1

Dear Fred:

What nonsense! No wonder you Christians are so confused. It’s the same old song of faith; believe in the religious dogma without doubt, without reason, without using an intellectual process. Anyone who lives their life following an ancient Christian dogma that has been scientifically proven to be pure nonsense is a moron. The catholic church didn’t change their position on whether the sun revolved around the earth until 1847; can you imagine the other nonsense that is part of the current line that will be corrected sometime in the near future, the christian concept of prohibiting scientific research on stem cell, comes to mind.

Speaking of morons, George W. Bush claimed that he was following his faith in god and listening for direction from some higher power when he decided to invade Iraq. Do the math, $1Trillion later, 3640 American soldiers, 1300 over paid contractors have lost their lives. The US military have killed more than 200,000 Iraqis, more than 2 million have become refugees, and hundreds of Iraqi citizens die every month. The gravely wounded soldiers and contactors on the US side total over 35,000; on the Iraqi side the numbers are huge and continue daily.

Get in touch with an atheist group and open up your mind; let go of the superstitions that have ruled your life for as long as you’ve on the planet. Everything is known and better understood by seeking information on the contrary.

Jesus

2

Dear Fred:

What nonsense! No wonder you Christians are so confused. It’s the same old song of faith; believe in the religious dogma without doubt, without reason, without using an intellectual process. Anyone who lives their life following an ancient Christian dogma that has been scientifically proven to be pure nonsense is a moron. The catholic church didn’t change their position on whether the sun revolved around the earth until 1847; can you imagine the other nonsense that is part of the current line that will be corrected sometime in the near future, the christian concept of prohibiting scientific research on stem cell, comes to mind.

Speaking of morons, George W. Bush claimed that he was following his faith in god and listening for direction from some higher power when he decided to invade Iraq. Do the math, $1Trillion later, 3640 American soldiers, 1300 over paid contractors have lost their lives. The US military have killed more than 200,000 Iraqis, more than 2 million have become refugees, and hundreds of Iraqi citizens die every month. The gravely wounded soldiers and contactors on the US side total over 35,000; on the Iraqi side the numbers are huge and continue daily.

Get in touch with an atheist group and open up your mind; let go of the superstitions that have ruled your life for as long as you’ve on the planet. Everything is known and better understood by seeking information on the contrary.

Jesus

3

Dear Fred:

What nonsense! No wonder you Christians are so confused. It’s the same old song of faith; believe in the religious dogma without doubt, without reason, without using an intellectual process. Anyone who lives their life following an ancient Christian dogma that has been scientifically proven to be pure nonsense is a moron. The catholic church didn’t change their position on whether the sun revolved around the earth until 1847; can you imagine the other nonsense that is part of the current line that will be corrected sometime in the near future, the christian concept of prohibiting scientific research on stem cell, comes to mind.

Speaking of morons, George W. Bush claimed that he was following his faith in god and listening for direction from some higher power when he decided to invade Iraq. Do the math, $1Trillion later, 3640 American soldiers, 1300 over paid contractors have lost their lives. The US military have killed more than 200,000 Iraqis, more than 2 million have become refugees, and hundreds of Iraqi citizens die every month. The gravely wounded soldiers and contactors on the US side total over 35,000; on the Iraqi side the numbers are huge and continue daily.

Get in touch with an atheist group and open up your mind; let go of the superstitions that have ruled your life for as long as you’ve on the planet. Everything is known and better understood by seeking information on the contrary.

Jesus

4

Who's Fred?

5

”Who's Fred?”

And what makes Jesus [sic] believe Fred will read the second two comments if he doesn’t read the first?

6

With a tip of the hat to Geico my response is WHAT?

7

Thousands of years of hospitals, the rising tide of civil and political rights, the development of modern science, the creation of the university system, most of the foundations of Western art and literature: all of this would have to be credited to Christianity.

Actually, almost none of this is due to Christianity. Most of it is due to people who happened to do some worthwhile stuff while also practicing Christianity (usually because they'd be killed if they practiced anything else), and much of it is in direct reaction to, or active dissent against, Christianity.

Hospitals: created as aid-stations for Crusaders to patch their wounds after killing Muslims in the name of their common God

Civil rights: largely an attempt to undo oppression imposed or justified by Christianity (in the US largely by black Christians trying to get white Christians off their backs, with the help of white Jews and Communists).

Modern science: the product of freethinkers working within Christianity to evade its more obvious stupidities; some were fervent believers who wasted much of their lives between moments of insight, some were clear dissenters (cf. Isaac Newton, whose alchemy was explicitly an attempt to reconcile Christianity with science, and failed miserably and completely, but whose actual science includes no religious elements whatsoever and remains vital today; cf. also Laplace on God: "I have no need of that hypothesis"; cf. also Galileo, Bruno, Bacon . . .)

Universities: Developed as finishing schools for the upper classes, with mandatory religion as in all other aspects of society; hotbeds of religious discrimination through much of the 20th century; evolved into centers of real learning in inverse proportion to their retained degree of religious orthodoxy; now maintain a coincidental relationship only between religious founding and actual scholarship, with the exception of strongly sectarian campuses largely regarded with derision

Religious Art & Literature: to some degree, yes - mostly resulting from Medieval Catholicism's monopoly on funding and compulsory work rules; diminishingly true as art evolved and flourished; now largely vestigial (I liked "Godspell", though)

In short, the history of Western intellectualism and civil progressivism has been largely an evolution out from under the constraints - both psychological and overt - imposed by Christianity, and a cumulative rejection of its misdirections and distortions in the course of, and by way of, its increase of knowledge and liberty.

8

How much due are Christians willing to give to the pagan world which they inherited? Christian thought and philosophy is largely built upon Greek philosophy, as well as science. Art and architecture reached its high point the classical world of Greece and Rome. The Renaissance was a revival of classical art and science sparked by the rediscovery of Greek texts via Muslims.

European technology that peaked in the Roman era regressed after Christianity became the dominant faith, and took over 1000 years even to reach parity with what the Romans had. The formula for cement wasn't reinvented until the 19th century!

9

Robert & Keith,

I'm sorry. So sorry. Please accept my apology.

I'm sorry that monestaries perserved advanced learning while the Dark Ages consumed the rest of society.

I'm sorry that the Scholastics advanced analytical thinking.

