The Politics & Religion Thing Again, Only Different

[Lauren Hynde]

The President of the European Commission, José Durão Barroso, postponed presenting his 24-strong executive team to the European parliament yesterday, after it seemed certain to be voted down.

More than half of the members of parliament, namely the Socialist, Liberal, and extreme Left, posed for a strong opposition over the proposed justice commissioner, Italian Rocco Buttiglione.

During a confirmation hearing early this month, Buttiglione, who is Catholic and close to the Vatican, faced a barrage of hostile questions over his conservative views, namely that he believed that homosexuality is a sin.

He was quick to add that this is a personal religious belief, not a political or judicial statement.

"I may think that homosexuality is a sin, and this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime," Buttiglione said.

Basically, he's saying the same as Kerry said in the second US Presidential debate, pointing out that while his own Catholic upbringing said that abortion was wrong, he could not and would not legislate for others based on his own religious beliefs.

Anyway, the left-ist half of the European parliament [in a knee-jerk anti-homophobic reaction, I say?] managed to boss Barrose into reshuffling the Commission.

Following this line of reasoning, it seems that the only people allowed into politics should be atheist. Regardless of a person's actions, record, and capabilities, if he/she is a vocal Catholic (or Protestant, or Muslim, or...), then he/she has no place in government.

My question is, how different is this atheist militancy from the climate of religious zealotry in the US?

 

[LadyJeanne]

Once in a while we get a case where a father doesn't want his child saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school with the words, under God, in there. And every now and then there'll be a firestorm of protest when someone wants to post the Ten Commandments or erect a cross or Christmas creche in a public place. By and large, though, I'd say atheists are a reactive group and aren't especially interested in forcing their non-beliefs on others, and are not militant about spreading the non-Word.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Bush said he felt abortion was a sin, but he would not try to overturn Roe v. Wade as there was no general call to do so. He lied. As a pragmatic person, who can separate my politics from my religion, that betrayl, along with his other blunders is why I am not voting for him this time around.

I would hazard a guess that Mr. Buttiglionne would make a keen Supreme court nominee over here, assuming Bush wins a second term.

It is one of the rather unfortuneate paradoxxes of politics that the acid test for a candidates ability to separate his private feelings from his civic dutites only occurs after you elect him.

It's just an opinion, but I believe an avowed atheist would have a difficult time getting elected over here. Considering the level to which a man must prostitute himself and his principals to win, it would seem you woul dbe better off without religious dogma, but it dosen't seem to work that way.

-Colly

 

[Weird Harold]

By and large, though, I'd say atheists are a reactive group and aren't especially interested in forcing their non-beliefs on others, and are not militant about spreading the non-Word.

Try a google search for "Congress Chaplain."

Count the number of hits on atheist organizations -- mostly dissecting the 1984 SCOTUS decision and explaing why it's wrong to continue to pay chaplains for the Congress.

Pick any three of those atheist sites and browse for a while.


Then come back and tell us whether atheists are "militant about spreading the non-word."

Lauren said:
Following this line of reasoning, it seems that the only people allowed into politics should be atheist. Regardless of a person's actions, record, and capabilities, if he/she is a vocal Catholic (or Protestant, or Muslim, or...), then he/she has no place in government.

My question is, how different is this atheist militancy from the climate of religious zealotry in the US?

I don't believe that the case you cite is a case of "atheist militacy."

I believe this case is just a continuation of centuries of Protestant vs Catholic warfare. It's the same sort of anti-papist, "If he's electd we're surrendering to the Pope by proxy," bullshit leveled at John F. Kennedy during his campaign.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I believe this case is just a continuation of centuries of Protestant vs Catholic warfare. It's the same sort of anti-papist, "If he's electd we're surrendering to the Pope by proxy," bullshit leveled at John F. Kennedy during his campaign.

I don't know, but I kind of doubt that. Outside of the UK and Ireland, I have never heard that argument being made in Europe.

What I have heard plenty of are cases like the recent one in France, with all religious symbols being forbidden in public schools.

 

[Pure]

Lauren said,
Following this line of reasoning, it seems that the only people allowed into politics should be atheist. Regardless of a person's actions, record, and capabilities, if he/she is a vocal Catholic (or Protestant, or Muslim, or...), then he/she has no place in government.

First, I agree with Colly: You have to take claims like "I think it's a horrible sin, but that wouldn't affect my dealing with it, by the lawbook," as questionable, depending on how horrible.

Secondly, that 'line of reasoning' does not seem like a plausible reconstruction, since 1) All lefties are not atheist, and 2) Even supposing they were, here, they did not--afaik--vote to oust every theist.

So a more plausible rule, which I'd say would have a good deal of appeal to lefties is:

Oppose (judicial and high-governmental) appointments of religious folks whose strongly held views, either 1) conflict with the law, in retrograde fashion[ "homosexual acts should bring jail terms"], or 2) who hold strongly biased or condemnatory views against identifiable groups *that are under no legal disability* and/or *have substantial legal rights* ["'homosexuals' or 'married buttfuckers' or 'abortion drs' are committing heinous, morally despicable acts"]. In simple terms the religious person is a possible danger to the legal rights of a legally protected group.

We of the left have always had (included) theists (Christians, Jews, etc); what the problem is, is rabid, dangerous theists. (On the posted evidence, I have no idea if Mr. B, Lauren's example, fits the bill.)


PS: Despite the right-wing Christian yapping about persecution of Christians in the Western countries, brought about directly or indirectly by lawsuit- happy atheists (through court decisions by liberals and conservatives) , the evidence is *very* spotty or nonexistent. I'm not denying that atheists in some regions, like the old Soviet Union, or present China, sometimes place Christians or Jews under legal disabilities, sometimes de facto persecution.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Oppose (judicial and high-governmental) appointments of religious folks whose strongly held views, either 1) conflict with the law, in retrograde fashion[ "homosexual acts should bring jail terms"], or 2) who hold strongly biased or condemnatory views against identifiable groups *that are under no legal disability* and/or *have substantial legal rights*

I can certainly understand 1), but it's 2) that I have a problem with.

Buttiglione said that if he were President of the Commission, he would never want as the justice commissioner someone who would eliminate or in any way limit the freedoms and guarantees of any group of individuals.

What has happened was a condemnation for what is essentially a thought-crime, for a supposedly inalienable religious conviction which has nothing to do with politics.

It's funny that Colly mentioned Bush's flip-flop on the abortion issue, because the reading I make of this trend in Europe is this: A combination of knee-jerk reaction of the left against any suggestion of possible suppression of rights of the individual, and a preemptive attack of the secular European institutions in view of what's happening in the US.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

As it is a democracy.... and most people out there are religious... elminating religious people (radically or passively religious people, doesn't matter) from politics is strictly ignoring the will of the people.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I understand that religiosity is the facet of American politics that totally bewilders outside observers.

The truth is, that despite our much-vaunted separation of church and state, the USA is one of the most religious countries--if not the most religious country--in the West.

---dr.M.

 

[gauchecritic]

I very much doubt that there would be such outcries if those that were being cried out against weren't religiously vocal. If they actually kept their private thoughts private.

Holding certain beliefs and being vocal about it, whether written or publicly spoken, and then declaring impartiality in another sphere can only bring cries of hypocrisy from opponents.

Defending with your life, someone's right to utter something is not the same as voting against your convictions.

Gauche

 

[patrick1]

To be clear, Buttiglione's job was to have included the upholding of the rights of homosexuals. He seems a singularly inappropriate choice for this job. (He also thinks single parents are not very good parents, by the way) The comparison with Kerry is therefore inaccurate, and people are muddying the waters entirely by citing religion here. It's reasonable to believe that he doesn't support the rights he was supposed to uphold.

The conflict is also about the European Parliament attempting to flex its muscles in using its right to approve or disapprove the executive's proposed commissioners: many commentators in Europe regard this as an issue about democracy. It's almost about the complicated manoeuvring that goes on because each national government nominates commissioners, whom the poor bugger in charge (Barroso) then has to shuffle and find jobs for, whatever he thinks of their opinions.

Here's the BBC's round-up of European press comment on the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3960595.stm

patrick

 

[Pure]

Here's a little more of substance on Mr. Buttiglioni. I do like the part about making bad accounting legal.

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3315355

Yet when Mr Buttiglione protests that he is being persecuted for his thoughts not his actions, he is being disingenuous. He is a lifelong member of a conservative organisation, Communion and Liberation, that is known for seeking to bring religious values into political life. After being made Europe minister in 2001, Mr Buttiglione astonished colleagues with a string of demands that went far beyond his remit. Within days, he had called for a ban on artificial insemination, for state funding for private schools and for payments to women who rejected abortions.

As The Economist went to press, the incoming commission president, José Manuel Barroso, appeared to be mulling a compromise that would strip Mr Buttiglione of responsibility for anti-discrimination policies. But this may not be enough. The Socialist leader in the parliament, Martin Schulz, said he wanted a “complete change in portfolio for Mr Buttiglione” as the price for not voting down Mr Barroso's entire team. His stance followed a report this week in Britain's Daily Telegraph that the commissioner-designate had been under investigation in Monaco on suspicion of money-laundering. A magistrate in Monte Carlo was quoted as saying that Mr Buttiglione had been suspected of involvement in a plot to funnel cash illegally to his party, the Christian Democrat Union of Centre Democrats (UDC), though the case was later dropped.

However, neither his Catholicism nor any alleged investigation is the best argument for questioning Mr Barroso's wisdom in earmarking the justice brief for a politician with Mr Buttiglione's friends and record. For the past four years, Mr Buttiglione's right-hand man, the head of his ministerial secretariat, has been Giampiero Catone. In May 2001, just before the election that brought Silvio Berlusconi to power, Mr Catone was arrested and jailed, accused of fraudulently obtaining government subsidies for companies he owns. He has since been charged, but not yet tried. Mr Catone says he is the victim of a “campaign of defamation”.

He is not the only senior UDC official under judicial scrutiny. The party's stronghold is Sicily. It played a leading role in helping the Berlusconi alliance take all the seats on the island in the 2001 general election. The UDC governor of Sicily, Salvatore Cuffaro, was last month charged with aiding and abetting the Mafia. He too denies all charges against him.

All of these accusations may indeed prove unfounded. But, even then, there remains perhaps the most disturbing issue of all: Mr Buttiglione's complicity in measures taken by the Italian government to enable its leader to stay one step ahead of efforts by prosecutors to have him convicted and jailed Over the past three years the proposed future justice commissioner has sat in a cabinet that has partly decriminalised false accounting for private companies, and tried both to provide Mr Berlusconi with immunity from prosecution and to make it harder for courts to use evidence obtained abroad. In short, Mr Buttiglione's Catholicism is not the real reason for doubting whether he is the right man for the justice portfolio.

 

[Guest]

Oh, God.

Too many words.

 

[oggbashan]

There is more to this than the religious beliefs of one man.

The European Parliament is directly elected. The European Commission, which has more power, isn't. The Commissioners are nominated by their country's government and are then assigned roles by the President of the Commission.

The only power the Parliament has is to accept or reject the list of Commissioners - the so-called 'Nuclear option'. If they reject the whole list, and they can't pick and choose individuals, the Commission cannot operate.

By withdrawing the list, the issue has been fudged but admits that the European Parliament has power. That, strange as it may seem, is a victory for the democratic principle in Europe. In the longer term it is likely to produce a stronger role for the elected representatives in Europe and shifts the balance of power towards the electorate.

The issue may be specious but the result is probably good.

Og

 

[Lauren Hynde]

The issue may be specious but the result is probably good.

I couldn't agree more.

You, Pure and Patrick all raise excellent points. I have to be pleased with the outcome, given my gender and sexual proclivities, and in that aspect, I don't think you could find a worse choice for justice commissioner amongst the nominees. As a wholehearted unionist, I'm happy and agree with Patrick when he says that part of the issue was the European parliament attempting to flex its [newly formed] muscles.

Buttiglione's choice was a mistake, obviously, and I (who am not a member of parliament and therefore can say whatever I want) would dare say it was wrong, but let's be honest. Which commissioner appointed by someone as Berluscini wouldn't be?

The fact is that most of the accusations Buttiglione was subject to in the last month were in direct connection to his words on the subject of homosexuality and family in the context of his beliefs. When the US tried to obtain a direct authorisation from the UN Security Council to invade Iraq, they did so because of the imminent threat of WMDs, not because Saddam was a vicious tyrant.

The result was probably good, but the process was at the very least specious. If the European Parliament members wanted to make a stand, if they wanted to show their strength, they would have opposed the Commission for the choice of a man appointed by Berlusconi to the highest political office in charge of justice, not for the reasons they brought up.


Anyway, something more important to Europe just happened. The first European Constitution was signed today.

