From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano
Here's a vote for a Christian voice
We shouldn't shy away from trying to press others to adopt our beliefs. We do it every time we vote or speak our minds.
By Paul Viggiano
After six months of regular church attendance, the atheist/attorney finally called for an appointment. I was thrilled! Was there a transformation? Had the Lord touched his heart? People come to church for all sorts of reasons. Why had he been coming so consistently? I was more than happy to meet with him; a bit curious, too.
He sat across from me in my study. He had listened to me for hours. Now I would listen to him. A thinker, he had pondered Christianity, but there were roadblocks. He voiced them.
"Why do Christians insist," he asked, "on forcing their political and ethical beliefs upon others?" I hadn't anticipated this question. He just didn't understand why something as personal and intimate as one's faith, had to spill over into politics. After all, faith is so holy and politics is so ... political.
I'd heard this before.
As a Christian, I am often bombarded by some undefined segment of our culture chastising me for seeking to "force" my beliefs on others and, as a March 15 letter to the editor asserts, "insist that they live by morality."
There seems to be legitimate confusion and even frustration. Here's my explanation:
I asked my lawyer/friend if he thought I should vote. He said I should. To him, voting was serious business. People ought to vote! Good Americans vote! But isn't it logically necessary that, in the very act of voting, one is seeking to force his beliefs upon everyone who is voting against whatever he is voting for? (You may wish to read that sentence again ... I'll wait.)
It doesn't seem consistent to tell me I should vote and then tell me that I shouldn't seek to force my beliefs upon others. That is exactly what voting does.
Walk with me into the booth:
The propositions and candidates stare at me from the confusing little punch-card booklet. Vote "Yes" vote "No" vote for "ME!" It seems I have some decisions to make. Should marriage be only between a man and a woman? Should it be illegal to terminate babies prior to birth? Should murderers be put to death? Should creation be taught in schools? Should the Pledge of Allegiance include some reference to God?
These decisions lie before us. Can you hear the question begging? When we vote, whose beliefs should we be seeking to force upon others? I believe the reasonable and conscientious vote to all of the above should be "Yes." It's someone else's belief that the vote be "No." Either way, somebody is seeking to force his beliefs on somebody else. In a society where people vote, this is simply unavoidable.
Since voters necessarily seek to force their beliefs upon others, it would appear that the actual objection is against those who have a religious genesis for their system of ethics and beliefs. People don't want religion forced upon them. If by saying this people mean they don't want to be forced to attend church against their will, I say "Amen."
But people fail to understand that Christianity is a world view. My faith is not like my health club or butcher who I visit and then forget about when I move on to a different category in my life. My faith informs every aspect of my life, including politics.
Why is it appropriate for certain people to vote in a manner consistent with what they learned from their parents or tabloids or sit-coms, but it is inappropriate for me to vote in a manner consistent with what I've learned from reading sacred scripture? After all, I think the scriptures are the zenith of truth and wisdom.
Why does the origin of my ideals somehow disqualify them (or me) from playing a part in the public arena? Why are the teachings of Moses and the Apostle Paul considered unacceptable influences in the venue of civic conscience, while the sentiments of Reiner, Moore and Penn are deemed admissible? It seems hardly fair to disqualify my opinion because you don't like its origin.
My attorney/friend's confusion was assuaged. I'm not sure if he was convinced. But if he wasn't, it's not because there was no reasonable answer to his question.
People should vote in a manner consistent with their highest beliefs. The Christian source for the highest ideals is the Bible. It trumps all human wisdom. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart," the Proverbs teach, "and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight." That includes politics.
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 4/11/2006 05:09:00 PM
48 Comments:
It seems that we know that biblical law will one day rule everything and that this will, no doubt, be a good thing. The question is how it comes into being. Do we pull out our swords now and make it so or will it occur more organically and on God's schedule. That's an obviously loaded way of saying it but i think it makes sense (and appears to be the biblical model) that the Kingdom of God grows gradually, insinuating itself on the institutions it comes in contact with.
Calvin seemed to be particularly bad at introducing God's law to society. His methods seemed cruel and ill timed. Luther thought good government was a blessing from God given to a church that was doing as it should.
Also, I'm not sure if pietism is the opposite of theonomy. I know pietists are seldom theonomists. Pietism is a repugnant philosophy but not technically the opposite of theonomy.
As Paul's article points out --it is quite obvious that Christians should have a say in government --but the fact that we have to assert the legitamacy of our even being involved in the process is a sign of how badly the church has been living up to it's responsibilities in the marketplace of ideas.
It's true that voting forces the opinions of one group onto another. When citizens vote to change the tax code, or to fix a roadway, or whatever, someone's opinion IS being forced onto another. But the Constitution sets limits (or, at least it's supposed to set limits) on what the government can do. If people vote for a law is purely based on religious opinion and that effectively inhibits religious freedom, that law should be struck down.
Religious freedom means the government cannot take sides with respect to religious opinions. Christians often get criticized for voting to enact laws that force the government to take their side. If there is no factual reason for a law, and it's justifications are solely based on religious opinion, then it has no place in our government.
“It’s true that voting forces the opinions of one group onto another. When citizens vote to change the tax code, or to fix a roadway, or whatever, someone’s opinion IS being forced onto another.”
No argument here.
“But the Constitution sets limits (or, at least it’s supposed to set limits) on what the government can do.”
Limitations that ought to be understood under the context of what the Framers had in mind. Framers who were very religious, by the way, whether one wants to argue if they were Christians or Deists.
“If people vote for a law is (sic) purely based on religious opinion and that effectively inhibits religious freedom, that law should be struck down. Religious freedom means the government cannot take sides with respect to religious opinions.”
All laws are based on a system of beliefs. That is, laws are based on someone’s religion, whether they are an institution, like Christianity, or not, like atheism. So when people go and vote, people will vote in accordance to the highest values they hold. Atheists will do so, so why can’t I? Because my religion is an institution and theirs is not?
Sorry, Anon, but the scenario you are describing is an impossibility since everyone has an opinion based on their devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality (aka religion). Government does have to take a side when it comes to “religious opinions” forming its laws. The question is: which “religious opinion”? That there is the big kahuna burger.
Also, since you seem to be basing your arguments on the Constitution, I’ll offer this up:
The Constitution was drawn up by very religious people. Whether one wants to argue they were Christian or Deists, the point is that by the values they held highest, they utilized those values to create the Constitution. The Constitution is a religious document, despite the lack of any explicit reference to God or religious institution. Therefore, any government that claims to abide by the Constitution is, in fact, abiding by a “religious opinion,” as you so eloquently put it.
“Christians often get criticized for voting to enact laws that force the government to take their side. If there is no factual reason for a law, and it’s (sic) justification are solely based on religious opinion, then it has no place in our government.”
I’ll be repetitive here, but more elaborate:
Since religion seems to be the “problem” here, let’s understand what the word means. Based upon the commentary, this is probably the definition you have in mind, Anon:
religion – noun b. (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural; (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
So in a religion, you have to be religious.
religious - adj. 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity; 2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
Everyone is religious. There is no neutrality. Everyone who votes, votes based on a religious faith that they believe to be truth. Yes, even the agnostics and atheists are religious since they, too, have “faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality”.
Applying this to your statement, all laws would have to be struck down since all laws are based on someone’s religious devotion to what they believe to be true about reality. The Christian bases law on God’s Law found in Scripture. Muslims base laws on the Koran. Atheists base it on convention and empiricism. So what then? What law is there that does not stem to some kind of religious devotion?
All law is moral, and morality is based on a system of beliefs (aka religion), whether it is institutionalized (Christian, Muslim, etc.) or not (atheism, agnosticism). If you want to be consistent in your belief that laws based on religious opinion have no place in our government, then all laws would be struck down.
In Christ,
Victor
...i think it makes sense (and appears to be the biblical model) that the Kingdom of God grows gradually, insinuating itself on the institutions it comes in contact with.
It's been said before: Regeneration, not revolution. Despite my contention with Anonymous above, political victories without the changes in the hearts of the people are, at best, Law without the Gospel. But even the Apostle Paul implies that God's Law can be used unlawfully. (1 Timothy 1:8) Political climate change may, in fact, become a raging storm in the hands of unregenerate politicians (and oh, how numerous they are).
Given that Christianity is factual
There is not one shred of evidence that that statement is true. If you are going to use that claim to justify the imposition of your beliefs on others, you'd better be able to back it up.
The Constitution was drawn up by very religious people
So what? It's the contents of the Constitution that matter, not the personal opinions of the founders.
The Constitution is a religious document
Oh, please. The only references to religion in the Constitution are exclusionary (no religious test for public office; freedom of religion)
Everyone is religious
Not true. Religion requires adherence to particular observances and rules. Neither deism nor atheism are religions. You seem to be confusing religion with philosophy.
all laws would have to be struck down since all laws are based on someone’s religious devotion
Also not true. It can be shown that murder is harmful to society. Therefore, it should be outlawed. That goes for any other behavior that can be shown factually to be harmful.
Only laws that are based SOLELY on religious opinion should be struck down (or not allowed in the first place).
anon- these are great points but it doesn't really build the case for the illigitemacy of religious thought being used to make public policy descisions. It sounds like you're saying that people of certain philosophies should not be allowed to share in public discourse. Who's going to be in charge of deciding that?! Yikes!
I'm arguing that OUR system of government is designed to protect people of minority religious beliefs (or none at all) from the imposition of the majority's religious doctrine. If you were in the minority, I think that you would appreciate that more.
For instance:
If Christian Scientists were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw medicine?
If Muslims were to become the majority, do you think that that should be able to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or to make all women cover their faces?
If atheists were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw religion?
I would answer no to all of these (unless one particular point of view could be shown to be true). It's a natural tendency of humans to desire to impose their views on others when they have the power to do so. Protections should be built into any system of government to prevent that. That's why any proposed public policy should have to be justified with evidence.
It's a little simplistic to call early American Govt. 'Presbyterian'. It was tempered by the other protestant and , yes, deist philosophies prevalent at the time. Calvinist Governments tend to degenerate into oppression and brutality -- rather quickly.
"If not God's law ... by what standard?"
Good question. There just is not alot of agreement on what that is.
I, along with you, believe that Christianity is true to the way things are but this might be an overstatement:
"Christianity is the only philosophical source for medicine & science as we know them."
There are a number of significant contributions made by moslem and pagan philosophies (i.e. algebra and astronomy) but the church frequently dwells in structures which it did not build.
ehud would:
Look out Anonymous Christians are conspiring to outlaw medicine!
When I said Christian Scientists, I meant followers of the Christian Science religion, not scientists who happen to be Christian. One capitalized letter makes a huge difference!
So, looking back at my previous post with that in mind, how do you answer?
Constitution is headed w/the words "in the year of OUR Lord".
I know you're getting desperate when you pull that out. That was common nomenclature at the time, and has no bearing on our laws. "No religious test", "freedom of religion", and "equal protection", however, do.
John Adams said that our form of Govt. was "made for a people both moral & religious, & that it would be wholely unsuitable to a people who were neither."
John Adams also said "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamaties that engine of grief has produced!", so maybe the religion that he was refering to in your quote wasn't Christianity.
Christianity IS a fact. If you want to attempt to "disprove" Christianity
You are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
I still believe you're overstating the roll of Christianity in history and science, which is not necessary as I am sure we will win in time.
"...Calvin's Geneva, Cromwell's Christian Commonwealth, the record of Protestant ascendents to the English throne over against their Catholic counterparts..."
I thought you were making my points for me. I assure you you are much better off where you are now than in any of these societies. Take a deep breath and think about it... I mean it.... Do it..... I am right. These were not difficult societies because they were based on God's law. These were societies that made an honest attempt to live under God's law and got it all wrong. (For the most part.) They were brutal and oppressive. This point is axiomatic outside of the molecularly small percentage of calvinist's now wandering the earth. We did not get it all right five hundred years ago and now we need to get back to those good ol' days. We have a long way to go. God has much he has to do with the church.
Think about the commandments, the apostles creed and the lord's prayer and watch what God does.
This sentence is spectacular!:
"Because we have a logical Law-giving God who governs according to His own perfect will & even revealed to us the reliability of Causal inference & the mechanistic integrity of the creation in the consecration of the Noahic Covenant"
I have no idea what you're saying but it's spectacular!
Geez, I take a little break from the blog and the verbosity is on a rampage. Where do I begin?!
Anon – it seems to me from your short-form answers that either 1) you didn’t understand the point I was making; or 2) you really didn’t care for it. Let’s start with this response:
“Everyone is religious – Not true. Religion requires adherence to particular observances and rules. Neither deism nor atheism are religions. You seem to be confusing religion with philosophy.”
You seem to think that the only way to be religious is to belong to some sort of institutionalized religion, with its “observances and rules.” But that is not what I am arguing, and confining religious only in terms of religion is unwarranted. Let’s take atheism for example. They hold religiously (faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality) that there is no god, thus such a devotion is a rule for them by which they observe the rest of reality. In turn, through the lens of their devotion, they develop other rules and further along their philosophy of how they acknowledge ultimate reality.
To answer your comment about being confused, all philosophy must stem from some religious (aka faithful devotion) view of the reality that surrounds them. Philosophy does not develop in a vacuum. Try developing a philosophy without presupposing anything and see where that goes.
You can dismiss this all you want and hold that only people in institutional religions are religious, but anyone with a philosophy, which is everyone (no matter how great or small that philosophy is), must have some religious starting point. (Gusto and fervor has nothing to do with being religious, just so I’m clear. One can be droll and boorish and still observe to the rules of their acknowledged ultimate reality. They wouldn’t be considered “very religious”, but they are religious nonetheless.)
So when I say that everyone is religious, I am not saying that everyone is in an institutional religion, which is what you think I am saying.
“The Constitution was drawn up by very religious people - So what? It's the contents of the Constitution that matter, not the personal opinions of the founders.”
Oh man, I had a good laugh at this one. So you think the contents of the Constitution was just brainstormed out of the air? Sorry, but the philosophy that stemmed from their religion is what informed them in their thinking when they drafted the Constitution. What if I were to separate the philosophy of your thinking from the very words you have written on this blog so far? Are you just pulling things out of the air or is your philosophy informing you of your thinking? Should I not try to understand the philosophy of your thoughts in order to understand what you are saying, or should I just import a philosophy foreign to your own?
“The Constitution is a religious document - Oh, please. The only references to religion in the Constitution are exclusionary (no religious test for public office; freedom of religion.”
How about keeping within the context of what I said? “The Constitution is a religious document, despite the lack of any explicit reference to God or religious institution.” Why? Because of what I had explained above: “The philosophy that stemmed from their religion is what informed them in their thinking when they drafted the Constitution.” The religious aspect of the Constitution is steeped in a monotheistic, theonomic worldview (yes, this does apply to both Christianity and Deism) because the founders were steeped in a monotheistic, theonomic worldview. And even if the opposite were true, the religious aspect cannot be avoided. Which leads me to your last comment directed towards me…
“all laws would have to be struck down since all laws are based on someone’s religious devotion - Also not true. It can be shown that murder is harmful to society. Therefore, it should be outlawed. That goes for any other behavior that can be shown factually to be harmful. Only laws that are based SOLELY on religious opinion should be struck down (or not allowed in the first place).”
You have a philosophy based on your faithful devotion to an acknowledged reality which makes you believe that a law has to be shown to be good, apart from religious opinion, in order for it to be enacted upon the people. However, anything you spout off as to how we ought to be governed is a religious opinion. And in light of showing that the Constitution is also based on religious opinion, you would have to strike down the very thing you are trying to uphold. There really is no point in holding to the Constitution at all! It must be struck down! Anarchy anyone?
Science works because there is a God of the universe as described in the Bible (whether the scientist performing the science believes it or not) - duh -- but not all good science comes from Christians -- duh again. Are we really in disagreement over this point?
(who are all those names you mentioned? do they go to your church?) ;)
[Atheists] hold religiously (faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality) that there is no god
No we don't. We hold no belief in a god (or gods) because there is no evidence that such a being (or beings) exists. There is no "faith" or "religion" involved.
but anyone with a philosophy, which is everyone (no matter how great or small that philosophy is), must have some religious starting point
I disagree. You seem to be claiming that religion invented morality or ethics. It didn't. It just incorporated them into its framework.
So you think the contents of the Constitution was just brainstormed out of the air? Sorry, but the philosophy that stemmed from their religion is what informed them in their thinking when they drafted the Constitution.
I said nothing of the kind. This is just a straw man that you have created.
Many things informed them in their thinking, one of which happened to be religion. They tried to take the best of the ideas that they were aware of.
Even if religion had been their only source that still wouldn't make the Constitution a religious document.
"Christian Science" refers to The Christian philosophical backdrop which propagated our theories of modern Science (not the cult)
Christian philosophy had very little, if anything, to do with the advancement of Science. If fact, it has opposed scientific progress at almost every turn. Science was at a virtual standstill, if not worse, for the entire time that Christianity was in control.
I'm sure you'll point out that early advances were made by Christians, but I'd ask you who else could have done it? In those times, you HAD to be a Christian to have access to the tools necessary. In fact, you had to be a Christian (at least outwardly) just to survive.
And what makes Christianity a religion and Christian Science a cult? Is it the number of members? It certainly can't be based on evidence of truth, because neither has any.
To deny the roll of Christian thinking in the advancement of science is just not credible. Just because my earnest Calvinist brothers overstate the contribution doesn't mean there is no contribution or as you claim, a deterence to true science. All belief systems usually go back to some unprovable presupposition. Historically the presupposition in the existance of a creator God has created a fairly elegant belief system true to way things are.
It's obvious we're not going to get anywhere on the "what the Founders wanted" debate. So let's talk about what's right. You are advocating an unfair system of government that favors one group over others. I would still like answers to the following questions:
- If followers of the Christian Science religion were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw medicine?
- If Muslims were to become the majority, do you think that that should be able to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or to make all women cover their faces?
- If atheists were to become the majority, do you think that they should be able to outlaw religion?
the presupposition in the existance of a creator God has created a fairly elegant belief system true to way things are
There are a nearly infinite number of possible world views that we can't currently rule out. Just because yours is one of them doesn't mean that it is the correct one.
