Citizen Tom

Note:  These particular cartoons do not necessarily reflect my own ideas, but they do indicate the variety of issues present in the debate.  For example, Adolf Hitler did not depend on Christian schools to indoctrinate German youth.  The first cartoon ignores the role of organizations such as the Hitler Youth.

Because the issue which engendered it has not gone away, I have an old post which still occasionally attracts comments,  Reviling Christian Fundamentalism.  Here is the last comment from a visitor.  This was LN’s third comment in a little debate.   When I replied to LN’s first comment, he was obviously energized to continue our little debate.   So I decided to reply in a separate post.

What is the debate about?  It would be best to refer to LN’s own words to determine his point-of-view.  Nevertheless, I do have to frame it in my mind.  As I see it, LN has two major concerns.

• LN is against fundamentalism in all forms.  He sees fundamentalism as being “in conflict with knowledge and social progress, and its attempts to suppress independent, rational thought is despicable.”
• LN fears that I see secularists as foes and demonizes them.

From my perspective, LN and those who sympathasize with his perspective demonize those Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.   Because I too take the Bible quite seriously, I have no problem opposing LN’s attitude.  In fact, I think it is those who advocate secularism who have gotten too big for their britches.

In his last comment, LN tried to counter several points I had made.  Let’s consider those rebuttals.

LN’s Straw Man

LN believes that my “depiction of secularists as foes in a culture war implies malice and hostility, and in many cases, hatred. In a war, instinct causes those embattled to dehumanize their enemy.”  The irony in LN’s statement should be obvious.  He sets himself up as a foe of Christian Fundamentalism.  Then he demands that he not be treated like a foe.

Further, LN tells us the following.

The Bible justifies such an attitude, if you read Psalm 14:1-3, which states clearly that those who deny the existence of god are not only stupid, but they are “corrupt” and “do abominable deeds.”

What LN says here  about the Bible is true.  Nevertheless, each statement in the Bible must be read in context.  We must consider the statement within the context of:

• The whole Bible.
• The intended audience.
• The problem that is being addressed.

Within the context of the Bible, all men are sinners.  As the Apostle Paul put it in Romans 3:10, “There is no one righteous, not even one.”

Who was the intended audience?  Psalm 14 is a psalm of David intended for the People of Israel.  In an era when so many sacrificed to pagan idols, they had good reason to believe evil men were in fact godless sinners.

What was the problem?  David wanted to strengthen the faith of his People.  He wanted reassure his People — and himself — that the one and only Living God would protect them from the designs of evil men — and Satan.

The Wall of Separation

The favorite of idea of secularists is that wall that separates church from state.

LN begins his argument for the wall here.

Barack Obama stated it well. The role of faith is important in government, but its role must be limited to personal values and morals. We must discuss policy in secular, universal terms. We must rely on the facts, on reason, instead of faith when we draft our policies.

Where LN begins is wrong.  He tells what “we” must do.  Who is this ultimate arbiter of the facts and reason, LN?  Barack Obama, perhaps?  Don’t we each choose our own facts for our own reasons?   The Christian places his faith the wisdom of God, the secularist in the wisdom of Man.   When even amongst themselves, Christians and secularists disagree disagree on facts and reason, what is left but faith?  Why would anyone choose to have faith in Man?

The Role of Science in Secularism

Here LN has trouble following my reasoning.   He expresses puzzlement that “you’ve developed the idea that science somehow forces one to accept it.”  This conclusion is incorrect.  I do not think science forces anyone to accept anything.  I merely believe that people tend to convince themselves of what they want to believe.  We all have that tendency.  So long as our beliefs do not result in great discomfort, we tend to keep them.  This was the reason Socrates said:

The unexamined life is not worth living.

and

Beware the barrenness of a busy life.

and

Not life, but good life, is to be chiefly valued.

and

The end of life is to be like God, and the soul following God will be like Him.

Instead of examining our beliefs, we tend to reinforce them with whatever is available.  Science as well as religion will serve for this purpose.  Thus all the great totalitarian regimes of the last century found it all too convenient to justify their atrocities in the name of science.   Even though science is supposedly not a religion, these regimes made science their religion, but how?

Science, unlike, religion, merely explains the relationship between cause and effect.  Science does not deal at all with morality. Yet science can be extrapolated to deal with moral issues.  Consider what happens when science is applied outside the laboratory –  in the “real world.”  The system loses it boundaries; we replace the simple lab environment with a multitude of causes and effect.   Here in the “real world” the human mind must simplify or be overwhelmed with data.  We must of necessity choose for ourselves the relevant facts and decide what is reasonable.  No one else, not even a self-described reasonable secularist, has the right to do that for us.

But in the secular state, their is no recognition of God.  There is no God to endow anyone with inalienable rights.   There is only the end result.  In such a state, “science” becomes the way, and scientific Truth substitutes for moral Truth.

The Application of Religious Belief to Government

LN wonders why I “first seem to support the separation of church and state, and then go on to say that it is the responsibility of Christians impose their religious views upon the state.”  In fact, LN is also trying to impose his religious beliefs on government.  We all define morality in terms of our religious beliefs.  Just as atheism is a religious belief so is secularism.

Consider what secularism has become.  Within the context of America’s historical traditions, secularism was merely the belief that government has no role in the establishment of religion.  Although our laws reflected our religious beliefs, we codified our laws in neutral language.   Unsatisfied, secularists carried this device, intended to mitigate religious disputes, further than intended.  They insisted political discussions become religiously neutral.

In our time, secularists now work diligently to cleanse all religious symbolism and discussion from the public sphere.   Secularists argue that any and all religious references are an imposition and unnecessary.  As LN comments demonstrate, secularists do not see religion as relevant in the public sphere.  What secularists do not grasp (or admit) is that argument in and of itself is a religious statement.

Consider these statements.

We all agree and hold the same beliefs on moral issues.

Religious differences do not affect our moral beliefs or day-to-day decisions.

Atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and so forth all share the same moral beliefs and values.

Religion is not a factor that relates to people’s beliefs about the nature of government.

Christianity has nothing to do with the nature of America’s government.

The secularist, it would seem, would like each of us to believe the above.  All we have to do is eliminate those horrid fundamentalists.

The Growth of Government

Consider what has happened in last two hundred years.  At the time of our nation’s founding, government was a small concern.  Consider the list of enumerated powers in our Constitution (Article I, Section 8).   Just two lifetimes ago our Federal Government had little do.  Even state governments were not particularly busy.  What does government do now that it did not use to do?

• Retirement  and health care funding for the aged.
• Public schools for all ages.
• Extensive civil rights protection based upon race, sex, and creed even in the private sphere.
• Consumer protection.
• Lending for mortgages, schooling, businesses….
• Funding for news, entertainment, museums….
• And so forth.

The point is that the reach of government has grown.  As government grows, instead we directing it, it directs us.  Consider the problem of education in particular.  Government teaches us in kindergarten, provides our primary and secondary education, runs our colleges and universities.  In Virginia, even the old are encouraged to attend government-run colleges.   Our politicians run all this.  So at some point, we must ask:  is the tail wagging the dog?  Do we as citizens run our government or do our leaders teach us what to think about them?

A Conclusion

To have religious freedom, we must be able to exercise our own morality.  That is, we must be allowed to make our own moral choices.   Otherwise, what relevance does religion have in our lives?

When government owns and runs everything, we have no moral choices.  We have only the choices made by the government.

Consider again the issue of education.   Are you satisfied with having politicians decide what your child will learn?  How much choice do you have?  It is a take it or leave proposition.  Either you pay taxes and send your children to the government-run school or you pay taxes and pay to educate your child on your own.

Nonetheless, given the tenor of the times, you are fortunate.  As it is now you are merely punished for making the “wrong” decision.   Your children may have no choice at all.