Ten years ago when I was a junior in high school a student circulated a paper calling Cambridge ‘Faggotville’ and singling out gay students and decrying them for ‘ruining our school’. Yes even in enlightened Cambridge, MA this bigotry was common, and it happened not long after our state became the first in the country, and one of the first jurisdictions on the planet to allow for full civil marriage equality. I remember my evangelical brother incensed at the decision, my own more agnostic parents, both political liberals, thinking marriage was still ‘a step too far’. Even at my own enlightened and progressive high school, the first in the nation with a gay-straight alliance, my own opinion was a minority one, and an unpopular one at that. I remember a debate we had in a history class and I had to hear ignorant classmates say the tired ‘Adam and eve not Adam and steve’ arguments, misuse bible quotes, and hurl terrible insults at my gay classmates with our teachers unable or unwilling to stop them. I regularly say gay students insulted to their faces, pushed into lockers, villified and dehumanized. I even endured some of these taunts simply because I was vocal about my early support for gay marriage. It didn’t come from having gay relatives, I have none, and it didn’t come from having gay friends, I did, but few I was close to. It came from my love of American history and the simple words that launched it, ‘all men are created equal’. It seemed that simple to me, but at the time, for many, it was more complicated than that.
Massachusetts has come a long way, and now the country is too. My parents quickly became gay marriage supporters after the 2004 election and viewed it as a non-issue. While my evangelical brother would be uncomfortable with gay clergy or a gay ceremony inside his church’s walls he recognizes that outside of it his beliefs are one of many and the state can’t pick a side. This is the slow progress we are making. I hope my children and grandchildren grow up in a world where their fellow students won’t get away with harassing, bullying, and beating gays like so many did, even in progressive Cambridge when I was in school. I hope my future wife and I can set an example to our kids of what a loving couple can look like, and I am confident that our gay friends will set a similar example when they are able to get married too.
We still hear echoes of bigotry from figures of authority, whether it’s the Pope calling gay adoption ‘a plot from the Father of Lies’ or a member of our own Supreme Court claiming gay parenting a ’causes a deleterious effect on children’. But these echoes come from old men whose time has come. As Dylan once said “Your old road is rapidly aging, get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand, for the times they are a changing”. Change they must, and more importantly, change they will.
I will end this by saying I respect religious opposition to gay marriage, I disagree with it but I can respect it, as much as I can disagree and respect religious opposition to divorce. But like divorce laws, our civil marriage laws are determined by the Constitution which is above religion or creed and refers to no god in its text. What it does refer to quite clearly is simple:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That truly higher authority should be what rules the day, not the prejudices of old men.
when the Court’s decision is for justice and contradicts the bigoted Right sense of hate cause haters are going to hate.
I still have hope, even if only it is determined the Haters don’t have standing. That alone would be great, but I my hope is higher than that.
They occupy a zone outside rational discourse. As a consequence, they make republican government more awkward. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is less fair if some ideas demand special dispensation.
However it’s a bridge too far as a generalization. MY religious beliefs insist that all people are God’s children and ought to be treated as such without discrimination. MY church endorsed marriage equality in 2005 and has issued statements embracing the LGBT community going back to 1985. We were however founded, not as a Christian nation as some would have us believe, but as one that DOES elevate religious belief and practice as an important part of our lives. As such the first amendment protects religious practice in the first part and by extension through the second part, the expression of those beliefs. Obviously that doesn’t mean don’t argue against it using your own first amendment rights; I certainly do.
Just because you have “nice” religious beliefs doesn’t make them any more open to rational scrutiny. The claim that “I believe this because of my religion” always suggests that contradiction risks personal offense.
You demonstrated that, in fact, by your use of downrating! In other words, your downrating precisely proved my point.
…because I don’t appreciate the disrespect of religious belief, especially in such general terms. Religious belief as a basis for political opinions can and should be challenged just like any other basis for those opinions would be. However, it is fundamentally American, and I believe progressive, to respect the religion of others. That’s part of what multiculturalism is all about. Our republican government was created with the assumption, I think accurate, that it WAS compatable with a variety of religious belief.
a failure to respect others’ religion. They are free to practice it as they see fit. They are free to have their political views informed by it. But there is a tendency to afford more deference to political beliefs that are religious in origin.
Say Person A is gay, wants the right to get married, and doesn’t appreciate being discriminated against.
Person B is straight, but has gay friends and relatives. As a bedrock principle Person B abhors discrimination.
Person C is straight and believes, based on religious teachings, that the gay “lifestyle” is sinful. Person C thinks gay marriage is awful and should not be allowed.
I would submit that most people have some degree of sympathy for Person A, but there has historically been a lot more deference paid to Person C’s “religious” belief than to Person B’s passionately held, but ostensibly “non-religious” belief. As kbusch says, challenging religiously rooted beliefs with facts or contrary arguments is considered more “offensive” than challenging beliefs derived from any other source.