My position is that we know God exists because He has revealed Himself in His written word & in the creation
The Bible is a collections of writings from the minds of men. What makes you think that they are divinely inspired? Just because they claim to be? I could write a book and claim that I was writing down what a god told me. That's doesn't make it true.
As for the "creation", you are making a bid assumption that we WERE created in the first place. What makes you think this? A story written thousands of years ago?
Everything doesn't have to have a creation. You believe that god is eternal. How do you know that the universe hasn't always existed in some form?
If a society is draconian and efficient it will most likely prosper. This prosperity is, however, not evidence for its Biblical validity.
Also, I am not sure we can conclude all this inevitibility about the Trinity and the three branches of governtment.
anon. - you said: "There are a nearly infinite number of possible world views that we can't currently rule out. Just because yours is one of them doesn't mean that it is the correct one."
I just assume it is correct. That is why I subscribe to this belief system. Do you not assume that your belief system is correct?
Well, Anon, it seems Ehud has a lot for you to chew on, so I'll try to stay brief concerning your statements of rebuttal towards my commentary.
[Atheists] hold religiously (faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality) that there is no god
No we don't. We hold no belief in a god (or gods) because there is no evidence that such a being (or beings) exists. There is no "faith" or "religion" involved.
At least now we know you are an atheist. :-) Aside from that, you have completely affirmed what I just said. Did I not say, parenthesis aside, that atheists "hold religiously that there is no god." Yes, I did, and all you did was confirm it by saying, "we hold no belief in god (or gods)..."
Just because there is "no evidence" doesn't mean that a religious mindset is not involved here. You have a faithful devotion to empirical testing, which relies upon your senses and science. Yet, you still have to have faith in your own senses and in science, of which the former can be fooled, while the latter's landscape changes as science advances. This is your ultimate reality, and you must hold to it religiously, otherwise your own worldview would be batted around mercilessly with every whim of your senses, or every whim of scientific "discovery". Think about that and let that sink in. If you are not religious about what you acknowledge about reality, then your reality will always be in flux.
but anyone with a philosophy, which is everyone (no matter how great or small that philosophy is), must have some religious starting point
I disagree. You seem to be claiming that religion invented morality or ethics. It didn't. It just incorporated them into its framework.
No, I never claimed what you think I am claiming, so your disagreement is unwarranted. Once again, you ignore the context of what I've been trying to explain to you. You still equate "being religious" with "religion". This is an assertion without any proof. For someone who wants proof of the viability of a law in government, you should be able to prove this standard of yours that "being religious" equals "religion".
I've already done my part in showing that everyone is religious, but should I make my explanation simpler? Ok, how about this:
Everyone is religious, but some are in a religion. ("Religion" meaning an institution like Christianity or Muslim, since you seem to go that route)
What really makes this simple is just the definition of "religious", which I have already posted here. Nothing in the definition itself has it equating with religion. Being religious is the nature of man. As I have already shown above in this commentary, as an atheist, you must hold onto your own perceived reality religiously or else you will always find your reality in flux. You are religious by nature.
So you think the contents of the Constitution was just brainstormed out of the air? Sorry, but the philosophy that stemmed from their religion is what informed them in their thinking when they drafted the Constitution.
I said nothing of the kind. This is just a straw man that you have created.
Context, Anon. Context. It was you, yourself, that gave a strong implication of the disconnect between the "personal opinions" of the Founders and the contents of the Constitution. I quote:
"It's the contents of the Constitution that matter, not the personal opinions of the founders."
So, are they disconnected or not? If they are (aka your position), then my retort is in line. Why? Because without any "personal opinion", the contents of the Constitution stand void of objective value as the Founders saw fit. If you try to avoid "personal opinion", then you avoid understanding the mindset of what the Founders thought the Constitution stood for. And since "personal opinion" is based on how one perceives things to be right or wrong, it is rooted in a religious opinion since it cannot be divorced from their faithful devotion to their acknowledge reality.
Many things informed them in their thinking, one of which happened to be religion.
Thanks for admitting this. It looks like religious opinion does play a role after all.
They tried to take the best of the ideas that they were aware of.
And by what standard do you think they would base their judgement? It isn't willy-nilly, I assure you. Again, religious opinion plays a role in what they are going to think is the "best of ideas."
Even if religion had been their only source that still wouldn't make the Constitution a religious document.
Like I said, you still equate "religious" with "religion". It is a religious document, not because it is made by a religion, but because it was based on the religious opinions of the Founders on how government should be limited. A study of their religious convictions at the time they framed the Constitution would reveal the philosophy behind these limitation. Separate the religious opinion from the content of the Constitution, then you separate the philosophy behind them. Sadly, this separation only leads to subjective views of the Constitution, rendering the good intentions of those limitations. The Constitution's meaning is just in flux.
You have a faithful devotion to empirical testing
No, I simply trust it more than other methods because it has a better track record of being correct.
Being religious is the nature of man...you must hold onto your own perceived reality religiously or else you will always find your reality in flux.
It seems that your definition of religion is having a set-in-stone world view. My world view can change when new information comes to light. My goal is to have a correct world view, not to stubbornly keep my current one. So, I guess I'm not religious even according to your bizarre definition.
It looks like religious opinion does play a role after all.
I never said it didn't. Religion has both good and bad ideas to offer. Of course, those good ideas didn't originate with religion but are instead part of our evolved social consciousness.
That still doesn't change the fact that the Constitution itself is not religious.
You have a faithful devotion to empirical testing
No, I simply trust it more than other methods because it has a better track record of being correct.
-----------------------------------
LMAO! Anon, what do you think having faith in something means? So long as you trust (aka have faith) in empirical testing more than any other method, that is where your devotion is.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Being religious is the nature of man...you must hold onto your own perceived reality religiously or else you will always find your reality in flux.
It seems that your definition of religion is having a set-in-stone world view. My world view can change when new information comes to light. My goal is to have a correct world view, not to stubbornly keep my current one. So, I guess I'm not religious even according to your bizarre definition.
