NationStates Jolt Archive

That's the title of a fabulous op-ed written by Garry Wills that appeared in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?ex=1144728000&en=0aa355a687f70653&ei=5087). I'm posting the first page of it here, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing.
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.

This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.

Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.

But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.

The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.

To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills — that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.

The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.

Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion — imposing a reign of Jesus in this order — they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.

Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"

That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
Now even though I'm not a religious person, you'll be hard-pressed to find a bigger fan of Jesus's teachings than me--to some, my lack of a religion means that my claim is bogus. To them I politely request they kiss my ass. Divine or not, the man had a hell of a message.

But it has long disturbed me the way his message has been co-opted and corrupted by all manner of power-hungry douchebags. I don't expect Wills's message will convince anyone who doesn't already agree--there are some people so steeped in their own self-righteousness that they make Peter Griffin's dad look humble, and they won't be swayed by logic, religious or otherwise.

But it's still good to see that some people get it.

I wonder if Bush has read this.

I wonder if Bush has read this.

I wonder if Bush can read.

I wonder if Bush can read.
Maybe we could make it a picture book for him...

See Jesus. See Jesus Preach. Preach Jesus Preach.

See any war?

I don't know about Christianity. Christianity has some rather strange and ridiculous doctrines - "blessed be the meek," "turn the other cheek," etc. - that promote a sort of morality I don't claim to understand at all. To me it seems irrationalist, puritanical, and fundamentally anarchist (Tolstoy, not Bakunin) and I have never understood how mainstream Christianity manages to completely ignore significant aspects of the ideology for its convenience.

But as far as the religion, such as religions go, that I feel the greatest connection to - Judaism - I have always held that to have apolitical Judaism is not to have Judaism at all. That is the real perversion, the real hypocrisy - to assert that morality stops at the door of the synagogue, that after one prays to God prayer ceases to have any significance, that when one reads the Bible the message is not really meant for us, or is merely meant "privately," or some such nonsense. Of course it isn't. Is murder merely a private affair? Morality may be relative, but it is not individual, and it is not private. If it's wrong when we do it, it's wrong when anyone does it, with the exception of laws that are explicitly targeted at a given group of people.

Isaiah wrote a few relevant words on this general question:

4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly; they have forsaken the LORD, they have contemned the Holy One of Israel, they are turned away backward. 5 On what part will ye yet be stricken, seeing ye stray away more and more? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint; 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and festering sores: they have not been pressed, neither bound up, neither mollified with oil. 7 Your country is desolate; your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by floods. 8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. 9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah. 10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample My courts? 13 Bring no more vain oblations; it is an offering of abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the holding of convocations--I cannot endure iniquity along with the solemn assembly. 14 Your new moons and your appointed seasons My soul hateth; they are a burden unto Me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes, cease to do evil; 17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. {S} 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken.

This is not a right-left issue, appearances to the contrary. The Religious Left insists that abortion and homosexuality are "private" while helping the poor is "public." This is paralleled on the Religious Right when it insists that abortion and homosexuality are "public" and helping the poor is "private." Either formulation is inconsistent, and to merely declare that all of it is a "private" matter is to deny morality altogether. Sure, people disagree about religion. People - even atheists - disagree about morality too. Does that mean that all behavior should be a private matter? Perhaps we should legalize murder, too, along with abolishing welfare and permitting gay marriage?

Religious morality - at least as modern religions see it, though what Jesus thought is open to debate - is collective, and indeed can hardly be anything else. If consistency is the desire, this should be acknowledged, consistently. If left-wing religious people seek to support gay rights or right-wing religious people seek to oppose welfare programs they will have to come up with better arguments. On homosexuality, there are already a good number, with a good deal of merit; on social welfare, I must confess my personal opinion that the Judeo-Christian arguments against it are absurd, unless the legitimacy of numerous passages in the Old Testament is to be denied.

*snip*

Nice and all...but with murder, there is the matter of the other person.

Nice and all...but with murder, there is the matter of the other person.

And immediately you bring your own morality into the equation, with the assumption that there is a difference. What if I don't think so? What if I think that no one has the right to kill anyone, even themselves, and that gay sex, a straight ticket to hell (allegedly), is just as immoral as killing yourself? What if I think that a fetus is a real human being, and that the mother has no "individual right" to murder it?

Or, alternatively, what if I think that the person I'm going to murder has no value, and thus say that it is my individual right to eliminate him, just as it is a pregnant woman's individual right to abort the fetus, or anyone's individual right to step on an ant?

The whole idea that there is a moral distinction between acts that only affect oneself and acts that affect others is based on morality, which people disagree about, and therefore according to the extremist doctrine that you can't impose your morality on anyone else, it is illegitimate to prevent murder, or anything else for that matter.

I read that this morning, and I have to say that if the various USian political factions actually bothered to read this, it could resolve a fair number of issues. And I'm talking about both sides, although the Democrats and Republicans are virtually indistinguishable by now... Someone should mass-print this on leaflets and sprinkle them liberally *sarcastic chuckle* over Washington....


... and thus I flex my incredible gift for stating the painfully obvious. Mauvasia out. :D

I don't know about Christianity. Christianity has some rather strange and ridiculous doctrines - "blessed be the meek," "turn the other cheek," etc. - that promote a sort of morality I don't claim to understand at all. To me it seems irrationalist, puritanical, and fundamentally anarchist (Tolstoy, not Bakunin) and I have never understood how mainstream Christianity manages to completely ignore significant aspects of the ideology for its convenience.
Oh, it is quite easy to understand. Christian teachings are designed to subjugate their followers, make them leadable (like sheep), unwilling to fight for themselves (meek) and stupid (like children).
Christ was a fool, and as disgusting as his particular perversion of Judaism is, it is at least refreshing that later Christians modified his teachings enough to allow some sense of reality and strength.
Morality may be relative, but it is not individual, and it is not private. If it's wrong when we do it, it's wrong when anyone does it, with the exception of laws that are explicitly targeted at a given group of people.
If a matter is relative, then it is based wholly on the individual. That's sort of the definition of relativity.
More importantly, abstaining from sex, giving to the poor, and surrendering one's will to Allah are supposed to be sacrifices; extra things that one gives up because they chose to do so. If you force the issue, then you remove the matter of choice and make sacrifice the norm, and then those sacrifices are no longer Good Deeds, no more moral than breathing.

Maybe no one bit the first time (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476752) because no one knows who Garry Wills is.


It was a very insightful piece.

If a matter is relative, then it is based wholly on the individual. That's sort of the definition of relativity.

I am thinking of the moral system, not its source. If I hold that it is good to feed the poor, that is my belief, and not necessarily anyone else's. At the same time, however, I can claim that it is not merely "good" for me to feed the poor, but for anyone to feed the poor.

More importantly, abstaining from sex, giving to the poor, and surrendering one's will to Allah are supposed to be sacrifices; extra things that one gives up because they chose to do so. If you force the issue, then you remove the matter of choice and make sacrifice the norm, and then those sacrifices are no longer Good Deeds, no more moral than breathing.

Except if the moral objective is granting the poor the capability to eat, it follows that promoting a society where the poor are capable of eating withour private charity - charity which in itself does not fulfill the objective - is a worthy action.

In a perfect society, there would be no need for sacrifice.

Edit: And again, this line of reasoning is open to reductio ad absurdum. If we hold that what is important in morality is not the consequences but the action (and motive) itself, and follow it through to the conclusion that people should be free to choose whether to be moral or not (because restraining choice would destroy the point), it also follows that various actions pretty much everyone agrees should be prohibited - murder, rape, etc. - should in fact not be, and should dealt with by personal moral conviction instead.

I am thinking of the moral system, not its source. If I hold that it is good to feed the poor, that is my belief, and not necessarily anyone else's. At the same time, however, I can claim that it is not merely "good" for me to feed the poor, but for anyone to feed the poor.
If you acknowledge that morality is relative, then only I can say what is "good" for me, and I think it is "good" for me to have a good time and hoard my resources.
You can only justify overriding my "good" with your "good" if your "good" is superior to mine, therefore declaring morality absolute.
Except if the moral objective is granting the poor the capability to eat, it follows that promoting a society where the poor are capable of eating withour private charity - charity which in itself does not fulfill the objective - is a worthy action.
Morality requires sacrifice, though. In essence, we have the power to kill and steal expressly so that we can give them up.
Hence, the doctorine of free will that most religions hold. It isn't considered a "good" deed not to kill my roommate because, were I to do end him, society would make me suffer. In the same vein, the money I'm taxed to fund welfare programs isn't a good deed on my part because, if I didn't pay up, I would face imprisonment.
In short: Conversion by the sword isn't genuine conversion, in fact, it damns the "converted" by insuring that they can never be said to feel genuine conviction.
In a perfect society, there would be no need for sacrifice.
That really depends on your concept of perfect. If by "perfect" you mean "morally perfect" (and I'm assuming so), then there would still be sacrfice. However, this sacrifice would be granted willingly by every individual, so that private charity insured a high standard of living for all people without any government intervention.
In fact, a perfectly moral society could exist as an anarchy, since you would need no government funded equalizers to watch anyone's back.

That's the title of a fabulous op-ed written by Garry Wills that appeared in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html?ex=1144728000&en=0aa355a687f70653&ei=5087). I'm posting the first page of it here, but I highly recommend reading the whole thing.

Now even though I'm not a religious person, you'll be hard-pressed to find a bigger fan of Jesus's teachings than me--to some, my lack of a religion means that my claim is bogus. To them I politely request they kiss my ass. Divine or not, the man had a hell of a message.

But it has long disturbed me the way his message has been co-opted and corrupted by all manner of power-hungry douchebags. I don't expect Wills's message will convince anyone who doesn't already agree--there are some people so steeped in their own self-righteousness that they make Peter Griffin's dad look humble, and they won't be swayed by logic, religious or otherwise.

But it's still good to see that some people get it.

Well said, Nazz. Thanks for the link.

If you acknowledge that morality is relative, then only I can say what is "good" for me, and I think it is "good" for me to have a good time and hoard my resources.
You can only justify overriding my "good" with your "good" if your "good" is superior to mine, therefore declaring morality absolute.

I can hold that my "good" is superior to your "good" without assuming that it is inherent in the universe. That can be a principle of the moral system I adopt, that other people's moralities are irrelevant to its function.

Morality requires sacrifice, though. In essence, we have the power to kill and steal expressly so that we can give them up.
Hence, the doctorine of free will that most religions hold. It isn't considered a "good" deed not to kill my roommate because, were I to do end him, society would make me suffer. In the same vein, the money I'm taxed to fund welfare programs isn't a good deed on my part because, if I didn't pay up, I would face imprisonment.
In short: Conversion by the sword isn't genuine conversion, in fact, it damns the "converted" by insuring that they can never be said to feel genuine conviction.

Not if one adheres to a consequentialist system of ethics. Under such a system, money voluntarily given to feed the poor and money forcibly taken to feed the poor would be indistinguishable, because they have the same consequences - unless that form of coercion is viewed as a negative consequence.

Edit: And as another possibility, it could be held, and is held by some, that the action is worse than the intent, and that to prevent someone from committing a sin, even to violate their liberty to do so, is to save them from at least some of the accompanying moral blame.

That really depends on your concept of perfect. If by "perfect" you mean "morally perfect" (and I'm assuming so), then there would still be sacrfice. However, this sacrifice would be granted willingly by every individual, so that private charity insured a high standard of living for all people without any government intervention.
In fact, a perfectly moral society could exist as an anarchy, since you would need no government funded equalizers to watch anyone's back.

We are, again, thinking of different systems of ethics. I was thinking of sacrifice as a correction for injustice, not as moral in itself. A just society would thus have no need for sacrifice.

Furthermore, and more relevantly to the topic, since the Old Testament involves itself with the creation of a moral society and not merely a moral individual, the collectivization of morality, with whatever justification, is pretty much assumed.

Edit: Come to think of it, as an extension from theodicy, it could be reasonably argued that because God (assuming His existence, as religion does) has deprived us neither of free will nor of liberty in any respect, He does in fact adhere to the radical privatization of morality, and that pretty much all of His followers have gotten it wrong. Nevertheless, since no mainstream religion has taken this position, to my knowledge, I think my argument stands.

I can hold that my "good" is superior to your "good" without assuming that it is inherent in the universe. That can be a principle of the moral system I adopt, that other people's moralities are irrelevant to its function.
You can "hold" anything, but what you're advocating is enforcement. To enforce a moral matter on someone, you have decided that your judgements are (ultimately) superior.
Not if one adheres to a consequentialist system of ethics. Under such a system, money voluntarily given to feed the poor and money forcibly taken to feed the poor would be indistinguishable, because they have the same consequences - unless that form of coercion is viewed as a negative consequence.
A consequentialist system of ethics is morality based on chance; a moral system that holds homicide and harmless negligence based on sheer, unforeseeable happenstance.
For a moral system to be valid, itmust be based on things one can control directly, not on what might come about later. Otherwise, your Diety is simply a jerk who'll slap you around for things out of your control (like what your society did) and let you get off on crimes because someone else intervened (whether the baby you threw in a lake drowned or was rescued by another person).
We are, again, thinking of different systems of ethics. I was thinking of sacrifice as a correction for injustice, not as moral in itself. A just society would thus have no need for sacrifice.
So you're talking about Government Society as opposed to a Society of Individuals, yes?
So, then, the US government is good and just, and when it dies it gets to go to heaven. Where does that leave the people it exploited so that it could be good?
After all, the IRS didn't give me any options, they just demanded that I pay. Hence, my payment was morally neutral, and the government gets to be a hero on my dime.
Furthermore, and more relevantly to the topic, since the Old Testament involves itself with the creation of a moral society and not merely a moral individual, the collectivization of morality, with whatever justification, is pretty much assumed.
What is Society? Where did it come from? Are there feral Societies, roaming beyond human reach? Where does it go when it dies?
Society was the very first societal construct. It began when two people met each other and realized that being together was better than being alone (an alliance of convenience). Independent of individuals a Society cannot exist, and a Society simply ceases to exist the moment no one remains interested in it.
For the individuals soul to rely on society, that individual must have free will to leave and (in doing so) to abandon all societal rules without fear of punishment. This, then, puts you right back where we started, individuals opt out, don't give, and the poor remain where they are.