Via Rod Dreher, columnist and former First Things contributor David Goldman (“Spengler”) contrasts the benedictions delivered by rabbis at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions:
One difference between the two addresses is the fact that the whole Republican convention heard [Orthodox Rabbi Meir] Soloveichik, while no-one but the cleaning crew was there for [Conservative Rabbi David] Wolpe. There was a also a world of difference in the content. Rabbi Wild and Wonderful preached social work and psychobabble, while Rabbi Soloveichik linked God’s revelation to Moses and the American founding, much closer in spirit to Cardinal Dolan than to the progressive Rabbi Wolpe.
. . . The cultural divide in the United States is now almost absolute; Democratic Party liberalism, which once embraced devout Catholics and observant Jews, cannot conceal its contempt for religion. Even the clergy who cling to the Democratic Party have trouble concealing their lack of interest in religion. On the other hand, Americans of faith have rallied together as never before: Catholic and Jew, Evangelical and Mormon. For this observant Jew, hearing an Orthodox rabbi quote Torah to open the Republican convention was a milestone for America as well for the Jewish people (not to mention the fact that Rabbi Soloveichik is associate rabbi of my synagogue). And to hear an overwhelmingly Christian audience listen to this rabbi was a great event. The good news is that Americans who seek the love and guidance of the God of the Bible have put their differences aside where the good of the country is concerned.
It’s great, as Goldman points out, that denominational differences no longer divide American believers the way they once did: It’s possible for “Catholic and Jew, Evangelical and Mormon” to join hands and cooperate. Yet this development doesn’t prove that religious unity in the United States has increased, and its political ramifications are not purely good ones. Believers may be more polarized than we used to be—only now we have two poles, instead of many.
The trend began decades ago and became evident in the culture wars of the 1980s. Sociologist James Davison Hunter told religion reporter Terry Mattingly that he recognized what was happening during a church-state court case in 1986:
“We were witnessing a fundamental realignment in American religious pluralism,” said James Davison Hunter of the University of Virginia. “Divisions [between denominations] that were deeply rooted in our civilization were disappearing, divisions that had for generations caused religious animosity, prejudice and even warfare. It was mind- blowing. The ground was moving.”
. . . The old dividing lines centered on issues such as the person of Jesus Christ, church tradition and the Protestant Reformation. But these new interfaith coalitions were fighting about something even more basic — the nature of truth and moral authority.
Two years later, Hunter began writing Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, in which he declared that America now contains two basic world views, which he called “orthodox” and “progressive.” The orthodox believe it’s possible to follow transcendent, revealed truths. Progressives disagree and put their trust in personal experience, even if that requires them to “resymbolize historic faiths according to the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life.”
Most Orthodox Jews, most Evangelical Christians, most Mormons, and some Catholics would fit this description of orthodox, while most Conservative and Reform Jews, most mainline Protestants, and some Catholics would fit the description of progressive. (I’m not familiar enough with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other believers to categorize them in this scheme.) So rather than having bitter divisions between Catholics as a bloc and Protestants as a bloc, or between Methodists and Lutherans, or Christians and Jews, we have one major division between orthodox and progressives.
These divisions are painful enough in the religious sphere, as orthodox and progressive factions vie for dominance in religious hierarchies, seminaries, and congregations. But translate them into our red vs. blue political sphere—as orthodox believers usually prioritize abortion over other issues, while progressives prioritize social justice—and the result is an absolute wreck.
Religious divisions exacerbate political ones and encourage voters to associate their party with their whole identity, not merely with their political outlook. Orthodox believers are driven away from the Democratic party by the contempt that some secular liberals show for religion, while nonbelievers are driven away from the Republican party by GOP politicians’ frequent mentions of God.
The political alliance between religious progressives and nonbelievers makes orthodox believers suspect that progressives are not “really” religious, while the political alliance between orthodox believers and Republicans on economic issues makes progressives suspect the same of the orthodox. Every prayer, every rally, every event hosted by one religious faction becomes fodder for the other to question the sincerity of their faith.
Thus trust has simultaneously broken down both between religious orthodox and progressives and between political conservatives and liberals, which makes religious unity and bipartisan cooperation all but impossible.
Now, please note what I’m not saying: I’m not calling for anyone to abandon their religious convictions or political affiliations, and I’m not calling for religious believers of any stripe to extricate their religious beliefs from their political views (as though that were possible).
I’m just issuing one more call for cooperation between different religious and political groups, and perhaps for a little more respect for the convictions of those who disagree with us.
September 7th, 2012 | 4:28 pm
What you’re talking about here are the Abrahamic faiths. I practice a religion which dates back 5,000 years but does not stem from the patriarch Abraham and his relationship with his god.
I think this is important to note for two reasons: one, all religions are welcome in this country. Two, many faiths do not share the tenet that their deity is the one and only legitimate one, and thus their followers are more likely open to exposure to other faiths.
The Abrahamic tendency towards intolerance is not taught by all of those religions, but it’s at the very least a very strong subtext in their sacred writings. If you widened your view of religion, you might discover that the Democrats are not opposed to all of them — just the intolerant ones. Sadly, the more tolerant strains tend to get swept up with the ones that aren’t.
I am, by the way, a Republican, like most other religious conservatives.
September 7th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
I think it’s important to remember that what are presented as “divisions” are actually statistical tendencies. Let’s take some examples the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life gives in a table named Party Affiliation by Religious Tradition. Evangelical Protestants are Republicans, right? Well, they tend to be. Here’s the breakdown:
38% Republican
12% Lean Republican
9% Independent
10% Lean Democratic
24% Democratic
Atheists are Democrats, right? Well, they tend to be.
10% Republican
6% Lean Republican
13% Independent
28% Lean Democratic
37% Democratic
But saying that Evangelicals are Republicans or atheists are Democrats is about as accurate as saying physicians are men. Slightly under 70% of them are men, but slightly over 30% of them are women.
September 7th, 2012 | 5:55 pm
I see no mention of Muslims, who are likely the most socially conservative of any demographic, and who hold to divinely revealed truth, like no other. So much so, in fact, that most Islamic societies are to one extent or another governed by this divinely revealed truth.
This would be very good for the sanctity of marriage, which Islam honors so much, that it allows people to partake of four sacred marriages simultaneously.
Also, where do I fit, as an atheist who believes in objective truth and morality? I do not put my faith in either ‘divine revelation’ or personal experience, except insofar as the latter can inform my reason.
September 7th, 2012 | 6:05 pm
Reince still ashamed to cross himself, Orthodox style, in front of millions, like Troy Polamalu does.
September 7th, 2012 | 11:26 pm
The fact that the delegates to the Democratic convention voted three times to exclude the mention of God from their platform was a seminal event. The only reason God was given any space in the platform was that the Chair of the convention rammed it through despite not having the votes. So we’ve gone from pushing “Democrats for Life” off the rostrum (btw, where were these “Democrats for Life” this past week? Some frequent commenters on this site assured us we would see them … names, anyone?)The hostility displayed by the Democratic delegates toward God was visceral, and you can bet that footage will be replayed ad nauseum until November 6th. This will cost the Democratic party dearly in certain swing states, as it should….
September 8th, 2012 | 9:33 am
TPW: I practice a religion which dates back 5,000 years but does not stem from the patriarch Abraham and his relationship with his god.
Good. I am frankly disturbed to be near people who revere a man who was all too willing to slit his son’s throat, which I don’t think any moral person would be willing to do. What test of faith is it, to demand of a man to do something grossly immoral and evil?
September 8th, 2012 | 10:33 am
Well, not all the ‘denominational differences’ are smoothed out: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/09/04/egads-a-non-christian-prayer-at-the-rnc/
September 8th, 2012 | 11:00 am
“The political alliance between religious progressives and nonbelievers makes orthodox believers suspect that progressives are not “really” religious, while the political alliance between orthodox believers and Republicans on economic issues makes progressives suspect the same of the orthodox. Every prayer, every rally, every event hosted by one religious faction becomes fodder for the other to question the sincerity of their faith.”
This is my reflexive inclination since the 1980′s…and I am a progressive, observant religious person. I formed this reflex consciously in response to constant questioning of political and (in a theatrical way) religious conservatives in local positions of power in community organziations and politics.
My unfair bias and prejudice is that I consider evangelical religious expression and enthusiasm, especially by those in politics, as superficial, theatrical, politically expedient, and temporary.
When I read Rod Dreher, who has had at least three different religious faiths since 2000, dare to question me and my religious faith because of my politics, I cling rapidly to these impressions of religious conservatives: religion as a tool for expediency, attention seeking, theater, and power.
