As a follow-up to speakingcorpse's exemplary friendly letter (see below), Dawkins writes the following:

Hooray to David Brooks for once again subverting the conventional wisdom and giving clear sight to blind liberals like myself! All along, I'd believed that, as a liberal, I had supported the civil rights movement that the Rev. Martin Luther King had given his life for during the 1960s. Now I see myself for the anti-religious racist that I am.

As my favorite Old Testament hero, Job, put it: "Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes."

Grant me forgiveness, David Brooks!

Let's get to the gist of what David had to say in today's New York Times.

He introduces the topic:

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether it is constitutional for public school teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase "one nation under God," in their classrooms.

(I'm sure it was a just an innocent typo that caused "including the phrase 'one nation under God,'" to be placed in the sentence as a subordinate clause, but actually, if you want to be accurate, the issue here is not "whether it is constitutional for public school teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance," but rather whether it is constitutional for the federal government to sanction the establishment of religion in the public schools through the use of the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge or Allegiance. Of course, the Pledge of Allegiance existed WITHOUT the phrase "one nation under God" up until 1954, when it was determined that, in part, to fight the Communists, we had to say "God" in the Pledge. So when Brooks says the issue is about whether the Pledge itself is constitutional, rather than the establishment of federal religious belief WITHIN the Pledge, he's full of shit. But I digress.)

Then Brooks digresses, too.

Suddenly he's talking about the civil rights movement, and a book called "A Stone of Hope" by one David L. Chappell, and about how "it's impossible to read the book without doing some fundamental rethinking about the role religion can play in schools and public life."

Stay with us here. Because now we're no longer talking about the federal establishment of religion issue, which is germane to the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Rather, we're talking about "the role religion can play in schools and public life." Like the United States Constitution, I oppose the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance, but now -- wouldn't you know it - I also evidently oppose any role that "religion can play in schools and public life." According to Brooks, I'm not against the unconstitutional federal establishment of state religion, I'm against religion, period.

Touche.

According to Chappell, there were actually two camps within the civil rights movement. First, there were the mainstream liberals, often white and Northern. These writers and activists tended to have an optimistic view of human nature. Because racism so fundamentally contradicted the American creed, they felt, it would merely take a combination of education, economic development and consciousness-raising to bring out the better angels in people's nature.

The second group, which we might today call the religious left, was mostly black and Southern. Its leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., drew sustenance from a prophetic religious tradition, and took a much darker view of human nature.

Yes, now we have a contrast drawn. "According to Chappell," there were two camps in the civil rights movement: white Northern anti-religious liberals and black Southern religious people. The Northern liberals, evidently, were anti-religion because they believed in fighting racism through "education, economic development and consciousness-raising." The Southern blacks, according to Brooks, "drew sustenance from a prophetic religious tradition" and unilaterally opposed the notion that "education, economic development and consciousness-raising" could improve the lot of blacks in America.

Brooks testifies: "[King] and the other leaders in the movement did not believe that education and economic development would fully bring justice, but believed it would take something as strong as a religious upsurge."

So you see, Martin Luther King, like David Brooks, was an evangelist Christian, a man of faith, who believed that religion would solve the problems of racism in the United States.

Brooks says: "Chappell argues that the civil rights movement was not a political movement with a religious element. It was a religious movement with a political element."

And he continues:

If you believe that the separation of church and state means that people should not bring their religious values into politics, then, if Chappell is right, you have to say goodbye to the civil rights movement. It would not have succeeded as a secular force.

In other words, if you believe, like me (and like the United States Constitution does), that the federal government should not impose a belief in the Judeo-Christian God on children in public schools school reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, then you believe that "people should not bring their religious values into politics" and that you oppose, at its basis, the civil rights movement.

Interesting. And I had thought all along that… oh, never mind.

Brooks is on a roll here, and he doesn't let up!

But the more interesting phenomenon limned in Chappell's book is this: King had a more accurate view of political realities than his more secular liberal allies because he could draw on biblical wisdom about human nature. Religion didn't just make civil rights leaders stronger - it made them smarter.

