While browsing through a local used bookstore I noticed a book entitled Christian Maturity (probably this one). I must admit that I did not pick up the book to read the jacket, let alone read the entire book, but the title nonetheless got me to thinking about the religion that I grew up with. Is it possible that the author had something new to offer? Of course, but I was not willing to find out because I have read too many other “Christian Living” books promoting strong faith (read “do good works”) and a full understanding of what Jesus should mean in one's life. I didn’t need to read another book telling me what it meant to be Christian. Instead, I began to think about what true Christian maturity would mean.

Christian maturity means having a full understanding of the religion that you believe in. Frankly, most believers do not understand their religion, and those that think they do are basing this assertion on an understanding of what they have been taught by others. But true Christianity is not the religion that has been popularized by the numerous denominations and sects over the last several centuries. Christian maturity requires you to reevaluate the meaning of all that you hold dear and not simply accept those things you've been taught since childhood, because not evaluating the basis of belief is irresponsible and dangerous.

"Institutional Christianity seems fearful of inquiry, fearful of freedom, fearful of knowledge—indeed, fearful of anything except its own repetitious propaganda, which has its origins in a world that none of us any longer inhabits."

-John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die

The Basis of Belief
We do not fully understand the Jewish culture of Jesus’ time, and everything we have been taught about Christianity comes from centuries of gentile teachings about a Jewish man. To understand Jesus the man and Christianity the religion, it is necessary to understand the Jewish people as well.  The Jews did not write and tell stories the way that we do, which means that we must understand their storytelling to understand their stories. They create characters based on historical people to emphasize certain qualities; they insert angels and even God himself into a story in order to reinforce faith; and they exaggerate time and place to fit the pattern of Jewish history. Am I saying that the Bible is full of lies and falsehoods? Of course not. Did they use hyperbole to make their stories more interesting and to emphasize accepted cultural norms? Yes. More importantly, did the Jews write these stories to be read as true factual accounts of history? Almost never.

What's The Point
Why am I, a secularist, writing on this topic?  My reason for blogging is to emphasize conservative principles through reason rather than religious language.  We conservatives accuse liberals of resorting to emotional appeals, but I would argue that religious conservatives are guilty of the same error.  The arguments I hear from Christians are founded on unshakeable faith coming from immature belief.  I don't mind that you believe, but I would prefer your belief be founded on rational thinking, which is not incompatible with religious belief.

-tsc

• My opportunity to affect policy decisions is my vote for a representative
• The representative that I vote for should most closely believe what I believe so that s/he will make decisions similar to my own
• The representative is being elected to REPRESENT me, so there is no need to come back and ask me what I think
• Representation means the person is acting in my stead
• If I don't like the decisions my representative makes, I will vote against him/her at the next opportunity

One recent argument, as part of the fray from Ellison taking his oath on the Koran, suggests that the Constitution is sufficient to provide Americans with values, and the Bible itself isn't necessary. Dennis Prager opposes this argument by saying that the Soviet Union had a similar constitution, but didn't adhere to it, so there must be another source of values.

"For the United States, [the source of our values] has been the American Christian's understanding of the Bible." (January 4th broadcast)

Knowing how Dennis likes to be logically consistent, I think even he can appreciate how his Soviet constitution argument actually undermines the biblical argument. The argument is basically that

a) The constitution states certain values

b) But those values are not upheld in practice

c) The written word is not the demonstration of values, which come from the actual behavior of people

d) Therefore, if people's actions don't match the values espoused in a constitution, the constitution is clearly not the source of values

If we apply this same logic to the Bible (note the parallel arguments):

a) The Bible asserts certain values

b) Hopefully no one honestly believes that biblical values are upheld in practice, like slavery, genocide (Joshua 6), incest (Genesis 19), and gang rape (Judges 19). Clearly, these are not our values, but they were all practiced by biblical patriarchs.

c) The written biblical word is not the demonstration of values, and our actual behavior differs.

d) Therefore, since people's actions do not match the values espoused throughout the Bible, the Bible is clearly not the source of values

So what is the source of our values? I'm leaning towards the Richard Dawkins response: the moral zeitgeist.

