A must read: New Yorker article on college that trains Christian politicians

Parent Cafe
161

<p>“And the pain, guilt, and disease associated with the preaching [abstinence] is not normal, is not healthy, and causes a great deal of harm.”</p>

<p>Mini, </p>

<p>I was not aware that feelings of guilt and pain are not normal. Isn’t it in fact normal and beneficial for someone to feel guilty after committing an immoral act (based on their own feelings of guilt)—for a husband, for example, to feel guilty after he has beaten his wife? Of course it is, it’s part of human nature. Perhaps his guilt will prevent him from beating her the next time around, though perhaps not, but at least he will feel some inner pain from it. The reason we feel guilt is because we know, through our conscience, that we have wronged something—likely ourselves. Guilt is a feeling that comes from within, from ourselves, not from without i.e. it does not come from society or from societal preaching (guilt’s social counterpart, oftentimes confused with guilt, is shame).
C.S. Lewis makes the point that the reason we feel guilt is because we know that there is some universal, absolute human standard of morality, or human nature, from which we have deviated and departed. If Lewis is right, and there is a universal morality that applies to every man (‘lying is wrong’), then perhaps there is a clear cut answer to whether one should practice abstinence or not. You yourself mention that preaching abstinence stirs feelings of guilt. So I think we have our answer. And if we are to look at sexuality from a Christian standpoint, which seems to be the general drift of this thread, then having sex before marriage IS a sin which can be absolved only through redemption—in other words, only through actively feeling guilty about your sin and making amends. </p>

<p>“Then I suggest you go read the sections where Jesus talks at very great length about sex and marriage.”</p>

<p>There are only a few instances in the Bible in which Jesus discusses sex—he hardly spoke “at very great length” about it. But when he did bring it up, it’s hard to come away thinking “Abstinence is not normal, it’s not healthy.” How about for an alcoholic? Drug or sex addict, if there is such a thing?</p>

162

<p>“you are free to practice what ever views of sexuality you wish for yourself.”</p>

<p>Of course, everyone is free to make their own choice when it comes to morality as it applies to sexuality, freewill is like that; we get to make choices; good choices, bad choices and the apathy of no choice at all, although only the good-choice involves a force of will and intellect. Certainly there are morally good, better, best, bad and worst choices to be made. If that is so, there must be a way to know which is which. If not, how could we ever understand the world around us? We assume, as the default position. a morally correct choice in all our affairs. We assume people should not lie or cheat, though they occasionally will and we know it was a morally bad act. How do we know that?</p>

163

<p>“What Christians lack, however, is the ability to impose their beliefs on non-Christians.”</p>

<p>Agree, and perhaps the desire (to advocate is not the same as to impose), though more often than not it is not a question of Christian belief vs. Non Christian belief as much as it’s a question of moral belief per se, which all human beings, Christian or not, are subject to in conscience. Contrary to the ‘have it your way crowd’, I find guilt to be a good thing, a reminder; it lets us know where the moral path lies and where we are in relation to it.</p>

<p>“Frankly I can see the advantages to a polyamorous, society- anything to get help with the kids!”</p>

<p>Coming soon to a legislature near you (after gay marriage is codified, that is). Sounds exciting! Though, polygamous won’t get many amen’s in this crowd, polyamourous is just the right note to hit for applause ;)</p>

164

<p>“And if we are to look at sexuality from a Christian standpoint, which seems to be the general drift of this thread, then having sex before marriage IS a sin which can be absolved only through redemption—in other words, only through actively feeling guilty about your sin and making amends.”</p>

<p>So all those Puritans (who I am sure read their Bibles a heck of lot more intensely than you do) preached and practiced unadultered sinfulness. Yeah, right. I’m sure treating women as chattel (rhymes with cattle) in marriage is a good Christian practice too. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think applying C.S. Lewis to this stuff is claptrap. The only reason folks feel pain and guilt around these issues is because they (unlike the Puritans) are TAUGHT to by the preachers (without a single word of Jesus to back them up), and this very pain and guilt is what leads them to spread disease among his followers, as they are doing. And that preaching is immoral in my book. Not just bad. Not just abnormal (preachers preach lots of strange stuff.) Immoral.</p>

<p>Oh, as to your point about alcoholics, I think you’ve made a very good Christian case for moderation, not abstinence. And for health reasons, not for moral ones.</p>

165

<p>“The only reason folks feel pain and guilt around these issues is because they (unlike the Puritans) are TAUGHT to by the preachers”</p>

<p>Would that mean that only Christians feel guilt around these moral ‘issues’? I realize you have a special fondness for the Puritans, we are all inclined toward what we relate to after all, yet, I think you may be limiting your scope due to your affection. </p>

<p>My mother was born in Iran without Christianity. Yet, if I’m to believe her, she feels guilt and pain the same as most authentic Christians do. I’ll go out on a limb and say I think that even people living in distant China (not known for its religious zeal) feel a sense of guilt around these moral issues, the same with people living in India or most non-Christian locales. If we are to say they were all taught to behave in this moral matter, I guess that begs the question. If all people feel it, it’s hard to establish a cause/effect relationship. Socrates, you may recall, felt that we are caused to remember the moral/intellectual capacity that lies within us. I kind of like that one, though I will not state my personal feeling on this as dogmatically and boldly as you seem to in “the only reason” style you employ above.</p>

<p>“Frankly, I think applying C.S. Lewis to this stuff is claptrap.” I’m fascinated with this well thought out and poignant observation; I guess that takes care of that silly nonsense, I feel shamed…but don’t you feel guilty about it;)</p>

<p>“Oh, as to your point about alcoholics, I think you’ve made a very good Christian case for moderation, not abstinence. And for health reasons, not for moral ones.”
Curiously, I thought there was a moral component to drunkenness that would explain the Biblical (Christian and Jewish) and Quranic prohibitions against it; kept out of heaven for health reasons, huh? My bad.</p>

166

<p>Fountain Siren,</p>

<p>Just a for instance:</p>

<p>You said a fornicator or a wife beater who repented of his deeds (genuinely felt bad and made amends) would be absolved. So imagine a person who had sex with dozens of women prior to marriage, fathered illegitimate children, was a deadbeat dad, and then when married beat his wife-- but then, late in life, saw the error of his ways and genuinely repented, and stopped doing these things. Let’s say this person is a Christian. Does he go to Heaven or Hell?</p>

<p>Now let’s say that a person practiced all of the moral rights and did not commit any above mentioned moral wrongs. Lets say this person was during his entire lifetime fair, honest, just, abstinent before marriage, faithful in marriage, was never unkind or violent to anyone, honored God-- just walked the faithful, kind and decent path through life. Yet let’s say this person is Muslim.</p>

<p>Heaven or hell?</p>

<p>Do you see why your “funadamental moral principles” argument is weak? It neglects to respect equally the people who manage to follow those moral principles without subscribing to your dogma. If fundamental moral principles underlie Christian belief, then why does “reward” (heaven) accrue only to those who believe in Jesus-- the one thing that has ZERO impact on any of their fellow human beings, discounting all of the other ‘deeply fundamental moral principles’ that have huge impact on everyone else?</p>

<p>Most of us on the opposite side of this argument probably agree that if fervent evangelical christian belief is of great personal value to a person in his living a good and decent life, it is positive and wonderful, and mazel tov… because most of us are much more concerned with people living good lives than how they get there.</p>

<p>What baffles me about your religion is that the highest priority is abstract-- belief-- not concrete-- behavior. </p>

<p>I cannot believe that this was what Jesus’ teachings intended. I think the holiest people tend to see the bigger picture and I suspect Jesus would have no problem with Gandhi in paradise.</p>

167

<p>“Does he go to Heaven or Hell?”
God knows.</p>

<p>“Yet let’s say this person is Muslim.”</p>

<p>Heaven or hell you ask? I hope heaven, as my mother is a Muslim and I am a Sufi.</p>

<p>“those moral principles without subscribing to your dogma.”
Perhaps I should be clear; I am not myself a Christian congregant.</p>

<p>“If fundamental moral principles underlie Christian belief, then why does “reward” (heaven) accrue only to those who believe in Jesus”</p>

<p>Perhaps you will not regard me as qualified to answer, but I never said anything like this and as I understand Christianity, Heaven is not necessarily conditioned on a belief in Jesus, but rather, only through Jesus’ sacrifice can anyone enter heaven, whether they are conscious of His sacrifice or not.</p>

<p>“I think the holiest people tend to see the bigger picture and I suspect Jesus would have no problem with Gandhi in paradise.”
I have no pretensions to divinity, but I’m guessing that if I ever enter heaven I will find Gandhi there.</p>

<p>SBmom, I feel as if you are not actually addressing my posts but rather are addressing your rather harsh stereo-type of Christianity. I am not a Christian and have said so in this thread; moreover I have on no occasion subscribed to or stated any of the views you ascribe to me. It seems you are attacking something that doesn’t exist.</p>

<p>“What baffles me about your religion is that the highest priority is abstract-- belief-- not concrete-- behavior.”</p>

<p>Wow! Maybe you should consider how well you tolerate other’s beliefs, most particularly the Christians you seem to have such antipathy for.</p>

168

<p>I misunderstood that you were a Christian, because earlier you were defending Evangelical beliefs; sorry-- I probably skimmed a few posts and missed that point. (BTW when I was a kid my mother was a passionate Sufi dancer.)</p>

<p>I am not sure where you get “harsh stereotype,” “attack,” and “antipathy.” What makes you think I don’t tolerate other’s beliefs? When they cross from advocacy to imposition-- then I have a problem. </p>

<p>Like you, I think guilt is often good (inner moral compass) but I agree with mini that heavy-handed doses of “you’re a sinner, sinner, sinner!” can wind up warping people-- and, like a beaten dog who shies away from a raised hand, make their consciences flinch reflexively when they really haven’t done anything “bad.” (Talk to some people brought up this way about how hard it is to have a healthy sex life as an adult, with a healthy enjoyment of their body… just one example.) </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If this was true of Evangelical Christianity, I would have no problem with it. This is a more liberal slant on Christian doctrine that is found in some Christain churches but not the Patrick Henry variety.</p>

<p>So the beliefs that I question are not a “stereotype,” they are proudly proclaimed by Evangelical schools and churches on their websites, in their hiring policies, etc. The Evangelicals are quite clear that nobody gets in to heaven without signing on to a very narrow version of Christianity. Period. Certainly not me, you, or your mom! And even Catholics are iffy. ;)</p>

<p>Saying I think something is wrong is not an attack. I have maintained a civil tone and expressed my opinion, same as you. </p>

<p>Antipathy… er, well, okay, maybe there’s a little antipathy. I don’t like fundamentalism very much. So reread my post above and instead of “your” think “evangelical.”</p>

<p>In fundamentalist circles, there is no room for a family like yours, where people can hold different faiths and plan to meet up in the hereafter.</p>

169

<p>“Curiously, I thought there was a moral component to drunkenness that would explain the Biblical (Christian and Jewish) and Quranic prohibitions against it; kept out of heaven for health reasons, huh? My bad.”</p>

<p>Where in the world could you possibly find Jewish or Christian prohibitions against the drinking of alcohol? Not only is it NOT prohibited, it is sacrament! In Judaism, it is basically required 70 days a years, with blessings attached. There are specific (and lengthy!) rules for the growing of grapes, and specifically the amount of wine owed to the priests in Jerusalem. Jesus was a wine drinker, and accused of intemperance. (Matt. 11:19) And what pray tell do you think they were drinking at the Last Supper? (I’m sorry - I made a presumption that you knew more about these religions than you do.)</p>

<p>What the Indians, Iranians, and Chinese had in common? Quite simple: 19th century rule by Victorians and neo-Victorians. (The same people who impoverished them.)</p>

170

<p>SBmom,</p>

<p>“I misunderstood that you were a Christian, because earlier you were defending Evangelical beliefs”</p>

