Katherine Stewart is the nation’s leading chronicler of Christian nationalism and the religious right. Her latest book, The Power Worshippers, is a must-read; I reviewed it in The New York Review of Books. This article appeared in The New York Times. It is an alarming and well-documented analysis of the religious zealotry and intolerance that propels Trumpism. Josh Hawley is competing with the loathsome Ted Cruz to be the next Trump.
In today’s Republican Party, the path to power is to build up a lie in order to overturn democracy. At least that is what Senator Josh Hawley was telling us when he offered a clenched-fist salute to the pro-Trump mob before it ransacked the Capitol, and it is the same message he delivered on the floor of the Senate in the aftermath of the attack, when he doubled down on the lies about electoral fraud that incited the insurrection in the first place. How did we get to the point where one of the bright young stars of the Republican Party appears to be at war with both truth and democracy?
Mr. Hawley himself, as it happens, has been making the answer plain for some time. It’s just a matter of listening to what he has been saying.
In multiple speeches, an interview and a widely shared article for Christianity Today, Mr. Hawley has explained that the blame for society’s ills traces all the way back to Pelagius — a British-born monk who lived 17 centuries ago. In a 2019 commencement address at The King’s College, a small conservative Christian college devoted to “a biblical worldview,” Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.
The most eloquent summary of the Pelagian vision, Mr. Hawley went on to say, can be found in the Supreme Court’s 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mr. Hawley specifically cited Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words reprovingly: “At the heart of liberty,” Kennedy wrote, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” The fifth century church fathers were right to condemn this terrifying variety of heresy, Mr. Hawley argued: “Replacing it and repairing the harm it has caused is one of the challenges of our day.”
In other words, Mr. Hawley’s idea of freedom is the freedom to conform to what he and his preferred religious authorities know to be right. Mr. Hawley is not shy about making the point explicit. In a 2017 speech to the American Renewal Project, he declared — paraphrasing the Dutch Reformed theologian and onetime prime minister Abraham Kuyper — “There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord.” Mr. Kuyper is perhaps best known for his claim that Christianity has sole legitimate authority over all aspects of human life.
“We are called to take that message into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm,” Mr. Hawley said. “That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!”
Mr. Hawley has built his political career among people who believe that Shariah is just around the corner even as they attempt to secure privileges for their preferred religious groups to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove. Before he won election as a senator, he worked for Becket, a legal advocacy group that often coordinates with the right-wing legal juggernaut the Alliance Defending Freedom. He is a familiar presenceon the Christian right media circuit.
The American Renewal Project, which hosted the event where Mr. Hawley delivered the speech I mentioned earlier, was founded by David Lane, a political organizer who has long worked behind the scenes to connect conservative pastors and Christian nationalist figures with politicians. The choice America faces, according to Mr. Lane, is “to be faithful to Jesus or to pagan secularism.”
The line of thought here is starkly binary and nihilistic. It says that human existence in an inevitably pluralistic, modern society committed to equality is inherently worthless. It comes with the idea that a right-minded elite of religiously pure individuals should aim to capture the levers of government, then use that power to rescue society from eternal darkness and reshape it in accord with a divinely-approved view of righteousness.
At the heart of Mr. Hawley’s condemnation of our terrifyingly Pelagian world lies a dark conclusion about the achievements of modern, liberal, pluralistic societies. When he was still attorney general, William Barr articulated this conclusion in a speech at the University of Notre Dame Law School, where he blamed “the growing ascendancy of secularism” for amplifying “virtually every measure of social pathology,” and maintained that “free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people.”
Christian nationalists’ acceptance of President Trump’s spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don’t happen to be religious, offer the world.
That this neo-medieval vision is incompatible with constitutional democracy is clear. But in case you’re in doubt, consider where some of the most militant and coordinated support for Mr. Trump’s postelection assault on the American constitutional system has come from. The Conservative Action Project, a group associated with the Council for National Policy, which serves as a networking organization for America’s religious and economic right-wing elite, made its position clear in a statement issued a week before the insurrection.
It called for members of the Senate to “contest the electoral votes” from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states that were the focus of Republicans’ baseless allegations. Among the signatories was Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer who advised Mr. Trump and participated in the president’s call on Jan. 2 with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state. Cosignatories to this disinformation exercise included Bob McEwen, the executive director of the Council for National Policy; Morton C. Blackwell of The Leadership Institute; Alfred S. Regnery, the former publisher; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch; and more than a dozen others.
Although many of the foot soldiers in the assault on the Capitol appear to have been white males aligned with white supremacist movements, it would be a mistake to overlook the powerful role of the rhetoric of religious nationalism in their ranks. At a rally in Washington on Jan. 5, on the eve of Electoral College certification, the right-wing pastor Greg Locke said that God is raising up “an army of patriots.” Another pastor, Brian Gibson, put it this way: “The church of the Lord Jesus Christ started America,” and added, “We’re going to take our nation back!”
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6 insurrection, a number of Christian nationalist leaders issued statements condemning violence — on bothsides. How very kind of them. But few if any appear willing to acknowledge the instrumental role they played in perpetuating the fraudulent allegations of a stolen election that were at the root of the insurrection.
They seem, like Mr. Hawley himself, to live in a post-truth environment. And this gets to the core of the Hawley enigma. The brash young senator styles himself not just a deep thinker who ruminates about late-Roman era heretics, but a man of the people, a champion of “the great American middle,” as he wrote in an article for The American Conservative, and a foe of the “ruling elite.” Mr. Hawley has even managed to turn a few progressive heads with his economic populism, including his attackson tech monopolies.
Yet Mr. Hawley isn’t against elites per se. He is all for an elite, provided that it is a religiously righteous elite. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School and he clerked for John Roberts, the chief justice. Mr. Hawley, in other words, is a successful meritocrat of the Federalist Society variety. His greatest rival in that department is the Princeton debater Ted Cruz. They are résumé jockeys in a system that rewards those who do the best job of mobilizing fear and irrationalism. They are what happens when callow ambition meets the grotesque inequalities and injustices of our age.
Over the past few days, following his participation in the failed efforts to overturn the election, Mr. Hawley’s career prospects may have dimmed. Two of his home state newspapers have called for his resignation; his political mentor, John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, has described his earlier support for Mr. Hawley as “the biggest mistake I’ve ever made”; and Simon & Schuster dropped his book. On the other hand, there is some reporting that suggests his complicity in efforts to overturn the election may have boosted his standing with Mr. Trump’s base. But the question that matters is not whether Mr. Hawley stays or goes, but whether he is simply replaced by the next wannabe demagogue in line. We are about to find out whether there are leaders of principle left in today’s Republican Party.
Make no mistake: Mr. Hawley is a symptom, not a cause. He is a product of the same underlying forces that brought us President Trump and the present crisis of American democracy. Unless we find a way to address these forces and the fundamental pathologies that drive them, then next month or next year we will be forced to contend with a new and perhaps more successful version of Mr. Hawley.
