Timothy Egan: Godless
An intriguing essay on the separation of church and state in this heated political season. Judging by the commentary, his remarks strike a chord with a lot of people.
Here's the link to the article in the NY Times.
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/godless/#comment-9466
Here's the link to the article in the NY Times.
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/godless/#comment-9466
If the religious right (or left, for that matter) insists on continuing to say the archaic Bible is God's indisputable and interpretation-free mandate for setting our government's social policy in the 21st century, then I insist on seeing a notorized copy of it from God, with Jesus and the Holy Ghost as signed witnesses. Otherwise, why take these arguments seriously? By the way, I would have the same reaction to any reasoning that starts with "Because the [insert name of any sacred text from any religion here] says so."
Yes, it is time to get religion and religious justifications out of politics.
Reply to this
Hi Peter,
You write “If the religious right (or left, for that matter) insists on continuing to say the archaic Bible is God's indisputable and interpretation-free mandate for setting our government's social policy…..”.
As a regular churchgoer, I have never heard anyone saying this.
I wonder:
Are you talking about me when you make this statement?
Who has made this statement, when, and in what context?
If an idea will set government social policy, does that mean there is meaningful support for that idea?
I would appreciate it if you would help me understand your concern.
In respect of your opinion.
Jim
Reply to this
Government and Religion, cont.
Obama vs. James Dobson Smackdown
Obama: "Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?"
Dobson: ""I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.
More at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama
Reply to this
The blow-by-blow action continues.
"Obama dismisses Dobson criticism about Bible."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_el_pr/dobson_obama
"The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Methodist pastor from Texas and longtime supporter of President Bush who has endorsed Obama... launched a Web site to counter Dobson at http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com. The site highlights statements from Obama and Dobson and asks visitors to compare them."
Will be checking out this website soon.
Reply to this
Peter,
Thanks for providing the link to Rev. Caldwell's web site.
Could Dobson's true concern be that the defusing of the issues he is concerned about will result in lowered membership in and contributions to his own organization?
Larry
Reply to this
Hi Larry,
I must admit I don't really know much about Dobson or his organization except for what occassionally pops up in the headlines. What little I do know about him I generally disagree with. He seems to want to settle social problems through dogma, hate and division rather than through discussion, compassion and compromise.
Of course we can question Dobson's true motives in what he does, and money may be a contributing factor. He may also do it for his own ego, etc., but he may also truly believe in what he preaches (although he is not a preacher). But the real danger, in my opinion, is not Dobson himself, but the thousands and thousands of people who truly support him (financially and ideologically), adding legitimacy and power to his ideas--and to him.
His organization is so big, in fact, that in (I think) Colorado they had to devote an entire zip code just to him to handle all the mail he receives.
Reply to this
Jim,
I am confused about why you thought this was a comment directed specifically at you: "Are you talking about me when you make this statement?" I have only had brief exchanges with you on another unrelated topic and, if you have written comments about religion elsewhere on this site, I have not read them.
I could no more attribute any religious beliefs to you than I could accuse you of not actually being Jim, but Larry writing under your name, acting as Republican devil's advocate to promote discussion rather than comments. (Although if it were true, I would certainly like to meet his Democratic alter-ego.)
Reply to this
Peter/Larry
OK, so I guess you were not referring to regular churchgoers like me.
So, it's back to my other original questions.
Who has made this statement (religious right (or left, for that matter) insists..............), when, and in what context?
If an idea will set government social policy, does that mean there is meaningful support for that idea?
Reply to this
Peter and Jim,
I appreciate the dialogue you guys are having.
I'm going to ask your patience with my response. I managed to wrench my back with what I was doing today. I needed to get out my Ezine and I did.
Now I need to find a comfortable spot and an ice pack.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Larry
Reply to this
My comments above were not meant to be a screed against religion in general or Christianity in particular. It was, however, a criticism of religious FUNDAMENTALISTS (Christian, or otherwise).
You know the type: the Falwells (R.I.P.) and Robertsons who love to get on secular television and spout scripture (or their interpretation of scripture, or the conversations they claim to have had exclusively with God), believing this (in and of itself) should be proof positive to everyone about the validity of their claims and therefore should immediately be used by the government to make public policy decisions, conveniently forgetting about the separation of church and state in our country. [In the recent past, these types had substantial political influence in the political sphere. Their appeal seems to be on the wane now. But they have not gone away.]
In a pluralistic, multi-religious country, quoting passages from any religious text should not be the start and finish of your argument.
Inspiration for one's moral beliefs can come from many sources. The Bible, the Koran, the Greek philosophers, re-runs of Star Trek, etc. However, to claim that *your* source (and *your* interpretation of that source) is the ultimate authority in determining morality is incompatible with our society.
Within the confines of one's own church, the Bible can certainly be used as a tool to help one clarify moral issues. (Most times, this has been used to good effect; it has also been used to justify what most would consider now to be immoral stances, masking as moral.)
We must also keep in mind that when we turn to the Bible for inspiration in defining morality, there is no consensus even among Christians about what constitutes "morality". In fact, different churches, using the exact same text, can come to polar opposite conclusions on matters of morality.
I guess that what I'm saying is the Bible should be used as a good conversation-starter among religious believers within particular sects and denominations in determining matters of morality. However, when they want to "sell" to (or impose on) a broader audience this belief, they will need to downplay the origins of their belief (a non-universal interpretation using ONE-AMONG-HUNDREDS of sacred texts) and offer more rational reasons for their conclusions.
Comments edited at poster's request 6/18/2008
[all opinions expressed here subject to revision or change]
Reply to this
EDIT: The last sentence above should read "However, when they want to "sell" to (or impose on) a broader audience this belief, they will need to downplay the origins of their belief (a non-universal interpretation using ONE-AMONG-HUNDREDS of sacred texts) and offer more rational reasons for their conclusions.
(Larry, any way to make editing changes or clarifications like this in the ORIGINAL post after it has been submitted? Sometimes my posted first draft could use some tweaking.....)
Reply to this
Peter, Thanks for your clarification.
Unfortunately, GoDaddy doesn't allow the poster to go back and edit themselves. I pointed out to them when I called that this would be useful.
Instead, I acted on your comment and corrected your copy on the post. That means what you did is as good a way as any to get your correction made.
Larry
Reply to this