10 questions with ‘In Defense of Faith’ author David Brog

By Jamie Weinstein - The Daily Caller   9:29 AM 01/09/2011

David Brog is the author of, “In Defense of Faith: The Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity.”

Brog is currently the executive director of Christians United for Israel, the nation’s largest pro-Israel advocacy group. A lawyer by training, Brog has also worked on Capitol Hill as chief of staff to former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Brog recently agreed to answer 10 questions from The Daily Caller about his book and the attacks being leveled against religion by the so-called “new atheists”:
1. Why did you decide to write the book?

Well, the atheists are out there screaming louder than ever. But I’ve never really minded that. What drove me to write this book is the mounting evidence that so many people – especially young people – seem to be listening.
Americans are fleeing from faith in record numbers. The problem is especially pronounced among our young adults. To cite just one source, the Pew Research Center released a study in early 2010 noting that Americans ages 18 to 29 (known collectively as “Millennials”) are “considerably less religious than older Americans.” Lest we think that such disaffection is merely a natural rite of passage, the study went on to note that, “Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X were at a comparable point in their life cycle … and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults.”
In other words, the rate at which Americans are abandoning faith is growing exponentially from one generation to the next. Those of us who value faith and the role it has played in our civilization must stand up and speak out. We must do so in ways that not only encourage the faithful, but which also speak to the alienated and unsure. And we must do so immediately.
2.  How is religious faith under assault?
There are really two assaults on faith in America, one obvious and one subtle.
The obvious attacks come from the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. These so-called “new atheists” and their fellow travelers argue that you have to be an idiot to believe in God, and that idiots who believe in God are responsible for all of the hate, war and bloodshed in our society. Their arguments are simplistic and often downright silly. Such rhetoric would never persuade people who had a more mature understanding of human nature, human history and the sources of our virtue.
The deeper problem is that a second, more subtle attack has weakened our understanding of these fundamentals to the point that even the pretzel logic of the new atheists resonates. In particular, I’m talking about the steady drumbeat of moral relativism that continues to issue from our leading educational and cultural intuitions. We’re no longer taught to revere Western civilization, let alone identify and respect its sources. Thus fewer among us are able to recognize the Judeo-Christian tradition as the primary source of our morality and our most precious cultural inheritance. Once we disregard the enormous contributions of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the negatives that can be linked to this tradition suddenly stand out in sharp relief.
3. Critics of religion sometimes flippantly claim that religion is at a fault for all the violence in the world. What do you say to that?
This is false, and demonstrably so. When it comes to the existence of God, we must engage in a metaphysical debate in which no one can deliver conclusive proof. But when it comes to the behavior of the faithful in the world, there is an objective record. Here we can engage in an historical debate, and in this debate there is incontrovertible evidence that the atheists are wrong.
The fact is that not all religions are the same. Likewise, religions can and do evolve over the centuries. Indeed, both Christianity and Judaism have done miraculous work in delegitimizing violence in furtherance of the faith. This is why so few people kill in the name of these faiths today. And on those rare occasions when lunatics do kill in the name of Christianity or Judaism, they are immediately and universally condemned by the leaders of the very faiths they have so horribly misinterpreted.
The same cannot be said for all other faiths. In particular, the Judeo-Christian record stands in sharp contrast to the militant interpretation of Islam that informs the modern jihadists. While I believe that most Muslims are peace loving, there is a sizable minority of Muslims who clearly embrace violence in furtherance of their faith. These are the people who perpetrate and cheer the daily cruelties that kill tens, hundreds and sometime even thousands.
So at the outset, I place two important conditions on my analysis. First, I’m talking only about the Judeo-Christian tradition, not all faiths. And secondly, I’m talking about the modern era – the last 300 years or so – not all of human history. When we put these two conditions in place we find that not only are the atheist claims wrong, but that the exact opposite is true. Far from being the source of our hate and bloodshed, the Judeo-Christian tradition in the modern era has been the West’s deep wellspring of love and compassion and the foundation of our concept of human rights. As I document in my book, every major human rights campaign in Western history – from the effort to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the American Indian to the struggle to abolish the slave trade and slavery itself – has been led by devout Christians.
This is why the new atheists so often resort to an intellectual sleight of hand. In arguing that all religion leads inexorably to violence, they typically cite a modern Muslim example (such as 9/11), and an ancient Christian example (such as the Crusades). They tend to avoid a discussion of Judaism or Christianity in the modern era because this record is so very impressive.
4. What is the most interesting thing you uncovered doing research for your book?
During my research I came across some surprising examples of the “long arm” of the Judeo-Christian idea. This ethic of love, equality and compassion is so compelling that it has influenced people who would not typically be seen as Christian activists. I’ll give two examples.
India’s Mahatma Gandhi is the father of modern, non-violent political protest. He is one of my heroes. Yet his influence on Western nonviolent activists is often exaggerated. For instance, a deeply flawed conventional wisdom maintains that Gandhi inspired Martin Luther King Jr. to embrace nonviolence. Yet King was actually quite explicit about the fact that he derived his inspiration not from Gandhi, but from Jesus. It was only after King had already embarked upon a campaign of Christian nonviolence that he began to study Gandhi as a source of tactics.
And here’s where it gets really interesting. Not only was King’s Christian philosophy of nonviolence not based on Gandhi’s teachings, but there is evidence that the converse is true. To a surprising extent, Gandhi’s nonviolence had Christian roots. Gandhi was profoundly moved by the theological works of Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, especially his pioneering manifesto of Christian nonviolence called “The Kingdom of God is within You.” Gandhi wrote in his autobiography that “Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is within You overwhelmed me. It left an abiding impression on me.” Gandhi credited “Tolstoy by his book, The Kingdom of God is within You” with being one of three “moderns” who “left a deep impress on my life.”
The second example of the long arm of the Judeo-Christian idea is more contemporary. There is mounting evidence that the people on the front lines of the struggle for human rights today – those working in the most difficult and dangerous places – tend to be devout Christians and serious Jews. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof summed this up well when he wrote that:

