ULYSSES HAS NO USE FOR PLATO
“The man with a method good for purposes of his dominant interests is a pathological case in respect to his wider judgment on the coordination of this method with a more complete experience. Priests and scientist, statesmen and men of business, philosophers and mathematicians are all alike in this respect. We all start by being empiricists. But our empiricism is confined within our immediate interests. The more clearly we grasp the intellectual analysis of a way regulating procedure for the sake of those interest, the more decidedly we reject the inclusion of evidence which refuses to be immediately harmonized with the method before us. Some of the major disasters of mankind have been produced by the narrowness of men with good methodology. Ulysses has no use for Plato, and the bones of his companions are strewn on many a reef and many and isle.”
Alfred North Whitehead. The Function of Reason. 1929.
COMMENT
The post-Enlightenment program calling for destruction of the wall between physics and metaphysics represents, I believe, a collective example of the pathology Whitehead identifies. Religionists presume to dictate content of science textbooks without bothering to master the basic language of science or to grasp the fundamentals of the scientific method. When you hear the ostensibly damning phrase “just a theory,” you know you are dealing with an idiot or a demagogue. On the other side and in reaction to the religionists’ brayings, we find prominent members of the scientific fraternity holding forth on matters theological. Their wit amuses the intelligentsia—the few, the proud—while their glib arrogance infuriates the masses and frustrates the thoughtful theists and agnostics who have remained true to Enlightenment principles.
All the great thinkers have expressed awe in the face of their own ignorance. To begin to grasp the depth of one’s ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. Those damaged souls who would impose their wills upon all through various forms of coercion are the least wise among us. Yet, they are the very ones whose self-assuredness often attracts a following sufficient to ensure that some form of oppression will follow. The framers of the US Constitution sought through establishment of a government of laws (not of men) to limit damage done by these attractive hazards in human form.
CS
Showing posts with label practial theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label practial theology. Show all posts
Friday, May 4, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sounds Familiar
EPICURUS ON THE GODS
“For the gods exist; of them we have distinct knowledge. But they are not such as the majority think them to be. For they do not maintain a consistent view of what they think the gods are. The impious man is not he who confutes the gods of the majority, but he who applies to the gods the majority’s opinions. For the assertions of the many concerning the gods are conceptions grounded not in experience but in false assumptions, according to which the greatest misfortunes are brought upon the evil by the gods and the greatest benefits upon the good. Men being always at home with their own virtues, they embrace those like themselves and regard everything unlike themselves as alien.”
Epicurus. Letter to Menoeceus. Circa 300 BCE.
COMMENT
Epicurus presents us with the conclusion to an ontological argument for the existence of god and then moves on to a critique of the multifarious creeds, each of which uniquely defines with metaphysical certitude the essence and attributes of that god. In observing the contemporary scene, we might be tempted to ascribe the gift of prescience to this great and much-slandered philosopher. We observe today the consequences of blind belief in fundamentalist systems whose lines are so vividly drawn that tolerance is out of the question. And then we stumble upon this ancient critique of the idea of the alien other. Apparently—and comfortingly, in a perverse way—it must have been thus throughout human history since Epicurus no doubt drew upon his own empirical observations in coming to this unflattering assessment of the rabble. Small wonder he preferred his garden to the marketplace.
CS
“For the gods exist; of them we have distinct knowledge. But they are not such as the majority think them to be. For they do not maintain a consistent view of what they think the gods are. The impious man is not he who confutes the gods of the majority, but he who applies to the gods the majority’s opinions. For the assertions of the many concerning the gods are conceptions grounded not in experience but in false assumptions, according to which the greatest misfortunes are brought upon the evil by the gods and the greatest benefits upon the good. Men being always at home with their own virtues, they embrace those like themselves and regard everything unlike themselves as alien.”
Epicurus. Letter to Menoeceus. Circa 300 BCE.
