Print
This Is Not a Test
by Christopher Hitchens, Slate
Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.
http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/
This Is Not a Test
It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views.
By Christopher Hitchens
Just before this gets completely out of hand and becomes a mantralike repetition, let us please recall what the careful phrases of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution actually and very carefully and deliberately say:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
As so often, the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words. A candidate for election, or an applicant for a post in the bureaucracy, could not be disqualified on the grounds of his personal faith in any god (or his disbelief in any god, for that matter). This stipulation was designed to put an end to the hideous practice of European monarchies—and the pre-existing practice of various American colonies—whereby if a man did not affirm the trinity, or deny the pope, or abjure Judaism (depending on the jurisdiction), he could be forbidden to hold office or even to run for it. Along with the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the predecessor-language of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, it forms part of the chief glory of the first-ever constitution that guaranteed religious liberty, religious pluralism, and the freedom to be left alone by priests and rabbis and mullahs and other characters.
Click here to continue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/
http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/
This Is Not a Test
It's perfectly reasonable to reject a candidate because of his religious views.
By Christopher Hitchens
Just before this gets completely out of hand and becomes a mantralike repetition, let us please recall what the careful phrases of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution actually and very carefully and deliberately say:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
As so often, the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words. A candidate for election, or an applicant for a post in the bureaucracy, could not be disqualified on the grounds of his personal faith in any god (or his disbelief in any god, for that matter). This stipulation was designed to put an end to the hideous practice of European monarchies—and the pre-existing practice of various American colonies—whereby if a man did not affirm the trinity, or deny the pope, or abjure Judaism (depending on the jurisdiction), he could be forbidden to hold office or even to run for it. Along with the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and the predecessor-language of the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, it forms part of the chief glory of the first-ever constitution that guaranteed religious liberty, religious pluralism, and the freedom to be left alone by priests and rabbis and mullahs and other characters.
Click here to continue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 78 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #99788 by hayesky on December 17, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Congrats Christopher, again. I cant see how anyone could vote for this Huckabee guy or Romney!!Other Comments by hayesky
3. Comment #99789 by hayesky on December 17, 2007 at 2:41 pm
The question is who can we vote for? They all seem so boring.Other Comments by hayesky
4. Comment #99800 by Alex Malecki on December 17, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Brilliant as always, Christopher.Gymnopedie, you too hit it on the head. "He's no theocrat, he just wants a theocracy!"
Other Comments by Alex Malecki
5. Comment #99803 by STLstrike3 on December 17, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Reading pieces like this make me want to take my religious friends, strap them into a chair, read it aloud to them word by word, and make them respond to it.Christopher is so devastatingly rational in his deconstruction of the media circus surrounding these candidates, that it makes the questions the moderators ask them seem hollow.
Why, oh why, can't we choke real answers out of these pandering fools!
Other Comments by STLstrike3
6. Comment #99807 by sillysighbean on December 17, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I enjoy reading Mr. Hitchens, his caustic, incisive wit must really make the zealots gnash their teeth. "Smirking Hick"...it has such a nice ring to it.Other Comments by sillysighbean
7. Comment #99808 by quill on December 17, 2007 at 3:24 pm
When I first heard Huckabee's name, I laughed. Other Comments by quill
8. Comment #99813 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 3:35 pm
3. Comment #99789 by hayesky>The question is who can we vote for? They all seem so boring.
Doesn't seem like you get much choice over there. The political spectrum goes all the way from far right to centre right. 10,000 flavours of drink in your supermarket aisles and only 'Dumb' and 'Dumber' on the ballot.
Other Comments by Rtambree
9. Comment #99815 by jdb on December 17, 2007 at 3:44 pm
'His slogan is "Faith, Family, Freedom," which Huckabee ... wrote himself.''Can it really be true that ... Huckabee wrote that whole slogan all by himself? While you ponder this massively impressive claim...'
Genius, pure genius.
Thank you Hitch, I needed to laugh today.
Other Comments by jdb
10. Comment #99816 by Arcturus on December 17, 2007 at 3:45 pm
When will a secular humanist, openly agnostic or atheist ever try to run for office? What happened to educated people running for office. What about scientists?Hitchens is right, but this will go both ways. Religious people will not elect godless people because of their religion and vice-versa.
Other Comments by Arcturus
11. Comment #99817 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 3:49 pm
10. Comment #99816 by Arcturus>When will a secular humanist, openly agnostic or atheist ever try to run for office?
The third candidate the last two elections was a scientifically literate agnostic/atheist, Ralph Nader and next to no-one voted for him and he was vilified for even running. Dawkins estimates that there are about 30 million American atheists and Ralph Nader received less than a million votes in the last election.
