Complementarity and Evangelical Feminism
3 Comments Published by Lally on Wednesday, April 30 at 11:00 AM.
Though many of you know that I can be quite critical of religion at times, sometimes even going so far as to mock modest clothing retailers and Christian Singles dating guides, my recent foray into the study of the history of American evangelicalism and revivalism has made me much more of a moderate, most likely toa Billy's chagrin. It goes to show that education can be a peacemaker.
In any case, for my final paper, I am doing an investigation on the notion of "complementarianism," a belief among many conservative evangelical Christians about the Biblically hierarchical nature of gender. Complementarians believes that men and women are equal in the eyes of God with respect to salvation, but are meant for different but "complementary" roles on Earth. This generally means that men are meant for headship (kephale) and women for joyful submission.
Long story short:
In the late 1980's, the feminist evangelical group Evangelical Women's Caucus granted rights to homosexuals, causing an uproar and a subsequent schism, creating the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus (EEWC, the liberal evangelical feminists) and the Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE, the conservative evangelical feminists). Of these two, the latter is more popular (300 and 2000 members, respectively). Nevertheless, each pales gravely in comparison to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). According to surveys by an academic named Sally Gallagher, over 90% of self-described evangelicals consider themselves to have "traditional" views of gender. For well over 83% of this group, this means that men are the primary spiritual leaders of the family.
The most interesting part of this research has been a better understand of what it means to be accepted as an evangelical in America today. Through reading the movement's history (I recommend everyone research George Whitfield, Charles Finney, and D.L. Moody, what I consider big three icons of the major protestant religious movements in U.S. history!) it has become clear, especially through the CBMW watershed publication Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism that CBE is only feminist organization that CBMW actually thinks is evangelical - everyone else has a hermeneutic (theory of interpretation) of Biblical meaning which does not take the Scriptures to be authoritative enough to be labeled evangelical.
What makes CBE an acceptable level of evangelical? Well, I think this can be summarized by the following belief in their statement of faith: "We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God's design."
In other words, though CBE reads the Bible to be gender inclusive, they still take it to be inerrant. CBMW thinks that this qualifies them to remain in the category "evangelical."
As a way to conclude, I'd like to highlight some of the ways that these two groups are different using on the one hand their respective interpretations of key biblical texts and on the other selective quotes from their web sites and publications.
From CBMW's Danvers Statement:
From CBE's Men, Women, and Biblical Equality:
There is a lot there. But briefly let's focus on two passages they both seem to mention here, and how they differ in their exegesis.
Here are two passages from the Bible that both CBMW and CBE think support their respective claims about gender:
Complementarians, on the other hand, use passages like Ephesians to show that an inerrantist reading must take hierarchy into account, even though Galatians 3:28 shows that men and women equally share in salvation, even though not in earthly leadership.
So, what's the point of all this? Well it has serious implications for: the ordination of women, social support for female career aspirations, gender-inclusive Biblical translation, and many many other issues of every-day import to all people and families. CBMW publishes semi-practical advice for their adherents; I'd like to post some of it here for concluding amusement. Thank you!
In any case, for my final paper, I am doing an investigation on the notion of "complementarianism," a belief among many conservative evangelical Christians about the Biblically hierarchical nature of gender. Complementarians believes that men and women are equal in the eyes of God with respect to salvation, but are meant for different but "complementary" roles on Earth. This generally means that men are meant for headship (kephale) and women for joyful submission.
Long story short:
In the late 1980's, the feminist evangelical group Evangelical Women's Caucus granted rights to homosexuals, causing an uproar and a subsequent schism, creating the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus (EEWC, the liberal evangelical feminists) and the Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE, the conservative evangelical feminists). Of these two, the latter is more popular (300 and 2000 members, respectively). Nevertheless, each pales gravely in comparison to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). According to surveys by an academic named Sally Gallagher, over 90% of self-described evangelicals consider themselves to have "traditional" views of gender. For well over 83% of this group, this means that men are the primary spiritual leaders of the family.
The most interesting part of this research has been a better understand of what it means to be accepted as an evangelical in America today. Through reading the movement's history (I recommend everyone research George Whitfield, Charles Finney, and D.L. Moody, what I consider big three icons of the major protestant religious movements in U.S. history!) it has become clear, especially through the CBMW watershed publication Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism that CBE is only feminist organization that CBMW actually thinks is evangelical - everyone else has a hermeneutic (theory of interpretation) of Biblical meaning which does not take the Scriptures to be authoritative enough to be labeled evangelical.
What makes CBE an acceptable level of evangelical? Well, I think this can be summarized by the following belief in their statement of faith: "We believe in the family, celibate singleness, and faithful heterosexual marriage as God's design."
In other words, though CBE reads the Bible to be gender inclusive, they still take it to be inerrant. CBMW thinks that this qualifies them to remain in the category "evangelical."
As a way to conclude, I'd like to highlight some of the ways that these two groups are different using on the one hand their respective interpretations of key biblical texts and on the other selective quotes from their web sites and publications.
From CBMW's Danvers Statement:
In the family, husbands should forsake harsh or selfish leadership and grow in love and care for their wives; wives should forsake resistance to their husbands' authority and grow in willing, joyful submission to their husbands' leadership (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7).
In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15).
From CBE's Men, Women, and Biblical Equality:
11. The Bible teaches that husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility (1Cor 7:3-5; Eph 5:21; 1Peter 3:1-7; Gen 21:12). The husband's function as "head" (kephale) is to be understood as self-giving love and service within this relationship of mutual submission (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:19; 1Peter 3:7).
6. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ came to redeem women as well as men. Through faith in Christ we all become children of God, one in Christ, and heirs to the blessings of salvation without reference to racial, social, or gender distinctives (John 1:12-13; Rom 8:14-17; 2Cor 5:17; Gal 3:26-28).
There is a lot there. But briefly let's focus on two passages they both seem to mention here, and how they differ in their exegesis.
Here are two passages from the Bible that both CBMW and CBE think support their respective claims about gender:
Ephesians 5:21-33 (New International Version)
Wives and Husbands
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[b] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.Briefly speaking, with respect to the first passage, an evangelical feminist is tempted to say it must be read in the greater context of scripture, that is to say, in light of (among other passages) Galatians 3:28. As such, those passages are directives for "mutual submission" as opposed to hierarchy, ont heir view.
Complementarians, on the other hand, use passages like Ephesians to show that an inerrantist reading must take hierarchy into account, even though Galatians 3:28 shows that men and women equally share in salvation, even though not in earthly leadership.
So, what's the point of all this? Well it has serious implications for: the ordination of women, social support for female career aspirations, gender-inclusive Biblical translation, and many many other issues of every-day import to all people and families. CBMW publishes semi-practical advice for their adherents; I'd like to post some of it here for concluding amusement. Thank you!
Complementarian Singles: Who Should I Marry?
Walt Alexander
April 17, 2008[Single female readers of Girl Talk and single male readers of Man Speak are regularly encouraged to prepare for marriage. Then the challenging and intoxicating process of discernment can begin (whether called courtship, rescued dating, or whatever) to answer the question posed in the title of this post. Walt Alexander is a regular contributor at Man Speak and provides the second part of a two-day challenge for single complementarians. — David Kotter]
If we become the "right" person who is prepared to marry, who should we "court" with the intention to marry?
This is a list to consider:
1. We should court someone who is a Christian. Because we — as Christians — are forbidden by Scripture to marry a non-Christian (2 Cor 6:14-15), we should not court one. This is a no-brainer. If you are courting/dating a non-Christian, break up with them.
PS - I might repost this on my blog, or a link to it, if anyone starts to care to generate more discussion.
Labels: evangelicalism, feminism, history, religion
Once upon a time, there was a virtuous Public Relations man named Marty. He was always careful to cross the street only at the corners, gave beggars his spare change, and drove his car under the speed limit.
One day, while Marty was at Culver’s, God spoke to him.
“MARTY, PUT DOWN THAT CHEESBURGER.”
Marty looked around, figuring that the voice had come over the speakers in the restaurant. He was just about to take another bite when a spark flew between the burger and his nose. He dropped the unfinished sandwich, dabbing the scorched spot on his face with a napkin.
“I TOLD YOU TO PUT THE CHEESBURGER DOWN. THIS IS GOD. I AM IN NEED OF A PROPHET, FOR MAN IS EATING THE ANIMALS WITH WHICH I HAVE GRACED THE EARTH. THIS MUST STOP, NOW, LEST MY RATH BE FELT. YOU, MARTY, SHALL BE THAT PROPHET.”
Marty looked around, but no one else seemed to have heard the booming voice. Since one does not refuse God, he agreed to be His prophet and guide mankind away from the misuse of His creatures. He left the restaurant that day with a mission.
Marty was a good ad-man as well as being a good man. Soon, pamphlets and posters were everywhere, outlining an irrefutable case for vegan living. Converted movie stars bought full-page ads in the New York Times that showed imprisoned chickens and tortured veal calves.
The CEOs of the food industry called a special meeting to deal with the problems that Marty presented. They launched an ad blitz to counter the one the vegans were promoting. Their lobbyists in the government got legislation passed that would tie subsidies for school lunches to a minimum amount of meat in them. They gave grants to research institutions that would prove animal products to be essential to the health of human beings, especially children.
Now, Marty’s followers were in a panic. There was no way in which they could live their lives without having themselves and their children surrounded by the foods that God had forbidden. One teenage girl, Nellie, became fond of lying to her parents and going to Steak n’ Shake after school instead of Bible study. Others of the followers had just one egg, every now and then, with breakfast.
Marty realized that they were all in trouble, so he prayed. “What shall we do, God? My followers are being tempted by the fleshpots of the world. How can we stay pure to our message and do Your Will?”
“MARTY, YOU SHALL GO TO TEXAS.”
“Please, God, not Texas, take this bitter cup from me, please.”
“YOU SHALL GO TO TEXAS AND MAKE A CITY FOR ME. IN THIS CITY, ANIMALS SHALL BE HELD SACRED. YOU SHALL WEAR NOTHING FROM THEIR SKINS. YOU SHALL NOT DRINK OF THEIR MILK OR EAT OF THEIR EGGS. YOU SHALL NOT EAT OF THE MEAT OF THEIR BODIES, LEST YE DIE. GO NOW; LEAD YOUR PEOPLE TO THE PROMISED LAND.”
Doing as he was told, Marty gathered his followers—young and old, white, brown, and black, Republican and Democrat, and took them to a place in Texas where there were only a few other people. There, they built a prosperous city and lived in harmony with each other and the world.
All was not well, however. The others who lived within that county were jealous, for the vegans were prosperous, had beautiful homes, and voted for those who agreed with their God’s plan.
The minister at the Baptist Church said, “God doesn’t talk to anyone directly. Marty must be a false prophet. They are doing the work of Satan and must be stopped.”
The old fat lady at the beauty shop said, “Have you seen the way that they dress? None of them weigh much over 150 pounds—it’s not natural. They never come into town to go to restaurants or buy food at the grocery stores, there’s got to be something wrong going on out there.”
Then, the cattlemen said, “They don’t eat meat. Look at this here research—meat is essential for the well-being of people. It’s all right for adults to act in crazy ways, but think of those poor, abused children who will never be healthy in their lives.”
The county officials shook their heads. “We can’t do anything about this. No one knows what really goes on inside their compound. We can make contingency plans for a case where we have justification, but don’t expect anything anytime soon.”
Nellie, the girl who liked cheeseburgers, was hungry at lunch one day. She pushed the tofu on her plate out of the way and speared the broccoli with disgust. She would have liked to go into town to the Jack in the Box, but her parents had forbidden it. Damn it, she knew how to get even. She pulled her cell phone out of her pocket as soon as her parents were working in the garden and punched out the number of Child Protective Services.
“Hello, I’m from the compound down the road. Yeah, I want to report child abuse. I am being forced to eat an unnatural diet that doesn’t have what I need, nutritionally. No, I can’t give you my name, I’m afraid I’d be punished.”
This was the chance that the officials had been waiting for. The friendly judge issued a warrant and police and social-service agents raided the compound, hauling off all of the children who lived there. They grudgingly allowed the children’s mothers to come along with them to the compound where they were taken, but neither Marty nor the other men were allowed to come along. Nellie smiled to herself as she rode in the van with the other children.
Lawyers were appointed for the children, even though none of them asked. Four or five days later, when none of the children had told of anything unusual other than the restriction of diet, the mothers were sent back to the compound, since the social-service agents claimed abused children were more likely to tell of it if separated from their parents. Finally, after repeated questioning, a few of the children told of being punished by spanking or of being sent to their room without supper for discipline.
This was all that the authorities needed. Mass trials were held, the vegans were held as unfit parents and the children were sent to adoptive homes where they ate meat and wore leather and furs, just like everyone else. None of them ever saw their parents again. Nellie devoured steak after steak and married a cattle rancher.
Marty was convicted of child abuse and endangerment and sent to prison for twenty years where he died after being raped by three men who chanted “child abuser” while they took turns beating him during sex.
God, realizing mankind had not learned anything in the last two thousand years, sadly pushed his halo back and returned to making Dark Matter.
Tom
I want to say from the outset, I am extremely reluctant to discuss this whole matter of Obama's recent "bitter" comments, with which I'm sure everybody's familiar. There is an obvious and explicit desire on this blog to discuss things that are important and interesting. The trouble is that oftentimes, situations will arise in which a news story is both wholly irrelevant and highly reported on. It is a struggle to know how to deal with those things. On the one hand, they deserve to be ignored. On the other hand, to ignore them entirely is to leave the issue to be discussed only by demagogues and political opportunists. So it's a tough spot for somebody who tries to engage in value-adding commentary rather than noise, even if only on a meager blog like this one.All that throat-clearing by way of saying I'm gonna talk about this, but I think it's really dumb.
What I want to talk about in particular are two instances of the same criticism of Obama's comments that I encountered within a few minutes of one another. It's a criticism not without merit (unlike, say, Hillary Clinton's absurd grandstanding). First, Tyler Cowen, in a post that is only partially critical, notes that "guns and religion do not closely track economic decline." Second, I asked on G-chat what co-contributor Billy thought about the subject, to which he in part replied:
him saying that economic conditions compel their frustrations was dishonestbecause i don't honestly see the correlation between economic conditions and religion or hunting, but it is possible to see a nexus between economic conditions and anti-immigrant or anti-trade sentimentsthose people would be just as religious and prone to hunting no matter the state of the economy
Now, that's certainly true, but I think it reflects a misunderstanding of what Obama was saying (a misunderstanding that even Obama has admitted he brought upon himself, but still). I think what Obama was trying to say was something he expressed in a much better way on the Charlie Rose show in late 2004:
As I think is made clear by this clip, Obama's argument is not that people hunt and believe in God because they are in dire straits economically. Rather, it's that people who are in dire straits economically base their votes on the fact that they hunt and believe in God. It's not a causal relationship between being poor and having particular values; it's a causal relationship between being poor and voting based on those values. The argument is that these people don't trust politicians to actually help them recover from their economic problems, so they just vote for the politician who is saying that the traditions and values that they can rely on will not be assaulted and taken away (even if that politician in reality makes their economic problems worse).
Is that a generalization of the rural working class and the rural poor? Yes. Is it a generalization that in large part relies on the assumption that this is a group of people (though not the only group of people) that is not invested in the details of public policy? Yes. Does that make it elitist and out-of-touch? I don't think so.
Whatever one can say about Obama's statements, I don't think one can fairly listen to his tone and find any judgment of the type of people he's talking about. Indeed, he tends to make this argument as a way of criticizing the Democratic elite for not being respectful and conscious of the cultural values he's talking about. These people are busy working at whatever jobs they can find, trying to raise their families as best they know how, he seems to be saying. We have to do a better job communicating to them, and more importantly, when we do get in power, we need to actually help them.
In the end, it's about delivering the goods - Democrats, because of their stances on cultural issues, cannot win over these voters unless they can be trusted to help improve these voters' lives. But Democrats have failed to do that in any really big way since the days of FDR (and, to a lesser extent, LBJ). Given the current political conditions in the country, I suspect Obama will get his chance to deliver those goods starting next January. We'll see how he performs.
As I think is made clear by this clip, Obama's argument is not that people hunt and believe in God because they are in dire straits economically. Rather, it's that people who are in dire straits economically base their votes on the fact that they hunt and believe in God. It's not a causal relationship between being poor and having particular values; it's a causal relationship between being poor and voting based on those values. The argument is that these people don't trust politicians to actually help them recover from their economic problems, so they just vote for the politician who is saying that the traditions and values that they can rely on will not be assaulted and taken away (even if that politician in reality makes their economic problems worse).
Is that a generalization of the rural working class and the rural poor? Yes. Is it a generalization that in large part relies on the assumption that this is a group of people (though not the only group of people) that is not invested in the details of public policy? Yes. Does that make it elitist and out-of-touch? I don't think so.
Whatever one can say about Obama's statements, I don't think one can fairly listen to his tone and find any judgment of the type of people he's talking about. Indeed, he tends to make this argument as a way of criticizing the Democratic elite for not being respectful and conscious of the cultural values he's talking about. These people are busy working at whatever jobs they can find, trying to raise their families as best they know how, he seems to be saying. We have to do a better job communicating to them, and more importantly, when we do get in power, we need to actually help them.
In the end, it's about delivering the goods - Democrats, because of their stances on cultural issues, cannot win over these voters unless they can be trusted to help improve these voters' lives. But Democrats have failed to do that in any really big way since the days of FDR (and, to a lesser extent, LBJ). Given the current political conditions in the country, I suspect Obama will get his chance to deliver those goods starting next January. We'll see how he performs.
I know this blog has seen its fair share of religious debate, so I'm reluctant to even write this post, but a friend of mine called me out via e-mail and requested my public rebuttal of this claim by John Gray (via Andrew Sullivan) about "contemporary atheism":
What I object to is the attempt by many religious people to remove that discussion from the realm of reasoned discourse entirely, as though there is something peculiar about religion that frees it from the burden of having to respond to criticism. We should all, of course, be tolerant and respectful of one another's views, whether political, philosophical, or religious. And there are obviously people of all political parties, philosophies, and religions who are decidedly not tolerant and respectful, with atheism being no exception. But I don't believe that because many atheists want to engage in a public exchange of ideas on the subject of religion, and because atheists think they have a persuasive case to make in their favor, that this necessarily makes them intolerant or disrespectful, any more than the works of St. Thomas Aquinas are intolerant or disrespectful.
Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.I'll try to keep this short: I don't have a problem with a "missionary creed," whether it be on the part of atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or whomever. The reason I found this debate between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris so interesting was not just because it allowed me to read Harris's best case supporting atheism, but also because it allowed me to read Sullivan's best case supporting faith. There are any number of reasonable, enlightened people out there who can lay out a persuasive argument in favor of religious belief, and not only do I not have a problem with those people trying to make that argument to me, I find the discussion stimulating and worthwhile.
What I object to is the attempt by many religious people to remove that discussion from the realm of reasoned discourse entirely, as though there is something peculiar about religion that frees it from the burden of having to respond to criticism. We should all, of course, be tolerant and respectful of one another's views, whether political, philosophical, or religious. And there are obviously people of all political parties, philosophies, and religions who are decidedly not tolerant and respectful, with atheism being no exception. But I don't believe that because many atheists want to engage in a public exchange of ideas on the subject of religion, and because atheists think they have a persuasive case to make in their favor, that this necessarily makes them intolerant or disrespectful, any more than the works of St. Thomas Aquinas are intolerant or disrespectful.
Buck already covered Obama's speech and voiced a pretty much identical opinion to my own. But I just wanted to note this: at this point, we have seen Obama give probably the best speech on the confluence of race and politics, as well as the best speech on the confluence of religion and politics, that we have seen in at least a generation, not to mention one of the greatest speeches at a party convention, which itself might be described as one of the best speeches on the confluence of partisanship and politics. He's also written one of the few political books by politicians that people seem to actually like.
Yes, those are all just words. But they're also ideas - ideas of great substance that possess a power and a depth and a level of nuance that most politicians dare not express. Obama's presidency would make history in a number of obvious ways, but I'm beginning to suspect that its greatest contribution might just be that it creates a successful model for other politicians to treat Americans as though they are actually intelligent human beings. Or maybe this will just be unique to him. Either way, this is a moment to savor.
Yes, those are all just words. But they're also ideas - ideas of great substance that possess a power and a depth and a level of nuance that most politicians dare not express. Obama's presidency would make history in a number of obvious ways, but I'm beginning to suspect that its greatest contribution might just be that it creates a successful model for other politicians to treat Americans as though they are actually intelligent human beings. Or maybe this will just be unique to him. Either way, this is a moment to savor.
Obama quickly responded to the political controversy of the day: several controversial statements from past sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Instead of making a public statement, he wrote this Op-ed for the Huffington Post.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, religion
So Harvard University recently enacted a policy in which its gym is open exclusively to women for six hours a week in order to accommodate the religious customs of Muslim women that make it difficult for some of them to work out in the presence of men.
What follows is a spectacular encapsulation of all the danger and promise that the blogosphere offers.
First, Glenn Reynolds asks whether the Harvard policy violates the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law.
Eugene Volokh then puts together a thoughtful if somewhat technical post responding to this question. Volokh first quotes a press release from Professor John Banzhaf saying that the policy probably is a violation. But then Volokh suggests that the relevant statute wouldn't apply to Harvard, and so it isn't a violation.
Andrew Sullivan, in a post titled "Sharia at Harvard," makes my ugh-o-meter go off the charts by responding to the policy thusly:
Noah Millman at the American Scene then takes the whole thing up a notch and asks, "Does anyone think Harvard would have made allowances to male Muslim students who didn’t want to exercise around women?"
Phew!
Honestly, I don't know what to think about the Harvard policy. I would have to know more about how much of a burden such a policy places on the men who want to work out at the gym. In the end, I doubt that I would find it objectionable.
But what this whole thing does illustrate is what the blogosphere is good and bad at doing. On the one hand, the post by Volokh shows how much easier it is now for a casual observer to get a more detailed, expert analysis of the questions surrounding a particular issue. On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan's post shows how easy it is for bloggers to shoot off emotion-driven posts that oversimplify the issues in order to advance a sexier, culture-warrior sort of argument. On the third hand (we're bloggers, we have lots of hands), Yglesias's post shows how easy it is to smack somebody down who says something stupid. And on the fourth hand, Millman's post shows how the blogosphere creates an atmosphere in which quirky, original ideas and questions can come forth and bubble up to the top if they pique people's interest.
On the whole I feel pretty good about it.
What follows is a spectacular encapsulation of all the danger and promise that the blogosphere offers.
First, Glenn Reynolds asks whether the Harvard policy violates the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law.
Eugene Volokh then puts together a thoughtful if somewhat technical post responding to this question. Volokh first quotes a press release from Professor John Banzhaf saying that the policy probably is a violation. But then Volokh suggests that the relevant statute wouldn't apply to Harvard, and so it isn't a violation.
Andrew Sullivan, in a post titled "Sharia at Harvard," makes my ugh-o-meter go off the charts by responding to the policy thusly:
They would never do that kind of thing for any other religion. If a religion refuses to allow men and women to work out together in public, then its adherents need to work out at home. What's next? Removing all gay men from the locker-room? This is the West, guys. Get over yourselves.Matthew Yglesias, in response to Sullivan, points out that Harvard and every other institute of higher education, as well as every elementary and high school in the country, shuts down and creates a holiday that just happens to coincide with Christmas, whereas no such holiday is created for Passover. He adds that when he was a student at Harvard there was a policy against starting any kind of fire in dorm rooms and that there was a movement to create an exemption for Jewish students to light Hannukah candles, arguing that such an exemption "certainly wouldn't constitute the dawning of a new era of Jewish theocratic rule at the university."
Noah Millman at the American Scene then takes the whole thing up a notch and asks, "Does anyone think Harvard would have made allowances to male Muslim students who didn’t want to exercise around women?"
Phew!
Honestly, I don't know what to think about the Harvard policy. I would have to know more about how much of a burden such a policy places on the men who want to work out at the gym. In the end, I doubt that I would find it objectionable.
But what this whole thing does illustrate is what the blogosphere is good and bad at doing. On the one hand, the post by Volokh shows how much easier it is now for a casual observer to get a more detailed, expert analysis of the questions surrounding a particular issue. On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan's post shows how easy it is for bloggers to shoot off emotion-driven posts that oversimplify the issues in order to advance a sexier, culture-warrior sort of argument. On the third hand (we're bloggers, we have lots of hands), Yglesias's post shows how easy it is to smack somebody down who says something stupid. And on the fourth hand, Millman's post shows how the blogosphere creates an atmosphere in which quirky, original ideas and questions can come forth and bubble up to the top if they pique people's interest.
On the whole I feel pretty good about it.
Last September, I included in my future history a mention of The Church of the Great Programmer, which was dedicated to finding ways to level up faster in the great Multiplayer Game in which we all exist.
Yesterday, I ran across this discussion (h/t to Future Scanner) on the physical evidence for our existence being a simulation. I was particularly fascinated by the speed of light being seen as the rate at which information can go across the big computer that's running the simulation and the Planck constant being a measure of the size of one pixel.
There are also a number of philosophical concepts that impact on this--the problem of evil with a good Creator (evil is there so that we can get XP by defeating it,) epiphanies (I can write fiction after suffering a heart attack because I got enough XP to level up and get a new skill,) and even omniscence--since a game designer can not know things about what he's created.
Hell, it even explains the NIU massacre--the player running that guy walked away and his little brother (who's a total noob) ran the character and got it killed off.
Last I heard, there was about a 20% proability that all this was true. You engineers, and especially Todd, should read the full paper.
Tom
Yesterday, I ran across this discussion (h/t to Future Scanner) on the physical evidence for our existence being a simulation. I was particularly fascinated by the speed of light being seen as the rate at which information can go across the big computer that's running the simulation and the Planck constant being a measure of the size of one pixel.
There are also a number of philosophical concepts that impact on this--the problem of evil with a good Creator (evil is there so that we can get XP by defeating it,) epiphanies (I can write fiction after suffering a heart attack because I got enough XP to level up and get a new skill,) and even omniscence--since a game designer can not know things about what he's created.
Hell, it even explains the NIU massacre--the player running that guy walked away and his little brother (who's a total noob) ran the character and got it killed off.
Last I heard, there was about a 20% proability that all this was true. You engineers, and especially Todd, should read the full paper.
Tom
Labels: computer games, philosophy, religion, Tet
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, religion
So I live down the street from the Uptown Theater in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, DC. It's a great old single-screen theater with facilities and presentation that are probably the best I've ever seen (though the Moolah in St. Louis is up there too). I recently saw a screening of the final cut of Blade Runner at the Uptown and was very impressed, and I recently learned that it hosted the world premier of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. The point being that while I've only been living in DC for a few months, I've already grown rather affectionate toward this theater.
You can then imagine my disappointment when I learned that the Uptown is planning to rent out the theater to a virulently anti-gay evangelical megachurch. The McLean Bible Church wants to make the theater home to one of nine satellite "campuses" designed to create a "spiritual beltway" around Washington. The church's senior pastor, Lon Solomon, has said homosexuality is a "bridge to despair, confusion, loneliness, depression, promiscuity, guilt, self-hate, loathing and self-destruction, but Jesus Christ can set you free," and the church has an "Out of Darkness" ministry that offers treatment for various "forms of sexual brokenness," including "same-sex attraction."
Many of the residents of Cleveland Park have raised objections to the idea of their neighborhood becoming home to an extension of this church. The church needs a zoning variance in order to conduct its operations at the Uptown, which requires approval from the city's zoning board.
The neighborhood's Yahoo! group became host to much of the debate. One poster wrote, "I do not welcome any anti-gay or anti-lesbian group to the neighborhood. I will not tolerate hate groups." Another wrote that he opposes the church's "Hezbollah model toward establishing a theocracy."
One gay resident disagreed, writing that it is "positively un-American to try to use the zoning law to keep a religious institution out of the neighborhood because you personally detest its theology and social and political beliefs."
While the idea of the Uptown renting its space to this church makes me sad, I'm also uneasy about the idea of restricting it from doing so (it's hard to argue this isn't a First Amendment issue, right?). This is especially true since single-screen theaters like the Uptown have been struggling financially recently, and leasing to this church could help it stay in business and keep it from being "turned into a Walgreen's," as another gay resident of the neighborhood argued. I really love this theater, and if renting it out to hate-mongers keeps it from closing its doors, I feel like I have to say go for it, don't I?
It is, however, utterly moronic that churches like this get tax-exempt status. The senior pastor says things like, "Any political candidate that espouses gay rights, we have a responsibility to ensure that they never get into office. If they do, the consequences to this nation will be dire...It's a fight we dare not lose." Why religious organizations get tax-exempt status at all is beyond me, but this isn't even a religious organization, it's a political one (and likely a fairly powerful one at that).
Anyway. The whole thing makes me a little depressed. Maybe I should go see a movie.
Labels: Brian, free speech, movies, religion
My position-taking, at times, is a bit of a high-wire act. In recent days and weeks, my opposition to religious belief has been laid out in some depth (see the comments here and here for the most recent examples). In the somewhat more distant past, on the other hand, Billy and I have exchanged blows over my "political correctness," or my tendency at times to call for restraint where others might perceive a free speech interest (most notably here).
There's a fairly obvious tension here, and it comes to a head with issues like Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which is coming up this Monday. It was started by conservative academic David Horowitz in an effort to "confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the War on Terror and that global warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat."