In parts of Africa where bandits and warlords shoot or rape anything that moves, you often find that the only groups still operating are Doctors without Borders and religious aid workers: crazy doctors and crazy Christians.

Yet when I began to study Doctors without Borders more closely, I came across a fascinating insight. In his book “Power and the Idealists,” author Paul Berman discusses a 2003 debate featuring Bernard Kouchner, the founder of Doctors without Borders (and currently France’s foreign minister).  During this debate, Kouchner noted that the people serving with him on his medical missions no longer resembled him or his friends back in Paris.  Berman relates that, “Kouchner noticed that most people toiling at his side in one dangerous mission after another over the years came from backgrounds of a rather different sort. And what were these very different backgrounds? They were religious.”
In other words, even Kristof’s “crazy doctors” are often “crazy Christians.”  That’s quite a statement about the source of the love and courage necessary to risk one’s life for one’s fellow man.
5. Can you be a humanitarian without being religious?
Absolutely. There are many prominent humanitarians who are not religious. I’d even go so far as to say that Christopher Hitchens demonstrates a profound humanitarianism in the passion he brings to his defense of those who suffer oppression and violence around the world.
But here’s the interesting question about these secular heroes. What drives their compassion? Where did they learn the historically marginal idea that they should care so deeply about people who are not part of their own tribe? It is amazing to me that men as intelligent as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins cannot even trace the source of their own morality.
The ethics about which these secular humanitarians are so passionate are Judeo-Christian ethics. Morally speaking they – and all of us who grew up in the West – have been born on third base. Yet these secularists believe that they’ve hit a triple. They are using the language and ideas of the Judeo-Christian tradition to sit in judgment on the Judeo-Christian tradition and find it wanting.
Rather than congratulate ourselves on our moral genius, we should instead acknowledge that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who built the stunning moral edifice in which we’ve had the good fortune of being born. When we revere the Judeo-Christian ethic – even if we’re not religious – we increase our store of virtue. When we denigrate this tradition, we poison the source of our virtue.
6. Do you find the so-called new atheists persuasive at all? Is there any among them you think makes a better case than the rest?
Christopher Hitchens is more thoughtful and impressive in debate than he is in his book “god is not Great.”  But overall, I’m quite disappointed by the tenor and simplicity of the new atheist discourse. In their rhetorical and logical overreach, they propound atheist manifestos far less compelling than those of their intellectual forebears.
Let’s face it, it’s easy to find religious people to mock. Some are weird. Some are crazy. And some are crooks. But citing such unfortunate exceptions is not an argument. The inanity of this logic becomes clear when it’s applied in other contexts. When a college graduate commits a crime, do we condemn higher education as the root of his evil? Of course not. If anything, the problem with our educated criminal is that he didn’t take his education seriously enough. When a college student suffers from mental delusions, do we blame the university? No way. Our scholar’s illness typically has a source far removed from his studies. Yet for some reason we accept as profound the assertion that all failings of all people who claim to be religious must flow from their faith.
