Today’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross features two interviews from opposite sides of this issue (audio should be posted by 3PM EST). The first half hour was an interview with Dr. D. James Kennedy, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian megachurch Coral Ridge Ministries, which includes his organization called The Center for Reclaiming America.
Kennedy claimed:
- The framers recommended that leaders should be Christians (great quote from John Jay)
- He is opposed to evolution in part because it is the foundation for atheistic and secular governments, which inevitably lead to oppression and persecution. He alluded to the link between evolution and eugenics as well. He made a really interesting point that if our rights come from a Creator, then they can’t be taken away by man. But if you deny a creator, then rights are determined by, and can be justifiably taken away by men.
- He voiced strong opposition to a theocracy, but unfortunately, did not describe the difference between his view of faith in politics and theocracy. Someone in the religious right needs to describe this.
The second guest was Frederick Clarkson, author of Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy And Democracy. He was definitely from the opposite extreme. He made some interesting points, although he was also a bit negative. He said:
- The mentions of God and the Creator in the Declaration are not that important because it was a political document, aimed at stirring up opposition to English Colonial rule. It was written 20 years before the documents that actually set up the structure of our government, that is, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which do not mention God.
- He remarked that the 6th article of the Bill of Rights is one that the "Christian Right" does not like to talk about – it specifies that no religious litmus test can be used for those seeking public office.
- Unfortunately, he also displayed his unctrollable cynicism and disgust with his opposition by calling D. James Kennedy a liar, and by twice deriding the tired whipping boys of liberal news, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (the latter whom he twice mislabeled as Baptist).
Finally, there was a really intersting piece by Geoff Nunberg, linguist and author of Going Nucular: Language, Politics, and Culture in Controversial Times. He had an excellent essay on why the color red is now associated with conservatism, when it used to be used for Communism, and blue used to be used for conservatism.
One of the best things about protestants/evangelicals/Religious Right is also one of the worse things. Unlike Catholicism, we do not have anyone who speaks for everyone.
There is no RR Pope to issue an edict that this type of behavior is acceptable in Christian political discourse, while this other type is out of line.
No matter who comes up with it, many will be in disagreement over it. Especially if the person doing it is high profile.
It needs to be done, I agree. I just don't know how it can get done and be meaningful.
Interesting, Dr. Kennedy apparently thinks our leaders should be xtians and yet opposes theocracy? What in the world is the difference (if xtian belief is a requirement, which it practically is anyway)? And he's against the scientific theory of evolution because it (supposedly) is the foundation for atheistic and secular gov'ts and not because it's true or false? And does he provide any proof that atheistic or secular gov'ts "inevitably" lead to persecution and oppression? And religious gov'ts don't?! I'd take secular gov't (democratic and religiously neutral) over religious gov't any day of the week. That guy must be nuts.
Interesting, Dr. Kennedy apparently thinks our leaders should be xtians and yet opposes theocracy?
Exactly. I don't think he had time to discuss it, but I am sure that he has a well developed theology around it.
My guess is that it works this way – we should not bar non-Christians from office, nor bar non-christian thought in the public arena. However, neither should we do the opposite, and since ALL legislation is based on morality, which is based on faith suppositions – or as Budziszewski said in First Things, "Every law reflects some moral idea, every moral idea reflects some fundamental commitment, and every fundamental commitment is religious-it proposes a god. Everything in the universe comes to a point."
If I think Christian morality is objectively true, then it is true for all whether others think so or not. Which means legislation based on my morality is superior, and just as applicable as the supposedly "non-religious" morality of the secularist. For example, if my bible says that murder is wrong, it is wrong even if my opponent's "non-religious" view says the opposite.
This approach raises many more questions, and should definitely be addressed.
And he's against the scientific theory of evolution because it (supposedly) is the foundation for atheistic and secular gov'ts and not because it's true or false?>
I'm sure he is against it for many reasons, including that he finds it scientifically unfeasable.
does he provide any proof that atheistic or secular gov'ts "inevitably" lead to persecution and oppression? And religious gov'ts don't?!
