Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.

Is It Religion That Makes Us Worse People?

Another individual recommended a blog to me asking whether religion does harm to people.  (In fairness, the blog author seemed to be asking "Is this true since I became a Christian?"  Not asserting it was true).  He gave this quote as a lead-in to the article:

"I have watched a good many atheists who were harmless, inoffensive people.  They committed a few adulteries or a little quiet pederasty and they were not to be trusted with unattended typewriters or valuable books, but, by and large, they were inoffensive.  Then they would start going to church and listening to the clink of thuribles and inhaling incense and suddenly they would acquire all those wonderful Christian virtues—bigotry, pride, intolerance, chronic anger, sexual dishonesty."

— Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel

The problem of course is the associating of these "Christian virtues" with Christianity, and not in the failing of the individual practicing it.

These are not Christian vices.  They are vices found in all men, whether Christian, Jew, Buddhist or even Atheist.

The thing is we notice them only when a person changes a world view.  When person X practices the same vices we do, but practices them with the same outlook as we have, we write it off as "That's how people are."

However, when a person changes his worldview, the vices he possesses has not gone anywhere, but are practiced in light of his new perspective those vices are no longer tolerable.  We hypocritically denounce them as being "caused" by this change.

Certainly the atheist can possess all of these "wonderful Christian virtues" as well.  They can be prideful that they "know better" than the believer.  They can be intolerant of the Christian who practices openly what he preaches.  They can be continually angry at the Christian who challenges them, and they can be sexually dishonest (the atheist may deny there are any binding sexual mores, but I think he would be quite upset if he found his wife in bed with another man).

It would of course be hypocrisy to look down on Christians for these vices when they are present in all.

I believe the common stereotype of Christians being judgmental comes not from their actual change for the worse, but because they are seeking to devote themselves to God, and that necessarily means a turning away from the old man who lived contrary to the way God willed.

This turning however does not mean we automatically lose our former behaviors.  I try to gentle myself because being a Christian means loving others, but that doesn't mean I automatically lost my exasperation with bad logic and unchallenged assumptions.  Rather, the target has changed.

[People who think I am arrogant or condescending now as a Christian would have probably liked me much less twenty years ago, when my focus was on politics.  It was the Christian faith which taught me that truth is not constrained in a party platform.]

I do believe the teachings of the Catholic faith have tempered me from the man I was before, teaching me not to confuse the error with the person who held them [that is: An idea may be idiotic, but that does not mean the person holding it is an idiot].

So I would say, no, religion does NOT make us worse people.  It is our refusing (or our inability) to die to ourselves that makes these vices noticeable in Christians.  However they are not "Christian" vices, but human vices.

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Read more »

Fundamental Assumptions: Putting Second Things First

Read more »

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

I had a run-in with an atheist the other day.  This one tried to defend her anti-Christianism with the claim that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.  Using the issue of abortion, she argued that the Christian seeking to oppose abortion is trying to impose their beliefs on others and should not be doing so.

The irony was her own argument was in fact an imposition of her own beliefs on others.

The Example of Abortion

I don't intend this to be an article on abortion per se, but the issue was the one raised in challenge to me and it does indeed help bring home the issue of "imposing beliefs."

Abortion being acceptable or evil is not a matter of opinion.  it is a matter of studying the reality of the matter and making a decision on those facts.

The Christian who believes abortion is wrong does not do so because "God says so," but because they believe that the unborn child is a human person, and to arbitrarily end an innocent human life (the unborn child is not an aggressor, as some would argue) at the whim of an individual is to be condemned.  Under this view, to tolerate abortion is to tolerate the right of one person to kill another arbitrarily for reasons of expedience or hardship.

The person who argues abortion should be allowed has to recognize this fact and also to define where their own view is coming from.  The Euphemism of "reproductive freedom" and the slogan of "every child a wanted child" ignores the fact that whether abortion should be allowed or not is not based on "the rights of the mother" but on the issue whether the unborn child is alive.

The pro-life movement has set forth many proofs for the supporting the view the unborn child is alive.  Now, if the Pro-abortion individual wishes to challenge it, a mere denial is not enough, they have to show where the error is and issue their own justifications for their own rule.

