Religion by Sullivan

I want to write more about religion - both about my own faith but also how religion intersects with politics. But while you wait for those posts, I suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's article in Newsweek. It is really good. Here is a quote: 

Jesus’ doctrines were the practical commandments, the truly radical ideas that immediately leap out in the simple stories he told and which he exemplified in everything he did. Not simply love one another, but love your enemy and forgive those who harm you; give up all material wealth; love the ineffable Being behind all things, and know that this Being is actually your truest Father, in whose image you were made. Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching. That’s why, in his final apolitical act, Jesus never defended his innocence at trial, never resisted his crucifixion, and even turned to those nailing his hands to the wood on the cross and forgave them, and loved them.

I recommend reading the whole thing. And hopefully soon I'll have my own thoughts posted.

Collision: A Review

Summary. I just watched Collision, the documentary about the debates on whether Christianity is good for the world between Hitchens and Wilson. In this post I will tell you where my beliefs are and what I thought about the two arguments. Get comfortable, this is going to be a long one.

I finally got a chance to watch Collision, the movie that shows the debates between Christopher Hitchens (Anti-theist) and Douglas Wilson (Christian). Before I get into their arguments, I should tell you where I am started from.

First, although raised in the church, I no longer believe. I just can't get myself to believe in, and then worship, a God that would allow the type of suffering that has existed and continues to exist in this world. Second, a God that was worth worshiping would prefer that I try my best to make the world better and not waste time worshiping Him. There is a relatively common message in Christian churches that a Christian should feel JOY by putting Jesus first, then others, and lastly yourself. Sorry, I think it should be different; Jesus / God should come last. As for what comes first, I don't think one can lead a healthy life that puts yourself last. I think family, others, and yourself need to be on relatively equal footing.

While that is the state of my belief, overall I do not think that Christianity is good or bad for the world by itself. I think there is beauty in the church. Listen to Robert Randolph (The Word), Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, gospel music that has been coming out of African-American churches before we had rock and roll or even the blues, or more traditional white choirs. And there are few things more beautiful than Christmas eve candle-light service singing Silent Night and Joy to the World. Most importantly, the fellowship, good works, and humility that is formed in many churches across the country is inspiring.

But there is also ugliness. Many in the church are not humble, as God would call on them to be, but are instead righteous. They attack those around them for not being worthy and cause tremendous emotional suffering. And of course, following Jesus has lead people to war, or at least made them feel justified.

I therefore think the church, like other institutions are as beautiful and flawed as the human race is, at least from a big picture. As you will see, Hitchens got me to think of the small picture as well.

One more thing before I get started, it was a good movie, especially because it shows how real debates can happen - debates where both sides are intellectually honest, smart, and considerate. The debates take the viewer seriously and give them serious substance. This is lacking in our current cable environment.

As for the movie, I will say that I found Hitchens most convincing, probably because I started closer to his point of view. What most surprised me though was the form of Hitchens' argument. I have debated atheists before. In those arguments, the atheist seemed to say that wars were usually the fault of religions and that soon science would answer all of our questions. Neither of those points convinced me. I think just as many people have died for other reasons as for religion. And the point about science is based on faith as much as a belief in God is.

Hitchens' biggest point though is not about religion, but about Christianity. He says the vicarious redemption, whereby Christ shoulders all of our sins, is actually bad for the world. No one can and should take away our responsibility for our actions.

I found this to be rather compelling. I have always found it odd that if we are truly sorry for our actions, we will be forgiven. It is never clear how far this goes, but the possibilities seem endless. To be fair though, while I find this argument theoretically compelling, I do not get the sense that people actually use this to abdicate responsibility and therefore am not convinced how much effect it really has.

Hitchens also attacks other tenets of the faith. He questions whether love is actually possible when it is compulsory and whether it is possible to both love and fear someone. He also says that religion is our first and worst attempt to understand the world and if we had accepted Christianity's take on the world, we would not have made any scientific progress. While some people, like Wilson, can talk about science and Christianity, and Christianity can also try to keep moral frameworks as part of considerations for new science, in most cases Christianity seems to deny science.

