The role of religion

[DKleinecke]

It seems to me that the biggest problem faced by Christianity in the
United States at this time is the attempt by some people with
political ambitions to lead people at large to identify Christianity
with the Republican party. To make this work they have stirred up the
30% or so the population with conservative religious views by trying
to turn them into bigots.

By bigots I mean people who want to force, by law, those people who do
not agree with them into conformity with their beliefs. The prototype
bigots, in this sense, were the Prohibitionists. By and large the
bigots, in this sense, have not succeeded whenever their belief was an
obviously religious one (as in declaring the United States to be a
Christian country or posting the ten commandments in courthouses)
because of the Constitutional clause about the establishment of
religion.

Those cases where they have succeeded are those cases where they have
made their opinions sound non-religion. For example, opposition to gay
marriage.

Their opposition to abortion is clearly religious in origin but,
because the Supreme Court, where a final answer is given to these
questions, has a near majority of apparently conservative Catholics,
they might be able to prevail. The result, of course, would be no more
successful than Prohibition. But perhaps this may never come to pass.

The morality that the religious right opposes is one of freedom. A
person is free to do whatever they like provided they do not injure
any other person. And offending a person's sensibilities is not an
injury.

It seems to me that the freedom morality is little more than
rephrasing of the Golden Rule and that to oppose it is to reject
Jesus' most basic teachings.

I observe that the freedom morality does not solve all questions. It
does not resolve the conflict about abortion because of differences of
opinion about what "other person" means. There does not appear to be
any way to resolve whether or not a foetus is a person other than a
popular vote - not a formal ballot, rather the general belief of
society.

What seems to me to be required is those who take one side in this
argument to be prepared to live with the situation if opinion goes
against them. They are free, of course, to advocate their position on
the issues - but seems improper to me for them to tie their religion-
based opinions to the fortunes of one or another political party

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

DKleinecke <***@gmail.com> wrote an article accusing
conservative Christians of bigotry. I'm not a conservative Christian.
I agree with DKeinecke on much of the substance. But I find the
approach taken in his posting unhelpful. Indeed I think it comes at
least as close to bigotry as most conservative Christians I know.

Bigotry is normally taken to be unreasoned hate for a specific class

Post by DKleinecke
By bigots I mean people who want to force, by law, those people who do
not agree with them into conformity with their beliefs. The prototype
bigots, in this sense, were the Prohibitionists. By and large the

Now the problem with this definition is that it is inherently
ideological. It tries to get us to apply our opposition to real
bigotry to people who are bigots only because of an unusual
definition.

By the definition, almost everyone who favors a law can be viewed as a
bigot. For example, we want to force people who like sex with chidren
into conformity with our beliefs. Indeed some believe this is bigotry
against pedophiles.

There are some prohibitions that I think are misguided, but at least
the ones he lists don't come from bigotry, except when viewed through
ideological glasses.

He give three examples: Prohibition, abortion and homosexuality.

1) Prohibition was not bigotry. It did not come from a hatred of users
of alcohol. It came from a legitimate concern over the problems caused
by alcohol abuse. I think it was a mistake. I think many modern drug
laws are making the same mistake. It caused serious problems, just as
the current laws do. But I don't characterize either as bigotry. I
also don't characterize it as imposing a religious view. Recognizing
the damage caused by alcohol has nothing specific to religion. Nor is
the naive belief that you can get rid of an evil by outlawing it
specific to Christians. (Indeed I think at the moment Christians tend
to be less guilty of it than others.)

2) Abortion. Opposition to abortion is not bigotry. It does not come
from a hatred of mothers with problem pregnancies. Indeed those
involved in the anti-abortion movement are quite concerned about these
people. The motivation is concern with the rights of another innocent
person. It is not uncommon to limit our freedom in order to protect
others. There's a legitmate basis for argument whether the entities
being protected have a right to protection. By charter, that
discussion doesn't belong here, nor will I permit responses that
discuss the rights and wrongs of abortion. But this is not bigotry.
I'm also not sure how much it is imposing a religious view. There's
nothing in the Bible supporting the opposition to abortion. Opposition
to abortion is certainly part of the Christian tradition, but it's
part of a wider opposition to infanticide and other killing of
defenseless people. In this case it may or may not be misguided, but
it seems both different in type from Prohibition or homosexuality, and
not an imposition of anything specifically religious.

