When considering this I'd narrowed it down pretty fast to Islam, or rampant secularism. I also considered a Christian theocratic system, but I just can't see that getting any real traction. The people who would vote for the people that would impose that really aren't religious, they just care about gay marriage and abortion.
Also, Christianity is thoroughly trained at existing within the system. We've co-existed with governments for a long time with fewer speed bumps than one might think, but I digress.
While I agree that radical islam is bad, and scary, it doesn't win. Radical islam taking hold worldwide would be disastrous to religious freedom, but in a decently run Muslim empire, they do tend to let Christians and other faiths do their thing with their own people. That is the crux of the issue.
But instead of either, I chose the the secular leaning "dictatorship of relativism."
I'll give the eye rolls a moment to subside.
It is my belief, that there is a growing movement in this nation, and I hypothesize it's not unique to us, that seeks to restrict religion to the privacy of one's own home. That is to say, to make it only a matter between a man and his God.
I don't believe we are on the verge of seeing laws passed to this effect, and in fact, I don't believe we'll ever see such laws. I believe we won't need them.
I'm going to rely on Christianity as the example here because I'm one and let's be honest, we're the big dog on the street anyway.
But we live in a county, and world leader of a country, that doesn't recognize good and evil anymore. We live in a place where if you attempt to judge the morality of any person's action, you are almost automatically considered a bigot.
How is this a threat to religion? Because clearly, religions judge actions. We're not talking here about issues that effect the state. We're simply, at this point, discussing judgement, which is internal.
There is the idea that any action is ok so long as no one gets hurt, or loses property.
Stay with me.
This attitude, leads most to then judge religions and the religious as out of touch, for believing that anything is morally wrong. Ignoring the obvious irony, I believe that has really seeped into our national moral identity.
We've become a nation that is tolerant of every thing a person can conceivably do, but one that is hostile to any group that dares to say thou shall not.
Taking this one step further, the great secular majority (And I know most people claim to be Christian but let's be honest, all most do is say, yeah Jesus is love and go about their lives thinking God wants them to be happy so they can do whatever) then begins to take this attitude toward religions.
If all things are permissible, then all religions are permissible. And if we stopped there, we'd be ok. Next, if all things are permissible, but a religion is trying to say that something isn't permissible (even if they aren't attempting to legislate it), then only one can be right.
And we so believe in the fallacy that all things are permissible, that we now seek to turn the opposite idea into crimethink.
Aside: I want you all to know that I'm sorry this blog isn't as well done as it could be, it's been a freaking TERRIBLE week at work. Very busy, and I've had little free time.
Anyways, the attitude that it's wrong for any group to dare tell anyone what they should believe permeates almost everything.
We can't have Kirk Cameron going on about mainstream evangelical views on gay marriage without assaulting his character with outlandish headlines. What right has he to an opinion?
We can't let the Church tell it's own employees that if they work for them, they don't get free condoms and other BC methods covered by insurance. How dare they?
And again, I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't criticize. They're welcome too, that's freedom. But there is a snowballing effect right now against religion.
And I believe the natural end of that snowballing will be a cultural turning of the tides against the open and outward practice of religions.
To summarize.
Our society believes all things are permissible.
This is in contrast to most religious views.
Therefore, our society views religion with disdain.
Therefore, our society is becoming more and more hostile toward religion
The natural result of this will be a cultural, and perhaps eventual legislative, shift against the open practice of faith.
Pope Benedict is turning your brain into mush. If I were ever capable of persuading you of anything, it's that this "relativism" trope is a load of garbage. I have failed.
ReplyDeleteI'll renew my efforts and keep fighting the good fight. Give me a few days to collect my wits.
I think we turn to this relativism thing too easy sometimes. I don't believe that everyone has abandoned any sense of right and wrong, but I do believe that as a whole, right and wrong have become more subjective.
ReplyDeleteI believe relativism is the cause, but even if you disagree with that, I think it's fair to say that religion is being slowly pushed out of the public square.
Maybe you believe that's good, fine, but it's still happening. As it become more fringe, it will become less socially acceptable. Eventually, passing laws to restrict it might not seem so crazy.
I've had a few hours to "sober up" from my initial reaction.
ReplyDeleteI know how busy you are and I know that you had to write this in haste, and I totally understand that. I want to avoid our usual "dance" where you write something that you're not completely satisfied with, and then I trash it with lots of vitriol - and also haste on my side - because I can pick it apart so easily.
I want to get some traction on this. Or try. What I propose is this.
