My Question for the Candidates—and Everyone Else

Hello, future leaders of America. A question has been eating at me for some time, and I hope you’ll help resolve it. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has said that we here in America “need to have a person of faith lead the country.” I guess I am wondering why that is. I am also wondering why not a single candidate has come forward to publicly declare a difference with that opinion.

One possible answer could be in the words of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who said, “the organic law of our country establishes God as the basis for our justice system.” He also argues, as do others, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American laws. If that is indeed the case, then a “person of faith” is probably the best choice for a chief executive.

But let’s think about that contention for a second. Is God really the basis of our justice system, a system supposedly built upon the democratic ideal? For in the Bible we have an unelected leader who rules by edict and fiat with absolute authority. His laws are not subject to debate, referendum, or repeal, and the mere questioning of his authority—or, for that matter, his very existence—is equivalent to high treason, requiring, according to those laws, the death penalty. It seems to be that the political model the Bible prescribes is one most typically used by governments we refer to as our enemies.

What, then, becomes the benefit of a person of faith helming this country? Is there a leadership advantage to believing centuries-old supernatural tales of our universe and its origins on no rational grounds, ignoring or rejecting the abundance of evidence in stark disagreement? Seneca the Younger suggests that there is: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

When a leader reports that he consulted a “higher father” before invading a sovereign nation and enmeshing his country in an intractable war, are we to consider his move virtuous or insane? Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Revolution, had this to say: “Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason.” Mr. Bush has passed this test, but those of us choosing not to hobble our intellects demand better. Reasonable people will perhaps forgive the faith of their leaders, but they should not be expected to celebrate it.

Remember, whatever your beliefs, the majority of the world thinks them blasphemy. This sober democratic fact contains an important lesson yet to be learned.

A Discomforting Investment of Time

It is often tempting to dismiss tales of conspiracy—especially those that seek to provide occult explanations of pivotal events in human history—as made from whole cloth, spun by nervous and leery minds. But if we follow through on that temptation and allow bias to cloud our judgment, it is almost certain that we will eventually reject a story that is true.

The test of any claim, no matter how fantastic, is the evidence that supports it. The video attached to this post, Zeitgeist, makes some stunning claims that, if true, reveal nothing less than the attempted enslavement of the entire world. In the filmmaker's wide-ranging thesis, Christianity, September 11, and the Federal Reserve System are all part of a broad conspiracy to create a population of ignorant sheep, beholden to a select few and stultified into submission by mass media.

On the surface, it seems like such a hopelessly far-fetched idea—and one so far beyond the capabilities of the ignoramuses we've grown used to in government—that it almost begs for summary rejection. It is also arguable that the filmmaker's effort to weave these disparate elements together into a single cogent thesis does not meet with complete success. Why, then, would I post the video on this blog? Simply put, each claim it makes is either true or false, a fact or a lie. Some of the historical claims I know to be true from my own reading (of course, to the degree that I can be certain of the veracity and authority of what I read; the false report of an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, which served to escalate the American involvement in Vietnam, is one example); others I can't confirm without some additional research. Still other claims seem plausible on the surface and warrant further investigation. If even a fraction of the video's claims turn out to be true, this is an earth-shaking bit of work.

Among the tougher ideas to swallow is the suggestion that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not actually terrorist attacks but instead carefully orchestrated bits of theater designed to support a move toward the guaranteed cash cow of war, specifically a war against an ideology, with victory so undefined as to be unachievable, an unwinnable war by design. Much of the evidence—indications of controlled demolition of three of the World Trade Center buildings, suppressed video footage of the Pentagon attack, wreckage inconsistent with aircraft crashes—may not be new to you. After all, any tragedy seems to give birth to a conspiracy story to explain it, and the Internet has been rife with "evidence" since soon after the attacks. But there has always been something less than satisfying about the official explanation of the World Trade Center buildings' collapse and the pattern of damage at the Pentagon, and some of the ideas presented here are not easy to dismiss without a leap of faith. Is it possible that we have been believing a lie when the truth is far more horrible? I can't say that I am convinced, but I am at least interested.

There is one claim made of which I am totally convinced—namely, that religion and the mass media are responsible for the gradual decline in our ability to reason as a society and as individuals. Whether this effect is intentional or accidental is ultimately less important than our ability to recognize it, arrest it, and reverse it before it is too late. Invest two hours in watching this video. Think about it. Check its facts. Accept it, reject it, or hold your judgment in abeyance, but do so on the strength of the evidence it presents. We should be grateful for the exercise.

NOTE: The filmmaker has posted clarifications to some minor misstatements made in the video here. The film's primary Web site is http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com.

Freedom of—but not from—Religion

When I was a child, I used to dream about being the president. I imagined living in the White House, leading the country to a better future through whatever troubles it might be facing, building relationships around the world and turning old enemies into new friends. So attractive was the idea to me that when it came time for my family to move to a new home, I always seemed to prefer the houses we saw with white, fluted columns. It would be some time before I’d have the chance to live in the real White House, but I figured I could prepare for the experience in the meantime.

The charm of that idea wore off, and I gave up on any thought of being called President Weber, at least as far as it referred to any government leadership. But in recent years, it has become apparent that my childhood fantasy was always a fantasy, never a possibility. I am, after all, an atheist, and I am part of the most mistrusted, unelectable, and unfortunately disjointed community in the United States.

George H.W. Bush, our current president’s father, had this to say in response to a question about the patriotism of American atheists: “I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” I am fairly confident that this is an accurate report of what Bush had to say, but his interlocutor, Robert Sherman of the magazine American Atheist, never got it on tape.

Lest one believe that this example of egregious bigotry is but an isolated example of one politician’s impromptu pandering to the denizens of God’s country, I present here a list of quotes from state constitutions—currently on the books—that formally restrict the rights of any person not professing a belief in a supreme being. For your convenience, I provide links to the documents’ texts housed on the respective states’ official Web sites. It should be pointed out that the U.S. Constitution does not contain the proscriptions you'll find here. But I believe that the endurance of the following lines is indicative of the lingering prejudice against those whose only “crime” is not sharing a popular mythology.

Arkansas

“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.” — Constitution of the State of Arkansas of 1874, Art. 19, Sec. 1.

Maryland

“That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty … nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come.” — Maryland Constitution: Declaration of Rights, Art. 36.

“That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.” — Maryland Constitution: Declaration of Rights, Art. 37.¹

Massachusetts

“As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality. … Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.” — Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Part the First, Art. III.²

Mississippi

“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” — Constitution of the State of Mississippi, Art. 14, Sec. 265.³

North Carolina

“The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” — The Constitution of North Carolina, Art. VI, Sec. 8.

Pennsylvania

“No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” — Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Declaration of Rights, Art. 1, Sec. 4.

South Carolina

“No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being.” — South Carolina Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 2.

“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”— South Carolina Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 4.⁴

Tennessee

“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” — Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Art. IX, Sec. 2.

Texas

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” — The Texas Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 4.

If only these legislatures, in their hurry to make piety a metric of citizenship, had considered the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”⁵ He tells us further, “Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”⁶

1. This clause, although it remains in place, is most likely unenforceable under the terms of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961), which ruled it unconstitutional.

2. To its credit, Massachusetts altered this to the less-stringent but still ridiculous Article XI of the amendments.

3. A House resolution was proposed in 2006, not to strike this clause, but to add a provision that makes it easier for state officials to profess belief in God.

4. This clause has been challenged, and the petitioner's case was partially affirmed. Still, the clause remains.

5. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787.

6. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia.