France’s impoverished Muslim ghettos display more cultural confidence

So the problem with the US is that the secular humanists don't display enough cultural confidence?

That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week.

Supposedly its the godless liberals own Hollywood, which has no lack of cultural confidence, as it acts as cultural producer for the US, 24/7. And the snaggletooth knuckledragging guntoters eat it up. How can you square that with Steyn's view?

They have plenty of cultural confidence-- they are confident that every culture in the world is superior to our own.

Movie receipts have been declining for several years, indicating that the snaggletooth knuckledragging guntoters have changed their diet.

New Hampshire is my favorite New England state.

They will issue a NH concealed carry license to residents of other states that are licensed in their home state.

And that Steyn quote is precisely why I am the most religion-friendly atheist I know.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one ungodly blogger.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

...you’d have to be awfully certain it was the one-in-a-hundred we-are-the-world pantywaist’s pad and not some plaid-clad gun nut who’ll blow your head off before you lay a hand on his $70 TV.

IOW, just make sure it's tubeano's hovel.

Cordially...

I'll give you a run for your money, Dave. I'm a staunch atheist who believes the loss of religion in the West is rapidly degrading our societies. Don't ask me why some people need a magic book to tell them not to cheat on their wives or steal from old ladies, but they clearly do.

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell

For "good people" you may substitute "Sniveling idiots."

"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell

For "good people" you may substitute "Sniveling idiots."

So the problem with the US is that the secular humanists don't display enough cultural confidence?

Yes. Their cultural lack of confidence, nonassertiveness and insensitivity find expression as multiculturalism, moral relativism, and a few other examples of their general nihilism. The fact that they are aggressive about forcing their lack of cultural confidence on others does not make them more confident about the culture.

You mistake aggressively pushing cultural nonassertiveness with being assertive with your culture.

Okay, another take. (How the heck are religious people analogous to "rough men [who] stand ready to do violence on their behalf"???)

I'm going to suggest that this guns=religion analogy requires us to believe that the religous ones protect the non-believers, and that the relevant threat is "foreign values." You know, those religious fundamentalists who want to impose their values on us. (Which makes the defenders already look a little like the attackers, but hey)

So presumably the threat from Islamic fundamentalism is that the non-believers will lack the cultural confidence to resist the incursion of foreign values, right?

US got attacked on 9-11. Two responses. Okay, three responses.

Group One: affirmed their belief in values of the US, supported a vigorous response against attackers, kept watchful eye on civil liberties.

Group Two: claimed unprecedented powers for the executive branch, argued that habeas corpus should be selectively ignored, deceived public to push a second war, a war of choice, and has tossed aside US recognition of treaties,

Group Three: the real Christians turned the other cheek. (I know someone who knows someone like this. There might be more.)

Which group(s) displayed cultural confidence?

Which group(s) displayed complete distrust of or dislike for the US Constitution, no confidence in the ability to a democratic society to decide on war (so had to lie)?

Which group resorted to sliming the truth-tellers, and then lying about it?

The ones with cultural confidence believe that the US can prevail in war without giving up its values?

Group Two are the ones who -- rather than maintain the US cultural values -- are flushing them away in exchange for the culture of those we have called our enemies.

The moral relativists here are the ones who suddenly find torture can be a US value.

When Cheney tries to convince others that a secret gulag system of torture-enabled prisons should be part of US culture, he is ready to give in to the values of our enemies -- and all after one day of coordinated terrorist attacks.

And the religous ones in this country? What are they doing to protect against this dangerous giving-in to the values of our enemies?

Well, Jimmy Carter just published an angry book. I suppose there are a few more out there doing something?

They have plenty of cultural confidence-- they are confident that every culture in the world is superior to our own.

I think THAT is now the dumbest thing I've heard this week. Pay any attention to pop culture? US culture is endlessly celebrated in the sitcoms, the movies, the soaps, the music, the videos put out mostly by the godless coastal elites.

