In 1993, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian, told a reporter that "heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ." The logically inescapable corollary is that Bush's heaven is not open to agnostics, atheists, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and so on. Someone dug up that quote and, a few months ago, a media hoo-ha appeared to be in the making. Bush adroitly backed off. His new line is that he, George W. Bush, is not in charge of deciding who gets into heaven.
Now we have a vice-presidential candidate whose most visible characteristic is his faith as an Orthodox Jew. As a member of a minority religion who might govern a predominately Christian country, the question of how he regards other people's faith—or lack of faith—seems especially relevant. And especially tricky. You would have expected Joe Lieberman to follow Bush—and John F. Kennedy before him—by emphasizing the private nature of personal religious belief, and playing down any connection between his beliefs and the job of governance.
But Lieberman has done the opposite. Instead of downplaying religion, his strategy has been to downplay the differences among religions, while promoting religion itself. For example, he recently told an African-American Christian congregation that "as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose."
Compare this to Bush's remark. On the one hand, it is nice and ecumenical. Lieberman didn't suggest that anyone who eats pork or drives on Saturday won't get into heaven. On the other hand, it specifically connects his religious beliefs to his vision of governance: The very purpose of the nation is to serve God.
In the same speech, Lieberman declared that without the Jewish and Christian traditions, the phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence "could never have been written." In another recent sound bite, Lieberman warned against "indulg[ing] the supposition 'that morality can be maintained without religion.' " That last phrase comes from George Washington. But no matter what its provenance, the logically inescapable corollary is that anyone who rejects religion is immoral. We are getting a bit closer here to you-can't-get-into-heaven-if-you-don't-accept-Christ.
If you were to corner Lieberman—as I hope someone does—and ask him point-blank whether he thinks nonbelievers are immoral (and could never have come up with the notion of universal human equality), he would probably dance away from his beliefs like Bush. But he deserves less sympathy than Bush does.
Bush was trapped in a totally contrived "gotcha" situation. Of course a born-again Christian believes that non-Christians aren't going to a Christian heaven. In essence, the very point of following Christian precepts is that, at the end of the day, you go to heaven. As a logical matter, no committed atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Jew, or Muslim should take offense at being excluded from heaven according to religious doctrines he doesn't himself accept. But that's not what would tighten the sphincters of non-Christians. As a practical matter, many members of minority faiths are worried about their statistical marginality—which is an intelligent reading of history.
If Bush conceded that non-Christians aren't going to heaven, it would be widely interpreted as a signal that he was an intolerant zealot rather than the centrist he wants to be. The fact that it would be so interpreted is not Bush's fault. It has to do with centuries of very frightening religious intolerance that occurred before his birth. For reasons beyond his control, Bush can't say what he really thinks. Which is about as good a justification for fudging as you're going to find.
But Lieberman doesn't have this excuse. He himself introduced the issue into the campaign—not some reporter brandishing an ancient quotation. Both his words and the context of a national election directly connect religion and the government, which Bush's do not. Finally, Lieberman's own religious doctrine, unlike Bush's, does not require him to believe that those who reject faith are sinners. Nothing in Jewish theology suggests that it is impossible for a nonreligious person to lead a moral life.
Lieberman's comments are offensive to nonreligious people who feel their non-belief is a perfectly acceptable moral choice. Politically, this is no big deal. Principled nonbelievers aren't a huge voting bloc. Non-belief is less a passion than an absence of passion and seems unlikely to be a voting issue for many Americans. Lieberman has a long record as a quasi-liberal that makes it hard to worry that he would actually do anything as vice president or president that overtly discriminated against nonbelievers. More important politically (as the Gore-Lieberman strategists undoubtedly have calculated) is the possible appeal of God talk to religious people who generally don't vote for Democrats and who often complain that faith is not given sufficient place in public life.
But Joe Lieberman has always made a big deal about saying the right thing rather than the popular thing. So surely it's fair to take him seriously for expressing an opinion about morality and religion that seems so clearly confused. At least to this agnostic.
First off, what exactly does Lieberman mean by saying that morality cannot exist without religion? Does he mean that no irreligious person displays moral behavior? Or that nonbelievers are immoral no matter how they behave?
Lieberman obviously thinks that religion offers a consistent set of rules and principles of how to treat other people. Let's set aside the fact that religions differ around the margins about these ethical rules and assume, with Lieberman, that there is such a thing as a religious way to act. As generally agreed, these rules include treating everyone with respect, applying the golden rule, being merciful to the unfortunate and kind to those who are different, and so on. Is Lieberman suggesting that no person who lacks faith follows these religious ethical rules? Surely he doesn't believe that. My own dear mother is an agnostic, and she's about as ethical as they come. Does Sen. Lieberman have a problem with my mother?
