Only days ago, the Network for Public Education released a report on the growth of Christian nationalist charter schools. It is titled “A Sharp Turn Right: A New Breed of Charter Schools Delivers the Conservative Agenda.” Many of these charters are affiliated with the far-right Hillsdale College, and call themselves classical academies. Their goal is to indoctrinate their students into extremist political views and to teach a rose-colored version of American history.
In Texas, a charter of this stripe is applying to the State Board of Education for the fourth time, hoping that new conservative members of the board will grant them a charter.
Edward McKinley of the Houston Chronicle reports:
Last summer, the Texas State Board of Education denied for the third time an application from Heritage Classical Academy to start a charter school in Northwest Houston. Heritage will try again next week, and although very little has changed about its application, its chances of success are now much higher.
Classical charter schools, like Heritage, have been on the rise nationwide and in Texas as parents seek an alternative to “woke” lessons and themes in public schools, namely the promotion of diversity and inclusion, viewing America’s history through a more critical lens, and discussion of LGBTQ topics in classrooms. And earlier this year, the Texas Legislature advanced several bills to bring more Christianity into public schools, part of a related national movement.
Heritage Academy is pitched as a return to an old-school type of education, involving training in rhetoric and public speaking, learning Greek or Latin and reading foundational texts.
Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath has already approved Heritage, as he did the preceding three years. But before the school can open, the State Board of Education is allowed an opportunity to veto it. Next week state board members will interview officials from Heritage on Wednesday before a planned Friday vote.
Heritage is affiliated with Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian university that refuses federal assistance so that it doesn’t have to comply with Title IX or other federal regulations, through its Barney Charter School Initiative.
The program provides curricula and assistance to help launch classical charter schools around the country. Its “1776 Curriculum” teaches that America is morally exceptional to other countries and offers lessons on American history through a conservative bent, including descriptions of the New Deal as bad public policy and of affirmative action as “counter to the lofty ideals of the Founders.”
The school was voted-down initially in 2020 for including books on its curriculum for primary grades that some board members criticized as containing racist themes. Aicha Davis, a Democrat from Dallas who serves on the state board, last year described Heritage as “extreme” and “one of the most controversial applicants that we’ve had because of the curriculum and ideas they wanted to push.”
The academy’s board president and main financial backer is Stuart Saunders, a wealthy Houston lawyer and banker. Saunders has complained of Critical Race Theory and inappropriate sexual content in public schools, including at his son’s school, which he said inspired him to found Heritage. He has pledged $1 million from his foundation to the school, if approved.
After the state board denied the school for the second time, Saunders and his family donated more than $250,000 to a political action committee called Texans for Educational Freedom. That PAC then donated more than $500,000 to local school board races and other candidates who have promoted conservative themes in the schools.
The group donated in four State Board of Education races, including well over $100,000 total in successful bids to unseat state board members Sue Melton Malone and Jay Johnson, Republicans who voted with Democrats in opposition to Heritage. Board members questioned Saunders about this during a public hearing last year.
“Whereas that’s undoubtedly legal, it really appears to be unethical. It appears like you’re trying to remake this board after last summer when you were denied this charter school for the second time,” former board member Matt Robinson, R-Friendswood, said during last year’s board meeting.
Last year, Heritage’s lobbying efforts backfired and became a factor in the board’s decision to reject the charter, although Saunders told state board members he didn’t know Texans for Educational Freedom would donate to state board races.
This year the story could be different.
Robinson is now gone from the state board, as his home was drawn-out of his district by the Legislature. So are Melton Malone and Johnson. All three have been replaced by more Republicans who are thought to be more friendly to charter schools.
Each of the new members campaigned on fighting Critical Race Theory in classrooms, and they are known to be friendlier to “school choice” policies. Their presence on the state board already led to a flip-flop earlier this year on the board’s position on private school vouchers….
Texans for Educational Freedom then reported spending nearly $200,000 to support the campaign of Republican LJ Francis last year, a massive amount for a state board race.
Francis won his race by 1,665 votes, or 0.4 percent of the total, flipping his board seat from blue to red and putting yet another charter-friendly face on the board. Francis joined Gov. Greg Abbott at a speaking event at a San Antonio private school to promote the governor’s school voucher plan. Francis did not respond to a request for comment.
Heritage said in this year’s application to the Texas Education Agency, which was approved by Commissioner Mike Morath, that it expects to serve 1,056 students at capacity, primarily nonwhite students. Its goal is to bring classical education, including “instruction in moral virtues” to “the most disadvantaged students of Northwest Houston.”
A recent analysis from the Network for Public Education found classical schools nationwide are disproportionately wealthy and white, with just 17 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch.
Board members have also questioned Heritage’s connection with Hillsdale College, which doesn’t fund or govern schools directly, but provides curriculum and consulting.
Hillsdale has a long history of cozy relationships with the political right. For instance, Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — who reportedly lobbied to overturn the 2020 presidential election — is a former vice president at the college.
With the four new state board members installed, Heritage’s plan to provide a conservative curriculum that dovetails neatly with an understanding of the United States as a fundamentally Christian nation could be a selling point, rather than a bug.
Texas Republicans have promoted policies introducing more Christianity into public schools, whether it be through more prayer, displaying the Ten Commandments in each classroom or allowing chaplains to serve as school counselors. This is part of a nationwide trend spurred on by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year weakening the legal case against it.
Texas operates under the theory that if students always have the Ten Commandments in their classrooms, have ample opportunity to pray during the school day, and read the Bible as often as possible, that will cure the social ills of the state: no more murders, no more suicides, no more abortions, no more adultery, no more rapes, no more crime. You get the picture. Meanwhile the state has removed all gun control. Gun buyers don’t need a permit and they can carry their weapon in public. More of that all-time religion will fix things.
If not, the people of Texas should throw these self-aggrandizing frauds out on their ears.

from Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies A First Look
Gregory S. Paul
Journal of Religion & Society
Volume 7 (2005)
Abstract:
Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular.
Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and antievolution America performs poorly.
And from the Conclusion of this study:
There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).
LikeLike
It’s a mistake, ofc, to assume strong causality here. Both religiosity and societal dysfunction are correlated strongly with low levels of education and with poverty. As education increases and poverty decreases, religiosity and societal dysfunction both decrease.
LikeLike
Thank you, Bob.
TRUE!
LikeLike
Linda @ 6/19 4:59pm—let’s get this in perspective. 21% of US are Catholics including 12% whites, which is 57% of total Catholics. 60% of them voted for Trump, which is 34% of total Catholics, which is 7% of the population. I’m using that 60% as a proxy for conservative Catholics, and it doesn’t include the % of Hispanic, black and Asian Catholics who voted for Trump. Let’s be cautious and speculate that nearly 60% of all Catholics voted for Trump (no stats to back up). That’s 12% of US voters. This is not a huge number. Evangelists are about 25% of US population; 85% voted for Trump, so 21% are conservative. But combined, they could = as many as 33% of US pop, which is significant.
What I think is more significant is that that 12% of US– conservative Catholics– punch way above their weight, thanks to Leonard Leo et al deep-pockets rw Catholics, and USCCB coming down heavy boots on both abortion and school choice. I don’t count their position against LGBT only because we have never seen them bar the school door to LGBT (or even to non-Catholics). And I know of parishes that give communion to avowed LGBT congregants (even in rural parishes!); they are less monolithic on that score as the evangelicals.
Nevertheless: the evangelicals are neither as monolithic nor as organized as the RC Church, which means the conservative Catholic hierarchy is well-placed to exert equal if not more $$pressure on our govtl institutions.
Can we get the word out to the 9% of US pop who are moderate/ liberal Catholics what their hierarchy is up to? Definitely needs more press than it gets. I’m hoping some will get the message via majority Cath-conservative SCOTUS decisions highlighted over last year, as well as the related role of Leo/ Federalist Society in their selection. But what can they do—other than leaving the Church in ever greater numbers?
LikeLike
Back in the 1978, in his justly famous Gay Freedom Day speech, Harvey Milk told gay people: You must come out. Today, in 2023, I say the same to nonbelievers in traditional religion. You owe it to yourself, to your brothers and sisters, to your community and country, to kids, to the future. You must come out and be a model to others. It’s OK to throw off the MIND-FORGED MANACLES that keep us in primitivism, that make so many of us sexist and homophobic and authoritarian, that make so many of us narrow-minded and Puritanical, that predetermine the answers to what are actually questions, that prevent (and operate in lieu of) clear thought, that lead to intolerance and factionalism and violence rather than tolerance and peace and acceptance. Now is the time. You must, for all of these reasons, come out, and to everyone. To your friends, your parents, your coworkers, your teachers and classmates. I am a nonbeliever, and I am not afraid so. I do not fear being struck down by your imaginary friend. I refuse to allow you to silence me, going forward. My friends, my fellow nonbelievers, you must come out.