I grew up in the heartland of the US (went deer hunting well before I was old enough to drive a car), but I've spent a lot of time with the educated coastal atheists, and they absolutely feel US culture is preferable to the rigid religious and class cultures of most of the globe. You think a secular libertarian wants to live under the Taliban, or in China, or Uzbekistan, or Saudi Arabia, or in some repressively Catholic country?

Now Sweden... that's different.

I'm going to suggest that this guns=religion analogy requires us to believe that the religous ones protect the non-believers,

Yeah, sortuv.

and that the relevant threat is "foreign values."

No, no, no. There's more to life than the War on Terror, you know.

The biggest threat is our own spiritual decay.

I've spent a lot of time with the educated coastal atheists

Me too. They make up a large portion of my social life, in fact.

You think a secular libertarian

Most "educated coastal atheists" are not libertarians; they're leftists. Big difference, tubino.

The biggest threat is our own spiritual decay.

Okay, but then how does the gun analogy hold up? What is it that religious protect non-religious people against?

And of course "religious" does not equal "spiritual", non-relig is not the same as non-spiritual...

Plenty of folks find organized religion to present another kind of spiritual decay. But I'm trying to work with the analogy here.

Most "educated coastal atheists" are not libertarians; they're leftists. Big difference, tubino.
----

Define leftist? Nothing formal or precise.

Tolerant? High belief in personal liberties and rights? Strongly support social services? Concerned about inequality?

Probably.

Redistribution of wealth? Um, not so much, I think.

You think a secular libertarian wants to live under the Taliban, or in China, or Uzbekistan, or Saudi Arabia, or in some repressively Catholic country?

As to what leftists want...

They don't want to live under the Taliban. But they do want the Afghanis to live under the Taliban.

They may or may not want to live under China per se, but they promote an ideology which would lead to something like China if they got their way.

And as to the repressively Catholic countries (backwater hellholes like Ireland), they want them converted to atheism on the double. Catholicism is gob-smackingly vile.

Define leftist? Nothing formal or precise.

Somebody who would think that many of the views expressed at The Daily Kos are pretty reasonable. More reasonable than, for example, the opinions expressed at Instapundit.com.

Steyn defines cultural confidence as willingness to impose one's religion on others.

Shorter rebuttal to Steyn:

Strongly-held Xtian beliefs + cultural confidence = Kansas school board redefining science to include supernatural explanations

Look at it this way, tubino. I'm an atheist libertarian right coast righty. In my personal life, I'm inclined to be dissolute, eccentric and non-traditional. I would die if you tried to shove me into a 1950's Ozzie-and-Harriet dealio.

But here's the thing (and I wish more of my fellow eccentrics would realize this): in order to have a happy playground for me to indulge my fecklessness, I have to live in a stable society. Sure, the Road Warrior option would be fun for a little while, but ultimately I'd want a hot shower, a decent meal and a good night's sleep.

So, to support my chosen lifestyle, it takes an army of bus drivers and accountants and engineers and cooks and bank tellers and construction workers and nurses and physicists and so on and so forth. In order to do a reasonably good job at those jobs I need them to do, they must like what they do reasonably well and be reasonably happy. Pissed off, desperate men do not make tasty bagels at a reasonable price.

Biological entities that we are, for most people happiness means some combination of: a stable marriage, a coupla kids, a decent home, steady employment, an enjoyable hobby, a basic allegience to some form of church. Religion (especially the unimposing religions of the West) are mostly a framework for expressing a community morality and helping people deal with the unpleasant and unavoidable, like, for example, "HOLY JESUS, I'M GONNA DIE SOME DAY!!"

Thoreau was full of shit. In my observation, the mass of men do not lead lives of quiet desperation. The bulk of the people I know (at least in the middle classes and getting there) seem pretty darn content most of the time. The very rich, the very poor and the arty types get a little edgy, but what do they really contribute a society, anyhow?

They don't want to live under the Taliban. But they do want the Afghanis to live under the Taliban.

I do not believe you can support that statement, at all.

