A couple updates on past posts.
First, I read the first section of Reza Aslan's (isn't that the lion in ... okay) Jesus book. More so than his book on the history of Islam, he has made this a dramatic account, in some cases reading like a historical drama as much as a biography of Jesus. A major point here is that we can best understand Jesus by understanding his times, so this first part is basically a summary of about a hundred years of Palestinian history from the when Rome took control to the the fall of Masada. This brings us to about when the Gospel of Mark is thought to have been written, so it's a good cut-off.
The first section is a very good look* into the period in question, helping you to get the lay of the land. One notable thing was the number of "messiahs" and the like, at least one other one wit the name "Jesus." Also, we get a look at the "zealots," which the title suggests is where the author puts Jesus (no spoilers, please!). [One of the apostles is labeled a "zealot," but the book from a quick look only briefly notes him.] We also get a few reminders that the authors of the gospels don't mean to be historians.** A literal reading of the gospels will run in various problems like is the case for other sacred books, and many believers today manage to be such not doing that.
In fact, the argument is that the readers at times clearly knew even basic "historical" events simply didn't happen. They were provided to send a "truthful" message on the meaning of certain things and/or show scriptures were fulfilled (this seems tricky -- if the messiah is to be from Bethlehem and Jesus was not actually born there, it seems a problem that in effect, sorry this seems the right term, making it up, doesn't quite help). Also, I think he exaggerates. For instance, Matthew and Luke is written to a gentile audience some time c. 80. Why would they know about some singular tyranny of Herod (who killed at will at times), especially after so many Jews were wiped out in the 60s war? If the slaughter of the infants or even some census few would know about (did someone look it up and say, "hey!") didn't quite happen, I doubt many would know 80 years later.
So, it's a good start, and I will say more later. Next, I referenced an article entitled "Disentangling Conscience and Religion," which fits into an interest of mine. I finally had a chance to read the darn thing and it was fairly interesting. The article is not that concerned with providing a specific meaning of 'religion," saying at one point that he would define it broadly. For instance, not rejecting it, he noted:
The article has some nice asides (e.g., a good one early about Huck Finn, including how he has meaning even beyond what Mark Twain [who is not quite Samuel Clemens!] says it is). It also supplies a good historical look at how the religion clauses of the First Amendment (focusing on Thomas Paine, since he would be particularly radical) were understood -- "conscience" generally was assumed to be "religious" in nature, and not the open-ended one I just alluded to either. As the article notes, while not having an originalist bent as such, many now use constitutional terms in a different way as originally intended.
The article also discusses a bit of religious history (including Paul) to show how "conscience" and "religion" were seen as interrelated but not quite the same. This would include those cases where conscience demands what official religious institutions or standard rules (e.g., rules agaisnt murder) would demand. Such rules are important given the imperfections of conscience resting alone. Likewise, various examples are cited where in law "conscience" is used as a factor, not always matching "religion," such as the rules of when a person can refuse to advocate a position as a lawyer. There is for me a somewhat confusing thumbnail sketch of John Rawls with the overall purpose of showing that as compared to the Founders, who saw "conscience" as just "religious," Rawls doesn't do enough to differentiate conscience from a general moral/religious/conscientious mass.
Basically, I probably am simplifying, the author sets forth conscience as "the faculty that leads to moral judgments," which would suggest it is an aspect of religion, or something important for the freedom to formulate religious beliefs etc. (see my past discussion), but not the same thing. Also, religion as noted often includes rituals and practices that are themselves not really "moral" though the example of the yarmulke can be said to be if we look to see what is behind the practices.
Anyway, the "reflection and judgment" involved in conscience is worthy of protection as a fundamental right by itself. It is essential for personal integrity (a good citation of Socrates and how we always have to live with ourselves, explaining why for many it is worse to do wrong than be wronged, since you cannot get away from yourself). Those without a conscience are sociopaths. It also is a check on governmental power, they (or society) do not have a total monopoly on what is right and wrong. They will at times have the power of the law, but even then, conscience provides a reminder of how serious this would be, not to be used lightly.
The article ends admitting that it is not trying to answer all the answers as to the specifics of a right to conscience. One important issue would be what happens when conscience runs into the commands of law. The article does say the "challenge is to not mistake the grand cases for the petty," referencing "morally profound issues such as those related to killing." Hannah Arendt (one of those greats I have not really read directly, to be honest) is cited ('"somewhat by contrast" -- not sure about that) as a major influence of his thoughts here and for her "boundary situations" or "special emergencies" are where conscience matters the most. Nazi Germany was of special interest to her, but over the years, other examples would include slavery, the Vietnam War and so on.