LikeLike
cx: and I am not afraid to say so.
LikeLike
Bob Shepherd posts: “Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular.”
Most of the time I find Bob’s work thoughtful and even inspiring at times.
However, in the case of this post, the narrative reveals extremely flawed ways of understanding, first, whatever they mean by “secular” or “religiosity,” and second, about historical movements themselves. And insofar as, in this case, secularization means maintaining a distinction between the political and the religious . . . in favor of a tolerant culture and social milieu, the framing of the argument here is really wrong-headed.
Briefly, secularization and science are set against “religiosity” as either/or. My guess is they are defining religiosity as loud, right-wing/tribal, and even in fact anti-Christian; and scientists as die-hard atheists? (Where do I begin?)
However, an embrace of secularization does not necessarily mean a “decline” in one’s religiosity. It can merely mean we are in a transitional stage between tribal order and the cultivation of a civil order that gives room, under the law, for family and group identities, and religious institutions of worship.
Statistical studies, however, can hide the facts of human development over time; so that too much can be put on analyses of short-term trends. And BTW, this is about history (and so about human beings) and not, for instance, climate change (not human beings). Furthermore, that development is fostered, but not secured absolutely, in democratic political environments.
In our present situation, we have a 300+ year foothold on that “arch” in our own history of democracy . . . the question is whether we can keep it.
But statistical analyses of short-term trends can overlook the movement of large-scale transformations which can also be occurring in people in all kinds of situations, leaders or not. Short-term trends can be merely reactionary extremes, moments of tension in the dialectical rubber-band that is part of the “long arch of history,” especially where cultural developments are concerned.
History is nothing if not dynamic, however. And statistics are wonderful, but not as comprehensive as many like to think. So that people who are openly religious can and do become LESS tribal and authoritarian, and more accepting of a right relationship between science and secularity, . . . and one’s religious comportment. Whereas many scientists (guess what?) are not involved in the philosophically defunct thinking of positivist scientism; and many are open-minded enough to know science and scientists still don’t “know it all,” any more than religious people do . . . unless they are arrogant enough to think either science is God, or the “pastor” and “his” flock can usurp the mysteries of God.
These movements in any person’s mind, however, are dynamic and comprehensive (foundational); they are rooted in distinct kinds of questions; and both have within them the potential for a right relation with the other (no pun intended).
(See the Federalist Papers, the narrative about the place and movement of factions in democratic governments. (I believe it’s Federalist 8 and 10.)
The other thing is that, as helpful as statistics can be (and I heartily endorse their use), history is more fluid and changing than statistics can capture, especially where future HUMAN events are concerned. And again, the science, say, of climate is not the same thing as sciences that concern human beings, e.g., history. It’s an egregious methodological error to fail to take account of the HUGE differences in the kinds of data under analysis.
Also, statisticians (and readers of statistics–us) want badly to know . . . and so we are as prone to dogmatic thinking as anyone else . . . the driving question is about knowing what’s going forward? . . . where we can easily fail to admit that some things about the future we cannot know; and yet we are responsible for that movement and will be so regardless of its decline or creative and sustainable movements that we can continue to foster. CBK
LikeLike
I suggest, CBK, that you go read the paper, so you can see how he defines his terms. Best, Bob
LikeLike
Bob About reading links . . . Thank you, . . . so many links, so little time. I’ll put it on my pile. But I’ll assume you will take what you can from my post, if you deem anything worthwhile. I thought it was worthwhile saying and bore some truth on the subject matter, based on, but also beyond, the part that ended up in your note. CBK
LikeLike
Sorry, religiosity is strongly positively correlated with a slew of societal dysfunctions and strongly negatively correlated, in the United States, with belief in evolution, which is a pretty good indicator of interest in and willingness to give credence to science.
LikeLike
Thanks, CBK. I will give your note careful consideration!
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks that scientists think that they “know it all” hasn’t the slightest undderstanding of what science is and how it works. It’s inductive. What makes a proposition scientific is that it is falsifiable. It has been religions that have traditionally made claims to absolute knowledge. Science, by its very nature, does not. It’s always work in progress and continually revised.
LikeLike
CBK, in order to approach a subject scientifically in a study, one has to define terms operationally–so that they are clear. So, one might define religiosity, for the purposes of a study, as “professed belief in a god or gods.” That does not mean, and no one is suggesting that it means, that such a definition, for the purposes of a study, captures the entirety of a phenomenon. Of course it doesn’t. It isn’t intended to, and complaining about that is kinda like complaining that water is wet.
LikeLike
It is certainly the case that people are moving toward views that are not traditionally scientistic/Positivist/Behaviorist and not traditionally religious. Both are really good things, im (not so) ho.
LikeLike
But alas, parts of the US seem to be descending into Medieval religious views. We Senators and Representatives and Judges and “Justices” in this country who believe in freaking Satan and demons, for crying out loud, as though this were the freaking twelfth century.
LikeLike
Bob . . . and then there were/are those on SCOTUS who think “originalist” means “let’s do things as they did in 1200.” CBK
LikeLike
yup. “Justice” Alito checking his library to see what light Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger can shine on the issues of today.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why you are so upset about this, CBK. It is WELL KNOWN and has been for a LONG time that the more religious parts of the country have higher rates of teen pregnancy, drug abuse, divorce, domestic abuse, crime, and so on. That’s why one sees news reports pointing out that DeSantis shouldn’t be talking about the terrible crime rates in New York city given that crime rates in Flor-uh-duh are HIGHER.
LikeLike
Bob I’m not “upset” . . . just taking the longer view in the context of built-in problems long associated with statistics. I meant no offense to you, if that’s what’s going on here. I often enjoy your repartee, but also your serious work that, unfortunately, as with most scholarship, cannot get the insights across well in such a brief venue. Kudos to those who actually do read as many links as possible, given our attention spans and life situations. CBK
LikeLike
We are closer than one might imagine, CBK. I loathe Positivism and Behaviorism. I think Materialism and Determinism and Genetic Determinism juvenile fantasies. But I think that we’re not going to get anywhere as long as we cling to ancient superstitions, as long as we keep those blinders on.
LikeLike
Bob you write: ” . . . But I think that we’re not going to get anywhere as long as we cling to ancient superstitions, as long as we keep those blinders on.”
I hate to resort to cliche’, but here goes: We just don’t want to throw out the baby (serious CIVILIZED religious institutions and religious people) with the bathwater.
Also, as a general tenet, in human concerns, the shorter view can wrongly take the particulars of decline as the only foundation for their data analysis . . . real-politic, so to speak. But by definition, even solid evidence of decline is not the only source of comprehensive analysis of anything, much less of human historical situations. Need I say that, though almost always mixed with decline, we also have been involved in creative, qualified, and transformative movements since day one. It’s not to ignore decline no no no. Rather it’s to understand decline and its future in the context of the whole of human potential. We’ve come a long way, “baby.” CBK
LikeLike
The decline of religiosity is not a short-term phenomenon. It’s been happening among educated people ever since Francis Bacon. I see a LOT of justification of evil these days based upon ancient superstition, and that’s why I think we should have no truck with it any more. Marjorie Taylor Green And Josh Hawley think that it’s OK to hate LGBTQX people because of what was written in a text by semi-savage persons wandering around in the desert 2,500 years ago. Enough. Time to throw over these superstitions from the infancy of civilization BECAUSE THEY ARE DANGEROUS. So we really want people standing on the floor of the US Senate and proclaiming that coastal flooding isn’t possible because the god in an ancient Hebrew myth said that he wasn’t going to destroy us with water again? I think not. I think it LONG PAST TIME to throw off this utter nonsense.
LikeLike
Ancient Hebrew myth. Ancient Greek myth. Ancient Papuan myth. SAME STUFF. And there simply is no good reason to try to rationalize away the FACT–that this ancient stuff reflects the mores and understandings of extremely primitive peoples long, long ago.
LikeLike
I have started being upset again by this stuff because I see EVERY DAY how the persistence of these ancient superstitions is feeding our precipitous slide into Fascism in this country. The authoritarian model provided by these ancient texts is that embraced by the likes of Alito, Jordan, DeSantis, Hawley, Thomas, etc.
LikeLike
Bob (Your note is below.) In my view, at its core, authoritarianism is a problem of education, though I don’t see education as a total panacea . . . it’s a huge part of the web of early-set beliefs, experience, and pseudo-“knowledge” that underpins the problems you speak of. A good education, public or not, (by that I mean) one that is comprehensive enough to cover ALL kinds of history and political science (civics), will, by definition and by its content, throw light on the problems of tribalism/authoritarianism . . . and that’s why the religious right, as well as the Taliban, and the South during and after slavery, hate it. Fix that, and a lot of the other will go away. (Your note is below) CBK
“I have started being upset again by this stuff because I see EVERY DAY how the persistence of these ancient superstitions is feeding our precipitous slide into Fascism in this country. The authoritarian model provided by these ancient texts is that embraced by the likes of Alito, Jordan, DeSantis, Hawley, Thomas, etc.”
LikeLike
and that’s why the religious right . . . hate it
YUP. And want so to control it. Via stuff like the “1776 Curriculum”
LikeLike
Bob My point is that it’s more about our present educational situation than it is about our religious situation. CBK
LikeLike
It is also about religion, CBK. There is a religious revival going on in the Reich-wing parts of the United States. The single biggest Trump campaign action so far this election season is a traveling Trump and God show called Reawaken America that is going from church to church across the United States and that features speakers like evangelical pastors, Mr. My Pillow, the Trump boys, and Michael Flynn.
LikeLike
Obey your leaders and submit to them. Hebrews 13:17
For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. Romans 13:2
But you are a chosen race, 1 Peter 2:9
Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling. Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be subject to your masters 1 Peter 2:18
Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative. Titus 2:9
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. Ephesians 5:22
etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam
LikeLike
Corrected
By various measures (such as church attendance and the answer to the question Do you believe a god?), religiosity is in steep decline in Europe and among young people in the United States. It’s strong in the Midwest and South and weak in the Northeast. And there are strong positive relationships between religiosity, as defined, and a slew of measures of societal dysfunction.
LikeLike
By various measures (such as church attendance and the answer to the question Do you believe a god?), religiosity is in steep decline in Europe and among young people in the United States. It’s strong in the Midwest and South and weak in the Northeast. And there’s an inverse relationship between religiosity and a slew of measures of societal dysfunction. I don’t see what so difficult to follow here.
LikeLike
Bob “By various measures (such as church attendance and the answer to the question Do you believe a god? . . .),
There is so much wrong with that . . . just as a surface issue, yes/no answers (which statisticians love) can hardly get at the depth and breadth of the content of the question itself or of anything to do with human/historical (rather than natural or physical concerns). And there’s much, much more, which I only hinted at in my earlier note.
I would ask you: for historical concerns and, while we’re at it, for education, what could be easier to understand than the good, but also the limitations of statistics, coupled with the human proneness to jump to conclusions about foundational issues . . . by way of, OMG, a yes/no framework? CBK
LikeLike
Bob Uh-huh. The other thing about statistics where human questioning is concerned: People don’t always tell the truth, or even know it sometimes by way of fooling themselves. Though, as I remember, they have become quite good at “creative discernment” in the field. CBK
LikeLike
Much more common, I would suggest, than is the error of events being more fluid and changing than statistics can capture is people making wild assertions about things without having ANY FACTS, LIKE STATISTICS, to draw upon. I am reading right now Tom Piketty’s Capital, the introduction of which is about that very thing–how people have all these loudly voiced opinions about wealth and income inequality and its causes and consequences without having ANY ACTUAL INFORMATION about wealth and income inequality. The problem with what Gates and his ilk have been doing in education is not with statistics per se but with his imagining that the numbers he is looking at are valid and reliable, which they emphatically are not.
LikeLike
Bob About Gates and statistical analyses: Exactly that. CBK
LikeLike
“yes/no answers (which statisticians love) can hardly get at the depth and breadth of the content of the question itself”
CBK, he is not, and did not, address larger questions about whether people ought to be religious, all the things that being religious could possibly mean to anyone ever, and so on. The author addresses a single, straightforward, extraordinarily clear question: Is religiosity, defined as belief in a creator god, positively or negatively correlated with various kinds of societal dysfunction. And the answer is that it is HIGHLY POSITIVELY CORRELATED. End of what this study does. This is not difficult to understand.
LikeLike
Bob It’s just that there is much more to it than what you say . . . sorry I cannot open that window for you. CBK
LikeLike
The paper is not about what is outside that window, CBK, and does not purport to be. It is about a clearly defined proposition–that religiosity, defined as belief in a creator god–is strongly positively correlated with a long list of what he calls “societal dysfunctions.” Your critique is like one that attacks a blender for not being a great sailboat. Well, it doesn’t claim to be a sailboat. LOL.
LikeLike
Bob I think we are talking about how easy it is to go along with keeping people shallowly ignorant and unaware of their own and others’ situation with regard to communications of information about serious human affairs, instead of raising questions against long-standing but similarly shallow assumptions. But, hay, great big silly me. CBK
LikeLike
“sorry I cannot open that window for you.”
a. condescending
b. patronizing
c. dismissive
d. all of the above
LikeLike
GregB About opening windows: How, funny. I rest my case.
If true, then my bad; but I would willingly check “d” . . . if a good question were actually raised for one person, in this case, about the assumptions underlying the statistical treatment of such serious issues, especially in today’s environment of conflict and extremes . . . doesn’t really matter, I guess. CBK
LikeLike
So, yes, there is much more to religiosity than belief in a creator god. There are billions of Buddhists who are not theists. There are millions of Shintoists who do not worship what most Americans would recognize as “a good” but, rather, an enormous variety of nature spirits called “kami.” Yes, there are individuals who have religious notions that are unique to them or to the sects or cults to which they belong. And this study is about NONE OF THAT. Nowhere does it pretend to be. It takes a straightforward definition of religiosity as it is TYPICALLY found in the United States–belief in a creator god–and correlates such belief with societal dysfunctions. That. Not any conceivable notion that anyone might ever have of anything remotely resembling something that someone somewhere at some time thought of as “religious.” LOL. If that’s what you are saying, CBK, then it’s true, but it is trivially true, like the statement, “Some things matter that are not Donald Trump.”
LikeLike
cx: a god, not a good
LikeLike
The right wing is extremely tenacious, and some of them have a great deal of money to influence policies and buy elections. Normally, the courts should be able to contain them. With the appointments of so many right wing justices, it is becoming more difficult to stop them as so many of these justices think that religion should take priority over all other rights.
LikeLike
One of the many tragic ironies here is that many of these Reich-wing religious judges and justices were appointed by Trump, who mocks religion in private, worships only himself and Mammon, and embodies in the extreme ALL of the seven deadly sins–pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth.
LikeLike
William Barr in Chuck Todd’s interview this morning, described in scathing terms the man (Trump) that the religious majority voted for as President.
LikeLike
Bob About your above-cited paper: The problem with using terms like “secular” and “religiosity” in limited venues (like this one), and especially if they are quoted in citations that don’t give explanation of what they mean by those terms (or make adequate distinctions), is that most have pre-set ideas about what those terms mean. In our environment, especially about foundational issues, if that’s the case, they/we can easily already be misinformed about them, or at least fail to question their usage in any one particular document.
Many that I talk with still think that THEIR meaning is the ONLY meaning; and so, the risk is that misinformation and downright errors continue to carry forward into the “commonsense” conversational air . . . I’m just saying . . . things are in flux, and making adequate distinctions about meaning is really essential . . . but our commonsense conversations are not so “common” as they used to be, or it seems so anyway. CBK
LikeLike
But there is nothing at all esoteric or unusual about defining “religiosity” as belief in god. This is the plain, ordinary, everyday, vernacular meaning. Case in point: Merriam Webster defines religiosity as “{the qualityh or state of being religious” and religious as “relating to or manifesting . . . devotion to [a] . . . deity.”
LikeLike
Given that these are standard, everyday meanings of the terms, there’s no reason not to use them, for the same reason that I don not have to go into detail to explain what a cat is when I write, Gotta go feed the cat. Time is notoriously difficult to define. But I can say, time to feed the cat, and people understand what is meant. The terms secular and religious simply aren’t that difficult to grok as matters of usage in common, aka, everyday usage.
