[Thanks John]
Recently in Philosophy/Religion Category
This morning I received an indignant email forward. A woman claiming to have testified during a trial over her murdered parents was asked to swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but was not prompted to add “so help me God” at the end. When she stopped the court reporter and asked what happened to the missing phrase, the judge responded that it was okay to add if the witness so desired.
The overall point of the email is that we are taking God out of places where it is literally dangerous to do so — the author claims that the “absence” of God in America’s courts will only “result in more criminals and murderers.” What I don’t understand is why so many people think that because they believe in one God — or a god for that matter — that everyone who doesn’t should still have to invoke His name. It’s not a matter of being anti-Christian or anti-religion, it’s a matter of simple respect for those that don’t believe in the same way we do. The 14% of poll respondents who don’t want “In God we trust” on currency or “under God” in the pledge of allegiance should not be told to “sit down and shut up” when they raise a concern.
Obviously if 85% of Americans really do think it’s okay, then it will continue to be the law, which it is, as this a democracy based on majority rule. But there are instances where people are asked to make a conscious and overt call to a deity they don’t believe in — as in the case of courts of law — and in these cases they should not be required to do so. And being conscious of these things, courts allow the optional addition of “so help me God.”
Interesting facts about “In God we trust” — this phrase did not appear on US paper currency until 1957, after an act of congress required it in 1955 in response to communism. However, some coins minted during and after the Civil War included the phrase. It was made the national motto in 1956 by another act of congress.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 for a Children Magazine but was not official recognized until 1942. The words “under God” were added to the Pledge in 1954, also in an effort to differentiate the United States from the “godless Soviet Union.”
Are you a jew? Me neither, but that’s no reason not to celebrate Purim, my new favorite Jewish holiday. According to Judaism101.com, on Purim Jews are “commanded to eat, drink and be merry. According to the Talmud, a person is required to drink until he cannot tell the difference between “cursed be Haman” and “blessed be Mordecai,” though opinions differ as to exactly how drunk that is”
Sounds good to me, people! Count me in, I like Hamantashen, do you?
Yesterday someone asked me what it was like being a “lapsed Mormon.” It’s not the first time someone I hardly know has quizzed me about my religion (and it’s certainly not the first time I’ve been called a variation on “lapsed”), but no matter how many times I am asked it always makes me smile and laugh a little. First of all, it’s so broad, so wide in scope that I literally am unable to answer. It happens every time — I just snicker, smile and say something like, “What do you mean? You have to ask me a specific question.” How can I be expected to describe how it feels to be Mormon or explain “that Mormon thing”? I especially love, “What do Mormons believe?”
People know I don’t go to church any more, or at least they assume that I don’t, and that’s fine. I don’t go to church anymore, and I struggle with my faith as much as anyone does. So, yesterday when this person asked me why I was LDS, I told him the truth — because I was born that way. But he wanted to know if I had a strong relationship with the Church — again the truth: no, not really. Then why do I identify as Mormon? It got me thinking (as this conversation I have had innumerable times always does) why do I claim to be Mormon when I don’t have the strong faith of many in my family, or any particular intensely religious sentiments?
One day I decided that my answer would be, “Because I am culturally Mormon.”
My family is Mormon, they are from Utah, and members of the Church are a peculiar people, as the saying goes. We have habits, and sayings, and some quirky beliefs. I find the Church and its members fascinating on a purely intellectual level, and loving and kind on a personal one. LDS say things like ‘whole fam-damnly’ and ‘from Hell to breakfast,’ we have big families and believe we are doomed to live with them for all eternity. We like to eat at all church functions, our congregations are called ‘wards’, we don’t baptize until 8 years old, and the leader of the Church communicates directly with God. Like it or not all of this is bound up in who I am — and I do like it, actually.
I don’t appreciate being described as a ‘lapsed’ Mormon or an ex-Mormon, and it’s irritating when others do it for me. The LDS Church is an organization of good people collectively trying to do what in their hearts they know to be the work of God and, despite my lack of faith, I respect that immensely and don’t mind at all being lumped together in the same category. It can only make me look better. And so I seem defensive when it comes to people bad-mouthing the Church. Anytime anyone spouts some crap about ‘sacred underwear’ or polygamy, I am there to smack them down with a fact or two (at least I hope).
Call me Mormon, LDS, a Saint (I like that one), or whatever, but don’t say I can’t really be Mormon because I drink coffee and don’t go to church every Sunday.
A friend of mine called Nick Mosquera recently posted the following bit of drivel on another weblog, The Billiken’s Bluff, run by a mutual friend of ours.
[…] Seems the state of Illinois is offering an official letter of regret to the State of Utah and the Mormon church for the execution of its founder, Joseph Smith, and the expulsion of its followers. I guess the passage of time and common sense proved to be inadaquate. This article came the day after my buddy Dave met with a pair of Mormon prophets that came to his apartment to convert him. He debated them a bit- they complained he wouldn’t pray with them. It’s a shame he didn’t have this in his arsenal, though I’m sure they would have been proud of the Land of Lincoln for finally burying the hatchet. As much as I’m angry with people who would be willing to travel for two years of their life trying to convert people to a cultish religion, I have to admire their tenacity (their only allowed to call home twice during that time). It’s take a special kind of sheep to worship that intently.
The moral of these stories? Seems it’s real easy to lose sight of the “big picture,” whether you’re banning coffe from the diet, or attempting to add more sugar and saturated fat to it. I imagine that the atmosphere around the SFA headquarters, with everyone doped out on Cheeze-its and Pixie Stix, is similar to that in downtown Salt Lake. They’re both cults, and both completely reliant on propaganda. If I had to choose, though, I’d definitely take the one that’s encouraging me to destroy my body over the one that really wants me to feel guilty for having one. Amen.
Naturally I felt compelled to respond to such a ridiculous attack on Mormonism and anyone of honest faith of any kind. Here is my response:
In this my first post on The Billiken’s Bluff, I would like to thank Nick for diverting us with his insightful and timely analysis of Mormonism (and its compelling parallels with the snack food industry). It was refreshing to read such well-researched and informed reporting because so often these days one is forced to slog through raving drivel that neglects historical context and personal faith and attachment. The kind context that comes, for example, from knowing that Mormons were subjected to extermination orders in Missouri, which led them to go to Illinois, where they were repeatedly attacked by mobs, murdered, and had their property destroyed.
Furthermore, other less talented writers would avoid getting right basic facts like the name of the Mormon fellows that go around proselytizing—missionaries not ‘prophets’—but then again ‘prophets’ is a more controversial word; an easy way to make a uninteresting story interesting. Many would think these ‘prophets’ insane to devote two years of their lives to the service of their honest faith, and assume they are suffering from brainwashing and lack of caffeine in their diet. Clearly Nick understands that rational people can respect the faith of others without resorting to petty name-calling and fear mongering. I admire that commitment to common decency and mutual respect.
Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one; the other is the quite different question — how far Christians, if they are voters or members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not. - C.S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity
The following are comments posted on Cardiff Giant.
No doubt everyone who reads Cardiff regularly is sick of the discussion on the remarks made by President Bush a few weeks ago, namely those referring to all Americans as sinners. Since our august editor posted his remarks on the issue (all eight pages of them) I have grown ever more troubled, not because of the statement’s implications for gay-rights, whatever they might be, but because of the strong feelings I hold on the use of religious ideology in our civil government.
It was not the original intent of the framers to create a Christian nation. The First Amendment makes it clear that the designers of our democracy wished to ensure that no religion of a politician would become that of the state. Many would argue, the Supreme Court included, that a separation between religion and the state can be read in the first amendment, and that such a clause covers more than an official state church. This implies intuitively that no religion or church has preferred status n the eyes of the state. In other words in a “welcoming nation” (the words of the president), all religions are accepted and all religious practices are tolerated to the extent that they do not violate statue.
Neill says that an overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian, in fact he calls the US a “Christian-infested” nation, and this is no doubt true. This reality is employed to justify the declaration that everyone is a sinner, and yes, my problem is that this rhetoric is specifically Christian. Despite what Neill may think all Americans, not just the Christian ones, elected this president and though they may represent the majority of his votes the President does not represent Christians, he represents Americans. In that spirit any president must refrain from using his personal religious ideology to govern the nation; this includes justifying a law on overtly religious grounds.
On a side note: Neill claims that the President will make a legal argument for the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. However, there is no legal basis for any such a law. In fact, because it relates to an institution of religion, such a law is unconstitutional from the get go, as well as representing a form of discrimination against those who do not fit a certain theologically defined norm. There is no legal argument to be made for discrimination against homosexuals or anyone else for that matter*. It is clear that many politicians understand the unconstitutionality of such a policy on religious and discriminatory grounds and have therefore opted to amend the Constitution itself in order to ensure their religious views win prevail.
*In case one thinks of affirmative action as such a basis, one will see that the purpose of affirmative action, however flawed it is in practice, is to end the discrimination of minority groups, not perpetuate it.
