tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post7847045395268525368..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Straw Men and the Chick-fil-A KerfluffleEric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-27902509809648252962012-08-14T12:12:05.050-05:002012-08-14T12:12:05.050-05:00"But I think the problem lies with their acti..."But I think the problem lies with their actions more than with their motives: while what they are doing is unloving towards their gay and lesbian neighbors, they don't want to be unloving. They mean well. There is a disconnect between motives and actions."<br /><br />Thanks for these words. This explains perfectly how I felt, but couldn't quite find a way to express.<br /><br />SonyaSonyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-12869757525668061652012-08-10T17:42:10.941-05:002012-08-10T17:42:10.941-05:00Hi Keith
I agree, and think your example is a goo...Hi Keith<br /><br />I agree, and think your example is a good one. The expression I like of this is that while evidence does not determine narrative, it does constrain it. <br /><br />Eric, I have may have misunderstood you. Absolutely, when clearly bogus evidence is cast about - those who speak of the 'causes of homosexuality' for example (same causes as for heterosexuality, I would have thought) - then finding a friendly way of putting that right is something of a duty.<br /><br />I responded, I think, to your use of the word mistaken in your last line. Given that religious belief extends our narrative beyond the shared evidence, to call another's foundational beliefs mistaken is, I think, a tricky business. We can point out inconsistencies in expressed viewpoints, or flaws in evidence cited, of course. But if a person sincerely believes in a construction that yields a God disapproving of homosexuality, and we wish to claim this is mistaken, we may need to reach for something stronger than our own construction (in your case religious, in mine cultural) to back this up.<br /><br />Hence the appeal, for me, or attempting to short circuit the discussion of right and wrong altogether, exploring instead the emotional impact of our narratives and their consequences. Faith in this approach entails a sort of blind optimism, I know, one that is very similar in fact to the hopefulness of your theology.<br /><br />BernardBernard Beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-10309350255894886952012-08-10T13:07:24.455-05:002012-08-10T13:07:24.455-05:00Hi Eric and Bernard: The question of what it takes...Hi Eric and Bernard: The question of what it takes to convince somebody of a moral claim is a subcategory of the question of what it takes to convince anyone of anything, for example what it took to move ME from atheism to theism. I wasn't argued into theism, because of certain intuitions I developed and certain experiences I had, I became convinced of God's reality. But the debate betwen atheists and theists definitely played a roll in my convincement in that I became convinced that the atheological objections to theism were flawed. This didn't move me to theism, but it did eliminate a stumblng block. I am thinking the same concept applies to the issue of gay rights too.keith johnsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-6590725411676107992012-08-10T11:48:30.982-05:002012-08-10T11:48:30.982-05:00Bernard,
Our meta-ethical theories differ (and yo...Bernard,<br /><br />Our meta-ethical theories differ (and your comment here has given me an idea of a way to maybe clarify why I'm unhappy with your meta-ethics...another time). But I think we agree on what method is most likely to change the hearts and minds of people who might not be accepting of gays and lesbians and so lead to greater acceptance: by increasing exposure to their stories, their experiences, their hurt in the face of social marginalization caused by belief systems that delegitimize the intimate relationships of which they are capable. <br /><br />The difference between us, it seems, lies in whether this exposure should be construed as exposure to the best sort of EVIDENCE for the correctness of a moral view. I think it should be so construed. And for Christians, who view ethical treatment towards neighbors as loving treatment, and love as being concerned about their welfare, it seems that attention to how practices affect the course of people's lives should count as relevant evidence. One impediment to seeing things in this way is the belief that if something appears in the Bible, its being in the Bible provides such decisive evidence for what is being asserted that no possible weight of contrary evidence could override it.<br /><br />Some people resist exposure to contrary evidence for this reason--they put up defensive walls if a teacher puts them in an environment that introduces (what I take to be) the right sort of evidence, or they seek ways to escape that environment altogether. So what do we do?<br /><br />Challenging the coherence of the ideology that sustains the resistance MIGHT help in some cases. In most cases, however, the change won't happen until life circumstances make it impossible NOT to attend to (what, given my meta-ethics, I think of as) the evidence.