Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A reader sent me a link to this breathtaking screed from some a nutball in Virginia named Al Bedrosian. He is described as a former candidate for the Virginia Assembly who "hosts a 10-minute commentary program on local AM radio." That must be interesting. Here's how he starts his rant:
As a Christian, I think it's time to rid ourselves of this notion of freedom of religion in America.
Now the bad news: he's not joking.
Now that I have your attention, let me take a moment to make my case. Freedom of religion has become the biggest hoax placed upon the Christian people and on our Christian nation.When reading the writings of our Founding Founders, there was never any reference to freedom of religion referring to a choice between Islam, Hindu, Satanism, Wicca and whatever other religions or cults you would like to dream up. It was very clear that freedom to worship meant the freedom to worship the God of the Bible in the way you wanted, and not to have a government church denomination dictate how you would worship.
Ah, the irony of rank ignorance. Bedrosian was formerly a candidate for the Virginia Assembly, the very same legislative body that in 1786 passed the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. This act was written by Thomas Jefferson and ushered to passage in the Assembly by James Madison. During the deliberations for that bill, attempts were made to amend the preamble to specify "Jesus Christ" as the "holy author of our religion" and thus make it more limited in effect; those attempts failed. Here is what Jefferson had to say about it in his autobiography:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
Yes, that's right. Jefferson himself declares quite clearly that the intent of his Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which was Madison's model for the religion clauses of the first amendment a year and a half later, was to establish religiuos freedom not only for Christians, but for Jews, Muslims, Hindus and even infidels, and just as importantly, that attempts to change that and make it apply only to Christians were voted down. Mr. Bedrosian, meet reality; the two of you don't seem to be acquainted.
Christianity, by its own definition, does not allow freedom of religion. A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.Jesus clearly states all through Scripture that he is the way and the only way to God the father. The Bible is clear in teaching us that we should have no other gods before him. Our God is a jealous God.
Well yes, but entirely irrelevant. That's the whole point, Al - the Bible does not support the concept of religious freedom, yet the Constitution demands it. So much for your claim that this is an officially Christian Nation. If it was, there would be no religious freedom. See how logic helps cut through all that nonsense you've believed all this time?
I know that my stance is even unpopular among Christians. If you took a poll in America and asked just Christians if we should allow any religion to be practiced in America, I guarantee that 99 percent would say yes. They would be proud to state that freedom of religion is the pillar America was founded on.Yet these are the same Christians who will be protesting in the streets against the homosexual agenda, abortion, removing God from our schools and from our pledge.
Somehow many Christians have not been able to connect the dots. Don't we see that when we allow other gods into America, those other gods start influencing our culture and our laws? And soon we are allowing laws and regulations to be enacted that are totally opposed to our belief system. And the sad thing is that we knowingly allow them in the name of "freedom of religion."
Right again, Al. In a free society - you know, like the one our founding fathers established - other people have the liberty to believe in other gods, or in no god at all, and to vote their consciences. In such a pluralistic society, sometimes you're going to lose and laws will be enacted that not only don't comport with your belief system, but that actually allow other people to do things you don't want them to do. To sane people who value liberty, this is a good thing; to insane theocratic lunatics like you, it's a bad thing.
Congratulations, Al Bedrosian. You are the August winner of the Robert O'Brien trophy as the Idiot of the Month. Forever shall your ignorance and stupidity be celebrated throughout the land.
Comments
Like the gods of evangelical and fundamentalist "Christianity"? How about the gods of Mormonism, Christian Science or Jehovah's Witnesses? After all, those "religions" were created by Americans enjoying their freedom of religion after the founding of the nation - the Founding Fathers certainly could not have believed in the freedom to be heretics.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 14, 2007 9:59 AM
What a buffoon.
Bedrosian says "Don't we see that when we allow other gods into America, those other gods start influencing our culture and our laws?"
If only we could persuade all these imaginary gods to have a big fight among themselves, and then let us know which one won.
Posted by: Dono | August 14, 2007 10:02 AM
I know I sound like a broken record, but I will say it again: These people do not believe in pluralism.
Posted by: Captain Comeback | August 14, 2007 10:14 AM
"If only we could persuade all these imaginary gods to have a big fight among themselves, and then let us know which one won."
Wasn't that the plan of Wotan and Loki?