COMMENT
Epicurus presents us with the conclusion to an ontological argument for the existence of god and then moves on to a critique of the multifarious creeds, each of which uniquely defines with metaphysical certitude the essence and attributes of that god. In observing the contemporary scene, we might be tempted to ascribe the gift of prescience to this great and much-slandered philosopher. We observe today the consequences of blind belief in fundamentalist systems whose lines are so vividly drawn that tolerance is out of the question. And then we stumble upon this ancient critique of the idea of the alien other. Apparently—and comfortingly, in a perverse way—it must have been thus throughout human history since Epicurus no doubt drew upon his own empirical observations in coming to this unflattering assessment of the rabble. Small wonder he preferred his garden to the marketplace.
CS
Monday, April 9, 2007
More on the Benefits of Freedom
A LIBERTARIAN’S VIEW
“Members of the religions right today insist that American is—or at least was—a Christian nation with a Christian government. . . . Some Americans opposed ratification of the Constitution because it was ‘coldly indifferent towards religion’ and would leave ‘religion to shift wholly for itself.’ Nevertheless, the revolutionary Constitution was adopted, and most of us believe that the experience with the separation of church and state has been a happy one.”
David Boaz. Libertarianism. 1998.
COMMENTARY
A few definitions, short and incomplete, are in order. In the United States, we acknowledge, through the programs of our two major political parties, that two distinct species of freedom exist: social freedom and economic freedom. Republicans, at least the traditional Republicans, stress the importance of economic freedom and the Democrats favor with their policies the social freedoms. Hence, we witness, for example, battles featuring deregulation (Republican) versus the safety-net (Democratic), tort reform (Republican) versus plaintiff rights (Democratic), and nutritional laissez faire (Republican) versus mandatory canola cooking oil (Democratic). Libertarianism represents a third alternative (there is another as well, totalitarianism). Libertarian theory, which has its roots in the Classical Liberalism that grew from the Scottish Enlightenment, restricts neither economic nor personal social freedom. Because small government has been the watchword of the Republican Party, most libertarians have found association with the so-called conservative appealing. Nevertheless, the NeoCon/Religious Right takeover of the Republican Party, which began benignly enough with the rise of Ronald Reagan and reached a toxic climate with the current occupant of the White House, has dislodged the party’s libertarian wing. Witnessing encroachments on personal freedoms unthinkable under previous Republican administrations, this freethinking bunch has begun to make common cause with the left on issues relating to personal freedom, including matters of separation of church and state. The Republicans continue their courtship of the Religious Right at the cost of alienating libertarians and thus becoming a minority party for the foreseeable future.
CS
“Members of the religions right today insist that American is—or at least was—a Christian nation with a Christian government. . . . Some Americans opposed ratification of the Constitution because it was ‘coldly indifferent towards religion’ and would leave ‘religion to shift wholly for itself.’ Nevertheless, the revolutionary Constitution was adopted, and most of us believe that the experience with the separation of church and state has been a happy one.”
David Boaz. Libertarianism. 1998.
COMMENTARY
A few definitions, short and incomplete, are in order. In the United States, we acknowledge, through the programs of our two major political parties, that two distinct species of freedom exist: social freedom and economic freedom. Republicans, at least the traditional Republicans, stress the importance of economic freedom and the Democrats favor with their policies the social freedoms. Hence, we witness, for example, battles featuring deregulation (Republican) versus the safety-net (Democratic), tort reform (Republican) versus plaintiff rights (Democratic), and nutritional laissez faire (Republican) versus mandatory canola cooking oil (Democratic). Libertarianism represents a third alternative (there is another as well, totalitarianism). Libertarian theory, which has its roots in the Classical Liberalism that grew from the Scottish Enlightenment, restricts neither economic nor personal social freedom. Because small government has been the watchword of the Republican Party, most libertarians have found association with the so-called conservative appealing. Nevertheless, the NeoCon/Religious Right takeover of the Republican Party, which began benignly enough with the rise of Ronald Reagan and reached a toxic climate with the current occupant of the White House, has dislodged the party’s libertarian wing. Witnessing encroachments on personal freedoms unthinkable under previous Republican administrations, this freethinking bunch has begun to make common cause with the left on issues relating to personal freedom, including matters of separation of church and state. The Republicans continue their courtship of the Religious Right at the cost of alienating libertarians and thus becoming a minority party for the foreseeable future.
