Yesterday in a Washington, DC press conference, over 70 religious leaders endorsed a document titled An Evangelical Manifesto (full text, summary). Here is a small part of what it had to say about the place of Evangelicals in public life:
The Associated Press, reported on the document, pointing out that a number of Christian religious leaders on the political right do not support it. Americans United for Separation of Church and State gave the Manifesto qualified praise, or, as it said, it gave it "one amen". More information on the Manifesto, including a lengthy Study Guide, is available on the Evangelical Manifesto website.[W]e repudiate two equal and opposite errors into which many Christians have fallen. One error is to privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only.... The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the "useful idiots" for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions....
[W]e repudiate the two extremes that define the present culture wars in the United States..... We are committed to a civil public square – a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well....
[W]e are concerned that a generation of culture warring ... has created a powerful backlash against all religion in public life among many educated people.... [W]e are concerned that globalization and the emerging global public square have no matching vision of how to live with our deepest differences on the global stage.... [W]e warn of the danger of a two-tier global public square. This is a model of public life which reserves the top tier for cosmopolitan secular liberals, and the lower tier for local religious believers.
.jpg)
24 comments:
According to the footnote, Evangelical is spelled with a leading cap. So why don't they spell Atheist likewise?
They are correct not to do so. Atheism is not a cohesive group membership condition; it's descriptive rather than nominative. They're arguing specifically for the term "Evangelical" as the name for a cohesive group. While "evangelical" could be applied to a Muslim who proselytizes aggressively, "Evangelical" is purely Christian.
Capital "Atheist" is typically used either by those who are ignorant, or who are trying to cast atheism as something it isn't. They also usually spell it, "Athiest".
I'm rather glad this manifesto refrains from capitalizing atheist.
"All too often we have disobeyed the great command to love the Lord our God with our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and have fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today."
I wonder if this is a rejection of the Evangelical tendency to mold the natural world, as well as the spiritual, to fit their concept of biblical inerrancy. The preceding paragraph has a nice tone, but does it provide Evangelicals clear direction when actual history and real science conflict with a literal interpretation of the bible?
Odd.. And here I thought that Jesus was ***against*** those that stood on the street corners and in public to profess how much more grand and true their religions was, instead of **making it** personal and doing so in private. I admit, I haven't exactly read the book cover to cover, but know people that "have", who also think these people are nuttier than a fruitcake. But, I don't get how they could be following the literal Bible ***and*** evangelizing, by any interpretation of the views of the one guy they claim most of their philosophy comes from.
This is just one more group that wants everything their way, and figures that if they can babble about how much "better" their way is, everyone else will suddenly see chest of gold, instead of a bucket full of nuts.
And Tim, the whole point of evangelical and other "literalist" religions is that "nothing" can contradict their Bible, therefor anything that does is a) rampant scientism or b) not being twisted the right way to make it "fit" their literalist views. Mind you, nothing literalists believe is literally the way it was written, literally the way the people who **wrote** the OT interpret it, literally based on any factual examination of context or history, or literally anything close to a literal, never mind rational, examination of the Bible, unless you mean "literal BS". This is a drastic difference from a lot of other religions, which tend to consider reality as the trump card to which religion must conform. Its also in direct contradiction to some members to the Church itself, like St. Thomas Aquinas, who, despite holding to some pigheaded things where the facts contradicted them, never the less said, paraphrased, "The fool that makes a mockery of religion, by babbling about things they have no understanding of, is **more** dangerous than any nonbeliever, since it makes the church look like idiots."
Apparently these people have missed that memo too.. lol
Personally, I like atheist with a capital A. But that's just me.
-American Atheist
We warn of the danger of a two-tier global public square. This is a model of public life which reserves the top tier for cosmopolitan secular liberals, and the lower tier for local religious believers.
I agree with this warning --but found other points in the manifesto contradictory, suggesting that Evangelicals are at fault when the "cospmopolitan secular liberals" resent and demean the Evangelicals.
On the one hand, they seem to be protesting the elitism of the liberal humanist/atheistic types --and on the other hand saying we have exacerbated the polarity --by being anti-intellectual about science --and probably too concerned about sexual morality in our nation.
