Susan Jacoby, champion of Freethought

[Toto]

A very good interview (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/144/story_14451_1.html)

She seems to be attempting to divide the population between secularists and religious liberals on the one hand, versus fundamentalists on the other, which makes sense politically.

Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805074422/interntinfidels)

[xxthe_leewitxx]

That is a very good interview, I wish it would have continued on a few more pages! I searched around and found a couple of excerpts from that book (which I am gazing longingly at) here (http://www.alternet.org/alsoby.html?Author=6380), and they only serve to further whet my appetite.

[arcadia]

A nice Christopher Hitchens review of the the book in the Wash Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35325-2004Apr22.html

The great virtue of Susan Jacoby's book is that it succeeds so well in its own original intent: showing that secularism, agnosticism and atheism are as American as cherry pie. Indeed, this is the first and only country to adopt a Constitution that specifically excludes all reference to a higher power...

In lucid and witty prose, Jacoby has uncovered the hidden history of secular America, and awarded it a large share of credit in every movement for social and political reform. It's nice to read again of the friendship between Walt Whitman and Robert Ingersoll, the greatest anti-religious lecturer of his day. It's sobering to be reminded of how many states practiced overt sectarian discrimination, against Jews, Catholics and Quakers, even after the Founding Fathers had made plain their abhorrence of all such practices. And, of course, it is salutary to be reminded of how much plain villainy and stupidity has been promulgated from the platforms of the godly, many of whom would still like to retard the elementary teaching of science.

If the book has a fault, it is the near-axiomatic identification of the secular cause with the liberal one. Susan Jacoby has what might be called ACLU politics. To read her, you would not know that two of the most prominent intellectual gurus of American conservatism -- Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss -- were both determined nonbelievers. H.L. Mencken...

Might I suggest that this thread be moved to politics??

[crazyfingers]

Good Op/Ed column in the Boston Globe today regarding the above new book.

The attack on secularism By By Cathy Young (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/26/the_attack_on_secularism/)


The history in Jacoby's book is fascinating. She makes a convincing argument that, contrary to the assertions of many conservatives today, the Founding Fathers did in fact intend to create a secular government. The Constitution's lack of any reference to God or divine sanction was not an accidental oversight, or an omission of something that everyone implicitly took for granted anyway. On the contrary, the godlessness of the Constitution, along with its rejection of a religious test for public office, was a source of major controversy during the ratification debates. Religious traditionalists warned that the Constitution's irreligiousness would bring God's wrath down on American citizens -- in language reminiscent of claims by some of their modern-day descendants after Sept. 11 that God withdrew his protection from America because Americans have turned away from him.

Sounds like our religious fanatics today are not that different from those of 200+ years ago.

Jacoby makes a powerful plea for a civic language that does not exclude nonbelievers. She notes that while religious references in public life today are emphatically nonsectarian and inclusive toward Jews, Muslims and Hindus, the nonreligious constitute a far larger segment of the population than any of these religious minorities. This is an important reminder. Intolerance toward atheists and agnostics, who are often viewed as less moral or even less patriotic than believers, remains one of the few forms of socially accepted bigotry.

But, for better or worse, there is nothing new about this bias. We live in a time of tension and conflict between secularists and religious traditionalists. As "Freethinkers" demonstrates, this tension is as American as apple pie.

[thebeave]

She's great. I heard her being interviewed this morning on the local talk radio station. A couple of fundies called with the usual "this country was founded on Christianity" dribble and she promptly, but politely, slammed them. It was great... she's very articulate and knows her stuff.

[Mr. Bird]

Susan Jacoby was on Air America's "The Majority Report" with Janeane Garofalo a couple of weeks ago. You can download an MP3 of the show here (http://www.airamericaplace.com/aa.htm) (registration required).

[Writer@Large]

I have her book, but haven't found time to read it yet. I'm eagerly awaiting it, though.

--W@L

[lpetrich]

As to Susan Jacoby ignoring atheists and freethinkers on the Right, I wonder if that's from their being less prominent.

Ayn Rand, inventor of Objectivism, was certainly an atheist, as are many capitalist libertarians and Objectivists (to an outsider, they are rather difficult to distinguish).