<br /><br />In the meantime, arguments might serve a different function--such as weakening the social reach of the mechanisms that inculcate allegiance of the problematic ideology, or such as validating the sense of being wronged among those who are the victims of the ideology. <br /><br />And arguments can and do help those who are fighting internalized self-loathing based on childhood indocrtination into the teachings that marginalize them. They, of course, cannot avoid seeing the bad fruits of the teaching. But sometimes the indoctrination is strong enough that the implications of those fruits aren't clear , and they benefit from some helpful reasoning that exposes the vacuity of the ideology and permits them to embrace the badness of the fruits and their implications. This is frequently experienced as a liberation.<br /><br />So, more vigorous arguments, as opposed to the gentler approach you suggest, may be more about helping the victims of harmful moral beliefs than about converting those who endorse those beliefs.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-65569095857375511962012-08-10T11:16:18.470-05:002012-08-10T11:16:18.470-05:00Your point has merit. I talked about the "sou...Your point has merit. I talked about the "source" of the disconnect between the motives of conservative Christians who promote the systematic marginalization of gays and lesbians and their actions. This language is ambiguous, and probably warrant unpacking.<br /><br />The cause of the original belief that homosexuality is one thing--and it likely has the complex social sources that you mention. But the cause of the original belief may not be the cause of the disconnect between heart and behavior. For loving motives to proceed in unloving acts, the "heart" has to be insulated against the effects of the unloving acts--the person has to be encouraged to avoid paying meaningful attention to those who are harmed either (a) by encouraging the creation of social conditions under which those who are harmed are so ashamed of who they are that they keep it to themselves by staying in the closet and suffering in silence, or (b) by discouraging meaningful contact with "those sinners" who don't hide in the closet, or (c) by putting up a robust interpretive filter that is capable of explaining away or minimizing the expressions of harm. <br /><br />In other words, my interest isn't in the source of the original belief, but in what causes the belief to stay in place among well-meaning people in a world where a whole class of people is harmed by the actions that follow from the belief.<br /><br />For a belief to survive "bad fruits," especially among people who basically care about others, there needs to be a structure in place that helps to sustain insulation against meaningful awareness of those bad fruits. Social insulation of the sort described in (a) may not require an ideological belief structure. But once (a) begins to erode, one needs an ideology that strongly justifies the harmful beliefs and attendant practices--and I think that for many American Christians, inerrancy serves this role. If questioning the ideology is treated as anathema--as a betrayal of God, for example--then the adherent might have strong motives to avoid any experience that could lead to such questioning.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-73247956887039708342012-08-09T18:17:56.511-05:002012-08-09T18:17:56.511-05:00Hi Eric
I wonder sometimes if there's a tacti...Hi Eric<br /><br />I wonder sometimes if there's a tactical error involved in calling those who oppose same-sex intimacy mistaken? For me, I seek actively to change hearts and minds on this issue (mostly through my teaching) purely because that's where my empathy drags me, made more potent I'm sure by close friendships with homosexuals. <br /><br />In the school context, at least, the trick seems to lie in not touching upon the morality of the stance at all. Rather, an admittedly more manipulative process of exposure (via media) and subtle comparison to other 'progressive' movements appears to work very well. If the environment is carefully managed, there appears to be a level of exposure beyond which an initial resistance is rendered somehow absurd.<br /><br />At that point, more often than not the individual will do the work of rearranging their moral furniture to accommodate the new emotional urge themselves. If, by contrast, one attempts to overtly dismantle beliefs, there's a very strong defence mechanism, an instinct often bolstered by tribalism, that kicks in. <br /><br />The opponent, if sufficiently motivated, will in all likelihood find the arguments they are grasping for (perhaps they will accuse the progressive Christian of indulging in their own form of inerrancy, not in terms of interpreting particualr passages of scripture, but in terms of the holistic reading). <br /><br />Clearly this leans heavily upon my own view of the way morality is gorunded, but I do find the gentler approach is much more powerful, at least with young people.<br /><br />BernardBernard Beckettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-91355424735881823862012-08-09T11:40:30.392-05:002012-08-09T11:40:30.392-05:00Thank you for explaining "Seperation of Churc...Thank you for explaining "Seperation of Church and State". I've never heard anyone explain it that well or that succinctly. It seems to me that the meaning of the term is either mirepresented or ignored. I want to take the stance of "its not my business nor my government's business who marries whom". There are, of course, exceptions that I think was as a society can agree on (same species, age, consent, incest). Is that the wrong stance to take? Would it be better to pick a side and fight?Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07969678615493303543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-82429299939400982782012-08-09T11:27:38.044-05:002012-08-09T11:27:38.044-05:00Hi Eric,
