Wednesday, March 19, 2014

"Mr. Constitution"? Mr. Religion


Talk radio host Mark Levin just came out as Far more religious than he let on. He rarely speaks about religion, gay marriage, and abortion, and when he chooses to do so, he does so in a defiantly hostile, emotional way, because he knows he built his audience on None of those things. He's introduced as "Mr. Constitution" on his show, not as "Mr. Religion", but after his recent religious litmus test where he listed religious faith as a necessary aspect for his ideal GOP candidate, he's holding religion above The Constitution, above Freedom. 

(My drawing of Levin to the left is now part of my "The Shadow Knows" series)

On Levin's Tuesday, March 17, 2014 show, he was respectfully challenged by a caller for his religious litmus test and Levin had nothing but contempt for this atheist member of his "beloved audience" by calling him an "intolerant" "punk" "ass" before and after he hung up on him. I've written about this issue before, and below is the text of two posts of mine about it.






I wrote the following on Feb. 27, 2014:

I posted a picture of myself the other day from 2010 where I was at a Tea Party rally, holding my placard, "One Nation Under Individual Rights." I'm reminded of that when I heard conservative Brent Bozell say that CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) inviting an Atheist group was an "atrocity". That pissed me off and I vented on Tammy Bruce's radio show when I co-hosted it with Amy Peikoff this past Tuesday. I find it inexplicable that conservatives would alienate those who love America solely because of their non-belief in God. I'm not a conservative -I follow Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism- but I'm a patriot, whether religious conservatives accept me or not. Writing in National Review Online, conservative atheist Charles Cooke writes:

"Yesterday, in response to one of the many brouhahas that CPAC seems always to invite, Brent Bozell issued the following statement:

The invitation extended by the ACU, Al Cardenas and CPAC to American Atheists to have a booth is more than an attack on conservative principles. It is an attack on God Himself. American Atheists is an organization devoted to the hatred of God. How on earth could CPAC, or the ACU and its board of directors, and Al Cardenas condone such an atrocity?
The particular merits of the American Atheists group to one side, this is a rather astounding thing for Bozell to have said. In just 63 words, he confuses disbelief in God for “hatred” for God — a mistake that not only begs the question but is inherently absurd (one cannot very well hate what one does not believe is there); he condemns an entire conference on the basis of one participant — not a good look for a struggling movement, I’m afraid; and, most alarmingly perhaps, he insinuates that one cannot simultaneously be a conservative and an atheist. I reject this idea — and with force."

Cooke at one point writes that we are "One Nation Under the Constitution". Read it all 
here. 


I postsed the following on Nov. 4, 2013:

I got to thinking about what unites The Tea Party and what hurts it and I just tweeted this:

In terms of religion, how many suckers fell for Obama because he claims to be Christian? Keep religion out of politics, especially Tea Party

I followed up on Facebook with:

My favorite talk show host, Mark Levin, just talked up a republican candidate by mentioning his religiosity First & his Tea Party affiliation last. The Tea Party appeals to Americans who are FED up with Washington at large, that's what brings the party together. Not religion. The more Tea Party groups and supporters push religion, the more they push secular patriots away. Now, I think, by the way he speaks, that Levin wrongly equates "religion" with morality, as do a good number of the better religious conservatives, but they need to understand that morality existed before religion, that it's far bigger and more important than religion -even to Themselves- despite what they believe.


And here's a recent note I wrote on Facebook along similar lines:


Most Americans are religious, as are the conservatives I admire most, namely Mark Levin and Ted Cruz. But abortion and gay marriage are not their main concerns; doing their part to restore our Constitutional Republic is. Levin rarely mentions social issues on his show and opted to stay clear of social issues in his book, The Liberty Amendments. And I can't recall Cruz discussing these issues in his 21-hour filibuster or any of his recent radio & television appearances since. And let's say that Cruz becomes president and attempts to force his religious beliefs on the country; he can be fought and will be fought, the way Obama is being fought. Ted Cruz read extensively from Ayn Rand, not the bible, during his filibuster. He has called Ayn Rand, an atheist, one of his "all time heroes." As a religious person, Cruz overlooks Rand's atheism because he shares some very important values with her, namely a love for America and the concept of limited government. And because of Cruz's great value to the country today- a republican who is willing to Fight and be called a "terrorist" for it by democrats and republicans, yet remain unflappable- I admire him despite his religiosity, as he admires Ayn Rand despite her atheism.


And Here are a couple of tweets I just wrote after I heard Levin come out as Mr. Religion:

To those who think that a belief in god is more important than any other criteria for a GOP candidate, "the muslim world" agrees with you.

You can't be a moral person without believing in God. -Osama bin Laden


1 comment:

I.M Fletcher said...

Hmm, you're stepping into a bit of a hornets nest there. Without God, there is no objective morality. C.S Lewis nails it in Mere Christianity (an awesome book, well worth reading). Lewis has a way of making things so clear.

---

When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better.

If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers—people who understood morality better than their neighbours did. Very well then.

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.

The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said "New York" each meant merely "The town I am imagining in my own head," how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply "whatever each nation happens to approve," there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.

I conclude then, that though the differences between people's ideas of Decent Behaviour often make you suspect that there is no real natural Law of Behaviour at all, yet the things we are bound to think about these differences really prove just the opposite.

C. S. Lewis (2009-06-14T22:00:00+00:00). Mere Christianity (Kindle Locations 235-248). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.