You see, leaders who "draw on biblical wisdom" are smarter leaders, and they gain a "more accurate view of political realities" than liberals. See where we're going with this?

Exactly!

Martin Luther King = George W. Bush = wise, smart, great leader.

Moreover, this biblical wisdom is deeper and more accurate than the wisdom offered by the secular social sciences, which often treat human beings as soulless utility-maximizers, or as members of this or that demographic group or class.

Well, of course, this is certainly true on face value.

Whether the topic is welfare, education, the regulation of biotechnology or even the war on terrorism, biblical wisdom may offer something that secular thinking does not - not pat answers, but a way to think about things.

Ah, yes! I thought you'd never come to this, David Brooks: "the war on terrorism."

[Blicero adds: for more information about "biblical wisdom" concerning "the war on terrorism," be sure to revisit speakingcorpse's 3/1/04 post, "Jesus: Friend of Israel."]

Now listen closely:

For example, it's been painful to watch thoroughly secularized Europeans try to grapple with Al Qaeda. The bombers declare, "You want life, and we want death"- a (fanatical) religious statement par excellence. But thoroughly secularized listeners lack the mental equipment to even begin to understand that statement. They struggle desperately to convert Al Qaeda into a political phenomenon: the bombers must be expressing some grievance. This is the path to permanent bewilderment.

And so we see:

"Secularized" "Europeans" (Sound like anyone we know? Spanish Socialists? And is there a certain "secularized" "European" senator from Massachusetts in the house?) "struggle desperately to convert Al Qaeda into a political phenomenon: the bombers must be expressing some grievance. This is the path to permanent bewilderment."

So you see, if you try to understand the root causes of terrorism, by looking at such "secular social sciences" as global politics, economics, sociological trends, international diplomacy, you're destined to fail. This is the path to permanent bewilderment, not to mention permanent appeasement of the terrorists.

You can understand religious fanaticism (Al Qaeda) only THROUGH religious fanaticism (George W. Bush / Martin Luther King)!

The lesson I draw from all this is that prayer should not be permitted in public schools, but maybe theology should be mandatory. Students should be introduced to the prophets, to the Old and New Testaments, to the Koran, to a few of the commentators who argue about these texts.

Oh that's all, David Brooks? It seemed for a minute that you were trying to say that religious wisdom conquers all worldly forms of knowledge, that secularists are racists who opposed the civil rights movement and who cannot fight terrorism today, and that George W. Bush, because of his devout faith and trust in God, is the greatest, most wise leader the country has ever seen. All you really want is for students in school to study the Bible and the Koran? Doesn't seem like too much to ask. I guess I was getting all worked up for nothing!

[Blicero adds: if he really means theology, then I might be inclined to agree. A lot of people might be surprised to learn that the body of Christian theology goes deeper than "If you're right with God in your heart, everyone can see it, because you condemn gay people, celebrate mass killings, yearn for the End Times, crave money, and vote Republican."]

From this perspective, what gets recited in the pledge is the least important issue before us. Understanding what the phrase "one nation under God" might mean - that's the important thing. That's not proselytizing; it's citizenship.

Of course! David Brooks realizes that the issue is not about whether children in public schools are forced by the federal government to worship God, because when you really look at it, by the mere fact of being citizens in a nation blessed by God and shepherded by God's vessel on earth, George W. Bush, they already do worship God, each and every day!

God/Bush 1, Liberals 0.

(FOOTNOTE: For more on David L. Chappell, you can read some of his work glowingly praised in this essay on the civil rights era, which debunks "The Myth of the Racist Republicans." The essay is published by the Claremont Institute, an organization committed to restoring "the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life," that counts William J. Bennett as one of its "fellows."

Blicero adds: Of course the Southern Republicans (and Republicans-to-be) weren't racist. They loved black people--but in their own way. They loved blacks because they understood them in ways we carpetbaggers never could. If we northern godless liberals hadn't gone meddling, they would have worked it out peacable for themselves. And plus, aren't Republicans really the cause of the civil rights movement--since without their oppression and violence, we never woulda got around to having one!