Puffs About Nothing: Religious/Political Debate
I'm glad to see that America is not the only country where people speak without thinking, especially when it comes to politics and religion. A Catholic Archbishop expressed worry about Australia electing the first atheist prime minister, Julia Gillard. He worries that churches will lose special privileges--which is fine; no one wants to pay taxes if they don't have to. That's just how we are as people, even if taxes are how we fund and maintain communities. Churches do offer many valuable services and a framework for charity, so I don't object to tax breaks for them within reason.
The thing that bothers me about this article on a Catholic website is this quote: “Many Christians are concerned that someone who does not believe in God may not endorse the Christian traditions of respect for human life, for the sanctity of marriage and the independence of churches, church schools and church social welfare agencies.” I'm bothered by the first part of that quote, the implication that someone who does not believe in God may not respect human life, or the implication that Christians have a special pedigree of respecting human life.
We will leave aside the question of Catholicism's history of human rights, because evidence can be found to endorse or undermine the claim that they respect human life.
The Prime Minister's atheism has nothing to do with whether she respects human life. You can believe that there is no god and still admire the beauty of innumerable possibilities that is the human experience. You can consider that we are creatures who have evolved wit, intelligence, innovation, the capacity for kindness as much as cruelty, art as much as vulgarity, debate as much as slander.
The problem with the current state of political/religious debate is that there is a lack of empathy, as evidenced by the apparent bias of the Archbishop's statement. Furthermore, context is everything, and we are a culture of snippets, sound bites. Consider first the quote by Gillard that the Catholic article included: “In terms of the work that the Catholic Church does, that other churches and religious groups do in our society, I am a big respecter,” she responded. “And my history has been to be a big supporter."
That's a pretty bland quote. And it doesn't sound particularly eloquent.
Compare that to this article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the much more eloquent prime minister portrayed here. I especially like this quote: "I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel . . .I am what I am and people will judge that. For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."
In the end, the statement by the Archbishop is helpful for nothing more than firing up a conservative base, and it is more divisive than helpful. For God's sake--so to speak--wait until the tax collectors are banging down the church doors and the army is seizing your property before you start worrying about being oppressed. Christians in western cultures who play the martyr/victim card are, to put it mildly, not being realistic.
The thing that bothers me about this article on a Catholic website is this quote: “Many Christians are concerned that someone who does not believe in God may not endorse the Christian traditions of respect for human life, for the sanctity of marriage and the independence of churches, church schools and church social welfare agencies.” I'm bothered by the first part of that quote, the implication that someone who does not believe in God may not respect human life, or the implication that Christians have a special pedigree of respecting human life.
We will leave aside the question of Catholicism's history of human rights, because evidence can be found to endorse or undermine the claim that they respect human life.
The Prime Minister's atheism has nothing to do with whether she respects human life. You can believe that there is no god and still admire the beauty of innumerable possibilities that is the human experience. You can consider that we are creatures who have evolved wit, intelligence, innovation, the capacity for kindness as much as cruelty, art as much as vulgarity, debate as much as slander.
The problem with the current state of political/religious debate is that there is a lack of empathy, as evidenced by the apparent bias of the Archbishop's statement. Furthermore, context is everything, and we are a culture of snippets, sound bites. Consider first the quote by Gillard that the Catholic article included: “In terms of the work that the Catholic Church does, that other churches and religious groups do in our society, I am a big respecter,” she responded. “And my history has been to be a big supporter."
That's a pretty bland quote. And it doesn't sound particularly eloquent.
Compare that to this article from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the much more eloquent prime minister portrayed here. I especially like this quote: "I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel . . .I am what I am and people will judge that. For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."
In the end, the statement by the Archbishop is helpful for nothing more than firing up a conservative base, and it is more divisive than helpful. For God's sake--so to speak--wait until the tax collectors are banging down the church doors and the army is seizing your property before you start worrying about being oppressed. Christians in western cultures who play the martyr/victim card are, to put it mildly, not being realistic.
posted by Devin at 6:34 PM
1 Comments:
"A culture of snippets" -- well said!
Post a Comment
<< Home