Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, February 4, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

by John Allen Paulos, ABC

Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.

Reposted from:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/Story?id=4224006&page=1

Twelve Irreligious Questions for the Candidates Before "Tiw's Day's" Elections

ark

PaulosAs much as possible, the presidential candidates should refrain from talking about their religious beliefs. Perhaps even a self-imposed ban on public avowals of religious would be wise. It's all too easy to cross the fine line between expressing faith and aggressively declaring it, and religious tolerance is, I think, inversely proportional to the latter.

Still, it doesn't appear that this is going to happen. Religious beliefs have been a big issue in presidential politics for a while now, and many of the candidates, particularly Govs. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, have opted for different reasons to talk about theirs.

This is a two-way street, however. If religion and religious ideas are going to be more publicly discussed, candidates and their supporters will have to accustom themselves to the free expression of doctrines contrary to their own, in particular to irreligious perspectives.

Their religiosity will eventually invite questions about their beliefs and their provenance more pointed than the usual vague queries about the role of faith in their lives. Here are a few such questions that might be directed explicitly to Huckabee and Romney — and then generally to some of the other candidates.

Questions for Huckabee and Romney

The setting, let us pretend, is a university auditorium somewhere in the Heartland with a panel of four slightly nervous, irreligious questioners facing the candidates. You can also envisage appropriate graphics and theme music proclaiming, "Free Thinkers Debate 2008."

A moderator would note the importance of the elections on Super Tuesday and, given the evening's topic, might even mention that the name of the day, Tiw's day, is derived from Tiw, the old Norse god of heroic glory, justice and combat.

The house lights dim and the first panelist begins with a few questions for Huckabee. The answers to all the questions the reader will have to imagine.

1. Do you really believe, Mr. Huckabee, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans and dinosaurs cavorted together?

2. Religious people often accuse atheists and agnostics of arrogance. Do you agree? And is it arrogant to say, as you have, that your sudden rise in the polls was an act of God and that you wish to amend the Constitution to better reflect "the word of the living God"?

3. Article 19 of the Arkansas state constitution states, "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." Although it and similar laws in other states are not enforced, do you support their formal repeal?

The next questioner turns to Romney.

1. Why, Mr. Romney, in your speech ostensibly devoted to religious tolerance, did you not extend this tolerance to the millions of atheists and agnostics in this country, people who, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, are still held in very low regard by many religious people?

2. Do you not see an implicit religious test in your statement that "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom"? Furthermore, are not, respectively, most of Europe and some Islamic countries obvious counterexamples to your statements?

3. Is it right to suggest, as many have, that atheists and agnostics are somehow less moral when the numbers on crime, divorce, alcoholism and other measures of social dysfunction show that non-believers in the United States are extremely under-represented in each category?

Questions for the Other (or Future) Candidates

Let's move on to the other candidates and the third panelist.

1. Do any of you think God speaks to you, only to Gov. Huckabee, or to none of you? And, if I may, does God have a tax policy, a health care policy, a policy on Iraq, Iran, gay marriage, Guantanamo or the Riemann Hypothesis?

2. How would you suggest that we reason with someone who claims that his or her decisions are informed, shaped, even dictated by fundamental religious principles, which nevertheless can't be probed or questioned by those who don't share them?

3. I think we can all agree that a candidate who thought that we ought to outlaw interest on loans or revert to a barter system would not be a good steward for our troubled economy. Would you also agree that someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Noah's Ark is an event in zoological history would not be an effective leader on issues such as stem cells, climate change, and renewable resources?

The debate concludes with a few more general queries about religion from the fourth and last questioner.

1. Do you see any danger of a kind of theocracy developing in the United States? And, if I may sneak in an extra question, do you think that American religiosity has (or could) threaten American dominance in science and technology?

2. How literally do you take the Bible or other holy book? Do you subscribe to any argument(s) for God's existence other than the one that God exists simply because He says He does in a much extolled tome that He allegedly inspired?

3. For many, religion has been a source of ideas and narratives that are enlightening, of ideals and values that are inspiring, of rituals and traditions that are satisfying. It has also led to hatred, cruelty, superstition, divisiveness, credulity and fanaticism. What can you do to further the former and minimize the latter effects?