Posted by: Ethan | August 14, 2007 10:18 AM
He does a good job of showing how the concept of natural rights, as our Founders understood it, arguably conflicts with the Bible. As he put it:
Christianity, by its own definition, does not allow freedom of religion. A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.
Jesus clearly states all through Scripture that he is the way and the only way to God the father. The Bible is clear in teaching us that we should have no other gods before him. Our God is a jealous God.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | August 14, 2007 11:09 AM
"Wasn't that the plan of Wotan and Loki?"
Hmmm. Hey, someone should make an opera about that.
Posted by: Dono | August 14, 2007 11:19 AM
Honestly, I think this guy's right, according to his theology. It just shows how all religion is, at base, insane. If he's getting orders from God, what does he care what Jefferson said?
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2007 12:23 PM
One interesting thing I noticed- "Bedrosian" is an Armenian name. Armenia has, historically, been a Christian nation. However, it was later conquered by the Muslim Ottoman Empire, under which the Armenian Christians suffered extreme discrimination, eventually culminating in the Armenian Genocide. The later Ottomans, naturally, were not big fans of separation of mosque and state. I wonder if Mr. Bedrosian would argue that they were justified (since Islam was the "true faith" of the Ottoman Empire), or not (since the "wrong" religion came out on top).
Posted by: MJ Memphis | August 14, 2007 12:45 PM
Excellent point, Will E. The scriptural religions, when taken seriously, are literally enemies of religious freedom and toleration. Freedom and secularization are partners. Either practice your religion without taking it seriously like a good American, or abandon your religion like a good European. The only alternative to these options is religious tyranny of the kind found in Islamic countries.
Posted by: Chuck | August 14, 2007 1:01 PM
Chuck said:
"Excellent point, Will E. The scriptural religions, when taken seriously, are literally enemies of religious freedom and toleration. Freedom and secularization are partners. Either practice your religion without taking it seriously like a good American, or abandon your religion like a good European. The only alternative to these options is religious tyranny of the kind found in Islamic countries."
Actually, Chuck, I think there is a another alternative to the three you mentioned. Namely, practice your religion and take time to study it properly. Learn it's history, become versed in the historical context of it's teachings, and learn not to take everything its concomitant scriptures say literally. To this I would also add to remember what the purpose of religion is: namely, to as means of augmenting one's spiritual life. Religion's purpose is to deal with matters of the heart not matters of science and politics.
Faith is work. One has to work to find the essence of the teachings of one's religion, not the superficiality of using its scriptures to understand how the physical universe works! That's the wrong tool for the wrong purpose.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | August 14, 2007 1:58 PM
"Forever shall your ignorance and stupidity be celebrated throughout the land."
Except not in the ironic way, alas.
Posted by: Will E. | August 14, 2007 2:12 PM
Chuck writes:
Deep bullshit.
Deep, deep bullshit.
Bullshit so deep you are drowning in it.
Any references to support your statements, or are you just making this up as you go along?
I don't know where you are getting this nonsense from, but if you are interested in reality - which I doubt you are - there's plenty of stuff indicating how wrong this all is. Why don't you try reading it?
Posted by: Poly | August 14, 2007 2:14 PM
Perhaps I'll bother with nuance when you learn to refute a statement with a response other than "bullshit" and "deep deep bullshit". Bowl troubles, Poly?
Posted by: Chuck | August 14, 2007 2:39 PM
Chuck,
Not biblical Christianity. There is no call anywhere in the New Testament that can be interpreted as intolerance toward other religions. No call to take over Jerusalem. No biblical call to burn synagogues or ransack Diana's temples. Instead, the message of the Christianity is much more along the lines of: whatever circumstances you find yourself in, walk the walk.
Posted by: David Heddle | August 14, 2007 2:49 PM
However, Guitar Eddie did provide a thoughtful response, so I owe him a nod.
GE, you say, "become versed in the historical context of it's teachings learn not to take everything its concomitant scriptures say literally". Also, you make the excellent point, which scriptural literalists (the target of my rather rude comment) always fail to understand, that "religion's purpose is to deal with matters of the heart not matters of science and politics". So, I fail to see where we disagree. You have done an excellent job of dressing up my statement: "Either practice your religion without taking it seriously like a good American . . ."
What I love about mainline American religion is precisely that it heeds the advice you give. What happens every so often in America is that some people are unsatisfied by the tamed-down, Enlightenment-friendly religion of mainstream religion, so they take it seriously. In doing so, fundamentalists open up the way for dominionism, creationism, religious bigotry, and a host of other problems. I don't think many atheists or other freethinkers have a problem with this kind of religion, or at least they shouldn't. Dawkins has said that if the religious right weren't on the rise, he would have written a book very different from The God Delusion. I myself am a deist with strong Christian sympathies. But I don't say I'm a Christian because all to often that means I have to affirm belief in scripture, and I just can't do that.
The essence of my original comment was this: the Abrahamic religions as they existed in the Middle Ages, when they were at the peak of their creativity and influence, no less, are utterly incompatible with freedom, and aimed to govern all aspects of life. A quick perusal of scripture affirms that. The Reformation was an effort to deinstitutionalize religion and reconnect with ancient Christianity, but often at the cost of greater fundamentalism and, sure enough, the frequency of religious unrest and projects to create Christian theocracies were unprecedented. It was only during the Enlightenment and the birth of liberal thought - which sought to overcome the notion that members of a polity must share a religion. The ancient and medieval belief that the community must share a religion was a novel one. You might consider it, "deep bullshit" and assume that taking religion seriously and religious freedom are compatible, but I think that those who struggled against real religious authoritarianism to remake the West along secular and Enlightenment ideals might have some words for you, Poly.
Posted by: Chuck | August 14, 2007 2:55 PM
Blah! Replace the sentence "The ancient and medieval belief that the community must share a religion was a novel one." with this sentence:
"The concept that members of a political community do not need to share a religion to have a functioning society is a novel one."
Posted by: Chuck | August 14, 2007 2:59 PM
David Heddle said:
"Not biblical Christianity. There is no call anywhere in the New Testament that can be interpreted as intolerance toward other religions. No call to take over Jerusalem. No biblical call to burn synagogues or ransack Diana's temples. Instead, the message of the Christianity is much more along the lines of: whatever circumstances you find yourself in, walk the walk."
In the New Testament, yes. But the Theocrats like Al Bedrosian go by the Old Testament and I think what they take to be Mosaic Law. This is a very intolerant theology much more along the lines of: whatever the circumstances do not live and let live. The Theocrats take this quite literally; and, if the could, would create Christian theocracy in the U.S. where vast numbers of other religions and atheists would either be excluded from the society or sumarily killed.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | August 14, 2007 3:03 PM
Guitar Eddie wrote:
"Religion's purpose" is a matter of opinion, not some objective widely-agreed upon fact. What you describe is the purpose of religion in a secular culture influenced by the enlightenment -- split "reality" into sacred areas (morals and meaning) and secular areas (science and politics) and keep religion to its own area. But for much of history and throughout most of the world, the "purpose" of religion was and is to knit together ALL of reality -- morals, meaning, science, and politics -- into one single, unified whole. In this view, there is no division between spiritual life and life itself. What is true, is supposed to be true in every way, for everyone. None of this "find what works for you" stuff.
Liberal Christians do take their religion "seriously" in the sense that it matters to them, often a great deal. It's not that they're less sincere or less committed than the conservatives and theocrats. But they don't take their specific religious claims as "serious" fact claims which are -- or should be -- just as clear, true, real, and obvious in the world as math or gravity. Instead, they build an elaborate network of metaphors, category errors, and emotional appeals to ensure that religion can peacefully co-exist with the secular world because it keeps its fact claims to the untestable spirit realm and its REAL purpose to "matters of the heart." Ok, sure. That's a legitimate stance. But so is the other one.
Outsiders cannot simply look at another religion, pick the side that sounds more like them, and pronounce the scholarship "better" and the understanding of religion "wiser" than that on the other side. It's not about figuring out which viewpoint is more reasonable according to the world. The only truly accurate way to arbitrate whose theology is correct is to decide who's on God's side.
And God's not stepping down to resolve this one.
Posted by: Sastra | August 14, 2007 3:54 PM
David Heddle said "There is no call anywhere in the New Testament that can be interpreted as intolerance toward other religions.".
It amazes me how Christians lie about their bible again and again. The new testament most certainly does contain such calls
In Luke 10:10-15 Jesus says entire cities will be destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down into hell" for not "receiving" Jesus and his disciples.
John 15:6 says those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire and burned
Acts 3:23 says every soul that will not hear the prophet shall be destroyed from amongst the people.
2 Thessalonians 1:8 says "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Hebrews 10:28-29 says those who disobeyed the Old Testament law were killed without mercy. It will be much worse for those who displease Jesus.
2 Peter 3:7 says god will set the world on fire to punish those who don't believe in him.
Jude 1:5 said the lord destroyed them that believed not.
Revelation 21:8 says all unbelievers will be cast into a lake of fire.
Spare me your tormented rationalizations of the hatred of non-believers in the new testament. You've blatantly lied about the supposed tolerarnce of non-believers and no pretzel logic of yours can change the obvious - the writers of the bible despised those of other religions and advocated their persecution, torture, and murder.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 14, 2007 4:59 PM
Randi Schimnosky,
Are you really that dense, or do you just like to argue even when you haven't a leg to stand on?
What I wrote clearly meant there is no call in the NT for Christians to behave, in the here and now, in an intolerant way toward other religions or to deny anyone freedom of religion. It goes without saying that the NT carries with it a promise of final, terrible, judgment from God on unbelievers. But the threat of hell is not what is at issue here--since presumably whether or not I believe in hell is irrelevant to, say, Buddhists. No, the question that is relevant to Buddhists is: does the NT teach me, as a Christian, to persecute Buddhists or prevent them from practicing Buddhism? It does not. And that's what they would care about, and that is what is being discussed here.
Your verses:
Luke 10 talks about the time of judgment. It does not instruct the disciples to persecute those who will not receive Christ it does not tell them to disrupt their practices. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 1.
John 15:6 describes the eternal fate of unbelievers. Presumably non Christians don't care, since they don't believe in "Christian hell" anyway, but what they would care about is it does not tell Christians to persecute them or disrupt their practices. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 2.
Acts 3:23 describes how unbelievers are cut off from the covenant. Presumably, since they don't believe in the new covenant, they don't really care, but what they would care about is it does not tell Christians to persecute Jews or disrupt their practices. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 3.
2 Thess. 1:8 describes the eternal fate of unbelievers. See the discussion for John 15:6 above. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 4.
Hebrews 10 describes the eternal fate of unbelievers. See the discussion for John 15:6 above. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 5.
2 Pet 3:7 describes the end of the world. Presumably non Christians don't care, since they don't believe in the accuracy of the prophecy in 2 Peter anyway, but what they would care about is it does not tell Christians to persecute them or disrupt their practices. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 6.
Jude 1:5 describes God killing apostate Jews during the Exodus. It is not a commandment for Christians to kill or otherwise persecute anyone, nor to prevent anyone from practicing their religion. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 7.
Rev. 21:8 describes the eternal fate of unbelievers. See the discussion for John 15:6 above. In short, it is irrelevant for the present discussion. You are 0 for 8.
Posted by: David Heddle | August 14, 2007 5:43 PM
I'll go out on a limb and agree with Dave here. The Bible is open ended on a number of different issues; I certainly don't "see" a right to religious liberty or any unalienable natural rights for that matter in there.
But I also think that one could "literally" interpret the New Testament as not requiring Christians to persecute non-believers, should they ever be in charge of government.
Of course, an alternate interpretation -- John Calvin's and John Winthrop's, for instance -- could "literally" interpret the good book as requiring exactly that.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | August 14, 2007 5:56 PM
Jon Rowe,
Agreed. Some believers including (to my extreme distress) John Calvin took the bible as a mandate for a theocracy. However, others (the baptists) arguably formulated the concept of separation of church and state.
The theonomists (including Calvin as well as the modern version--the reconstructionists) use[d] the OT for their justification, as someone else already pointed out. And, and this was my point, they have to turn a blind eye to the lack of any command in the NT to establish anything like a Christian theocracy.
Posted by: David Heddle | August 14, 2007 6:08 PM
I will go a bit further than David Heddle (while agreeing with both him and Jon, it's all in the interpretation). There is another school of theology that would say that theocracy is the antithesis of Christianity. John Wesley was a supporter of this interpretation of faith. It rests on the notion that to be a Christian, one must make a conscious choice to accept salvation through Christ, accept the conviction of the Holy Spirit and turn away from sin. Every step of the way this must be a choice. I would add, that John Wesley was also a biblical literalist.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2007 6:49 PM
Blah blah blah, David Heddel - I asked you to spare me your pathetic excuses but you couldn't even do that. The idea that your god is going to torture and kill non-believers but that this doesn't in any way encourage christians to do the same is farcical. I couldn't find the particualar passage but Jesus also says to his followers "Bring those who would not have me reign over them and slay them before me". Cut the BS about your "nice" bible - its full of hate and zenophobia and most definitely all those passages encourage christians to do the same things to non-believers that their "god" would do.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 14, 2007 6:53 PM
And David Heddle, let's not forget that the Old Testament is part of your bible too.
It demands that those of other faiths be killed in Deuteronomy 12:30
In Deuteronomy 13:6-10 it says if your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death."
In Deuterononmy 17:2-7 it demands that you stone to death those who believe differently than you.
And don't give me this BS about the Old Testament not applying, it is part of your bible and it says clearly in Deuteronomy 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." - That means for all time David - spare me your pathetic excuses this time. If you want people to believe the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians then stop publishing it as part of your bible
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 14, 2007 7:05 PM
Here's the passage I was looking for:
Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me".
So much for your lies David Heddle. You lied when you said "there is no call in the NT for Christians to behave, in the here and now, in an intolerant way toward other religions or to deny anyone freedom of religion" - eat your words you liar.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 14, 2007 7:43 PM
Randi Schimnosky,
No, not excuses, but salient points demonstrating you were wrong. Big difference.
You are talking about Luke 19, and you are quoting from a parable (the parable of the ten minas). This again is an allusion to final judgment, not a command for Christians to slay any unbeliever. You are still 0-fer.
The OT does indeed call for persecution (including execution) of peoples practicing other faiths within the Promised Land, and that might be relevant but for the fact that in my original post I was careful to state "There is no call anywhere in the New Testament that can be interpreted as intolerance toward other religions." In fact, it actually is not relevant, but to demonstrate that would involve hijacking another of Ed's posts onto the topic of the OT law, and that I don't have the gumption to do yet again.
Posted by: David Heddle | August 14, 2007 8:02 PM
Randi -
What a colossal asshole you are. You accuse someone of being a liar, based on scripture you have taken entirely out of context. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I don't always agree with David, indeed, I often disagree with him. But he is not a liar by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, while he believes in intelligent design, he deplores the methods of the ID movement, precisely because they are dishonest. Unlike you, he is also very civil and polite, even in the face of assholes like you. You could learn a thing or two from him.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 14, 2007 8:23 PM
Randi: Re Luke 19:27, that is quite possibly the most dishonest quotemining I have ever seen on this site. Your talent is wasted here, you should be posting on Little Green Footballs or something.
Dr. Heddle: I think your initial question has been answered in the affirmative.
Posted by: kehrsam | August 14, 2007 11:48 PM
I agree with David that you can't find a NT verse that explicitly commands persecution of non-Christians. On the other hand, the NT does explicitly teach that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and that those who follow other views do so at the cost of their immortal souls. It's hard to see how religious freedom could be viewed as a good thing by any Bible-believing Christian with enough compassion to care whether his or her neighbors burn in hell forever. Tolerance for other religions necessarily means you willingly allow others to go to hell in their ignorance. Either that or acknowledging that the NT is wrong about Christianity being the only Way.
Posted by: Mark Nutter | August 15, 2007 8:09 AM
Mark,
A point I should have made in my previous comments: It is a bit stronger than that. It is not solely an argument from silence. How the NT explicitly teach believers to deal others is at odds with any notion of persecution of other faiths. There is no real need to say "don't persecute others" when we are commanded (love your neighbor, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor,) shown by example (Jesus as a friend of sinners,) and through parables (the good Samaritan) how to treat one another.
Posted by: David Heddle | August 15, 2007 8:33 AM
Sastra wrote:
"Religion's purpose" is a matter of opinion, not some objective widely-agreed upon fact. What you describe is the purpose of religion in a secular culture influenced by the enlightenment -- split "reality" into sacred areas (morals and meaning) and secular areas (science and politics) and keep religion to its own area. But for much of history and throughout most of the world, the "purpose" of religion was and is to knit together ALL of reality -- morals, meaning, science, and politics -- into one single, unified whole. In this view, there is no division between spiritual life and life itself. What is true, is supposed to be true in every way, for everyone. None of this "find what works for you" stuff."
Actually, Sastra, it is an agreed upon fact that religion does deal with matters of the heart, which include morals and meaning. These are matters of the heart. No one seriously disputes that. Relatedly, so what if the cultures influenced by the Elightenment "split reality" into different spheres, giving religion its own area of influence? Is that really a bad thing? I don't think so.
On way to look at this split is assigning religion to the sphere where it can do the most good -- in dealing with the spiritual lives of individual people. That is religion can help individuals change their lives for the better and ultimately help people improve society.
The societies that have tried to use religion to tie together politics, science, morals, and meaning have been for the most part homogenous. For instance Japan was a feudal, homogenous, theocratic state. Their official religion was Shinto. But, early in the C.E., they imported Buddhism from Korea and China, giving rise to hundreds of different schools of Buddhism. Eventually these religious traditions vied with one another for political influence and money. The politics of the time was very tumultuous and violent during Midieval times in Japanese society. Buddhism was almost destroyed. Not to mention the fact that there was a near constant state of internecine between the Emperor and the various and sundry Shoguns.
So much for tying it all together. Especially when religion is itself split into countless sects. How do you infuse it into other spheres within society?
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | August 15, 2007 9:10 AM
Guitar Eddie wrote:
No, I don't think it's a bad thing at all -- as the rest of your post points out, secularization leads to more harmony and less friction among cultures with diverse views, and allows science and freedom to flourish.
But that wasn't my point. The fundamental purpose of religion is to understand and follow the will of God/the Divine. Your assumption that this means that society should become open and tolerant and individuals should be free to pursue "matters of the heart" is based on a particular view of God, and interpretation of scripture. It is not universally shared, and does not naturally flow out of all understandings of religion or God.
A lot of people think religion should not be split off from politics, science, or the way we view reality as a whole. And the fact that this interpretation leads to problems in the world means nothing. Religion isn't supposed to be about getting along well in the world. That's the purpose of secular philosophy. As I said, religion deals with understanding and following the divine plan -- which need not have anything to do with earthly happiness or harmony or lack of warfare or anything that we value in this life.
Look at it this way: imagine that a sect which you consider bigoted and extremist actually turns out to be RIGHT: their background views on demons, salvation, damnation, end times, sacrifice, infidels, and the nature of God is factually correct. This is how reality is. The Bible was directly inspired by God and is trustworthy on the science: the earth is only 6,000 years old. Furthermore, God wants a theocratic regime instituting His Will in politics. He has really truly ordered it. This isn't "extremist" -- in this hypothetical scenario, it's all fact.
You said "Religion's purpose is to deal with matters of the heart, not matters of science and politics." But it turns out that God says "WRONG."
Now, you may go on to argue that such a God is not worthy of worship, or incredibly unlikely, or whatever (and I'd agree)-- but technically speaking, when it comes to that aspect of religion which deals with understanding God's purpose any actual God must be granted the ability to determine the "purpose" of its religion, not the worshipers groping around below. Humans try to figure out what God wants, or what it is like, as best they can. And whether God exists or not, the results are the same. Unresolvable disagreements.
When you talk about God's purposes being reasonable and benign you're claiming to speak for God just as much as the so-called loonies are. Just because you happen to make more sense doesn't necessarily mean you're right -- or we can all assume you are.
Posted by: Sastra | August 15, 2007 11:08 AM
Sastra wrote:
"No, I don't think it's a bad thing at all -- as the rest of your post points out, secularization leads to more harmony and less friction among cultures with diverse views, and allows science and freedom to flourish.
But that wasn't my point. The fundamental purpose of religion is to understand and follow the will of God/the Divine...."
That's true enough if you are talking about a religion that postulates the existence of a 'personal god' with emotions, a will, and a plan. Its adherents would only be doing what is logical for their beliefs. Also, that, too, is action based on a particular view of the Divine stemming from prescientific cultures.
Sastra also wrote:
A lot of people think religion should not be split off from politics, science, or the way we view reality as a whole. And the fact that this interpretation leads to problems in the world means nothing. Religion isn't supposed to be about getting along well in the world. That's the purpose of secular philosophy. As I said, religion deals with understanding and following the divine plan -- which need not have anything to do with earthly happiness or harmony or lack of warfare or anything that we value in this life...."
I understand that, Sastra. My point is that it's perfectly fine for people to conceive of religion that way...., as long the societal context in which it exists has a homogenous population, is isolated, and its people freely assent to the said theological construct. However, the USA is neither homogenous nor isolated. It really never was. And a minority of people have assented to the aforementioned religious system. We are a country of many different cultures and religions. Therefore any theistic religion which cannot allow its people to function within a pluralistic culture must either be reexamined or withdraw. That is: 'turn on, tune in, and drop out (T. Leary, ca 1966).' The other alternative is start another civil war.
After all, if a disagreement is as hypothetically unresolvable as you say, it is better for the fundamentalists to split from the rest of society.
Furthermore, that fact that a religious construct turns out to be true does not carry with it any inherent right of the religion to subjugate the rest of us under its rule. I have right not to be saved if I don't want to be saved.
All hypotheticals aside, we are not talking about things that can be empirically demonstrated anyway, Sastra. We are talking about divinity, the supernatural.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddier | August 15, 2007 2:03 PM
I agree. Which is why it's risky to make confident statements about what religion's real purpose is, instead of what religion ought to be like -- if it wants to coexist peacefully with reason, science, other people, and the world.
Posted by: Sastra | August 15, 2007 2:31 PM
David heddle, more pathetic excuses. Once again the idea that your "god" tortures and murders non-believers and that this in no way encourages persecution of non-believers is farcical. Luke 19:27 specifically calls for the murder of non-believers, don't give me this parables bullshit - that's not believable in the slightest to an objective observer.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 15, 2007 3:06 PM
And Mark, Luke 19:26 explicitely calls for the persecution on non-believers. Get your head out of your ass, it couldn't be put in any plainer language - "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me". What kind of idiots do you think people are?! Parables my ass.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 15, 2007 3:12 PM
Duwayne, David Heddle is a liar and that's as plain as the nose on your face. Luke 19:27 is an explicit call to persecute non-believers something David like a fool still tries to deny when its slapping him in the face. If pointing out the truth makes me an asshole I'm happy to be one.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 15, 2007 3:25 PM
Randi,
The story in question spans Luke 19:11 to 19:27. A subtle clue that it is a parable occurs in verse 11:
As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable,
There is a parallel description in Matthew 25. There it ends with the unprofitable servant "cast into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Which is, of course hell. It (the parable) is immediately followed by a clear description (not a parable) of Christ coming in judgment. It is, as every biblical commenter in history except Randi Schimnosky has pointed out, a parable concerning the final judgment of those who do not take advantage of God's grace, not a instruction, for some reason given in parable form, to kill unbelievers.
Even John Calvin, who was not against killing the occasional blasphemer, wrote about this passage (Luke 19:26) "Christ informs us that he will return, and that at his coming he will punish wicked rebellion."
Posted by: David Heddle | August 15, 2007 3:51 PM
No Randi, what is plain is that you're the one either lying or refusing to actually read the context. For the record, I am an objective observer, one who also happens to be fairly familiar with the bible (I'm an ex-fundy). You're being very irrational, which is about as ironic as it gets.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2007 5:03 PM
--(Luke 19:26) "Christ informs us that he will return, and that at his coming he will punish wicked rebellion."--
Well, WWJD?
Posted by: Will E. | August 15, 2007 5:04 PM
"I agree. Which is why it's risky to make confident statements about what religion's real purpose is, instead of what religion ought to be like -- if it wants to coexist peacefully with reason, science, other people, and the world."
Yeah it is risky, man. I kind of went out on limb. I've also come to the conclusion (for now) that it is the adherents who make a religion what it is. That's what determines its purpose.
Also, I am coming from not just a social context influenced by The Elightenment, but from a religious tradition that doesn't conceptualize Ultimate Reality in anthropormorphic terms. I am a practicioner of Nichiren's Buddhism. Consequently, I see little constructiveness arising from fundamentalistic theological constructs.
I do my best, however, to regard the fundies and the dominionists with compassion. Afterall they too have their demons to conquer however cartoonish those demons may be.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddier | August 15, 2007 5:19 PM
David, in the "parable" the lord doesn't say he will punish "wicked rebellion", he indisputably commands his followers to slay those who will not accept his reign. To suggest that this doesn't tell Christians to persecute non-believers is preposterous. To suggest all those New Testament passages talking about the murder and torture of non-believers doesn't encourage intolerance of non-believers is preposterous. You're making out your book to be something it clearly is not, you are a liar and a deceiver.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 15, 2007 6:02 PM
Duwayne, you're obviously not objective in the slightest - you're just like the typical believer. People like you are so used to hearing tortured explanations about this crap that it goes right over your head as to how absurd those explanations are.
