Barney Frank’s atheist triumph

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/05/barney_franks_atheist_triumph/

MONDAY, AUG 5, 2013 8:35 PM UTC

When will more politicians let go of God?
BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS

Barney Frank has always been a trailblazer. The outspoken 73-year-old former Democratic congressman first publicly came out of the closet back in 1987, back when being honest about your orientation was considered political suicide. And now, he’s done it again. Though he has in the past described himself as “a left-handed gay Jew,” over the weekend he refined that definition.

The updated status came via Bill Maher’s “Real Time,” after Maher asked Frank if he felt more liberated being out of Congress. “Absolutely,” Frank replied. “I don’t have to worry that when the phone rings it’s somebody who’s screwed something up and says it’s my responsibility to unscrew it.” Maher lobbed back that Frank had already enjoyed a degree of public immunity from criticism, noting, “You could come on this show and sit next to a pot-smoking atheist.” Frank then waved a finger between the two of them and asked, “Which pot-smoking atheist were you talking about here?” to the cheers of the crowd. Frank went on to express his disappointment that he wasn’t appointed to the open Senate seat in Massachusetts, because he “was looking forward to having my husband, Jim, hold the Constitution, not the Bible, and affirm, not swear, that I was going to be a wonderful senator.”

Frank’s admissions aren’t exactly bombshells. His tacit acknowledgment of some pot smoking, for example, should surprise no one familiar with his record of urging reform for the current drug laws. In the past, he and Ron Paul have teamed up to end the federal ban on marijuana and to respect Colorado’s possession policy “because of our belief in individual freedom.” And for a liberal politician who’s represented Massachusetts to cop to atheism isn’t quite the bombshell it would be if, say, Rick Santorum suddenly went all Christopher Hitchens.

Nevertheless, Frank’s candor is yet another much-needed step in normalizing atheism in a country that still frequently takes the Judeo-Christian model as the default. It reminds people, and not just the uppity Bill Maher demographic either, that we don’t all believe the same things. One-fifth of all Americans have no religious identity – and that number is even higher among young people. And in a nation that was founded on the ideal of separating church and state, on keeping God firmly out of government, why should a politician ever be asked to swear to anything on a Bible anyway?

more at link

[immoderate]

1. "the Judeo-Christian model..."

...whatever the fuck that is...


--imm

[BlueStreak]

3. It says you can rationalize any behaviors or attitude as long as you say you love Jesus

As far as the "Judeo" part of it, well, we don't like the Jews very much, but they are a hell of a lot better than the atheists. And Jesus was a Jew, so I guess they are alright.

[cbayer]

4. I believe it refers to the assumption that this country is primarily

Jewish/Christian and is founded on the principles found in those religions.

The author is saying that Frank is challenging this assumption.

[BlueStreak]

2. I would be interested to see which persecution he finds to be worse

Not to equate gay rights with religious freedom -- they are two different struggles, but there are certainly some similarities.

A big part of the gay equity thing is legal. All couples that are willing to make a legal commitment to each other should have all the same legal and financial benefits in our society. Period.

People aren't denied legal rights because they are atheists, so I'm not trying to say which one is worse. But in today's world, a lot of people fear and hate the non-believers more than gays.

I'm just curious how Frank would see the two.

[cbayer]

5. Well, he came out as gay before he came out as an atheist,

if that means anything.

[BlueStreak]

10. It might mean something

Did he make a calculation that being publicly gay wouldn't cost him his seat if he owned that, but there are way too many religious people in his district for him to have been re-elected as an un-closeted atheist?

I am guessing there is a lot of truth there. I'm not trying to argue that one kind of persecution is better or worse than another. I think it is a case where there is a time for each step of progress. That time happened in the last 10 years for gays, and it is just now starting to happen with regard to freedom from religion. I hope Barney's stance helps move this forward as much as he helped move the gay cause forward.

[cbayer]

12. Agree that the GLBT community is further ahead

in their civil rights movement and increased acceptance by people in general.

I agree that while there are similarities between the two groups in terms of acceptance by the general community, they are very different issues in other ways.

The question about Frank's district and how they might have reacted is an interesting one, but he's a savvy politician and I bet he had some survey data on that.

I think his "coming up" will be a positive thing in both the short and long run.

[BlueStreak]

13. It is a "Don't ask don't tell" thing for some people

A person could make an educated guess about Frank's religious beliefs based on where he stood on a lot of issues. So few people should be surprised t hear him say it out loud. But most Christians don't want to hear that out loud.

Basically there are 200 million (give or take) Americans who don't attend any church regularly, but feel compelled to say they are religious. For most of them, it is an easy rationalization, indoctrinated almost from childbirth, and reinforced dozens of times every single day. For others, it is just easier not to talk about it, or even think about it. And the mere act of people talking openly about not worshiping unseen spirits is quite threatening to all religions.

[cbayer]

14. DADT is a really good way to put it.

While I agree that there are certainly those that don't want to hear about someone's atheism, I think the tide is turning on that. I see more and more stories about "interfaith" efforts that include both believers and non-believers who are exhibiting tolerance, seeking better understanding and working together.