LikeLike
Bob We really differ on this one (I copied your note below). Are you really equating the commonality of “cat” or “time to feed her,” with the commonality of ideas of “religion” or “secularity” or even “science”? If that’s the case, I really “beg to differ,” . . . there is no “given” standard here. The meanings of these kinds of terms have undergone massive change (differentiation, nuance, distinctions from other terms, etc.) both with history and with the sciences as both have developed over time.
This assumption of a common meaning of such terms (that concern fields that have undergone massive changes) is EXACTLY where we get into trouble. No reasoned discussions can go forward when most or everyone assume different meanings of terms that depict vastly different human meaning, situations, backgrounds, and attitudes. The culprit here is theoretical definitions, but it’s also an aspect of the cure. Here’s your note. CBK
“Given that these are standard, everyday meanings of the terms, there’s no reason not to use them, for the same reason that I don not have to go into detail to explain what a cat is when I write, Gotta go feed the cat. Time is notoriously difficult to define. But I can say, time to feed the cat, and people understand what is meant. The terms secular and religious simply aren’t that difficult to grok as matters of usage in common, aka, everyday usage.”
LikeLike
Consider the term “time.” One can use it, and clearly, even though it is a complex concept.
LikeLike
So, at any rate, going back to the original citation. Paul is clear that by religiosity he is referring, for the purposes of his paper, to belief in a creator and that he is taking acceptance of evolution as true as an indicator of a scientific orientation. So, he is not, as you charge, CBK, unclear about what he means. Neither does he make any claim that someone might mean something else by these terms, religion and science. So, your critiques of the paper simply do not hold water. As defined, religiosity is strongly positively correlated with a lot of societal dysfunctions. This is demonstrable. It is demonstrated by papers like his. And at any rate, it’s something that EVERYONE KNOWS who lives here in the US. Go to places with the Jesus-y billboards, and there you fill find the pregnant teens.
LikeLike
Bob You miss my point about the terms being used on this site or in this kind of venue. How many people will go back and read the paper with those questions in mind . . . about what the writer means by religiosity or secularity? OR, are most going to just bring their own one-horse and probably very old assumptions to their understanding of the narrative.
Below is from your note, with my responses interjected in it, then another comment:
You write: *”So, he is not, as you charge, CBK, unclear about what he means.”
ME: that may be so, but that doesn’t translate to this site without going to the source . . . and I’m saying that this is important.
YOU: “Neither does he make any claim that someone might mean something else by these terms, religion and science.”
ME: HE doesn’t need to make such claims if he makes his own meaning clear. That’s just plain good scholarship. My point is that such a reference is essential HERE if confusion and misinformation is to be avoided. Cats, yes; religiosity, no. (I’ve explained WHY above.)
YOU: “So, your critiques of the paper simply do not hold water. As defined, religiosity is strongly positively correlated with a lot of societal dysfunctions.”
ME: Yes, it does hold water. In part because your “defined” is not a definition but rather still assumes your own definition of religiosity (or the writer’s, or the reader’s) which you then “correlate: with “societal dysfunctions.” In either case of religiosity, correlations, or societal dysfunctions, what could possibly go wrong?
This is not cats or even rocket science. I’m saying that it’s much more important than either of those, especially as coming from a published paper which most if not all will not read or even ask about for those meanings. But of course, in the end, it’s their/our responsibility to do the reading and raise the questions (?). So, I guess we’re done here. BTW, I loved your comment about Trump as the poster boy for the seven deadly sins. CBK
LikeLike
You don’t have to read the paper to find what he means by those terms. He makes it clear enough in the abstract that I quoted. Go back and read it more carefully.
LikeLike
He says in the abstract, “Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular.”
Science is equated with acceptance of evolution; religiosity with belief in a creator. He uses the terms generally, then gives the US as an example. I think you missed that.
LikeLike
Bob I read the abstract first, and then again. That’s why I critiqued the use of statistics for making such analyses and judgments. The whole thing rooted in poor soil, so to speak. But again, I was also trying to show how misinformation (already rooted in the poor use of statistics) so easily gets purveyed across the communications between scholarship and “common” meanings. But again, I think we’re done here. CBK
LikeLike
CBK, ONCE AGAIN, you criticized him for being vague about his terms when he CLEARLY indicated what he meant by them, as I just showed you, and when the meanings that he gave were COMMON USAGES, as I explained above. And this is simply the abstract. It does not present any of his statistics or his statistical analysis. Obviously, those would be in the body of the paper. So, since you haven’t seen them, you can’t conclude that his was a “poor use of statistics.”
LikeLike
Bob Did you miss the note about the problems with statistics? We probably have worn this out; but don’t take my lack of further response for agreement. In this case, on the contrary. CBK
LikeLike
You spoke of his using “poor statistics,” but you did not see any of his statistics, Catherine, so you cannot draw that conclusion. Statistics is simply the process of collecting and analyzing numerical data. If I say that 4 of my 20 students, or 20% of them, are under 4 ft tall, that’s a statistic. And its a perfectly sound observation. Statistics are not, in and of themselves, misleading or false or otherwise wrongheaded or evil. LOL.
LikeLike
Bob Children’s height and a person’s or group’s religious foundations and background of experience in the history of world events. Now there’s an example of two fields of data that have no significant differences. CBK
LikeLike
I have no idea what on earth you are saying. My point is that these are extraordinarily distinct, but they are both examples of statistics. Let me say this again, as clearly as I possibly can, the author of that study did not address “a person’s or groups religious foundations and background of experience in the history of world events,” and did not provide some sort of attempted statistical analysis of something that breathtakingly vague and broad. I have explained, clearly, about 15 times now, what he DID assert, and I am not going to do it again. I’m done.
LikeLike
And, at any rate, he simply in that study verified what was already, is already, COMMONLY KNOWN–that the parts of the country that are most religious, by various methods of determining what that means, are also the ones with the highest societal dysfunction–divorce, teenaged pregnancy, alcoholism, drug addition, petty crime, violent crime, domestic abuse, child abuse, etc. etc. etc. You are making a big deal of nothing, CBK. EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS THIS. The article just puts some meat on what people already know.
LikeLike
I tried to be kind and to point out, at the outset, that it is not necessarily the case that religion CAUSES these dysfunctions. They BOTH are highly correlated with lack of education and with poverty. Poor, uneducated people tend, to a higher degree than wealthier and more educated ones, to be religious (by any of a number of standard definitions of that term) and to have these various dysfunctions.
LikeLike
That said, I do think that religion often does cause societal dysfunction. Priests aren’t allowed natural outlets for the sexual part of their nature, so they prey on kids. Having grown up among fundamentalists in the Midwest, I’ve seen a lot of domestic abuse in families that purported to believe in “Biblical” roles for the husband and wife (he as master, she as subordinate). And, ofc, we see EVERY DAY NOW, these fundy nutcases in the Repugnican Party pursuing what they think of as proper “Biblical” government–that is, government under a single, all-powerful, authoritarian leader with a divine mission. After a while, one gets sick of seeing this stuff. There was a reason why Joyce called Ireland “a priest-ridden land.”
LikeLike
He did so because he was sick of witnessing, DAILY, the connection between the superstition and the dysfunction.
LikeLike
And again, since you haven’t seen his stats, you know nothing of them.
LikeLike
Its generalization followed by example, using a parallel structure. It’s quite clear that he is using acceptance of evolution as indicative of a scientific bent and belief in a creator as indicative of religiosity.
LikeLike
Bob-
For many in the sect, are they inextricably attached to the message that the Church gives them- by belonging to this sect you are special, better than others? That’s what comes across to me when I skim some of the tribalists’ writings which include meritless points (often aimed at pretentiousness) ?
LikeLike
This is the first thing that comes into my mind, alas, when I think of Christianity–a history of unrelenting, murderous tribalism, of them killing one another over which day their god rose or when a person should be baptized or, in Swift’s satire of this, over which end of the egg should be cracked, the big or the little. As Diane can tell you in detail, the same happened with Marxists in the early 20th century–they split into these fanatical factions at war with one another. Marx himself spent so much time attacking opponents over minor issues that Engels had one heckuva time getting enough of Capital finished to piece together a manuscript.
LikeLike
Bob writes: “This is the first thing that comes into my mind, alas, when I think of Christianity–a history of unrelenting, murderous tribalism, of them killing one another over which day their god rose or when a person should be baptized or, in Swift’s satire of this, over which end of the egg should be cracked, the big or the little.”
