The Beauty of Adventism
by Stephen Foster
From the perspective of at least this Seventh-day Adventist, the beauty of Seventh-day Adventism is that it is essentially about balance; New Testament and Old Testament, faith and works, grace and law, mercy and justice.
Now, of course, from one of these aspects or another, this is undoubtedly viewed by many as its weakness or flaw because some may claim that Adventists seek or attempt to have it both ways.
Clearly, you can’t please everyone, and balance doesn’t necessarily mean that Adventism is successful at being all things to all people. For that matter, perhaps balance doesn’t require Adventism to try to be all things to all people; though Adventists perhaps should. There goes that balance again; it’s inescapable.
While engaged in a recent discussion of the concept of fundamentalism versus pluralism which had been prompted by Monte Sahlin’s provocative piece on ‘The Problem With a Fundamentalist World View,” the thought occurred to me that another aspect of Adventist balance is that while many of us hold to many fundamentalist beliefs concerning Biblical authority, the divinity of Christ, the seventh-day Sabbath, the literal return of Jesus, among others, we nonetheless are advocates of/for societal pluralism.
Historic Adventism is fundamentalist in its Biblical approach yet pluralistic in its social approach. Though having some fundamentally non-negotiable doctrinal beliefs, ‘we’ advocate for secular and pluralistic approaches to many if not most public policy issues.
Although we have much in common with Christian fundamentalists theologically, and perhaps even more in common culturally, because of our distinctive Sabbath doctrine and historic eschatological interpretations, we perceive dangers in religious fundamentalist approaches to public policy. Consequently, we have much in common with secularists; that is, insofar as general approaches to public policy are concerned.
As a theoretical example of this balance, we support a relatively large parochial school system/network while opposing (in theory anyway) the government getting its nose under that tent.
Another example would be that although we believe the world was created by God, we would not advocate that our belief/doctrine of this be taught in public schools as science.
Arguably we are religious fundamentalists who see and fully appreciate the dangers of fundamentalism. To me, that balance is indeed admirable.
What is somewhat amusing/bemusing/intriguing/noteworthy to me personally is, again, that many Christian fundamentalists see the pragmatic value of secularist approaches to public policy in the Arab world but don’t want this in America; and that some former Adventists see the threat that religious fundamentalism poses to/for societal peace and freedom, yet ignore, if not deny, what historic Adventist eschatology interprets prophecy as predicting will occur in the U.S. Wouldn’t a balanced approach, with a consistent standard and consistently applied principles, be advisable?
In many aspects, such an approach is the beauty of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Some would argue that an even more balanced approach to any number of internal issues would be advisable for our church and its leadership; but that’s another blog.
Stephen,
The great consistencies in your postings are what undefined buzzwords you will use and that your comments will steer toward advocation of particular political philosophy. This time your buzzwords are "secularism" and "pluralism." But without benefit of a clear description to understand what meanings you attach to them it is not possible to understand what you are saying. Please give us a concise description of the definition(s) you have in mind when using those terms along with the socio-political objectives you are advocating when using them.
sec·u·lar·ism
noun ˈse-kyə-lə-ˌri-zəm
Definition of SECULARISM
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations
plu·ral·ism
noun ˈplu̇r-ə-ˌli-zəm
Definition of PLURALISM
4 a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization
b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state
These are the definitions of "secularism" and "pluralism" (from Merriam-Webster) for which you have asked, William.
I have also previously authored a blog on this same site entitled Secular-ism; which used a dictionary.com definition, as I recall.
I didn't ask for the dictionary definitions. I asked you to give us a description of those definitions so we could understand what concepts your noble-sounding declarations are actually advocating. While you're at it, how about explaining what you mean by "balanced approached", your concept of how to achieve "societal peace and freedom" and how the simple defense of the First Amendment liberty to practice one's religion or express religious views in public is somehow "religious fundamentalism"?
Actually, what you asked for was “a concise description of the definition(s) [that I] have in mind when using [the terms secularism and pluralism] along with the socio-political objectives [I] am advocating when using them.”
The dictionary definitions that I have provided are precisely how and what I perceived or meant by using those two words. In fact definition 4 b provides the objective that I am advocating when using pluralism, or even when using both words. I am advocating “a concept, doctrine or policy” whereby “members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization” and a common Constitutional framework of “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations” insofar as government is concerned.
I did not say that “the simple defense of the First Amendment liberty to practice one’s religion or express religious views in public is somehow ‘religious fundamentalism,’” William. Actually I am considered (and consider myself) to be somewhat of a religious fundamentalist. I don’t necessarily equate defense of either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the defense of its establishment clause with religious fundamentalism; but rather with civil libertarianism.
If the government started giving religions a hard time about conducting public evangelism or anything of that sort, I would object. On the other hand, I would object to the government sponsoring, facilitating, or hosting public evangelism or anything of that sort. I suggest this is a balanced approach.
Jesus told His disciples to go and make followers. How does your pursuit of this topic enable anyone to make followers for Jesus? Has it made you or them more effective at making followers for Jesus?
'What is somewhat amusing/bemusing/intriguing/noteworthy to me personally is, again, that many Christian fundamentalists see the pragmatic value of secularist approaches to public policy in the Arab world but don’t want this in America; and that some former Adventists see the threat that religious fundamentalism poses to/for societal peace and freedom, yet ignore, if not deny, what historic Adventist eschatology interprets prophecy as predicting will occur in the U.S. Wouldn’t a balanced approach, with a consistent standard and consistently applied principles, be advisable?'
Very good Stephen – much agree. In my own mind and country of Aus, I observe that in the 1890s, the SDA Church (a small 'fundamentalist' Church, where that word was not yet pejorative) united with famous atheist leaders to enshrine in the Australian Constitution section 116, which is our separation of Church and State clause.
Re your comments on SDA eschatology, I likewise can't quite understand Adventists who support political leaders (especially in the US givens its place in prophecy as the Lamb-like Beast) who might espouse conservative Christian views (which we might agree with), but try to impose those on the public through the State in theocratic terms (which should scare the hell out of us). I might not personally agree with gay marriage, but the homosexual lobby aren't going to introduce Sunday Law are they? In the end, our conservative Christian 'allies' will be the ones to watch out for.
Stephen,
There is an ocean-wide difference between the use of religion to advocate for the adoption and enforcement of particular religious views on the general public and the defense against the adoption of laws restricting a the ability of a person to practice their faith or express their beliefs in public. There are many confused souls who think those are one and the same and that a person seeking public office who has any faith in God must be intending to use the force of law to impose their beliefs on the public.
Namesake Ferguson,
It is a fascinating phenomenon that we witness, though unfortunately not surprising. It is undoubtedly interesting to observe that some current Adventists whom do not subscribe to historic SDA eschatology correspondingly also do not perceive a real need for the separation of church and state in America.
Apparently, this is how it must be. "Politics makes strange bedfellows" indeed; doesn’t it? In this regard politics trumps SDA eschatology, while essentially demonstrating its veracity.
Stephen,
I think a little more explanation is in order to help you understand a significant difference in the viewpoints behind the comments made about religious liberty issues in America.
The church has historically taken a very limited viewpoint and only viewed religious liberty from the viewpoint of projecting how certain end-time prophecies would be fulfilled. There is a lot of history to support that view. America has a history of religious groups being involved in the development and enforcement of public policy and laws that have resulted in the persecution of groups that did not embrace a particular viewpoint. Certain religious advocacy groups were directly involved with government to produce the adoption of specific laws and even an amendment to the US Constitution including laws enforcing the observance of Sunday as a day of rest, a prohibition on the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, etc. Many people went to prison for violation of such laws. Sunday laws have largely been repealed. While some groups continue working for the adoption and enforcement of such laws they are nowhere near as powerful as they once were and have become politically insignificant. Their current impotence should not be interpreted as a prediction of future inability to revive and fulfill prophecy.
Most advocates of religious liberty in the Adventist Church in North America hold views based on that history. However, holding a view looking solely for the fulfillment of prophecy has blinded them to the current reality of our government becoming strongly anti-religious and even openly hostile to anything and everything related to the free and open practice of Christianity while giving unchecked freedom to the practice of Sharia where it directly conflicts with historic laws in such areas as the punishment of domestic violence. A few examples will illustrate this.
In most communities the zoning laws require businesses and churches to have parking lots where the minimum number of spaces is determined by a formula where the seating capacity is divided by the number of people expected to be arriving to that location at a time of peak use. For retail businesses that number is typically somewhere around 1.5. But in some cities that number has been raised as high as 5 despite ample data showing that requirement as excessive. A retail site may have only a sidewalk between the parking area and the building. But in some areas churches are now being required to have an area of landscaping between the near side of the sidewalk and the building at least as deep as the length of the largest parking space. The results are dramatic reductions in the buildable land area, major cost increases and churches having to abandon their building plans.
This next example comes from Stephen Foster's home town. Churches have a long history of renting public facilities for various events ranging from socials to athletics and even holding regular church services. The 2009 federal stimulus program promoted by the Obama Administration included language strictly prohibiting religious groups from using any facility contructed using those funds. The regulations written for the enforcement of that law extended that prohibition to prohibiting religious groups from using any facility operated by any government agency receiving the funds regardless of how the funds were used by that agency. Currently four church groups in Huntsville, Alabama are suing the federal government over that regulation because they were denied access to recreational facilities they had used in the past. (In apparent contrast with this, one anti-religious zealot complained that Oakwood University's use of the Von Braun Center to hold alumni and graduation activities there violated the federal prohibition. However, their complaint was denied because the VBC is administered by a public corporation that did not receive any stimulus funds and major recent renovations were privately financed by patrons who imposed no such requirement.)
Military chaplains are becoming scarce as a result of restrictions on the practice of religion other than Islam. Recently a senior Sargeant faced court-martial that resulted in his demotion and dismissal from service just because he had a Bible in open view on his desk and while deployed led religious services for his troops when no Christian chaplain was available (but on one deployment they had two Muslim Imams available to them at all times even though there were only three Muslims in their batallion). Currently chaplains are prohibited from mentioning the name of Jesus in their prayers in a multi-faith service. As a result fewer chaplains are enlisting and many are leaving the military. I am personally acquainted with one who would have to re-enlist once more to retire but because of the new restrictions has chosen to leave at the end of his current enlistment.
While those holding the Historicist view of religious liberty issues typically view those like me who hold a Current view as incorrect and even charge that we do not believe in prophecy, the essential difference in views is the timing of prophetic events. Historicists are so focused on seeing the immediate or near-time fulfillment of the prophetic end that they are unable to see current events as doing anything other than directly producing that end. The Current view sees those events as preparatory and accelerating removal of the legal barriers and social resistance that would prevent a resurgence of the now-weak religious forces that will drive the end fulfillment.
The great irony I see in this contrast is that many Historicists are supporting the apparently benign or positive objectives of political forces and allowing their support of the apparently positive blind them to those same forces actively working to destroy the legal and social barriers that would prevent the fulfillment of end-time prophecies.
This is not a choice between a “Historicist” and “Current” view of current events/prophecy; because both perspectives should always be considered. This is what balance tends to do.
For example, when individuals or organizations profess a desire to acquire civil authority, and/or to pass laws, for the purpose of the cause of Christ, both Historicist and Current perspectives of things should be factored—since we know from history that whenever the church acquires such power religious persecution has inevitably followed in short order; and since we know that such power for such purposes is “preparatory” for, and prerequisite to, the “removal of the legal barriers and social resistance that would prevent a resurgence of the now [apparently] weak religious forces that will drive the end fulfillment.”
I inserted the adverb “apparently” because whatever perception of weakness there is just that. I have also observed that some differences occur when Americans are more concerned or place more emphasis on the free exercise clause than on the establishment clause or vice versa; when a balanced view of each would certainly be far more preferable.
Correction: …whatever perception of weakness there may be is just that, an apparent/"current" perception.
I should add that if the ‘current’ political landscape has contributed to that perception, then we know that is subject to sudden change by any number of things.
Ed was so on-point! You're so blinded by your opinions and so convinced of your correctness that you're unable to consider any information that contrasts with or refutes your opinions. Thus you are depriving yourself of the opportunity to learn new things and experience the intellectual growth that comes as a result.
William, i agree w/your above statement. i do not see that "balance" in the SDA outlook on the fundalmentalism/pluralism scale. The SDA church continues to be fixedly fundamental in some doctrine that is controversial to most other Christians, while being almost totally liberal in support of liberal politics that is usurping their liberty and freedoms, one by one. The word Christian is a bad name in politics, while Islam is welcomed with open arms. Political Correctness is the name of the phoney game they play. There is no balance of the scales of justice, currently, in the USA. The apathy and acquiesence of SDA'ers by their almost total support ofthe liberal political machine, is not balanced. They are so afraid of "SUNDAY LAWS" (which have no political currency at this time), they are permitting being brought into slavery by anti-religion forces, and maybe a Shariah Friday law. If Christians truly want to see the return of Jesus, why delay the process?? i heard that someone was asked "don't you want to see Jesus", and the answer was "YES", but not right now!!!!!!.
"Another example would be that although we believe the world was created by God, we would not advocate that our belief/doctrine of this be taught in public schools as science."
This is another example of missing real issues. Why should 'public schools' be teaching any theory of origins? Too many of us fit the description the late Richard Mitchell wrote of someone else, "He has concluded, presumably out of either sheer ignorance or astonishing opacity, that the public schools are “values-neutral.'' That passeth all understanding here, where we have documented regularly for almost ten years the Great Program of feeling inculcation and attitude manipulation which has almost entirely replaced academic disciplines in the public schools. It is one thing to conclude that the values preached in the schools are intellectually incompatible with each other and all too obviously designed to form a certain society rather than to inform a certain mind, but who finds them “values-neutral'' is either blind or up to some values-inculcation scheme of his own. "
That was in 1985. Anyone paying any attention at all to school curriculum would recognize that public school curriculum has been incredibly radicalized since then. Sadly, our schools have in the main followed suit. So it should not surprise when those educated by those same schools fail to recognize the problem.
C. S. Lewis describes how it happened:
"It is not a theory they put into his [the student's] mind, but an assumption [about values], which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all."
Never recognized as a controversy. We see it every day.
Well said, Ed. Jesus knew there was no such thing as value-neutral when He declared that we are either for Him or against Him. The dimensions of that dichotomy are many and reaching to many aspects of our lives and society, including the illusions that any society could be "pluralistic" or "balanced" when history shows otherwise. Sometimes they become so deceived that they believe they are serving God while promoting the concepts.
Ed,
I am a creationist who believes that our world was created by voice command of God in six consecutive days.
Needless to say, if no theory of origins is taught then my beliefs concerning Genesis 1 would clearly likewise be excluded. I wouldn’t advocate that my interpretation of Genesis 1 be taught in public schools as science whether a theory of origins is taught in public schools or not.
How can (and why should) the government choose which sectarian interpretation of sacred scripture is the authentic version from (whose) God? Whether any theory of origins is taught at all is another subject; isn’t it?
Stephen,
You are demonstrating my point.
"if no theory of origins is taught then my beliefs concerning Genesis 1 would clearly likewise be excluded." Only if education is left to government-run public schools.
Why should any government entity dictate what children are taught?The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 provided for funding for schools. At that time there were no public schools, as we know them at all. All schools were controlled by parents. In other words, public funding for private schools–all of which were religious–was the norm from 1787 until the 1840's everywhere. There is no Constitutional bar to returning to that system.
Again Richard Mitchell:
"Far from failing in its intended task, our educational system is in fact succeeding magnificently because its aim is to keep the American people thoughtless enough to go on supporting the system."
Even as the public education system becomes obviously bankrupt, intellectually, morally, and financially, few can imagine any other way of doing things. Success indeed.
Clearly Ed I am unclear as to what your point is (not your fault). I think your point is that there should be no public schools at all.
If so, you may want to write an opinion piece on that provocative idea. My initial thinking is that for those who decide to have their children taught privately, the government should not and must not dictate what those children are taught.
Hear Hear Ed. i believe the tipping point occurred in 1957-1958, when the NEA brought in the "open classroom concept", permitting children to move around, play, interrupt other students, and non-grading of efforts, and passing the lazy & inept students onward. The ability to assess a teacher's excellence was lost, and mediocrity was born into education. Children were taught they couldn't cope with pressure & crisus, and we shouldn't challenge them or they will become traumatised. And the ever powerful NEA has perpetuized this concept. As a result the USA has become dumbed down.
Actually, the tipping point came when some defined the term 'public school' (ca. 1848) as one run by the government, and then legislated 'compulsory attendance.' That guaranteed that eventually the effort to manipulate the next generation via schoolswould become a political objective. Successive waves of consolidation have made the school board increasingly distant from, and less responsive to parental values. Indeed, schools generally today consider it their job to wean children from their parents' beliefs.
For many years at a church I attended a small group claimed that the worst church school was better than the best public school. There was extremely little to recommend the school and if there had been a contest for "worst church school" it would have been a serious competitor. So it is ironic that public schools have become so bad that the old church school would begin looking good by contrast.
Public schools in many areas have developed such problems that there is growing demand for private schools including Adventist church schools. My church is in a building program that will culminate years in the future with completion of a preschool to grade-12 facility with a capacity for almost 400 students. Several years ago we did a survey in our area and found that the demand for Christian schools was extremely high. That, combined with the general affluence of the area, has given us a tremendous market opportunity. Our greatest challenge is not funding to build a high-quality school and staff it with the best teachers, it is overcoming concepts of what a school should be that are based on the failures and poor quality often seen in the past.
I for one don't really find Adventism all that fundamental. Fundamentalists believe in the bible as there only source for truth. We Adventists come on be honest have another set of books that do much of our bible exegeses for us. And our founders were far from fundamental. Most of which didn't believe in the divinity of Christ and that he had a beginning (created). The founders were largely Arian including James White who never publicly recanted his Communication Church views.
