Former candidate for the Republican nomination for the US presidency, Ben Carson, is a believing Christian. Carson stirred up a bit of a controversy when an old speech of his surfaced, where he said the Old Testament figure Joseph built the Egyptian pyramids in order to store grain. The Bible merely says that Joseph stored surplus grain against a future famine deduced from the Pharaoh's dream, but not how he stored it.
This controversy merits careful unpacking.
Carson most certainly believes in the resurrection, the water-into-wine miracle, the parting of the Red Sea, and such; he shares these beliefs with a huge number of voters, and his statement of belief about these things would cause not the least bit of controversy, quite unlike his statement about the pyramids. The average western liberal or Indian secularist would say that all the former miraculous things that violate the laws of physics are all about Carson's religious belief, which per the tenets of secularism, are outside the realm of politics; but when he talks about the purpose of the pyramids, he is talking about something that we have archaeological and other evidence, and is therefore within the realm of political criticism.
That is, to be secular, one has to be familiar with the contents of the Bible. Since the Bible is silent about the pyramids, a candidate's belief about the purpose of the pyramids is within the political arena; but the laws-of-physics busting stuff that the Bible does speak about is beyond political criticism. In fact, without paying at least lip service to belief in what the Bible says, it is not possible to be a viable Republican candidate for the presidency. One cannot say that the candidate is a credulous idiot for believing in miracle stories.
Suppose we accept that as a necessary compromise for secularism to work. The very same culture from which this secularism arose encountered India and constructed religions called Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. One would expect that secularism then requires extending the same respect to beliefs from these religions as it does for Christianity or Judaism. One would be bitterly disappointed, however. Also, unlike with the Bible, one does not have to be familiar with the contents of the Hindu "scriptures" to know the boundary between religious belief and politically attackable ideas. Anything Hindu is fair game for political criticism. Which also shows that those who claim "Hinduism is a religion" in practice do not treat it like one.
Further, notice, Carson says that his belief about the pyramids is a religious belief, based on the Bible; but the political class and media reject that. The limits of religious belief are what are in the Bible, and that is about it. Islam is struggling to get a foothold in this shielded area, aided by leftists and regressive liberals; and cries of Islamophobia. Hinduism will forever be outside this area separated from political criticism.
I'm not saying that it is not as it should be - Hinduism is a living tradition - in religious terms it has new "prophets" and "scriptures" constantly being created. Wendy Doniger (see "Purana Perennius") for one is upset that the Hindu "canon" is not closed, and her pungent remarks about the Skanda Purana stem from that. I'm just pointing out that "secularism" and the separation of religious belief and politics has a very Christian basis. The Hindu basis for what is legitimate in politics and what should be left out will be rather different.
PS: June 6, 2016 - Justin E.H. Smith in the New York Times makes the same mistake:
This controversy merits careful unpacking.
Carson most certainly believes in the resurrection, the water-into-wine miracle, the parting of the Red Sea, and such; he shares these beliefs with a huge number of voters, and his statement of belief about these things would cause not the least bit of controversy, quite unlike his statement about the pyramids. The average western liberal or Indian secularist would say that all the former miraculous things that violate the laws of physics are all about Carson's religious belief, which per the tenets of secularism, are outside the realm of politics; but when he talks about the purpose of the pyramids, he is talking about something that we have archaeological and other evidence, and is therefore within the realm of political criticism.
That is, to be secular, one has to be familiar with the contents of the Bible. Since the Bible is silent about the pyramids, a candidate's belief about the purpose of the pyramids is within the political arena; but the laws-of-physics busting stuff that the Bible does speak about is beyond political criticism. In fact, without paying at least lip service to belief in what the Bible says, it is not possible to be a viable Republican candidate for the presidency. One cannot say that the candidate is a credulous idiot for believing in miracle stories.
