Battle Of Wills
Garry Wills has a new book out on the history of Christianity in America. Conservatives often exaggerate the religiosity of the Founders, and I would guess Wills will help put the issue in perspective. I'm not sure if he'll be as good on current events, since, like so many others, he exaggerates the flaws of the Bush administration.
This is from the LA Times review:
"The right wing in American likes to think that the United States government was, at its inception, highly religious, specifically highly Christian, and -- and more to the point -- highly biblical." This was not true of that or any later government -- until 2000.Huh? No matter how I interpret this, this is so off I have trouble believing it's what Wills claims. From any angle, 2000 was not some weird cut-off point in American history when it comes to religion in politics.
This comes a little later:
"[...] is abortion murder? Most people think not," Wills writes. [....] He points out that Catholic opposition to abortion is a recent development."Abortion is not treated in the Ten Commandments -- or anywhere in Jewish Scripture. It is not treated in the Sermon on the Mount -- or anywhere in the New Testament. It is not treated in the early creeds. It is not treated in the early ecumenical councils."[....] "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion. Even the popes have said that it is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason. Well the pope is not the arbiter of natural law. Natural reason is."I'm afraid this doesn't seem like much of an argument. Let's say we agree with his view of history, as well as his belief on history's importance. Well, it's my understanding that today's Catholic Church, whether you agree with it or not, takes a very clear, unequivocal and official stance on abortion, so I'm confused as to how he can avoid calling this a religious issue.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:15 AM
9 Comments:
First, if you want to oversimplify U.S. history into the "enlightened" era and then the "Christian" era, the cutoff would be somewhere in the mid 1800's. "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and William Jennings Bryan would have been simply impossible in the era from 1770 to 1840.
Moreover, the entire history of the Republican Party shows that it was always a combination of business interests and religious crusaders. In the 1860s and 1870s, the crusade was about slavery and reconstruction; later it was about prohibition, and then the moral crusade against communism, and then the various modern "religious right" issues. Again, the change seems to have happened in the mid-1800s, not in 2000.
His religious history is totally off as well. The Didache, one of the earliest extant Christian writings after the New Testament itself -- usually dated in the very early 2nd century -- unambiguously condemns abortion.
However, I do agree in part with his argument regarding abortion. The Catholic Church does distinguish between those things that are immoral because of natural law (e.g., murder, rape, theft, and also abortion) and those things that are religious edicts (do not miss Mass on Sunday). Forbidding the latter through civil law would be using the government for religious ends, but civil law may (and often should) forbid the former, and this doesn't constitute any religious imposition.
And he is right that the pope is not the arbiter of natural law. And I think that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics would agree on this point, because they recognize that things like murder and slavery are immoral, and should be forbidden, and that their immorality does not change if a large number of citizens think they are moral.
Your "agreement" with Wills seems to be the strongest point against him (and I assume this is your intention).
He's claiming abortion is not a religious issue, and therefore the Church should butt out. You're saying it's not a religious issue and therefore this is the perfect situation for the Church to tell its adherents what is the proper position to take.
Well, if a Church, or any religious leadership, teaches the proper morality on some contentious political issue (everyone agrees murder is wrong, but not everyond agrees the death penalty is wrong), then it sure sounds like a religious issue to me.
You're saying it's not a religious issue and therefore this is the perfect situation for the Church to tell its adherents what is the proper position to take.
No, I don't think that's what I was saying.
In 1776, a great number of people in Western Europe and America -- Protestants, Catholics, Jews, deists, agnostics, and atheists -- believed that human beings have certain natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
In 1776, then, was the "right to liberty" a religious issue?
Fast-forward to the year 2100. Suppose that in that year, all the aforementioned groups have now changed their position and believe there are no such things as "rights". There are abilities and there is power, but "rights" are a myth. The only dissenters from this new consensus are the Methodists, who strongly believe that all human beings have rights.
In 2100, then, will the "right to liberty" be a Methodist issue and/or a religious issue?
I am asking these two questions because the term "religious issue" is yours, not mine, and I want to be sure I understand what you mean by it before arguing about whether abortion is/isn't an example of it.
The term "religious issue" is Wills: "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction."
Wills is saying the Church has no reason or power to tell its followers where to stand on the issue. I'm saying not only does the Church think it has reason to do so, but, in fact, it tells its followers exactly where to stand on the issue and does so emphatically (you may also want to add, as I did, that this is a controversial issue, as opposed to, say, a basic right to liberty)--thus, it's a religious issue regardless of how Wills wishes to paint this as some sort of historical misunderstanding.
I'm not sure what Larry is saying at all.
I'm trying to figure out how you are defining "religious issue". My hypothetical questions were one way to try to determine that.
To take one example: The Episcopalian Church has taken a strong stand on global warming. Global warming is a controversial issue. From your last comment, it seems that this means that global warming is a religious issue.
Maybe this is the root of our confusion. Perhaps you are taking as axiomatic that if some church tells its members "You must do X", that this is a religious commandment.
But I would object to this. If my local priest were to tell a kid, "You should go to Church this Sunday. And be sure to look both ways before crossing the street," then the second command given by the priest is not a religious command. Because the priest is capable of teaching religion but also teaching basic traffic safety.
Similarly, the Catholic Church is -- or believes itself to be -- qualified to teach religion, but also qualified (although less so) to teach other things, such as philosophy.
Thus we find Vatican II declaring its opposition to "state religion", and requiring in particular that the governments of Catholic countries cease to aid the Church in their countries. The Vatican II documents state, "Government is to see to it that the equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common welfare, is never violated for religious reasons either openly or covertly." This seems a clear example of the council teaching something that it believed to be a question of civics, not a religious issue -- and even insisting that in this case, the ethics of civil society trump any religious interests.
And that's really what my original point was. The Catholic Church's teaching -- correct or incorrect -- is that its position on abortion, like its position on burglary, is not based on revelation but on natural law that is (in theory) accessible to all people equally. Therefore, in its view, this is not a religious issue.
Of course, someone who is (1) non-Catholic and (2) unpersuaded that natural law contains a prohibition of abortion is not going to accept this viewpoint.
My argument was responding to Wills, who claims, politically speaking, that abortion is not a religious issue. As far as I understand him, he's claiming the Catholic Church hasn't had and shouldn't have any official position on the issue--that its adherents are free to make up their minds as they choose.
I just looked this up on the internet. It's from the Catholic Catechism: "2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law"
If this quote it correct, being part of the Catechism, that makes it a religious issue, regardless of how they arrived at the conclusion. It's possible for Catholics to be opposed to abortion without making reference to their religion, but I don't think a Catholic is free to ignore this rule without defying the Church.
I agree with 100% of your last comment, so maybe my earlier comments were based on misunderstanding you....
Post a Comment
<< Home