Gods’ Country
If you ever take a drive through the heartland of America on Interstate 70 you will eventually come across the Effingham Cross, near Effingham, IL. This 200ft structure is located just a few hundred feet off the highway, surrounded by ten large plaques, each listing one of the Ten Commandments. A chapel is adjacent to the structure.
It is currently the world’s largest cross. Even if you are just passing through, you can’t miss it.
Welcome to God’s Country.
The Effingham Cross is not simply a religious statement, it is also a political one. Its purpose is to be seen by the nearly 50,000 people who travel past every day. For many Americans such a blatant symbol of Christianity is seen as an image of hope. Perhaps even a reassuring stance against the growing secularist movement in this country. For others, such a large Christian structure so close to a major public highway is seen as the perfect symbol of the threat of theocracy facing this country. Therein lies the great and growing divide in America. How we deal with this divide will determine the future of our country.
There is a growing movement in this country of a Richard Dawkins style of secularism. This movement labels religiosity not only as false, but as dangerous and indicative of insanity or ignorance. It places those who are led by their faith to pacifism and tolerance on the same footing as those who strap bombs to themselves in the name of God. It seems to be the fastest growing variant of secularism in the country. It is certainly the loudest.
The problem with the Dawkins approach as I see it is that it is not so much pro-secular as it is anti-religion. Dawkins himself sees enlightened secularism as a kind of utopia. Thus the purpose of this movement is to achieve a freedom FROM religion, since only a secular society can be truly just. Religious faith must therefore be classified as a thought crime, something that should not be tolerated. At the very least it should not show itself in public.
In Dawkins’ utopia Martin Luther King would have been derided as mentally insane because he believed in an imaginary sky pixie. Clearly anyone who says things such as
When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
must be delusional.
On the other hand, atheists such as Captain Awesome would be viewed as fully sane and rational creatures, perhaps even lauded for his writings, such as:
You see, there is only one way to explain it to you guys: I’m better then you. I’m so much better then you, asking me to respect your religion is like asking you to respect the drunken homeless guy passed out in his own vomit. In terms of theology, all religions are like that drunken homeless guy. The differences are insignificant, sort of like if the guy barfed up Boone’s farm or Jim Bean onto himself. I don’t give a shit, I’m just going to steal his alcohol and then piss on him.
By the way, if you are reading this Captain, the correct phrase is “better THAN you.”
The obvious flaw in the Dawkins approach is that secularism doesn’t foster justice. What fosters justice is equality. Labeling religious faith as a delusion or implying religion is the root of all evil isn’t a path toward utopia, no matter how finely worded the argument.
Of course the problem with equality is that everyone supports the idea until someone with whom you disagree demands it.
Going back to Effingham, imagine what would happen if Muslims built a mosque on the other side of the highway. One with a 200 ft minaret, and just as close to the road. Perhaps looking something like this:
Do you think the community there would welcome the mosque with open arms, or do you think they would start holding pig races on Fridays? If you see the Effingham Cross as an image of hope, would you see the mosque in the same way? Or would you see the mosque as a threat of theocracy?
You can’t have it both ways.
If freedom FROM religion is the wrong path for America, then equality demands freedom OF religion. Which means mosques need to be embraced in a community as openly as churches and synagogs. It means the nativity scene in the town square may sit next to a wiccan Yule display. What is acceptable for Christianity must also be acceptable for any religion, no matter how strange or false you may think it to be.
We don’t live in God’s country anymore, we live in Gods’ country. Plural. Every one of us has our own God or gods as we see them, even if that god is an ancient and false fairy tale. Freedom OF religion means that each of our gods have an equal right to be seen and heard, out in the open, with the government treating all with equal reverence.
Credits: Original mosque picture from wikipedia.
March 15th, 2007 14:12
A very interesting post and an excellent topic. However, I find myself in fundamental disagreement with you because I disagree with your premise. Unfortunately, that entails disagreement with just about everything your have written here! I think that the only thing we can probably agree on is something you didn’t say but could have– that Effingham cross is an aesthetic abomination.
So, let me explain why I think your premise (“What fosters justice is equality”) is wrong.
What fosters equality before the law (the only kind of equality there is or can be) is justice. This is not mere word play. As American citizens we can and should demand that the law treat each and every citizen fairly and in accordance with our laws. It is not fairness to try to ensure equality of outcomes.
It is fairness to allow all who are born here or who come here from abroad to practice their religion freely. It is not fairness to allow religious tolerance to go so far as to tyrannize the majority or to undermine our laws. That is madness. We must not and will not, for example, allow Muslims to practice honor killings or female circumcision here.
You also wrote “Freedom OF religion means that each of our gods have an equal right to be seen and heard, out in the open, with the government treating all with equal reverence.”. No, no, no! The government has no business treating religion with reverence or disdain. When you mean by “government” our system of laws, the role of government is clear. It is to keep its hands off.
When, however, you mean the citizens of this country, their attitudes are their own. The law (justice) requires only that they not impede others from worshipping the God or gods they wish to worship, while not violating the inalienable rights of individuals, even in their own faith communities. We citizens are perfectly free to reverence or disdain anything we want to.
You write that “mosques need to be embraced in a community as openly as churches and synagogs”. No, they need to be tolerated and left in peace. How we think or feel about any religion or philosophy is up to us. We cannot and should not want to legislate thoughts and attitudes.
You write further: “It means the nativity scene in the town square may sit next to a wiccan Yule display. What is acceptable for Christianity must also be acceptable for any religion, no matter how strange or false you may think it to be”. No, all such false “equality” does is dishonor both religions. Beyond that, it seriously misunderstands the role of “civil religion” in a nation’s life. For better or worse, our civil religion is based squarely on Christianity. I probably need to flesh that out in a post of my own, since it is a complex topic in its own right and this message is too long as it is.
So, have I convinced you?
March 15th, 2007 18:53
We must not and will not, for example, allow Muslims to practice honor killings or female circumcision here.
March 15th, 2007 21:07
Brian- an interesting post. The news recently held a story about the Supreme Court hearing a case about an injury sustained in a high-speed chase. The justices commented that the text of the story led them towards one conclusion, but that the visual images from the on-board camera of the law enforcement vehicle led them to very different thoughts. So too, these images are powerful and effective and visceral.
I find myself rebelling at the cross because so many people in recent years brandishing crucifixes so publicly have also been wrapping themselves and their causes in the flag, and have been doing both in aggressive and non-acccepting ways. I don’t mean to be prejudiced, but as was pointed out in a ressponse to Susan in her We Have Met… posting, we are shaped not only by our ideas but also by our experiences. It’s curious, because my family photo album has pictures of Irish men , well-turned out in Sunday best, gathered around large crosses placed prominently on hillsides, and I never thought twice about them. And I have friends and co-workers who practice ardent Christianity for whom I have great respect and from whom I can learn new things, or old things again for the first time I hope we can return to a civil society where men and women of faith can be taken at face value without worrying if they are fanatics who are willing to hate and threaten and even kill in the name of God.
Oddly, the mosque picture was less threatening to me because of that lack of personal experience. But I certainly can imagine being Dutch and having a strong negative visceral response in the wake of the death of Theo van Gogh, the death threats to Hirsi Ali, and the virtual banning of their movie “Submission
Which brings me to a response to Lily. (Hi Lily, I’m Nick, an old friend of the original Brave Human Four). I can agree with your quibble about”embraced” vs. “tolerated”, so long as each religious path has equal treatment under the law (at the least). I will admit to an idealism that would hope for the ability to go beyond what most folks mean by “tolerate”–I’d like to live where differences are actually warmly embraced, as we welcome in those different from us as possible teachers. While we are free to “didtain” anythiing we want to , I’d hope for moree open-mindedness about most thiings (And yet I don’t want to embrace the concepts and practices of clitoral mutilation and “honor killings” any more than I can value mindless patriotism and “My coountry, right or Wrong” thinking.) (To clarify, aren’t these former two versions of intolerance actually cultural/tribal practices, rather than anything required by a specific religion?) But this may just be semantics, and I think we mostly agree about the state staying away from religion.
What I wonder about in your comment is the apparent comfort level you have with saying that “or better or worse, our civil religion is based squarely on Christianity.” There are myriad interpretations of “Christianity”, (try the Unitarian Universalist website for a few divergent views), which doesn’t dishonor anyone. Why then would opening to other religious views of the genesis story or the importance of the return of light to the world (Christmas/Yule/ Buddha’s Birthday) dishonor either a faith system or it’s adherents? And because we have a “civil religion” doesn’t mean that it is infallable or impervious to change; ask Anne Hutchinson about what is possible, and sometimes necessary, with regard to the civil religion of the majority.
I would suggest that change is coming. The role of the great faiths is to act as anchors and to slow things down so that we have time to mull and evaluate our actions. But the role of progressives (including religious progressives) is to hoist sail and move us towards the vision of a better world.
March 15th, 2007 21:10
Hello Brian,
I was all ready to respond to your post, and then I read Lily’s ……….. and it left me shooting dry with no ammo ! Damn, she writes clearly, accurately and on point.
All I can say is …….. ” What She Said ! ”
I will merely add, that there is a mosque in northern mid-Ohio immediately adjacent to Interstate 75, with a tall minaret, used regelarly for calls to prayer, as far as I know. I passed it once a month for eight years on my drives to Detroit. I haven’t seen any bushels of straw and kindling being heaped at it’s door, nor have I heard of the local porcine population going to market below weight from races on Friday Night.
(I guess them there flyover country christians don’t do too bad at this tolerance thing.)
The Difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity accepts and tolerates other religions, even sacrifices to protect them. Islam is still a jealous creed, and has yet to make up it’s mind whether it can live with others or not.
By the way Lily, I can’t wait to read your expansive exposition on the centrality of Christianity to American culture and society.
All the best,
Denis
March 15th, 2007 22:42
Sorry to all for my spellos up above- I have a different keeyboard and it’s sticky too.
N
March 16th, 2007 11:00
Denis: You are officially my new best friend. But I hope I haven’t promised more than I can deliver! I certainly have thoughts on our civil religion but I am no scholar on the subject.
Nick: A very interesting response all around. Let me answer your questions to me briefly here, since I want to try and expand on this later.
My comfort level with saying that “for better or worse, our civil religion is based squarely on Christianity,” is directly tied to my willingness to acknowledge reality, whether I like the way things are or not. In this particular case, please don’t misunderstand me (and I left myself open to misunderstanding by stopping where I did). I am not talking about creedal Christianity or any of the myriad denominational flavors of Christianity.
Rather, I am referring to symbols, ways of speaking, customs, and more that reflect a broadly Christian influence on our culture that has provided our citizenry with a shared set of communal ties. I can give examples more easily than I can describe what I am getting at.
Some years ago when I was in college, my landlady told me, in a bit of a panic, that it was her turn to open some (secular) club she belonged to with prayer. She was not a churchgoer, professed no religious beliefs, etc. Her panic was driven not by being asked to do something she didn’t want to do. She did. She just didn’t know what to say and wanted to do it right. That club always started its meetings with prayer despite having absolutely no religious purpose. So I wrote some sort of generic prayer with which she was delighted and the day was saved.
Treating religions as some sort of buffet from which we pick and choose is profoundly troubling to me. It does not dishonor the cheese cake to sit next to the apple pie. It does dishonor Christ to set a Wiccan holiday symbol next to a creche! And it doesn’t respect the Wiccan symbol, either, though I confess that doesn’t bother me. And that should make my point…
The two (and most other combinations) are not merely different ways of saying the same thing. They are radically different ways of looking at the world and understanding it.
You also wrote: “The role of the great faiths is to act as anchors and to slow things down so that we have time to mull and evaluate our actions. But the role of progressives (including religious progressives) is to hoist sail and move us towards the vision of a better world.”
I can’t speak for other religions but I can for historic Christianity. The role of Christianity is most emphatically not to slow things down so that we can mull and evaluate our actions as we improve the world. This world will end.
Christianity aims at reconciling us to God and preparing us to be fit citizens of heaven. The better world will not be of human making. We have been muffing it for however many thousands of years it has been, since the first human raised his puny fist and waved it at God. If we could make a better world, we would have done so by now.
March 16th, 2007 13:46
Hi Lily-
I like your description of the cheese cake and apple pie (I just like it because I like sweets!). If you had added ice cream to the scenario, however, that’s a different story…
Seriously, though, could you explain why you feel that placing a non-Christian holiday symbol next to a creche dishonors Jesus? I’m a Christian, and I just don’t feel that way. Symbols of other religions, while perhaps interesting, don’t really mean anything to me, so I’m OK with having them around. Jesus, to me, is a very accepting figure (criminals, lepers, prostitutes, etc.)…
Susan
March 16th, 2007 13:48
The other comments are all well written and more in depth than I care to go. My thoughts are simple in regards to organized religion and is in line with what I will share with my children when they are old enough. 1. There are many different beliefs in the world.
2. It is arrogant to believe that one religion is superior to all others.
3. Educate yourself about the world, different cultures, and different beliefs.
4. The world is both big and small and it is amazing.
5. Just as people may seem very different, they are also very much the same.
6. The spiritual journey is a personal one but also one that can be shared with a community if desired.
7. Not everyone believes in God.
8. Respect the fact that people may believe differently than you and have different ways of doing things.
9. Have tolerance for those differences.
10. Try not to judge.
11. Aspire to be kind and treat others as you would have others treat you.
March 16th, 2007 14:14
Hi Susan:
Actually, I don’t feel that placing a non-Christian symbol next to a Christian one dishonors Jesus in the sense of bringing dishonor on him; I misspoke (miswrote?).
Rather, I think that we dishonor our profession of faith, i.e. ourselves, when we use our symbols as mere decorative objects (and that is what happens when we put Frosty the Snowman, a Creche, Rudolph/his red nose and who knows what else together as some sort of holiday, feel-good display). Either our profession of faith means something or it doesn’t.
Christianity is not simply one of many ways to God. It is only through Christ that man and God are reconciled. Now it is perfectly true that God can (and I believe does) save whomever he wishes to save. But His instructions to those of us who profess ourselves Christians is quite clear– we are to go out and make disciples of all the nations; baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “There is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved”, as the Apostle writes.
Well, well, well. Brian wanted a conservative voice on this blog and I guess he got one! Be careful what you pray for …
March 16th, 2007 16:18
Hi Lily-
First of all, we’re glad to have you as one of the conservative voices on this blog, esp. since you love cats!
I’m beginning to understand your view of dishonoring faith, but I’m still working on it: do you think that religious symbols such as the creche belong anywhere outside a religious setting? What I mean is, would you be OK with a creche by itself, say, in front of a city hall? Or should it just be outside a church? Or inside a church?
Obviously, I’m one of the non-conservative voices on this blog, since, although I consider myself a Christian and attend meeting weekly, I don’t agree with your belief that Christianity is the only way. I do believe that God will save every person.
I appreciate having a place like Brave Humans to discuss issues like this, in a sane and thoughtful matter. We need all types of voices.
Susan
March 16th, 2007 16:23
Rats; I forgot this in my last comment. My mind is on the impending snowstom, I guess.
Hi Pokettiger-
I love the values you are planning on sharing with your children. I want my daughter to grow up with those as well as having a personal relationship with God. That’s now an official goal. I’ve written it down.
Thanks
Susan
March 16th, 2007 16:45
Hi Lily,
First I second Susan’s comments about you being one of our conservative voices. Please stick around or I might as well just talk to myself and I do too much of that already….
I THINK I understand your viewpoint here. It seems both conservative and evangelical. If I’m wrong please correct me.
I am not Christian, except in the broadest cultural sense. On personal level I really love the comment by pokettiger. From my point of view they got it right. I understand that this is meaningfully different from your belief. I’m not likely to ever change my belief system in any substantial way to be more in line with yours and I recognize that your belief is as strongly held. So, here’s the question- how do we find some place we can all live? How do we get past the cultural and religious conflict that Brian is generally talking about here? I’m not looking for THE ANSWER. I’m looking for discussion of the problem.
-Grant
March 16th, 2007 20:14
Hi Susan, Hello Grant::
It is quite wonderful to be able to discuss hot button issues civilly, isn’t it? It is totally foreign to my experience, so you will have to forgive me for being somewhat addled—I have to readjust my thinking here!
I guess, given the subject that we have under examination, I should tell you a bit about myself—first, I am a “Protolic”. That is a Protestant who has swum the Tiber and is standing at the door of the Catholic Church. I am conservative theologically by which I mean that I accept Christianity as it has been historically understood (and summarized in the Nicene creed) but, alas, practice it badly.
I like to consider myself a bit of a Bible scholar, although that is a very limited matter, since I don’t read the original languages. But, as someone with formal training in medieval literature, the study of the Bible using all the tools available to us (literary analysis, history, archaeology, etc.) is very congenial to me. Well, that is probably enough by way of fessing up. So… on to your questions:
Susan, you asked: “do you think that religious symbols such as the creche belong anywhere outside a religious setting? What I mean is, would you be OK with a creche by itself, say, in front of a city hall?”
That is a really great question. I think my answer must be understood with reference to the role of what I have called “civil religion”. I would never want to see a religious ceremony in the public square. I sure don’t want to see teachers leading students in prayer in home room.
However, since the majority of us are still broadly, culturally, speaking Christian (in some attenuated sense), I do think that the crèche does belong in the public square because the celebration of Christmas is one of those cultural traditions that is widely shared, even by many nonbelievers. It is unfair to the majority to expect it to give up cherished traditions and destructive to our sense of community to try to please every minority.
Grant: you asked ” How do we get past the cultural and religious conflict that Brian is generally talking about here? ”
Short answer? By recognizing the role that our inherited traditions have played in making us a nation. One destroys our social fabric when one dismantles our customs and traditions; denigrates the way we think and express ourselves; the artistic conventions we love and the music we sing– everything that has made us a nation. It is madness, in my opinion, to deliberately seek out balkanization.