Leo Strauss developed some rather elitist political theories. He believed in something like Plato's Royal Lie / Noble Lie theory of religion -- that the masses ought not to be told the truth, but instead, socially-convenient falsehoods. So it's doubtful that he'd ever have been a prominent freethinker -- he'd think that the masses ought to be presented a front of false piety.

[Brian63]

The New Republic had a negative review of the book, written by an admitted non-believer. Unfortunately I do not have a link, and I believe you must subscribe anyway to read their online material. It can be found in bookstores still though.

Brian

[Toto]

It seems to be here (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=PV5okokB29MYOvW1rabA4W==). Alan Wolfe claims to be a non-believer, but evidently one who thinks that the Royal Lie of religion is necessary to hold things together.

All the more reason, then, to welcome the revival of interest in non-belief that has begun to spring from many different sources. Determined not to be pushed around anymore, secularists can now be found celebrating doubt, praising dissenters, and arguing on behalf of a proud separation between religion and the state. A non-believer myself, I am encouraged by their entry into American public debate. But still I worry. For non-belief owes almost everything to belief; without religion to give it meaning, atheism would be the least interesting of subjects. Dependent on believers for their existence, non-believers have long been known for the shrillness of their tone, their thinly disguised contempt for people they can barely understand, and their conviction (you might even call it religious) that they always have been and always will be on the right side of history. And so the interesting question is not whether an atheistic revival will occur--the one that is arriving is long overdue. It is whether its advocates will recognize how much belief has changed since the days of the Enlightenment, let alone over the past halfcentury in America, and how much non-belief has to change to keep up.

[lpetrich]

I read that New Republic review -- I think that the reviewer misunderstands atheism. In the absence of religion, explicit atheism would likely be absent. I'm reminded of what Monkeybot has posted here some months ago -- that she is more anti-religion in fundified areas like North Carolina(?) than relatively secular areas like Japan.

Alan Wolfe starts out with some biographies of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who was not exactly the most congenial person in the world.

About Susan Jacoby's book, Mr. Wolfe detects a whiff of anti-Catholicism. But given the Church's behavior back then, it deserved to be mistrusted and opposed. To take a more contemporary example, would Mr. Wolfe conclude that distrust of militant Islamists is really anti-Islam?

He also makes a fuss about progressive movements with religious components, like the anti-slavery and the civil-rights movements, but the latter, especially, succeeded by being non-sectarian, and both movements' opponents claimed that the Bible and "Christian principles of morality" and the like were on their side. What kind of God-hating, Christ-hating secularist atheist would use the curse of Ham (Genesis 9) as an argument for enslaving black people?

[trendkill]

I read that New Republic review -- I think that the reviewer misunderstands atheism. In the absence of religion, explicit atheism would likely be absent. He seems not to get that 1. atheism is not necessarily negative, and 2. many atheists would like nothing more than for atheism to become meaningless, and only care about religion because it is forced upon them.

[dettus]

I have seen her on many evening talk news shows, like on Fox and Dennis Miller. SHE'S GREAT! The hosts love her, she's nice, and she totally makes sense. She's doing a great job.

My wife says that she remembers her writing editorials for the NY times.

[lpetrich]

(the New Republic reviewer of SJ's book...)
He seems not to get that 1. atheism is not necessarily negative,
What might be called positive atheism? I'm still not sure about that concept.

and 2. many atheists would like nothing more than for atheism to become meaningless, and only care about religion because it is forced upon them.
Meaningless?

[lpetrich]

I have seen her on many evening talk news shows, like on Fox and Dennis Miller. SHE'S GREAT! The hosts love her, she's nice, and she totally makes sense. She's doing a great job.
Nice to see that she's likable. That ought to get at scriptural percussionists.

And how has she responded to various criticisms of her work?

Like not paying much attention to right-libertarian atheists like Ayn Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, and the like.

[trendkill]

(the New Republic reviewer of SJ's book...)

What might be called positive atheism? I'm still not sure about that concept.Well, there have been some good discussions on this forum and in Philosophy (on the subject of "positive claims" and what exactly constitutes one) that might be well worth looking up. This is a major discussion topic in and of itself. But let me throw some things out there that I've heard mentioned--is "independence" a negative concept? It is, after all, simply the absence of dependence. How about "atom", is it a negative because it comes from root words that imply something that can't be divided further? Whether a concept is negative or positive can often be a matter of perspective. Or even just a matter of semantics.