If the current rejection of faith by the under-40 American isn’t enough of an indictment of the decades-long Moral Majority-type aggressive intolerance of the politically powerful religious right, particularly as expressed by Rod Dreher, then I don’t think believers alive today will get the message. It will be 100 years before this attitude then changes.
September 8th, 2012 | 12:09 pm
Publius: So we’ve gone from pushing “Democrats for Life” off the rostrum (btw, where were these “Democrats for Life” this past week? Some frequent commenters on this site assured us we would see them … names, anyone?)
You claimed the exact same thing about previous conventions, that people wanting to criminalize abortion would not be permitted to speak to the convention – until I named four names from 2008 alone, at which point you were not heard of again. Are we really going to go through this exercise again?
Publius: The hostility displayed by the Democratic delegates toward God
Maybe you should read the Constitution. There is no mention of any ‘god’ there, either. Does that mean that the men in Philadelphia were ‘hostile…toward God’?
Publius: and you can bet that footage will be replayed ad nauseum until November 6th.
I’m afraid Romney is too savvy to make that mistake. He will focus on the economy.
September 8th, 2012 | 2:36 pm
Maximilian,
“Good. I am frankly disturbed to be near people who revere a man who was all too willing to slit his son’s throat, which I don’t think any moral person would be willing to do.”
I wish you had a little more respect for the house you’ve entered. While many sites like this have firm rules about comments, moderate them heavily, and require signing in, First Things has generously made a forum for a variety of voices, including yours. Neuhaus, the founder, quite explicitly invited atheist participation in the journal and on the site. He wanted a vigorous discussion of ideas.
But good discussion requires good manners. If you’re “disturbed to be near people who revere” Abraham, then please leave graciously, but if you’re curious about why good, intelligent people would revere such a man, then be prepared to hear some interesting, thoughtful answers. You’re welcome to challenge and provoke, but I don’t think you have to be rude when doing so.
September 8th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
Dan C,
I think you’re right that lots of young people have been turned off from Christianity because it’s become too politicized. The mainline churches are liberal Democrats, the evangelical ones are conservative Republicans, and both preach to the choir. That’s certainly what I hear from young people in my liberal church. Too much talk about justice and not enough about Jesus. The old people in the congregation, however, came to the civil rights and then to the gay rights movements because Jesus and justice was one and the same to them.
Although Dreher is the kind of thinker that turns off young people, I find him a compelling figure nonetheless. I think he’s right to continue thinking through the idea that we’re all converts now and that many Roman Catholics are blind to the failure of traditionalism to take deep root. I am also moved by watching him struggle with his faith and his politics. There’s no Olympian coolness like the kind found in most of the regular First Things writers.
I think he’s wrong about most of the stands he takes, but I like his active engagement in ideas. He’s a real human.
September 8th, 2012 | 3:41 pm
Max:
And how many pro-life Democrats spoke this year on the issue:? zero.
And who is it that wants to ‘criminalize abortion’ — what is your source for that? Criminalize means that people will be charged with a crime. Who will be charged?
Did the founders engage in a floor demonstration against any reference to God and booing any attempt to include such language? What’s the source for that — you really shouldn’t just make things up. Were the founders ‘hostile’ to religion? If so, why the free exercise clause and the countless proclamations issued by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson extolling the virtues of religion?
You are apparently OK with the idea of booing a proposal to restore language in the Dem platform that had been included up through 2008. So prior to this convention all those Democrats stood in opposition to the intent of the founders? If you think that Washington, Hamilton, Madison, et. al., would have participated in that classless scene that occurred in Charlotte the other night than you simply don’t understand the importance the founders placed on religion as a bulwark of self government. Again, how do you explain the free exercise clause which the Dems see as an impediment to the more important goal of ?
September 8th, 2012 | 7:08 pm
Michael: I wish you had a little more respect for the house you’ve entered.
I’ve got plenty of respect, or I wouldn’t bother posting. And I am surprised and pleased that this much free speech is allowed on this board – which is rarely the case on religious websites. Now, my point was that it isn’t a bad thing at all, not to have the literal Abraham as the father of your religion.
I can see why you may think that my post was insulting, and that was not my intent. Unless one takes a fundamentalist approach, one can perfectly well interpret that ‘sacrifice’ in the manner of Ambrose/Augustine and like thinkers, and thus not as a literal story, but perhaps as an allegorical story to signify the rejection of human sacrifice.
I do take issue with a fundamentalist belief in a divine whim theory of morality. If God commanded human sacrifice, then that would be moral. Same for any other immorality. Augustine and others, of course, would not agree with that, but that is the point of view of some. That was my target, and I do think that’s fairly scary. Such people would be capable of some unseemly actions, if only they were convinced that there was a divine demand.
I do hope that my more thorough explanation will not appear disrespectful.
September 8th, 2012 | 7:14 pm
Publius: And how many pro-life Democrats spoke this year on the issue:? zero.
We’ve been through this before, and you kept moving the goalposts – mentioning pro-choice Republicans as proof that the GOP is a big tent, while demanding that anti-abortion Democrats actually lecture the convention on abortion. How many pro-choice Republicans spoke on the issue? (Christie is not pro-choice, as you earlier thought.)
Publius: And who is it that wants to ‘criminalize abortion’ — what is your source for that? Criminalize means that people will be charged with a crime. Who will be charged?
Doctors.
Publius: Did the founders engage in a floor demonstration against any reference to God and booing any attempt to include such language?
All we know is that they did not include any mention of any god in the Constitution. From the likes of Washington and Jefferson, it was to be expected that they would oppose such a mention in a passionate manner.
Publius: Again, how do you explain the free exercise clause which the Dems see as an impediment to the more important goal of ?
I did not say that anyone was ‘hostile’ to religion, although many of them certainly weren’t friendly to Christianity. They believed in personal freedom, which was opposed by most, if not all, churches at the time, who wanted to coerce people into their religion. Jefferson stated it best, that he would be indifferent to whether his neighbor worshiped fifty or zero gods – it neither broke his arm, nor picked his pocket.
September 9th, 2012 | 12:35 pm
Max,
You keep missing the point, which is that the Democratic Party is pro-abortion, the Republican Party is pro-life. The lineup of their speakers reflect this fact.
And I too kept waiting for Jimmy Carter to push his, as you described it, “pro-life position” at the convention. Needless to say, it didn’t happen.
The churches at the time of the founding “opposed” personal freedom? You apparently have no idea of the role that the churches played in the American Revolution. Additionally, religious freedom was the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights — as the free exercise clause makes clear. Also, re your unsupported claim that it would be expected that Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson would oppose the mention of God in a “passionate” manner — to the contrary, they frequently wrote and remarked in both official and unofficial writings on the importance of religion to a free, self governing people. They would have been appalled at the classless charade in Charlotte.
“Doctors” will be subject to criminal penalties? Who is advocating this?
September 9th, 2012 | 4:41 pm
Publius: You keep missing the point, which is that the Democratic Party is pro-abortion, the Republican Party is pro-life. The lineup of their speakers reflect this fact.
Are you the same person as small p Publius? If so, you know from our previous talk that I never denied that the Democratic Party is pro-choice, while the GOP is anti-abortion. My issue is with the idea that the GOP is a big tent, as well as invented notions of ‘persecution’. Multiple people claimed in a previous thread that the Democratic Party never allowed anyone who wants to criminalize abortion to speak at the convention, and they only went silent when I cited four people from 2008 alone.
Publius: And I too kept waiting for Jimmy Carter to push his, as you described it, “pro-life position” at the convention.
No need, he has done it before. He believes that abortion should be illegal, except in the three exceptions.
Publius: The churches at the time of the founding “opposed” personal freedom? You apparently have no idea of the role that the churches played in the American Revolution.
The Catholic Church did not recognize religious freedom until the Second Vatican Council. The same is true for most, if not all, of the established Protestant churches. The same is true for most churches that were established in the American continent – the Congregationalists, Anglicans, etc. – with the notable exception of the Baptists and the Quakers. Many Southern states had established Anglican churches at the time of the Revolution, and Congregationalism was the state religion of Mass. and Conn. for decades after the Revolution.
Publius: Also, re your unsupported claim that it would be expected that Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson would oppose the mention of God in a “passionate” manner
What an oversight then, that they did not include mention of any god in the Constitution. These people were deists, and they did believe in a god, but they did not inject religion into politics.
Publius: “Doctors” will be subject to criminal penalties? Who is advocating this?
People who want to make abortion illegal. How else would one accomplish that objective?
September 9th, 2012 | 5:44 pm
Maximilian,
“I do take issue with a fundamentalist belief in a divine whim theory of morality.”
If your target was fundamentalism, then you might say so. Your original statement was far more expansive, criticizing “people who revere” Abraham.
“one can perfectly well interpret that ‘sacrifice’ in the manner of Ambrose/Augustine and like thinkers, and thus not as a literal story, but perhaps as an allegorical story to signify the rejection of human sacrifice”
Except that Augustine believed that the story was literally true. He believed that God actually asked Abraham to kill Isaac and that Abraham was correct to do so without question. He believed that God could create exceptions to His own moral law.
“I do hope that my more thorough explanation will not appear disrespectful”
Thank you for the thoroughness of your explanation. I appreciate your generosity.
September 9th, 2012 | 9:21 pm
Max, isn’t it kind of useless for Jimmy Carter to speak out against abortion and then not try to change his party’s platform? He made no effort to do so, nor did he speak about it to the delegates. Perhaps it indicates a lack of seriousness for a former president to simply tell conservative talk show hosts that he’s opposed to abortion and then do nothing about it.
Yes, established churches existed at the state level well into the 19th century. If the founders were concerned about religion and politics, why didn’t they put a stop to this? Why would they include the free exercise clause at the top of the Bill of Rights if they felt that religion was a negative influence on the political world?
If the founders did not want to inject religion into politics, how do you explain the first proclamation ever issued by an American President, George Washington’s proclamation of 1789. If you actually read it you’ll see that your claim that the founders didn’t want to inject religion into politics is, to say the least, misguided. Washington’s proclamation makes Pat Robertson sound like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Who are these “people” who want to arrest Doctors? You are awfully vague on this point. Romney, Ryan, can you give me a name?
September 10th, 2012 | 10:06 am
I don’t agree with Max much, but I don’t see how you would stop abortion without criminal penalties. Even if you don’t support making it the same as any other murder, you still have to have some sort of punitive action taken otherwise it would continue. For what it’s worth, I’m both agnostic and a conservative Republican that’s anti-abortion.
September 10th, 2012 | 11:33 am
Michael: If your target was fundamentalism, then you might say so. Your original statement was far more expansive, criticizing “people who revere” Abraham.
I can understand why you would think that, but it depends in large degree on what one believes about the man. Most Jews, for example, while revering Abraham, certainly would not interpret this story literally. I would not have a problem with that, as that does not endorse the idea that one ought to be willing to slit one’s son’s throat, if God asked. Sure, you may say, God does not, but that is cold comfort, as he may at any time change his mind about this, or any other important moral issue, and morality would be turned on its head. This also means that there is no morality to begin with, as morality is nothing more than the whim of a divinity. Had he commanded the exact opposite – go out and murder and torture – then that would be right, good and moral. This can’t be right, whether one is an atheist, or a religious person.
Michael: Except that Augustine believed that the story was literally true. He believed that God actually asked Abraham to kill Isaac and that Abraham was correct to do so without question. He believed that God could create exceptions to His own moral law.
I’m saddened to hear that, and very surprised, as he was a (Christian) Platonist. All that would be needed to make people commit atrocities, is to convince them that it is God’s will, and they will be capable of the worst atrocities imaginable, as we have seen both in history and over the past eleven years. Impossible? Not really. In Egypt, about 80% of Muslims believe that leaving Islam should be punished by death – even though Islam tells them not to murder. The idea that God can make exceptions to his own moral law would not help these people at all in discovering that this is evil and wrong.
September 10th, 2012 | 11:41 am
Publius: Max, isn’t it kind of useless for Jimmy Carter to speak out against abortion and then not try to change his party’s platform?
Nothing is ever enough, is it? Carter quote: “I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”
Publius: Perhaps it indicates a lack of seriousness for a former president
I think his presidency showed that.
Publius: Yes, established churches existed at the state level well into the 19th century. If the founders were concerned about religion and politics, why didn’t they put a stop to this?
That was a state issue, same as free exercise. If a state wanted to kill Quakers, the federal Constitution would allow that. It doesn’t mean that Washington, Jefferson et al. would approve of it.
Publius: Why would they include the free exercise clause at the top of the Bill of Rights if they felt that religion was a negative influence on the political world?
Uh, no, non-establishment is at the top of the Bill of Rights. Free exercise comes only after that. It also has nothing to do with the political world. A general rule today is: the more religion in politics, the less freedom. Examples: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.
Publius: If the founders did not want to inject religion into politics, how do you explain the first proclamation ever issued by an American President, George Washington’s proclamation of 1789.
Have you been reading the works of David Barton? That you would mention Washington, who would not take communion, and who signed the Treaty of Tripoli to boot, which had as one of its clauses that the government of the US was not in any way founded on the Christian religion.
Publius: Washington’s proclamation makes Pat Robertson sound like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Pat Robertson: “[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
Publius: Who are these “people” who want to arrest Doctors? You are awfully vague on this point. Romney, Ryan, can you give me a name?
Anyone who wants to make abortion illegal. How else is that supposed to be accomplished, but by criminalizing doctors? It could be accomplished as in some countries in Latin America, where women are criminalized.
September 10th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
I am seeing a pattern emerge from the progressives i.e. as a Catholic woman, I am pro-choice (pro women’s reproductive issues, pro-abortion) and I’m sure that Jimmy Carter was carefully prepped on what he could NOT mention.
September 10th, 2012 | 4:58 pm
Jimmy Carter said to the talk show host,
““I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade”
No doubt he was prepped by the DNC to say neither the “J” word nor the “C” word at the convention. Not unless they wanted to subject that lingo to yet another embarrasing vote (or two or three).
September 10th, 2012 | 6:29 pm
Max:
Signing a public letter,whatever that is, is useless. If Carter was truly pro-life, and wanted his party to change, he would have spoken at his party’s convention and testified before the platform committee urging a change in the platform from pro-abortion to pro-life. He did not do either of those things.
Raising the bogeyman of the discredited David Barton is a good debating tactic, but it does not advance the argument. Read the works of scholars like Dan Driesbach and then come back and tell me that the founders saw that more religion meant less freedom. Where do you think the idea of an educated population that could read came from? And that reading was absolutely essential to self government?…. It came from the churches who wanted the citizenry to be able to read the bible. This is why slaveholders were so fearful of slaves being educated and taught to read…. Harvard, the college of William and Mary, the college of New Jersey etc., were all founded by religious orders. How often did the founders talk about the importance of education in a democracy? Frequently, to say the least. Where were the founders educated? Colleges founded by various Protestant sects. Your history is simply wrong.
As is your unsupported charge that pro-life supporters want to ‘criminalize’ Doctors and arrest them. You have yet to cite a single name…. and I don’t think you understand the difference between constitutional and criminal law.
September 10th, 2012 | 8:29 pm
Maximillian,
“I’m saddened to hear that, and very surprised, as he was a (Christian) Platonist”
I’m surprised that you are surprised to hear Augustine’s stand. Earlier, you spoke so confidently that Augustine would never believe the story literally. Your surprise makes me wonder how much you actually know about Christianity. How much have you read the Fathers, how much history have you read, how much faith have you experienced?
Most Christians have believed in the literal truth of the story and have had their faith strengthened by it. Abraham’s faith is the very model of the amount of trust we’re asked to give God. God, after all, allowed His own son to die.
“All that would be needed to make people commit atrocities, is to convince them that it is God’s will, and they will be capable of the worst atrocities imaginable, as we have seen both in history and over the past eleven years.”
Your fear that literal belief would make Christians susceptible to lunatic commands is logical enough, but I’d point out two things. First, very few Christians, Jews, or Muslims have actually jumped off that lemming cliff. We understand that God’s request to Abraham was unique and befitted the role he was asked to play in salvation history.
Second, there is no belief system—religious or atheist, faith-based or rational—that can’t be perverted by the lunatic. The French Revolution should be proof enough that even reason can be turned to bloodshed.
“This also means that there is no morality to begin with, as morality is nothing more than the whim of a divinity.”
And yet Christians have only rarely ever interpreted it to mean that morality is God’s whim. You need to learn more about Christianity and assume less.
September 11th, 2012 | 8:33 am
Michael –
Although, based on the widespread belief that religion is necessary to morality, they actually tried to set up a “Cult of Reason”. so there’s still some room to think that the trappings of religion can be a factor.
But yes, overall I agree that dogmatism is the risk factor, not belief per se. (Of course, thinking that you have the word of an infallible deity on your side would, in turn, seem to me to be a risk factor for dogmatism.)
September 11th, 2012 | 10:33 am
Publius: If Carter was truly pro-life, and wanted his party to change, he would have spoken at his party’s convention and testified before the platform committee urging a change in the platform from pro-abortion to pro-life.
You keep moving the goalposts, Publius, and say that someone is not truly anti-abortion unless this or that. By that standard, the GOP has zero pro-choicers, because even solid pro-choicers like Olympia Snowe did not try to change the platform from anti-abortion to pro-choice.
Publius: Raising the bogeyman of the discredited David Barton is a good debating tactic,
I’m glad we can agree that David Barton is a fraud.
Publius: Read the works of scholars like Dan Driesbach and then come back and tell me that the founders saw that more religion meant less freedom.
I did not say that the Founders said that more religion means less freedom. I did not even make the claim for myself, I said: the more religion in politics there is in a particular country, the less free that country will be. And they did oppose religion in politics, not religion in general (like I do).
Publius: Where were the founders educated? Colleges founded by various Protestant sects.
As if they would necessarily copy all the beliefs of those colleges. Was Thomas Jefferson taught that there is no Trinity, or was that his own idea? Also, I didn’t say that they were atheists (they were mostly deists), I said that that they did not want religion in politics, especially Jefferson, and rightly so.
Publius: As is your unsupported charge that pro-life supporters want to ‘criminalize’ Doctors and arrest them. You have yet to cite a single name…. and I don’t think you understand the difference between constitutional and criminal law.
I am surprised at your insistence. What do you think that being ‘pro-life’ means? To end abortion by government means. And how is that going to happen? We are often assured that pro-lifers have no intention of prosecuting women, so that leaves doctors. It has nothing to do with constitutional law, as someone who may want to overturn Roe v. Wade is not necessarily pro-life. He may think that it should be a decision for the states, without believing that the states should use the power that is returned to them, to criminalize abortion.
If I am wrong, please educate me. What is it that you intend?
September 11th, 2012 | 10:54 am
Michael: I’m surprised that you are surprised to hear Augustine’s stand. Earlier, you spoke so confidently that Augustine would never believe the story literally. Your surprise makes me wonder how much you actually know about Christianity.
More than fundamentalists and most religious people, less than an educated Catholic. My knowledge of Augustine’s ideas come from secondary sources, I have not actually read his enormous book (nor that of any other of the other church fathers). And I know that he often did not read the Bible literally, same for other religious Platonists, like Philo the Jewish Platonist.
Michael: Most Christians have believed in the literal truth of the story and have had their faith strengthened by it. Abraham’s faith is the very model of the amount of trust we’re asked to give God. God, after all, allowed His own son to die.
But is there then any morality that is, in your view, independent of the simple will of God? If God demanded that we throw our firstborns into the flames, should we have the trust and faith to do it? If so, were adherents of other religions, like Ba’al-worshipers and the Aztecs, right to put enough trust and faith in what they thought was the will of their god(s), to perform human sacrifice?
Or would you say: of course not, throwing your children into a fire would be immoral. But remember, worshipers of Ba’al would think that it is a divine command, and that they are merely showing their faith and trust in their god by doing it.
Michael: Your fear that literal belief would make Christians susceptible to lunatic commands is logical enough, but I’d point out two things. First, very few Christians, Jews, or Muslims have actually jumped off that lemming cliff. We understand that God’s request to Abraham was unique and befitted the role he was asked to play in salvation history.
True, that particular lemming cliff. But I am troubled more generally by the idea that morality is simply what God says and wants, and although this story serves the good purpose of discouraging human sacrifice, it has a troubling undertone that people should obey what they think God wants, even if it is very immoral and evil.
Michael: Second, there is no belief system—religious or atheist, faith-based or rational—that can’t be perverted by the lunatic. The French Revolution should be proof enough that even reason can be turned to bloodshed.
But how much of a perversion is it? If Abraham preparing to kill his son is moral if God commanded it, then is it not moral for Muslims to kill apostates if that is what God commanded? The issue we would be able to debate is the veracity of the revelation, which we could never prove or disprove, not to the satisfaction of believers.
Michael: And yet Christians have only rarely ever interpreted it to mean that morality is God’s whim. You need to learn more about Christianity and assume less.
I truly believe that most Christians would NOT obey that divine command, were they in Abraham’s position. So I agree that most Christians don’t think of morality as simply God’s whim. But if God can make exceptions to the moral law, what is it but God’s whim? Presumably, he could change the moral law, if he wanted to, and that would make it even more God’s whim.
September 11th, 2012 | 11:37 am
Max,
Nice try. But the fact remains that Carter did not use his influence to change the Democrats pro-choice position to pro-life. Rhetoric is meaningless without pushing for changes in policy. Serious people don’t just talk, they act.
Re moving goalposts: You mentioned in an earlier post about people speaking at political conventions “wanting to criminalize abortion” and later you added that it would be “Doctors” who would be subject to these criminal penalties, but you still are unable to come up with a single name of a Republican or Democrat who wants to do this. Again, who were you referring to in your earlier posts?
September 11th, 2012 | 2:38 pm
Publius: Nice try. But the fact remains that Carter did not use his influence to change the Democrats pro-choice position to pro-life.
He has, to some extent, much to my chagrin. But earlier you said that he is not “truly pro-life”, because he hasn’t done enough, according to you. By that standard, few anti-abortion Democrats or pro-choice Republicans would count, but at least own it.
Publius: You mentioned in an earlier post about people speaking at political conventions “wanting to criminalize abortion” and later you added that it would be “Doctors” who would be subject to these criminal penalties, but you still are unable to come up with a single name of a Republican or Democrat who wants to do this. Again, who were you referring to in your earlier posts?
Anyone who is pro-life. If you want names: Mitt Romney (though he’s not pro-choice or anti-choice, but multiple choice), Paul Ryan, Jimmy Carter, and all other pro-lifers. If not, explain to me how you are going to outlaw abortion without criminalizing doctors who perform abortions. Is that the problem, that I didn’t specify “who perform abortions”? I thought it would be obvious.
September 11th, 2012 | 4:29 pm
So Mitt Romeny is calling for overturning Roe v. Wade and arresting doctors who perform abortions? Where and when did he make such a statement?
September 11th, 2012 | 5:11 pm
Publius: So Mitt Romeny is calling for overturning Roe v. Wade and arresting doctors who perform abortions? Where and when did he make such a statement?
Roe v. Wade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAuwuLse1Gg
As for criminalizing doctors, it is assumed, because abortion cannot be outlawed without criminalizing doctors who perform abortions. And Romney believes that abortion should be outlawed, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
Will you now answer my question? If you are pro-life, but do not favor criminalizing doctors who perform abortions, how on earth are you going to outlaw abortions? Or are you personally pro-life, while thinking that the procedure should be legal? Your comments have been very confusing and puzzling.
September 11th, 2012 | 10:43 pm
Ok, so Romney never has said, despite what you wrote, that Doctors who perform abortions should be arrested.
If Roe were overturned then state legislatures could ban abortion and localities could choose to deny licenses to abortion mills. That’s one way short of “criminalizing” abortion and arresting Doctors that you keep claiming (without any evidence) is the only way this could be done…. “criminalizing” something is not required; licensing and zoning laws are the preferred method communities use to prevent any number of activities they find offensive.
Just because you feel strongly about something is no excuse to make sweeping statements not based on fact.
September 12th, 2012 | 9:23 am
Ray,
“so there’s still some room to think that the trappings of religion can be a factor. But yes, overall I agree that dogmatism is the risk factor, not belief per se. (Of course, thinking that you have the word of an infallible deity on your side would, in turn, seem to me to be a risk factor for dogmatism.)”
Science and Christianity share two valuable characteristics. They both believe that they provide the way to the truth, and they both encourage humility about whether humans actually possess the truth at any particular moment.
And so yes, I agree with you that dogmatism is the risk factor and not belief itself. Looking at the total number of past centuries, Christianity has more atrocities to answer for than science does, but looking just at the twentieth century, science, atheism, and secularism were responsible for more war and suffering than Christianity was.
There are Christians who post on First Things who believe that the bad record of science, atheism, and secularism means that those three inevitably lead to evil. Christianity leads me to think otherwise, to believe that humans will turn anything—including Christianity itself—toward evil uses.
A little humility on every side would take us far.
September 12th, 2012 | 11:24 am
Michael –
I don’t know if I can agree with that. Not without serious qualifications, at least. For example, at least 80% of the time, people lump Hitler in there – but Hitler, though not Christian, wasn’t an atheist either. And the Holocaust was aided by the virulent strain of religious anti-Semitism endemic to the region. (Thankfully, Lutheranism today has gotten past that flaw of its founder.)
Pretty much every other set of atrocities committed by any ‘secular’ regime or group in the 20th century were committed by Communist regimes or groups. And Communism is not essential to atheism.
It’d be like blaming 9/11 on Christianity because both Christianity and Islam were Abrahamic faiths.
In any case, I agree that humility is called for on all sides. The Terror certainly wasn’t Communist…
September 12th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
Maximilian,
“More than fundamentalists and most religious people, less than an educated Catholic.”
As you continue to read and participate on this site, you will meet a number of people that you might call “fundamentalist,” a term which is often used sloppily. You’ll find that they know a lot more than you might think. The Reformed and Evangelical presence is quite strong here. You’ll also find a number of Orthodox who know their theology and history inside out. It’s best not to presume everyone here is Roman.
“And I know that he often did not read the Bible literally, same for other religious Platonists, like Philo the Jewish Platonist”
If your target is literalism, you’ll find some people here who believe in biblical literalism, but not as many as you might hope.
“But is there then any morality that is, in your view, independent of the simple will of God?”
You’re getting into deep waters here, one that Christian thinkers have been navigating for two millennia. They have addressed these questions searchingly, which is why it remains good to read the Fathers as well as later thinkers.
The main thrust of Christian thought, however, has been that God doesn’t rule by whim the way that pagan gods were depicted as doing. God’s law is a moral law available to all, what theologians have called natural law.
There are two tricky things, however. The first is that God sometimes asks us to do things that are counter-intuitive. Most of Jesus’ teaching falls into this category. Most of the Sermon on the Mount asks us to do things that are practically foolish but adhere to God’s law.
The second thing is what we’ve been discussing—those special moments in salvation history when God has asked someone to do something that, on the surface, has seemed immoral. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is one such moment. These are rare occasions and don’t bear the weight you want to place on them.
“Or would you say: of course not, throwing your children into a fire would be immoral. But remember, worshipers of Ba’al would think that it is a divine command, and that they are merely showing their faith and trust in their god by doing it. is it not moral for Muslims to kill apostates if that is what God commanded?”
The worshippers of Ba’al were worshipping a false god, and Muslims are improperly following the one God. So yes, Christians, pagans, and Muslims alike follow what they think are divine commands, but only Christians follow what are actually divine commands.
“The issue we would be able to debate is the veracity of the revelation, which we could never prove or disprove, not to the satisfaction of believers”
We could also debate the veracity of the scientific method, which would never be disproven to the satisfaction of scientists and rationalists. I believe in both the veracity of Christian revelation and the scientific method, but I know that I can’t prove either.
“I truly believe that most Christians would NOT obey that divine command, were they in Abraham’s position.”
I think most Christians would say that they wouldn’t have enough faith to follow that command but they wish they did. As I’ve already said, God asks us to do a lot of counter-intuitive things, like loving our enemies, finding redemption in suffering, and serving the weak. None of those things are practical, but we have faith that they are part of the way of God, and so we do them. You look at Abraham and see a lunatic following an immoral command. We look at Abraham and aspire to have as much faith as he had.
September 12th, 2012 | 2:50 pm
Publius: Ok, so Romney never has said, despite what you wrote, that Doctors who perform abortions should be arrested.
You didn’t ask who *said* that he wanted to criminalize doctors, you asked for who *wanted* to do it. If I take Romney at his word, he indeed wants to criminalize doctors for performing abortions.
Publius: If Roe were overturned then state legislatures could ban abortion and localities could choose to deny licenses to abortion mills. That’s one way short of “criminalizing” abortion and arresting Doctors that you keep claiming (without any evidence) is the only way this could be done…. “criminalizing” something is not required; licensing and zoning laws are the preferred method communities use to prevent any number of activities they find offensive.
Very clever and inventive, but governments ‘license’ what they allow. I have never heard of requiring a license for, for example, performing abortions, and then never issuing a license. Or zoning laws intended to deny people from establishing a business anywhere in the state – rather than excluding them from a zone. That’s a de facto criminalization. Compare: if one followed your argument, denying ‘preaching licenses’ for preachers and using zoning to prevent churches from being built, would not be criminalizing Christianity.
September 12th, 2012 | 2:54 pm
Ray,
“For example, at least 80% of the time, people lump Hitler in there – but Hitler, though not Christian, wasn’t an atheist either. And the Holocaust was aided by the virulent strain of religious anti-Semitism endemic to the region. Pretty much every other set of atrocities committed by any ‘secular’ regime or group in the 20th century were committed by Communist regimes or groups. And Communism is not essential to atheism”
You’re right to lay the blame for Hitler’s atrocities at least partly in the lap of Lutheranism, but I’d add Roman Catholicism and indeed the whole sad history of Christian relations with Judaism. We Christians have done a lot to answer for here.
But the example of Hitler brings up a powerful –ism that we haven’t mentioned, and that is nationalism. Much war and social oppression has been inspired by nationalism, and that nationalism has been justified by a variety of ideologies, from Aryan racialism to Christianity.
Some atheists fantasize that removing religion will remove many evils, but it won’t. Humans will use anything to justify evil.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:09 pm
Michael: As you continue to read and participate on this site, you will meet a number of people that you might call “fundamentalist,” a term which is often used sloppily. You’ll find that they know a lot more than you might think. The Reformed and Evangelical presence is quite strong here. You’ll also find a number of Orthodox who know their theology and history inside out. It’s best not to presume everyone here is Roman.
I don’t. But you know Augustine to some extent, and it is a pretty good bet that you are a Catholic. Any Protestant, fundamentalist or otherwise, posting here will probably be more open-minded and intellectual than the average, so maybe not. However, in my experience, fundamentalists generally know rather little about their own religion, other than the Bible and whatever their preacher has told them, and to be frank, I have not encountered a fundamentalist who knew more about his religion than I do.
Michael: If your target is literalism, you’ll find some people here who believe in biblical literalism, but not as many as you might hope.
I know ‘militant atheists’ like myself are often thought to prefer a literalist reading of the Bible, but even though it is easier to refute, I prefer that people not be literalists. They are better people for it, in my view.
Michael: The second thing is what we’ve been discussing—those special moments in salvation history when God has asked someone to do something that, on the surface, has seemed immoral. Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is one such moment. These are rare occasions and don’t bear the weight you want to place on them.
I thank you for your explanation. But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that God can make a singular exception to the law, but that he could not invert the moral law, if he wanted to? So one instance of murder he can command, but not: everyone should kill his firstborn son?
Michael: The worshippers of Ba’al were worshipping a false god, and Muslims are improperly following the one God. So yes, Christians, pagans, and Muslims alike follow what they think are divine commands, but only Christians follow what are actually divine commands.
A Muslim will say that same thing about your religion, with as much evidence. It is impossible for anyone who follows a false god or a false religion to tell that this is what he is doing. It’s a question of faith. So they believe that what they are following are divine commands, as much as you believe that loving your neighbor is a divine command. Should they then carry out the things that are prescribed by their respective religions and put their faith and trust in their god, or should they question the immoralities that they have been commanded to carry out?
Michael: As I’ve already said, God asks us to do a lot of counter-intuitive things, like loving our enemies, finding redemption in suffering, and serving the weak. None of those things are practical,
Nor is any of it necessarily immoral, as killing a child is. So I would not object to any of that.
Michael: You look at Abraham and see a lunatic following an immoral command. We look at Abraham and aspire to have as much faith as he had.
A pithy summary of our disputation.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:13 pm
Michael: Some atheists fantasize that removing religion will remove many evils, but it won’t. Humans will use anything to justify evil.
Very true, but I will settle for removing the ones directly inspired by religion. I do not think that Afghanistan is better off for being very religious, where imams openly say that they think that burning the Koran is way worse than killing innocent people.
And props to Ray for knowing the truth about Hitler’s religious beliefs. Atheists will generally claim that Hitler was a Catholic, and religious people will claim that he is an atheist – neither of them true.
September 12th, 2012 | 3:41 pm
Michael –
What’s interesting is that I have a hard time actually finding such atheists. Certainly the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” – Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett – never claimed that.
Thinking that evils would be reduced without religion – or, at bare minimum, certain types of religion – isn’t the same thing as thinking that evil itself only comes from religion. Indeed, even claiming something like ‘only evil comes from religion’ (a claim I have run into, and don’t agree with) isn’t the same thing as claiming ‘evil only comes from religion’.
September 12th, 2012 | 4:27 pm
Max, Romney and Paul Ryan have never said, despite what you have written, that Doctors who perform abortions should be arrested. You are not taking Romney at his word, you are putting words in his mouth. That is a poor substitute for a rational argument, to say the least.
You don’t understand the requirements for permits, licensing, and zoning, and how throughout history governments at the state and local level have used this power to deny practices that states and localities find repugnant. There are some good law courses you can take that will bring you up to speed on the differences between criminal law, constitutional law, and various forms of administrative law.
To state that you have never heard of requiring a license to perform abortions speaks volumes…..
September 12th, 2012 | 4:43 pm
Publius: Max, Romney and Paul Ryan have never said, despite what you have written, that Doctors who perform abortions should be arrested.
Since you repeated yourself, let me repeat myself: I didn’t say that this is what they have *said*, but that this is what they *want*.
Publius: You don’t understand the requirements for permits, licensing, and zoning, and how throughout history governments at the state and local level have used this power to deny practices that states and localities find repugnant.
Then give me one example where zoning was used to bar a practice from an entire state. You can’t, because zoning is intended to keep certain buildings out of a particular area (hence the word). You cannot use zoning to bar abortion clinics from establishing in an entire state, or local jurisdiction, for that matter.
Publius: There are some good law courses you can take that will bring you up to speed on the differences between criminal law, constitutional law, and various forms of administrative law.
You clearly know nothing about the law, Publius, I’m sorry to say. Constitutional law is completely irrelevant here, as it was when you first brought it up.
Publius: To state that you have never heard of requiring a license to perform abortions speaks volumes…..
“I have never heard of requiring a license for, for example, performing abortions, ***and then never issuing a license.***” It mystifies me how you could misread this.
September 12th, 2012 | 7:05 pm
“But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that God can make a singular exception to the law, but that he could not invert the moral law, if he wanted to?”
In short, yes, I would agree with the way you’ve put it. There are theologians and philosophers who have struggled a long time with what is called Euthyphro’s dilemma, which is what they call the question you’ve raised. The way I answer the question is to say that following the way Jesus described has never led anyone outside of scripture into any situation that would require one to invert the moral law. In other words, commandments to violate the moral law are absolutely exceptional.
“It is impossible for anyone who follows a false god or a false religion to tell that this is what he is doing.”
Difficult, yes, but not impossible. Lots of people have intuited the way of Jesus both before and after His appearance. God gives His grace freely and everywhere, making it possible for anyone to intuit what is God’s true law and what is not.
“Should they then carry out the things that are prescribed by their respective religions and put their faith and trust in their god, or should they question the immoralities that they have been commanded to carry out?”
The difficulty for anyone, Christian or not, is discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit. So, yes, all people should question what they are doing and ask whether it is truly moral. No one should blindly do what is commanded.
“I do not think that Afghanistan is better off for being very religious”
I wouldn’t claim that one is better off being religious than atheist or agnostic. I would claim that one is better off being Christian.
September 12th, 2012 | 7:15 pm
Ray,
“What’s interesting is that I have a hard time actually finding such atheists. Certainly the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” – Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett – never claimed that”
That may be true about published atheists, but I certainly hear a lot of loose generalizations outside of published authors.
“Thinking that evils would be reduced without religion – or, at bare minimum, certain types of religion – isn’t the same thing as thinking that evil itself only comes from religion. Indeed, even claiming something like ‘only evil comes from religion’ (a claim I have run into, and don’t agree with) isn’t the same thing as claiming ‘evil only comes from religion”
True enough, but I’d say that some of the best advice Jesus gave was to judge people by their fruits and not their preaching and Paul gave a pretty good list of the fruits of the spirit. I don’t care much about whether one claims he is Christian or atheist. I know plenty of atheists who follow the way Jesus described and plenty of Christians who do not. I watch for the fruits.
September 13th, 2012 | 7:02 am
Max,
Again, repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. You have been unable to cite a single source supporting your repeated claim that Romney and Ryan favor criminalizing abortion by targetting Doctors who perform abortions. Usually in the course of an argument you have to cite facts to support an assertion. You have repeatedly been unable to do this, but instead simply repeat the accusation. History is littered with examples of demagogues who resort to this kind of anti-intellectual tactic.
Sceondly, your statement that you have never heard of an instance where an abortion clinic had to a acquire a license in order to practice reveals a shocking lack of understanding about the ways state and local governments regulate such activity. When pornography was illegal in the United States this was the main mechanism by which local communities prevented these kinds of entities from opening their doors.
There are no constitutional questions surrounding the issue of abortion? Very interesting. Again, your lack of understanding of the differences between constitutional, criminal, and administrative law can be easily remedied by a little reading. Sometimes it is best to read first, gather your facts, and then write on websites such as this. It would really be a plus for all concerned.
September 13th, 2012 | 11:15 am
Publius – Ok. Abortion is now illegal.
Then, an abortion is carried out. It comes to the attention of the police.
What happens after that?
September 13th, 2012 | 11:22 am
Publius: Again, repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. You have been unable to cite a single source supporting your repeated claim that Romney and Ryan favor criminalizing abortion by targetting Doctors who perform abortions.
Since there is no other way, the fact that they believe that abortion should not be legal in most cases alone proves that.
Publius: Sceondly, your statement that you have never heard of an instance where an abortion clinic had to a acquire a license in order to practice reveals a shocking lack of understanding about the ways state and local governments regulate such activity.
Wow. Twice now have I told you what I actually said, yet you persist in deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. Your lack of honesty is what’s shocking – as is the bald-faced nature of your deceptions. Let me repeat what I have twice written: “I have never heard of requiring a license for, for example, performing abortions, ***and then never issuing a license.***” In other words: it makes no sense to require a license, and then never issue a license. What, can I expect you to ignore the plain wording yet again, and repeat yourself when you’ve been presented with the actual words three times? I cannot say that it would surprise me.
Publius: When pornography was illegal in the United States [licensing] was the main mechanism by which local communities prevented these kinds of entities from opening their doors.
Nay, when pornography was illegal, criminal prosecutions under obscenity laws were the main mechanism.
Publius: There are no constitutional questions surrounding the issue of abortion? Very interesting.
None that we have talked about. The question is what anti-abortion folks want to do if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, which would remove the “constitutional question”. Since the current discussion is about what they want to do in that case, “constitutional law” is all but irrelevant.
Publius: Again, your lack of understanding of the differences between constitutional, criminal, and administrative law can be easily remedied by a little reading.
I see that you have dropped your ‘zoning’ argument, rather than answer how ‘zoning’ is supposed to bar a particular type of establishment from an entire state. I also note that you are no longer defending your claim that the US government is based on Christianity. Abandoning all your initial arguments reduces you to twisting your interlocutor’s words, as you did when you claimed that no person opposed to abortion has addressed the DNC since 1973 – and when called out switched to “no one has given a pro-life speech”. That alone should show us how strong your argument is, or how knowledgeable you are about the law (not very much).
September 13th, 2012 | 11:49 am
Michael: The way I answer the question is to say that following the way Jesus described has never led anyone outside of scripture into any situation that would require one to invert the moral law.
Well, like Euthyphro, you answer the question correctly. This is actually how I distinguish Christianity from Islam to atheists who think that they are basically alike. Following the words Jesus will not make you do evil, but following the words of Muhammad would.
Michael: Difficult, yes, but not impossible. Lots of people have intuited the way of Jesus both before and after His appearance. God gives His grace freely and everywhere, making it possible for anyone to intuit what is God’s true law and what is not.
Let’s face it, the vast majority of people do not change religions, and simply follow their religion because they were raised in the tradition. There are converts from “all other religions” to Christianity, and there are about as many converts from Christianity to “all other religions”. Were you but by an accident of birth born to raised by Muslims, it would be a near-certainty that you would be and remain a Muslim. Imagine yourself being in that position. You’d sincerely believe that Islam the true divine path, as you do now for Christianity. If you then believed that God can make exceptions to his moral law, then you could not judge your own religion on the basis of its morality. You could not look at the evils that orthodox Islam commands: stoning, killing for apostasy – and say: this is actually immoral, and cannot be the command of a good God.
The principle needs to have universal applicability, since “false religions” are indistinguishable from “true religions” – what is defined as either depends on whom one is talking to.
Michael: The difficulty for anyone, Christian or not, is discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit. So, yes, all people should question what they are doing and ask whether it is truly moral. No one should blindly do what is commanded.
Do we know whether what Abraham reported was actually the voice of the Holy Spirit, was actually the voice of the Holy Spirit, and that he wasn’t deluded like Andrea Yeates? You may cite the deer, but do we know that this wasn’t a cover story after he changed his mind? Do we know that Andrea Yeates was deluded?
Michael: I wouldn’t claim that one is better off being religious than atheist or agnostic. I would claim that one is better off being Christian.
That makes more sense. Some religious people reserve special vitriol for atheism, and that makes little sense. If one believes that Christianity is the truth, atheists are less in error than followers of other religion: they do not believe in the truth, but they do not compound that error by believing in a positive falsehood.
September 13th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
Max,
You claimed that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan wanted to criminalize abortion and prosecute Doctors. When did they say this? Citation please.
Nay, states and localities shut down purveyors of pornography through their regulatory powers. Criminal prosecutions varied depending on state, county, and local government ordinances
I never claimed the “U.S. government was based on Christianity. Your propensity for sweeping and inaccurate statements reveals itself again. I did say that the founders what have been appalled by the disdain displayed toward any mention of God at the DNC in Charlotte. Again, It is important to read and think carefully before commenting. Quantity of comments is no substitute for quality.
September 13th, 2012 | 6:56 pm
Publius,
It’s interesting that you would sidestep your twice-made accusation that I said that I haven’t heard of abortion clinics requiring licenses, based solely on the fact that you would not read the plain wording of my comment, without as much of a “yeah, I was wrong”.
It’s true that you didn’t say that the US government/constitution were based on Christianity. But you did say that Washington would make Pat Robertson look like J. Ginsburg, which is odd, when he signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Appalled or not at any reaction to the mention of a god, they did not mention god in the founding document of the US – a mistake the Confederacy did not make.
You have not shown any mechanism by which zoning and licensing can be used to end abortion, period (I haven’t heard about zoning for several posts now) – and if they were, that would constitute a de facto criminalization, as practicing medicine without a license is a crime. Hence, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Romney and Ryan want to criminalize doctors, unless you can show that there is a plausible alternative – which you won’t be able to do.
September 13th, 2012 | 9:07 pm
Publius and Maximilian,
The 2003 Partial Birth Abortion ban penalizes the doctor who commits the abortion with a fine and up to two years in prison. Fathers may sue the doctor for damages. There is no penalty for the woman.
I see no reason why legislators would not apply similar penalties to all abortions should we ever win the repeal of Roe.
September 13th, 2012 | 9:39 pm
Maximilian,
“Following the words Jesus will not make you do evil, but following the words of Muhammad would”
You have an unfortunate desire to generalize. Lots of Christians have believed they were following Jesus and committed plenty of evil. And lots of Muslims have followed the words of Mohammed faithfully and have done good.
You need to put aside your animus toward our Muslim brothers.
“Let’s face it, the vast majority of people do not change religions, and simply follow their religion because they were raised in the tradition.”
That’s true, and it’s also beside the point I was making. You can be Muslim or atheist and still practice the way of Jesus without knowing it. The prevenient nature of grace requires that we not assume that individuals or even groups of atheists or Muslims are wrong or incapable of moral behavior. Part of the point of the Good Samaritan story is Jesus’ refusal to generalize about any group of people.
“You could not look at the evils that orthodox Islam commands: stoning, killing for apostasy – and say: this is actually immoral, and cannot be the command of a good God”
You’re looking at one strand of Islam, not what all Muslims have practiced in the past or practice today. Just as Judaism and Christianity walked away from the commands of Leviticus, so too do many Muslims walk away from some commands in the Qur’an.
“The principle needs to have universal applicability, since “false religions” are indistinguishable from “true religions” – what is defined as either depends on whom one is talking to”
Atheists tend to get excited about this point and neglect the fact that a similar hurdle applies to the fact that both true and false science and true and false reason are indistinguishable.
“Do we know whether what Abraham reported was actually the voice of the Holy Spirit, was actually the voice of the Holy Spirit, and that he wasn’t deluded like Andrea Yeates?”
Probably not to your satisfaction, but the promises God has made to His people have continued to come true century after century, which gives us the confidence that Abraham’s story is true.
“If one believes that Christianity is the truth, atheists are less in error than followers of other religion: they do not believe in the truth, but they do not compound that error by believing in a positive falsehood”
I’m glad you agree with the first part, but I can’t agree with the part just quoted. Atheists do believe in a positive falsehood. They trust only in reason, science, or some other thing.
Furthermore, I find that Muslims and other religious people have similar internal resources. When I talk to someone in trouble, I can more easily guide them back toward health if they are religious because they share an understanding of sin and a certainty that they were created by the hands of a loving God. These simple elements of faith create a significant foundation for health that are harder to find in some of the atheists I have worked with.
September 14th, 2012 | 8:01 am
Michael –
“Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.” – Ethan Allen
September 14th, 2012 | 8:43 am
Ray,
I’m not trying to invalidate reason. Maximilian is trying to paint religious believers as myopic, impervious to changing their views and unable to tell true religion from false. All I’m trying to point out is that the same is true for scientists and rationalists. Whether you place your faith in Christian revelation or the scientific method, you’re unlikely to change your mind. Scientists have gone to their death holding onto an invalidated scientific “truth” while science itself marches on and makes progress.
September 14th, 2012 | 9:29 am
Michael: You have an unfortunate desire to generalize. Lots of Christians have believed they were following Jesus and committed plenty of evil. And lots of Muslims have followed the words of Mohammed faithfully and have done good.
It was not a generalization, but a comment on the teachings of the two men. It’s very difficult for Christians to use the words of Jesus to justify evil, which is why it never happens. The only instance I can think of is the parable where the master commands his servant to force people to attend his dinner party, which is anything but a clear endorsement of religious coercion. The same is not true for Muhammad, who for example, commanded that apostates should be killed. One cannot follow him to the last word and be a moral person.
Michael: You’re looking at one strand of Islam, not what all Muslims have practiced in the past or practice today. Just as Judaism and Christianity walked away from the commands of Leviticus, so too do many Muslims walk away from some commands in the Qur’an.
So it is, about 20% of Egyptian Muslims do disagree with these teachings. Why? Perhaps because these practices seem evil to them. However, that does mean that they are not putting their faith and trust in their Allah. If they did, they might say: “Stoning may seem evil to me, but Allah is the author of morality, and thus, I have to obey, like Ibrahim did.” With respect, but if they held to your standard that God can make exceptions to the moral law, then they would probably not decline to support these practices.
Michael: Atheists tend to get excited about this point and neglect the fact that a similar hurdle applies to the fact that both true and false science and true and false reason are indistinguishable.
It isn’t true for science, or it would not advance. True science works, false science doesn’t. Chemistry works, alchemy doesn’t. And it can be observed, unlike with religion – you can’t empirically show that one religion leads to heaven. It’s somewhat more difficult with reason, but I do believe that good reason can be distinguished from bad reason. With religion, there is no basis on which they can be distinguished – which is why people mostly stick to the religion in which they were raised. That’s why I want religion not to be an excuse for immoral actions.
Michael: I’m glad you agree with the first part, but I can’t agree with the part just quoted. Atheists do believe in a positive falsehood. They trust only in reason, science, or some other thing.
Well, I doubt you would suggest that believing in reason and science would be bad. You would merely argue that in addition, one should believe in Christianity. But that is an error not of commission, but of omission. And they have no ‘false religion’, as you called it. I find it harder to understand when a Christian, for example, says: “Islam and atheism will both lead to hell, but atheism is worse, because atheists don’t believe in a god.”
September 14th, 2012 | 11:09 am
Maximilian,
“It was not a generalization, but a comment on the teachings of the two men. It’s very difficult for Christians to use the words of Jesus to justify evil, which is why it never happens.”
I wish it were true that Christians couldn’t use Jesus to justify evil, but they do all the time.
“The same is not true for Muhammad, who for example, commanded that apostates should be killed. One cannot follow him to the last word and be a moral person”
There’s something odd about the way you value your own interpretation of these religions over the way they understand themselves. There are many Muslims who believe they have followed Mohammed to the “last word” and are not the least bit interested in killing apostates. Rather than denigrating an entire faith, you could seek out and respect those individual Muslims, Islamic groups, and traditions within Islam that are admirable.
“So it is, about 20% of Egyptian Muslims do disagree with these teachings. Why? Perhaps because these practices seem evil to them. However, that does mean that they are not putting their faith and trust in their Allah.”
I think that if you asked them, they would say they were following Allah. They probably wouldn’t call the practices evil, just outdated or appropriate in contexts that don’t exist anymore. You seem to prefer a literalist interpretation of faith that only a few religious groups have.
“if they held to your standard that God can make exceptions to the moral law, then they would probably not decline to support these practices”
Please reread my above explanations of Abraham. You seem to have forgotten what you seemed to understand earlier.
“True science works, false science doesn’t. Chemistry works, alchemy doesn’t.”
That’s true for some things, but not so much for lots of other things. Thomas Kuhn is the most frequent citation, but there are others. And there’s a difference in talking about science as a whole and individual believers or groups of believers. Both climate activists and deniers marshal science, and at most, only one group will be right, but even then they will have gotten many if not most of the details wrong. It’s not much different for religion.
“That’s why I want religion not to be an excuse for immoral actions”
But science has also been an excuse for immorality. Lots of immorality.
“Well, I doubt you would suggest that believing in reason and science would be bad. You would merely argue that in addition, one should believe in Christianity.”
Science and reason are good, but they don’t tell us very much about the really important truths, which concerns the meaning of life, the nature of creation, and the values that should guide living.
September 14th, 2012 | 6:02 pm
Max,
Gambling is legal in some states, yet you can’t open a casino just because the spirit moves you. So while it is legal, a license is still required, and can be denied for a variety of reasons. When the casino opens, state and locals ordinances can pull that license in a moment’s notice for an untold variety of offenses. Again, there is whole body of administrative and regulatory law that is NOT criminal.
Liquor licenses fall under the same rubric…. State and local ordinances dictate the hours, locations, etc. Again you can have a license pulled without criminal charges applied for selling to minors or staying open for 24 hours, etc, etc.
IRS can seize property, apply liens., etc., etc. without applying criminal charges, and does so routinely. You learn this in basic law school courses.
Romney is in favor of returning the regulatory power to the states over abortion. These states could adopt Romney’s position that abortion should be available in certain circumstances: rape, incest, etc. Licenses would be issued accordingly. Despite what you and many on the Left believe, he does not want to throw Doctors in jail.
September 15th, 2012 | 10:18 am
Publius: Gambling is legal in some states, yet you can’t open a casino just because the spirit moves you.
Ah, well, if that’s the comparison, then abortion doctors can simply perform abortions in their own homes, without opening clinics.
Publius: Again, there is whole body of administrative and regulatory law that is NOT criminal.
What everyone is trying to make clear to you, is that it’s impossible to prohibit abortions by using only administrative and regulatory law. For one, practicing medicine without a license is a crime. If you pull a doctor’s license for performing abortions, it’s a de facto criminalization. It’s like requiring licenses for preaching, and then pulling licenses for anyone who preaches Christianity – that’s a de facto criminalization of Christian preaching.
Publius: Liquor licenses fall under the same rubric…. State and local ordinances dictate the hours, locations, etc. Again you can have a license pulled without criminal charges applied for selling to minors or staying open for 24 hours, etc
Yet their licenses are never pulled for merely selling liquor. What you propose is comparable to requiring liquor licenses, and then never issuing them – which is patently absurd.
Publius: You learn this in basic law school courses.
How would you know? You have not given the slightest indication that you are in any way knowledgeable about the law – from starting about zoning laws, to your absurd suggestion that we were discussing “constitutional law”. I suggest that you get your own affairs in order, before you venture to lecture others.
Publius: Romney is in favor of returning the regulatory power to the states over abortion.
And the power of states to criminalize doctors, and even women. But for Roe v. Wade, nothing would prevent a state from jailing women for having abortions, or investigating miscarriages for signs of “murder” on the fetus.
Publius: Licenses would be issued accordingly.
And if a state decides to outlaw abortions entirely, at which Romney would be “delighted”, how then would licenses be issued?
September 15th, 2012 | 10:13 pm
Max,
If you know anything about the law you would never use a phrase like “it’s a de facto criminalization” — it’s either criminal law or it’s not. An administrative or regulatory sanction does not give a “criminal’ record to someone. That kind of claim is another example of your propensity for sweeping generalizations based on a disregard for the facts. Criminal law is different from constitutional law (of course there are no constitutional questions involved here) which is different from administrative law, etc. But you seem to have difficulty making these distinctions.
It is also disingenuous to claim “everyone” is contesting what I have written in this exchange, unless by everyone you mean “you.”
If “everyone” out there can support your unsubstantiated claim that Romney and Ryan want to criminalize abortions and prosecute “Doctors,” why haven’t you/everyone pointed to a single statement supporting your claim. Any takers?
September 16th, 2012 | 9:30 am
Publius: If you know anything about the law you would never use a phrase like “it’s a de facto criminalization” — it’s either criminal law or it’s not.
You just keep repeating yourself, while ignoring that I pointed out that practicing without a license is in fact a crime. So let me repeat myself, as the argument has gone no further: “For one, practicing medicine without a license is a crime. If you pull a doctor’s license for performing abortions, it’s a de facto criminalization. It’s like requiring licenses for preaching, and then pulling licenses for anyone who preaches Christianity – that’s a de facto criminalization of Christian preaching.” Liquor comparison: “Yet their licenses are never pulled for merely selling liquor. What you propose is comparable to requiring liquor licenses, and then never issuing them – which is patently absurd.”
Publius: (of course there are no constitutional questions involved here)
Ah, you finally realized this? Because you have talked about “constitutional law” – unprompted – at three occasions. Interesting that I “do not understand” something that I did not bring up or talk about. Perhaps you should respond to actual points, not invent some of your own.
Publius: It is also disingenuous to claim “everyone” is contesting what I have written in this exchange, unless by everyone you mean “you.”
You in the plural, yes. Myself, Ray and Michael (whose posts you ignored) – anyone who has bothered to comment in this thread since it has been your mission to deny that criminalization of abortion is your objective.
Publius: If “everyone” out there can support your unsubstantiated claim that Romney and Ryan want to criminalize abortions and prosecute “Doctors,” why haven’t you/everyone pointed to a single statement supporting your claim.
Then do you deny that Romney and Ryan want abortion to be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother (in the case of Romney)? It’s something you earlier acknowledged. But if you now deny it, I will point to a statement supporting this claim.
September 16th, 2012 | 9:31 am
Michael: I attempted twice to respond to your latest comment, without success. In any case, I want to thank you for your thoughtful comments here and elsewhere. It’s a pleasure to discuss matters with you.
September 16th, 2012 | 4:55 pm
Max,
Apparently you missed the irony in one of my comments.
Can you remind me again when/where Romney and Ryan announced their support for criminalizing abortion and prosecuting Doctors? A quick citation should do the trick….
September 17th, 2012 | 9:40 am
Publius: Apparently you missed the irony in one of my comments.
Well, then let me tell you, there are no relevant constitutional questions involved here, since we are discussing a post-Roe world.
Publius: Can you remind me again when/where Romney and Ryan announced their support for criminalizing abortion and prosecuting Doctors?
I’ve told you many times, the fact that they want to make abortion illegal proves that. As for Ryan, he sponsored the following bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:
“the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood”
And right there, it criminalizes both mothers and doctors.
September 17th, 2012 | 1:26 pm
Max,
OK, so it’s no longer Doctors who are “criminalized”, it’s mothers as well . . . Where does it say that? I missed that language…
September 17th, 2012 | 4:56 pm
Publius: OK, so it’s no longer Doctors who are “criminalized”, it’s mothers as well . . . Where does it say that? I missed that language…
This only applies to Paul Ryan. Romney has made some noises, but has been characteristically vague. Right where it states that “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood” shall be conferred upon any fertilized egg. This is a legal codification of what pro-lifers often state, that abortion is murder. And by giving fertilized eggs the same rights as human beings, it brings that argument to its logical conclusion. If you did not want to treat it as a criminal offense, you fail to confer all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of persons upon the fertilized egg. And if you do treat it as a criminal offense, what is it, other than a mother contracting another to murder her fertilized egg (which pro-lifers often argue).
September 17th, 2012 | 9:53 pm
Max, where/when did Paul Ryan say he wants to prosecute women who have abortions? Citation please….
September 18th, 2012 | 7:21 pm
Publius: Max, where/when did Paul Ryan say he wants to prosecute women who have abortions?
Moving the goalposts again? I said he wanted to prosecute women and doctors, and I proved as much, not that he has said it in so many words.
And this is my last response to you. I should have learned my lesson from the DNC-abortion matter, where you moved the goalposts a grand total of three times, and twice in a single comment.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact