And Also: Memorial Day -- honoring those who died in wars -- is upon us and to me the best way to truly honor that is to promote peace. Trump wants to go another way.
As noted in Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman, James Madison (whose first elected turned on the evangelical vote) more than Jefferson understood the power of the "tradition, ritual, and sheer nonrational spiritual power of faith." This is not to say that "religion" can be a more rational affair as someone like Thomas Jefferson and others think. But, the term does have those aspects as a general matter. To the extent that a non-theistic ritual, such as a marriage, has a "religious" component, we see this. Likewise, many Jews might basically be atheists, but honor tradition. Finally, there is a certain aspect of human existence that is not led by mere reason. We see this in everyday life in matters not related to religion when observing basic human affairs. Limiting our actions even if they might not seem "reasonable" would be rather oppressive. Even many atheists recognize this.
As noted in that book, religious liberty was developed in this country for a variety of reasons. There was a basic understanding that religion was a necessary part of life, in part because few doubted their was a God and an an afterlife. The science of the day along with years of social conditioning made it not surprising that God was seen as logical. It is more complicated to figure out a purely rational argument that a "watchmaker" God has to be concerned with our well being. If this is granted, an afterlife and final judgment can be rationalized.
Religion was seen as necessary for a good life and for good citizens. If used in a broad sense, including a broad view of "freedom of conscience" (a term often used and assumed to overlap with belief in God), this can be granted in some fashion.* Anyway, religion is an important aspect of human existence and religious freedom is rightly deemed essential. This is so even if you think some religious beliefs are absurd. The pragmatic aspects of accepting religious diversity and respecting diverse groups in the book is cited as a major concern of George Washington during the Revolutionary War. The fear of Catholics was particularly uncomfortable when trying to get the French on our side. This comes up today in various forms.
Thomas Jefferson supported religious freedom largely because he saw it necessary for freedom of thought. James Madison also was concerned about the problems of government corrupting religion, including in practice favoring certain religions over others. Washington and John Adams accepted some mixture of church and state, the former especially concerned however to do so in a pluralistic way. The book at one point says the 99% of the population was Protestant. Things are a lot different now and even establishments that honor "God" can be problematic these days. At the very least, pluralism requires more strict rules.
The book spells out that not only did religious liberty concerns help influence the American Revolution (both as an incentive to rebel against England specifically and justifying rebellion in principle), but there was a dark side as well. Early settlers saw "free exercise of religion" to be necessary because so many did not follow God's will appropriate and thought that meant setting up colonial settlements that discriminated against such groups. Anti-Catholic sentiment (in part since the pope mixed church and state -- Catholics were loyal to a foreign state, not England) was a major influence. Our constitutional system has a dark side and not just in the context of slavery and Native Americans.
And, part of the First Amendment was to give states discretion to favor certain religious beliefs, though even there, by 1791, we were talking fairly benign establishments as compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. Let's not go too far there. It took until the mid-20th Century to overturn a requirement that one took an oath that they believed in God to become a notary public. Various states favored Christians or certain types of Christians (such as belief in the trinity). In the 19th Century, Catholics were discriminated in various ways, including in public schools. Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment itself showed the need of limits on states. The opening suggests we have a ways to go.
But, religious freedom remains a public good, especially if it is taken in the right frame of mind.
----
* A recent post discussed how a "prayer" at legislative gathering need not by definition involve appeals to God. "Religion" as a whole can and should be seen in such open-ended terms. Some say they are "spiritual" but not "religious" in part because the second term has to them troubling implications like a rule based approach or so forth. There very well might be some differences there. Ditto those two things and "conscience."
But, religious liberty includes all and parsing the things to me is rather complicated. A good life very well requires as a general matter some system of values and belief that you are bound by it for some reason. This tends to include some sort of rituals (like marriage) and other things that has religious implications. The final aspect -- an afterlife and judgment -- is somewhat different. (One might say "rather" different though life itself can bring its own karma.) But, many people -- unlike belief in some sort of god or gods -- these days do not believe in that anyway.
Freedom of religion includes the right to choose here, something that history showed has a pragmatic value.