-----------------------------------
Anon, if you truly believe that you are to change in light of evidence, then that there is a core value of your belief system. Also, the flux I am talking about is being tossed to and fro with every new fad or idea. By holding to the idea that you must change only in light of good evidence, you are not being tossed to and fro. You are still rooted in a religious belief that keeps you from being that kind of flux.
You are not dissimilar to us Reformed folks: Semper Reformanda. We, too, believe in always reforming in light of good evidence, but our standard in measuring that evidence is by Scripture. Yours is by empirical evidence.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
It looks like religious opinion does play a role after all.
I never said it didn't.
-----------------------------------
Tsk, tsk, Anon. You cannot even keep in context of your own words. I quote again:
"It's the contents of the Constitution that matter, not the personal opinions of the founders."
Your dichotomy, not mine.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Religion has both good and bad ideas to offer. Of course, those good ideas didn't originate with religion but are instead part of our evolved social consciousness.
-----------------------------------
Once again, you equate "religious opinion" with "religion" without any evidence or warrant. Can you provide anything else other than assertion?
As for the rest of your statements, what makes "good" good and bad "bad"? You say "evolved social consciousness" has determined it, but what is the genesis of it? Can you prove the genesis of "good" and "bad"? Can you prove why the genesis of "good" is good and "bad" is bad? For someone whose worldview relies on empirical evidence, surely you must have such proofs. (I know, I know. I shouldn't call you Shirley. My bad. :-) )
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
That still doesn't change the fact that the Constitution itself is not religious.
-----------------------------------
I've already explained it in my last post, to which you have no direct refutation, except to bypass everything else I have said.
what do you think having faith in something means?
"Faith" is not the same as "trust". Faith means belief without evidence. Empiricism's track record is evidence that it is better than religion. It's not proof, but it is evidence.
You cannot even keep in context of your own words...Your dichotomy, not mine.
There is no dichotomy there. From a legal standpoint, what matters is the content of the Constitution, not the opinions of the Founders. That is true whether those opinions are religious or not.
what makes "good" good and bad "bad"?
Evolution favors the groups that reproduce the most, so from that perspective "good" is what causes an increase (or prevents a decrease) in population. When members of a social group worked together for a common good, their group was able to out-populate other groups.
Ok, I have a question for you. You would claim that without the scripture you would not know right from wrong. Doesn't that mean that, when you were very young, you could have been told that bad was good and you wouldn't have known the difference?
I submit to you that you already know what bad behavior is by how it affects you.
I've already explained it in my last post, to which you have no direct refutation, except to bypass everything else I have said.
I just don't buy into your "everyone and everything is religious" argument. A person is religious if they adhere to a particular religious doctrine. A document is religious if it promotes a religious doctrine.
I fail to see a single point of yours that hasn't collapsed in upon itself.
Just saying that doesn't make it so.
Islam officially & necessarilly (sic) denounces "Religious Tolerance" & "Minority Rights" (Unlike Christianitty (sic), which establishes them).
LOL! Now I don't know enough about Islam to defend it, but I laugh at your claim that Christianity establishes religious tolerance and respects minority rights. Especially within the context of this debate in which you are defending your "right" to impose your views on non-Christians.
Christianity has stood in opposition to both of those principles until it was forced to acknowledge them.
Every single Atheist Govt. of the past two centuries has been one of organized mass murder, persisting in every manner of tyrrany & despotism. Such is the inevitable outcome of all Naturalist & Materialist systems because "rights" are to them conventions of men
The atheist governments of which you speak did not kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of communism (their distorted version of it, anyway). They are examples of what happens when too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few people. I know you'd like to pin their crimes on atheism to satisfy your personal views, but it just doesn't wash.
P.S. And just in case you are holding onto the mistaken notion that Hitler was an atheist, I'd like to remind you that he persecuted atheists and that his soldiers had "God is With Us" (in German) on their belt buckles.
Ehud pretty much said it: Your slip is showing.
For one, you are splitting hairs between two synonyms (faith and trust). Someone can trust in someone blindly, can they not?
Second, all you have done is reiterate your former argument, except you add "from a legal standpoint." Even the legal eagles must deal with the intent and meaning of laws as written by the authors. You, however, still want to separate the opinions of the Founders from the content of the Constitution. It is still a dichotomy you want to hold, but cannot, even from a "legal standpoint."
Third, you really haven't answered the question about what makes "good" good or bad "bad". All you have done is state what you believe is "good". Well, what makes an increase in population "good"? An increase in population would seem pretty bad for India. Or why is a prevention in the decrease in population "good"? (You wouldn't happen to be pro-life, would ya?)
Fourth, you say you don't buy my arguement, but at least I have laid out logical reasons, stemmed from a dictionary definition of "religious". You, however, only assert your own definition without justification, nor have given any reason why there should be such a limitation.
If you truly are not religious, then how can you even be devoted to your worldview? So long as you hold to core beliefs on how you view reality, you are, by definition, religious. You don't have to be in a religion to be religious.
And finally, your question. I really wonder about this. Do you have any kids, Anon? I do. If left to their own devices, they would naturally do bad things. And guess what? They don't know they are doing something bad until they are called on it, whether explicitly ("Johnny, that's bad!") or implicitly ("Johnny, what do you think you are doing?"). And even when you imply that they are doing something bad, somtimes they just don't recognize that they are doing something bad. How much more so if I were to tell my child that the bad thing they are doing is actually good?!
This idea that you can "know what bad behavior is by how it affects you" fails to recognize several things. One, bad behavior can feel really good to do. Two, bad behavior sometimes goes unpunished. Three, people can be desensitized. Four, good behavior sometimes results in bad consequences. And five, without any fixed standard for our moral behavior, definitions for good and bad fail to have a context. Meditate and think of the logical implications of the points I've just made, because as an empiricist, your morality is far too dependent on the frailties of men.
Feelings and results are not reliable indicators to determine good or bad. For you, it may be reliable enough since you rely on empirical evidence, but feelings are subjective and results are conditional. Sorry, but I like morality (laws governing behavior) to transcend beyond people's conventions based fickle feelings and pragmatism.
A holy and immutable God, who created me in His image, gives me that standard that transcends beyond myself. I trust in His Laws, whether or not I benefit from them, because first and foremost, breaking them is to offend Him.