And that’s what you go with when you discuss religion on such posts as these? How does that differ from members of SCOTUS interpreting the Constitution in terms of 12 century thinkers and events?
Of course, remembering history is an essential element of becoming an educated person. However, bringing bad elements forward automatically to form our interpretive frameworks for the present (as some in SCOTUS do) is also an element of neurosis.
We aren’t living in or discussing a thinker’s paradise here. We all have neurotic tendencies, especially when we are not in a professional environment . . . they can even be delightful.
However, to become conscious of them and to know our need to well-think them into our present situations helps us to become less neurotic and more (might I say “liberally”) educated–not to mention to write Supreme Court documents that change other people’s lives or, for that matter, to well-develop arguments on blogs . . . where, in this case, Bob’s “alas” goes far. CBK
LikeLike
I will put my “education” on matters related to the history and philosophy of religion up against almost anyone’s, CBK. Don’t so presume.
LikeLike
Bob I thought you actually read my note, but apparently, you didn’t. CBK
LikeLike
You often, CBK, make the assumption that I speak about these matters from a place of ignorance. I don’t. I have not only read the Bible but also literally hundreds of Hebrew and Christian texts that most folks have never heard of. I have a deep love for philosophy, which is the big tent that includes theology, so I’ve read widely there, too. I don’t do kneejerk reactions on this stuff. I have come to the belief, watching our politics today, that the persistence of ancient superstition into the present day has extremely deleterious effects, and every day’s scanning of news from lots of sources further confirms this. And I think that most people don’t understand, because they don’t know the history, that monotheism was a fairly LATE human invention (that humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years before one tribe invented a sole ruler god) and that the myths of the Hebrews and Christians are almost entirely cribbed from other, pre-existing religions, including the myths of the virgin birth, of the death of the son of god on a cross, of the resurrection, of the sacrificial lamb, etc. etc. etc. The many Christianities that exist today (and the very different ones that were snuffed out by the Church in the first 3 centuries C.E., all basically regurgitate common folklore and mythological motifs that are far more ancient and rooted in various kinds of superstition and prescientific understanding. And yes, I understand that there are all kinds of attempts to take this ancient mythological stuff and reinterpret it because people want desperately to cling to it. But the Catholic Church TODAY still holds that there is a hell and a Satan and demons, that exorcisms are real, that women are not suitable to be priests, and much ancient superstitious stuff, and at any rate, trying to see how the universe works through these ancient lenses is a perilous business. Ancient myth tells us about the folks who created the myths–about people–not about how the universe works.
LikeLike
All that said, I am happy to engage on these topics, CBK. I STRONGLY believe that religion should NOT be a FORBIDDEN, CENSORED TOPIC–that religious propositions should be subject to free and open debate as any other propositions are. The “hands off” (oh no, you can’t talk about that!) enables the persistence of the superstition that enables the dysfunction. So, ancient religious texts teach that women must be subservient to their husbands and quiet in churches, and contemporary American politicians use this as an excuse for their sexism. Those texts teach that folks whom we would no identify as LGBTQX should be sought out and KILLED, and contemporary American politics use this as an excuse for their homophobia and transphobia. Ancient religious texts teach that we should practice ABSOLUTE, UNQUESTIONING OBEDIENCE to a ruler whose will is God’s will (that’s why he was put there), and American politicians go on caravan tours of US churches to tell congregants that TRUMP is that guy, chosen by God. Extreme dysfunction resulting from the persistence of ancient superstition.
LikeLike
Bob In response to your note on the openness of religious commentary: as a GENERAL notion, such commentary rightly becomes suspect, even if partly true, when it partakes of the same sorts of biases and half-truths, and then adds grossly obvious innuendo, cherry-picked omissions, and a lack of historical understanding . . . IOW, commentary is suspect on principle when it is all passionately, consistently, and exclusively negative . . . .
You know whose posts I am talking about here; but it’s still a general truth for anyone interested in recognizing the general form of propaganda, regardless of its content but especially about politics and/or religion. I’ve bumped up against many closed minds before, so my skin is pretty thick; but I’m also not interested in constantly countering an attack on Catholicism and religiosity. . . having better things to do with my time and energy.
One problem I’ve had here is the misinterpretation of my efforts to broaden the scope of analysis, so to speak, and even just being a member of the Catholic Church, as my defending the indefensible, like priests’ child abuse, or the suppression of women, or worker’s rights, etc. I have tried to get that across over and over again, hoping for a sense of dialectic to take hold, but to no avail. And even when I tried to explain, I get responses that are decidedly anti-intellectual . . . so there it is . . . and speaking of precipices . . . CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
cx: as though I were speaking from ignorance or a place of a “limited” “neurosis.” LOL
LikeLike
Millions upon millions of people murdered in the name of the Prince of Peace. That kinda casts a shadow on the whole thing, I think. I will refrain from quoting a vivid detail from this long, horrific, unrelenting, pervasive, omnipresent history of destruction by Christians of the lives of indigenous non-Christians, throughout history, GUIDED BY THEIR RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES AND THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS, from the Papal Bull “Inter Caetera” of 1493 to The Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. McIntosh of 1823 to American Christians preaching LGBTQ hate in Uganda and Russian Orthodox Christians preaching imperial war against Ukraine and basing this on the existence of Pride Parades in Ukraine right now.
LikeLike
Bob Please read my note again. I’m not attacking your knowledge of history . . . I appreciate it now and have before, many times. CBK
LikeLike
You were saying that mine was a neurotic reaction, which suggests that it was obsessive, which usually means narrowly focused. I was pointing out that Linda made a comment about Christian tribalism, and I agreed with her. So, this was not an example of my going to this history FIRST because of some neurotic compulsion. LOL.
LikeLike
Bob I think history loves irony but also mirrors, for many reasons; and I rescinded your idea at the end of my note. And BTW, don’t talk to me about stream of consciousness and add-on writing, at least not on this blog . . . FGS. CBK
LikeLike
Bob No, I did not say yours was a neurotic reaction. CBK
LikeLike
Sure, CBK. LOL.
LikeLike
You STRONGLY implied that. LOL. Pretty obvious.
LikeLike
Bob About neurosis . . . . raising questions is not the same as accusing, or even of implying, nor are these conversational moments necessarily bound together.
So, . . .in the context of my note’s brief reflections on neurosis, do I know you really well? No. And do I think you are an unrepentant neurotic? Also no. CBK
LikeLike
It is easy enough to cling to ancient superstition if that clinging takes the form of utter vagueness about what one is actually committing to believing. At least in the old days, people actually believed that there was an actual sky Daddy and an actual hell and that this guy actually rose from the dead after three days because he was actually the son of god actually born of a virgin and caused stones to grow ears because he played so beautifully. Oh, my bad. The last of these is from the Orpheus myth and not the Jesus one. It’s easy to get them mixed up because there is so much overlap.
LikeLike
Bob It’s a good thing that I know many who do not “cling to ancient superstition” that “”takes the form of utter vagueness about what one is actually committing to believing.” Unless, that is, the proper translation of “utter vagueness” is to know what metaphors (and parables) mean and do, and that some things humans do not know, though we continue to drive towards that knowing, as is evident daily on this blog and elsewhere.
Interesting, though, and as an aside, in some sense, we are presently experiencing the weaknesses of the law and of democracy itself. CBK
LikeLike
We are presently experiencing the strength of ancient notions of the importance of strongman leadership from an absolutist Daddy figure. Wonder where people get that ugly idea. . . . Hmmm. Oh, yeah, from literally hundreds of passages in the Old and New Testaments that present just such a model of proper governance.
LikeLike
Bob I just wrote a note saying how my input here about Catholicism and religion is continually misinterpreted. And so, your recent note appears with content that, guess what? . . . follows that same misinterpretation. Maybe that note went to moderation, but if not, I can only assume you are not reading my notes, at least not thoroughly. So, like with Linda’s correspondence here, what’s the point in responding to you further on this site and on this topic? At least for now. CBK
LikeLike
cx: miraculous production of copious food and drink
LikeLike
The other form that clinging to the ancient myths takes is the imposition on them of modern ways of thinking that are NOT the ways of thinking of people in the time and place of the myths themselves. So, for example, moderns attempt to rationalize the myth of the loaves and the fishes by saying that it is symbolic, that it’s actually about how belief in JC will create “spiritual abundance.” Well, no. A little familiarity with ancient myth and folklore makes quite clear that this kind of miraculous production of copies food or drink was a common mythological and folklore motif in ancient times. The allegorical interpretation is anachronism and is pretty obviously so to people who are not desperate to continue believing myths they were taught in childhood.
