What’s Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?
By Michael Peabody
The other day someone sent me a link to an “Antichrist Decoder” that has been posted online by an otherwise reputable Christian ministry. You can type in anybody’s name and the program will calculate the value of the name in Roman numerals.
After checking my name to make sure that I was not the Antichrist I looked at the other names that people had plugged into the decoder and learned that Barack Obama is not the antichrist, neither is Barack Hussein Obama. Ronald Wilson Reagan’s name doesn’t add up to 666 even if you type in two “v”s to make the W.
People were having fun with the decoder and for the uninitiated it would be at home in a carnival next to the “Love Meter” or “Magic 8 Ball.” Perhaps an “antichrist decoder” made the rounds on the county fair circuit in years gone by, or a 666 Decoder Ring was the cheap plastic treat in the box of Cracker Jacks.
A conspiracy theory hits the same synapses as the Weekly World News or National Enquirerproviding junk food for the mind that masquerades as a nutritious meal. Just this last week while little Falcon Heene was presumably floating above Colorado in a UFO-Shaped balloon, YouTube videos that his dad made about how Hillary Clinton could be a “reptilian shape shifter” spiked in popularity. And each night millions tune in hear George Noory on Coast to Coast AMwhile he discusses tunnels under the pyramids and portals to other dimensions. And every year seekers crowd churches to hear the latest interpretations of Scripture that specify how mysterious political events are aligning to bring the world to an end. The problem with the cheap thrill of side show conspiracy theories is that concern about legitimate issues is eventually eroded as the carnival callers “cry wolf” so often that the real wolves can count on a feast.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “Conspiracy Theory” as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”
Christianity as a whole is planted on a conspiracy theory that one day the world will end and that there are forces at work right now among the “principalities and powers” of this world that will effect that change and that rescue is coming from outer space and that you can communicate with tremendous powers simply through the power of thought. We don’t often view it in these terms but that’s how it would sound to a Martian if he happened to walk into a church service.
In reality, some conspiracy theories are true and verifiable, but others are not. It is important to distinguish between verifiable or substantiated truth and error because any error, even if it is meant well, tends to corrupt the entirety of the message. In the religious world, people tend to take “judicial notice” of scripture so speaking in harmony with an established text is generally accepted, but other issues require proven and reliable evidence or they will, of necessity, be questioned. Believing that something bad is afoot if it is not mentioned in scripture with specificity must be backed up with substantial evidence if listeners are to take it seriously.
Conspiracy theories that float around without substantial grounding in truth present several serious drawbacks.
First, conspiracy theories that do not come true affect your credibility.
“A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line.” Mel Gibson’s character inConspiracy Theory (1997).
Around the year 2000, the millennial conspiracy nutcases (we call them now) came out and said that the world would end, planes would fall from the sky, and the electrical power grid would crash. Then, following 9/11 George Bush was going to institute marshal law and become dictator for life. Today, the H1N1 vaccine is a mind control drug and amounts to biological warfare.
Is there any truth to these conspiracies? Perhaps there is, but nothing has happened in the first two, and I am predicting that the vaccine will not create a nation of zombies. Still there are people who email me tons of information about FEMA concentration camps, mass production of body bags, and all kinds of fascinating things. I usually read them because it is fun to be afraid but each time it seems less and less likely. There is too much “conspiracy” noise out there to distinguish the truth from the error, and unfounded conspiracies based on nothing more than the eyewitness report of a “friend of a friend of a friend” are not persuasive.
Second, conspiracy theories can distract you from present responsibilities.
“A Conspiracy!” cried the delighted lady, clapping her hands. “Of all things, I do like a Conspiracy! It’s so interesting!” – Lewis Carroll, My Lady, Sylvie and Bruno (1889)
There is an old saying that it is possible to be “so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.” You can also be so “conspiracy minded” that you are of no earthly good.
When people tell me about conspiracy theories I often ask them whether they have taken the time to learn more about their faith or do good in their communities. They may show me some pamphlets they gave to people to “warn” them about whatever they think is going to happen but most of the time they haven’t done much more.
I do write this from a Christian perspective and I’ve learned over time that we really do have a lot of freedom in the United States and in Canada for the most part to speak freely about religion or politics, and to assemble. There are challenges from time to time which can be addressed but we still have the ability to address them. In a large sense, religious liberty is a supportive ministry that can be called upon when needed but does not necessarily need to be front and center unless there is a specific need for it.
