Religion & the individual mandate | The Incidental Economist

As the court cases and appeals of the Affordable Care Act move on through the system, I have a feeling this particular charge is going to gain traction on the Right.

"God Is Not a Christian: And Other Provocations" by Desmond Tutu

The winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written a new book titled, "God Is Not a Christian: And Other Provocations". An excerpt from the book was posted on Huffington Post yesterday.

I was blown away by the incredible humanity in this great man. In fact, I read through the post to find blurbs to post on this blog and was so impressed that I posted the entire piece below. Please read it below, or go to the original site to read it there, and reflect on what this incredible human being is telling us. Thank you!


The following is excerpted from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu's new book, 'God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations.'

This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of different faiths during a mission to the city of Birmingham in 1989.

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, "I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?" The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, "That side, of course!" The drunk said, "Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide." Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim, or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don't know what significant fact can be drawn from this -- perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine -- however named, however apprehended or conceived -- is infinite and we are forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely. So we should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a transcendent reference point, a mysterium tremendum, that comes to be known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are creatures of this supreme, supra mundane reality in some way, with a high destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with the divine, either as absorbed without distinction between creature and creator, between the divine and human, or in a wonderful intimacy which still retains the distinctions between these two orders of reality.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

Surely it is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us all (not just Christians) in his image, thus investing us all with infinite worth, and that it was with all humankind that God entered into a covenant relationship, depicted in the covenant with Noah when God promised he would not destroy his creation again with water. Surely we can rejoice that the eternal word, the Logos of God, enlightens everyone -- not just Christians, but everyone who comes into the world; that what we call the Spirit of God is not a Christian preserve, for the Spirit of God existed long before there were Christians, inspiring and nurturing women and men in the ways of holiness, bringing them to fruition, bringing to fruition what was best in all. We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

This mission in Birmingham to which I have been invited is a Christian celebration, and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the Savior of the world, hoping that we will live out our beliefs in such a way that they help to commend our faith effectively. Our conduct far too often contradicts our profession, however. We are supposed to proclaim the God of love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion; we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians we have fought more wars than we care to remember. We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever richer and the poor grow ever poorer, where we seem to sanctify a furious competitiveness, ruthless as can only be appropriate to the jungle.

More on the religion and income thing...

I blogged earlier this week about David Leonhardt's posts about the apparent connection between income and religion. Leonhardt has yet another post on the God versus income debate. An interesting quote he takes from an article on The Chronicle of Higher Education:

"In their book, America’s Four Gods, Paul Froese and Christopher Bader write about the effect that people’s view of the divine has on their financial prospects. Americans, in the authors’ view, are divided into people who view God as an active or inactive presence and as either a benevolent or vengeful God. People who view God as both active and mean often have lower incomes. It’s a little hard to separate the cause and effect here. Do you believe God has it in for you because you have a low income or do you have a low income because you don’t believe you have much chance of doing well in this lifetime."

Looking at the chart, this point has validity to it, considering the more apocalyptic denominations appears towards the bottom left. However, the picture doesn't answer the cause and effect question.

Does your religion determine your income level?

New York Times columnist David Leonhardt has not one, not two, but three columns about whether or not there is a correlation between religion, education, and income level. All three columns are very interesting reads and worth taking a few minutes to read and digest.

Behold, your new God! The Sun!! (It's gone for most of today though.)

Great article in The New York Times about this history of various cultures celebrating the sun (or rather, the absense thereof) for the Winter Solstice. One passage that's important to point out:

"The transition from Roman paganism to Christianity, with its similar rites, took several centuries. With the Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in the fourth century, customs were quickly appropriated and refashioned, as the sun and God’s son became inextricably entwined. Thus, although the New Testament gives no indication of Christ’s actual birthday (early writers preferring a spring date), in 354 Pope Liberius declared it to have befallen on Dec. 25.

The advantages of Christmas Day being celebrated then were obvious. As the Christian commentator Syrus wrote: “It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate on the same Dec. 25 the birthday of the sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity .... Accordingly, when the church authorities perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on that day.”

In Christendom, the Nativity gradually absorbed all other winter solstice rites, and the co-opting of solar imagery was part of the same process. Thus the solar discs that had once been depicted behind the heads of Asian rulers became the halos of Christian luminaries. Despite the new religion’s apparent supremacy, many of the old customs survived — so much so that church elders worried that the veneration of Christ was being lost. In the fifth century, St. Augustine of Hippo and Pope Leo the Great felt compelled to remind their flocks that Christ, not the sun, was their proper object of their worship."

