Another article about "Christianism" that just doesn't get it
What Sullivan, Newman and Poullos all fail to understand is that there is no such thing as specifically Christian ethics.
A belief that legalized abortion or gay "marriage" is bad public policy may or may not have its origin in Judeo-Christian revelation and sectarian religious belief. It is certainly rooted in the Western ethical and legal tradition, which is deeply informed by that tradition. But then, so are the laws against first-degree murder and armed robbery.
But its origin is utterly irrelevant. It is no more anti-pluralistic or sectarian to argue that case in the public square than to argue the opposite. Less, even, because to argue against legalized abortion and same-sex "marriage" is to stand with, rather than against, two millennia of our common ethical and legal tradition. It is the position Western culture has, to this point, accepted as a given.
These ideas are political positions, not religious ones. One need not adhere to any particular religious denomination to espouse them, nor need they necessarily originate from personal religious belief. Again, their origin is irrelevant; even where they originate as religious convictions, they are advanced in the public square political propositions, not theological ones. They need to be advanced- and refuted- on their merits, or lack thereof. To complain that represent an attempt to legislate a sectarian religious position is more than simply nonsense. It begs the question.
It's really not all that hard, guys! It's the ideas, not their sources, which we need to be debating- and to accuse the religious right (or left) of attempting to legislate sectarian religion to beg the question.
Neither religious pluralism nor the seperation of church and state mean that secular proposals of policy must be banned from the public square simply because they originate in religious belief. If it did, the civil rights movement, abolitionism, and the crusade against child labor, and countless other reforms would all represent illicit incursions of religious belief into the arena of civil law.
HT: Rev. Mike Zamzow
A belief that legalized abortion or gay "marriage" is bad public policy may or may not have its origin in Judeo-Christian revelation and sectarian religious belief. It is certainly rooted in the Western ethical and legal tradition, which is deeply informed by that tradition. But then, so are the laws against first-degree murder and armed robbery.
But its origin is utterly irrelevant. It is no more anti-pluralistic or sectarian to argue that case in the public square than to argue the opposite. Less, even, because to argue against legalized abortion and same-sex "marriage" is to stand with, rather than against, two millennia of our common ethical and legal tradition. It is the position Western culture has, to this point, accepted as a given.
These ideas are political positions, not religious ones. One need not adhere to any particular religious denomination to espouse them, nor need they necessarily originate from personal religious belief. Again, their origin is irrelevant; even where they originate as religious convictions, they are advanced in the public square political propositions, not theological ones. They need to be advanced- and refuted- on their merits, or lack thereof. To complain that represent an attempt to legislate a sectarian religious position is more than simply nonsense. It begs the question.
It's really not all that hard, guys! It's the ideas, not their sources, which we need to be debating- and to accuse the religious right (or left) of attempting to legislate sectarian religion to beg the question.
Neither religious pluralism nor the seperation of church and state mean that secular proposals of policy must be banned from the public square simply because they originate in religious belief. If it did, the civil rights movement, abolitionism, and the crusade against child labor, and countless other reforms would all represent illicit incursions of religious belief into the arena of civil law.
HT: Rev. Mike Zamzow
Comments