As an atheist, I agree. For example:
But if you ask how, there is no rational answer. So the “Believers” then have temper tantrums and claim we are disrespecting them, because they make foolish claims like this and cannot defend them when they are examined. And don’t even get me started on the whole “Lot and his daughters” fiasco.
opinion respect, maybe more than it deserves. I understand the religious argument against abortion, and to some extent, I share the sentiment, but I follow reason as best I can. I can’t stomach fundamentalism. I can respect people who interpret the Bible literally, but I can’t respect their opinions. That doesn’t mean I am rude to them, but if I need to challenge them, it’s no holds barred.
Maybe I misinterpreted/overreacted, but I took the original comment to mean that religious people cannot be rational or that there is no rational aspect to religion. KBusch definitely seemed to say that religion is incompatable with republican government and on that point I strongly disagree. As I understand it, for example Judaism is a very rational religion in that they are encouraged to study, ask questions, and use reason to find answers with the guidance of the Torah, Talmud and other writings. Like Jefferson, I care not whether my neighbor worships no god or 20; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However respecting the religion of others to me is the same as respecting other aspects of the diversity of cultures that make this country great.
As for the Adam and Eve story, that is mythology, which is fine and people can believe it as long as they don’t base policy on it. After all every religion has mythology and there’s nothing wrong with the Abrahamic religions having theirs. For me the essence of religion is the teaching. All the evidence points to evolution so I agree it is irrational to take Genesis literally. I’d be happy to have this debate absent religion since the Constitution provides the arguments without the Bible’s help, but if the other side is going to use their brand of Christianity to make their case, then I’m going to throw my brand of Christianity right back at them.
I didn’t write “incompatible”; I wrote “awkward”. I spent a few moments choosing that word too.
Drawing on what Mark Bail writes above, religious belief changes the rude-polite boundary in conversations.
…because I don’t agree that religious beliefs have to be respected more than any other type. I don’t agree that we have to tread softer on ideas dispensed by an invisible sky wizard while than those dispensed by political thinkers.
I believe it is disrespectful of religion to claim it’s so thin and rootless as to need special shelter from consideration and question. I don’t see why it has to be treated as so unsubstantial as to require segregation from the debate it claims to want to enter.
America is founded upon religious pluralism. That means the freedom to fervently disagree upon matters of faith (or lack thereof), and our history and indeed geography is jam-packed with exactly that. (Count how many different kinds of churches there are in your hometown.)
You do not have to like or approve of Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, or Methodism — though it certainly would be good to try to fairly understand what it is to which you think you’re objecting. People often fall short on this count.
BUT …
SINCE we live in a pluralistic society, and since we have freedom-of-conscience (what a Baptist might call Soul Freedom) in its various forms written into the very First Amendment of the Constitution, it behooves us to tolerate a variety of religious belief and expression, simply as a matter of social lubrication. Is this “deference”? Or just neighborliness — a realization of the limits of one’s ability to judge another’s conscience?
It is not a coincidence that the country with the most hands-off attitude towards religion has the most flourishing private religion among its cultural peers. And in the last 40 years of attempted fundamentalist takeover of a state and federal governments? Private religion is cratering — sadly, more quickly among the more moderate institutions — and we’re going to get gay marriage, sooner or later — because of a cultural shift, and possibly in spite of the political establishment. It’s not working out the way Jerry Falwell wanted it to; the fundies are driving people away from religion.
People appeal to religious-inspired values in the hope that they are widely shared, that they’re a deeply-embedded part of the culture. A lot of people want to do right by God and Scripture, even if they’re not really *that* religiously orthodox. This has been true of progressives and of reactionaries, at various points in history.
In any event I don’t agree that appeals to religion get more “deference” than others — they’re challenged all the time, and more so since religion has been funneled into the public sphere. QED.
It seems we have two different things here. First, the “tolera[nce of] a variety of religious belief and expression, simply as a matter of social lubrication” of which you wrote. That is not the deference to which I (and I believe kbusch) was referring.
Second, we have a long history of treating religiously inspired political opinions — which often lack any basis except faith and the traditions of a certain religious group — as themselves “sacred.” It is true that, as large parts of our society increasingly turn away from religion (while others turn toward a more fundamentalist religiosity), we have more people who are turned off by any appeal to religion in the public policy sphere. But I still find that there’s less willingness, in a face-to-face situation, to challenge a political view that derives from religious belief. Maybe because it would futile? But maybe because “religious” views still get a level of deference “secular” views don’t.
I’ve often found that, to varying extents, when you question someone’s faith (or even the faith they were raised with, but no longer really believe in) with science or reason, they’re eventually going to view it as a personal attack.