The leftists who were active regarding Afghanistan prior to 9-11 were uniformly anti-Taliban (usually centering on women's rights).

When the guy (NAACP head?) referred to the Taliban wing of the GOP, he was obviously talking about religious oppression.

When Laura Bush suddenly came out about women's rights in Afghanistan, it was a new topic for the right, but a very old one for the left -- who typically saw it as sudden opportunism on the part of the right.

The nonsense about China is no more supportable than your other claim. The left wants to keep govt out of your private life, while the right is pushing an agenda of govt power over private life that is closer on the spectrum to China.

Weasel,

Very well put, and I am with you 90% or more.

And if the argument were about making religious observance MORE difficult in the US, we'd both be against it.

I just don't see how -- still trying to use the gun analogy -- the existence or prevalence of religions PROTECTS or even particularly benefits the non-religious. Again, I'm not anti-religion, at all, and don't deny that religion may be a swell system for lots of folks. I just don't see how Steyn's piece is of any use, because I don't see how they are a bulwark of cultural confidence that protects against cultural erosion. Are Judeo-Christian values preventing gulags and torture as official policy of the US? I don't see it, Carter's book notwithstanding.

And I don't see how Weasel's post, which I agree with, changes that at all. Okay, religion is useful -- for the religious. But that's not Steyn's point.

I just don't see how -- still trying to use the gun analogy -- the existence or prevalence of religions PROTECTS or even particularly benefits the non-religious.

Because religion (of the non-malignant kind, which most modern religions have boiled their beliefs down to) contributes to a stable, happy, civil, law-abiding society, which even the non-religious prefer.

Nihilism may be true, but it's bad for business.

"US got attacked on 9-11. Two responses. Okay, three responses."

Where is response number 4?

4. Quickly asserted that the US had it coming. Quietly going along with public opinion by overwhelmingly voting for the Partriot act, and the Iraq war authorization. Then, when the political time seemed right, changing sides on the GWOT, attacking the President, and the troops in a perverse attempt to reaquire lost political power. (Oh, and making $100 million on a fakumentary)

Because religion (of the non-malignant kind, which most modern religions have boiled their beliefs down to) contributes to a stable, happy, civil, law-abiding society, which even the non-religious prefer.

Oh. Is that all he's saying? Cuz I didn't read any more than the long quote.

Jeez. What good is the whole Vermont gun analogy then? Isn't there some implied exterior threat that the religious ones protect the others from?

Isn't there anyone to argue some more active role for religion than opiate for the masses?

To put it another way, the past years this country has undergone an assault on plenty of core cultural values, many or most of which are also an assault on Judeo-Christian values. Many Christians do not believe Iraq is a “just war”, there was that whole series of incidents with the Pope (a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1232050,00.html">the Pope warned Mr Bush he would never succeed in the war on terrorism if he failed to ensure respect for basic human rights), and who *would* Jesus torture, anyway?

But who has been more effective or at least vocal, visible in resisting these changes: the godless ACLU-card-carrying liberals, or the self-identified religious right?

The thing is, I know Christians who feel they are misrepresented by the politically-active religious right, but it comes to the same thing: Judeo-Christians have not done diddly to impede -- on religious grounds -- the radical right's advancement of an agenda not defensible with the New Testament, or the OT as far as I can see.

Isn't there anyone to argue some more active role for religion than opiate for the masses?

If you think clean living, personal restraint, fidelity, honesty, discipline, not getting yourself knocked up in High School, sobriety, self-sacrifice and so forth are what you get when you apply an opiate to the masses, tubino, you seriously need to try more drugs. Start with opium. It's very cheap these days.

Oh. Is that all he's saying? Cuz I didn't read any more than the long quote.

Come on, tubino. Don't debate an article you haven't read. It's a waste of everyone's time.

If you think clean living, personal restraint, fidelity, honesty, discipline, not getting yourself knocked up in High School, sobriety, self-sacrifice and so forth are what you get when you apply an opiate to the masses, tubino, you seriously need to try more drugs.

