
ENLARGE
By Ed Iverson
The last issue of Newsweek magazine was all about Jesus. The authors analyzed the connection between Christian religion and American politics. While several articles traced the increasing influence of evangelicals, others pointed to the growing separation between the religious right and those who style themselves as evangelicals.
There was no shortage of shallow commentary. I disagreed with a good deal of the way they characterized various communities of Christians. Still, Newsweek is to be commended for grappling with an issue that most other media outlets stubbornly ignore.
The "time out" box was set aside for an atheist. He wrote the "dissenting" piece, objecting to any mixing of politics and religion. Sam Harris, the atheist, is also the author of several best-selling screeds denouncing religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Harris thinks it an embarrassing scandal that America still harbors so many Christians. He scolds Christians for allowing their religious beliefs to influence their voting patterns. He is particularly scornful of George W. Bush and any other politician who publicly admit to being Christians. To think that any public official may be influenced by religious beliefs makes him upset and annoyed. According to Harris, religion has no place in politics.
What he really means of course, is that your (Christian) religion has no place in American politics. Mr. Harris is not without religious scruples. Take the hot-button issue of embryonic stem-cell research. It is unconscionable, he says, for Bush to veto this public funding simply because his religious belief informs him that such research makes cheap what ought to be held dear. Mr. Harris assures us that it is unconscionable because embryo research will alleviate so much suffering.
In other words, Mr. Harris thinks alleviating suffering is the moral thing to do. He passionately believes that it is right to alleviate suffering. He considers it a great evil to ignore suffering or otherwise refuse to alleviate it. But right and wrong are religious issues. How can Harris or any other atheist legitimately condemn any behavior as "wrong?" He needs to come down off his moral high horse if he is going to be a consistent atheist.
Harris can object to my moral scruples because they do not match up with his moral scruples, but he cannot pretend that his politics are not informed by morality. It is never a case of ethical standards or no ethical standards. It is always a case of whose ethical standards.
Harris doesn't like my (Christian) ethical standards. But if there is no God (as Harris asserts), there is no way to judge between my ethical standards and Harris' ethical standards. Atheist Sam prefers one thing and Christian Ed prefers another. So, who is to judge between us? But Harris will have none of that. He implies that Christians are immoral to restrict marriage to a committed relationship between one man and one woman. He denounces the Christian stand that life begins at conception, making abortion an act of murder. Harris says Christians are wrong, wrong, wrong. By way of contrast, Harris says Harris is right. We note that Harris is right by his own admission.
Harris' politics are informed by Harris' "religion." "Hold on!" says Harris. He doesn't believe in God so he can't have a religion. However, as the old saying goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most always a duck. Mr. Harris' musings are intensely moral. They pass the religious "duck test."
Mr. Harris' case is unconvincing. He reminds me of the old bromide: "You can't legislate morality." We moderns kind of nod when we hear that, but former ages would have considered it nonsense. They would have asked: "If you can't legislate morality, what can you legislate?"
There are laws against violence, laws to relieve poverty and a plethora of laws in between. Now here is the truth: Every law is based upon some moral standard. Legislation is the cultural manifestation of religion. It is morality in Carhartt coveralls.