Some may have a very high threshold (ie Christopher here, where basic tenets had to be questioned before he got upset) while others may a much lower threshold (ie the anti-equality bigots, who can’t even stomach a secular marriage that has no impact on them ‘because religion.’ ).
I often find myself walking around eggshells on many issues because it would somehow be considered rude to suggest someone would be wrong if they make their argument based on faith, or if we’re in a religious conversation and I use science or reason in disagreement.
I think kbusch and fenway are absolutely right. We just haven’t reached a point in society where it’s socially acceptable to cast doubt on any matter of faith…. just on particular matters, and even there, not in every social circle.
We need to be open about the fact that we live in a country where people can be very touchy when talking about religion, even when basic questions are asked that are perfectly legitimate, but viewed as ‘rude’ specifically because it questions faith.
I understand where Christopher’s coming from to some extent. I take it as a meta-objection. That is (without speaking for Christopher), he doesn’t object to someone engaging him in debate about one of his religious beliefs, and he doesn’t object to someone engaging him in debate about a political viewpoint derived from his religious beliefs. He just didn’t appreciate the suggestion that religious beliefs are so irrational as to make public discourse difficult.
That position, though, ignores how many people will not stand for having their religious beliefs, or political views based on them, challenged in any way. They think it rude and disrespectful in a way that they wouldn’t if purely secular views (e.g. invest in education vs. tax cuts, a Prius is better than an SUV) had been challenged. That necessarily makes it hard to have a “rational” discourse about such opinions. It’s not that the beliefs themselves are irrational — though they sometimes are. It’s that you can’t have a rational debate about them.
That was my point. You downrated because you don’t “appreciate the disrespect of religious belief”. That’s my point.
When I claim to be a Methodist, Catholic, or Congregationalist, I am saying certain beliefs about the world are now “me”. Whereas when I come to an opinion on free trade, for example, that opinion is not a part of my identity and I can be convinced to take a different view or I can argue about it without getting personally offended — as you just confessed to being.
Perhaps religion is like a kind of respectable partisanship? And like partisanship, it’s sometimes pro-social.
I actually don’t get offended if you push back on a specific tenet I hold. I can take it like a man. By all means disagree, but do it without disrespecting the concept, and yes, it is to an extent identity like ethnicity. However, I am in fact a Congregationalist (United Church of Christ) and we are practically encouraged to discuss, disagree, dissent, etc. My religious views HAVE changed from time to time based on additional study, conversations, etc. So to be clear I’m not offended by religious disagreement, just by disrespect.
shouldn’t that be equally respected?
positively!
If you are an athiest and want to make that case, go for it, but watch tone. You can say I don’t believe in God because there is no evidence and my morality is complete without such belief and in the modern world I don’t need religion to explain that which science does just fine explaining on its own. I do however ask for mutual respect; stick with what you beileve and why without casting aspersions on the beilefs of others. I’m not saying you’ve done this here, but I hear religion refered to as “fairy tales”, as if it’s not more significant than the Brothers Grimm, which sounds dismissive and disrespectful. Here I sensed questioning of the ability of someone to have a rational argument because of religious belief which I cannot agree to.
but you have to admit there are people out there who cannot have a rational argument about issues on which their opinions derive from their religious beliefs. That phenomenon does not apply to all people who hold religious beliefs, but it exists. I’d even call it widespread.
should it be treated more or less carefully than we’d treat any other personal issue or belief someone may have?
I think that goes to the heart of the largely constructive conversation on religion that’s been had here.
it seems like equally carefully. He refers to calling it “fairy tales” and the like. If you’re going to debate someone on a secular belief with an eye to persuasion, you’re not going to get too far with that approach either.
If there are things about your background you wouldn’t want me talking smack about, that is the same courtesy I ask of you.
I think he, and I hope I as well, have shown the non-believers that we are not all delusional or reactionary in either our politics or our faith. I am strongly influence by Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Bonhoffer, Niebhur and Dr. King. And I would suspect all would be on the side of marriage equality today since they consistently fought for justice in the spirit of our Christian faith. It’s important to recognize that, and that faith can play a positive role in politics and animate people towards common principles, goals, and understandings of justice. And that animation is not exclusive to one faith or having faith at all which is important for us all to remember.
I’m just fleshing out questions from someone who has a different view of things and is thankfully willing to share those ideas with me, so I can better understand his perspective.
Calling something fairy tales certainly isn’t going to help. But there are big questions that can sometimes be hard to speak about in any kind of constructive way, no matter how careful you try to approach it.
For example, I recently watched a BBC documentary about the old testament and what ancient people really believed before changes were made to the biblical stories, etc. It would be pretty difficult to say that many secular biblical scholars think God was once the head of a pantheon of gods to anyone in a conversation, but that’s where the archaeological evidence pointed.