The non-Darwinists I know are not anti-intellectual about science --but quite sensible, educated and smart. The moralists among us are sounding an alarm for good reasons.
The manifesto hints that Evangelicals should just lie low, I guess, and stay underground as though we were Christians in China whose church wasn't deemed suitable to "register" with the state.
Snort.. Ironic Barb, we secularists (there is no %@$#@# such thing as a Darwinist. Stop using the term, it makes all of you look like idiots among even some of the religious), keep getting told similar things from the appeasers on our side. "We need to play nice.", "We need to make friends.", "We need to stop rocking the boat.", etc. We watch some ass pass a law that *never* previously existed some place that demands religion be not just allowed, but forced, into some school, or some clown rewrite the bylaws of some government organization to, "only recognize the Christian God", or yet one more case of old school McCarthyism being applied to, in the latest case, two Quackers, to deny them jobs, because they refused to give and oath they didn't agree with, and which is pretty much useless to start with, and we are supposed to, according to the "nice" ones on our side, let it happen, rather than piss off the non-Evangelicals and non-extremists, who are supposedly our "allies", but who more often than not don't give a damn when this stuff happens. We have remained, mostly, silent for 150+ years, trying to "play nice and let our Christian allies do the moving and shaking", and all we have gotten is movement away from science, away from reason, away from the founders ideals, away from any sort of compromise, and watched the rise in power of people that use catch phrases, proclamation of the superiority of their views, and in some of the more extreme cases, suggestions of special camps, assassinations, deportation of undesirables, and numerous other disturbingly familiar pronouncements.
Someone, the name of which I can't remember at the moment, once said, "Fascism, when it arrives in the United States, will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I find it damn funny that *you* are making the same complaint about what this bunch of Evangelicals would like you to do as we have made about some of our own, who also express the silly opinion that being nice about things will get you any place.
But Barb.. If you want to babble about morality, make damn sure you are on the right side first. You like to bring up the stupidities of **forced** atheism which is merely *part* of the dogma and means of control used by some regimes, including China, as examples. Well, guess what, when you force people to do things, instead of letting them get their on their own, they rebel, and you just end up having to use force to stop them. There are many nations in this world where religion is extremely low priority, where 70-80% of the citizens are atheist, and where they got that way because they *chose* to be, not because some government demanded it. These places have, on average, lower crime rates, lower drug use rates, higher education levels, and better metrics in *every* way that the US does. Somehow... Whining that nonexistent darwinists, or atheism is the cause of problems in the US seems a bit disingenuous in that context, even more so given that, with no single case I personally can think of, virtually **all** violence in the US is committed by people of faith, and a *lot* of it is motivated by their religion, or the bigotry taught to them by that religion.
Put your own house in order before complaining that you *think* mine is badly kept, then we will talk. Until then, I will fight what I think is bigotry, hate, ignorance and fear mongering, and you will continue to support, for some mind boggling reason, the people spreading the same.
Gah!! Sorry about the double post, the post system was acting insane and telling me it wasn't posting, when it was.... Hate it when these things log you out and screw up on the login. :(
Wow! Kagehi! A triple! The most I've ever been able to oops was a double.
Doncha just hate it when that happens?
That fascism quote has been attributed both to Huey Long and Sinclair Lewis, but it's doubtful that it belongs to either one of them. It's a keeper, though.
The term "darwinist" has meaning for me. I know what I mean. What don't you understand? He's an evolutionist who ascribes to Darwin's theory as EITHER explaining God's method of creating life in all its forms --OR he's an evolutionist who believes Darwin has described a naturalistic, unguided, spontaneous way for all of life to evolve from a first accidentally caused living cell --without any intelligent designer behind the process.
Then there are those of us who don't think Darwin's theory DOES truly explain how life in all its forms came to be. These people are NOT Darwinists.
So deny the term--it's explainable and communicates itself just fine.
Kagehi -you speak of Jesus as not evangelizing. That is absurd. He told us to preach the Gospel to all nations. He said if we didn't confess Him before men, He would not confess us before His Father. he sent out HIs disciples as missionaries, two by two.
So how do you feel forced to be moral, kagehi?
And isn't that what the law does? force or enforce standards of moral behavior --like "don't steal; don't murder; don't rape, kidnap,lie, cheat, etc." Even today we have laws and penalties re: moral law --such as Moses brought down from the mountain.
The Christians aren't trying to bring change as much as the secularists are.
"The term "darwinist" has meaning for me. I know what I mean."
Well, no one else does. And that's the problem.
Darwin was not the one who first proposed the theory of abiogenesis.
And what he did suggest (that a combination of certain chemicals, plus temperature, plus electrical activity could, with time, form proteins which are the basis for all life) has been tested in laboratories -- and found to be valid!
"So deny the term--it's explainable and communicates itself just fine."
When it's used by someone who does not understand Darwin's hypotheses, it actually communicates nothing at all. It's just gibberish.
Actually 'Darwinist' does communicate something. It's one of those words that says a great deal more about its user than its subject.
Tim
And what he did suggest (that a combination of certain chemicals, plus temperature, plus electrical activity could, with time, form proteins which are the basis for all life) has been tested in laboratories -- and found to be valid!
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this. It's a fact that some h.s. bio text reported the work of a couple of researchers who tried to do this --but they failed --yet the book said they had succeeded. this was one of those embarrassments for the evolutionist science educators.
I believe I'm right to say that no living cells have been made from non-living matter by human effort. However, if they could do it, it would only prove that intelligence could generate life. But in fact, it hasn't happened yet.
Barb, precision is important. You are correct that "no living cells" have been created artificially, but that's not what chimera suggested.
Precision is important. The theory of evolution has changed significantly since Darwin's time. We don't call people "Einsteinians" if they believe quantum theory or "Bohrites" ("Bohrates"?) if they believe atomic theory.
The argument that you've just stated, that creating life would prove nothing, has no end. If we managed to create another universe, people with life forms we could monitor for adherence to an arbitrary behavioral code, we still could not say anything about whether a deity existed, under your argument. If fact, your argument would be that it only strengthens the chance for god's existence.
As for the manifesto, it's fine to call for a "civil public square", but I think they should really define what the public square is. Public schools, with teachers leading classrooms, are NOT the public square. No one claims religions shouldn't be able to hold speeches, parades, publish magazines, etc. Atheists may deride you for praying in public, but they're not denying the right to do it. If the evangelical manifesto is going to make serious assertions about what atheists claim, they ought to footnote.
Yes, CL, atheists are denying the right to pray in public. Can't believe you said otherwise. They believe the constitution prevents most public prayer when they disallow it in schools, school events, public property--and even argue about the right to preach in a park to the homeless while feeding them. I understand we still open legislative bodies and supreme court with prayer? Is that right? And yet, people go to court and great expense to oppose a little innocuous prayer at a town council meeting --erroneously calling it "establishment."
I think public schools ARE the public square, also, by the way.
Our public school had annual banquets for choirs and bands --and they prayed before the meals. HOw offensive!!! HOw establishing of religion is THAT! Terrible terrible shame shame. Someone needs to sue! And when I was in first grade, decades ago, we had a generic prayer before a mid-morning snack! In school! How awful! Someone should have protested! We don't want little atheist kids to get the idea there is anyone to thank for a snack! Might warp their little personalities! Granted, my class didn't turn out to be particularly Christian, but they didn't become criminals either.
As for the term Einsteinians vs. Darwinians --I don't think anyone is refuting Einstein --or they would coin the phrase.
Barb, what the park suit is about is the church wanting to be exempt from the requirement to have a permit. Which would be a reasonable suit, if they could show the permit was more than a formality for practical purposes (knowing how many people will show up, what sort of clean-up will be needed, etc.).
Students are not prohibited from praying as long as it is 1) not disruptive, and 2) not implying endorsement by the school. The second of those is the more controversial of the two, and typically revolves around graduation speeches.
On what basis do you think public schools constitute the public square? They are certainly not open to all comers for argument, and kids are captive audiences there. I'd really like to know what kind of definition you have for "public square".