Joshua Cohen, a professor at Stanford and the editor of the Boston Review, and Glenn Loury, a professor at Brown, discussed the week on bloggingheads.tv (a fantastic site that everybody should visit regularly) here (the whole diavlog is good, but this the part about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week). Watch the whole discussion, but what caught my attention in particular was this exchange:
It is wrong, therefore, to argue that Islam causes radical, terrorist ideologies, which the use of the term "Islamo-fascism" implies. It's important, I think, for people not to make that mistake, or to make the mistake of arguing that Christianity causes homophobia or sexism. More accurately, religion enables these hateful ideologies, is used to justify these ideologies, and, most importantly, constructs an impenetrable wall around these ideologies because religion does not subject itself to reasoned analysis.
I don't want to get into yet another debate over religion (we've covered that ground ad nauseam). I would, however, be interested in hearing some discussion on the use of the term "Islamo-fascism," and whether it's a term that is appropriate to use in our discourse.
There's a fairly obvious tension here, and it comes to a head with issues like Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which is coming up this Monday. It was started by conservative academic David Horowitz in an effort to "confront the two Big Lies of the political left: that George Bush created the War on Terror and that global warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat."
Joshua Cohen, a professor at Stanford and the editor of the Boston Review, and Glenn Loury, a professor at Brown, discussed the week on bloggingheads.tv (a fantastic site that everybody should visit regularly) here (the whole diavlog is good, but this the part about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week). Watch the whole discussion, but what caught my attention in particular was this exchange:
Cohen: There's a long tradition of thinking that Nazism was Christo-fascism, [that] this was Christian antisemitism. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but there's a long tradition of thinking that by sincere and decent people, that this is Christian antisemitism's ultimate expression. Now, I think it would be awful if people stopped talking about Nazis and the Holocaust in Germany and started talking about the Holocaust committed by the Christo-fascists, even though you can argue the case that those were the roots of that. And I think it's absurd to think that Christians, whether Catholics or Protestants, whatever their form of Christianity, who think that the Holocaust was...a hideous evil, would say, "Oh, you know, Christo-fascism, that doesn't mean me." They'd be offended by it, they'd be disgusted by it. And the idea that it's okay to talk about Islamo-Fascism because there are people who make a defense from within Islam for the use of terror[ist] bombings, that that makes it okay to talk about Islamo-fascism, I think that's ridiculous, as ridiculous as thinking that it's okay to stop talking about Nazism and start talking about Christo-fascism.This is tricky territory for me, since I'm always eager to point to Islamist terrorists as an example of how religion can damage a culture, but at the same time, I have to agree with Cohen and Loury on this. Disagreeing with religion because it can lead to dangerous ideas is entirely separate from using a term that helps to equate an entire religion with an evil ideology. I believe that religion in all forms hurts people, and that even moderate Muslims should abandon their faith since even their moderate adherence to religion enables a harmful method of thought. But nuance is essential here, and sensitivity to members of all religious faiths is paramount if atheists such as myself are to have any hope of not being pegged as hateful and intolerant. That goes for Christians, Jews, and everybody else as well.
Loury: Yeah, well, you know, when 50 Cent, the rapper, was being questioned aggressively about the use of "bitches" and "hoes" and all that kind of rhetoric, his answer on one occasion was, "Well, you know, there really are bitches and hoes in the ghetto." And, I mean, the fallacy of the reasoning is that because one might be able to find an instance in which someone's behavior might be more or less accurately described with one of these pejorative terms doesn't undo the damage that's done to an entire class of people by the routine use of the term... And the fact that there are Islamists who behave like fascists doesn't undo what seems to me to be the damage done by the easy, widespread, public evocation of this construction.
It is wrong, therefore, to argue that Islam causes radical, terrorist ideologies, which the use of the term "Islamo-fascism" implies. It's important, I think, for people not to make that mistake, or to make the mistake of arguing that Christianity causes homophobia or sexism. More accurately, religion enables these hateful ideologies, is used to justify these ideologies, and, most importantly, constructs an impenetrable wall around these ideologies because religion does not subject itself to reasoned analysis.
I don't want to get into yet another debate over religion (we've covered that ground ad nauseam). I would, however, be interested in hearing some discussion on the use of the term "Islamo-fascism," and whether it's a term that is appropriate to use in our discourse.
Labels: Brian, foreign policy, free speech, religion
EVIL RELIGIOUS LEADERS KILL INNOCENTS!
38 Comments Published by tet on Monday, October 1 at 7:30 AM.
Oops, sorry, I've got that exactly backwards:
EVIL SECULAR LEADERS KILL PACIFIST MONKS
Burma is just one more example of what I've been saying in here for over a year--Religion is the brake system on the tendency of humans to do evil, particularly when they're in positions of power. Keep in mind that those Buddhist monks don't believe in a God any more than most of you atheists. Their faith, however, gave them the strength to oppose a truly despicable regime.
I pray for their safety and the eventual overthrow of their government.
UPDATE: As of noon Eastern time, it looks like the death toll is in the thousands. There are new photographs at the above site. What I want to know is, "Where all the activist groups that normally bitch about everything while this is going on? "
Tom
EVIL SECULAR LEADERS KILL PACIFIST MONKS
Burma is just one more example of what I've been saying in here for over a year--Religion is the brake system on the tendency of humans to do evil, particularly when they're in positions of power. Keep in mind that those Buddhist monks don't believe in a God any more than most of you atheists. Their faith, however, gave them the strength to oppose a truly despicable regime.
I pray for their safety and the eventual overthrow of their government.
UPDATE: As of noon Eastern time, it looks like the death toll is in the thousands. There are new photographs at the above site. What I want to know is, "Where all the activist groups that normally bitch about everything while this is going on? "
Tom
Labels: current events, government, religion, Tet
This evening I'm flipping through pages of former Majority Leader Bob Dole's book "Great Political Wit: Laughing (Almost) All the Way to the White House." I'm a big fan of quotation books, particularly those with a healthy share of Churchill wit. Dole's book is a light read, and an amusing collection. Each chapter begins with a story or reflection from Leader Dole and continues with a well thought out list of political quotes. Most of these will already be known to a serious fan of political history, but all in all, this is a solid little collection.
One quote that struck me in particular, probably due in part to Brenda Kay's great column on teaching the Bible still going through my head, was a quote by a former U.S. Senate chaplain:
When Edward Everett Hale served as chaplain of the Senate, he was asked, "Do you pray for the Senators, Dr. Hale?"
"No," he said. "I look at the Senators and pray for the country."
One quote that struck me in particular, probably due in part to Brenda Kay's great column on teaching the Bible still going through my head, was a quote by a former U.S. Senate chaplain:
When Edward Everett Hale served as chaplain of the Senate, he was asked, "Do you pray for the Senators, Dr. Hale?"
"No," he said. "I look at the Senators and pray for the country."
Gay Drama Queens and the Psychology of Religious Belief
5 Comments Published by Brian on Wednesday, August 15 at 10:22 PM.
Via Andrew Sullivan, I read the following quote taken from an interview with Steve Schalchlin in the San Francisco Sentinel (Schalchlin has produced several successful musicals in SF):
A while ago, I found myself in a conversation with Billy, Augur, and Jon about the truth and value of religion. It was an interesting conversation, perhaps because of the various positions represented: Billy the committed believer, Jon the agnostic, myself the atheist, and Augur representing a somewhat amorphous "religion is useful" position. In the course of the discussion, Augur argued that without religious belief, it becomes difficult to maintain a "sense of purpose" in one's life.
The knee-jerk atheist reaction to this argument is to ask "who cares?" since it quite obviously provides no reason to believe religion is true, only perhaps that it is useful. Nevertheless, any atheist who wishes to persuade others should not ignore the power of this kind of reasoning. Whether it is intellectually honest or not, many people are religious believers because their faith helps them to organize their lives. Faith can help to resolve certain unanswerable or difficult-to-answer questions, from "How did the universe come into being?" to "What happens after I die?" to "Is there such a thing as moral rightness?" to perhaps the most psychologically fundamental question of all: "Does my life have meaning and purpose?"
And so it is rather important to squarely confront the "religion is useful" argument. Two of the most common responses to this argument are, in my view, entirely true but also somewhat evasive. First is the argument I've already mentioned: whether religion is useful has nothing to do with whether it is true. Second is the argument Christopher Hitchens relies upon: far from being useful, religion actually "poisons everything." This position has been discussed ad nauseam, including on this blog.
But here's the central problem atheists face: neither of these arguments can truly sway the man who says, essentially, "I believe God exists because I couldn't face a reality in which he doesn't."
Atheists can use such believers to mock religion as nothing more than a psychological crutch, and while I think they'd be right, I also think their point is useless and often counter-productive. While atheists are good at a great many things, they have not so far been successful in finding a way to make atheism "warm and fuzzy," so to speak, and it is this fatal flaw that until corrected will continue to make atheism wholly unappealing to a great many people.
And so I return to gay people and the theater. Schalchlin's point in the quote above is quite sound. While obviously not all gay people turn to the stage, it has been seldom indeed that I have encountered a gay person who has not either (1) reconciled their faith with their sexuality or (2) created some other temple for their spiritual expression, whether the theater, the runway, the courthouse, or the Capitol. Rare is the homosexual who does not at least have an avid interest in either entertainment or politics, if not both. (The exceptions, of course, are many, most notably in those gay men and women whose spiritual exile has led to lives of little meaning beyond sexual promiscuity, or worse, who have surrendered their search for meaning and ended their own lives.)
This almost certainly helps to explain why the gay community is disproportionately useful to society (being on average better educated, wealthier, and more powerful), but more importantly, it helps to shed light on how exactly atheists can squarely respond to the assertion that without religion, it is too difficult to find meaning and purpose in the world. In reality, it is surprisingly easy to do so, and provides a more solid foundation upon which to live a productive, happy, and important existence. True meaning does not take form by making God a placeholder for all our gaps in understanding, and atheism does not open the door to nihilism, but rather to a universe of spiritual expression that is far more satisfying than can be found in any church or ancient text. We need to start saying so, and making a convincing case for it, or no matter how sound our arguments are, we will always find ourselves on the losing side of history.
Gay people who are raised in a religious environment, a conservative religious environment, are basically told, "You're not good enough / you don't belong here / you need to change / you need to be something else." And so, in a lot of our lives, we end up leaving the church and hating god or hating religion or hating the whole nine yards. But an inherently spiritual person doesn’t really lose the core of their being. So it’s going to come out somewhere.As a gay man and an atheist, the quote captured my interest and got me thinking about the nature of religious belief. Here are my rather long-winded thoughts.
I think that what we discovered is that it comes out of theatre, because theatre and church are essentially the same thing. They are story-telling, they are inspirational, and they are true. Theatre brings an even higher truth sometimes. Church basically repeats the same old story over and over again. I often wonder if that’s not one of the reasons so many gay people wind up getting into theatre. We’re always told that the reasons are because we're used to hiding and wearing masks and being somebody else. But I think there's something more profound.
A while ago, I found myself in a conversation with Billy, Augur, and Jon about the truth and value of religion. It was an interesting conversation, perhaps because of the various positions represented: Billy the committed believer, Jon the agnostic, myself the atheist, and Augur representing a somewhat amorphous "religion is useful" position. In the course of the discussion, Augur argued that without religious belief, it becomes difficult to maintain a "sense of purpose" in one's life.
The knee-jerk atheist reaction to this argument is to ask "who cares?" since it quite obviously provides no reason to believe religion is true, only perhaps that it is useful. Nevertheless, any atheist who wishes to persuade others should not ignore the power of this kind of reasoning. Whether it is intellectually honest or not, many people are religious believers because their faith helps them to organize their lives. Faith can help to resolve certain unanswerable or difficult-to-answer questions, from "How did the universe come into being?" to "What happens after I die?" to "Is there such a thing as moral rightness?" to perhaps the most psychologically fundamental question of all: "Does my life have meaning and purpose?"
And so it is rather important to squarely confront the "religion is useful" argument. Two of the most common responses to this argument are, in my view, entirely true but also somewhat evasive. First is the argument I've already mentioned: whether religion is useful has nothing to do with whether it is true. Second is the argument Christopher Hitchens relies upon: far from being useful, religion actually "poisons everything." This position has been discussed ad nauseam, including on this blog.
But here's the central problem atheists face: neither of these arguments can truly sway the man who says, essentially, "I believe God exists because I couldn't face a reality in which he doesn't."