Other Comments by Rtambree
12. Comment #99818 by Gymnopedie on December 17, 2007 at 3:51 pm
If you care about secularism and maintaining the Constitution, then vote your secularism. The democrats, however boring, won't put nutjob theocrats in the supreme court and won't automatically vote down everything that promotes science.I'll say it again: Vote Your Secularism!
Other Comments by Gymnopedie
13. Comment #99819 by DalaiDrivel on December 17, 2007 at 3:53 pm
"It's not that we want to impose our religion on anybody... it's that we want to shape the culture and the laws using a worldview we feel has value."I think this makes me cringe the most. "We" does not mean the American public as a whole, as some of you here will certainly attest... And the "shaping of culture and laws" can only mean imposition on a national level, naturally, in a presidential campaign, which this is.
I simultaneously admire- because it after all takes an enormous deal of psychological conditioning and fucked-upedness- and despise the way in which evangelicals can shiny-faced, without any reticence, declare that what they believe is good and true and what they intend to do "for" us, especially politically, is good and true.
It seems politics are the only politically correct means to conduct ideological genocide these days...
Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
14. Comment #99821 by jdb on December 17, 2007 at 3:54 pm
also seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXRVvA6T9k
at around time 9:00/24:08
Other Comments by jdb
15. Comment #99822 by fatcitymax on December 17, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Get used to it Hitch, this is America. There were Elmer Gantrys and their dupes long before Huck and Mitt, and there will be plenty long afterwards. Just consider, there are people who actually think America's intervention in Iraq was justified!Other Comments by fatcitymax
16. Comment #99823 by Gymnopedie on December 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm
No one voted for Nader because people ignore him on the ballot as they think they are "wasting" their vote on a candidate that does not have a chance. The entire voting system is due for a remake. We should either have a trickle down voting system or a ranking system. Then we no longer have the issue of "wasting" votes.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
17. Comment #99825 by eccles on December 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Is there any intelligent life form standing as President of the United States of America? Other Comments by eccles
18. Comment #99828 by gkkalai on December 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm
As always...ClassicOther Comments by gkkalai
19. Comment #99829 by Rtambree on December 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm
16. Comment #99823 by Gymnopedie>No one voted for Nader because people ignore him on the ballot as they think they are "wasting" their vote on a candidate that does not have a chance
That's circular reasoning isn't it? I agree, the system needs an overhaul so voters aren't always forced to choose for the "least worst" candidate - a terrible corruption of democracy.
In Australia, you can put a first preference, and then second preference and so on.
In the USA, it seems the system is geared to ratchet to the right as left wing voters are 'forced' to choose candidates with right wing policies. In hindsight, Richard Nixon's policies were pretty progressive, although at the time he was an arch-conservative. In the future, George W Bush may look like a bleeding heart liberal, if the political system continues to track to the right.
In any case, in what sense are voters discriminating between candidates' actual policies (as opposed to personalities)?
Other Comments by Rtambree
20. Comment #99831 by ricey on December 17, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I admire the US Constitution. Surely it's the most rational and logical of all democratic constitutions; yet it's so often abused.The founding fathers tried to encourage an enlightened and secular state. What would they make of the result?
Where did these "gawd" assholes spring from? (TexASS?.) Why weren't the views of the original, rational and inspirational founding fathers respected?
Religious nut-jobs are scewing up the fine fabric created by the educated and intelligent founders. Educated Americans should be concerned. Don't stand for this bronze-age inspired shit any more.
You know better than me that if it looks, smells and sounds like bullshit ... it's bullshit!
Other Comments by ricey
21. Comment #99835 by notsobad on December 17, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Kucinich is the best one there (along with Gravel, but he has no choice).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich
All other democrats and republicans will just keep the old bullshit rolling.
Other Comments by notsobad
22. Comment #99839 by Farooq on December 17, 2007 at 4:54 pm
It is people like Hithcens and Dawkins that I need in my country to take on the faith-based bulleying that goes on everyday. But I am so surprised that in this day in age (about 150 years after Darwin), so many people will still give any credibility to any faith especially in a country like USA which has been one of the leaders in the research and developments in almost all the scientific disciplines.Other Comments by Farooq
23. Comment #99844 by hmj on December 17, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Chuck Norris seems to be supporting the campaign of Mike Huckabee. Beware.More info on BBC Radio 4 : Friday Night Comedy : The Now Show. (2007-12-15, Pod cast download)
Other Comments by hmj
24. Comment #99847 by kevin_2050 on December 17, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I love Hitchens' gloves-off, no-punches-pulled manner of expressing himself on this topic. Seeing him slam the theocrats makes me feel good. His quill is his sword.I feel DalaiDrivel has cited the most pertinent quotes from Huckabee and his sinister supporter. The religious right want to consolidate their already excessive influence into lasting power, if not total control. A dark age is what they long for.
