Classical Values :: If you're wrong, then so is God?

If you're wrong, then so is God?

The Rev. Paul F. Morrissey is a prison chaplain who believes in a religious solution to the war in Iraq. This solution should take the form of a national confession, followed by penance:

Like so many people around the world, I want the killing of our own soldiers and the crucifixion of Iraq to stop. If we actually discuss the following points before dismissing them, perhaps we will see that they might be the best, and perhaps the only, chance to help us leave that country with honor.

America, which is so great a country and which we all love, must do something we've seen no other country do in our lifetime. We need to confess. And we need to do this because we are great. No political party can or should claim victory or shame the other if we dare to do this.

Our people are great, and a majority of us believe in God, so we can rise to this action with God's help.

Well, even if a majority believes in God, I'm not sure that all Godly Americans will be convinced that trying to replace a bloodthirsty tyrant with democray constitutes crucifixion for which they must confess and atone.

Nonetheless, he is confident enough to make some predictions:

In the new year, America will do the following:

Beg forgiveness of the people of Iraq and the world for making a terrible mistake in invading Iraq. We can symbolize this by a national day of prayer and fasting.

Promise on a Bible and a Koran that we will not remain in Iraq.

Promise to invest the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild Iraq over the next decade, and place this funding under United Nations (or third-party) management.

Begin withdrawing our soldiers to show our resolve.

Initiate educational forums across the country and in every school, college and university about Islam, and invite Muslim countries to do the same about America and Christianity.

I think the constant use of the communitarian second person plural reveals that Rev. Morrissey imagines that "America" is a monolithic entity in which decisions about things like national atonement, educational forums, and swearing on the Koran can be dictated from above. The problem with his argument is that this is a democracy with protected free speech, not a theocracy in which opinions are handed down as holy writ. His opinions count no more than anyone else's opinions, and references to God or religious text don't imbue them with special magic or make them "count" any more than anyone else's opinions.

What concerns me is the unstated assumption that because this man is a priest and he's invoking God in a political debate, this means his political opinions are religious in nature and therefore carry more weight than they would if he were an lay person. While religious opinions are protected under the First Amendment, they are no more protected than non-religious opinions, and no religious claim imbues them with greater logical merit than they'd otherwise have. But I'm repeating myself. Repeatedly:

....at the risk of repeating myself, I don't think anyone's religious views breathe special status into the opinions held by that person, or his actions.

Otherwise Muslim anti-Semitism would be more protected than "ordinary" anti-Semitism.

Injecting God and religion into political opinions is fully protected free speech. But there's a natural human urge to win debates, and a natural temptation to cut corners. Polite people have a tendency never to argue religion (I was told to avoid talking about religion and politics), so the injection of religion into politics can cause people to misinterpret silence as agreement. I just wish disagreement with those who invoke God wasn't so often interpreted as disagreement with God.

Far be it from me to disagree with God, but if the rules of the debate require it, I have no other choice.

I mean, if I can't claim God agrees with me, and I won't claim God does not exist, then what are my options?

MORE: Does God hate Global Warming?

Religious groups, such as the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches, have joined with scientists to call for action on climate change under the National Religious Partnership for the Environment. "Global warming is a universal moral challenge," the partnership's statement says.

This opens up a lot of new turf. God hates driving! And cows!

Any way to end the debate.

Comments

The problem with injecting religion into political discussions is that it inserts some unknown number of implicit propositions, the content of which must be deduced before they can be examined. Further, once the propositions are discovered, they are still likely to be axiomatic to the person's worldview, and thus unassailable without, as you say, either for the sake of argument denying God or disagreeing with Him.

There is a third alternative, however, which also amounts to chasing the wind: arguing theological interpretation. What usually ends up happening is that you realize you're playing the game with different rules, and agree to call a draw.

As a Christian, I try to be conscious of it when I make an argument underpinned by faith. Most people don't try to be self-aware, though, and so they end up staking out absurdity and calling it the high ground.

Socrates · December 15, 2006 01:29 PM

This guy's opinions remind me of the old adage: If you aren't smart enough to get into college, join the Priesthood.

Mrs. du Toit · December 17, 2006 01:34 PM