CS
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Human Element
COPIES OF COPIES OF COPIES
“What if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contain human words? What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the question of the modern age—abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the bible as a false idol—or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty? There are clear reasons for thinking that, in fact, the Bible is not this kind of inerrant guide to our lives: among other things, . . . in many places we (as scholars, or just regular readers) don’t even know what the original words of the Bible actually were.”
Bart Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus. 2005
A RECOMMENDATION
Because these posts are not intended as book reviews, the reader may frequently feel more teased than edified. In quoting from Ehrman’s work, I run a particular risk of leaving my vast audience feeling unsatisfied, if not dissatisfied. So, here’s a straightforward recommendation: read Misquoting Jesus if you are serious about biblical interpretation. And keep in mind a theme that recurs throughout the scriptures: the symbol is not the holy thing.
CS
“What if God didn’t say it? What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contain human words? What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the question of the modern age—abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious supremacy, Western-style democracy, and the like? What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the bible as a false idol—or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty? There are clear reasons for thinking that, in fact, the Bible is not this kind of inerrant guide to our lives: among other things, . . . in many places we (as scholars, or just regular readers) don’t even know what the original words of the Bible actually were.”
Bart Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus. 2005
A RECOMMENDATION
Because these posts are not intended as book reviews, the reader may frequently feel more teased than edified. In quoting from Ehrman’s work, I run a particular risk of leaving my vast audience feeling unsatisfied, if not dissatisfied. So, here’s a straightforward recommendation: read Misquoting Jesus if you are serious about biblical interpretation. And keep in mind a theme that recurs throughout the scriptures: the symbol is not the holy thing.
CS
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Why We Fight
COSMIC CHRIST
“You have to begin somewhere and send down deep roots from that place. We have to go the whole way with Christ, and only then will we meet the cosmic Christ. Then we will no longer need to defend our frontiers so stubbornly, and we can see that truth can be found in the other great world religions too. I know that many people are not ready for this yet, and I have to admit that I myself took a very long time to get to this point. But why else would Jesus say so often: Don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid! A large percentage of Christians are still afraid, as if God needed us to defend Gods’ work. I believe that in reality we don’t all love the Christ who is the Alpha and Omega of history; instead we love the little Jesus whom we can stick in our pockets.”
Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M. Simplicity: The Freedom of Letting Go. 1991.
COMMENT
Religion is dangerous in its concrete particulars. A world filled with people defending their boundaries rather than seeking their centers makes inevitable all manner of conflict. Every belief system, theistic or otherwise, has its own counterpart to the pocket-sized Jesus.
CS
“You have to begin somewhere and send down deep roots from that place. We have to go the whole way with Christ, and only then will we meet the cosmic Christ. Then we will no longer need to defend our frontiers so stubbornly, and we can see that truth can be found in the other great world religions too. I know that many people are not ready for this yet, and I have to admit that I myself took a very long time to get to this point. But why else would Jesus say so often: Don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid! A large percentage of Christians are still afraid, as if God needed us to defend Gods’ work. I believe that in reality we don’t all love the Christ who is the Alpha and Omega of history; instead we love the little Jesus whom we can stick in our pockets.”
Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M. Simplicity: The Freedom of Letting Go. 1991.
COMMENT
Religion is dangerous in its concrete particulars. A world filled with people defending their boundaries rather than seeking their centers makes inevitable all manner of conflict. Every belief system, theistic or otherwise, has its own counterpart to the pocket-sized Jesus.