Again, it was a short interview, but I'm sure he has decribed elsewhere how and why secular and atheistic governments lead to opression (like the origin of rights issue he mentioned in the interview). There is plenty of anecdotal evidence – look at Communism and Socialism – both with noble goals, both atheistic. And both were not only unworkable, but also cruel.
As to religions, I'm sure Kennedy would say that only Christian political precepts (and not a perversion of them, like the problems we had with the corrupted Roman Church of the pre-reformation days, where political power and church authority were synonymous) leads to freedom and prosperity. Other religions, since they are based on half-truths, lead to the same place as the atheistic falsehood – to bondage. Hence the oppression in Islamic countries. Hence the horrible caste system of the Hinduistic countries. I'm not sure what problems a Buddhist state would create, but in my research, it looks like Buddhism just doesn't translate into a full-orbed political framework.
Of course, you could find arguments that indict Christianity, and perhaps even support the relative freedom and happiness in nations with other religions, but overall, I think Kennedy would argue that the only reason they have these limited benefits are because (1) they are operating with some level of truth, but (2) you can trace the ideas that are giving them success back to Judeo-Christian thought, and early missionaries or leaders who had western training.
what can I say to this grandiose proclamation of xtian surpremicism? Answer: nothing. You can't reason with religious fanatics.
Q: what can you do if you disagree with your opponent's logic?
A: counter it
Q2: What do you do if you counter your opponent but disagree on foundational assumptions?
A: Do your best to bolster your assumptions and counter your opponents
Q3: What do you do if you've done the above and still disagree?
A: Move on.
Q4: What can you do if you don't like your opponent's logic but don't have an adequate answer or are frustrated by their answers and too lazy to put your thoughts together?
A2: Avoid addressing the arguments, call them extremists, and cease dialogue.
I don't say that Christian morality is true just because the bible says so, but because empirical evidence supports the claims of scripture, including the moral codes in it.
Does anyone doubt that promiscuity leads to increased disease and instability in long-term relationships? IF they do, they are self-decieved, since even to the casual observer it is obvious.
Does anyone doubt that killing children one day before birth is just as immoral as one day after? IF they do, they are self-decieved, since even to the casual observer it is obvious.
In the case of Church and state discussion, I believe that reasonably speaking, D. James Kennedy's assertions are supported by the evidence
– evolution has become the dogma of science, though its assertions are poorly supported by the data.
– evolution has some serious negative philosophic and religious implications (e.g. social darwinism and atheism) which are universally ignored by its proponents as having no correlation with its truth as a scientific principle (they don't see truth as integrated across disciplines or across reality)
– evolution is one of the supporting planks of an atheistic world view
– atheism is one of the supporting planks of many of the world's worst experiments in government
– Islamic and Hindu-based governments have also produced some of the worst injustices
– democratic governments based on bibilcal principle, while supporting religious freedom have produced some of the most impressive results
I'm sorry, but I just cannot expect a reasonable and open dialog with someone who writes the following:
"If I think Christian morality is objectively true, then it is true for all whether others think so or not. Which means legislation based on my morality is superior, and just as applicable as the supposedly "non-religious" morality of the secularist."
" Other religions, since they are based on half-truths, lead to the same place as the atheistic falsehood – to bondage."
This is xtian supremicism. Just because you _think_ xtian morality is objectively true, you think legislation based on it is superior. Hmmm…seems lacking in any kind of humility or, even, the ability to see things from another's perspective. Of course, why should I be surprised here? This is what's going on right now both on the national and local levels: xtians, convinced beyond any doubt that they have a monopoly on morality and truth and, probably, virtue, are attempting to dictate to the rest of us – and, in the process, vilifying anyone who dares oppose them as being against "people of faith," or persecuting xtianity. And, of course, they can do this because other religions are, at best, "half-truths" which lead directly to bondage. Unbelievable! Anti-democratic is the least I can say about it. It's not just that they (you)want legitimately to base their political views on their moral systems, they also have to demean and demonize all others, slander other religions as "half-truths," assume a false stance of being persecuted to intimidate any critics, and try to stack the judiciary with their fellow-travelers to insure their agenda and destroy the rights of any who dare oppose them.