Peter Kreeft's "Quadrilemma"

Philosopher Peter Kreeft has discussed what he terms a "quadrilemma" over the abortion issue.  There are four possible choices when it comes to the action of abortion:

1. The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
2. The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
3. The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
4. The unborn is not a human life and we do not know this to be true

This is an issue where there are two considerations: Whether the unborn is alive or not and whether we know it or not.  The first consideration is objective: Either the unborn child is alive or it is not.  The second consideration is whether or not we are able to know this truth.

In Situation 1, if the unborn is not a human life and we can demonstrate this to be true then of course there would be no problems with abortion.  Of course this would have to be established to be true.

In Situation 2, if the unborn is a human life and we can demonstrate it to be true (which seems to be done quite effectively) then there can be no question that abortion must be opposed and those who would support abortion would be guilty of advocating Infanticide.

In Situations 3 and 4, we must err on the side of caution until such a time we can determine what is true.  Otherwise our actions are like a hunter firing blindly into motion in a bust without knowing what it is.  It might be a deer… or it might be a child playing in the bushes.

If the hunter shoots, and the unidentified noise in the bushes is a child, the hunter is guilty of homicide through gross negligence.  If it is a deer, it does not excuse his action.  He was lucky in his gross negligence, but that does not excuse the fact that he did not know what his target was.

In these four choices, applied to abortion, only Situation #1 makes abortion tolerable whether legally or morally.  Situation #2 makes it morally obligatory to oppose abortion as a crime of enormous magnitude.  People who claim we cannot know whether the Child is a human life or not (Situations #3 and 4) must either oppose abortion out of caution or be guilty of grossly reckless behavior.

So ultimately this means that the advocate of abortion needs to prove their point that the unborn child is not a human person.

The abortion advocate may protest here that they are being asked to prove a negative.  However, this is their own argument they make and therefore it is up to them to prove the argument they make. Their poor choice of a claim to defend does not take from them the obligation to establish it to be true.

How This Applies to "Imposing Beliefs"

The individual who invokes the claim of "imposing beliefs" themselves impose their own beliefs.  They disagree with Christian teaching, which is their right under the concept of free will.  However, their disagreement does not mean the Christian teachings are not true.

Ultimately, what is true is what is to be imposed because it is reality.  Claiming it is imposing beliefs is like saying a sign saying "Danger" in front of a cliff is imposing a belief that it is in fact dangerous to step off of the edge.

Christianity has been demonstrating why certain actions must be opposed for two thousand years.  Doubtlessly some will disagree with these teachings.  However, it is not enough to say "I disagree!"  If society is to follow their claims over those of Christianity, then let them demonstrate their claims to be true.  Let us examine them to make sure there are no holes in the argument, no errors which could lead society to its own destruction.

It is only when we arbitrarily insist on a way without justification that we are imposing the will on others.

Yet this is what secularism does now.  It says "We can't know Christianity is true, so we don't have to listen to it."

Yet Kreeft's quadrilemma is present here too.  It is either true or false and we can either know or not know that fact.  The Christian claims "this is true" and gives basis for their claims.  The secularist, the relativist, the atheist all say "I don't agree this is true," but give no real basis to justify their claims (one of my dislikes in reading atheistic apologetics is seeing how bad their reason and logic actually are).

Now, if one side says "This is true" and offers a reasoned argument for their beliefs while the other side says "I disagree" but provides no such argument for their own side, which one is guilty of "imposing beliefs?"

The Myth of "Imposing Beliefs"

I had a run-in with an atheist the other day.  This one tried to defend her anti-Christianism with the claim that Christians try to impose their beliefs on others.  Using the issue of abortion, she argued that the Christian seeking to oppose abortion is trying to impose their beliefs on others and should not be doing so.

The irony was her own argument was in fact an imposition of her own beliefs on others.

The Example of Abortion

I don't intend this to be an article on abortion per se, but the issue was the one raised in challenge to me and it does indeed help bring home the issue of "imposing beliefs."

Abortion being acceptable or evil is not a matter of opinion.  it is a matter of studying the reality of the matter and making a decision on those facts.

The Christian who believes abortion is wrong does not do so because "God says so," but because they believe that the unborn child is a human person, and to arbitrarily end an innocent human life (the unborn child is not an aggressor, as some would argue) at the whim of an individual is to be condemned.  Under this view, to tolerate abortion is to tolerate the right of one person to kill another arbitrarily for reasons of expedience or hardship.

The person who argues abortion should be allowed has to recognize this fact and also to define where their own view is coming from.  The Euphemism of "reproductive freedom" and the slogan of "every child a wanted child" ignores the fact that whether abortion should be allowed or not is not based on "the rights of the mother" but on the issue whether the unborn child is alive.

The pro-life movement has set forth many proofs for the supporting the view the unborn child is alive.  Now, if the Pro-abortion individual wishes to challenge it, a mere denial is not enough, they have to show where the error is and issue their own justifications for their own rule.

Peter Kreeft's "Quadrilemma"

Philosopher Peter Kreeft has discussed what he terms a "quadrilemma" over the abortion issue.  There are four possible choices when it comes to the action of abortion:

1. The unborn is not a human life and we know this to be true
2. The unborn is a human life and we know this to be true
3. The unborn is a human life and we do not know this to be true
4. The unborn is not a human life and we do not know this to be true

This is an issue where there are two considerations: Whether the unborn is alive or not and whether we know it or not.  The first consideration is objective: Either the unborn child is alive or it is not.  The second consideration is whether or not we are able to know this truth.

In Situation 1, if the unborn is not a human life and we can demonstrate this to be true then of course there would be no problems with abortion.  Of course this would have to be established to be true.

In Situation 2, if the unborn is a human life and we can demonstrate it to be true (which seems to be done quite effectively) then there can be no question that abortion must be opposed and those who would support abortion would be guilty of advocating Infanticide.

In Situations 3 and 4, we must err on the side of caution until such a time we can determine what is true.  Otherwise our actions are like a hunter firing blindly into motion in a bust without knowing what it is.  It might be a deer… or it might be a child playing in the bushes.

If the hunter shoots, and the unidentified noise in the bushes is a child, the hunter is guilty of homicide through gross negligence.  If it is a deer, it does not excuse his action.  He was lucky in his gross negligence, but that does not excuse the fact that he did not know what his target was.

In these four choices, applied to abortion, only Situation #1 makes abortion tolerable whether legally or morally.  Situation #2 makes it morally obligatory to oppose abortion as a crime of enormous magnitude.  People who claim we cannot know whether the Child is a human life or not (Situations #3 and 4) must either oppose abortion out of caution or be guilty of grossly reckless behavior.

So ultimately this means that the advocate of abortion needs to prove their point that the unborn child is not a human person.

The abortion advocate may protest here that they are being asked to prove a negative.  However, this is their own argument they make and therefore it is up to them to prove the argument they make. Their poor choice of a claim to defend does not take from them the obligation to establish it to be true.

How This Applies to "Imposing Beliefs"

The individual who invokes the claim of "imposing beliefs" themselves impose their own beliefs.  They disagree with Christian teaching, which is their right under the concept of free will.  However, their disagreement does not mean the Christian teachings are not true.

Ultimately, what is true is what is to be imposed because it is reality.  Claiming it is imposing beliefs is like saying a sign saying "Danger" in front of a cliff is imposing a belief that it is in fact dangerous to step off of the edge.

Christianity has been demonstrating why certain actions must be opposed for two thousand years.  Doubtlessly some will disagree with these teachings.  However, it is not enough to say "I disagree!"  If society is to follow their claims over those of Christianity, then let them demonstrate their claims to be true.  Let us examine them to make sure there are no holes in the argument, no errors which could lead society to its own destruction.

It is only when we arbitrarily insist on a way without justification that we are imposing the will on others.

Yet this is what secularism does now.  It says "We can't know Christianity is true, so we don't have to listen to it."

Yet Kreeft's quadrilemma is present here too.  It is either true or false and we can either know or not know that fact.  The Christian claims "this is true" and gives basis for their claims.  The secularist, the relativist, the atheist all say "I don't agree this is true," but give no real basis to justify their claims (one of my dislikes in reading atheistic apologetics is seeing how bad their reason and logic actually are).

Now, if one side says "This is true" and offers a reasoned argument for their beliefs while the other side says "I disagree" but provides no such argument for their own side, which one is guilty of "imposing beliefs?"

Kmiec Fundamentally Misses the Point

Source: timesofmalta.com - Catholic, pro-life, pro-Obama

(Previous writings on Kmiec can be found HERE)

Doug Kmiec may indeed believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church.  He may even believe himself to be pro-life.  However, in this interview with the Times of Malta, Doug Kmiec shows he is profoundly missing the point about what it means to faithfully carry out the teachings of the Church.

The article tells us of Kmiec's experience:

Prof. Kmiec was invited to a meeting in Chicago of faith leaders, where many people were opposed to Mr Obama on several matters "including myself on the question of how the life issue should be handled".

He says Obama opened this meeting in a remarkable way, saying: "Alright, give me as good as you've got. Give me your best arguments. I know there is disagreement but I want to see whether there is source for common ground."

By the end of the meeting, Prof. Kmiec says, everyone realised that this was a man of humility, great intelligence and capable of listening.

"These were qualities I believed were much need in America in the Oval Office. I believe I saw some of those same qualities in Ronald Reagan in a different time, with a different emphasis," he says.

Even though there were areas of disagreement, Mr Obama pointed out the responsibility of government to provide a family wage, to care for the environment and to provide healthcare for the uninsured.

"When I thought about all these things, I thought 'this is my catechism come to life' because we are called to each of these things in the social teachings of the Church."

I would like to point out Kmiec's fatal flaw here.  The fact that Obama may have some ideas on health care and family wages which are similar to the Catholic teaching (we can validly dispute that his ways are the right ways of course) does not mean Obama the candidate holds the Catholic position.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that it is the right to life which is fundamental here… that if the right to life is neglected, these other rights are meaningless and can be easily taken away.  Obama may use rhetoric which sounds nice, but his deeds are something else altogether.

Another area he fundamentally misses the role of government comes here:

He recalls how he told Mr Obama during the campaign: "How can you allow someone to terminate another person's life? What moral authority do you have for that?"

Mr Obama replied: "Well, professor, not everyone sees life beginning in the same way. The Methodists see it differently, the Jewish faith in part sees it differently." And he went through the list, Presbyterians and so forth.

"If I am elected President," he told Prof. Kmiec, "I am President of all these people."

It's a nice platitude, but when one thinks of it, it is not only worthless but dangerous.  Let us envision a nation which consists of a large Nazi minority and a large Stalinist minority.  Under the platitude Obama offered Kmiec, a president of such a country would have to tolerate their views as well, even if those views brought harm to another.

The fact is some beliefs are not only wrong but evil, and the fact that people support them does not give the political leader the right to tolerate that evil.  If Obama does believe that abortion is evil, then he has a moral obligation to oppose that evil.

Truth is not decided by vox populi vox dei ("The voice of the people is the voice of God").  If one man imposes a just law, it is to be followed even if 99% of the population dissent.  If 99% of the population support an evil law, it remains no law and must be opposed.

Obama's failure to recognize this is his failure as a leader.  Kmiec's failure to recognize the falsity of the statement is a failure in understanding Catholic teaching.

A third fundamental failure on the part of Kmiec comes from this telling bit:

Prof. Kmiec says Mr Obama told him that he views abortion as "a moral tragedy" and that there were two ways of addressing it. There is the law in which people who involved themselves in this procedure would be subject to a penalty. The Supreme Court has put that off limits.

The other way is to do something about it and look at what causes people to have an abortion.

Mr Obama asked Prof. Kmiec: "What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, without insurance, without the next meal on the table."

Prof. Kmiec admits that this approach to abortion is not the ideal solution, saying that poverty or not being married is no excuse to take the life of a child. However, he believes one should be realistic about the problem and if the abortion rate could be reduced - and some studies point out that tackling poverty could lead to fewer abortions - "this seems to me a good interim step".

This is the false dilemma which Kmiec employed during the campaign.  In arguing that neither candidate was "really" pro-life, he portrayed pro-lifers as solely working to end Roe v. Wade and tried to contrast that as a futile gesture compared to the Obama way.

The problem is that pro-lifers aware of Church teaching recognized that we must do both: oppose the legal sanction of abortion and support those in crisis pregnancies.  Obama's policies are like supporting a campaign to reduce teenage drunk driving… and then lowering the drinking age to sixteen.

His policies of economic support have yet to work, but the work for life is continually being weakened by the Obama administration.  Conscience protection is gone, under the promise to be "replaced with a better one."  Catholic Hospitals have felt the beginning of coercion to permit contraceptive and abortifacient procedures.

This then is Kmiec's problem.  He believes Obama will do more for life, but his assumptions are based on a fundamentally flawed view of what the Church requires.