And that is what we have done by not insisting on assimilating new immigrants and making Americans out of them, instead of “respecting their cultures” and leaving them to create a new Mexico or a new Islamabad within our cities. That isn’t respect. That is disdain for one’s own culture which is a peculiar sickness I see only in liberal western democracies. It is an almost suicidal impulse to so little value one’s own nation, that one will not fight to preserve it.
No, a robust sense that the American experiment, the thing our grandfathers, great grandfathers and great, great grandfathers fought and died to preserve is still worth preserving, so much so that the citizens of other nations have historically come here to become one of us, will go a long way in mitigating conflict. Beyond that we enforce our laws so that no one’s rights are slighted.
And, finally, Pokettiger, I liked your list too! I would quibble only with #2. I suppose it must seem arrogant to claim that there is only one correct religion but, if one didn’t believe that, why would one adhere to the one chosen? Other than that, it is a fine list.
March 17th, 2007 14:54
Hi all,
I’ve been following this discussion with great interest. Thanks, everyone, for such a thoughtful debate.
Lily, I have two questions for you.
You write, “And that is what we have done by not insisting on assimilating new immigrants and making Americans out of them, instead of “respecting their cultures” and leaving them to create a new Mexico or a new Islamabad within our cities. That isn’t respect. That is disdain for one’s own culture which is a peculiar sickness I see only in liberal western democracies. It is an almost suicidal impulse to so little value one’s own nation, that one will not fight to preserve it.”
I get the sense that you believe there is an “American culture.” Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption (please correct me if I am). But if I am not incorrect, I’m wondering how you define American culture, and what it is that immigrants need to do to assimilate into said culture. (okay, that’s Question #1 parts a. and b.)
Question #2 is in reference to your assertion that “I suppose it must seem arrogant to claim that there is only one correct religion but, if one didn’t believe that, why would one adhere to the one chosen?” You stated that you are a “Protolic” so I’d like to ask, if you do chose to convert to Catholicism, does that mean you will then consider Protestantism to be “incorrect” or fundamentally flawed?
Thanks,
Elena
March 17th, 2007 15:26
Lily,
You say “It is madness, in my opinion, to deliberately seek out balkanization./And that is what we have done by not insisting on assimilating new immigrants and making Americans out of them…”.
Your post suggests (to me; my apologies if I’ve misinterpreted) that the United States is currently making a concerted effort to NOT assimilate new cultures, as opposed to the blending of cultures that got us to this point. But please keep in mind that the history of immigration in America includes numerous Chinatowns, Little Italys, and Irish Ghettoes. Many ethnic groups arrive on our shores and avoid assimilation; this may be due to the surrounding culture immediately embracing the newcomers, but it could as well be due to a desire on the part of the newcomers to preserve their own culture and traditions intact, or simply because a language barrier erects a barrier between them and their host culture.
As Denis pointed out, however, you CAN find mosques in the midwest. I am sure there are communities (Brian provides the “pig races” link) in which intolerance is in full bloom; but you’ll also find communities where immigrants mingle socially and culturally with the rest of the community.
I’m sure none of this is news to you, but I thought it needed saying.
March 17th, 2007 15:33
Hi Lily-
You wrote: “I suppose it must seem arrogant to claim that there is only one correct religion but, if one didn’t believe that, why would one adhere to the one chosen?”
I have selected the religion I adhere to because it fills a need inside me that no other one does. I was raised a Catholic, spent some time as an adult in a Presbyterian church, and now attend a Quaker meetinghouse. My father, still attends Catholic services a few times a week. I would not presume to try to get him to change to my religion; I know Catholicism works for him, and I know why it does. It’s providing him with guidance and comfort, and I think that’s great.
One of the potential guardians for my daughter, if anything (God forbid) happens to us, is pagan. She has absolutely lovely teenagers; I hope my kid grows up to be like hers. Indeed, my girl loves the entire family (we all do), and I encourage her to see those older kids as role models.
For me, faith is profound, but personal. I can, and do, discuss matters of faith and Quakerism with others, but feel no need or desire to convert them. I think the language of God has many dialects. I listen to the one that works for me, but leave it up to God to speak to other people in the way best suited to them.
Susan
March 17th, 2007 15:42
In the process of editing before submitting, I left out a word that changes the meaning of a sentence. I intended to say “this may be due to the surrounding culture NOT immediately embracing the newcomers”
March 17th, 2007 21:21
Wonderful comments all! I am feeling a little guilty that my opinions seem to be driving the discussion but, perhaps, that is inevitable, since I appear to be the seriously alternative voice (a.k.a. contrarian voice) in this discussion. I keep saying that I am going to be brief and I keep failing. But it is my goal! With that in mind, I respond thusly:
Elena: you wrote: […] I’m wondering how you define American culture, and what it is that immigrants need to do to assimilate into said culture.
It is hard to sum up in a few words, so I will say generally that one needs to know about our history (both the good and the bad) and the principles upon which our nation was founded. Above all immigrants must learn English!
Now, I exempt adults from more than an adequate command, sufficient for getting them through the day. My own great grandfather never learned English. But his children did and they would not permit their children to learn Italian (which is a shame, I think).
That attitude (“I came here to be an American and my children will be, fully”) must inspire immigrants or they will always be a problem in a community in which they settle in large numbers.
You also asked: […] if you do chose to convert to Catholicism, does that mean you will then consider Protestantism to be “incorrect” or fundamentally flawed? Well, Protestantism is fundamentally flawed. The dizzying number of denominations is testimony to that. But that really is too big a topic for a com box. I do know that the official Catholic (as defined in the catechism) position holds that Protestants are separated brethren who are Christians who do not enjoy the fullness of Christianity. Conservative Catholic individuals can and do often feel quite differently.
Tim: you wrote that I appear to believe that the US is making a “concerted effort to NOT assimilate new cultures”. I do, indeed, believe that. It happens not only at the governmental level but at the local level, as well. A fine example comes from Minnesota this last week where a Muslim cashier at the local super Target (the ones with full-line supermarkets) would not ring up a customer’s pork product.
The whole transaction had to stop, until another cashier could come by and ring up the offending shrink-wrapped pork chops. Madness! (This is also the same state where Muslim cab drivers at the airport have refused en masse to carry passengers who have bottles of alcohol with them)
You also wrote that the refusal to assimilate “…could as well be due to a desire on the part of the newcomers to preserve their own culture and traditions intact, or simply because a language barrier erects a barrier between them and their host culture”. It is fine to preserve one’s culture and traditions intact, as long as one knows and respects the culture of the country to which one has come. It is absolutely critical that the children learn English and become fully assimilated citizens.
You also wrote that you are sure that “there are communities (Brian provides the “pig races” link) in which intolerance is in full bloom; but you’ll also find communities where immigrants mingle socially and culturally with the rest of the community”. Well, I lived in Iowa for 20 years and never saw any pig races. Why are you so sure of that there have been any?
I have heard of none anywhere, either, though I have read jokes about that on the Web. It goes a long way towards making community relations smooth, when the minority respects the greater culture. They must be able to negotiate both their own and the larger community’s culture. It is absolute insanity for a nation to import a large dissenting population.
Susan: You wrote that you “ selected the religion I adhere to because it fills a need inside me that no other one does.”
Well, I converted to Christianity because I became convinced that it was true. I was not aware, at the time, that I had any needs that it filled, exactly. In fact, I was rather annoyed at some of the demands it placed on me. Still, I didn’t make it up and it wasn’t mine to change. I am going to be received into the Catholic Church because I have become convinced (greatly against my will, since I have all the prejudices that the greater, largely Protestant culture has) that the fullness of truth resides within it.
You also wrote: “I think the language of God has many dialects. I listen to the one that works for me, but leave it up to God to speak to other people in the way best suited to them.”
This strikes me as a quintessentially American point of view. How does it “work” for you? For me the question is, is it true or not? Believe me, as a bit of a loner and someone who loves to sleep in, I would really rather not get up early to go to Mass, especially since I live in a region in which there appears to be a law in place that forces *all* women to drench themselves in perfume.
The cats, who really hate it when I disturb their repose, would also prefer that I sleep in. They are agnostic on the question of perfume.
March 17th, 2007 22:32
I’m in the middle of a longer response here, but I felt I should point out that there are indigenous American languages which are dying out in part because of the English-only mentality of certain established immigrant groups who like to pretend that their imported culture is the one true culture of this country.
March 17th, 2007 22:56
Hi Lily-
This is hard stuff to explain, but I’ll give it a shot.
My belief in God is essential to my feeling whole. Although I’ve never been without it, I imagine that without belief my life would be less purposeful and meaningful, since it impacts so much of my life…
The particular denomination that I attend supports me and helps me develop in this faith through things like Sunday school, silent meditation, sermons, and fellowship. This is the place that helps me understand and try my best. Catholicism did not do it for me, although I know others for whom it did; I’m glad you have found truth there.
Saying “it works for me” is just another way of saying this. It probably is an American phrase; I don’t know enough about religious beliefs in other countries to know if it is only an “American point of view.”