Well, all that aside, I have enjoyed parrying with you, Anon. You have made the conversation interesting. However, since we are at a standstill as to what it means to being "religious", any further conversation stemming from it would only mean talking past one another. In which case, we would only reiterate and rehash the things we have said already. Quite unfortunate, really. I would have gathered that you would have acknowledged the religious nature of man because of the obvious dictionary definition. You would have been in good company with other honest atheists and humanists, such as those who signed their names in the first Humanist Manifesto.
Anyway, Ehud will be getting to "the heart of the matter" in a few days. I, myself, have a post to write addressing some of the other issues you had written. Do look for it in a few days.
In Christ,
Victor
I've been trying to have an honest, cordial, debate here but I've been met with little more than dismissive ridicule. I can no longer pretend to ignore it. I've offered my explanation about why not everyone is religious, even according to your definition, but you will never accept it because it doesn't jibe with your set-in-stone opinions. I've tried to explain why government shouldn't favor the opinions of one religion over others unless they can be justified, but you'll never buy it because it doesn't suit you. And you've completely ignored any of my points or questions that would challenge you.
I can now see I'm not going to be able to penetrate your arrogant delusions. You've established nothing that you claim to have. You just make selective references to things that seem to support your view while ignoring those that don't. You declare that Christian doctrine is truth and is the basis for all that is good, but you offer no evidence to support it. You simply believe it because it is what you were told to believe and because it suits your self-centered worldview.
Now to address a couple of things:
I thought you assented to Democracy. Guess not.
No, I don't believe in PURE Democracy. Minority groups get trampled on in such a system. I do, however, believe in a Constitutional Democracy where all citizens are guaranteed equal treatment by the government, which is what we are supposed to have.
The Death Camps were simply "matter in motion" right?
I'm insulted by your insinuatation that I would somehow support the horrible murders committed by the Nazi regime. I know you'll claim to have been simply asking a question, but your tone is clear. Especially within the context of other statements that you've made.
Murder does harm not only to the person killed but to family and friends and the society that he/she was a part of. It requires the utmost justification. Self-defense is about the only possible justification that I can see as being valid.
when the Atheist does object, he does so by way of "borrowed capital". And guess where he makes that withdrawal,...
Ah, more Christian arrogance. If anyone does anything good, it must be because they were influenced by Christianity. I'm surprised you can maintain your balance with that huge head of yours. (See, I can ridicule too!)
Wow, Anon. Here I am, having enjoyed parrying with you, and you say this:
I've been trying to have an honest, cordial, debate here but I've been met with little more than dismissive ridicule. I can no longer pretend to ignore it.
I can understand your reaction towards Ehud because I know his words come out quite cantankerous, but I'm surprise that you would direct your animosity and frustration in my direction. I have done nothing but provide a thorough and well-thoughtout response to your points, while all you have offered are short answers that lack thoughtful reasoning. In your eyes, they may have been enough, but seeing as how you do not flesh out your reasoning, they are nothing but assertions of your position. If you want "an honest, cordial debate", then provide more than cliff notes on your position and reason them out.
I've offered my explanation about why not everyone is religious, even according to your definition, but you will never accept it because it doesn't jibe with your set-in-stone opinions.
Ok, let's go ahead and rehash the arguments:
I claimed Everyone is religious, and you say "Not true. Religion requires adherence to particular observances and rules."
I say religious, you say religion. It is true that if you are in a religion, you are religious, but you never proved the inverse (aka your assertion) that in order to be religious, you have to be in a religion. So far as I can tell, from all your cumulative words, you are thinking of an institutional religion. You have never denied this, and so that is what I have been responding to.
So that we are clear here, do you believe that only a person in a institutional religion is religious?
Assuming that is your position, I replied:
Let’s take atheism for example. They hold religiously (faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality) that there is no god, thus such a devotion is a rule for them by which they observe the rest of reality.
You believe there is no god because evidence doesn't support this. That is a core belief that you hold to be true in your worldview. You acknowledge this to be your ultimate reality and you faithfully hold (aka devote) to this until evidence can be given that would change your perception of ultimate reality. (Again, "faith" is not blind. I am faithful to my wife, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it blindly.)
Now, reject what I said all you want, but all I've done is explain logically and have shown you the breadcrumbs to understand what it means to be religious outside of being in a religious institution.
But, of course, you still don't see what I am saying, for you reply:
No we don't. We hold no belief in a god (or gods) because there is no evidence that such a being (or beings) exists. There is no "faith" or "religion" involved.
Seeing as you believe "faith" to be blind and being religious only confined to "religion", it is obvious you didn't understand what I was saying. "Faith" is not blind, but because that is your definition of it, you think I'm projecting that definition upon your worldview when I say you have a "faithful devotion."
Let me be clear here: Religious people have reasons for having a faithful devotion to their acknowledged ultimate reality, whether or not we agree with those reasons.
At least you were right about one thing: "There is no..."religion" involved." How right you are! It is the religious nature that is involved apart from religion.
So, once again, there is a distinction between being religious and religion. Star Wars geeks are religious because they have a faithful devotion to Star Wars, whether or not we agree with their reasons for it, but Star Wars is not an institutional religion (though I hear that some have formed here and there.) The people at PETA are fanatically religious about animals, but they are not a religion. The signers of the first Humanist Manifesto admitted in writing that they were religious, and that includes atheists! And interestingly enough, on atheists.org, someone wrote this:
I understand and respect that many atheists have a visceral dislike of the word 'religion.' But the simple fact of the matter is that the idea of god(s) -- albeit its negation -- is embedded in the word 'atheist.' It is, therefore, an inescapable fact that atheism is 'religious' in the sense that it occupies a position on the spectrum of opinions about god(s)...
Moreover, once you rid yourself of the idea of god(s) as anything other than a figment of the human imagination -- a poignant reflection of human fears and aspirations at best or a tool of malicious manipulation and oppression at worst -- there are still plenty of 'religious' issues and questions to deal with, primarily having to do with personal integrity, happiness and growth. Buddhists and other practioners of atheist religions have shown us that." -Tim Gorski, Church of Freethought (emphasis mine)
So, unless you can refute the reasonings and even the stuff from other atheists, you do not have a leg to stand on to claim that only people in religions are religious (which seems to have been your position all along).