And, of course, I have more to lose from the ascendency of xtian surpremicists. You, yourself, have admitted that you oppose any measures to mainstream gay people. You and your fellow xtianists slander and vilify gay people as "pathological" and "sinners," and declare that you want to "convert" us to your ideology of heterosexual supremacy (a triumph of anti-science and irrationality second only to your campaign against evolution). Xtians around the country (and their fellow travelers in the monotheistic religions around the world) are on a concerted campaign to drive us back into the closet or worse. To put it bluntly, I'm afraid of people like you. I'm afraid of what you're doing to this country. I'm afraid for my freedoms once you're done with them. You seem to think that fundamentalist religion is the only legitimate basis for a government that protects democracy and human freedom. I see the exact opposite: religious governments, ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE, lead to tyranny, oppression and the destruction of human freedom. Why? Because combining religion with gov't removes any barrier against human hubris, because they substitute absolutist dogma and unproven religious tenets for compromise, pluralism, toleration for other viewpoints, etc. People run religions, and when they think they are doing God's will (or have God on their side), are freed to do anything they want. Dissent takes on an aroma of sin, and the auto-da-fe is right around the corner. Unprovable religious dogmas are substituted for reason or science. And any minorities (or "heretics") get it in the neck. Even a cursory knowledge of human history proves this.
Contrary to what xtianists and their favorite polemicist, Saul of Tarsus, believe, government is best when it derives its power and legitimacy from the people, not "God." It's best when it must take into account many views, not just one, god-given law. It's best when it must admit that it's policies and procedures are not thought to be the infallible dictates of a god or his priesthood. Democracy is a word that came from the ancient, pagan Greeks – rule by the people. It didn't spring from the Jews or, later, Christians. In Europe, reformers who sought more democracy – more freedom for the people and more accountability for the government – had to fight against xtian power. Dissenters (including gays) were imprisoned, tortured and burned by the religious. It wasn't until the power of xtian religion was curtailed that true democracy could take hold. Until recently, religion served the anti-democratic holders of power. I refuse to accept the reversal of that accomplishment.
On Superior Value Systems
I think that *anyone* who makes a moral value statement is doing so because they believe it is true. That is not supremism, that is how convictions work. You believe that your values are correct, and that they rely on some higher law – say, equality of all people. I have my conviction based on my own appeal to higher laws, say, the sanctity of life. If you have a conviction that something is true or above your opponent's position, are you being arrogant? No.
However, what you do with that conviction is important. If they fail to back up that conviction with reason and statistics, then of course, they should not be listened to in the public arena. But just because my conviction agrees with or finds its origins in Xianity does not make me a religionist supremacist – that is only true if I fail to back up my assertions in public debate with reason and data, or desire to force the public into agreement without said debate or consent.
We all know that governance must be with the consent of the governed. Admittedly, I think that conservatives make the mistake of pushing for morality in legislation without pushing for a public consensus (read "majority") first.
But a majority should not always be strived for before trying to enact legislation. Sometimes you must do both public education and push for legislation in parallel. When Martin Luther King Jr. was pushing for equal rights for blacks, he did not wait until there was a supermajority. He created one. And pro-life people are pushing for legislation because there are people dying every day while abortion is legal throughout pregnancy. So they push forward on all fronts.
On Criticizing Religions
Failure to criticize religions, identifying obvious falsehoods, is not tolerance, it is intellectual and moral cowardice.
While you would allow Muslim Shariah law to become the law of the land out of tolerance, I would condemn it's relatively low view of women as wrong. I would also hold up the Xian view of women as a proper one – one where they are seen as co-heirs, equals in the marriage relationship, yet unequal in other ways – to be protected and favored in some ways. Scriptures show them as business women and prophetesses (i.e. leaders) in the eccliastic system. But in the public debate, I would argue that they must be treated equally based on the laws of equality, since I am not pushing for a theocracy.