LikeLike
Bob In case my response got overlooked, “moderated,” or lost in the shuffle, here’s what I wrote earlier about being misinterpreted on this site about Catholicism and religiosity, over and over again: CBK
“One problem I’ve had here is the misinterpretation of my efforts to broaden the scope of analysis, so to speak, and even about my just being a member of the Catholic Church, as my defending the indefensible, like priests’ child abuse, or the suppression of women, or worker’s rights, etc. I have tried to get that across over and over again, hoping for a sense of dialectic to take hold, but to no avail. And even when I tried to explain, I get responses that are decidedly anti-intellectual . . . so there it is . . . and speaking of precipices . . .” CBK
LikeLike
Let me tell you a story, CBK. Years ago, I was working in the offices of a Boston publisher. The president of the publishing house had an extremely competent older woman executive assistant–let’s call her Margory. She was of Irish extraction and had spent her entire life, since she was a small child, going to mass DAILY. In other words, she was an extremely devoted practicing Catholic. And one day I came, as I often did, to the President’s office to meet with him about something, and this sweet, smart, efficient older woman–a grandmother type, was sobbing. I went into her cubicle and sat down and asked her what was wrong. She said to me: “All my life, all my life, I have been a good Catholic. I’ve given money. I’ve given time. I’ve done everything I was supposed to do. And it was all a lie. All that time, they were raping children and then hiding it from everyone. Children. They were using my money to move priests to new dioceses where they could just go on raping kids. Hundreds and hundreds of them. And they knew. They knew it all. For decade after decade. That’s what evil looks like. I’m done.”
She had been reading the Boston Globe Spotlight report.
There are a LOT of people, CBK, who cannot put stuff like this–like the genocide, like the superstition, like the sexism and homophobia, like the pederasty, out of their minds, who can’t just get over it.
LikeLike
Bob So sorry for your friend who was crying about Priest pedophiles after watching the movie “Spotlight.” But . . . uhhh . . . what’s that got to do with the present conversation? . . . which seems to me less like an informative conversation that like playing whack-a-mole with a greased snake. CBK
LikeLike
Not after watching the movie. This was at the time of the reports. She was reading The Boston Globe. The physical paper.
What’s that got to do with the present conversation? Well, you pose the question of why people have difficulty engaging in dialectic with believers. And I just told you WHY that is true for many people. They are too aware of the massive amounts of evil that the Church has wrought. I am myself not one of those people. I heartily welcome engaging in dialectic on this stuff. And as a point of departure for that, I wrote this essay:
LikeLike
Bob Again, to me, engaging in a conversation with you about Catholicism and religiosity has been less like “conversational engagement” than like playing whack-a-mole with a greased snake.
For instance, your response to bethree5 makes a true point which I seriously doubt anyone that I know of, and especially Catholics that know of, would disagree with. You are answering questions that no one that I know of here has actually raised. Like your story about your Catholic friend. It feels like being baited by a diversionary tactic. CBK
LikeLike
You raised the question of why people might not be willing to engage in dialectic with Catholicism. I simply answered that question. There are a lot of people, I think, who are so overwhelmed by ugliness that the Church has perpetrated, that they have long since lost their ability to engage with it. They just want it gone.
LikeLike
Bob You are preaching to the choir again, puns intended, so get on with other things? CBK
LikeLike
Bob BTW, I didn’t ask Why. I KNOW why. What a naive optimist I am, however . . . there IS a better way. I HAD hope that, on the hinges of a recognition of our inherent potency for change, some at least could rise to a better level of discourse. Again, great big silly me. CBK
LikeLike
I hope you are right, CBK, that that can happen. I will be straight up about this stuff. I think that there is overwhelming evidence that the Abrahamic religions are mythologies. I also think that there is enormous evidence that materialism, as traditionally conceived, is false. My concern is that holding onto the old ideas makes it difficult to move forward to better ones. And the old ideas are sources of dysfunction in our social and political lives. They create the Abbots and Cruzes.
LikeLike
Bob And it’s not ALL “ugly.” A recognizing of that point as a part of history, and how entwined it all is IN history, is the point that gets us to an inherent dialectic; and an inherent dialectic gets us to realize the potential for getting to a higher viewpoint. It’s the same point of discourse that you keep missing. CBK
LikeLike
I did not say that it is all ugly, and I would never say that. I LOVE Christmas music, for example! I have a real weakness for it. I play a LOT of it on the guitar in arrangements that I wrote. I said that some people are so overwhelmed by the ugliness that they no longer wish to engage and that that is the answer to the question you raised. But you have a point, CBK. George Santayana wrote in Reason in Religion (I’m not going to get this exactly right because it’s from memory, and it’s been a long time since I read his book) that it’s easy enough for a worm-ridden old satirist to point out the scientific inaccuracies of religions, but it’s harder for them to explain why it has long been the chief sanction for virtue and the creation of works of aesthetic beauty. Yes, religion has given us a lot. The Bach B-minor mass. The Pietà. Liberation Theology. I would question the “chief” part of that formulation. I think that social sanction has played a larger role and that a large role is played by law and education. But there is some truth to this.
LikeLike
Bob Okay, nicely said. CBK
LikeLike
Diane Just as an aside (relevant or not), Peter Wehner wrote in an op-ed:
“Morality is for Trump what colors are to the color-blind.” (From this morning’s Morning Joe. CBK
LikeLike
Bob I love to watch beehives, but only from afar. CBK
LikeLike
Haaaa!!! What a metaphor!!! Well done, CBK!
LikeLike
CBK, I was responding to Linda’s comment about tribalism. So, yes, I addressed the topic of tribalism in Christianity, and no, that is not “what I go with” typically. I have spent many, many decades diligently studying world religions and philosophy, CBK. I know the Bible and Christian church history a lot better than most Christians do. And so, yes, when I comment upon religion or on specific aspects of this broad subject, I draw upon that learning. But, once again, I quoted above the Abstract and one line from the Conclusion from an extremely clearly delimited scientific study, and it is you who for some reason took this as an occasion to go off on religion and science and statistics and God knows what else IN GENERAL and as an occasion to attack me personally. I’m fine with that, to a point. I have tried to respond to your off the topic (what the study showed) comments and to defend my quotation from that study from your attacks on it. That’s just debate, CBK. Yes, I believe that one of the things that stands out most clearly when one is familiar with Christian church history is that the Church and its representatives, with the leave of the Church, spent two millennia tearing through the rest of the world, murdering and enslaving the indigenous there and extirpating resources. Do I have to make a freaking list? Do I have to quote endless passages to you from de las Casas or the history of the Belgian Congo?
LikeLike
Bob– @6/18 3:29pm– “by religiosity he is referring, for the purposes of his paper, to belief in a creator and that he is taking acceptance of evolution as true as an indicator of a scientific orientation.” But the author puts these two in opposition, and claims “the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular.”
I contend the only religious sects that find “scientific orientation” [proxy, acceptance of evolution] in opposition to their belief in a creator are (1)”Bible-thumpers,” by which I mean those Protestant evangelical sects that take the word of the Bible literally [fundamentalists], and (2)to a degree—i.e., only re: select issues– conservative Catholics [with the proviso that Catholicism is losing membership so rapidly that the RC Church is becoming more conservative even as we speak].
I would put $$ down: none but those two groups deny the reality of evolution. (And I have strong doubts about including 60% of white Catholics in that cohort). The rest of the population, I am wagering, find no conflict between having a scientific orientation and belief in a creator.
To summarize latest Pew polling, the non-scientific religious are at most 27% of the US population. The other Christians [36% of population]– and let’s add the 2% Jews– doubtless have little problem mentally substituting the Big Bang + evolution for “created in 7 days,” attributing the latter to historical understanding of the era.
I think we have to cast a much wider net to explain the high rates of societal dysfunction in the South and Midwest, as suggested by the stats on homicide etc.
LikeLike
Agreed, Ginny. But this does not change the truth of his assertion that the places that have the largest amount of belief in a creator god also have the largest amount of disbelief in evolution and the largest amount of societal dysfunction. Yes, one can have belief in god and in evolution. Of course. No one here has denied that.
