Is Harry Right or Wrong?
Sen. Reid:
Religion to me is a very personal thing. I have been a religious man all my adult life. My wife and I have lived our lives and raised our children according to the morals and values taught by the faith to which we prescribe. No one has the right to judge mine or anyone else’s personal commitment to faith and religion.
God isn’t partisan.
Almost all successful religions have a "you are with us or against us" philosophy. I think there is no incentive to belong to a faith that is inclusive of ideas from other faiths.
For example, if you have an open liberal church that says there are many ways to God, and this is one, and a Conservative church which says "this way or hell," I think the obvious solution would be to join the conservative church, since it is included in the liberal church's philosophy as a way to heaven, but the liberal church is not included in the conservative way. If the liberal church is right, the conservative church goers still get to heaven, but if the conservative church is right, then the liberals go to hell.
Additionally, the liberal churches do not incentivize large families to at least replace the old parishioners. By allowing birth control and abortion, the liberal churches have little future. Liberal churches also don't require as much from their faithful, and attendance and observance tends to be less. Like any organization, a religion has to grow or die. There really is no static position.
That is at least part of why conservative strains of all religions tend to grow, and liberal strains die out.
I think it is also why conservative religions dismiss liberal religions as even being a "faith," while liberal ones will include conservative ones. Conservatives think they are right and everyone else is wrong, and liberals think that everyone is right.
So Harry Reid may think no one has a right to judge the faith of another person, but that is because he is not a conservative faith member. The conservative faith members know better.
posted by Jrudkis @ 11:08 AM
12 comments
12 Comments:
I can agree with your assertions regarding the growth of conservative religions versus the deaths of liberal ones. But I'm not sure about the logic of choosing an exclusionary conservative religion over a liberal one.
While I agree that choosing a conservative faith poses no risk given the correctness of the liberal view, I'm not sure how the conservative view's correctness is without risk in light of there being more than one choice within the realm of conservatism. If the conservative muslims are right, choosing to be a conservative christian will land you in whatever version of hell the muslims believe in. Perhaps there is less risk, but not much less.
Given your characterization of the conservative view, only one can possibly be entirely right. Given your characterization of the liberal view, only other liberal religions can be entirely right. Even the conservative religions would be considered wrong by the liberals in that the conservatives believe their way is the only way.
I'm guessing that you're being facetious to begin with, so this discussion is likely moot, at least to you, Jrudkis. But it's really circular to say that it's better to choose the option that exludes all others because, if that option is right, all the others are wrong. The only way for that option to be right in the first place is for all others to be wrong because of he nature of the option itself. The option's assertion of rightness cannot be the option's source of rightness.
I am not really being facetious, I think that it makes sense. A religion is either right or wrong about the nature of God. There is no point in believing in a religion that is wrong. A liberal one may be right, but if it is, it includes the worship style of Conservatives. I really think it is that simple.
I think you are right that if Conservative muslims are correct, than all Christians, including conservative ones, are in serious trouble in the afterlife. But from the conservative Christian point of view, there is no possibility that the muslims are correct, so that is not really an option from which to choose.
I don't know that only one Conservative church can be entirely correct, because several may have very similar requirements, plus, it is not assumed that God expects perfection in worship because nothing done by man can be perfect, just close enough. Perhaps all conservative churches are close enough...
Here is another possibility. What if the liberal church is right in asserting that their way is one way to god, but wrong in asserting that there are other ways to god? In this case, they are just as good a choice as a conservative church. I don't think you can say that a religion is either right or wrong about the nature of god. It's a question of how right. Perhaps the greatest sin is to condemn other, in which case the conservatives are the worst choice. Your logic strikes me as being overly simplistic.
I don't think that is accurate because of the fundamental differences in liberal and conservative dogma. If Liberals are right in their liberated morals, conservatives are still safe because they are not themselves doing anything that could violate God's expectations. If Conservatives are right, liberals are violating God's expectations.
For example, I think that it may be that God does not oppose abortion, in which case liberals are safe and conservatives are safe (because while he may not oppose abortion, he certainly does not require it), but if God opposes abortion, liberals are out. I think that is generally true of all social issues where there are opposing sides.
Your reframing your argument to suggest that adherence to a stricter moral code is the safer route. That was not your original agrument from what I was reading. Observing a strict moral code and non-acceptance of other's ideas are two different things, particularly when considering "styles of worship."
Regarding Harry Reid's statement, how does observing a strict moral code relate to having the right to judge another's commitment to faith? Are you suggesting that religion is not a personal thing? Are you claiming to know what god wants of us?
What of equally strict moral codes that contradict one another? And are you suggesting that we stop cutting our hair and eating swine? Should we don hairshirts? I'm not sure what you point is.
Well, the argument has moved on from the original post, so I don't think I am moving the ball. The original post was saying two things: Conservative religions do feel as though they can judge others, and that is a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative religions. Harry Reid quite clearly has a liberal philosophy in his religion, so he misunderstands that conservatives do feel able to judge.
Second, liberal religions do not grow, and in fact die based on their tenets and lack of requirements on the faithful, while conservative religions tend to grow.
Our discussion has been on a minor point of whether conservatives are correct in believing that their religion is a subset of liberal religions, so that if the liberals are correct they still go to heaven.
I think that the stricter moral code is the part of the religion that matters, and draws in adherents. Religions that require sacrifice prosper. I don't think adherence to a strict moral code is different from acceptance of other ideas, when those ideas conflict with the strict moral code. The moral code that applies here are the ones that are specific to differences between liberals and conservatives, such as homosexual marriage and abortion.
It could be that it would be safest to be Amish. I think it is apparent that the Amish think so. Therefore, your examples are not that farfetched.
Religion is not a personal thing, at least not historically. It is very public, and particularly when it comes to politicians, is a gateway to power.
When was religion private? When everyone believed the same way?
And yes, I do know what God wants.
God told me to skin you alive.
What you seem to be presenting is the mindset of the religious conservative and a possible logic behind it. I don't think you're giving advice on choosing a religion based on what one truly feels is right. What religion one may think will be a successful institution in the long run and what seems to be the best strategy for increasing one's chances of getting into heaven seem to be the criteria. It doesn't sound like a very spiritual or truly religous approach.
"Conservative religions do feel as though they can judge others, and that is a fundamental difference between liberal and conservative religions. Harry Reid quite clearly has a liberal philosophy in his religion, so he misunderstands that conservatives do feel able to judge."
I don't think the last clause is accurate in the quote above. I don't think Reid misunderstands that conservatives feel that way based on the quote from the original post. I think he simply thinks they're wrong in feeling as though they can judge others. Since we're speaking of Christianity, he may be quite right in so far as being consistent with the basic tenets of the religion.
Interestingly, it was the liberalization of Christianity that allowed it to become more than just a small sect of Judaism. To attract non-Jews for conversion, much of traditional Jewish law was relaxed or dismissed. Imagine trying to get a 25-year-old, Roman pagan to convert to a religion that would require him to be circumsized as an adult.
In modern times, given the mobility of people and information, conversion may be the better strategy than procreation for growing a religion.
I am pretty sure that God did not say that to you, because I have been with him all day, and I did not hear that...
I have bought a couple James Dobson books, so I might be ripe for conversion.
I actually think that there are two parts to a religion sustaining itself: One is maintaining what you have, which requires a replacement birth rate. Liberals in general are not maintaining this, so I presume that is true in liberal churches. Replacement rate is important because the vast majority of people stay the religion they are born.
The second part is conversion for growth. Here, a conservative religion is much more successful in pulling in converts, mainly becase when people leave a conservative church, they are often distrustful of religion in general, while people leaving liberal churches are looking for more definitive answers.
Oh, and if Reid was saying that he knows that the right believes that it has the right to judge, and that he is countering that belief and saying it is wrong, isn't that a judgment Reid is making about the religion of the Christian right? I really wish he wouldn't judge.
Reid doesn't have to make a judgement in asserting that no one has the right to judge. He only needs to follow the Word of God.
God told me he was just joking about that, and he really does want the pious to judge the sinners.
But he doesn't want sinners to judge the pious, and so Reid is wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home