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

Intolerant of Intolerance

A MATTER OF DEGREES

“The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right.”

Bruce Bawer. While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. 2006.

COMMENT

For those who have detected dreams of a coming Levitical society in the words and actions of Christian Dominionists, Brewer’s account of Islamist inroads in a pathologically tolerant Europe sounds a call to stand firm in defense of a secular society. Close readings of both the Torah and the Koran will reveal that the application of literalist thinking must logically lead to violence. The relatively benign face of the American Religious Right gives cover to the Dominionists’ more malign intent. If a sullen gathering of right-thinking men stones my neighbor for an expression of religious doubt, it matters little which sacred text provides legal sanction for the punishment.

CS

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 United States like no where else on earth as a direct consequence of the Founders’ enlightened insistence upon a secular system designed to protect the rights of those standing apart from the majority. At its ultimate peril, the nation’s Christian majority undertakes assaults upon this secular structure, a structure that has provided the very milieu most accommodating to the growth of genuine faith. Thoughtful Christians, those who know and rightly interpret the lessons of history, understand that in the liberal and educated West, a faith freely chosen is a faith of depth and that a religion imposed through coercion ultimately withers, becoming a hollowed out vestige. Hence, a term that seems on the surface oxymoronic—that is, Christian Secularism—characterizes the tradition most obliging to the survival and growth of Christianity itself. Furthermore, this tradition tolerates non-Christian thought and practice to the extent that those practitioners uphold the principles of tolerance set forth in the nation’s founding documents.

CS

*The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. David Wootton, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2003.