Meaningless?People who wish they'd never heard of theism wish that atheism were a meaningless word for obvious reasons. Atheism would still exist, it just wouldn't be characterized negatively (because there would be no need to differentiate it from theism).

[Toto]

What might be called positive atheism? I'm still not sure about that concept.


Positive Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/gora21.htm) (which should probably be capitalized for clarity) is a particular philosophy developed by Gora, an Indian writer and political philosopher who influenced Gandhi.

[Shake]

Wow! Looks like her opinion of the Brights would fit in well with many here:I think Bright is an idiotic term. It did not exactly get a rousing response, even from the non-believing community.
Boy, and so many other good points made there. One example:What do you mean when you say the orthodox religious view?
I stress the orthodox or right wing religious view because I don't like it when people talk about religion versus secularism. What they really mean is a particular kind of religion versus secularism. The general press has a tendency to say religious as if all religions were alike and all religious believers had the same beliefs.And finally, how true it is that we need another Ingersoll. Too bad Sagan is gone, not that he was quite an Ingersoll, but he did command some level of national attention. I don't think Newdow is it either.

[8of9]

Wow! She's getting a lot of press. I saw her last night (I think) on Bill Moyers' show on PBS -- I think it's called Now. I don't watch it, I just flipped on the TV and heard the teaser for the interview. I had a pre-existing idea that Moyers is pretty religious -- maybe I was wrong, but his questions seemed pretty balanced to me.

She did a pretty good job -- she fits a lot of words into a short amount of time, and almost sounded like she wasn't letting him get a word in edgewise. That could be editing, too. Anyway, she got across the points that should make people think.

[catalyst]

Someone should figure out a way to invite her here.

[Immaculate Deception]

I heard her being interviewed on Wisconsin Public Radio by Bill Merens in late April, promoting her book. I, too, was impressed by her ability to represent atheists in a polite and articulate manner, while still being firm and shooting down the many mischaracterizations and misconceptions of atheists made by various callers to the show.




Like not paying much attention to right-libertarian atheists like Ayn Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, and the like.



A caller asked why she hadn't included Rand and other conservative atheists in her book. She replied that she views Rand as an "objectivist authoritarian," which in her opinion undermines democracy and, therefore, she thinks that Rand doesn't deserve to be included in her book.

[lpetrich]

caller asked why she hadn't included Rand and other conservative atheists in her book. She replied that she views Rand as an "objectivist authoritarian," which in her opinion undermines democracy and, therefore, she thinks that Rand doesn't deserve to be included in her book.
Whatever is to be said of right-libertarians like Ayn Rand, that seems like a lousy reason to omit them.

[Toto]

I have just read this (unintentionally) hilarious review of the book by William Donohue, head of the Catholic League.

The Secular Crusade (http://www.catholicleague.org/research/jacoby_donohue.htm) . . . .

This is not to say that some famous public figures cannot be claimed by the secularists. For example, there is the black author and activist, W.E.B. Du Bois, who fought Booker T. Washington in his early days and wound up a Communist at the age of 93. Walt Whitman, the poet and sexual degenerate, was a freethinker whose influence continues to this day; e.g., President Bill Clinton gave a copy of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass to Monica Lewinsky. Margaret Sanger, the ex-Catholic turned racial eugenicist and birth control guru, was a freethinker. Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU, was also a freethinker; he called himself an “agnostic Unitarian,� a description that would offend neither agnostics nor Unitarians.

. . .

It would be easy to simply dismiss Jacoby’s book as an attempt to put a rosy gloss on the history of secularism in the U.S. But it is more than that—it is a window into the way freethinkers see themselves and others. Their window, unfortunately, has been dirtied by ideology and made small by experience. Worst of all, theirs is a window that projects an incredible self-righteousness, one whose only cure lies in listening to the Word of God.

[Corwin]

Nice to see that she's likable. That ought to get at scriptural percussionists.

And how has she responded to various criticisms of her work?

Like not paying much attention to right-libertarian atheists like Ayn Rand, Robert A. Heinlein, and the like.

Not to drift off topic here... but while Rand was about as right-libertarian as they come.... I'd hardly classify Heinlein that way. He was center to slightly left-libertarian. (As well as a dramatically better writer.)