Moving along...
I've tried to explain why government shouldn't favor the opinions of one religion over others unless they can be justified, but you'll never buy it because it doesn't suit you.
No, what you said is:
If there is no factual reason for a law, and it's justifications are solely based on religious opinion, then it has no place in our government. (emphasis mine)
Maybe to you, "religious opinion" and "opinions of one religion" are the same, but they are not. I've reasoned enough about this.
And you've completely ignored any of my points or questions that would challenge you.
And you've completely ignored what I said at the end of my last post:
I, myself, have a post to write addressing some of the other issues you had written. Do look for it in a few days.
Aside from those other issues, I have answered every point (with a cut and paste of your rebuttals) in our discussion.
Now, if you still feel that you are getting "dismissive ridicule" on my part, then I'm sorry you feel that way. We are at a standstill concerning "religious" and "religion", and if that frustrates you, then that is all on you. I don't accept religious being confined to institutional religion, and frankly, neither do some atheists.
Barring any further delays, I'm off to work on your other challenges.
Sorry I missed this discussion. I've been on vacation. I just finished reading the debate.
Anon.. how is it that you fail to see that YOU are trying very desperately to impose YOUR views upon us? The very thing which started this discussion is exactly what you are doing.
as for the Hitler problem. Hitler seemed to think he was right in what he did. You don't. Why should I believe you and not him?
Obviously, I believe the atheist argument is incorrect and if I haven't been clear, Calvinism is bankrupt. I've watched this 'debate' with dispair as it degenerated into namecalling and verbal abuse.
And now we align our opponents with Hitler. Come on.
Obviously, I believe the atheist argument is incorrect and if I haven't been clear, Calvinism is bankrupt.
Just as I have asked for substantiation for Anon's position, I ask that you also substantiate your assertions. Hit-and-run comments tend to take away from a debate, not add to them. :-)
I've watched this 'debate' with dispair as it degenerated into namecalling and verbal abuse.
I certainly hope as a brother in Christ that you would point these things out to Ehud and I. At the moment, I'm left wondering if you have any particular words or phrases of mine to which I could have restated a better way. Please be forthcoming about this.
And now we align our opponents with Hitler. Come on.
I'm sure Ehud could defend his own words, but I would like to comment on this.
I've read and re-read Ehud's paragraph about Hitler and I fail to see how Anon or you would find his words to be aligning Anon with Hitler. At its worst, Ehud implies that a consistent atheistic worldview cannot find Hitler's atrocities to be wrong. As Ehud said, "An AtheIST might object but AtheISM cannot." (emphasis mine)
As much as Anon would like to think Ehud is insinuating that he(she?) would support the murderous acts of Hitler, I just don't see how. All Ehud is doing is calling Anon out by pointing out how inconsistent he is with his atheist, materialist worldview. Anon may object to this, but atheism, as a worldview, cannot.
Anyway, Tom, I'd like to know, from your perspective, how are Ehud's words aligning Anon with Hitler?
As an open public forum, I reserve the right to make brief comments regardless of how you choose to characterize them.
You are obviously men of intelligence. I'm not going to go back and say this was nice and this was mean. There are personel attacks in this dialogue having nothing to do with
the discussion. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
When one says--
"Hitler seemed to think he was right in what he did. You don't. Why should I believe you and not him?"
--you are associating their ideas with Hitler. By implicaton you are saying Hitler did 'this' and your belief system has no basis for refuting the wrongness of Hitler's actions. Is one not implying tacit support of Hitler?
What else?..........Oh yes Calvinism. Isn't that just statistical? Denominations that most closely align themselves with Calvin are small and getting smaller. I've recently visited about a half dozen presbyterian churches and not one of them has so much as mentioned Calvin's name -- not conclusive but significant. Ask people who are not Calvinists who Calvin is. They will not know. Or, if they are a student of history, they will ask 'wasn't he that (rectal expletive) who terrorized Geneva.' None of those things are arguments for or against the belief system, I'm just saying that's the system's current status. Go to the OPC website -- it's a study in anachronism.
As an open public forum, I reserve the right to make brief comments regardless of how you choose to characterize them.
True, you do have that right, but look at it in this perspective. If I come to your blog and give a simple praise, no problem, right? But if I give some negative note about something you have written on your blog, but give no explanation as to why I am being negative, would you not want to know why I would lowball your writings? Even if I were to imply that there was something wrong with what you have written, would you not be curious to know more as to my reasons why I have implied such a thing?
There are personal attacks in this dialogue having nothing to with the discussion. It is disingenuous for you to claim otherwise.
Seriously, Tom, please point out my ad hominems. I'd like to know so that I may repent, otherwise, I am left with my sin.
Like I said, I have read and re-read my comments, and though I may take a strong, hard stance, that does not mean they should be construed as ad hominem attacks. When Bahnsen debated, he took an even fiercer stand, yet one would be pressed to find his arguments as ad hominem. It may feel like ad hominem, but it does not mean it is ad hominem.
As for Ehud's words...well, I'll let him defend his own words and demeanor.
--you are associating their ideas with Hitler. By implicaton you are saying Hitler did 'this' and your belief system has no basis for refuting the wrongness of Hitler's actions. Is one not implying tacit support of Hitler?
This is why Ehud made the distinction between the atheist and atheism. Of course Anon wouldn't support Hitler consciously, but he does so unconsciously by adhering to his worldview. This is to say that Anon is inconsistent (thankfully) with his worldview since it is obvious he finds Hitler horrid and detestable. Pointing this out (first Ehud, then Sean) is to bring about a crisis of conscious, not to demonize him.
As for the explanation of "Calvinism is bankrupt," if "none of those things are arguments for or against the belief system," I am confused as to where your brief commentary fits within the context of the conversation. :-\ Perhaps this should be the subject of a different topic and have an in-house debate?
If the subject of your last posting is 'could you explain yourself again?' I guess the answer is no. I would only encourage you not to overburden yourself with thoughts like this: "I'd like to know so that I may repent, otherwise, I am left with my sin."