Huh. I'm pretty sure I've tried enough drugs for this lifetime, but let me just point out the rather poor correlation between religious belief and the characteristics above.

I was raised in the Bible Belt. No, make that the BAPTIST BUCKLE on the Bible Belt. The only thing we had more of than liquor stores were churches, and most of them their own sect of Baptist. We had one church so big, I got everyone in my high school group to call it the Repentagon. We had sects that completely banned dancing. But I digress.

Except for a relatively brief period of adolescent rebellion (thank GOD they never found out who flipped over the shop teacher’s car), I managed to get A’s, be honest, not knock up any girls (okay, luck, birth control, and my lack of romantic success with Amy Decker probably helped), score well on SATs and generally turned out okay without religion.

I know PLENTY of cases of religious kids who didn’t turn out so okay.

I think when Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, he meant that it pacifies and diffuses analysis of the worker situation. Neither the capitalist system nor personal responsibility (and certainly not the relation between the two) are foregrounded. Blessed are the meek. He certainly didn’t mean liberation theology! I’m sure some will disagree about the role of personal accountability in particular religions, but at least in the brand of religion that dominated where I grew up, development of a higher self was NOT an obvious outcome of religious belief. (High school sports, on the other hand, seemed to have a high correlation with the positive characteristics you list above.)

Someone like geoff would actually dig up the data, but the red state/blue state comparisons I've seen show that things like teen pregnancy and divorce are higher in Jesusland. (not trying to offend, just using shorthand)

So I don't know if I agree with you on this one, Weasel.

PS. I'm not anti-religion, I'm just skeptical that it provides a greater social good for the non-religious.

the red state/blue state comparisons I've seen show that things like teen pregnancy and divorce are higher in Jesusland.

I have no idea what the truth is, but I'd be careful jumping to conclusions about these numbers. Higher pregnancy rates could simply mean lower abortion rates. Higher divorce rates could simply mean higher marriage rates.

But if you want to dig into numbers, be sure to check out charitable contributions, too.

And you also might want to step back and look at the bigger picture, doing nation-by-nation comparisons. And don't forget to look at the atheist nations (the USSR, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, China, etc.).

And you also might want to step back and look at the bigger picture, doing nation-by-nation comparisons. And don't forget to look at the atheist nations (the USSR, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, China, etc.).

Danger! Danger!

Hmm, let's look at Catholic Spain & Italy in the 20th century. Oops, bloody civil war, birth of fascism... let's look at the recently revealed role of the Catholic Church in support of Naziism. Uh-oh.

Enough, I'm not going to do this. It's STUPID. With simple twiddling of definitions of religion (no Buddhists in Cambodia? Were those Nazis REALLY religious?) you can spin this a thousand different ways, and then you've got real fights over religious sects TOO. For anything short of book-length analysis, forget it, SJKevin.

Look, maybe religion makes (some) people better. But Steyn's analogy implies that it somehow benefts everyone, including the non-religious. Does he actually show that, in any way?

Or is this just a matter of faith?

no Buddhists in Cambodia?

Come on, national policy at the time was explicitly anti-religious. They were deliberately stomping out all traces of buddhism. (Now that the Khmer Rouge are gone, buddhism is coming back to Cambodia.) It's not twiddling with definitions. Be honest, here.

Most of your other points are decent, though.

For anything short of book-length analysis, forget it, SJKevin.

Fair enough.

Come on, tubino. Don't debate an article you haven't read.

Okay, I read it. As I thought, the long quote says what it has to say; the rest of the piece (hardly an article, though the guy has a nice flip style) just uses this just to make a point about demographics.

What I keep expecting someone to do is defend this:

hyper-rationalism is a lot more vulnerable in a society without a strong Judaeo-Christian culture.

But nobody does, and Steyn gives nothing more on it, except some riffs on France burning.

It's much easier to make the opposite case. Hyper-rationalism is a lot more vulnerable in a society with a strong dose of religious fundamentalism. But with Intelligent Design in the news, this statement is as obvious as it is bland, hence boring.