I used to live with a UCC preacher’s son and he would love talking about religion and be pretty willing to talk about anything about it (Christopher would have liked him), but this is the sort of thing that would have reached the ‘very high threshold’ I was speaking of earlier in which I probably would have upset him even mentioning it.
Nothing you have said on this thread meets it. Fenway49’s and Jconway’s comments I think hit the mark. Not only does archaelogical evidence point to an evolution toward monotheism, but even a careful reading of Genesis alludes to a pantheon if you know what you are looking for. After all it’s not until Exodus 20 where the law is laid down in absolute terms that, “Thou shalt have no God but me.” Of course even that wasn’t actually written until centuries after the events it supposedly describes as a way the Israelites used to explain the development of their religion.
Not only was the bulk of Genesis written centuries after the events it narrates, major portions of it were among the last of the Hebrew Scriptures to be written. I say “major portions” because, like so much of the Hebrew Scriptures, Genesis is itself an amalgam of at least three different sources.
The theological perspective of Genesis is late, sophisticated, and insightful. More than one biblical critic has suggested that its position in the Canon is a conscious decision to establish a theological framework and context for the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures.
I think the discussions where you, jconway, and me tend to diverge have to do with situations where religious belief extends to scientific assertions, and from there to governance. It’s all well and good to say that religious belief should be respected, but so should science.
For example, the assertion that there has been even one example of human parthenogenesis is a scientific statement. It is not a question of belief, it is a statement about science. It is true that we lack the data to say whether it’s true or false, but a host of scientific questions are undecidable. It is also true that if the claim is true, then virtually all of the rest of biology must be discarded.
I am perfectly happy to “respect” religious beliefs if a similar respect for science is equally present. Further, when the two collide in governance, I suggest that science should prevail. I don’t care if all the voters in the world vote in accordance with their religious beliefs that the speed of light is ten miles per hour — it still isn’t so.
Finally, I’d like to remind all participants that the opposite of “believer” is not “atheist”. An “atheist” is someone who denies the existence of a deity with the same fervor that a believer asserts it — specifically, someone who denies it in the absence of evidence (this is, after all, what “faith” generally means). I suggest that this extreme “atheistic” position is no more “scientific” than an extreme theist posture. I suggest that “non-believer” is a more apt description. I don’t flatly deny the existence of any deity, any more than I deny the existence of an invisible teapot revolving around the sun. Instead, I see no evidence of any deity (or celestial teapot).
I certainly object to setting public policy on the basis of things that might adversely affect the invisible celestial teapot.
Religion has no place where the question at hand is scientific. I don’t believe I have ever suggested otherwise. I also agree that public policy should be based on empirical evidence rather than religious faith. I just ask that people understand that there are plenty of us who keep religion and science in separate compartments and do a pretty good job not confusing the two, and those of us who adhere to religion give it deeper meaning than mere superstition or fairy tale.
Than that is a non-belief I can certainly respect. My dad refuses to call himself anything other than an Irish Catholic, but his belief system is a lot closer to agnostic. He despises the likes of Jerry Falwell and Richard Dawkins with equal intensity. Bill Maher is more to his liking. A friend was once a quite militant atheist, still very anti-theocratic, but he has grown to respect religious beliefs a lot more than he used to so thats progress. And having gone to U Chicago I even know a Deist who practices Eastern Christian asceticism for fun.
I’d say I’m with Christopher. The only real issue where my religious beliefs really pushed me in one direction was on the issue of euthanasia in the last election, but if I recall you were skeptical as well Stom? If anything my faith teaches me we must love our neighbor, be peacemakers above all else, and that greed is never good. So in many ways my Christianity will always keep me from being a Republican. If only more social conservatives used my brothers reasoning we’d be better off. He is an evangelical but also a huge stat nerd, and knows that governments suck at regulating private behavior so he is pro-choice and has given up on fighting gay marriage. But he knows a strong progressive government is needed to serve the poor, protect the environment, stop capitalism run wild and stop wars of choice. And you also don’t need to be a Christian to believe in those ideas.
I think, SomervilleTom, you mischaracterize atheism. Perhaps you imagine the existence of a single omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God is like the Continuum Hypothesis in mathematics. Both truth and falsity of the assertion are plausible. We finite humans just don’t know. Someone who claims to know is doing so on faith.
Modern atheism, at least, is much more sophisticated than that, and no one arrives at religious faith by making a scientific estimation of bland possibilities.
aspects of “atheism” is that the word is taken to mean “anti-theism.” (Dawkins and other neo-atheist clowns don’t help in this regard). Giving the prefix (a-without) its due, I would qualify as an atheist, but I am hardly anti-theistic. I’m just very unconcerned with whether there is a God or not. For me, it is simply not an important question. “Agnostic” is a poor descriptor for what my attitude. Am I “godless”? Maybe. I like to think that I’m more concerned with questions that I could answer or at least make progress on. Am I spiritual? My friends would say so. But that’s another story.