P. S. I feel for you wanting to sleep in; although I’m a morning person, my husband is a night owl and getting up early on Sundays is tough for him. He has to settle for sleeping in on Saturdays. (And our cats are more likely to wake us up than the other way around…they want FOOD…I fear they are a bit overweight…sigh…)
Susan
March 17th, 2007 23:28
Susan,
Is your belief in “a God”, or in the “Triune God”? The former is diestic, and the latter is Christian.
If you say “Triune God”, then how can you say that God will save every person? Jesus says “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through me.” How do you reconcile your belief to Christ’s statement?
Big questions. I am very interested in your responses.
I agree with Lily when she says your perspective is “quintessentially American”. Christianity is not a social movement, although many would prefer it to be; it’s easier to quash a social movement than a belief system. See here for my comments to one of Grant’s posts; I believe the comments are relevant here as well.
Having friends who have performed mission work in St. Petersburg, Russia, and Burkina Faso, I can tell you that they believe American Christianity is extremely watered down and failing them.
Lily,
I appreciate your writing, your forthrightness, and your confidence in your beliefs. Thank you for commenting here.
March 17th, 2007 23:51
Rick,
Just as a technical point, Deism formally is the view of God as a sort of “prime-mover” of the universe, rather than the active, personal God of Christianity. It generally rejects supernaturalism and relies on naturalist reason rather than the authority of Holy Texts. Non-trinitarianism does not imply Deism, and there are several protestant Christian (”Christian”) denominations who adhere to the traditional Christian view of an active personal God of salvation, while simply rejecting the triune nature of God outlined by the Nicene Creed.
March 18th, 2007 00:30
Brian,
Yes, I agree that non-trinitariasm does not imply Deism; I oversimplified and shouldn’t have.
Your statement about the “Christian” denominations that reject the Triune nature of God are what spurred my questions. “Christianity” comes in many flavors which aren’t Christian. We all love to have our ears tickled; if my “Christianity” always has to make me feel good, I would say it’s not working for me.
Susan,
Outside of my oversimplification, my questions still stand.
Thanks,
Rick
March 18th, 2007 01:05
Now for my longer comment. There is a lot to address here. Since there are several questions asked already, I’ll simply add a couple comments, and expand upon my post a bit.
The assertion that Christianity is America’s civil religion is simply false in my view. Christianity in its traditional form has an imperial structure with God as absolute ruler, and the nobility and clergy wielding power as God’s representatives on Earth. The idea of self-governance and the abolition of noble titles stems not from Christian tradition, but from the enlightenment. Christianity was forced to adapt to political changes arising from the reformation, which stood in direct opposition to tradition. That the majority of Americans are culturally Christian does not make Christianity the default standard.
Lily, your comment about female circumcision and honor killings is well taken, but both of these are illegal independent of one’s religion. Male circumcision is legal, both in a religious and secular context. So these examples don’t represent an acceptance of any kind of “religious privilege.” Things have gotten interesting, however, after the Supreme Court ruled that a church in New Mexico can consume an illegal hallucinogenic tea as part of their religious practice. To my knowledge it is the first case where one’s religious faith allows a legal violation as a special privilege. The ruling would seem to set the precedent for all sorts of religious exceptions.
Relating back to this post, the central question is how to balance the ideals of democracy with the freedom of religious expression. As I mentioned in the post, one approach is to take the secular position, and strive for freedom FROM religion. Thus, religious artifacts should be forbidden from public commons so as not to offend others. (The courts have recognized this does not include things like Christmas trees, which are seen as cultural and not religious artifacts). While this is one way to impose equality, it is in my view the wrong way. Forcing people to hide their religion simply encourages radicalism and isolation, which is not conducive to a democracy.
The other approach is to have freedom OF religion. Town commons could then contain religious artifacts, such as a Nativity scene, so long as other religions in the community have an equal right to express their faith. This would mean in many smaller communities, only traditional nativity display would be placed in the public library. For other communities, the town square may have a cross and a star of David. For more diverse communities there may be a public display of a dozen faiths. This does not minimize Christianity, but instead recognizes the diversity of faiths present in a community.
However, to argue that religious symbols such as a cross or a manger can be placed on a public commons to the exclusion of all other faiths because we are somehow a “Christian nation” is to argue for at least the semblance of an official state religion, which clearly violates the constitution.
March 18th, 2007 08:32
Hi Rick-
I’ll try to answer your questions. I hope I can make my beliefs clear. I’ll start out by saying that I believe, personally, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (OK, so far I think that part is clear.)
Up until recently, I used to believe in a hell where evil people went…it was my best way of dealing with what I saw as “successful” evil in the world. It was how I could go on, following the 10 Commandments…my reward was coming. Evil people would pay.
Then I read the book “If Grace is True” by Phil Gulley and Jim Mulholland. (I will start off by saying that I realize it is controversial and nonconventional.) Written by a pastor and theologist, it proposes that God will save every person, eventually, whether in this life or the next. The God of love does not intend for his children to suffer forever. One particular quote (I may paraphrase here) sticks with me, “I’m a parent, and I may send my child to his room as punishment….but not FOREVER.”
I was equating my ability to understand, love, and forgive (or lack thereof) with God’s. I realized how arrogant that made me. I think God is capable of infinite understanding, love, and forgiveness. I can’t reconcile a God of love with eternal suffering. If finding Jesus in this life were the only way to get to heaven, why would God put people in the world who would have, simply by geography, no chance to learn about Jesus? Automatically, they are condemned. How is that a loving God? But if God is patient and willing to wait, however long it takes…that sounds like a loving father. This, intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally seems like truth to me. Having this belief has also made me a more patient and loving person.
Hope I made this clear.
Susan
March 18th, 2007 09:08
Brian: I can see by your last paragraph that I have not made myself clear at all! (”However, to argue that religious symbols such as a cross or a manger can be placed on a public commons to the exclusion of all other faiths because we are somehow a “Christian nation” is to argue for at least the semblance of an official state religion, which clearly violates the constitution.”)
That is not what I am arguing. I do not want to exclude other symbols of faith from display in public venues. I simply don’t want their meanings watered down or “neutered” by placing other irrelevant symbols around them. So Easter belongs to Christians. Eid belongs to Muslims. Passover to Jews.
Let us have all of them represented by appropriate symbols and let us not eviscerate them by treating them like decorations. Let’s not demean them by surrounding them by irrelevant symbols of other religions, as if religion were a contagion that we can keep from spreading, if we just surround it with enough other “stuff”!
Beyond that I am not arguing that this is a Christian nation. When I refer to our civil religion, I am referring to one that has taken its symbols from the predominant religion of our nation but emptied them of their full (religious) meaning and imbued them with others. This used to annoy the heck out of me as a new convert. Now, however, I appreciate the power of civil religion in creating common bonds.
March 18th, 2007 09:17
What of the non-Abrahamic religions? You stated your opposition to Yule being represented in the same commons as Christmas.
March 18th, 2007 09:47
Sometimes common sense has to prevail. If there really are enough pagans around who celebrate Yule, I suppose we can make room for it.
However, since it seems primaily to be Wiccans who want to celebrate it these days and I have no desire to concede any legitimacy to Wicca (est. 1954), I am not in favor of calling Yule a religion, even though it once was.
I have no desire to encourage the wholesale invention of “religions” to justify bizarre or even abberant practices. Nor do I wish to encourage the recreation of ancient pagan religions as a cover for whatever antisocial or illegal practices a group of people wish to indulge in.
March 18th, 2007 21:25
Lily,
If I understand you correctly, only certain faiths should be granted the status of religion. Since only true religions should be granted access to public spaces, there would need to be a list of officially recognized religions, to the exclusion of all others. The government would have to create a list of religions which are acceptable for public representation.
You have excluded Wicca, considering it to be illegitimate, so what about others? Should Mormons be excluded? Quakers? Jehovah’s Witness? Scientology? Hindu? Buddhism?
How about Jedi?
I’m quite serious about the last one. As strange as it seems, Jedi is in fact, the second largest religion in New Zealand. There are more Jedi than Buddhists in New Zealand.
I ask about these religions in all seriousness. The easiest way to deal with this issue is to simply deny public representation of all religions. Require all faiths to be private, forbid them from public spaces.
I think that is the wrong approach. However, if we allow some faiths into the public sphere, I think we have to allow all of them. Even Jedi. Even The Church of the SubGenius.
To do otherwise would be to require the government to deem which religions are acceptable for public. If we used your “common sense” argument of excluding religions which engage in bizarre and illegal activities, we would even have to exclude Catholicism, so that doesn’t work.
As adamant as you are in the truth of your religion, there are those who are just as adamant in the truth of theirs. In a democratic society, you must both be given equal rights under the law. Which means any public access your religion has, all religions must have. Is this not so?
March 19th, 2007 10:46
No, I don’t think it is so. I think, in fact, that we are mixing apples and oranges here. The law requires only that the government not impose religion on the citizenry and that it not restrain the citizen’s right to practice his religion (as long as it does not violate individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). It does not mean that we have to value or respect those religions– only tolerate them.
