Aayan Hirshi Ali and Her Free Thought

I listened to Aayan Hirshi Ali this morning as she accepted an award from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation". She wrote "Infidel", which I read several years ago. She has been a source of inspiration in her fortitude and resistance to religious zeal and her desire to seek rationality instead of religious belonging.

Her speech used "The Emperor With No Clothes" and she talked about how those that want to "belong" at all costs will suppress their questions and unify their opinions because they fear being an "outcast" or "outsider" to the "faith".

This is correct, as humans are prone to decieve themselves and others in their attempt to provide and protect their "community". It  becomes an all out "war" of sorts because one's very identity is caught by such thinking and being in the world. Aayan embraced the questions because she valued honestly above myth. Such questioning  is doubly threatened because it puts one's personal values in question, especially if financial and family investments have a stake in such interests.

Ms. Ali escaped Islam's grasp over her life by fleeing Somalia, becomeing educated in the Netherlands, and finding a "voice in America".

Is she duped by her "reason"? Is she sabatoging another's right to "believe"? What she suggests is that rationality is to be held as a guard against religious fundamentalism, and zeal. It protects from psychological abuse that hinders one from becoming and being in the world as a free moral agent.The individual is to be set free from such "communal understandings". Belonging should be about things that do not depend on irrationality, which leaders have power to enforce at the costs of another's rational conviction and/or commitment.

America is great because it allows for freedom of religion, but doesn't demand religion as a test for public service. Character, which is of uptmost importance in public office is not dependent on one's religious affliation. In fact, religious people, as well as the irreligious, justify what they do by "rational argument". There is no justification to defrauding or manipulating because of a 'higher law" or standard, whether that standard be a religious or secular standard.  America believes that all "belong", as citizens and it is the citizen's right to be treated as equal before the law. And it is called our Constitutional right.

Ethics, Values and (Christian) Faith

I have been thinking about several things that have impressed me the past few days.
One was the attitude of two totally different people towards those who were questioning their convictions and commitments.

I wrote about Mike Huckabee's response to an atheist in this blog not long ago. I was impressed with how he responded with respect, instead of reacting in defensiveness or hostility. I also was impressed with Bart Ehrman's response to an interview and his moderate and deferiential attitude toward the interviewer. Two very different people, but similar in their attitudes. It has something to do with character, values, and civil discourse.

The civility toward those who were different in values, conviction and commitment was something to respect and desire to emulate. Some Christians believe that unless you hold to uniformity of commitment, you are not fully commited, may not love God, Etc. Etc. These types of believers think that their understanding and interpretation of Scripture, behavior and way of life is the eptiome of truth and should be the standard for all believers. Their example is to followed and this, they think, is "making disciples". I find this attitude the height of arrogance, as no one should decide or determine another's way of life, as to the values, commitments and convictions. True love does not seek to uphold one's own life, but seeks to understand the difference of the other person and how that difference can best be developed, or challenged. The individual is known and loved in the process. Otherwise, it is only an assembly line, where the individual is fine-tuned to mimic the "group's tune" without thought or reason. This is not leadership, but cultish behavior.

Virtues are epitomized in a human life when character has developed. Character is still based on virtues that are exemplified by the values that are most important, which may look different depending of how the value manifests itself. These values are individual specific and should not be defined by anyone else. The question for Christian faith is; is Christian faith about culture, such as dress, behavior, food, music, etc. or is Christian faith about ethics, which is about how we hold to those convictions and values before others. Obviously, those that think Christianity is mostly about cultural issues will be more apt to have difficulties understanding those who hold to a more inward understanding of God's Kingdom. Interestingly, enough, I saw two diverse kinds of believers that exemplified the Kingdom within; Bart Ehrman, an agnostic is a Biblical scholar, while Mike Huckabee is a conservative Baptist minister turned political pundit. While both have different types of jobs, lifestyles, and values, both showed a tolerance of difference and a graciousness that is hard to miss. And both of them did not, nor would not demand that their way of understanding how to live a virtuous life was a universal one!