I guess I was attempting to paraphrase the gist of Richard Dawkins’ seven degrees of belief. Here they are (from Wikipedia:
Discussions of this sort are also quite difficult without being explicit about what we mean by the “God” these refer to. These seven, and most public discourse, assume a theistic meaning of God as a specific entity with “agency” — an ability to intercede in material affairs, together with an ability to make and then act on intentional choices.
I would say that the story of my life is a sort of upside-down parabola — at somewhere around 13, I started at a “7”. By my early twenties, I was a “1” and active in a liberal parish of the Episcopal church here in Boston. By my forties, I was somewhere around a “3”. The events of the 21st century, the governance of the 21st century, and the role that organized religion has played in all that, have left me at a somewhere more than 6.5, coming asymptotically close to (but not entering) 7.0.
Even during my “theist” years, I got there by doing intellectual somersaults in an effort to find a definition of “God” that satisfied the scientist in me (I have always been a scientist) and stayed consistent with the teachings of the Christian and then Jewish traditions. I did manage to learn a fair amount of theology along the way. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the gymnastics just weren’t worth it.
In my own experience, I finally realized that theism and its consequences serve to actively interfere with my interior connection to the miracles that surround us all the time. In my view, the very fact that what we call “life” not only can but must emerge from simple and primitive reactions following the repeated application of simple rules is truly miraculous. I can show how a universal computing machine can be constructed by combinations of the most primitive cellular automata definable (linear arrays of single-bit cells, with generations formed by combining the state of each bit with the state of each of its two neighbors) — that is miraculous to me. The facts of how staggering complexity emerges from primitive simplicity is truly miraculous. Bromides about “God” actively block that for me.
When I speak of “atheists”, I generally refer to those who are above 4 on the above Dawkin’s scale.
just seems wrong to me. It’s as if we’re placing bets on the outcome of a forensics show.
For example, there’s lots of evidence that belief in God (or some god) has beneficial effects psychologically and even physically. Or to put it harshly, our make up bribes us into religious belief. Not only does that make religious belief less sustainable in a true-false way, but it also means one might believe and choose to continue to believe for purely operational reasons. As religion can promote pro-social behavior, this isn’t always bad either.
To me, it’s just a scale — like a poll. It’s a continuum that each of us can place ourselves on.
While I don’t know about “bribes us”, I agree that the nature of consciousness encourages religious belief. Pascal Boyer has written about this at some length, he suggests that we acquire religious belief in much the same way that we acquire language. I surely agree that religion can promote pro-social behavior and that that “isn’t always bad either. Mr. Boyer suggests, I think, that things like morality and social behavior shape our religious beliefs rather than vice-versa. He comes to that conclusion by observing the great variety of religious beliefs in the world, and the rather smaller set of social behavior and morality that are associated with them. Religious beliefs that promote murder are less likely to spread and thrive than those that oppose it.
In any case, my point in citing the Dawkins scale was to simply clarify that fervent antipathy to theism is not the opposite of fervent belief. Perhaps it’s bit like the common fallacy that hate is the opposite of love — I think human experience shows that apathy is, in fact, the opposite.
oh well
Hence my reluctance to participate in this thread at all.
I clearly don’t get your point. I guess I’m just dense.
Dawkins. I will read The Selfish Gene when I get a chance. What I have read suggests that he equates religion with belief in God, and thus creates a false dichotomy (for himself) with science. He hardly accounts for religious experience or spirituality.
I’ve read a lot of Karen Armstrong and I think she gets it about right. She has an academic respect for religion, but she’s a non-believer. She sees the reason for belief, but finds spirituality in academic study.
Not every religious person is an illiberal idiot. The Berrigans were outright radicals. The Nuns on the Bus are progressives. In fact, the USCCB states several progressive ideas on its website; unfortunately, they just focus on abortion. I’m only naming progressive Catholics here, but the list of progressive Protestants is long.
Richard Dawkins does not, in my reading of him, assert the false dichotomy you suggest. He certainly does not assert that “every religious person is an illiberal idiot”. Perhaps you might revisit your opinion of Mr. Dawkins after reading his work yourself, instead of relying on critiques of it.
Perhaps kbusch was on a fruitful track in bringing up the continuum hypothesis, at least as it relates to Gödel’s theorem (I cite Hofstadter’s work because it explores the many implications of Gödel’s astonishing result).
I think some confusion about the work of Richard Dawkins results from an unwillingness to read it carefully. Mr. Dawkins is careful to distinguish “God”, as the term is used in everyday discourse and in the belief system of many believers, from the many abstractions that may be derived from Gödel’s insight.
The salient point of Richard Dawkins that I started with here is that the fundamental claims of Christianity are, in fact, assertions about science rather than religious belief. Virgin birth, the resurrection of anybody, and the literal transfiguration of the Eucharistic elements are claims about science.
The latter is readily tested. When chemical analysis shows that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the ceremony, stupendous theological handsprings are required to reconcile the difference between religious belief as asserted by the Roman Catholic church and physical reality as revealed by science.
I’m not trying to be insulting in comparing those claims to teapots. I’m saying instead that when we open the door to “respecting” some unsupportable scientific assertions because of religious belief, we open a Pandora’s box that is very hard to close again.
Senator Imhofe cites his religious beliefs in rejecting climate change. I don’t see why I should show any more “respect” for that posture than I do for those who similarly assert that universe is 6,000 years old, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
I didn’t say I hadn’t read Dawkins, just that I wanted to read The Selfish Gene, which has nothing to do with God. I couldn’t tell you what articles I’ve read by the guy, but I’ve read some of the guy’s stuff. Are you saying these Dawkins quotes don’t represent his thought?
Neither is true of most Christians I know. Fundamentalists, sure, but practicing Catholics and mainline Protestants ? Not people I know. Dawkins is an atheist fundamentalist. I’d call myself an atheist, if it weren’t misleading to do so. I’d call myself a Buddhist, if I did anymore than occasionally read about Buddhist thought.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even though the fundamental claims of Christianity may have once been what passed for science and psychology, they aren’t what pass for religious experience. People don’t go to church every Sunday to reaffirm their belief in unscientific principles.
I think each of the statements you cited are objectively true.
I grant you they are intentionally acerbic, but no more so than any of the multitude of insults hurled at people like me every day from luminaries in the various religious institutions, politicians, and every day people.
The bottom line is that “respect for religion”, in my experience, translates to “I can insult you however I want, and you must shut up and listen.”
I’m sorry I started commenting on this thread.
I just finished reading Baumeister & Tierney, Willpower. They cite experimental evidence that focusing on things like higher purpose seems to enhance one’s self-control and willpower, whereas a mundane focus tends to weaken it. Religious belief and spiritual practice, then, would seem to confer benefits that are certainly available to atheists but that require atheists to make a conscious effort to make contact with the sublime at regular intervals.
*
As an aside, Willpower along with Pollen’s Omnivore’s Dilemna suggests that a rather culturally conservative way of conducting one’s life (make your bed in the morning, eat 3 meals a day without snacking, eat at a table never at a desk, do at least the equivalent of going to church on Sundays, etc.) results in having a better life. I find this conclusion unpleasant, promising, and intriguing all at once.
I intentionally spend an hour or so each morning in quiet meditation. For thirty or so years, I called this “prayer”. For the past ten or so years, I’ve found that by attentively “listening to” mundane things like rocks, old and overgrown trellises, the movement of clouds and sun, and that sort of thing, I feel as though I obtain more benefits for myself than I used to get by focusing on explicitly religious material.
The late John O’Donohue turned me on to the practice of listening to rocks — paying attention to what they had seen, who had seen them, how the world around them has changed over the millenia they’ve been sitting there. I attended a lecture/guided meditation he conducted shortly before his untimely death, it was a marvelous and mystical experience.
These spiritual practices are available to all, believer and non-believer alike.
Whether you are an Eastern Orthodox ascetic, a Tibetan Buddhist monk, a Quaker, a Benedictine, or a non believer-there is something profoundly powerful about setting aside a period of time to let the silence in. For me as a Christian I am influenced by the Friends (Quakers) and Trappist monks who both set aside time to let the silence in and in their view let the spirit in. Even if you deny a spirit, the silence at least allows one to realize that they are not one body but a being part of a larger body of humanity and the world around them. This is what religion can do at its best, and even without religion these spiritual practices can help keep one focus outside oneself and gain perspective. Glad to see you still maintain that discipline over several years!
I think you gloss over political passions far too lightly! People *do indeed* treat their political views — even on technical issues like free trade — as very much “a part of them”. Listen to Cantor et al talk about “core beliefs” and their inability to submit those to the guillotine of compromise. Gosh it’s just so heartfelt. And I’ve known that kind of commitment on the left as well (I was at Oberlin in the early 90’s, trust me).
In my experience religious passions and political passions are pretty-durned-close to the heart, and *not* easily swayed — at least not quickly. People don’t change their minds, they evolve.
that, although you’re correct for the people who do hold core political beliefs, the percentage of the population with strong political views is far smaller than the percentage with strong religious convictions. Steve Lynch has been in elected office from Massachusetts for 20 years and a fifth of the WBUR poll’s respondents said they’d never even heard of him.
I have good friends, in their late 30s, who didn’t even know (as of two days ago) we were having a special election for the Senate.
I’m not convinced that ignorance is always a sign of ‘weak’ convictions, be they religious or political. I’m sure that, for a slice of the population, that is precisely the case… but how big is that slice?
Cantor, et al, have strong political beliefs and brash enough arrogance to suggest forthrightly that we all should embrace and adopt these beliefs. Many people hold strong political beliefs but are meek (a core religious belief of both Christianity and Judaism) leading them to adopt a more passive attitude: in that instance a willful ignorance may, in fact, be a form of protection. Others hold strong religious beliefs married to the the strong political belief in separation of church and state: a tension that few navigate expertly. The, perhaps, strongest religious belief out there is that my particular church/sect/cult/whatever is the only way to heaven and the rest of you are already in hell so why bother with politics?
Furthermore, strong political beliefs often revolve around both empiricism and attack: the sky is blue today, and you’re a commie pinko with a hidden agenda if you say otherwise. That’s the political world we live in today.. and it even gets worse when, as in the case of politiicians who sometimes say things like “the sky is paisley today and you’re a commie pinko…” and the percentage of people who simply don’t want to be part of that nastiness is A) probably very large and 2) at the intersection of strong political beliefs and strong religious beliefs.
So I don’t think that ignorance automatically means one does not hold strong views: in fact, it may be a form of protection in the world we live in today.
I understand what you’re saying. As a matter of democracy it’s a real problem.
Even if huge numbers of people are turned off by the “nastiness” and stay informed for their own protection, elections still are held, people still win them, legislatures still pass laws, and what’s in those laws will shape the society in which those people live.
I’d argue that the widespread ignorance on our budget situation, for example, is directly contributing to a political situation that has a direct and negative impact on the lives of those citizens who choose to disengage. And many of those who don’t so choose, like me. It’s very counterproductive.
In 2011, 46% of Mississippi Republicans thought interracial marriage should be illegal. (Q14 from PPP.) Gallop reports that 4% of Americans approved of interracial marriages in 1958. It did not become legal in all of the country until a Supreme Court decision in 1967, and approval did not cross the 50% mark until the mid-1990s. In 2011, approval only stood at 86%. By comparison, same sex marriage, the newer marriage equality, has taken incredibly rapid strides.
To my mind this has two and a half significant causes. The first has been the redefinition of marriage itself among heterosexuals. Marriages are more equal now. They occur later in people’s lives. They have changed from being a rigidly defined structure that would make adults out of adolescents to unique and creative partnerships that require and reward maturity. This change, where men and wives became husbands and wives, has made questions like “Who wears the pants in this family?” seem more and more antiquated. They also make marriage seem like something two people of the same gender could do, too.
The second cause has been a change in our understanding of homosexuality. Mid-twentieth century, it was some kind of neurosis or aberration that through appropriate treatment might be cured, thereby changing its miserable sufferers into normal people. We now understand that homosexuality is mostly something genetic or, at least, biological. There are gay people; they’re not going ‘straighten out’. Besides, they can be happy, successful, productive, and familial. This makes the call for equality clear. It makes it 14th Amendment worthy.
The semi-cause has probably been the media embrace of gayness. Gayness, after all, is rich in sitcom possibilities. There are surprising reversals, hidden identities, etc. Possibly in the past it was unclear how you were supposed to behave around a gay person; now you can learn just by watching TV. It isn’t uncomfortable! And if you watch enough, it’s no longer icky either.
Thanks for this analysis!
Didn’t want the religious arguments, I’ve learned to avoid them as much as possible here. I have respect for religious beliefs, I just feel they should not be forced on others. As long as everyone likes marriage equality thats fine.
Isn’t that exactly the problem?
Here are three quotes, not (I hope!) taken out of context, in the order that they appear:
It seems jconway is saying (I’m changing the order):
I respect the fact that certain religious groups have had a particular conception of marriage for thousands of years and aren’t comfortable changing their religious, and sacramental, conception of marriage.
BUT (1) they should not impose that conception on the rest of the society; (2) they should not display the type of bigotry found in the Pope’s statement. Saying “in our church we think marriage is this, and not that” is a far cry from saying “Sure, the law allows gay couples to adopt, but it shouldn’t, because gay couples adopting is really Satan trying to destroy all of humanity.”
I was trying to say that marriage equality is not disrespectful or opposed to religious conceptions of marrisge precisely because it is changing a civil law. Over time one time strong opponents like my brother become indifferent and even mildly accepting of the change. Where the Pope was wrong was the strength of his language and trying to have Church law circumvent or dictate civil law, and Scalia is making the same mistake in my view. Hope that clarifies!
isn’t the Catholic Church’s belief in God and Satan the very driver of every single one of their tenets? That is, if the Church is opposed to an issue [specific gay rights, abortion, the death penalty, etc], aren’t they, fundamentally, taking the position because they view one side as “Godly” and the other side as “Satan-ly”?
