Dumb-ocracy demonstrated

Recently, newspaper columnist Clarence Page wrote about the astonishing fact that nearly 1 in 7 Americans believe president Obama is a Muslim, although he clearly isn't. He discussed it in terms of the spread of "Dumb-ocracy", the tendency to believe things that you want to believe, truth be damned. I find this topic interesting. The main reason I am interested in pseudoscience is understanding how people can believe things that are obviously not true. Refusing to believe the obvious fact that Obama is not a Muslim and was born in the U.S. are striking examples of this.

John Gallagher, of Carington, ND wrote a letter to the Jamestown Sun in response to Page's article. Although he seems to believe he was arguing against Page, I cannot imagine a better demonstration of Dumb-ocracy than this letter.

Gallagher begins:

No. 1: We have been conditioned in our post-modern era to understand that all "beliefs" are equally valid--thus a thing may be "true for you but not for me." So is the belief that the president is a Muslim any less "true" than the believe that he is a Christian? Aren't people allowed to believe whatever they want?

I am not really sure what Gallagher is trying to say here. Is he endorsing the post-modern belief and actually claiming that whatever you believe is true? Is he claiming all truth claims are equal? If I believed that John Gallagher was a Muslim, or a Kenyan, would it be true? Does he realize the post-modern view undermines any claims he makes for the truth of Christianity, since it is only true for him, but not for anyone else?

However, he is unclear whether he endorses the post-modern view. He may reject the post-modern viewpoint, but uses it anyway because it gives him an answer he likes. He just says we have been conditioned to this view, and seems to imply this is some fadish new view that some hold but he does not. As far as I can tell, he is does not claim to believe it himself, but since some people believe it and since it gives the answer that he wants, he is willing to accept it. In other words, he is doing exactly what Page was referring to--believing something simply because he wants to believe it, even if it means accepting world views he would otherwise reject.

The last line, that people are allowed to believe whatever they want is a common fallacy. It confuses the right to hold a belief with the veracity of a belief. Of course people have the right to believe Obama is a Muslim, and that unicorns exist. That right does not make it true.

Gallagher continues:

No.2 C.S. Lewis, in the preface to his book, Mere Christianity, says this about the word itself: "The word Christian was first given at Antioch...to those who accepted the teachings of the apostles." Such teaching was unequivocal, as Paul later says, "I am on trial for the hope and researection of the dead". If this is what the president believes--in Jesus' physical death and bodily resurrection and all that this imples throughout the entire historey of redemtpion...--then we have no alternative but to call him a Christian. ... A consice statement from the president regarding his belief on the atoning sacrifice would clear a lot of confusion....

There is a long history of one group of Christians saying another group is not a "True Christian." Some people say Catholics are not Christians, or Mormons are not, or Episcopalians, others say they are. Some people will claim that anyone who doesn't believe the exact same things as him is not a true Christian. Page was not discussing whether Obama's flavor of Christianity is the same as someone else's. Whether Obama fits your particular definition of Christianity or not, the point is irrelevant. Even if he is not a Christian at all, that does not make him a Muslim.

Gallagher probably never bothered to find out what Obama has said regarding his beliefs, again because he simply does not want to. Obama has discussed religious beliefs in considerable detail in an interview with Rick Warren prior to the election. He clearly believes many tenants of Christianity, and is clearly not a Muslim.

Gallagher makes a point number three which I won't discuss in detail. He disagrees with Page that the least informed often decide elections, which is ironic, because he clearly demonstrates that reality has no influence on his beliefs.

There is no evidence at all that Obama is a Muslim, and even though Gallagher seems to be arguing for that position, he does not bother to present any. Gallagher’s letter nicely confirms Clarence Page’s claim that politics are dominated by Dumb-ocracy. Gallagher seems to be arguing that he will believe whatever he wants to believe; actual evidence and reality are irrelevant.