CS
Friday, February 9, 2007
I can't tell you but I know it's mine
MYSTERY
“The feeling of [mysterium termendum] may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its ‘profane’, non-religious mood of everyday experience. It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitement, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink to an almost grisly horror and shuddering. It has its crude, barbaric antecedents and early manifestations, and again it may be developed into something beautiful and pure and glorious. It may become the hushed, trembling, and speechless humility of the creature in the presence of—whom or what? In the presence of that which is a mystery inexpressible and above all creatures.”
Rudolf Otto. The Idea of the Holy. 1923.
COMMENT
The conjunction of the rational and non-rational completes a context. The rational side of religion, the theological system, provides the framework upon which to hang the non-rational Holy (or is it the other way around?). Further along in the text, Otto provides a musical analogy for this essential interrelationship. A poem, in this case the lyrics, represents the rational expression of some emotion while the music, more abstract by definition, evokes a mood that defies explication. Together they form something closer to a whole, but the extent to which that whole is apprehended and the relative weights of the two elements—rational and non-rational—differ with each person depend directly upon the individual’s progress along the path toward full maturity—spiritual maturity? philosophical maturity? The path, in any case, cannot be defined by authority whose own growth is arrested at the stage of pre-adolescent literalism.
CS
“The feeling of [mysterium termendum] may at times come sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship. It may pass over into a more set and lasting attitude of the soul, continuing, as it were, thrillingly vibrant and resonant, until at last it dies away and the soul resumes its ‘profane’, non-religious mood of everyday experience. It may burst in sudden eruption up from the depths of the soul with spasms and convulsions, or lead to the strangest excitement, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy. It has its wild and demonic forms and can sink to an almost grisly horror and shuddering. It has its crude, barbaric antecedents and early manifestations, and again it may be developed into something beautiful and pure and glorious. It may become the hushed, trembling, and speechless humility of the creature in the presence of—whom or what? In the presence of that which is a mystery inexpressible and above all creatures.”
Rudolf Otto. The Idea of the Holy. 1923.
COMMENT
The conjunction of the rational and non-rational completes a context. The rational side of religion, the theological system, provides the framework upon which to hang the non-rational Holy (or is it the other way around?). Further along in the text, Otto provides a musical analogy for this essential interrelationship. A poem, in this case the lyrics, represents the rational expression of some emotion while the music, more abstract by definition, evokes a mood that defies explication. Together they form something closer to a whole, but the extent to which that whole is apprehended and the relative weights of the two elements—rational and non-rational—differ with each person depend directly upon the individual’s progress along the path toward full maturity—spiritual maturity? philosophical maturity? The path, in any case, cannot be defined by authority whose own growth is arrested at the stage of pre-adolescent literalism.
CS
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Morality from Within
A PRAGMATIC IDEA OF SAINTLINESS
“The collective name for the ripe fruits of religion in a character is Saintliness. The saintly character is the character for which spiritual emotions are the habitual centre of the personal energy; and there is a certain composite photograph of universal saintliness, the same in all religions, of which the feature can easily be traced.
1. A feeling of being in a wider life than that of this world’s selfish little interests; and a conviction, not merely intellectual, but as it were sensible, of the existence of an Ideal Power. . . .
2. A sense of the friendly continuity of the ideal power with our own life, and a willing self-surrender to this control.
3. An immense elation and freedom, as the outline of the confining selfhood melt down.
4. A shifting of the emotional centre toward loving and harmonious affections, towards ‘yes, yes,’ and away from ‘no,’ where the claims of the non-ego are concerns.”
William James. The Varieties of Religious Experience. 1902.