As far as seeing fundamentalism dangerous and secularism better for our public lives, is pretty easy to see adventist motives. It is because that we Adventists are afraid of persecution. I was listening to a SDA pastor talk about abortion and he said that if we vote away the women's right to her own body the next thing you know they will be taking our Sabbath away. It reminds me of Solomon commanding the guard to cut the baby in half and this is just what Adventists do. I say lets stand up and be salt and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe this is Gods test for us Sabbath keepers. Will you commit murder or advise others to do so so you won't be persecuted? There is more. I have heard the same thing with pornography, if we outlaw pornography they will take away our bibles and the list goes on, the homosexual issue. By the way there was a paster in Angwin that was pulling up voting sighs of people that were against gay marriage. He felt that to take away their right to marry was somehow bringing morality into the public arena. It turns out that we Adventists are pretty much as far right as you can get when it comes right down to it. Did you know that the largest private abortion provider is an Adventist with some 17 clinics. The bottom line is that we run when know one is chasing us. If you want to know what us Adventist public policies are pretty much in line with the ACLU the enemy of everything that was good with our country. Well I say lets get prayer back in school and bible reading back in congress and public prayer and the study of creation back in school and if anyone is afraid of the Sunday Law then run to the hills. But as for me and my house we will be salt for the Lord.
PS. read that last line in your best Pastor Ian Paisley impression..that means loud. : ) And would someone give me a witness and not a bunch of guff. : ) PS PS when the Lord comes back and says did you stand up for the fatherless (unborn) did you feed the hungry (public school kids needing the bible)
what are we going to say.
To this I can perhaps best respond by simply copying and pasting what I said earlier to Ferguson: It is a fascinating phenomenon that we witness, though unfortunately not surprising. It is undoubtedly interesting to observe that some current Adventists whom do not subscribe to historic SDA eschatology correspondingly also do not perceive a real need for the separation of church and state in America.
Apparently, this is how it must be. "Politics makes strange bedfellows" indeed; doesn’t it? In this regard politics trumps SDA eschatology, while essentially demonstrating its veracity.
While it is true that values are not neutral, and that humanistic values are secular and secular values are often humanistic; the government ideal should always be neutrality. When the government is sectarian or sponsors some (majority) religion, bad things invariably ensue.
Now, what I seem to hear from earl and Abishlom is “let them happen.” Well, as it happens, they will happen. But that we should help in making them happen is not the wisest course. As a church we should take stands on how individuals should morally conduct themselves. But to seek civil authority to enforce our doctrinal beliefs is the wrong approach.
“When the early church became corrupted by departing from the simplicity of the gospel and accepting heathen rites and customs, she lost the Spirit and power of God; and in order to control the consciences of the people, she sought the support of the secular power… Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience… When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.” GC 443, 445
This is apparently rather inconvenient. This is about more than the enforcement of existing blue laws and/or the imposition of new ones (although it certainly is about that); it is about principles; including those of societal peace and freedom.
No matter how bad it is, it always gets worse when church and state coalesce.
My point, Stephen, is that you have been educated by the system, and therefore do not see the fallacy in your reasoning.
"it is true that values are not neutral . . . the government ideal should always be neutrality." There are so many problems with that position, it would weary us all to examine them.
Here's the easiest one: If values are not neutral, and the government ideal should be neutral, then the government ideal should be to have or advocate no values. If it were possible, it would lead to chaos, which it is one of government's central purposes to avoid. It is not only impossible, it is incoherent–in a literal sense–and it is self-contradictory. If governement is going to operate schools, then government must endorse (by its monetary and legal support) some values. In government run schools you have de facto entanglement of church and state. It does not matter that the values so promulgated claim to be non-religious. Functionally, they serve as the state religion. It's just that rather than being validated by a god, they are validated by the state.
But of course, the most effective way to conceal that inconvenient truth is to teach everyone that these values are in fact neutral, or rooted in something called "the public good." Not by coincidence, the schools are the ideal place to do that.
They have been so successful in this that many Christians have received that same false teaching, and now accept it–and advocate it, as we see–without examining the underlying assumptions, or indeed, have been educated not to do so.
Richard Mitchell:
"Far from failing in its intended task, our educational system is in fact succeeding magnificently because its aim is to keep the American people thoughtless enough to go on supporting the system."
C. S. Lewis:
"It is not a theory they put into his [the student's] mind, but an assumption [about values], which ten years hence, its origin forgotten and its presence unconscious, will condition him to take one side in a controversy which he has never recognized as a controversy at all."
Never recognized as a controversy.
What religious values that are not common to good morality, which is areligious, are being taught in U.S. public schools?
Morality is not inextricably linked with religion, although most religions teach good morals, they are always in agreement with that particular religion.
You have repeatedly proclaimed that "morality is not inextricably linked with religion." Of course, assertion is neither reason nor evidence.
What is your purported source of "good morality?" And why should we accept it?
Because good people act morally. For good people to act immorally, it takes religion. History has demonstrated that for thousands of years. Unless morality is devoid of religion, we will continue to have very religious suicide bombers; Christian Torquemadas; Christians burning other Christians at the stake for "heresy." Need more be said?
Morals should not, and are preferred to be entirely separated from religion. Morals should not depend on whether one's religion informs them of moral acts, but our innate care for all humans. There have never been Humanists going to war to enforce their demands on others.
Is the only reason to be good to obtain God's pleasure or avoid disapproval? That is no morality. If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. Do you believe that in the absence of God we would all commit robbery, rape, and murder? If, on the other hand, you admit that you and most people would continue to be good even when not under divine surveillance, it is a fatally undermined claim that God is necessary for us to be good.
"People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police." H.L. Mencken.
Three of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in the very pious, church-going state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. The very religious and conservative "Bible Belt" states have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy and domestic violence.
Gregory S. Paul, in the "Journal of Religion and Society" (2005), systematically compared seventeen economically developed nations, and reached the devastating conclusion that 'higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.'
Well, we know what you are against. We still do not know the source your morality comes from. As they would say in court: non-responsive.
Do you believe that humans have a conscience? Do you believe that it has been humanity's guide before or without laws compelling actions or prohibiting them? If you believe that God gave us a conscience and free will, are we not to use it in making decisions?
That is where our source of morality lies. Where do you believe it lies?
Conscience obviously is not a source of morality, but an affective mechanism for reminding us of what we already regard as moral or immoral. That's like making an alarm clock the source of Time itself. If conscience were a source of morality, then we would never have had some cannabalistic cultures, while others condemned it.
It is obvious from history and verified by studies that conscience can be altered.
So that cannot be the source.
As for where I believe the source of morality comes from there are plenty of signposts on this thread fo anyone who has seriously studied the topic to be able to deduce it.
Since conscience cannot be the source of morality, now where do you locate it?
How that "what we already regard a moral or immoral" begin? If not our conscience, what do we already (previously) regard morals? This is circular unreasoning.
If you are convinced of the source of morality, that works for you, but cannot be assigned to others. Each individual must determine morals for himself, as an external source may enforce actions, but it is not truly morality, but actions for either reward or punishment.
Sorry you cannot distinguish between Time and the timepiece, between the warning and the danger warned against. It is not circular because it posits a source of morality outside ourselves, which our conscience references and warns us against violating.
No, I cannot assign an outside source of morality to others, any more than I can assign a belief in gravity. But gravity doesn't just 'work for me;' neither does morality.
And speaking of non-reasoning, if each person must determine morals for himself, then there are no morals, only individual preferences. You use the phrase "true morality," but if it is personally derived, there is no "true morality," only clashing–as we see every day–personal preferences masquerading as morality.
"[C]ertain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are. Those who know the Tao [Lewis' term for objective value] can hold that to call children delightful or old men venerable is not simply to record a psychological fact about our own parental or filial emotions at the moment, but to recognize a quality which demands a certain response from us whether we make it or not."
C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
How that "what we already regard a moral or immoral" begin? If not our conscience, what do we already (previously) regard morals? This is circular unreasoning.
If you are convinced of the source of morality, that works for you, but cannot be assigned to others. Each individual must determine morals for himself, as an external source may enforce actions, but it is not truly morality, but actions for either reward or punishment.
In my opinion, morality did have a beginning with God and is found in every world religion. The ten commandments are the Judeo-Christian version. The Bible says that all are born with a measure of faith in something beyond themselves that can be cultivated within their community for the good of others or can be rejected in favor of superstition, survival of the fitest, and selfishness. I believe in a Spirit that works among all people and presents choices.
Well Ed, I know that there are public charter schools; that is, schools that are funded publicly but somehow operated privately. Is this the ‘out of the box’ concept to which you have been referring? As long as public monies (tax revenues) aren’t at all subsidizing religious instruction/indoctrination of children, there may well be no problem.
But since you “understand that government support equals government influence,” you should also be cognizant of the self-evident reality that “limited” government support is a very slippery slope.
If charter schools aren’t what have been on your agenda, then until you write your piece on public education or whatever, I’ll have to say what you’ve said to Elaine, “We know what you’re against…”
It is interesting to note, Elaine, that the states in the U.S. with the highest gun homicide rates among white people are Bible belt states (of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas; with respective white homicide rates by firearm per million people of 34, 30, 29, 29, and 28). (This is from a 2008-2010 analysis of mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control conducted by the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/.)
The black homicide rates by firearm clearly dwarf the numbers of white homicides (with the highest rates found in Missouri, Washington, D.C., Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska); but the white suicide rate by guns dwarfs those for black people all over the nation.)
Stephen,
There you go again. You find yourself in the debate corner so you try to divert our attention by changing the subject. OK, let's take your gun statistics. Statistics from he Centers for Disease Control about the causes of death show that 137 deaths are caused each year by blunt instruments (hammers, golf clubs, etc.) for each one caused using a gun. Let's see, I have five different hammers in my tool boxes and a bag full of golf clubs. Does that mean I am 2,603 times more likely to commit a murder than someone with a gun? Obviously not. But according to law enforcement statistics right now if I'm walking down the street minding my own business on the south side of Chicago I'm more than 2,000 times more likely be killed by a black teen carrying a gun than by any means in those Southern states you mentioned. Why are you looking at gun violence statistics in the South instead of on the South Side of Chicago? Maybe because it is outside your little political box where the lid is closed too tight for any light to get inside?
Oh, so sorry, I wasn’t aware that I was in any kind of corner William. Thanks for telling me. I was commenting to Elaine in reference to her observation that “Three of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in the very pious, church-going state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. The very religious and conservative "Bible Belt" states have the highest incidence of teen pregnancy and domestic violence.” Or had you missed that?
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned guns, because that ensured you would miss the point. The point was that in the Deep South such violence (among white people) is more prevalent than in states where religiosity and rhetoric about traditional moral values is less prevalent. (This, again, coincided with Elaine’s previous observations.)
Nevertheless as dangerous as the streets of Chicago are, there are much higher rates of firearm deaths the Deep South than in Illinois (where Chicago happens to be). But I apologize for having distracted you with the mention of gun death rates. (I had been working on another journalistic project and those statistics were readily available.)
You just keep proving Ed Dickerson's point: your mindset makes you incapable of the critical thinking required to consider information other than what supports your ridiculous, wandering and nonsensical ramblings. Then, when you do grab ahold of a statistic, you use it to make a claim that falls apart upon closer examination. But, by that time you've moved on to another topic.
It would be great if you put some energy into a topic relating to actually acomplishing the mission Jesus gave us. Maybe something about a challenge you've encountered while trying to win souls for the Kingdom of God?
Well, I suppose you don’t accept my apology for having distracted you with guns.
What claim fell apart upon closer examination?
I would suggest that if you are not enamored with the subject matter that I occasionally tackle, try reading something else. This site features many fine writers who have varying opinions and perspectives, my brother.
If you read something I write with which you disagree, then make your case. If it is meritorious, readers will know. If not, they will know that too.
To restate my question, when are you going to talk about something worthwhile, something important? Oh, maybe, like fulfilling the command of Jesus to go out and win souls for the Kingdom of God? Oops! I forgot that you can't talk about the most important thing we're supposed to be doing because you have no experience doing it. All this other stuff you focus on just distracts people away from God and doing what He wants done. That means you're working against God while claiming to be a follower. Hey, didn't someone make that observation before?
" what supports your ridiculous, wandering and nonsensical ramblings." and "That means you're working against God while claiming to be a follower"
I hate to be a referee here, but just for the record, William, your language is a bit rough to abusive; certainly not respectful.
I agree with Elaine way back there that morality and religion don't necessarily go together. One can be a moral atheist, secularist, or nominal religionist. Morality isn't so much the issue as being opinionated or so subjective as to teach one's own form of morality or belief as the only one instead of giving students freedom to think.
Please share with me Ed if you disagree, but the state’s interests are primarily that of maintaining domestic tranquility and the security of its citizenry; are they not? Do you think that these interests are fostered by the promotion of sectarian interests; not by individuals mind you, but government? (Where on earth and/or in history has this ever been demonstrated to be so?)
I understand that you do not believe that we should have government schools, but private education has never ceased to be an option for those who choose to, and can afford to, pay for it. You seem to decry the hybrid of church/state schools yet seem to be calling for such a hybrid all at once.
Do you deny that agnostics can be moral and civilized in behavior and deed? Do you deny that whenever church and state have coalesced that persecution has resulted?
I'm not going to go into a lengthy discussion of the state's compelling interests. I did that in a monograph at the Institute for Educational Leadership some years ago.
" Do you think that these interests are fostered by the promotion of sectarian interests;"
I think that is not the only alternative.
"You seem to decry the hybrid of church/state schools yet seem to be calling for such a hybrid all at once."
Not even close. To choose curriculum is to choose values. I'm against the government choosing the values which must be taught, and then mandating or devising curriculum except in the most limited area. I'm against government regulating education at all, for the same reasons.
Government can, however support education in a variety of non-directive, non-intrusive ways, as was the case from 1787 well into the 19th century. For the record, it had also been true in more limited ways from the middle 1600's. I exclude that period here simply because colonial government was substantively different than the US post-1788.
And please, I understand that gov't support equals gov't influence. Precisely why both its input into curriculum, and its direct support should be limited.
There is an ironically cliched phrase: Thinking outside the box.
First public education, and now increasingly Adventist education, is turning out box-dwelling minds. Our current system is one of the boxes, which first caricatures, and then demonizes it's version of what it claims is the only alternative. But then, that alternative is itself a part of the box.
The real alternatives exist outside of that box.
Well Ed, I know that there are public charter schools; that is, schools that are funded publicly but somehow operated privately. Is this the ‘out of the box’ concept to which you have been referring? As long as public monies (tax revenues) aren’t at all subsidizing religious instruction/indoctrination of children, there may well be no problem.
But since you “understand that government support equals government influence,” you should also be cognizant of the self-evident reality that “limited” government support is a very slippery slope.
If charter schools aren’t what have been on your agenda, then until you write your piece on public education or whatever, I’ll have to say what you’ve said to Elaine, “We know what you’re against…”
For those who know the history of education in this country, what I've already said points the way. But charter schools, and some are good, because of the way they are regulated end up being pale imitations of public schools. They are slightly different boxes.
I have indicated what I'm in favor of, it just doesn't fit back into the box.
For 200 years in this country, public funding for private schools–all of which were religious–was the norm. That's longer than the current system has existed. That could still work, and be Constitutional, but it requires a different way of organizing, governing, and funding that school.
Government influence can be limited by circumscribing both their support and their influence on curriculum, which in this space I will simply describe as 'basic civics.' Other than that, there are many ways to structure a school. Let a hundred flowers blossom.
Outside the box there are many different possibilities. The first step is to get mentally outside the box. No one can do that for another.
Just because something was the norm in this country for 200 years (which I question regarding public funding for private schools, but will grant for sake of discussion) doesn’t necessarily make it any more desirable.
I suppose it’s good to acknowledge the fact that what you favor, whatever it is, “doesn’t fit back into the box.” For what it’s worth, public funding of parochial/religious education is a non-starter as far as I’m concerned. Otherwise I am personally open to suggestions outside of the box.
" public funding of parochial/religious education is a non-starter as far as I’m concerned."
So I take it you are opposed to college loan guaranties for students at our colleges and universities. Ditto Pell grants. Also, you must be opposed to federal and state research grants to our institutions.
This is a question that I thought would have come up some time ago. I can only provide my take on this. Frankly, this is another idea that cannot be put back in the box. Ideally, I would prefer that no government (tax) funds be used for religious purposes.
Since, unlike elementary and secondary schools, tuition is charged at all colleges and universities (to my knowledge) and application must be made to attend any and all colleges, and since college education is not compulsory, a case can be made that we are talking apples and oranges with this; and that the nature of the financial aid made available to undergraduate and graduate students is as different from public funding of the institutions as are the reasons for attending first grade versus graduate school.
If I’m not mistaken, elementary and secondary education is directed toward those who have not reached majority status (minors) and who all states have mandated must be educated. In other words, they don’t have much of a choice as to whether or not they will be educated, and they aren’t personally responsible for paying for it.
So it is, in many ways, different. College and beyond is optional for everyone. Elementary and secondary education largely is not. That said, in a perfect world I would have preferred that our schools never took government money; but it’s too late.
It is in a nation's interest to offer advanced education to all its citizens and if loaning the student funds to pursue higher education, the student and the country benefits.
The government is not supporting religion by providing loans as the student has the option to attend many colleges; the government does not specify where.
The government also provides grants. Yes, they are to students. And school vouchers are given to parents, who make attend different schools, the government does (should) not specify where.
To favor grants and loans for college but not for elementary, when elementary is compelled, is to surrender to a limited but still dangerous tyranny.
Public education K-12 is free and available to all children through 18 yrs.
College is not free, which is why there are loans and grants offered.
It would be great if the U.S. gave free university education to all its young people as do many European countries, as well as free health care. But the U.S. has taken the position that they are the policemen for the world and must defend every nation and this is where the bulk of the money is spent rather than in educating and caring for its own. It is all a matter of values.
What good is a free and safe nation if its citizens are uneducated?
Many poor young people sign up for military service to have a job in high unemployment, and to be guaranteed free education and training after completing duty.
Public education is not free, in any sense of the word. First, children are compelled to attend, with penalties of being removed from the home, or parents serving jail time. Second, they cannot choose where to attend. It is either government run schools for which the parents are taxed but have little influence in. In my state, we spend $6000 per pupil, and that's low. I assure you that $6000 could purchase a very good private school education.
