How to Inhabit/Inhibit Democracy?
Tonight’s installment of “We Don’t Debate the Word of God” is brought to you by your friends at the Institute of Eternal Salvation (read religious folk) and the Mass Marketing of America (read our two party system that is beholden to crass capitalism, an insatiable appetite for campaign financing schemes, and religious posturing). For the sake of clarity, Sarah H. and all you others, this is addressed to you.
Given that the only posting that has generated any comment from outside readers (those besides friends, ex’s, and variously affiliated others) has been because the word “God” appeared in a posting (or so I assume), and because Auditus has a lovely piece about the issues of religion in
Why, I ask, is the subject of spirituality, God, and religion the opposite of conversation? Have a listen to the constant sermons on television, on our not-so-public airwaves, and on the floors of Congress: Invoking God is the inverse of creating a dialogue. Maybe part of the reason is because the idea of sharing one’s experience of conversion is called “bearing witness” instead of something more discursively inclusive; maybe because the word “God” is supposed to be followed by the word “amen” and all manner of nodding instead of questioning, or maybe because the literalist interpretation of God is based on acceptance and not interpretation, but whatever the cause, I recall a comment made by a friend: “Maybe religion and democracy are not compatible.”
There is apt to be disagreement to this thought from a number of quarters, and this is not unwanted. In fact, I would like to see how people with a particularly literal interpretation of the bible as the word of God feel that they can coexist with masses of “others” who may support the idea of a clear separation of church and state (no mention of a creator on our legal tender, in the classroom, or in the courthouse please). These same others may prefer not to be governed by a “natural law” that derives its ultimate ideas of truth and justice from scriptural precepts, and expect citizens to debate and adapt their laws based on nothing more than their own flawed judgments and the process of deliberation without recourse to religion. Worse yet, these same others may be willing to support the idea of abortion, classroom sexual education, and the teaching of creation. Can you explain to me how they are to share the same geography, place their children in the same schools, and adjudicate their differences if they cannot agree on how to govern any of these practices because they employ different, and sometimes competing, arguments and texts? Of course I have my own opinions, but I want to know what yours are.
What I hope to achieve from this is an open dialogue on the compatibility of religion and democracy without appealing to notions of separation through spatialization. By this I mean the idea that we can all get along if each one of us is given our own little territories to inhabit that are governed by broad, vague laws about personal freedom and tolerance. In short, what if we are all forced to inhabit the same compressed environment and shared resources, like an urban area? I am putting my faith in restless dialogue, which is an unruly land. If your own “rests” in the word, a realm claimed to be orderly and well-governed, can we inhabit the same space?
To close, I offer you a selection of quotations about religion that may help to encourage responses. Incidentally, if the word “religion” is not to your liking because you see religions as restrictive and the term “spirituality” as more accurately reflecting the personal connection between you and your deity, please make the appropriate substitutions.
Cuius regio eius religio [He who controls the area controls the religion] – Anonymous Latin proverb
“The Puritans nobly fled from a land of despotism to a land of freedim, where they could not only enjoy their own religion, but could prevent everybody else from enjoyin his.” –Charles Farrar Browne [Artemus Ward]
“If one wishes to form a true estimate of the full grandeur of religion, one must keep in mind what it undertakes to do for men. It gives them information about the source and origin of the universe, it assures them of protection and final happiness amid the changing vicissitudes of life, and it guides their thoughts and motions by means of precepts which are backed by the whole force of its authority.” –Sigmund Freud
“Religion is the vision of something which stands beyond, behind and within the passing flux of immediate things; something which is real, and yet waiting to be realized; something which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts; something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet is beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the hopeless quest.” –Alfred North Whitehead
“We know too much, and are convinced of too little. Our literature is a substitute for religion, and so is our religion.” – T. S. Eliot
posted by Thesaurus at 8:05 AM
2 Comments:
wait.. There's one BIG problem with not LISTENING to what a person's saying, by that I mean, the tone of voice can speak so much louder than one would think.
When I posted a comment here before, I was simply demonstrating my opinion. To me, that's "conversing", to me that's "dialogue".
You've written another post directed to me and here I am to talk about it again.
I don't think religion is any different than ANY other "hot-topic". There will be people who will listen and respond in educated manners about politics and there willl be people who will simply and harshly state their opinion, leaving no room for a dialogue.
Now, I understand most people like to "blame" things on religion. Actually I'll correct that, most people are appalled by Christianity a whole lot more than they're appalled by any OTHER religion.
Let's keep some things in mind here, I believe in ONE true God, who commands me to love Him and love my neighbour as myself.
Who tells me not to steal, not to murder, not to covet.
Tells me not to love money because it is the roots of all evil.
tells me to encourage others and love one another.
I see people fussing way less about, say, Islam for instance, which tells believers to slaughter anyone who doesn't worship Allah.
But correct me if I am wrong..
To the paragraph beginning Why, I ask, is the subject of spirituality, God, and religion the opposite of conversation?:
Isn't it unfair to take politicians and professional (i.e., money-making) preachers as the standard? They rarely use any words to encourage openness in debate. I submit as loaded phrases conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, communist, and perhaps even crass capitalism and the Institute of Eternal Salvation. The former are so good at quelling any dissent. The latter are nice euphemisms.
"God" isn't uniquely guilty of your accusation. It seems, then, that that which the words signifies is not the cause of the "inverse of creating a dialogue".
I agree that many or most (perhaps all but one) religions view God as a mysterious master who ought to be obligingly obeyed. That, however, is not the case in the Roman Catholic Church. The whole tradition of the Church has been the reconcilliation and mutual development of faith and reason. The Catholic dedication to reason is the cause of its doctrinal development. A further, central idea is that of God the Father. I suggest reading Fides et Ratio by the late John Paul II, and Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict.
Frankly--and this point really underlies this entire reply--it seems to me that few people, religious or not, are interested in open debate and honest conversation. It's a sign of humility and a good education. (I don't mean education in the strict sense.)
As regards religion and democracy, the question you (or your friend) posed is laughable. You pressupose that fundamentally different opinions are meant to coexist in a democracy. However, the point of democracy isn't to allow diverse opinions to coexist, but for one opinion to be established as the law of the land. One is free to act according to one's own opinion until the matter is decided. Then one must act according to the law.
I suspect it is impossible for large groups of people who believe fundamentally different things about the reality of the world to coexist. Is coexistence an ultimate good? Is it something worth striving for above all else? I highly doubt it.
For all your predilections for honest conversation, they appear to be merely pretensions. You sneer through your writing. You write of the "natural law" and of the idea of abortion. Why is one in quotations and not the other? Further, it's clear that you have not studied the natural law, for it is in no way derived from Scripture. In fact, Aristotle, who lived many centuries before Christ, argued in his ethical treatises what amounts to the natural law.
Further, why do you suppose that the burden of proof is on those who believe in a God who demands traditional morality? Does it really need to be pointed out that the vast majority of peoples have believed in God, and that the same is true in the history of philosophy? You seem to imply that the same majority are idiots. Perhaps Jazz was correct in his accusation of elitism.
Arrogance and condescension pervade this post. You claim to care so much for open debate and sincerity, but how many sentences reveal how lightly you consider the arguments of those who believe in God and in traditional morality. What will you say to the arguments of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, even Chesterton? Have you honestly "conversed" with these minds? I wonder how easily Aristotle's argument for a prime mover is refuted, and Aquinas's Five Ways? The entire Summa defends with reason the lion's share of Christian doctrine and ethics. Have you read it?
You belittle Sarah H. I think she would have been justified in responding more defensively. You're very condescending to Jazz in the above post.
I suspect that you will respond to these actions the same way you responded to Jazz, by saying something like, "I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would get my self-deprecating tone and the humour of the post."
If such is truly the case. I apologize. But then perhaps you ought to read your posts out loud and try to sense what others sense as condescension.
That said, I enjoy reading this blog and think a lot of it is good.
Post a Comment
<< Home