He who defines, wins. He who successfully redefines, wins. And this is why Christians are not faring well in the current battles over homosexuality. We will not reverse this trend without some imaginative warriors.
Not only do our adversaries want to redefine marriage, they want to do so because they have already claimed the right to be able to redefine absolutely anything they want.
It didn’t start with marriage. It started with other terms, with which Christians went along, more or less, thinking something along the lines of “what could it hurt?” And there were, in our midst, various shills and apologists for allowing these terms to be messed with like that.
I have in mind terms like “hate,” and “public,” and “freedom,” and “religious liberty.” None of those things now mean what they meant when I was born, and while the shift has been attended with some controversy, it has not been nearly enough controversy. The pathway for all this was smoothed by the slow and steady degradation of educational standards — which failed miserably as a form of traditional education, but succeeded spectacularly as a way of preparing good little drone bees for life in their coming Hive.
This is what lies behind the popular scoffing at the notion that the religious liberties of American Christians are in any way being threatened by the homosex rebellion. This includes professing Christians who have decided, for whatever reason, to go along with the broader redefinition project. We have seen this from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and we have seen it from Christians on the web protesting conservative objections to what they taunt as “paper cut persecution.” But our religious liberties are in genuine peril, and it is not a little deal.
As our public definitions of marriage are being redefined, the ruling elite is not protecting the religious liberties of the Christian opposition in the old sense, but rather are doing so by redefining what religious liberty means.
They are like a manufacturer who gives you a “lifetime guarantee” for their product, and you find out when you return it busted after six months, that by “lifetime” they now mean, not your lifetime, but the lifetime of the product. When you bought it, lifetime meant one thing. Now it means another. The product is now guaranteed for as long as it works.
This is how the trick works. You have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Everybody in the old Christian order understood this — human liberties are precious, but not one of them is absolute, and we do have to balance them against the rights of others. So far, so good. The judges of Christendom, steeped in biblical law, common sense, and the light of nature, were up to that sort of challenge. And every citizen who was not a sociopath could see the sense in it.
But in the new order, every word you speak can be interpreted as fire, and every place you go is interpreted as a crowded theater. You have has much freedom to speak “in your space” as you used to, but now your space has about as much square footage as a 6 x 8 prison cell. It used to run from Delaware to Oregon.
They will maintain stoutly that they are defending our liberties as much as they used to, and if you are a total rube, you just might buy it. They are defending your rights within your territory as much as they used to — but are they defending your territory? Ha.
Do you doubt what I say? What have you been redefined into? You who dutifully sort out your garbage now! You who can’t buy the kind of light bulb you want! You whose phone calls are all stored up by the NSA! You who can’t light up on a windy bluff overlooking the ocean because of the second-hand smoke danger to the residents of a town half a mile away! You who can’t refuse catering services to homosexual celebrations! You who can’t get on an airplane without a federal representative feeling you up! You who can’t donate significant money for political causes! You who can’t buy ad space for certain passages out of the Bible! You are as free as a bird! It is a dead bird, but at least you are as free as it.
We need a better strategy than the one we are using right now. We are currently poking at the dead bird on our lawn with a shovel, telling it to soar.
Walter Kirn recently summed the whole problem up for us:
“Their ultimate goal, of course, is to read our minds, and our final defense will be not to have them.”
In fairness, though, Reformed Christians define an awful lot of terms in ways that nobody else defines them. Which doesn’t justify leftists doing it; two wrongs don’t make a right. But if you want to be taken seriously, don’t complain about liberals using tactics that you yourselves have used for years. If you want examples, I can give you plenty. For example, defining “religion” so broadly that it includes atheism.
I don’t think the definition of religion that includes atheism is really any different from most people’s definition, it’s just that most aren’t willing to admit that atheism fits their own definition quite well.
1: a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Does it bother you that we complain?
Applying the definition to the negative (atheism) really isn’t difficult or unreasonable. The atheist (the one who allegedly holds to the ACTUAL Truth) gets to define “religion” since he’s the one truly in line with Truth, according to himself (or should I capitalize the H for “Himself”?).
People have always sorted out their garbage for composting, animal feeding, things to reuse, things to burn, etc. It’s only fairly recent that the government or private garbage truck companies offered refuse pick-up. If the people who offer it prefer it separated I’m not certain what the hubbub is.
Are you implying that the concept of recycling things instead of putting them in a landfill is somehow based upon a redefinition of terms? I understand the logistical problems of recycling, I just don’t know how it relates.
The problem with defining religion to include atheism is that it necessarily renders religion a meaningless concept. If every belief system is religious, then the term “religion” is superfluous; what you really mean is “belief system”. Could anyone then give an example of a non-religious belief system? In other words, the term “light” is only meaningful if you have the absence of light (darkness) to compare it to. Likewise, “religion” is only meaningful if you have absence of religion to compare it to. So I think conceptually the better approach is to say that religion encompasses theist-based or supernatural belief… Read more »
However, the broader point here is that the real political agenda in calling atheism a religion is because that then places reason and superstition on the same plane, with one no better than the other. And is therefore a perfect example of conservative Christians doing precisely what Doug complains about secular liberals doing.
When “religion” is popularly spoken of, it’s usually with regard to the foundational propositions which (at least) accompany what you might consider the iconic “religious” features – devotion, worship, tithes, congregational singing. They’re more readily identified by such eclectic practices. But people don’t exactly object to DOMA, for instance, on the basis that Christianity has people sing silly songs on sundays and sit quietly together while a man reads and explains a book to them. On the contrary, the foundational principles driving such laws or acts is generally in view, though not quite consistently. But this is where the ground-shift… Read more »
Eric, what would be your definition for religion that does not include atheism, but does include Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and neo-Paganism?
Jane, I realize it’s rude to answer a question with another question, and I apologize, but doing so is the best way I can think of to make my position clear. A good definition has two parts: The genera, and the differentia. The genera tells us which general category something belongs to; the differentia tells us what distinguishes it from other things that are in the same category. So, for example, a “fork” is a “kitchen utensil with tines.” “Kitchen utensil” is the genera; “with tines” is the differentia that distinguishes it from other kitchen utensils such as spoons and… Read more »
I’ve already given you what I believe to be the differentia: Religion is a belief system that involves theism or the supernatural. By that definition, if Buddhism doesn’t involve deities or the supernatural, then it’s a philosophy rather than a religion. It may be treated like a religion for First Amendment purposes, but as a matter of taxonomy, it’s a philosophy. I’m willing to be persuaded differently if you have a good contrary argument.
“Religion: [I]ncludes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of His will to man, and in man’s obligation to obey His commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life with the practice of all moral duties. … [T]he practice of moral duties without a belief in a Divine Lawgiver, and without reference to His will or commands, is not religion.” – Noah Webster,”An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). I agree that there has been an attempt to redefine the… Read more »
The slight of hand here is simply switching ‘sins’ (homosexuality etc) for ‘Sin’ (our fallen nature) -“Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the SIN of the world.” While we are busy focusing on the sins, we forget the true offence of the cross: that Jesus died for these people just as He died for us.. We, The Church, continually fall into the error of judging the world by Christian standards and judging The Church by the worlds; legalism without and liberalism within, when the exact opposite is required. Our Lord said “in the last days the love of… Read more »
Atheism involves the supernatural; it just says that it doesn’t exist. Sounds like a doctrine to me, with all do respect. And I don’t mean to have an argumentative tone, Eric, I just think that if atheism is treated purely as a philosophy rather than as a religion as well, you get to open doors with the 1st Amendment to allow tacit or assumed atheism within the state to the detriment of theists. That is to say what Wilson states: it’s not IF religion is enforced, but WHOSE religion.
I would also point out that by Mr. Webster’s definition of religion Athiests would have no 1st amendment protections.
Eric the Red, is the practice of atheism protected under the first amendment? Are you free not to go to church?
What is truly baffling to me is that as Christians we profess to follow a man who gave up all of His rights and should think at any point this will not be required of us. Any freedom that any culture poses in the first place (including the constitution) is a list of temporary privileges. The only true freedom that exists is in Christ. No one can take from me what was never mine in the first place.
Ianopolis –“I would also point out that by Mr. Webster’s definition of religion Athiests would have no 1st amendment protections.” That is likely, considering John Locke’s opinions: “Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As… Read more »
Under the First Amendment, I don’t think the government can prefer religion over non-religion; I think it is supposed to be neutral on the subject. Even if I’m wrong about that, atheism would still be protected speech.
Well, Eric, you started this by raising the issue of definitions not widely shared. (I believe Pastor Wilson’s concern is more with definitions that alter the longstanding understanding.) I would humbly submit that if the dictionary definition and/or the common understanding is to be preferred over idiosyncratic definitions then any definition that does exclude Buddhism is doubtful by your own standards: the dictionary definition cited above includes it, and nearly anyone you ask will tell you that Buddhism is a religion.
“Any freedom that any culture poses in the first place (including the constitution) is a list of temporary privileges” I think you may have missed the point of unalienable rights. The whole point is they are not “temporary privileges”. They are given by God. So if the government decides to remove my “privilege” of the free exercise of religion and asks me to bow down before a statue of (insert name here) I am not obligated to follow them. In other words I have the RIGHT to disobey that law. I have that right because God trumps the government. The… Read more »
So the problem is that as much as you might make a convincing case that “Eric’s definition” is a good one, it is using a word “in ways that nobody else defines [it],” since nearly everyone would tell you that Buddhism is a religion, therefore by deduction, everyone else uses the word in a way that includes Buddhism. So if that’s your objection, then Eric’s definition doesn’t forward the project much, either.
Mr. blowes, With what I hope is an intramural question, you say: ” While we are busy focusing on the sins, we forget the true offence of the cross: that Jesus died for these people just as He died for us.. We, The Church, continually fall into the error of judging the world by Christian standards…” That begs the question of why bother to identify behavior sets and make proscription against them. For example “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies,… Read more »
Eric the Red: “Under the First Amendment, I don’t think the government can prefer religion over non-religion; I think it is supposed to be neutral on the subject.” You have illustrated my point, you’ve redefined the 1st amendment.
I wouldn’t say that atheism per se is a religion, since its just the negation of a single doctrine, but secular humanism is a religion, materialism can be a religion, or whatever the positive beliefs and practices are that give the individual atheist meaning: they constitute a religion. What annoys me is when certain Christians redefine “religion” to *not* include Christianity. Christianity is a religion. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Everybody has a religion, even if it’s a self-made one; it’s part of being human. The same people often say that they “love Jesus, but hate the church.” That’s… Read more »
Jane, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what distinguishes religion from other belief systems. Ionopolis, the clear and unambiguous text of the First Amendment forbids both an establishment of religion, or a prohibition on the free exercise thereof. That sounds like neutrality to me. In any event, before you go knocking down that wall of separation between church and state, it may be what saves you if, say, Muslims achieve political power in this country. I’m sure they’d like to impose their religion on you just as much as you’d like to impose your religion on them. Unless… Read more »
Christians need to engage this battle over words. We’ve abdicated a lot of ground, but the conflict is related to Jesus’ questions, “who do men say that I am?”, and, “who do you say that I am?”. Atheism is as much of an -ism as theism. This is inescapable. In fact, atheism is entirely derivative and dependent upon theism. Atheism has no independent meaning without its reference and relation to theism. One could say that atheism is parasitical on theism. If theism were to disappear, so would atheism and atheists. So the atheist owes us for his (anti-)worldview. That is,… Read more »
Religion pertains to one’s core or foundational beliefs, aka worldview. This is what distinguishes religion from other belief systems, such as one’s beliefs about last season’s X Factor, or how to operate a hot air balloon. Religion informs those other belief systems to some degree, but they aren’t core. Atheism is portrayed as a core belief system, which is what presses it into the category of religion. However, for some reason atheists like to label themselves in relation to what they oppose, so atheism is actually just a negation of someone else’s religion. What sits behind the atheist’s atheism is… Read more »
Eric the Red: “the clear and unambiguous text of the First Amendment forbids both an establishment of religion, or a prohibition on the free exercise thereof. That sounds like neutrality to me.” Of course it sounds like neutrality to you that’s the whole point I’m making. That is what you see when you read it, but that is not what it meant when it was written. Are you seriously suggesting that at the time that was written it was intended to prohibit government institutions from showing preference to Christianity over Islam or Atheism? Even to this day vestiges of the… Read more »
@RFB: You are quoting Galatians 5:19, so let’s go to the beginning of the letter to see to whom it is addressed; Gal 1:2 ‘To the Churches in Galatia;’ But perhaps by chapter 5 Paul has switched tack and is now addressing the world? Gal 5:13 ‘You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free.’ So the passage you refer to is specifically addressed to believers, an exhortation to live by the spirit and not the flesh. Paul could not very well exhort the world to live by a spirit they do not posses, that is, after all, what… Read more »
Katecho, lack of belief in Santa Claus is entirely derivative and dependent upon Santa Claus. Lack of belief in Santa Claus has no independent meaning without its reference and relation to Santa Claus. One could say that lack of belief in Santa Claus is parasitical on Santa Claus. If belief in Santa Claus were to disappear, so would disbelief in Santa Claus. So the person who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus owes us for his (anti-)worldview. That is, unless he actually has a belief system that doesn’t reference Santa Claus. Now, do you see how silly you’re being?
But the thing is, I am no more defined by my atheism than I am by my disbelief in astrology, palm reading, or weather predictions by groundhogs on February 2. The only practical difference is that there are far more theists who think that everything is about them than there are adherents of palmistry. The one thing katecho is right about is that people should be defined by what they do believe than by what they don’t believe.
“Jane, I’m still waiting for you to tell me what distinguishes religion from other belief systems.” I’m still treating your question as irrelevant since your premise is that generally accepted definitions are to be preferred, and under both the generally accepted definition found in the dictionary, and the generally accepted usage that the things I listed are religions, atheism fits — it is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices,” and lacks only the characteristic of including a deity that many other widely acknowledged religions lack. I don’t know why we need to make up… Read more »
Mr. Blowes, Continuing sir: I think that any catalog of sin is omni-directional: for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them…” One of the purposes of the law is to expose behavior for what it is. There is a classic list of behavior in Romans 1 that specifically describes the actions of those who… Read more »
In my experience, atheism can mean everything from believing in no gods to not believing in any gods to believing in only one God (“I contend that we’re both atheists…”). If only there were some book of Atheism to help us make sense of them. I guess there is one, but it’s not one atheists would use.
Jane, my premise is not that generally agreed definitions are to be preferred. My premise is that the purpose of language is to communicate, so if you are defining words in a way that most other people don’t define them, you need to make it clear that that’s what you’re doing, and have a legitimate basis for doing so. In the case of Buddhism, you may very well be right that many people consider it a religion (though not all; if you google it you’ll find that a great many people don’t consider it a religion for the reasons I’ve… Read more »
Matthias, the central problem with your argument is that atheists don’t have a central belief system, any more than people who don’t believe in the easter bunny have a central belief system. “I disbelieve X” is not a belief system. Other than not believing in deities, atheists are all over the map in terms of what they actually do believe, as evidenced by the fact that Ayn Rand and Joseph Stalin were both atheists.
“what a non-religious world view would look like?”
How about a widespread consensual faith/belief in a universe that exists as a result of ex nihilo self-creation.
And it is more religious than not. It is a “central belief system” that is religious by its faith in tenets that it proselytizes in almost every government school system. And, if spoken against, is immediately defended with polemic religious fervor.
“But there are some people, nevertheless–and I am one of them– who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the… Read more »
Eric, perhaps not a “system” per se (how can they have one, really?), but there is a presumed “neutrality” (a central presupposition, as it were) which sets atheism up to be anti-religion par excellence, with a condescending nod here and there to the “value” of “religion.” You might say it’s the most detrimental belief/belief system/lack of belief system/whatever that can exist in any community, as most people consider themselves “religious.” But in any case, I’ve actually composed a small rant wherein I lament the lack of definition in such things. Public Display of Religion
The relevance of the GKC quote is this: Religion–being about God, or at least the “supreme Being”–is the chief molder of worldviews, and consequently EVERYTHING about us. Theism and atheism are therefore serving the same purpose, as it’s your belief about God (existing or nonexisting) and His authority over you (or lack thereof) that decides your actions. There is no “secular” ground to stand on, but that’s not to necessarily say that the prevailing religious attitude will absolutely force itself upon those who disagree. A mayor opening a municipal meeting with a prayer (Christian or not) is NOT preventing an… Read more »
RFB, if people who believe in the easter bunny had done as good a job at organizing politically and pushing the government to insert the easter bunny into everything, I’ll bet you’d see some push-back from people who don’t believe in the easter bunny, but that wouldn’t make non-belief in the easter bunny a religion.
I think that it is hard to conflate “some push-back” with the ex nihilo self-creation belief and proselytizing that permeates virtually all government sponsored education. I would call such people adherents.
Eric, I think, (and I am saying this with no bitterness, but kindly with a trace of a wry (as in dryly humorous) smile) that your professed belief or anti-belief, however you want to define it, is mostly based upon the implication(s) that attach to the existence of God.
RFB, there is a consensus among those who do science for a living that the evidence backs up what you call ex nihilo self creation, and you shouldn’t be surprised that science is what gets taught in science classes. I realize that for religious reasons you disagree. As far as the basis for my own belief system, I’m ex-Reformed who continued going to church long after I’d stopped believing just because I still wanted it to be true. If you go to gatherings of atheists, you’ll find lots of people who did their darndest to keep believing even as they… Read more »
Eric, If you thought that my responses were ad hominem then I must ask for your forgiveness. They were not intended as such.
Then again, ad hominem is only fallacious if the aspects of the person’s character or being which are questioned have nothing to do with his take on an issue. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here to say even logical fallacies aren’t neutral. As an example, take an atheist accusing a Christian of “special pleading” for arguing for Christianity. Put simply, since “special pleading” assumes that all conditions are equal (neutrality, anyone?), the atheist accuser is himself begging the question, even by accusing the Christian of special pleading.
RFB, no apology necessary. Matthias, for purposes of this discussion, let us assume that I am of bad moral character. In fact, let us assume I am Hitler, Now, assuming all of that, that has nothing to do with the yes-or-no fact question of whether God exists. That is a question that is resolved by evidence, not by whether the speaker is someone you’d want to have a beer with.