Your political rantings are as mistaken as your understanding of school freedom and school finance.
Ed,
Without regard to the partisan history and nature of this issue of public funding for private education (to the extent it’s possible), do you have any response regarding my assessment of the differences between elementary and secondary education and college and graduate school?
I have made no reference to partisan history concerning schools. For most of a century all political actors favored compulsory attendance.
The difference between elementary and secondary, and post-secondary education argues against government control of curriculum, especially at the elementary and secondary level.
It's absolutely amazing to me that you would be content to have government pay for little ones to be indoctrinated with content chosen by a committee with little accountability to anyone–and I have served on both curriculum and textbook selection committees– while neither they nor their parents have any real choice in the matter.
Everyone in the field recognizes that those years are the most important years. If the prospect of coercing young, impressionable children to attend school, far before they are ready,* and then to force-feed them with government-approved values doesn't strike you as dangerous, I don't know what will.
You can't seem to separate funding from curriculum. Yet that is what was done. The Northwest Ordinance set aside one township in every section to provide for public education. Yet there were no public schools as they are constituted today. That's not 'partisan history,' it's just history.
Parents controlled those schools, hired and fired teachers. They determined what was taught. Vouchers could function in exactly the same way today. Parents would choose which school they wanted for their children. It would be the same as for post-secondary students who receive government grants: government funding, individual choice.
*I addressed a colloquium of doctoral students at the University of Iowa some years ago. You should have seen their amazement when I asked them what age Piaget would say children are ready for the majority of school tasks. They were shocked because they realized it would be several years older than compulsory attendance laws mandate.
For the record, a study was done which noted that none of the initial ages mandated in compulsory attendance laws, not one, was based on a study of readiness or child development. They were–and are–simply political decisions.
You apparently misunderstood me (probably my fault). I didn’t mean to suggest that you had previously mentioned anything with regard to the partisan history or nature of the topic of public support for private schools; but since there is a partisan history and nature to that subject, I simply asked you to respond to my observations outside of that context, if it’s possible. I think you that you have done so; at least to the extent that it was possible to have done so.
This is your bailiwick, but I was not under the impression that children had to be in school at the age that most are enrolled in kindergarten or first grade; but if you say so…
My bottom line on this, of course, is the separation of church and state. I am open to outside of the box thinking on this as long as the state does not get its nose under the church’s tent and vice versa. I must reiterate that just because something was done in the past does nothing to commend itself as worthy of continuance. The good ol’ days are largely overrated.
Private education is still an option for many in this country; as you know. One outside of the box option we might agree upon is for corporate entities and/or philanthropic individuals to voluntarily, systematically provide funding for children to attend private schools.
Yes, children have to be in school at a certain age, under penalty of law. That's the compulsory part of 'compulsory attendance.'
Here's a summary: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112617.html
If you are opposed to entanglement of church and state, then having a government-approved set of values forced on every child. Under the current legal understanding of a religion, that is a religion. And any objective review of today's elementary and secondary curricula would reveal a consistent religious–in the legal sense of religion, i. e., "beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern'"– content. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/419/678/617423/
And every day we see evidence that the pupils are absorbing this relgion.
If you oppose vouchers which go to parents to pay for education they choose, then to be consistent, you should oppose government grants that go to students to pay for the education they choose.
I'm fine with corporations or individuals funding education in various ways. I'm not fine with compulsory taxation funding compulsory attendance schools with government formulated and approved curriculum.
As it is, parents who choose something other than public schools are still taxed to support a system the do not agree with, teaching values they many times find repulsive, and then they still have to pay for tuition for the education they do want.
D.C. has had terrible schools for many decades. A school choice program there had great success. Many poor children were able to escape the terrible D.C. schools and attend a better private school using vouchers. Obama ended that program, much to the disappointment of many underprivileged families, who for a few years had access to a good education.
Obama said his son would look like Trayvon Martin. But his daughters look very little like Rachel Jeantel. One reason is that his daughters are not trapped in underperforming schools.
DC public schools were ruined by a teachers' union that got rid of the best reformer they ever had.
Why are there those who choose in "dumbing down our children"?
Last night on PBS, there was an interesting topic illustrating the early ability of children to learn through books. As many children today living in poverty have no acquaintance with books, pediatricians are being asked, along with the physical examination, to give a book to a child and ask him to point out the pictures: getting to love books by having caring adults read to them is demonstrating that those children who have learned to love books are far more "school ready" than those who haven't that opportunity.
The pediatricians are promoting a book for each time the small patient is brought in for a PE, which most parents will do as this is subsidized and all parents love and want to protect the health of their child; but there is also mental health, equally important.
My 3 children, grandchildren, and great grandchild learned to hold books carefully, turn the pages, and "read" along with the parent, and could begin to point out words very early.
This is not structuring or forcing learning, as children are sheer bundles of curiosity and eager to learn about the world through many ways: visiting parks, playgrounds and zoos. My 2-l/2 yr. ol and he grandson has greatly benefited by Montessori daycare and developed social skills and much better behavior than those raised at home without that interaction. His vocabulary has increased in leaps and bounds with such early schooling and he loves booke!
This gives a great "headstart" to children who begin formal schooling with an eagerness to learn. That is why the program is most important.
An added note: My parents, new SDAs, and earnestly following EGW's advice about schooling, did not start my older sister in church school until she was 8. She never caught up with her age group. I begged her every day to teach me what she had learned, and to also go to school, which I began second semester as a 6-yr.old. Always a good student, it was sad to see my sister, two years older, still in the same grade. She dropped out at 18 and married, seeing no future in further learning.
Why should we fight taxes for public education when we spend billions on wars? We should be eager to see that all children receive a good education; otherwise we pay a heavy price for not doing so. Many young males who drop out eventually end up jobless and resort to crime. One year in prison costs us more than a year in Harvard. So much for our priorities.
Two major forces have dumbed down our children, and both of them are phenomena of public schools.
As one college professor aptly puts it: "In the zero-sum game of the education curriculum, each newly added therapeutic discipline eliminated an old classical one. The result is that if Americans emote more and have more politically correct thoughts on the environment, race, class and gender, they are less able to advance their beliefs through fact-based knowledge."
The curriculum has been politicized –an inevitable result of placing their control in political bodies– and, in the interests of self-esteem, excellence and achievement have been denigrated.
If you control for race, economic status, class, and so on, the common denominator for prison is fatherlessness. And this has not come about through discouraging taxation for anything.
No group has suffered more from this than African Americans, where now almost 70% of children grow up without fathers. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams says: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs:“The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”
Hmm. Isn't there something about fathers and children somewhere in the Bible?
But then, encouraging heterosexuals to get married might be imposing our religion on somebody.
Please share with me Ed if you disagree, but the state’s interests are primarily that of maintaining domestic tranquility and the security of its citizenry; are they not? Do you think that these interests are fostered by the promotion of sectarian interests; not by individuals mind you, but government? (Where on earth and/or in history has this ever been demonstrated to be so?)
I understand that you do not believe that we should have government schools, but private education has never ceased to be an option for those who choose to, and can afford to, pay for it. You seem to decry the hybrid of church/state schools yet seem to be calling for such a hybrid all at once.
Do you deny that agnostics can be moral and civilized in behavior and deed? Do you deny that whenever church and state have coalesced that persecution has resulted?
I love your phrase "But as for me and my house we will be salt for the Lord." Salt. That's something we need to be. Salt produces change by being mixed-into something else. It turns the sour into sweet, gives pleasant flavor to foods that otherwise have an unpleasant taste, and so much more. But by itself it is overpowering. It is sad that so many Christians haven't learned how to change their world by mixing with it.
AMEN and AMEN, EVEN SO, COME LORD JESUS.
It appears the moral of this story may be: it is better to be balanced than the alternative (whatever that is).
Balanced? By your concept? Or God's direction? The is a great chasm between the two. You keep steering every discussion into politics instead of sharing experience with how God. You measure every topic using a political ruler instead of scriptural principles. You use Bible verses only to the extent that they illustrate your political arguments. You point people to government as the source of their solutions instead of to God, who promises to provide all our needs, transform our hearts and take us to Heaven. Since the mouth speaks what is in the heart, your words make it obvious that politics is foremost in your heart, not God. You've allowed political allegiances to become the master of your life and reduced Jesus to a convenient disguise. When I shared from my experience with God and invited you to share from your experience with Him, you couldn't do it. So you respond with ridicule and accused me of being pious and proud. Would Jesus have responded in that manner? That isn't the Jesus I have come to know, the loving savior I serve and whose power I see both leading me and working through me. I am having more fun working with God and experiencing His greatness than at any time in my life. It would be a great pleasure to share and celebrate together the ecstatic joy that comes from seeing God work through us in ever-increasing power. But I can't do that with you because all you do is spew more political bombast. Have you ever met the power of God? Have you ever surrendered your heart to Jesus and let Him transform your stony heart into a heart of flesh that can feel His love?
Stephen, don't talk to us about "balance" until you can start talking about the balance Jesus has given you and how He is guiding your life. Stop talking politics under the guise of faith until you can show us that faith is working in your life and producing results that will matter for eternity.
the line- drawn in the sand.
Are you kidding earl? I hope so. If you are kidding, this is funny! (Otherwise this is reminiscent of playground instigation. FYI I've been advised to ignore someone. It is my intention to do so. I will of course, continue to engage and interact with you and all others.)
Yes, of course. i'm very uncomfortable with assessing the spiritual values of others.
Sam Harris, noted athesit, gave an interesting TED talk about ethics/morality called "Science can answer moral questions". Saw it on youtube.com. It's a pretty convincing argument that morality is not absolutely tied to religeon.
Yes, Harris' book The Moral Landscape demonstrates that unquestiongly, morals were developed before religion or along with religion and there are millions living moral lives without religion.
Bad people will do bad things; for good people to commit bad acts it takes religion.
Now, think of any wars or violence that has been intiated to atheists. Then search history for the many violent acts and wars over religious belief. 'Nuf said.
I found Harris' presentation sadly comedic. It was obvious from the first he was not likely to actually address the topic at hand. To say, as he does near the end, "It will always be easier to break things than to build things," I was laughing out loud. Since he never even attempts the case he claims to make, but mainly takes pot shots at things he disagrees with, all he's been doing is "breaking things."
I won't take the time here to analyze the whole talk, fun as that would be.
Here's just one of many exposes of this silly talk.http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/
And the blogger is somewhat restrained. But his first point is the most obvious failure of Harris' talk.
"What he actually does in his book is plain old secular moral reasoning — and not very well — but he claims he’s using science to decide right from wrong. That Harris could be naive enough to think he’s really bridged the famous “is/ought” chasm seems incredible, and so I submit that he’s exaggerating* to sell books."
Ed,
The blogger says, “What Harris is doing is trying to hijack the prestige and “objectivity” of the scientific enterprise to label the behavior of certain groups as categorically WRONG”.
Actually what Harris is doing is making a fairly well reasoned philosophical argument based on his assessment that deliberately increasing the level of suffering of conscious creatures is wrong. His “moral landscape” idea also accounts for differing levels of suffering, as when I have increased suffering in having a tooth filled, but some level of possibly greater future suffering is avoided. Yes, it is secular moral reasoning. Given that, what objection do you have with it? Does it produce wrong or impractical answers when applied to life situations?
Guess you missed the point about "plain old secular moral reasoning." I don't object to it because it's secular, I object to it because it begs the question.
"his assessment that deliberately increasing the level of suffering of conscious creatures is wrong."
But on what does he base his assessment? He never tells us. We know he thinks it is wrong, but we don't know why. He has avoided the very question he supposed he was addressing.
How does science tell us that increasing the level of suffering of conscious creatures is wrong? What instruments do we use? What tests do we run?
We don't even have very good scientific measures of simple pain. We cannot quantify how much pain X will cause in patient Y. And pain is much easier to deal with than suffering. Pain is mainly physical. Suffering? Well ask a teenager with a broken heart how severely they suffer.
The blogger has training in philosophy, which Harris clearly does not. That's why he makes such a simple mistake: "That Harris could be naive enough to think he’s really bridged the famous “is/ought” chasm seems incredible . . . ."
This is what he's talking about. Harris is asserting this fallacy:
Action A deliberately increases suffering (is), therefore A (ought not be done) is wrong.
I'll share an argument from The Abolition of Man to demonstrate the problem, substituting your formulation: "when I have increased suffering in having a tooth filled, but some level of possibly greater future suffering is avoided."
"This will [not deliberately increase suffering] cannot lead to do this except by the mediation of [suffering ought not to be deliberately increased]. This will [increase future suffering] cannot lead directly to do not do this: it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty [not increasing suffering]. The Innovator is trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premisses in the indicative mood: and though he continues trying to all eternity he cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible."
Whether you should or should not go through smaller suffering today to avoid greater suffering tomorrow cannot tell you whether you ought to have the tooth filled or not.
What about sacrificing yourself–allowing yourself to suffer– if that will somehow reduce the suffering of mankind? Although your personal suffering will be increased, the total sum of suffering will be decreased. Is it right or wrong?
This suffers from two errors. The first one is the notion that we know the end from the beginning, that our suffering will actually reduce the overall sum of suffering. We have no way of knowing that.
Secondly, Harris and you have not addressed whether the individual has a duty to spare the suffering of mankind, and if so, from what does it derive?
And there's the not insignificant fact that the longer you live, the more suffering you will experience. If you live to be a healthy 200, you will suffer seeing generations of loved ones die. If the prevention of suffering is a moral duty–why we have no idea–then suicide becomes the most moral act. In fact, infanticide through a painless means would be an act of great virtue, sparing the poor newborn from all the suffering of teething, heartache, loneliness, and grief.
No. Harris' formulation wouldn't make it through a freshman philosophy class without laughter.
Is your belief that religions have produced morality? That there are no morals without religion? That nations that have officially identified as "Christian" or "Muslim" nations are superior to those with no religious affiliation or official religions?
Elaine,
Religion may introduce us to morals but it is our relationship with God that teaches us the meaning behind morals and gives us personal motivation to continue learning more from God's ultimate model of morality based on the most extreme love in the universe.
In their most basic state, morals are the standards we adopt based on our relationship with the world around us and, hopefully, allow us to maximize our life where we find ourselves. Paul is referring to this in Romans, Chapter 1 where he speaks of people obeing God without knowing God. The Bible takes us beyond this by revealing a loving God who has done magnificent things to bring us into a loving and eternal relationship with Him. It is when we are introduced to that relationship that we adopt scirpture as authoritative and providing us with an advanced set of moral guidelines by which to live. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who claim to be christians have been taught knowledge about God but have not entered into the loving relationship He offers us. We don't need to think very hard to find examples of how people have used their limited knowledge of God in ways that are unloving.
Jesus invites us to go much deeper than mere knowledge about Him and enjoy an intimate personal relationship with God in the Holy Spirit, who is promised will live in us, guide us and empower us. When we respond to that invitation we find ourselves growing in an amazing relationship that changes us in surprising ways. It quickly takes us beyond the basic "thus saith the Lord" to "I choose to do/not do (fill in the blank) because of how much you love me and I love you and I don't want to dishonor the God who loves me and saves me."
I invite you to taste and see that God is not merely good, but incredibly wonderful.
But of course Ed, in the final analysis it was impossible to discuss public funding for private education outside of a partisan ideological context; just as I suspected.
It would take a black guy to give you the skinny on Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, et al; and not this black guy; because as “open” and “free” a forum as AT would like to be, it couldn’t handle that. If I knew you better, perhaps I would share with you offline “what’s up.”
In any case, there is a marked difference between minor school-aged children whose parents are held responsible by the state for giving their children access to basic education, and adults who choose to further their education in college, graduate, or professional school. The same goes for the funding of these distinct types and levels of education. Nevertheless, I would have preferred that Adventist schools never had accepted government money; but, let’s face it, that ship has sailed.
I would vociferously oppose any public funding for elementary and secondary church schools because I am against the state funding/subsidizing religion.
What I’ve noticed is that seldom, if ever, have I heard of anyone suggesting public funding for just non-religious private schools. The reason, in my opinion, is that the hidden agenda of those who advocate for vouchers, etc. is that they really want children instructed in or indoctrinated with religion; and want the government to subsidize it. Am I wrong in cynically surmising that?
As for the black family, space does not permit, but this is where the church, both individual members and corporately, has been derelict in its social responsibility. (I certainly include myself in this indictment.) The underclass exists not only because of institutional racism but because it is un-churched; and this is because we have dropped the proverbial ball in mission to them.
It is our individual and corporate responsibility to bring Jesus and His love to that mission field surrounding us every day. It isn’t government’s responsibility to indoctrinate or evangelize with any faith message or narrative.
To its credit, government in America helps feed many poor people and provides payment for various medical services to them, and provides elderly people some sustenance and semblance of security including payments for medical services. Because American government purposes to prevent innocent children from ignorance, disease and hunger, it is blamed for the disintegration of the black family, when the true culprits are racism and an absence of spiritual underpinnings. It would be improper for the government to help provide spirituality or spiritual training. That is the role and the responsibility of the faithful and of faith communities.
Black people who are regular church attendees do all right, as do their children. The government should be off the hook, and the church and racism on it.
And all along I thought "turning the hearts of the fathers" was biblical, not partisan.
"What I’ve noticed is that seldom, if ever, have I heard of anyone suggesting public funding for just non-religious private schools. The reason, in my opinion, is that the hidden agenda of those who advocate for vouchers, etc. is that they really want children instructed in or indoctrinated with religion; and want the government to subsidize it. Am I wrong in cynically surmising that?"
Yes, you are wrong. Whether you're cynical or not is not for me to say. Somehow you can't recognize that all education involves values of one sort or another, and that value-free education is impossible. I have worked with many secular families, even families opposed to religion in helping them train their children as they saw fit. I have worked with Jewish and Muslim families. I have worked with black families; asians; families with foster and adopted children. Never once did we discuss politics.
I worked in social work assisting families of all sorts in crisis. Single moms; blended families. Fatherlessness is a plague that affects everybody the same. The more there is of it, the greater the suffering. That has nothing to do with politics.
You are also wrong on the quaint notion that the government has had any role in preventing ignorance. Ignorance is widespread, and nowhere moreso than in government schools. Have you ever sat on select committees to examine policies of a state education system? I have. Do you know what the major players in public schools talk about? What the concerns of a textbook committee are? IF you think they talk about the needs of students you'd be mistaken.
Above all, it's a pity you seem to view everything through the lense of politics. Politics is simply a means of getting some things done. Have you ever taken an issue as emotional as abortion, and found a way to forge a political solution that attracted 80-90% majorities in a state legislature? I have. You don't get that done by adopting a partisan attitude. You get it done by focusing on the problem and its solution. But have it your way. Keep the divide deep and growing. Let people suffer because the solutions don't match your politics.
When you can see something other than politics, we can discuss more.
I would say true religion does produce morality. But we are all opiniated and subjective, so it has a difficult time coming across even, or especially, in so-called religious people. In fact, everywhere a legalistic POV exists–from communism, socialism, atheism, capitalism to "supernatural" fundamentalist religions, there will be violence and polarization–us and them. Even looking to government can be a religion, a political stance, or undue patriotism.
In my opinion, morality did have a beginning with God and is found in every world religion. The ten commandments are the Judeo-Christian version. The Bible says that all are born with a measure of faith in something beyond themselves that can be cultivated within their community for the good of others or can be rejected in favor of superstition, survival of the fitest, and selfishness. I believe in a Spirit that works among all people and presents choices.
We should admit that when religion is seen as beneficial and produces morals, what is not stated is that the writer is only and always referring to the Christian religion. There are other religions that also teach morals, but those are overlooked and Christianity is presumed to be the only one when the term is used.
"We should admit that when religion is seen as beneficial and produces morals, what is not stated is that the writer is only and always referring to the Christian religion."
Don't know what writer you're talking about, but in The Abolition of Man, C. S. Lewis cites Ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman, Greek, Hindu, Chinese, Old Norse, pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon, Jewish, American Indian, and Australian Aborigine sources.
And these, he says, are just "collected from such sources as come readily to the hand of one who is not a professional historian."
Maybe there are some other admissions that should be made.
Ed,
Perhaps I neglected to clarify that remark, but I was speaking of Adventism, not all Christian writers through the ages. Those here and in many non-SDA and secular writings where Christianity is the marjority religion, demonstrate a common belief that were the public schools and education and textbooks claiming and teaching "Christian morals" (whatever that means), this nation and the world would be a better place to live.
My one contention is that morals cannot be taught by any one religion and are better taught in an
areligious setting. Few Adventists would approve of the morals taught by the Catholic church., JW's
or LDS.
your one contention is a contradiction in terms.
Stephen,
Would you please define what you personally mean by "racism." Isn't it prevalent among African-Americans? Isn't the use of the word conducive to more anger and an "us and them" mentality? Don't you think its use causes a backlash in those who don't have the same understanding of the word as you do? Is racism the same thing as prejudice (prejudging which everyone does in some area–the same as stereotyping which is so blatant even here)?
Most white people associate racism with hate and are going to deny it, because they really don't hate other races in 2013. Do you understand that? Or like so many claim to know what is in the sub-conscious of all white people–lurking racism!
If we don't get out of the race business and start working for the betterment of people trapped in poverty areas, the situation will get worse. I believe poor people and children need a volunteer army of caring people that can develop trust on a one-to-one basis. And like most people, I see a culture of dependency that has grown up that robs the poor of self-respect and subjects them to a failure mentality that is hard to shake. (Who was the president who started the single-parent assistance that broke up so many Black families?) Almost everyday I hear of independent programs that really work but are rejected by some politician. Politics is killing our country.
I have never ignored or thought differently about anyone because of race. I may have been friendlier, if any thing, because I enjoy different cultures. What's more I believe a majority of "white" Americans feel the same way–certainly everyone I know.
I also think it can be used. I was shocked when I friend of mine in an adult college class said to another student–"just cry racism if they say something; white people are so afraid of that word." I think she was right..
Ella,
Your friend was right. People who cry "racism" do it because whites have been afraid of the charge. They keep doing it because it continues giving them advantage and results they might not receive if they had to approach the issue in a cooperative manner. But increasingly people of all races are seeing through the smokescreen and recognizing the charge as a blatant lie used to give advantage based on the color of a person's skin instead of treating others equally regardless of the color of their skin.
Ella, I don't know how Stephen may define "racism," but I do know how it is generally defined by the experts who study and deal with cross-cultural conflict in society. "Prejudice" means the assumptions that people (almost all people) hold about those who are of a different cultural or socio-economic background. It generally includes some things that are accurate and more things that are myth or fiction, a kind of misunderstanding of those from other backgrounds. "Racism" is when prejudice toward a different ethnicity is systemitized through cultural institutions, rules and political structures. In other words prejudice which flows rather naturally out of human ignorance and lack of experience with the social context of a different group becomes an established way of relating to the others.
Racism happens because of economic and political competition between cultural and ethnic groups. A culture evolves a narrative as to why they are good and the others are evil which justifies them doing things they would generally understand to be unfair or even inhumane to the others. The established group in almost all human societies evolves something of a mythology of this nature in order to make rational in their minds holding onto the privileges they have. This is because of the conflict of interest that anyone has making a moral judgement about one's self on the topic of advantages that one has compared to those who are less advantaged. It may seem fair to me, but would it seem fair if I were to "walk in his shoes"?
Racism is real. To deny it is foolish; it is part of sinful human nature. It is a part of the selfish way of thinking that all human beings must seek to overcome if they are serious about following Jesus. The Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church recognize the reality of racism and states that believers in the Adventist message are to take steps to overcome it.
People in minority groups tend to be more sensitive to the prejudices and racism of the majority group because they regularly run into the misunderstanding of members of the majority group. To repeatedly here certain prejudices stated or see them acted out tends to make one more aware of those prejudices. On the other hand, people in majority groups tend to be less sensitive to these issues because they are not very often confronted with them in a way that makes them uncomfortable or impinges on their own life. And the natural instinct of those in a privileged position is to assign the others blame for any situation in which they feel discomfort over inter-cultural issues.
The Adventist movement is probably the most diverse religion on the globe. This is predicted in Revelation 14 and it has come to pass. Therefore, anyone who exercises leadership or influence in the Adventist movement has to become knowledgable and attuned to these issues. If they do not they simply will not be listened to sufficiently to be of any influence.
I covet the gift of explaining things. Sometimes, for various reasons, it helps when certain explanations do not come from me.
Yesterday, my two adult children and I enjoyed the movie, The Butler. I highly recommend it to all those young people who know very littel about racism in the U.S. as was practiced for most of its history. College students today are woefully ignorant of those terrible days where people were lynched, beat, and had fire hoses and dogs to face.
The story is told from the viewpoint of African Americans during that period when they had to do more than "grin and bear it" but simply repress all their emotions and feelings of fairness and justice in order to "get by," and have work. The shame of having many public facilities denied them based solely on their color. All young people should get a first hand glimpse of those trying days, rather than reading a few pages in a history book. Many video footages from actual live newscasts were shown.
We all see what we focus on. Some have a relatively narrow focus, others a larger focus. If we look for racism, we will find it everywhere. If we look for oppression, or sexism, or ageism, or whatever, we will find those everywhere. And they can pop up in the strangest of places. As Dr. Ben Carson has said, "How strange it is that we have come to believe that a person's opinions are determined by the color of his skin." Maybe I just don't see what he's "up to."
Yet I hear him saying things like, "Go to your books. Learn from history." I concur.
The conceit of this age is that we think only we truly understand the ills of humanity, that all the generations before us were blind to the vices, and unaware of virtues we think we have finally mastered.
But the ancients new about racism, and sexism, and all the other 'isms,' though they may have gone under different names. The only way to gain any real perspective on any of these things is to learn from history, from, as C.S. Lewis reminded us, "old books."
For the last two centuries or so, there has been a concerted action to deride and minimize what Lewis called the "Tao," the realm of objective value which he traces through multiple cultures and millennia. And, having nearly completed the project, many of its proponents are horrifed at the lack of morality they see around them.
In his prophetic The Abolition of Man, Lewis anticipated this very situation:
"And all the time — such is the tragi-comedy of our situation — we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive', or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity'. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests [belief in and respect for objective value] and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Bank tellers are taught to recognize the genuine bill, not the counterfeit. Focusing on counterfeits only alerts us to the ones we've studied. Looking for the counterfeits we know, we miss others more subtle. We see what we look for.
It's easy to find some sort of prejudice or conspiracy to blame for our situation.
As it happens, I did not blame or cite racism as the sole reason for the existence of a black underclass. Of course, to deny that racism has existed, and has both directly and indirectly contributed to social pathology would be patently ridiculous. Denial that systemic ‘disadvantages’ continue to exist is likewise ignorant. So, I’m sure that you, being neither ridiculous nor ignorant, are not now denying these obvious realities.
On the other hand to deny that the resulting social pathologies that shadow poverty and despair (in the midst of plenty) have powerfully self-sustaining/perpetuating properties; and that these can be, and have been, mitigated—and even eliminated—by the incorporation of spiritual values generally, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in particular, is perhaps worse. I certainly do not deny this reality.
It is a dual problem for sure; indeed a multi-faceted problem for which spirituality is the only antidote on all sides.
But it certainly is not the responsibility or the purview of the state to inculcate or indoctrinate from a spiritual perspective. Neither would it be proper for the state to fund or subsidize such indoctrination.
It always has been the responsibility and duty of the church to love and, in so doing allow God, through our cooperation with Him, to seek and save the lost, and to feed and clothe the hungry and destitute; and so forth. It has been and continues to be the responsibility of the faithful and faith communities to spread God’s love and His message of self-sacrificing love, grace, and salvation. It is the church’s responsibility and purpose.
The state has purposed (I never said accomplished), on behalf of children, to prevent, alleviate, and/or eliminate hunger, ignorance, and disease. That is the state’s prerogative, of course. I am open for ways to improve those efforts within an understanding that the church and the state remain in their separate lanes whenever traveling the same road in concern for people in the U.S. (I contend this is a balanced approach.)
Curiously, this seems somehow political to you; yet public funding for parochial education doesn’t.
There is a very common intellectual malady which is a hardening of the categories. One symptom is tunnel vision, narrowing of the field of view. There is also the tendency toward binary thinking. Everything that is not A, must be B. Not only are C-Z indistinguishable, alpha and omega. aleph and other such characters don't register at all. Unders such circumstances, confusion is Like hardening of the arteries, it is aggravated by personal choices. There is no cure, there is only the determination to make different choices to alleviate the condition.
Unfortunately, the binary thinking ailment makes the victim think everything that is not the same food as has been spoon-fed through the growing years, must be poison.
Herman Melville wrote a short story, The Kingdom of the Blind. In it, a shipwrecked sailor finds himself among a tribe of people congenitally blind. Having heard the proverb, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," he believes himself to be on a path to ruling the tribe, given his excellent vision. But there is a problem. He describes things that no one in the tribe has ever experienced, talks of colors and light and dark. They quite logically conclude that he is crazy, hallucinating. And they quickly recognize that his abnormal eyes are the source of his dementia, so they propose to cure him. In the story, the man escapes, but barely.
In a similar analogy, C.S. Lewis talks about being asleep or awake. The person who is asleep does not recognize either status, while the person who is awake recognizes both.
Now, the person who is awake makes no claims to superiority, or to great knowledge. The sleeping person may be far superior in both intellect and education. The one who is awake my be illiterate and uneducated. He's just awake.
So, I suppose you have sight, while those with whom you disagree (particularly about public funding for parochial schools) are blind. I guess that settles it then Ed.
Not at all Stephen.
I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, but are able to engage the larger issues. I'm always hopeful. Never know when someone will awaken. But your dogged insistence on the binary formulation –indicated yet again by your formulation of "public funding for parochial schools"–means you do not (or refuse to?) recognize other alternatives. Those are pretty rigid categories. Your categories are the only thing that is settled.
One more try. Let's take the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. One township in each section was used for support of public schools. Thirty years ago in my state, you could still see many of the old schoolhouses, long abandoned, on that one section. The parents of the township organize a school, which receives that support. Let's suppose they happen to be a remnant of Owenites, socialists who espouse no god-based religion. They teach that in their school. The next section is run by Quakers, the next by Lutherans, and the next two sections are Amish. All schools operate with the public support; no preference is given to any particular sect. All schools are run by the public who lives in that section.
This isn't speculation. This sort of thing took place. It was constitutional.
That is only one of many ways in which schools could be organized.
Are those who conceptually disagree with public funding of parochial education blind or asleep; and those who advocate and/or favor such funding for religious schools sighted and/or awake?
That’s no way to persuade anyone, Ed.
How often must I repeat that I’m open for ways to improve public schools? I am open to charter schools that are funded publicly but are operated privately. I am open to private efforts to fund scholarships to private schools, including church schools; which would conceivably and theoretically provide more opportunities for more people to attend private schools and compete with public schools. I am perhaps even open to public vouchers going to completely non-religious private schools.
All of these options are out of the proverbial box, but that’s not enough. Unless I relinquish my opposition in principle to public funding of and for religion, religious K-12 schools, and religious instruction period; then I am either blind or asleep. I think I get your point, bro.
No, Stephen, you don't get my point.
How often must I repeat there are other alternatives? You equate non-sectarian with public. They are not remotely the same. There are many other ways to fund even sectarian schools without funding sectarian instruction, and religious schools without funding religious instruction. This has happened in the past, and could happen again.
You keep returning to the same rutted path. Keep your opposition to your "principle" of no public funding of and for religion, religious K-12 schools, and religious instruction period. Except for the fact that you are fixated on that idea, it is largely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. As in several areas, you're refighting old battles, as though the passage of half a century has not happened. I must say, for someone so adamant about the US role in prophecy, I'm amused at your tolerance for government compulsory education in anything. Perhaps we will have re-education camps as well. Non-sectarian, of course, as they were in China.
There are other roads and other paths. Some have existed, some could exist.
Let me repeat: There are many ways schools can be organized.
I'll go beyond that: Schools themselves can be useful, but they are not necessary for education.
You think our arguments conflict, like two non-parallel lines in a plane. But what if they do not conflict? Maybe they are skew lines. Or maybe they are like parallel lines on a sphere, like lines of longitude, which are both parallel and intersecting.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
– Hamlet (1.5.166-7),
If non-sectarian means non-religious then I certainly don’t equate non-sectarian schools with public schools; especially since I have expressed some openness to public funding of private non-religious schools. How is that “refighting old battles,” Ed? (I somehow suspect however that by “non-sectarian” you mean really mean religious, but non-denominational.)
Maybe on your next column you can explain how, in reality, subsidizing and/or funding a religious school can be separated from any of the instruction at that school. Something about that notion reminds me of campaign financing laws and/or technical, legal ‘firewalls.’
Public school is not compulsory, as private schools have always existed as an option. Home schooling is now also an option; so you can expand on that too.
If my opposition to public funding of and for religion, religious K-12 schools, and religious instruction period “is largely irrelevant to what [you’re] talking about,” then perhaps we “largely” don’t have much of a disagreement.
It appears to be a problem of bandwidth.
Let’s see, blind, asleep…now, not enough "bandwith." Tell me, when the interlocutor goes ad hominem, what does that indicate to you?
Isn’t it just possible (and reasonable) to suggest that we just don’t agree on whether tax revenues should go to fund or subsidize religious K-12 schools and schooling? The 'record' will show that I'm open to much more than the public school teachers’ unions are in terms of innovation; but that such funding is a non-starter. Can't we agree to disagree?
This is clearly a topic that is near and dear to your heart, as they say; so we certainly will certainly look forward to your blog on this (that's for sure).
You seem determined to turn this into something it is not. You insist on seeing this in binary terms, to wit: "Isn’t it just possible (and reasonable) to suggest that we just don’t agree on whether tax revenues should go to fund or subsidize religious K-12 schools and schooling?"
If those were the only two alternatives, we would not disagree.
I have given several examples of approaches which are neither one nor the other. I have suggested avenues which lead to solutions which are neither one nor the other.
You're saying there's A and B. I'm saying there are 24 more letters, just in English. You say vegetable or protein. I say a whole range of fruits and grains. I'm not sure how many more analogies I can come up with.
If you're determined to be insulted, I can't stop you, but frankly, I'm investing this time not because this particular subject matters to me, but because you do.
And, no, school funding is not particularly important to me. Helping our church and schools to produce thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts is.
Because I have children, and grandchildren whom I hope will find an Adventist church they will want to belong to. And it would be great if your children and grandchildren were part of it, too. None of us can do it alone. Our schools aren't getting it done. If those of us who care don't make the effort, who will?
Ed, let me try it this way. I am open to any of your myriad ways to improve public schools as long as none of them include attempts to circumvent the Constitution, or any public funds going to fund or subsidize religious K-12 schools, or religious schooling, at all.
I confess that I suspect (and have suspected) that your objective has been to find creative ways to do just this; sorry if I have misread your intentions.
I am also open to any of your myriad ways to improve American private religious schools, be they sectarian or non-sectarian; as long as none of these ideas include public funds going to fund or subsidize these schools, or students at all, or attempts to circumvent the Establishment Clause.
If any of your possibly dozens of “alternatives” do not include public funds going to religious schools, schooling, or the students/parents thereof, or any attempts to circumvent the Constitution, I am open to those, Ed.
Now, that has nothing to do with being blind, or asleep, or insufficient bandwidth; and though I am willing and receptive, aren’t we back to where we started? If you don’t think that I’m open at this point, we’ll both/all know why.
Correction: I should have initially said “I am open to any of your myriad ways to improve or reinvent public schools…"
Do we indeed all know why? How nice for us. Innuendo and insinuation is so much nicer than direct ad hominem.
I have tried numerous analogies to encourage the process of discovery. Since you wish to be offended by them, I shall desist.
And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
Little Boxes by Malvina Reynolds
There is no innuendo! The reason we will/do know (why), is simply because we are back where we started. I directly stated as much in the preceding sentence.
How about this, since I have described what on this front I am open to in terms of “discovery” and innovation, why don’t you tell me precisely what you would have me open to instead? If there is common ground, we’ll celebrate!
Imagination.
It's interesting. You claim concern about ad hominem. When I cited Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, who were themselves citing statistics. you did not refute them, you simply reject them, hinting darkly that something is 'up.'
Then you tell me I cannot understand because I am white.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument
Precisely the arguments you made.
*to my grief, I am nearly literally white. I sunburn very easily.
It’s not that you can’t understand. There’s just a time and place for everything and this isn’t the place, I’m certain.
You could understand Ed, but you likely would not appreciate any of what I would have to say on the topic. Why should I further provoke you, brother?
As I say, I have nothing scandalous; just an opinion held by many others. But to your point, if you would like me to engage the issues to which you refer, ask me a question.
Doesn't dispose of your dismissal of Sowell, Williams and others. They cite facts; you reject them.
that's ad hominem, an argument against the person, not against what they say.
Monte – your reliance on, and deference to, the self-appointed cult of experts who seek to alter reality by the manipulation of language is dispiriting and frightening. It is dispiriting because it reflects the very fundamentalism that you decry – the imposition of beliefs on others by self-righteous elitist true believers.
Most sixth graders, not to mention most dictionaries, know that racism means prejudice and discrimination in favor of or against another individual or group on the basis of race. It is the notion that another person is inferior in one characteristic or another on account of his race. Politicized sociology professors use elaborate definitions like yours to vest themselves with authority and reprogram students with disdain for "privileged" and "powerful" Western Civilization, which has done more to eradicate and attenuate racism than any other civilization in history.
In the "expert" Orwellian manipulation of the term "racism," to which you apparently subscribe, you fail to recognize that the redefinition of the word becomes a form of racism, because it stereotypes racial/ethnic majorities and wealthy people as particularly prone to racism. The obvious purpose is totally political. For if the linguistic masters and their useful idiots are successful in indoctrinating students and society with their own reverse-racist assumptions, then morality demands redistribution of power and wealth away from privileged, powerful majorities who are, by definition racist, toward minorities who are by definition incapable of racism. Of course the weak and the poor never actually become powerful or wealthy in this game. But a very few corrupt ideologues are able to rise to great power and wealth on the wings of Alinskyite rhetoric like yours, Monte, that make a moral imperative of envy, grievance, guerdon, and anger, justifying, to use your words, things that most would understand to be unfair or even inhumane toward others. Usually such power is achieved and maintained through violence and repression.
Your definition is frightening, Monte, because in your concluding paragraph you enlist the church in your transparently political manipulation of language. You suggest that Adventist leadership needs to adopt your highly politicized Howard Zinn perspective of history in order to be listened to or to have any influence. I don't doubt that such a perspective may give the Church more credibly and influence in the U.N. and among those who seek to perfect earthly kingdoms. But it would be deeply hurtful to the Church's ability to witness to Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
I apologize for advancing this tangent. I didn't read back far enough to know just how the thread got off on track. But I just could not let your political broadside go unchallenged, Monte.
Monte,
Once again you have given me reason to appreciate your insightful analysis. My perceptions and experience lead me to agree with you that plenty of prejudice still exists. However, my experience gives me to be seriously suspicious when someone claims an event or situation is racist.
I have vivid memories of the gross racism that existed in the American South starting in 1963 when my family moved from the Seattle area to near Huntsville, AL. It was horribly shocking to see water fountains and store entrances labeled "Colored Only" and to see the terrible conditions in schools reserved for black students that were separate but equal only in someone's distorted imagination. The differences between then and now are dramatic.
I will be the first to say that we do not live in a perfect world. We encounter prejudice and even hatred in many directions. Those are just the facts of life in a sin-filled world. There are incidents of discrimination on the basis of race, but the charge racism most often involves a stretching of the truth into the invention of new definitions on which to base the charge before it is refuted by reality. The charge has been shouted so often and in so many different situations that it has become difficult for anyone to believe. What I see in those who cry "Racism!" is a search for legitimacy that has been lost in the face of a reality that no longer gives credibility to their claims. The American civil rights movement started out with a very legitimate purpose, but the legitimacy of the movement was diminished over time by social and legal changes. As their movement lost original purpose the leaders found power in being able to wave the charge of racism because the response it triggered became profitable. Indeed, that is how people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton raise considerable sums of money from people and corporations who want to avoid having him charge that they are racist, even when the charge would be a complete fabrication. The law defines such activity as extortion. But they never face criminal charges because law enforcement is so fearful of being accused of racism. If they were not merchants of hatred, Sharpton, Jackson and others would have to find legiimate employment.
While such promotion of hatred is itself tragic, what is perhaps even more detestable is how many people have embraced it as a contributor to, if not the primary source, of their personal and cultural identity. What I find worst of all is that some Adventists who claim to be servants of Jesus would also be embracing this promotion of hatred to legitimize themselves instead of losing themselves in the love of God that heals hatred.
William
Its unfortunate that the blog has digressed from the intended point of discussion. However I feel that the issue of race is extemely complex issue and there is a tendency of oversimplication on both sides.
I believe you and Al Sharpton have the same problem of oversimplification and you have the same symptoms albeit you exhibit it differently. You will never be able to fully understand racism. You have accused Al Sharpton and co of being hate mongers, I believe there are instances where they go over the top but to accuse them of hatred is irresponsible and misleading
Monte,
I just got around to reading your reply to me on racism.Thank you. I understand what you say about systemic; that term seems to be used a lot lately.(it's been used against women, and I have seen it against Indian people in the church).
How legitmate it still is for Blacks in America, I am unsure. Elements in the media keep the R word out there as an obfuscation of other realities. My only experience with racism was back in '79 when I missed out on a job because it "had been saved for a Black person." That was systemic. Though my husband was miffed, I wasn't–I understood the times.
There is an attitude out there that targets a certian type of African-American who has been trapped in ghetto-urban areas (and poverty whites to a lesser degree). It is based on speech, poor education, poverty, language; but let's not say it is all racial. Educated, skilled, personable African-Americans have the best opportunities they have ever had. I suspect it is even better than white males or even females. That's wonderful.
Granted I have no research to verify my observations; it is based on my reading of current trends. Blaming all of this on race and using the R word builds prejudice between the races. This president, which I voted for the first time, could have brought us together. But like some of the most notable Black leadership, he seems to inflame the tensions. I find this exploitive.
Back to the topic of your blog, Stephen… Your generalizations about balance in Adventism are so abstract as to meet with approbation by most any Christian who defines the values of his religious group by reference to himself. Like Goldilocks, you have found a bowl of Adventist porridge that is just right – not too hot and not too cold; you've discovered chairs and beds in the Adventist bear house that seem to fit just right. So have I, and so have many others. But I wonder if, having found your own Goldilocks Adventism, you might be forgetting that there are many rooms, much furniture, and much fare in the house of Adventism that, once you move beyond abstractions, is in considerable tension with the "healthy balance" by which you define the Church. You did allude to that possibility in your last paragraph, but your conclusion – that the beauty of Adventism is in its balance – did not seem daunted by that possibility, a possibility that I would argue is an overwhelming reality.
I think an objective look at Adventist history will quickly reveal that its theology, culture, and politics have been both dynamic and progressive throughout the Church's existence, gaining traction and accelerating considerably during the past 50 years. There has been, at least in North America, no static theological canon, complimented by a contemporaneous progressive, secularist approach to cultural and political issues, except perhaps in Black and Hispanic quarters of Adventism.
Maturing Adventism, for the first 100 years of its existence, was theologically, culturally, and politically quite separatist. I remember my parents declining to vote because of SOP counsel that we were responsible for the actions of the people that our votes put in office. Certainly it would have come as a shock to Adventists, in the early 20th Century, that evolutionary theory should be taught, in hostility to creationist beliefs, as scientific fact in public schools, and that critiques of evolution such as I.D. should be banned, along with prayer and references to the Bible as a source of general moral authority. Does anyone seriously believe that a church which supported prohibition would support the banning of Judeochristian beliefs and morality from the classroom? Remember that for most of American history, the Bible was used as a text in all classrooms. Biblical creationism was a given.
Historic Adventism was not socially or politically pluralistic, a reality that politically liberal fundamentalist Adventists obstinately refuse to deal with. Its separatism, and the cultivation of "peculiarity" as its raison d'etre, led the church to keep political and cultural issues at arms length, with rare exceptions where its members were overwhelmingly united in their views – emancipation, tobacco, alcohol laws, and Sunday closing laws. Otherwise, its political efforts remained confined to the realm of religious liberty issues. Only in the past 50 years, has a coalition of minorities and academics arisen in Adventism to urge Church support for strong, centralized federal government, and political policies that encourage pluralism and equality of outcomes over integration and equality of opportunity.
Likewise, when it comes to theology and culture, can any reasonably informed, objective observer look at the past 50 years of Adventist Church history, and fail to see that we are both culturally and theologically far more diverse than we were for the first 100 years of our existence? You may see yourself as fundamentalist, Stephen, and the majority of first and second generation Third World Adventists may fit that mold. But certainly that is far from true of North American Adventism. All you have to do is look at Adventist lifestyles at institutional centers, the religion department of La Sierra University, or the fact that there was even an issue about how evolutionary theory is being taught there, to realize that the Adventist Church is far more pluralistic theologically than it was 50 years ago.
As usual, Stephen, your blog helps to sharpen thinking, and clarifies not so much balance as deep divisions in the world views of culturally, politically, and theologically diverse North American Adventists. Fortunately, God's will and ways seem to prevail in one way or another, either through the tensions or in spite of them.
I see that a couple of days ago you ominously suggested that, because of your race, you have the "skinny" on Walter Williams, Shelby Steele and Thomas Sowell. Slander by insinuation and innuendo is no less invidious. It becomes even more offensive when the slanderer, without even addressing the arguments or ideas of those he slanders, wraps himself in a cloak of respectability and faux restraint, implying that nondisclosure of the scandalous details he is privy to reflects virtue or decorum on his part.
Do you think that any readers of this thread, who are more interested in the ideas of these brilliant thinkers and writers than in their moral characters, is going to think less of their ideas because you claim to have the "skinny" on them? If so, you flatter yourself unduly. If not, what is your point? If you share with us the irrelevant "skinny" you have on them, maybe we can share with you the skinny on dozens of thinkers and writers whom you respect for their values and ideas rather than their moral rectitude. Perhaps we could start with Kind David?
Let me clarify Nathan, I don’t have any scandalous information at all about the personal lives of Williams, Sowell, or Steele. I apologize to them if others understood me to be implying that I had. I suppose, given the inglorious tabloid-like histories of Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain, one might get the impression that I had similar information on these others. I don’t.
To be clear, all I have is a perspective on them professionally and ideologically.
Well, in that case, Stephen, I apologize for accusing you of such sinister motives. The wording of your insinuation – "I, as a Black man, have the "skinny" on these guys" – implied to me that you had insider knowledge of some scandalous moral failings, which would of course be of no significance if they were liberals. Unless you have information that they are frauds and charlatans who do not believe what they say, I would suggest that your perspective on them professionally and ideologically does not constitute the "skinny" on them, nor is it entitled to greater weight because they share your racial identity.
Well, let’s put it this way, you’re entitled to your opinion; without hearing mine. There may come a time when I might feel comfortable in sharing my perspective about black Americans with you. But for now, suffice it to say that I know black people better than you know black people. That’s a fact.
Now, whatever I think about these guys could be wrong; but even if it is, it comes from a broader and deeper base of knowledge about black people than that of nearly all white Americans.
I’ll say this too, as a black guy who has had to navigate life in a majority culture and society with which I have had to be familiar in order to matriculate through school and have a corporate career in which I worked closely with (and sold almost exclusively to white folks), my perspective on white people is somewhat broader than your perspective on black people (and my also being conversant with most aspects and varieties of black culture adds to my confidence in suspecting that I might just know more about white folks than you know about black folks).
This doesn’t make me right about anything of course; but it does mean that, whether you agree or (most likely) disagree, my perspective could be informative to you. The problem is this isn’t the place. As open as we would like to be on this site, many could not “handle (tolerate) the truth” from this perspective. You see what the word “racism” did. Trust me on this one my man.
Broad experience and a broad perspective are not the same thing.
Your claim, Stephen, to have greater insight or broader perspective than I is so overbroad and meaningless as be neither falsifiable nor verifiable. That you believe your personal experience and knowledge as a Black person renders your opinions and perspectives on tens of thousands of conservative Blacks or conservative Black thought leaders like Sowell, Williams, or Steele, is not only nonsensical, but downright silly.
Of course your perspective could be informative to me. But it would tell me far more about you than about objective reality. I'm sure you could share much anecdotal information with me, as could I with you. But would it really prove anything? It certainly doesn't justify generalizing from that knowledge and experience to force Black or White Americans into the beds of Procrustes.
When all is said and done, your perspectives are just that, your perspectives – and very personal perspectives at that. It is common knowledge that one's personal experiences and emotional investments often tend to distort and limit more than clarify and broaden perspectives. I am quite confident that your perspectives have been just as distorted and narrowed as mine by the philosophical and experiential filters through which each of us sees reality. Trust me on this one.
Nathan,
Saying something is silly is easy. That said, I suppose your acknowledgement that my perspective on blacks may be informative to you should be enough for me. In other words, it’s good to see you acknowledge that you might find out something you did not know about even some of your favorite black people, by listening to others with whom you might not tend to find as much agreement.
It’s true that it would, in the end, only be my perspective that I would be sharing with you; but it would be a perspective based on experience and knowledge that you do not have. As I said, that wouldn’t necessarily make it correct or one with which you, Nathan, would necessarily agree; but then again it doesn’t necessarily make it silly either.
Correct, Stephen. You realize, I think, that I meant to say it was silly to think that your race renders your perspectives or opinions about race issues more valid than mine. My perspectives on, and experiences with, these issues would, I am confident, be just as informative to you as yours are to me. And I suspect you would conclude in the end that those perspectives tell you much more about me than they do about reality. It was your implicit claim to a "superior" or more informed vantage point that I found nonsensical and silly.
Nathan,
We are having a comprehension challenge. Frankly, I am thinking that it is more a matter of what you have preconceived than of what you actually read.
Unfortunately, this has previously happened on occasion with two or three others; and I suppose is somewhat inevitable (on some level). If you already think you know what I believe, then what I've written may seem somewhat immaterial or irrelevant to you.
Well, for better or worse, believe it or not, what I write is the best indicator of what I actually think/believe.
Unless you come to accept that as true, you will continue to ‘misunderstand’ me.
(I do not mind being misunderstood nearly as much as I mind being misquoted. Even your having put the word ‘superior’ in quotation marks is an irritant; but I think I know what you meant.)
Here is an example of my frustration. I wrote both of the following; one in one post, the other in another:
“This doesn’t make me right about anything of course; but it does mean that, whether you agree or (most likely) disagree, my perspective could be informative to you.”
“It’s true that it would, in the end, only be my perspective that I would be sharing with you; but it would be a perspective based on experience and knowledge that you do not have. As I said, that wouldn’t necessarily make it correct or one with which you, Nathan, would necessarily agree; but then again it doesn’t necessarily make it silly either.”
Now, in reference to the first quote (in the first post, wherein I claimed to know black people better than you do, and suggested that I have had to know white people better than you know, or have had to know, black people) you found something to be "silly;" while following the second quote (in the second post) you agreed; and said “Correct Stephen.” I said virtually the same thing both times, but one posting apparently seemed “silly” while the other apparently is “correct.”
Here's the difference, Stephen: In one post you seemed to be arguing that your experiences gave you a broader and deeper base of knowledge about Black people than I have, as well as more understanding of White people than I have of Black people. In the second, you merely asserted that your experiences have been different from mine, and therefore your perspectives were different from mine. The first comment implied to me a claim of superior authority, whereas the second, quite reasonably abandoned the comparative adjectives. It was the use of those comparative adjectives that I found silly – not your perspective, which I could not possibly comment on since you haven't really shared it.
I don’t perceive much of a difference between the two; but if you do, and it helped, all well and good.
But you can't have one without the other, else either is useless. How does one gain broad perspective with narrow experience?
Broad experience has always been available to the literate.
Ed, I know you’re a serious guy, but if you are suggesting that reading about being black in America is some experiential equivalent to being black in America, then…well, you can’t actually be serious, right? (Besides, I said that I have a broader base of knowledge about black people; and suggested that my experience with whites probably provides me with more knowledge about them than Nathan likely has about blacks.)
Elaine—who clearly knows more about experience than we do—makes an excellent point. I am in agreement with you (I’m trying), that broad perspective and broad experience are not necessarily the same things. But while broad perspective has generally been available to the literate; there’s no substitute for experience (as my Dad used to repeatedly to tell me while I was growing up).
Experience is a funny thing. I've know teachers who taught for thirty years, and teachers who taught one year thirty times. Same duration, different quanta of experience.
Psychologist John Bradshaw was asked about the emotions he experienced in his very co-dependent household growing up. "Emotions," he said. "We didn't experience any emotions we weren't allowed to."
FWIW, you keep narrowing in on a couple of issues. What I'm talking about is far larger than that. That's the real concern.
Elaine,
The broader a person's perspective, typically the smaller their experience because perspective is untested and experience exposes the fallacies upon which it is so often based.
Someone may have many varied experiences, but how can they be compared to the broader world if those experiences were only in a very small environment or community? Broad does not mean numbers, for without the vast information found through reading or traveling, by what can those experiences be compared? Just as a small child, experiencing his first real tornado will claim it was the absolute worst storm in the world, while his elders will understand it is a childish exclamation.
This has always been why travel is one of the most broadning experiences available. One can read many books about foreign countries and peoples, but it cannot be compared to actually seeing and talking with those natives.
How does one gain perspective as it must first be tested before it becomes more than instant impression? "Armchair travelers" can never have the broad perspective and experience as a world traveler. One cannot claim to know all about religion unless he has studied many of them with which to compare. Those who know only their own world, whether religion, diet, dress, or government will always have an incomplete knowledge of the world.
I appreciate your description about the value of travel. When I was eight my family moved to from the American Northwest to the South. Each year our vacation became an "annual geography lesson," often a cross-country vacation to visit relatives still on the West Coast while stopping at many interesting places along the way. Oh, the things I saw on those trips! They were such great adventures. Often in geography class at school I would be the envy of my classmates when we studied about different places because they had only read about them, but I had been there and seen them. I could show them pictures and give them details not in the textbook.
Perspective is merely a hypothesis, a concept lacking in substance and protected from being tested by reality. Claiming to have a broad perspective merely confesses a person has embraced a larger number of unproven concepts. Testing allows us to build knowledge that is based on the bedrock of reality. Political perspectives are often the most dangerous of all because they are not even built on shifting sands, but on the ever-changing winds of ignorance that grow into howling storms of demagoguery.
Perspective without knowledge is valuable only as a starting point from which we need ever escape and to which we dare not return. Experience is the result of testing the concepts adopted as part of one's perspective. Does it produce the promised results? Why, or why not? Do the results build-up or diminish the credibility of the proponent(s) with regard to their other teachings or claims? This process produces knowledge, a body of information that has been tested and found credible.
Gaining knowledge about the larger scale does not require that you test everything in that grand arena. You can test things on the smaller scale and apply those results to the larger scale. An example from economics illustrates this. How much do you pay for a box of your favorite breakfast cereal? How has that price changed over the past year, five years, or ten years? The price has gone up. Why? First is inflation, the government-driven devaluation of your wealth. Second is increased taxation. Has your local sales tax rate been increased as has happened in many places? Have tax rates been increased on the farmer who grows the grains, the transporters who deliver it to the factory where it is made, on the company making the cereal, on the grocery store selling it to you? Each of those increases gets added to the price you pay. That's why you are paying more. You didn't need to know the exact rates of inflation or how much the tax rates had been increased because what mattered to you was that it costs more and you're probably considering lower-priced alternatives to stretch your budget. So you have an intuitive understanding of what happens each time tax rates are increased. That is knowledge gained from experience to give you understanding.
"D.C. has had terrible schools for many decades. A school choice program there had great success. Many poor children were able to escape the terrible D.C. schools and attend a better private school using vouchers."
Proof, Ed. I have read variously that voucher programs have not resulted in any better education.
"Students who receive vouchers do better academically than their public school peers. That depends on the measure. Overall the test scores of students who use vouchers are largely indistinguishable from students who stay behind in public schools."
Unfortunately, you answered a specific example with a generalization. The D.C. program was a success.
Ed-
Unfortunately, your claim was specific but with no specific backup reference. I would like to see an unbiased evaluation of the DC program. I have never seen any reference to a voucher program where it was found superior to the public school system.
I do not want my tax $$ to support any private or parochial school. We paid for our kids' education in SDA schools knowing full well our tax $$ supported the public education system which is as it should be in my view.
Maranatha
1) I am not in the habit of doing people's homework for them. If you have never seen the information, you have not looked with any thoroughness. The information is plentiful. Besides, skeptics just discount the source without evaluating the information. Those who want to know, seek.
2) I love the word "unbiased." It means whatever you want it to mean. For example, if a study shows that voucher systems provide better education, it can be declared "biased" in favor of vouchers. Which, if it happens to be true, then there should be a "bias" toward such programs. It's the same nonsense as "substantive due process." I love it. The rules of football are the same for all teams, but teams with domes for home stadiums win fewer super bowls. Obviously, the rules are biased against indoor stadium. Lol. But we get this stuff stated with straight faces every day.
3) You don't want to support a private or parochial school, but are satisfied supporting a public school system which is not only failing, but teaching values which are religious, just without a (stated) deity. Interesting.
If you want another example of success with vouchers, look at New Orleans. Pre-Katrina the public schools were among the worst in the country. The massive reconstruction need post-Katrina opened the door for charter schools to begin serving a significant portion of the student population and the results have been so positive that the contrast has forced the public schools to change how they operate so they can deliver better results competing with the charter schools. I am personally acquainted with one family who counted their evacuation from Katrina and inability to return to the city for an extended time as a great blessing because it put their children in better public schools. Then they heard how well the charter schools were doing and decided to move back with the result that their children did even better than in the schools in the city to which they had been evacuated.
You make an amazing statement in your blog, Stephen, that is so preposterous that I have a hard time taking it seriously. You find it paradoxical that "many Christian fundamentalists" oppose for America the same secularist policy approaches that they favor for Egypt. Pray tell, what Christian fundamentalists do you have in mind? Please cite, if possible, the statements that support your innuendo. Just what secularist policies are you talking about? What secular parties in Egypt are advancing same sex marriage, abortion on demand, open borders, dictatorial authority for the President?
And even if they were, why does it strike you as curious that Christians in America would prefer, if forced to choose, freedom and peace loving secularists over tyrannical, terrorist Islamists who view killing Christians and burning their churches as a sacred duty? Surely you cannot have such a sick, warped view of Christian conservatives in America!
In characterizing and critiquing a “statement” of mine, it would help tremendously Nathan if you would make the effort to characterize and critique what I have actually said. This is especially true whenever you find something to be “amazing” and/or “preposterous.”
When you asked this question, or a similar one, in colloquy following Monte’s blog, I had never specifically referenced Egypt. Neither have I specifically mentioned Egypt in my blog at all.
I’ve referred to the Arab world generally. The Egyptian situation is, we would agree, a complex one to say the least. I personally don’t know of relative secularists who are currently vying for power there, other than former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The point is that wherever there are relative secularists vying for power or in power in the Arab world, American evangelicals and fundamentalists prefer them, for good reason, over Islamic religious fundamentalists.
We’ve gone over this before, but extreme religious fundamentalists have proven to be dangerous. Historical Adventist theology and eschatology acknowledge fundamental Biblical truths and the dangers of fundamentalism. It is, I contend, a balanced approach.
Would it really help, Stephen, if I generalized to the entire Arab world, rather than focusing on Egypt, which along with Libya, have had the only relatively visible secularist movements I am aware of in Arab countries? I don't think so. I think you're just playing intellectual hide-and-seek. But let's see. I'll play your game. Please specifically identify what you are talking about when you say that you find it paradoxical – inconsistent? (yes, I know you did not use those precise words) for many fundamentalist Christians in America to want the very secularist approaches which they oppose in America to prevail in the Arab world. Please identify the "secularist approaches" you are have in mind, where they are found, and why it is that you find Christian support for those approaches is "amusing/bemusing,intriguing/noteworthy." It is my strong suspicion that you didn't have anything in mind; that you just wanted to suggest in passing that you think Christian fundamentalists (non-Adventist at least) should be associated with islamic fundamentalists, at least in their political philosophy.
You have a way of impugning with broad generalizations, smearing folks who subscribe to political values and beliefs that you don't like – conflating American fundamentalists and evangelists with extreme religious fundamentalists – and then protesting, "I didn't say that," when anyone challenges the obvious implications of what you have asserted.
Extremists of any sort have always proven to be dangerous. Are communism, naziism, and fascism religious extremes? The Amish, and all other observant Christians whom I would characterize as fundamentalist, seem pretty peaceful to me. I'm not sure you can identify any violent fundamentalist Christian groups that are actually observant Christians. And I am quite certain that you cannot identify any evangelical groups that are violent. So why do you keep morphing peaceful mainstream politically conservative Christians with violent extremism? Those kinds of associations very quickly lead to religious persecution and infringement of religious liberty.
Are you really prepared to argue that Jesus was not an extremist. By my definition, you are an extremist. By your definition, I am an extremist. Each of us is right in some respects and wrong in others. Whether we are right or wrong, such labels are demagogic, divisive, and do nothing to enlighten or clarify reality.
"such labels are demagogic, divisive,"
you left out invidious, pernicious, perfidious, and inflammatory.
It’s occasionally inconvenient for laypeople to deal with precise language, but you’re an attorney. This shouldn’t be a challenge for you. Do you indeed recognize that the charge “you have a way of impugning with broad generalizations…” is itself a broad generalization!
I have to say this is rich. You should recall that you often make broad generalizations about “The Left” and “Liberals.” (How often do you recall me generally referring to either “The Right” or “Conservatives”?)
I have already stipulated that I myself am somewhat of an American Christian fundamentalist, so of necessity I have had to be specific about who I have mentioned; so how’s it been a broad generalization?
As I say, we have been here before, but you certainly cannot challenge or deny that some KKK and the abortion clinic bombers/murderers have also been observant/nominal Christians. This by no means implies that fundamentalists or evangelicals are largely dangerous extremists Nathan! Do you seriously not comprehend this distinction?
Since you insist on Egypt, the relative secularists in the Arab world would actually have included people like deposed President Mubarak. Speaking in relative terms, it would also include the Jordanian regime, I would think. Isn’t the Turkish government relatively secular too?
Again, my point is that American fundamentalists tend to prefer these relatively secular approaches to governing and geopolitical/international affairs for Arabs. It is not that American fundamentalists are themselves extremists; but that they clearly often do not appear to favor a secular approach to American governance.
I have also made the point, one which I incidentally maintain, that extremist and violent ‘Christians’ are no different than extremist and violent Muslims; although they are less prominent/numerous and influential.
I haven't heard much about the KKK lately, Stephen. Exactly which observant Christians among their current ranks do you have in mind? We are talking present reality, right? Furthermore, the fact that the KKK consisted of Christians doesn't make it a "Christian fundamentalist group." And again, what Christian groups sponsor and support abortion clinic bombers? Was Rudolph an observant Christian? I don't know. Are you just guessing when you say some abortion clinic bombers have been observant Christians at the time they committed their crimes – or do you know? Why should I need to disprove a proposition that you have offered no evidence to support? You have strongly insinuated, if not outright asserted, that there are fundamentalist Christian groups which sponsor and/or support violence. I do not consider radical cults like Koresh, for example, fundamentalist Christians. Please specifically identify just one commonly recognized fundamentalist Christian group that endorses or practices terrorism to achieve its ends.
And again, I ask you, what policies are secularist political forces in the Arab world advancing as public policy that American Christian fundamentalists oppose for America? Abortion on demand? open borders? same sex marriage? sex change operations for prisoners? exclusion of religious expression from the public square? Please humor me. Name just one – anywhere in the Arab world will do. I'm trying to make this easy for you, Stephen. I have news for you, Stephen. Fundamentalist Christians in America believe just as strongly in the First Amebndment as you do. They just don't share your conviction that only a secular mindset and world view can properly interpret and apply the First Amendment.
Nathan,
Get a grip man! Please copy and paste what I have written that IMPLIES that I am even SUGGESTING that the Klan is a “Christian fundamentalist group.” Please copy and paste what I have written wherein “[I] have strongly insinuated, if not outright asserted, that there are fundamentalist Christian groups which sponsor and/or support violence.”
The Klan were (and are) extremist individuals who claim to be nominal Christians. It is a “group” in and of itself. They are not a group of fundamentalist/evangelicals!
I will leave it to you to investigate the reaction of Wiley Drake to George Tiller’s assassination or to investigate a group calling itself the Army of God. These groups and individuals claim to be Christians Nathan. That is a documented fact.
But I certainly have never claimed, insinuated, suggested, or implied (much less written) that they are sponsored or supported by anybody.
What you are conflating is the fact that I have asserted that extremists such as these people, including Michael Bray and Scott Roeder, are no different than violent, terrorist Muslim jihadists, on the one hand; and the other observation that fundamentalist Christians prefer secular leadership in the Arab world to religious fundamentalist governmental leadership, but often conceptually decry secular governmental leadership in America.
These are two essentially unrelated observations that you have conflated for your own reasons.
Arab culture and American culture are different. Their issues are not necessarily our issues. Why attempt to draw parallels about open borders or sex change operations Nathan, seriously? What are you talking about man?!
So is it reasonable for me to conclude, Stephen, since you persistently avoid answering my question, that you are unable to identify any secularist policies that American conservative Christians think are good for the Arab world, but not good for America? You know very well that the reason I identified the issues I did is that these are a few examples of secularist policy positions that conservative Christians generally oppose for America. I'm wondering, if these aren't the issues you're talking about, just what issues you are talking about. You seem either unable or unwilling to support your assertion. In what way do you see leaders of secularist parties in the Arab world as having similar agendas to those of secularist leaders in America?
As for violent extremists, we just disagree. I think there is a major difference between violent criminals who are punished by the government for their crimes, and violent religious groups who are programmed in religious schools, happy to die for Allah, are sheltered by nation states, and given Quranic cover by religious leaders. And when you talk about violent extremists in America, you are just as likely to run into a Floyd Corkin, a Mumia Jamal, or a Chris Dorner as a Scott, Roeder, a Michael Bray, or an Eric Rudolph. Are these people evil monsters? Of course! Are they the same as terrorist Muslims? Hardly! When you argue that there is no difference, it really makes you sound like anything but a balanced Adventist!
Well, this is something that stumps me.
Nathan, you and I differ philosophically and ideologically for sure, and I understand that. I have understood that from the beginning. Truth be known, we even differ theologically.
But I’ve always understood what you are saying and from where you are coming; even though I've seldom agreed with you. With this, I have no clue as to what you are saying at all.
First, regarding secularist policy, I am not talking about policy positions of Arabs and Americans. I am saying that American fundamentalists and evangelicals, who tend to favor religious fundamentalist leadership and approaches in American government, paradoxically tend to favor relatively secularist leadership and approaches to government(s) in Arab countries.
American fundamentalist and evangelicals tend to perceive the pragmatic benefits for domestic and international peace interests when relatively secular governments are in place in Arab countries; but paradoxically do not seem to perceive the pragmatic benefits for domestic and international peace (and freedom) interests with (relatively) secular governmental leadership and approaches here in their own country.
Now, you are claiming that I am in your head and “know very well why” you have seen fit to identify American secular policy positions with which to equate, compare or juxtapose with Arab positions?
I am not talking about policy positions. I never have been talking about positions, and don’t understand why you don’t seem to comprehend (not agree with; understand) me. The Arab and American cultures and societal issues are different; as will be the policy positions that are taken with secular/religious approaches to differing issues; there versus here. So my only clue as to why you have raised American secular policy positions is that we’re talking past each other.
Likewise with violent extremists who claim to be religious, which is a different topic; we are apparently talking past each other. I do not begin to understand how violent religious extremists (again not to be conflated with the above topic at all) who terrorize and murder are any different just because they claim different religious traditions.
I really don’t understand what you’re saying! You apparently don’t understand what I’m saying. This is a first; and I’m stumped.
Stephen, I will quote you: "I am saying that American fundamentalists and evangelicals, who tend to favor religious fundamentalist leadership and approaches in American Government paradoxically tend to favor relatively secularist leadership and approaches to government(s) in Arab countries."
PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE! And newsflash! Attaturk is no longer running Turkey. Neither Erdogan nor his government are secularist by any stretch of the imagination. Ditto for Mubarak and King Abdullah.
And when you are able to come up with an Arab country where there are secularist forces which American conservative Christians favor (that would probably be just about any Muslim state), please explain just what it is about the potential secularist leadership and approaches in these Arab countries that American Christians would oppose in the U.S.
There are no identifiable secular political leaders or secular political approaches in any Arab country that remotely resemble what you call secularist approaches and leadership in America. I have never heard of any conservative American Christian leaders saying that they want non-Muslims to lead Arab states. Nor do I think they really care a whole lot whether American leaders are particularly religious. After all, Ronald Reagan wasn't really all that religious, was he?
What conservative Christians want for America and Arab countries are leaders and approaches that honor and respect the constitutionally protected role that diverse religious beliefs, expressions, and practices enjoyed throughout most of American history, in both the private and civic spheres. Instead of honestly acknowledging this reality, you prefer to demagogue the issue by assuming that America has historically elected fundamentalist religious leaders and adopted religiously fundamentalistic approaches to government.
But please, Stephen, before rehearsing your talking points, could you give me the concrete example I requested above, and specifically identify what it is that Arab secularist movements want for their countries that you think Christians in America would oppose for the U.S.
But Nathan, you used that inflammatory word, "constitution." Might as well wave a red flag at a bull.
There is obviously no way for me to communicate how we’re talking past each other.
(Can I please, at this point, solicit an interpreter or a translator or mediator or, somebody, who can explain to both of us what the other is saying? Some sort of communication intervention is needed.)
What you are asking for has little to no relation to my point Nathan; but there seems to be no way at all to communicate that to you. Asking for examples of Arab secularism that are identical to American secularism is like asking someone to demonstrate to you why the best heavyweight boxer of all time was Willie Pep; and for examples of “conservative Christians” who want non-Muslims to lead Arab states would be like me challenging "what civil libertarians in this country are asking for non-Judeo-Christians to lead America."
If you are suggesting that in the Arab world all who have ever vied for governmental authority have all been Islamic fundamentalists, and have sought to gain power to advance the cause of their religion, then I would see your point. If there have been no relatively secular approaches to government and civil authority as compared to Saudi Arabia and Iran let’s say; or if the Mubarak regime, or Jordan's Abdullah, or any of the relatively moderate Muslims in the region had never sought power, then I’d understand your point completely. But clearly this is not the case.
Possibly a disconnection between us is that geopolitically, whether liberal or conservative, Americans generally prefer the more relatively secular moderate Arabs to more fundamentalist religious ‘less moderate’ Arabs wherever, whenever possible, if/when given the ‘choice.’ You, for reasons known best to you, are fixated on conservatives; while I am pointing out that fundamentalist/evangelical Judeo-Christians who often decry secularism and secular approaches to civil authority and public policy here are paradoxically among the majority of Americans who prefer more relatively secular moderate Arabs to the more fundamentalist, ‘less moderate’ Arabs whenever possible. Why are you actually denying this, really?
My position isn’t a set of talking points, other than that I have to repeat myself in an effort to communicate. (Since it’s ‘my’ observation, I only have “talking points” in the same vein of Bill O’Reilly’s opening monologue, for example.)
I'm about ready to give up on this game, Stephen. At first I thought you were making a serious point. But it is increasingly clear that you simply want to play the mole in a game of Whac-A-Mole.
