Questions of faith

Al had this story from the CS Monitor on his blog today.

From the Monitor:

I live in a country that is increasingly eager to challenge its citizens' loyalty, among people of faith increasingly determined to dispute the faith of others. Some people who call themselves Christians - and some church leaders - are beginning to redefine Christianity in such a way as to exclude worshipers with whom they disagree. I fear a religion in which ideology is more important than theology.

If someone - like me - who has worshiped as a Christian for more than 50 years suddenly feels afraid of the extremes of that religion - what must it be like for those of different beliefs, or of unbelief?

Al's Opinion:

It is interesting that this person of faith puts it in those terms, when Pat Robertson was on CNN just last week stating that Christians are being attacked. Christians aren't being attacked by anyone but other Christians. It is, after all, Christians that attacked the UCC's recent attempts to air an ad promoting "inclusiveness" in its churches, and it was Christians that went on the cable news talk shows speaking against it's efforts to "promote the homosexual lifestyle." Which isn't exactly what the UCC was messaging - rather, they're just saying that Jesus never turned anyone away, and neither will they.

From the Monitor:

If I question political decisions, am I un-American? If I don't agree with a fundamentalist, am I un-Christian?

There used to be two things that you didn't talk about for fear of causing offense: politics and religion. Today the two are so intertwined, you can't talk of one without the other. And when you do, them's fightin' words, pardner. Nowadays, so many people are looking for a fight.

Al's Opinion:

The important distinction for her is that, as she says, "I'm not [looking for a fight]. Neither am I afraid to pray in public. But I am afraid of my faith being hijacked to promote someone else's political agenda."

And really, it is the hijacking of faith to promote a political agenda that goes against the very foundation of this country.

Both Al and the Monitor piece do an excellent job of highlighting the danger of politicizing religion. These approach the problem by looking at the conservative right's attempts to push policy, censor ideas, or exclude others in the name of faith. Similar stories can be found regarding much of the liberal left's desire to enforce their doctrine of non-faith (for lack of a better term).

The Seattle Times published this article from December 8th regarding one high school's efforts to cancel a presentation of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" because Tiny Tim makes the mistake of saying "God bless you, one and all."

Columnist Danny Westneat elaborates:

Banning "A Christmas Carol" because it says too much about religion is like banning "A Catcher in the Rye" because it says too much about adolescence.

And that goes for much of the rest of this seasonal controversy. We fall all over ourselves to keep religion from the schools. Yet a major gap in my public education was the lack of religion in the schools.

I learned a lot about math and science and literature, and literally nothing about the belief systems of billions of the world's people — an educational hole as stunning as if they'd decided not to teach, say, world history.

The schools say they walk a fine line. Religious holidays can be taught, not observed.

If Charles Dickens is over that line, then I don't have much faith today's kids are learning any more about religion than I did.

Our society is built on a Christian underpinning. To teach our history without teaching something about religion is virtually impossible. To ignore the study of other religions is foolish as well. By pretending that religion has not played a large role in history…or ignoring that role in an effort to be fair-minded, we are essentially re-writing history.

Remember the controversy over the UNC professor who tried to make students read the Koran as a summer reading assignment? This was considered positively shameful by many conservative Christians...because, they argued, "if we can't, you can't." In other words, while they didn't like the idea of their speech being stifled, they were going to make sure dissenting views got stifled as well. Wouldn't this have been a better moment to push for more freedom of speech in general – thus furthering their own cause as well?

Like Danny, I'm "a secularist and agnostic who doesn't subscribe to any particular religious doctrine." I am also disturbed by the stridency of the extremists from each side on this issue.

I personally don't care if men and women over the age of consent want to live together - or get married for that matter. That doesn't affect me. Equally, I don't care if someone's kid wants to bow his/her head in prayer during school lunch. And I don't care who they're praying to. If they want to say "Merry Christmas" to someone on public grounds, that's fine with me. Those are personal choices that do not affect my well-being. It's important to separate the valid defense of personal rights from the extremists' attempts to force their beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be) on others.

The disturbing issue here is the increasing passion of debate that ties religion to politics - summed up in the Monitor article quite nicely:

Today the two are so intertwined, you can't talk of one without the other. And when you do, them's fightin' words, pardner. Nowadays, so many people are looking for a fight.

Both sides are so busy looking for a fight that the basis of the argument is lost. Both sides talk of freedom of speech and expression and point to the other as an example of the problem. Freedom of speech becomes "me expressing my ideas and you having to listen" rather than a free exchange of ideas. Government's role should be to ensure everyone has a chance to contribute to that exchange of ideas, not force either side's beliefs on the other.