Finally, Hitchens talks about how God is like a father that never goes away and therefore never lets us grow up. While this metaphor is convincing at first, I can't think of a way in which this is actually true. After all, my father is still around but has also let me grow up. What ways does God prevent that?

Wilson spends most of his time defending Christianity by showing how it can be a foundation for moral decision-making. That by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, we can try to understand how we should live. There is no similar construct for atheists. If a person is bad and an atheist, he or she is not violating any principles or foundations of atheism.

The problem is that either by trying to understand how God is revealing Himself, or by trying to decide how we should behave as decent human beings, we are still exercising reason - either as applied to the Bible or to non-religious readings - to decide how to live. I just don't see any evidence that Christianity provides a better foundation than non-religious humanist writings. In each case, we pick and choose which things are better codes to live by.

Seemingly in response to Hitchens' point about vicarious redemption, Wilson says that Stalin went to his grave believing that there was no final judgment waiting for him. Wouldn't it be a better world if that wasn't the case, Wilson asks. Yes, it would be comforting if there was the fear of damnation, or justice, for terrible acts. And although we can't make Stalin believe it, maybe there are some people that behave because they fear damnation.

One point they almost touched on but didn't get into was about how God would choose between two people: a believer but not a good person and a non-believer but a good person. After all, the Bible says that whoever feeds or clothes the least among us has therefore clothed and fed God. And to them will be given the reward of Heaven. But God also says that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. So do both people go? Or only the person that both believes and his helpful? I'm not sure I would want to share heaven with a bunch of pious but unhelpful souls. Nor would Heaven be worth going if those that helped but did not believe were not invited.

So where do I come out after seeing the movie? First, I feel I need to read their book (Is Christianity Good for the World) to make sure I got all of their arguments. Some might have been left out for brevity's sake. I'll be sure to post after I read the book.

Overall, as I said above, I was more convinced by Hitchens, at least about why not to believe in God. I think his arguments were better than any I have heard from atheists. However, I am not convinced that Christianity is bad for the world. I see the problems with vicarious redemption, but the Stalin argument was convincing as well. The bottom line is that I still think Christianity is neither good nor bad. As humans, we regularly make things beautiful, but we also spoil much that we touch.

Islamic Center Update

The debate over the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan has gotten out of hand and almost nobody looks good. President Obama's support was weak (supports their right but won't speak about the wisdom of building there). This Wall Street Journal Op-Ed says all the right things but has a conclusion that doesn't fit with the rest of the piece - calling for it to move somewhere else. In fact, the only bright spot has been John Stewart and the Daily Show for mocking all those opposed.

So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.

There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.

However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.

Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.

What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.

Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)

If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.

Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.

Islamic Center and Ignorance

The debate over an Islamic Community Center in lower Manhattan seems like it will never go away. My position is simple. The only reason one could oppose an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan is if you hold the whole religion of Islam responsible for what happened on September 11, 2001. In other words, you would have to think that it was regular Muslims - not radical Muslims corrupting an otherwise decent religion - that attacked us. If however you don't believe that the religion as a whole attacked us, then you wouldn't see an Islamic Community Center that represents moderate Islam as offensive of the memories of the victims (many of which were Muslim by the way).

Many Republicans want to appeal to their base by opposing it, and they are all trying to walk absurd lines to oppose it without seeming to oppose Islam. Some are trying to tell moderate Muslims not to be offended (ie Rudy Guliani and Sarah Palin). Others are just upset about how liberals are framing the debate - as if pointing out that Republicans are not conforming to one of our founding principles is an unfair debate tactic (Wall Street Journal). Some are saying that our principles should only be adhered to if dictatorships also adhere to them (Gingrich). Finally, Rick Lazio now seems to have gone off the deep end by suggesting 100 Islamic centers in New York is a security issue.

Despite the anger and sadness about the ease with which many people have been able to take a position that is at best wholly illogical and at worst bigoted, there have been some highlights. Mayor Bloomberg's speech has been widely hailed for its message of tolerance. President Obama has finally weighed in with support of the center. But the brightest light has been Fareed Zakaria.

The Anti-Defamation League has sided with those opposing the mosque. They also tried to walk a cautious line - by saying that the people attempting to build the mosque have the right to build there, but it isn't right that they do. Instead, the right thing would be for the mosque to be somewhere else in deference to the feelings of some of the victims' families - even if those feelings are unreasonable and bigoted. Essentially, an organization that opposes bigotry is saying bigotry is understandable if the bigot is a victim and furthermore, the victim / bigot's wishes should be respected.

This position is absurd and has cost an otherwise respected institution serious credibility. Fareed Zakaria has taken a stand and sent back an award he received from them because of the position they have taken. His step sends the strongest message to that organization about why their position was wrong. They seem unable to change course to gain back their credibility. However, it is voices like Fareed Zakaria's that are fortunately overpowering the ADL and the Republican party.

Missionary Work

I have to say, I have become increasingly conflicted these days about missionary work. I find it very difficult to balance the good that is done when missionary workers are able to provide food, health care, housing, and training against the way they blithely go in trying to change the existing cultures.

The best meditation on this topic is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible deals with similar themes but is not as balanced as Achebe's book.) What is so powerful about the book is that Achebe, in showing the conflict between the existing tribal culture and religion in Nigera and the christian missionaries and colonialists that come in, does not hide either side's flaws. However, as a reader, I definitely feel that something is lost when Christianity supplants the existing culture and beliefs. (I often feel the same way about Celtic culture and practices, which were also replaced by Christianity.)

On the other side of course is the immense good that is done by missionaries. I need only read an article like this about college football star Tim Tebow or think about the work my Dad's church does in Mozambique to realize that there are a lot of people doing amazing things in the name of religion.

For now, the way I have reconciled this debate in my head is that the good that is done outweighs the bad. But we do need to realize that each culture has its own inherent beauty, and all aid workers need to respect that. There should be policies that prevent groups from requiring conversion to receive help (although I do not think many groups stoop to this). This of course does nothing about the coercion that is inherent when aid is distributed by people with a religious goal. And that I do not have any solutions for - at least at the moment.

Is Religion Bad?

I have had numerous debates about whether religion in itself is bad. There are many atheist liberals that feel religion is a scourge - a source of problems that delivers few benefits. For a while, before the 2006 and 2008 elections, that group seemed to dominate the Democratic party. Thankfully, that has changed, at least for now. But those people are still out there.

In this post, I will lay out my side of those arguments.

The arguments from people like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and others seem to rest on two assumptions. First, God definitely does not exist. Second, belief in this nonexistent God causes more harm than good.

The first assumption is one I want to spend only a little time on because a real argument would likely prove fruitless here - since there is little proof one way or the other, arguments on this point tend to go around in circles.

Personally though, I find it hard to believe in a God - or if God does exist, He does not strike me as someone worth worshiping. But two things keep me from exercising the kind of certainty that hard core atheists do. First, there are some things that I cannot shake - a feeling that there is some justice in the world and there seems to be more everyday. Maybe that is a sign of the existence of divinity. Second, in general I know that I must exercise some humbleness and admit that even without my doubts, I could be wrong. Allowing for that, I should allow for those who do believe to continue to believe.

I think the more important argument though is on the second assumption. I fundamentally believe that people, not religions or ideologies, are responsible for good and bad. Christianity (and other religions) can, and has been, a force for both great good and terrible evil. And in either case, it was the people themselves that created the good or the bad, not the religion. When it comes down to it, people interpret things however they want to, or find things to interpret to benefit them. People will always find reasons to separate each other and unite against "the other". Ending violence comes through understanding, not through removing differences.

One of my favorite people to debate suggested that religion is bad because it causes people to believe they lack control over their own lives. This can therefore impede their growth or improvement. I am really glad she brought this up because it gets at my point. The fact is that people, religious or not, can feel a lack of control over their own lives. Some attribute this to God's will, while the less religious call it fate. So as I see it, removing religion does not remove the feeling that one is not in control over their life. If you take away God, what remains is a belief in fate.

In fact, it is the Christian faith that teaches free will - that God gave us the ability to choose to love Him or not, to chose the path of righteousness or not. So one could argue that a proper understanding of the Christian faith would lead people to feel in control over their destiny (while also having the strength that comes from knowing that they will always have God's support).