You concede my point that "secularist leaders and approaches to government" for Arab countries means something quite different than "secularist leaders and approaches to government" means in America. But you still keep popping up to repeat the absurdity that American conservative Christians' (I use that term as equivalent to fundamentalist evangelical for this purpose) support for secularist approaches in Arab countries is paradoxical. Your statement is totally meaningless unless you are prepared to specify what the "secularist leaders" and "secularist approaches" in the two regions of the world have in common.
I have never asked you for examples of Arab secularism that are identical to American secularism. I have asked you for examples of secularist approaches to public policy that American evangelicals oppose for America, but support for Arab countries. If you cannot offer such examples, then your so-called paradox is exposed as vacuous polemics.
Do you find it paradoxical that American sports fans support the use a type of ball to play the game of football in Brazil that they would totally oppose for football in America? Of course not! That's because you know that the game of football means something very different in each country. Why jettison common sense when looking at political reality?
I'm not denying reality. I'm merely asking you to explain why you think that the reality we all acknowledge is in any way paradoxical. And you have been unwilling/unable to support your claim.
Nathan,
Come on, mate! You expected a clear answer from someone whose world is entirely political? The first thing I learned as a newspaper reporter interviewing politicians (Democrats, in particular) was to never expect a straight answer about anything that could be measured. Everything was clouded in a fog of undefined terms designed to make you feel good while never knowing quite why.
Nathan,
How in the world am I playing whack-a-mole when the mole just continues to come up in the same place?
Secularism in America has obviously different issues than secularism in Middle Eastern Arab nations. Fundamentalism in America obviously has different concerns than fundamentalism in Middle Eastern Arab nations. Christianity in America is obviously practiced differently than is Islam in the Middle East.
The principle that translates everywhere is to what extent church is separated from state. This is precisely how and why “the reality we all acknowledge” is paradoxical Nathan: Because Americans who acknowledge the reality that a stark separation of church and state is good in Egypt (as you prefer), and/or would certainly be better in Iran, do not acknowledge the reality of/or the principle that a stark separation of church and state is also good in America.
Looks like you've just changed the game, Stephen. It's now called going from the frying pan into the fire. Please identify just what prominent voices in America have argued for a "stark separation of church and state" in any Arab countries. You have yet to identify a single Christian, or reference a single statement, to support your claims regarding what fundamentalist evangelicals believe in or support. It feels like you're just making it up as you go along, because you have a gut feeling about what fundamentalist evangelicals prefer.
I've heard of a "high wall," but I've never heard the term "stark separation." It sounds like an idea that would be warmly received by communist leaders in Cuba or in The People's Republic. From the sound of that term, I suspect it is something that would not be most Christians' first choice anywhere in the world, particularly if it was defined and administered by your secularist apparatchik "buddies."
Tell me, Stephen: Is it unthinkable to you that maybe what Christians in America prefer for all countries is religious liberty and non- establishment of religion by the state? Do you really find it paradoxical that Christians would tend to support leaders and policies that advance those ideals both in America and elsewhere in the world, whatever their religious affiliation or lack thereof? I guess it is difficult for you to accept such a simple and obvious reality, because it doesn't fit your political prejudices or your need to demonize conservative Christians.
Well, let me see what I might do to identify some possible common ground. (In doing so, I will unfortunately isolate where we have fundamental disagreement as well.)
Nathan, seriously, would you have simply preferred that I had written that this is precisely how and why “the reality we all acknowledge” is paradoxical: Because Americans who acknowledge the reality that a high wall of separation between church and state would be better in Egypt, and especially in Iran, do not acknowledge the reality of/or the principle that a high wall of separation between church and state is also best/better for the United States of America? I don’t see how that changes anything, but if an expression or terminology with which you are more comfortable moves the ball down the field, let’s use it.
We might agree that religious liberty is the overriding principle that translates with everyone/everywhere. I am simply of the opinion that religious liberty is best protected by a wall of separation between church and state. Essentially this is where we disagree most.
Another obstacle to understanding in my opinion is that you insist on defending conservatives, when I have preferred to define or describe ideas without relating them or attaching them to any political or ideological labels.
When the labels conservative and liberal are used in a political/ideological context, positions harden and communication of ideas becomes almost impossible. (This has always been how I would have preferred to operate on this site.)
I have sought to explain that many fundamentalists and evangelicals in America appreciate the reality that relatively secular approaches to civil authority are preferable to fundamentalist religious approaches in predominantly Muslim states, but feel very differently, paradoxically so, with regard to America; where Christianity is the majority religious tradition.
You deny this to be a reality. It appears we must agree to disagree.
I don’t see how you can disagree with this; but accept that you do. You don’t see how I can believe this, but must accept that I do.
OK, Ed. It's just your opinion as far as I'm concerned. On with the show!
Maranatha
Stephen. The perplexity that many whites have with the black race is that they don't understand & can't understand almost everything the black race considers what it is to be black in American society, here, in the 21st century. i am aware of the history of blacks in the USA, i personally witnessed many events that were not pretty.Whites can never know the terrible tragedy of Black slavery, and its legacy. The general concept of most whites during the slavery period, was that the black race was sub human, totally inferior, and deserved to be slaves, that they were fortunate to be "on the plantation", being cared for by their betters, or superiors; that even after the Lincoln years, even though they were supposedly "set free" from ownership by whites, because of lack of education during the slavery generations, they were not able to compete with the general
public, as well as the continued lack of being offered equality by the white controlled public, business, education, & community life & facilities. The impossible laws of segregation that arrogantly perpetuated the separation of the races in all aspects of public life, with the best facililities maintained for the whites, and the worst reserved for blacks. With the constant demand that blacks "stay in their place", and be satisfied, and accept the status quo. Suck up the indignities.It is understandable and recognized by intelligent moral people why the black race should feel the terrible injustices of the past, as well as the continued bias and race hatred by many whites still, very prevalent yet in several of the southern states, by the so called "white trash", uneducated, uncivilized, inhuman denizens. As well as perceived bias and or hatred, or both, by all whites. Having been around since the 1920's, i have witnessed first hand the indignities suffered by the black race. i recall the kindness of blacks very early in my youth as at the age of five my older brother and i got up in darkness and had breakfast of cornmeal mush and molasses in the hut of a black family, who later put us on the top of a wagon load of cotton being transported, pulled by mules, to the cotton gin. i recall them sitting in the doorway of the hut with a 22 caliber rifle, shooting rats as big as cats as they ran out from under the hut. i remember my grade school built of brick, and with window glass, and heated in the winter. i saw the black schools in the segregated ghetto of the blacks built of clapboards, with most glass windows broken, and no heat in the winter. i've been in the stores and common businesses, bus & train stations, all with the toliet facilities & water fountains with signs labeled "white only", or colored only. i rode the public buses with signs of "Coloreds sit to the rear", and if the whites needed another seat any colored including grandmothers were to give up their seat to any white. i've seen white guys walk down the sidewalks four abreast, forcing any black to step in the gutter. i've walked through the black sections on a Sunday with my grandfather, with his Bible under his arm, on the way to a study. He knew some of them sitting on their porches, and he would greet them by saying "good Sunday to you Ben, or Sam, and they would smile and return the greeting by saying, you too, Mister Joe. i recall my grandfather say, there's nothing wrong with Colored folk, as long as they know their place. My Father was supervising crews of telephone technicians installing the first telephone systems throughout Arkansas & Tennessee in the 20's & 30's, travelling throughout the rural areas, i saw & witnessed things that etched a permanent place in my psyche. We could watch the black baseball teams, and they were good, and they could watch the white teams play, but they could never be a mixed team or even black teams playing white teams. i've seem it all Stephen, and while from a child i couldn't understand it, and hated the way it was. The whites are asking "how long does it take for the wounds to heal"?? Probably forever. The whites often feel hostility from blacks , in spoken words, hard looks, and physical violence, that is increasing substantially in the big cities, especially from youth gangs and groups. Supposed the police and media report little of it so as to keep a lid on the openess of it, hoping it won't lead to pitched race riots, and burning down the cities, we remember Watts. The police won't even answer 911 calls in some inner cities, creating a no man's land. Whites believe that current racial hate & strife is a two way street. They can't understand why it is that other ethnic groups are able to get a majority educated and enjoying the opportunity of acquiring the good life, while the good life for a big percentage of black youth is missed as they are still missing the opportunities that other etnic groups find, due to diligence & committment.
Whites are concerned that the black on black violence will soon include them, in ever increasing intensity, as the economy continues to weaken globally. The fear is driving a bigger wedge between the races. The government establishments talk thebig talk, but conditions don't change. The reason the US Army and National Guard grunts are mostly black is because this is one area of opportunity for many to escape unemployment, and have a career with a future, if the goverment continues making stupid wars that is, otherwise the Army won't need them.
Stephen, these are some of the conditions that bring us to the present day of racism in the USA. There are no quick easy solutions in the offering, if ever.
Earl,
I appreciate the fact that you have actually seen much of what some of us (including me) have only read and heard about. Thank you for sharing.
I think you understand full well that what you have described is historical racism. With respect, what you may grossly underestimate is the residual effect or consequences thereof.
You no doubt are familiar with the physical sciences principle of action and reaction; or the principles of cause and effect. You are also totally familiar with the Biblically-taught principle of reaping and then sowing. You know what happens when a stone is tossed into a pond or lake.
The historical racism (that you have personally witnessed) unfortunately continues to have ripple effects throughout American society, and effects all Americans.
Legally enforced segregation has been effectively abolished; and that has had many positive after-effects. For the most part, blatant and unapologetic bigotry has subsequently been rendered socially unacceptable. As a result, there is more interracial social interaction; thus perhaps (theoretically) less prejudice.
However, human nature being what it is, I believe things are only marginally better. On the surface we see that black Americans have indeed succeeded to leadership positions in various aspects of the American society. This has been largely the natural result of the opportunities afforded—and which would otherwise have been denied—by affirmative action.
Affirmative action is necessitated because, human nature being what it is, people naturally relate to and most commonly associate with those who are most like themselves. This reality has had undeniable discriminatory effects on minorities. Since people are most comfortable associating with others like themselves, they have been most likely to hire people most like themselves.
But affirmative action, wherein fully qualified women and ethnic minorities have been intentionally sought and recruited for job and career positions, and standardized testing allowances have been made for educational opportunities at colleges and universities, is resented by many whites; while ironically, its results are simultaneously celebrated by them and argued by some as evidence that such policies are thus no longer needed.
These are the same dynamics evident in the ruling on the Voting Rights Act. This thinking is analogous to saying that the polio vaccine is no longer needed because surely no one gets polio anymore; when actually it is because of the vaccine that this is now the case.
Justice Antonin Scalia incredibly likened the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and not just Section 4(b) of it, to a racial entitlement program! Think about that; voting…a racial entitlement! That was precisely what necessitated the Act—voting was regarded as a racial entitlement for whites—but now the VRA is perceived as a disadvantage to white folks.
I could go on (and on) but when some whites and blacks see the world so very, very differently because of a lack of shared experiences and mutual empathy (among other things), there is little to no hope for serious attitudinal changes; the election of an African American notwithstanding.
Consider the reality that my responding to you with this perspective will anger some.
Okay, Stephen, I get it. You can't/won't offer any specifics or proof. All you have is a gut feeling that American conservative Christians have one set of principles that they apply to the Arab world, and an opposite set of principles for America. You did finally name a policy. But you still have not identified a single Christian leader or statement advocating that the Arab world should govern itself by different church/state principles than America. Most Christians welcomed the Wall of Separation metaphor when it was first articulated. It is the way in which the Federal Courts have made a shrine of that wall, substituting it in place of the First Amendment, moving, and fortifying it to suppress religious liberty, that conservative Christians find objectionable.
Your fantasized paradox, by which you cast aspersions on the integrity of Christian conservatives, seems blind to the dangerous reality that our tergiversating "secularist" President appears strongly supportive of Islamist rule in the Arab world, while seeking to confine religious freedom in America to churches and synagogues.He finds time to condemn Israel for building houses on its own land, but can't bring himself to specifically call out the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist franchises in the Arab world for their brutality toward Christians. He pontificates that the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, but ignores the corollary that screams out: The future does not – should not – belong to those who commit violence in the name Islam.
But the Left's indulgent attitudes and policies toward radical Islam, while far more paradoxical and parlous than the paradoxes you invent, are topics for another thread. So until you are prepared to offer some objective evidence that the windmills against which you tilt actually exist, I think I will leave you in peace.
Respectfully Nathan, yours is a non-denial denial.
This might just help, please tell me exactly what was the reality which we all acknowledge to which you previously referred?
Finally, denying this is certainly your prerogative; but this is from a Charles Krauthammer column, who (though not a Christian to my knowledge) is no liberal: “Why gratuitously legitimize Islamists? Instead, Americans should be urgently supporting secular democratic parties in Egypt and elsewhere with training, resources and diplomacy.
“We are, unwillingly again, parties to a long twilight struggle, this time with Islamism – most notably Iran, its proxies and its potential allies, Sunni and Shiite. We should be clear-eyed about our preferred outcome – real democracies governed by committed democrats – and develop policies to see this through.”
Now are you seriously suggesting that most American Christian fundamentalist evangelicals either disagree with Krauthammer or have no opinion about this? And what do you think Krauthammer meant by “Americans should be urgently supporting secular democratic parties in Egypt and elsewhere,” Nathan?
Well, you finally offered specific evidence, Stephen – evidence supporting a proposition that I have not questioned: American Christians vastly prefer secular democratic parties over Islamist rule. I have not read that column of Krauthammer's. But I suspect, in context, he was dismayed at the paradox of our President supporting forces in the Arab world that are using Arab Spring illusions to strengthen Islamist rule.
Now, while I don't know what all that these "secularist" parties stand for, I would imagine that they support something akin to a Jeffersonian democracy for their countries. Do you find it paradoxical that American Christians would want our President to support secularist parties in the Middle East that want Jeffersonian democracy?
But let's go with what you want to imply, even though you offer no evidence for that conclusion – that secularists in the Arab Middle East share the political values of Left wing secualr Americans – that they desire to have religion occupy the same role in their civic and political life which secularists in this country want for America. I do not doubt for an instant that all conservative Christians in America would vastly prefer such secularist government over rule by Islamists. Why is that paradoxical?
Do you find it bemusing/strange/noteworthy that American Jews and Christians, if forced to choose, would prefer dhimitude over being killed, and having their homes, churches and synagogues burned down? The question you should be asking is why President Obama seems to side with terrorist anti-semites, who would kill Christians and burn their churches, over the forces of law, order, and tolerance.
You see, your foolish paradox fails to recognize that in all of politics – particularly in the Arab world – the ideal is seldom a realistic option – and even when it is realized, it quickly fades away. When there are only choices between bad and worse, most rational people will choose bad. Of course, you have offered no evidence that Arab secularist parties want anything more than a Jeffersonian secularism that upholds religious liberty and wants peace with Israel. You simply cannot wrap your mind around the reality that America has never been a theocracy, and conservative Christians who want to turn the clock back or stop the advance of militant secularism are not seeking to impose religious rule on America.
I should have used the word parties instead of the word (secular Arab) interests; meaning particular (Arab) entities or interested parties.
In reviewing this conversation, I notice—and certainly understand—why you persist in engaging in tangential diatribes; including talking about partisanship.
What I originally wrote in my blog was that “What is somewhat amusing/bemusing/intriguing/noteworthy to me personally is, again, that many Christian fundamentalists see the pragmatic value of secularist approaches to public policy in the Arab world but don’t want this in America…”
Krauthammer said, “…Americans should be urgently supporting secular democratic parties in Egypt and elsewhere…’
You originally mischaracterized my statement as follows: “You find it paradoxical that "many Christian fundamentalists" oppose for America the same secularist policy approaches that they favor for Egypt.”
You then persisted in asking me for examples of these “same secularist policy approaches;” when, in reality, I never said anything about Americans and Arabs having “the same secularist approaches;” especially since their culture and their societal issues are different than ours. I made repeated attempts to reiterate this.
You even subsequently denied that there are any secularist, or relatively secularist, Arab interests.
Now, I have provided you with a direct quote of a well-respected “conservative” columnist, who, lo and behold, somehow, for some reason, has the impression that there indeed are secular interests “in Egypt and elsewhere.” Of course, if many American Christian fundamentalists happen to agree with Krauthammer, but somehow do not perceive pragmatic value in supporting secular governmental approaches in the United States; then the paradox is not a fantasy.
As I say, since this is obviously not fantasy, I understand why you would much rather lambast “The Left” or the President, or talk about something/anything tangentially related.
Now you see fit to tell me what I am really trying to say (“imply”) by saying, “But let's go with what you want to imply, even though you offer no evidence for that conclusion – that secularists in the Arab Middle East share the political values of Left wing secular Americans – that they desire to have religion occupy the same role in their civic and political life which secularists in this country want for America.” The news flash is that many libertarians would consider themselves ‘Right wing’ secular Americans; and that a secular approach to civil affairs need not necessarily be “Left wing.”
This Right/Left, conservative/liberal, thing regularly distracts you. (But I have long since accepted that reality).
Finally, though you seem to be (grudgingly) acknowledging the veracity of what I have actually been writing in terms of most Americans' obvious preference to/(against) Islamist fundamentalists, you erroneously claim that “Christians who want to turn the clock back or stop the advance of militant secularism are not seeking to impose religious rule on America.”
The follow on consequences of their efforts to “turn back the clock or stop the advance of militant secularism” (speaking of new/original terms?) are indeed predictable, and predicted. How you can deny that the likes of Rick Santorum and Ralph Reed are indeed “seeking to impose religious rule on America” is a classic study in denial. As I said in my blog, how former Adventists, who do not deny the intentions of some of these Christians, can “ignore, if not deny, what historic Adventist eschatology interprets prophecy as predicting will occur in the U.S.” is also beyond me.
(In case you haven’t already found it, here is the link Krauthammer’s column): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021005339.html)
I should have used the word parties instead of the word (secular Arab) interests; meaning particular (Arab) entities or interested parties.