OBSERVATION
James goes on to note the practical indistinguishability of the lives of saints, whether they go under the banner of stoic, Christian, Buddhist or, presumably, Jewish, Sufi, Hindu, Jain, animist, etc. He lists certain characteristics that set saints apart: asceticism, strength of soul, purity, and charity. Obviously, James is pointing us toward some universal here--not a prescribed life for all to follow, but a universal in the sense that the most tuned-in among us appear to embrace strikingly similar ways of living. Though all but a few fall well short of the holy state James describes, a lesson is clear for the masses as well: it’s how you live your life, not the liturgy or incantations your mouth, and how you live your life is the truest manifestation of your character and spiritual development.
CS
“The collective name for the ripe fruits of religion in a character is Saintliness. The saintly character is the character for which spiritual emotions are the habitual centre of the personal energy; and there is a certain composite photograph of universal saintliness, the same in all religions, of which the feature can easily be traced.
1. A feeling of being in a wider life than that of this world’s selfish little interests; and a conviction, not merely intellectual, but as it were sensible, of the existence of an Ideal Power. . . .
2. A sense of the friendly continuity of the ideal power with our own life, and a willing self-surrender to this control.
3. An immense elation and freedom, as the outline of the confining selfhood melt down.
4. A shifting of the emotional centre toward loving and harmonious affections, towards ‘yes, yes,’ and away from ‘no,’ where the claims of the non-ego are concerns.”
William James. The Varieties of Religious Experience. 1902.
OBSERVATION
James goes on to note the practical indistinguishability of the lives of saints, whether they go under the banner of stoic, Christian, Buddhist or, presumably, Jewish, Sufi, Hindu, Jain, animist, etc. He lists certain characteristics that set saints apart: asceticism, strength of soul, purity, and charity. Obviously, James is pointing us toward some universal here--not a prescribed life for all to follow, but a universal in the sense that the most tuned-in among us appear to embrace strikingly similar ways of living. Though all but a few fall well short of the holy state James describes, a lesson is clear for the masses as well: it’s how you live your life, not the liturgy or incantations your mouth, and how you live your life is the truest manifestation of your character and spiritual development.
CS
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE ENEMY OF FAITH
CRYPTO-FASCISTS (CHRISTO-FASCISTS) AMONG US
“Democracy is not, as the Christo-fascists claim, the enemy of faith. Democracy keeps religious faith in the private sphere, ensuring that all believers have an equal measure of protection and practice mutual tolerance. Democracy sets no religious ideal. It simply ensures coexistence. It permits the individual to avoid simply being subsumed by the crowd—the chief goal of totalitarianism, which seeks to tell all citizens what to believe, how to behave and how to speak. The call to obliterate the public and the private wall that keeps faith the prerogative of the individual means the obliteration of democracy.”
Chris Hedges. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. 2006.
COMMENT
Where is the virtue in blind obedience to authority or adherence to any law that mandates religious or political orthodoxy? Where is the virtue and, finally, what is the point? If the Far Right ever manages to persuade the nation to ratify a constitutional amendment outlawing disrespect for the flag, the sense of virtue we feel when we stand and place our hands over our hearts will be nullified; when the flag passes, we will merely be complying with the law. We will no longer act out of genuine patriotism. Similarly, required adherence to a narrow range of religious and moral behavior would give rise to a culture in which outward conformity masks the truth of private thought. As the ultimate disintegration of the 20th Century’s totalitarian states shows, such a system is inherently unstable.
CS
“Democracy is not, as the Christo-fascists claim, the enemy of faith. Democracy keeps religious faith in the private sphere, ensuring that all believers have an equal measure of protection and practice mutual tolerance. Democracy sets no religious ideal. It simply ensures coexistence. It permits the individual to avoid simply being subsumed by the crowd—the chief goal of totalitarianism, which seeks to tell all citizens what to believe, how to behave and how to speak. The call to obliterate the public and the private wall that keeps faith the prerogative of the individual means the obliteration of democracy.”
Chris Hedges. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. 2006.
COMMENT
Where is the virtue in blind obedience to authority or adherence to any law that mandates religious or political orthodoxy? Where is the virtue and, finally, what is the point? If the Far Right ever manages to persuade the nation to ratify a constitutional amendment outlawing disrespect for the flag, the sense of virtue we feel when we stand and place our hands over our hearts will be nullified; when the flag passes, we will merely be complying with the law. We will no longer act out of genuine patriotism. Similarly, required adherence to a narrow range of religious and moral behavior would give rise to a culture in which outward conformity masks the truth of private thought. As the ultimate disintegration of the 20th Century’s totalitarian states shows, such a system is inherently unstable.
CS
Thursday, January 25, 2007
We Fall Short
HOW SHORT DO WE FALL?
“In every major city, the homeless sit hungry at the doorsteps of greatest wealth. Many of the children of privilege find their existence so unbearable that they seek self-destructive escape through drugs. We finance the maiming of children by various semisecret operatives in far-off countries in pursuit of goals no one can quite explain. Other societies in the modern world, to be sure, are just as bad, and some are a great deal worse—we should never lose sight of that. Still, measured by the standard of the gospel, we fall desperately short.”
William C. Placher. Unapologetic Theology. 1989
COMMENT
I do not do justice to Placher’s book, Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation, through this short quotation, which comes at the very end of a meticulously well-reasoned work of scholarship and insight. Nonetheless, his historical perspective and his prescience come through in that brief passage. Today a pluralistic conversation has become even more difficult. In this most religious of nations, why do we fail to live the message delivered by the one whose cross graces the skyline of every hamlet and metropolis? Does our inability to hold constructive conversations stem from our willful ignorance of the life and work of the Christ? Or are those still seeking to converse simply giving away the game? Both, I’d say. The intolerant consume the tolerant who, in the name of tolerance, allow intolerance to thrive.
CS
“In every major city, the homeless sit hungry at the doorsteps of greatest wealth. Many of the children of privilege find their existence so unbearable that they seek self-destructive escape through drugs. We finance the maiming of children by various semisecret operatives in far-off countries in pursuit of goals no one can quite explain. Other societies in the modern world, to be sure, are just as bad, and some are a great deal worse—we should never lose sight of that. Still, measured by the standard of the gospel, we fall desperately short.”
William C. Placher. Unapologetic Theology. 1989
COMMENT
I do not do justice to Placher’s book, Unapologetic Theology: A Christian Voice in a Pluralistic Conversation, through this short quotation, which comes at the very end of a meticulously well-reasoned work of scholarship and insight. Nonetheless, his historical perspective and his prescience come through in that brief passage. Today a pluralistic conversation has become even more difficult. In this most religious of nations, why do we fail to live the message delivered by the one whose cross graces the skyline of every hamlet and metropolis? Does our inability to hold constructive conversations stem from our willful ignorance of the life and work of the Christ? Or are those still seeking to converse simply giving away the game? Both, I’d say. The intolerant consume the tolerant who, in the name of tolerance, allow intolerance to thrive.
CS
Thursday, January 11, 2007
A Lectionary Reading and an Early Word on Religious Freedom
CANTICLE READING FOR EPIPHANY FROM THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Psalm 72:1-7
1 Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness.
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.
5 May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.
7 In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.
A BAPTIST LEADER’S PROPOSAL TO KING JAMES I OF ENGLAND
"If the King's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man."
Thomas Helwys. A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity. 1612
OBSERVATIONS
Thomas Helwys, one of the founders of the Baptist movement in England, upon returning from exile in Holland sought to persuade King James of the benefits of religious tolerance. His gift to James of his freshly publish book A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity did not amuse the Keeper of the Faith. James answered by having Helwys imprisoned at Newgate, where he died four years later. Helwys no doubt understood the risk he undertook. In April of 1612, the year of Helwys’s return from Holland, English religious Separatist Edward Wightman had been burned at the stake for heresy. Apparently his example stirred popular sympathy, putting an end to the the Crown's use of such harsh measures for dealing with religions dissent.