Or, to put my response to your “BUT (1)” a different way, I’m not sure I see the difference between “marriage is this, and not that” and “marriage this way is holy and good, and marriage that way is the work of Satan” since that is their religious logic for all statements, no?
I suppose, if you distill it down, anything they find “moral” is “Godly” and “immoral” they think is derived from “Satan.” But as one raised around the Catholic Church, my experience is that this kind of rhetoric is pretty infrequent. It sounds more like Cotton Mather to me. I don’t recall ever hearing much about Satan.
Is your point is that their view that gay marriage, etc., comes straight from Satan makes their religious opposition to it less worthy of respect? Or just that, given the source of their opposition, you can’t be surprised that they use the “Satan” rhetoric? I guess it all comes back to the same: you’re saying, as I understand it, that you can’t “respect” their take on religious marriage while decrying their invocation of Satan.
My own view is that if they keep the Catholic sacrament of marriage the way they’ve always had it I can deal with it, even if I don’t like it. But I don’t respect efforts to impose that view on a pluralistic civil society, and I don’t respect demonization (quite literally) of people who have obtained civil rights. Of course I categorically reject the idea that homosexuality, or adoption or marriage by gay people, comes from Satan.
and heard plenty about both upstairs and downstairs [though certainly more about the up than the down]. And, I think like you, I don’t think that the Catholic Church should be injecting itself in setting government policy one way or the other.
I just thought the string of three quotes were a bit incongruous, that’s all. The middle one seemed to have a different tone than the others.
I heard about hell in the sense of “that’s where you’ll go if you do a lot of bad things.” But the bad things I heard about were mostly killing, robbing, lying a ton, treating others badly and being an all-around bad person.
It might be generational (I’m almost 38, don’t know about you) but they were not talking then about gay anything in my church or school, and I don’t remember hearing about sexual behavior of any kind coming from from Satan. We did hear about abortion being sinful because it’s killing. But if they talked about not giving into temptation, it was generally about not screwing over others for your own personal gain. What I define as “real” morals as opposed to “busybody” morals.
not as almost as you, perhaps, but almost.
Really, my point way upthread was simply that if you’re going to “respect” religious opposition to gay [civil] marriage, then I don’t understand why one would throw in the comment about the Pope’s comment. It just seemed incongruous.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to *not* respect religious opposition to gay [civil] marriage, and I think one can *not* respect religious opposition to gay civil marriage while still being pleasant and polite [as you have been].
Personally, I don’t respect religious opposition to gay civil marriage or any other [adjective] civil [noun]. Keep your religion out of our shared public policy please. It doesn’t belong here. I write this as a Catholic, who [tries to!] have great respect for all religions, and believes that all religions have positive traits which should be celebrated and encouraged. And, I think that any church of any faith is perfectly OK not performing any religious services that stray from their faith — and if that means bigotry or discrimination toward homosexuals, persons of either gender, persons of a given race, ability, wealth, or so forth, well so be it. That won’t be the part of your religion for which I believe is a positive trait.
And maybe this is on me but I feel that I totally agreed with your sentiments in my initial post and agree with them here. Like I said, I can respect opposition to gay marriage within a religious context but cannot respect imposing that religious definition on the rest of us. The second point is I cannot respect bigoted comments, like those of the Pope or Scalia, and that if someone sincerely feels marriage is between a man and a woman then they are free to believe that within the context of their church but must respect gay equality and gay people more broadly with their public remarks and pronouncements. Also unlike my evangelical brother, a common citizen, the Pope as a bishop and Scalia as a Supreme Court justice wield immense power and influence and were/are imposing their personal viewpoints, phrased in bigoted language, on the broader body politic, and that is what I was specifically condemning. I do not respect religious opposition to gay equality in the civil sphere. Period.
but I don’t see the Pope’s comments as any more or less bigoted than any opposition to gay marriage [or in this case gay adoption], be they secular or sacred based.
And since the Pope doesn’t have the text message number of every parishioner, he kind of has to make public statements. As to whether the stations are his personally or broader — he’s the Pope. They’re always broader. He’s speaking for the Church, not for himself personally. It is not clear from that snippet of text if he was commenting on civil law or on sacred obligation/instruction.
I don’t “respect” religious opposition to gay civil marriage either. I respect only their right not to perform such marriages in their building if they don’t want to. But, like you, I think it’s none of their business what happens in city hall or in a more inclusive church building. I think that’s the position jconway was taking as well.
Agree 100% that if that’s the decision they make, it’s a facet of their religion I won’t view as good. On the Pope’s public statements, there are ways to say you think there are values to restricting adoption, etc., to straight married couples. You don’t have to say it’s a demonic plot. That incendiary tone is the problem I have.
Not sure what that means but I guess we’re basically contemporaries. I’ll be 38 in May.
From a recent article in the Christian Century by Wendell Berry-