I think most of us without faith, and many of those with faith, would agree that whatever dangers lie in religious thinking, they are worst in extreme religious thinking. But, what does it mean to be extreme? One person's extremism is another's devoutness.
What does it take to be a religious moderate? What is "moderating" the historical, literal scriptural views of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.?
Is it a natural progression in thinking led by God's hand? Did we as humans simply misinterpret the Old Testament that God favors favor slaughter of our enemies and murder of blasphemers? The New Testament certainly moderated much of that, and few Christians today find their lives guided by much of anything in the Old Testament. But if that's the case, why can't we throw both of them out in favor of an even Newer Testament that, say, takes into account what we as humans have learned over the last 200 years? I'm not holding my breath on this one.
I've recently read books by 2 of the "Four Horsemen", Dawkins and Harris. They both argue that religious moderation owes its roots to secular influences, much of which started with the Enlightenment. They also argue that religious moderates are almost as bad as extremists because they give the latter political cover.
Harris wrote in The End of Faith, "The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do not open from the inside." Barrack Obama seems to be taking a different approach, trying to moderate religion from the inside by bringing it more into the public square, but influencing it be more accepting through federal grants (at least, I hope that's where he's going with that).
I favor the first far more than the second, but my question is this: is the latter a necessary evil? Many of the faithful see any secular incursion as threatening (you know, things like not teaching creationism in public schools) - are moderating forces on the inside needed to make it work? And if so, is it better for secular efforts to form partnerships, or to take the hard stance of Dawkins and Harris? I don't know the answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
One of the ironies of the creationist/ID movement is that it has resulted in a watering down of the creation myth. It's an attempt to bring religion into the public classroom, and because of the strong religious content of earlier attempts, they've had to make it much more moderate. That doesn't mean I support it, any more than I support Obama's cozying up to federal funding for religious organizations. Cause it still violates the First Amendment.
I think their game plan is to use the more moderate version of creationism as a wedge, and then ramp it up to full-fledged creationism, with people saddling up dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. They probably fail to see that this is not going to happen, and that they're watering down their own message in order to inject it into the public sphere.
So no, I don't think it's a necessary evil. I think it's a fight between people who actually believe in religious freedom and those that want to proselytize on the government dime. Let them reform from within, or be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity by social forces. But I'm going to fight like hell to keep them from using my tax dollars or my government to do it.
I think it's a fight between people who actually believe in religious freedom and those that want to proselytize on the government dime.
If the added restrictions Obama places on federally funded faith-based organizations have teeth, it would make it harder for them to proselytize on the government dime. Sort of a wedge in the other direction, except we're watering down church-state separation instead of dogma.
I'm with you, though. I think it's a bad idea in theory and a worse one in practice.
Post a Comment