The King James Version or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible was first published in 1611 and remains in use as the standard biblical text among many Christians, including many Baptists.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Psalm 72:1-7
1 Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son.
2 May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice.
3 May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness.
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.
5 May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations.
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth.
7 In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more.
A BAPTIST LEADER’S PROPOSAL TO KING JAMES I OF ENGLAND
"If the King's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man."
Thomas Helwys. A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity. 1612
OBSERVATIONS
Thomas Helwys, one of the founders of the Baptist movement in England, upon returning from exile in Holland sought to persuade King James of the benefits of religious tolerance. His gift to James of his freshly publish book A Short Declaration on the Mystery of Iniquity did not amuse the Keeper of the Faith. James answered by having Helwys imprisoned at Newgate, where he died four years later. Helwys no doubt understood the risk he undertook. In April of 1612, the year of Helwys’s return from Holland, English religious Separatist Edward Wightman had been burned at the stake for heresy. Apparently his example stirred popular sympathy, putting an end to the the Crown's use of such harsh measures for dealing with religions dissent.
The King James Version or Authorized Version of the Holy Bible was first published in 1611 and remains in use as the standard biblical text among many Christians, including many Baptists.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Friday, January 5, 2007
Science, Religion, and Democracy
A FREETHINKER’S LOGIC
“The attack on science is a prime secularist issue not because religion and science are incompatible but because particular forms of religious belief—those that claim to have found the one true answer to the origins and ultimate purpose of human life—are incompatible not only with science but with democracy. Those who rely on the perfect hand of the Almighty for political guidance, whether on biomedical research or capital punishment, are really saying that such issues can never be a matter of imperfect human opinion. If the hand of the Almighty explains and rules the workings of nature, it can hardly fail to rule the workings of the American political system.”
Susan Jacoby. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. 2004*
COMMENT
In the depths of reflection unburdened by self-criticism, I often wonder how the true-believers among us—and here I refer to true believers of any persuasion—can manage to miss the mark on so many issues. In fact, it seems the case that on every issue of consequence do the true believers get it wrong. Well, Jacoby gives us a hint here, doesn’t she? I would move a step beyond her focus on fundamentalist Christianity and assert that adherence to any literalist system will lead to authoritarian political views and a skewed scientific method designed to support the agenda of the state.
CS
* Link to Amazon:
“The attack on science is a prime secularist issue not because religion and science are incompatible but because particular forms of religious belief—those that claim to have found the one true answer to the origins and ultimate purpose of human life—are incompatible not only with science but with democracy. Those who rely on the perfect hand of the Almighty for political guidance, whether on biomedical research or capital punishment, are really saying that such issues can never be a matter of imperfect human opinion. If the hand of the Almighty explains and rules the workings of nature, it can hardly fail to rule the workings of the American political system.”
Susan Jacoby. Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. 2004*
COMMENT
In the depths of reflection unburdened by self-criticism, I often wonder how the true-believers among us—and here I refer to true believers of any persuasion—can manage to miss the mark on so many issues. In fact, it seems the case that on every issue of consequence do the true believers get it wrong. Well, Jacoby gives us a hint here, doesn’t she? I would move a step beyond her focus on fundamentalist Christianity and assert that adherence to any literalist system will lead to authoritarian political views and a skewed scientific method designed to support the agenda of the state.
CS
* Link to Amazon:
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Tocqueville, Despotism, Liberties
SOURCE TEXT
“A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this . . . compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
“I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
OBSERVATION
The danger Tocqueville addresses here relates to the incremental erosion of individual and community responsibility in a maturing liberal democracy. While the system typically checks the most oppressive and violent manifestations of despotism, the mundane and on-going usurpation of minority rights becomes ever more apparent. Tax-supported faith-based initiates, prison programs rewarding adherents of favored sects, and, indeed, a tax code providing relief to religions bodies and their supporters all fulfill to one degree or another Tocqueville’s fears for America.
CS
Link to Amazon:
“A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this . . . compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.
“I do not however deny that a constitution of this kind appears to me to be infinitely preferable to one, which, after having concentrated all the powers of government, should vest them in the hands of an irresponsible person or body of persons. Of all forms which democratic despotism could assume, the latter would assuredly be the worst.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
OBSERVATION
The danger Tocqueville addresses here relates to the incremental erosion of individual and community responsibility in a maturing liberal democracy. While the system typically checks the most oppressive and violent manifestations of despotism, the mundane and on-going usurpation of minority rights becomes ever more apparent. Tax-supported faith-based initiates, prison programs rewarding adherents of favored sects, and, indeed, a tax code providing relief to religions bodies and their supporters all fulfill to one degree or another Tocqueville’s fears for America.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Jefferson, Danbury Baptist Association
SOURCE TEXT
‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.’
—Thomas Jefferson. Letter to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut. (1802)
COMMENT
The General Baptists and other denominations springing from the tradition begun by the radical reformers of middle Europe--a movement whose members held, on theological and practical grounds, a special aversion to political involvement—brought their axiomatic understanding of the elements of Christian life with them to the English Colonies in the New World. For these heirs of Manz, Hus, Simmons, et al, seeking favor from the state, whether represented by king, duke, Holy Roman Emperor, or even an elected body, would have violated fundamental tenets. That other denominations of Anglican, Calvinist, and Roman origins had no such historical aversion to formal establishment or political favor gave minority religionists cause for considerable concern in the early days of the republic. Indeed, the individual colonies themselves were not above granting special status to one denomination or another. Under Jefferson’s leadership, first Virginia and then the US, through the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, erected the “wall of separation” to which Jefferson refers in the above excerpt. Ironic that this wall has been under mounting attack from some members of the sectarian quarter whose paths were made safer by Jefferson’s Constitutional Wall.
CS
Link to Amazon:
‘Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.’
—Thomas Jefferson. Letter to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut. (1802)
COMMENT
The General Baptists and other denominations springing from the tradition begun by the radical reformers of middle Europe--a movement whose members held, on theological and practical grounds, a special aversion to political involvement—brought their axiomatic understanding of the elements of Christian life with them to the English Colonies in the New World. For these heirs of Manz, Hus, Simmons, et al, seeking favor from the state, whether represented by king, duke, Holy Roman Emperor, or even an elected body, would have violated fundamental tenets. That other denominations of Anglican, Calvinist, and Roman origins had no such historical aversion to formal establishment or political favor gave minority religionists cause for considerable concern in the early days of the republic. Indeed, the individual colonies themselves were not above granting special status to one denomination or another. Under Jefferson’s leadership, first Virginia and then the US, through the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, erected the “wall of separation” to which Jefferson refers in the above excerpt. Ironic that this wall has been under mounting attack from some members of the sectarian quarter whose paths were made safer by Jefferson’s Constitutional Wall.
CS
Link to Amazon:
Monday, December 11, 2006
Freedom of/from religion, theology
INTRODUCTION
The Christian Secularist (CS) edits this blog's postings. The blog features brief passages selected from the works of theologians and philosophers followed by succinct commentary, observations, critiques, propositions, or tangential thoughts. While source material necessarily springs from the minds of well-known contemporary and historical figures, commentary from the pseudonymous CS seeks to avoid the dual bias of appeal to authority and argumentum ad hominem. Neither the name, credentials, gender, nor institutional affiliation of CS will come to light in this blog. CS welcomes thoughtful and spirited reflections on the contents of these postings.
CS
STATEMENT
“While all authority in [the federal republic of the United States] will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights.”
—James Madison. The Federalist, Essay 51 (1788)*
PROPOSITION
The Christian faith thrives in the
CS
*The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. David Wootton, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)