Brilliant, illuminating, ominous. When Stewart above in conclusion calls for addressing the underlying causes of Hawley’s/Cruz’s/ evangelicals’ rise to power, what underlying causes does she mean? The coalition of right-wing evangelical org’s with right-wing legal and political org’s plus white supremacists and militia org’s under the Trump umbrella? Does she include 50 years of neoliberal policy win govt. and business to loot the public sector, transfer tax liabilities from business to working families, and impoverish social services?
Excellent points.
Adding to them, Neera Tanden and Gina Raimondo are the faces of failed, Democratic, neoliberal strategists who are loved by billionaires screwing the 99%. Daily Mail reports that Bill Gates, funder of Tanden’s CAP, is now the largest owner of farmland in the U.S.
Read her book “The Power Worshippers.”
It’s about greed for power over others.
Evangelicals see themselves as being persecuted by liberal “elites” and the government- grievances that Trump has exploited through his stolen election lies. These same forces who stole the election are those same who are taking away their freedom to worship & spread Christianity.
Then there’s the end times that will bring on the “rapture” in which only “saved” Christians & converted Jews will be raptured to heaven. Trump represents their path to salvation. For them this capital uprising is a holy war between good & evil.
I think the mix of these beliefs are a toxic mix among people who believe that taking over the govmnt & restoring Trump to power is being done in the name of Jesus.
Like white people that feel “threatened” by changing demographics, Evangelicals fear that our country is becoming more secular. Their emergence into politics ensures that they will have a seat at the table to influence decision making. They have been successful in working to break down the divide between church and state. We know this from the funding of private religious schools with public money. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
It’s often difficult to reconcile self-described Christians and their behavior. At this blog, commenters practicing a willingness to turn the other cheek when personally attacked (a Christian principle) don’t proclaim their Christian faith.
Linda You are broad-brushing again. It’s a HUGE group of diverse people, like Judaism or Islam. Many Christians that I know are quiet about it–not “evangelical” in the sense of “proclaiming it” . . . rather it’s a way of life that we strive for but, like most of us human beings, do not always achieve. CBK
Ira Shor Well-put. I think the reality is a case of both-and . . . BOTH the article’s points AND yours:
“Does she include 50 years of neoliberal policy win govt. and business to loot the public sector, transfer tax liabilities from business to working families, and impoverish social services?” CBK
There is also an explicitly “dominionist” subgroup who believe that setting up a biblical government will enable the forces of Christ to ultimately win. These guys want to take over the US government.
Mike Pompeo is the guy to watch here. (Originator of this branch of Christianity was a guy named Rushdooney.)
We can “watch” many state legislatures consider measures in 2021 that range from criminalizing the prescription of hormone therapy for trans teens to banning trans students from sports. And, we can watch which religious organizations and which church-paid operatives influence the process.
Been thinking a lot about religions and violence.
To not offend anyone, I will not share my thoughts about religions and violence.
Yvonne, knowing the consequences, I empathize with you about your decision. Others have expressed sentiments similar to yours.
When “offending someone” supersedes the expression of truth, it’s change that suffers. I would go out of my way not to offend a person of color because I know that in general terms, the group has been rendered largely powerless. I don’t see the Christian religious right wing as powerless because of all of their legislative, judicial and policy wins in the past 10 years. Individuals within the segment that differ in view or agree, use any manner of shields to protect religions’ American leaders and organizations. I believe I should rightfully ignore those means of defense or offense, for the sake of society’s change.
If this sounds like I am pontificating, I apologize, that is not consistent with the message in my heart nor head.
Linda says a sound of pontificating is not in her heart or head.
“Individuals within the segment that differ in view or agree, use any manner of shields to protect religions’ American leaders and organizations. I believe I should rightfully ignore those means of defense or offense, for the sake of society’s change.
How’s THAT for a willingness to listen to any truth at all that MAY come from what such closer of mind hides. It sounds to me very much like the same attitude Linda complains about so often.
Perhaps we should remember that book by Stephen Carter that Clinton was holding when they did his portrait: “The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.”
That book was a warning of sorts, to those who rightly enjoy their secularity and freedoms (that Pelagius spoke of 17 centuries ago), to temper the coverall anti-religious vehemence that even moderate and civilized religious people feel coming from the rabid “other side,” namely, SOME scientists, atheists, and even some so-called evangelicals . . . generally lip-curled haters who even deny mystery and all who are equivalently sickening. CBK
You are not pontificating, Linda. I see your mission as political, speaking truth to power. You’ve made a steady attempt to reveal political power-wielding by Catholic hierarchy, as well as the machinations of Catholic political figures and their oligarch supporters. That is important: MSM focuses on the Evangelists, and has barely begun to mention rw Catholic participation, and political coalition with Evangelism.
You offend when you ascribe religious motivation to political actors without foundation other than their being Catholic. And when you imply that Catholics who believe in reproductive choice, equal rights for women etc have no business belonging to the Catholic church unless they take xyz political action within it. As citizens we must insist the govt avoid religious entanglement, but not tell the religious how to interact with their pastors et al— that’s entangled with telling them how to practice their faith.
Ginny,
I oppose Linda’s smearing of an entire religion, the religion of Biden and Pelosi.
If she wrote the same about Jews, she would be an anti-Semite.
If she wrote about Muslims, she would be an Islamophobe.
She hates Catholics. That’s bigotry.
The only reason I didn’t delete this comment is that you responded.
Well said.
From a more general and pragmatic view: Hatred has no convincing power, even if you claim to hate the devil.
Huh?
In other words, hatred is never an argument and even a good argument can be completely ruined if it is communicated with anger or contempt.
For example (using a non-religious example), it’s hard for me to listen to a public declaration of “the 74 million who voted for T**** are uneducated idiots” because such speech is not aimed at changing the opinion of those 74 million people, and probably will just cause them to hold on to their belief stronger.
Okay. Now I get it. I agree.
Yvonne Don’t worry about offending anyone about religions and violence. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand either how the history of humanity has evolved OR the movements towards ecumenical peace that pepper the New Testament. CBK
I wish you would, Yvonne. It’s a discussion whose time has come, and your insights would be appreciated.
“There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord.”
Hawley is another Christian hypocrite. A Christian would condemn all of Trump’s lies as The Bible tells us not to bear false witness. A Christian would condemn the violence at the White House as Jesus’ message was about love, peace and acceptance. With a stellar education behind him, Hawley’s rise to power shows us that even the well educated may be influenced by right wing propaganda and religious zealotry.
Given what has happened with Hawley and Cruz, the Democrats would be wise to work to diminish their influence in the Senate. The Democratic Party should work to at least censure them for their role in perpetuating the fantasy that Trump won the election. Even better would be to get them to step down. These two have no shame so it is dubious they would take the honorable path. Democrats want to be seen as the great conciliators so they will likely not attempt to neutralize these two dangerous opportunists.
“A Christian would condemn the violence at the White House as Jesus’ message was about love, peace and acceptance.” Not all Christian evangelicals reject violence if they believe it’s purpose will bring about the end times & the second coming. The most mainstream megachurch pastors preach from the book of Revelations that is full of violent imagery. More fundamentalist, radical branches of evangelicals believe this assault on the Capital is God’s will and that it foretells the second coming of Jesus as predicted in Revelations.
Of course, Trump, who has never revealed any religious beliefs before his 2016 run, has no problem with evangelicals thinking he was appointed by God.
The Council for National Policy, a politically powerful, secretive Christian group which includes faiths outside of the Christian evangelical sect, was described by WaPo (Oct. 2020) as using apocalyptic messaging and imagery. Sourcewatch provides a concise identification of CNP’s means, goals and a partial listing of members, speakers at their events, etc.
jcgrim, “Not all Christian evangelicals reject violence if they believe it’s purpose will bring about the end times & the second coming.”
True. But evangelicals are 20% of the US populace, & as you say, some subset of them are willing to undertake violence to bring about their peculiar reading of Revelations—itself a book that is rarely preached from in mainstream Christian churches– they’re what, maybe, 5% of the electorate?
I think we give way too much time/ stress/ focus on these people. We actually seem to fear them. Crazies are always among any population. IMHO the best possible way to temper their voice is by activating for govt policy that boosts GDP, does a better job of distributing wealth and provides living-wage jobs for all. People with jobs and a full belly & hopes for the future are more likely to be satisfied with practicing their faith locally, less likely to think ‘coastal liberal elites’ are trying to change their way of life.
I agree, and hence I think the $15/hr min wage seems to be a top priority.
I think Bill Maher commentary on Jan. 6, which includes his compassionate and thought provoking description of the young air force veteran who got shot during the breakin and died, is worth watching. The morale: the anger of the people in the Trump camp is misdirected but is justified, and we on the “other side” should not make the mistake of misdirecting our anger and fears.
Perfect. Maher nails it.
Bethree
Respectfully, I don’t think we should minimize the influence of the Council for National Policy.
A few more points-
I’m curious what portion of those in the Capitols’ mobs are registered to vote and vote.
The motivation of the 17 GOP senators who are needed to vote for Trump’s impeachment is critical to understanding the political future. If the motivation is money from Koch and other wealthy libertarians, liberal domestic policies may have difficulty altering the calculus for 2022, IMO.
Stacy Abrams’ initiative in 2020 made the significant difference for Biden, Ossof and Warnock.
If the predicate for Abrams’ plan to work again in 2022 is support from Trump fans, independents and, the white populace that lacks higher ed., liberal policy could possibly make them turn from another God-chosen man, or not.
I agree Linda, thanks for highlighting this hair-raising WaPo article.
Takeaways:
–The CNP was launched during the Reagan administration by figures in the religious right to bring more focus and force to conservative advocacy
–during Trump admin: “a CNP-associated delegation that meets weekly with White House officials… the Conservative Action Project, has helped to choose loyalists to run federal agencies and coordinate outside messages with nonprofit organizations to support administration policies and leaders.”
–members include Clarence Thomas’ wife and Leonard Leo (thus lending rwnj Catholic clout)
–cheering voter suppression: universities closed due to covid means fewer left-leaning students voting; ‘find ways to prevent mail-in ballots from being sent to voters’
–because it’s “a spiritual fight—good vs evil”– “We have to do everything we can to win” says their leader
–falling in line with Trump’s big lie, predicting rigged election months ahead
–“overt partisan coordination among the nonprofit leaders” says a former IRS official. Other tax specialists agreed some of remarks/ planning videoed could endanger their tax-exempt status.
bethree5 With the recent violent attack on the Capitol, my guess is that those individuals who belong to ANY organization who have supported Trump over the years, but who nevertheless are principled, have finally been put in a position to BE REQUIRED to question their quiet participation in a way they never have before, for instance, when Trump has so-often insulted their moral principles.
They can merely hold-their-noses no longer. CBK
People often interpret religious doctrine to suit their own agenda. ISIS is perfect example of this. Some would say that the extreme loyalty of some Christians to Trump is the “worship of a false idol.”
retired Indeed, “some would say,” and BTW be able to quote scripture to back it up. CBK
There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord.”
First, that assumes the universe is two dimensional which is clearly not true.
But more importantly , Jesus Christ can’t be Lord of black holes because, according to Christian teachings, Jesus is the Light and light can not escape from a black hole.
So how can one be Lord over something that is more powerful than oneself?
Poet- your analysis is not going to play well.
Thanks for posting it.
The Benson Center at the University of Colorado whose mission is pursuit of truth, while messaging about western civilization, hired John C. Eastman as the 2020-2021 visiting scholar. Eastman agreed with Giuliani on Jan. 6 and told the mob there was substantial election fraud.
The Center is indignant, yes, I say indignant. There was no reason for the Center to know from Eastman’s credential as board chair of the National Organization for Marriage that any disrepute might be headed their way during Eastman’s tenure. (sarcasm)
Not a fan of metaphor, huh? And, no, I am not a fan of Hawley or fundamentalist /literalist theology.
retired teacher From what I can tell, like the Nazis before them, their ideology precludes and so constantly stamps out the influence of whatever conscience is left in their thought (might I say “soul”) that might, in other circumstances, fight off their bully instincts. CBK
Thank goodness . . . . the article makes a clear distinction between Hawley’s right-wing and, in fact, anti-Christian view . . . and the now long-term view that informs much of a more mature and ecumenical Christianity today:
Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines. (And then he follows up with the correlate decisions of Justice Anthony Kennedy.)
HAWLEY says: “’We are called to take that message’ (his right wing-nationalism) ‘into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm,’ Mr. Hawley said. ‘That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!’”
I am a Christian and a Catholic . . . and Hawley makes my skin crawl. CBK
Shouldn’t he be out in the Amazon or somewhere bossing people around?
Why inflict America’s refuse like Hawley on the Amazon? He’s our garbage, our responsibility.
Ha – yes – let’s not give him any ideas.
Yet Mr. Hawley isn’t against elites per se. He is all for an elite, provided that it is a religiously righteous elite. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School and he clerked for John Roberts, the chief justice.
This is beginning to sound like Atwood’s “A Handmaid’s Tale.” My guess is that he kept his “callow ambition” in the closet when he clerked for John Roberts.
Mr. Hawley, in other words, is a successful meritocrat of the Federalist Society variety. His greatest rival in that department is the Princeton debater Ted Cruz. They are résumé jockeys in a system that rewards those who do the best job of mobilizing fear and irrationalism. They are what happens when callow ambition meets the grotesque inequalities and injustices of our age.
I would certainly like to hear from some of Hawley’s professors. CBK
People like DeVos and Hawley believe they are predestined to be the superior elites that have the right to impose their religious views on others. That is why they favor authoritarianism over democracy. In their view regular people are not wise enough to rule. I wonder if the people in Missouri understand what they are voting for when they vote for Hawley.
