A good development has come about at the hands of good and bad people. Over the last several years public conversations about religion are again on the agenda. So now what?
This post asks the question, what are we all going to do about religion’s return to public life? And I staunchly refuse to provide an answer here! But I do want to raise the question, and suggest some ground rules we ought to use in attempting an answer. Here are the ground rules in a nutshell: we agree to use ‘mind’ and ‘heart’ equally in our public discussions of religion. Let me explain.
But first the facts. Like it or not, religion is back. In a company in San Diego, there is a ‘CSO’. Ken Blanchard, whose name is a hot brand in workplace learning and development, is the ‘Chief Spiritual Officer’ of The Ken Blanchard Companies. Across the U.S., New York is home to First Things ‘the Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life.’ Richard John Neuhaus, who spearheaded FirstThings, has been a champion of religion in public life for decades. Ken Blanchard and Richard John Neuhaus are some of the good people who are helping to reincorporate religion in public life.
There also are bad people striving to reintroduce religion in public life. The late scientist Stephen Jay Gould made a career of introducing religious topics in public life so that through his intellect and wit he could libel religion in an effort to self-promote. Other bad people, ironically, introduce religion in the public sphere to promote worldly agendas at the expense of their alleged otherworldly religious commitments. Jerry Farwell has tarnished the name of Jesus in the name of political pragmatism. Stephen Jay Gould and Jerry Farwell are examples of bad people who are helping to highlight religion in public life.
I am about to make an important point. No matter what you think of my examples—you may feel my ‘bad’ people are really the ‘good’ ones or vise versa—no matter, the fact stands that you cannot come to a responsible conclusion one way or the other without using both your mind and your heart. Let me restate this important point. In order to draw responsible conclusions about religion in public life, we need to use our minds and our hearts. Let me explain.
Today in the U.S. and some other countries there is a popular understanding of what it means to use one’s ‘mind’ and ‘heart’. The two faculties are often pitted against each other. This dichotomy suggests the mind is ‘rational, objective, dogmatic’ whereas the heart is ‘passionate, subjective, tolerant.’ Both secularists and religionists align themselves positively with each of these popular understandings of mind and heart. Thus there are religious and non-religious people who favor the mind, and who caution against the heart. Likewise there are religious and non-religious people who favor the heart and caution against the mind. Listen to NPR and you will hear intellectuals using their minds to discuss religion. But the slant of the programming will be toward the popular understanding of heart: religion is subjective and needs to be more tolerant. Listen to Moody Radio and you will hear pastors using their hearts to discuss religion. But the slant of the programming will be toward the popular understanding of mind: religion is objective and needs to be more dogmatic. In either case the result can be called a ‘pissing match’. Lines are drawn in the sand. Labels like ‘dogmatic’ and ‘tolerant’ are hurled over the battle lines as weapons.
Now we must ask ourselves what war are we using these ‘weapons’ to fight? The war for truth? Yes! Yes, even those heart-oriented subjectivists who favor tolerance are fighting for truth. Now by their very demeanor and argument they will appear to not be fighting for a particular truth—after all they advocate subjectivity and tolerance of differing views. In fact they are fighting for a world where the heart-oriented view influences public discourse. They are fighting for a world where it is okay to be okay with other views and not okay to not be okay with other views. Sound confusing? That’s because those who use the popular understanding of ‘heart’ as an orientation for discovering truth are, in fact, confused. Also confused are those who use the popular understanding of ‘mind’ to discover truth. For the popular mind-oriented view posits that we can be rational and objective without also being passionate and subjective. This view fools itself into believing that we can become disinterested observers, seeking truth without the distraction of subjectivity and without fear of dogmatism. In public conversations about religion both heart-oriented and mind-oriented camps use their view in an attempt to find truth.
I am about to make an important point. The ‘weapons’ used by the mind camp and the heart camp are worthless in the battle for truth. It is like having a sword with one sharp edge and one blunt edge, but only hitting your enemy with the blunt edge. It doesn’t work.
Religion’s reentry into the public sphere has the ability to positively affect all people. The benefit is that religion provides a medium for the proper discussion of right belief. And right belief finds its way into all public discussions; whether about education, business, technology…name it. A balance of mind and heart as we discuss religion in the public. That is a good thing. Now what?
God put us in this time to have this chance. Possibilities. To be able to have a child in-vitro is a miracle, just like evolution. Christians are powerful politically and they should put their values to work exposing the avarice as well as the amorality.
Wouldn't I? hm... interesting thought, moving to new york. nah, I suppose I am needed in Germany rather urgently...
I am confident there'll be some solution to this issue, though. At some point. And I think what people might oppose about Christianity is the institution of the church much more than the religious values. Everyone with a common sense should agree with some of them at least.
And Dave, we can still start the shouting, if you fancy it :-)
ed, i'm not so sure that all americans will ignore the non-sensational issues. i don't. lots of my friends don't. i know of lots of others who don't. i bet tony don't. i bet you don't. yana wouldn't if she moved to new york.
thanks for everyone's thoughts. i appreciate this post getting good conversation going. thanks everyone for not degenerating into shouting matches...
The flipside is that ethicists have to acknoledge religious values as a foundation of ethical values.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not something we should give up on. You can prove a in-vitro fertilized blastocyst went from the freezer to the dumpster (all those eggs at all those clinics...) - and you can prove that therin a potential life was terminated. It ia harder to prove that this blastocyst has a soul and that therefore murder occurred. It would help if both sides quit beating their chests with their righteousness and instead accepted the reasons for the other side's point of view.
And no - Americans will ignore economic health, health care reform, the environment, etc., etc., etc., as long as the sensational issues of abortion and homosexuality animate their emotions and make for interesting drama - especially when everyone, media, proponents and opponents, and bystanders, create and watch the endless drama in shades of only black and white.
Don't dispair, Dave... I understood you the second time around... this is a hot topic and I doubt that either we or the public in general will reach any sort of conclusion on this any time soon. I personally think it's dangerous to mix religious belief and political issues, but I suppose it can't really be separated in practice.
neither can 'secular ethical arguments' be proven...unless you are attempting to prove an absurdity. i completely disagree that religion cannot inform civil law. moreover all of american (and other nations) legal history disproves it. more moreover, even if we agreed to not let anything 'religious' into statutes, that does not mean that people (human beings with beliefs) cannot use their hearts and minds (affected by their beliefs) to come to conclusions about a particular law.
there are absolutely no disinterested observers!!! aaaarrrrrr!!!! there is no such thing as putting religion (and other beliefs) on hold while we do secular reasoning for civil (public) purposes. it doesn't work. it's a hoax.
The issue is can members of religious faith accept that laws have to be written based on secular ethical arguments because many beliefs based on faith are not necessarily shared and cannot be proven?
oh, it's so darn hard to communicate effectively over the internet!! too little space, too little real communication (that's another post, though)
yana, i completely agree. and i was not attempting to suggest that every issue must be debated on religious grounds. only so much debate is healthy before action must take place.
what i am concerned with is that some (not all) religious and non-religious people don't do much thinking at all before they take action. many christians don't think past gut or herd instinct before they take action. i sometimes do this, but i'm a member of a community - american evangelicalism - that has refined the art of thoughtless action. my concern is both for that community and for the world in which it exists. thoughtless action does not help evangelicals. it does not help the world feel comfortable with evangelicals. and ultimately thoughtless action will move in wrong directions.
now there are all sorts of qualifications i could tag onto these comments. but space limits me. suffice to say, religious people and their communities should do a better job of thinking through public issues.
but where does it get you if any decision to be made has to be debated on religious grounds first. Come on, you know that sometimes this is only gonna confuse or slow things down. BECAUSE this is such a subjective issue and sometimes things just have to get done.
yana, i'm not sure that some (or even any) issues are not touched by religious issues. i tend to think that there is a 'christian' (insert other religion) way to view all things. or maybe i should say that a religious contribution can be made to all public issues.
ed, having said that, i think that we can put some issues on hold while we address others.
so... religious people can (i'm suggesting we *should*) deal with public issues from our religious perspective. and i think we can set aside contentious issues for a time, while we trackle other issues.
"And perhaps even those who don't even think of themselves as Christians, might make the more devoted Christian after all."
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Quite honestly, I don't understand that. What does the one thing have to do with the other? Some issues shouldn't be (and aren't even) touched by religious aspects... so you can well deal with them without having such a huge debate!
One can appear religious without pondering religious issues - but if the big five schisms (1) evolution (2) fate of non-Christians (3) abortion (4) homosexuality (5) end-times - are to move towards resolution, Christians, fake-Christians, and non-Christians will all have to do a lot of pondering, praying, discussing, and mutual learning.
