Saturday, February 25, 2012
That old hobgoblin of Religion
I've encountered people in my own life and in the blogosphere of course especially lately who whenever you however remotely mention the whole subject of religion or faith have an overwhelmingly negative view of religion as a whole, the institutions of course and many individual adherents. They never see its positive side in that it inspires people, often helps them through individual and group crises and then there's the massive charitable works people of faith engage in. Now the usual suspects are gonna chime in and the underlying theme is always or seems to be religion poses some kind of ever-present and existential threat to Politics. Sometimes it can but I think the case is often overstated. I've always felt religion and religious people just like anything else should not be immune to criticism of any sort but to flip the same coin politics often poses a threat to religion as we've been discussing. Instead of dwelling on the negative though I prefer to see the wonderful religious infrastructure in this country everything from religious hospitals and universities, orphanages and social-service organizations to the of course stellar Catholic educational system in this country and for you snide ones out there at least put it up against the flagging public schools. So why this reflexive reaction against religion? it's like the most negative subject out there for some folks:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I concur, religions are made up of individuals who are human and make mistakes, but on the whole do a lot of good things as you noted.
ReplyDeleteI've no problem with religion at all. I know Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, etc.
ReplyDeleteReligion has guided many people in a positive direction when they most needed it.
Yes, some religions have guided some people in a positive direction--as does AA, GA, and all other self-help organizations.
ReplyDeleteI rather agree with what the father of our Constitution, James Madison, wrote on religion:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
Santorum's recent outburst--that separation of church and state makes him want to "throw up"--is strong evidence of how brilliant and forward thinking President Madison was.
Where are minds like his these days? Certainly not in the GOP.
Religion isn't the problem. Colluding it with the monopolistic power and authority of the federal government is.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment prohibits it for good reason.
The Founding Fathers were Masons so I'm sure you can come up with a bunch of quotes to suit your fancy Shaw. Re Santorum I'd say this. The civil rights leaders of the 60's many were preachers and ministers like Martin Luther King and you could say were inspired in their political stances by their faith and talked about it and no one of the rational set was offended. This has to be across-the-board folks, if you don't like Santorum talking about religion then MLK shouldn't have talked about it either or the labor leaders of the early 20th century. Either get religion out of politics entirely or let people have their say, don't be selective.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused: according to Catholic theology I've read,
ReplyDeletethe contraception issue is based on Onan (Leviticus). It seems a biggy. Conversely, the heirarchy
has no problem with the other OT
abominations..shrimp, lobster, crab, clam chowder. Surely, there IS some overiding difference why this should be?
"This has to be across-the-board folks, if you don't like Santorum talking about religion then MLK shouldn't have talked about it either or the labor leaders of the early 20th century. Either get religion out of politics entirely or let people have their say, don't be selective."
ReplyDeleteWho's being selective? Santorum is running for president. I'm not aware MLK ever did. And so I go back to my initial point which is that religion isn't the problem. Colluding it with government and turning America into a theocracy is.
Beth noted,
ReplyDelete", religions are made up of individuals who are human and make mistakes"
I'd have to agree ...
soapster:
ReplyDelete"Who's being selective? Santorum is running for president. I'm not aware MLK ever did. And so I go back to my initial point which is that religion isn't the problem. Colluding it with government and turning America into a theocracy is."
Exactly.
Z-man, I'm wondering. Does being a Mason disqualify our Founding Fathers from their opinions on religion?
I happen to agree with the Founding Fathers Shaw. I read up a little on masonry a few months back and while I'm not a Mason myself some of their principles make perfect sense (e.g. their love for science, their respect for all religions). Just pointing out why some of the Founders said the things they said about religion.
ReplyDelete"The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society."
ReplyDelete(Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 1963)
It is clear why the GOP house committee called only bishops and
ReplyDeletea couple of Ralph Reed types:
"a broad coalition of religious organizations filed an amicus brief supporting the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion that should give the lie to any claim that the faith community opposes the ACA. The brief includes a number of major religious denominations, including the policy arm of the United Methodist Church, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church. Additionally, the brief’s signatories include a wide range of Catholic groups:
Benedictine Sisters, Boerne, Texas; Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Texas; Dominican Congregation of Our Lady of the Rosary, New York; Dominican Sisters of Hope; Justice and Peace Committee of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield, Massachusetts; Marianist Province of the United States; Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth Leadership Team, New Jersey; Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent De Paul of New York; Sisters of the Holy Cross Congregation Justice Committee; Sisters of the Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament, Corpus Christi, Texas; Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team, Nebraska; Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, Missouri; Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New York; Sisters of St. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name; Society of the Holy Child Jesus, American Province Leadership Team; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk, US Province; JOLT, Catholic Coalition for Responsible Investing; Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee; School Sisters of Notre Dame Cooperative Investment Fund"
..not enough space in the hearing
room.
I'm glad you brought this up because reading my weekly church bulletin in the past I got the definite sense that the Church believed in health-care reform, supported parts of ObamaCare (or was that just my imagination?) but then started having concerns about parts pertaining to abortion and now the birth control mandate. Now if these religious groups had simply opposed ObamaCare from the getgo they'd be much more consistent now but that'd be hard to do because many of them lean to the left themselves. For instance even though the RC Church is very much pro-life on most other matters they lean heavily to the left imo so much so that Shaw favorably quotes the Church from time to time as when Pope Benedict said something about the redistribution of wealth.
ReplyDelete