The Fine Art of Dishonesty

Published on July 20, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that the vast majority — rightly or wrongly — perceives the nation as Christian based. So it comes as no surprise that an atheist running for some office has a snowball’s chance in hell as it was fifty years ago for a black candidate, other than in districts predominantly black. The non sequitur for this is that non-believers are therefore discriminated against and a violation of their civil rights.

One could argue that white candidates in a black community are also discriminated against, and if there were such a thing as an atheistic community — though rightists would have you believe that this is true of lefty districts — a candidate who believes in God would have no chance. Quasi-discrimination would also rear its head and reject a “girlie-man” legislator — implying he was gay or ultra liberal — if he in advance wore the label on his sleeve. A “Massachusetts liberal carries the same connotation and why the media had such fun in covering recent video clips of Kerry and Edwards hugging each other, despite the “manly” voter’s acceptance of extensive hugging in sports.

These perceptions, however, are not unconstitutional — notwithstanding fodder for the Anti-Defamation League — inasmuch as the constitution has no jurisdiction over how one is supposed to think other than espousing a move to overthrow the government. The atheist, simply because he is one, has no cause since it is idiotic to equate a non-belief with that of a belief — it is safe to take God out of the constitution but not out of common perceptions. To be wary over the domination of the Christian Right is perfectly viable as long as you at least believe in a religion of moderation, but it is self-defeating to proclaim that the world should be cleansed of religious views, tantamount to Michael Jackson’s inflictive psyche ordering him to be white, or imposing a non-theocratic government on Iraqis who had enough of that under Saddam.

If this sounds like “when in Rome...” it probably is. A southern candidate who stumps for “choice” is dead in the water, even though “choice” also implies the right not to abort. The atheist, as well as the homosexual, should be mature enough to hold personal preferences close to the vest; for when a nation publicly announces democratic principles as God’s Law, democracy is on a fast track to authoritarianism, so one had better be dishonest.

Comments (Page 1)

bakerstreet

on Jul 20, 2004

"has no cause since it is idiotic to equate a non-belief with that of a belief"

, it takes a much more idiotic assumption to rule out the existance of something than to be open to the possibility of something... unless you know everything. Your point would be well founded if you were talking about "Agnostics", but Athiests work as much or more on faith than Christians. Like those who chose to believe their own findings in terms of "the earth revolves around the sun", you choose to devote faith in your own logic when you believe that there is no God. Unlike the "earth and the sun", you can't prove your hypothesis, though, so faith in your own logic is all you have. Faith vs. Faith.

As for the rest, honestly, you are coming off more and more bitter all the time. It is harder to follow your logic now, you are shifting back and forth and back and forth from advocate to devils advocate so fast it is like a game of three card monte.

I always liked reading your articles, but of late it is like you are a different person writing. I don't know if I'll keep bothering to click posts with your name. Gone is the civil, balanced understanding and now it just feels like I am being gouged in the eye...

stevendedalus

on Jul 20, 2004

I had long ago blogged that atheism is as much a faith as faith in God. I am simply taking the atheist view that it is a non-belief. Everyone but athiests know that to announce there is no God is abductio absurdum.

I am finding it difficult too in understanding your comments as though you enjoy taking issue for its own sake, or seemingly taking everything I write as a personal attack, rather than my exploring difficult psychologies, conceptions and perceptions, albeit in your view my conclusions are illogical.

citahellion

on Jul 20, 2004

Actually, to prove that there is no God is not nearly as difficult as proving almost any other universal negative. Since one of God's properties is that he is omnipresent, all you have to do is find a single point where God does not exist. Then you have demonstrated that he is not omnipresent and therefore does not exist (at least not as defined).

bakerstreet

on Jul 20, 2004

I thnk you can make the point that not all religions consider God omnipresent, at least in terms of our tangible space. I don't know of any religion that considers God to be tangible and everywhere at once. Well, maybe in a Pantheistic, "God is everything" kind of way, but then you wouldn't be able to disprove that either, since everything they see is tangibly "God".

citahellion

on Jul 20, 2004

You could probably turn the argument around by saying that another one of God's properties is that he is undetectable, and therefore the fact that you didn't detect him anywhere proved that he was everywhere....

bakerstreet

on Jul 20, 2004

, absolutely.

Like I say, it always comes down to believing something doesn't exist, or believing that it does. It is even difficult to philosphically prove something exists when you can touch and see it. I have a lot more respect for folks who leave it at "I don't know".

Madine

on Jul 20, 2004

Was America ever an "authoritarian democracy"?

CariElf

on Jul 20, 2004

he made us aware of our mortality without giving us the means to overcome it

This is only true if the religion that "defines" God does not include belief in some kind of afterlife. Mortality only really matters if you don't believe that you continue to exist in some form or another after physical death.

Abe Cubbage

on Jul 20, 2004

he has a sense of humor because he made us aware of our mortality without giving us the means to overcome it

We do have the means (our brains), we just haven't figured it out yet.

misterME

on Jul 20, 2004

I'm kinda new here, but this is a subject close to my heart. That being said, I would have to agree with BakerStreet in offering constructive criticism of this piece. While I haven't read any of your other entries for comparison, I did think it difficult to follow this one's logic from beginning to end. The perspective did rather jump around, and many of its better points seemed obscured in seemingly intentionally verbose and rambling phrasologies and analogies (this last phrase serving as an example...it could have as easily said, "Some of your points got lost in the wording..." which would have been simpler and more to the point).