It isn't at all clear to me that a secular ethics and Christian ethics can be completely reconciled - what does that mean?
There is no way Americans can move politically on to other issues, such as energy independence, defusing the debt bomb, providing better access to health care, cleaning up pollution, etc., unless a political center forms on the religious issues. That is tough, and the more people who honestly ponder this challenge the better.
At the end of the day, I think you'll find that those who talk the least about it might make the better Christian... And perhaps even those who don't even think of themselves as Christians, might make the more devoted Christian after all. Just a thought....
so is theological reflection, say that produces a book or a lecture, not considered a 'good work'? if some christian's job is to work on public policy and she holds up in her office and writes a theologically informed policy, does she need to get out of her chair and be nice to family or the poor (sometimes the same ;-) before she is doing 'good works'?
i'm all for 'ministry' and for 'good works'. jeff i appreciate your perspective to reach out to the needy. david, i appreciate your additional comment that often times we don't have to seek out the needy.
i suppose i just include 'thinking' and the 'works' good thought can produce *as* 'good works'. helping people (both religious and not) better understand the positive contributions christians can offer to public discussion *is* a 'good work'.
ed, i actually disagree that a person has 'to ponder the religious issues' today. i think people can get away with the appearance of being religious without actually 'pondering' or thinking much about religion.
If you are politically aware and politically concerned, if you have any ideology at all today in America, you have to ponder the religious issues. Whether one is Christian or in any way religious in their private lives doesn't change this public reality.
That is the political landscape in America in 2004. Religion is one of the prevailing issues that decides who gets elected and guides the nation, if not THE prevailing issue. For this reason, if you thought political issues could be framed in secular ethical arguments and nothing more, that was then.
Religion is the animating ideology moving societies today throughout the world, and the most articulate and passionate political activists and political leaders throughout the world are in many places deeply religious. You can speculate till the cows come home on the socio-historical trends that have brought us to this point, but the new challenge is clear: Consensus building and peacemaking must involve successful ecumenical outreach, and not just secular diplomacy. That is not easy, but it's where things are going to be for a long, long time to come. That is the historical surprise of the 21st century.
Jeff, first I want to thank you for your postings, especially to my columns. BTW, you have a lot of interesting postings.
Second, I have to admit that I wonder what is and isn't appropriate to say in a forum like this. To me, it's becoming like a little community and I think this is a good thing. Hence, I'm more comfortable talking about my faith beliefs than I might on another community forum/blog. Also, I doubt that I would bring up this topic -- although I'm happy to respond.
Third, as far as Christian ministry is concerned, I guess I agree with you. Faith without works is rather shallow. It might lead to salvation by Christian theological definition (and I believe it does), but it's rather worthless and self-centered without works. Yet, if someone really has faith, I'd bet that works would follow.
Here's where it gets tricky. I do NOT believe that works have to entail feeding the poor, fighting disease, etc. These are noble efforts, to be sure. But I agree with the essence of Opus Dei: For most of us, our ministry is to those sitting with us at the dinner table and those we work with. It isn't about two-week mission trips to Rwanda (which generally serve to make rich White people feel good about themselves); it's about living the Gospel with those at the dinner table and at work.
But I include work, not just one's home. And this means works at work -- if this makes sense. I don't think too many of us have to go to Rwanda or Sudan to do ministry: There are plenty of opportunities all around us.
You don't buy that christian ministry is an essential and vital part of the public aspect of being a christian? Or are you looking for a political dynamic for ministry?
You say:
"but they must create a theology upon which to practice their faith in the public square. i don't even think all 'individual' christians need to do this. christian communities (evangelicalism, catholicism, etc.) need to do this. we are sheep. we need direction."
What ever happen to Christ? Is this not your direction or are you just looking for a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Part of the problem with christianity in the last 1900 or so years is too much theology not too little.
But to put this more in perspective they (evangelicalism, catholicism, etc.) are already doing this and have mobilized public [state] support for ecclesiastical purposes................there are several historical references for this already; you may be too young to know about Sunday blue laws, which in many states are still on the books.