You can make the same argument about some of the intolerance that comes from Christianity. While the Bible can give people a fall back to explain their intolerance, removing religion is unlikely to remove people's hatred of things they do not understand. I find it slightly naive to think that if you could take religion from people, that they will suddenly understand and embrace things they now reject - like homosexuality. (At the same time, I believe that people who do good in the name of religion would do it anyway if religion were to disappear.)

What I am getting at is that we need to deal with people's attitudes and biases, not the things that they use to understand or justify their biases. You empower someone by showing them that they are in control over their lives. And you introduce someone to the GLBT community to teach them tolerance. Tolerance and free will fit perfectly inside of modern Christianity. But intolerance and a feeling of powerlessness also fit perfectly in modern atheism.

Christianity was used in the past to justify segregation, apartheid and policies that banned interracial marriages. We did not eliminate these things by banning religion. Instead we changed minds, which changed the way people understood their religions.

A Raisin in the Sun

I was raised in the Methodist Church - in a Northeast Methodist Church to be exact. My family went every Sunday and I was required to go to Sunday school even after my Confirmation. I did manage to learn a lot about Christianity - mostly through osmosis probably - and I respect the faith and the teachings (mostly). So you might ask why I do not practice.

In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the more mystical elements like the Virgin Birth, Christ's Resurrection, or the Old Testament teachings (well, there are some stories that I just don't get). My problem is with God. There, I said it. The fact is, that even if He does exist, I can't bring myself to worship Him.

There is a quote from Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun that I loved as soon as I read it and haven't been able to forget about since.

Beneatha: Mama, you don't understand. It's all a matter of ideas, and God is just one idea I don't accept. It's not important. I am not going out and be immoral or commit crimes because I don't believe in God. I don't even think about it. It's just that I get tired of Him getting credit for all the things the human race achieves through its own stubborn effort. There simply is no blasted God - there is only man and it is he who achieves miracles!

Beneatha gets slapped by Mama right after this, but that is beside the point. What bothers me is that God asks us to be humble but requires that we spend some significant portion of our lives worshiping Him. And on top of that, I don't even know what we are worshiping. Am I worshiping a God that allows 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus to be killed in 100 days; a God that allows millions of Jews to die under Hitler; a God that watches as famine, disease, and war (with child soldiers no less) wipe out the most vulnerable among us?

The crux of Christianity seems to be that we created sin, so therefore we are to blame for all of the world's evils. Yet the credit for all miracles go to Him. It has to be one way or the other. Either the human race is responsible for wars and miracles, or God is. I tend towards the former, but if it is the later, then I don't see why God is worth worshiping.

Book Report: Shia Revival

I finished reading The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. The book mostly focuses on the conflict between Shia and Sunni faiths, with an emphasis on Shiaism, and includes a brief history of Islam (again, with a focus on Shiaism). The book is well written and so it was a quick read.

I learned two main things from this book. First, our understanding of the Middle East and their politics, as covered in the press, is highly skewed. Who we see as the villains and heroes depends on who likes us and who does not. In the past we have seen Iran as a villain and Saudi Arabia as a hero. In fact, as 9/11 taught us, it should be the other way around. We even judge Iran's democracy more harshly because of our relationship with them and yet don't judge Saudi Arabia's repressive government.

The author sees all developments in the Middle East through the lens of Shia and Sunni interactions (conflicts) and that other issues are often pawns in that interaction. An Iraq with closer ties to Iran can counter strength of Sunni governments, whose oppression and intolerance have a negative impact on the region (which is not at all how the US press sees it). Also, the Israel / Palestine issue is manipulated to garner popular support and strength in the region.

The book manages to provide a much more nuanced, and less negative, view of Shias and Iran specifically. Unfortunately, I do not think Americans are ready to accept that view.

The second thing I learned was of course how similar Islam and Christianity are when you contrast their histories. Both religions have had to respond to oppression against their faithful. Early Christians choose martyrdom (a really good analysis of the Gnostic Book of Judas suggests the author believed that martyrdom was against God's will - leading sheep to the slaughter) as a way to promote the faith. In the face of oppression, Shias have at times chosen martyrdom (as the celebration of Ashora remembers) at times modified their faith, and at times simply withstood the oppression.