Meanwhile, we celebrate some faiths in the public square because they are inextricably tied to our culture. They are there because they express something of value to the greater community. We absolutely have the right to define and guard our culture.
It is civic suicide to try to embrace every new idea, religion, etc, that comes down the pike or to insist that cherished traditions be abandoned for fear of insulting or offending someone.
March 19th, 2007 11:54
If I understand you correctly, all religions should be tolerated, but certain religions should be given pride of place in this country. So, for example, a Wiccan American should acknowledge that Christianity has the blessings of the State, and represents American culture, while her faith does not.
If you replace Christianity with Islam and Wicca with Christianity, it is exactly the stance taken by Iran.
Can you understand why I would view that as frighteningly close to a theocracy?
March 19th, 2007 13:11
You are frightening yourself needlessly. It is not the STATE blessing Christianity that is being discussed here but, rather, the right of the citizens who form the majority to express themselves as they have for 150+ years without having the STATE demand that they give up their traditions, in order not to offend minorities.
Do we really want to live in a STATE in which nursery rhymes must be renamed so as not to offend muslims? An unbelievably egregious example of this kind of nonsense happened last week in Britain, when a primary school teacher renamed the 3 Little Pigs the 3 Little Puppies . Given the muslim attitude towards dogs, I do fail to see how this was an improvement.
Beyond all that, I am having a hard time understanding why my real point keeps getting lost. I don’t *care*, if my townhall wants to put up a Passover display. I don’t care if it wants to put up a Jedi or Wiccan whatever, so long as it doesn’t eviscerate and, thus, demean all religious holidays by yoking them and, for good measure, surrounding them with secular decorations.
I also emphatically object to the rewriting of history. I object to crosses being removed from town seals. I object to removing the role of Christianity in our founding from our history books– have you seen an elementary school textbook recently?
I object to PBS doing a children’s show about Joan of Arc and turning her into a girl who liked to fight. Not one single word about God! Not one single word about her end either.
Human nature is not infinitely malleable. We cannot and never will “all get along”. We humans will always make judgments about what we like and don’t like, what we will accept and what we won’t. The liberal project of unending Kum Ba Yah is, in some ways, noble but hopelessly mistakes human nature.
I am far more frightened of the way liberals use the law and our courts to compel us to be “equal” and “nice” and “open-minded” than I am of theocracy, because the oppression of those who act with the best interests of humanity in mind will never see themselves as the oppressors they are.
Edit: The last sentence should read:
I am far more frightened of the way liberals use the law and our courts to compel us to be “equal” and “nice” and “open-minded” than I am of theocracy, because those who legislate in the belief that they have the bests interests of humanity in mind will never see themselves as the oppressors they are.
March 19th, 2007 16:28
That is very telling. Thanks for that, Lily.
March 19th, 2007 17:06
Well, don’t call the PC police on me just yet! I would hate to live in a theocracy, too. It is just that if I am going to be oppressed, I see no difference between those who do so in the service of (their notion of) God and those who do it because they believe they know what is best for the rest of us benighted folks. It makes precious little difference to me who forces me to act or think a certain way, if that is not, in fact, what I would freely choose.
March 19th, 2007 17:36
I have just a few, short comments on this:
1) If you think Theocracy is even a possibility, you don’t know the private lives of most Congresspeople. That’s not to say God isn’t thrown around by every politician of every stripe, just that Theocracy isn’t very likely in America.
2) Take it easy on those pig racers here in Texas. The way he tells the story (although it’s hard to tell who to believe), the Mosque-ers told him “he might as well leave his land now” since they were going to drive him off of it. I might race a pig or two, too, if someone told me that.
3) Dawkins isn’t doing anything new. I remember a much more successful and erudite pagan….er…secularist saying, “Religion is the Opiate for the masses”.
And, if I remember my history correctly, just one, single practitioner of that philosophy managed to kill 26 million or so of his own people.
As a result, I’m going to have to say strident secularism is a much greater danger than any religion on the face of the planet.
Dan
March 19th, 2007 21:22
Daniel,
To address your points,
1) I don’t think theocracy is likely, but I do think it is possible. It is not the politicians I worry about, but the absolutist mentality of certain religious adherents.
2) Mosque officials deny such a thing was said. Regardless, holding pig races to protest the building of a Mosque is no different than burning a cross on your property when a black family moves in next door. The purpose of the races is to insult and intimidate the Islamic community there.
3) My point about Dawkins was that I disagree with his approach. As for Stalin, he did not kill 26 million people. He had millions of followers who where active and complicit in the genocide. The same is true of religiously driven genocide.
It is not secularism which is the danger, nor is it religion. The danger stems from fundamentalist absolutism in any form.
March 19th, 2007 22:51
Working in reverse order…
Brian,
I think Lily’s point should be taken seriously, even if you disagree with it. Political correctness moves us toward thought control. There is a “tyranny of good intentions”, which often has unintended consequences. Sadly, no one ever goes back to look at the impact of the unintended consequences; instead, we trudge forward with more “good intentions” because they make us feel good, we become proud of ourselves, and we sleep well at night.
Want to see political correctness gone awry in a humorous way? Watch Demolition Man. It’s a stupid movie, but the way it handles the frivolity of political correctness is well-done.
Want to see the unintended consequences of political correctness done poorly? Look at our “hate crime” laws. We put higher priority on thought control, than we do on simply enforcing rules that are already on the books.
On the topic of pig races, etc. CAIR is a good glossy front for subverse anti-American activity. They play the media well, refuse to denounce terrorism, and fund suspicious groups inside the U.S. and globally. I trust what CAIR says about as much as I trust, er, the media.
Lily,
Your point is lost because you are trying to tear down walls…old habits, preconceived notions, prejudices, biases, knee-jerk reactions (have I hit them all yet?). It’s still side 1 vs. side 2. However, that is the frame of reference we all have, until we grudgingly - or not so grudgingly - work ourselves out of it.
I agree that legal fiat and litigation should not be permitted to force communities to drop their traditions. If a community votes in the majority to drop or add a tradition, then I don’t have a problem with that.
To your point about the Joan of Arc show (sorry, can’t call it biographical or historical if it didn’t mention her Christianity)…if I wrote a biography about Al Gore, his life, and his passion, but never mentioned environmentalism or global warming, I would be bashed all around town, even by CNN.
Susan,
Thanks for answering. I agree the first part is clear.
Without greatly researching the book by Gulley and Mulholland, I can already identify where I will have problems with it. God is not only a perfectly loving God, but also a perfectly just God. Jesus died for all…that’s the loving part (gospel). Some reject this thought…that’s the just part (law). The theology of glory wants to make everyone a saint, without seeing that everyone is also a sinner.
BTW…my being saved has nothing to do with my goodness. I am human, and therefore cannot be perfect. I am ashamed of my shortcomings; I will always have them. I do not look for counseling, I do not convince myself it was my parents’ fault, and I do not blame my environment. It’s me that fouls up.
Any attempt to look at my goodness is folly, because I cannot measure up to the perfect standard.
March 20th, 2007 07:44
Hi Rick-
I certainly didn’t agree with everything in the Gulley and Mulholland book, but the book doesn’t claim that people aren’t sinners. It was through ministry with all sorts of people that this belief arose.
We agree on the point that goodness doesn’t ensure salvation. For me, trying to do right is its own reward in this life. I believe that all actions we take come from our own choices, as soon as we are old enough to make them.
I don’t know what kind of reception “evil” people will get once they die…but I’m convinced that God will continue to guide them. It may take a long time, but I also think that he wants us all with him in paradise for eternity. God is just, loving, and patient.
A very human Susan
March 20th, 2007 09:14
“The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.”
Jesus talked about hell almost as much as he talked about money.
(And before anyone says this is a parable, consider the fact that it doesn’t have *any* characteristics of any other parable. There is no comparison, there is no explaination, the people have names.)
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
March 20th, 2007 09:53
Hi all-
Wow, I just realized that I was helping drag this section WAY off topic (sorry Brian!) by getting into a discussion about my personal faith. That’s interesting and important to me, but it’s not Brian’s point. I’ll save anything else for a more appropriate venue.
Susan
March 20th, 2007 12:45
Scott,
I wouldn’t say it is a parable. I would say it is myth.
And therein lies the heart of this discussion (and many others). When I look at you, I see an evolved primate who has found a truth which serves you, and who is struggling to follow his path in life as best he can. When you look at me, you see a miserable sinner who will spend eternity tormented in a lake of fire.
In your view, believing falsehoods is worse that killing hundreds of people, then seeing the light and being saved. Thought crimes are worse than physical crimes.
We aren’t just politically opposed, we don’t even reside in the same universe.
March 20th, 2007 13:23
Rick,
I actually took Lily’s point very seriously. Your comment about thought control is exactly why opposed the secular approach. My point was that we SHOULDN’T curtail the traditional display of religions in public spaces, but that as we grow more diverse other religions should enjoy the same privilege of public display within a community. I’m not advocating that a community which is 99% Christian be forced to display a pentagram because some wiccans who live a thousand miles away say so. But if there are wiccans within the community who wants to display their faith in the common space in the way Christians have always done, then they should be able to.