It was an interesting article and helpful for those who at times dismiss religious freedom as all about some fantasy. I think that unfair and unrealistic, but it is even more so when it is seen as part of a wider range of liberty that includes freedom of conscience. The last part about petty v. grand comes up these days regarding contraception mandates. I think, cheapening the liberties at stake in the process, this is missed by some today. Disagreeing with them, and this annoys me when it is suggested, doesn't mean we disrespect the overall principles. I strongly believe in them. But, they are too important to lose perspective over the matter.***
---
* There are other books that cover the history of the period, but as a thumbnail sketch for the lay reader, this section is an impressive effort. Bart Ehrman has noted that it is a shame more don't know the full context of their faiths -- particularly the background of the gospels so forth -- and this sort of thing helps a lot. Might be time for another epic film!
** It is my undemanding that Luke might have wanted his account to have some degree of "historical" feel, including the normal practice of inserting speeches (see also, of Pericles) that in effect are a paraphrase of what "should have" happened, since no one was present to take notes for later usage. This somewhat slippy use of facts is acceptable, but inserting infancy narratives that many seriously think happened? A bit different.
*** This should be understood when addressing the "right" of this or that cited by the Bill of Rights and so on. Such things can be written in quite absolutist language, but it warrants looking at just what is said. It doesn't say the government can pass no laws about speech or limiting it in any fashion. etc. It speaks of "rights" and "freedoms," which in society is part of an overall whole. I do think when "no" is used, it is pretty strong. But, it is not absolute, and it is in a certain context.
First, I read the first section of Reza Aslan's (isn't that the lion in ... okay) Jesus book. More so than his book on the history of Islam, he has made this a dramatic account, in some cases reading like a historical drama as much as a biography of Jesus. A major point here is that we can best understand Jesus by understanding his times, so this first part is basically a summary of about a hundred years of Palestinian history from the when Rome took control to the the fall of Masada. This brings us to about when the Gospel of Mark is thought to have been written, so it's a good cut-off.
The first section is a very good look* into the period in question, helping you to get the lay of the land. One notable thing was the number of "messiahs" and the like, at least one other one wit the name "Jesus." Also, we get a look at the "zealots," which the title suggests is where the author puts Jesus (no spoilers, please!). [One of the apostles is labeled a "zealot," but the book from a quick look only briefly notes him.] We also get a few reminders that the authors of the gospels don't mean to be historians.** A literal reading of the gospels will run in various problems like is the case for other sacred books, and many believers today manage to be such not doing that.
In fact, the argument is that the readers at times clearly knew even basic "historical" events simply didn't happen. They were provided to send a "truthful" message on the meaning of certain things and/or show scriptures were fulfilled (this seems tricky -- if the messiah is to be from Bethlehem and Jesus was not actually born there, it seems a problem that in effect, sorry this seems the right term, making it up, doesn't quite help). Also, I think he exaggerates. For instance, Matthew and Luke is written to a gentile audience some time c. 80. Why would they know about some singular tyranny of Herod (who killed at will at times), especially after so many Jews were wiped out in the 60s war? If the slaughter of the infants or even some census few would know about (did someone look it up and say, "hey!") didn't quite happen, I doubt many would know 80 years later.
So, it's a good start, and I will say more later. Next, I referenced an article entitled "Disentangling Conscience and Religion," which fits into an interest of mine. I finally had a chance to read the darn thing and it was fairly interesting. The article is not that concerned with providing a specific meaning of 'religion," saying at one point that he would define it broadly. For instance, not rejecting it, he noted:
Theorists put it variously, but many suggest that religion for purposes of religious liberty is a cluster of ideas meant to encompass the variety of beliefs and actions, personal and social, that respond to the experiences of birth, learning, failure, love, death, and the awe of being small in a grand universe.For instance, I think a person can see a marriage as a "religious" act, even if they don't believe in God. On the show Army Wives (which I stopped watching), a character wanted to have a ceremony for her new child, in effect a baptism, but you know, "not really into the God thing." But, the even was still "religious," a means to make the daughter a part of the community, to bless her. Anyway, it is unclear where "religion" stops, and given the Ninth Amendment, equal protection and so forth, other things should be protected too. Still, the First Amendment does single out "religion," which has some effect. And, making religion and conscience have some differences also makes the article possible!