Maybe Lieberman's exact words are a politician's hyperbolic way of saying that, as a statistical matter, religious people are more likely to act in an ethical way than nonreligious people. Is this true? While hard data is sadly lacking, it seems pretty uncontroversial to note that the world has seen plenty of religious sinners and upright nonbelievers. And how would Lieberman explain the fact, if he concedes it, that at least some nonbelievers manage to be ethical? Are there some people who are naturally ethical and others who need the help of religion to be ethical?
On the other hand, perhaps Lieberman is saying that if you act as God wishes but not because of a belief in God, then it somehow doesn't count. That seems awfully fussy. By requiring faith as a prerequisite for morality, Lieberman is dismissing a lot of philosophical thinking that grounds itself in reason, not faith, and still manages to arrive at the same conclusions that Lieberman would probably endorse. In any event, if people do live by the rules of decency and honor, the question of whether they do so with or without believing in God is surely not a concern of the government, of the vice president in his official capacity, or a concern that belongs in a national election campaign.
Bruce Gottlieb is a law student and a former
Slate staff writer.
Reader Comments from The Fray:
A word--a few words--in defense of Lieberman. Bruce, you find Lieberman promoting religion while speaking in a church. This is hardly surprising. Candidates who speak in cornfields extol the virtues of agriculture; pols who stump at auto plants talk about buying American. Is Lieberman repeating the same religious rhetoric at farms and car plants? If not, your point--and the general uproar over about Lieberman's godtalk--is much less convincing.
I have trouble believing your allegation that Lieberman "specifically connects his [emphasis mine] religious beliefs to his vision of governance." Lieberman didn't refer to any particularly Jewish phrases or ideas. Instead, he said "God and God's purpose," which is about the broadest possible formulation of religious belief. Whereas Bush's now-famous formulation deals with a specifically Christian doctrine--the no-Jews-in-heaven rule--Lieberman is connecting religious beliefs, period, to his vision of governance. He's talking about the points where Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on intersect, which is a place so generalized that it renders theology meaningless. What these religions agree on isn't God; it's the pursuit of happiness, community, fairness, general welfare, etc. Which are the same values that government promotes, and which are shared by believers and non-believers alike. Unlike Bush's belief, these are universal and anodyne.
As for the morality-without-religion stuff, Lieberman was talking about America's roots. Here is a fuller statement of his remarks: "John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," he said. "George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.'" Lieberman is saying that America was founded by people who saw a link between government, morality, and religion, which is perfectly true. Even someone who supports a firm separation of church and state--as Lieberman does--can recognize the role that religious rhetoric played in this country's beginnings.
You ask if Lieberman suggests that nonbelievers are unethical. Not at all. In the very speech you mention, Lieberman gave a shout-out to people like your mom. He said people of faith must ''reassure them that we share with them the core values of America." It seems safe to assume that Lieberman counts moral behavior as a core value. So can you still interpret this speech as a rejection of non-believers? Sounds to me like your mom and Lieberman would get along just fine.
Your fellow Slatester
--Jodi Kantor
(To reply, click here.)
Bruce Gottlieb replies:
Jodi, I'm not quite sure why it makes a difference in your eyes whether Lieberman is making the same comments in churches as in farms and carplants. I agree that an absence of Godtalk in cornfields and car plants shows he's no zealot who thinks that the answers to agricultural and trade policy can be found in the Talmud. But I never implied any such thing. All that I say--and this isn't even the main thrust of my piece--is that he's articulating an agenda about religion and public life which goes above and beyond typical campaign boilerplate. In the same speech I discuss in my article, he talked about "another barrier that may fall, as well, as a result of my nomination. I hope it will enable people, all people who are moved, to feel more free to talk about their faith and about their religion. And I hope that it will reinforce the belief that I feel as strongly as anything else, that there must be a place for faith in America's public life."
In other words, he's flat-out telling us that he intends to make Godtalk a greater part of his political role than politicians before him, and he wants to open the door for other politicians (and non-politicians) to follow. He even seems to say that he believes this as strongly as anything else he believes. You and I may differ over whether that's appropriate, but I don't think we should pretend it's not happening just because he mentions these aspirations while at a church. After all, it's not as if Lieberman was bushwhacked by some reporter at a church into making ill-considered comments. He has access to talented speechwriters, he's a seasoned politician, he's a willing participant in the most exhaustively-covered electoral contest on earth, and he chose to tell us that he wants to make religion uniquely central to his public face. I am willing to take him literally, and I hardly find it surprising that he would announce his intent at a church. You on the other hand, seem to think that he was just telling the crowd what it wanted to hear, but doesn't really endorse the clear meaning of his own words. Of course it's not unknown for pols to change their colors based upon their audience, but that's hardly a defense of Lieberman, which is what you're offering. At any rate, I didn't include the quotation above, since the idea that Lieberman is making his religious beliefs a pretty important part of his campaign is not really what I meant to discuss in my article. (Finally, I should note that, while I cannot produce a comment about God made at a carfactory or a cornfield, it is certainly true that Lieberman mentions his religion more than other politicians--at venues other than churches.)
What I wanted to document, is a strain of distaste in Lieberman's comments for people who aren't religious. I agree with you that he's a solid liberal who's unlikely to ever put laws into place which would practically disadvantage non-believers. (And if he ever tried, the Supreme Court wouldn't let him anyhow.) But I still think that the quotations I produced are evidence of a strain of anti-non-believers sentiment which I dislike and wished to criticize.
You've shown that Lieberman's Washington quote was given in a section of his speech in which he discussed "America's roots." True, but so what? Why do you suppose Lieberman was making those comments about the Founding Fathers? He said that Washington and Adams believed such and such, and you reply that this was in fact what they believed. You seem to want to leave it at that, and assume that Lieberman was just out to "recognize the role that religious rhetoric played in this country's beginnings." It's one thing for an academic to make a speech simply dedicated to tell us how it was, but I don't think that was Lieberman's intent at all. If a politician tells you that the "Founding Fathers believed in such and such," he's generally trying to convince you of such and such. In fact, sometimes that's supposed to be enough to make the point. That's just the textual role that the Founding Fathers play in what some scholars call our secular worship of the Constitution. Finally, though I appreciate your argument, I don't think that Lieberman can disavow his expressed disdain for non-believers by throwing in some nice comments about core values. I read the totality of his comments to be an attempt to draw religious believers into the Democratic tent. To do so, he is going out of his way to make it clear that he has a lot of respect for people of all religions. By itself, that is not such a bad thing. But, at the same time, he's also showing a certain lack of respect for non-believers. As I say in my article, that too may also prove to be a shrewd move, since many religious people think that non-believers have gone too far in removing religious content from public life (eg nativity scenes on public property). But, shrewd or not, I still believe that Lieberman is showing a lack of respect for non-believers, and I think that is worth criticizing.
--Bruce Gottlieb
[Non-Slate persons had comments to make on this article too:]
Lieberman is saying, I think, that the very notion of ethical behavior depends upon the values and assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Agnostics' ethical system is derived from religious values, whether or not they acknowledge the source. The idea of treating people equally, Lieberman might argue, came from a belief that we are all the children of God; thus, even if one's belief in equality is not grounded in religious faith, the agnostic is indebted to religion for the possibility of that belief. Agnostics are reaping the benefits of faith with living up to its obligations, Lieberman seems to be saying, much as non-union workers in a union shop benefit from the union's negotiation of salary and benefits with paying their fair share. For me, this position is more disturbing than the ones you suggest in your article. It ignores deeply unethical behavior which has also been justified by religion (like slavery and sexism). It also collapses a complex and varied ethical and philosophical tradition, filled with agnostics like Spinoza and Hume, into the simple, religious "Judeo-Christian tradition." The fact that Lieberman's God-talk is politically savvy makes it no easier to take.
--Jaime Harker
(To reply, click here.)
The article is on point. Religion is either The One True Word Of God or basically a lifestyle choice, like enjoying jazz. If it's The One True Word of God then, well, only those who believe The One True Word Of God are godly. If religion is a lifestyle choice, then one can say that all religion is good, just as all music is good (except, I'm sure, John Tesh & Yanni). The latter view, however, has no moral component. Politicians try to straddle (duh) by saying All Religion Is Good, And I Believe Mine Deeply. Anyone who's read Deuteronomy, or even the Epistles of Paul, knows that's buncombe where Judaism or Christianity are concerned.
--A.G.Android
(To reply, click here.)
Notes from the Fray Editor: Many readers, including Steven Freedman, pointed out that Lieberman's Washington quotation about morality and religion was a reference to society, and there was absolutely no "inescapable logical corollary" that it applied to individuals. Peter Orvetti explained why he thought atheists were more moral than theists. Gilker Kimmel in a post called "Dissing vs legislating" explained why as an atheist he found Lieberman's position more acceptable than Bush's. An interesting discussion on the place of religion in governance (would atheists have developed a different society? Was the separation of Church and State designed to preserve religion from the corruption of politics or the other way around?) starts here. And there is this recommendation to read Socrates, while F.Toro brings in Robert Putnam and the restraints of Kantian morality--can it keep people from running riot in the streets? Al Lefcourt says it was not Lieberman who injected his religion into the campaign, while Nathan Teske thinks Gottlieb is too easy on Bush.