Both faiths have had to deal with modernization as well, although it seems Islam has had the greater challenge since the modern world has seemed to leave Muslims behind. This debate largely revolves around traditionalism versus change. The faiths also face(d) conflicts over who should lead the faith and who should lead the government - and whether those two should be the same.

The issue that really struck me though was how the religions debate internally whether individual piety or social justice is more important - essentially whether the faith should be inward looking or outward looking. Around the 1950s, Shia clerics argued that the faith was too focused on piety and did not do enough to fight for changes to make people's lives better. Through these teachings, these Shias were arguing for revolution and social change - some argued in support of communism.

This book is a must read because it can both humanize Shias and help people to think about our role in the Middle East differently. We should be supporting states based not on their rhetoric towards us, but how their actions affect us and their own people. Also, by better understanding the power plays between Sunnis and Shias, we can better manage issues and conflicts in the region.

Gay Marriage: What Does the Bible Say?

Newsweek recently had an interesting article focusing on gay marriage. The article tried to engage with Christian arguments against gay marriage, instead of simply dismissing the Bible as an invaluable place to derive policy. Overall, the author made some good points, but oversimplified others. At the same time, I don't know how you can really engage in a discussion on textual teachings of the Bible and be thorough while also meeting space constraints of a Newsweek article.

Her first point, and what I have come to believe, is that most people who oppose gay marriage cannot do it using Biblical textual literalism, since almost no one actually follows all things taught in the Bible. Modern Christians regularly disregard teachings from the Old Testament, especially Leviticus, one of the few places male homosexuality is mentioned.

So if textual literalism is not driving Christians to oppose gay marriage, what is? The common response is support for a traditional family. It is this part of the argument where the author oversimplifies. She looks back to the Old Testament families (especially Abraham and Jacob) and suggests that since they had multiple wives, than the Bible cannot be the source of a focus on the one male - one female family unit. This argument does not make sense if we see that the teachings of Jesus often conflict with, and probably were meant to change, teachings in the Old Testament. The loving and peaceful Jesus was very different from what appears to be a vengeful Old Testament God. So if Jesus did preach about family units, than Jacob's multiple wives doesn't matter as much.

Unfortunately, I don't know as much about all of the teachings of Jesus, so I don't know what focus he put on families. But from what I understand, his (and Paul's) opposition to divorce is far stronger than opposition to gay relationships (the author rightly mentions this as well). So this begs the question - why does modern Christianity put far more focus on gay marriage than on actually dealing with the bigger problems facing what the Bible upholds as the traditional family unit? Through this lens, it seems like bigotry masking itself as righteousness.

If Christians really want to focus on strengthening families, then they need to focus on things that are actually affecting families. If high divorce rates and single family households are contrary to what the Bible upholds as the correct family unit, then Christians should deal with these issues, which are not related to homosexuality at all.

The bottom line is that opposition to gay marriage makes little sense even if you accept that the Bible can be a reasonable place to draw moral lessons. Almost no one can claim they are Biblical literalists and looking at the spirit of the text gives no clues to understand why opposing gay marriage should be a major focus of Christians hoping to protect families.

The Bible, Again

In a previous post I mentioned how I was interested in reading the Bible primarily because I wanted to know where it actually talked about homosexuality. In looking back, I realize I did not make it clear why I would be interested in that. In case you do not know me as well, my interest is in how a loving God could ban something that, when done between two consenting adults can be just as beautiful as any heterosexual relationship.

My interest therefore is where in the Bible gay relationships are mentioned, what the context is, and how it compares to other proscriptions of the Bible. I assume that many people who argue against recognizing gay marriage do so with little real knowledge of the Bible and so my goal is to know the Bible better than they do.

In truth, I think I also oversimplified. I also want to read the Bible to understand myself better, to understand my family (ancestry) better, and to understand other conservative thought better.

Reading the Bible

A writer for Slate recently read the Old Testament of the Bible and wrote an article, (and a book) about the experience. Reading the Bible does not seem like that big of a deal, until you consider how few people actually do. Instead of displaying any stereotypes I have of religious groups in the US, I'll just reference the writer's point that only evangelical protestants really read the Bible.

