Is Religion Dangerous?
September 16, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
The Left in this country seems to fear religious people. This week, Senator Feinstein expressed her concern at John Roberts' Senate hearings, saying that the atrocities of the Nazis reminded her of how dangerous it is for governments to acknowledge religion. In Peter Sprigg's article, “Sen. Feinstein Plays the Nazi Card,” Sprigg comments on the irony of this fear:
Sen. Feinstein's analogy actually works directly against the point she was trying to make. The Nazi regime does not illustrate the dangers of mixing religion and politics. Instead, like its evil mirror image the
It's no coincidence that atheist governments killed over 100 million people in the last century. Sprigg notes:
Calling the
When the state is the ultimate authority, only power and might decide right and wrong, and the people are at the mercy of the whims of those in power. When human rights are created by the state, you can bet that, soon, some humans will be “more equal than others.” Only by acknowledging a higher standard and authority–an authority to which it is ultimately accountable–can a state be kept in check. (Please note that the higher authority must be a good one. Obviously, submitting to the god of the terrorists who demands gruesome violence against nonbelievers will not help the people of any country.)
As Western governments move further toward secularism and lose the philosophical underpinnings of their current systems, you will see more and more tyranny. Unfortunately, people like Sen. Feinstein who don't see the truth of this will continue to try to prevent the oppression of Americans by eradicating all traces of religion from the public square, thereby helping to create the very society they fear.
Related posts:
- Maybe Religion is Okay After All
- Postmodern Christians and Million Dollar Baby–When Storytelling is Dangerous (Movie spoilers)
- Shocking News!
- Confusion About Science and Religion - Part Two
- Air America Update
- Democrats Can't Stop Talking About Palin!
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics, Religion (General)
content rss
September 16th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Right on as usual Face. In fact, a lot of scholars think it was the fear of religion that prompted the rise of Western liberal thought in the first place (not Ted Kennedy liberalism).
September 17th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Micah, I've never heard that before. What do they theorize set off this fear? (Besides our natural aversion to God, of course!)
September 18th, 2005 at 7:15 am
The more legitimate source would be the wars of religion, which, to be fair, were pretty awful. Both Hobbes and Locke lived through some very tumultuous times and much of the violence and discord resulted from Catholic/Protestant differences (or, other tensions dressed up as C/P differences).
The less legitimate source would be from folks who just wanted to be free from the influence of the Church and Christianity itself. Machiavelli was a decided enemy of Christianity, and Rousseau thought (among other things) that Christians made very poor citizens in this world b/c they were too worried about the next.
At the same time, a lot of these theorists recognized the motivating power of religion and thus attempted to get the power of religion while taming its bad effects. But I could drone on and on about this (broadly the topic of my work atm), so I'll stop now.
September 18th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Thanks for the info, Micah!
September 25th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
Just to venture an opinion from a different vantage point: I'm a Christian, and I'm of the “left”. Knowing various Christians of the right and the left, I wonder whether there is neither left nor right in the love of the Saviour?
September 25th, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Vicky, I appreciate your reading this site even though, at times, you probably disagree. Thanks!
I'm sure Jesus knows better than either of us which political strategies are better for our society and more closely reflect the truth about human nature and the way the world works. Though, of course he loves all of his children, even if they're wrong about politics–right or left. Luckily, we don't have to merit his love with our perfection!
But certainly there are aspects of right or left that more closely reflect how Jesus would prefer a country to be run, and I think he desires for us to discover these ideas and work towards them with some trial and error.
God definitely loves people on the left and the right, so I agree with you in that sense. However, when talking about people loving God, in the current political situation, the leadership on the left is much less open (and in some cases in other countries, completely closed) to the idea of God as the ultimate, fixed standard of right and wrong, to whom we're accountable. I'm sure that not all of the leadership on the right believes in God, but they don't seem to be opposing (or mocking) the public place of religion as I see happening on the left.
Thanks again for your comment.
September 26th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
You're welcome! It's a pleasure to engage in this discussion with people who, while disagreeing, share values about the central role of God in life. The anti-religious remarks of some left-leaning politicos nettles me; I have the urge to remind them that Christians are everywhere. And I am forthright in letting liberals know about my beliefs; often they respond with amazing narrow questions like “how can any intelligent person be a believer?” But this gives me the perfect opening for explaining.
To your point about governance (right and wrong ways): I agree that it's important to discern the spirit of governance, to scrutinize an official running for office, or a policy, or an amendment, or a program, and see if there's God in it. This is where the difficult arises for so many Christians, I think. For each must read the text, or action, to discern its spirit, and each also has their reading of scripture against which to compare the governmental action. Isn't it interesting how differently the various groups of Christians see each text or action? Taking our relationship with Christ as the central aspect of our lives, we have to somehow intersect with the world around us. Maybe that's why Jesus told us to “judge not.” And yet we still must discern.
Thanks for your team blog–am enjoying reading!
+Vicky
September 27th, 2005 at 1:28 am
Vicky, welcome to the a-team blog. I have been here for several months now. I, too, enjoy the comments of the moderators and posters.
I like what Greg Koukl over at http://www.str.org has to say about governments role from a biblical perspective. He says that the main focus for gov't is justice.
“A legitimate function that God gives to government is the punishment of evil doers and the praise of those who do right. Proverbs talks about just governments in which the weak are protected from the strong. ”
I think there is one major issue politically that deserves our attention. That issue is the protection of the unborn. Scott Klusendorf http://www.prolifetraining.com has done a lot of good work with this issue so I will not fully lay out my position more than to say this. If the unborn is human, it ought not be killed for any other reason than the saving of the life of mom.
If the unborn is human (and I think the evidence is compelling that it is), then I cannot support any candidate who has little regard for the defenseless human (regardless of its level of development). Because the “left” has as part of their platform the “women's right to choose”, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for them regardless of their economic policies that mean little in comparison to human life.
Sorry this is so long, but I think the case can be made for not voting for most folks on the left. Now sometimes their are not so good folks on the right to vote (lesser of two evils) but I will save that for another post.
BTW, read the Bible verse associated with “judge not”. It does not say precisely what many think it does regarding judging.
September 28th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Hi dbright,
Your comment about “judge not” interests me. In Matthew, Mark (very briefly) and Luke, Jesus addresses judging. As you know, He says “with what measure you mete shall it be measured to you again” and he also says that not all those who say “Lord, Lord” shall make it in to heaven, but those who do the will of His Father. And in Luke He adds, after the “judge not” passage, that people shouldn't carp at the “mote” in their neighbor's eye when there is a “plank in their own. So, the message seems pretty clear: I should, as a Christian, leave judgment to the Lord. I don't know the relationship someone I disagree with has with the Lord. So, if I think they are bearing evil “fruits” (”by your fruits you shall know them”) then I can choose not to vote for them, or I can choose to argue with them, hopefully in such a manner as to bear a good witness, but I try to restrain the impulse to condemn, or to “sit in the seat of the scornful”. Who knows what is in their heart? who knows what changes may take place in their life at any day? Isn't it better for me to leave all judging to the Lord?
I agree that a defenseless human should not be killed in most cases, and I agree that saving the life of the mother is important. But, as you say, this question has been argued fully elsewhere, and, since I find my position between the extremes, I won't go further here.
And I also agree that it's dangerous to go throwing snippets of scripture around without paying attention to context! Interpretation of scripture requires care, I think, and prayer. Finally, I hope for more open dialogue between liberal and conservative siblings in Christ!
+Vicky
September 28th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Hey Vicky,
You said “In Matthew, Mark (very briefly) and Luke, Jesus addresses judging. As you know, He says “with what measure you mete shall it be measured to you again”
That is true, but to whom was Jesus talking…Matt 7:1-6 continues and helps us with the context…You hypocrits. It seems clear in this passage that we are not to judge as hypocrits, but not all judging is wrong or forbidden as you later seem to indicate. Jesus goes on in that passage that we are not to give to dogs what is sacred. We can only know who are dogs or pigs by making a judgement and we will know by what they do with that which is holy.
You said “And in Luke He adds, after the “judge not” passage, that people shouldn't carp at the “mote” in their neighbor's eye when there is a “plank in their own. So, the message seems pretty clear: I should, as a Christian, leave judgment to the Lord.
However, we must look at the whole of Scripture; In John 7:24 Jesus says we need to stop judging by mere appearences, and make a right judgement. This seems to be a contradiction, but we know Scripture does not contradict itself, so something else is in mind. I could be wrong, but it seems the self-righteous, hypocritical, surface judgements(condemnation) are prohibited, while righteous, discerning judgements are not only allowed, but dare I say commanded.
You said “I don't know the relationship someone I disagree with has with the Lord. So, if I think they are bearing evil “fruits” (”by your fruits you shall know them”) then I can choose not to vote for them, or I can choose to argue with them, hopefully in such a manner as to bear a good witness, but I try to restrain the impulse to condemn, or to “sit in the seat of the scornful”. Who knows what is in their heart? who knows what changes may take place in their life at any day? Isn't it better for me to leave all judging to the Lord?”
