There is something purgative about this blog. I do nothing in the way of self-promotion, so I know that I'm throwing it out there without any expectation of a readership. That, of course, is a confession that I temper my speech much more in my day-to-day life. So, let me start with a not entirely outrageous idea -- there is no God. Then what?
For those who are queasy imagining, as John Lennon might put it, "there's no hell below us, above us only sky," you can consider it a thought experiment. If you can't even bring yourself to consider it even as a thought experiment, well then, you're hopeless. You're living in a sort of denial that is very common among human beings, who seem to need religion, but I would submit that god, if he does exist, would encourage the thought experiment, perhaps he even demands it. Why else would an omnipotent god, who could so easily appear and over-awe us all, leave his revelations to a few divinely inspired prophets? Moreover, divinely inspired prophets who lived over two thousand years ago? Don't mistake me, there seems to be no shortage of "divinely inspired prophets." They pop up everywhere -- Jim Jones and David Koresh come to mind -- and they do gather their followers, but it seems they always turn out to be altogether too human.
So, as a thought experiment, there is no God, then what? the first qualm I normally hear goes something like this: if we are not "accountable" to god for moral and ethical behavior, then to whom are we responsible? There are a couple of assumptions behind such statements. The first is that moral and ethical guidance has come to us from god through religion. I do not dispute that religion has often codified what it believes to be moral and ethical behavior, and has sought to impose that behavior on the populace on the authority of god. As some on the christian right would like to suggest, we were a christian nation, and should restore the strictly puritan, calvinist christian governance of our original colonization. Here again, I am thinking of Cruz and his dominionism -- i.e. the "theocratic ideology that seeks to implement a nation governed by conservative christians ruling over the rest of society based on their understanding of biblical law." It seeks what is called a theonomy, from theos (god) and nomos (law) , and is the idea that mosaic law should be observed by modern societies." As pointed out, various theonomic authors have stated such goals as the 'universal development of biblical theocratic republics, exclusion of non-christians from voting and citizenship, and the application of biblical law by the state. Under such a system of biblical law, homosexual acts, adultery, witchcraft and blasphemy would be punishable by death. Propagation of idolatry or false religions would be illegal and could also be punished by the death penalty." One need only imagine the witch trials of Salem to get a sense of what it means to be governed under religious law, but that is nevertheless what some would reinstate. Cruz, of course, should beware. Though I doubt really that they're true, if the enquirer stories are "believed to be true," well ...
Dominionism and theonomy specifically rejects "the reformed belief that the civil laws of the mosaic law are no longer applicable." As perhaps they should. Either the mosaic law is the word of god, or what? On what basis do the reformers suggest that the civil laws of the mosaic code are no longer applicable? I would suggest, of course, that the very existence of "reformed belief" -- the redaction of the biblical code to eliminate public execution by stoning among other things -- belies the ostensible fact that moral and ethical guidance comes to us through religion. It comes to us, rather, through the evolution of our own better sense -- I almost said "angels," but most biblical angels are anything but angelic. These shores may have been colonized by christians seeking escape from the perceived degeneracy of the anglican and catholic church, but our governance is wholly a result of the enlightenment's secularism. You cannot have theonomy AND the first amendment, which on the one hand allows for the propagation of dominionism and its related ideological projections, but on the other allows me to call it utter medieval bullshit, descendant upon us from the heights of eighth mountain, the one Jon Stewart called "bullshit mountain." Indeed, you cannot have a theocracy AND a modern, secular, pluralistic democracy, and despite my impatience with all variety of people, I choose that over a theonomy or closed ideology.
When I say, "the evolution of our own better sense," I am being a bit provocative. Ideation evolves over time. If, on the one hand, we are more tolerant of "homosexual acts" than we were as little as twenty years ago, it need not be taken as a sign of our moral degeneracy, our slipping away from god, but rather a sign of our moral evolution. We simply have a better and broader (though still imperfect) understanding of human sexuality, the range of "choice" associated with gender identity and preference, et cetera. It just seems increasingly unreasonable to vilify a whole group of people for what? If, on the other hand, I do not commit adultery, it need not be taken as a sign that I am adhering to mosaic law, that I fear god's punishment either here or in hell, but simply and solely out of consideration for my wife and her well being. She would feel betrayed and degraded, and I do not want to betray and degrade her. Having said that, if someone does betray his spouse with a clandestine affair, I might think them jerks of the first sort, I might think the ensuing divorce and the civil penalties associated with divorce justified, but I wouldn't have them stoned in the public square. It just seems unreasonably harsh for a sin that christ himself excused. (john 8:11).
Since we're on the subject of sex and sexuality (it does seem that religion is always altogether too concerned with my penis) if we are LESS tolerant of pedophilia and pedophiliac acts, it is likewise because we have a better and broader (though still imperfect) understanding of the developmental consequences of those acts. Pedophiles might argue, not unlike a gay man or woman, or that matter a heterosexual man or woman, that they were "born that way," but what happens BETWEEN consenting adults and what happens TO a child are different matters. The evolution of our better sense is not always in the direction of greater tolerance, but at times in the direction of greater intolerance, more severe sanctions.
It is ultimately, though, a matter of public consensus, and that consensus is always and for ever in development, and the evolution of our better sense comes not from revelation, past or present, but from public discussion -- from, that is, our secular, pluralistic democracy, which has, always and forever, this background question in mind: well, what sort of world DO you want to live in? One answer to that question might well be a theocracy, but thank god, if there is a god, that public consensus has not decided on a theocracy, that here at least religion and religious law is still a matter of discussion and dispute under the protection of the first amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment