Look up the Blaine Amendment, a State constitutional effort named for the same bigoted man who gave us the rhetorical gem “Rum Romanism and Rebellion.” Blaine Amendments preventing state support for religiously based schools were added in most states. The current opposition to vouchers echoes the 19th century Progressive Movement efforts to build up public education that were rooted establishment Protestant determination to use the schools to americanize immigrant children and keep them out of the parochial schools. The NY Sun ran a series of articles on the subject, just go to their site and do a search. The wiki on this subject seems straight forward and controversy is noted on the talk page.

If I were to be stuck on the proverbial desert island and could have only one thing to read it would be those volumes (practically the whole Bible is quoted in it for those of you who would want the Holy Book on your island).

Wretchard #78: What’s amazing is how prevalent and ubiquitous human sacrifice was on all the continents, the various cultures and present among such a variety of beliefs for such a long time.

I thought this was the universal human awareness and consciousness of sin – or if you don’t want to call it “sin,” then at least a falling short of something required. Have humans everywhere and at every time always known, however vaguely, that the wages of sin is death?

Danydash #59: Appreciate the J.H. Newman cite. My favorite quote of his: “Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then you may hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man.”

Brock says, in so many words, “I don’t myself believe in Christianity but I’m glad that others do.” There’s something really askew there but can’t immediately put my finger on just what. I take your word for it, though, that you personally feel absolutely no need whatsoever for faith. So far, anyway. You said this debate is fascinating yet you remain untouched. Should the day ever come when you ARE touched, when you must face something unprecedented, something your current ethos is too flimsy to be of any help, you might recall to mind:

“The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” Psalms 34:18

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Psalms 51:17

“But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” Deuteronomy 4:29

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13

M. Simon #166: I like the more universal “original sin” doctrine of the Buddhists

Salvation lies in attaining nirvana, the extinction of the individual. Now there’s a cheery life-affirming goal.

“Your use of the word ‘agnostic’ is strange to me, since it literally means ‘One who is doubtful.’ There is no faith inside an agnostic. I guess I’ll just say that faith may be a requirement for your existence (and many other people’s), but it’s no requirement of mine. Atheism would be a faith of a sort, but agnosticism is simply not believing in answers that cannot be verified.”

Thank you for the thoughtful addition. I would tender that the faith inside an agnostic is the faith that, given the observable world, the question of the afterlife does not matter significantly. In other words, the agnostic says “I don’t know, so let it all work itself out–it’ll be ok, or at least as it should be.” That’s the leap of faith, that it will work out. Without that faith the agnostic quickly turns into a very serious seeker of Truth, arriving at one or another conclusion. This is why actual agnostics are very rare: they decay into either atheists, or some other religion depending on the thoroughness and honesty of their seeking phase.

Again, my conclusion is based on the observation that it is impossible to be without a faith, even if the object of that faith is not traditional.

Regards,
–JC

“There is after all nothing so sexy to women in general as cruelty…”

Speak for yourself Wormtongue. What you are describing here is a pathology that transcends gender and in any case is hardly the eternal verity you claim it to be. Whose cruelty are you talking about anyway? You are a boring and mean-spirited man and I for one look forward to dancing on your grave in a red dress.

Back to reality – Fletcher Christian makes a good point – the lack of a real night sky in the city is a great loss to the spirit

Regarding the same – and I am here addressing Brock and others who speak of a need for proofs as a prerequisite to faith – for what it’s worth, while I am not a practicing believer of any religion, I find a great comfort in the knowledge that there are things that elude rational explanation. I cannot explain it or justify it, but I am nonetheless reassured by the thought that there are powers beyond our intentions that shape the fortunes of this world. And like others here, I will gladly defend the Church of Rome, even though I am a heretic in its eyes, because it represents the West that is under threat, as wretchard astutely notes, from “the religion which pretends to be a political movement — socialism/communism” and “the political movement which pretends to be a religion — Islam.”

Regarding Tolkien – his own faith was the foundation of his artistry (as he states in the Mythopeia – “we make still by the law in which we’re made”) though I believe also that his Catholicism was in some degree a bulwark and a defense against Ragnarok. He did write, after all, with terrible certainty, that the Shadow would always, after a defeat and a respite, grow and take shape again. And again, and again…

Not prevail against it?
Gates prevailing against a church in this context doesn’t make sense.
Might this have more to do with the inability of hell to deny entrance to Christ’s message and saving grace of redemption by his sacrifice for those in purgatory, rather than the power of Hell itself to subvert our fallen world.
Seems to me, this Earth is Satan’s last best chance.

We represent so many strands. How can we be knit into a rope to help bind a broken center?.
Isn’t that the story of the Fellowship of the Ring?
This is an amazing thread. I saved it to print a copy of the first 183 comments. Over 70 pages filled with wisdom. Thank you W.

I am a serious but non-denominational observant Jewish psychiatrist and conservative — quite a strange combination for West Los Angeles. Because I am not hostile to religion I get patients who practice religiously that don’t normally trust psychiatrists. I see Christian Scientists, devout Catholics, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witness and even some Muslim patients. What this has taught me is at least two things.

One is that for those with a wholesome religious faith there are assets in their coping “tool box” that help them in life.

Second is that not all religious traditions are wholesome. By wholesome I mean life-affirming, focused on ethical behavior and personal goodness, keeping high standards but also showing forgiveness and compassion, and the paradox of strong belief that you have found the best faith yet not looking down on those of other faiths or no faith.

Wretchard made an outstanding point (again) by saying that standards, even if they are breached, are crucial. It is one thing to have standards we sometimes don’t live up to and another thing altogether to say there are or should be no standards. The former exposes human imperfection, the latter ultimately leads to chaos.

And those who pointed out the importance of the Declaration’s reliance on the Creator, on Nature and Nature’s God, have pin pointed the key restraint on governments and on individuals. Rights come from the Creator or from Natural Law, not from the state or from another person. Therefore there are limits on what man can rightly do to man.

Do we need religion? As a society the answer is “yes.” Select individuals can live excellent lives of goodness without religion, but society cannot sustain three generations in a row of such ethical goodness without a transcendental source of guidance and restraint. This is somewhat like vaccinations — 20% of the population can get away without vaccinations if the other 80% has them, but when a certain threshold of of non-immunized population is reached, the whole society is threatened with epidemic.

Do we need “One God?” Yes. The concept of one God means that all of humanity is subject to the same ethical restraints. And this is precisely what multiculturalism and relativism has been eroding. The torture of children is wrong for ALL. The burning of widows is wrong for ALL. Female clitorectomy is wrong for ALL. Ceremonies and rituals can be multicultural. Cuisine can be multicultural. Calendar and holidays can be multicultural. Theological creed can be multicultural up to a point. But there must be one law for the faithful and for the stranger alike. Those are the ethical laws.

A Creator God such as the Deists hold is insufficient. The God of the Universe must also be an ethical God. That was part of the point of Benedict XVI’s Regensburg speech. God can’t be capricious and ethical at the same time. And humans were given a soul and a brain to study and question and use their reason to apprehend God’s ethical nature.

Is ceremony, calendar, creed, and calendar necessary? Yes. Without it the ability to hold to the humility and ethical imperatives will inevitably be diluted and disappear. Isn’t it easier to remember the lyrics when we remember the melody of a song? Religion is the melody of the ethical song.

And what do we get when we give up standards, reduce the transcendental, think of ourselves as the masters of our universe? Precisely what Wretchard wrote this post to address. Deconstructed meaning and multicultural ethics produce empty relativism. Into the void comes either fanatic religiosity (Islamic fundamentalism) or fanatic secularism.

Will the center hold? Will religious traditions that remain steadfast to standards (yes, some must be revised in part, but there must still be standards) and remain humble in recognizing that there are authorities higher than man and government, continue to occupy enough space in the hearts and minds to preserve what is best about our civilization?

Sadly, I think we are entering a new Dark Ages in which superstition will replace real science, totalitarianism (secular or religious) will replace freedom, conformity will replace individuality, and the middle will shrink while the bottom expands and the top luxuriates.

But that will not be the end of the story. The Israelites had to spend 400 years in slavery before they were led to the promised land. And once there they went to the brink of destruction many times, yet still remain. After Rome fell there were still remnants who kept the flame alive, mostly in monasteries of the Catholic Church and small academies of Jews.

The Judeo-Christian faiths will survive even if they are flickering lights for a long time. They are like life giving enzymes without which the world cannot continue.

And for all of you who line up at different places on the Judeo-Christian spectrum, and for those “agnostics” who believe they have not found their spot in that spectrum but who still appreciate its value, and for those of Eastern faith traditions whose ethical values and appreciation of human life and freedom overlap with that spectrum, I say we are all allies in this time of danger. We can’t afford to let our different creeds, calendars, ceremonies, and cuisine (the four main C’s that distinguish religions from each other) make for groundless arguments. If there is a center that has a chance to hold, we must all hold it together.

I just reread this and think it sounds too much like a sermon. For that I apologize but I’m going to press “submit” anyway.

They are his other organizing group out of Chicago. ACORN works the secular side. Gamaliel works on the religious folks. Obama of course works on both.