I have to say that I admire M. Simon's patience in writing this post, which was occasioned by a link I sent him discussing the following question:
Are you a Christian first and an American second?
Or an American first and a Christian second?
While Jesus's "render unto Caesar" remark comes to mind, if I tried interpreting it I'm sure someone would disagree. I've long since learned that debates over religion are even less fruitful than debates over politics -- for the main reason that religion revolves around things that are either unknown or unknowable (whether there are deities, and if so, which one or ones might be the true one or ones and who had the right to speak on their behalf) while politics at least theoretically revolves around the known or knowable. Of course, things like environmentalism and Global Warming tend to blur this distinction, perhaps intentionally, but in general, if you are debating parties or candidates, there's not much debate over whether they exist. Debates involve what known policies or which known person is right. Where it comes to God, there isn't even a threshold agreement that infinity contains something in the spiritual sense, much less what form that might take. In this respect, atheism is just as much an opinion of the unknown as any other opinion of the unknown. I'm not advocating atheism or nihilism here; only opining that views of the unknown have to be accepted on faith. Skepticism too is a view of the unknown, so I tend to regard my natural skepticism with just as much skepticism as I regard my natural inclination to believe that infinity does contain something in the spiritual sense.
But debating this? What sense is there in debating opinions on the unknowable? I'm just glad that we have the freedom to hold these opinions -- that the thing we call "freedom of religion" is within the rubric of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
As to the idea of being "a Christian first, and an American second," that strikes me as bordering on identity politics, and makes about as much sense as being "black first, American second." Plenty of people think that way, and many more believe in memes like "the environment first, America second." So why not "atheist first, American second"? I'm sure there are some atheists who think of themselves that way, and while self-defining identitarianism is certainly part of the American birthright, it seems awfully tedious. And how far do we go with having our interests relegate that American birthright to secondary importance? Scientist first, American second? Gay first, American second? Pro-choice first, American second? Pro-life first, American second? Conservative first, American second?
Easy for me to be so dismissive. But the truth is, saying "libertarian Pagan Christian pantheist blogger first, American second" is just too much of a mouthful.
posted by Eric on 11.16.09 at 06:07 PM
Comments
I'm a libertarian first and an American second.
But since IMO the two identities are congruent I see no conflict.
I'm one of those who would consider himself Christian first, American second. However, that doesn't mean my loyalties lie with other Christians over America--it lies with Jesus instead. And, as Eric mentioned, since one of the foundational principles of the USA is religious freedom, I have not yet encountered a situation where those two aspects have come into any serious conflict. Sure, I would prefer our laws to reflect the inherent humanity of a fetus, but since nobody is forcing me to pay for someone else's abortion (yet), there is not a direct conflict (or should I say, a directive conflict). In other words, the current legality of abortion, although certainly distasteful, does not directly interfere with the practice of my religion. However, if the state demanded I actually participate in abortions by paying for them through my taxes, my refusal to comply would be rooted in my religious beliefs.
John S. · November 16, 2009 8:52 PM
What John S. said. Most of us Bible thumpers connect "render to Caesar" with "we must obey God rather than men." In other words, we consider ourselves Christians first and Americans second, but in this wonderful country we rarely have to exercise civil disobedience.
So far I refer only to most conservative evangelical types. Other Christians who believe that pacifism/ peacemaking/ war protesting lies at the heart of the faith have a harder time rendering to Caesar. My heart goes out to them.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I'm a libertarian first and an American second.
But since IMO the two identities are congruent I see no conflict.
And thanks for the link!