Think about how insane the foundation of Christianity is - God tortures and kills his innocent self to appease himself for the wrongdoings of others - its crazy. Only a lunatic or a believer would think that an innocent can take responsibility for the wrongdoings of others. If god wanted to forgive the wrongdoers he simply could have just done so, he didn't need to commit the evil act of torturing and killing an innocent bystander to do so. You're so used to passively accepting this insanity you can't even see it for what it is.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 15, 2007 6:07 PM
Re: Randi vs. Heddle
An argument can be made that predictions of future damnation for unbelievers encourages an attitude of contempt, making it more likely that Christians (of a certain psychology) will decide to help God's timetable along (so to speak). And no doubt some Christians throughout history have used exactly that rationale.
However AFAIK, David (with whom I do not usually agree on much) is correct that the NT never explicitly commands Christians to persecute unbelievers. Moreover, such an interpretation seems a bit difficult to reconcile with aphorisms like the Golden Rule, or "turn the other cheek". Randi's continued fulminations along this line suggest the same kind of functional illiteracy one encounters among Creationists quote-mining Darwin or Gould.
Not myself believing in any unitary "revelation" through Christ, my own view is that the pacifist message in the Gospels arises from the circumstances of the early church: a minority and sometimes-persecuted sect. A policy of passive resistance was only prudent, and predictions of future judgement can be read as: "Be patient, your persecutors will get their comeuppance one day" (cf. Rev. 6:9-11).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 15, 2007 6:10 PM
Eamon, reading the predictions of future judgement as "Be patient, your persecutors will get their comeuppance one day" implies that all non-believers are persecutors - a totally unjustfied assumption. Once again, you're suggesting that the mere state of being a nonbeliever is equivalent to being a persecutor and hence someone to be persecuted in turn. No matter how you slice it Christianity is not a tolerant religion. Any religion that teaches that non-believers should be eternally punished is an evil religion
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 15, 2007 6:43 PM
Actually Randi, I rejected first fundamentalism, then revealed religion altogether, because of the inconsistencies and incoherency of the bible. I rejected it because I could not worship a god that encouraged rape and genocide. I rejected it because I am not passive and could not tolerate the insanity of it.
None of this changes the fact that you are flat out wrong about this and accusing someone who is not a liar, of being just that. I am bloody damned tired of people throwing around such an abhorrent attack like that, so easily and without evidence. All that shows, is that you place very little value in integrity. Dr. Heddle may be wrong about many things, he may believe things that I personally find very distasteful, but he has always, in everything that I have read of him, shown himself to have integrity. Like myself, any mistakes he makes, anytime he is wrong, he is honestly such.
Read the chapter you quoted, starting at verse eleven. It's a parable, pure and simple. A parable that is admonishing believers to plant seeds of faith, lest not only unbelievers they fail to reach be damned to hell, but they themselves be cast out into the darkness. Personally, I find the notion of eternal damnation, as described in this verse, abhorrent enough, without adding to it.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 15, 2007 7:33 PM
Randi: Look at verse 12: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed King and then to return." Jesus is not talking about himself, as He doesn't need Rome's permission for anything. Herod Antipas did need to get permission when he married his niece Herodias, did travel with her to Romre for Tiberias' approval, and every person in the room would know who the parable was about.
I realize you don't care for Christianity, but that is no excuse for making up ridiculous accusations. As for the lunatic/believer distinction, I don't see why that need be either/or. Cheers!
Posted by: kehrsam | August 15, 2007 9:19 PM
Cutting through the above discussion, I for one am just glad to finally find an American Fundamentalist willing to admit the existence of all the other gods out there in the cosmos. Good on you Al; This world has suffered too long under the egotism of Monotheism. Too bad our god's a paranoid shut in; life would be so much cooler if we had those Greek guys and gals, they're always throwing parties...
I Demand Ambrosia Longnecks!
Posted by: Julian | August 15, 2007 9:40 PM
Duwayne, Kersham, the paralell is obviously to Jesus and his reign over the world. He explicitely commands that those who would not have him reign over them be brought to him and slain. No matter how you spin and twist that is obviously the only interpretation that makes sense. Not to mention the other 8 New testament quotations I listed which show the intolerance of Christianity to non-believers and encourage violence against non-believers.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | August 16, 2007 3:16 PM