Ultimately, I find some of the classical doubters far more interesting and intellectually honest. Men like Spinoza, Voltaire and even Thomas Paine showed more originality and moral courage. And, especially given the times in which they lived, their doubt was often instructive and even salubrious.
7. What are some erroneous arguments you believe the new atheists are spreading?
The most erroneous argument is their core assumption. They believe that human beings are either born inherently moral or that we can reason our way to morality. If we can achieve goodness on our own, then we certainly don’t need religion to make us good.
Yet even the most superficial review of human history demonstrates the error of this presumption. Let’s take, for example, what I call the Judeo-Christian idea – the belief in the sanctity and equality of every single human being. If this stunning moral insight has been so obvious for so long, then why have so few societies in the history of the planet ever embraced it?
Cannibals living in the South Pacific did not love their neighbors; they ate them. And we have no record of any cannibal waking up one morning and deciding that eating his neighbors was abhorrent. Change came when the cannibals were introduced to new ideas from outside their culture.
The same is true of societies we commonly perceive as being more sophisticated. The Greeks and Romans did not love their neighbors; they enslaved them. In fact, the greatest Greek philosophers created philosophical rationales for this slavery. Aristotle taught that non-Greeks were intellectually inferior to Greeks, and therefore intended by nature to be their slaves.
The Greeks and Romans also discriminated against members of their own society whom they deemed to be imperfect or weak. These ancients were proud practitioners of infanticide. They killed their deformed and weak baby boys. They also commonly killed their baby girls no matter how healthy. In those days, girls were simply seen as less valuable to the family and society.
The Enlightenment philosophers updated these ancient rationales for slavery for a new era. In addition, they created the concept of race. And inherent in the concept of race from the very beginning was the poison of racism. The idea that all humans being were inherently equal was as foreign to the Enlightenment philosophers as it was to their Greeks and Romans predecessors.
In short, if you have compassion for a Haitian earthquake victim or a child starving in Africa, you must thank the Judeo- Christian tradition for it. In our civilization, this compassion for those so different and far away from us has no other source.
8. What are the three books that have most shaped your worldview?
The Bible
“Reflections on the Revolution in France” by Edmund Burke
“The Closing of the American Mind“ by Allan Bloom
9. Who do you think are the greatest living thinkers and writers on religion today?
Paul Johnson, Rodney Stark, Elie Wiesel, Pope Benedict XVI, Dennis Prager and Bono from the rock band U2.
I suppose I should explain that last one. Like the Bible’s Song of Songs, Bono’s lyrics may appear to be about love of a woman. But they are really about love of God. And they are beautiful.
10. Any plans to write another book? If so, about what?
I recently moved to Texas, and I’m quite impressed by my new home state. In an increasingly homogenous United States, one can still find a distinct culture and attitude down here. And it seems that this culture continues to inspire the kind of independent, entrepreneurial spirit that is the source of America’s strength.
For instance, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 214,000 net new jobs were created in the United States from August 2009 to August 2010. Of these, 119,000 – over half the total – were created in Texas.
I’m quite interested in documenting what Texas is doing right, and what the nation as a whole can learn from this fascinating state.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/09/10-questions-with-in-defense-of-faith-author-david-brog/#ixzz1AYHH9QNJ