3) Homosexuality. This seems like the closest to bigotry. It targets a
specific group, and can reasonably be seen by them as an attack. Yet
I'm still not convinced that it is. Like opposition to sexual abuse,
this is targeted as specific behavior, not at individuals. Indeed many
conservatives are quite accepting of homosexuals. There is in the US a
gut-level hatred of homosexuals. But I'm not convinced that
conservative Christians are more guilty of this than non-religious
folks, nor do I think that the widespread "red-neck" reaction to
"homos" actually comes from people who are deeply moved by reading
Paul's letters. I think the conservative Christians are wrong, but I
don't think it's helpful to call this bigotry. I think in this case
the conservative Christian reaction is religious. However I think the
real American bigotry is not.

Now, despite the fact that I don't think they are bigots, I do think
there are legitimate concerns about some of the side-effects of
right-wing Chritianity. These are summarized nicely in a book
"unchristian", from the Barna organization. The Barna folks are
definitely conservative evangelicals. So their initial bias is in
favor of conservative Christianity. This books stems from a project to
look at how young adults (not just teenagers) view Christianity. What
they found is that young adults both within and outside the Church saw
Christianity as highly negative, and thus unattractive. The editors
believe that these perceptions are right, that the politicized
Christian right are ultimately taking an un-Christian approach.

What's interestig is that even Christians within the age group had the
same perception. It was clear to the editors that the Church is paying
a high price -- even among Christians and potential Christians -- for
strident opposition to homosexuality. And as a liberal Christian it's
affecting me too, because most people don't make the distinction. They
think all Christians are negative.

The Barna folks don't suggest that Christians should suddenly consider
everything acceptable. However they do suggest that there needs to be
a dramatic lowering of the volume, and a focusing on pastoral reaction
to individuals more than culture wars. For more detail, I strongly
recommend the book.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Now, despite the fact that I don't think they are bigots, I do think
there are legitimate concerns about some of the side-effects of
right-wing Chritianity. These are summarized nicely in a book
"unchristian", from the Barna organization. The Barna folks are
definitely conservative evangelicals. So their initial bias is in
favor of conservative Christianity. This books stems from a project to
look at how young adults (not just teenagers) view Christianity. What
they found is that young adults both within and outside the Church saw
Christianity as highly negative, and thus unattractive. The editors
believe that these perceptions are right, that the politicized
Christian right are ultimately taking an un-Christian approach.

Young people tend to be rather libertine and resent anyone telling
them anything they are doing is wrong. I know I was young once.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
What's interestig is that even Christians within the age group had the
same perception. It was clear to the editors that the Church is paying
a high price -- even among Christians and potential Christians -- for
strident opposition to homosexuality. And as a liberal Christian it's
affecting me too, because most people don't make the distinction. They
think all Christians are negative.

Hmm. Better expunge the epistles then and drop a good deal of the
gospels as well. Have you been to a conservative Christian church
lately? Do you think Rick Warren or Jack Hayford are negative. The
reason people have such a negative opinion of conservative
Christianity is because of the propaganda machine in the media, John
Stewart, Saturday Night Live, The Simpsons, the major broadcast
networks (especially their "news" shows), The View, Oprah, Ellen, all
the major legal drama shows, ect.,ect.,ect., constantly portray anyone
holding those views as a bigot or worse. It is not surprising that
DKleinecke echoes those opinions, it is a wonder that there aren't
laws against being "that sort" of Christian, though considering the
current state of affairs that may be coming.

Not all non religious people share that contempt, for example

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/a_libertarian_defense_of_socia.html

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The Barna folks don't suggest that Christians should suddenly consider
everything acceptable. However they do suggest that there needs to be
a dramatic lowering of the volume, and a focusing on pastoral reaction
to individuals more than culture wars.