Suppose we accept that as a necessary compromise for secularism to work. The very same culture from which this secularism arose encountered India and constructed religions called Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. One would expect that secularism then requires extending the same respect to beliefs from these religions as it does for Christianity or Judaism. One would be bitterly disappointed, however. Also, unlike with the Bible, one does not have to be familiar with the contents of the Hindu "scriptures" to know the boundary between religious belief and politically attackable ideas. Anything Hindu is fair game for political criticism. Which also shows that those who claim "Hinduism is a religion" in practice do not treat it like one.
Further, notice, Carson says that his belief about the pyramids is a religious belief, based on the Bible; but the political class and media reject that. The limits of religious belief are what are in the Bible, and that is about it. Islam is struggling to get a foothold in this shielded area, aided by leftists and regressive liberals; and cries of Islamophobia. Hinduism will forever be outside this area separated from political criticism.
I'm not saying that it is not as it should be - Hinduism is a living tradition - in religious terms it has new "prophets" and "scriptures" constantly being created. Wendy Doniger (see "Purana Perennius") for one is upset that the Hindu "canon" is not closed, and her pungent remarks about the Skanda Purana stem from that. I'm just pointing out that "secularism" and the separation of religious belief and politics has a very Christian basis. The Hindu basis for what is legitimate in politics and what should be left out will be rather different.
PS: June 6, 2016 - Justin E.H. Smith in the New York Times makes the same mistake:
The leader of India, Mr. Modi, for example has brought about, through support of the ideology of Hindutva, a political climate in which Indian nationalist academics can claim that airplanes are described in the millenniums-old Vedas without being ridiculed or marginalized.I note again that it is next to impossible for a candidate to win the Republican nomination in America without proclaiming his/her belief that a man rose from the dead, turned water into wine, and so on; and there are plenty of professors in American universities who teach so; if anyone tried to ridicule or marginalize such beliefs, they would face a huge political backlash. But that is normal and unremarkable. It is only Hindu belief that is abnormal and that must be held to ridicule and marginalization.
Logging you in...
horatio · 469 weeks ago
what ?
macgupta 81p · 469 weeks ago
--- and the belief that a man rose from the dead does not defy common sense???????
Why don't you try to explain to me why certain beliefs are off-limits from political criticism and others are not, with examples?
Secularism basically says that the state, laws, politics, public policy - should all be held apart from the non-common-sensical truth claims of religion. I'm just pointing out that in practice, religion means Christianity. To know that Ben Carson in proclaiming his belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not committing a "political solecism", but in proclaiming his (biblical) belief that the pyramids were constructed by Joseph to store grain is committing a "political solecism", one has to be familiar with the contents of the Bible.
horatio · 468 weeks ago
secular:
"denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
Horatio · 468 weeks ago
i can just ask the person about where their belief about something comes from.
its like those idiots who say, i am not a scientist so i cant have an opinion on global warming.
i am not religious, so i dont know when something is religious ?
give me a break
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
So you see, asking does not work. Whom to ask, and how many have to agree?
horatio · 467 weeks ago
horatio · 467 weeks ago
horatio · 467 weeks ago
Guest · 469 weeks ago
The trouble with Carson's grain storing function for pyramids is not that it conflicts with or agrees with any aspect of Christian dogma or tradition, but that it defies common sense - pyramids are singularly unsuitable for the proposed function. Of course it also defies historical records that tell of their funerary function.
The skeptical, in my experience, are equally dubious about supernatural interventions in Christian, Greek, Roman, Islamic, or Hindu writings. Buddhism, to my limited knowledge, is relatively free of the supernatural.
macgupta 81p · 469 weeks ago
Let me try once again:
Q: If the superstitious belief that a man rose from the dead is not enough to be a disqualification for a person to be POTUS, what is?
A: Having a belief that the pyramids were built by a Biblical character to store grain is a definite blackmark.
Q: Why isn't belief that a man rose from the dead not even a disqualification, but even virtually a requirement to be POTUS? (at least, one must publicly pay lip service to the idea, e.g., as Trump does).
A: Because certain superstitious beliefs are said to be in the realm of religion, and are not to be brought into the realm of politics. This is by convention.