 

[Liar]

Anyway, something more important to Europe just happened. The first European Constitution was signed today.

And almost noone noticed. At least not in the media over here. They are still bitching about the commission.

#L

 

[patrick1]

Over where, Liar?

<< My question is, how different is this atheist militancy from the climate of religious zealotry in the US? >>

I'm just reaching back to this question, which you asked originally, Lauren. I think that the answer is that these two things are totally different in nature, and 'atheist militancy' is a misnomer. What has been at stake in Europe, inter alia, is the secular nature of the constitution. Buttiglione was one of the people who tried to get Christianity mentioned in it. But it isn't mentioned, and I for one feel that's a good thing: that as in the USA, the European consitution should separate religion and the state. I work with Jews, Moslems, Hindus and Christians in secular organisations and undertakings. We all understand the limits of what we should leave at home of our religious opinions. That's not atheist militancy but reasonable, mutually respectful behaviour. I feel Sr Buttiglione brought rather too much of his religion to work.

patrick

 

[shereads]

Once in a while we get a case where a father doesn't want his child saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school with the words, under God, in there. And every now and then there'll be a firestorm of protest when someone wants to post the Ten Commandments or erect a cross or Christmas creche in a public place. By and large, though, I'd say atheists are a reactive group and aren't especially interested in forcing their non-beliefs on others, and are not militant about spreading the non-Word.

I'm not on God's side in this. He has a hundred chances a day to influence the lives of those who choose to believe, without imposiing his presence on those who don't. The father who stood before the Supreme Court and presented his case about the Pledge of Allegience showed tremendous courage. He took a stand that seems petty, only because it should have been taken when the Pledge was revised to add the reference to God.

It was timely, too. I was surprised in the aftermath of 9/11 that there wasn't a backlash against the encroachment of religion into public life. I'll bet the Taliban seemed harmless when they threw those first practice pebbles. The end goal was the public acceptance of stoning women to death as a way to encourage godliness.

Why did he make an issue of something so small? Because freedom is eroded in tiny increments. Every few years, someone demands a Constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning, as if flags were being burned with disturbing frequency. It's a way of dividing Congress into "Patriots" and "Other;" Who could possibly be in favor or burning the flag? Surely the 1st amendment can withstand one little exception?

"Voluntary" school prayer seems harmless, too. Unless you're a parent whose cultural beliefs are offended - or a child who has to choose between loyalty to what he's taught at home, and the painful option of not being like his peers.

The question isn't why athiests fight to keep publicly funded institutions free of religious references and symbols; it's why Christians fight to assure that the symbols of their belief are present in public places?

Does a child raised in a religious household suffer from the few hours he spends at school without religiouis reinforcement? To accommodate him, is it worth making chlldren from non-religous homes feel like misfits? Is it fair to make taxpayers accommodate Christians by funding the presence of their symbols in our lives?

The athiest dad who took the Pledge case to court didn't try to impose his beliefs on anyone. To do that, he'd have had to sue for the right to intrude on their private lives. He just demanded for his child what Christian chlldren would have had if he had won his case: a few hours each day without reminders that the religious are more American than other people. It would have been a small change, but a major concession to fairness.

And it might have lent some courage to parents faced with the larger issue of Creationism in so-called science classes. I'll be there are as more Christians than atheists who privately wish they could protect their children from being taught that Bible-based Creation Theory isn't faith, but science.

It isn't easy to stand up on the obviously dangerous issues. How much harder must it be to stand alone, on issues that others consider a nuisance? I admire people who take on that job for the rest of us. They can't stop the takeover by fundamentalists, but they can slow it down.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I am not erudite or knowledgable enough to enter into a discussion about this but being a humanitarian I think that religion should be personal and not political - idealistic? Yes!

 

[gauchecritic]

Reading Sher's post there I kept getting 'American flag' and 'religion' mixed up in my mind. I've always thought that the rules about flying the flag and how much honour the flag is bestowed with in America to be a very religious thing, I've always thought it a great shame that a symbol can be used by a government in this fashion and at the same time be so revered by its governed for doing so.

American flag = religion. or so it seems.

Gauche

 

[shereads]

To Lauren's point, I also hate to see someone denied an opportunity because he's openly religious. I understand the fear that motivates religious discrimination, but I'd support someone's right to fight it.

I don't agree that it's only athiests who have reason to favor keeping a barrier between church and state. In the U.S., the prohibition against federally sanctioned religion wasn't to protect athiests. The people who drafted our constitution were trying to prevent abuses of power, based on lessons learned in Europe. The suppression of unpopular religions by the ones with political power was near the top of the list.

When John F. Kennedy was elected, a Catholic president was controversial. Not because athiests felt threatened, but because other religions did. Decades later, John Kerry's Catholicism was still considered a newsworthy topic. The fact that he rarely mentioned his religion while Bush brings his into our lives at every opportunity didn't protect Kerry from having to assure voters that he wouldn't be guided by the Church on the abortion issue.

Then his Church went on the attack, urging Catholics to vote against Kerry because he had pledged to keep his religious beliefs private. Kerry has been threatened with being denied communion if he doesn't change his stand on abortion rights.

Until then, I hadn't given a thought to his religion and how it might affect my life. Ironic that it was the Catholic Church itself that revived outdated fears of a Catholic in the White House. It's bad enough that we're stuck with a Baptist who blames God for the war in Iraq.

 

[Pure]

I don't think there's good reason to say Bush Jr. is a Baptist.
One article says "ostensibly Methodist". He often attends an Episcopal church. Other sources say he's a kind of generic conservative/evangelical, or believer in 'mere Christianity.'

Unlike the fundies and many evangelicals, Bush is prepared to admit that Muslims pray to the same god as Christians. One source mentioned that his X'n conservatism is tempered by more than the usual tolerance (found in conservatives).

None of this is deny Bush has the kneepads out when dealing with the Baptists (he can sound like one) ... but also he's courted conservative Catholics, and adopted their 'culture of life' slogan.

All of this fits my overall picture of a person who's inwardly rather undefined in many areas. He doesn't give positions the thought required to draw fine distinctions.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

And almost noone noticed. At least not in the media over here. They are still bitching about the commission.

#L

The 25 leaders of the European Union today signed the EU's first constitution, in the Rome palace which saw the creation of the original common market 47 years ago.

...

The 300-page constitution, if ratified, would give the EU a president, a foreign minister and a charter of fundamental rights - all deeply controversial in many EU nations.

...

The new "rulebook" for the EU replaces over 80,000 pages of legal documentation accumulated through a variety of treaties bonding the original European Economic Community of 1957, and was prompted by the accession this year of 10 new member states, mostly from the former Soviet block.

Today's constitution was also signed by aspirant EU members Bulgaria and Turkey.

...

The document states: "The union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These values are common to the member states in a society of pluralism, tolerance, justice, equality, solidarity and non-discrimination."

full story

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What has been at stake in Europe, inter alia, is the secular nature of the constitution. Buttiglione was one of the people who tried to get Christianity mentioned in it. But it isn't mentioned, and I for one feel that's a good thing

I agree with you one hundred percent. But...

Let's take Portugal, for example. It's a secular state, with complete and total separation between state and church. However, 98% of the population is Christian (92% Catholic) as is a large percentage of the politicians of all quadrants, and that has no interference with the political rule of the country.

Buttiglione was obviously the wrong choice, but my sentiment, as I already stated and that seems to echo your last post, was that the reaction was a "combination of knee-jerk reaction of the left against any suggestion of possible suppression of rights of the individual, and a preemptive attack of the secular European institutions [namely in the newly signed Constitution] in view of what's happening in the US."

My official position, reiterated:

The fact is that most of the accusations Buttiglione was subject to in the last month were in direct connection to his words on the subject of homosexuality and family in the context of his beliefs. When the US tried to obtain a direct authorisation from the UN Security Council to invade Iraq, they did so because of the imminent threat of WMDs, not because Saddam was a vicious tyrant.

The result was probably good, but the process was at the very least specious. If the left European Parliament members wanted to make a stand, if they wanted to show their strength, they would have opposed the Commission for the choice of a man appointed by Berlusconi to the highest political office in charge of justice, not for the reasons they brought up.



For the record, or what it's worth, I did vote for the Socialist Party in the last EP election, and I'm more than happy with the result of this incident. I just don't think the process was politically and morally honest.

Of course that doing it the right way would have created a diplomatic incident between the European Parliament and the Italian government, and until the Constitution is ratified in all 25 states, their muscles can't be flexed quite that hard.