She claims that Christianity teaches “free will” and, as a result, laws preventing a women’s choice to abort a baby are not Christian.I respect John Fea, an evangelist who teaches history and dissents from the current pro-Trump sentiment among evangelist. After all, he is even a Mets fan. But, move past the "baby" part (many don't think an embryo in early pregnancy, where most abortions occur, is a "baby"), his denunciation of Sen. Gillibrand's "wacky" position is rather off base. If he is upset at simplistic statements of theology from a politician, perhaps he can be consistent and denounce when such generalists make simplistic economic statements or whatever. And, compare the statement here:
Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith. The reverse is also so now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion if they so choose.So wrote The Baptist Press' Washington bureau chief right after Roe v. Wade was decided. Catholics for Choice, reflecting the beliefs of many of that faith (at least people who surely think of themselves and are treated as), believe that their faith includes free will and the personal choice to make that decision. Many Christian sects believe that abortion, at least in some cases, is a moral choice that does not violate Christianity and that part of their faith is individual choice. In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention (after noting some "Christians," no scare quotes implied, had a more open-ended view) resolution on abortion that included this:
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.This reflected the moderate abortion reform of the day. A few states basically completely liberalized abortion laws to the extent shown in Roe v. Wade. Others basically pushed for “therapeutic” abortions that basically overlap with those categories. The last is an open-ended understanding of "health" and though "carefully ascertained" has a touch of "let's not go too far here," it is unclear where one draws the line there. If a women doesn't want to have a baby (again, merely being pregnant is not deemed to have a baby in the minds of many), forcing her to do so is likely to damage her "emotional, mental, and physical health."
As noted in Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman, James Madison (whose first elected turned on the evangelical vote) more than Jefferson understood the power of the "tradition, ritual, and sheer nonrational spiritual power of faith." This is not to say that "religion" can be a more rational affair as someone like Thomas Jefferson and others think. But, the term does have those aspects as a general matter. To the extent that a non-theistic ritual, such as a marriage, has a "religious" component, we see this. Likewise, many Jews might basically be atheists, but honor tradition. Finally, there is a certain aspect of human existence that is not led by mere reason. We see this in everyday life in matters not related to religion when observing basic human affairs. Limiting our actions even if they might not seem "reasonable" would be rather oppressive. Even many atheists recognize this.
As noted in that book, religious liberty was developed in this country for a variety of reasons. There was a basic understanding that religion was a necessary part of life, in part because few doubted their was a God and an an afterlife. The science of the day along with years of social conditioning made it not surprising that God was seen as logical. It is more complicated to figure out a purely rational argument that a "watchmaker" God has to be concerned with our well being. If this is granted, an afterlife and final judgment can be rationalized.
Religion was seen as necessary for a good life and for good citizens. If used in a broad sense, including a broad view of "freedom of conscience" (a term often used and assumed to overlap with belief in God), this can be granted in some fashion.* Anyway, religion is an important aspect of human existence and religious freedom is rightly deemed essential. This is so even if you think some religious beliefs are absurd. The pragmatic aspects of accepting religious diversity and respecting diverse groups in the book is cited as a major concern of George Washington during the Revolutionary War. The fear of Catholics was particularly uncomfortable when trying to get the French on our side. This comes up today in various forms.
Thomas Jefferson supported religious freedom largely because he saw it necessary for freedom of thought. James Madison also was concerned about the problems of government corrupting religion, including in practice favoring certain religions over others. Washington and John Adams accepted some mixture of church and state, the former especially concerned however to do so in a pluralistic way. The book at one point says the 99% of the population was Protestant. Things are a lot different now and even establishments that honor "God" can be problematic these days. At the very least, pluralism requires more strict rules.
The book spells out that not only did religious liberty concerns help influence the American Revolution (both as an incentive to rebel against England specifically and justifying rebellion in principle), but there was a dark side as well. Early settlers saw "free exercise of religion" to be necessary because so many did not follow God's will appropriate and thought that meant setting up colonial settlements that discriminated against such groups. Anti-Catholic sentiment (in part since the pope mixed church and state -- Catholics were loyal to a foreign state, not England) was a major influence. Our constitutional system has a dark side and not just in the context of slavery and Native Americans.
And, part of the First Amendment was to give states discretion to favor certain religious beliefs, though even there, by 1791, we were talking fairly benign establishments as compared to the likes of Saudi Arabia. Let's not go too far there. It took until the mid-20th Century to overturn a requirement that one took an oath that they believed in God to become a notary public. Various states favored Christians or certain types of Christians (such as belief in the trinity). In the 19th Century, Catholics were discriminated in various ways, including in public schools. Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment itself showed the need of limits on states. The opening suggests we have a ways to go.
But, religious freedom remains a public good, especially if it is taken in the right frame of mind.
----
* A recent post discussed how a "prayer" at legislative gathering need not by definition involve appeals to God. "Religion" as a whole can and should be seen in such open-ended terms. Some say they are "spiritual" but not "religious" in part because the second term has to them troubling implications like a rule based approach or so forth. There very well might be some differences there. Ditto those two things and "conscience."
But, religious liberty includes all and parsing the things to me is rather complicated. A good life very well requires as a general matter some system of values and belief that you are bound by it for some reason. This tends to include some sort of rituals (like marriage) and other things that has religious implications. The final aspect -- an afterlife and judgment -- is somewhat different. (One might say "rather" different though life itself can bring its own karma.) But, many people -- unlike belief in some sort of god or gods -- these days do not believe in that anyway.
Freedom of religion includes the right to choose here, something that history showed has a pragmatic value.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!