The article has some nice asides (e.g., a good one early about Huck Finn, including how he has meaning even beyond what Mark Twain [who is not quite Samuel Clemens!] says it is). It also supplies a good historical look at how the religion clauses of the First Amendment (focusing on Thomas Paine, since he would be particularly radical) were understood -- "conscience" generally was assumed to be "religious" in nature, and not the open-ended one I just alluded to either. As the article notes, while not having an originalist bent as such, many now use constitutional terms in a different way as originally intended.
The article also discusses a bit of religious history (including Paul) to show how "conscience" and "religion" were seen as interrelated but not quite the same. This would include those cases where conscience demands what official religious institutions or standard rules (e.g., rules agaisnt murder) would demand. Such rules are important given the imperfections of conscience resting alone. Likewise, various examples are cited where in law "conscience" is used as a factor, not always matching "religion," such as the rules of when a person can refuse to advocate a position as a lawyer. There is for me a somewhat confusing thumbnail sketch of John Rawls with the overall purpose of showing that as compared to the Founders, who saw "conscience" as just "religious," Rawls doesn't do enough to differentiate conscience from a general moral/religious/conscientious mass.
Basically, I probably am simplifying, the author sets forth conscience as "the faculty that leads to moral judgments," which would suggest it is an aspect of religion, or something important for the freedom to formulate religious beliefs etc. (see my past discussion), but not the same thing. Also, religion as noted often includes rituals and practices that are themselves not really "moral" though the example of the yarmulke can be said to be if we look to see what is behind the practices.
Anyway, the "reflection and judgment" involved in conscience is worthy of protection as a fundamental right by itself. It is essential for personal integrity (a good citation of Socrates and how we always have to live with ourselves, explaining why for many it is worse to do wrong than be wronged, since you cannot get away from yourself). Those without a conscience are sociopaths. It also is a check on governmental power, they (or society) do not have a total monopoly on what is right and wrong. They will at times have the power of the law, but even then, conscience provides a reminder of how serious this would be, not to be used lightly.
The article ends admitting that it is not trying to answer all the answers as to the specifics of a right to conscience. One important issue would be what happens when conscience runs into the commands of law. The article does say the "challenge is to not mistake the grand cases for the petty," referencing "morally profound issues such as those related to killing." Hannah Arendt (one of those greats I have not really read directly, to be honest) is cited ('"somewhat by contrast" -- not sure about that) as a major influence of his thoughts here and for her "boundary situations" or "special emergencies" are where conscience matters the most. Nazi Germany was of special interest to her, but over the years, other examples would include slavery, the Vietnam War and so on.
It was an interesting article and helpful for those who at times dismiss religious freedom as all about some fantasy. I think that unfair and unrealistic, but it is even more so when it is seen as part of a wider range of liberty that includes freedom of conscience. The last part about petty v. grand comes up these days regarding contraception mandates. I think, cheapening the liberties at stake in the process, this is missed by some today. Disagreeing with them, and this annoys me when it is suggested, doesn't mean we disrespect the overall principles. I strongly believe in them. But, they are too important to lose perspective over the matter.***
---
* There are other books that cover the history of the period, but as a thumbnail sketch for the lay reader, this section is an impressive effort. Bart Ehrman has noted that it is a shame more don't know the full context of their faiths -- particularly the background of the gospels so forth -- and this sort of thing helps a lot. Might be time for another epic film!
** It is my undemanding that Luke might have wanted his account to have some degree of "historical" feel, including the normal practice of inserting speeches (see also, of Pericles) that in effect are a paraphrase of what "should have" happened, since no one was present to take notes for later usage. This somewhat slippy use of facts is acceptable, but inserting infancy narratives that many seriously think happened? A bit different.
*** This should be understood when addressing the "right" of this or that cited by the Bill of Rights and so on. Such things can be written in quite absolutist language, but it warrants looking at just what is said. It doesn't say the government can pass no laws about speech or limiting it in any fashion. etc. It speaks of "rights" and "freedoms," which in society is part of an overall whole. I do think when "no" is used, it is pretty strong. But, it is not absolute, and it is in a certain context.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!