LikeLike
bethree5 writes: “To summarize latest Pew polling, the non-scientific religious are at most 27% of the US population.”
. . . and I would bet that only circa .0000000002 percent do not use products that are the result of scientific investigations and implementations, like cars, cell phones, and computers, to name just three. (And thank you for your prescient note. And, of course, you probably support priest pedophiles, like I do.) (<–For anyone here who doesn’t already know it, that’s a joke.)
Also, while we’re at it, I liked Bob’s earlier posted pole about the three candidates. Taking poles (like Pew’s) and repeating them is not the same as reporting correlations drawn from off-site statistical data that are rife with potential suggestions for innuendo. CBK
LikeLike
Ginny, a recent Gallup Poll puts the percentage of Americans who say that they believe in God at 81, which is down from previous years. But it’s a LOT larger, that percentage, than in Europe. According to Pew, 62 percent of Americans say that they don’t believe in evolution. That’s a breathtakingly large number. And one finds both concentrated in parts of the US. And those parts have the most dysfunction. That’s what the paper shows. Of course it is possible to be a theist who believes in evolution.
LikeLike
So, Ginny, what Paul says at the beginning of his study is true. The majority of Americans believe in god and evolution, in America, is unpopular. And there are places in the country where these are emphatically not in opposition–where a substantial majority both believe in god and disbelieve evolution, and those places have the most dysfunction. That’s what his paper shows. It doesn’t address the question of whether one can believe in god and in modern science. That’s not the study topic.
LikeLike
P.S. Bob, as you did [cast a wider net] in a subsequent post [poverty, ed etc].
I tend to see current church[es] and its[their] religion[s] as reflective of society—and its state of evolution– rather than the other way around. Just as we here often say about our K12 education system: it reflects our society; one can’t fix social problems by tinkering with how we deliver K12 ed. Ditto, tinkering with churches/ religions. Both educational and religious institutions respond in various (& often dysfunctional) ways to widespread floating anxiety in society—fear. A lot of it has been going around: add lingering psychological effects of pandemic to the political volatility and economic insecurity we already had onboard.
LikeLike
Reasonable, rational analysis, Ginny. But can you see why I also have come to believe that religious superstition is a problem in this country? Listen to Trump. To Hawley. To MTG. To Cruz. To Abbot. To DeSantis. To Alito. To commentators on Newsmax. They all justify truly evil stuff based on fundamentalist beliefs.
LikeLike
I think that if we eradicate religious superstition–as is actually already happening among the young here and has actually already mostly happened in Europe–we will make real progress. The appeals to religious to justify sexism, homophobia, authoritarianism, militarism, etc., just won’t work with young people who no longer believe the myths.
LikeLike
I think we are all agreed that if we eliminate poverty and increase education, a lot of dysfunctions disappear. I would argue that one of the dysfunctions that disappears is religious superstition.
Years ago, when I was 16, I worked as a night manager at restaurant in Indiana. I had a waiter who worked for me who would come in with bruises all over her. I asked her about these. She told me that her husband sometimes hit her. She went on to explain that in a good Biblical household, a husband sometimes has to do that, to show who is boss. There are parts of the US where people think like that.
LikeLike
This is going to happen if you take for moral guidance texts written 2,500 years ago.
LikeLike
bethree5 Again, I appreciate reading your response to Bob about religious history.
“Religion” is not going away, however, because, at its root, people over all of history have asked questions (in all sorts of ways) about our existence and so about our beginning and our beyond, and if we are to have one; and so, history shows that “we” can answer “no” only after the question has been raised. History shows that “we” have tried to answer that question based on our place, time, and cultural situation. We know ourselves as “in-between” in that way. The religious question is a structured-in part of our consciousness and regardless of whether we answer yes or no to the question of God however we express it.
That question (e.g., is life really and ultimately worthwhile?) then gives frame to all sorts of answers to the very human questions of where we came from and where we might be going if anywhere, when we die (to put it in dry terms). How we answer that question is how we understand ourselves in relation to the infinite; and how we think about THAT tends to guide our further questions about how we relate to others in this world (praxis in the moral and political domains).
My view is that one of the problems that is so common in religious persons and institutions, and that rightly draws ire, is the confusion of empirical knowledge (small k and always on the move) with Absolute Knowledge (which we do not have, and which is question-free on principle); and Truth with truth; reasonable belief with empty self-serving beliefs; and ultimately the confusion of a false view of Absolute Knowledge with a humble religious faith and its daily expression.
The other side of that dialectical coin is that: nor does anyone know empirically or otherwise about either those beginnings or ends. This means that anything a positivist scientist or atheist says about God or the beyond is, in fact, extra-scientific and can be as dogmatic and potentially dangerous as the worst fascism or religious fanaticism. Most that I experience have a real problem with NOT knowing.
Though the answers to religious questions differ over the centuries, in any singular religious tradition, then, (as you suggest in your note), the questions that concern ultimacy are part of our very constitution; and our understanding of how to live in the light of what we understand about the religious domain, e.g., from scripture we try to live by . . . not as some sort of abstract or Absolute rationalization, but as a way to live our lives concretely in terms of that question, in terms of our ongoing development, and in the light of our present understanding of it, in community.
It’s in that light that we can understand the presence of the religious question in our lives, but also the need for religions as institutions and the people in them to undergo transitions, which is what is occurring now . . . as foundational, the movement is from tribal and “top-down” authoritarian, to civil and secularized, where “secular” means to understand with clarity the distinction between political and religious spheres of meaning in our culture and how they should and should not interact where others are concerned. Just some thoughts, thanks, CBK
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bob @ 6/19 3:22pm– check out this related 2019 Pew article. I suppose I am just parsing words. I look at the bar graphs and see 33% of all US adults believe in natural selection/ evolution without involvement by God, and another 48% which defined in the text as “natural selection/ evolution ‘allowed or guided by God.’” That leaves just 18% who don’t believe in evolution.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/02/11/darwin-day/#:~:text=And%20while%20today%20it%20is,religious%20beliefs%20about%20divine%20creation.
LikeLike
I see. Yes, You are right, Ginny. This is good news. We are making headway.
LikeLike
Yes, you are right, Ginny. It’s not a majority that disbelieves evolution now. But he didn’t say that. What Gregory Paul said was that a majority of Americans believes in a creator god and that evolution is widely unpopular in America and that those places where both are widely true (belief in god, disbelief in evolution) are the ones where there is a lot of societal dysfunction. This is not controversial. We all know this, don’t we? If you go to the places with all the Jesus-y billboards, it’s there that you are going to find high rates of teenage pregnancy, toddler beauty pageants, and Mussolini-wannabe governors. Right?
LikeLike
I misspoke in my comment just a moment ago, Ginny, re the percentage of Americans who say that they don’t believe in evolution. It’s not 64%, fortunately. It’s 36 percent (according to the Pew poll that I looked at quickly and, alas, misread). People
LikeLike
Ah, I see why you would say, Ginny, that he “puts these two in opposition.” You are right. That’s poorly worded for the reason that you point out.
LikeLike
Bethree’s chicken and egg observation would carry more weight if the Catholic Church didn’t spend money to take away the rights of people who are gay despite overwhelming support for the LGBTQ community in the general public. It would carry more weight if the Church didn’t spend money on anti-abortion politics despite the view of the general public. Bethree’s argument would hold more weight if the state Catholic Conferences didn’t work for school privatization despite the general public’s support for public education. It shows readers how far people will go in defense of a Church that overtly discriminates against women and people who are gay. They’ll claim its society not the USCCB driving the Church to promote hateful and harmful attitudes. Extrapolating, it was the parishioners (or, society at large) who drove the Church to cover up priest pedophilia. It’s society at large that wants the Church to advance Koch’s social Darwinism. And, Jefferson failed to understand truth when he said, in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the despot.
LikeLike
Ginny is correct that most Americans now believe that evolution is real. That’s progress!
LikeLike
Bob @ 6/19 3:52pm– “if we eradicate religious superstition” — ?? Social evolution is like the mess you see when you cut into a baseball: you can’t detach and pull out selected strings. Our society is primitive compared to the far older societies of Europe. Yes, religious development is an important part of that primitivity.
Contrast us to the Netherlands, which was becoming a Babel of religions and cultures by 1620. The dominant religion was then Lutheran, but there were plenty of Catholics (treated as 2nd-class citizens). That issue, fought out over wages, property, rights to share in public goods continued until 1870-ish [250 yrs].
