Classical Values :: childish lesson

September 06, 2008

childish lesson

The last post (about religious proselytization) reminded me of a lesson I learned in childhood, which seems timely.

An older Catholic woman in the neighborhood used to threaten non-Catholic children with damnation in no uncertain terms.

"If you aren't a Catholic, you will go to hell!"

Needless to say, this is a frightening thought to a child -- especially a non-Catholic child (which I was). That's because children are taught to believe adults, especially when they talk in an authoritative manner, and if an adult stranger says something like that, the only recourse is to go to a trusted familiar authority, which in this case was my father. When I asked him whether I'd go to hell for not being Catholic, he said that he didn't believe in the Catholic doctrines, but that some people did, and that this was a free country where people were allowed to believe in whatever they wanted. In other countries, they weren't. So I came to see this misguided woman as a lesson in freedom as opposed to a threat to my freedom. It's hard to forget something like that. She was free to threaten me with hell, and I was free to ignore her.

I wish more people could see religious disagreements that way, but they don't. Instead, they get incredibly exercised. This is not to say that I appreciate someone telling me I'll go to hell, but because of the nature of religion in a free country, that is an inevitable byproduct. Millions of people believe passionately that millions of others will go to hell, and if this is played out mathematically, it means that almost everyone is going to hell by someone else's definition. Not something to lose sleep over, and it shouldn't even frighten children.

Take away that freedom to tell people they're going to hell, and you're imposing a religious restriction on them. The other night, I watched the movie Becket, starring Peter O'Toole as King Henry II and Richard Burton as his once-beloved, eventually martyred archbishop. What pushed Henry over the top was Becket's habit of telling people to go to hell -- quite literally in those days, for he was vested with authority to send them there, via a process called excommunication. The power struggle between Henry and Saint Thomas played itself out in different forms many times over the centuries. Should the state run the church? Or should the church run the state? Many people died in that unending power struggle, which was historically much fresher in the minds of the founders of this country than it is in people's minds today. The founders did the best they could to keep both entities at arm's length, so that the state could not run the church and the church (or churches) could not run the state.

As the founders knew, Henry VIII had not ended the debate by taking over the church, executing religious leaders, sacking monasteries, and desecrating the shrine and relics of Saint Thomas. The battle between church and state continued (with England committing regicide in the process), and it was very much alive at the time of America's founding.

I think this very old debate between church and state is still very much alive, and is currently manifesting itself as a debate between religious zealots and atheist zealots. The former militate against separation of church and state, while the latter want the state to encroach on the right to free exercise of religion by prohibiting the acknowledgement of God by public officials or even individuals in schools. (In practice, the former seem to want to make people pray, while the latter want to prevent people from praying.)

Perhaps it was good for me to be told I was going to hell, because it deepened my understanding of why it's better for people to be told they're going to hell than for the government to make it a "hate crime" to tell them they're going to hell.

Religion should not have the power to control government. Nor should government have the power to control religion.

So simple a child could understand it, until you try putting it in practice.

posted by Eric on 09.06.08 at 12:59 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7196

Comments

Personally, I think damnation theology does more to drive people away from the church than draw them to it. It obviously didn't turn you into holy rolling, foot-washing fundamentalist. heehee. My father is a non-believer despite being raised by Primitive Baptists. When he speaks about his childhood and the subject of church is touched upon, he always recounts all the Flame and Pitchfork imagery with which he was inundated.
Its also lazy theology based on a BS caricature from the old Latin Vulgate. If love could be forced, it would instantly cease to be love.

Best,
Chuck

ccoffer · September 6, 2008 02:57 PM

As an atheist, a public school teacher, a libertarian Republican, and a sometime blogger on this site I just thought I'd chime in with a different perspective.

Most of my friends and family are Catholic, and many others who are not are Episcopalian or Protestant. We've always gotten along fine, no one proselytizes to anyone else, and we all seem to respect each other, although once in a while someone expresses disbelief that I don't believe in god. I never return the shock (or occasional disappointment) that they actually believe in the paranormal.

And yet I really have a lot of admiration for the public atheists, who I think are doing for the modern world what Lucretius attempted to do for the Romans more than 2000 years ago. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting people to think critically about their own beliefs and prejudices on superstition anymore than I do on culture or politics.

But then again, I don't like to engage in it myself. It's not a fun way to live life, especially when you're not a public intellectual. I don't talk about politics with most people, and I certainly don't bring it to school with me.

None of my students knows that I'm an atheist, nor do they know who I intend to vote for. And I don't care to know whether they really believe themselves to be devouring Christ in the form of a cracker on a weekly basis, or whether they believe in socialized medicine.

It's my job to teach my subject, and a corollary to that is that I help students to think critically and to pursue knowledge.

I believe that if they do that, they'll tend to be more secular, more moderate, and probably more sociable.

But if I or anyone else wasted any of our time in the schools trading rhetoric or battling over the place of our respective ideologies, we'd end forcing kids to pick sides and become more entrenched and possibly radicalized in the received opinions of their elders.

I don't think the argument to keep churches out of schools is at all comparable to the inclusion of prayer. One view wants to remove ideology and stay focused on the business of schooling, while the other wants to extend the battleground of the culture war.

Dennis · September 6, 2008 06:10 PM

A major difference between religious evangelist and atheistic ones is the former tell me I'm going to Hell and then leave me alone.

Fine. If Heaven and Hell exist, I don't believe these people are the gatekeepers. Therefore, their assessment of my destination is meaningless.

Evangelical atheists, on the other hand, will tell me that I'm stupid for believing, that there's something wrong with my thought processes, and they will ridicule and belittle me for not believing as they do.

And make no mistake, it's all about belief for the hard core atheists. Just as the existence of God cannot be proven (or so I believe) neither can the nonexistence be proven. Concluding that you believe one or the other is a personal choice, but it's still a choice based on belief. In that regard I consider the evangelical atheists the more obnoxious.

Chuck, your final line recaps the entire thrust of A Clockwork Orange. That's why I think that if there is a God, it's a hand's off one. Coercion denies faith.

Steve Skubinna · September 7, 2008 04:07 AM

Interesting post.

Steve Skubinna said:
"A major difference between religious evangelist and atheistic ones is the former tell me I'm going to Hell and then leave me alone."

As a former evangelistic atheist (still an atheist, though), I'm not sure that's exactly true. Perhaps your experience varies.

Were you engaged in a formal or semi-formal debate with them? If so, perhaps you mistook their tenacity in pursuing the argument for not leaving you alone. You can't just back out of a debate once started. An atheist who would continue to pursue the issue in casual conversation, though, is a loon.

Also, evangelistic atheists tend to be leftists (Objectivist-types being a minority of atheists.), which might make them especially irritating. As liberal gays will shun right-leaning gays, so do liberal atheists shun right-leaning atheists.

Another reason they can be irritating is that many paint Christianity as the worst thing imaginable. There are far worse things to worry about than Christianity, like Islam, and politicians.

Second Opinion · September 7, 2008 11:53 AM

Being excommunicated doesn't send you to Hell. It just kicks you out of the communion line (with a few other penalties).

Now, dying unrepentant while excommunicated -- that's possibly a trip to Hell. But only possibly.

Another little known fact: being refused Communion isn't the same as being excommunicated, and being excommunicated doesn't make you no longer Catholic.

Maureen · September 7, 2008 10:14 PM

Being excommunicated doesn't send you to Hell. It just kicks you out of the communion line (with a few other penalties). It's not supposed to be a punishment; it's supposed to be a timeout to make you rethink what you're doing.

Now, dying unrepentant while excommunicated -- that's possibly a trip to Hell. But only possibly.

Another little known fact: being refused Communion isn't the same as being excommunicated, and being excommunicated doesn't make you no longer Catholic.

Maureen · September 7, 2008 10:16 PM