Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • Criticizing Religions

    I have long been an advocate of permitting criticism of Christianity, because I think allowing such criticism is good for my religion. I have friends who would regard my religion as a delusion, and I encourage them to speak directly about what they believe. This is not a matter of commitment to legal free speech, though I do believe that the first amendment should be protected. That is an area in which I might even be regarded as extreme. I say this from inside the Christian faith. If we try to use legal or forceful means to blunt or eliminate criticism, we will be the poorer for it, intellectually and spiritually.

    Now we have the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. I already commented briefly on those, noting that I’m not too much of a fan of the pope, but nonetheless I did not off hand see anything wrong with his remarks that would justify the kind of reaction they are receiving. Despite the Pope’s apology I have not changed my view.

    In an article I read yesterday, but from the September 25 issue of Newsweek, Jon Meacham said:

    Much of the Regensburg address was a meditation on faith and reason, the roots of religiously inspired violence and the need for believers to see God as a figure of love. Roughly put, his argument was this: to Benedict, Islam’s conception of God so stresses God’s will that God can be understood to command the irrational.

    The problem is with a quotation from Emperor Manuel II. As is usual, many people have brought up the crusades at this point. But one should consider the fact that Emperor Manuel’s situation was one of being invaded by Muslim conquerors. I deplore the religious justification of violence other than as self-defense, yet this emperor was defending himself. Again, I’m not an apologist for the crusades, but one must remember that Christian territories were being conquered by Muslim conquerors. I’m not an expert on the history of that period, but I am certain there were various justifications from both sides.

    The Christian actions in the crusades should not mean that we can no longer have dialogue. True dialogue is also impossible when one cannot criticize.

    Again, quoting from Meacham’s article:

    Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation

  • McCain and Conscience

    I have liked John McCain for a long time, and now he has taken a stand on torture and interrogation. Chip Read on MSNBC’s first read comments on this as a matter of conscience. I’m amazed, despite everything that has already happend in the war on terror, that this is entirely an issue. I’m deeply disturbed that leaders in the administration have taken the stand that they have.

    From the moral point of view this should be a no brainer. From the point of view of international politics, it should be a no brainer. I served as aircrew in the Air Force. Aircrew always face the possibility that they will be shot down and captured by the enemy. Don’t imagine me being wondrously heroic or anything. I didn’t feel threatened. But when your job is one in which you could get into that position you do give it a little thought.

    One of the few bright spots in that horror we call war is the Geneva Convention. It’s more honored in the breach than otherwise, but it’s still a bright spot. We shouldn’t play with that. It’s wrong morally, and it’s dangerous politically. This is a place we need to listen to the international community and play good citizen on the world scene. When Christians support this sort of thing I truly have to wonder whether they’ve even passed the idea somewhere near their Christian principles.

    There are times when we need to challenge the international community. When other countries supply money to terrorists, or make it easy for them to transfer it, that is a reason to take some sort of action. They’re aiding and abetting criminals.

    But when they ask us not to torture, that’s a request for us to live up to our principles. True, many of these same countries will engage in torture. But if we don’t live up to a higher standard ourselves, we may come to the next stage–or the next–of this war on terror and find out that we have come more and more to resemble our opponents.

    That’s too high a price to pay.

  • Muslim Protests of the Pope’s Remarks

    I have not been very excited about the vatican over the last few years, and I was not overjoyed when the current pope was elected, but in general since I’m not a catholic, it’s not something I get very excited about.

    But the current round of protests about the Pope’s quotation of a medieval text on Islam in a speech to college professors just emphasizes again that there is an element in modern Islam that simply cannot tolerate freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. Now the words of a major Christian leader are different from the publication of one person’s cartoons, and the history of the crusades adds a negative element to the context, but nonetheless this kind of universal protest and anger in Islam is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.

    I know that Christians also protest negative things said about them, and the Muslim world provides plenty of opportunities with a number of grossly irresponsible leaders who have serious mouth control problem. Still, I don’t think they should be forced to shut up. That’s freedom of expression. I’m not talking about the legal right of free speech, but of the concept of freedom of expression.

    But many Muslims are reserving to themselves the right to insult practically everyone else, while protesting any effort to respond. Let me be clear. There are moderate Muslims with whom I have no problem. In fact, I have no problem with any Muslim who is not planning to try to use force to impose their views on me or on my country. They can use as much peaceful persuasion as they wish. At the same time, I condemn every person who feels that they should be able to shut up their opponents by threats of violence. I would suggest that western leaders, religious or otherwise, refuse to apologize or respond in any way while angry crowds run around the streets protesting words and images.