I'm sorry that Christians have been no more inconsistent than the rest of the world. Human failings, it's our fault.

I'm sorry for the deadly results of the post-Enlightenment philosophers. Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Kant -- they're all our fault. Remember, Eric Rudolph preferred Nietzsche to the Bible. I guess that makes him a Christian.

(And with one additional apology to Red Green ...)
But I can change.
If I have to.
I guess.

Collin

10

Is sarcastic whining the new apologetic for evangelicals? Somebody call the waaambulance.

11

Actually ex-preacher sarcasm is the only way to deal with the a-historical "secularization thesis" one sees in posts like 7.

The brave cabal of secularists fighting the "armies of the night" reads like the late Isaac Asimov at his worst . . .

Assuming it was not a parody (and it is hard to tell), would you like to defend it?

12

I don't defend other people's posts. The fact that some people don't appreciate the contributions that Christians have made is not my problem. Likewise, many Christians don't appreciate the extent to which they are beneficiaries (or, as you might put it, "parasites") of the work of Greek philosophers and scientists, Zoroastrian theologians, pagans, atheists, Muslims and other assorted non-Christians.

Just stop whining, okay. It's unbecoming.

13

XP,

The secular revisionism has been going on a lot longer than the David Barton crowd has been around. To counter it with parody and sarcasm is not out of line in apologetics.

Personally, I would like to get rid of the quasi-Platonism that permeates our theology. We've both benefited from it and suffered for it.

Collin

14

Colin

I'm not questioning the contributions made by Christians, I'm just trying to see if you're willing to give credit to the contributions made to our civilization by non-Christians. So often all we hear from Christians is that Christianity is responsible for every positive aspect of our world.

Its one thing to say that Christians were responsible for many of the positive contributions of western civilization, and another to say that it is Christianity that is responsible. I question that many of the advancements that we recognize today are direct outgrowths of Christian theology. Just as Christian apologists lessen the influence of Christianity on the terrible death toll in the wake of the 30 years war, citing the political and secular motivations of the various rulers, there are surely secular and political motivations at play in the advancements in science, commerce and politics. You have to be consistent. If Christianity gets all the credit for the beneficial works of Christian man, then it should get all of the blame for the detrimental works as well.

15

The idea that Christians will not give credit to Greek and Roman thinkers for the good they have done us is rot. Has anyone read the Pope Benedict speech (that contained the "inflammatory" quote on Islam)?

He points out the important connections between Christianity and "Greece."

Most Christians are thankful for the heritage of Greece and Rome and non-Christians. Interested parties can look at the reading list of the Torrey Honors Institute where I work. Biola University is one of the most conservative accredited schools in America.

There is a thriving "classical" home school movement in the US.

I just finished a manuscript for IVP (Athens and Jerusalem) celebrating the positive aspects of Greek and Roman culture.

Nor is this a new thing . . . as the curriculum of Oxford and Cambridge (when they were mostly Christian) would demonstrate.

16

John Mark

Then how do you square what you just wrote with this quote from your satire?

Non-academics think that if a Christian does a good thing because of the teachings of Jesus, that Christianity should get credit for it. Think of the result!

Thousands of years of hospitals, the rising tide of civil and political rights, the development of modern science, the creation of the university system, most of the foundations of Western art and literature: all of this would have to be credited to Christianity.

Most of the development of Western art? I'd say that's a stretch. The high point of Christian European art was a revival of classical art.

And you will have to explain to me how the development of modern science traces back to the teachings of Jesus. It is one thing to credit Christians for what they did, its another to credit Christianity.

The idea that Christians will not give credit to Greek and Roman thinkers for the good they have done us is rot.

The idea is a direct conclusion from your satirical piece.

17

"Most Christians are thankful for the heritage of Greece and Rome and non-Christians."

I don't doubt that for a moment. I am very grateful for the contributions to society of Western Europe and the United States as well. I rather doubt, however, that Christians credit the Greek and Roman religions for the heritage they are grateful for. Therefore, I feel justified in giving only partial credit to the several versions of Christianity that provided a backdrop for advances in the western world.

Christianity has, of course, been a positve influence in many ways. Many precepts provided (but not exclusively) by the Bible are clearly expresions of great wisdom and timeless in their humanistic appeal. Additionally, there is no doubt that Christianity was a unifying force that helped Europe rise in power, prosperity, and influence in the years following the decline of the Roman Empire. Perhaps it prevented as many wars as it caused, maybe more. I think we can give Christianity a share for the credit for that we approve of in today's world without implying that it could not have happened without it or that some special treatment is due Christianity or Christians.

The problem I have with those who are too extravagant in their assessment of society's debt to Christianity is that they seem to be the same folks who argue against strict separation of church and state.

18

Pardon my limited time . . .

Let me take on one issue: why Christianity helped modern science develop (not just because most people were Christians). The Greeks had many good ideas, some of which should have led to the development of what we would recognize as science.

Secularism in that period tended (outside of Aristotle) to consist of gentlemen who sniffed at anyone who would dirty their hands dissecting worms.

It was not going to produce science. It needed some Christian ideas to "get over the hump."
Pagans tended either to denigrate nature or worship it.

Both Judaism and Christianity believed nature was good (hence worthy of study) while the Incarnation made it very worthy of study. As many philosophers of science recognize (I am saying nothing novel here), Christianity (and reflection on the nature of God) led to ideas like the Razor.

Judaism and Islam did contribute as well, but Judaism was small and Islam lacked a space between divine action and nature available to Christians.

Of course many good ideas did come from Islam in particular, but Aquinas and others were willing to build on them.

Roger Bacon, Grosseteste, and many others were directly motivated by religion to produce the basic ideas that led to the scientific revolution.

There is some good information on the general Middle Age's point of view in C.S. Lewis work Discarded Image.

The view (put about oddly in an Anti-Catholic Protestant polemic) that there was some sort of "long war" against science by religion is balderdash.

Check out A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Fourth Edition by John Losee for a nice neutral summary of the situation. From a Christian point of view you can read "The Soul of Science" or J.P. Moreland's seminal Christianity and the Nature of Science.

As to the last:

I am very, very thankful to Greek religion for:

a. Homer (sublime and many happy days with the text)
b. art (not just the Parthenon, but a great place to start)

That is just to name two things.

There would be not much left of what we call Western civilization without Christianity . . . no Oxford or Cambridge just to begin in the English speaking world.

