In a December 2008 column, Daily Forty-Niner writer Brian Cuaron advocated a religious view of morality regarding marriage law, in response to my call to extend marriage rights to homosexuals.
According to Cuaron, religion offers an unchanging standard on which to base human conduct because it is “absolute in its judgment and cannot be altered.” Moral law is unchanging because it comes from god.
Ironically, he used the example of rape to illustrate the notion that morality has remained unchanged throughout history. Even in the Bible, however, we see behavior by “holy men” that we would today describe as rape.
Patriarchs such as Abraham commonly fathered children by their female servants and took multiple wives. The forcible rape of women and girls by Israelite warriors after successful battles was also common and scripturally sanctified. If you reply that those were common ancient practices, then I would agree and point out that it illustrates morality’s profound historical evolution.
There are also the problems of which sectarian tradition to follow in lawmaking, and what to do about the troublemakers that fall outside that sectarian tradition. Another problem is deciding which political opportunists would choose this state religion.
The crux of the problem is that Christianity, like all religions, doesn’t exist as a concrete noun. You cannot touch it or examine it. “Christianity” is nothing more than an idea in each person’s mind, and so is approached differently by each individual. This explains the vast sectarian diversity within each religion, as there is no “thing” there.
Consequently, religious believers often come across to secular people as desperately needing an identity to give their lives’ meaning. They frequently come across as needing to distinguish themselves from others in order to feel superior.
However, Christians act in ways indistinguishable from secular people. For example, believers have as much pre-marital sex as seculars, and are just as materialistic and financially motivated. How then are Christians different?
Believers often say that life would be meaningless without a belief in God, but why presume such a thing? I find life more meaningful without religious belief because I can approach it on its own terms and think through issues logically, free from supernatural nonsense.
Second, what sense is there in building our lives around something that plainly does not exist? Common sense tells us that there is no “sky-god” “out there,” who looks after us while floating around in space.
So what do I believe in? I believe in the Golden Rule, which says that we should treat others as we want to be treated — even those that are different from us. I would point out that the Golden Rule makes no reference to a sky-god, and so does not rely on a theistic framework.
I also believe in our Constitution, which rejects a sectarian view of government, instead leaving individuals to pursue their own destiny as long as they do not hurt anybody else.
Cuaron said that he “never called for the United States to abide by moral law. In fact I am perfectly willing to live without it in regards to the state.”
Well, I am not so willing. Our Constitution is founded upon the central moral law — justice — and that is the Golden Rule writ large.
Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.
From where did the Golden Rule come? Why would one practice it? Does it promote moral thought and action? Under who’s definition of moral thought and action is promoted, if in fact the Golden Rule promotes such? Does it require self discipline? In who’s interest is the Golden Rule? When it is practiced, does one know it? How is it practiced in one’s day to day human interactions? Does it exist only within the practice of Christianity? If not, why not? In a secular state may religious teachings be expressed? Under the U.S. Constitution are people free to worship how they choose? Are the religious practices of various faiths allowed to be performed? Under the U.S. Constitution are the beliefs of various religious groups protected from government interference? May religious groups be persecuted and/or prosecuted for professing their closely held religious beliefs? Can the secular state enact laws that contradict the religious practices of one particular faith or various faiths? If such a state may overrule the religious practices of any religion, how then is the Golden Rule to be applied?
A couple of comments… We have a similar problem with how the West looks at Islamic laws. “Freedom” and “Equality” are not or should not be thought of as some kind of new Revelation or ruler for every context and situation. It is only one way of evaluating or judging. The “taking of a wife” was seen as a protection for a women or young girl who may suddenly be parentless or without a husband in war. This was seen as a charity and not a “rape.” If you approach every culture with our “equal” standards and “men are abusers” point of view, you spread our world on other people. Justice is contextual. Also, you mix in polygamy in with other reflections on alleged “rape” in the Bible. That is a cultural practice with its own rules and morals, found throughout time and in different cultures. The two don’t go together. In short, the Golden Rule is also a contextual one, or, if not, is another colonial rubber stamp (one size for all). Finally, I do agree with your point about the frequency of sex outside of marriage with Christians. Nietzsche said basically the same thing, that Christians would have to appear more redeemed before he believed in this religion. However, you ought to look at Christians outside America or even the outside the West. Sexual promiscuity goes with our culture and the Church here is emmersed in it as well. Ironically, you end supporting American culture and justice, which is a part of what Christians stuggle with here.
To the writer:
It seems that you argue that Christianity is just a crux and something which is invented just to give a person a sense of hope and reason. In a way you are saying that it is blind faith that is not based on any evidence. I would challenge you otherwise. I would challenge you to examine historical, scientific, geographic and archaeological evidence with the claims that the Bible makes. Also study prophecy. You will find that the claims of the Bible are solid and that they are based on fact. In addition, the dates of prophecies are thousands of years before the event ever happened; and to exact detail such as the destruction of Tyre predicted in Ezekiel. The reign and conquering of Alexander the Great, Cyrus king of Persia and Nebuchadnezzar are predicted far in advance. I challenge you, not in a rude way, but to do a very thorough examination on the claims of the Bible from a non biased view and see what you find out. 🙂