After wading through and (hopefully) grasping your point, holding it before me, pulling and tugging on it this way and that, I would agree with you, up to the point that (mostly in sarcasm, I believe) you advocate dishonesty as a resolution. While some people would certainly contend that not offering the truth up on a platter is as dishonest as saying something that holds no truth whatsoever (and what sort of greyless world they live in is beyond me), I believe it is more accurate to say that such action is just careful and intelligent living. Those who "hold personal preferences close to the vest" when those preferences clash with accepted mores are simply excersising common sense, not practicing deception.

Taking it to the next logical step, though, is taking it too far: When asked, "What is your preference?", answering dishonestly shows a lack of personal conviction, a lack of integrity, or a lack in courage, or any combination thereof. And what good is a belief that is mired in any or all of those three?

Common sense dictates that you don't storm into a Southern Baptist church at 11am on a Sunday morning and proclaim in your loudest and most obnoxious voice, "God is dead! And Jesus mows my lawn!" unless you're itching to get the satanic stuffing kicked out of you by 5000 burly holy-rollin' rednecks. But integrity demands that you honestly answer the question when put to you--or at least that you politely decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate you.

CS Guy

on Jul 21, 2004

Common sense dictates that you don't storm into a Southern Baptist church at 11am on a Sunday morning and proclaim in your loudest and most obnoxious voice, "God is dead! And Jesus mows my lawn!" unless you're itching to get the satanic stuffing kicked out of you by 5000 burly holy-rollin' rednecks.

There is no Southern Baptist church capable of holding 5000 people that would be attended by rednecks. Adrian Roger's Bellevue Baptist Church can hold that many, but its patrons are predominantly middle- and upper-class hypocrits, not rednecks. And kids wanting to use the vast sports and recreation facilities.

stevendedalus

on Jul 21, 2004

Was America ever an "authoritarian democracy"?

A cute phrase but illogical. As long as slavery and unequal rights for womwn existed, precluded democracy in pure terms; rather, it was a republic with growing pains.

But integrity demands that you honestly answer the question when put to you--or at least that you politely decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate you.

Yeah, Martha Stewart learned this the hard way.

misterME

on Jul 21, 2004

Here in the middle-South (as opposed to the "Deep South"; thank the gods I don't live in Alabama or Mississippi), the lines between Rednecks and those-whose-necks-are-a-normal-healthy-color blur quite a bit. Is a man any less of a redneck because his gun rack sits in the rear hatch of his Escalade instead of a GMC Jimmy? Or because his inhumanely-pinned huntin' dogs are stowed behind a $600K palatial lake house instead of a mobile home? Or because the Dixie flag hanging on the inside of the door of his cedar-lined walk-in closet is made of silk instead of nylon?

Don't confuse "poor white trash" with "redneck". Poor white trash is as much a social condition as it is a lifestyle choice. Redneck is a state of mind (what little there is).

But back on point, both have nearly equal capacity for hypocrisy. I'll give you that.

stevendedalus

on Jul 21, 2004

MisterMe, welcome to JU. However, I’m somewhat amazed that you style yourself as a student of writing, even though in reading your initial blog I assessed it as excellent in terms of internal rambling, which is better thought of as the stream of consciousness. It seems to me that in critiquing my blog, you were more ideologically influenced by another blogger than you were in targeting the validity of my observations.

I’m sorry that you can’t handle relevant juxtapositions, such as defamation as opposed to discrimination, a “girlie-man” to that of senators’ hugging, or Michael’s psychotic cleansing to that of cleansing Iraq of theocracy when the majority believes otherwise, and constitutional separation of church and state in contrast to the ingrained religious conscience of the individual.

That you feel the point of a loud group wittingly causing encroaching authoritarianism and the tongue-in cheek solution is lost in the wording indicates you are in league with your reference to a fellow blogger of pouncing on anything that swerves from his vision of what constitutes normalcy and clarity.

bakerstreet

on Jul 21, 2004

"I’m sorry that you can’t handle relevant juxtapositions, such as defamation as opposed to discrimination, a “girlie-man” to that of senators’ hugging, or Michael’s psychotic cleansing to that of cleansing Iraq of theocracy when the majority believes otherwise, and constitutional separation of church and state in contrast to the ingrained religious conscience of the individual.

That you feel the point of a loud group wittingly causing encroaching authoritarianism and the tongue-in cheek solution is lost in the wording indicates you are in league with your reference to a fellow blogger of pouncing on anything that swerves from his vision of what constitutes normalcy and clarity. "

Steve...

that is two sentences... and basically unreadable. This has nothing to do with your ideals. Your writing style has gotten so convoluted and stretched that is almost unreadable. It is like a Dennis Miller rant with no pop-culture references.

Again, no offense intended. You might shoot for a bit more clarity, or at least slice your thoughts into digestable bits. Commas aren't cutting it. That last quoted sentence could actually cause brain hemorrhaging, I think, if focused on too directly...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!