Secularists can CLAIM that it all would have been the same or better without Christianity, but they cannot prove it (at least easily). We do know that it is hard to cite one dedicated to secularism society where anyone would want to live or which has more than a sixty year track record to recommend it.

Sweden is the best candidate I know of . . . but Sweden is demographically dying, lacks social confidence, and is more likely to be Islamic in the future than secular.

19

I think your problem, John Mark, is cherry-picking. Of course you can find "secularists" who don't appreciate Christianity's contributions and Christians who do appreciate the contributions of non-Christian societies and thinkers. One of the problems with your essay is that it deals in such vague generalities. If you would like to give some specific examples, that could give us something to talk about. Also you might try giving a specific positive proposal instead of dealing in absurd strawman parodies.

20

In response to post #18.
One of the big frustrations with history is that we can't do controlled experimentation. It is utterly impossible to predict how Western Civilization would have proceeded without Christianity. It is equally impossible to know if Christianity would have existed and in what form without the influence of Greek philosophy and other non-Christian sources.

What we can know is whether the Bible preserves any teaching of Jesus or Paul that clearly and specifically encourages Christians to engage in the study of science, art, medicine, astronomy, music, drama, history, philosophy, or even literacy and whether it promotes such concepts as democracy, the abolition of slavery, equal rights for women, the free enterprise system and the exploration of space (to give just a few examples).

Christians love to deal in the vague generalities of love, but they must admit it odd that Jesus and Paul never promoted any of the specific ideas. To say that Jesus taught us to be nice to each other proves nothing and everything. Many other great teachers before Jesus taught the Golden Rule also. It can easily be argued that all of those advances occurred in spite of Christianity, not becasue of it. Unfortunately, we can never know for sure.

21

"Secularism in that period tended (outside of Aristotle) to consist of gentlemen who sniffed at anyone who would dirty their hands dissecting worms.

It was not going to produce science."

A generalization like this needs some support.

"Secularists can CLAIM that it all would have been the same or better without Christianity, but they cannot prove it (at least easily)."

Nor can you prove the reverse.

"We do know that it is hard to cite one dedicated to secularism society where anyone would want to live or which has more than a sixty year track record to recommend it."

That, of course, does not mean it couldn't happen, or won't. One thousand years ago one would be hard-pressed to find a society that was not dedicated to warfare and/or slavery, including supposedly Christian societies.

"Sweden is the best candidate I know of . . . but Sweden is demographically dying, lacks social confidence, and is more likely to be Islamic in the future than secular."

Sweden is not demographically dying; the population is growing:

http://www.scb.se/templates/pressinfo____95792.asp

In a nation of 9.8 million, 300,000 are Muslim. That is less than one-thirtieth of the population. A bit early to ring the alarm bells, don't you think?

22

Ex-preacher I can only say that I have pointed to books for further reading . . .and tried to make specific claims given the limits of a comment box.

We do know that Christian societies did well (in modern terms) and other historic societies (included secular ones) did not come up with good things like science.

You have to explain this "coincidence." Too often secularists try to explain away the fact that these almost always occurred in dominantly Christian populations. Why explain it away?

Let me give you an example:

I am no big fan of Darwinism, but Darwin was a great man and thinker.

There aren't too many societies historically other than Christian Britain (which was overwhelmingly pious and religious) that would have let the great man sit in peace in his country estate writing.

Other than cartoons and speeches, he was able to go on doing things grossly offensive to many millions of Britains, because they were Christian and Christians had thought their way (through centuries of development and progress with many set backs on the way) to the notion that "love your neighbor" meant something.

It is easy enough for secularists to take ideas like "love your neighbor" for granted NOW, but they were revolutionary at the time. Don't believe me? Look at the reaction to Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman.

You are like the man who looks at an ancient culture and sniffs, "Sure they invented the wheel, but where are their cars?"

Ethically, Christianity invented the wheel for the West.

"All" Christianity did was stick the idea that all men and women are one before God, lex rex, love your enemy, the Golden Rule, and the need for literacy (God wrote a book) at the center of a culture.

I am quite thankful that Jesus and Paul did not try to solve all the problems of their age (or ours), but instead dealt in "generalities." These basic principles allowed for freedom and innovation along lines that promised no one specific outcome, but many outcomes that would have the same basic positive results.

What do I mean? By the Jewish and Christian emphasis on lex rex, we can have a world with the British and American constitutional solutions. "Rights" can be treated differently in different parts of Christendom . . . in a manner appropriate to different cultures. (Do we really want a p.c. world where every single thing we both think is good becomes a right that everyone must get the same way?)

It is easy to take the dignity of all humankind for granted, but the secularists before Christianity sure did not think of it (see Lucretius or Marcus Aurelius). I find it more than amazing that secularists after the coming of the Christ and centuries of Christian teaching suddenly can take the obvious nature of "human rights" for granted.

Even the great pagans owe their survival to the general tolerance of Christianity. Sure we did bad things along the way (some remarkably bad), but they were bad from our point of view. We kept Plato (who did not agree with us), because our faith (pretty uniquely) told us we should.

Christians maintained a university tradition (reading pagans) in places like Byzantium for centuries even when they were "on the ropes."

Why?

The Bible and the Faith taught them to value (their words) external and internal wisdom. People should read a basic book on the Byzantines and to see a culture that always valued art, pagan culture, and thought BECAUSE they were Christians. They were innovating right to the end, going through a cultural renaissance right up to 1453.

(I had to laugh at an earlier poster, not you ex-preacher, who talked about the secular roots of Western arts . . . as if the 14/15 century in Florence and Italy did not have Byzantine roots. They got their "new" non-Christians from Christian sources who gladly shared knowledge they had never lost! Such people have never read Pico if they think that even the Platonism of the period had not been Christianized!)

In my life, I have been in your position. It got to be hard to explain away why everything I valued had Christian roots without become a "secular fundamentalist." You know the type: they cannot see anything good about Christianity or Christian history.

They still buy the "secularization thesis" or the "warfare model" of religion and science relations.

But even the specifics of Christian theology were of importance . . .

The Incarnation was a specific idea new to the ancient world that had good results. God really became man (not just in the Greek sense of "putting on" but in the deepest sense)and this helped spur interest in the material world. The basic foundations of science were laid in the Middle Ages as Christians at last had the leisure to think on the implications of their theology in the West.