(9/3)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Supporters of Health Reform Give Democrats a Big, Wet, Expensive Kiss
Lithwick Reports From the Supreme Court Hearing on Giving Juveniles Life Without Parole
Mad Men: Will Sally Draper Ever Forgive Her Father?
The Weirdly Sexual New Ad for Halls Lozenges
It's a Bad Idea for the Government To Cap Malpractice Awards
How Many Times Can Someone Fire a Pistol in Seven Minutes?
Reader Comments from The Fray:
A word--a few words--in defense of Lieberman. Bruce, you find Lieberman promoting religion while speaking in a church. This is hardly surprising. Candidates who speak in cornfields extol the virtues of agriculture; pols who stump at auto plants talk about buying American. Is Lieberman repeating the same religious rhetoric at farms and car plants? If not, your point--and the general uproar over about Lieberman's godtalk--is much less convincing.
I have trouble believing your allegation that Lieberman "specifically connects his [emphasis mine] religious beliefs to his vision of governance." Lieberman didn't refer to any particularly Jewish phrases or ideas. Instead, he said "God and God's purpose," which is about the broadest possible formulation of religious belief. Whereas Bush's now-famous formulation deals with a specifically Christian doctrine--the no-Jews-in-heaven rule--Lieberman is connecting religious beliefs, period, to his vision of governance. He's talking about the points where Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on intersect, which is a place so generalized that it renders theology meaningless. What these religions agree on isn't God; it's the pursuit of happiness, community, fairness, general welfare, etc. Which are the same values that government promotes, and which are shared by believers and non-believers alike. Unlike Bush's belief, these are universal and anodyne.
As for the morality-without-religion stuff, Lieberman was talking about America's roots. Here is a fuller statement of his remarks: "John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," he said. "George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.'" Lieberman is saying that America was founded by people who saw a link between government, morality, and religion, which is perfectly true. Even someone who supports a firm separation of church and state--as Lieberman does--can recognize the role that religious rhetoric played in this country's beginnings.
You ask if Lieberman suggests that nonbelievers are unethical. Not at all. In the very speech you mention, Lieberman gave a shout-out to people like your mom. He said people of faith must ''reassure them that we share with them the core values of America." It seems safe to assume that Lieberman counts moral behavior as a core value. So can you still interpret this speech as a rejection of non-believers? Sounds to me like your mom and Lieberman would get along just fine.
Your fellow Slatester
--Jodi Kantor
(To reply, click here.)
Bruce Gottlieb replies:
Jodi, I'm not quite sure why it makes a difference in your eyes whether Lieberman is making the same comments in churches as in farms and carplants. I agree that an absence of Godtalk in cornfields and car plants shows he's no zealot who thinks that the answers to agricultural and trade policy can be found in the Talmud. But I never implied any such thing. All that I say--and this isn't even the main thrust of my piece--is that he's articulating an agenda about religion and public life which goes above and beyond typical campaign boilerplate. In the same speech I discuss in my article, he talked about "another barrier that may fall, as well, as a result of my nomination. I hope it will enable people, all people who are moved, to feel more free to talk about their faith and about their religion. And I hope that it will reinforce the belief that I feel as strongly as anything else, that there must be a place for faith in America's public life."
In other words, he's flat-out telling us that he intends to make Godtalk a greater part of his political role than politicians before him, and he wants to open the door for other politicians (and non-politicians) to follow. He even seems to say that he believes this as strongly as anything else he believes. You and I may differ over whether that's appropriate, but I don't think we should pretend it's not happening just because he mentions these aspirations while at a church. After all, it's not as if Lieberman was bushwhacked by some reporter at a church into making ill-considered comments. He has access to talented speechwriters, he's a seasoned politician, he's a willing participant in the most exhaustively-covered electoral contest on earth, and he chose to tell us that he wants to make religion uniquely central to his public face. I am willing to take him literally, and I hardly find it surprising that he would announce his intent at a church. You on the other hand, seem to think that he was just telling the crowd what it wanted to hear, but doesn't really endorse the clear meaning of his own words. Of course it's not unknown for pols to change their colors based upon their audience, but that's hardly a defense of Lieberman, which is what you're offering. At any rate, I didn't include the quotation above, since the idea that Lieberman is making his religious beliefs a pretty important part of his campaign is not really what I meant to discuss in my article. (Finally, I should note that, while I cannot produce a comment about God made at a carfactory or a cornfield, it is certainly true that Lieberman mentions his religion more than other politicians--at venues other than churches.)
