Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Christmas Cheer

Journal Safety Cap's Journal: Finally, a rational religious voice 35

Journal by Safety Cap

I watched NOW with Bill Moyers last night on PBS. His guest was Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine Nun.

I was actually blown away: here was a rational, thoughtful person, representing her religion in a kind, non-confrontational way. I'd almost thought those types of people were all dead, based upon what's been going on in our country lately. To wit, a letter from Bob Jones, III to Bush:

~ In your re-election, God has graciously granted Americathough she doesn't deserve ita reprieve from the agenda of paganism. ~.

~ Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. ~.

~ If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. ~.

Enter Sister Joan: she states that in her view, any time a group tries to impose their own views upon the rest of us, we get nothing but disaster. She cites the last few times we had a religious "mandate," the Puritans burned people at the stake because they were witches. Is that the kind of "moral" country we want to become? Same goes for Prohibition; some misguided people decided that they knew what is best for the rest of us and managed to pass a law enforcing temperance. Instead of the garden utopia those people envisioned, we got a dystopia of organize crime.

One of her best moments: the so-called moral Christian Right is rabidly against abortion, because they are "pro-life" and want to "protect children." Yet these same people are for the war in Iraq.

I'm finding it hard to believe that religious people who are opposed to abortion on demand are really gleeful about the war deaths in Iraq -- 37,000 civilians according to the Brookings Institute or more than 100,000 war-related epidemiological deaths reported by The Lancet, the international journal of science and medical practice.

Sister Joan raises the point that in all the civilians who were killed, there are some who were pregnant. What about those kids? She then goes on to say that most "right-to-lifers" are actually only "right to birth," because they do nothing for the children once they are born. Raise taxes to provide day care/nutrition programs/schooling for the children? Not on your life. Hypocrites.

I doubt that those religious people who believe in tax relief as their strategy for pumping new money into job creation and economic development are really willing to allow our schools and inner cities to deteriorate.

Finally, she goes on to say that in her view, there is no one way to worship god. The moment you establish an official religion by bringing in monuments, tablets, bibles, whatever into the public square, you're dismissing all the other ways of practicing spirituality.

This election pitted two goods -- personal religion and political liberalism -- against each other at their extremes. In the process, we may have injured both gravely. God deliver us from any more witch hunts.
-- Sister Joan

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Finally, a rational religious voice More

Finally, a rational religious voice

Comments Filter:

  • sounds like the kind of guy I could sit back and have a beer with.... if his had been mixed with arsenic, of course.

  • For example, take a look at the Sojourners [sojo.net]. There are even rational religious people who lean to the right. They just don't tend to jump up and down and scream a lot, and so don't get much attention. The messianic Pharisees of the so-called "Religious Right," on the other hand, specialize in jumping up and down and screaming. So now we have a situation in which people on all sides of the political spectrum are equating Christianity with hardcore radical conservatism.

    This is not good, on many levels, and I

  • This may be a bit like Rush Limbaugh interviewing someone from the environmentalist movement who prefers a more kind, non-confrontational approach, is against imposing their views on others, even to save the environment, brings up points that she unilaterally labels as hypocrisy in her peers, and that there really are no right ways to protect the environment. I think you were just blown away by discovering a sell-out within a particular grouping of folks, but there can be such in potentially any grouping, b
    • I think that I agree with you. She sounds more like a liberal in sheep's clothing.

      She then goes on to say that most "right-to-lifers" are actually only "right to birth," because they do nothing for the children once they are born.

      That's an insult and is an irrational statement with no facts. If anybody tried to come up with statistics to prove it, then it would be a case of conveniently neglecting the facts that they disagree with. What about all the parents waiting for adoption?

      Raise taxes to provide day c

      • Well, according to what I've read... you kind of have to hold liberal values, at least in your personal actions, in order to be a christian. It's not to far of a jump to extend those to politics.

        Bear in mind, I think Paul was at least as full of shit as the branch davidians were.
        • You've missed the point.

          Conservatives - like myself - think people who are in need should be helped. We just don't think that government should do it. It should be up to individuals.

          If a conservative wants to help someone, they give their time, money, skills, efforts, etc to people or an organization that helps people... and try to convince other people to do the same.

          If a liberal wants to help someone, they take someone else's time, money, skills, efforts, etc to give to a government that "helps" peop
      • And lets not forget the pluralistic and relativistic attitudes near the end of the journal entry. Pluralism and relativism are embraced by those who don't believe in any of the facts in discussion.

        Oh, really? Maybe, just maybe, pluralism and relativism let us try to understand and accept others, rather than just demonize them for being different.

        Safety Cap, you should be ashamed of yourself.

        "Let he who is without sin" and all that.

        Cheers,

        Ethelred

        • Oh, really? Maybe, just maybe, pluralism and relativism let us try to understand and accept others, rather than just demonize them for being different.