It is good to be a Christian.

Finally, ex-preacher, are you an ex-fundamentalist Protestant? I ask because your view of the "sources" for Christianity are a bit limited.

You write as if Christianity (and the Christian message) consisted only of what the Bible directly says. I don't know any Evangelicals who would say that . . .do you?

The Bible is not very clear on abortion, but out of its "general principles" books like the Didache were able to recognize the human rights involved and make a "culture of life" a universal Christian value.

The Bible does not condemn slavery in a revolutionary sense, but as you have been shown time and again writers like Augustine, Chrysostom, and others rapidly showed the problem with any Christian owning another person and began the process of ending an institution that secularists never saw as wrong . . . until we got ex-Christian secularists!

The Bible is a book that should be read. I don't how it could encourage literacy more directly. (Please, please don't any body repeat the canard about illiteracy in the Middle Ages until you have read "The Stripping of the Altars.")

The Bible is (in my view) the fount of Christian theology (I am not a Roman Catholic), but obviously (see the Evangelical J.P. Moreland who agrees) all of Christian theology (which flows from it) is not in it directly. The same thing is true of Christian culture and civilization.

(There is nothing odd about this: Platonism flows from Plato's works, but it is not all directly stated in Plato. Marxism flows from Marx's works, but not all is directly stated in Marx.)

There is a mere Christian culture/theology/art/literature that came out of the first century that all believers can recognize. This is also part of the Christian patrimony and not "just" the Bible.

23

Rob Ryan asks me to demonstrate Greek hostility to scientific research (!). . . as compared to Aristotle.

I say:

This is not a controversial claim and it is the mark of Aristotle's greatness that he (with a few others)defied Greek disdain for the physical and did some dissection.

However, let me quote Aristotle directly (and famously) in his On the Parts of Animals:

"If any person thinks the examination of the rest of the animal kingdom an unworthy task, he must hold in like disesteem the study of man. For no one can look at the primordia of the human frame-blood, flesh, bones, vessels, and the like-without much repugnance. Moreover, when any one of the parts or structures, be it which it may, is under discussion, it must not be supposed that it is its material composition to which attention is being directed or which is the object of the discussion, but the relation of such part to the total form. Similarly, the true object of architecture is not bricks, mortar, or timber, but the house; and so the principal object of natural philosophy is not the material elements, but their composition, and the totality of the form, independently of which they have no existence."

To make sense, Aristotle must be addressing someone . . . and those someones were certainly NOT Christian!

Rob Ryan says:

Nor can you prove the reverse.

(I interject)
This is in the context of secularism NOT having produced any great cultures.)

Back to Rob:

That, of course, does not mean it couldn't happen, or won't. One thousand years ago one would be hard-pressed to find a society that was not dedicated to warfare and/or slavery, including supposedly Christian societies.

I say:

And that is the point, Rob. Christian cultures made progress over that one thousand years. They did so with essentially no input from secularists. Islam, yes. Secularism, no.

It is not an equal argument between Christianity and secularism in terms of importance to the West. Secularists argue secularism COULD have produced the glories of the West without Christianity.

I point out that it did not . . . Greece and Rome existed for almost five hundred years of great cultural advancement without a drop of Christianity infecting them.

Great stuff they produced . . . but no progress on human rights (and no secularists or atheist asking for them!), no wide spread diminution of slavery, no rise in the rights of women, no rise in constitutional government.

Christianity comes along and (compared to the cultures that came before) as if by "magic" we have (in almost every case):

1. a long term rise in human rights
2. a long term decrease in slavery
3. a rise in literacy
4. creation of social service networks (nearly universal) for people.

None of this happened quickly. All of it DID happen.

I love the Greeks (they are the area of my research), but they had their innings and came up short culturally on these fronts.

So I am just defending that what DID happen, happened as a result of the causes that appear to be there (a major one, though not the only one: Christianity). A secularist is arguing about an imaginary world where what DID happen COULD have happened some new way.

Of course, it never did.

That is a tough thing for a secularist.

Rob Ryan says:

Sweden is not demographically dying; the population is growing:

http://www.scb.se/templates/pressinfo____95792.asp

In a nation of 9.8 million, 300,000 are Muslim. That is less than one-thirtieth of the population. A bit early to ring the alarm bells, don't you think?

I say:

Many places are growing now as the aging population keeps things looking good but . . .

The future is not promising . . .

Not with a fertility rate in Sweden of 1.75 (2004 Eurostat, replacement rate 2.1) and increasing refugee populations from Islamic religions with much higher birth rates.

Not with more and more educated Swedes leaving the country.

Try a google search problems in Sweden's cities (try Malmo) and the Islamic population there.

24

I agree that, thankfully, Christianity consists of far, far more than what is contained in the Bible. I don't think you see me broadly condemning Christianity (as you seem to do with "secularists," which I put in quotes because I don't know exactly who you are talking about when you use that word) or Christians.

I would strongly disagree with the notion that everything in Christianity flows directly or even indirectly out of the Bible. Indeed, the concept is self-defeating since so many of the 30,000 modern Christian denominations disagree in fundamental ways over what true Christianity is. You seem to want to pick out the things that you like and say, "Aha, these are the fruits of Christianity," while the bad things are aberrations that have nothing to do with Christianity. Thus, the cultural contributions of the Byzantines are seen as logical outgrowths of Christianity, but the sacking of Constantinople by Crusaders is not.

To suggest that Jesus originated the Golden Rule or that Christians were the first to teach the dignity of all humans is simply incorrect. See, for instance:

Confucianism: "One word sums up the basis of all good conduct: loving kindness. Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself." Confucius, Analects 15:23.

Hinduism: "This is the sum of the Dharma (duty): do naught to others which would cause pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517.

Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." Lao T'zu, T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.

Zoroastrianism: "Do not to others whatever is injurious to yourself." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29.

Buddhism: "...Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." The Buddha, Udana-Varga, 5.18.
When a good man is hurt, all who would be called good must suffer with him.
Euripides

All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.
Aristotle

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.
Aristotle

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Aristotle, Politics

To assume that the values and cultural wealth of Western Civilization (democracy, liberty, philosophy, art, etc) sprang naturally from Christianity is amazingly arrogant. To disprove this idea, all we have to do is look at the fate of Christian societies that were not also full heirs to the Greek and Roman legacy. Look to the Christian sects of North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iran, India and much of Eastern Europe. To explain the disparities in progress between various "Christian" nations, you must argue that God favored Western Christianity over Eastern Christianity and Protestantism over Catholicism. As I said before, it is impossible to disentangle Christianity from Greek and Roman and other influences.