What I wanted to document, is a strain of distaste in Lieberman's comments for people who aren't religious. I agree with you that he's a solid liberal who's unlikely to ever put laws into place which would practically disadvantage non-believers. (And if he ever tried, the Supreme Court wouldn't let him anyhow.) But I still think that the quotations I produced are evidence of a strain of anti-non-believers sentiment which I dislike and wished to criticize.
You've shown that Lieberman's Washington quote was given in a section of his speech in which he discussed "America's roots." True, but so what? Why do you suppose Lieberman was making those comments about the Founding Fathers? He said that Washington and Adams believed such and such, and you reply that this was in fact what they believed. You seem to want to leave it at that, and assume that Lieberman was just out to "recognize the role that religious rhetoric played in this country's beginnings." It's one thing for an academic to make a speech simply dedicated to tell us how it was, but I don't think that was Lieberman's intent at all. If a politician tells you that the "Founding Fathers believed in such and such," he's generally trying to convince you of such and such. In fact, sometimes that's supposed to be enough to make the point. That's just the textual role that the Founding Fathers play in what some scholars call our secular worship of the Constitution. Finally, though I appreciate your argument, I don't think that Lieberman can disavow his expressed disdain for non-believers by throwing in some nice comments about core values. I read the totality of his comments to be an attempt to draw religious believers into the Democratic tent. To do so, he is going out of his way to make it clear that he has a lot of respect for people of all religions. By itself, that is not such a bad thing. But, at the same time, he's also showing a certain lack of respect for non-believers. As I say in my article, that too may also prove to be a shrewd move, since many religious people think that non-believers have gone too far in removing religious content from public life (eg nativity scenes on public property). But, shrewd or not, I still believe that Lieberman is showing a lack of respect for non-believers, and I think that is worth criticizing.
--Bruce Gottlieb
[Non-Slate persons had comments to make on this article too:]
Lieberman is saying, I think, that the very notion of ethical behavior depends upon the values and assumptions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Agnostics' ethical system is derived from religious values, whether or not they acknowledge the source. The idea of treating people equally, Lieberman might argue, came from a belief that we are all the children of God; thus, even if one's belief in equality is not grounded in religious faith, the agnostic is indebted to religion for the possibility of that belief. Agnostics are reaping the benefits of faith with living up to its obligations, Lieberman seems to be saying, much as non-union workers in a union shop benefit from the union's negotiation of salary and benefits with paying their fair share. For me, this position is more disturbing than the ones you suggest in your article. It ignores deeply unethical behavior which has also been justified by religion (like slavery and sexism). It also collapses a complex and varied ethical and philosophical tradition, filled with agnostics like Spinoza and Hume, into the simple, religious "Judeo-Christian tradition." The fact that Lieberman's God-talk is politically savvy makes it no easier to take.
--Jaime Harker
(To reply, click here.)
The article is on point. Religion is either The One True Word Of God or basically a lifestyle choice, like enjoying jazz. If it's The One True Word of God then, well, only those who believe The One True Word Of God are godly. If religion is a lifestyle choice, then one can say that all religion is good, just as all music is good (except, I'm sure, John Tesh & Yanni). The latter view, however, has no moral component. Politicians try to straddle (duh) by saying All Religion Is Good, And I Believe Mine Deeply. Anyone who's read Deuteronomy, or even the Epistles of Paul, knows that's buncombe where Judaism or Christianity are concerned.
--A.G.Android
(To reply, click here.)
Notes from the Fray Editor: Many readers, including Steven Freedman, pointed out that Lieberman's Washington quotation about morality and religion was a reference to society, and there was absolutely no "inescapable logical corollary" that it applied to individuals. Peter Orvetti explained why he thought atheists were more moral than theists. Gilker Kimmel in a post called "Dissing vs legislating" explained why as an atheist he found Lieberman's position more acceptable than Bush's. An interesting discussion on the place of religion in governance (would atheists have developed a different society? Was the separation of Church and State designed to preserve religion from the corruption of politics or the other way around?) starts here. And there is this recommendation to read Socrates, while F.Toro brings in Robert Putnam and the restraints of Kantian morality--can it keep people from running riot in the streets? Al Lefcourt says it was not Lieberman who injected his religion into the campaign, while Nathan Teske thinks Gottlieb is too easy on Bush.
(9/3)