    The behavior in these protests is stupid, and it should be condemned as such. The behavior of those who threaten death to westerners is evil, and it should be condemned as such. If protesters want to burn down pieces of their own countries, that is the problem of those countries and those people. And yes, when Muslim countries deny rights to women, or impose cruel punishments on their people, it is appropriate for people to condemn those activities and those laws.

    Having said that, if westerners or Christians call for violence against civilian populations in the Muslim world, or any unjustified violence against anyone, they should also be condemned. At the same time, their right to express their view should be protected. The pope may have made less than the best choice of words, but thus far, I don’t even see that much of a problem in his speech.

    Freedom is threatened right now on every side, in our own government here in the United States through authorization of torture and indefinite incarceration, in Europe through the imposition of politically correct speech, and in the Muslim world by the advance of fundamentalist Islam. The only remedy is for those who love freedom to defend it by word and deed at all times.

    (OK, I’ll get off the soapbox!)

    Note: Actually let me note that as long as the protests are non-violent, the protesters also should be allowed their expression. I would certainly consider it hypocritical, however.

  • Nation Whose God is the LORD?

    Today while doing grocery shopping, I saw a T-Shirt with the slogan: My faith and my freedom are one. Underneath was the verse: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Psalm 33:12).

    I don’t know who provides such a shirt, but that slogan troubles me deeply. I think it reflects the problem that many Christians have with unhypocritical support of freedom of religion in this country and elsewhere in the world. Now there is a theological sense in which I can understand the claim that faith and freedom are one. There is a point of spiritual freedom, the freedom to make spiritual choices and to build a healthy relationship with God that comes, for me, through my faith. But a key element of that spiritual freedom comes from the fact that it was freely chosen. That faith is my faith, and even though I share a fellowship with Christians because it is also Christian faith, it bears a distinct stamp.

    But with the accompanying text (about which more below), I’m pretty sure that’s not the freedom we’re talking about. There are a number of groups that advocate a Christian nation, one built on Biblical principles and enforcing Biblical laws. Let’s ignore, for the moment, the incredible problems there are with simply producing a “Biblical” system of law. One’s hermeneutic is quite determinative of what one holds to be applicable, and even amongst people who advocate a Christian nation, there is considerable variety of interpretational principles.

    There are those who advocate a nation that lives a life of holiness. What this means, in practice, is that they want a single set of moral standards enforced on everyone, derived from the Bible in whatever way they derive things. This will mean marital fidelity in the strongest sense–not only no sex outside of marriage, but no premarital sex, no common-law marriages, and modest apparel and lifestyle. It will mean that homosexuality cannot be tolerated anywhere in the nation. Blasphemy, of course, cannot be allowed, because how can a “holy nation” allow such a thing? Thus freedom of speech will be prohibited. Of course, idolatry and worship of any other God but “the LORD” however defined, must be eventually forbidden.

    Now I’m not arguing against anyone’s advocacy of a particular code of morality for their lives and for those in their spiritual community. I do that myself, and my own code is actually quite conservative and restrictive–to me! But for various reasons, many groups of Christians have decided that somehow true freedom can only come with the practice of Christianity. At the moment, they will advocate permitting other groups, but they want them to exist in a Christian nation and live up to Christian principles.

    They do so often for quite contradictory reasons. One broad grouping believes that Christianity has replaced Israel in God’s scheme, and that America is a new Zion, a new promised land, in which all the promises of blessings will be fulfilled if only we will follow the laws and purify the land. If you encounter such a view, don’t let them claim moderation. That slope is a very slippery one, and unless you are 100% in agreement, eventually you’re going to find yourself on the outside.

    Another broad group continues to believe that Israel is the benificiary of God’s promises to Israel, but they believe that those promises can be extended to our nation if we behave, as a nation, in the same way. This is a bit more logical on the first point–the promises after all were made to Israel, and there is nowhere in the Bible that might indicate a transfer to the United States of such blessings. But it is less logical on the second point, because we take random promises and random blessings and apply them on a national scale.

    Either of these groups needs to read the second half of the verse I quoted above: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Clearly the reference was to Israel, and “the LORD” is YHWH, the proper name of Israel’s God. God does promise blessings to other nations, but not on the same covenant basis as he does for Israel itself. Either transfer or extension of that covenant needs some serious theological undergirding, and none is forthcoming from advocates.

    Jesus never advocated establishment of a physical nation. What he did was advocate people, with the kingdom of God in them, living kingdom lives. I challenge you to find Jesus advocating anything similar to the seeking of blessing on a national scale through somehow forcing them all to agree to identical moral codes. In fact Jesus seemed to be against the imposition of any detailed sets of laws on people; he was a revolutionary advocating the spirit rather than the letter.