The questioners would then breathe a sigh of relief, thank the university and the candidates for making the discussion possible, and wish them all Godspeed in their continuing campaigns.

John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, is the author of the best-sellers "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," as well as of the just-released "Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up." His "Who's Counting?" column on ABCNEWS.com appears the first weekend of every month.

Comments 1 - 18 of 18 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #121681 by doglived on February 4, 2008 at 1:16 am

 avatarEven if these questions were asked to the candidates I suspect the quality of their answer would leave much to be desired. That said, hearing one of them say that the earth is 6000 years old would be priceless.

Other Comments by doglived

2. Comment #121690 by Dave Briccetti on February 4, 2008 at 2:05 am


Wonderful piece. More of John Allen Paulos on this recent Point of Inquiry Podcast: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/john_allen_paulos_irreligion/

Other Comments by Dave Briccetti

3. Comment #121719 by rod-the-farmer on February 4, 2008 at 3:14 am

 avatarOh, I LIKE these questions. How could we help them be posed to the candidates ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

4. Comment #121723 by sarah95 on February 4, 2008 at 3:27 am

 avatarWhat would really be wonderful was if Dawkins, in an especially barbed state, were allowed to ask the questions and verbally confront the candidates for any insufficient explainations given....yes, quite a lovely daydream to see the moderately to extremely religious politicians of the day cower in the shadow of RD's sharp and incisive intellect...

and then I wake up.

Other Comments by sarah95

5. Comment #121726 by RainDear on February 4, 2008 at 3:31 am

As a devout christian, trusting the Bible, you believe that within the next few decades all the 65 million muslim, hindu, buddhist, jewish and atheist US citizens are going to hell to suffer horribly for all eternity.

Why should they consider you a decent person?

Why would they trust you to care about their earthly problems now?

Isn't the next year's budget insignificant next to the billions of years of torture waiting for these 65 million Americans?

Shouldn't you immediately initiate operations of mass conversions, religious purifications and even holy wars if necessary, in order to save as many fellow Americans as possible from the terrible, eternal tornment? If not, how can you be so indifferent to their well-being?

Actually, to get the problem over with, what would stop you from following the Bible's command and killing them to the last infant?

Other Comments by RainDear

6. Comment #121728 by Robert Maynard on February 4, 2008 at 3:35 am

 avatarA follow-up: Is it also an act of God, Mr. Huckabee, that you haven't had any wins since the Iowa caucus?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

7. Comment #121735 by notsobad on February 4, 2008 at 3:53 am

 avatarWhere is Mike Gravel?
Mike Gravel on the Oppressive Nature of Religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYh5NUYCYsM

Other Comments by notsobad

8. Comment #121738 by Boukeb on February 4, 2008 at 4:00 am

Great questions indeed. Good to see Allen Paulos team up in the league of people who prefer common sense above dictated dogma. I read his three books "Innumeracy", "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper" and "Mathematics and Humour". All three very good. I will definitely read Irrelegion.

Other Comments by Boukeb

9. Comment #121744 by scooternyc on February 4, 2008 at 4:12 am

 avatarI finished John's book on Saturday and it was good. He has some interesting arguments, mostly what we've already heard, but a twist or two worth reading.

Thanks for the link to Point of Inquiry, I look forward to that one.

Other Comments by scooternyc

10. Comment #121754 by mixmastergaz on February 4, 2008 at 4:42 am

 avatarThe questions certainly rasied a smile. I'm a UK resident so it's interesting to contrast the political situation here with that on the otherside of the Atlantic. The leader of the Liberal Democrats over here (the third party generally enjoying up to about 30% of the support of the electorate) declared his atheism almost as soon as he became leader. The interview was quite funny. It was a straight "Do you believe...?" and Clegg just said "Er...no", sounding pretty decisive despite the pause. Of course the Lib Dems have never been in power but it's encouraging to hear the leader of a political party being unafraid to express this view simply. If only this were the case in your own otherwise magnificent United States, if it's not too rude of me to say so.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

11. Comment #121766 by Ole on February 4, 2008 at 5:35 am

 avatarGood questions!