You also seem to believe that post-Renaissance Christianity was somehow more true to its roots than Christianity in Late Antiquity and the Early MIddle Ages. Who is to say that the treatment of Darwin was more authentically "Christian" than the Inquisition or Aquinas' belief that all non-believers should be executed. Who is to say that Billy Graham's tolerance of Jews is more Christian than Martin Luther's intolerance? Perhaps you believe that Christianity has evolved? On this, we might agree.

You come across as dismissive of the philosophic, ethical, scientific, technological and cultural contributions of non-Christian and non-Western civilizations. I will assume that you do not do this malevolently, but simply out of your ignorance of those contributions. I agree that Western culture has dominated the last few centuries, but a broader and longer view must recognize that other civilizations have also dominated in times past. Many of our own achievements are actually borrowed (nice word for stolen) from those other cultures. Will you admit that we owe a debt to Muslim scholars for the preservation of some ancient texts from Greek thinkers? Christians were not always so appreciative of Plato.

Finally, I am amazed at how easily you brush away my point about the lack of any encouragement of educational, scientific or cultural achievement by Jesus, Paul and the other characters from the New Testament. To think that those things were somehow implicit in their teachings is perhaps the most extreme example of wishful thinking I have ever encountered. From what is preserved in the New Testament, we have absolutely no reason to think that Jesus or his followers for a long time afterward placed any value at all on any academic endeavor. They all clearly believed that the world was about to end and saw no reason to improve this world.

Besides telling his readers to call the elders and anoint a sick person with oil, might James have at least said, "And oh, by the way, some research into these areas might produce a medical treatment." That was so utterly foreign to their thnking that it comes across as laughable. While the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians were making amazing medical advancements, Christians were making do with the ancient and ineffective therapy of prayer, oil. Well, at least the writer of the Pastoral Epistles had heard of the common remedy of adding wine to water for stomach problems.

As to my own religious upbringing and education, you obviously are heading toward an ad hominem attack. That's fine, I'm used to it. My Christianity wasn't as nuanced and sophisticated as yours. Great! Instead of going down that path, why don't we stick the issues at hand?

25

The argument that uses birth rates to somehow prove the cultural superiority of Christianity is really stupid (sorry I couldn't think of a better word).

First of all, it is utterly irrelevant. Does fecundity somehow establish philosophic truth? If a Mormon couple down the street has eight children and the Baptist couple has only two, does that somehow prove that Mormonism is true (or four times more true)? Is a Mexican Catholic family with twelve kids somehow more in touch with divine truth than a Swedish Lutheran family with two kids and a cat?

I grant that the birth rate might have something to do with a society's optimism about the future, but so what? That doesn't prove they're right. As George Bernard Shaw said, "The fact that a Christian may be happier than an unbeliever is no more to the point than the fact that a drunk man is happier than a sober one."

To put it plainly, if Swedes have fewer children than Nigerians, that does not in any way, shape or form prove that God exists.

Having hopefully established that this discussion is irrelevant, I will now try to show that there is no real difference between the birth rates of "secularists" (please define, JMR) and Christians. There have been many studies in this field that plainly show the correlation is between wealth/education/culture and birth rates, not between religious beliefs and birth rates. After you control for income and level of education, Christian Swedes do not have significantly more children than atheistic Swedes. Christian Brazilians do not have more children than atheistic Brazilians. And American Christians do not have more children than atheistic Christians.

On a broader scale, it is instructive to look at the birth rates in Europe. Let us compare nonreligious France to highly religious countries like Poland and Russia. French non-Muslims have more kids than Polish and Russian Christians.

26

John Mark

I find it humorous that when discussing Charles Darwin, an atheist who authored possibly the most powerful scientific theory of all time, that you cast it as a triumph of Christian tolerance. You certainly are creative in the ways that you find to score points for the team, even in the face of setbacks.

I still think that you are hogging the credit for Christianity that rightly belongs to classical Greece. You are right that everything that is associated with Christianity did not originate in the Bible, but you imply that things like a love of learning and knowledge flowed from the general foundational ideas of Christianity alone, as if Christian communities somehow grew up in isolation from Greek culture. The opposite is true. Christianity grew from a union of Greek and Jewish culture. You'd have us believe that Christianity had an intellectual "immaculate conception" and somehow absorbed none of its Greek father's DNA. That love of knowledge you speak of is the Greek patrimony to Christianity.

As far as the secularization hypothesis, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Have you checked the numbers lately? "None of the above" is one of the fastest growing world religions, and its mainly growing at the expense of Christianity:

What Shah and Toft do not reveal to the readers of FP is that, according to the WCE, no Christian in 1900 expected the massive defections from Christianity that subsequently took place in Western Europe due to secularism . . . and in the Americas due to materialism. . . . The number of nonreligionists throughout the twentieth century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in a.d. 2000. . . . Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism. . . . Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism and atheism. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems . . . are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians.

Secularism is not dying in America, it is growing. Here are the percentages of unbelievers, by generation cohort, from a recent Pew research survey:

Pre Boomer 5%
Boomer(1946-1964) 11%
Gen X(1965-1976) 14%
Gen Y (1977-) 19%

There's an undeniable trend here.

I think it is ironic that the "reward" that Christianity has garnered from its compatibility with scientific inquiry has been the growth of secularism at its expense. You mentioned Occam and his amazing Razor. Richard Weaver, in "Ideas have Consequences" indicts Occam as the instigator of the downfall of western, Christian culture with his formulation of the principle of nominalism. Certainly his Razor has facilitated our scientific understanding of the cosmos, to the detriment of spiritualized notions of how things work.

So I wouldn't sell the secularization hypothesis short so quickly. There's no time limit on secularization. Weaver was right, ideas really do have consequences. I think he was wrong to see relativism behind every new social development, but the weight of ideas like nominalism and evolution are producing their effects, like mighty, slow moving tectonic plates.

27

Some thoughts:

Since I blogged last week about Jesus and the similarities of the Golden Rule to other teachings, readers can be sure I am aware of it. (See my Jesus: the Great Man.)

I do think that when Christians hated their enemies, told lies, stole, or did other things Christianity tells them are bad acts that this was NOT because they were Christian.

I do also think that when Christians loved their enemies, used reason and logic, and believed law was king that were acting consistently with the faith.

There is nothing self-serving in that. I treat every other "view of reality" the same way. If your systems teaches you to do x, and you do it, then your system gets a good bit of credit or blame for your doing x.

I do think Christianity developed over time. Ideas take time to understand. I would assume that for any movement p, that people later in time would (generally) understand p better than the first followers.

Big principles need time to be worked out.

Minor Point:

If you are going to quote Aristotle on government, then you might point out who he meant by "men." You have misused the text. Who was he referring to? (Certainly not women who were, contra Genesis, defective men biologically according to Aristotle. . .) You might also quote his views on slavery (natural slaves) and note his preferred form of government (certainly no form of democracy). In short, to get equality before the law for all humankind from Aristotle is to take a position opposite from the one he took.)

A loose definition of secularist:

A secularist is somebody who thinks society and persons can run themselves only through "secular" (non-religious) means. Christians believe in a "secular" sphere (not everything has to do with the Other), but secularists think that is all there is . . . or that is all that should count in public.

Some final thoughts on Western Christianity:

I do not think God "favored" Western Christianity over Eastern Christianity. (You might note that I am an Eastern Christian before proceeding.)

I do think Western Christians were better off, but mostly because they became the majority and were not conquered by other people. If you take me to claim that ALL that is necessary is Christianity, then either I have been unclear or you missed my reference to the contributions to Islam in an earlier post.

Eastern Christians were equally the heirs of Greece and Rome. In fact, they preserved that heritage better longer.

Eastern Christians were doing very well, thank you, until the Mongol and Islamic invasions set us back. We didn't run the show in Greece and Constantinople for centuries. Are you blaming us for the death of Byzantium?

(You might blame the Fourth Crusade in part. I know I am not fond of it! Of course, almost everybody not an idiot or a greedy Venetian saw what a disaster it was . . . in any case the Fourth Crusade was not consistent with Christian ideals.)

Even despite this I will match Russian culture and Russian cultural achievements to any on the planet. I will point out that Russia, despite her slow start, (due in great part to Mongol conquest)was making rapid progress toward modernization until secularism (in the virulent form of Communism) set it back.

With the exception of Ethiopia the other areas you named were minorities less able to impact the culture. They spent most of their time trying to cope with cultural norms imposed on them (often with persecution) from the outside.

They also were heirs (because Christian) of Greece and Rome (see the Pope on this), but were unable to actualize their beliefs as minorities. You will note that they were often very well educated (compared to the surrounding populations)historically.

For readers who have gotten this far notice that ex-preacher has confused my argument. My arguments is NOT that every good thing came from Christianity (Homer did not), but that Western Civilization owes its greatest debt to Christianity (an overwhelming debt).

I do assert that since almost everyone in the West was a Christian that it was the good sense of Christians, trained by Christianity, that caused them to adopt the ideas they did adopt.

Nor is this infinitely flexible . . . Christians cannot take credit for every good thing. If you are pro-choice, then you are not going to be happy with the long term development of Christian culture. If you think gay sex is good, then traditional Christianity does not agree. (That does NOT justify persecution of homosexual persons.)

Bottom line: we do agree with the Pope that it was the happy marriage of Athens and Jerusalem that produced Christianity which is a blend of the two. Given the language of the New Testament, there is no being a "deep" Christian culture without learning Greek . . . and being introduced to that marvelous part of our heritage.

Christianity is a PRODUCT of Greek and Roman and Jewish culture. You cannot EVER utterly divorce Christianity from any of its roots. There is NO POSSIBLE Christian culture that will not owe its greatest debt to Jerusalem, and a substantial debt to Greece and Rome. (I have blogged on this extensively at scriptoriumdaily.)

However, we can see Greek and Roman culture without Christianity . . . since they came first so I can compare what they looked like "before" and "after."

I am not dismissive of cultural contributions of non-Western cultures. I just don't think them decisive in the areas we were discussing.

Finally (really), your comments on medicine were amazing! The Bible is not a medical book or a book giving detailed advice on how to live every aspect of life . . . nor was it viewed as such. Even in religious matters (see Didache) the early Church supplemented its infallible Revelation with thoughtful advice or working out of broad principles.

It is stunning that you would think that early readers (who understood what it was) and think, "The Bible says pray. I am not going to any doctors."

I do think prayer is useful. I have experienced healing myself. I do not mention this as an argument, but just to point out that believing in the power of prayer does not exclude a love for and appreciation of medical science.

Since one of the gospel writers may himself have been a doctor, since many of the early martyrs were doctors (Cosmas and Damien), there is no reason to believe that Christians were incapable of understanding what the Bible was and was not doing.

What the Bible did:

- establish the general principles for intelligent and loving living
- show how God made His peace with humankind and how they could participate in that peace.

Lots of good things flowed out that. One good thing was not the CREATION of medicine. We get no credit for Galen!

One bad thing was not against going to the doctor . . . unless you have evidence the Fathers were (on the whole) opposed to this. The good that DID come from the basic principles was a "culture of life" and an ethic that continued to make medicine a "good" that was pursued.

See "Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds" to get rid of many myths about that time.

28

Well, if I used birth rate as simply as you wish I did, then it might be stupid . . . but I do not.

I use it as one (and only one) indication of the success of a culture.

Wild thought: if an idea leads to having fewer babies, then it is not going to be good for a culture.

I am not arguing (it was in a list of cultural indicators including cultural confidence) that it is the only one.

As for happiness, all things being equal better to pick a world view that makes for happy people than one that makes them miserable.

Philosophical arguments can go on for a long time (as our readers can note), but if both sides can defend their point of view, but one makes its followers surly and miserable, then it is rational to pick the happier view.

Shaw was as usual wrong-headed and readers of this blog would do well to get a good dose of Chesterton to counteract him.

He missed the philosophical point that being good for you is a good reason for preferring one idea to another!

As for the birth rate in Russia and Poland, ex-preacher has (perhaps) forgotten that both nations were until very recently under slavish control of very, very secular regimes that essentially hollowed out those nations.

The lack of cultural confidence (Russian church attendance is not exactly robust ex-preacher!) is manifest (as it often is) by a lack of children.

As always cultural confidence is not JUST having babies, which is why I listed it apart, but surely a culture that cannot have enough babies is in trouble. No European country is having enough babies. That is a problem.

No European country is very religious. There you go.

The answer is not to become Nigeria . . . of course.

As to mentioning your own religious views . . . I am not the one with a screen name here of ex-preacher. Since you advertise that role (ex-ness) it seemed relevant to me to point out that many of your arguments seem shaped by your religious experience.

There is no shame in that and I am sorry you had a limited experience of Christianity, but you make it relevant in your screen name.

Now back to my book.

29

"Try a google search problems in Sweden's cities (try Malmo) and the Islamic population there."

I don't have to; Malmo is the focal point of so much conservative and Christian-biased media (Fox, WorldNetDaily, etc.) that I am already aware of that situation. Malmo has a much larger Muslim population than most of Sweden. I'm not enamored of Muslims or Muslim culture, by the way, although I like the rugs, the music, and some of the clothing. I appreciate the smallpox innoculation technique too. I recognize that burgeoning Muslim populations can mean challenges for their adopted homelands. I think radical Muslims are a real problem that should be addressed. But forecasting a Muslim takeover is over the top when less than 3% of Swedes are Muslim.

"Rob Ryan asks me to demonstrate Greek hostility to scientific research (!). . . as compared to Aristotle."

No, I did not! I asked you to provide some support for this statement of yours:

"Secularism in that period tended (outside of Aristotle) to consist of gentlemen who sniffed at anyone who would dirty their hands dissecting worms."

You have yet to tie that dismissive attitude toward science to secularism. Your Aristotle quote indicates only that he entertains the possibility of some unnamed persons being opposed to scientific enquiry. There is no indication, not even a hint, that he was even thinking of secualists. You seem to fill in the blanks to suit your argument.

"Rob Ryan says:

Nor can you prove the reverse.

(I interject)
This is in the context of secularism NOT having produced any great cultures.)"

No, it was not in that context at all! It was in response to this statement of yours:

"Secularists can CLAIM that it all would have been the same or better without Christianity, but they cannot prove it (at least easily)."

I repeat, nor can you prove the reverse.

"Christian cultures made progress over that one thousand years. They did so with essentially no input from secularists. Islam, yes. Secularism, no."

Were there a lot of open secularists during that time, John Mark, and did they wield any influence? Heck no! They tended to be burned or ostracized like the other infidels! Are you seriously suggesting that vast silent hordes of secularists were sitting on their hands while the Christians did the heavy lifting? Secularists, if they existed at all, surely kept a low profile until society advanced to the point where they could safely self-identify as such. Even when their physical safety was no longer in question, it was likely that denial of Christian dogma hardly enhanced one's prospects for employment, let alone power. You speak of the wonderful progress in human rights since the time of Jesus. Truly, wonderful progress has been made, and much of it has come since the Enlightenment and the decline of religiosity in Europe. Are we to conclude that the recession of Christianity has improved the human condition? We can both make arguments based on correlation, but we must acknowledge that correlation does not prove causation.

I give Christianity partial credit for what is good in modern western society. I think its usefulness is past now, and it mostly just gets in the way these days. Charity work is a notable exception.

I have not noticed a response from you to my stated concern that most Christians who trumpet the positive influence of Christianity seem opposed to a strict separation of church and state. In fact, I have found that many such Christians seek to portray groups like the ACLU as anti-Christian because they oppose efforts by Christians to impose their worldview on others using government resources. Do you have a response to this concern?

30

Rob:

A growing population in a land that is not reproducing itself is a cause for concern. Over time, if trends continue, it is going to mean big trouble.

You make my point. Secularists hardly existed in the past in the West. They cannot (therefore) take credit for much of anything in Western civilization. Correlation may not necessitate causation, but it non-existence pretty much guarantees not being the cause.

People can go on thinking that Christian nations were just lucky, but I don't think it is very persuasive.

As for today, Christianity is still necessary. For one, the most powerful nation in the West is still overwhelmingly Christian (the US). Second, there is a significant Christian population in most of secularized Western Europe.

Western Europe is, in my opinion, dying. As Pope Benedict points out (in a more sophisticated manner), Christianity is one of the few forces capable of combating the decay of Europe.

Globally, Christianity is exploding in numbers. See China. See sub-Saharan Africa. We shall see what this rise in Christian population does for those lands . . . I anticipate that IF it is matched by cultural Christianity (and not just private piety) the results will be good.

My beliefs on church and state are too complicated to put in a slogan and can be found in a series on my blog called: This Next Presidential Election (six parts).

In short:
1. theocracy bad
2. religion as a knowledge tradition good
3. using religion to make decisions good for a person in government.

Go look at the series.

31

I've got my own book I should be working on, but this is much more fun.

I'll deal now with the birth rate issue as it is much simpler and come back tomorrow (if I'm in the mood) to deal with the main issue. One thing I'd like to do tomorrow is revisit some arguments that Mr. Reynolds has brought up only to drop and ignore when challenged.

I'm glad to see you qualifying and backing off somewhat your contentions about a correlation between cultural success (please define) and birth rate.

I note that you sidestep my main point that there is no necessary correlation between birth rate (or cultural success) and truth. You act as if the truth doesn't matter, only cultural success and happiness. I did not come to my positions by trying to figure which beliefs would make me happy or lead to the cultural success of my group. I came to them because I was convinced of their truth. That was the point of the GBS quote and I suspect GKC might actually agree. I have earlier pointed out that we do not choose our beliefs (or, as you put it, "world view"). Our beliefs are simply the conclusions we reach based on the evidence we have. We can choose to challenge our beliefs by exposing ourselves to counter-arguments and additional evidence. Thus we can choose our behavior, but not our beliefs.

Back now to the essentially irrelevant argument over birth rate and "cultural success."

To the extent that there is any validity at all to your theory, we might expect to see some very culturally vibrant countries at the top of the birth rate charts.

A drum roll, please, as we list the countries with the highest crude birth rates:

1. Niger
2. Mali
3. Uganda
4. Afghanistan
5. Sierra Leone
6. Chad
7. Burkina Faso
8. Somalia
9. Angola
10. Liberia

Perusing other Top 50 prolific countries, we notice these cultural dynamos:
Yemen
Madagascar
The Gaza Strip
Haiti
Laos
Sudan
Iraq

Hmmmmm. What do these countries have in common, besides birth rate? You got it - extreme poverty! In fact, go to the wikipedia article on fertility rate and you can see a scatter point chart showing the amazing and almost direct correlation between poverty and fertility.

And what about JMR's connection between religiosity (which he defines by church attendance) and fertility? He wants to throw out Russia and Poland as communists are to blame for their low birth rates. Never mind that their birth rates have dropped precipitously since leaving communism and returning to the mother church twenty years ago.

So what countries around the world have lots of people attending church? Nigeria tops the list with 89% attending church weekly and also has a fairly high birth rate. Number 2 in church attendance is Ireland. Uh-oh, low birth rate. So it goes down the list. Countries with high religious attendance and poverty have high birth rates. Countries with high religious attendance and wealth have low birth rates. Italy, for instance is #10 on church attendance (just above the good ol US of A) but ranks 177th on birth rate. What about the US itself? Lots of church attenders, but did you know that if it weren't for immigration and the high birth rates of recent immigrants we'd be losing population?

Based on the actual data, I'd say birth rates have almost everything to do with issues of wealth and poverty and very little to nothing to do with "cultural confidence." The last time I checked, a number of countries in Europe felt pretty culturally confident. The birth rate is not usually a decision people make based on how much they like their culture or how happy they are. It has to do with their personal financial circumstances and desires - and the availability of birth control.

32

ex-preacher:

"- and the availability of birth control."

Which in "Catholic" Italy tells you all you need to know about state of people's minds. Bluntly these are secularized Catholics who cafeteria their way through the Church's teachings . . .

There are reasons that staggeringly high birth rates and cultural success don't go together . . . as I am sure you know.

We will see if the "third world" becomes the engine for tomorrow. We have already seen that happening in China and India which would have been on your list of basket cases at one point. China is still held back by its secular regime, but its booming Christian population (with a large population) means that there is real hope for it.

I would argue that the same is true of India if their anti-natalist policies do not tip the scales too far the other way.

I did NOT argue that just having lots of babies was a good sign, but that not having enough is a bad sign for whatever position you have adopted.

This is my last post on this thread . . . because I have put up enough books to support my claims that anyone can read them if they wish.

33

It's hard to make progress against an opponent who is constantly moving the goal posts. Since he keeps explaining away the evidence, I'll let JMR be the one to establish (with evidence if you don't mind) that birth rates have anything at all to do with "cultural success."

34

I'm rather perplexed as to why Christians should strive to take the credit in all of this.

As a Christian, I was always taught to do my good and care not for the credit. What if a bunch of secular academics suddenly slapped their heads after reading this? Would Christ be any more pleased at what we've done?

Instead, I think He's rather disappointed at what a sarcastic, snarky, partisan, and self-obsessed group we've managed to turn into. In the end, the piece struck me, not in its information but rather its tone, as rather petty.

35

Marco wrote:

Instead, I think He's rather disappointed at what a sarcastic, snarky, partisan, and self-obsessed group we've managed to turn into. In the end, the piece struck me, not in its information but rather its tone, as rather petty.

Marco has forced me to respond to this thread and the previous one on L.O.S.E.

Prior to this I resisted because I could see I was out of my league; I'm not an historian and I couldn't offer anything worthwhile on the subject itself.

However, I was going to mention the tone of the Christian posters in the two threads as opposed to the tone of the non-Christian posters. Particularly, the respect that Dr. Reynolds showed to very snarky comments by Ludwig and others in the first thread.

Indeed, the respect that the (euphemistically speaking) "dissenters" receive on this blog will not be found on secular sites.

Marco, your powers of observation and discernment are severely impaired.

36

JD,

Your comment is a bit of a non-sequitir. I wasn't making any comparisons between Christians and non-Christians in my comment. In fact, I'd agree with much of what you said. Oftn, but not always, the self-professed Christians display restraint on this website. Well done. Yet, aren't we called to so much more? Hasn't our Master overcome the world?

My point was much simpler. I'll break it down.

I think that the L.O.S.E. series is self-indulgent and excessively sarcastic.

In my opinion, self-indulgence and excessive sarcasm are incompatible with the New Testament. Perhaps I'm being over-simplistic, but I think that Christians ought to start taking seriously the admonitions to turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies.

Your comment, J.D., in fact, strikes me as reinforcing my point. You concluded your comment about my "powers." You took one comment posted on a blog and arrived at a fundamental conclusion about who I am and what I'm like?

Wow. Can't we Christians do better?

37

Marco:

I'm not really basing my impressions of you on just one comment. You have commented here fairly often, and I think I'm pretty safe in saying that you are a tried and true liberal. You almost always take a contrary position. Would you dispute that, also? Have I misjudged you?

I'm wondering if you can give examples of where the LOSE articles are "self-indulgent and excessively sarcastic." That's a rather subjective criticism. Perhaps Dr. Reynolds should have used Jesus' own words--viper's brood--to describe those who would deny the positive contributions of Christianity to culture.

38

My problem with the piece is simply that it's an odd combination of 1.) whining and 2.) sarcasm. I prefer acting over whining, and respect over sarcasm.

Maybe a story will amplify my point. In his book, Civility, (I think) Stephen Carter writes an interesting story about Thurgood Marshall. Marshall, when asked about his opponent in Brown v. Board of Education, John Davis, said something to the effect of "He was a good man who just happened to believe in segregation."

Wow. What a gentleman. If there was ever a man who deserved to 1.) whine 2.) be sarcastic and 3.) generally bitch and moan, it was Thurgood Marshall. And yet, he showed great restraint when asked about John Davis. Marshall showed him respect and recognized that in the end, we can all be decent people even despite our moral blindspots. Blindspots, I believe, are a product of the fall. If only everyone admitted that we probably have a few of our own somewhere.

We need more men like Thurgood Marshall. Our political discourse is in desperate need for class, respect, decency, and civility. I'm tired of "playground politics." Christians, ideally, should lead the way in this.

This is pointless, but for the record, I'm a theological conservative and a political moderate. I'm pro-life, from conception to natural death, but I'm also scared about the current infatuation the Religious Right has with war and money. It seems utterly incompatible with the message that Jesus preached.