It would seem simple enough to leave it all to the Lord; the problem is we rarely leave it all to him, nor do I think He wants us to. For example, in the section above, you have judged the person's fruit to be evil/wrong/mistaken so you seem to have already disobeyed your own understanding of judgement. I do not (and I think you could agree) think all judging is wrong, and I don't think (you may not agree) that God expects us to leave it all to Him. He gave us a brain and wisdom to make wise decisions, test the spirits, and call evil evil and good good. And all of these require a form of judging that may hurt someone's feelings, but is acceptable. Again, I could be wrong, but I think it seems clear that I am not comepletly out of line with my reasoning.
Derrick
September 28th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Vicky,
I am curious what your abortion position is. I did not want to go into it because the point I was earlier trying to make was not about abortion. You said you were somewhere in the middle of two extremes.
What do you mean by the two extremes? I am a little confused by this, or rather it could be understood different ways, so I would like to hear your thoughts.
As well as where you lie between the two.
I appreciate the dialogue we have been having.
Derrick
September 28th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Vicky, I just want to add that I think it's important to remember that we don't have to judge a candidate's relationship with God in order to vote for him or her (though Peter, John, Paul, and Jesus all spent time explaining how we can recognize false Christians, and they expected us to express some measure of judgment in this area–even Jesus said to make a “righteous judgment” in John 7:24). However, we certainly have the ability and the responsibility to judge positions held by the candidates in the light of revealed truth.
We don't need to confuse judging positions with judging people's hearts. Do I think a person is very wrong if he believes it's okay to kill an unborn child for any reason other than saving the life of the mother? Yes. Now, that person may have the best of intentions for holding that position, or he may not. I can't always see that. But the fact remains that his position is wrong. I will therefore speak out against his position. Saying he's wrong isn't judging his heart or his relationship with God, it's only judging his position. What I won't do is assume that he doesn't love God because he holds that position. That issue is irrelevant since the state of his heart has no bearing on whether or not his position is correct. Can you see how these two things can be separated?
Ironically, though people on the left often cry out against “judging,” I think they confuse these two things (judging hearts and judging positions) more often than people on the right. I don't know if you have observed this, but this is what I have seen. They disagree with conservative positions, therefore they conclude that conservatives have evil motives, they're selfish, greedy, racist, etc. I see heart judgments often coming from the left against conservatives (e.g., Kanye West's recent comment, “George Bush hates black people”). I agree with you that we need (most of the time) to avoid judging motives and hearts and only judge what we can see by analyzing the principles behind the positions and the results of those positions and determining whether they will bring about good or hurt.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Face, thanks for responding. I think we're on the same page here. There's no way I'd confuse a vote with a judgment. When I write of judging, I'm referring to the regrettably habit, amongst some liberals and some conservatives, of calling names, labelling, making offensive comments against those with whom they disagree. I'm not proud of the excesses of liberals, and I'm sure you might flinch from time to time at egregious comments by some conservatives. And I think liberals and conservatives feel judged by one another. My motive in opening this dialogue is to create a Christian bridge–even though we won't be voting alike, we can at least engage in respectful exchange of views.
+Vicky
September 29th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Hi Derrick,
From what I've seen, thinking about abortion ranges from one extreme–abortion is never right under any circumstances–to another extreme–abortion is a woman's right at any time, no matter what the circumstances.
I think it's wrong to take a human life unless circumstances are extreme (self-defense, or the defense of loved ones, comes to mind as an example of circumstances where killing might be just). Another kind of extreme situation, ventured by other thinkers in the past, involves fighting an enemy (in war) who seeks to destroy you or to kill others. Advocates of moral war say that, for example, fighting Hitler was justifiable and killing an enemy attacking our country is just. I agree with those positions, and I feel that there are times when abortion is necessary or good–such as when the mother is in danger.
I don't think it's right for a woman to have casual sex and then abort the child because she did not think, or know, to use contraceptives. I don't feel it's right for a man to tell his wife or sexual partner that he doesn't want to care for a child, and therefore to tell her to seek an abortion. I don't think it's right to have a late-term abortion (I won't go into all possible definitions here, but those can be read about in other fora) unless there is a compelling reason of health.
In between these two parameters, or extremes, that I've described, there sits a grey area, a territory where human judgment may err. In that area, I wish people would make prayerful and educated decisions about unborn children. People's decisions can only be legislated to a point. I do make choices, in voting, based on my values, since I'm passionate about my Christianity and I try to be thoughtful about it also.
I'm not sure I've been clear. Please ask questions if you have them. I am interested in reading anyone's latest thinking about abortion!
+Vicky
October 1st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Hey Vicky,
I think you have fairly characterized the extremes of abortion.