Other Comments by kevin_2050
25. Comment #99894 by foxfire on December 17, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Gotta *love* that Hitch! He says it like I feel.
Other Comments by foxfire
26. Comment #99899 by quill on December 17, 2007 at 7:24 pm
notsobad said:Kucinich is the best one there (along with Gravel, but he has no choice).With all due respect, Kucinich is a lost cause. We're two weeks away from the primaries, here. If Dennis hasn't broken out of the single digits by now, he's never going to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich
I really think we need to be backing Obama. Yes, I know, he talks often about his "faith", but he doesn't seem to subscribe to any of its supernatural tenets. He's also the only viable candidate so far to have spoken favorably of nonbelievers, and the best Democratic candidate (aside from Edwards) to win a general election.
The worst thing that could happen to us would be for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination - because if she does, the general election will almost certainly go to the Republicans - so I think it makes the most strategic sense to back the Democratic candidate most likely to beat her, and that's Obama.
Other Comments by quill
27. Comment #99904 by discipline on December 17, 2007 at 7:44 pm
The best thing that could happen to the US political scene is for Huckabee to get the Republican nomination. In the present climate -- ie, the failure of the W/Dick/Karl team, not to mention the rise of the "New Atheism" -- I think the Democrats would surely win.As a "secular progressive" (to borrow Bill O'Reilly's hilarious term), I'm thinking of campaigning for Huckabee.
Other Comments by discipline
28. Comment #99905 by M31 on December 17, 2007 at 7:47 pm
> No one voted for Nader because people ignore him on the ballot as they think they are "wasting" their vote on a candidate that does not have a chance.I'm not convinced that this is true. The reason most people don't vote for Nader is because they disagree with his policies. I voted for him in 2000, but I didn't in 2004 and I wouldn't vote for him if he were running in 2008. This is not because I don't think he can be elected, or because I'm afraid of wasting my vote when I could use it toward preventing some really bad republican from getting elected. It's because I don't think he'd make a very good president, atheist/agnostic or not.
Other Comments by M31
29. Comment #99907 by Gymnopedie on December 17, 2007 at 7:55 pm
M31, I think you are right in your correction. I should have said something more along the lines of "Nader didn't get a serious amount of votes..." or "Nader didn't receive an amount of votes proportional to the general public support he receieved...". I think the point is easily taken, even if I have trouble articulating it.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
30. Comment #99913 by Circumspect on December 17, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Reverend Huckelberry could well become our next Pastor-In-Chief precisely because the 58 million dumb-asses who voted for Dubbya are still out there and know nothing except how to march to the polls and vote their religion. EVERYONE SPEAK OUT! NOW!Other Comments by Circumspect
31. Comment #99917 by Chris Bell on December 17, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Last I checked, Arkansas, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas have provisions in their constitutions denying public office to atheists.Other Comments by Chris Bell
32. Comment #99923 by dragonfirematrix on December 17, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I profess no claim to be a rocket scientist, however, I do profess my choices, which are:"Imagine no religion" and
"Imagine only empirically justifiable moral parameters."
That said...still...
Voting for a president, in reality, is a crapshoot. No one really knows a presidential choice or the agenda until it is too late.
Wayne (Forest, VA)
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
33. Comment #99931 by robotaholic on December 17, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Mike Huckabee, who is an unusually stupid primate but who does not have the elementary intelligence to recognize the fact that this is what he is.
HA!, that's awesome!
Please oh PLEASE may we not have a preacher president! ANYTHING but that-
(not to make a political statement about any candidate but Hillary Clinton did say she wanted to stop the republican war on science-which I ADORED hearing)
Other Comments by robotaholic
34. Comment #99932 by DalaiDrivel on December 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Thanks, kevin_2050, for your words.It's not just that "shaping our culture and laws" implies imposition- the tabooing of certain views on the one hand and the illegalising of behaviour or alienating of rights on the other.
It's that I really think Huckabee is lying through his teeth when he says that he and his supporters don't want to impose their religion on anybody.
Sure they do. Their goals are religiously motivated for a start, so they can't help but impose christianity- fundamentalist christianity as well- on a diversely religious public in a legal sense if they are elected.