As for the pig races, they have nothing to do with CAIR. The fact is, the guy is holding pig races with the sole purpose of offending Muslims. I actually heard about the event on the FoxNews website.
March 20th, 2007 13:44
Brian,
I think you overstepped your bounds in your comment to Scott.
First, having known him personally for a number of years, I know Scott does not wish hell upon you. Frankly, it frustrates him and me that people will end up there, and we, as Brave Lutherans, attempt within our vocations to educate others so that they will be saved. If you will duly note, I don’t believe either of us has initiated a comment to a post with the religious view, but we have stated our beliefs as they became relevant to the topics at hand. We are not Jesus Freaks or modern evangelicals.
Second, we all profess what we believe, but professions are merely words, i.e. outward signs. We cannot know what you truly believe and we don’t profess to know you that way.
What you see is what you get. If you want this site to succeed, you cannot take the religious fabric out of people when they justify certain positions. You totally missed Scott’s point, and, sadly, your response to him tells me that it’s not worth explaining.
So…Brave Humans, or Brave Liberals? Which do you want?
March 20th, 2007 13:54
Dear Brian,
If I have “a truth” among many, and I can be that easily dismissed as just some odd person working his way through his choice of truths, there is no point in the whole idea behind “brave humans.” It’s all just noise, just like your 30,000 idea. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that some “truths” get more leeway around here and others are obviously in a less favorable standing.
I won’t be participating any further. Please remove my blog from the 30,000 list as well.
Have fun. Good luck.
March 20th, 2007 19:23
Scott,
I have obviously offended you, and I apologize. My comment was off topic, and overly harsh.
I understand if you need to walk away from BraveHumans, but I do hope you will not let my transgression drive you away.
You mentioned that some truths are given more leeway than others here. I would very much like to hear more about that. If you would be willing to write a post on this bias, it would greatly help me understand your perspective.
In either case, thanks for your contributions here. I wish you all the best.
Brian
March 21st, 2007 03:07
Hello Brian,
I think I will attempt to answer your question to Scott, as I have been affected by this long exchange.
Your question was seeking a post on some view, or truths, as you put it are being given more leeway than others.
What comes across in your writings, once a discussion really gets going, is a view of Christian faith as a falsehood, one “truth” among many, oppressive, biased.
The discussion feels to me that I have to justify my faith and the policies I hold because they rest on that faith. You are not asked to justify your science, or secularism, per se, but the tone seems to ask that of the views I hold. As if only a lunatic could really believe as I do, and I have to first convince you I am not a lunatic. Only then will my views be even considered.
You appear to have the unconscious liberal bias that you are inherently more right than me, based on the foundation of our views. It appears that you see mine as having no validity, since they are not provable by the scientific method. This disdain for the basis of my views, my advocacy, my life, comes through.
One example may sum the difficulty.
You wrote:
“When I look at you, I see an evolved primate who has found a truth which serves you, and who is struggling to follow his path in life as best he can.”
In this view, man is one animal among many, intelligent, who has chosen a truth and tries to follow it.
My view is that we are beings created in God’s image, with gifts and talents, who are called to live by his example and by his commands (Ten Commandments)
These views cannot be reconciled.
Apparently, you do not, cannot, give credemce to religious belief. That is fine …. for you. For me I have a belief in a revealed truth. You do not have to believe in my faith, but you cannot tell a man that the basis of his life is invalid becaise it does not conform to proof and investigation by the scientific method.
You have a faith also. I can not prove that Christianity is right, nor can you prove that a secular approach is right, in the absolute sense. These are both beliefs. Is there a reason mine is less valid than yours ?
The problem is that we are discussing policies and the values behind those policies. Either we accept the personal basis at the root of our views or we cannot even talk. I am not asking one to accept my beliefs as their own, but if my views are dismissed for their basis, then you have just denied me a voice at the public square.
March 21st, 2007 03:28
Rick,
You are right, it was past the line.
I wrote it with more anger than I should have. My anger stemmed from what I took as Scott’s meaning. As you say, I apparently mistook his meaning. Let me explain how I read the comment.
Luke 16 is the only place in which the Rich Man and Lazarus is mentioned. Of the various places in which hell is mentioned or alluded to in the Bible, it is perhaps most explicit here. Although it is often viewed as a parable (and therefore metaphor or allegory alluding to a spiritual truth), as Scott pointed out there are reasons to support the view that it is not. If it is not a parable, it must be a factual description of an actual event.
Which means the latter part of Luke 16 is the one place in the Bible where we get a detailed description of hell. The rich man is tormented by flames. He asks Abraham for the slightest relief, a mere drop of water on his tongue, and is denied. He asks to warn his brothers, and is again denied. For as Scott quoted “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”
Conclusion: Hell is real. It is a place of flames and torment. It is eternal, and there is no relief. And anyone who denies the truth of God’s word is forever damned.
Scott quoted this passage in response to Susan’s comment that she felt everyone reaches paradise in the goodness of time. And he stated it was literal fact, not a parable. So my reading of his comment was that Susan didn’t simply have a difference of opinion, she was wrong. Totally and completely. There are no second chances. Hell is forever. It didn’t help that Scott’s final quote is often used to admonish those who doubt the veracity of hell. To me the quote read as a warning that Susan risks her eternal soul by embracing universalism.
In short, I read it as an arrogant warning to Susan, and I smacked back.
My response was angry, but it was honest. I don’t believe the Bible is the one true word of God. It contains things horrific, confusing, beautiful and wise, but so do other holy texts. And I know my denial of its truth means I will spend eternity in hell. When Christ returns, he will say to me “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” My name will not be found in the Book of Life, and I will be cast into the lake of fire, where I will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
I am certain you, and Scott, and Lily wish that I could be saved from such a fate, but it is not to be.
You have said that I cannot take the religious fabric out of people when they justify certain positions. You’ve mentioned it before, and as I think about it I’m pretty sure I don’t know what that means. I’m perfectly fine with anyone taking a position as a matter of religious faith. Life begins at conception. Homosexuality is sin. Whatever. I’m even open to posts which draw upon one’s religion. What I’m not sure about is where to go from there. Part of Scott’s offense was that I considered his truth to just one truth among many, which I really find confusing. There are clearly issues here I am not grasping.
March 21st, 2007 08:12
Well, I didn’t want to weigh in on this because I have had enough of these kinds of discussions over the last year, as you know, Brian. But I think my reaction to your post to Scott is probably not mine alone and so I will put the issue out there for you to consider.
One of the things that so many liberals seem to believe is that they need only show us the error of our ways and we will give up our beliefs and fall into line. When we stubbornly insist on holding onto our beliefs and, indeed, continue to argue them, the veneer of civility falls away and out come the insults and derision.
Your comment was light years away from that but it was recognizably of the same genre.
Where to go from here? Well, we could agree to disagree. I don’t think a few posts here, a few post there– and suddenly peace and harmony will reign. No, I would suppose that the conversation would go on and, over time, we would get to understand one another better.
Out of that understanding might grow an understanding of what diversity really is, a more modest sense of what can be legislated and what can’t, and a willingness to accept incremental changes in our political life that can be made with majoritarian support.
March 21st, 2007 09:28
You asked me by email to address my assertion. I will do so very briefly.
You wrote:
“In short, I read it as an arrogant warning to Susan, and I smacked back.”
Susan was claiming Christianity, yet what she posted was in conflict with Christianity’s foundational document and its Leader. Therefore I merely countered her point by quoting that authority.
That you can see that as arrogant or a “smack” can only come from the fact that the less “fundamental” (for lack of a better term) the religiosity of a poster, the more respectable that poster’s opinion, even if it disagrees completely with the authoritative documents of that religion. That’s how it is around here. I’ve worked around it until now, but I grow weary.
Even further, it was a written communication. How can you take written communication (especially such as what I posted, merely quoting another source) as having arrogance or other bad intentions without seeing any body language or hearing a tone of voice is further evidence of the bias. I was participating civilly in civil discussion, something we’re supposed to do here.
So there you have it.
Brian, I accept your apology and forgive you.
March 21st, 2007 13:37
Scott,
Just as a general comment, posting Biblical quotes without explaining your context is always risky. The passage you quoted from is often used as a hammer against non-believers and liberal Christianity. It forms the core of most hellfire and brimstone sermons, and for that reason I personally view it as perhaps the most hateful passages in the new testament. I understand that was not your meaning, but I do hope you can see how I could view it as such.
Regarding your point that Susan’s universalism falls outside of orthodox Christianity, I would completely agree with you. Your assertion that universalism is not Biblical is debatable. The Rich Man and Lazarus CAN be taken as a parable, making it more of an argument to spiritually seize the day. Then there are the passages in Romans, such as
and
Obviously, one can counter this universalist interpretation with other passages.
March 21st, 2007 14:26
Denis, Lily, Scott,
Good points all around. I’m glad this discussion has been raised, so thanks for continuing this discussion.
