Sanctity of Choice
I read an excellent post from Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. You can read it for yourself at the First Amendment Center site.
The post talked about what Mr. Haynes saw as the two biggest threats to religious freedom in this country in the coming year.
The first was the conflation of religion and politics. The second was Islamophobia.
For Christians, they both come down to a simple discussion.
Is it ever appropriate for Christians to impose our particular moral or theological views on others?
In my mind this brings up the whole discussion of free will.
We Christians have a particular view of the how a life should be lived. Though we may differ in degree, what we all agree on is the Jesus embodied the Christ spirit which made him the most perfect man ever to walk the earth. Jesus Christ brought a message from God to man that everyone has an unending spiritual life and if you would like to experience that life it’s fullest, you have to accept the same Christ spirit. The embrace of that message and spirit, however, has to be voluntary to be meaningful.
So we have these things as basic common understandings, yet we also seem to have a very difficult time when people practice free will and reject those things that we feel are sacred. Some of us start to insist that what had been a set of beliefs must now become a set of laws. In the minds of some, sinful behavior (not to be confused with criminal behavior) should be illegal, even though it is the practice of free will. Some Christians feel it is their duty to protect people from themselves as if free will is dangerous if actually practiced.
In a similar vein, some Christians view the current cultural conflict between fundamentalist Muslims and western societies as a religious conflict. Just one example of that are the e-mail attacks directed at Barak Obama. Rather portray him as somehow inferior because of his racial background, the Internet whisper campaign suggests something much frightening. They accuse him of being a closet Muslim.
If he is the right person for the office, it shouldn’t matter what his religion is (he happens to be a Christian). Even the constitution says that. And if we Christians really believe in free will, why would we care if someone chooses to worship in a non-Christian way?
So at the end of the day, it turns out that the greatest threat to religious freedom in this country is us Christians. That’s because we are unwilling to give others the same key to salvation that our Creator gave us – the ability to choose our own path.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Jeff,
I must comment rather harshly. I have no idea what Christians you are referring to in your last paragraph, none. Your anlysis is over the top, bordering on lunacy. From your comments I begining now to wonder just how many Christians you actually know. I’d encourage you to get out and make some Christian friends. No one, other then fring nuts, even come close to your discription above. No one!
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Keith,
Sorry for my tardy reply. We took a long ski weekend in Northern Michigan and I’ve just gotten back to posting on this blog.
In answer to your question, the Christians I referred to in the whole post (including the last paragraph) are those who are intolerant of non-Christian religions, particularly Islam; and those who attempt to legislate their particular interpretation of Christianity.
You don’t have to look very hard to find lot’s of examples of both.
Jerry Falwell called Mohamed a terrorist and Pat Robertson has said that Islam preaches violence. Maybe you consider those two wing nuts, but there are a lot of Christians who would disagree with you.
As far as attempting to legislate morality, you and I have chewed on that bone a lot already. The distinction I make here is between criminal acts which are either violent or affect the property rights of others and immoral acts which are just behavior that we don’t like. In this case, we will also agree to disagree on the question of abortion. Some other examples of those “morality” laws include the constitutional amendments to “protect” marriage, laws regulating particular sexual behavior among consenting adults, and laws which mandate the teaching of creationism as science.
The summary of my analysis in the last paragraph is simple. Every time we as Christians demonize other religions, we are also criticizing the choice that each member of that religion made and suggesting that the only acceptable choice is Christianity. Every time that we as Christians make it illegal to do something that we consider sinful, but otherwise isn’t criminal, we are saying that we don’t trust people to make their own moral choices.
I understand that many Christians believe that the only path to salvation is the path that they believe themselves to be on. But even if their motivations are completely loving, they are still wrong to think that they can compel someone to love God in the same way that they do through either intimidation or legislation.
In my mind, and the minds of at least the First Amendment scholars whose article is at the core of this post, those activities by Christians (well intentioned or not) represent the greatest threat to religious freedom in this country.
Jeff
January 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Hey Jeff,
We in the U.S. are more tolorent of other religions then probably any other socitey in the world and I’d bet of any super power EVER. Go to the middle east and see their tolorance of Christians.
If your support for your comments above is simply that Jerry Falwell called Mohamad a terrorist and that Pat Roberston said Islam preaches violance then your agruement is week. These are less then debateable as most people would agree that their comments are not far flung. The Pope got in some hot water for saying what Jerry Falwell said so his wasn’t an original thought. I don’t need to go into detail here but some vague study of Mohamad on your part might be eye opening.
However, I was responding to your comments regrading Christians of the United States being the greast threat to religious freedom. You’ll have to have more support then Jerry and Pat’s statements, which are misplaced. Even given their comments, in the context you would believe them to be, what have they done, since they are your examples, to PREVENT the expression of anyones religon? What laws or actions have Falwell or Robertson taken to prevent anyones free worship rights?
As I drive around this country there are a lot of non-baptist churches. I see the free pratice of all faiths and forms, Jewist, Muslum, Hindu, I won’t name them all. So what free pratice have we Christians prevented? I don’t see it.
Your first post was rather pointed at CHRISTIANS. I’ve never prevented the free pratice of a religion, have you? So that’s two of us. (I’m assuming you haven’t.) Further the church of 400 I attended in Monroe doesn’t, nor the one of 27,000 I attended nor the one of 2,300, nor the one of 1,300 I now attend. We are all for the free expression of religon and we celabrate it. You’ll have to give me examples of how Christians are standing in the way of others praticing their own faiths.
Your response then gets into the pratice of other things, sexual prefferance, abortion, things you call “morality laws.” Surely you are not confussing the pratice of these things with the FREE EXPRESSION OF RELIGON? Those things would be a separate issue all toagther. Ones you have rightly said we’ve debated in the past.
I’m sticking to the issue you’ve presented at the top here that “Christians represent the greastest threat to religious freedom in this country.” Simply not true. If so we would be sending “learning groups to the middle east to learn how it’s done.” There would be no tora, koran, or any other religious book allow here in the U.S. except the good old King James version of the Holy Bible!!!!!! We know that’s not true.
Now, if I am to follow your logic in your response, paragrapgh #6, that “every time we Christians demonizes other religons, we are also criticizing the choice that every member of that religon has made and suggesting that the only acceptable choice is Christianity,” am I to be some how effected in a way that is detramental to me when someone says something negitive about Jesus? Let me ask you this, is someones elses criticizium of your religon preventing you from anything? However that’s not the issue.
Ours is the correct choice and that choice is Jesus who died for all our sins. That those who believe in Him, trust Him, repent of their sin and give themselves to Him will be save. John 3:16…”For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life.” Nothing to apoligize for there. It’s simply what we believe.
If we believed there was another choice then we’d have no faith or belief what so ever because Jesus said, “I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the Light, no one comes to the Father but Me”…. How do I take that any other way? Go back to the day in which He said that and look up what the Jews thought of the “Way, Truth & Light.” For Jesus to claim those things about Himself is really quite astonising. He was, simply put, either who He said he was or a NUT BALL.
If I were to begin, and I’m no expert on them, to break down what I thought the problems other religons have I would start with that statement. Other religons believe Jesus to be a prophet, a good man, a teacher, or something along those lines. But that’s the problem. Jesus said “I and the father are one,” “I am the way the truth and the light.” “I am the river of life.” etc. etc. etc. Jesus said He was GOD. He said He was the Savior. Not a prophet, teacher, good man, etc. No, He said “He came that you might have life.”
He either was or wasn’t who HE said He was and if He wasn’t He was a NUT BALL. So if another religon says He wasn’t, why would they have a prophet, teacher, goodman, etc held in high esteem when he was in fact a NUT BALL?
Jeff, Jesus is the cental figure in all of life and all religons. It’s all about the Jesus question, He either is who He said he was or He isn’t. That’s our choice. Christians are NOT standing in the way of anyones choice of coming to Jesus or going away from Him.
Every day of our lives Christians are open game for anything and everything. Read the 1-24-08 post on the “Discovering the real Jesus in Monroe” blog for yesterdays example.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Keith,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
If you start at the beginning of the post, you’ll see I was sharing a post from scholar at the First Amendment Center. They were the ones who felt that the greeatest threat to religious freedom in this country was the emergence of a “Christian” policital movement and the growth of Islamaphobia. I happen to agree with them, but I can’t claim credit for the fundamental research. If you want to learn a little more about their research, I suggest that you go visit their site.