I recently began reading the Bible, with the hope of at least being able to talk more intelligently about what it does and does not say. My main reason was to learn more about how and when the Bible disapproves of homosexuality. But I also wanted a more general understanding.

This is no small undertaking, and I have made limited progress. But my thoughts so far are similar to David Plotz's.

After reading about the genocides, the plagues, the murders, the mass enslavements, the ruthless vengeance for minor sins (or none at all), and all that smiting—every bit of it directly performed, authorized, or approved by God—I can only conclude that the God of the Hebrew Bible, if He existed, was awful, cruel, and capricious. He gives us moments of beauty—such sublime beauty and grace!—but taken as a whole, He is no God I want to obey and no God I can love.

I have similar feelings about God's role in the world we live in as a whole, and maybe one day I will share a more personal post I have written on the topic.

I also understand Plotz when he says that his heroes in the Bible are those who question God. In fact, one of my favorite parts of Slaughter House Five is when the narrator tells of his love/respect for Lot's wife because she looked back at God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah even though it turned her into a pillar of salt.

I plan to continue reading the Bible when I have time, although it will be a very slow process. It is interesting reading, although long passages of boring narration surround the interesting and relevant stories. I'm sure I'll have more to say as I read.

Why Aren't They All Religious Left?

From the archives:

Somehow, the following post never actually got posted. But I couldn't let it rest, so here it is. The post is about Huckabee - remember him? He was a candidate for president in the Republican primaries. I know, it seems like such a long time ago. Anyway...

I don't talk about religion on here much, but when I see statements like the following (from this NY Times article), I have to say something.

Since Mr. Huckabee’s success in Iowa, however, his campaign has faced a barrage of attacks on his conservative credentials. Rush Limbaugh has accused him of "class warfare." The Wall Street Journal editorial page has called him "religious left." And his Republican rivals have escalated their criticism. In a debate on Thursday, Mr. Thompson called Mr. Huckabee a "Christian leader" who would support "liberal economic policies" and "liberal foreign policies."

Just to give a little context, the people quoted above are criticizing Huckabee's populist policies, i.e. policies to help the poor and lower middle class. This type of talk baffles me almost as much as it angers me. How can a religious person criticize another religious person for wanting to help the poor? Which Bible are these people reading that suggests free market principles are what God supports and the poor should be left to fend for themselves? Fortunately, Huckabee's supporters do a pretty good job at rising to the defense:

"Can you imagine Jesus ignoring the plight of the disenfranchised and downtrodden while going after the abortionist?" Mr. Scarborough wrote on the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Christian Conservative policy, speaking from a religious doctrine point of view, has long strayed from what seems to me to be the message of the New Testament's teachings. By saying this, I mean to argue with Christians using what they say is the basis for their beliefs. I encourage anyone to read the Gospels and tell me why we shouldn't do more to help those in need.

My hope is that Huckabee can use his appeal to shake up Christian Conservatives. There is some evidence that this is already happening. Maybe sometime soon, the Religious Right can get back their soul and focus on helping the poor.

Rousseau and Hobbes (Nope, No Calvin)

Summary:
An article in the NY Times magazine puts a new spin on religious extremism in the Middle East by comparing it to the West's religious history. The author suggests that our move towards secular liberal democracy might be unique and we cannot expect the Middle East to jump on board. If so, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate?

I am getting caught up on my back issues of NY Times Sunday Magazine and finally finished this article. It puts religious extremism in the Middle East in the context of the West's own religious history. The author's main point seems to be that our own history is similar to what the Middle East is going through, but our conversion to secular liberal democracy is unique. We therefore can't expect the Middle East to follow that path, especially at so fast a pace.

In showing how similar the current situation in the Middle East is to our own history, the author tries to make us recognize that religious extremism is a natural human impulse. He talks about how we use terms like fascism to describe the extremism we are witnessing, and we blame it on the economic and political systems that lead people to messianic views of religion. This point is compelling, except that it ignores Hobbes' description of why religion took hold in the Middle Ages; life was chaotic (solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short...) and religion gave people comfort. Similarly, people in the Middle East are turning towards a form of religion that is empowering. So I don't think we can discount how overall life conditions affect the strength of religious devotion and the lengths to which believers will go in its name.

The author's conclusion is that we can't expect secular liberal democracy to develop and we will have to accept non-secular governments in the Middle East, even some who base their laws on Sharia. The author sites Muslim writers like Tariq Ramadan (who was prevented from taking a teaching position at Notre Dame by the US government) who are pushing for more modern interpretations of Islam but are not suggesting that Muslims disavow Islamic law. This is a very different position from people like Thomas Friedman who say that liberal democracy is the only hope for the Middle East.

This article seems to illuminate two really difficult issues. One is whether or not other countries / cultures have to follow the West's development path. If so, the next question is whether they have to follow all our steps or can we help them jump ahead to our stage. This is an obvious issue in development, but I see it here too. Can we help the world achieve secular liberal democracy, or do we need to step back and let them figure it out?

The other broad issue is the tension between relativism and universalism. While we think about whether cultures will follow our path, we should also think about whether they have to? We believe secular liberal democracy is the best form of government - but should we impose it on everyone else (even if try methods less violent than Iraq)? If not, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate? The author of this article suggests we might have to accept governments based on Sharia, but with more modern interpretations of the Koran. I don't believe that you have to be either be a universalist or a relativist. There is a middle ground - no matter what adjunct professors at graduate school say. There are some things we cannot accept, like rules that completely subjugate women.

I think both of these issues lie at the crux of our foreign policy (that is, if we care about having a thoughtful and consistent foreign policy). What do we accept, and what should we do to move governments towards what we find acceptable?

Intolerance and Religion

I had an interesting conversation with a friend about religion recently. The conversation got started because he was describing the book he is reading that is highly critical of religion in America. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I haven’t read the book and my knowledge of it comes from an advertisement I saw about it and my friend’s description of it.

The book seems to be in the same vein as other books out there trying to completely discredit modern religion in America. These are probably responses to the recent strength of the religious right in America as well as possibly the rise of Muslim extremism around the world. Many of these writers attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist and that religion is fake and illogical. I have to say that I find these books and the arguments they try to make as obnoxious and, frankly, intolerant as the far-right religious groups that they are presumably attacking. I hate the assumption that those who don’t believe are uneducated, illogical and unaware of all of the evidence that there is no God. I consider myself very well educated, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is more than what is seen.

Analogies to teacups revolving around the sun aside, any attempt to talk about religion must start with the obvious truth that we can neither prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist. Since we know this, any belief therefore is based on faith. Each person must make a personal decision, based on the evidence they know of, to decide if they think there is something else out there and what form that something else takes.

Often times when religion is discussed, people try to use statistics to describe how religious America really is. Based on what I know a majority believes in a God of some kind, and that percentage of Americans decreases when you ask about belief in the Creation and the literal nature of the Virgin birth. As I understand it, the author that my friend is reading seems to think that people who don’t believe everything in the Bible cannot really be considered true believers because it is illogical to only believe in certain parts. I think taking this position ignores a huge population and also demonstrates an ignorance of what makes religion so powerful.

In our life we are surrounded by things we cannot possibly understand. There are horrors that defy imagination, and beauties that we can’t comprehend. Facing that, some people choose to believe that it is merely the result of randomness outside of our control. Life is unpredictable and at times cruel and there is nothing we can do about it. But others cannot overcome the feeling that there is something more than this, that there is a force that we don’t understand but that is nonetheless impacting our lives. Whether it is an omnipotent being that demands we worship it and follow all of its rules, or a force or emotion that ties us all and can provide guidance, many feel there is something in our universe that is working for good.

In the end, our lives will always be surrounded by things that we can neither prove are true nor untrue. In those situations, people will come to their own conclusions. In a tolerant society, we would respect everyone’s position and not believe that anyone is more right. My hope is that we do one day live in such a society. Until then, I accept that I will be forced to watch as the extremely religious attack me for not being religious enough, and those that feel their logic and reasoning make them above belief in things unseen will mock me for having a faith in something else.

Enlightenment?

This opinion contribution has some really good commentary on the secularist / modern enlightenment zealots and their war against religion. I may not be a member of the religious right, but I have no patience for the books out there now that are desperately trying to show the world that people who have faith in something other than science are delusional.