          How does that help us? To understand others, we could use ethonographies [correct sp?] and what not. Why do we need pluralism and relativism?

          "Let he who is without sin" and all that.

          When Jesus said that, he was speaking to a group of people who deliberately disobeyed the law in order to further their own cause. After all, how did they catch her in adultery an

          • How does that help us? To understand others, we could use ethonographies [correct sp?] and what not. Why do we need pluralism and relativism?

            "Walk a mile in his shoes". You can't begin to understand someone until you try to see things from their point of view, and see why they came to that opinion or belief. That implies relativism.

            When Jesus said that, he was speaking to a group of people who deliberately disobeyed the law in order to further their own cause. After all, how did they catch her in adult

            • "Walk a mile in his shoes". You can't begin to understand someone until you try to see things from their point of view, and see why they came to that opinion or belief. That implies relativism.

              I disagree, because you don't need relativsim to make an ethnography [infoplease.com]. I suspect that we might be using the same words to describe 2 different but similar concepts. I'm talking about the belief that both views could be correct even though they are both specific and at odds with each other. The very fact that you are di

              • I disagree, because you don't need relativsim to make an ethnography.

                There is no such thing as "an" ethnography.

                I suspect that we might be using the same words to describe 2 different but similar concepts.

                We aren't. "Ethnography" is an academic field of study, as your own definition says. "Relativism" is a system of belief, a way of looking at the world.

                Walking a mile in the persons shoes only helps us to understand what he might feel, not necessarily why.

                You're reading too much into the metapho

                • There is no such thing as "an" ethnography.

                  Hmm, I went and took another look at the definition. It's apparent that I read into it. Anyhow, in Bible college, we had to take cultural anthropology, where we had to hand in projects called ethnographies. When I looked at the definition, I read into it according to the usage at the college. I mention this so that we could be on the same page. The projects involved getting a perspective of how people classify things. For my project, I kept it simple, and got a kid

                  • I'm reading his words in the context of the Old Testament law, whereas you're reading the Old Testament law in the context of his words. If we needed to be perfect, then that law would have been absolutely useless.

                    According to Jesus Himself, I'm supposed to read the Old Testament in the context of his words. He is the Teacher, the one who interprets the Law and the Prophets, and fulfills them.

                    Were Leviticus still "in effect", your life and mine would be rather different, I assure you -- Canada's laws he

                    • Were Leviticus still "in effect", your life and mine would be rather different, I assure you ~.

                      Are you saying that the bible offers advice to cover any argument you want to make---whether to stone, or not to stone?

                      If that's true, then it would be extremely difficult to make a case for any moral stance based solely on the bible!

                    • Were Leviticus still "in effect", your life and mine would be rather different, I assure you

                      Oh, I was assured before the discussion. I don't understand the purpose of your questions. Whether I obey those laws or not, doesn't affect the interpretation. Some laws are fulfilled. Some aren't. Some have an expectation due to their nature. Some don't.

                      If that were the case, I'd think he'd say "let he who wasn't involved". He didn't. He clearly said without sin. I don't see how you can misunderstand what is plain a

                    • Are you saying that the bible offers advice to cover any argument you want to make---whether to stone, or not to stone?

                      No, I'm saying that the real books of interest for us Christians are in the NT, not the OT. I'm also saying that Jesus repeatedly tells us that it is not ours to judge, but only God may pass judgment.

                      If that's true, then it would be extremely difficult to make a case for any moral stance based solely on the bible!

                      I disagree. The NT provides plenty, and refers back to the OT quite a

                    • But it also makes clear that the OT itself is superseded -- not null and void, but OTOH it's just not as relevant.
                      It's the whole relevency thing; "obey, but not as much" --- and you end up right back to where you started.

                      Or am I missing something?

                    • It's the whole relevency thing; "obey, but not as much" --- and you end up right back to where you started.

                      Not exactly. Christ said repeatedly "I am the New Covenant" and that He was the "fulfillment of the Law". That all sounds to me like he's saying 'OK, everybody, listen up, new game plan'. Much of his preaching was also in effect boiling down the Law to its essence -- over and over again, such as in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was saying 'look, you've all missed the point all this time. Basically y

                    • Oh, I was assured before the discussion. I don't understand the purpose of your questions. Whether I obey those laws or not, doesn't affect the interpretation. Some laws are fulfilled. Some aren't. Some have an expectation due to their nature. Some don't.

                      You're avoiding answering why it is that you don't obey the laws expressed in Leviticus, Deuteronomy or Numbers. If the OT is still so important to us as Christians, why don't we eat kosher?

                      I don't misunderstand. People use figures of speech all the ti

                    • I didn't realize that you wanted those questions answered. Some laws fall under some sections. Some laws fall under different sections. To answer those questions would mean a huge discussion.

                      I'm not going into a big debate about things with you. I feel that you've ignored what I said. This is clearly demonstrated by you not closing off the argument.

                      Consider this discussion over.
                    • Uh-wha?

                      First you say:

                      I didn't realize that you wanted those questions answered.

                      when that was the heart of what I was saying from the beginning: that you were being hypocritical from the beginning by claiming to be insulted by b-o's remarks, then turn around and make an insulting remark about relativism ("Pluralism and relativism are embraced by those who don't believe in any of the facts in discussion"). I asked over and over why it is OT Law should still apply to us today. You haven't yet answered t

                    • I have a question or three for you:

                      Since Jesus was born flesh, doesn't he automatically inherit the "original sin"? Is that the sin that "without sin" covers at the least, or is it assumed that someone will sin during the natural course of life?

                      ...and then, if one gets an absolution, does that mean that one is "without sin" at that point, or is there no absolution for "original sin"?

                      Thanks.

                    • Since Jesus was born flesh, doesn't he automatically inherit the "original sin"?

                      At least according to the principle of the Immaculate Conception, no, because Jesus is the Son of God, "of one Being with the Father" (as the Nicene Creed [mit.edu] says). Mary was also without sin.

                      Jesus was also "the Word become flesh", in other words, God's Word. (See John 1:14-18.) Because God is perfect and free of sin, so too was Jesus free of sin.

                      Is that the sin that "without sin" covers at the least, or is it assumed that so

      • I'm sorry if my JE offended you. It was not intended as a slam against your personal beliefs, just at those who would force their view of morality upon me.

        Cheers,
        SC

        • I'm sorry if my JE offended you. It was not intended as a slam against your personal beliefs, just at those who would force their view of morality upon me.

          Well, no. It's just that I get really uncomfortable with the we-are-all-correct position on religion. That is why I can tolerate my Muslim friend from grade school. That is why I can tolerate some Mormons and some JWs. The idea is that they think that they're right and I'm wrong.

          Maybe I misunderstood you. I just have a difficult time understanding why pe

          • Prayer, My view:
            • Pray if you want.
            • Take your own time to pray (i.e., after the test begins, you can spend a minute or whatever praying, but the test will not be delayed for a moment of prayer).
            • Pray in a way that does not disturb other students (i.e, do not chant out loud, shake a prayer rattle, burn incense, or sacrifice a goat)
            • It is not appropriate to use the school PA system to lead a prayer
            • Prayer groups (formal or informal) at recess/lunch are cool

            Abortion, My view:

            • Anyone who wants an abortion (
            • No, no, no. I meant, I want you to tell me how to tell you what I believe.

              Maybe I should ask you what does it mean to you when someone shoves something down somebody else's throat? In other words, what does it look like? What does it look like to be rational, yet totally disagree with you? Is it possible to have totally different presuppositions and coclusions, and yet still be rational?
              • Ahh, sorry; I misunderstood

                What does it mean to me? I means that someone who doesn't know me at all presumes to understand my spirituality/personal beliefs by limiting them to what that person believes. It means that this other person thinks she knows better than me regarding something which she knows nothing about.

                "Shoving something down my throat" is when the state displays or allows the display of items from any religion in a publicly-owned space. Not that you can't drag a cross through the town squar

                • A-a-ah, I see-ee-ee.

                  What does it mean to me? I means that someone who doesn't know me at all presumes to understand my spirituality/personal beliefs by limiting them to what that person believes. It means that this other person thinks she knows better than me regarding something which she knows nothing about.

                  Well, I assume that I won't be doing anything like that anytime soon, because I'm not a "she" [just kidding of course; I am "he", but I probably won't be doing that because I've gotten to know you enoug

                  • I sometimes hate the english language; it really needs a gender-neutral pronoun ;)
                    ~ I don't completely support your feelings towards "shoving down my throat".
                    No one has the answer for everyone, right? So my boy from Bob Jones U really needs to lighten up, but then he might open himself up to the possibility that he's not always right.

              • Maybe I should ask you what does it mean to you when someone shoves something down somebody else's throat? In other words, what does it look like? What does it look like to be rational, yet totally disagree with you? Is it possible to have totally different presuppositions and coclusions, and yet still be rational?

                I may say "All the medical evidence available tells me that a fetus of 9 weeks is so biologically similar to an infant, that I think it is a human being that deserves state protection". For a

                • Thanks for your explanation. I'll give it some thought. 1 of the reasons that I may reject it, is simply because I liken it so much to the Jews and Hitler. I think that it's harder to call it murder when we're talking about babies, but not when we're talking about Jews. But whatever. I really appreciate you saying so.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Force is what holds everything together. It has its dark side, and it has its light side. It's sort of like cosmic duct tape.

Close