You take some extra time to think about this and write what you really think. The most important parts. If you don't really mean relativism, then don't use that word. If you do, then do.
Give me a specific thesis and specific points that I can respond to. Then I'll write a blog or comment where I can respond to each point.
Take as much time as you need, in reason. Just don't forget about it.
I can tell you right now that I won't find it hard to show that people are not turning to moral relativism. People still firmly believe in right and wrong, but the basis has changed. That's going to be my main thrust of argument, unless you preemptively cut me off (which is fine).
I don't want to lay waste to something that you don't fully endorse. I want to approach this in terms that we can all agree on, beforehand and hopefully after.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you have contradicted yourself. You can't claim all things are permissible while also saying our society disapproves of actions which hurt people or their property. You know very well we haven't descended into the moral anarchy your former words imply.
ReplyDeleteThe internet has given us the best opportunity to see how religious conviction can degrade the mind. Do you want to see some crazy Christian spewing out bullshit? Just go to youtube, that kind of stuff is all over the place. The internet has also served the purpose of allowing skeptics to connect with each other and establish a stronger foundation for non-believers to "come out of the closet." People are better armed with the knowledge they need to cast aside religion, but it doesn't mean we have given up on morality.
You might wish to revise your blog entry. Unless you truly do feel this way.
Of course, it s important to note those who describe themselves as skeptical are still within the minority. We are, at best, like a mosquito in comparison to the Christian behemoth. You're not actually afraid of a little bite, are you?
ReplyDeleteAs for those Christians you think aren't REALLY Christian, their religious convictions are no more or less legitimate than you own.
To add another point about contradiction:
ReplyDeleteAs I made plain on my blog, I thought the Kirk Cameron thing was in bad taste, but that's a far cry from saying he's being legitimately persecuted for his beliefs. Or shunned / cast off / defamed. He is, after all, being looked down on for his actual beliefs, no twisting or spin.
And, most important, he was given an opportunity to speak in a forum with MUCH LARGER viewership than most others.
You're saying he's "not allowed" to say thou shalt not like that, but actually, he was allowed. He spoke, people heard. Now they're speaking too. There was a free exchange of judgement back and forth - that's no dictatorship, buddy.
In as much as he has a right to judge any and all as wrong, others (majority or minority, doesn't matter) have the right to judge any and all including Cameron - and Morgan, for that matter.
If a Sunni Muslim came on Piers Morgan and the benevolent host asked "What do you think of American fashion? Hmm?" and the response was "Well, there's no easy way to say it. I think your women dress like prostitutes", would the public reaction shock you? It shouldn't. It's outside the mainstream, contrary to popular culture, and not really... well, nice.
Nobody's saying Christians or Muslims shouldn't be allowed to say any stupid thing they want, but you can't expect for the mainstream to take any statement from a religious person with quiety sobriety and respect. Why should we anyway? We're free to disrespect it.
I didn't want to dive in but I can't help it.
ReplyDeleteI can't escape the notion that this is all about Christians not being able to overcome their theocratic origins. Just because you have beliefs doesn't entitle you... to anything.
Express them if you want, or don't. I don't care. Don't expect any kind of reaction.
People don't want to hear what you have to say about action XYZ? Too bad.
They're making fun of you on TV? Too bad.
They're won't pass a law outlawing things that you see as immoral? Too bad.
They're calling you names on the interwebs? Too bad.
You're theology isn't helping to steer society as a whole anymore? TOO. BAD.
Hardcore Christians (and yes, bigots) are acting like they're being cast down into the dungeon FOR E VER. Really the fall is just one from IMMENSE PRIVILEDGE (for millenia), to a position relative to the rest of us. You have th same rights to free speech as anyone. Be it PETA, GLAAD or the WBC. You're not running things anymore, get used to it. You get to live the rest of your life like a Schnook.
I'm on a roll, and and I got no life. Here we go...
ReplyDeleteIn the interests of Christianity - I think there's a LOT of ground to be retaken as far as credibility in the eyes of the mainstream. But this attitude of being under siege - that's what's going to defeat you. To take the tack of "well, there going to hate me for my beliefs anyway so I'm just lay it all out there" is self-defeating.
There are basically two issues where you are bogged down.
1st - What people do in their bedroom. Which is none of your goddamn business anyway.
2nd - Abortion.
Apart from that, the field is open. There's a multitude of issues where people are ready and willing to listen if you make it worth their while. Here's one that's I would personally like to see:
Christians focusing on the oversexed, overviolenced element in entertainment. Music, TV, Movies. Talking about how it's bad for human relationships. Bad for people to connect with one another, when we look at the opposite sex as just fetishistic objects to be possessed. Talk about pornography and how it makes it hard to really talk to and connect with the opposite sex.
Talk about how standards have fallen in dealing with real emotions from real characters in movies. To much graphic hardcore violence. Too much exploitation, not enough substance.
This is something that I think people have been hungry for. And I think the trend is beginning to reverse. It would be hard to imagine an Adele, or even a lady gaga (who's not all that great of a looker) succeeding 15 years ago, when the only thing that would pass muster is Britney Spears gyrating and lip syncing. A lot less violence in movies too. You don't see Ahnuld shoving a piece of rebar into some guys skull anymore. You got your Avatar and your Transformers, sure. But comparing the 80's to the 00's and 10's is a no brainer when it comes to violence.
Christians are stuck in the mud on homos and abortions. Keep fighting if you wanna, but reallocate some resources to areas where you can make an impact. IF you want traction in today's society. If you can't do that, then don't get indignant because people aren't listening. You gotta play the hand you were dealt, doesn't mean you're doomed to lose.
Interesting comments. A lot to say. I'll stick to a few points.
ReplyDeleteOne quick preliminary - for those who don't know, I'm a Christian, and I'm pretty Reformed in my theology - e.g., I believe in justification by faith alone through grace alone, double predestination, etc., and I have a pretty high view of the Bible.
That being said, I don't think that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, and while I think that abortion is immoral in most cases, I'm not sure that early- or mid-term abortion is against the U.S. Constitution. I am strongly opposed to abortion, but I think that much of the pro-life movement utterly disregards the U.S. Constitution and hypocritical in the sense that it doesn't care what happens to babies once they're born.
I don't think that Christianity is under a serious threat from outside. However, I think that Christianity is under tremendous threat from Christians. The hypocrisy, meanness, and vanity of Christians is the single greatest threat to the church today. As long as Christians are foaming at the mouth, spewing hatred everywhere they go, and calling people stupid for believing in evolution, they aren't going to win many converts, and they certainly aren't following Jesus. I believe in truth as well as grace, but most Christians who claim that there is too much emphasis on grace in the church today don't actually understand the first thing about grace.
I don't think that many people are truly relativists about morality, at least not thoroughgoing relativists, and that even fewer are relativists about religion. I think that the "what's good for you is good for you" attitude doesn't usually reflect a true relativism, but rather indifference or reluctance to dialogue.
I intend to go over all this again soon, and better.
ReplyDeleteBut I will defend that there is an attitude of relativism, or at least what I'm calling relativism (irony?)
I don't mean there are no rules in people's minds, there are. But it strikes me that more and more loosely affiliated Christians (to say nothing of the spiritual not religious crowd) are making up their own rules for just about everything.
This isn't new I guess. I should have gone with my gut and said the greatest threat is the God-made-in-my-image problem.
People think that since God wants us to be happy, the things that we think make us happy are all permissible. I personally have in the past used that crap logic for sexual immorality, gluttony and I'm sure more. I was a pretty shitty person morally for a while.
I think it comes down to pride. But I'll save some of that for the next blog.
I still stand by my earlier claim that the biggest threat to Christianity are hateful, unloving Christians. These often seem to come in two kinds. Those who don't much much theology and hate others for not sharing all their conservative social values, and those who do know a lot of theology and hate others who for not having studied the Westminster Confession as much as they have. The first group largely consists of Catholics, Baptists, and other non-Reformed Christians, and the second largely consists of Reformed Christians. And the Christians in these groups typically hate one another as well as non-Christians. If even one percent of Christians understood the first thing about Christ's call to love, there would be heaven on earth already. Sorry for the polemics here. I'm a bit upset this morning. Fortunately, this seems like a blog where I can vent this.
ReplyDeleteSecond, when people say they that everyone can choose their own faith, I think they usually don't mean that all faiths are equally true, but that they are all false, or that they don't know which is true or if any is true, and they don't want to get in an argument about it.
Third, when people say that others can choose their own morality, at least when it comes to a particular action or behavior, I think that they usually mean something similar - i.e., that a particular behavior is really morally permissible, but that others can refrain from it if they wish; or that it is really morally impermissible, but that they are (say, legally) entitled to perform it anyway; or that they simply don't know what's moral in the situation.
I think that people often throw around language that seems to express relativism taken at face value, but that what they intend is not really relativism but something else. Just my two cents.