Earlier this week, someone stole a sign from the Legislative building in Olympia, Washington. It was a sign "simply celebrating the winter solstice": "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
A group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation was given permission to place it next to a nativity in the rotunda. How sweet. Now, while i admit that i think this is a rather hateful message that sort of negates the best of Christianity in a message of peace on earth and good will towards all, it upsets me much more that in all probability, this sign was stolen by a Christian. Isn't this one of the big ten?
To me, such a sign is like a post-it. It's like a prescription for glasses that needs to be filled... "this person has trouble seeing. They need assistance in order to see more clearly." If you are such a person that believes they are wrong, then you are called to pray for them and live a life exemplified by the one whose birth we are celebrating so that they might know truth in a new way.
My other confusion is about morality and faith. A very articulate young man from VCU came to a program Ashley and i attended. He is a self-professed atheist and attends this program regularly, which is targeted at and welcoming of non-believers. He was confused about how someone could believe in a God that punishes people eternally and call yourself moral.
Now, while i can see his point that from his perspective (one without an external moral standard) it would seem cruel. But that's exactly my point. How can you be moral at all if your standard is not external? If everyone decided their own moral code, chaos would reign. Many people do not believe adultery is wrong on any level whatsoever. Many people don't believe that sex or abuse of children is wrong. Many people believe that spousal abuse is justifiable. Many people believe stealing and assault is not wrong. And unfortunately, many people think that attacking or killing someone for their religious beliefs or sexual orientation are perfectly moral actions.
You can't simply say, "everyone is endowed with a conscience." This is true, but many people do not have a working conscience or theirs dictates radically different moral views from the vast majority. How then do we have a functional society? We have to impose laws. All laws are moral in nature. You impose any law because of a value. Even a law about traffic signs is based on the need for safety on roads because of the shared value that life is worth protecting and orderly traffic is a means to this end.
"Well, what's wrong with that," says the atheist. Well, firstly, a code of laws is an external set of morals. This is no longer based purely on your naturally endowed conscience. This may in and of itself be a problem for the atheist who wished to rely on his or her own moral compass. However, if it's not, it should be a problem for other reasons.
In the course of human history, many things have seemed right and moral in the eyes of the majority. We can certainly cite examples of genocide, slavery (practiced on nearly every continent in our past and present), and so on. The abolitionist movement, and the Civil Rights movements were led by Christians who were following the moral compass given to them by a God that still speaks in a very old book and the tradition of a people who were once held in bondage.
Now, in that situation, and many others, is it enough to rely on the moral code arrived upon by vote, or should those votes be swayed by the external moral standard given in hope and promise by a God you can't see, touch, or prove?
This isn't meant to sway you one way or the other, but a few points come to mind. One, a non-belief in God is no more logical or moral or helpful than a belief in God. And two, there is nothing wrong with discussing faith within the framework of logic. Many Christians take the easy way out (it is often labeled the high road) by saying "there's nothing logical about faith." Well, actually, there is. Besides the health benefits and benefits to a society, there is much that is logical about faith. This is not to mention the fact that many very inteligent ahteists point to the fairly reliable fact that many Christians seem ignorant, uninteligent, superstitious, blind, or scared when it comes to faith. Being ignorant, uninteligent, blind or scared are all good reasons to turn to faith, but they are not ways to cling to it or share it with others.
We live in a world that needs a reminder here in the Advent season that roughly 2000 years ago, God came into the world that God created to be good and full of hope and peace to remind us that it truly could be with the help and love and hope of its creator. Maybe those who have no better way to vent their frustration about non-believers could spend some time praying for or loving one instead of dashing that hope and stealing signs...
A group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation was given permission to place it next to a nativity in the rotunda. How sweet. Now, while i admit that i think this is a rather hateful message that sort of negates the best of Christianity in a message of peace on earth and good will towards all, it upsets me much more that in all probability, this sign was stolen by a Christian. Isn't this one of the big ten?
To me, such a sign is like a post-it. It's like a prescription for glasses that needs to be filled... "this person has trouble seeing. They need assistance in order to see more clearly." If you are such a person that believes they are wrong, then you are called to pray for them and live a life exemplified by the one whose birth we are celebrating so that they might know truth in a new way.
My other confusion is about morality and faith. A very articulate young man from VCU came to a program Ashley and i attended. He is a self-professed atheist and attends this program regularly, which is targeted at and welcoming of non-believers. He was confused about how someone could believe in a God that punishes people eternally and call yourself moral.
Now, while i can see his point that from his perspective (one without an external moral standard) it would seem cruel. But that's exactly my point. How can you be moral at all if your standard is not external? If everyone decided their own moral code, chaos would reign. Many people do not believe adultery is wrong on any level whatsoever. Many people don't believe that sex or abuse of children is wrong. Many people believe that spousal abuse is justifiable. Many people believe stealing and assault is not wrong. And unfortunately, many people think that attacking or killing someone for their religious beliefs or sexual orientation are perfectly moral actions.
You can't simply say, "everyone is endowed with a conscience." This is true, but many people do not have a working conscience or theirs dictates radically different moral views from the vast majority. How then do we have a functional society? We have to impose laws. All laws are moral in nature. You impose any law because of a value. Even a law about traffic signs is based on the need for safety on roads because of the shared value that life is worth protecting and orderly traffic is a means to this end.
"Well, what's wrong with that," says the atheist. Well, firstly, a code of laws is an external set of morals. This is no longer based purely on your naturally endowed conscience. This may in and of itself be a problem for the atheist who wished to rely on his or her own moral compass. However, if it's not, it should be a problem for other reasons.
In the course of human history, many things have seemed right and moral in the eyes of the majority. We can certainly cite examples of genocide, slavery (practiced on nearly every continent in our past and present), and so on. The abolitionist movement, and the Civil Rights movements were led by Christians who were following the moral compass given to them by a God that still speaks in a very old book and the tradition of a people who were once held in bondage.
Now, in that situation, and many others, is it enough to rely on the moral code arrived upon by vote, or should those votes be swayed by the external moral standard given in hope and promise by a God you can't see, touch, or prove?
This isn't meant to sway you one way or the other, but a few points come to mind. One, a non-belief in God is no more logical or moral or helpful than a belief in God. And two, there is nothing wrong with discussing faith within the framework of logic. Many Christians take the easy way out (it is often labeled the high road) by saying "there's nothing logical about faith." Well, actually, there is. Besides the health benefits and benefits to a society, there is much that is logical about faith. This is not to mention the fact that many very inteligent ahteists point to the fairly reliable fact that many Christians seem ignorant, uninteligent, superstitious, blind, or scared when it comes to faith. Being ignorant, uninteligent, blind or scared are all good reasons to turn to faith, but they are not ways to cling to it or share it with others.
We live in a world that needs a reminder here in the Advent season that roughly 2000 years ago, God came into the world that God created to be good and full of hope and peace to remind us that it truly could be with the help and love and hope of its creator. Maybe those who have no better way to vent their frustration about non-believers could spend some time praying for or loving one instead of dashing that hope and stealing signs...
No comments:
Post a Comment