Advertisement

The Danger for Humanism: Winning the Battles and Losing the War against Theism in Public Policy

Chapter
  • 92 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Humanist and Atheism book series (HRC)

Abstract

The impact of theism on public policy in the United States is real and unequivocal. In Louisiana, for example, the Louisiana Family Forum, a Focus on the Family affiliate, is second only to the oil and gas industry in political influence.1 Executive director Gene Mills, a Pentecostal minister, has direct access to the governor.2 At the national level, both Democratic and Republican politicians consider public religiosity a prerequisite for holding office. Barack Obama has continued George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives as the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, permitting discriminatory hiring by religious charities receiving public funds—a practice concerning which, at this writing, newly appointed executive director Melissa Rogers will say only that it “remains under review.”3 Former executive director Joshua Dubois (2009–2013), also a Pentecostal minister, pointedly met with the American Bible Society during his tenure in order “to begin a dialogue on the importance of the Bible in the founding of the country,” while shunning civil liberties advocates.4

Keywords

Public Policy Religious View Methodological Naturalism Building Bridge Cultural Divide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Clancy Dubos, “Da Winnas and Da Loozas,” Gambit, June 12, 2012, http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/da-winnas-and-da-loozas /Content?oid=2020081.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Melinda Deslatte, “Conservative Group Seeks to Sway La. Lawmakers,” Real Clear Politics, July 30, 2011, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Jul/30/conservative_group_seeks_to_sway_la__lawmakers.html.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarah Posner, “Hiring Discrimination Issue Remains ‘Under Review’ for Faith-Based Office,” Religion Dispatches, March 22, 2013, http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/6968/hiring_discrimination_issue_remains_under_review_for_faith_based_office/.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barry Lynn, “Silent Treatment: Obama Faith-Based Official Meets with Bible Society Rep, but Ignores Civil Rights Advocates,” Wall of Separation blog, April 19, 2012, http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/silent-treatment-obama-faith- base d-official-meets -with-bible-society-rep.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. James Reichley, “Faith in Politics,” Journal of Policy History 13, no. 1 (2001): 159, 165, doi:10.1353/jph.2001.0027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matthai Kuruvila, “Catholics, Mormons Allied to Pass Prop. 8,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Catholics-Mormons-allied-to-pass-Prop-8–3185965.php.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, “Nones” on the Rise: Onein-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, October 9, 2012), 9, http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    David Niose, “Why the Opposition to the Religious Right Failed,” Our Humanity, Naturally (blog), Psychology Today, August 22, 2012, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201208/why-the-opposition-the-religious-right-failed.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Rob Boston, “Building Bridges or Blowing Them Up?,” The Humanist, September–October 2012, 41.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    Barbara Forrest, “The Non-epistemology of Intelligent Design: Its Implications for Public Policy,” Synthese 178, no. 2 (2011): 331–79, doi:10.1007/s11229–009–9539–3. See also Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 16.
    James Madison, “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments,” in The Separation of Church and State, ed. Forrest Church (Boston: Beacon Press, 2004 ), 56–71.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    James Hutson, “James Madison and the Social Utility of Religion: Risks vs. Rewards” (paper presented at symposium, James Madison: Philosopher and Practitioner of Liberal Democracy, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, March 16, 2001), http://www.loc.gov/loc/madison/hutson-paper.html.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Jacques Berlinerblau, “Secularists Are not Atheists,” Salon, September 9, 2012, http://www.salon.com/2012/09/09/secularists _are_not_atheists/.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    Phillip E. Johnson, “Nihilism and the End of Law,” First Things, March 1993, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/05/002-nihilism-and-the-end-of-law-49.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    Phillip E. Johnson, “Is God Unconstitutional? The Established Religious Philosophy of America, Part 1,” The Real Issue, September/ October 1994, http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/johnson.html.Google Scholar
  16. 24.
    Barbara Forrest, “A Defense of Naturalism as a Defense of Secularism,” in Sidney Hook Reconsidered, ed. Matthew J. Cotter ( Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2004 ), 103.Google Scholar
  17. 25.
    Jerry A. Coyne, “Seeing and Believing,” New Republic, February 4, 2009, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/seeing-and-believing.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science ( Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998 ), 58.Google Scholar
  19. 30.
    Vincent P. Lannie and Bernard C. Diethorn, “For the Honor and Glory of God: The Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1840,” History of Education Quarterly 18, no. 1 (Spring 1968 ): 44–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 31.
    Robert Draper, “And He Shall Be Judged,” GQ, June 2009, http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200905/donald-rumsfeld -administration-peers-detractors.Google Scholar
  21. 36.
    Barbara Forrest, “Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection,” Philo 3, no. 2 (Fall –Winter 2000): 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 39.
    Jerry Coyne, “Accommodationism and the Nature of Our World,” Why Evolution Is True (blog), April 30, 2009, https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/accommodationism-and-the-nature -of-our-world.Google Scholar
  23. 40.
    Kenneth R. Miller, “Thoughts of an ‘Ardent Theist,’ or Why Jerry Coyne Is Wrong,” June 10, 2009, http://www.millerandlevine.com/evolution/Coyne-Accommodation.htm.Google Scholar
  24. 41.
    Kenneth R. Miller, “An Exclusionist View of Science,” Edge, January 21, 2009, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#miller.Google Scholar
  25. 42.
    David Niose, Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans ( New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012 ), 99.Google Scholar
  26. 43.
    Kenneth R. Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul ( New York: Viking, 2008 ), 163–64.Google Scholar
  27. 44.
    David Hume, “Of Miracles,” in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Tom L. Beauchamp ( New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 ), 83–88.Google Scholar
  28. 45.
    David Hume, The Natural History of Religion, in Principal Writings on Religion, Including Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and The Natural History of Religion, ed. J. C. A. Gaskin ( New York: Oxford University Press, 2008 ), 183.Google Scholar
  29. 49.
    Barbara Forrest, “Thank You to Our Friends Across the Country Who Tried to Help Us,” Louisiana Coalition for Science (blog), June 27, 2008, http://lasciencecoalition.org/2008/06/27/thank-you-from-lcfs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Anthony B. Pinn 2014

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations