I agree within limits. If journalists are going to discuss religion at all, they should do it with intellectual honesty, and if politicians are going to use the rhetoric of religion, journalists should call them on it and make them state what they really believe, rather than letting them stay vague so they can appeal in a warm fuzzy way to a bunch of people with opposing views. However, the truly proper state of affairs is for religion to be removed entirely from the public discourse. In a truly ideal world, religion would only be practiced in private among consenting adults. Because publicly affirming religious beliefs is a form of practicing religion, public discourse would have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to religion. There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion, and there is no freedom from religion when politicians are talking about it all the time.
tigertoy said, religion would only be practiced in private among consenting adults.
Though we Lutherans have a reputation for being rotten at proselytizing, we often violate keeping our religion private among consenting adults.
My church collects food and funds for the North County Emergency Outreach Network (NCEON), a Christina charity group. That is not private.
My church hosts a homeless shelter in our fellowship hall once a week every winter. Other local churches handle the other weeks. That is not among adults of our religion.
My church supports a local church-based political group that is advocating affordable housing in the affluent areas and good schools in the poor areas. That is not private.
My church hosts a Spanish-language mass (Misa in Spanish) for the large Latino population in its neighborhood. Though the pastor for the service is Lutheran, I suspect that many who attend it are not.
My old church held a Christmas service for the mentally disabled. That was not among consenting adults.
My old church's youth group cooked dinners at a local women's shelter. That was not private.
My old church held quarterly blood drives. Well, I suppose the people who received the blood never did learn the association with religion.
My denomination supports Lutheran World Relief and similar church-based disaster relief efforts that help people around the world. That is not private.
Do you really want churches to stop doing charity work in the name of God because religion is supposed to be private? I admit that the news is full of churches, preachers, and politicians who want to grab power in the name of God (or who simply want to grab power and are willing to pretend it is in the name of God) that make everyone wish they would just shut up and keep their religion private. But as was written in the Letter from James in the New Testament, "Faith without works is dead." Faith moves people to help people. Faith moves people to tell others of their faith. Trying to contain faith so that it does not touch other people will smother it. Religion is organized faith, so it helps organize charitable works.
I commend your charity work, but if you couldn't do that charity work without displaying religion in such a way that someone who doesn't share your beliefs and finds them frightening can feel welcome, you may not be doing it for the right reason. If your church group was doing some charitable work -- say, setting up and running a temporary food bank -- and I asked if I could help, would I be welcome? If we started to converse, and someone asked me what church I attended, and I said that I was not Christian, would I still be as welcome, or would there suddenly be a chill?
"Dinner and a sermon" at the soup kitchen was common during the Great Depression. The hungry recipients thought of listening to the boring sermon as the price for the food.
That is not common anymore. Doing charity work in hope that people will convert doesn't work. Therefore, there is no reason to be blatant about the church affiliation of the effort, so we aren't. I suppose you assumed we were blatant because this was a discussion of religion in public discourse. Really, I responded because your statement that religion should be private touched a sensitive nerve. "Removed entirely from the public discourse" could refer to not just political speeches by officeholders and candidates for office, but to all mention of religion anywhere.
I have also participated in charity fund-raising as part of a Star Trek club and as part of a medieval LARPing club. Some members were in full costume. Imagine (this did not happen) someone saying during such an event, "They should keep their silly hobbies private." That is what your statement is sounded like to me.
But since your response indicates that you would be willing to work alongside a bunch of us annoying Christians, I guess you did not mean it that way. Sorry about over-reacting.
I know that I take GREAT offense at anyone refering to The Bible when they mean "a document that contains some but not all of the books of the bible plus other books added 2000 years later by another religion and co-opting the title of another religion's holy scriptures". I take even more offense when that term is applied to books that contain the New Testiment only. If I am ever asked to swear on a Bible, it better not contain anything written pre-translation after 1 BC.
Oops. And just to clarify my own post, I've had people tell me that anything claiming to be a bible that did not contain the New Testiment was not a real bible. Being Jewish, I have to bite my tongue to making the obvious counter-claim. Hence my attitude above regarding calling anything The Bibble (as in the only legitimate bible).
Fabulous page. I've sent it on to all my classmates at Pacifica (http://www.pacifica.edu), who, as it happens, are studying the relationships between psychology, mythology, and religion, and how to apply that knowledge to enact change, or at least aid communication.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-29 08:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-29 09:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-30 10:46 am (UTC)religion would only be practiced in private among consenting adults.
Though we Lutherans have a reputation for being rotten at proselytizing, we often violate keeping our religion private among consenting adults.
My church collects food and funds for the North County Emergency Outreach Network (NCEON), a Christina charity group. That is not private.
My church hosts a homeless shelter in our fellowship hall once a week every winter. Other local churches handle the other weeks. That is not among adults of our religion.
My church supports a local church-based political group that is advocating affordable housing in the affluent areas and good schools in the poor areas. That is not private.
My church hosts a Spanish-language mass (Misa in Spanish) for the large Latino population in its neighborhood. Though the pastor for the service is Lutheran, I suspect that many who attend it are not.
My old church held a Christmas service for the mentally disabled. That was not among consenting adults.
My old church's youth group cooked dinners at a local women's shelter. That was not private.
My old church held quarterly blood drives. Well, I suppose the people who received the blood never did learn the association with religion.
My denomination supports Lutheran World Relief and similar church-based disaster relief efforts that help people around the world. That is not private.
Do you really want churches to stop doing charity work in the name of God because religion is supposed to be private? I admit that the news is full of churches, preachers, and politicians who want to grab power in the name of God (or who simply want to grab power and are willing to pretend it is in the name of God) that make everyone wish they would just shut up and keep their religion private. But as was written in the Letter from James in the New Testament, "Faith without works is dead." Faith moves people to help people. Faith moves people to tell others of their faith. Trying to contain faith so that it does not touch other people will smother it. Religion is organized faith, so it helps organize charitable works.
Erin Schram
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-30 08:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-31 01:27 pm (UTC)That is not common anymore. Doing charity work in hope that people will convert doesn't work. Therefore, there is no reason to be blatant about the church affiliation of the effort, so we aren't. I suppose you assumed we were blatant because this was a discussion of religion in public discourse. Really, I responded because your statement that religion should be private touched a sensitive nerve. "Removed entirely from the public discourse" could refer to not just political speeches by officeholders and candidates for office, but to all mention of religion anywhere.
I have also participated in charity fund-raising as part of a Star Trek club and as part of a medieval LARPing club. Some members were in full costume. Imagine (this did not happen) someone saying during such an event, "They should keep their silly hobbies private." That is what your statement is sounded like to me.
But since your response indicates that you would be willing to work alongside a bunch of us annoying Christians, I guess you did not mean it that way. Sorry about over-reacting.
Erin Schram
(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-29 10:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-29 10:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-03-30 06:56 am (UTC)