A group I follow on facebook had this posted today.
Of the options, what is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the world today: atheistic communism, totalitarian secularism, Christian theocracy or radical Islam?
I think this is a great idea for our next blog event, but I'll change it a bit to these below. You would pick one of the three.
What is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the world today, or why is religious freedom not threatened in the world today, or last, religious freedom is an irrelevant issue.
What do you guys think?
--------------
Also, to the triumvirate, I have a confession. I have toyed in the past with starting another blog, independent of this one, wherein I can blog Catholic to Catholics without the same scrutiny I would face here.
I have now done this, though I've only posted twice so far, I intend to continue.
While I gain a tremendous amount of insight and personal growth from our discussions on here, I cannot delve deeply into some of the many issues I would like to dive into, because we cannot get that far.
We do not share the same assumptions and world views that allow me to discuss some things as I could with other Christians and more specifically with other Catholics. My purpose in this blog has become more clear.
My purpose in this blog here is to grow, learn, challenge and be challenged. And I appreciate it very much.
But I have another purpose I want to fulfill, and that is to spread the faith. I want to help re-evangelize Catholics and show the truth of the Church to my fellow Christians. That will be the purpose of my other blog, which you can find at this URL.
http://1fromthepews.blogspot.com/
I am willing to debate and discuss anything I put on either blog, but my purpose of One from the Pews is not the same as my purpose here.
Personally, I recommend you don't read it, but I don't want to appear to be hiding it, so I've given you the link. I won't stop anyone from commenting on it, but I ask for some restraint. You are not the intended audience of that blog, and hence, I will not be writing the same way I do here and I ask you to bear that in mind.
I like your idea for a blog event. When will the date be?
ReplyDeleteI'm not super-enthusastic about the blog event topic, but I'm willing to give it the old college try.
ReplyDeleteI doubt I'll be able to stay away from your other blog, but I promise not to comment.
Why not enthused? We can discuss this more.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that there's anything wrong with it, it's a good topic. I'm just not sure which I'd argue for, and thinking about it kind of takes the zowzers out of my trousers. Probably because it's not a question that advances my own anti-religion agenda. So I should probably just power through it like a champ, it'll be good for me.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, I say, if you guys have the time, we do this by 1 p.m. Monday as a posting deadline. OK?
ReplyDeleteHow about 1 P.M. next Friday?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you really don't need to issue a mea culpa for having a side project. Even if it was secret. Even if it were secret, and you wanted to do a little anti-heathen rhetorical flourishes away from the rest of us. Even if you wanted to lord over some smaller fish. I don't think that's what you wanted, but I mean as a WORST CASE, that's not that bad. In bad taste or bad form but not WRONG, per se.
Sometimes I feel kind of guilty because of... Well, not because of the flak that you take, but because of the way you react to it. I think maybe our judgement and dissent (vitriolic dissent) means more to you than it should. I can't really make up my mind about the how and why, but what I'm hoping to inspire is a little malice and bloodlust on your side. I'd like to look across the field and see you sharpening your carving knife, with your mouth watering in anticipation. But it seems more like the Christian virtue of meekness incarnate. Well - not that bad, but you get it.
Anyway. This is too long. Sum up: Who gives a shit about what matt and I think. You know you're in the right, don't apologize. Don't try to look like a not-bigot. Get offensive (DOUBLE MEANING!).
Friday at 1 P.M. would be fine by me.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, I am concerned about what you are encouraging John to become, Dungy. You want him to take up a less compromising position, right?
Sorry, but this only works when the facts are on your side, and as we've seen over and over again through our dissection of the topic, religion ultimately comes down to taking things on faith. I suspect receding towards a more unapologetic and bigoted position would only increase a Christian's reliance on dogma.
"You want him to take up a less compromising position, right?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Well, yes. But that's not what I was saying here. What I'm saying here is that I would like John to take more personal pleasure in what he's doing. When I push John, I like it when he pushes back. I don't like it when he reacts by being less forthcoming. I don't want him to fear our reaction to his positions. That's counterproductive for him and us.
Regarding reliance on dogma, bigotedness and the like: John reliant on dogma. That's not a slam, it's just the plain facts. Catholicism has dogma and John embraces it. Also, strictly speaking John is a bigot. Not that he's mean to gays or heretics. Just the opposite. But a bigot is defined as someone who will not give weight to opposing positions no matter what. John has freely stated that to be the case on some topics. None of that is in dispute.
So, philisophically John's hard as stone. But in technique and approach he's meek, modest and humble. And fearful. I just think he'd be happier if he didn't care what we thought. Whether we thought him a bigot or not. And it would improve the dialog too. Take out the personal aspect. The meanness. Let the truth hang out and the chips fall where they may, etc.
Deep inside of John there exists a rational, sensible, critical person, but this aspect is sometimes crushed by a reliance on Catholic dogma. Nevertheless, there are still times where he tries to meet us halfway instead of simply looking up whatever the Church's stance on the matter is and saying, "Yep, that's my stance too."
ReplyDeleteFor example, from my understanding, it is a Catholic's duty to oppose contraceptives at every turn. At the very least John has been open to the idea of comprehensive sex education in schools. Well, at least he has been in the past.
Again, I wouldn't want to push him down the path of greater reliance on dogma. I wouldn't want to turn him into a stone wall.
After all, how John conducts himself in our discussions will no doubt be decided by what you or I want...because he has no will of his own and is incapable of making his own decisions.
Dungy is right in his assessment. I do rely on Catholic dogma. It's my view that we all should. No argument there.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I like the connotation of bigot, but certainly the annotation applies.
As for my reactions. I do have a modicum of fear, if you will, in my approach to this. It's not fear of being wrong or engaging in debate. It's a fear of doing a bad job of making my point, and thus being berated by people I respect.
This blog a normal anonymous blog where I don't care what the readers think. My readers are two good friends whom I have a great deal of respect for.
I don't care if you find my positions to be full of shit, I do care if I do a bad job of making my point. So I feel it's a healthy fear in that respect.
I don't think we need to be brutal. I don't think I pull punches out of interest in being nice, but on the other hand, I'm dealing with people I respect here. I don't see why we need to be brutal for brutality's sake.
On dogma, there is a misconception that Catholic dogma tells me what to think on everything. That's bullshit.
It tells me what's right and wrong. It tells me what I should believe, if I want to be right. And it only tells me that definitively on VERY FEW things in the scheme of things. It helps me to have a well formed conscience as I endeavor to conform myself to the will of God.
Catholics have a great scholarly tradition with great thinkers and I reject outright the assertion that Catholics are discouraged from thinking for themselves.
The Church stance on a matter is rarely binding. On major moral matters sure there is, but on lots of things, most really, the Church is a guide and we have to think for ourselves.
I'm not saying there aren't things the Church has ruled on, clearly there are, but it's really not like there's a quick reference guide for all our decisions.
Friday at 1 it is all good with me.
ReplyDelete"I don't see why we need to be brutal for brutality's sake."
ReplyDeleteI doubt that you'd feel that way if you were staring down at a group of relatively ignorant protestants, issueing their opinions even though they don't really know what they're talking about. In that circumstance, I think your mouth would water. You wouldn't be warning yourself about brutality, that's for sure. Like me, you'd be relishing the opportunity to engage and set someone straight.
As for your fear, I don't think it's necessarily so healthy. Your ego is what's at stake, not your positions. You don't want to make a misstep. That's good if it results in making you more surefooted, but it seems to be making you more timid and tentative. You're not so bold anymore. That's worrysome.
I'm trying to provoke boldness and anger, not the opposite. You're keeping your possibly malformed ideas inside, not putting them out.
I hate to say this, but I think that radical Islam is the greatest threat today to religious liberty. However, I'm not sure that radical Islam is a great threat to religious liberty. I would view the question like this. Christian theocracy doesn't have much steam even in this country, and I think that it has virtually no steam in other countries. I don't see a whole lot of support around the world for atheistic communism or totalitarian secularism. And that leaves radical Islam. How widespread is it? Not very widespread at all, I would expect. But there are laws against converting from Islam to any other religion in many Islamic countries, and there are legal sanctions for various kinds of missionary activities in many of these same countries. I have friends who serve as missionaries in Islamic countries and who have known people to be killed for leaving Islam for Christianity. This is horrible stuff. However, I am sure that it will eventually pass.
ReplyDeleteI think that the greatest enemies of faith are pride and fear, the same vices that drove Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. I see these vices in abundance among American Christians, and I would be tempted to say that American Christianity is the greatest threat both to religious freedom and the Gospel of Christ, but I don't think that the secular culture is any less fearful or prideful. Still, I think that modern Western secularism probably provides less of a threat to religious freedom generally than conservative American Christianity, and I am a pretty conservative American Christian.
Create the new blog and keep up the good work.