Jesus died (assuming the historical person of Jesus ever actually existed in fact, which is still being argued over). What Christians believe has little to do with what Jesus actually believed, after generations of modifications and omissions from the New Testament documents. You can cherry pick anything out of that crap to make a case for what he believed. Nobody actually knows. However, based on the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls - if that constitutes evidence - he definitely was not a "Christian" in the sense that modern Christians are.

What matters is what the various Christian Churches believe - and their history is one of war, torture, corruption, and wholesale lots of murder and genocide.

Not much to build an anti-torture case on.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 7:37 PM

Time to call BULLSHIT on the whole God/religious, I am a “BELIEVER” thing and YOU SECURLARISTS ARE NOT.

People may say, hope, and want to “believe”. Expression of faith in something good, beyond our compression, spirituality, and prayer all great things if a person so chooses. But for GOD (which does not exist in any sense that we can comprehend) sakes, stop the fucking “I Believe” Bullshit. Only a moron-- excuse me--- only a person who suspends all rational thought and analysis would “believe” that their respective religious teachings are really, really true. We may want to believe, we may see them as abstract expressions of human desire for universal goodness, or ultimate redemption, but they are symbolic, abstract, mystical, and spiritual at best. Let’s get real… who the hell knows.

Time for a new “Holy War”. We can not let the Neo-Fascists frame the debate as “secular humanists” vs. all religions’ ”believers”.

We should move the debate to: respect of persons personal spiritual needs (including abstract atheism) vs. absolutists and literalists (i.e., fucking morons). Most people are in the former camp, very few actual “believers” in the later.

Posted by erict | December 7, 2007 8:11 PM

"Theology isn't terribly important to anyone who's not a theologian. Most religious people - and atheists who study religion and understand its community-building appeal - get this on some level. You and Brooks, on the other hand, are talking out of your ass.

Posted by Christmas | December 7, 2007 12:23 PM"

So basically religious people's beliefs shouldn't be taken seriously. It is thus all about excluding the Other from the community.

Posted by Reality Man | December 7, 2007 11:59 PM

Re: Christians have absolutely no history of politically or theologically opposing torture.

Thanks for telling me I don't oppose torture. It's fabulous that some posters here are so omniscent they can intuit the political beliefs of people they have never even met.

Posted by JonF | December 8, 2007 1:19 AM

Regardless of one may think of Aristotle, he did say one particularly sensible thing --- that if one accepts, in one's initial premises, both a statement and its direct opposite, one can then derive any conclusion one likes in the argument.

This is precisely why religion, and arguments that follow from it, whether they are about how to raise children or how to run a state, are such a crock. Search the Bible (New Testament or Hebraic) or the Koran (I've no idea about the book of Mormon, but I'm sure it's the same) and for every passage telling you "do A" you'll find one telling you some variant of "do not A". I mean, that's the whole content of the argument above, isn't it.
Then we start degenerating into "you cherry picked a single passage" --- uh, so what? Was god asleep the day that passage was spoken? There are a substantial fraction of Americans who will tell you that every word (EVERY WORD) of the Bible is to be interpreted literally (LITERALLY) --- that's a pretty definite endorsement of cherry picking whatever you damn well feel like.

I've little patience with the Constitutional Literalist crowd (Bork, Thomas, Scalia and so on) but what they are trying to do is vastly more sane than what religious fundamentalism of any form (by which I mean this sort of "Every word means exactly what it says" crap) is trying to do.

Posted by Maynard Handley | December 8, 2007 11:37 PM