<p>I don’t recall defending evangelical beliefs as such. I do, however, often find myself defending things that are unpopular but sincere, as religion is (amongst certain crowds). I have only defended the idea of morality as a theological fact.
It says a lot that a 17 year old’s defending abstinence, or people of faith’s access to government (or anyone’s, but the only one being questioned in this thread was people of faith), whether it is my faith or someone else’s faith or lack of faith, should need a defense in a ‘room’ full of parents. If you look over my posts you will find that I never said other than that anyone should have access to the public discourse and governance. Period.</p>

<p>“When they cross from advocacy to imposition”</p>

<p>I never quite get this one, what imposition is being referred to. Obviously people have differing views on many of the issues here discussed. I suppose many evangelicals will consider it an imposition that their children are taught to use contraception (including, of course, Catholics) or that life is indefinable (in regards to abortion amongst other things) or that intelligent design is a farce not worthy of consideration (when, for many of them, their faith depends on just such a traditional distinction). They might think that to be more than advocacy and in fact an imposition on them, their children and their faith. You would perhaps counter, ‘but it’s all true’ while realizing they will say the same about their core beliefs and values. Is that an imposition, yes, of course it is. But, I guess it’s ok.</p>

<p>“I think guilt is often good (inner moral compass) but I agree with mini that heavy-handed doses of “you’re a sinner, sinner, sinner!” can wind up warping people”</p>

<p>If this is what you think, I don’t think you agree with Mini, as regards sexual morality, when he writes:</p>

<p>“The only reason folks feel pain and guilt around these issues is because they (unlike the Puritans) are TAUGHT to by the preachers (without a single word of Jesus to back them up)”</p>

<p>“In fundamentalist circles, there is no room for a family like yours, where people can hold different faiths and plan to meet up in the hereafter.”</p>

<p>I don’t know, you undoubtedly have more experience than I have in these matters, but our next door neighbor is an Evangelical Baptist and he doesn’t share your view of our family. Maybe he’s just not down with the program. At the very least, there is variation within the evangelical faiths. I’ve even heard Billy Graham say he didn’t know whether or not a Muslim would enter Heaven; that only God knows for sure.</p>

<p>“So reread my post above and instead of “your” think "evangelical."”</p>

<p>I don’t know, what if we replaced “your” with “Orthodox Jew,” or “Hindu,” how far would that thread run?</p>

171

<p>Morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think it is immoral to push your beliefs on others. It is immoral to threaten people with hell if they don’t believe. It is immoral to preach one thing and do another (Fundamentalist Christians have one of the highest divorce rates of any religion). It is immoral to rewrite history and deny that Hitler was a Christian. It is immoral to deny that Christians have been mass murdering people for most of their existance. North America was a Red Continent before the White Christian Man came here and slaughted the Indians and rewrote history. South America was a Red Continent.
Africa was a Black Continent before the White Christian Man went over there and dehumanized the Africans and brought them here, into slavery for financial gain. Let’s get out immorality straight. If these Christians, who slaughtered the American Indian, slaughted the Mexican, and slaughted the African are in heaven because they didn’t drink or fool around,
I will take hell.</p>

172

<p>“Where in the world could you possibly find Jewish or Christian prohibitions against the drinking of alcohol?”</p>

<p>Mini,</p>

<p>I’m sorry, I thought I said “drunkenness” not drinking…wait, let me check…yes, I did say “drunkenness”.</p>

<p>“(I’m sorry - I made a presumption that you knew more about these religions than you do.)”
You’re too kind, but don’t feel guilty about it, it would make for a messy moral theory (for you).</p>

<p>“What the Indians, Iranians, and Chinese had in common? Quite simple: 19th century rule by Victorians and neo-Victorians.”
How silly of me, I thought these people had cultures and values of their own. My mother was raised in Iran and she naively believes that her moral traditions have nothing to do with that fat old British Queen. She’s of the opinion that her moral tradition even predates Christianity (some simple old man named Zoroaster and then, after Christ, this upstart named Mohammad). Apparently they had something to say about sex before marriage…but you know all about that I’m sure–probably wrote a book about it…Well, I don’t know how this fits in with that whole Puritan thing you’ve got going on but I’m sure they’re connected.</p>

173

<p>dstark,</p>

<p>That was quite a sermon. Look out you Evangelicals (especially you white ones, shame on you…but don’t feel guilty, I guess)!</p>

174

<p>I’m sick of people telling other people they aren’t moral based on their sex lives or their drinking habits. What garbage.</p>

175

<p>

What a nasty rant! I’m surprised at you…it’s not even good history. Remove “Christian,” insert “Jew,” and you kind of get to where the Nazis gained traction. Very ugly. Have you heard of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”? Very popular among suicide bombers, who also loved “Mein Kampf.”</p>

176

<p>Driver, it’s not supposed to be good history. It’s just the truth. Here from Frederick Douglas… “Pride and selfishness…never want for a theory to justify them—and when men oppress their fellow men, the OPPRESSOR ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression. Ignorance and depravity, and the inability to rise for degradation to civilization and respectability, are the most usual allegations against the oppressed. The evils most fostered by slavery and oppression are precisely those which slaveholders and oppressors would transfer from their systems to the inherent character of their victims. Thus the very crimes of slavery become slavery’s best defense. By making the enslaved a character fit only for slavery, they excuse themselves for refusing to make the slave a free man. A wholesale method of accomplishing this result is to overthrow the instinctive consciousness of the common brotherhood of man…”</p>

<p>It’s called blaming the victim. Rewriting history. Similar to what you brought up in your last post. Your last post says it very well.</p>

177

<p>Frederick Douglass was a Christian, as were most, if not all, abolitionists. No religion is perfect, Christianity included, but your rant went too far.</p>

178

<p>FountianSiren, </p>

<p>It’s not “my” view of your family, it is Patrick Henry’s view. </p>

<p>If your neighbor thinks all religions are equally valid paths to God, he may be a baptist-- but he’s no evangelical. (Perhaps, however, he’s an evangelical who thinks you are damned, but as your neighbor is polite.) </p>

<p>My personal view is that good works, deeds and behavior-- the things that impact other human beings-- count. Not dogma. So my view of heaven would be that all who are good, kind, and honest are welcome-- including the many evangelicals, or athiests, who fit that description. </p>

<p>I never said that all people should not have access to public discourse and governance, either. I said that I am personally uncomfortable being governed by fundamentalists, because we live in a pluralistic society, and I think that fundamentalism is (a) irrational and (b) biased. I oppose corporate fat cat NON-religious politicians because I think they are (a) corrupt and (b) heartless. I oppose all sorts of politicians. :slight_smile: Ain’t America great!</p>

<p>The fundamentalists have complete access and nobody is trying to forbid that. They are allowed to run for office-- and I am allowed to oppose them, for concrete reasons related to their likely performance in office. Similarly, they are allowed to oppose secular humanists-- because they worry that the humanists might make bad decisions. I don’t think it is bigoted either way-- it is just a basic disagreement on the proper framework for decision-making that is in the best interests of society.</p>

179

<p>Driver, How about the slaveowners? How about the people that went over to Africa, took men from their homes and families, shipped them to America in dungeon like conditions, slept with the women, and treated the Africans worse than they would treat animals? How about the people that took Texas, California, New Mexico, and other parts of the country in a war with Mexico, then signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and proceeded to violate it at the detriment of Mexican Americans? Who were the people that crushed the Indians and then said that Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of America? Christians should not be giving lessons in morality to anybody.</p>

180

<p>to dstark: personally, I do not give what another person who claims to be Christian does; that does not alter Christianity itself. Christianity is solely based on the Bible. </p>

<p>Mistreating people is condemned by the Bible; therefore you can conclude that those people claim to be Christian yet aren’t really Christian so they are hypocrites, people whom Jesus said will not go to heaven. </p>

<p>Sorry if I’ve repeated myself. </p>

<p>And you’re right - Christians should not be giving lessons in morality to anybody who doesn’t want to listen (if people wanted to listen, then it becomes their right). But still, Christians can defend our view points, and stand up to certain claims. Thank you for your lesson in morality.</p>