    Freedom will not survive in a Christian nation, not because Christianity is bad but because it is a spiritual faith offering a relationship with God to individuals. Christianity applied by force should be regarded as an oxymoron. In fact, Christianity applied by force has repeatedly resulted in persecution of opponents and dissenters, and in a faith that bears little relation to Jesus. Non-Christians should be very careful to guard against the type of Christian who says that his faith and his freedom are one. But Christians should be equally careful. We are commanded to make disciples from all nations, but that does not mean that we should try to make the nations themselves into disciples. Christianity does not work that way and was never intended to do so.

    Freedom is freedom and faith is faith, and neither will flourish unless faith is freely chosen or rejected. Because of this I am absolutely opposed to the notion of a Christian nation. A nation with lots of Christians in it, yes. But even if 100% of the population were to choose freely and without pressure to be Christians, I would advocate complete freedom of religion, because anything else would be destructive to faith (and of course to freedom).

  • Red State Rabble on Enemy Recognition

    I really appreciate the post Uniting Against the Common Enemy. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t expect others to back off about their positions on various issues. But we also don’t need to have those additional disagreements prevent us from cooperating on issues about which we do agree.

    I particularly like the following:

    RSR is fighting against those authoritarians who would impose their religious views on the rest of us. We don’t believe giving church-goers two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of their religious belief — or else — constitutes a workable strategy.

    We’re not interested in philosophical purity, either.

    Bravo! And as a religious person I’m with you 100% in preventing anyone from imposing religious views on anyone else. I know that there are some other Christians who do want to impose their beliefs through the law, and I will fight against them both inside the “large tent” of Christianity, and in the political arena.

    We want to work closely with activists like Ken Miller to defend science education in public schools. Moreover, we respect him for his many contributions to that struggle. In fact, it’s hard to think of many people who’ve done more. We frankly don’t care what his religious views are. It’s his actions that count in our book.

    Excellent point again. I just had to quote it to emphasize it.

    For our part, RSR is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with people of faith who want to defend America’s secular institutions from attacks by the radical right.

    And I’m happy to work with you on that. The radical right doesn’t like people like me any more than people like you. We can stand together to defend freedom.

    In the discussion of sides, I think we should consider two substanstial positions: Freedom–free inquiry, freedom from compulsion in religious and philosophical issues, and authoritarianism, especially of the religious sort. In that fight, those who are interested in freedom share a common interest that I think overpowers everything else, and we need to stick together on those points.

  • Allies for Evolution, not Everything

    Update: Jack Krebs has now posted a longer summary of the talk and links to audio files. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I don’t see anything in the summary that would alter my view on this. I’m glad Jack and Kansas Citizens for Science made sure to get good audio of this. (2nd update: I somehow left out the link to Jack’s post, and have now added it.)

    I’m regularly annoyed by angry recriminations that occur when someone discovers that the various people in favor of sound science education and specifically on the teaching of evolution don’t actually agree on all aspects of life, the universe and everything. Currently there is a flap about remarks by Kenneth Miller. Since I don’t have a transcript of those remarks I’m not going to try to critique those remarks. PZ Myers, however, has a rather angry post on Pharyngula calling Ken Miller a creationist because he suggested that creationists’ attacks were misdirected, and should be directed instead at folks like Dawkins.

    (more…)

  • Free Speech, Gay Rights, and the Bible

    I want to call attention to this post and to the story behind it. An evangelical Christian was arrested in south Wales and charged with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.”

    Ed Brayton said:

    I am obviously a staunch advocate of gay rights, but some of the people who claim to be on the same side need to get something through their skulls: you do not have a right to never encounter the opposition of disapproval of others.

    Very frequently I have to point to problems like this on the other side, i.e. as a Christian I’m busily telling my fellow-Christians that we need to support free speech for everyone, and freedom of religion for everyone. Christians should, for example, be at the forefront of the battle for freedom of religion for Wiccans in the military. We know from both sides the danger of persecution. We’ve been and still are persecuted in parts of the world. We have been, and still are persecutors. We have every reason to know it’s bad.

    I was glad to see several non-Christian posters who support the freedom of speech of this evangelical Christian. My question is will this story simply make evangelical Christians angry about a “homosexual agenda” or will it alert all of us, whatever our persuasion, to the problems of restricting freedom of speech and of expression? I hope it is the latter. We need to keep speech free, or we may be the next target.

  • Lying by Format

    In yesterday’s mail I got a political ad. With Florida’s primary just a few days away, that’s not unusual, but this one was particularly interesting. On the front it reads “Republican Voter Guide” with the admonition under it “Vote September 5th.” Now a reasonable person might conclude that one is going to find a guide to the available Republican candidates for the various offices. That would be pretty useless to me, seeing as I’m an independent.

    But being the generally curious sort I opened the ad to see what was on the inside. There we have two columns, comparing just two candidates, and doing so in such a way as to make the candidate on the left column (who ironically claims to be more right wing) look good and the candidate on the right look bad. They go so far as to use a grainy black and white picture for the opponent, and a nice color picture for the candidate they support. (The two candidates are both Republicans seeking a place on the November ballot running for Chief Financial Officer of the state of Florida. Why CFO is an elected position probably doesn’t bear examining.)

    My question is why such ads work. I’m not a voter in the Republican primary, but I certainly will vote in the November election, and there’s one candidate who has a serious negative mark against his name for the general election, simply because I know he lied. I don’t think that’s too strong a word. A “voters guide” is generally understood to be a listing of candidates with a comparison of their positions on a selected list of positions. Christian Coalition guides have been challenged for using a much less blatant selection of topics than this, and in addition we have the visual portrayal.

    Well, the answer to my question is that we, the voters, simply don’t take responsibility and don’t hold politicians accountable for their behavior. Such an ad should result in the candidate getting a nice checkmark in the “liar” column for every voter who received it, and in this case I mean liar above and beyond the average for politicians.

  • Faith, Medicine, and Choice

    MSNBC.com has an interesting article today on medical practices and faith. The general title belies the content which is almost exclusively about clinics that do not offer birth control, sterilizations, in-vitro fertilization, or abortions.

    According to the article there is a growing trend. The article notes:

    The number of “NFP-only” practices is unknown, but an Ohio-based Web site promoting them has a registry of nearly 500 doctors who have pledged to practice this way. Most are obstetrician-gynecologists and family practitioners.

    Some medical ethicists have a problem with this practice, and the story reports a number of women who have been annoyed when such practices refused to offer certain services. Other ethicists believe that if the advertising is clear, then the practice is acceptable. The story quoted one annoyed patient as follows:

    “It caught me completely off guard,” said Elizabeth Dotts, 25, who had a similar experience in Birmingham. “I felt like he was judging me and putting pressure on me. . . . I am the patient. I am the client. It should have been about me — what I needed. Not what he needed or believed.”

    And here’s where I have a problem. Provided there is no false advertising, and information on the doctor’s practices are available, I think the patient should be responsible for choosing a doctor that is appropriate. I realize here that people often miss notices, not just in the fine print, but even on large signs in the office. They are focused on something else. But I think people who are focused on something else need to take responsibility for what you get. You don’t see the “we don’t do contraception” notice in the office, go to another one.

    Now don’t make any mistake. I personally do not agree with the position that these doctors are taking. I do have a problem with the individual quoted in the story who felt it would be unethical to refer the patient to a physician who would take care of them as they desire. I would also expect ethically that they should inform patients clearly of what their beliefs are, what they will do, and what they won’t, giving the patient an opportunity to choose a different doctor. With all of that, however, I would leave primary responsibility on the patient to make a selection based on their desires and their choices.

    This position stems from my broader position that people should be able to make any business relationship they desire, provided fraud or other deception is not involved, and I believe this should be true even in medical care. The final responsibility for your health is yours, and it is not possible to protect you from all negative experiences with medical practitioners. Plan on problems. Investigate your health care provider. Make an informed choice. Even if you do not encounter a doctor whose faith stance causes him to refuse you the kind of treatment you want, let me assure you that you will encounter physicians out there whose care you should avoid.

    Doctors should inform, but to make that work, patients should demand the information and refuse to settle for less. If, in the end, that means you change doctors, then it’s time for a change.

  • More on Walmart

    I’ve written a few posts that reference Walmart (here, here, and here) and the various accusations and calls for boycotts that have come out about it. This is one area where my free market bias comes into play. I think that low prices are a good thing, and I don’t believe that Walmart wages and benefits are that far out of line for their industry.

    Today on Newsweek business, Robert J. Samuelson has an excellent column on the topic, Walmart’s a Diversion, in which he suggests that democrats should leave the topic alone. Tongue in cheek he suggests that the government nationalize it, and then we see what happens. In conclusion he mentions some numbers, dealing with prices Walmart has forced lower:

    All told, these cuts have significantly raised living standards. How much is unclear. A study by the economic-consulting firm Global Insight found that from 1985 to 2004, Wal-Mart’s expansion lowered the consumer price index by a cumulative 3.1 percent from what it would have been. That produced savings of $263 billion in 2004, equal to $2,329 for each U.S. household. Because Wal-Mart financed this study, its results have been criticized as too high. But even if price savings are only half as much ($132 billion and $1,165 per household), they’d dwarf the benefits of most government programs.

    Just so! Perhaps attacks on Walmart are not only a diversion; they’re a mistake.