Why "The Christian Left" is Neither

Can suppressing open dialogue be truly "Left"?
by Peter John

For unfamiliar readers,  "The Christian Left" is a formal organization. It promotes itself as sensibly Christian, believing in Jesus Christ, promoting liberal values, and asserting that Jesus himself seems more liberal than conservative by modern standards. After all, he supported helping the poor and needy, and condemned hoarding wealth. He challenged ecclesiastical authorities, exposed their hypocrisy, and disavowed their actions "as one having authority" of his own.

"The Christian Left" fails the test of liberalism when it suppresses open discussion on issues, as many respondents on Facebook have learned. All it takes to get blocked from responding to its posts is to dispute one of its arguments. However respectful or well-considered the response may be, if it sheds doubt on the conclusions of the original post. They block this dialogue even as they claim that Facebook censors their ads.

I learned this by disputing an assertion that because the Bible refers to God breathing into man "the breath of life" to make man "a living soul", it means that Biblically we are not living human beings until we draw our firstbreath. The ironic fault in this argument is that it employs literal Biblical interpretation -- the same literalism the organization decries in conservative fundamentalism. More seriously, it promotes the very anti-Christian assertion that abortion is completely acceptable in Christianity, and goes so far to suggest it as desirable in some cases. That falls far short of being tragic in even the most understandable cases.

The Christian basis for opposing abortion has more to do with the dogma of incarnation than does the Biblical Creation story. Luke talks of Mary carrying Jesus --the embodiment of the Creator --as soon as she conceives. She immediately visits her cousin Elizabeth, six months along with John the Baptist. When the women meet Elizabeth immediately recognizes Mary as the Mother of her Lord when John the Baptist jumps in her womb. Theologians commonly interpret this as Jesus' formal prophetic commission of John, even though both are yet unborn -- and even though Jesus has barely been conceived.

Such New Testament revelation establishes the personhood of the unborn for Christians. Philosophical conclusions augment this. These recognize that by definition being human means that there will never be another you. As a human being, you cannot be replaced, what makes you unique cannot be transferred to anybody else, and you exist for your own sake -- not merely as a part of something else. In combination it means that the key word in "human zygote" is still "human".Christianity recognizes the irreplaceable humanity of even a child who has just been conceived.

"The Christian Left" has no interest in hearing these thoughts, or in allowing discussion of them. It deletes dissent and blocks dissidents, permitting only approval of its conclusions, and creating the illusion of consensus. Truly liberal dialogue embraces discussion. Truly Christian dialogue does not minimize the destruction of human life. In the end a thoroughly misnamed "The Christian Left" becomes religious fundamentalism of the most destructive kind because it calls evil good and good evil.

- - - - - -

(c) Peter John Stone. All Rights Reserved. Contact author for permissions.

Militant Atheism: Religious Fundamentalism of Non-Belief

{EAV_BLOG_VER:7d75c7d103cf8765}
by Peter John

All belief depends on personal experience. From a strictly objective view, nobody can genuinely believe something in which they lack a basis in personal experience. This does not mean, as a firm empiricist would maintain, that this experience need be transferrable or subject to intentional duplication.

True belief arises as much from personal experiences which could not be forced, and often arrive without invitation, as from calculated efforts measurable among recognized human senses. Scientifically such beliefs get marginalized at best. At worst they fall subject to ridicule and derision.

Through most of the history of faith those who deny experiences supporting their belief in God, or who have found differing avenues for experiencing God, have been denigrated and even persecuted. The wars and oppression arising from such religious fundamentalism compose history's greatest shame. Atheism, on the other hand, has tolerated what it considers a non-objective practice of religion at worst, and appreciates as part of evolving culture at best.

This has changed in recent decades as schools of thought in atheism have emerged which challenge the intellectual integrity of those whose own experience -- rather than what they have simply been taught to believe -- demand acceptance of truths which defy measurement in the physical realm. Such militant atheists lean heavily on the scientific method as dogma, even as they deny having a dogma, and mock the beliefs of the scientists who developed the scientific method in the first place. They do this despite the fact that their position contradicts the very principles of evolution on which they base their views.

If, as evolution proposes, those traits most inclined toward adaptation and survival of the species are naturally selected for survival, then militant opposition to religious practice affirms that millions of years of evolution erred. What have been the consequences of marginalizing the role of religion in 20th Century culture and beyond? That is what this Blog intends to examine. In the process it seeks to establish that militant atheism is nothing more than another form of the same religious fundamentalism that has brought historic controversy to religion's role in society.
------
(c) 2011 by Peter John Stone. All rights reserved. Contact Author for permissions.