The June 23rd issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education has a very interesting article by Randall Balmer, who Coye mentioned last week in connection with his soon-to-be-issued book, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament. The article is available here: Jesus Is Not a Republican. He begins the article by mentioning that his last visit to
“In November 2002, 30 years after my previous visit to
“I doubt very much that I will be invited back to Edman Chapel. One of the benefits of being reared within evangelicalism, I suppose, is that you understand the workings of the evangelical subculture. I know, for example, that when my new book on evangelicals appears, the minions of the religious right will seek to discredit me rather than engage the substance of my arguments. […]
“The evangelical subculture, which prizes conformity above all else, doesn't suffer rebels gladly, and it is especially intolerant of anyone with the temerity to challenge the shibboleths of the religious right. I understand that. Despite their putative claims to the faith, the leaders of the religious right are vicious toward anyone who refuses to kowtow to their version of orthodoxy, and their machinery of vilification strikes with ruthless, dispassionate efficiency. Longtime friends (and not a few family members) will shuffle uneasily around me and studiously avoid any sort of substantive conversation about the issues I raise — and then quietly strike my name from their Christmas-card lists. Circle the wagons. Brook no dissent.
“And so, since my chances of being invited back to Edman Chapel have dropped from slim to none, I offer here an outline of what I would like to say to the students at Wheaton and, by extension, to evangelicals everywhere.[…]”
13 comments:
wow. Thanks for the link, Andy. That was fantastic.
I didn't have any problems with accessing the article. It opened when I clicked the link, and I'm not logged in or on campus or anything, so I think it might be available to everyone already.
One of the issues that Balmer raises here has been on my mind a lot this year. Should we be as concerned about the legal status of abortion as the "pro-life" movement has been? Should we be more focused on reducing the incidence of abortions? It seems that very few legal abortions would be better than many illegal ones. Practically speaking, the strategy of reversing Roe v. Wade isn't working, hasn't ever been very promising, and likely won't ever be. Should we continue pouring resources into an ineffective strategy, or should we redirect efforts at reducing the number of abortions that happen each year (the number fell during the Clinton administration but is rising again in the Bush years). There is a madness on both sides of this debate. Western Europe thinks (and rightly so, in my opinion) that we are barbarians for allowing third trimester abortions, but the demonizing of opponents and the all-or-nothing strategies of everyone involved leads the "pro-choice" movement to support even partial birth abortions. Those who oppose legal abortion refuse to work with those who oppose their legal views but would like to see fewer and fewer abortions taking place. I think the sane position might be very close to something that Balmer says in this piece from the Chronicle: "I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable."
Anyways, that's just one issue at stake in Balmer's argument. Thanks again, Andy, for posting it.
minions? prizes conformity? intolerant? vicious to dissenters?
Geeze, talk about "machinery of vilification".
"I have no interest in making abortion illegal; I would like to make it unthinkable."
I've got a novel idea for him: How 'bout both?
"No interest" in making it illegal? Come on. In a good legal, everything unthinkably immoral should also be illegal.
(Here I am embodying his characatured evangelical: "especially intolerant of anyone with the temerity to challenge the shibboleths of the religious right". DON'T YOU DARE CHALLENGE MY SHIBBOLETHS!!!!")
(i meant to type, "in a good legal system,...")
hmmm... momentarily setting aside whether or not this statement applies to abortions, I have to quibble with Steve's "everything immoral should be illegal" stance. Should the legal system concern itself with prosecuting adultery or kids lying to their parents or me flying off the handle in a blog comment at four in the morning? Morality and legality are separate standards and the line should not be obliterated. I, personally, wouldn't enjoy an evangelical version of sharia. Now, even if it is the case that abortion should be illegal, are we not better off accepting Balmer as an ally in reducing the number of abortions that occur anually rather than demanding he take the legal route with us or take a hike by himself? Must we be so vicious towards his dissent?
The other part of that question is whether or not changing the law actually changes behavior. Passing a law might not be the most effective way of preventing abortions (it might, in fact, have very little effect). Better to have effectual action than nominal legislation. Better to work towards common goals than to alienate potential allies.
(unless they're French, of course, we wouldn't dream of working with those cheese-eating surrender monkeys)
Oh, and I'll challenge your shibboleths... with my fist!
HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE MY SHIBOLLETHS, COYE! (although my shibolleth was "everything unthinkably immoral should be illegal", a caviat that you left out, and may or may not be relevant).
But actually I think you raise good questions (though maybe you answer them too easily): Should adultery be illegal? Should unethical lying be illegal? Should polygamy be illegal?
And if so, how should the government (that is, the community) intervene?
(and I don't think status quo should not be the authority as we answer these questions).
Also I'll use this chance to rephrase my shibolleth: "A legal system is good inasmuch as moral things are legal and immoral things are illegal." (so I'm taking out my "unthinkably" caviat, and introducting a sort of scale). Just thinking on the fly. What do you think?
I should add: I think the rate of abortion went way up after Row v. Wade, so I think illegalization would have a big effect in the other direction.
I don't have stats to back that up though.
sorry, another typo: "I don't think the status quo should be..."
That would probably be an acceptable definition of the law for Plato or Aristotle for whom the polis was a kind of incubator for eudamia (virtue/good living/life as it should be). I don't think it works for nation-state democracy. For one thing, the Greek city-state was a small, organic, homogenous entity. Citizens were (for the most part) born into a culturaly unified community living in a tiny geographic area. The United States, on the other hand, is huge. It contains cultural, religious and ethical plurality on a scale that the Greeks could probably have never imagined (or Thomas Jefferson, for that matter). Having a legality=morality legal code would require a unified moral understanding at a detailed level that does not exist in the States. (The Southern Baptists would want to outlaw alchohol again; do you think Episcopalians would stand for that? You're damn right we wouldn't!)
Other places where codifying morality into civil law was tested don't offer compelling evidence for trying it again. Calvin's Geneva and Puritan Massachussetts were legal and ethical nightmares (let's not forget Iran or the Taliban). I don't think that adultery and gluttony and lying are good ideas, but I don't want to be taken to district court for a second helping of ice cream. Laws in our system are not there to make good people; that makes sense to me because laws DON'T make good people. Laws are made (in theory) to protect people; that makes sense because we do need protection from each other. Now an IDEAL system would protect the poor from the rich as much as it protects the rich from the poor (to introduce a sort of scale of my own).
"I don't think that adultery and gluttony and lying are good ideas, but I don't want to be taken to district court for a second helping of ice cream."
Friend, I don't want that either! That would not be such a nice place to live. That's why I think there should be a punishment-fit-the-crime policy.
As you know, all sins are not equal. There are degrees. This is not Greek idealistic thought, this is Christian down-to-earth thought. So punishment should have degrees too. So it is possible to imagine a scenario in which even gluttony becomes serious enough to warrant state intervention. A single second helping of icecream doesn't quite warrant state intervention.
"Having a legality=morality legal code would require a unified moral understanding at a detailed level that does not exist in the States."
As for the complete reworking of the law into a legality=morality system, you're right, but we don't need unified moral agreement on any particular issue to put laws into effect. If we did, NAMBLA men would be smoking little boys' asses all night long, legally.
We put into law what we can, and our legal system ends up reflecting the society's morality. Now I return to ideals: As much as possible, God's morality should be reflected in the society's morality, the society's morality should be reflected in a law. So, indirectly, God's morality should be reflected in the law as much as possible. That's something we can work towards. And just because not everyone agrees doesn't mean we shouldn't make laws to protect people (as you said), including the perpetrator.
Post a Comment