” I wonder if the people in Missouri understand what they are voting for when they vote for Hawley.”
There are quite a few politicians that I wonder the same thing about.
This feels like the beginning of a formation of an American version of ISIS.
Nothing of Hawley’s beliefs resembles anything like the Catholicism/Christianity I was brought up with – which was accepting of all faiths and based on “love thy neighbor” and service and kindness to others without proselytizing.
It’s all so twisted and sickening and embarrassing.
Hawley is not Catholic although he went to a Catholic school then Stanford and Yale Law. He is Methodist
The irony of Hawley being a Methodist is that the church motto is “Open hearts, open minds, open doors.” Some see a potential split coming within the Methodist Church over the issue of gay marriage. The United Methodist Church recently refused to perform gay marriages, and this has led some of the more progressive Methodist churches to propose a split from the UMC.
retired A couple of years ago in Oklahoma, someone had covered the sign in front of the All Souls church changing “All Souls” to “Some Souls.” . . . just a relevant anecdote. CBK
beachteach
My reply which corroborated the changes you are experiencing (changes I cited from scholarly journals) was deleted.
Linda, I refuse to post bigoted anti-Catholic comments. Josh Hawley is a Methodist. He is a bad man but all Methodists are mot bad like Hawley. Cruz is a Baptist. Biden is a Catholic.
You make blanket statements about only one religion. Catholics. I am married to a Catholic. I take offense when you smear and stereotype an entire religion.
beachteach . . . yes, “embarrassing.” On Tuesday, however, one of the police that was being assaulted . . . when someone shouted: “kill him with his own gun,” was promptly surrounded by people who were, in fact, protecting him. I thought his later reply about that event was pure political poetry:
Paraphrased: Thank you for protecting me, but fxxk you for being here.
I also heard earlier in an on-site interview that some were there to merely “protest,” and were not aware of, nor did they endorse, the violence.
I found some hope in these exchanges . . . it seems the extremists don’t have the numbers that they seemed to have on Tuesday, the 6th of January. CBK
That is hopeful. Thank you for that story.
Yeah, some were even upset that such heroism of the fuckyou-crowd was not noted, and the focus of the news media has been only on the atrocities.
Mate Yes, . . . I’m not happy with the focus or UN-focus either; however, go over to OAN . . . they are still hawking the “stolen election” thing. CBK
Latest polls show that a majority of Republicans believe the election was stolen. Trump said so.
Dan Balz in today’s Washington Post about Trump’s iron grip over a spineless GOP:
“First is the question of Trump’s future as the leader of the party. A conviction in the upcoming Senate trial could remove him as a potential candidate in 2024. Such a verdict remains doubtful unless Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky votes to convict and brings many senators with him. Were it to happen, that alone would be a relief to many Republicans, who would like Trump sidelined as a candidate as a step toward restoring regular order.
“But elected officials can read the polls. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 85 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they oppose Trump’s removal from office. Sixty-six percent say there is solid evidence to support his claims of widespread fraud in the election. Forty-eight percent say GOP leaders did not go far enough in supporting Trump’s efforts to overturn the election; only 17 percent say those leaders went too far.“
“A theologian on the throne is a public danger.”
Historian JB Bury
Roy-
A question that refers to a prior thread about sexism.
Assume men wouldn’t choose to support a church that prohibits male leaders. In contrast, assume women would choose to support a church that prohibits women leaders. Does the situation communicate something about tolerance for sexism?
Some would say that Jesus himself was not a fan of combining the two–theology and throne.
Who recorded Jesus’ thoughts?
Linda Will you quit with your ignorance of history? CBK
Is Jesus a historical figure, Catherine?
Mate writes: Is Jesus a historical figure, Catherine?
According to historians who follow empirical-critical-historical methods, yes.
But if your questions are serious, for you and Linda and others who ask such questions, there is so much written about this and like-questions’ content, I suggest a comprehensive study of the data, which is so NOT like the data of natural science . . . . and again, of history. If you ARE serious, and want some good references for such studies, I’ll be glad to provide some good starting places for you. CBK
What I am really interested in is archaeological evidence of his existence and any evidence of those “miracles” he performed and his resurrection. Any description of him as a human: was he blond, short tempered, skinny, soft spoken, liked carrots. Any evidence of his miraculous birth?
Mate I can give you some references to check from my own coursework (later) . . . where from my reading memory (only), there exist textural references to the historical Jesus drawn from unrelated but, as compared later, correlated sources. There are various texts and the what we can know from the actual history of the culture and politics of the time; and then what is referred to as a “Q” source (unrelated to Q-anon that I know of, or if so, only as a distortion).
One course I took from a religious scholar (not a theologian or proselytizer) was called “The Man Jesus,” which was about exactly your question. The professor started the course with an explanation of historical method and the differences in the data from other fields, like the natural or physical sciences; and then making a clear distinction between (a) “the man” as you suggest, and (b) the various religious meanings that have come down to us through various traditions that you also refer to (e.g., the New Testament and its various translations); other non-biblical sources and traditions; and also, as a part of the critical nature of the course, the various levels of validity of their sources, and of course, where our trails of information only lead to still more questions.
If you are exploring for your question, I would suggest google, of course, and Wikipedia; but then finding a college or university where you can call or e-mail their related departments of study, or their bookstore or perhaps actually speak to a professor, . . . that would be good; but at least to find what readings are on related syllabi. My guess is that you’ll find some syllabi already online.
I would not look to “regular” bookstores for a qualified study of this question, though Amazon did have copies of Dominic Crossan’s books on the parables from another note here. What’s important is the author’s familiarity with critical-historical methods. I doubt you want a diatribe. Another way is to get one good text and author, e.g., Crossan, or Huston Smith’s “The Religion’s of Man”, copy out their references pages, and go from there.
In my view, the best religious scholars, inside or outside a particular theological tradition, are the ones who CLEARLY understand the difference between scholarship, proselytizing and, if they are a theologian, pastoral work; and NOT the pluralism of truth, but of its many expressions; and to understand doctrine as dynamic, and the openness to the mystery at both ends of our existence as the overriding attitude; but also the import of the “hermeneutics of suspicion” and its tensional relationship with that openness, along with the hope that lives in most if not all of us.
I don’t know what else to say on a blog . . . though the above is certainly foundational to the current discussions here, a blog is more like a bumper sticker than a great source of reflective thought . . . your own and some others’ dialogue here being the exception, of course. CBK
Thnx, Catherine. By archeological evidence, I really mean what you can find during an excavation of a, say, tomb.