But as with the shiny "oh but this is good for you" mentality with which the propound all this- the near-sociopathic cheeriness with which they announce their cure to America's sinfulness, I am certain that they will cheerily shove evangelism, or extreme baptism, or whatever, down America's throat, and happily think of all the individual conversions of people they hope to make towards fundamentalist christianity, but as we expect as well as hope probably won't.
What an ambassador to the world Huckabee would make. An incredibly shitty one. He and a few other notable Ruplican candidates, in my opinion.
Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
35. Comment #99944 by Arcados on December 17, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Ah, Hitchens... I hope this won't be misconstrued, but I hope he quits smoking already. It's nice having someone like him around for a change.Other Comments by Arcados
36. Comment #99945 by epeeist on December 17, 2007 at 11:39 pm
"Faith, Family, Freedom", follows other three word slogans, "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" for instance. Other Comments by epeeist
37. Comment #99952 by Marcus Hill on December 18, 2007 at 12:25 am
Once again I'm glad I don't live in the US, where there are only two political parties: Far Right and Further Right...Other Comments by Marcus Hill
38. Comment #99954 by hayesky on December 18, 2007 at 12:55 am
Could it be American politicians market themselves, in what they say and do, to appeal to the celebrity culture, populist driven state we live in? They don't say and do what is right...only what will get them in office and keep them there.America needs a question and answer time in congress, like Britain has.
Other Comments by hayesky
39. Comment #99991 by Duff on December 18, 2007 at 3:07 am
Ok, here's the rule. No one on this blog refers to Huckabee ever again as anything other than "that smirking hick Huckabee".Other Comments by Duff
40. Comment #100039 by SilentMike on December 18, 2007 at 5:55 am
27. Comment #99904 by disciplineThe best thing that could happen to the US political scene is for Huckabee to get the Republican nomination. In the present climate -- ie, the failure of the W/Dick/Karl team, not to mention the rise of the "New Atheism" -- I think the Democrats would surely win.
As a "secular progressive" (to borrow Bill O'Reilly's hilarious term), I'm thinking of campaigning for Huckabee.
That's a dangerous way of thinking. I want that guy to fall out of the race as soon as possible. Once Someone's in the final 2, no matter how much of a slam dunk winning the election looks like for the other guy, he could still slip and give the underdog a chance. If you have candidate Huckabee on the ballot then there's at least a 30% chance that you'll end up with president Huckabee.
Other Comments by SilentMike
41. Comment #100067 by black wolf on December 18, 2007 at 7:38 am
It wouldn't even come as a surprise if Huckabee endorsed copy-paste 1933-45 German family policy, as that was firmly in line with his position on so-called values. He did say that he would protect even an atheist's rights, but can we really believe that he acually means these words as what he wants to make the meaning appear? I can picture no way in which a policy would promote (Christian religious) faith-based values without limiting free expression and speech. There is no coherent possibility to regard certain worldviews and scientific knowledge as a danger to social values without restricting education and public expression, as you would otherwise allow your core beliefs to be undermined. If you firmly believe that humanity's eternal souls and ultimate destiny are endangered by scientific theories or sexual orientation among other things, how can you permit these in education and socialization? Other Comments by black wolf
42. Comment #100072 by mewton on December 18, 2007 at 7:47 am
Nader was vilified because he knew he wasn't going to be elected, he knew it was an extremely close race between Gore and Bush and his campaign was going to take many votes away from Gore and he went ahead and gave the election to Bush. No matter what you have to say about Gore he would still have been a better president than Bush and I still dislike Nader for giving Bush the white house. That said I'm going to vote for Dennis Kucinich!Other Comments by mewton
43. Comment #100074 by sidfaiwu on December 18, 2007 at 7:50 am
hayesky said,The question is who can we vote for? They all seem so boring.
As if the entertainment value of a candidate is the best quality to run a country.
Other Comments by sidfaiwu
44. Comment #100077 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:07 am
26. Comment #99899 by quill>With all due respect, Kucinich is a lost cause
You're probably right, but it's a pity. The better the candidate, the worse their vote. What a strange system. Obviously the better candidates get less corporate funding and therefore advertise less. Perhaps winning is just a function of how much funding you can get. Plutocracy more than democracy.
42. Comment #100072 by mew
>I still dislike Nader for giving Bush the white house
Nader "gave" Bush the White House? Pardon?
Gore gave Bush the Whitehouse for being a doormat after the debacle in Florida. He didn't contest it - he had a backbone of jelly. Gore couldn't even hold onto his own state of Tennessee - nothing to do with Nader. All Gore had to do was win his own goddamn state.
Nader is good for American politics - he highlights the Two Party Debate duopoly, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, the lack of universal public health, excessive military spending, and he doesn't thump any Bibles. Why shouldn't there be a third voice (and fourth, fifth, etc)?