“In any society there exists a somewhat mysterious consensus, which changes over the decades.”

“The consensus has no obvious connection with religion. It extends, however, to most religious people, whether or not they think their morals come from scripture.”

“Modern morality, wherever else it comes from, does not come from the Bible. Apologists cannot get away with claiming that religion provides them with some sort of inside track to defining what is good and what is bad… They cannot get away with it, not even if they employ that favourite trick of interpreting selected scriptures as ‘symbolic’ rather than literal. By what criterion do you decide which passages are symbolic, which literal?”

The obvious answer is the moral zeitgeist.

-tsc

“Muslims are not a race; they belong to a worldwide ideological movement, which is faith-based and deeply political. What we should really be concerned about is not their numbers – though their numbers are growing – but their psychological and physical strength.

"If you consider – you’re talking about Europe – that we’re dealing with very small minorities here… you’ve got a minority among them which refuses to accept our values. They then complain, sometimes justifiably, there’s Islamophobia when criticized or discriminated against, and they are discriminated against sometimes, but they then make political advances on the back of their complaints.

"Now you want to watch this because this is extremely skillful, this is part of the growing strength of Islam. …The skill with which their own lobbies, aided by Saudi funds and opportunist non-Muslim politicians on the make…

"And then thirdly, even when the small minority… commits acts of aggression, and even treason, they play the victim. And then, you see, another problem is that when placated or sympathized with, or invited into our tents, they feel strengthened in their belief that their cause is just, and that therefore, they [will earn] our right to refuse our values.”  [Emphasis added]

-tsc

A quote from David Selbourne, author of The Losing Battle with Islam, from Dennis Prager on January 3^rd.

“Don’t challenge or provoke [Hitler]; it will only cause more trouble. Don’t be [a Nazi-phobe], or you’ll drive moderate [Germans] into the arms of extremists. [Churchill] should be stopped now before he does more harm with his unilateralism to our relations with our allies.”

Replace the above with [the terrorists] [an Islamophobe] [Muslims] [Bush] and you'll get an everyday quote from anyone in the liberal media or Democrat party.

I love this technique of taking a quote and replacing a few key words to demonstrate the clear bias against one position or another. As Mr Selbourne makes clear through satire, this type of language would have been unacceptable during World War II, but it’s somehow acceptable now?

-tsc

• The rich have advantages because they're able to hide their money out of the country

The rich have no more access than you and I, they can simply afford to move their money better than we can.  They have an incentive to move millions of dollars whereas you and I have no incentive to move a few thousand dollars.  Their money does not give them special access, it just makes it more cost effective.

• The rich can take advantage of tax loop holes that the rest of us can't

Again, there is no special access to the rich, just a service that is more cost effective.   "Tax loop holes" are legal (I won't speak to the illegal ones), so are available to anyone that can a) find them in the tax code or b) pay the people who find them in the tax code.  Think about it this way: If I need to pay $10,000 to a firm that can exploit a loop hole, but my tax bill is only $20,000 (50%), it's not worth it the way it is for someone whose tax bill is $1 million (1%).

• The rich have access to an army of attorneys and accountants that the rest of us don't

In this litigious society, of course.  If I could afford an army of attorneys and accountants, I'd have them too.  Not to mention the fact that simply having more money makes a person more of a target.  Think of it like home insurance -- the more home you have, the more insurance you need.  I suspect the cost of those attorneys and accountants is proportional (or even more expensive as a percentage of income since most of us don't need someone on retainer).

• If I commit a crime, I'll go to jail, but not someone who's wealthy

I love this argument, as if a jury is so in awe that they won't convict someone with money.  How many examples do we need?  Skilling, Lay, Rigas.  Sure, there are examples on the other side (O.J. anyone?), but if anything, being wealthy probably turns a jury against you.  Our culture is so full of envy, it's amazing that rich people can get a fair trial at all.  In addition, if YOU commit a non-violent crime, you'll get just as lenient a sentence as someone with money.

Not to mention these arguments just sound so whiney!  So full of envy because others have more than you do.  So sad. 

That's all.  There's my defense of the rich, not that they really need it.

-tsc