What does recording Jesus’ thoughts have to do with how he is believed to have reacted to Roman authority? Give it a rest, Linda. The Bible is a collection of faith statements written in response to life. If you are looking for a strict historical record, the Bible ain’t it. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe in the literal truth since there are multiple competing narratives throughout the text, but just like our myths and fables often have a historical context, so does the Bible.
speduktr Also, the parables are outstanding and relate to history at every stage. A wonderful book by Dominic Crossan: *In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus.” CBK
speduktr-
“Give it a rest”-
A resounding no, not as long as religion is used politically as an excuse to deny rights to women, to overthrow democracy, to prevent modernism, to reject pluralism and to install the Koch brand of capitalism.
Linda, if I may expand on CBK’s ‘Will you quit with your ignorance of history?’ and spedukatr’s ‘Give it a rest’: view ‘Render unto Caesar’ in context. Jews had been rioting against paying Caesar’s tax; Pharisees et al were hoping to trap him into supporting this sedition in order to have him arrested. Jesus instead recommended separating the observation of secular law from observation of God’s laws. He did not clarify how that should be done, but the implication is, each man must figure that out for himself.
Your response to ‘give it a rest’ was: “not as long as religion is used politically as an excuse to deny rights to women, to overthrow democracy, to prevent modernism, to reject pluralism and to install the Koch brand of capitalism.” OK: pressure govt actors who attempt to conflate religious and secular law, use Caesar’s coin to support religious ed, etc. Speak up if your pastor has the nerve to tell you how to vote.
But it’s just as important not to tell others what it makes sense to you intellectually for them to believe in spiritually, or imply they shouldn’t be members of a church that does x unless they respond with y, and not at all if they also believe z. When you do that you’re no different than Hawley.
This tread began with the title “Kathrine Stewart: Josh Hawley, Religious Zealot. Some critics would pair Representative Hawley and former-Secretary of Education as Religious Zealot.
Wikipedia: Zealot, member of a Jewish sect noted for its uncompromising opposition to pagan Rome and the polytheism it professed. The Zealots were an aggressive political party whose concern for the national and religious life of the Jewish people led them to despise even Jews who sought peace and conciliation with the Roman authorities. A census of Galilee ordered by Rome in ad 6 spurred the Zealots to rally the populace to noncompliance on the grounds that agreement was an implicit acknowledgment by Jews of the right of pagans to rule their nation.
Gutenberg Bible
Read More on This Topic
biblical literature: The Zealots
The Zealots were revolutionaries who plotted actively against the Roman oppression. That the Pharisees did not react in…
Extremists among the Zealots turned to terrorism and assassination and became known as Sicarii (Greek sikarioi, “dagger men”). They frequented public places with hidden daggers to strike down persons friendly to Rome. In the first revolt against Rome (ad 66–70) the Zealots played a leading role, and at Masada in 73 they committed suicide rather than surrender the fortress, but they were still a force to be reckoned with in the first part of the following century. A few scholars see a possible relationship between the Zealots and the Jewish religious community mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Terror to achieve political goals is not new.
I remember the Presidential primary convention being Televised in black and white and Barry Goldwater acceptance speech for winning the Republican nomination for President:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Using those words of Senator Goldwater’s words and branding Senator Goldwater a Republican Conservative Zealot, President Johnson and the Democratic Party won by a wide margin the election, although, I believe, the word Zealot was not used by campaigning Democrats but extremist was used against the Republican Nominee convincing many voters, and me, that Senator Goldwater (the extremist was more likely to use the bomb!
“When you do that you’re no different than Hawley.”
Well, Hawley is a dangerous man, potentially worse than T****, but comparing members on this blog to him appears to be a stretch to me.
No doubt, some of us are ignorant of history or science or religion, but I do not see any of us turning into fascists, while Hawley very much could be—or already is.
Mate: My assumption is that Representative Hawley is a born-again Christian-Nationalist and he represents born-again Christian-Nationalist of his District. Not sure thatHawley and the born-again Christian Nationalist are interested in fascism as these folks want religion to influence politics and not the other way around.
jim2812 It’s not difficult to find the politics of Jesus in the New Testament, e.g., in the verses that MLK uses for his sermon about the “drum major” in all of us (see the other recent blog note).
From there, it’s also not difficult to see the corrupt thinking that these right-wing bozos, including many powerful church members, are involved in every time they refer to themselves as “Christian.” CBK
Let’s not claim that “all” Hawley wants is to allow religion influence politics (however bad this already is). Let’s not forget his role in the insurrection; how he took leading part in trying to reverse the result of a democratic election, how he expressed his support to the terrorists who wanted to hang Mike Pence, among other things.
Mate I think there is just a good match at present between Hawley’s exaggerated need to be the “band leader,” and right-wing propaganda that includes religious dysfunction (to put it lightly).
I could be wrong in this for Hawley or Cruz; but I think for many, it’s no easy matter to untangle psychological and political from religious meaning that bubbles up . . . all mixed up in minds and, in our case, has spilled-out like vomit into “The People’s House.” It’s not differentiated . . . figuring our which is which is sort of like trying to find an oak tree by breaking open an acorn. CBK
Mate Regarding your comment about Be3’s comment to Linda: “When you do that you’re no different than Hawley.”
I can agree with you fully as far as content, the person, and their potential influence are concerned. However, Linda’s and Hawley’s methods of argument are of the the same kind. So, in that sense, the comparison is no stretch at all. CBK
“However, Linda’s and Hawley’s methods of argument are of the the same kind.”
In what sense? Can you give an example?
Mate on examples, yes, I’ll look up a couple of notes and be back with you. But you’ll find the general framework in any work of logic or literature that gives treatment to logical fallacies. CBK
“…it’s just as important not to tell others what it makes sense to you intellectually for them to believe in spiritually,…”
Perhaps what CBK was implying was a certain similarity in attitude since her preceding comments in that paragraph had nothing to do with fascism.
May Linda join the conversation in third person?
Linda is unhappy with the attack but, she avoids responding in kind, choosing to follow the Christian principle of “turning the other cheek”. Linda is pleased with the defense and thanks the person. Linda thinks tribalists internalize negative information about their sect and personalize it which leads to distortions and comparisons of Linda to evil doers.
Shifting gears, Linda questions why the media link some of the mostly uneducated mob in the Capitol to Christian nationalism but, fail to identify the religion of Giuliani’s partner who stirred up the mob on Jan. 6. Linda questions the omission given the fact that Giuliani’s partner is a legal scholar at a private university, is a visiting scholar at the well-funded Center for Western Civilization at the University of Colorado and hobnobs with Robert P. George as a member of the National Organization for Marriage. Linda questions why msm ignore the partner’s ideological brethren at the Napa Institute in their praise of Charles Koch and Koch’s financing of the 13 senators engaged in alleged sedition.
Linda grants that the partner’s sartorial choices were more Ralph Lauren than Fred Flintstone which may impact media interest.
Linda Catherine responds that “turning the other check” should not be used as code for “disregard everything said” especially truth in the critique you happen not to like. CBK
Mate In the meantime, google “logical fallacies.” But here’s a twist . . . on one of the links, the writer writes:
“What are the easiest logical fallacies to fall into?
“One of the easiest logical fallacies to fall into is the idea that logical fallacies apply absolutely everywhere. This is one reason why internet debaters are such a sorry bunch. They think that as long as they can identify something they think is a fallacy in something you said, you can be safely ignored.”
The truth of this bit of inadequate meta-reflection is that LOGIC ITSELF is not the end-all to quality human communications, as many poets and novelists will attest to; though the “test” of logical fallacies is a part of professional editing, and for critical method, and so is important to weeding out lots of problems in common and technical communications. The lasts I heard, the president’s political speeches, at least before Trump, undergo such a test from professional logicians.
Also, “they think” is often a good red-flag phrase where we reasonably can be on the lookout for a fallacy in-the-making, e.g., overgeneralization, in this case, of all of us “sorry bunch” of “internet debaters.” (I am chuckling as I write this.)
How funny that the writer of the above sentence itself uses logical fallacies to make their point. The more technical source text for logic is by Copi; but any study and application of them can sharpen one’s mind. CBK
Nah, what I care about is concrete examples from actual conversations.
As far I can detect, Linda’s main point is to completely remove religious ideas and arguments from political, economical, etc decision making. The rationale is that religion is not part of the real world.
As for logic: in the real world, proper use of logic is mandatory. You do not want to make policy decisions based on poems or paintings or, for that mater, the Bible. Once you use logic, there is no “middle ground”, there is no wiggling room. Not a single instance of contradictory statements can be passed as a rule, since then any false statements can be passed as truth.
You can say, this is outrageous, this lack of freedom in logic, but that’s how it is. The same apparent lack of freedom appears in science. On the other hand, this gives science its reliability.
Mate “You can say, this is outrageous, this lack of freedom in logic, but that’s how it is. The same apparent lack of freedom appears in science. On the other hand, this gives science its reliability.”
I for one don’t say that’s outrageous. Logic is constraining of creativity but, for many reasons, as in the scientific treatment of data, it’s needed as a critical matter. System is similarly structured.
‘
Also, I’ll go back and look at some of Hawley’s speeches; but I have been criticizing Linda over her use of several logical fallacies for a long time . . . so I won’t do your research on that. CBK
“Logic is constraining of creativity”
I wouldn’t say that. Every creative activity has boundaries. Thinking that doing science is not a creative activity is a mistake, and its boundaries are not more stringent than music’s or painting’s or poetry’s. Respecting the boundaries of a creative activity is a necessary requirement of good quality.
Mate You are talking about after scientific ideas after they gets started and, to some extent, experimented with, applied, systematized, and taught to be passed down. Their treatises at least need to be expressed using good logic, which can be boring and so “constraining” to the creative mind.
I’m talking about original insights . . . as with Einstein or ANY scientist . . . as essentially a creative activity. Its only boundaries are the kinds and ways we ask our questions and access to data that we don’t have yet. CBK
speduktr
There’s been little interest at the blog in the topic of taxpayer- funded schools that have hundreds of students reciting an altered Pledge of Allegiance to the United States where religious doctrine has been added.
Rhetorically, does that include you?
We’ll have to agree to disagree about how we approach organizations that want us as members. I think Tiger Woods had a few things to say about the subject amid Augusta golf tournaments and Jimmy Carter spoke to the local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan when they threatened his livelihood if he didn’t join.
If organizations refrained from using their funds and clout to back the ruling class…
Huh? Actually, my last memory of the pledge was of a class of minority students who basically refused to recite it at all. Made sense to me although they probably wouldn’t have objected to the “under God” edit since church was important in most of their lives. I would be just as happy to leave God out of it. Strikes me as a bit like asking God to help you win a football game.
Which seems to be the norm in every sport event, at least down here in the South.
While I find it odd that my kids had to say “under God” in their pledge in public school, policing language can and should go only so far. I do not think we want to forbid teachers say “My God” in class.
speduktr
If I cite media reports providing examples of the specific Pledge change that incorpates religious dogma, my comment will be deleted.
Linda,
If you smear an entire religion-Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi’s religion—your comment will be deleted. Racism and religious bigotry are not welcome here.
You lost me a while back. I have no idea what you are talking about
This month, when Quardicos Driskell, wrote, “Why religion and politics are at play in Georgia?”, I suspect he knew the public would hear a limited narrative. I’d guess that his insight probably came by way of experience with power structures that have been in a position to skirt, exclude or diminish the influence of black people.
He definitely has a point although I am not sure that Warnock would have wanted to keep his faith out of the race. The Black church has been incredibly important to the whole Civil Rights movement and the social justice focus.
Amy Coney Barrett’s to the law school class should have made her beliefs fair game, as far as I am concerned, although it is possible that the feigned outrage would have taken away from other questioning. I don’t know.
speduktr
Until recently,I was unaware of connections made between equal rights for black people and communism. A placard from a prior period in American history read, “Mixed race = communism”.
I have been aware of the label of communist/communism being applied to anything that smacks of a social safety net, among other things, but that slogan is a new one to me. what twisted brain came up with that one and what the heck did they mean?
speduktr-
The meaning of words don’t matter to racists?
“The meaning of words don’t matter to racists?” ?
If the “?” was a mistake, my reply would be that at least words had no meaning for that racist. I have a feeling that that individual had a few more problems than just being a racist.
Yesterday was the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., who was born Michael King.
The story behind the change in the the father and son’s name from Michael to Martin is that his father was so moved by a trip to Germany, and a visit to the home of Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Revolution, on returning home, Michael’s father changed his name to Martin Luther and his son became Martin Luther King, Jr.
The writings of John Lock had great influence on founding fathers of the Republic. On the subject of John Lock and tolerance–something that Representative Hawley’s theology appears to not support– Wikipedia writes:
“Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–1692) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance, in which three arguments are central:
With regard to his position on religious tolerance, Locke was influenced by Baptist theologians like John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, who had published tracts demanding freedom of conscience in the early 17th century. Baptist theologian Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island in 1636, where he combined a democratic constitution with unlimited religious freedom. His tract, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (1644), which was widely read in the mother country, was a passionate plea for absolute religious freedom and the total separation of church and state. Freedom of conscience had had high priority on the theological, philosophical, and political agenda, as Martin Luther refused to recant his beliefs before the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire at Worms in 1521, unless he would be proved false by the Bible.”
Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–1692) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance, in which three arguments are central:
Toleration for others contrary political view is fueling our current social disorder.
Thanks for adding your comment.
Did Locke write about how women appear to be always at the short end of the stick of Christianity? I’m curious if Locke was writing today and reflecting over time, if he would address the pattern of major Christian churches having a bent that allows racism to flourish?
Linda I know little about John Locke beyond high school civics class that taught me his writings were a great influence on the founding fathers’ construction of American Government; and his writings are associated with “The Enlightenment”.
When I searched on the net John Locke and toleration, I found Wikipedia reference I posted.
John Locke’s political writings appears to be greatly influenced by what he wrote on the subject of religion. Ironic, John Locke that wrote much on political tolerance, was intolerant of those that didn’t believe in God.
Wikipedia Religious beliefs of John Locke
Some scholars have seen Locke’s political convictions as being based from his religious beliefs.[64][65][66] Locke’s religious trajectory began in Calvinist trinitarianism, but by the time of the Reflections (1695) Locke was advocating not just Socinian views on tolerance but also Socinian Christology.[67] However Wainwright (1987) notes that in the posthumously published Paraphrase (1707) Locke’s interpretation of one verse, Ephesians 1:10, is markedly different from that of Socinians like Biddle, and may indicate that near the end of his life Locke returned nearer to an Arian position, thereby accepting Christ’s pre-existence.[68][67] Locke was at times not sure about the subject of original sin, so he was accused of Socinianism, Arianism, or Deism.[69] Locke argued that the idea that “all Adam’s Posterity [are] doomed to Eternal Infinite Punishment, for the Transgression of Adam” was “little consistent with the Justice or Goodness of the Great and Infinite God”, leading Eric Nelson to associate him with Pelagian ideas.[70] However, he did not deny the reality of evil. Man was capable of waging unjust wars and committing crimes. Criminals had to be punished, even with the death penalty.[71]
With regard to the Bible, Locke was very conservative. He retained the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.[34] The miracles were proof of the divine nature of the biblical message. Locke was convinced that the entire content of the Bible was in agreement with human reason (The Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695).[72][34] Although Locke was an advocate of tolerance, he urged the authorities not to tolerate atheism, because he thought the denial of God’s existence would undermine the social order and lead to chaos.[73] That excluded all atheistic varieties of philosophy and all attempts to deduce ethics and natural law from purely secular premises.[74] In Locke’s opinion the cosmological argument was valid and proved God’s existence. His political thought was based on Protestant Christian views.[74][75] Additionally, Locke advocated a sense of piety out of gratitude to God for giving reason to men.[76]
Philosophy from religion
Locke’s concept of man started with the belief in creation.[77] Like philosophers Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, Locke equated natural law with the biblical revelation.[78][79][80] Locke derived the fundamental concepts of his political theory from biblical texts, in particular from Genesis 1 and 2 (creation), the Decalogue, the Golden Rule, the teachings of Jesus, and the letters of Paul the Apostle.[81] The Decalogue puts a person’s life, reputation and property under God’s protection.
Locke’s philosophy on freedom is also derived from the Bible. Locke derived from the Bible basic human equality (including equality of the sexes), the starting point of the theological doctrine of Imago Dei.[82] To Locke, one of the consequences of the principle of equality was that all humans were created equally free and therefore governments needed the consent of the governed.[83] Locke compared the English monarchy’s rule over the British people to Adam’s rule over Eve in Genesis, which was appointed by God.[84]
Following Locke’s philosophy, the American Declaration of Independence founded human rights partially on the biblical belief in creation. Locke’s doctrine that governments need the consent of the governed is also central to the Declaration of Independence.[85]
Thank you for the addition. While it is only remotely related, as I read your iteration of Locke’s views, I thought about Justice Amy Barrett’s commitment to originalism.
Linda: I thought Representative Josh Hawley bringing up Pelagian heresy meant there is only one theology and true path to salvation is acceptance of doctrine of original sin. Pelagian heresy challenged doctrine of original sin.
Republican office-holders such as former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Senator Josh Hawley have embraced Kuyper in service of their political agenda. In a 2017 speech to the American Renewal Project, then Missouri Attorney General Hawley invoked the “square inch” Kuyper quote to emphasize the authority of the Jesus over all aspects of human life. “We are called to take that message into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm,” Hawley said. “That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!” In a bizarre interpretation of Pelagius, a fourth-century British monk who denied the doctrine of original sin and was condemned as a heretic, Hawley has argued that contemporary American society has fallen prey to the Pelagian heresy in the widespread belief that “liberty is the right to choose your own meaning” and that freedom means emancipating oneself “not just from God but from society, family, and tradition.” Pelagian philosophy, says Hawley, has made American society more hierarchical and elitist. Hawley’s solution is to “rebuild” a culture that protects the way of life of the American middle. “We must rebuild a democracy run not by the elites, but by the great middle of America, a democracy that allows the working man and woman to realize their God-given ability to govern themselves and help manage the life of his nation.”
I thought originalism refers to the interpretation of the Constitution, and is not (directly) about religious views.
Jim
Thank you for the erudition. It elevates the discussion.
My following comment does the opposite but (as its compensation), it is spirited. : – )
Hawley is running a scam. “Hawley’s entry into politics and his election would not have been possible without the help of Team Koch”. (Exposed by CMD)
Mate-
I understood Jim to be redirecting the discussion. The change up gave me additional insight into a subject about which I had little knowledge.
I do not think religious tolerance can exist without forbidding the large scale spreading of religious ideas. More generally, the large scale spreading of ideology needs to be forbidden, or sooner or later, ideological/religious intolerance will develop.
In other words, the causes of religious intolerance needs to be taken care of.
Mate “Thnx, Catherine. By archeological evidence, I really mean what you can find during an excavation of a, say, tomb.”
I answered you and gave your directions to search for further answers . . . but I think perhaps you are confusing this blog with a research tool . . . somewhat like a refrigerator with differently prepared food on the shelves.
I’m afraid also that my further answer would include that you go back to the garden for your answers.
But this also speaks to my earlier comments about a lack of understanding history . . . if we are to read any texts from way long time ago, we will not understand them or what the writers meant . . much less their value to us in our time . . . unless we also have experienced getting out of our own historical provincialism, and then the questions that arise from that occurrence. (I mean not to offend, but probably will: Your note reeks of that problematic.) CBK
Catherine, one of your helpful advice was to start reading wikipedia about logic—and I am a mathematician. Pls get off your high horse.
Mate Glad to hear it . . . point taken. But please know that I take no pleasure in riding such horses, and especially in feeling the need. CBK
It seems there are no archaeological (material) evidence left behind for the existence of Jesus: not a single cell of his bones or hair. My understanding is that there is a burial shroud, the shroud of Turin, which some claim to be his.
Mate I hesitate to stay with this discussion . . . . but I will ask rhetorically, is that important to you, and if so, why? which is a question for you, not for me. CBK
Mate,
It is pretty hard to get physical evidence of anyone’s existence 2,000 or so years ago, but I assume that Jesus was a living person because there is so much written documentation of his words and his works.
I am not saying that for religious reasons but because it would be difficult to concoct this much documentation about a non-existent person.
So you don’t believe in the existence of any individual unless you can see his bones? The guy lived 2000 years ago! Putting aside the Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus, when he was crucified, his followers were basically a small group of undistinguished, Palestinian Jews. His ministry was to the marginalized. His death would have had little impact beyond his own followers. Acts and the letters of the early missionaries, particularly Paul, really tell about the beginnings of the church that didn’t begin to come into its own until Constantine.
It’s not a matter for belief, whether Jesus lived. It might have very well happened. The search for archeological evidence is fascinating (like the multiple examination of the shroud of Turin), similarly to the search for the remains of Richard III, which was eventually found in a parking lot.
My oldest sister has been working as a restaurator in a castle which was lost for 500 years. There used to be a legend that a Hungarian king’s castle had been “hidden” so that the invading Turks wouldn’t find it. Nobody seriously had thought, this could be true. How could anybody hide a whole castle? But in 1930, they did find this castle, buried in its entirety.
What are up to belief are the circumstances of Jesus’ birth, the miracles performed by him and his resurrection, and they couldn’t have happened in the real world. There is no reason to throw out the laws of physics to give room for such events.
Mate For a bit, I thought you were looking for a “gotcha” moment. I apologize for importing some others’ attitude to your inquiry. CBK
Sure, Catherine. I promise you, if, say, they prove that the shroud of Turin is Jesus’, I’ll be the first to putz the article about it on my Facebook page.
Then really your request for a grave was nonsensical. As to matters of faith, I figure that I won’t have any answers until after I die, and if there is nothing I’m not going to know anyway. I’m more of a metaphor type believer. The message resonates. The narratives put forth well after Jesus’ demise are becoming less and less important to me the older I get. They are written as expressions of faith more than as statements of historical fact as far as I am concerned.
speduktr . . . and then we try to live our faith, as best we can, as an historical reality. CBK
Yup.
Well, I think it’s really important to clearly see what’s in the real world and what’s believed. Just as we are supposed to do when it comes to governmental affairs. History is supposed to cover the events of the real world.
Now, even in hard sciences, there is a notion of indirect observation which can prove that something is real. From seeing a shadow, we can safely conclude the presence of a light source without seeing it. So I have no problem with accepting indirect methods to prove that something is real. But unlike the case of the shadow, my impression is that historical evidence is not nearly as exact unless accompanied by archeological (material) findings, such as bones, hair, clothes, shroud, etc., which then can be examined with methods of the natural sciences.
Mate First, functions are intelligible, though they cannot be seen or otherwise sensed. My car is functional; and when I actually drive it, its various functions become concretely historical. I doubt you would want to commit to the argument that a car’s unseen functions do not become concretely operative when you drive it. Functions become concretely historical, not because we can sense them (we cannot) but because they are intelligible and you understand them, and especially when they become evident in times and places in history.
Second, I think Jesus was a real person (again, via different accounts of him given by disparate sources. But the actual existence of a man named Jesus will not be able to tell us whether New Testament accounts of his sayings, teachings, and way of life do not speak to us about genuineness, truth, discernments of the good, and love . . . all of which are guides for human living in the universe that, when brought manifest in our concrete lives as best we can (like functions), make for good concrete living, even for atheists among us.
Third, the other question is what we think of the mysteries of our lives and the “hereafter, e.g., for metaphysics, All-Being, and for most “religions,” some notion of God. But then you won’t find proof of any doctrine about those things that Jesus also talks about, and whether or not you find a real person who was named Jesus all those centuries ago, who said those things, and who was said to be the son of God.
In my own personal view, I think the resurrection speaks to the hope of some mysterious life or existence in the hereafter. CBK
“The search for archeological evidence is fascinating (like the multiple examination of the shroud of Turin),…
The Bible is archeological evidence if that is what you are truly interested in. Archeologists aren’t necessarily out there to prove anything but to examine artifacts as clues to the past. As you can probably figure out, I am not “big” on holy relics. The shroud of Turin is suspect for a lot of reasons, and I am really turned off by the pieces of saints that are claimed to have miraculous powers. And yet, it can be hard to dispute the power of these beliefs. There is a shrine to Our Lady of Guadalupe near my home. I don’t know what the archeologists make of this story, but I’m not sure I want to discount it.
I wish the article wouldn’t consistently call a criminal Mr Hawley. Is it unlikely that Hawley will be charged and convicted for his role in Jan. 6?
Holy crap.
“Before he won election as a senator, he worked for Becket [Law].” How appropriate. His political position represents Becket’s.
Thomas À Becket fought Henry II at every turn to keep justice for religious personnel out of the King’s courts, to be administered solely by the Church. The Pope equivocated, suggesting a compromise that led to the exiled Archbishop of Canterbury returning to England, upon which he excommunicated the people who wrote it up and continued to balk at signing it. Henry II wondered aloud how this lowly-born cleric should be allowed to countermand him [historian-accepted words are less inflammatory than the fabled ‘will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?’]— overzealous knights assassinated Becket– & Pope Alexander acceded to popular pressure, canonizing him.
The central issue echoes loudly. It’s the same motive that caused religious pedophile criminals to be transferred to other parishes instead of being brought to secular justice. Francis is still mopping up the mess. Hawley, 840 years after Becket, breaches even Becket’s line between religious and secular law: he pledges to take “the Lordship of Christ” into politics, into the public realm, there to seek the obedience of our nation.
This person has no business as a govt representative—other than that people voted for him. Hopefully he can be drummed out, or at minimum censured, immediately.
I hadn’t heard that one, just the change to “under God.” We obviously have to go back and discuss what it means to be a citizen of the United States, rather than parroting slogans that have become rote and devoid of meaning for so many.
I agree. Even in “Communist” Hungary, we didn’t do daily pledging. I was shocked learning about the practice when my kids started to go to school here, not to mention the regular (at least weekly) school assemblies where slogans and hand gestures were practiced ad nauseam.
Why pledge anything every day?
Mate “Why pledge anything every day?”
. . . for the same reason you take a bath regularly and eat well every day. Only instead of keeping our physical health on track, the pledge is to keep our political life on track.
We pledge because, like our health that we take for granted will go away slowly without constant care, without that reminder our political health will easily and slowly slip away. Instead of getting sick and dying from neglect, a political vacuum is easily created so that democracy disappears (a political death?) while we hardly notice it. It’s a comprehensive guide, . . . the same as writing a mission statement for a company or whatever. (In my experience, most schools have mission statements that are quite well-written, but that teachers rarely pay attention to.)
In my own early education, the pledge was said but not explained to me at least that I can remember . . . we just took it every day. So that my own view is that, if we are not explaining the pledge to our children over time, and according to their developing ability to understand what it means, it really IS a waste of time. CBK
No wonder, they compare this to bathing; it’s called brain washing.
Mate Puullllleeeesssseeee. You forget it’s a democracy, which is not an ideology.
As an experiment, it’s about being able to raise questions and understand for ourselves, not about being “in-doctrine-ated” where you can ask pretty much anything except the doctrine and whoever is invested in it. “. . . and to the republic for which is stands . . . with liberty and justice for all.” With democracy, we can even question THAT and, for myself, I hope there remain people in this country who can give coherent answers. CBK
Mate,
The pledge is recited daily to please legislators. The kids say the words mechanically and don’t think about their meaning.