List of Biblical references on "the poor"|

List of Biblical references on "the poor"|

http://www.zompist.com/meetthepoor.html

Are religions ideas really insulated from scrutiny in our culture?

Do you agree with this? David A. Hollinger of University of California, Berkeley asks whether faith-based politics are given enough scrutiny in American politics. Hollinger writes:

By "giving religious ideas a 'pass' " I refer to the convention of maintaining a discreet silence when one hears a religious idea expressed, no matter how silly it may seem. This convention, which is deeply rooted in the assumption that religion is a private matter, shields religious ideas from the same kind of scrutiny to which we commonly subject ideas about the economy, gender, race, literature, science, art, and virtually everything else...

...Skeptics are expected to refrain from asking the faithful to clarify the epistemic status of the Bible, and from inquiring about the evidentiary basis for the doctrine of the atonement. Arguments within faith communities are allowed (Methodists can challenge one another on whether Paul’s letter to the Romans means that same-sex relationships are contrary to God’s will, Catholics can dispute one another’s opinions about Vatican II, and committed Christians generally can argue over the relevance of the Bible to today’s evolutionary science), but the greater the intellectual distance between the potential critic and the person whose beliefs are at issue, the less socially acceptable it is for the critic to speak candidly.

...When religious ideas are offered as justifications for public policy, those ideas should be subject to the full heat of critical debate. As Harry Truman said in another context, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” What would happen if religious ideas were subjected to such a debate? I want to conclude with some speculations. A robust, critical discussion of religious ideas might encourage popular faiths more consistent with modern standards of plausibility, more conscious of the historicity of all faiths, and more resistant to the manipulation of politicians belonging to any party.

The learned elites of the United States have been too reluctant to honestly engage the American public on the religious grounds that continue to be important in this society, which is by far the most religious in the industrialized North Atlantic West.

A forthright, public debate about religious ideas might reveal that the most important religious divide in the United States today is not between secularists and believers, but between two rather differently constituted parties:

1) a broad dispersion of secularists and classically liberal Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims and 2) a variety of fundamentalist and evangelical believers whose understanding of scripture, divinity, and science remain oblivious to the critical spirit of the Enlightenment.

Perhaps the salient solidarities are not communities of faith and of unbelief, but of people adhering to modern structures of cognitive plausibility and of people rejecting those structures.

(The above text is excerpted from "Civic Patriotism and the Critical Discussion of Religious Ideas" by David A. Hollinger. Published by Center for American Progress, 2008.)

What do you think? I have my likes and dislikes about his ideas- I'm wondering if anyone else will key in on the same ones.

I'm not sure where David Hollinger thinks there is a "discreet silence" being kept regarding religious ideas when the truth of Christian claims and the reliability of Christian scriptures are constantly being debated in the media. (Hitchens and Dawkins are like rock stars.) Plus, he is a professor at Berkeley, a place where people usually have no problem expressing their skepticism of traditional beliefs.

I also don't know why skeptics should refrain from asking the faithful to clarify certain points of belief. I think that is only natural and should be welcomed. If someone does not elaborate on a religious idea because they think it is silly, I would interpret that as simply being respectful.  At some point everyone finds something silly in another belief system (and sometimes even in their own!); it only seems polite to not make a public spectacle out of it. Let's not agonized over points of disagreements at the expense of enjoying each others' company.

I would take Hollinger's idea a step further:  I feel that the Christian conservatives are not prepared for skeptical dialogue.  Because it is  too easy to turn inward and be exclusive, it simply doesn't happen enough. To illustrate my point, the authors I mentioned above, Hitchens and Dawkins, are almost unknown in Christian circles.  Then one day the young people encounter the New Atheists and learn they have not been prepared. Oh, they know more than enough about conservative politics but they discover that being a staunch political conservative has done nothing to help them defend their faith in the public arena. So I agree with Hollinger that more skepticism is a good thing.

David A. Holling (of University of California, Berkeley) argues that rigorous scrutiny of faith-based politics might reveal that the real division in the United States is not between secularists and believers, but between the following two parties:

"1) a broad dispersion of secularists and classically liberal Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims and 2) a variety of fundamentalist and evangelical believers whose understanding of scripture, divinity, and science remain oblivious to the critical spirit of the Enlightenment."

This is where I disagree with Holling.  His characterization of religious groups in America is too simplistic.  He has conveniently made fundamentalist and evangelical Christians the great anti-intellectual obstacle that impedes progress in America, while the rest of us all work easily together.  Evangelical Christianity is too diverse in both politics and in their views on spirituality. In fact over the past 10 years international NGOs have seen increased interest and support from evangelical Christians, an area typically dominated by the political left.  He suggests that "fundamentalist and evangelical believers" have the monopoly on being "oblivious to the critical spirit of the Enlightenment." Most would agree that there are Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim groups that fall in this category too.  Though it is fair to point out that Jewish and Muslim groups of this kind will still identify with the left out of a mistrust of the religious right's political influence.

There is the sentiment in the United States that if Christianity is properly understood one will feel obligated to throw their lot in with the Republican Party.  Partly for this reason the Republican Party is highly identified with evangelical Christianity.  Perhaps this is what Holling is talking about in the first place; that social conservatism seems to alienate just about every other religious belief, regardless of how conservative they might actually be. Still, those reactionaries actually opposed to scientific and enlightenment thought are way too few to affect policy on a national level.  I believe it is the case that faith based politics has an appeal to a wider spectrum of belief, including nominal church goers and "paleo-conservatives" (i.e those who might even be skeptics yet value the place of traditional institutions).

I believe we will actually see greater skepticism of faith-based politics come from traditionalist Christians in the coming years (at least on certain issues), but that's too much to go into here.

The State of Things

I appreciate this post: "The State of Things" on the Glory to God for All Things blog by Father Stephen Freeman. His personal reflections quickly turn to the realm of political theology: 

The State is an illusion (a very dangerous illusion). It is an illusion in that it has no particular standing within the Divine scheme. States are secular entities, the inventions of man for his own reasons, and are therefore illusory (in an ontological sense). The Kingdoms of this World will become the Kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ – Scripture tells us (but not until the end of all things). I am more afraid of being ruled by some Christians than I am of the current corporate class.

Having said that the State is an illusion doesn’t mean that I think you or I should try and make it disappear. I simply think the State should be extremely relativized in the thought of Christians pursuing the Kingdom of God...

 

I especially like this last phrase. I strongly feel the same should be said about political parties and the most popular commentators... or maybe about politics in general. As he points out, some things are not worth killing for, but it is easy even in American to whip people into a frenzy to the extent they will cheer for the death of an uninsured person.

The current world drama is an act upon a stage written by those who believe they are responsible for history’s outcome. Of course, it is presently an absurdist drama. None in the American State Department have any idea what the “Arab Spring” is about. Even those who are making it happen seem to be less than sure. But we are certain enough to kill. That seems to me to be a serious bet that you either know the outcome, or think you can manage it.

One of the great tragic dramas of human world-management followed the Cease-fire that ended the First World War. The winners (led in large part by the British and by American President Woodrow Wilson) re-drew the map of the world. They created countries where none had existed. Some of the countries included dangerous imbalances of ancient enemies (Shiites versus Sunnis, for instance). The decisions were often arbitrary beyond belief. The result has been a century of turmoil and war – much of which is rooted in absurdities born in the space of six months of 1919.

I see a connection between this international hubris and what we currently see in American politics. The first few centuries of Christianity witnessed powerful voices that defied political convention by preaching the simple message that one's faith should be lived out, to give of oneself for the healing of the world. And for the purposes of one's own salvation. No marches or protests required for either the facade of liberty or the pittance of government assistance.

As someone who teaches classes on politics, I try to look at things we take for granted such as these and see if there is a better way to explain them. It is a difficult task in a climate where everyone with a political axe to grind cries "freedom!" and yet devolves into a boorish hypocrisy, whether legislating the death of innocents or cheering the death of the uninsured. As in the early centuries we need to hear again from those who live within the cycle of feasts, those who pray the hours, the ascetics, and the descendants of martyrs. I suppose that is a long way of saying I welcome thoughts on politics from those engaged in spiritual discipline. Give us more as best you can.

Examples of Intolerance and the use of Rhetoric from the Political Left

The Keene Sentinal reports that a conservative Catholic group, the Saint Benedict Center of Richmond, New Hampshire, has won a $1.15 million settlement over the town’s unconstitutional zoning restrictions.

The case stemmed from the center's proposal to build a 10,000-square-foot school and chapel on its Fay Martin Road property. After a series of hearings, Richmond's zoning and planning boards approved the plan, but attached a list of 30 conditions the center had to complete to build.

In October 2009, Cheshire County Superior Court Judge Philip P. Mangones ruled it would be impossible to meet all those conditions, and that meant the center was being denied its constitutional rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Unnecessarily difficult administrative obstacles such as this were used in the South in order to prevent and frustrate building and community projects initiated by African Americans. What this blog post intends to focus on however are the issues of speech and belief.

According to the The Alliance Defense Fund, which defended the group, the judgment compensates the Saint Benedict Center "for years of unconstitutional restrictions that made it impossible to finish the construction of its church and school building." The Alliance Defense Fund is a firm which seeks to defend conservative issues in litigation, so its reporting deserves some scrutiny, more than this author has time for. Still, the ADF reports the following

The center contended officials singled it out for discrimination after certain officials expressed their view that the church’s moral positions on matters such as abortion and homosexual behavior are "abhorrent."

Those who see themselves as the paragon of inclusion and tolerance are not above human frailty, especially when they have the power to engineer the society it desires. Between these two articles, one is given the impression (perhaps accurately?) that a left-leaning local culture has used its administrative power to frustrate the efforts of a conservative religious group. With their use of the word "abhorrent" this would be a perfect example of how liberal activist culture uses morally charged language to demonize anyone who disagrees with them, especially those that espouse strong social morals.

"Abhorrent" is used merely for its emotional and propaganda value. The word "progressive" has been used in the same way to the extent that its true meaning has been lost. Since even the political Left will apply double standards in favor of promoting its agenda (one of pseudo-tolerance), it can be said that it (the liberal side of the political spectrum) is not the inheritor of Bill of Rights' legacy or the civil rights movement, much less their guardian.

It would have been impossible for the Bill of Rights and our legal system to have emerged from such a political mentality (where religious groups are held to a litmus test) had it existed 200 years ago.