Here au contraire we were dominated by Protestants from 1620-1820, at which point we began a similar struggle. That was just 200 yrs ago. And we have the big complication of virtually all Protestant sects splitting over abolition v slavery & establishing separate church divisions from the 1850’s forward. [There was a further division in the Anglican [Episcopal] church which had been significant in the South since colonial days: freed slaves were “allowed” to establish their own Episcopal churches, but were denied any voice in church matters.] So add 30 yrs.
We have already 28% “religiously unaffiliated.” History says it could take another 80 yrs before we begin the gradual road to majority secularized. But I suspect less, given that the 18-29yo cohort is already 38% unaffiliated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I was sixteen, I was taking a walk with my friend Dan, and he predicted that religion would be completely gone by the time we were seventy. Before Dan, Freud, in The Future of an Illusion, predicted that it would be gone in 100 years. Both wrong. But the numbers for the kids give me hope.
LikeLike
We also seem to be going through another of the periodic eras in which the US spawns a bunch of New Religious Movements, more popularly known as cults.
LikeLike
Back in the 1978, in his justly famous Gay Freedom Day speech, Harvey Milk told gay people: You must come out. Today, in 2023, I say the same to nonbelievers in traditional religion. You owe it to yourself, to your brothers and sisters, to kids, to the future. You must come out and be a model to others. It’s OK to throw off the mind-forged manacles that keep us in primitivism; that make us narrow and sexist and homophobic and authoritarian; that make us narrow and crabbed; that lead to intolerance rather than tolerance. Now is the time. You must, for all of these reasons, come out, and to everyone. To your friends, your parents, your coworkers, your teachers and classmates. I am not a believer, and I’m unafraid an proud.
LikeLike
Great recounting of the stats and the history, Ginny!!!! Kudos to you. Actual facts.
LikeLike
Josh Hawley absorbed his narrative about history at the private schools he graduated from (a Jesuit high school, Stanford and Yale)?
He tweeted his erroneous view yesterday, the faith of the US is Christianity and, “America is where slavery came to die.” The US lagged behind almost all other countries in the Western Hemisphere in abolishing slavery.
Extending Bethree’s thoughts about the evolution of secularization in the U.S. and drawing a parallel, it just takes a natural period of time to abolish slavery wherever it is practiced. Deliberation and attitude can’t be pushed. So, if an island starts today with slavery, it will eventually evolve and outlaw slavery following some historically-ascertained pattern of timing.
LikeLike
The takedown of Mr. Man Hawley is spot on. the U.S. was late to this. The other hypotheses, not so sure of.
LikeLike
Hmmm,
One sees through the great salvation
of bullshit faith, but still clings
to the bullshit electoral savior
faith…
LikeLike
I, for one, am not looking for a savior. I am looking for anyone who is not freaking a Mussolini wannabe.
LikeLike
Perspective about political power –
There were about 2,000 rioters in D.C. on Jan. 6. On the dais with Giuliani, there was right wing, politicized Catholic, John Eastman. The name of retired general Michael Flynn, also right wing Catholic, has been linked to Jan.6, as well. Some number who were at the Capitol trying to prevent Biden from being confirmed as President, were right wing Catholic.
The protest last week by 2000 people who were described as Catholic, delayed a Dodgers game. They were against recognition for a group, Nuns in Drag, during a Pride event. A person speaking in defense of the protests was LA bishop, Jose H . Gomez.
Is there another religious sect that get 2000 people to protest over something as minutiae as Nuns in Drag and who can convince people in the pews that their religious freedom is under attack while their Church plots to take away the rights of women and to keep people who are gay in the closet?
LikeLike
Isn’t Betsy DeVos also associated with Heritage? Seems like there’s a connection there, as well as Hillsdale.
LikeLike
YES. And Ginni Thomas. And Ron DeSantis.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/07/01/conservative-hillsdale-college-is-helping-desantis-reshape-florida-education/
LikeLike
Laura, all the major rightwing think tanks (belief tanks) and big rightwing donors are intertwined.
LikeLike
YES! The Reich-wing is extremely incestuous. And now Leo has a billion bucks to throw around in order to further the end of democracy and its replacement by fundamentalist authoritarianism.
“For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Romans 13:2
This is what the Reich-wing in America today believes. It’s an ancient, ancient recipe. Fascism is FAR OLDER than is the term “Fascism.” It’s a kind of barbarity that civilization is always in danger of falling back to. The Reich-wing in America today thinks that this extreme authoritarianism is God’s way and God’s will. And they have the texts to “prove” it.
LikeLike
Laura-
Leonard Leo is credited with getting a right wing majority on SCOTUS. He is right wing Catholic with 9 kids. The Koch-funded Paul Weyrich who co-founded Heritage, the religious right and ALEC (drafts state laws for Republican endorsement) was right wing Catholic.
Taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer.
The SCOTUS majority exempted religious schools from civil rights employment law and forced taxpayers to fund religious schools. In many states, the primary beneficiary of that tax money is Catholic schools.
LikeLike
All true, Linda
LikeLike
Thank you, Bob.
LikeLike
Politico posted an article (6-16-2023) about James Talarico of Texas. He gave a 2 minute talk on Tik Tok and Twitter that has been viewed more than 1 mil. times. My conclusion is there are lots of interpretations about what the Bible says.
I appreciated your point about the convenience of the loaves of bread story being morphed into a symbolic tale.
LikeLike
There are lots of interpretations, but many of them are ridiculous, including the ones that are anachronistic impositions upon these texts of modern interpretive frameworks foreign to the time and place of their composition. No, when Ezekial speaks of the wheel within the wheel, he is not talking about extraterrestrial spacecraft. These folks didn’t think in terms of extraterrestrials and spacecraft. But they did think in terms of nonhuman demigods. The latter was a category available to them. There are many, many texts from the first couple centuries after Christ that are NOT part of the canonical “scriptures.” However, there are also a lot of later forgeries–texts pretending to be ancient. One such set of texts are those known as The Essene Gospel of Peace. A con man named Edmond Bordeaux Szekely cooked up these books which he purported to be translations of previously unknown texts that he discovered in the Vatican library. However, they contain lots of modern-day ideas (such as communes built on the principles of free love and vegetarianism) that are anachronistic (Szekely himself founded just such a commune in Baja, California). Language changes continuously, so scholars can piece together from linguistic evidence how old a text is, and Szekely’s texts fail that test, too. Furthermore, Szekely never produced the supposed ancient manuscripts that he “translated.” They magically disappeared, lol.
So, yes, there are lots of approaches to interpretation, but some of them are clearly poppycock. People long to cling to the religion that they happened to be indoctrinated into as kids, and so they go to ridiculous lengths to explain away, to rationalize, the sick, ancient, superstitious stuff in their “scriptures.” No, when the text speaks of Joshua as stopping the sun in the sky, this is not symbolism. That’s not a feature of ancient Hebrew thinking and writing. But ALL the cultures in that era and area thought that the sun was a tiny thing that moved across the sky–something that could conceivably be “stopped in the sky.” The plain meaning of the text is the plausible on. The symbolic one is a desperate attempt to make ancient superstition real.
LikeLike
Bob-
I’m glad you write at the blog so as to correct and to inform based on your extensive knowledge about religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Linda
LikeLike
Moderation. CBK
LikeLike
“. . . and offers lessons on American history through a conservative bent. . . .”
No, it’s not a conservative bent. It is a regressive/reactionary xtian theofascist point of view. And a false history to boot.
LikeLike
It’s subtle, though. It is all those things, but in a pernicious, sneak-up-people kind of way. It sins by omission A LOT. A lot of what it presents, in snippets of primary source documents, is wildly unrepresentative stuff BUT stuff that reflects libertarian white Christian nationalist views–that the founders were traditional Christians, that maybe we had a little prob with racism way back then but we got over it, that immigration is bad, that small government is good, except that government that tells people who they should love and what they should believe (“In God we trust”) is great and an all-guns-and-precious-little-butter is also great (that big government when its about “handouts” to the poor is Socialism and when it’s about handouts to corporations, and especially defense contractors is okey dokey). But subtle is the beast, lol. They don’t come right out and say these things, usually, in the curriculum. They nudge people toward them. They present a case for them. They suggest them.
LikeLike
cxs:
whom they should love
when it’s about “handouts”
LikeLike