USA sure is a strange place in regards to presidential candidates and the need for these types of questions.
Pity - they probably never will be asked. :-(

John Paulos "Irreligion" book was a good read!

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

12. Comment #121775 by quill on February 4, 2008 at 6:09 am

 avatarI really don't think that we should be injecting this kind of dialogue into politics just now. Mike Huckabee has already lost the election, and lost it big. He was the last gasp of the Evangelical voter block. Now the current GOP front-runner is a man who once called the late Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" and Ann Coulter "disgusting". The powerbrokers of the religious community have seen the influence they once held over American politics finally dispelled, at least at the Presidential level, and it won't be coming back.

But only if we're smart about it. Now that we've won, we secular types need to start fostering a positive image of ourselves rather than continuing to attack something that has already been vanquished. Running a piece on atheists doing charity work would have been far more beneficial to us than the article we've just read. Remaining on attack mode will only foster ill feelings against us that carry the potential of feeding a possible religious counterpush in the years to come. If, however, we simply let religion die a peaceful death, dispersing into nothing on the inevitable winds of social tends, we may deprive it of the sense of outrage it will need to rally around in order to muster such a comeback. Right now we should focus on electing the most promising of the remaining candidates and save this single-issue stuff for after the election cycle.

Other Comments by quill

13. Comment #121798 by ImagineAll on February 4, 2008 at 7:23 am

I disagree, Quill- though I can say that you've clearly been watching the news.

The election is in NO WAY decided. Both the Democrats and the Republicans need well over 1,000 delegates to win the election (the exact number escapes me, but it's closer to 1,500) and the last time I checked (admittedly at the beginning of last week), none of the delegates had over 100. Trends are starting to appear, but the election is in no way over.

The point of these questions isn't to decide on a single issue- it's partly to prove a point, perhaps for the next election. All of the candidates would have less than satisfactory answers to the questions. Simply, if we equate religion with a certain amount of stupidity now, maybe we can wean it out of our politics before it goes to far.

Also, it would be damn amusing. Those questions were brilliant. :)

Other Comments by ImagineAll

14. Comment #121820 by quill on February 4, 2008 at 7:53 am

 avatarImagineAll, you may be right. I do think the election is pretty much settled, though, at least enough to count everyone except McCain, Obama and Clinton out of it. Super Tuesday is tomorrow and those are the only three likely to be left standing.

I was actually pleased by the backlash that occurred from Huckabee's brief Ayatollah moment. He dropped like a rock in the polls. I think his entire political career may actually be over, which just goes to show you that the zeitgeist has changed, and the influence Evangelicals once wielded over politics is gone for good.

Other Comments by quill

15. Comment #121982 by peahix on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

here's huckabee on the creationism/evolution question:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA

Other Comments by peahix

16. Comment #122105 by tap1966 on February 4, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Where is Mike Gravel?


He hasn't dropped out and is still on the ballots for a lot of states tomorrow as far as I know.

http://www.gravel2008.us/

Other Comments by tap1966

17. Comment #122154 by aporeticus on February 4, 2008 at 8:25 pm

 avatarHow about:

"Do you believe that believers of religions different from yours as well as nonbelievers will be condemned by your God to eternal torment, and if so, do you believe God is right to do this?"

Because, if you think about it, this is an absolutely appalling thing for the potential leader of the USA to believe.

Other Comments by aporeticus

18. Comment #122827 by phopas on February 6, 2008 at 7:17 am

 avatarI also agree with quill, but mostly my politics is very much with Chris Hitchens.

I support the war, the idea that that bunch of religious fanatics - the parties of god- can get nukes and have the feasible idea that the 12 century is better than the 21st is unacceptable and we cannot pretend that that will simply vanish.

The religious right in this country has damaged the republican party and have no real chance of winning. As Hitchens notes they blew it badly with their only wins (prohibition and banning the teaching of evolution )and from those "successes" they have not recovered. Whenever the democrats need money, they send out urgent appeals to the various Jewish groups saying the evangelicals are about to take over and the coffers fill up. but it will never happen.

I cannot understand why support for a strong defense, lower taxes and less governmental interference in peoples lives has anything to do with the religious right.

Other Comments by phopas
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE