Thread: Purgatory: We need more religion but we don’t need its zeal Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001229
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Terry Eagleton says we need more religion but we don't need its zeal.
quote:
Remarkably, Eagleton retains his high admiration for the Biblical portrait of Jesus while slamming institutional Christianity for failing to live up to the life of its founder and for getting in bed with the rich and powerful.
quote:
Channelling Jesus, who also raged against the religious machine of his day, he fumes against a “brand of piety… horrified by the sight of a female breast, but considerably less appalled by the obscene inequality between rich and poor,” and that “laments the death of a foetus, but is apparently undisturbed by the burning to death of children in Iraq or Afghanistan in the name of U.S. global dominion.”
And here's the clincher:
quote:
And if Christianity can recover its anti-establishment credentials then maybe more people will come to appreciate its beauty and profundity. For while many in the ancient world disdained the service and acts of charity that characterised the early faith, it was by these means that Christianity was able, by non-violent means, to overwhelm an empire.
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
[ 05. January 2015, 21:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
Well it will be interesting in Britain, then, to see if it comes back again with Government offloading some of that responsibility onto 'The Big Society'.
Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on
:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
I'm not at all sure that this flows naturally from the quotes you posted. I think Christianity lost it's power (to the extend that it has) not because of something that governments have done, but rather what Christianity itself has (in many cases) focused on. Government taking on social security and other simila issues formerly taken on primarily by the Chruch is no reason for the Church to step back and say "oh, well, that means we can focus more on making sure everyone lives up to our sexual morals, and to heck with other silly stuff like loving your neighbor, and turning the other cheek and whatnot".
That Ceasar is doing that which Ceasar does should have little impact on the Bride of Christ doing what the Bride does. if Government taking on some of the role frees up the Church to do more, that's great, because neither one has enough resouces to do it all! that the government helps some of the poor doesn't mean the Chruch shouldn' be helping those whom for whatever reason the Govt. didn't help. and certainly doesn't mean the Church should stop advocating for other issues.. there is always so much more that can be done.
focusing on the evils of a woman exposing her breasts rather than the evil of War? that's got absolutely zero to do with whether the government is providing help to the needy within it's country.
Furthermore, governments, generally, are limited in what they do to the boundaries of their jurisdiction. they are, by definition, National. whereas the Church is not (or shouldn 't be). The Chuch is (or should be ) universal. helping those outside one's civil government boundaries should be just as important to the Church as helpin htose within those boundaries. social security (or other such programs) only operate within a country.. the Chruch extends throughout the world, and should not say "oh, well, our work here is done" as long as there are people in the world in need of aid.
Of course, helping the needy is not the only role of the Church, but that seems to be the role focused on in your question, so I'll stick with that.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
Only partly, I think.
Social security and charity are only two of the fruits of Christianity.
The de-Christianisation of social security, education, healthcare etc. continues to puzzle me. I can't figure out whether politics/government wanted that or that the management of these institutions were all too glad to let it happen. Fact is that here in the Netherlands salaries of these managers have exploded, while the people who do the work are paid less and less.
Does anybody really have a definitive, and simple, explanation for the decline of Christianity in say Western-Europe?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I think Christianity lost it's power (to the extend that it has) not because of something that governments have done, but rather what Christianity itself has (in many cases) focused on.
So you agree with the article?
And yes my question was awkward....I guess I'm just struck by the decline of Christianity now......and what initially made it grow so rapidly....
And indeed if we were more active in social justice and charity areas then we might see a reversal.
But lots of churches are very active in social justice......
[ 23. April 2012, 14:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Seems Terry is looking for Jesus down the well.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Social security and charity are only two of the fruits of Christianity.
True IMO.
But many might argue otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Does anybody really have a definitive, and simple, explanation for the decline of Christianity in say Western-Europe?
Lots of people blame it on liberal Christianity and its emphasis on social justice rather than correct doctrine. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Which of course - Terry Eagleton would disagree with!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
From the linked article it seems like Mr. Eagleton doesn't want less religious zeal, just for the faithful to be zealous about something else (more aiding the poor and oppressed, less gay-bashing, rhetorical or otherwise, and keeping women "in their place"). This may be an example of what happens when the article and title are written by different people.
[ 23. April 2012, 14:20: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Terry Eagleton wants the Church to do what Terry Eagleton wants the Church to do. If the Church does, Eagleton suggests more people like Terry Eagleton might come to admire the beauty and profundity of Christianity. For as Jesus told the disciples, "Go into all the world and win the admiration of people like Terry Eagleton."
Last week on Slate, William Saletan and Ross Douthat discussed Douthat's new book, Bad Religion. You can read the whole conversation here. Something Douthat said in his final post applies to Terry Eagleton's comments as well.
quote:
Your instinct, understandably, is to look at my Christianity and judge it against the standards set by contemporary secular liberalism. So you applaud when the faith seems to provide a warrant for an egalitarian politics. You sigh when it seems insufficiently realistic and compassionate about modern sexual mores. And you favor a chronology of Christian history in which the faith is gradually dragged, by brave and courageous reformers, up from medieval darkness into Enlightenment. But when I look at your secular liberalism, I see a system of thought that looks rather like a Christian heresy, and not necessarily a particularly coherent one at that.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Does anybody really have a definitive, and simple, explanation for the decline of Christianity in say Western-Europe?
Lots of people blame it on liberal Christianity and its emphasis on social justice rather than correct doctrine.
Even in better times there have always been liberal Christians (or whatever Proper Christians called those that irritated them), some were even canonized later on, posthumously of course, but -if visible- they tended to have conversion-techniques practiced upon them, which had a tendency to exterminate them.
So, rather than blaming the liberal Christians, we should blame the Proper Christians for not burning the liberals at the stake anymore.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Last week on Slate, William Saletan and Ross Douthat discussed Douthat's new book, Bad Religion. You can read the whole conversation here. Something Douthat said in his final post applies to Terry Eagleton's comments as well.
quote:
Your instinct, understandably, is to look at my Christianity and judge it against the standards set by contemporary secular liberalism. So you applaud when the faith seems to provide a warrant for an egalitarian politics. You sigh when it seems insufficiently realistic and compassionate about modern sexual mores.
If you know anything about Ross Douthat, this quote will immediately bring to mind an expression involving pots and kettles.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Terry Eagleton wants the Church to do what Terry Eagleton wants the Church to do.
Yes, and you go on to say, in essence, that BA wants the Church to do what BA wants the Church to do. ISTM that you are both basically correct -- assuming that you are appealing to the better angels of your nature, you should be campaigning for the Church to get on board. We are all partial critters. Let us embrace the piece of the elephant that we have a hold on and do all that we can to lift it up. I rather doubt that we will be called to account for our partiality nearly so much as we will be called to account for our sloth.
--Tom Clune
[ 23. April 2012, 15:03: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Ah the liberal version of the Landmark Baptist Trail of Blood.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
x-posted with tclune and Croesus
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
When Christian action is not grounded in Christian dogmatics, Christian action becomes the mistress of whatever the heck one wants. In Terry's case here, Christian action is taken up with secular liberalism, and suddenly the Christian faith is a political movement espousing secular liberalism. What a surprise!
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Despite the title of this piece - 'In Nothing We Trust' in fact the statistics in the piece indicate that nearly 50% of the US population trusts churches and religions and that this percentage has INCREASED in the past 9 years. The reality is that libruls such as TE and others are playing to their elitist friends by pretending there is a problem with the churches; unfortunately for them the churches challenge them on many levels as the churches and the arrogant elites are at the moment with the result that the elites want to pretend the churches don't exist - or reshape them to their agenda, and therefore to be less challenging to them.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Is Terry Eagleton an active professing Christian at all? My reaction depends on the answer, but I'm not entirely sure why it does or whether it should.
Who noticed the comment from "Zac"?
quote:
Virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away. It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.
It is one thing to criticize the church while attempting Christian commitment oneself, as is the right of all members IMHO. It is another thing to stand idly by and scoff at Christians for not upholding their own standards (or the critic's favorite ones) better than they do. How can the critic suppose that what he is demanding is possible? If the church had not upheld these standards, and indeed the sources for the life of Christ, far longer than most organizations have been in existence, how would the critic or the world even know about them in the first place?
The way of the world is that A and B try to reach an agreement. As a man of the world, Terry Eagleton has the right to make his offer to any organization he pleases. "Change yourself, so that you start doing such-and-such, and I might consider joining you." And the organization has every right to reply (and will probably do so): "your bargaining power isn't as great as you imagine. No deal, go jump in the lake." What grounds would Mr. Eagleton then have for complaint?
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
There´s a difference between not putting emphasis on "right doctrine" and not having a right doctrine at all. If the church leaves its basic beliefs it´s not church anymore, regardless of being more relevant or not.
Eagleton´s opinion is basically what the church should do to become relevant for non-believers. I guess the church should preach the Gospel for non-believers to convert, and not become a non-believing church to become atractive to non-believers.
It´s easy to say Jesus was nice but institutionalized christianity is evil. The fact is without institutionalized christianity we woulnd´t even have heard about Jesus.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I'm surprised
None of you think what Eagleton says has any merit (besides Anyuta perhaps) ?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Does anybody really have a definitive, and simple, explanation for the decline of Christianity in say Western-Europe?
Lots of people blame it on liberal Christianity and its emphasis on social justice rather than correct doctrine.
Even in better times there have always been liberal Christians (or whatever Proper Christians called those that irritated them), some were even canonized later on, posthumously of course, but -if visible- they tended to have conversion-techniques practiced upon them, which had a tendency to exterminate them.
So, rather than blaming the liberal Christians, we should blame the Proper Christians for not burning the liberals at the stake anymore.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I like the way you think.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
I've started a new thread spinning off Alogon's post above, so as not to derail this one.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I'm surprised
None of you think what Eagleton says has any merit (besides Anyuta perhaps) ?
His views of the Church are a caricature of the reality and, even worse, he makes Christ bow down to his own political agenda.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
Only partly, I think.
Social security and charity are only two of the fruits of Christianity.
The de-Christianisation of social security, education, healthcare etc. continues to puzzle me. I can't figure out whether politics/government wanted that or that the management of these institutions were all too glad to let it happen. Fact is that here in the Netherlands salaries of these managers have exploded, while the people who do the work are paid less and less.
Does anybody really have a definitive, and simple, explanation for the decline of Christianity in say Western-Europe?
I doubt if there is one. I tend to think that Christianity was incorporated into the state in many places, and became part of social control, and therefore, has been discarded as such. I remember in the 50s, when religion at school just seemed like the headmaster making you do something, and if you didn't, you got punished, by him, I mean, not God. So naturally, we were all dying to say fuck you to him, and his form of social religious control.
I'm not saying this is definitive or simple at all, but I do think today people are less willing to accept any form of control in this way. Christianity is just stuck with the image of being regulatory and corporate.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Terry Eagleton wants the Church to do what Terry Eagleton wants the Church to do.
Yeah, unlike -- um -- unlike -- er --
[ 24. April 2012, 06:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm surprised. None of you think what Eagleton says has any merit (besides Anyuta perhaps)?
Well, Eagleton is basically naive concerning how humans function, and in consequence misunderstands the entire "project Jesus". If he is indeed a Marxist, then that's no particular surprise.
Here the body is used against the Body, i.e., helping others in their bodily state is used to argue against the embodiment of faith in the Church. But a truly human faith is embodied Divinity, and all idealistic dreaming about shedding the Body of Christ for the good of Christ will end precisely as the Marxist dream did last century: in a horrible, perverted embodiment that crushes these very dreams.
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on
:
I first read Terry Eagleton years ago as a literary critic, along with Frederic Jameson and people like Raymond Williams. Pertinent perhaps for post-industrial societies of the north but not as convincing in the global south where most of us were looking at the impact of debt economics, international drug cartels and crime syndicates, etc, aware that the old Marxist socialist remedies were not going to address issues that had to do with the ethical creation of wealth rather than simply the redistribution of wealth.
And then I found Eagleton charting his preoccupation with Christianity in the London Review of Books in recent years and it is clear he is not a theologian (unlike Miroslav Volf) and certainly not a biblical scholar. He is not Christian either although he may be moving in that direction. What he is and for him this is a useful category, is a lapsed Catholic.
'There are no ex-Catholics, only lapsed ones. A lapse, as the light little monosyllable suggests, is a mere temporary aberration, an ephemeral error which can always be retrieved; and even the more ominous sounding ‘excommunication’ can always be undone by a quick bout of repentance. Leaving the Catholic church is as difficult as resigning from the Mafia; for the Church in its wisdom has artfully anticipated such renegacy and created within its ranks the special category of ‘lapsed’, wedged somewhere between saints and clergy.'
I won't give the link because only subscribers can access this.
An an outsider (neither in nor out, just temporarily lapsed) he may have some valuable points to make -- I haven't read his latest book and the Punch article reads as if a cheery sub-editor got hold of it and chopped up certain paragraphs.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Terry Eagleton's view of what Christianity, or indeed Roman Catholicism, is in essence is pretty largely that of the late Herbert McCabe OP. I don't think one could accuse McCabe of pushing forward a view of Christian action not grounded in Christian dogmatics.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I'm surprised
None of you think what Eagleton says has any merit (besides Anyuta perhaps) ?
His views of the Church are a caricature of the reality and, even worse, he makes Christ bow down to his own political agenda.
What do you believe Christ's political agenda is? ISTM he is slamming the Christian political agenda of the USA and advocating a return to grass roots.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm surprised. None of you think what Eagleton says has any merit (besides Anyuta perhaps)?
Well, Eagleton is basically naive concerning how humans function, and in consequence misunderstands the entire "project Jesus". If he is indeed a Marxist, then that's no particular surprise.
Here the body is used against the Body, i.e., helping others in their bodily state is used to argue against the embodiment of faith in the Church. But a truly human faith is embodied Divinity, and all idealistic dreaming about shedding the Body of Christ for the good of Christ will end precisely as the Marxist dream did last century: in a horrible, perverted embodiment that crushes these very dreams.
I'm afraid this is either IngoBese or Catholickese. I don't understand it.
Can you explain it in simpler terms please?
What is "project Jesus" in your opinion?
ISTM Eagleton thinks its about standing up to the oppressed and helping the poor (very synoptic gospelish of course. Isa 61 and the jubilee year and all that - good news to the poor etc.).
What is the function of the church?
You speak of it being about divinity.
But would divinity not outwork itself in the way he claims?
Is this not what Jesus did?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Terry Eagleton's view of what Christianity, or indeed Roman Catholicism, is in essence is pretty largely that of the late Herbert McCabe OP. I don't think one could accuse McCabe of pushing forward a view of Christian action not grounded in Christian dogmatics.
Thank you for that. An interesting point.
I guess that's kind of where I'm trying to go....works come out of faith....
If works are absent (as Eagleton seems to suggest), is our faith gone?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Christian churches in every part of the world are doing the "works" that Eagleton suggests. Eagleton has a problem with the social conservatism. If you want to get back to grass roots, you'll need to embrace social conservatism just as much as social justice.
Like Zack said, Eagleton is looking into the well and seeing a Jesus and early church he wants to see. He isn't seeing the one described in scripture and the early church fathers. Liberalism of this sort really is the flip side of Protestant Fundamentalism complete with the same weaknesses.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
A number of historians and other commentators suggest that churches lost out on an important role when the state began to take over the job of providing for people's physical needs. This stands to reason; people obviously have less 'need' for the church now that the state provides food, education, safe houses for 'fallen women', etc. Churches are now in the business of making up the shortfall or providing niche products, so to speak, rather than offering basic care.
Still, I think it makes little sense for an increasingly secularised culture to demand that churches do more and more. Churches are simply people, but if noone wants to be part of the church anymore then where are these supposely devoted, caring church people supposed to come from? It doesn't make sense. If noone wants to contribute to church funds where's the money going to come from? You can't care for the poor with no money. Well, you can do something, but poor people expect more than good intentions; they need decent food to eat, warm homes, etc. The widow's mite isn't going to get them out of the mess they're in, and they know it. They don't send their kids to Sunday school any more, because these days the state teaches them to read and write, and the other stuff isn't deemed to be very important.
People want 'the church' to do all sorts of things, but they don't want to be part of the church themselves. It's what's called 'vicarious religion'.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
A number of historians and other commentators suggest that churches lost out on an important role when the state began to take over the job of providing for people's physical needs. This stands to reason; people obviously have less 'need' for the church now that the state provides food, education, safe houses for 'fallen women', etc. Churches are now in the business of making up the shortfall or providing niche products, so to speak, rather than offering basic care.
Are you serious? Do you mean that the Church isn't able to feed people like it did in Ireland during the potato famine, so people are less attached to it? The reality is that the Church never did take care of enough people to actually provide for the needs of the poor. The state didn't move into this businesss because it wanted to undermine the authority of the Church -- it moved into this busines because no-one else was doing it to any meaningful extent.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Liberalism of this sort really is the flip side of Protestant Fundamentalism complete with the same weaknesses.
Which are?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I just got an e-mail from advocacy group Bread For the World that the GOP's ideas about having faith groups absorb the cost/responsibility even for programs involving food distribution a la "food stamps" for the working poor amount to a burden of $50,000 per faith community in the US. Even given that that's a rather idealogically loaded and arguable statement designed to be a snappy call to arms to supporters -- is it realistic to expect local churches to, in a piecemeal and relatively inefficient way, take back a job that has, since the Great Society here in the US, been done relatively well by government services?
And given the volunteer situations in our churches, even the thriving ones -- is it realistic to expect that we can call up volunteers to help with this new responsibility?
[ 24. April 2012, 14:18: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Terry Eagleton's view of what Christianity, or indeed Roman Catholicism, is in essence is pretty largely that of the late Herbert McCabe OP. I don't think one could accuse McCabe of pushing forward a view of Christian action not grounded in Christian dogmatics.
Eagleton is not a Christian, much less a RC, whereas McCabe very much was both. And McCabe was perhaps most famous precisely for critiquing a theologian who left the Church, see here (in particular the last quoted paragraph). Finally, there can be little doubt that as far as the RC hierarchy and the institutional Church was concerned, McCabe was operating at the edge of what could still be called "grounded in Christian dogmatics". Just because he was a brilliant theologian, whose writings in my opinion often belong to the best Thomism has produced in recent times, does not mean that he was bullet-proof against shading into heresy and schism.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid this is either IngoBese or Catholickese. I don't understand it. Can you explain it in simpler terms please? What is "project Jesus" in your opinion?
The Church is the Body of Christ. Denying the Church is denying Christ. If I stood in front of you and said "I like your posts, but I don't want to see your ugly face," or "I can deal with your musings, but I cannot abide your physical presence," would you not be insulted? You are not just what is in your head. You are your head, and the rest of your body as well. You are not just a bundle of intellectual thoughts, you are a body. A body that has its own beauty and ugliness, its own functions and place in the world.
The Incarnation, the Divine "project Jesus", destroys the projection of religion into the purely spiritual realm. No, God eats and drinks, and consequently, shits and pisses. God becomes some-body standing in front of you, a tangible reality. And in 1stC Palestine, certainly a smellable reality.
Eagleton, like all idealists, follows the "angelic heresy". He constructs some conceptual Jesus, an über-human ideal, a spiritual being. But Jesus is God Incarnate, and consequently He did exactly the opposite of what the Eagletons of this world want. He created a Body for His faith. And like all bodies, when looked at with unkind "angelic" eyes, it is rather ugly and ridiculous. Look at the Church zygotic: Peter, Paul, the Zebedees... Hardly the stuff of shiny idealism, them.
And two millennia later, that Body of Christ is as faithful as Peter, as patient as Paul, as humble as the Zebedees, etc. And that still offends the shit out of all idealists. And yet they are still wrong. Because to be human is to be embodied, and hence human faith must be embodied. No Church, no Body of Christ, no Jesus. Sorry, you just can't have the heavenly principle without the fat, sweating, farting reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
ISTM Eagleton thinks its about standing up to the oppressed and helping the poor (very synoptic gospelish of course. Isa 61 and the jubilee year and all that - good news to the poor etc.).
Everybody and their dog is for helping the poor and oppressed. At least everybody Christian and their secular dogs are. It is facile to critique the Church for not being ideal. Eagleton himself is not ideal. And if Eagleton were to found an organisation for helping the poor and oppressed, boy, would that turn out to be non-ideal really quick. And if that organisation eventually was in charge of over a billion people wordlwide, hells bells, it would be so terribly anti-ideal that some naive Marxist fool surely would write a stupid book about how the Eagleton institution thoroughly fails the poor and oppressed on all counts.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
A number of historians and other commentators suggest that churches lost out on an important role when the state began to take over the job of providing for people's physical needs. This stands to reason; people obviously have less 'need' for the church now that the state provides food, education, safe houses for 'fallen women', etc. Churches are now in the business of making up the shortfall or providing niche products, so to speak, rather than offering basic care.
Are you serious? Do you mean that the Church isn't able to feed people like it did in Ireland during the potato famine, so people are less attached to it? The reality is that the Church never did take care of enough people to actually provide for the needs of the poor. The state didn't move into this businesss because it wanted to undermine the authority of the Church -- it moved into this busines because no-one else was doing it to any meaningful extent.
--Tom Clune
I should have made it clear that I was talking about the English Protestant churches. Other churches in other places have a different history.
I don't know what the RCC establishment did during the Irish famine. I imagine that some priests were very sympathetic. Probably others, higher up the chain, were in cahoots with the British authorities, who certainly weren't all that interested in helping the sufferers. However, some British people, and I'm sure some church congregations, did raise money for the Irish people. They did so without much encouragement from their politicians.
Obviously, leaving this kind of work to 'the church' meant leaving it up to individuals and groups, some of whom were caring and compassionate and some not, to carry out certain work. So some areas or parishes probably had better systems than others. Now that, in the UK at least, the state has taken over, things are more streamlined and there is more uniformity of care, which is a good thing. (However, we still talk about the 'NHS lottery', where people receive better health care in some areas than in others.) Church-run Sunday schools, where poor children learnt how to read, were probably better organised in some areas than others, but now, free education is available all over the UK. (Once again, though, some areas have better state schools than others.)
I'm certainly not arguing that we should somehow turn back the clock. In any case, there are even fewer Christians now, so there's little chance that the churches could improve on their record....
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Liberalism of this sort really is the flip side of Protestant Fundamentalism complete with the same weaknesses.
Which are?
Both liberals and fundamentalists claim to be getting back to the basics. Both also have a view of what they would like the church to be. So, both go looking for that church in the well of history. Both then take the parts of church history that supports what they want and disregard the stuff that doesn't.
To me, this is intellectually dishonest. The Church never was what either liberals or fundamentalists wanted to be. Church history is what it is. Christians should work from the tradition they have received not that which they have invented. Christians living in the present aren't bound to accept every last part of tradition. Christians in the past get a vote not a veto. However, saying they voted in a way they didn't is wrong. The longer a doctrine or practice has been the tradition the more justification Christians should have for rejecting it. The fact ones friends and acquaintances no longer believe something is not remotely a good enough reason for rejecting a doctrine or practice going back centuries. The word of the current big name on television, at the bookstore, or in the pulpit of the local megachurch isn't either.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Incarnation, the Divine "project Jesus", destroys the projection of religion into the purely spiritual realm. No, God eats and drinks, and consequently, shits and pisses. God becomes some-body standing in front of you, a tangible reality. And in 1stC Palestine, certainly a smellable reality.
And this is one of the most attractive parts of Christianity.
quote:
Eagleton, like all idealists, follows the "angelic heresy".
I disagree that all idealists go that way, even within the bounds of Christianity. Solely man is as much a Christian heresy as solely divine. And like most heresies tends to be the realm of idealists.
quote:
Everybody and their dog is for helping the poor and oppressed. At least everybody Christian and their secular dogs are.
How I wish the above was true. According to Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church (weekly attendance: 20,000 - and that was not a typo), and author of The Purpose Driven Life (a Christian devotional that's sold 30 million copies), "When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity."
(Note: Credentials given to emphasise that you need a Real True Scotsman definition to claim Rick Warren isn't a Christian.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I disagree that all idealists go that way, even within the bounds of Christianity. Solely man is as much a Christian heresy as solely divine. And like most heresies tends to be the realm of idealists.
I'm afraid you misunderstand. It is not the precise status of Jesus Himself that concerns me here. Clearly, Eagleton as non-believer would be on the "just a man" side of things, as far as that is concerned. It is about His legacy, what Christ is assumed to have given to the world. And whether they think Jesus was man or God, or both, idealists there invariably dismiss the Body (Church) for some spirit (an abstract notion of Christ's teachings).
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
How I wish the above was true.
Your supposed counter-example isn't one, of course. That discussion is about what means "really helping" the poor and oppressed, not about whether one should do it in the first place. The debate in the West is still totally dominated by Christian concerns. It is still impossible to simply say "I don't care about the poor and oppressed, as long as the poor don't die on my doorstep and the oppression concerns others elsewhere." Even those whose entirely life is grounded on that sort of principle will still in public argue for their policies as if they gave a shit about their fellow man. It remains the done thing in our societies, at least at the level of social habit. This however is not as necessary as we think it is. Political / social dominance merely requires that one supports ones supporters, not ultimately everybody. We will know that out societies have truly left behind Christianity when the public rhetoric follows this simple, brutal fact.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
IngoB
The 'angelic heresy' is a very good phrase, and I think it also applies to some New Age types, who want all of the white light of spirituality, with none of the blood and sweat and shit, as you say.
There is some kind of polarization here between flesh and spirit, which is probably very old; for example, I guess docetism is of this ilk.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
We will know that out societies have truly left behind Christianity when the public rhetoric follows this simple, brutal fact.
But how willing are you to sacrifice the lives of real people upon this altar?
In other words -- if we dismantle the state's social safety net and hand that responsibility over to religious organizations and other voluntary associations, and it turns out that, indeed, we live in a post-Christian world where without the state's intervention hardly anyone will provide the means to help anyone outside the circle of his/her own "clan" -- is it worth it? It seems as if some politicians are quite willing to sacrifice real people's lives for the sake of upholding a wish-dream abstraction about the desireability of personal responsibility/minimal government.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The debate in the West is still totally dominated by Christian concerns. It is still impossible to simply say "I don't care about the poor and oppressed, as long as the poor don't die on my doorstep and the oppression concerns others elsewhere." Even those whose entirely life is grounded on that sort of principle will still in public argue for their policies as if they gave a shit about their fellow man. It remains the done thing in our societies, at least at the level of social habit.
Actually the "done thing" is what you're doing here, pretending that such sentiments are expressed, even when the speaker is literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets. Antonin Scalia and Ron Paul (who got applause for saying so!) are two recent American examples that come to mind.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The 'angelic heresy' is a very good phrase, and I think it also applies to some New Age types, who want all of the white light of spirituality, with none of the blood and sweat and shit, as you say.
It's not my invention, though I cannot recall where I've picked this up from. "Angelism" is even in Merriam-Webster.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Does anybody really have a definitive, and simple, explanation for the decline of Christianity in say Western-Europe?
I shouldn't think it's 'simple'! Historians and sociologists are still absorbed by the issue.
Western Europe is a large area with many different histories, systems and contributing factors, so it's not easy to establish a single theory for the whole region. People here have jokingly referred to 'liberal Christianity' as the culprit, but what did liberal Christianity mean in Catholic France before or after the Revolution? And what has that to do with developments in Nonconformity in Edwardian England, or anywhere else?
One historian I came across said three basic explanations had been given for church decline in Great Britain. If I remember rightly, one refers to the decline of spiritual fervour within the churches (this might match up with the complaint about 'liberal Christianity', but it goes deeper than this), the second focuses on wider social and cultural change, and the third focuses on inadequate structural response by the churches (e.g. churches have found it difficult to respond swiftly to growth and decline in population in different areas.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually the "done thing" is what you're doing here, pretending that such sentiments are expressed, even when the speaker is literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets. Antonin Scalia and Ron Paul (who got applause for saying so!) are two recent American examples that come to mind.
Firstly, your statement about me is an obvious falsehood. Whatever one may think about Rick Warren's ideas (to which Justinian linked, and on which I commented), he phrased them as something ultimately helping people. He was certainly not "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets," and hence I was not pretending when pointing this out.
Secondly, I've not the slightest clue what Scalia / Paul may or may not have said. You apparently assume that everybody in this world is following US politics in all details. I assure you that that is not the case. Given that one falsehood increases the likelihood of another, I would suggest that you link to the statements from these gentlemen that are "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets."
But perhaps all this is just a bit too subtle for you. Just because a policy will inevitably lead to the poor dying in the streets does not mean that the person proposing this policy is "literally arguing in favor of" this happening. Reasonable deductions one may make from the content of a speech are not necessarily identical to the argument of the speech itself. Indeed, the actual point I made was precisely that such inhumane / un-Christian policies are still being sold by establishing the illusion of humane / Christian outcomes. A particular kind of hypocrisy may well end up being the last vestige of Christianity in the West.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
One historian I came across said three basic explanations had been given for church decline in Great Britain. If I remember rightly, one refers to the decline of spiritual fervour within the churches
Someone forgot to mention the jingoism of the church during World War I. The problem was not too little fervour, but too much fervour about the wrong things. It is a lesson that some parts of the church in the U.S. have yet to learn, and they'll probably do so the hard way.
Quoting Rick Warren:
quote:
The only way to get people out of poverty is J-O-B-S. Create jobs. To create wealth, not to subsidize wealth. When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity.
(emphasis mine). Maybe he's actually speaking against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics, whatya think? Is this possible?
The whole Mother Earth column is a little too brief and pat to get a reliable idea of anyone's position. But I have to agree with the blogger. The economy doesn't always create enough jobs such that a hardworking person can sustain him or herself, let alone a family. Why is the laborer not worthy of his hire? If what matters is the dignity of work (as the Rev. Mr. Warren implies) rather than the wealth creation of work-- well, the Soviets understood this very well. The streets of Moscow were spotless because of all the babushkas wielding brooms for a living. Why isn't Warren a socialist, then?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Someone forgot to mention the jingoism of the church during World War I. The problem was not too little fervour, but too much fervour about the wrong things. It is a lesson that some parts of the church in the U.S. have yet to learn, and they'll probably do so the hard way.
Hmmm, yes. WWI actually had a profoundly negative effect on Christian practice in the UK, so I've read. WWII was also problematic. The clergy had hoped that war would spark off a renewed religiosity, but this doesn't seem to have happened. Or if it did, it didn't last long.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Quoting Rick Warren:
quote:
The only way to get people out of poverty is J-O-B-S. Create jobs. To create wealth, not to subsidize wealth. When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity.
(emphasis mine). Maybe he's actually speaking against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics, whatya think? Is this possible?
No. Anyone who would have a problem with that quote is brain-dead. I'm not a fan of Rev. Warren's, but the idea that unemployed people need a job is one held by every person on the face of the planet AFAICS. Turning that into something dark and nefarious is a creative act, indeed.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
No. Anyone who would have a problem with that quote is brain-dead. I'm not a fan of Rev. Warren's, but the idea that unemployed people need a job is one held by every person on the face of the planet AFAICS. Turning that into something dark and nefarious is a creative act, indeed.
Thanks for the reassurance. How could I have entertained such sacrilege? Of course Rick Warren would never be so dark and nefarious as to breath a word against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 24. April 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, I've not the slightest clue what Scalia / Paul may or may not have said. You apparently assume that everybody in this world is following US politics in all details. I assure you that that is not the case. Given that one falsehood increases the likelihood of another, I would suggest that you link to the statements from these gentlemen that are "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets."
Ask and you shall receive. Here's Justice Scalia questioning whether anyone should be obligated to provide medical care for those who can't afford it.
quote:
GENERAL VERRILLI: No. It's because you're going -- in the health care market, you're going into the market without the ability to pay for what you get, getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms that allow -- that -- to which we've obligated ourselves so that people get health care.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, don't obligate yourself to that. Why -- you know?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I can't imagine that that -- that the Commerce Clause would -- would forbid Congress from taking into account this deeply embedded social norm.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You could do it.
In short, Scalia sees no reason why letting people die in the streets isn't a viable option.
Ron Paul's "let him die" moment was probably the most memorable of his campaign to date, which admittedly isn't saying much. It does seem that Paul is willing to live his principles, though. Or at least let his close associates die for them.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Quoting Rick Warren:
quote:
The only way to get people out of poverty is J-O-B-S. Create jobs. To create wealth, not to subsidize wealth. When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity.
(emphasis mine). Maybe he's actually speaking against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics, whatya think? Is this possible?
Given that Rick Warren has built a very lucrative corporate empire based on exploiting his tax-free status, I'd say any anti-corporate-welfare interpretation of this quote would be, at best, an accusation of insincerity.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Of course Rick Warren would never be so dark and nefarious as to breath a word against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics.
Well, when you start seeing politicians who embrace motherhood and apple pie as speaking out against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics, you will have well and truly lost the thread.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Incarnation, the Divine "project Jesus", destroys the projection of religion into the purely spiritual realm. No, God eats and drinks, and consequently, shits and pisses. God becomes some-body standing in front of you, a tangible reality. And in 1stC Palestine, certainly a smellable reality.
What grounds fo you have for thinking this is something other than idealism? The smelly reality nicely evokes tangible reality but the connection with the Incarnation seems to me as tenuous as the claim for a special Divine association with Jesus himself.
quote:
if Eagleton were to found an organisation for helping the poor and oppressed, boy, would that turn out to be non-ideal really quick. And if that organisation eventually was in charge of over a billion people wordlwide, hells bells, it would be so terribly anti-ideal that some naive Marxist fool surely would write a stupid book about how the Eagleton institution thoroughly fails the poor and oppressed on all counts.
Here though you refer in passing to what is probably the only credible justification for taking institutional religion seriously: that a lot of people take it seriously. I'm not sure what criteria beyond survival you're using to imagine the non-Eagleton version a success.
In the beginning project Jesus was all about idealism. The ideal was that Jesus embodied the Creator of all that is. As an inspirational idea it worked through history and continues to work across generations and cultures. It was only when co-opted into the service of political expediency, and belief in the story replaced taking inspiration from the story, that the idealism it represented was lost. The means for making sense of God became a mere practical foundation for the imperial Roman empire.
As far as I can see the Roman Catholic Church is a remnant of that, continuing to use project Jesus as a cover for the imperial ambitions of its powers that be. Why else would an institution that claims to be the body of Christ be so fixated on control of those it claims to represent?
[ 24. April 2012, 18:10: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Of course Rick Warren would never be so dark and nefarious as to breath a word against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics.
Well, when you start seeing politicians who embrace motherhood and apple pie as speaking out against corporate welfare and trickle-up economics, you will have well and truly lost the thread.
--Tom Clune
Your irony meter needs a tap or two, Tom. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Just for the record, I seriously doubt that Eagleton counts as a liberal in any meaningful sense. Some of his views on certain matters may coincide, but as for the others - try Googling and see for yourself.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid this is either IngoBese or Catholickese. I don't understand it. Can you explain it in simpler terms please? What is "project Jesus" in your opinion?
The Church is the Body of Christ. Denying the Church is denying Christ. If I stood in front of you and said "I like your posts, but I don't want to see your ugly face," or "I can deal with your musings, but I cannot abide your physical presence," would you not be insulted? You are not just what is in your head. You are your head, and the rest of your body as well. You are not just a bundle of intellectual thoughts, you are a body. A body that has its own beauty and ugliness, its own functions and place in the world.
The Incarnation, the Divine "project Jesus", destroys the projection of religion into the purely spiritual realm. No, God eats and drinks, and consequently, shits and pisses. God becomes some-body standing in front of you, a tangible reality. And in 1stC Palestine, certainly a smellable reality.
Eagleton, like all idealists, follows the "angelic heresy". He constructs some conceptual Jesus, an über-human ideal, a spiritual being. But Jesus is God Incarnate, and consequently He did exactly the opposite of what the Eagletons of this world want. He created a Body for His faith. And like all bodies, when looked at with unkind "angelic" eyes, it is rather ugly and ridiculous. Look at the Church zygotic: Peter, Paul, the Zebedees... Hardly the stuff of shiny idealism, them.
And two millennia later, that Body of Christ is as faithful as Peter, as patient as Paul, as humble as the Zebedees, etc. And that still offends the shit out of all idealists. And yet they are still wrong. Because to be human is to be embodied, and hence human faith must be embodied. No Church, no Body of Christ, no Jesus. Sorry, you just can't have the heavenly principle without the fat, sweating, farting reality.
Now who is being idealistic.
If the church as the body of Christ is a consummate failure in so many areas (say child abuse?) does that reflect God's glory?
I agree that the church is the best representation we have. It is incarnately the presence of Christ.
But to say it is solely representative of God and Christ is surely to malign God in human limitation and failure.
I like your confidence in the church. But surely too much is destructive to faith.
I don't see how Eagleton's criticisms are really a "bad thing".
If we don't recognize our faults, we never learn.
[ 25. April 2012, 13:19: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Church never was what either liberals or fundamentalists wanted to be. Church history is what it is. Christians should work from the tradition they have received not that which they have invented.
So the tradition we have received is "what it is" and we should not "look back" to perhaps improve it because that is inventing things? But the church itself never "invented things"?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How then, is the church reflective in looking at itself? How should it judge itself?
[ 25. April 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
IngoB
The 'angelic heresy' is a very good phrase, and I think it also applies to some New Age types, who want all of the white light of spirituality, with none of the blood and sweat and shit, as you say.
There is some kind of polarization here between flesh and spirit, which is probably very old; for example, I guess docetism is of this ilk.
Way before docetism.
Hell - it's in our scriptures.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world; for all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world. And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live for ever.
Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth,
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Church never was what either liberals or fundamentalists wanted to be. Church history is what it is. Christians should work from the tradition they have received not that which they have invented.
So the tradition we have received is "what it is" and we should not "look back" to perhaps improve it because that is inventing things? But the church itself never "invented things"?
How then, is the church reflective in looking at itself? How should it judge itself?
Tradition is a bit different from history. History is what actually happened. Tradition is the the beliefs and practice the Church has received. The historical church never was what fundamentalists or liberals say that it was when they go looking to get back to basics.
However the Church is reflective in looking at itself or judges itself should begin with the tradition we have and not an invented one. Anglicans like the three or four legged stool (scripture, tradition, reason, and experience). Be honest with what scripture and tradition actually say, if anything, about the issue in question. Then, bring reason and experience into the equation. If a particular position is clearly taught in scripture and tradition, then the presumption should be on retaining the position clearly taught in scripture and tradition. Those wanting a change have the burden of making an overwhelming case from reason and experience that change should be made. Deciding if a sufficient case has been made is difficult due to the Church being so divided. "The right sort of people no longer believe that nonsense" is not even remotely close to being an overwhelming case for change.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
What you're really saying is don't change the paradigm.
Stick with the lenses we currently have on and go from there.
Would that be right?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Just for clarification, before commenting on the US health insurance stuff: on the political / economic side of things I'm largely a "German social democrat". So personally I find it uncivilized and antisocial to not provide universal health care. I also very much believe in a "social market economy", and if I ever see the slightest chance of smashing all corporations without destroying the global economy I will gladly jump at it. In US terms, I hence am a "commie". Don't confuse my "theological conservatism" with the Tea Party.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ask and you shall receive. Here's Justice Scalia questioning whether anyone should be obligated to provide medical care for those who can't afford it.
That is not "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets." It is arguing whether the state has to obligate itself to provide medical care. Quite likely one can argue conclusively that if the state fails to do so, then in consequence some poor will die in the streets. However, an action (or here: non-action) can be deemed right even if in part it has consequences that one disapproves of. Scalia neither says that he wants the poor to die in the streets, nor that he doesn't care whether the poor die in the streets. He says that the state can choose to not provide health care. (Also actually the whole setting seems to be Judges "cross-examining" the General, quite generally pushing the envelope to see whether the arguments hold up. I doubt that it is fair to take a statement made in this context as a full explanation of Scalia's position.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ron Paul's "let him die" moment was probably the most memorable of his campaign to date, which admittedly isn't saying much. It does seem that Paul is willing to live his principles, though. Or at least let his close associates die for them.
Again, also Ron Paul did not "literally argue in favor of letting the poor die in the streets." Although some in the audience did scream "let him die", Paul actually argued for individual freedom in taking risks, answered audibly "no" (!) on the question whether one should let the uninsured die and apparently thinks that it is the churches (and presumably other charitable institutions) that should come to the rescue in emergencies. (And he did not feel the need to personally rescue his former campaign manager, apparently...)
Again, as of yet it still appears not acceptable in the West to publicly declare that one doesn't care about the poor at all, much less that one actively wishes them to die. It may very well be true that this just means so much smoke and mirrors, hypocrisy and rhetoric. But it remains true that this pretence is still discernibly Christian.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those wanting a change have the burden of making an overwhelming case from reason and experience that change should be made.
Neat bind, given that experience with something new can't be gained without change, and under your rubric change can't happen without experience.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those wanting a change have the burden of making an overwhelming case from reason and experience that change should be made.
Neat bind, given that experience with something new can't be gained without change, and under your rubric change can't happen without experience.
Only if you believe that the only possible experience of a churchman is within the Church.
The extent to which revelation is an ongoing thing varies with different traditions, but I am not familiar with any tradition that excludes it entirely. BA's formulation, which in its four-part form is called the Wesleyan quadrilateral by us Methodists, ultimately gives too short shrift to the role of revelation in the life of the Church to my way of thinking.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What you're really saying is don't change the paradigm.
Stick with the lenses we currently have on and go from there.
Would that be right?
Maybe
Depends on how you define "the paradigm" and "lenses we have."
What lenses do you think we should be using instead?
Why?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ask and you shall receive. Here's Justice Scalia questioning whether anyone should be obligated to provide medical care for those who can't afford it.
That is not "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets." It is arguing whether the state has to obligate itself to provide medical care.
No, Solicitor-General Verrilli clearly stated that "social norms" (not the state specificially) obligate providing medical care for those who will die without it, regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, he's echoing your position that we don't let the poor die in the streets (or at least say we don't let the poor die in the streets). Scalia clearly regards it as a legitimate option to take the contrary position. Whether he regards this as an optimal or preferred option is beside the point to the argument you're making, which is that no one in our society would seriously advance that position as a legitimate option. Scalia clearly regards letting someone die if they can't pay their anticipated medical bills as a legitimate, non-nonsensical position.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Scalia clearly regards letting someone die if they can't pay their anticipated medical bills as a legitimate, non-nonsensical position.
That may or may not be the case, but Scalia is simply not arguing that directly. The General was saying that everybody will be "getting the health care service anyway as a result of the social norms ... to which we've obligated ourselves." And Scalia is saying "Well, don't obligate yourself to that. ... You could do it." Scalia is therefore not saying that he likes the poor dying in the street, or that one should let the poor die in the street. He is saying that one could refuse to take on the obligation to give everybody health care, and he says so in the context of discussing the "Affordable Care Act", a piece of legislation. He may well have the sort of thing Ron Paul mentions in mind (charity rather than legislation).
I think it is a Christian "moral duty" to help the sick and poor. But even on the personal religious level that is not an absolute, i.e., it is not true that all other concerns are automatically overruled as soon as any sick and poor are involved (e.g., Matt 26:6-13, or note the conditional in Matt 19:21). Furthermore, it has been recognized in Christianity that the more "socially large-scale" decisions are, the more room there is for diverging opinion on what the best policy is, even if one considers "best" in the sense of "Christian best". It is in my opinion imprudent and unwise for a rich "Christian" society to not provide universal health care. But that's talking politics: the working out of moral principle for governing complex social circumstances.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Scalia clearly regards letting someone die if they can't pay their anticipated medical bills as a legitimate, non-nonsensical position.
That may or may not be the case, but Scalia is simply not arguing that directly.
Yes, he is. Why do you think Scalia is advancing as a legitimate option something he secretly doesn't believe is a legitimate option?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
He is saying that one could refuse to take on the obligation to give everybody health care, and he says so in the context of discussing the "Affordable Care Act", a piece of legislation.
Although the case being argued concerned the Affordable Care Act, Scalia seems to have veered off into territory actually covered by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which codifies the "social norm" Solicitor-General Verrilli mentions about the provision of emergency medical care regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Scalia's comments only make sense in the context of saying that not providing life-saving health care to indigent patients is a legitimate option, something you claim isn't something someone would argue in our society.
Once again, Scalia's opinion on what is an optimal policy in this area is both unknown and irrelevant. He's clearly demonstrated that the "just let him die" option is within what he considers the acceptable range of options, which was the original point of controversy.
[ 25. April 2012, 16:59: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, he is. Why do you think Scalia is advancing as a legitimate option something he secretly doesn't believe is a legitimate option?
Nope, he isn't. He presumably allows for the possibility that some poor might die in the street in consequence. But that is just not the same as advocating this to happen.
For example, if one advocates a market economy, then some people will end up being filthy rich and some dirt poor. Nevertheless, one can viably believe that a market economy is the best way of organizing commerce, even if one does not wish anyone to be dirt poor (or for that matter filthy rich). There can be "double effects", with foreseeable and unwanted consequences admitted in order to achieve wanted consequences that have priority. There can be "overall harm minimization and/or goal optimization", where the individual may suffer (win) but less (more) individuals do so. Etc. Politics rarely can be decided by a straightforward moral argument.
Again, I doubt that it is at all fair to take this exchange as a full expression of Scalia's thought. The whole setup was one of all the Judges pushing the General hard on every claim made. It is entirely possible that Scalia was probing the defendant way outside of his own opinion. But even if he hold a political position like Ron Paul, then this cannot be simply judged as "un-Christian" per se. It is much more likely that Paul's treatment of his campaign manager could be called "un-Christian" (though we would need more information). Moral evaluation generally gets a lot easier the smaller, more concrete and personal, the scope.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
Context, as they say, is everything. In the quoted Scalia comment, you have to remember that Roe v Wade rejected any role for religion in determining the legitimacy of abortion. Given that background, it is a struggle for anyone to offer a coherent reason why the government should or should not do anything. Scalia may well have been highlighting this issue for the lawyer to address, regardless of Scalia's personal views. (I happen to be reading Neuhaus's The Naked Public Square which is all about this issue...)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What you're really saying is don't change the paradigm.
Stick with the lenses we currently have on and go from there.
Would that be right?
Maybe
Depends on how you define "the paradigm" and "lenses we have."
What lenses do you think we should be using instead?
Why?
The Eagleton article bothers me. I'm not entirely sure why. Can't put my finger on it.
But I can't help think it must have something to do with eccelsiology; how we see the church and what it's function is.
So I guess I was probing for different ecclesiologies....... curious about them.
Thanks for the answer.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, he is. Why do you think Scalia is advancing as a legitimate option something he secretly doesn't believe is a legitimate option?
Nope, he isn't. He presumably allows for the possibility that some poor might die in the street in consequence. But that is just not the same as advocating this to happen.
He's certainly advocating it as a legitimate and reasonable possiblity. S-G Verrilli is advancing a very standard explanation of what economists call the free rider problem and, in response to Scalia's question, notes that we have "social norms" against limiting the 'rider' part of that problem when it comes to critical medical care, hence the government's solution of concentrating on the 'free' part. Scalia then suggests that limiting ridership (a.k.a. refusing medical care to critically ill/injured people, a.k.a. "letting them die in the streets") is actually a legitimate response for a hospital or other medical caregiver to take when faced with someone with both an urgent medical problem and an obvious inability to pay for treatment. That's not "double effect", that's primary intent.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nope, he isn't. He presumably allows for the possibility that some poor might die in the street in consequence. But that is just not the same as advocating this to happen.
No one claims that he is advocating death in the streets. "I want them to eat cake" is not the same statement as "Let them eat cake," but the latter statement is bad enough. If you "allow" Jones to do X (e.g. save Smith's life), because you don't care to do it yourself, presumably you then also allow Jones not to save Smith's life and Smith dies.
Maybe you don't understand what is happening here. The headline in yesterday's New York Times is that bill collectors are walking into hospital rooms and dunning people in their sickbeds. Sometimes they masquerade as hospital employees advising the patients not to have the surgery or procedures that they need.
This makes me particularly angry in view of reports that hospitals have sometimes denied patients a visit from their own same-sex partner. Bright idea: if they don't let you see your beloved as your beloved, then just pretend that you're with a collection agency and the doors will swing wide open.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
No one claims that he is advocating death in the streets. "I want them to eat cake" is not the same statement as "Let them eat cake," but the latter statement is bad enough. If you "allow" Jones to do X (e.g. save Smith's life), because you don't care to do it yourself, presumably you then also allow Jones not to save Smith's life and Smith dies.
That's not quite the Verrilli/Scalia argument. Verrilli is pointing out that according to "social norms" a hospital is required to provide medical care to people in emergency situations. (They're also legally required to do so, though Verrilli didn't say so explicitly.) To paraphrase your example, if Smith shows up with a sucking chest wound, Jones[boro General Hospital] isn't just allowed to take lifesaving measures, they're required to do so, even if they know beforehand that Smith has neither insurance nor a private fortune with which he can pay his medical bills. Scalia's response to this state of affairs is to essentially say "Hold on a minute! Maybe they should't have to do that."
[ 26. April 2012, 16:30: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Eagleton article bothers me. I'm not entirely sure why. Can't put my finger on it. But I can't help think it must have something to do with eccelsiology; how we see the church and what it's function is.
I think that's right. He probably doesn't have an ecclesiology. He's looking at Christians simply as those who see in the Jesus character an attitude and a commitment he considers worth aspiring to. An ideal that inspires a certain approach to life to which any particular form of church is incidental.
Which is problematic for anyone whose primary commitment is to a particular form of church.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
if Smith shows up with a sucking chest wound, Jones[boro General Hospital] isn't just allowed to take lifesaving measures, they're required to do so,
Ah yes, the unfunded mandate. Now just require someone to operate a hospital and the problem is solved. In fact, hospitals in poorer areas of town are going bust because of it. Scalia must be aware of this.
What a pity that slavery was abolished some time ago.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Context, as they say, is everything. In the quoted Scalia comment, you have to remember that Roe v Wade rejected any role for religion in determining the legitimacy of abortion. Given that background, it is a struggle for anyone to offer a coherent reason why the government should or should not do anything.
That is complete nonsense.
For instance if you are trying to work out why the government of the United States should do something then the following words may help.
quote:
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
As might the government being responsible to the people.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Scalia must be aware of this.
I'm hesitant to make assumptions about what Scalia "must be aware of". He seems to be just phoning it in these days with random talking points cribbed from right-wing talk radio.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Scalia then suggests that limiting ridership (a.k.a. refusing medical care to critically ill/injured people, a.k.a. "letting them die in the streets") is actually a legitimate response for a hospital or other medical caregiver to take when faced with someone with both an urgent medical problem and an obvious inability to pay for treatment. That's not "double effect", that's primary intent.
It is unlikely that Scalia's primary intent is that some person will be let die in the street. Whatever his primary intent may be, it probably is not killing off people. His primary intent may be to preserve the freedom of individual choice, to limit the health budget or whatever. Yet it is merely in consequence of this that somebody may end up being let die in the street. That's perhaps predictable and he may be ready to accept this consequence, but I doubt that this is his aim.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To paraphrase your example, if Smith shows up with a sucking chest wound, Jones[boro General Hospital] isn't just allowed to take lifesaving measures, they're required to do so, even if they know beforehand that Smith has neither insurance nor a private fortune with which he can pay his medical bills. Scalia's response to this state of affairs is to essentially say "Hold on a minute! Maybe they should't have to do that."
Precisely! But Scalia does not say that he would like to see Smith die. He does not even say that he does not care whether Smith dies or not. He may in fact care a lot that Smith lives, and yet still judge that Jones must not be obligated to save Smith's life. Because he has some other reasons that speak against such an obligation, reasons which are in themselves good (in his judgement), and which he considers to be more important than saving Smith's life. One may argue that he must have his priorities wrong, etc. But one cannot simply conclude here that he wants to see the uninsured die when they get seriously ill. Maybe he does, but what he said is just not sufficient to establish that.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But Scalia does not say that he would like to see Smith die. He does not even say that he does not care whether Smith dies or not.
Your whole argument is based entirely on equating "letting someone die in the streets" with "wanting someone to die in the streets". Please stick to the argument at hand.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The Eagleton article bothers me. I'm not entirely sure why. Can't put my finger on it. But I can't help think it must have something to do with eccelsiology; how we see the church and what it's function is.
I think that's right. He probably doesn't have an ecclesiology. He's looking at Christians simply as those who see in the Jesus character an attitude and a commitment he considers worth aspiring to. An ideal that inspires a certain approach to life to which any particular form of church is incidental.
Which is problematic for anyone whose primary commitment is to a particular form of church.
Indeed.
It still raises the question for me of what the function of the church is.
I think I'll have to sit with this one for a bit.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your whole argument is based entirely on equating "letting someone die in the streets" with "wanting someone to die in the streets". Please stick to the argument at hand.
The argument at hand is about - in your own words - "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets." One argues in favour of something precisely because one wants it (at least if one argues honestly).
As mentioned, what you reasonably could claim is that Paul and perhaps Scalia are arguing in favour of legislation that likely will lead to some poor dying in the streets. But you don't want to deal with the actual political complexity.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The argument at hand is about - in your own words - "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets." One argues in favour of something precisely because one wants it (at least if one argues honestly).
I know a lot of people who are in favor of the death penalty, and I don't personally know anyone who I believe looks forward to it being applied.
--Tom Clune
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Well, I've finally read the article about Eagleton mentioned in the OP, and I find it a bit confusing, principally because Eagleton has himself written article which seemed be saying almost the opposite.
In his review of Alain de Botton's book 'Religion for Atheists' Eagleton seems to reject the idea that atheists should learn from religion (i.e. Christianity). Despite being a non-Christian who has a certain admiration for Christianity, Eagleton disapproves of the notion that atheists can extract the supernatural elements of faith and retain the values and the sense of awe and wonder.
This is the review article in question:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/12/religion-for-atheists-de-botton-review
Perhaps the problem here is that both articles are reviews. Maybe we need to read the books themselves to find out what the real issue is. The review mentioned in the OP is for Eagleton's 'Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate', and the book I've referred to is de Botton's 'Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion'.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I know a lot of people who are in favor of the death penalty, and I don't personally know anyone who I believe looks forward to it being applied.
Most likely you would prefer if there never was any perpetrator that deserved to die. Most likely you don't wish any person to die in general. Perhaps it makes you violently ill to actually see someone being executed. Nevertheless, if you honestly argue in favour of the death penalty, then of course you do want to see it applied to people who have committed sufficiently heinous crimes.
Mind you, your example is more extreme than what we were discussing, since neither Paul nor Scalia actually stated that anybody should die.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your whole argument is based entirely on equating "letting someone die in the streets" with "wanting someone to die in the streets". Please stick to the argument at hand.
The argument at hand is about - in your own words - "literally arguing in favor of letting the poor die in the streets." One argues in favour of something precisely because one wants it (at least if one argues honestly).
As mentioned, what you reasonably could claim is that Paul and perhaps Scalia are arguing in favour of legislation that likely will lead to some poor dying in the streets. But you don't want to deal with the actual political complexity.
Well, certainly not if it's complexity invented by you out of whole cloth. Scalia isn't arguing in favor of specific legislation, he's arguing against the "social norm" that emergency medical care be provided regardless of the patient's ability to pay (i.e. she not be simply left to die in the street). His response is even in the imperative, "don't obligate yourself to that", indicating it's an actual recommendation.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Has Christianity lost its power today because governments have taken over the role of social security and charity. ?
I know an elderly Irish Catholic woman who on the one hand enjoys the attention of her local priest and receives the Communion he brings, while on the other hand she still deeply resents having to take a note from her father to ask for money as a poor child. They were given the money - it was all that kept them from starving to death - but she resented the lack of love which came with it, and the lack of poverty in the lifestyle of those giving it.
Governments don't give love. If Christians do give love to everyone, inside or outside of any Church institution, we're doing what Jesus taught and leads us to do. God's love is powerful.
Is that liberal Christianity?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is that liberal Christianity?
In terms of "give love to everyone, inside or outside of any Church institution": I'd say we are better at it than our more conservative brethren - yes.
Less conditions.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0