The Left's arguments (gripes?) about Bush's religiosity are all about style than substance. And these arguments end up revealing more about their style/preferences being out of sync with America's than about Bush being the leader of a cabal. A substantive issue would be to try to prove that the Bush adminstration has effectively delegated decision-making to a religious authority. Yet, in pursuing the War on Terror (the issue that has mattered most so far), Bush has repeteadly found himself having to respectfully disagree with organized religion (Big Religion, for you Deanmaniacs). The same has been/would likely be true on many other issues as they have arosen and as they arise: distribution of wealth, capital punishment, etc. So while Bush could get high ratings from people who share his values (gee, that's odd), I doubt he would rate nearly as high by a panel of religious "authorities".

Democrats are just as religious as Republicans. They perhaps tend to differ a bit (but that can be overstated) about how to arrange things.

"Religion may preach peace and tolerance, yet it's hard to think of anything that — because of human malpractice — has been more linked to violence and malice around the world."

Other than, say, Communism and Nazism--both atheist creeds? Guess those 120 million corpses in the last century didn't count for much.

What an unexpected blind spot for a Times writer.

Not.

Remember, it was the Evangelical vote that put Jimmy Carter in the White House. Be careful what you wish for.

Even Jimmy Carter was better than Gerald Ford.

Blacks are more socially conservative than whites and never hesitatd to vote for the party of secularism,abortion and gay rights.Socially conservativew,working class white ethnics held thier noses and voted Democrat.
This is being overhyped in many ways.

Will:

"Like those of other great religion's, Marxism's historical successes are based on circumstance, leadership, and its essentially mythical power. And this power seems ... rooted in the fact that Marxism is ... essentially a Christian heresy."

The Triumph of the West, p 53

Just because there isn't a supernatural God involved doesn't stop it being a religion.

Agreed. All three challengers were essentially Christian heresy and have the quality of religion, though they claim to be based in Reason: Darwiniam, Freudianism, and Marxism.

M;

That's because Republicans opposed the major civil rights legislation of the 60s (and most since). I happen to think they were right to, but it's understandable that blacks need some convincing, no?

"All three challengers were essentially Christian heresy and have the quality of religion, though they claim to be based in Reason: Darwiniam, Freudianism, and Marxism."

From one angle, yes. But it is disingenuous not to acknowledge the distinctions:

Marxism:
-Giving credence to a Marxist analysis of economic history, as in Das Kapital, flawed or not, does not have the 'quality of religion'.
-Using The Communist Manifesto as your textbook, and invoking the name of Marx to justify your actions, does - agreed.

Freudianism:
-Admitting the possibility that psychoanalysis might be a valid branch of science does not have the quality of religion.
-Believing Freud got it all right does.

Darwnism
-Accepting that Darwin was on to something with evolution and natural selection and using these theories as the basis for further development does not have the quality of religion.
-Believing every word Darwin wrote does.

It is often just as foolish to dismiss something utterly as to embrace it utterly.

Tarring the moderate with the same brush as the fanatic is intellectually dishonest.

Brit:

All three attempt to replace a God Created world with one ion which impersonal but inexorable natural forces operate to the same effect. The particulars are largely insignificant--the power of the three lies in their capacity to fill the hole unbelievers tear in their souls.

What you're saying is that people who need to fill a religion-shaped void in their lives can use fanatical interpretations of the theories of these people to do it.

I agree with you, they can. And the same can be said for all sorts of things from New Age tree-hugging to Satanism to the obsessive pursuit of money.

But I'm just gently pointing out that you can't lump the moderate (who does not have a religion-shaped hole, or who fills it quite adequately with something else) with the loony - in order to discredit theories in their entirety.

No. I'm saying the theories don't matter at all. It is the ability to place faith in a non-God--natural forces--that drives the three.

As certain people interpret them, perhaps. You could say the same for Scientology, Hippie-dom, Fascism, fanatical devotion to a sports team and a belief in The Force...

Interesting that you should choose those three. Add Joyce to the list and we've pretty much completed the set of your personal bugbears...

Brit:

I wish the insight were mine, but the three are classically linked together. It's no coincidence that all arose in the same time and place and were embraced by the same sorts of folk--the educated upper middle classes. All three patriarchs are even bearded, like Old Testament prophets.

OJ:

Many Republicans may have opposed Civil Rights legislation on principle, but don't forget that 21 Democratic Senators voted against the first Civil Rights bill (including Al Gore's father), a number higher than the Republican nays. The Republicans have been quite remiss in reminding people about that everytime they are accused of racism. Also, the bill would not have passed without Everett Dirksen's stewardship.

I understand the media would want to bury the truth here, but the Republican spin machine has never really tried to counter the silence.

For an example, see the following:

www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html

jim:

Yes, those Democratic seats are all held by the GOP now, in no small part for reasons of race.

"All three attempt to replace a God Created world with one ion which impersonal but inexorable natural forces operate to the same effect. The particulars are largely insignificant--the power of the three lies in their capacity to fill the hole unbelievers tear in their souls."

How does Darwinism operate to the same effect? It promises no salvation. Some who can no longer believe may be seeking a subsitute salvation in Marxism or Freudianism, but I don't see how this can be the motive for Darwinism. It is more likely that they get over the need to patch the "hole in their soul", if it ever existed, and look to Darwinism as the best explanation for the shape of life as it is. Everyone isn't trying to deny their mortality OJ, just most people.

Robert:

Because, purely by coincidence, Man happes to be at the top of the Chain of Being. Remember the chart on your teacher's wall in 9th grade, where the primates evolve in about eight steps into homo sapiens, each successive species larger than the one before? That's the psychology of Darwinism--we are giants on the Earth--though it's all accidental, of course.

Robert is right.

Darwinism promises nothing, and therefore can't be counted on to fill any hole.

Quite the opposite in fact. For those in need of hole filling, Darwinism is only likely to make it larger: there is no plan, no goal, humanity is a fluke, life doesn't have any particular meaning.

If Evolutionary theory wasn't such a persuasive explanation of natural history, there wouldn't be a darn thing to recommend it.

Exactly. Darwinism is a comfortless stance if you are self-doubtful. Only the tough-minded can be Darwinians.

Tough-mindedness is not, in itself, a virtue, though I like it.

Nobody ever consoled a friend for the loss of a loved one by saying, "You know, his molecules will eventually be taken up by a tapeworm and life will continue to evolve."

No, they say, "He will gain a crown in heaven."

The tapeworm outcome is more demonstrable.

And then the antelope eat the tapeworm?

"That's the psychology of Darwinism--we are giants on the Earth--though it's all accidental, of course."

Whoopee, we are greater than bears and elephants! We're number 1!

Not much of a consolation, but it's something. You really have to stretch to make Darwinism a religion, but you sure try OJ.

What more does religion offer than that we are the highest of the animals, the Chosen.

But Harry illustrates my point nicely. Note the boast of tough-mindedness, as opposed to lilly-livered religionists. You Darwinists are the Anointed of the New Age, don't you know?

This is all about personality types and individual reaction.

For OJ, it is inconceivable that the atheist could not feel an agonising 'lack' where God used to be. But then, he's not an atheist, so how would he know?

So science tells us: we got here purely by accident, we're just animals, we're made of molecules, we're all brain and no soul and when we die we turn to dust and there's nothing after except the genes we're passed to our children...

Some will dismiss that as too horrible to contemplate, or as just not believable.

And some others will say: 'wow, isn't it amazing and aren't I incredibly lucky to have lived on this earth at all...'

Personally, the more I learn about the wonders of nature, the less I need the wonders of the supernatural.

But that's just me...

Brit:

And everyone thinks "me" is unique, but all are just psychological types.

I think you're unique, OJ...

Sure, how many white males are conservative?

You're a white male conservative?

Yeesh, I had you pictured quite wrongly...Next you'll be telling me you're a heterosexual!

Like I said, we're all just types.

You should all note, of course, how OJ changed rhetorical lanes without so much as signaling.

At first Darwinism is some sort of hole filler, then morphs into a criticism of alleged tough mindedness.

Without for a moment considering how much substance there is to the allegation, and completely dropping his initial assertion.

Very facile.

Jeff:

As to the substance of the allegation, of course Harry's right. You Darwinists are ubermenschen.

Only when the wife's not around.

Harry: "Only the tough-minded can be Darwinians."

OJ: "...of course Harry's right. You Darwinists are ubermenschen."

OJ:
Clearly, Harry didn't say Darwinists are ubermenschen, only that tough mindedness is required to be a Darwinist. Unless tough mindedness equals ubermenschenness, then your assertion is a non-sequitor.

Also, just as clearly, asserting Darwinists need be tough minded says absolutely nothing about anyone else.

But, your non-sequitor aside, Harry is right. One must have a willingness to accept uncomforting conclusions to be a Darwinist, and toughmindedness is as good a single-word term for that as any.

Uncomforting? It tells you that you are the fittest creature in Creation and that whatever you do is okay, because natural.

Tough-minded my ass.

Clearly you have a lot to learn about Evolution--it says neither.

Evolutionary theory is about process, not absolute fitness. And it sure as heck has nothing to say about right or wrong.

Just thought you might like to know.

BTW, just to clear things up, you did rather misrepresent what Harry said, didn't you?

Not at all. You guys say you're "tougher-minded", that you never do wrong, etc. Your atheism/Darwinism is merely a means of elevating youreselves into Gods. It's rather pitiful, but amusing.

OJ:

I defy you to show where Harry or I said "tougher" minded, or that we never do wrong. And I suggest that if you can't, you knock off misrepresenting what we say.

As for the rest, it is merely ridiculous.

As Harry pointed out in an earlier thread, cockroaches are just as successful in terms of natural selection as humans.

So are dung beetles.

The fact of natural selection doesn't give us much to be hubristic about.

If you feel a need to see humans as the 'chosen ones' then you do need to be tough-minded to be a Darwinist.

If you don't have that need, you can just be philosophical about it (in every sense of the word.)