Monday, December 28, 2009
I Find It Disturbing...
The failed attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight out of Amsterdam recently adds "fuel to the fire" that education does not "transform" one's commitment to religion's claims to radicalism. I find this disturbing, when educators think that all that is needed to transform the world is a little more information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Angie,
Now this is a post I completely agree with!
Don't you think that our biases do underwrite our commitments. And these biases are not easily "seen" acknowledged, or understood.
Ethics, as I said before, is acting according to universals of justice and truth. The problem, still, though is our biases. So, reason is not the "disease" that is rid by faith commitments of radicalization.
Yes, I believe indeed that biases do underwrite our commitments, but what I reject is your notion of universals like justice and truth. Just who gets to decide whose justice is universal and whose truth is the same? You seem to think that somehow democracy is a universal. And religion is perfectly capable of having a rational component. Theologians have discussed the place of reason for centuries. You seem to want to wipe all that away by drawing what are sweeping dichotomies. It is entirely possible to believe (as I do) that Jesus is the only way to salvation, while not wanting to force that on everybody. You seem to think that all religion by nature is coercive. That is like saying that the War in Iraq prooves that all democracy by nature in coercive.
We will have to agree to disagree, as religion is man's attempt to understand things that cannot be known in an absolute sense. I really wonder these days the value of religion, as the universal declaration of rights underline values of our American "ideals".
Though I agree, that we cannot have absolute justice, or truth, we strive for it and this is the value of a trial by jury and our rule of law, in general.And the value of scientific endeavor in the Academy.
But, our country is divided as to what is "just" when people look at different values and argue, but don't seem to understand the value of the argument, itself. We live in a free country where we can disagree and dissent and not be persecuted or thrown in jsil. THAT is of value itself!
Angie,
Yes, I quite agree in the value of the argument itself and the importance of it. I think that is what set me off on one of your recent posts. You seem to write of the religious as people you cannot have respect for (which obviously includes me), and therefore anything we religious folk have to offer as of value in the public arena is simply written off.
I apologize for being terse in some of my comments, but I wish you would seriously consider not painting religious folk and religion with such broad brush strokes. That does indeed make the conversation difficult as well.
Religion in the public square is not what I understand happened in our Founding, as these used religion, for the purposes of building consensus, and forming a "new nation", but did not agree as to the specificities in regards to religion.
Today, the religious can be assuming too much because of their belief in God's direct intervention in the world, as well as their commitment to inerrancy, infallibility, etc.. These also do not think that disagreement is 'holy", "just" or 'good" sometimes, because of their "commitment to truth" as they understand it in the Bible. Or, they submit to unjust rulers, because of their understanding of government and submission. Both are ill advised...
Today, it seems that similar things have happened in regards to religion in the public square. The use of religion for political purposes, that universalize one speicific view is nothing short of "co-ercive" rhetoric...that is useful for political ends...I don't believe that the ends justifies the means...so I don't like dishonestly.
This is not to suggest that Christians themselves should have no voice, but individual Christians should think for themselves, and not act in a groupish and herdish mentality when it comes to the issues that delve into the political realm. But, possibly, the political agenda is what binds these together, as to their identity and "power base". I just think that leaving "Chrstian" behind and acting as a citizen is a lot more worthy and appropriate.
The problem is, Angie, is that I cannot leave "Christian" behind. That defines primarily who I am. Being a Christian is not somehow beside the point in my life whether private or public.
Therefore, whether you like it or not I will participate in the public sphere as a Christian, for to do anything else is to deny the lordship of Jesus Christ.
I don't really know, then, what you mean by Christian, as "Christian" has many different meanings, which can weary one.
Whenever "Christian" is defined, then, that group identification/law/rules/governments has meaning to that group. This is what defines different denominations. And religious groups do form around beliefs about doctrine, behavior, etc. I just cease to think that it really matters as long as one is not defined by group think, but understands and commits because they value the values that are upheld.
Post a Comment