Finally, modern media shows that our lives are very much a public part of our faith...........otherwise Jimmy Swaggert would not have been shown for who he really was. I dare say if theology was informative of action then it has been abused in this very manner to make human tradition more important that what God says.
d. s. lewis - honestly, brother, i don't think you've been busy enough for the last couple decades. you should probably add a few more pursuits to your plate ;-) thanks for the comments.
jeff - i don't buy it, brother. yes christians should live their beliefs. they should be a positive influence with their lives. they should meet needs. yes! but they must create a theology upon which to practice their faith in the public square. i don't even think all 'individual' christians need to do this. christian communities (evangelicalism, catholicism, etc.) need to do this. we are sheep. we need direction.
our lives, though, are not the 'public' part of our faith while our theology is the 'private' aspect. it should all be public. it should inform our actions as we meet needs and our words as we debate policy.
Let me deconstrruct a little what I said on my [POSTED: 12.06.04 @13:45]. I think real christians work in a more understated way in public domains. Naturally, to be "parading" around your beliefs would bring a reproach as I can attest to; even when asked. Christian are suppose to LIVE their beliefs as a lifestyle choice reflecting enobling and life affirming values. It is the positive influence which counts, not docturnal rhetoric which some non-believers find offensive only because they don't support those values.
In large measure christianity is about meeting needs wherever they are found, we call it ministry; service if you will. Obviously, there are a multitude of ways in which this ministry can take place.
Finally what I suggested is the there may be overt appeals to institutionalize this ministry by seeking state support.........it is my contention that no good can come of it. Unfortunately, there are far too many examples where this would breed intolerance.
Note for David Scott Lewis:
"And I can easily debunk The da Vinci Code." anyone can if you are aware of and understand Babylonian mystery religion........and it's gnostic cousin.....but suspect you do.
BTW, I want to echo Tony's plug for Fr. Benedict Groeschel. Absolutely fantastic!! I've NEVER been disappointed watching one of his shows, which I regularly watch from China.
But I have to correct you, Tony: He's a friar, NOT a monk. Franciscans are friars, as are Dominicans, Augustinians and Carmelites. Only the Benedictines and the Orders derived from the Benedictines (Cistercians -- O. Cist., Trappists -- O.C.S.O.) are monks. The Carmelites have an eremitical group (they might also be Discalced, I don't recall) which are often referred to as monks, but they're still friars.
I'd also like to take a stance for Jewish interpretations of scripture. Believe it or not (and I'm sure it's hard to believe), I was formerly fluent in Hebrew and the only gentile (perhaps ever) to receive the Free Sons of Israel Medal for (National) Hebrew Scholarship. (This was way back in 1975.) I regularly use an Orthodox Jewish commentary on the Psalms (Tehillim); it's the ArtScroll edition. Yes, I use Spurgeon and Augustine, but I really prefer the ArtScroll commentary.
So what do I mean by "Jewish interpretations of scripture"? Simple. Unlike Christian (Catholic, Protestant, [Eastern/Oriental] Orthodox -- and I had time to read a lot of Orthodox writings, especially since some of the best <Athanasius, Origen, Basil -- I can correctly pronounce "Basil", too> were written before the schisms in the 5th and 11th centuries) Bibles, Jewish "pew" Bibles, such as the Stone Chumash (which is Orthodox, but this equally applies to Etz Hayim for Conservatives and the Plaut for Reformed Judaism) not only combine commentary with scripture, but also provide alternative interpretations. I can't imagine this happening in Christendom. Of course, the alternatives are within certain limits, but it's this attitude which I believe is the right attitude for discussing public policy-meets-religion issues. There are way too many closed minds on both sides (all sides) of the aisle.
In closing, I also want to mention one of my favorite magazines with a broader reach than The Christian Century. It's called Science and Theology News. It might have a lot of appeal to the AO crowd. See http://www.scienceandtheologynews.com/ .
Tony, after the Second Vatican Council, Catholics became "Eucharistic Episcopalians“ (or "Liturgical Lutherans")!! After all, didn't Catholics become Protestants after VII? ;-)
You don't know this, but I'm an evangelical Protestant who spent five months living and working as a monk. No, not the New Age California trendy Buddhist stuff. Benedictine (OSB & OSB Cam) and Trappist (OCSO). To the best of anyone's knowledge, I'm the only Protestant who has lived and worked the monastic life in such a varied number of monasteries (all contemplative; none were apostolic). I also spent time with three of the four mendicant orders (Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustinians), and two congregations (the Jesuits and Claretians) for an additional two months. This makes me more Catholic than most Catholics. Yes, I even know how to properly pronounce "Augustine" and "Bernard". And I can easily debunk The da Vinci Code.
(Maybe I should have written a "Letter from the Desert" column back then ...)
This debate sounds like a Franciscans vs. Jesuits debate. Both sides can make their appeals -- and both sides appeal to different audiences.
Since I'm had the good fortune to play in several different sandboxes, the best perspectives I've seen come from the mainline Protestants. Okay, I need to be more specific. The best arguments, combining the best of various world views (but still consistently Christian) come from The Christian Century magazine. Although I'm personally a bit more conservative than The Christian Century crowd, I find that their articles are the most balanced AND the most rational AND still appeal to one's heart. Much better than Sojourners, America, U.S. Catholic, First Things, Christianity Today, Sword of the Lord (just kidding), ...
Matter of fact, I like The Christian Century so much that it's one of the few printed magazines I receive from the States. For those without easy access to the printed edition, archived articles are available at http://www.religion-online.org .
jeff, i don't always follow your thoughts in your posts ;-( i didn't really understand your next to last one.
again, while i've appreciated everyone's input, i think the discussion of religion informing public discussions is still fresh territory. also again, it seems to me that the catholics are doing an okay job of it. they actually put together theological reasons for public issues. evangelicals do less of this, though there are evangelicals who are thoughtfully entering public discussion.
i still think the average christian is pretty close-minded to thoughtful religious reflection on public issues. u2 does a better job addressing gun ownership from a christian worldview than the southern baptist convesion, for example. how could this be??
I think Tony's comments hit the nail on the head, and deserve deeper reflection. Dave, I would say that in large measure those values are reflected; but not in an overt manner. I suppose on one level this is because individuals see this as a ever present recourse; but the very foundation of our institutional framework speaks volumes to this value system.
Most of this influence comes in the form of hidden persuasion toward noble and enlightening goals; it would be an offence to conscience if it took a more overt nature, and is the very principle of seperation of church and state; unfortunately I suspect that this is slowly becoming the case.
I would not doubt it for a minute, but you can surely understand why people might question Christian faith... it's not to slam it, but to understand it better!
Lewis was an Anglican - In the Catholic faith we call it being a "Cafeteria Catholic."
I can attest that following the Christian faith is basically impossible to do elegantly because our instincts are very often not to "turn the other cheek," "love thy enemy," and believe that "the meek shall inherit the earth."
But I would argue that just because most people who claim to be Christain (including myself) will act hypocritically to their faith from time-to-time, that does not invalidate Christ or His message. So you really have to separate the two. When you do meet the few saintly Christains who do practice their faith in a very humble, and ernest way, you see their joy, and it is a very powerful witness to the fiath.
Tony, since you mentioned C S Lewis yourself, let me just underline with his words what I said earlier about my suspicion that people are merely picking and choosing what they like:
"We have all departed from that total plan in different ways, and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted to bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest. That is why we do not get much further..."
in daily life faith is required for more than religious belief. that is something our western world is coming to grips with. the notion of an 'objective' scientist or philosopher who studies only the 'facts' is no longer plausible. maybe that's another post, though...
one thing that is really fascinating is the lack of substantive religious thinking in public debates (whether abortion, healthcare, environment, foreign policy, civil rights, etc.). the most amazing thing about your statistic, tony, is that despite the overwhelming number of americans who claim to be religious, there is so little effort to bring theolgoical thought to bear on public issues. the catholic church is something of an exception, though far from perfect in this regard. evangelicals have a miserable record of public thoughtfulness.
why is that? why do americans rush to answer 'yes' to questions about belief but then lose interest in substantive religious thinking on public issues?
The faith stat was taken from talk given by Fr. Benedict Groeschel a Franciscan Monk who operates a home for orphans in the South Bronx. You can check out his talks here:
There has been a word for "God" in every language, I believe, becuase God makes Himself present to every human being, whether they chose to embrace Him or no. But i also believe that one can not come to see God solely through the pursuit of science, logic, or by being persuaded by another individual. At some point, each individual must take a leap of faith to believe in God. And once you make the leap, you then begin a deep personal relatinship with God that is, in many ways, just like any other personal relationship. There are times you feel closer to God, and there are times you feel more distant, because like all reltionships, you have to invest in it.
But a relationship with God is also very different. For one, God knows all, including every hair on our head, so there is no putting up our best face in front of God. Once you get to know God, you also feel that His love is unconditional, not matter what you do, or how you act. In this very powerful sense, our relationship with God is very psychologically cleansing, becuase you are essentially loved by someone who loves you in spite of knowing all of your deepest darkest secrets. There is also a sense that you will be with God and be loved by Him forever.
So, yes, from a pure objective view, if someone really believes that you can have a personal relationship with God as I have described, and it comes with the promise of eternal life, this is indeed very psychological soothing. C.S. Lewis called this feeling being "surprised by joy."
But if I were a man who believed that we were all here on earth because the right combination of elements somehow randomly joined together in the right mix and resulted in the first living cell. And that living cell started to replicate and evolve over zillions of years to the point that I am now sitting here typing this comment and living in a world with billions of other human beings—all without the hand of an intelligent creator. Well, yes, I would think believing in a God was the result of a need for a psychological "crutch" and basically absurd. But then again, if I believed that humans were "accidents of the universe," I would also believe that basically everything about life was absurd.
Just a couple of questions, Tony, where does this figure (92 percent) come from? Is this it truly representative? And why do you think the remaining 8 percent does not believe in a creator, just because they don't know better? It strikes me as odd that there should be such a great majority of believers, and I wonder whether all of them embrace both the pleasant and unpleasant aspects of faith, or whether some of them haven't just picked the comfortable route of believing in a life beyond death. After all, it'd be a very depressing thought that everything is over following your last breath. Hope for something better is always the more pleasant alternative, isn't it?
As always, no provocation intended, I am really just curious...
92% of Americans believe that when they die they will meet their creator and be accountable for the life they led on earth. Why are we such a faithful country? I think, in part, it is because we promote freedom of religion—i.e. The "If you seek you find," principle is optimized when people feel free to seek. And fortunately, I don't see anyone credible arguing in the US for making any single religion the "official" religion. And, as a country, we would never go for this idea, becuase it runs so against our founding culture.
On the other hand, there are lots of folks who want to aboiish any form of religion expression in the public sqaure—arguing "Separation of Church and State." Many people think that phrase is from our Constitution but of course it is not, and mispresents what the intention of the founding fathers. Our Constitution protects us from the "establishment" of a single state relgion, which is a much diffrent idea. If Congress wants to start out with a prayer—who cares? I am Catholic, but am happy to see any kind of earnest, faithful expression in government, no matter if it is a Rabbi, minister or Buddhist priest who is officiating.
I guess it must be a little intimidating to be part of the 8% in our country that doesn't believe in a creator, and the idea of praying to a creator for strength and guidance must seem pretty strange.
i'm thinkign of god. i'm an orthodoxy (small o) christian. so i'm thinking of the triune god.
but...here's another thought. as individuals we can get at truth. individuals can move in the direction of ultimate truth. but communities (including historical communities) can help all of us get closer to truth than we coudl on our own. so...
while i would say that only god makes the final call - when individuals embrace community and tradition we can together get closer to ultimate truth.
now that gets tricky! i'll say this, though. my point is that we *can* test between good and bad. we can actually draw conclusions about good and bad (in people, circumstances, ideas, etc.). i'll also say this, though. while i believe we can draw conclusions, i do not think we can draw ultimate conclusions. the final say is always someone elses call.
but for now, we can discuss the merit of religion, of particular religious people, and religious ideas. we can do that and make sense. get at some truth. it's not just opinion.
yana, yes in some ways religion has always been in public discussion. but recently mostly religious language, not substantive religious dialog. in europe, as you know, religious language remain - you have political parties with the label 'christian' built into their names. but how religious are they? do they use theological inquiry to help formulate policy? no. for the best treatment of the absense of religion in public life, i would recomment the magazine first things... http://www.firstthings.com check out the ongoing discussion of religion in the public square. anyway, yana, i've appreciated your desire for balance on ao.
je - that google ad is classic! interesting how key words don't get to the key points of most webpages...
Beautiful post, David. As I was reading it, I noticed the "Ads by Goooooogle" column on the right margin. The top entry- "Religion Church. Brand new and used. No bidding. Buy Religion Church at eBay!" Who knew it was that easy?
David, if you say that religion is back on the public agenda, this would implicate that it wasn't before... I am quite not sure about this!
I am also not sure whether you can really separate the mind from the heart, and even people who seem to approach things on a more rational level might find it hard to not regard what their heart tells them... and vice versa.
But I am always in favor of balance... in debates such as this one, balance is urgently needed.
AP WorldStream via COMTEX
What`s Missing in the Paying Bloggers to Blog Vision ?
E-NEWSLETTER SERIES