Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
New Year, New Unpopular Opinions
It’s been awhile since we’ve heard what wrong opinions we each have, so I figured we should get down to it… you know, to start the New Year off with a bang. I’ll go first:
The United States of America Is Not, Strictly Speaking, a Christian Nation
At least, its government wasn’t founded as such, and that’s even more true today than it was then. Our federal government has no official religion, is prohibited from forming one, requiring that you participate in one, or — notably — asking you to reject one.
That begs the question then: if the US is not a Christian nation, what is it? It is a nation founded by an overwhelmingly Christian-majority people, who remain majority Christian, and that permits some ceremonial Deism within its operations. The difference between being a “Christian Nation” and the reality of the United States is a fine, but relevant one. There is a difference between a nation and its government, a fact many Christians rightly point out repeatedly when leftists are in power.
The words “Under God” Should be Excised from the Pledge of Allegiance.
These words were only shoehorned-in under Eisenhower due to the Red Scare, and it’s high time they were stricken from from the Pledge.
I know what I am pledging allegiance to when I say those words: the Constitution of United States of America, its people and its principles. Why is that insufficient? If you say, “one of our principles is gratitude towards and recognition of the almighty,” I would point you the argument in favor of the first unpopular opinion I offered in this post.
It would be a mark of Christian humility, confidence in the strength of their witness, and their commitment to the principle of subsidiarity to accept — indeed, to champion — the removal of those words. If the Christian story is so compelling, and the truth of their claims so obvious, there should be no need to have their beliefs impressed upon people within the Flag Code.
Do I think anybody is being harmed as many atheists allege? I do not; at least, not the people you might think. I’m a big boy and not worried about semantic infiltration, but I also think that disentangling faith from the fell influence of the government would benefit religion (and the religious) in this nation greatly.
Perhaps, we could insert an overt oath of loyalty to the Constitution in place of “Under God” in an effort to clarify and make the Pledge more euphonious.
It would also have the pleasant side effect of skewering the Left on the horns of a dilemma.
The Tax Code Should Recognize No Difference Between Businesses and “Non-Profits.”
I am making no comment here regarding what state tax policies should be (especially with regard to property taxes). This should be done, of course, in combination with drastic reductions in the corporate tax rate and reasonable allowances (a standard deduction, if you will) for small organizations to maintain working capital and to make improvements to their facilities. There are a lot of reasons for this.
The term “non-profit” should indicate that the federal tax liability of such organizations ought to be zero to begin with, being as the government only taxes such organizations on the basis of profit (revenues minus expenses). As a result of this insane policy, much mischief is done in the name of “not-profiting.” (Sure, some people who work for non-profits seem to be doing an awful lot of profiting, but their salaries are subject to individual income and payroll taxes.)
Enough, I say.
Worthy charities will survive this minor inconvenience without substantial trauma because of their frugal and honest operation while behemoth skimming operations (like the United Way or the Church of Scientology) will likely dry up … or at least have to pay up.
It’s Entirely Possible Your Congressional Representative Is an Unbeliever.
Let’s face it: congressional representation isn’t exactly reflective of the demography of the population at large. The congressional delegation is overwhelmingly more male, whiter, and older than the average citizen. There are other ways in which this cohort is exceptional.
The average congressman is has also attained a much higher level of educational achievement than the average American, and not just in fluffy degrees. There are 213 holders of juris doctorates (lawyers; surprise!), 25 medical doctors, and a staggering 64% of Representatives overall hold graduate degrees (74% for senators.) I think it’s safe to say that the job of “congressman” tends to select for reasonably high levels of intelligence and achievement among the pool of possible candidates.
Another statistical anomaly is the fact that there is only a single Representative (Kyrsten Sinema, D-AZ) out of 535 members of Congress who admits to being religiously unaffiliated.
If Congress were reflective of the population at large, one would expect there to be about 37 agnostics/atheists among the 535 members of Congress (About seven % of Americans are either agnostic or atheists.)
Is it curious that out of all of 535 Congress Members, only one openly admits to being religiously unaffiliated? Well, it would be curious if you were to discount the fact that 53 percent of Americans say they wouldn’t elect an atheist president. One could reasonably deduce from this statistic that the population’s distrust of Atheists/unbelievers as a representative would be roughly equivalent to be their dislike of the idea of an atheist president.
So, why is it possible — perhaps, likely — that your representative is an atheist?
Unless there is some sort of very perverse self-selection going on, you’d just expect as a function of statistics for there to be some there. Militating against this theory is the average age of congress, as older Americans tend to be more religious.
What points are in favor of the theory? This study correlating measures of intelligence (using college entrance exams, GPAs, etc.) with acceptance of atheism. Congress is peopled by members who are — on average — considerably older and more intelligent than the average American. Given the tension between these facts it would come as no shock to think that there is a sizable cohort of closeted atheists/unbelievers/deists in the ranks of our representatives. It’s even possible that that proportion is higher than their relative representation in the population.
Let’s hear some other unpopular opinions for the New Year!
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy, Politics, Religion & Philosophy
New Entries: If they were alive today Shakespeare would be writing Hollywood blockbusters, and Beethoven would be in a heavy metal band, or at most scoring Shakespeare’s films. Neither of them would have any time for the pretension of many modern admirers of “high art.”
Without theism, there’s no justification for this “empathetic collaboration” scheme other than utilitarianism, and don’t you think that is rather circular? I realize that theism has mystery, but the puzzle piece fits much better.
I think the whole pledge needs to be redone. I don’t want to pledge allegiance to the flag, I want to pledge allegiance to the country (and yeah I know there’s the line “and to the country for which it stands” but that it just too clumsy in my view). The flag is just a symbol, I’d rather point my loyalties to the actual thing rather than the symbol…
Agreed, too clumsy. It should be “and to the country it stands for.”
You may be right; that makes sense. It would be interesting to study the history of the usage of the phrase. My point was that no one spoke about a “Judeo-Christian” heritage until quite recently — the phrase is a recent innovation that papers over a massive theological schism. I’m very happy that it’s now a widely used phrase and a widespread belief; I think the belief, even if new, has contributed to the very successful assimilation of Jews in the United States.
When I said, “Ideally I’d like,” I meant that. Most Baptists of my acquaintance agree with you. But I’ve come across quite a few Southern Baptists who are deeply persuaded that these are End Times. Enough to be uneasy about the prevalence of this conviction, especially because it’s a reasonable belief in light of the evidence.
I’ve never met a Baptist who would say, “If I nuked the Middle East, I would be viewed favorably.” Not one. But I’ve met quite a few who view the descent of the Middle East into war, chaos, and bloodshed as inevitable. I would be uneasy having anyone who’s even remotely fatalistic about this in the White House right now — even an unspoken or unconscious fatalism about it would make me uneasy.
This is all the more true because I agree that a nuclear exchange in that region is inevitable — in the sense of, “At this point, highly statistically likely.”
Is that a common basis for cultural relativism? SJW logic is weak sauce, but that’s especially bad. Atheists are common on the left, but I’ve found a lot of the bleedingest hearts are “spiritual not religious”, “true Christians”, and other alternative faiths. I know quite a few atheists who are chauvinistic about Western culture especially in comparison to theocratic Islamic countries. Even the left-leaning atheist voices often acknowledge that not all cultures are equal.
It would be silly to deny that Christianity played a role in the development of civilization including in positive respects. How so and to what extent is an interesting topic, but likely to be polluted by partisan sentiments (differentiating it from all other political/religious subjects).
It would be crazy to claim otherwise. I’d have trouble voting for a Scientologist or a Wahhabist. I’d be cool with a Mormon because I’ve grown up with them and they’re nice folk and not too crazy. I’m no more confident in an unbeliever than you would be in a mere theist. I disliked that Republicans decided Romney’s religion was off limits. If professing faith is important to judging a candidate’s character/competence, then that faith is open to scrutiny.
I speak for us all when I say, it’s time we elected a Raelian.
What about those of us who view the descent of the middle east into war, chaos and bloodshed as pretty much inevitable at this point, but do so from a non-religious point of view?
I’ve been trying to avoid hijacking this thread into a heated discussion of millennial eschatology (a-, pre-, post-), but I think you’re misunderstanding the significance of End Times belief, Claire. I think you’d find most Latin Rite Catholics (if not most Catholics of every rite) are “deeply persuaded” we’re living in the End Times — and have been since Calvary, if not the Incarnation, or even as far back as The Fall. If Pseudo were here, he would enlighten us.
Every person has his own end-time to consider, and however any Christian views the End Time for humanity, the question isn’t “if”, but “how much longer?” And, “what am I supposed to do?” as a result. This last is what might concern you regarding a presidential candidate.
I find the bumper sticker answer amusing :
I also think it is being used more commonly today in relation to the Islamic terrorists.
Unpopular opinion: After about 100 comments, most discussions at Ricochet devolve into the kind of nasty and unfocused nonsense that we came here (ostensibly) to escape.
We love you, Archie!
Even if that were true, on most websites it only takes until comment #3.