If Muslim law says theives should have thier hands cut off, I would oppose it as objectively wrong because it violates the principles of fair punishment, and says nothing of rehabilitation, both of which are arguably found in Xian scripture.
My point is that I find the Xian worldview, while it has had some strange interpretations by some in the past (like pro-slavery), to be superior to others in its breadth and depth, leading to freedom and public virtue. Few other religions translate so well into a complete world view. The best I can see is the compassionate but incomplete views of the Buddhists (who to my knowledge have no model for civil government). The worst I can see is the oppression of Islam and Hinduism, and the fear of animism and spiritism.
Again, I am not advocating a religious government, but one dependent on natural law, which I believe to be in line with biblical suppositions. And I will argue such. As the writers of the Declaration said "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Not endowed by man's opinion or by the luck of evolutionary origins.
BTW, in the defense of a secular govt, here's an interesting article.
"Failure to criticize religions, identifying obvious falsehoods, is not tolerance, it is intellectual and moral cowardice."
And this is precisely what I am doing vis-a-vis xtianity. Ergo, I am not an intellectual and moral coward, as you seem to suggest.
"While you would allow Muslim Shariah law to become the law of the land out of tolerance, I would condemn it's relatively low view of women as wrong."
To this I say, BULLSHIT! I never said that I want or would allow sharia. What a load! Talk about intellectual cowardice. I expect an immediate apology. I NEVER said this. In fact, I have consistently criticized Islam as one of the monotheisms I target as enemies of freedom.
For the rest, I see nothing different. It's clear you want a gov't based on xtianity, if not identified with xtianity exclusively. I don't seek a model for civil gov't in my religion: the opposite, in fact. It's become pretty clear that evangelical xtianity's agenda is domination of the gov't and public & private life. As such, I will oppose it unto my dying breath.
I think you missed my point (maybe that's my fault). My claim that xianity is a superior world view is the same as saying *your* world view is superior, or that mine is inferior. What you claim as arrogance on my part is exactly what all thinking people do – they draw conclusions based on their study and exprience.
I'm sorry that I misunderstood your dislike for my claims as a general dislike for the criticism of religion on your part (except for xianity, which of course, you withhold no opinion ;). Many people feel that to criticize religion is improper and judgmental, but I feel that all religions can be examined in the light of reason and natural law. Apologies.
And again, I don't think I've been clear enough. I must either find or write an essay on the difference between legislating xian values (because someone's values are to be legislated) as corroborated by natural law (self-evident principles) and theocracy, i.e. mandating that no other religion be practiced, mandating membership in the official church, etc.
I think liberals who shout "theocracy" at every Xian effort to form the values of our society are really being anti-intellectual and alarmist, rather than reasoned. They should help determine where the institutionalization of commonly held values bleeds over into theocracy.
And the fact that Buddhism does not have ideas on the structure of government shows that it is incomplete as a world view. While this may seem OK to some, to me it speaks of the fact that it is disconnected from the rest of the body of truth, and so in some way, contains falsehood. Otherwise, it could be integrated into a cohesive world view that covers all aspects of life. Don't get me wrong, I love and respect much of Buddhism, and practice some of its disciplines. But I find that Xianity helps complete what Buddhism leaves out, esp. ideas about justice and the life to come.
Nazism exhibited a cohesive worldview which, among other things, contained a coherent and organized political system. Communism also. While I don't necessarily compare xtianism to these crypto-religious philosophies, I do think they all "exhibit" a coherent worldview. I, on the other hand, don't seek a total weltanschaung and political system for my spiritual life. In fact, I seek the opposite. I shun religions which lend themselves to such structures. I seek out spiritual disciplines which don't lend themselves to political and totalist cohesion. I'm anti-authoritiarian and anti-cult in this way. Unlike xtianists, it seems.