What if you were the parent of a three year-old child, and I were to tell him that there was no such thing as Santa Clause? As a parent, what would you feel? Would you be angry with me? Indignant?
You’d probably want to rip me apart for ruining what is a source of pleasure for most children in the western world. A source of pleasure based on a myth.
This myth is filled with a figure that is larger than life, one that can bring great rewards if we are good, one that fills us with anticipation of his arrival. And, as with many things in life, the anticipation of his arrival is actually the best part. Christmas morning comes, the presents are opened and soon forgotten, until the following fall when the anticipation begins to build up again.
Now if Santa never arrived, we could keep that anticipation building indefinitely. For those who still believed that Santa was still coming, that anticipation would fill them with joy, hope, even purpose. It would remind them to be good because they’d know that “Santa is watching.”
It’s not hard to see where I’m going with this. And I’m not suggesting that those who are filled with religious beliefs have the mind of a three year-old. But they do have the same faith, the same conviction, the same absolute certainty in what they believe as a child does when he believes in Santa. And this belief is reinforced throughout their network of support; be it a church, social group or an entire country. And when this myth is not dispelled when they are children, their conviction grows and becomes stronger unless gently interrupted by reason, something not even possible in some cultural segments.
This is why burning a Qur’an or dismissing the creation myth arouses so much anger in those attached to those stories. Doing so destroys not their book, but their joy, hope and purpose.
This is the challenge we face when our desire is to bring reason to the world. How can we have a discussion about social issues in the context of the needs of today’s society when the people we’re discussing them with are tied to an ancient text that gives them so much of the things we universally want? Joy, hope and purpose.
I don’t have an answer to this, but I’d love to hear if you do.
A great article in today’s economist.
According to a report in today’s LA Times, Rick Santorum said, “I don’t believe in an America where separation of church and state is absolute.” Let’s be very clear about what he is saying here.
He and other conservatives get very excited about the idea of blending their flavor of Christianity into the government of the United States. By melding together Santorum’s Catholic doctrine, it would be quite easy to point to religion for the basis of not granting civil rights to gay people, or enforcing embryo protection, or even worse lately, making contraceptives illegal.
But what if that blend of religion was from Islam and we began injecting laws based on Sharia? We already know the answer to this. What if some even more extreme Christians wanted to return to the Blue Laws and prohibit businesses from operation on Sunday? Of Jews on Saturday. Or let’s get even crazier and allow everyone to drive on the road with steel wheels because it is backed up by their religious belief, (Iowa Supreme Court case)
Santorum is not about freedom of religion, he is about promoting the Christian religion by weaving it into the law of the land, and that is an extremely dangerous place to go.
In a mind-blowing example of just how insane the right can be, Rick Santorum defended the Bible as real theology, while in the same interview denying global warming.
First he said that he believes Obama adheres to “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology. Then he said “I accept the fact that the president’s a Christian,” he said. “I just said that when you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man, and says that, you know, we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, like for example that politicization of the whole global warming debate, this is just all an attempt to centralize power, to give more power to the government.” (emphasis mine)
What?!?!?! The two ideas are not reconcilable! How can any person point to the Bible and at the same time demand scientific evidence for global warming.
See Richard Dawkin’s video on the topic.
If we are talking about abortion, I think it is clear that people from all faiths and no faith stand equally on both sides of the issue. It is a difficult issue that cannot be solved though dogma, but what the Catholic Church is up in arms about is not abortion, but birth control, a practice that up to 90% of Catholics engage in.
The Church would prefer all of its constituents, and others, to abide by the “moral code” found in their Catechism. Here is the specific verse relating to contraception:
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.
Interesting that this position can be espoused from a group of men who never have the responsibility of raising a family, or supposedly, even engaging in sex. The same section of the Catechism denounces artificial insemination, masturbation, homosexuality, and a host of other in-your-bedroom offenses.
What amazes me is the power the Church continues to have over policy when its own members don’t agree with their position. What is even more amazing is Obama’s willingness to cave in to the pressure from Bishops who are actually making fools of themselves.
No, I don’t think someone should have to act against their conscience. But neither do I think anyone should have their conscience dictated to them based on ancient texts that bear no resemblance to today’s realities.
Today in Egypt, at least 73 people died in a riot after an upset in a soccer game there. And you’ll remember that in this country last year, a baseball fan was nearly beaten to death for wearing a Giants shirt to a Dodger game.
Why am I writing about this in a blog about religion? Because I believe the fanaticism that accompanies sports rivalries comes from the same place as religion does. And I’m willing to bet the same could be said of politics.
The common behavior arises from an affiliation and deep commitment to that affiliation in the absence of reasonable evidence to support it. People who are religious behave in very similar ways to people who defend their sports teams with intense zeal; and to people who back their political candidates to the last vote.
In each case there is little or no reasoning to back up the person’s unshakable devotion. Everyone believes that his religion is really superior to an others’. Die hard sports fans defend their teams whether they win or lose. People vote for their politicians knowing very little about them, and they adopt the positions of their party in order to stand in solidarity with their brethren.
If this is true, it seems it will be some time before people evolve out of this need for affiliation, as even in the absence of religion, humans will find ways reasons to differentiate themselves and create reasons for killing each other. What is hopeful in all this is that it sports violence occurs infrequently, and there are large numbers of people who have no interest in sports at all. Maybe we are getting there. Maybe.
Christians in the United States are celebrating the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to exempt a Lutheran Church in Michigan from anti-discrimination laws. (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The case stems from a woman, Cheryl Perich, who developed a disability and had to take a leave of absence from her work as a teacher. When she was able to return to work, she was told that she had been replaced, and she sued Hossana-Tabor under the Americans with Disability Act. An important aspect of this case is that she had completed academic requirements to become “called by God” and hence be called a Minister of Religion, and the case hinges on this distinction. She taught the same curriculum as those teachers who were considered lay teachers.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
- The First Amendment
“…the Establishment Clause addressed the fear that “one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform”
- James Madison
Christians are calling this a religious liberty case, but what it really amounts to is a religious preference case. The court ruled that in this case, religious law trumps civil law, a very dangerous precedent indeed. The court remarked that applying anti-discrimination laws would amount to interfering with the free exercise clause, while at the same time violating the establishment clause by determining who the church should employ. As Roberts commented:
“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”
- Chief Justice John Roberts
This is not an easy line to walk, I admit, but where are the boundaries for this? Is applying the law that says you cannot discriminate against an individual based on disability telling a church who can minister? I don’t think so, but the nine justices did. Ms. Perich apparently retained all of her qualifications to teach after she recovered from her disability.
In Roberts’ opinion, he even discusses the fact that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability, but that the present case concerns “government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church itself.” What if the mission of the church was jihad? Should the government interfere?
Fortunately, in defending their decision, the court did narrow the definition of minister to this case based on the training that Perich went through to attain the title. But this means that persons similarly trained can be fired capriciously, and a church doesn’t have to answer to anyone. It also means that teachers who are considered ministers have considerable latitude in what they can teach. Can Madrasahs use speech that incites hatred and violence with impunity, protected by the First and Second Amendments? This case could be relied upon in incremental cases in the future to support that.
I have to point out the absurdity of religion itself in this case and how it hurt the plaintiff. Following her termination, Petrich said, “I feel that God is leading me to serve in the teaching ministry . . . . I am anxious to be in the teaching ministry again soon.” This statement solidified the courts view that she was indeed a minister and could not be protected under the law. I guess God had the wrong number. Yet her call by God had to be rescinded by the church congregation in order to fire her.)
Religious preference is always welcomed when it is one’s own religion in receiving the preference. The problem is always the other religions, which is why civil law must provide the level playing field for all. Of course it makes sense that a Jew be a rabbi, a Catholic be a priest, and a Muslim be an Imam. And in no way am I suggesting that the courts should have any say in their teachings. That would certainly breach the establishment clause. But no one should be denied the right to practice their religion, and no one should suffer more than the non-religious because they do.