That has been happening for years, what if the other side won't permit
it? Which side is forcing the changes?


Daryl

[DKleinecke]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Bigotry is normally taken to be unreasoned hate for a specific class

OK. I surrender. I cannot convert "bigot" to the meaning I used and I
probably shouldn't have tried.

But I couldn't thing of a brief way of characterizing the state of
mind I was criticizing. What should I call someone (anyone) who tries
to use the force of law to bend society to disallow something
disapproved of by their particular views as opposed to broader norms
adopted in an evolutionary way by society? I specifically want to
restrict the meaning to people who want to narrow the range of human
freedom rather than expand it.

I believe in what I called the freedom morality. Restrictions on
freedom are, from this point of view, to be opposed (but apparently
not by calling people who want to restrict bigots). The limit on
freedom is injury to other persons. I am hot against the enemies of
freedom - but I am not trying to use the law against them (and am not,
therefore, one of them).

The question is where does Christianity fit into all this? Are
Christians a priori enemies of freedom? Not according to any version
of Christianity that I would subscribe to. As I stated earlier I
believe that the freedom morality is, essentially, just a translation
of the Golden Rule into another rhetoric.

I wish I shared your benign view of the motivation of the
Prohibitionist, the anti-Abortionist and the gay-haters. But I fear
their motives may not be so pure as you assume. Remember the old
wheeze about the Puritans and how they outlawed bear-baiting, not
because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the
audience.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by DKleinecke
It seems to me that the biggest problem faced by Christianity in the
United States at this time is the attempt by some people with
political ambitions to lead people at large to identify Christianity
with the Republican party.

I think it is more the other way around. People turn to the party that
shares their values and priorities, when there appears to be an
assault on religion; in the public forum, in the schools, and in the
courts, and the assault seems to be coming from one direction, you
might realistically expect people of faith to turn the other way.


To make this work they have stirred up the

Post by DKleinecke
30% or so the population with conservative religious views by trying
to turn them into bigots.

This sort of name calling may be popular with a peer group that you
need to be accepted in, but it is simply a falsehood, and a very
prejudiced one at that.

Post by DKleinecke
By bigots I mean people who want to force, by law, those people who do
not agree with them into conformity with their beliefs.

That is pretty much the definition of any law

Post by DKleinecke
Their opposition to abortion is clearly religious in origin but,
because the Supreme Court, where a final answer is given to these
questions, has a near majority of apparently conservative Catholics,
they might be able to prevail. The result, of course, would be no more
successful than Prohibition. But perhaps this may never come to pass.

Just curious, when do you think a human life begins? Even a non
religious person has some sort of idea.

Post by DKleinecke
The morality that the religious right opposes is one of freedom. A
person is free to do whatever they like provided they do not injure
any other person.

Ok, suppose someone wants to marry their sister? Suppose they want to
run naked through the street? What constitutes injuring another
person? What about taking their property? What if they want to
establish a community where only people who share their beliefs are
allowed? Who are they hurting?

I do not think the author would really want to live in the world he/
she proposes, in order to have freedom there also must be boundries.
Jesus said as much in John 8

"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Note the qualifier in the first line.


And offending a person's sensibilities is not an

Post by DKleinecke
injury.

Then we can forget all this silliness about political correctness and
eliminating public displays of religion. They do no injury except to
sensibilities.

Post by DKleinecke
It seems to me that the freedom morality is little more than
rephrasing of the Golden Rule and that to oppose it is to reject
Jesus' most basic teachings.

Hmmmm. Have you actually read any of the Bible, or have you just heard
about it? In my Bible Jesus is not terribly fond of sin.

Post by DKleinecke
I observe that the freedom morality does not solve all questions.

You are a master of understatement.

Post by DKleinecke
What seems to me to be required is those who take one side in this
argument to be prepared to live with the situation if opinion goes
against them.

Or take to the streets and riot, as they have done here in
California????