In all honesty, I don’t think that I am better than other people. At least I try to keep in mind that I am not. I don’t feel religious faith is delusional, irrational or unjustifiable, and I vehemently oppose the common atheist view that religious faith equates to mental illness. I also don’t feel that my philosophical/theological world view is more valid than yours, or that I need to convert you. But I don’t feel that my world view is any less valid either. My world view works for me, and yours works for you.
In my reading of your comments, it seems one of my biases is that I view religious/philosophical truths as internal and equal. Is the issue that I do not grant Christianity the validity of external truth, to be held higher than other “truths”? If this isn’t the issue, please correct me, but if it is the issue I am unclear how it is a bias. What would be the basis of declaring Christianity as a greater truth than Buddhism, for example? They both are thousands of years old, they both form the cultural core of civilizations, they both have large followings. If Christianity is the higher truth, then Buddhism is a false myth. If Buddhism is the higher truth, then Christianity is false. As I see it, if I agree that one faith is more true than another, then I AM biased.
I do have an issue with accepting one person’s truth as trumping another’s “just because.”
This is true even of science. The “truth” of science is no more or less better than any other truth. I have no problem with a claim of personal truth against scientific findings. If Denis wants to claim the truth that we are God created, and not evolved primates, I have no problem with that. Denis can declare his assertion as a matter of faith, or revealed truth. As I see it, simply claiming a truth does not need to be defended.
However, if Denis were to claim that Biblical truth counters evolution, I would see that as a scientific assertion, and would demand scientific evidence. I don’t see that as bias, but perhaps that is what I am missing. I understand that on some level that means science trumps the Bible, but science IS external. It is not liberal or conservative, nor is it for or against the Bible. It is just a process of developing models to match factual data.
I’m trying to wrap my head around what the opposite view would be. Any scientific claim would need to be validated through biblical passages. I imagine arguing that DNA is valid by citing from Genesis 1:
then arguing that “after his kind” matches the process of DNA reproduction, hence the existence of DNA is valid.
But that is a radically alien concept to me. It clearly isn’t scientific. And I don’t think that is what you intend.
Still pondering this. Feedback is welcome.
March 21st, 2007 18:40
Hmmm…. just waving from the periphery. I had let this thread go until a reference on ‘nuclear options’ drew it to my attention.
I can feel the heat here, and respect your/our capacity to work it through.
Brian - your comment that science is ‘a process of developing models to match factual data’ reminds me of the point that ‘factual data’ may need to be regarded as a relative concept. I’m hazy on the details but I seem to recall physics experiments that show that the data changes when an observer is present. So, of course it is not so simple (recognising that you didn’t say it was!).
Nevertheless, I see science as you do - a process that is the best we have for understanding the world we live in.
For me, my living faith, enacted in daily practices (prayer, meditation, ritual, community, giving) doesn’t clash with a scientific world view at all. I mostly step around points of ideology and keep my focus firmly on specific practice — ‘love your neighbour’ is not a negligible demand.
“Don’t ask little of me – you might get it.”
Oh, BTW, you can check out the lorikeets in my garden here –
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tirralirra/403153810/
March 22nd, 2007 12:43
Brian:
I missed something along the way. I don’t see how science enters into this discussion, unless this is the continuation of a conversation that I was not around for. Or maybe I am just missing the point.
But perhaps I can say something useful about the place of religion in believers’ lives.
You asked: “Is the issue that I do not grant Christianity the validity of external (eternal?) truth, to be held higher than other “truths”?
Realizing that I can only speak for myself I answer: Emphatically not! I assume that if you believed that Christianity expressed *the truth* (no ifs, ands or buts), you would be a Christian. This is, by the way, a non-negotiable demand of Christianity.
However one comes to the place that one can say “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God”, then one has made a decision that all other religions, where they differ in their teachings from Christianity, are wrong. Any other outcome is just muddled.
Now if Jesus had said, “I am one of the ways, one of the truths, one possibility and I can get you to the Father just as well as Mithras” that would be a different matter.
There are implications for the way one views the world inherent in accepting the truth claims of Christianity (or any other religion). These, inevitably, color our way of looking at the nation we live in and our views of a just society. One cannot peel off the layers of these beliefs until we come to some undefiled (by religion) core from which we and you (the rest of the world) can then socialize and legislate harmoniously. No, messy as it is, we have all got to get along in the face of sometimes intractable differences.
This is why I am emphatic that minorities must assimilate and learn to understand and tolerate our culture. The only other possibility is balkanization which I will fight til my dying day.
More directly to the point, this is what “liberals” (I am coming to hate that word but it is the standard label) fail to understand. They really believe (I think), that the core values that people of faith hold are, somehow, negotiable. And when we stubbornly refuse to let go, we are bigots, rubes, etc. standing in the way of universal peace, justice and plenty.
Of course, some religious people are bigots, ill-willed, etc. but that is part of our inherited and fallen human nature. Or, if you prefer, some of us are more evolved than others!
March 22nd, 2007 16:02
Lily,
You say that liberals think your values are negotiable. This actually isn’t the case. They DON’T CARE what your beliefs are, as long as they remain your beliefs. What they don’t want is for your personal religious views of right and wrong to be imposed upon them. So if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. etc. This issue is not that “conservatives” disagree with liberal views, it is that they are seen as imposing their conservative views on society.
Brian
March 22nd, 2007 17:00
All law imposes someone’s values. The question is whose shall they be? In a society full of Christians, in a society founded by Christians and deists, in a society that has developed its culture and its laws in accordance with majoritarian values, it is those who want such horrors as gay marriage, abortion, etc., to prove that these and other such are not harmful to society. The burden is on them.
As a former embryo, for example, I don’t find it self-evident that the decision to kill a human being in its earliest stages of life is a good thing. Where are the longitudinal studies that demonstrate (persuasively) that children do fine with same sex “parents”? And so it goes. Let those proposing radical changes bear the burden of showing persuasively that their prescriptions for change accomplish some solid good.
That isn’t what happens. Instead, what the radicals can’t accomplish by the democratic process, they try to accomplish though the courts. Unfortunately, they have succeeded far too often.
That is why the battle over judicial nominations has gotten so obscenely vicious. For the last 24 or 30 years, liberal minded judges have not hesitated to overrule the legislative process and impose their will on the nation.
Some of the founders recognized that a co-equal judicial branch of government was a real danger to the republican form of government they were trying to create. We have seen their fears realized in our time. That, more than anything else, has driven the polarization we have seen in our political life. Since the radicals cannot win in the court of public opinion and, thus, through democratic processes, they turn to the courts to impose their will on the rest of us.
We ain’t gonna take it no more. Not with out a loud fight, in any case.
March 22nd, 2007 17:31
Hi Lily-
Could we do it without the loud fight? Could we please do it with civil discourse, at least here at BH?
I don’t think you’re missing a point; I just think a lot of us really don’t understand each other on this site (or, actually, in the world, but let’s start here). Things that you consider non-negotiable, actions you think are muddled….I don’t agree with them, yet I am a Christian. There are many things I would like to ask people with different ideological views…that’s one major reason we started Brave Humans, so we could learn from and about each other. Disagreeing is going to be part of that, without a doubt, but I hope not the largest part. I hope for learning above all, at least at the beginning.
In fact… Grant and I are talking about a new type of post that we hope will help with that. We still have to fine-tune it, but we should be done soon. Stay tuned!
Susan
March 22nd, 2007 17:49
Hi Lily,
Thanks for talking. You said in your last response that “all law imposes someone’s values” and I think you’re right. The liberals may not care what you think but we do care a great deal about the laws passed that govern our own behavior. Any law that legalizes or criminalizes abortion, for example, impacts anyone who wants to have one. I THINK that to a Christian viewpoint saying if you don’t like abortion don’t have one, is identical to saying if you don’t like murder, don’t commit one. Both are obvious moral wrongs that cannot be tolerated by any society. I THNIK I understand at least this.
But here’s the part that I want to ask you about. You state the following:
“As a former embryo, for example, I don’t find it self-evident that the decision to kill a human being in its earliest stages of life is a good thing. Where are the longitudinal studies that demonstrate (persuasively) that children do fine with same sex “parents”? And so it goes. Let those proposing radical changes bear the burden of showing persuasively that their prescriptions for change accomplish some solid good.”
OK. Does this mean that these are issues on which you would change your position given compelling evidence to do so? If, for example, you could be shown compelling evidence on abortion and gay parenting, is a change in your view on these issues a legitimate possibility?
Please understand, I am NOT claiming to offer such evidence. It may or may not exist. I am not looking to debate these issues with you. I am asking if these issues are legitimately open to change in your mind. Or, are your positions on these issues matters of your faith and as such manifestly true and simply unalterable?
Lily, let me apologize in advance if I’ve used terminology incorrectly or have given you offense. I am trying very hard to ask a question that is very important to me, and ask it as clearly and objectively as I can.
-Grant
March 22nd, 2007 18:38
Wow! We’ve come a long way, haven’t we?
I think our discussion here mirrors (though in a mostly civil way) the discussions going on in our society.
People on all sides have become insistent that their point of view become adopted by everyone else. In the case of this article, it’s secularists demanding the minimization of all things religious.
Either God or Science is on our side and everyone else is an drooling, ignorant, back-woods fool refusing to accept what *everyone knows* is the Truth.
I’ll be honest. I *do* think that I’m right and a lot of people are wrong. However, as the official right wing radical of Brave Humans, I also strive to treat all people with respect because my God created them in His image (whether they like / believe it or not!)
Therefore, I am committing an offense against God when I belittle people or treat them poorly just because they believe differently than I do.
Through our society’s debates, it becomes increasingly obvious that ardent secularists don’t have the same measure of respect, nor a reason for it.
Dan
March 22nd, 2007 18:52
Now I am puzzled. I am, emphatically, not offended by anything anyone has said! I wasn’t aware that we were fighting, much less loudly, or talking less than civilly. I do apologize, if that is the case.
Grant, regarding virtually anything I can think of, with the exception of life and death, I could happily compromise. Gay marriage, gay adoption, fine, if they really don’t harm children (which includes by harming marriage as a social institution).
Where abortion is concerned, the only compromise I could ever live with comfortably would revolve around the life of the mother. I have no difficulty with saying that when a woman’s life is threatened, abortion becomes an act of self-defense. As a member of a larger society that doesn’t share all my values, I could live with exceptions for rape and incest, though I would have to hold my nose.
I imagine that we could put together a whole list of stuff like that. It seems to me that the irreducible core for any society is that its members obey the dictates of natural law– but beyond that I am pretty much “live and let live” in real life.
What you see, or at least Susan sees as me being loud and uncivil is me trying to define my terms very clearly and precisely. I am not trying to say that you have to agree. I am only trying to make as clear and understandable as I can where I and many others are coming from. If you all really are striving for understanding, then you have to let me and others with very different views articulate them clearly.
Then we can fight about them. Civilly of course!
March 22nd, 2007 18:59
Dan, it looks like you got a message in while I was composing mine. To this:
“Therefore, I am committing an offense against God when I belittle people or treat them poorly just because they believe differently than I do.”
I can only say, amen!
March 22nd, 2007 19:23
Hi Lily-
No, no, I didn’t mean you were being loud an uncivil. I was just using your words, “We ain’t gonna take it no more. Not with out a loud fight, in any case.”
I was just making the same point, again: things have gotten heated around here lately, and not in direct response to your posts. (If you are unaware, it’s gotten uncomfortable enough that one person is thinking of leaving and, may in fact, already have.) I just want to encourage civility. That’s all.
Susan
March 22nd, 2007 19:27
Daniel,
Thanks for the response. I have a couple of questions:
Regarding the post, why do you see it as secularists minimizing religion? When I wrote the post, I THOUGHT I argued pretty clearly against the secular approach of removing religion from public spaces.
Second, you mentioned that “either God or Science is on our side”. Why do you feel science opposes God? As a scientist, I view it as neutral. It can’t prove or disprove God (despite what many atheists claim).
Brian
March 22nd, 2007 20:53
Hi Lily,
Thanks Lily, you just gave me hope. Not hope that you will “see the light” or that you will somehow “come to your senses and see things my way”. You gave me hope that you as a conservative Christian and I as a liberal progressive non-Christian may be able to find some (minimal?) common ground. For tonight, that’s enough.
-Grant
March 23rd, 2007 16:56
Dan..
“Through our society’s debates, it becomes increasingly obvious that ardent secularists don’t have the same measure of respect, nor a reason for it.”
Possibly more accurate to say … “SOME/MANY ardent secularists” …. lots of us ardent secularists are very respectful, some of us are even Christian.
From my, more distant, view of US society’s debates I see good doses of disrespect on all sides.
I’m smiling at your ‘official right wing radical’ label. I’m still trying to sort out who is who here. It’s kind of fun not knowing! It helps me to respond to people on the basis of what they say rather than assuming things about the camp they are in.
Gillian
March 23rd, 2007 18:07
Hi Lily, Grant, and everyone-
Thanks for the last few posts. It can be important to get divergent and to air and explore differences, but I think it crucial in our on-line community to then step back and discuss what we have in common.
Lily, your mixture of strength and grace in saying what you expressed in a few paragraphs in comment 59 brings us to one of the goals of BH. We may hold differing beliefs and faiths; our political lives are related to and informed by those beliefs, but are not synonymous with them. And the practice of clarifying, asking, and clarifying again will create more capacity to listen well and speak well with all people.
By the way, way back in comment three, I noted that I hope to be a part of making the world better, and commented on the role of the great religions as anchors. I meant to speak to their inherent societal role, not to their chosen intent. I hope that makes things clear; I would not wish to be taken as trying to put words in the mouths of collective Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam. (Or even Jedism, Brian!)
Your response was that “The role of Christianity is most emphatically not to slow things down so that we can mull and evaluate our actions as we improve the world. This world will end. Christianity aims at reconciling us to God and preparing us to be fit citizens of heaven. The better world will not be of human making. We have been muffing it for however many thousands of years it has been, since the first human raised his puny fist and waved it at God. If we could make a better world, we would have done so by now.”
I can respect your views here, but I will state unequivocally that I am glad we have largely ended the Slave trade, have laws against wife-beating, have passed laws limiting child labor, and have an on-going discussion about limiting abortion . These things are all making the world better to my mind and I think we need to continue to do our best for the world while it is here, (however long that may be). I will be doing so , I fervently hope, until I gasp my last breath. And I believe that, in some ways at least, that is true of each person in the discussion.
Grant, I think I hear a little despair in your voice. Be well, and hold fast to what is good in all of this. For more of that, see my new post, coming soon.
Love to all-
Nick
March 24th, 2007 03:34
Hey, Brian,
This is a followup to an earlier post regarding the role of religion on an individual’s positions, and the place of those opinions in the public square, and the role of those opinions in the determination of public policy.
You wrote:
“You say that liberals think your values are negotiable. This actually isn’t the case. They DON’T CARE what your beliefs are, as long as they remain your beliefs. What they don’t want is for your personal religious views of right and wrong to be imposed upon them. So if you don’t want gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. etc. This issue is not that “conservatives” disagree with liberal views, it is that they are seen as imposing their conservative views on society.”
Is not all making of rules and laws imposing views on Society ?
All advocates have their values and reasons for a particular policy.
Why is it that you single out those with policy recomendations based on religious beliefs as being “imposing” ?
When a liberal advocates for abortion, same sex marriage, etc., is that not imposing your view upon me ?
Why do you reserve the right to impose laws and rules and deny me the same privilege ?
Without a religious right and wrong, is there even a possibility of a right and wrong being established, or is it merely one person’s opinion ?
March 24th, 2007 12:56
Hi Denis-
I see we commented in passing. I know you wrote to Brian, but I’ll take a crack at that last one: “Without a religious right and wrong, is there even a possibility of a right and wrong being established, or is it merely one person’s opinion ?”
Now I know you’ve paid enoug attention to rhetoric to know that the construction of that sentence has a false assumption in terms of logic. (Good trap, tho’– not necessarily strong enough for the ref to call a foul, but definately edgy.) We can easily remove the problem by dealing with the clause seperately, so:
“Is there even a possibility of a right and wrong being established, or is it merely one person’s opinion ?” That one takes us to the question of Absolutes and whether ethics are universal standards which we learn and intuit from the world/our Deities, or whether ethics arecreations of a culture in a particular time and place, or are they some mix of the two. There are more pages on this than are imaginable, so perhaps that would be best left to a seperate strand? We seem to have enough experience in this community to intuit that answers will vary widely here. I will suggest that we all know that we have differing answers, so unless someone has a new take on how to approach Absolute Ethical truth, perhaps in the interests of seeking common ground we can let that one go. (Sorry, Denis–could’a been a good fight).
Now we can deal, if we choose, with the second part:”Without a religious right and wrong, is there even a possibility of a right and wrong being established, or is it merely one person’s opinion ?” That one implies what we already know–you believe in a revealed truth, and that with that truth, there exist in your framework specific things which are right and wrong. Secular Humanists (the ones I know) also believe in right and wrong. Each set of beliefs will have those points of reference, and some agreement and some differences will exist between belief systems. Both will be opinions.
To Everyone: Brian’s original post suggested an evolving culture exists and that tolerance evolve with it. Are we in any way moved closer to agreement on that point?
Nick
March 24th, 2007 13:24
HI Again- I realized that I had some relatively short answers to Denis’ other questions, and so (with apologies to Brian who may also want to answer for himself) here are mine:
Denis: Is not all making of rules and laws imposing views on Society ?
Nick: To some degree, yes. Those views can increase or decrease other factors in Society, such as choice, freedom, equality, and others, but basically, yes.
Denis:All advocates have their values and reasons for a particular policy.
Nick: True
Denis:Why is it that you single out those with policy recomendations based on religious beliefs as being “imposing” ?
Nick: If I do, I do it out of resentment, or fear, or passion for my beliefs, or wnating an in