You seem to be saying (among other thing...Hi Eric,<br /><br />You seem to be saying (among other things) that, for many, the Bible is the source of their view on same-sex marriage. I understand this is a complex issue but I wonder is this gets the causality right: isn't it rather the case that one's views come from sources like education/family/social environment and appropriate excerpts from the Bible are used only as supporting material for these views? I don't know but it seems this must happen as often as the opposite.<br /><br />This goes both ways, of course. The Bible being what it is, one can find supporting material for a number of different views (especially if one ignores the historical context and so on).<br /><br />I would venture to suggest that reliance on authority (be it biblical or other) to justify a moral stance is more often than not part of the problem (and hardly ever justified). For example, it's for me the strangest thing to imagine someone who, say, strongly believes something is wrong but will do it anyway because some authority says it's good.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609837930361362269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-31281200543859123022012-08-09T10:30:18.921-05:002012-08-09T10:30:18.921-05:00Guarantees of religious freedom, while they don...Guarantees of religious freedom, while they don't guarantee a religious community the right to impose its values on the majority, does protect its right to live out its values within its own community (assuming those values don't endorse raping or killing or maiming community members, etc). <br /><br />This protection is not a right to be free from criticism, to be free from being called immoral and unjust and unloving, or to be free from civil, nonviolent direct action taken by the victims of religious persecution. It isn't the right to be free from picketing and protest. But it is the right to be free from legal mandates to conduct their sectarian rituals and practices in a particular way. <br /><br />If the Missouri Synod Lutherans refuse to extend communion to other Christians who aren't of the same denomination, the right to religious freedom ensures that they can make this choice without legal repercussions. But the very same constitutional liberties guarantee the right of ELCA Lutherans to critique this practice, to say that it is contrary to the inclusive spirit of Jesus, etc. It guarantees the right of a particular Missouri synod pastor to defy the denomination's policy and practice open communion without fear of legal repercussions--but it also guarantees that the denomination has the right to impose internal sanctions such as defrocking said pastor without legal repercussions. And it guarantees the right of the particular church to thumb its nose at the synod's defrocking, leave the synod in protest, and continue to pay the "defrocked" pastor to be its pastor.<br /><br />You get the idea. Separation of Church and State and the right to freedom of religion offer some pretty robust protection of religious liberty--not absolute protection (no human sacrifice, and things get complicated when a religious community runs a secular business that employs and serves people who don't belong to the faith without requiring them to convert), but especially if we're talking about a religious ritual with religious meaning that members of the religious community participate in, decisions about who gets to partake of the ritual and who doesn't is left in the religious community's hands, and issues of injustice about such decisions are left up to the community to resolve internally.<br /><br />It is my hope that these internal mechanisms will eventually motivate churches to move towards marriage equality, but freedom of religion pretty much ensures, I think, that no legal sanctions will be imposed on those that don't.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-88097423846204002242012-08-09T09:28:40.561-05:002012-08-09T09:28:40.561-05:00I've only spoken to one person that could give...I've only spoken to one person that could give, in my opinion, a reasonable defense for opposing gay marriage. He was a Mormon; I find Mormon's to be some of the most informed religous practitioners. His argument, which I thought was an interesting one, it centered around the legal ramifications of churches refusing to marry gay men and women. Could a church be sued, on the grounds of discrimination, if it refused to marry a gay couple? Though I don't know if the Catholic Church has ever been threatened with legal action because it refused to marry someone that has been divorced.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07969678615493303543noreply@blogger.com