Atheists can use such believers to mock religion as nothing more than a psychological crutch, and while I think they'd be right, I also think their point is useless and often counter-productive. While atheists are good at a great many things, they have not so far been successful in finding a way to make atheism "warm and fuzzy," so to speak, and it is this fatal flaw that until corrected will continue to make atheism wholly unappealing to a great many people.
And so I return to gay people and the theater. Schalchlin's point in the quote above is quite sound. While obviously not all gay people turn to the stage, it has been seldom indeed that I have encountered a gay person who has not either (1) reconciled their faith with their sexuality or (2) created some other temple for their spiritual expression, whether the theater, the runway, the courthouse, or the Capitol. Rare is the homosexual who does not at least have an avid interest in either entertainment or politics, if not both. (The exceptions, of course, are many, most notably in those gay men and women whose spiritual exile has led to lives of little meaning beyond sexual promiscuity, or worse, who have surrendered their search for meaning and ended their own lives.)
This almost certainly helps to explain why the gay community is disproportionately useful to society (being on average better educated, wealthier, and more powerful), but more importantly, it helps to shed light on how exactly atheists can squarely respond to the assertion that without religion, it is too difficult to find meaning and purpose in the world. In reality, it is surprisingly easy to do so, and provides a more solid foundation upon which to live a productive, happy, and important existence. True meaning does not take form by making God a placeholder for all our gaps in understanding, and atheism does not open the door to nihilism, but rather to a universe of spiritual expression that is far more satisfying than can be found in any church or ancient text. We need to start saying so, and making a convincing case for it, or no matter how sound our arguments are, we will always find ourselves on the losing side of history.
My Favorite Atheist Talks About Religion and the Arts
4 Comments Published by tet on Monday, August 6 at 12:05 PM.
A tip of the Hatlo Hat goes to Vox Day for linking to this wonderful discussion by Camille Paglia in Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics.
This, in particular spoke to me:
"To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms. Art began as religion in prehistory. It does not require belief to be moved by a sacred shrine, icon, or scripture. Hence art lovers, even when as citizens they stoutly defend democratic institutions against religious intrusion, should always speak with respect of religion. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to expand their parched and narrow view of culture. Every vibrant civilization welcomes and nurtures the arts."
There are also links to three other talks by the Divine Ms. P on the page. I highly recommend them for those who want to delve further into her philosophy.
Tom
This, in particular spoke to me:
"To fully appreciate world art, one must learn how to respond to religious expression in all its forms. Art began as religion in prehistory. It does not require belief to be moved by a sacred shrine, icon, or scripture. Hence art lovers, even when as citizens they stoutly defend democratic institutions against religious intrusion, should always speak with respect of religion. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to expand their parched and narrow view of culture. Every vibrant civilization welcomes and nurtures the arts."
There are also links to three other talks by the Divine Ms. P on the page. I highly recommend them for those who want to delve further into her philosophy.
Tom
Labels: art, Camille Paglia, religion, Tet
Thoughts While Driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike
8 Comments Published by Billy Joe Mills on Friday, July 27 at 10:29 AM.
Voluptuous clouds pour over
Vaulted ceilings of the sky,
Sunbursts of the speaker escaping.
Vaulted ceilings of the sky,
Sunbursts of the speaker escaping.
Charmed by our own
We forget the altar of God,
Swarmed and warmed by blue and hue,
Cathedral in the sky, daily born anew.
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, God, religion
Woody Allen takes on Billy Graham. Why can't interviews like this happen on TV today?
Part I
Part II
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
Part I
Part II
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
Labels: Brian, entertainment, religion
A Promising Single, Can't Wait for the Full Length
20 Comments Published by Brian on Wednesday, May 23 at 8:26 PM.
The Westboro Baptist Church brings us a message we can all get behind: God hates the world.
I'm not sure I get the "You'll eat your children" part, but, hey, it's catchy.
I'm not sure I get the "You'll eat your children" part, but, hey, it's catchy.
Labels: Brian, entertainment, music, religion
During the Falwell discussion, I mentioned that his recruitment of the religious in order to pressure government to oppress people who were different than the ones that Congress was currently oppressing was a bad idea.
Vox Day explains in detail why this is the case in this column.
People often wonder how I, as a witch, can be so tolerant of Christianity, since the tenets of that religion dictate that I am hell-bound. Vox answers this today in a way that's more eloquent than anything I can come up with at the moment:
"Because God refuses to dictate right behavior through force, Christians are morally bound to do likewise except in the specific situations which God has commanded otherwise. Being freed from the Law by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Christians are not bound to stone adulterers and other sinners, but rather to present them with the Good News. Because the wages of sin are death, those who reject it and prefer their sin will be punished in good time without the interference of the Christian."
This is why real Christians don't make laws designed to punish gay people or to give themselves advantages as a group within the state. Such things are of the world and ultimately will corrupt the believer who gets involved with the government.
When Falwell took the step of exposing Christianity to the evils of government, a danger that Fundamentalists had traditionally avoided like Ba'alzebub himself, he led far too many down the primrose path to perdition.
Real religion is libertarian.
Tom
Vox Day explains in detail why this is the case in this column.
People often wonder how I, as a witch, can be so tolerant of Christianity, since the tenets of that religion dictate that I am hell-bound. Vox answers this today in a way that's more eloquent than anything I can come up with at the moment:
"Because God refuses to dictate right behavior through force, Christians are morally bound to do likewise except in the specific situations which God has commanded otherwise. Being freed from the Law by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Christians are not bound to stone adulterers and other sinners, but rather to present them with the Good News. Because the wages of sin are death, those who reject it and prefer their sin will be punished in good time without the interference of the Christian."
This is why real Christians don't make laws designed to punish gay people or to give themselves advantages as a group within the state. Such things are of the world and ultimately will corrupt the believer who gets involved with the government.
When Falwell took the step of exposing Christianity to the evils of government, a danger that Fundamentalists had traditionally avoided like Ba'alzebub himself, he led far too many down the primrose path to perdition.
Real religion is libertarian.
Tom