The whole article is a fun read. ENJOY!!!

The REAL Reason the party of Reagan cannot accept the science of climate change

Former Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert wrote an interesting op-ed in today's Washington Post about why the Republican Party is eschewing science for political reasons.

I am sympathetic to the author's position that verifiable scientific facts must not be questioned and the only political angle must be the solutions to address them. However, I disagree with him that the climate change skepticism is purely political, especially when we know evangelical fundamentalism is much more rampant in the United States compared to other developed countries. What has happened is the fundamentalism has infected right-wing politics, to the point where we have this joker potentially in line to chair the House Energy Committee, all the while believing that there isn't enough carbon on earth and once stating in a committee hearing:

"...the earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect. Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."

Religion: Necessary, Evil, or Necessary Evil?

A friend of mine recently wrote the following, with the comment that this is how he would explain monotheism to his son when he is old enough:

"Long long time ago, a smart man came up with a work of fiction. He claimed to write it on behalf of a ghost writer and tried to pass it off as non-fiction. The book was a major hit for a small group and thus a cult classic was born. The fans believed themselves to be privileged for only they understood the true message of the book. The book was left open ended with room for a sequel.

Much much later, one of the fan club members took it upon himself to provide a different analysis of the book which was not taken well by the hard core fans. The new writer even went as far as to cite the original ghost writer as a family member. The fan base labeled him a liar and then worked with the powers-that-be to see him off. His death spread word of his interpretation quickly and oddly enough, years after his death his executioners officially released the sequel, somewhat based on his interpretation but mostly with their own. They then took this book and forced it upon the rest of the world they set to conquer.

It wasn’t till long after that the trilogy emerged from a nearby part of the world through another writer, an illiterate one nonetheless, claiming to be a descendant of the original writer and a favorite student of the ghost writer himself. His triquel (?) incorporated elements of the first two books and modernized it for its time. This led to another revolution around the world.

The problem is that all of the fans of all three hate each other because they believe that their lie is more truthful even though they all cite the same fictional ghost writer."

If you look through an objective prism and do not subscribe to any of these three religious ideologies, you can actually see the accuracy of the passage. Unfortunately many people refuse to do that even though as sentient human beings they certainly have the capacity to do so. Therefore, they would see fit to hang someone that believes what my friend above believes even though their faith forbids the killing another human being.

Oddly enough, the day my friend sent me this writeup, I happened to be reading The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families, where Stephen Covey writes the following:

"...studies have shown that religious involvement is a significant factor in mental and emotional health and stability, particularly when individuals are internally motivated. When they are extrinsically motivated-by public approval or conformity, for example-the religious context is not always benevolent. In fact, it sometimes nurtures a culture that is extremely strict and sets unrealistically high expectations, causing people who are emotionally vulnerable to experience even more emotional problems." (Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families (New York: Golden Books Publishing Co., Inc., 1997), p. 300)

I'm not going to delve into the religion vs. atheism argument. Frankly, I don't know the answer let alone try to convince someone else that they must believe what I believe or vice versa. Religion is a very personal thing and if it gives people comfort and puts their mind at peace, I'm all for it. However, it becomes a whole other ballgame when one group tries to force its beliefs onto another group or a nation as a whole, such as the abortion debate.

There are moments that make me wonder what people are thinking. For example, a professional athlete accused of making anti-Semitic remarks once said, "I have nothings against Jews. My best friend is Jewish and his name is Jesus Christ." A part of me wants to go back and ask that same athlete today, "What did your best friend get you for your birthday last year because mine got me an iPod." Or the state politician in Arizona that once made a remark in a public hearing that the earth is only 5,000 years old. Ironically, the hearing was to grant a license to a uranium mining company. If you weren't aware, it was through measuring the radioactive decay of uranium that geologists and geophysicists were able to determine the earth to be 4.54 billion years old.

So, is religion necessary, evil, or a necessary evil? The answer is whatever you think it is, so long as you don't waste your time trying to convince anyone else they're wrong and you're right. I hate to seem like I'm copping out on this one after writing such a long post but this is really the clearest answer to the question.

Enough rambling by me. What do you think? Let me know. I'm curious to read about it. Thanks for reading!!