You said: “I think it's wrong to take a human life unless circumstances are extreme (self-defense, or the defense of loved ones, comes to mind as an example of circumstances where killing might be just). Another kind of extreme situation, ventured by other thinkers in the past, involves fighting an enemy (in war) who seeks to destroy you or to kill others. Advocates of moral war say that, for example, fighting Hitler was justifiable and killing an enemy attacking our country is just. I agree with those positions, and I feel that there are times when abortion is necessary or good–such as when the mother is in danger. ”
I think this is why one of the 10 Commandments says that murder is wrong/not killing. I would probably agree that abortion is permissible (I would be hesitant to call it good) when the mother's life is in danger. At this point you are not necessarily choosing to end a life, but rather choosing to save one.
I would say the only compelling reason to have an abortion is to save the life of the mother. However, it seems that most folks who support the “woman's right to choose” are not as concerned about a life or death situation for the mother, but almost any reason can be given (I have $500 and I don't feel ready/I feel it will be too much for me to handle, etc…) to have an abortion. The Democratic Party (as a whole) does not support any restriction on the mother's right to end the life of an innocent unborn human. The “woman's right to choose” is much better sounding than to “woman's right to kill your unwanted unborn baby”.
You said “In between these two parameters, or extremes, that I've described, there sits a grey area, a territory where human judgment may err. In that area, I wish people would make prayerful and educated decisions about unborn children.”
I would say that in that grey area, if we are not sure, we should err on the side of restraint and not kill it even if there is only the slightest chance it may be a human fetus (therby killing an underdeveloped human being)
You said: “People's decisions can only be legislated to a point.”
I like what MLK had to say about legislation. He said the laws/government can't make the white man like to negro, but it (gov't) can make it so the negro doesn't get lynched/hung. (my paraphrase) Perhaps one day, more people will realize what they have been doing to 40+ million lives. And may God have mercy on those of us who have aided in their destruction even if only by doing nothing to change people's minds. I know I have some blood on my hands…anyone else?
Derrick
October 2nd, 2005 at 3:26 am
I consider myself niether Dem or Rep. I think both parties have serious flaws. I usually vote the lesser of two evils which usually but not always leans towards the Rep side of the board.
As for the acceptance of abortion in cases of the health of the mother. hmmm. shouldn't we be looking at this from both perspectives of the mother and the child. Should a mother kill her child to protect herself? If we truly trust our lives to God should we be worried about dying for the sake of the life of a child? Which life is of more value? Which life should we be protecting first? Wouldn't a good parent give his/her life for his/her child? Should we treat the unborn child any different?
just food for thought
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:44 am
Hmm, I thought I was discerning, not judging
Anyhow, clearly we differ on some terms and conditions. I leave the argument with a reference to Romans 14:1-12.
+Vicky
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:59 pm
Frankly, I have not found any reasoning from Scripture that would allow a mother to abort her unborn child. It's been said here that it is permissible if the mother's life is in danger. Is there any justification of that from Scripture, or is that a pragmatic solution?
Scripture does show that there is justifiable killing, such as execution for criminal punishment and in times of war, but neither is sufficient reason for aborting a baby. If there is Scriptural justification for advocating abortion under the circumstance to save the mother, I'd like to see this. Otherwise, to do such a thing would liken it to the euthanizing of the baby in order to give quality of life to the mother.
October 6th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Victor,
I don't have time right now to look up any possible scriptures to support it, but this just seems to me to be a moral dilemma to pick one of two difficult choices, both choices would theoretically take the life of a precious human person; and both choices would save the life of a precious human.
I am not talking about preserving quality of life (I do not think that is always a good measure for making difficult moral decisions); I am talking about life.
The Bible, from my understanding does not talk a whole lot about abortion, but neither does it speak too much about child abuse, so in a sense it seems we are left to extract principles, talk to other wise folks, etc. to help us make difficult decisions and sharpen our Christian worldview. I could be wrong about this, but these are my too sense.
Derrick
October 7th, 2005 at 2:29 am
“I don't have time right now to look up any possible scriptures to support it”
If not the time, perhaps you can direct me towards resources that argue for permissible abortion?
“this just seems to me to be a moral dilemma to pick one of two difficult choices, both choices would theoretically take the life of a precious human person; and both choices would save the life of a precious human.”
Hmmmm….who makes the choice? Should the mother make the choice for her baby to abort the him/her? (Mr. O'Brien brings up good questions concerning such a scenario.) The baby is a life separate from the mother, therefore is protected under Law as any other life. So if the baby is protected under God's Law, is there any circumstance for which the baby can be executed? If one wishes to look at it in the perspective of sacrifice, under what circumstance under God's protective Law is it allowable for someone to sacrifice someone elses life?