Religious liberty ministry is like a fire extinguisher in a glass case. It must be charged up and ready to go. It needs to have all the resources to handle severe fires, but the sign says, “In case of emergency, break glass.” It can be used to inform people of current events but never to distract from the main mission of the church, which I believe is set forth in the Great Commission.
This segues nicely to the third reason I have a problem with conspiracy theories.
Third, conspiracy theories can become the center of your faith.
“Our cause is a secret within a secret, a secret that only another secret can explain, it is a secret about a secret that is veiled by a secret.” Ja’far as-Sadiq (6th Imam)
A while back there was a group of borderline Seventh-day Adventists who decided to spread the gospel by talking about the antichrist. They put up billboards all over the country, reserved space in major newspapers, and otherwise launched massive media campaigns. Most of the ads appeared to be miles of tiny text punctuated by dire warnings and a picture of the purported antichrist.
This would appear to be evangelism in the negative – in other words, tell people about the bad in the world to teach them what’s good. It’s like former rock stars and drug dealers turned religious who tell stories of their fascinating lives. They had money, power, fame, mansions, cars, planes, and everything else you could ever want in life. But then the stories become far less interesting when they become Christians and now live in their vans traveling the country. I suppose it works for some people so I’m not going to knock it, but it’s usually made me more curious about their past than about what’s happening now.
I’ve met a lot of people who will tell all their friends about conspiracy theories thinking that they are sharing their faith. I met one person who went around giving out copies of Foxe’s Book of Martyrsand would regale listeners with stories about extreme torture. Entertaining? Weirdly so. But effective? Yes, in turning people into atheists.
Leading somebody to an understanding of 666 is not the same as sharing one’s religious faith. It may seem like more fun but it doesn’t do much good in making an argument as to why people should want what you have.
Fourth, conspiracy theories can cause you to create enemies out of people whom you should be befriending and cause you to question the sincere motives of others.
“There will ever be some who take delight in dwelling upon the real or supposed faults and failures of others, and who employ their time in seeing, hearing, or reporting something that will destroy confidence in the person criticised. Few are without visible faults; in most persons careful scrutiny will reveal some defect of character; and upon these defects in others, some professed Christians delight to dwell. The habit strengthens with indulgence, and a love for gossip becomes their ruling passion. They gather together the tid-bits of reports,–all of them, it may be, utterly devoid of truth,–and feast upon the scandal, and share it with others as a rare delicacy.” Ellen White – Review and Herald, August 28, 1883.
Weird stories about aliens, Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, or any other group can draw unreasonable and unnatural lines between people. One person I met is fixated on the idea that there will one day be a holy war in America and is planning to run away into the mountains to hide from it all, but is afraid that he will not be able to escape persecution when it comes because the persecutors will have GPS and heat detectors.
Unfortunately, this person has become a virtual hermit who believes he is living a pious lifestyle when in reality he makes Howard Hughes look normal. If he would put some of his tremendous mental horsepower to work helping people with problems that they are facing today, such as poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, and any other ways, he would make a tremendous impact for good. But instead he has twisted the plot around so much that he views any meaningful interaction with the real world as dangerous. Almost everybody is involved in a conspiracy against him, and he believes that most people in the world are formulating plans to do him wrong. The world has pretty much stayed the same but he has become a paranoid freak.
I’ve met wild eyed conspiracy theorists in many areas of life, not just religion. It is very difficult to reason with a person like this because if you question them, they believe that you are now part of the conspiracy. They think the worst of anybody they disagree with.
Hiding away on a mountain somewhere is not a call to piety. Conspiracy theories may have their place as mile markers but they should not impede forward progress.
In reality, the truth is out there, but you’re not likely to find it in a decoder ring. True appreciation of faith or even religious liberty issues do not thrive in fear or require a crisis to be meaningful. You can help liberty thrive when you care about the world and engage with it and the people who live here. Tell the verifiable, undeniable truth and the facts will speak for themselves.
“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6:8
###
Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter
An epic battle played out on two levels at the California Supreme Court on March 5. On a surface level, attorneys fought over a technical issue of whether the Proposition 8 prohibition on gay marriage represented a revision or an amendment. On the deeper level, the question asked was whether there are any limits on the majority to impact the rights of the minority.
It was a powerful argument – that the people of the State of California have the “raw power” to change the state constitution in any way that they please.
Ken Starr, an esteemed advocate, may have won the battle but lost the war when he asserted that, “the right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle.”
Chief Justice Ronald George stretched Starr’s argument to explore its dimensions. He leaned in and asked a hypothetical – if Proposition 8 said that homosexuals had no right to form a family relationship or raise children, could that still be done by amendment? Starr said it could. Then George took the argument to the constitutional wall – could the voters also remove the right to free speech? Starr said yes, the voters have this right.
VIDEO: California Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Prop 8
Video includes historical background on the court – to watch video of the March 5 advance to approximately 18 minutes and 46 seconds.
Strauss et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners)
(and two other cases, S168066 Tyler et al. v. State of California et al.
(Hollingsworth et al., Interveners) and S168078 City and County of
San Francisco et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners))
The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
For more case materials including the many amicus briefs and actual court filings, visit the California Supreme Court website at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
For more
Religious Persecution on the Horn of Africa (American Spectator)
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/03/religious-persecution-on-the-h
Somalia continues to implode, as Islamists gain increasing control over what remains of the impoverished, conflict-ridden nation. But it is not the only human tragedy in the region. Eritrea, which won its independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after decades of war, has earned a reputation as one of the world’s youngest tyrannies. It also is one of the world’s worst religious persecutors.
Eritrea poses an early challenge to the Obama administration. Border disputes with Ethiopia continue to threaten to flare into combat. Moreover, U.S.-Eritrean relations deteriorated steadily during the Bush years, as Asmara banned operations by the U.S. Agency for International Development and Washington imposed an arms embargo because of Eritrea’s weapons shipments to next door Somalia. Eritrean President Isaias Afeworki now has approached the Obama administration lobbying for a change in U.S. policy — expressing his hope in his congratulatory letter to Obama on his election that the U.S. will now “advance the cause of regional peace, justice and legality” — but Washington should make Eritrea’s atrocious record of religious persecution part of any dialogue.
Read more at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/03/religious-persecution-on-the-h
In wake of Supreme Court decision, ‘clear defense needed of church-state wall’ (Des Moines Register)
The following analysis is from: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090227/OPINION03/902270335/1110
EXCERPT:
Considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s contentious struggles over free speech and religion, it was a surprise to say the least to see Wednesday’s ruling unanimously endorsing a government installation of the Ten Commandments in a city park.
While this ruling will likely have limited impact, it raises troubling questions about how dedicated this court – particularly the younger justices, who will be shaping it for decades to come – will be to maintaining the proverbial wall separating church and state.
. . .
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.
Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.
Read the full article at
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.
Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.
Reflection: The Trouble with the Future
| –Is that you can’t see it for the present.
In the context of the tenth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, one journalist took the time to look back and see what the pundits said would happen next. No one, but no one, got it right. No one foresaw the rapid collapse of European communism and the demise of the Soviet Union. By 1991 The U.S.S.R. was no more, and no one saw this future with any degree of precision. Instead they got it wrong. The end of communism will be a long time coming. Wrong. If the Warsaw pact goes, so does NATO. Wrong. Germany will not be allowed to re-unite. Wrong. A united Germany will become a nuclear power before the end of the millennium. Wrong. Gorbachev will long continue. Wrong. In terms of foretelling the future, even over the brief time span of ten years, the experts could not get it right. So why not? “The problem with trying to see the future is the present. What we know usually overpowers our ability to see what might be coming. What is is; it has the advantage of tangible existence. This makes the present hard to shake, no matter how smart you are.” (Robert G. Kaiser of the Washington Post service in International Herald Tribune, Nov. 10, 1999.) Makes us think about our message about the future, and our own response. Is the present also a problem to us? Does what we know overpower our ability to see what’s coming? Is the present hard to shake? We may think we’re smart, and have the answers. But the present can fool us too, unless we’re open to the thought that the present is not the dominant factor. Of all people, we cannot let the strength of the definite present overpower the undeniable truth of a God-planned future, with all that such a future means. “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Corinthians 2:9 NIV). |
The Link Between Religious Freedom and Economic Freedom
Theodore Malloch has written a fascinating article that describes the link between religious and economic freedom from an international perspective. In short, where economic freedom increases, religious freedom also tends to increase. It follows that the inverse is also true. As we navigate through these economically challenged times, I hope that we do not compromise our freedom, either religious or economic. Some highlights are posted below and links to the full article (in .doc format) and a PowerPoint presentation follow. Michael Peabody
Some highlights:
The concept of economic freedom is considerably younger than that of religious freedom. In the last four decades it has grown out of the writings of notable, mostly neo-classical, economists. Its agreed cornerstones are: personal choice rather than collective action; voluntary exchange coordinated by markets rather than allocation via the political process; freedom to enter and compete in markets; and protection of persons and their property from aggression or harm by others. While there is considerable debate on which specific policies best promote economic freedom, there is broad agreement that controls on government size, expenditures, and taxes, coupled with the right to form enterprises, and a legal structure that provides security of property, are key to its flourishing. Other important features are access to sound money, transparent capital markets, freedom to trade internationally, and minimal regulation of credit, labor, and business, especially entrepreneurship.
. . .
The greater the diversity and number of religious practices available in a given country, the greater the competition, which in turn promotes greater interaction between religions and a higher quality “religious product,” more religious participation, and the spread of religious belief systems.
The religion market model used by Barro, Becker, and others stresses the effects of competition as well as of the way government interacts with religion and influences participation in religion, or even the extent of religious beliefs. Since secularization theories have declined, there has also been an attempt to explain the resilience and growth of religion by stressing competition and markets. There is evidence that competition among religious providers leads to a growing market for religion. The greater the diversity and number of religious practices available in a given country, the greater the competition, which in turn promotes greater interaction between religions and a higher quality “religious product,” more religious participation, and the spread of religious belief systems. Government control or monopoly religious systems lead to a low degree of religious pluralism, reduce competition, and lower church attendance. (Emphasis added.)
. . .
Religious liberty and economic freedom draw on and encourage similar traits. New data on economic liberty and religious freedom suggest that religiously free societies encourage entrepreneurs whose new enterprises benefit themselves, their companies, employees, shareholders, consumers, stakeholders and the entire community. In other words, religiously free societies usually display the highest concentration of companies that generate prosperity and broad development. Closed religious systems foul economic development and stunt growth. Closed economic systems are unkind or worse to religious sentiments and practice. Open systems in both areas are necessary to sustain human flourishing. Hence, if we desire more economic freedom and prosperity, then we should have a strategy of promoting religious liberty. If we want economic growth and development, we need to tolerate and permit religious groups and persons to follow their beliefs. Competition for religious activity creates healthy conditions for economic competition and activity.
. . .
The promotion of spiritual capital requires that a robust variety of religious, and secular, ideas and practices be permitted in society. It requires the give and take of discourse and practice between and across different religious groups, including the “non-religious.” Linking religious liberty and economic freedom to form enterprises of lasting value is a cause for humane people, robust economies, and enlightened nations today.
Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is chairman and CEO of the Roosevelt Group and the founder of the Spiritual Enterprise Institute. He headed consulting at Wharton-Chase Econometrics and has worked in capital markets at Salomon Brothers. He has held positions at the United Nations and has served in senior policy positions at the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and in the U.S. Department of State.
Read the full article and view the PowerPoint presentation:
BREAKING NEWS: President Obama Creates New Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships
By Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D.
Director, UMHB Center for Religious Liberty
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
Belton, Texas
WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Thursday, February 5, to create the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The office replaces the controversial Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives that George W. Bush created to provide government grants to churches and other faith-based organizations to administer welfare programs. ”The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another–or even religious groups over secular groups,” Obama stated when announcing the new office at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. The purpose, he said, “will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.”
The president’s announcement follows his selection last week of Pentecostal minister Joshua Dubois, 26, to direct the new office. DuBois previously directed a religious outreach program in Obama’s former Senate office and holds a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University. DuBois also headed the Obama campaign’s religious outreach efforts, which included organizing nearly 1,000 meetings with clergy across the country to discuss how government might work with faith-based and other community groups to improve the lives of people on the margins.
Obama now faces the task of revamping the faith-based initiative while avoiding the criticism that was frequently directed at President Bush for ignoring prevailing church-state law.
Obama now faces the task of revamping the faith-based initiative while avoiding the criticism that was frequently directed at President Bush for ignoring prevailing church-state law. For example, many faith groups are now waiting to see if Obama will fulfill his campaign promise to prevent religion-based hiring for federally-funded positions within faith-based organizations that receive grants. Under Bush, faith-based groups receiving government dollars were allowed to exclusively hire those of the same faith, a practice that defied traditional law and custom. Obama said in a campaign speech last summer, “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.” Obama has not specified how he will handle the hiring issue, but the executive order he signed Thursday calls for collaboration between his new office and the attorney general for advice on “difficult legal and constitutional issues.” (See www.pbs.org, 2-5-09).
No previous president had been as bold as Bush in crafting a specific program that would so dramatically challenge the American principle of church-state separation. Grants to faith-based charities during the Bush years, more than 1300 total awards, averaged more than $2 billion annually. While campaigning last summer, Obama criticized Bush’s plan, saying it “never fulfilled its promise.” Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the Bush plan was the way it failed, as promised, to end discrimination against religion generally and against various religious groups specifically. When the Bush plan was first announced in 2000, well-known evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson voiced objections to the plan because it threatened “Christian America” since groups like Scientology, the Unification Church, and Wicca might receive government money. But this concern proved toothless, since according to one study in November 2006 reported by the Boston Globe, 98.3% of all Bush administration grants to faith-based agencies from the Office of Faith Based Initiatives were awarded to Christian groups. The practice of excluding non-Christian groups was confirmed by a former staffer in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. David Kuo, in Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, asserted that applications for federal faith-based funds were often rejected by reviewers because they came from non-Christian applicants. Kuo reported being told by one grant reviewer, “When I saw one of those non-Christian groups on the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero. A lot of us did.” (Americans United Press Release, October 12, 2006).
President Obama faces a strong challenge to administer his new office in a way that fairly and effectively distributes government grants to worthy faith-based organizations while respecting settled American law governing the interplay between church and state.
*************************************
The mission of The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Center for Religious Liberty is to advance religious liberty for all persons, in all parts of the world, without regard to their religious, ethnic, gender, racial or national background. Religious liberty is a basic human right that must be nourished and protected by all human societies; it is the cornerstone of modern societies’ efforts to build a more peaceful world. The Center advances this mission by publishing relevant literature, hosting and sponsoring lectureships and conferences, sharing its expertise with media and other public information outlets, and partnering with other persons and groups who share the goal of advancing religious liberty. The web site for the Center can be found at www.umhb.edu/academics/crl
Embracing Exclusivity: How civic religion at inauguration abridges religious freedom
Michael Newdow is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to ban recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States because of its inclusion of the phrase “under God”. Most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama’s inauguration. You can read Dr. Newdow’s legal briefs and other materials at http://www.restorethepledge.com/
When we asked him if he had any editorials he would be willing to share with us, he forwarded the following essay prepared in advance of the January 2009 inauguration. While you may not agree with Dr. Newdow’s theology, his views on religious equality are thought provoking. What do you think? Post your comments below. Editor
By Michael Newdow, Esq.
Posted on ReligiousLiberty.TV with the permission of the author.
In 1892, the 1/8th black Homer Plessy was convicted of violating Louisiana law by sitting in a “Whites only” railroad car. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was upheld by an 8-1 margin. “A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races,” wrote the Court, “ … has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races.”
The lone dissenter in that case was Justice John Marshall Harlan, who refused to buy into the majority’s logic. Although it was true that whites and blacks were treated “equally” in a literal sense (since the law prohibited whites from riding in colored cars just as much as the opposite), Justice Harlan focused upon the “real meaning” of the legislation: “that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens.”
It took fifty-eight years for the Supreme Court to recognize that Justice Harlan’s view was correct. In Brown v. Board of Education, the “real meaning” of “separate but equal”– i.e., that the nation’s white majority was using the government to affirm its self-proclaimed racial superiority – was put to an end. As a result, the whole of American society changed, so much so that we now have an African American poised to become the nation’s president. Surely, Barack Obama would never have been elected had Plessy remained the law of the land.
And yet not everyone has learned the lesson of Brown, including, of all people, Barack Obama. The message that “we” in the majority are “better” than some minority to which our Constitution guarantees equality is once again about to be sent. This time, rather than with race, it is in the realm of religion, as Mr. Obama plans to continue the practice, first introduced in 1937, of having clergy espouse the view that belief in God is superior to disbelief.
Mr. Obama plans to continue the practice, first introduced in 1937, of having clergy espouse the view that belief in God is superior to disbelief.
The hypocrisy of this “tradition” might best be seen by simply reading from his inaugural committee’s website. There one can read of a “commitment to … ensure that as many Americans as possible … will be able to come together to unite the country and celebrate our common values and shared aspirations.” With the official theme being “Renewing America’s Promise,” Mr. Obama is quoted for the proposition that “in America, we rise or fall as one nation and one people. That sense of unity and shared purpose is what this Inauguration will reflect.” Thus, in this inauguration, there is alleged “a commitment to organizing activities that are inclusive.”
Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, is surely aware that (as Justice Scalia has written) “government may not … lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious … dogma.” After all, he was teaching at the University of Chicago Law School when the Supreme Court instructed the nation that “the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.” More importantly, having undoubtedly reviewed Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy on numerous occasions, the President-elect has to realize that the “real meaning” of such formal espousals of God’s supposed existence is to brand believers as “superior” and Atheists as “inferior” citizens, in precisely the same way as the “separate but equal” laws did barely half a century ago. Actually, that’s incorrect. “Separate but equal” at least pays lip service to the notion of equality. There is nothing equal when the government explicitly chooses to place one belief system above another. It is only Monotheism that is provided with an official platform at the nation’s premier celebration.
There is nothing equal when the government explicitly chooses to place one belief system above another.
Does Mr. Obama really think that this divisive religious claim helps “to unite the country?” What message does he believe is conveyed when he asserts that proclaiming the glory of God is a “common value?” What could possibly lead him to argue that a “sense of unity and shared purpose” results from intruding into the inauguration a religious ideology that, like every religious ideology, is divisive? He’s a graduate of Harvard Law School, who must have reviewed the text and the history of the First Amendment numerous times. How can such a learned man reckon himself “inclusive” by paying homage to a Supreme Being denied by millions of those he represents?
Two months ago, when the American people chose Barack Obama to serve in the highest office in the land, it seemed that Homer Plessy’s dream had finally been realized. America, we thought then, truly stands for the justice and equality guaranteed in its Constitution. Yet, in a few days, as our new president steps up to the inaugural podium, the reality will be that government-sanctioned favoritism – now for religion, instead of race – will continue. Perhaps some day, as the leader of our nation swears “to preserve, protect and defend” the document upon which Homer Plessy’s dream was founded, he or she won’t simultaneously be ripping it … and us … apart.
ANALYSIS: The Apocalyptic struggle between Jefferson’s Wall and the Church
A few days ago, January 25, 2008, we posted Dr. Robert Moon’s response to the speech by Cardinal J. Francis Stafford given to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Pastor Bill Cork, has granted us permission to repost his view on the subject, originally posted on his blog at http://billcork.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/stafford-on-religious-liberty/ Dr. Cork received his M.A. (1986) and M.Div. (1989) from the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg. He has also has D.Min. from the Graduate Theological Foundation, and has been blogging on current issues since 2002.
At RLTV we are pleased to present thoughtful essays from a number of viewpoints, and we would like to hear yours as well. Editor
On November 13, 2008, Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Vatican’s Apostolic Penitentiary, gave a speech at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in which he discussed the role of religion in public life. It was an important speech, and critical for understanding contemporary Catholic teachings on religious liberty and the relation of church and state.
It’s a highly philosophical discussion, starting with this point, “A person’s public life is not encompassed within the State as the highest social organism, and not subject ultimately only to the political power.”
We can agree with that, I think.
But then comes this:
President Thomas Jefferson’s celebrated 1802 letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist Association asserting “a wall of separation between Church and State” formally denied the reality of res sacra in temporalibus. He introduced a latent and powerful virus which would eventually be used to diminish and then to wound mortally a theology of discourse in the public arena. It has led to the increasingly secularized states of the American union and their active hostility towards the Catholic Church.
Does the “wall of separation” keep people of faith from acting according to their conscience? Does it keep them from having a voice in the “public square.” No. It simply means that there is freedom of religion and that no church is supported by the state. We are not now, and never have been, a “Christian nation.” But we are a nation in which Christians, Jews, and believers and unbelievers of all other kinds have always had a voice. That’s different than the secularism of Europe. But it was crafted specifically in opposition to the history of church/state relations in Europe, as supported by traditional Catholic teaching (as well as the modified forms in Anglicanism and Calvinism).
He speaks of attacks on individual conscience and blames Jefferson.
Some of these governments are threatening Roman Catholic adoption agencies because of their refusal to select same-sex couples as potential adoptive parents. They are forcing Catholic hospitals to accept medical procedures which are contrary to the dignity of the human person. They are insisting on hiring practices which will destroy the Catholic identity of health and social services under Catholic Church auspices. They have not refrained from coercing the individual conscience. Here the federal and state governments are enshrining the primacy of secular laws over against religious principles. These decisions are the legal and moral progeny of Jefferson’s insistence on debarring personal faith from the public forum.
Jefferson didn’t say that. He said there’s a wall of separation. He said there is individual freedom. He did not believe that the state should run rough-shod over the individual conscience. Stafford refers to the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, but what does it say?
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others ….
And the actual heart of the legislation:
That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Jefferson’s ideas, far from being the cause of infringement on conscience, are the remedy. Rather than rejecting them as evil, Stafford should embrace them as the proper response. This is our American heritage; it protects him as much as the Quaker, the Jehovah’s Witness. It puts all beliefs on the same playing field and says no one should suffer civilly because of their beliefs–which are not things that are for personal reflection only, but which they have the right “by argument to maintain.”
Ah, but it is the Catholic tradition against which Jefferson rails. A tradition in which one church is favored by the state, and its teachings have a privileged place. So we have to ask Stafford if this is what he is really seeking. If Jefferson’s clearly stated concepts, the foundation of American liberty, are odious to him, what does he want us to return to, the Catholic understanding of “Christendom,” against which Jefferson railed?
He doesn’t answer the question. He shifts to a his main topic, human sexuality, and the struggle between the cultural shift of the 1960s and the Catholic response, Humanae vitae.
And he does so in an apocalyptic framework. This is worth mentioning.
Furthermore, since this month, November, is the time in which the liturgy of the Church reflects on the final things – heaven, hell, purgatory and death, I will be attempting to strengthen the Catholic faithful, as St. John did in the Book of the Apocalypse, against the ever increasing pretensions of the state making itself absolute. For the next several weeks the Book of the Apocalypse will be read at daily Mass. The theme of that final book of the Bible is that the Battle of the Logos has always already been won on Calvary. In the immense conflicts associated with the teaching of Humanae Vitae, the overarching task of the Church is to make manifest for the faithful the apocalyptic victory of the Lamb in our historical time.
The emphasis is his. He sees the struggle as one between an absolute state and the Church–and the Church will triumph over the “absolute” state “in our historical time.” He sees the struggle between the Catholic understanding of church/state relations and Jefferson’s as an apocalyptic one, and is sure the Catholic ideal will triumph over Jefferson.
Stafford may be an American, but he seems to have no love for the nation or its ideals. It has moved in recent decades from being “a mansion to a dirty house in a gutted world.” It’s history is characterized by “meanness.” Roe v. Wade is just the latest step for him in a procession that includes slavery and hostility to Indians, with nary a bright spot along the way.
In today’s society, he argues, all that matters is power. Technology, politics, economics, all are tools to maintain power, without religious or philosophical moorings. Instead the human being seen as body and soul, the soul has been suppressed in the service of technology. Here’s his connection to Jefferson–Jefferson’s “wall of separation” removed the “soul” from the body politic. His separation of church and state left the state without a moral conscience. The solution for Stafford: reunite the two.
The response of the Church’s magisterium has been based on the ancient Catholic imagination recaptured happily by Pope John Paul II in his now famous phrase,”the nuptial meaning of the human body created as male and female.” The response includes “being true with the body and the soul.” … David L. Schindler in a recent paper on human sexuality summarized his first principle supporting the differentiated unity of body and soul: “The Soul as it were lends its spiritual meaning to the body as body, even as the body then, simultaneously, contributes to what now becomes in man, a distinct kind of spirit: a spirit whose nature it is to be embodied”.
He carries on the discussion with references to marriage and the Eucharist, noting that the physical is never separable from the spiritual. Salvation is not a matter of freeing the soul from the body; we are essentially human as a unity of body and soul.
The subject of moral acts is each person, a dual unity of body and soul, a psychosomatic whole. Anything that smacks of a body-soul dualism is firmly rejected. One cannot attempt to free the soul from the body. When a human being seeks the truth and the good, his body is not an afterthought or an accident or a ‘tomb’ for the soul.
This anthropology has implications for how we understand civil society, as well.
As Archbishop of Denver, in 1996 I addressed a Pastoral Letter to the people of northern Colorado on the historical importance of a culture formed by the medieval Anglo-Saxon Sarum Rite and by the even more ancient Gregorian Sacramentary. Peoples in such a culture intuitively interpreted reality through the covenantal and bridal relationship of God and creation and of Christ and the Church. Consequently, they would find absolutely inapprehensible the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality activity as a valid moral option. Such activities are a direct assault not only upon the Sacrament of marriage but also upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Here the emphasis is mine. This is the goal. This is his desire: that we “intuitively interpret reality through the covenantal and bridal relationship of God and creation and of Christ and the Church.”
The human spirit finds its inner completion only as something honestly externalized, since the human spirit in this life is always already embodied. The body is the externalization of the spirit.
He wants to return Catholic faith to its role as the spirit of the body politic, rendered soulless by Jefferson’s doctrine of separation of church and state. Morality can’t just come from within–that leads to relativism and subjectivism. Jefferson’s vision of a society where each person is free to argue can only lead to chaos, for Stafford. There must be an external reference in truth. He doesn’t spell out his vision, but leaves it for us to complete the analogy, quoting a medieval poem in which the separated Divine Lover pines for Man’s Soul.
In the autumn of 2008 we must begin anew with that sentiment of our medieval brother. Quia amore langueo. With Jesus we are sick because of love toward those with whom we are so tragically and unavoidably at variance. The reader has now become one with the narrator who is addressed in line one as “Dear Soul”. As Humanae Vitae with the whole Catholic tradition teaches, we are to “be true with body and soul”.
Stafford expresses well traditional Catholic teaching on the relationship of Church and State. His talk is in harmony with the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quas primas (November 12, 1925), establishing the Feast of Christ the King in the Catholic calendar, by which he sought to exalt Christ’s “necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created,” through the application of Christian principles to secular government. Stafford’s criticisms of American society echo those made by Pius XI of the western world in general, and identify the same root problem:
What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
Stafford’s criticisms of American church/state separation likewise echo complaints made by prior popes. Consider, for example, Pope Gregory XVI,Mirari Vos (15 Aug 1832):
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.21 When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws–in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Likewise, Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (8 Dec 1864):
4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?
Later in the 19th century, Leo XIII wrote Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, denouncing “Americanism,” fearful that its teachings (freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, even democracy) might infect the Church.
But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state. …
These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.
Some thought that Catholic teaching on religious liberty was changed by the Vatican 2 document Dignitatis Humanae. Let us be clear about the teaching of the Council. It affirmed religious freedom, that is, “immunity from coercion.” But it insisted on the Church’s right to a place in civil society. Here is a key paragraph:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
During his 2008 visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI frequently praised the American tradition of religious liberty–but carefully avoided mentioning separation of church and state. He emphasized that religious liberty is not merely a right of the individual conscience, but also must include the right of Christians and churches to freedom of action in the public sphere. See, for example, his remarks to the UN:
It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order. Indeed, they actually do so, for example through their influential and generous involvement in a vast network of initiatives which extend from Universities, scientific institutions and schools to health care agencies and charitable organizations in the service of the poorest and most marginalized. Refusal to recognize the contribution to society that is rooted in the religious dimension and in the quest for the Absolute – by its nature, expressing communion between persons – would effectively privilege an individualistic approach, and would fragment the unity of the person.
Pope Benedict XVI, when he was simply the theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, spoke often of a “hermeneutic of continuity,” meaning that the Second Vatican Council should be interpreted in harmony with prior teaching, not as a new break. Cardinal Stafford’s talk gives us insight into how the Council’s teachings on religious liberty can be understood in continuity. The state cannot coerce the conscience, while at the same time it must give freedom to the Church to teach and guide those consciences and social policy. The Church claims to be the sole authoritative teacher of truth; it sees that its moral teachings will triumph over all societies in the “social reign of Christ the King.” It sees this as the solution to the crisis of the contemporary world.
Let’s be careful, then, that we speak not only of religious liberty, but that we uphold the American tradition of separation of church and state as well. It has served us well. It allows individuals to be guided by their own religious teachings and morals, but it does not give a privileged place to any church. It affirms the freedom of individuals to believe, and to act in accordance with those beliefs, without fear. If that freedom is threatened–and I agree with Stafford that it is–then the solution is not to tear down the wall, but to build it even higher.