They are free, of course, to advocate their position on

Post by DKleinecke
the issues - but seems improper to me for them to tie their religion-
based opinions to the fortunes of one or another political party

What about tying anti-religious opinions to the fortunes of one or
another political party?

If one party shared your ideas and one did not, which would you
choose? Especially if the other took the opposite view?

Daryl

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by DKleinecke
It seems to me that the biggest problem faced by Christianity in the
United States at this time is the attempt by some people with
political ambitions to lead people at large to identify Christianity
with the Republican party. To make this work they have stirred up the
30% or so the population with conservative religious views by trying
to turn them into bigots.
By bigots I mean people who want to force, by law, those people who do
not agree with them into conformity with their beliefs. The prototype
bigots, in this sense, were the Prohibitionists. By and large the
bigots, in this sense, have not succeeded whenever their belief was an
obviously religious one (as in declaring the United States to be a
Christian country or posting the ten commandments in courthouses)
because of the Constitutional clause about the establishment of
religion.

I think you need to take a non-bias class in American history.

Also, I think you need to take a philosophy class and learn something
of the freedom/form dynamic. Too much freedom and you end up
with anarchy which society will not permit so form responds in
tyranny.
The pendulum swings back and forth. However, for 200 yrs. in the
greatest display of freedom the world has ever witnessed, the good
'ol US of A exhibited a balance between the two. And it did so
because
the founders of this great nation understood the dynamic. They
understood that man left to himself would only result in chaos. Man
is fallen and MUST have form to restrain him. In part this is the
reason
why they set up the triad form of government, legislative, executive
and judicial. But if you read the real records of events, you will
soon
learn that our founding fathers were very Christ oriented. Even those
who were deists, understood and accepted gospel principles.
Jefferson,
by no means a Christian, established the Bible as the sole text book
for schools. Congress and presidents also tithed to churches, built
and established churches, called sessions where nothing but prayer
to God took place. Read you history man!

But now that we've all too much thrown off the cloak of Christianity,
of the very form by which our freedoms were based, we have found
ourselves on the verge of declining into oblivion even as Rome herself
did.

It is interesting to compare Gibbon's list of signs of an empire in
decline with what we see happening in American now.

[DKleinecke]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
I think you need to take a non-bias class in American history.
Also, I think you need to take a philosophy class and learn something
of the freedom/form dynamic. Too much freedom and you end up
with anarchy which society will not permit so form responds in
tyranny.
The pendulum swings back and forth. However, for 200 yrs. in the
greatest display of freedom the world has ever witnessed, the good
'ol US of A exhibited a balance between the two.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see the United States very
differently than you do. But I am surprised at the mildness of your
response. Thank you for such a subdued rant.

The freedom of the United States was founded upon the twin pillars of
black slavery and the eradication of the native Americans. There was
some progress during the nineteenth century and both of these evils
came to a formal end by 1900. But then there was stagnation until
after the second World War. I acknowledge that there has been a
significant amount of progress toward real freedom for all since then.
But those two bloody wounds are still not completely healed.

You make reference to a freedom/form dynamic "in philosophy". Whose
philosophy? Not Jesus, for sure.

What part did Christianity play in the progress I summarized above?
Sadly very little. Even the Quakers were split over slavery and the
biggest Protestant denomination in the United States owes its origin
to the idea that it was fitting and proper for minsters of God to own
slaves. And, so far as I know, the only defenders the native Americans
had were solitary eccentrics. I think I can skip over the Mormon myth
about Indians.

Within my lifetime the opposition to desegregation was led by men who
claimed to be obeying the will of God.

By and large this is all behind us. But altogether too many people
want to go back to the bad old days and want to use the church to make
their wishes come to pass.

What I fear is the equivalent of Civil War with the backward facing
"bigots" and their Christian dupes on one side and the friends of
freedom, Christian, Jewish, secular or what have you, on the other. If
we are lucky we can avoid actual Civil War but I hear altogether too
many voices calling out for jihad in the name of God against those
they imagine are sinners.

Did you hear the shouts for the assassination of Barack Obama from the
crowd at Republican rallies?