I extrapolated from that claim what I see to be a curious intolerant myopia among Christians for those who don’t share their views. I find it curious because our religion directly speaks to the whole concept of redemption and personal acceptance of Jesus as our saviour and way shower. How can you celebrate the choice of Jesus as a personal savior on one hand and with the other hand punish those who have made a different choice (e.g. Mohammed, Buddha, Abraham, Vishnu, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.)?
You are right to point out that we are blessed to live in a country where religious freedom is guaranteed by law. It is those very guarantees that these scholars are concerned about.
You are also right to point out how difficult life is in countries where religious freedoms are not protected by law. That’s why we have to be particularly vigilant to protect the freedoms that we have.
For example, when Christians suggest that this would be a better country if all school children said the Lord’s prayer every morning, that does send a message to those non-Christian children that they are not welcome. When there is public outcry because one of local colleges spent some money to accommodate their large muslim student populations desire to pray, even though that same campus has whole buildings dedicated to Christian prayer, that does suggest that there are a lot of “nut balls” out there who feel that this was somehow offering comfort to the “enemy”.
Finally, I agree that the a basic tenent of Christianity is that Jesus is the way to the Father. Even Jesus, though, recognized that not everyone was going to accept him. He told his disciples that there will be people who won’t listen and that they shouldn’t be concerned. They should just move on and God would judge those who rejected him.
The concern these scholars raise is not for how things are today, but how things could be in the future if the trends that they have identified go unchecked. We have a long history of bigotry and violence against minorities in this country. They are pointing out that there are seeds in the current culture for a new wave of that.
Jeff
January 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Jeff,
It’s your over all asumption of Christians that I am so opposed to. Again,
the church I attended in Monroe 400, the next one 27,000, the next town and church 2,300, and finally the current one 1,300. That’s 31,000 people in four churches in four completely separate parts of the contry and not one would fit the accusation you’ve discribed of “Christians.” Through in you and we’ve got 31,001 Christians who don’t fit the bill.
As for the scholars you mention at the top of your last response….their wrong, as we have just proved them wrong.
I simply don’t know who they are referring to. I’d respectfully ask you to please refrain from condemming Christians on your blog. You’re generalization is not doing Jesus or the church community a service.
I respect our debate and your opinion but your unfounded negitive comments regarding Christians should remain out of bounds.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Kieth,
I don’t know that we are going to get much further in this discussion than we already have.
You are interpreting this as an attack on Christianity, which it is not. It is a CONCERN based on scholarly analysis (rather than emotion) of political positions supported by some powerful groups of conservative Christians.
This is not a criticism of any particular church in Monroe or any other town. It is a CAUTION that when the sermon preached in the church advocates a political position or a political candidate, we are entering dangerous territory. Similarly when a sermon preached in the church characterizes bin Ladinist terrorism as attacks on Christianity, we are entering dangerous territory.
I have heard sermons preached in local churches which do advocate conservative political positions and conservative political candidates. I have also spoken with good hearted Christian people in Monroe who believe that we are engaged in a religious war, not a political one. Perhaps they came to this conclusion outside of church. Regardless of how they got there, their fear of Muslims is a POTENTIAL threat to the ability of all Muslims to practice their religion in this country.
During WWII we put US citizens of Japanese descent in camps on the west coast because of similar fears. In WWI, US citizens of german descent (including my grandparents) experienced sometimes violent descrimination because of similar fears.
The point of my post was to suggest that we as Christians should be able to rise above these temptations because they are counter to the basic beliefs that we all share.
Jeff
February 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The “scholarly analysis” you site is purely mental gymnastics in my view. A common trait of librials and prgressives. (How else could they reach the conclusions they reach, as the simple truth or self apperent answers don’t suffice for them. i.e. evolution, abortion, global warming, socialisum, class warefare, tax cut for the rich, civil rights, homsexuality, etc, etc, ect. There’s a whole lot of imagining that has to occur to even consider those conclusions, or is it “scolarly analysis.”)
i think i’m to gleen from your comment above they my agruments are emotion based and lack thought, perspective and “scholarly analysis.”
One of the idea’s that progressives and librals miss is this. That the gov’t shall not establish a church…but that doesn’t mean the church, US and our beliefs, should be divided from the gov’t. you all want no mention of church, God what so ever…
it is our right to choose a president as we see fit. For me that means a CHRISTIAN MAN is a leading quality. If a Christian man is running for office he is well within his right to say……”and this is one of my leading qualities.” That is not GOV’t establishing a religion, that is man of religon participating in gov’t….
I’ll never forget the media reaction to g.w. saying he prayed about his decision to go to afganistain and also iraq. they ridiculed him to no end………….well, for the Christian….”and in all things, through prayer and suplication made your requests know to the Lord.” also, “the prayer of a rightous man availith much.” Do i need to go on with a few of the mountian of scriptures that encourages us to pray. so why wouldn’t a Christian president seek God’s council before going to war. So, why should I as a citizen who believes as such, for my vote, REQUIRE such a person for president? Is this covered under separation of church and state therefore this should not be a consideration of mine when choosing?????
It is apperent to me that librals and prgressives don’t seem to want a “practicing” Christian president. Further, they don’t want someone seeking the council of God in prayer over public policy. This is where you guys all really fall appart with me. You appear to discriminate agains openly Christian people….I’d ask why?
Your comments above do appear to be aimed at Chrisitians. However, I will accept your response given above that this is not what you stated.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I’ve got to send this along to you. Jeff
AP 5:41am 2-22-08
The decision was revealed in a message read by clerics during prayer services.
“According to an order by Sayyid Muqtada, activities of the Mahdi Army will be extended……for another six month period,” al-Sadr’s aide Hazim al-Aaraji said, using an honorific durning his sermon at the Kazimiyah mosque in Bagdad.
Jeff, are you sure this isn’t a religious war? Clerics, Prayer services, sermon, and mosque….in the U.S. this would be; Pastor/priest, Mass/worship service, sermon/homaly (?), the church.
In light of your comments and our discussion, please comment on how I should not view this as a religious war.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Keith,
Sitting in the airport in Orlando waiting for a flight back home after a little bit of a working vacation.
With regard to your arguements, you’re a better thinker than this.
If you don’t like the conclusions that those who study these things come up with, do you own research and bring it to the table. To dismiss this with a political wave of the hand (liberal=bad conservative=good) is lazy. You’re better than that.
The issue is not how you choose to vote for pray. The issue is tolerance for points of view and spiritual choices which don’t agree with you. That is the concern that these folks are raising.
Evidence of that is the confusion regarding a religious war. Clearly radical clerics in the middle east have characterized it as such, but that characterization is based on the assumption that we invaded Iraq because we view Islam as a threat. If you are distrustful of the west, it is fairly easy to explain all of our actions in the middle east over the past 100 years as motivated by a desire to convert the region to Christianity.
The reality, however, is that all we are really interested in is oil. That is and has been our motivation.
So this will become a religious war only if we allow it to become so.
Jeff
March 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Hey Jeff,
I’m not being dissmissive and waving a political hand that says Lib =’s bad.
It’s the premise of the arguements of the libs that i’m dismissive of.
Let me give an example. The dems are contorting, “doing metal gymnastics,” with what to do with FLA & MICH. So, someone can spend a lot of time and do research and study and come up with an answer to the problem. I would be dismissive of their conclusion as to what to do as the question should have never been considered. Why, MICH and FLA was told last summer what would happen if they changed their dates. All the candidates agreed with this. Their is NOTHING to consider, nothing. Their deligates should not be seated, PERIOD. Their voters are not being disenfranchised by anyone. those states through their local party representation choose to eliminate themselves.
So why should anyone even consider the question, “what to do about Mich & Fla?”
I am simply applying this agruement to life, or any other issue of similar “contortion.” A womens egg gets fertilized and a baby is on the way. That’s a simple conclusion that is not refutable. It takes a lot of “mental gymnastics” to reach another conclusion. This is not LIB =’s bad as you’ve suggested or being dismissive of research. It’s pointing out that research on a fault premise is pointless and not worthy of discussion.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Keith,
I submit that it isn’t the type of the liberal arguement that you have a problem with, but the fact that this particular think tank came up with a conclusion that you regard a liberal. You suggest that all thinking that results in conclusions that you regard as liberal must also be “contorted” because if it weren’t, a different more conservative conclusion would have resulted.
This is the fundamental issue that I’ve been trying to work on in this blog.
Liberals and conservatives need to able to talk with each other. The way we do that is with logic and facts.
I’ve put some facts on the table to stimulate a discussion. I’m not saying that these guys are the only authority on the subject, but they deserve more respect than to simply say that, because you disagree with their conclusions, their process is flawed.
Go find someone who has done similar research and come to a different conclusion and we’ll have something to talk about.
Jeff