Dear Sir Vivor,

I selectively quoted due to restriction to 350 words or less. I noted the omission by dots.

I objected to Glorfindel’s merging of humanism with atheism and using as an example Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. That is analogous to seeing religion in terms of the fanatics who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Many humanists believe there can be such a thing as an objective morality. I personally believe that a universal and/or an objective morality is neither possible nor desirable.

Such statements as the one I quoted have the same defect as the multiplicity of creeds of Christianity. All of the members of the group cannot accept all of the items.

I think it is good to try to minimize the number of things we take on faith. We must take some things on faith simply because we have to get on with life and do not have an infinite amount of time to question.

There is always a tension between the values of the larger society in which a smaller group is embedded and the values of the smaller group.

Regarding your question as to spearing vs. imprisonment I don’t know enough to make a value judgment. I have a feeling that if I did know more about the question and had to make a judgment it would have to be decided on a case by case basis.

In cases where there is a conflict between the rights of the individual and traditional values as in the cases of forced marriage, children’s education and female genital mutilation I would generally opt for the right of the individual.

Some traditional societies are themselves aware of the tension and allow members of the society to have a choice. Young people in Amish communities in the US are encouraged to live outside the community for a time before they make a commitment for the rest of their lives. Christian denominations that opt for adult baptism follow a similar line.

It is presumptuous to make hierarchies of values for other people. At times I am presumptuous.

I think we need to examine some of the polarities that we used to discuss these issues. For example, humanism is often used in opposition to religion. This polarity arises from the concern that religion is detached from the reality of the human i.e. religious morality has little to do with human flourishing and more to do with the superstitious conformity to arbitrary law. Of course some religious law does fall under this criticism. I would contend that human flourishing is at the centre of Christianity and its moral precepts are derived from an often hidden aspect of human life. It is utilitarian in a deeper sense. For example, the dim view of sex outside of marriage is not an arbitrary and joyless imposition but is founded on the knowledge of what marriage constitutes and how that is damaged by taking multiple sexual partners. Liberalism skips over any deep understanding of the reality of marriage and gives us a sexual free for all from which we have all suffered and are suffering still.

The other polarity is that of freedom which was the clarion call of the Enlightenment. Christianity is also concerned with human freedom, from idolatry and false religion, from family and clan and nation. It sees each individual as bearing the image of God. Liberalism again holds a superficial understanding of freedom as being about choice, freedom is the ability to do anything one wants “as long as no one gets hurt.” But this is an empty freedom that leads only to a void. This must be the significant mark of our society. In the midst of plenty and with all boundaries destroyed our lives are directionless, the boredom of which leads to most of our social ills.

Christianity is liberal in that it says to us “go and live out your lives in freedom.” However it acknowledges that life is not that simple, that we are naturally self seeking and will come to grief if left to our own devices. Christianity is the truth because it sees to the depths of the human soul.

Cont..
The difference between liberalism and Christianity is that the former is a superficial view while the latter is a deep view. Or in other terms liberalism relies on a thin narrative of human flourishing and Christianity provides a thick narrative.
The difference between the two is revelation. Contrary to the ideas of anti religionists, revelation is not a thunder bolt from the sky but the result of a searching analysis of human experience. This is the soul of Scripture, it is an analysis of the past. This is where the thick narrative of Christianity comes from; history. Of course it is often written in a traditional religious framework, the Ten Commandments are seen as an example of direct lawgiving from God. Here we must be sympathetic to the ancient context while continuing to take the law seriously. This is the tension in which the church in modernity must live.
Taken with a broad view, Scripture presents us with a map of the human heart that is grounded on human experience. It is revelation to us because such an experience cannot be had by an a-historical individual. This is why rationalism will always lead us astray, it is not based on many years of meditation on human experience in the context of a harsh criticism of religion. This is what distinguishes Israel from the nations and Christianity from secular humanism. In other words the individual cannot come to these truths on his own, he needs a community whose practice is one of listening to a deeper analysis that the individual can provide.
Bushbasher.
I really must protest at your posts. Some of the writers in this section manage to behave as gentlemen and it is obvious that this capacity is quite beyond you.

Peter Sellick

Sells wrote: The other polarity is that of freedom which was the clarion call of the Enlightenment. Christianity is also concerned with human freedom, from idolatry and false religion, from family and clan and nation.

Dear Sells,

Your statement is an example of Christian bigotry. When you write of false religion you are implicitly assuming non-Christian religions are false. Bigots of any religion call religions other than their own false religions. Why should we be free from family and clan and nation? Those define who we are.

With its intolerant humanoid God who allows entry to the Kingdom of Heaven only those who subscribe to his mumbo jumbo, belief in such improbabilities as a virgin birth and its propensity for violence manifested in massacre of different believers, Inquisition, wars of the Reformation etc. Christianity seems to me to be in the category of false religion if one makes such categories. However, I favour religious freedom and tolerance. Therefore, I think it is unreasonable to label one's own religion true if you subscribe to any and others false.

If one wishes to worship idols one should have the freedom to do so. Idolatry is as legitimate as any other religion.

sellick, you only pretend to be a gentleman. manners do not equal respect. you do not have any respect for the posters here. i am simply showing you the same disrespect, in a language you understand.

the effect i am trying to have upon you is EXACTLY the effect your posts have upon me. think about it.

Sells, it's a bit late in the day to set up yet another sequence of straw-men.

>>For example, humanism is often used in opposition to religion<<

This was your starting position for this article, except that you called it "liberalism". With the caveat that you "use the term 'liberal' not in the usual sense".

Your "Liberalism stands for freedom, tolerance, fairness, self expression, choice and fulfilment"

Sounds a lot like humanism to me. Unless you intend to also use that word "not in the usual sense".

>>This polarity arises from the concern that... religious morality has little to do with human flourishing and more to do with the superstitious conformity to arbitrary law.<<

Again, a carefully worded straw-man that you can whack with your Christianity stick.

"Religious morality" contains many aspects of "human morality", necessary for the world to function. Religion is simply a communication methodology, which - as you yourself point out - will always contain some entirely arbitrary rules.

>>Liberalism skips over any deep understanding of the reality of marriage and gives us a sexual free for all from which we have all suffered and are suffering still<<

It is not "liberalism" that provides this freedom, Sells, any more than Christianity acts to prevent Christians from breaking its rules.

Often, as you would admit, in spectacular fashion.

Morality and ethics are the constraining factors, both inside and outside a religious framework.

Your propositions can only exist in an abstract sense, which is precisely why you need your cohort of straw-men. Here's another.

>>Liberalism again holds a superficial understanding of freedom as being about choice, freedom is the ability to do anything one wants “as long as no one gets hurt.”<<

You have used "freedom" here as an analogue of "anarchy".

These are tired arguments.

Religion can only ever make sense to the religious. Your articles fascinate, because they illuminate the fundamental narrowness of thought that is necessary in order to be religious.