Q: What governs the convention of what is within the realm of politics and what is the realm of religion?
A: A general philosophy known as "secularism" provides the guide of what constitutes the separation of politics and religion. E.g., a belief about the pyramids such as Carson's is legitimate fodder for politics. Belief in Kolob, a planet or star that is said to be the closest to God's throne, is not legitimate ground for criticism in politics.
It should be noted that in the US, belief in creationism and the belief that human life starts at conception are two areas of religious belief that have been eroded away by science and the belief in a constitutional right to privacy.
Guest · 469 weeks ago
The Christian and Jewish Bible tends to make a fairly sharp distinction between the natural and the miraculous. That's not the case in every religion, and based on my admittedly superficial knowledge of Hinduism, isn't true of it. That distinction makes it easy to separate the obtuse (grain storage pyramids) from the physics violating miraculous (parting of the Red Sea). It might also make it easier to separate the secular from the divine.
Guest · 469 weeks ago
Q: If the superstitious belief that a man rose from the dead is not enough to be a disqualification for a person to be POTUS, what is?
A: Custom makes some familiar superstitions tolerable, but more to the point, the question is unlikely to come up in the course of Presidential duties. On the other hand, the ability to tell a grain silo from gravestone is like a lot of questions a President might face. (Bush and friends famously confused weather balloon launching vehicle with mobile chemical weapons labs.)
Q: Why isn't belief that a man rose from the dead not even a disqualification, but even virtually a requirement to be POTUS? (at least, one must publicly pay lip service to the idea, e.g., as Trump does).
A: Because certain superstitious beliefs are said to be in the realm of religion, and are not to be brought into the realm of politics. This is by convention. -- Got to agree with you there.
Q: What governs the convention of what is within the realm of politics and what is the realm of religion?
A: Convention is governed by the beliefs of the voters. A sort of treaty called secularism governs the lines of the cease fire between religion and science. A constant struggle over the boundary has convulsed Western thought for five centuries or more. The US Constitution specifies that Congress shall establish no religion, but the religious have fought that prohibition for two hundred plus years.
Your theory of the nature of secularism is mostly a fantasy.
Belief in Kolob, a planet or star that is said to be the closest to God's throne, is not legitimate ground for criticism in politics. Legitimate or not, Romney's Mormonism was a significant problem for him, just because it is not a familiar mainstream belief in the US.
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
The President doesn't do that - it is lowly grunts at the CIA, etc., who figure out what is what. The problem with Bush and co is that they required the answer to come out a certain way, and that too, due to a quite secular, neocon ideology. Believing in grain storing pyramids or the planet Kolob does not shed any light on that ideology. In fact, one could argue that Bush's appeal to the voters that "I am a born-again believer in the same supernatural crap as you believe, and upon with this country was founded, and so you can trust me" helps obscure his purposes rather than elucidate them.
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
Which is exactly what my original post says. The Western pontification to India about secularism is guided by west-specific customs, traditions and conventions, including the belief that the Bible is universal. It is not based on any knowledge of Indian customs, traditions, conventions and so on.
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
Actually, on NPR in the past few weeks, there was mention of another one - the US National Park advertisements showing the rugged individual out in the wilderness - when tested with Latino groups in the US, their immediate question was - what is this person doing out there alone? Where is their family? This is a cultural difference within the US itself, despite living in the same city, eating the same type of food, etc., etc.; one would not have had to search so far for an example.
Guest · 468 weeks ago
That's it. It doesn't define religion or establishment. These are matters of fierce contention and States have not been shy about violating the prohibitions, despite the fact that the Courts have ruled repeatedly that they are bound by the same amendment. The general rule has been that almost any organization that claims religious status gets it. Political candidates routinely attack the enforcement of the amendment. My point is that there is no "cultural consensus" on secularism in the US.
India has a different constitution, and so secularism there is complicated by special rules for Muslims and (I think) others.
The same US First Amendment also guarantees freedom of the press.
macgupta 81p · 468 weeks ago
Guest · 468 weeks ago