Other Comments by Rtambree
45. Comment #100120 by hakija on December 18, 2007 at 9:04 am
Well written! Beautiful... Other Comments by hakija
46. Comment #100135 by walk on December 18, 2007 at 9:36 am
Duff (39),Yes, I love the phrase "that smirking hick" (vintage Hitchspeak), but I'm also drawn to Circumspect's "Reverend Huckleberry". Of course the scariest (and most open to the world's ridicule) would be (please forgive me) - - President Huckabee. Ugh!
The best thing that can be said for this guy is that he's taking votes away from Romney.
Other Comments by walk
47. Comment #100172 by Homer on December 18, 2007 at 10:45 am
I'm not sure that it's fair to group the Ulster Unionist Party in with the KKK, the Orange Order and Aryan Nation.This is a party with openly gay and openly atheist representatives- hardly theocratic.
Does this mean Lord Trimble is unelectable?
Despite massive efforts to reconcile divided communities- efforts that eventually cost the UUP power (basically for being too liberal and too secular a party) & won Trimble the Nobel peace prize.
Did he mean the Democratic Unionist Party?
(Though Paisley was already covered as he once called the pope the antichrist)
Other Comments by Homer
48. Comment #100181 by Faith Collapsing on December 18, 2007 at 10:59 am
I can't help but be sickened by Huckabee. He's the exact kind of bible-belt good ol' boy style that's plagued the region of America that I live in for far too long. What really makes me want to puke is his new campaign ad, where he smarmily states that he wants to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and not attack anyone. What pious sanctimony! He doesn't care about wishing anyone a Merry Christmas at all, he just wants to pander to the Religious Reich. Sorry, I can see right through it.
Other Comments by Faith Collapsing
49. Comment #100268 by quill on December 18, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Comment #100077 by Rtambree:You're probably right, but it's a pity. The better the candidate, the worse their vote. What a strange system. Obviously the better candidates get less corporate funding and therefore advertise less.I think it has to do not with how much better the candidate is, but how extreme he is. Look at Ron Paul, for example - ultra-conservative extremist, the polar opposite of Kucinich in every way, someone who does not even believe in the separation of church and state - and he'e only two percent higher than Kucinich, at 5% nationwide. I don't think extreme right-wing candidates or extreme left-wing candidates are likely to get any higher than that. Success seems to lie closer to the middle.
Other Comments by quill
50. Comment #100730 by Vendetta on December 19, 2007 at 8:24 am
44. Comment #100077 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:07 am
Nader "gave" Bush the White House? Pardon?
Gore gave Bush the Whitehouse for being a doormat after the debacle in Florida. He didn't contest it - he had a backbone of jelly. Gore couldn't even hold onto his own state of Tennessee - nothing to do with Nader. All Gore had to do was win his own goddamn state.
Nader is good for American politics - he highlights the Two Party Debate duopoly, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, the lack of universal public health, excessive military spending, and he doesn't thump any Bibles. Why shouldn't there be a third voice (and fourth, fifth, etc)?
Until the current system of voting in the US is changed to an instant runoff type system
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)then yes, 3rd party candidates are always going to be "spoilers" like Perot (which helped Clinton) and Nader (which helped W).
It's true that Gore had issues like losing his home state, but it is also true that if Nader had chosen not to run, 90 - 95% of the Nader votes would have gone to Gore and he would have won the election.
As much as I admire many of Nader's views, it's idiotic to pretend that he didn't deliver the 2000 election to W. The lesser of two evils (Gore) is still the lesser of two evils. Nader took a principled stand which gave the world the greater of two evils (W). Congratulations, Ralph.
He could have put out his strong 3rd party views to try to correct Gore's conservative stances and then just not run in the general election.
How "honorable" is it to stubbornly stay in the race to take a stand on principle, knowing that your principles will likely deliver the worst president in history into the white house? Have you enjoyed the last 7 years? Thank Ralph Nader.
Other Comments by Vendetta
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The fight both for and against slavery in the United States was waged first along scriptural lines. . . . There was also the theory of the descent from Ham which attained great vogue and still does in certain quarters. . . . With the superseding of religion by science the battle of inequality shifted from a scriptural wording to a scientific one. Now it was no longer what "God had said" but what color, hair, and skull showed. . . . In other words, the pro-slavery faction and the antislavery one had entered the stage in new costumes. Underneath were the same bodies."
Joel Augustus Rogers
Other Recommended Reading
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #99787 by Gymnopedie on December 17, 2007 at 2:37 pm
He's no theocrat, he just wants a theocracy! Duh...Other Comments by Gymnopedie