Thank you for the replay, Stephen. Your concession, that the secularist approaches and leaders which conservative Christians support in the Arab world may be very different from the secularist leaders and approaches that conservative Christians support in the U.S. leaves me slack-jawed each time you repeat it. If that is the case, then how in the world can you suggest that there is any inconsistency??? . Unless you can identify points of similarity between the approaches/goals of Arab secularist movements, which conservative Christians support, and the approaches/goals of American secularism, which conservative Christians find objectionable, there is not even the possibility of a paradox. Even if you find such points, you are still far from a paradox, because you fail to consider contexts and trade-offs.
Had you been a blogger in 1787, you would no doubt have written, with equal vacuity about the paradox that abolitionist leaders of northern Colonies were urging ratification of a constitution that created a government which accommodated slavery. But if you understood the context, and the tough choices that confronted our founders, you would not call their position "paradoxical," because there was no logical inconsistency between their anti-slavery philosophy and their support for the Constitution. They simply believed that a compromise which accepted an odious reality they could not change was better than standing firm on principles that would enable them to neither change that reality nor achieve what they perceived at the time as the more urgent and acheivable goal of politically unifying the Colonies.
Do Ralph Reed and Rick Santorum want to impose religious rule on America? I don't know their hearts. I think there is at least as much evidence that President Obama would like to turn America into a totalitarian state subject to his autocratic control. I'm sure that my reference to the President's paradoxical approach to the Islamist/secularist divide in Arab politics felt like a diatribe to you because it was rather painful to be confronted with that inconvenient truth. But please explain to me how my reference to President Obama's seeming duplicity was a diatribe, while your reference to what you perceive as conservative Christian duplicity was not a diatribe. Your use of preposterous hyperbole, like "a classic study in denial," to characterize the positions of those whose opinions differ from yours, really adds nothing at all to your arguments, though I'm sure it feels good. I sometimes wonder if anyone can ever disagree with you without being put into one extremist box or another.
Anyone who fails to see the threat to all liberty, and explicitly to religious liberty, from this administration is willfully blind. Growing up in the Adventist church, I often wondered how, if it were possible, the very elect would be deceived. Or put another way, many who were thought to be elect will in fact be deceived.
When I see rigid adherence to a scenario steeped in 19th century culture and ignoring advances in biblical interpretation, it is no longer a mystery. Like the Pharisees, and yes, even the early Pioneers, it isn't what people don't know that worries me. It's what they know for sure that's wrong. (after Will Rogers).
So many SDA's are so fixated on the impossibly detailed charts of last day events, it never seems to occur to them that the Enemy knows what they're expecting, or if it does, they think he's too stupid to do anything about it.
At least it's wonderful that the mass media are alert to every possible incursion on religious liberty, because that's what so many rely on.
Nathan, what “secularist leaders and approaches [do] conservative Christians support in the U.S.” in 2013, would you say (by the way)? This leaves you “slack-jawed each time [I] repeat it;” but I never actually have.
The “points of similarity between the approaches/goals of Arab secularist movements, which conservative Christians support, and the approaches/goals of American secularism, which conservative Christians find objectionable” are the desires not to have fundamentalist religious leadership assert authority and sectarian/theological influence over the decision-making and lawmaking areas of their governments.
I won’t comment on the founding fathers’ willingness to compromise principle for now, Nathan.
Stephen, you still haven't offered anything specific. You're merely offering abstractions that can mean anything you want them to mean. What "fundamentalist religious leadership and authority" means in America is very different from what it means in the Arab world. What "sectarian/theological influence" means in the Arab world is very different from what it means in America. Why don't you tell me specific concrete secularist political agendas – like same sex marriage and abortion rights – that Arab secularists and American secularists have in common.
I imagine that secularist parties in the Arab world would be very comfortable with religious fundamentalists having a voice in governments where separation of powers, checks and balances, and freedom of religion are constitutionally protected. Unless you have some evidence that Arab secular parties would like to eradicate islamic expression from the public square, from the schools, and from influence over legislative policy, I would argue that they have little in common with American political secularism.
Nathan,
Some of this stuff is uncontroversial. So why are you determined to deny that there are issues and interested parties in the Arab world which challenge the status quo regarding Islam’s influence on law and civil society which are somewhat or arguably very analogous to our differences over benefits of, and over the extent which, the church should be separated from state?
The “points of similarity between the approaches/goals of Arab secularist movements, which conservative Christians support, and the approaches/goals of American secularism, which conservative Christians find objectionable” are the desires not to have fundamentalist religious leadership assert authority and sectarian/theological influence over the decision-making and lawmaking areas of their governments.
This certainly manifests itself in the movements for women’s rights in various Arab states. The reasons women do not have rights (nearly equal to men) over there are cultural, having to do directly with religion. There are relatively secularist pushback efforts there that are supported, and should be supported, by most Americans—women’s rights issues. This is just one example of that to which I refer, where there is inconsistency by many Christian fundamentalists who understand that Arab women might have rights if and when there were a secularist civil government and a separation of church and state among Arab states; but do not want secularist civil government and a separation of church and state here in the U.S.
Take a look at this Nathan: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/freedoms-at-risk-arab-women-fight-to-defend-their-rights-a-800447.html
How and why you persist in denying the self-evident, incontrovertible, and uncontroversial is fascinating. How can you deny that women’s rights have something in common with American secularism?
“Advances in biblical interpretation…”! Now, that is perhaps the consummate summary (if that’s not redundant) of the differences between historic/traditional Adventist interpretations of current events, and trends, and movements, and ideas, and proposals; and 'others'.'
I’ve said this before Ed, only a very, very, very few individuals have ever had any clue whatsoever as to what Adventists have historically taught regarding eschatological doctrine; and arguably most of them are dead. Why on earth would the enemy have any need to call an audible on what inspiration has predicted he will do? Most of the 'educated' and affluent so-called First World “elect” don’t believe it anyway!
@Nathan, in all my time and in all the volumes I have written in opinion and commentary on this site I don’t recall ever having defended President Obama. Sometimes I think you are baiting me to do so for some strange reason. Understandably, you seem to have reasoned that since I don’t seem to be against him then I must be for him. Endorsing him would disturb and distract many. You obviously have unfettered license to rail against him, and liberals, in this venue. (I am accused of being obsessed with politics without having defended him and having seldom identified any others via ideological labels.) I fully understand the unwritten ground rules; and that this is a 'road game.'
As has been long ago established on these boards, the paradigm from which I operate in reference to what will happen and what is happening in Revelation 13 is nearly diametrically different than yours is. I find it difficult to accept this, because I think you should know better. But that is an unmistakably arrogant thought. I apologize for having this arrogant attitude.
"Why on earth would the enemy have any need to call an audible on what inspiration has predicted he will do?"
Well, now you have astonished me! You are apparently so certain of what the enemy is going to do, that if it doesn't meet your expectations, it's because he "called an audible," in other words he changed what prophecy said he was going to do! Now that's breathtaking certainty.
Against every example of long-term prophecy fulfillment in scripture, we Adventists are not going to be surprised. We'll see it clearly. The Pharisees didn't. The Disciples didn't. Even John the Baptist was surprised, so that he sent some of his followers to ask, "Are you the one? Or do we seek another?" Our own pioneers didn't understand what ws happening before their eyes. But you will.
I am in awe.
I’m trying to follow you, Brother Ed. Was it not you who said that “it never seems to occur to [SDAs] that the enemy knows what they’re expecting, or if it does, they think he’s too stupid to do anything about it”?
By doing something about it, I understood that you meant to ‘call another play’ at the last minute, so to speak. Apparently that is not what you meant; in which case I don’t know what it is you are trying to say.
In any case, I’ll repeat myself, the numbers of people who actually know/believe the historic SDA interpretation of even Revelation 13, and/or who have read the pertinent chapters in The Great Controversy, or subscribe to our historic interpretation of the prophetic mark of the beast, is such a numerically insignificant number; what would be the purpose of “doing anything about it,” or whatever you might have meant by that statement?
Who are the objects of the deception in Revelation 13; those who already have the mark, or those who do not?
Or
What word occurs in a unique way in ch. 13 as compared with every other occurrence in Revelation?
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Are you talking about “them that dwell on the earth,” Ed; or how about telling us exactly what it is you’re talking about?
"how about telling us exactly what it is you’re talking about?"
Because I've had the experience of helping people discover the keys to understand Revelation on three continents, and some things simply will not be accepted unless the reader discovers them for him/herself. If I just told you, you would reflexively reject it. Been through this many times.
The identity of "them that dwell on the earth," οἰκουμένης ὅλης πειράσαι τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. is consistent throughout the book of Revelation. They stand in contrast to another group.
It's also interesting to note that a number of domesticated animals have two horns.
Oh well, I thought I would ask. How about writing one blog on your educational ideas and another one on Revelation? I’m sure they will both be interesting.
Winston Churchill: I am always ready to learn; I am not always willing to be taught.
The beauty of an enigma.
In this totally political debate does it ever occur to any of you guys that God is not liberal or conservative? Neither is the adversary, but he can surely use both sides, especially if he can cause polarization along political lines that could bring about a kind of civil war to divide Americans. This happens when people (especially Christians) view each other as having the worst possible motives. Perhaps that is why we should all be independents.
There is much truth in what you say, Ella. Ellen White's recommendations that believers steer clear of politics altogether was based on wisdom. Of course religious liberty, for Christians in general, and Adventists in particular, has been a notable exception to that principle, even for conservative Adventists who prefer staying out of politics.
Religious liberty inevitably, and increasingly in America, seems to be under attack. Does the fact that folks have strong differences about how and why it is under attack mean that the subject should be avoided? As a blogger, Stephen has the right to raise the issue, even if he has a penchant for raising it as a vehicle to trash politically conservative Christian political candidates and question the integrity of those who support them. Unfortunately, in this blog he again raises the secular/religious political divide as a tangent to needle politically conservative Adventists.
I'm not sure that being an Independent is the solution. Maybe the best solution is to not take the bait. Resolving to know nothing save Christ and Him crucified is often easier said than done. Your point is well taken. Thank you.
Ella,
You are correct, “God is not liberal or conservative” especially as we perceive those political ideological labels in the U.S., and that a kind of (a non-violent) civil war is well underway in America.
Of course, in my friend Nathan’s opinion, it is perfectly OK for him to lambast those whom he is convinced pose a threat to religious liberty, and to make generalizations about ‘The Left;’ but when others mention persons or ideas that we are convinced pose a threat to religious liberty without associating them with an ideology or political party, we are “trashing” conservatives.
As for impugning integrity, what my man Nathan should perhaps consider is that there is a difference between exposing an intellectual or ideological inconsistency and impugning one’s integrity.
No Stephen, I am not baiting you to defend President Obama. I am merely pointing out the biases of your political filters. You implicitly defend him with your one-sided bashing of his political opponents. When you argue that politically conservative Christian politicians pose a threat to religious liberty, I assume two things: 1) You are generally concerned about all threats to religious liberty; 2) You believe that the threats posed by conservative religious candidates are of sufficient magnitude that Adventists who believe in the traditional prophetic last day events narrative should support "secular" candidates for national office over religiously conservative candidates.
It is perfectly reasonable, I believe, to call you out for what I believe is your self-imposed blindness to much greater and more real threats to religious liberty posed by those you implicitly urge Adventists to vote for. You are attracted, like a moth to a light bulb, to writing full columns and offering tangential asides in columns like this one, that attack politically conservative Christians in general – SDAs in particular – for their political positions. Your credibility as a commentator is undermined, whether you see it or not, by your unwillingness to deal with the beam that is in the eye of your political compadres, while condemning those with whom you differ for the mote you see in their eye. How could any reasonable debater not point out the blatant hypocrisy of your failure to criticize the leader of the most anti-religious, anti religious-liberty political movement in American history, when you risibly claim that his opponents pose a threat to religious liberty???
Please, Stephen, I respect you, and want to continue doing so. So please don't hide behind absurd veiled nonsense like "This is a road game," or "unwritten ground rules." I'm not sure what you mean, so I won't guess. But whatever it is, I refuse to accept that you are in any way handicapped or limited by this forum in defending President Obama as robustly as you attack his opponents and those who support their political positions. I would love nothing better than to have you dissuade me from what I see as his paradoxical support for Islamist regimes in the Arab world; his use of religion to advance his agendas; or his opposition to the free exercise of religious convictions where those convictions undermine his political agendas.
Forgive me for taking your claim that you are not baiting me to defend the President with a grain of salt.
I am now, in your opinion, engaged in “implicitly [urging] Adventists” to vote for certain persons; which is not even close. I agree with Ellen White in that we cannot confidently support any political party. I have repeatedly said that dangers to religious liberty can come from either end of the political spectrum; and have yet here to defend the President or attack ‘The Right’ or the conservative political movement. Meanwhile ‘The Left’ and political liberalism, etc. are regularly castigated by various others on this venue; so I understand this reality: that political conservatism is generally more welcomed, as is theological liberalism (thus “road game”).
You can and have pointed out what you perceive to be dangers to religious liberty from ‘The Left’ and from the administration. As you know, I generally don’t react or respond to these observations from you. On the other hand, when I point out what I perceive as dangers to religious liberty from individuals, movements and perspectives, you invariably get very defensive—because of certain political and/or ideological affiliations; which, for better or worse I seldom identify in this venue (and have always been reluctant to do so, for obvious reasons).
You question “How could any reasonable debater not point out the blatant hypocrisy of your failure to criticize the leader of the most anti-religious, anti religious-liberty political movement in American history, when you risibly claim that his opponents pose a threat to religious liberty???,” to which I repeatedly answer that we operate from different prophetic paradigms. From what I understand of Revelation 13 it will likely be religious coercion and not anti-religious coercion that we should anticipate. You don’t believe this, so we disagree.
Finally, I respect you and want to continue to do so. Does that sound at all condescending or perhaps somewhat ominous? You should know that there is a world of difference between the way and motivation for my seeking your respect (which I do), and the manner of, and motivations for, seeking your respect that other blacks whom you undoubtedly respect have utilized.
If you really were not sure of what I meant (which I believe is the case), why label that of which you are unsure as “absurd veiled nonsense”?
As I read the comments on AToday, Stephen, I'm not sure I agree with your observations that most commenters on this website are political conservatives and theological liberals. And even if that were the case, I don't see how that creates any "unwritten" rules or makes blogging a "road game" for you. Every blogger makes a target of himself when he offers an opinion or argument. It's a lot easier to find flaws in an argument than to make it airtight. But I don't see how the argument changes with whether most of your commenters agree or disagree with you. I appreciate that you stick your neck out there, even though, as a philosophical conservative and evangelical Adventist, I tend to find that many of your arguments offer a target rich environment. I'm just not sure what you think you gain by not making full disclosure of your political/ideological biases/preferences.
The fact that you would prefer not to overtly identify your political and/or ideological affiliations doesn't mean that they are not relatively obvious and implicit in your arguments, or that they do not play a significant role in the criticisms you offer of the theological and/or political opinions of others. I suspect your assertion that you have yet to attack the Right or the conservative movement would come as quite a shock to even those who agree with you, unless of course you mean that you limit your attacks to the religious Right and the religious conservative movement. I mean, how else could one possibly interpret the penultimate paragraph of your blog? It's just a gratuitous drive-by smear of politically conservative Christians that contributes nothing to the theme of you blog.
“I'm just not sure what you think you gain by not making full disclosure of your political/ideological biases/preferences.”
Nathan, I have written entire blogs in which I confessed to being a…”surprise, surprise, surprise” political liberal. What I would prefer not to do on this site, for obvious reasons (one would think), is attack politicians on the basis of their political ideology—especially when discussing religious liberty, church/state, and prophetic issues.
Let me see if I can agree with you about something before we’re through. Perhaps I have consciously limited my opinions to the religious Right and the religious political 'conservative' movement; where the ‘danger’ lies.
I'm not following you here, Stephen. I was simply commenting on your reluctance to identify your political/ideological affiliations. And now you say that you've been very open about thoe affiliations. And my goodness! For you to say you don't like to attack politicians on the basis of their political ideology when discussing religious liberty issues… I don't even know where to begin with that amazing assertion. Have you ever gone back and read what you write?
Yes. I agree that you are quite deliberate in selectively dwelling on the religious right. And I have consciously countered your opinions by observing inconvenient truths about the political left, where I believe the infinitely greater danger is being realized before our very eyes. As long as you keep your eyes consciously closed to that possibility, you will never see it. And as long as your mind is closed that reality, you will be reduced to the sophistry of distinguishing between anti-religious coercion (not so bad) and religious coercion ( end of time bad) in order to defend your position.
Well Nathan, although this is not about me, all of my blogs are accessible on this site; so whether or not I have attacked the ideology of politicians here is something that is easily provable.
I will repeat that religious liberty threats can come from either end of the political spectrum and that we simply disagree as to whether end-time coercion will be religious or anti-religious. It’s almost that simple.
Can I ask a fundamental question – what is Adventism? I used to think I knew, but then the likes of Elaine and Dr Taylor challenged that notion to such an extreme, that one questions what is Christianity, let alone Adventism.
'As I read the comments on AToday, Stephen, I'm not sure I agree with your observations that most commenters on this website are political conservatives and theological liberals.'
I like to think of myself as a political liberal and a theological post-liberal (as distinct from the likes existentialist-Liberalism or conservatives either).
I hate labels–they are a big problem in all of society. People like me are all over the board from conservative to liberal; post-modern in some ways. Although I once told a conservative boss I was post-modern before I really knew what it meant. Transperancy gets one in trouble.
You might find this interesting, especially #5.
http://thefederalist.com/2013/09/23/six-lies-most-people-believe-about-u-s-schools/
I read this with interest and it makes sense, especially about the vocabulary. From my observation our country has a broken educational system built on the whims of whatever fad is popular (regardless of obvious results). Instructors cannot teach critical thinking without influencing with their own ideas which often mock that of many parents.
It also has a broken medical care system that has not been addressed by the government mandate put on it. It also has a broken prison system that continues to make more criminals by mixing hard-core with young criminals. There is apparently no help for the latter to adjust to society.
What should we expect?–political systems all over the world are failing. And few listen to reason.