As for your "thanking" someone for a snack with prayer, the "thanking" involved in prayer is frankly rather revolting to me. You're thanking God, right? Not the people who prepared the snack, not the people who grew the vegetables or fruit, or brought it to the store or sold it or the parents or taxpayers whose hard work went into it. Yes, I find thanking an intangible extradimensional theoretical entity offensive when a lot of real people's hard work went into producing something.
And yes, that does establish religion.
You might consider that you might not know what it was like for atheist children, because you were not an atheist.
"As for the term Einsteinians vs. Darwinians --I don't think anyone is refuting Einstein --or they would coin the phrase."
Einstein was wrong about a few things, but only, like Darwin, because he was a pioneer in his field and had not the vast array of knowledge currently available. Quantum mechanics confused him because it didn't adhere to the laws he had formerly observed and theorized. He called it "spooky science."
Yeah, Einstein used the word, "spooky" to describe a branch of science. How egalitarian of him, eh?
So, Einstein wasn't infallable, either. But, like Darwin, he made really important contributions to the world of science -- contributions on which we base our current understanding of our universe.
When you dismiss an entire body of work because you disagree with parts of it, and you don't even understand it to begin with, you're being willfully ignorant. If you're the only one affected by your attitude, I'd say go for it -- you can think what you like, no skin off my nose.
But when you try to force other people to adopt your ignorance through the teaching of it in schools, you are undermining the entire structure of your country's heritage of independence and freedom. Do you not care that the United States is way down on the list of countries in terms of scholastic achievements? Do you even know why that's an important point?
I don't think I desire to force ignorance on the schools --that's YOUR ignorant opinion. you are ignorant of ID science and creation science, both. So you really have only a layman's idea of what it is that ID and Creationists believe or want to do in schools.
We have been behind in science education since the 50's at least --and so they tried to beef it up--when Sputnik got into space before we did. and it had nothing to do with the suppression of evolution at that time --anymore than now.
But in the stats we are comparing our whole country to countries that are smaller and have fewer dysfunctional social groups --OR fewer people being educated and taking the tests.
Yet our cream of the crop seems to do very well compared to the world's top students in terms of technical advancement. Computers, e.g.
Let's get a definition straight before this goes any further, okay?
Ignorance: lack of knowledge or education.
I am not using it as a personal insult.
"you are ignorant of ID science and creation science, both."
No I'm not. I'm quite familiar -- even fluently conversant -- with both. Except that ID is not science. Neither is creation. They are both philosophies only. I know exactly what the proponents of "philosophy-as-science" want to do with the schools (I don't care what they believe -- that's a personal choice for them).
"... our cream of the crop seems to do very well..."
Well, see, that's a problem -- that there is a "cream of the crop." Yes, they do very well. But they are rare. They are not the norm, as they would be in other countries. You don't have to look any further than Japan, as an example.
And never rely only on statistics. I've been in that game, and I know how it works. Pay attention to what Disraeli said.
Isn't Japan a very small homogenous society with strong families and strong value of "honor"? whereas we are a mix of people, not all of whom place a high value on scholarship, integrity and honor or supervising our kids. It's not the fault of education but of parenting that would make us lag behind in some areas in some schools.
You said ID types want to force ignorance on the schools --i.e. lack of knowledge or education.
On the contrary, they want MORE knowledge --even the limitations of Darwin's theory --and the contradictions to it in the evidence --taught in the schools. They aren't asking that students be ignorant of Darwin's theory, his contributions and any evidence supporting any science theory.
Japan's almost half the population of the US, so I wouldn't call it "very small".
Yes, they have strong families. They'd laugh at your idea that American culture has incorporated any such value as "respect your parents".
As for "honor", you watch too many samurai movies. There's very little focus on maintaining honor -- however, there is a strong desire to save face.
I think you're right to the extent that if Japan taught ID, they'd still be ahead of us in science.
In the end, though, I don't think we should be anywhere close to content with being competitive in education. We should be unquestionably the best in the world. Teaching ID in schools would make us (to a greater extent) the butt of jokes in the world.
Still waiting for why you think schools are the public square, Barb. That's not just the biggest issue with your opinion, that's the biggest issue with the manifesto.
Post a Comment