The 'Calvinism is bankrupt' comment just echoes my mild case of despair at listening to this discussion, if you honestly require context for that comment other than that already given. It was a sociological observation, not a theological one.
I stand corrected. I shall refer to your technique as : "jesus sarcasm".
To clarify: I have not addressed the merits of Calvinism. I was simply identifying it's current status in the world of ideas.
To clarify further: I am a moderate Lutheran (elca) who is a reluctant member of the OPC. I also engage in a half-assed observance of most of the Jewish holidays.
hey pastor paul!
how's things? abundant congatulations on the new addition! Isn't this board great? so many smart people.
Wait a minute. I'm a little slow. Anonymous is someone we know, like chris or somebody like that. right?
oh you wacky Calvinists!
To clarify, yet again: I was just kidding about the made up identity of anonymous. That sort of misrepresentation would really undermine the integrity of this forum.
um......did you guys want to talk to me about how great Calvin was?
ehud would said "I hope we can go over your position on Calvin & Calvinism sometime 'cause your comments are disconcerting."
Is that a 'bait' to bring it up or expect a follow-through on that statement? I think it could be a valuable discussion. If nobody cares to, that's fine also. A discussion that I was enjoying seems to have died. I was suggesting a subject. I'm not presuming to 'add' to the discussion. Everyone here is much smarter than I.
So, to answer your simple question with far too many words -- I guess I was trying to 'bait' people and I also might be presumptuous enough to believe I have something to add.
At this point, I think the ball is in Ehud's court to respond to Anon's rebuttal.
As for the subject of Calvin, I'm not as well-versed in his history as my fellow Christian brothers about the man. What I do know is this: He went to Geneva to teach, was asked to help clean up the city, was rejected by the people for instituting God's Law, he left, then the city asked him to come back and willingly put themselves under his leadership.
Yeah, I know what I put out there is much too general, but as I understand it, what Tom may have deemed cruel and ill-timed, Geneva thought it best to fight the criminal activities of its people.
Ehud, being the historian, would be the better in writing up a post for all of us to discuss. Although, I'm still waiting for his write up on the Salem Witch trials, which, tangentially, also deals with the application of God's Law.
Condescension? Example, please.
Does anyone know what happened to "Anonymous"?
lol. What a brilliant bit of meta-reference!
are you quoting me to provide me an example? I don't know what to do -- you didn't explain yourself a first time and I never characterized your comment. i don't what to say but you got me.
very fun. very funny....
I think our last two posts got crossed. I wrote my last posting before reading your last posting.
Bashing Calvinism isn't super important to me. I just want to make sure I come clean with people at the outset. It's important to me that people know who I am and where I'm coming from. I realize that that sometimes seems like I'm dropping bombs on the proceedings, but that's not my intention. I use my real name and provide a link to my blog and people can contact me personally if they want to.
I have always read the Institutes. I am a five point Calvinist. I have always thought Calvin was a... um, difficult personality and that Geneva was managed a little tightly (to understate). I mean it's one thing to say we use the Bible as our standard of law (which is obviously a very good start) it's another thing to flog people for laughing excessively.
I started to become interested in the processes people used to decide what had occurred at a particular time of history. I thought Calvin's Geneva was an interesting study in this. I found that if I mentioned a positive factoid about Calvin, people (Calvinists) would unquestioningly agree with it - even if it was made up. If I mentioned a negative factoid about Calvin people would automatically disbelieve it, even though it was pretty verifiably true. People seem to have a huge investment in who Calvin is. I believe it's time to rethink that a little. I move in a circle that is all about Calvin. If I get out of that circle, Calvin is barely regarded or if he is regarded it is as the martinet of Geneva.
Let's look at my postings on this board. People have said they are inappropriately brief and they are condescending. As to length -- everybody has posted equally brief or even more brief than my postings and am I to believe that the postings directed to 'anonymous' are less condescending than mine. Is it possible that I am receiving those criticisms because I am overtly anti-calvin and if I were talking about the greatness of Calvin and what a slice of heaven Geneva was nobody would be criticising the length or tone of my postings.
Thanks for the invite but after living in Torrance for 42 years, I have moved my family to Oregon due to some health issues. I am in the heart of the Oregon wine country and 30 of the worlds finest microbreweries -- so if you guys are ever up here...
Anyway... more later.
>>>I'd like to think I've misunderstood you on this 'cause it souds as if you're making a "Secular/Sacred Distinction" in the pattern of Kant.
I am a huge enemy of the sacred/secular distinction. I enjoy Kant's aesthetics and I do not equate biblical law with the Calvinistic Brand of Law practiced in Geneva or Salem, Mass most notably the teenage girl burning.
I believe they prefer to be called Persian.
uh oh.
Yes, my wife says I've met everyone, though I'm having trouble placing names with faces. (With the exception of my hero, the cryptic PP. Who I suspect is leading up to a spectacular point with his recent odd postings.)
We are all well and adapting to a very different life.
I believe it is a bifurcation to claim a choice between Calvin's interpretation of biblical law and man's law. I've reread the sections on "On Civil Government" from both Augsberg and Westminster and they are both pretty much in agreement, as am I. They both seem to be addressing the validity of participating in civil government and the validity of holding public office. We assume that when presented with a choice about how to govern, a civil magistrate who is a Christian will make a prudent Biblical choice or at least, not an anti-Biblical choice.
Yeah, I actually should know better when it comes to Salem. I got in the habit of referring to witch burning because that's what most people understand happened. Mea Culpa. I look forward to your articles on the subject.
Hey, Vic.-- What's left of Anon's arguments which you think needs further response? As I gather it, his last post went: "You're stupid,... Christian's are arrogant & I'm not a Nazi, though I have no basis to be abject to Nazis." That about cover it? Let me know.
Meh...all of his arguments are based on what he thinks is right and what is wrong, but says nothing about how he arrives to such conclusions. It is merely assumed. He believes in democracy under "rule of law", but evolution could care less about "rule of law", so he should prove "rule of law" if he is going to invoke it as part of his ethic.
You can address his epistemology, which I think you were going to get to before the illnesses invaded your home. Or you could throw back some Southern Comfort and cackle your brains out just to keep up your image. Up to you. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home