I'm Not a Theologian but I Play One at the Times

It's a good thing Ross Douthat is back to empty calories. His column last week invoking the recent Pew poll on support for abortion actually required some research and analysis, at least to see what the Pew poll really meant. Most analysts dismissed the usually reliable Pew as putting a scary headline on a poll that was just a little different from the decades of polling showing stable support for abortion in just about the circumstances that apply now. When the Gallup Poll came out later, reflecting an actual decline in support for abortion below 50%, it took a bunch of numbers crunchers to figure out what was wrong. Here is the estimable John Sides, a political science professor, on the numbers and on the other smart people looking at the numbers. Take away message: little change. Except in the overheated imagination of the avidly anti-choice Ross Douthat.

But today Douthat uses his roughly 1000 word space at the Times website to review the collected works of Dan Brown, author of such political books as The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, educate the public on the fictional nature of these works of, er, fiction, and inform his readers of the eternal truth of the "jealous, demanding apocalyptic" Jesus of "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John." To be charitable, let us assume that Douthat, who did not, even as an undergraduate, study theology, is actually making a political point. He might be arguing that the popularity of Brown's books reflects an American preference for a kind of civil religion, which does not immediately drive people to pile up the wood around the stake, the better to slake the appetite of their jealous and demanding god.

Many commentators on the American political scene including, for example, the locus classicus of American observers, Alexis de Tocqueville, noticed the same thing. The only difference is that they thought it was a good thing that American democracy was buttressed by a spiritual element which did not immediately involve hooded minions, whereas Douthat regrets. One does not have to be Christopher Hitchens to be grateful that, so far, Douthat and his co-religionists, wherever they may be found (I extend Roman Catholicism the respect of not thinking that Douthat's one liner sums up their understanding of the Gospels or the relationship between the Cities of God and Man), have not yet enticed a majority of American voters to their grand new party. Indeed, being a descendant of (if not a believer in) the people of the prior jealous and demanding god, all Douthat's column caused me to do was . . . check my passport.

Comments

[ProfessorDuh]

I've always been amused at the idea that a religious person can say that an atheist will burn in hell as a result of their beliefs, and that is not considered offensive; but if an atheist says that believing in God makes no sense, that is considered deeply offensive. One person is charging the other with faulty logic; the other is charging them with a base immorality that warrants eternal torture. How is the former even vaguely more insulting than the latter?
-- Cenk Uygur

[Merlin7]

Fortunately support for religion is dwindling across America as more of us realize that belief in supernatural spirits is inherently silly. The religious establishment is exactly like the fabled emperor who wore no clothes: Once ordinary folks react sensibly -- by laughing and pointing -- he has nothing left to say. Religion is a sad relic of humankind's dark past and should be scrapped altogether, or at least marginalized so that its pernicious influence is considerably reduced. Only then will humanity have some hope of a more peaceful and prosperous future.

[cuchulain]

Douthat uses the typical rhetorical move made by so many apologists:

Dismiss criticism by adding "anti-" to the object of criticism. With a wave of a hand, and that added prefix, apparently, we don't need to bother looking at historical fact. No need to look at the long history of the Catholic church (and organized Christianity in general), waging insane religious wars, conducting sadistic inquisitions, committing genocide in the name of religion, conducting witch hunts, etc.

I just finished reading Richard Rubenstein's fascinating "When Jesus Became God" and was reminded just how thuggish and murderous so many early church leaders were. In the early days of Christian ascension in the Roman empire, especially surrounding the Arian controversy, bishop fought bishop in the name of their version of Jesus, brought out mob against mob, and sought earthly power and riches while preaching about the afterlife.

While Brown's work of fiction is just that, fiction, it has concrete backing regarding its overall idea of organized religion's venality. In fact, it actually soft-pedals it. Over the span of its two thousand years, organized Christianity has caused millions of deaths and massive suffering for millions more. Douthat can't be bothered to acknowledge that. He also doesn't realize that there is no such thing as a "New Testament Jesus". Instead, there are dozens and dozens of versions of him there.

Douthat and Brown are fully entitled to their own version. But neither can claim his is the only one.

[ProfessorDuh]

Nor are the crimes of the church all historic, of course. Note the fresh allegations of the beatings and rape of children in Ireland. The church's institutional practice of evil is continuous.

[January]

Thank you for the alternative interpretation of the Pew results. I had not seen them anywhere else.

I no longer participate in any kind of polling. I have learned that as with rats in the lab, it's the unseen designer of the experiment who is in charge. Every result tells us more about that than about the rats.

I wonder whether Pew even tries to compensate for its own biases, the biggest one of which is whether they can come up with results that shock enough to get attention from msm interested only in shock and awe. In other words, as with the msm, Pew is a peddler and so tries to make its product saleable. When you have met one merchandiser, you have met them all.

Add to that the circumstance this article notes, which is the vulnerability of data to skewed interpretation, and we get more misinformation disguised as news.

[klondiker]

Douthat's column was shockingly juvenile. It gave the impression of a topic that was perhaps vaguely interesting, but not nearly enough to hang an entire column on. This is exactly what he did last week. He started with a tiny speck of an idea and tried to stretch it out a little too much. The end result was a rather shaky column that rested on even flimsier evidence.

In some ways, I think his inexperience is showing. It might not seem like it, but it takes a lot to come up with a column or two every week that is not only well-written, but also insightful and original, and presents a different take on something. This is partly why I was opposed to having someone so young in this position. Being a Times columnist is an incredible responsibility, something that I would compare to being the head of a university or something similar. To have been around the block a couple of times matters.

[TJCole]

Jesus told us to:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's..!"

What about this don't these guys get, Jesus was against mixing Church and State...end of story...!

[WindySailor]

Douthat has the intellectual capacity of a light bulb.

[Roger]

it's great to see that I'm not the only one who thought Douhat's column was such utter tripe. If newspapers want to know why they are such a failing industry, perhaps instead of blaming the internet they should look at the utter lack of comprehension, and reason among their columnists. Douhat almost made me pine for Kristol. Okay, maybe not quite that bad, but the old Grey Lady has her work seriously cut out for her these days.

[JWheels]

The Times does seem to have trouble finding respectable conservative voices for its OpEd pages. That may be because there really aren't that many respectable conservative voices to begin with. Sadly I think Brooks may be the best they can do. At least they don't have John Yoo (Philadelphia Inquirer) or Karl Rove (WSJ), that would really really be awful. I think the Times is still one of the best papers out there.