I think extremism on both sides is losing it's appeal.

There is another explanation for the data you provide, and it is one that is born out by some recent studies. A lot of those people (the nones) are repelled by the dogma and political agendas they see in traditional churches. Many continue to be theists or describe themselves as believing in some kind of spiritual aspect of life.

I don't buy what I consider the dogma of "indoctrination since birth". I don't think that gives thinking adults the credit they deserve. I know it's a favorite meme of anti-theists, but I find it hollow.

[BlueStreak]

15. Just out of curiosity, what percent do you expect are "thinking adults"?

And before you answer that, I encourage you to look at the line-up of what is available on the mass media (teevee and movies). You have your choice from:

- naked hillbillies in a "survival" challenge
- morbidly obese hillbillies with a sassy talking baby
- down-home hillbillies that have nightly antics related to fishing lures
- urban hillbillies sassing each other at a pawn shop
- hillbillies sassing the "judge" in a fake court
- hillbillies mortgaging their next 10 years' savings for a wedding dress when they will be divorced inside 18 months
- etc. There are 250 channels, but 95% of that is either hillbilly shows or else teevee preachers.

And if that isn't intellectually stimulating enough, well football season is almost here.

I put it to you that the distribution of cable content mirrors the intellectual curiosity of the population.

So I would say "thinking adults" is no more than 15% of adults -- and that is extremely generous. I would not argue there is any particular correlation for or against religion = thinking. It is indisputable that all religions require that their adherents suspend any independent thinking on matters related to the religion's dogma. But I know many religious people who otherwise would be considered "thinking adults." I don't know how they manage that cognitive dissonance, but they do and it doesn't seem to impair them in other areas.

(And I mean no offense to legitimate hillbillies. Some of the most thoughtful and insightful people I have ever met chose to live in the hills. But they didn't get that from couching in front of a teevee all night long.)

[cbayer]

16. Whoa! Generalize much?

That's some ugly stuff there.

It is very disputable that all religions require that their adherents suspend any independent thinking. Where do you get that idea? Any data to back it up? Or is it just part of your belief system?

Cognitive dissonance, eh. Well, you've read the right books. Perhaps the leaders of whatever group you have aligned yourself with are the ones who get people to give up their ability to think independently and just swallow the dogma. It's possible, you know.

[BlueStreak]

17. Do you think that teevee producers understand the population?

Do you think that the mass media reasonably reflects the intellectual curiosity of the public?

Because if one does believe that, I don't see how one could conclude that anything close to a majority of adults could be in the "thinking adults" category.

I guess it depends on the definition of "thinking".

[cbayer]

19. I think that tv producers understand marketing and know what

their market is composed of, but that has nothing to do with whether people are reflective and thoughtful about other areas of their lives.

Your position that 85% of the populations is unthinking is pretty judgmental and harsh.

You are right, it does depend on the definition. As a person who presumably bases their beliefs on data, reason, logic and rational thinking, how can you defend that fabricated statistic using any definition?

[BlueStreak]

21. I gave you my data source

Teevee and movie programming. If you don't think that is reflective of the population, you can make that argument. If you don't agree with my dim view of the intellectual level the mass media reflects, you can make that argument. If you think that, although the public seems to crave an endless supply of this claptrap, that doesn't actually indicate anything, that's an argument too.

You are certainly welcome to a different opinion from mine. For me, I'm going with H. L. Menken.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

To which I would add, much of the rest of the world is even worse.

[cbayer]

22. My extremely bright daughter loves Survivor and Big Brother.

Though I rarely get TV, I truly enjoy watching Judge Judy for the mere entertainment value from time to time.

Intelligence is all relative, isn't it? And I don't think it correlates with religious beliefs.

But poverty does and there are good reasons for that. So perhaps some of what you see has to do with poverty, under-education and all the other issues that impact on the poor and may inhibit "thinking" (by your definition).

I think that saying only 15% of the US population is thinking and then doubling down by saying it's even less in much of the rest of the world may come from a pretty superior position of privilege. Is that the case here?

[BlueStreak]

23. I mostly agree with you

I watch those idiotic storage wars shows sometimes. I almost never just sit down in front of a teeevee set and watch a program, but I do have it on in eh BG sometimes. It is one thing to take a "stupidity diversion" from time to time. We all need that, I think.

But if one takes an objective look at what is on all 250 of those channels at any given time, there is less "thinking adult" content now than when we only had 20 channels.

There used to be a thing called "The Learning Channel". They changed their name to TLC when they became a laughingstock. They didn't make the programs more "learning" oriented. They changed the name so that it wouldn't be incongruous with the new programming aimed at the 80% who have very little independent thought happening between ear drums.

Same thing for the Discovery Channel. Their idea of "discovery" apparently is a 2-hour series presented as a documentary about a massively deadly shark recently "discovered", but which is in fact entirely fictional.

They know exactly what they are doing.

[cbayer]

24. Ah, the storage wars!!

We recently took a road trip and had access to cable/satellite tv for the first time in years. Some of those shows are a hoot. That being said, I am very glad that my access is extremely limited most of the time. It's like water or electricity for us - when you have limited amounts, you use it very sparingly, but if it's an open line, you tend to use a great deal more.

What we most often do get, which most people don't, is a whopping 12 PBS channels through the air.

I'm again going to question your "statistics", but acknowledge that you have revised from 85% to 80%, lol!

[longship]

6. There are more than a few Congress Critters who are non-believers.

That's what I think. Furthermore, I'd bet that some are Republican. I suspect that one could predict some of them.

It's just a matter of people not being comfortable with saying that they don't believe in god in a country with our culture that makes belief a good thing just because one believes.

That is the spell we have to break. That's why I am open about being an atheist and think it would be a good thing if others were open about it as well.

[cbayer]

7. Agree and I hope we see more "declare" in the future.

There is a significant backlash against the christian right at this time, and, ironically, maybe being an atheist will become something of an asset in the next few years. Wouldn't that be interesting?

[longship]

8. I would like to see that, just to see the reaction.

The LGBT rights movement was very effective. They embraced the word "gay" and made it their own.

That's why I don't mince words or play silly rhetorical games. I call myself an atheist.

Always nice to read your posts.


And I agree about the backlash.

[cbayer]

9. And with the GLBT movement a few very prominent people

broke the ceiling in very brave ways.

I know there are those that live or work in areas where calling themselves atheist would have significant negative ramifications.

But it's good to know that those that can, like you, do.

[BlueStreak]

18. I don't know that I would call it a "backlash"

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

It is more a case of saying, simply, "Religious freedom means you are free to follow your belief system without persecution. It does not mean you are free to impose it on others. It does not mean you are even free to presume that others welcome it."

I compare it more to the issue of smoking. Smokers killed a lot of non-smokers over the years. There came a time when that was no longer acceptable. But if a person wants to smoke tobacco (or anything else) in private or among fellow smokers, that is none of my business as long as I an mot forced to breath the smoke and I am not forced to subsidize the costs that result (e.g. health care costs.)

[cbayer]

20. Now, I agreed with you all the way up to the part about subsidizing the costs

of health care when people engage in risky behavior.

Do you also object to subsidizing the costs associated with obesity? How about for people who contract AIDS due to risky behavior?

Anyway, that's off topic. Just wanted to comment on it.

Otherwise, I think your analogy is apt. I think we are in the process of becoming more inclusive when it comes to the definition of religious freedom, and recognizing that lack of belief deserves the same protections.

[BlueStreak]

25. Actually I do. But the solution is worse than the problem.

I do think it is entirely proper for people who choose risky behaviors (morbid obesity, unprotected sex, as your examples -- smoking in my example) to pay their share of the health care costs.

But it gets problematic enforcing that. So I think a better public policy is education. That worked with smoking and I think it helped with STDs. It even shows signs of working with obesity. Just this morning, there was a study that ways many states have actually started to reverse childhood obesity levels.

In the case of giant corporations that pollute, resulting in loss of life or loss of quality of life, we certainly should put all of those costs plus stiff penalties on the corporations. I mean, it isn't likely that with a little education, the Koch Brothers or BP will change their behavior.

There isn't such a clear-cut society cost related to religions. Undoubtedly, much of the US' war-making has had a Christian foundation -- "we must turn back the commies that hate all religions and the Muslims that hate Christians". And clearly that has been a big cost to society. But I am also a realist. I know that Christians will never see it that way -- even those Christians who follow Jesus.

[cbayer]

26. Agree that education can be critical and has been shown to be effective for

much of what we are discussing. But there is also data that supports that the poorest and most marginalized are more likely to engage in behaviors that may have adverse health consequences and also have the least access to things like preventative care, so we have to be careful when talking about personal responsibility, imo.

Competely agree with what you say about corporations. You have to hit them where they will feel it.

Much of US war making has a christian foundation? How so? I never thought of our issues around communism or middle east extremism as religiously based at all. I don't think that argument is going to hold much water.

[BlueStreak]

11. Very few of them act like they believe in much of what Jesus was about.

Politicians are experts at figuring out what they can get away with and what they can't get away with. They will flip positions on a dime if there is any political/financial advantage to it. nearly 100% of them calculate that there is nothing but downside in being secular, so pass that Bible over here.

[Deep13]

27. So he was okay admitting to being gay while in office...

...back in the '80s when homophobia was socially acceptable. But he had to wait until he was out of office to admit that there is no god. Super.

BTW, there is no "Judeo-Christian" model. There is a Jewish model and a Christian model. They are not the same.

[cbayer]

28. Looks that way. I'd be curious as to whether he had some demographic

data that drove his decisions in both these areas.

He didn't "admit there is not god". He said that he does not believe there is a god.

He was a ceiling buster in the GLBT movement and I suspect he will be he same in the atheist movement. I give him a lot of credit.

Judeo-Christian is just a term used to describe what has been assumed to be the religious underpinnings of the US, rightly or wrongly. Judaism and christianity share many things, including the old testament.