|
THE GADFLY'S BLOG
January 23, 2008
Concerning Mormonism and "Media." Two totally
disconnected entries.
More about Mormonism.
Internet responses to my essay,
"About
this 'Mormonism' Thing" (December 18, 2007) were heated,
voluminous, and for the most part, favorable. Two that were not were
from faithful Mormons. However, because they were sincere and
thoughtful, they received careful and extended responses from me,
which you will find below.
But before we get to them, I am including there my response to a
query from the producers of the four-hour PBS Frontline series, "The
Mormons" that was broadcast last April. It was, and is, an
outstanding piece of broadcast journalism which I highly recommend.
(The series can be seen at
this PBS website).
This, in part, was the question I was asked:
At the end of the 19th century, the Mormon
Church was a provincial backwater and today it is an
international powerhouse. In the 19th century, the Mormons were
seen as a licentious group of theocrats; today they are running
for President. At the start of the 20th century, the church set
their financial house in order and adjusted to secular politics.
They've faced up to some of the most important modern challenges
-- lifted the ban on blacks in the priesthood, developed their
own system of welfare -- both for their own people, but also for
victims of Katrina and the Tsunami. All this while, as you know,
the church has grown increasingly conservative. Why? What has
driven from the independent conservatism of Theodore Roosevelt
to become the reddest of the red states?
My answer:
My best guess about the LDS official turn to the right:
-
The religious right is far more concerned with
(personal) "virtue" than with (social) "justice." Hence the
emphasis on chastity, sobriety, anti-gay, anti-abortion, with a
neglect of such issues as poverty, economic injustice, racial
ethnic and sex discrimination, international law and peace. This
is a pattern that is long established in Mormon history.
-
The extraordinary success of the Mormon
financial "empire" has oriented the Church toward the business
community. Paraphrasing Calvin Coolidge, "the business of the
LDS Church is business." This emphasis inclines the LDS church
and membership to the GOP.
-
Combine this with theocratic dogmatism and
anti-intellectualism. I seem to recall an oft-cited quotation
from the LDS general authorities: "When the prophet has spoken,
the thinking has been done." ("Prophet" meaning the LDS
presidents, past and present). Science and scholarship have not
been friendly to the LDS Church: e.g., contra biblical
literalism (cf. evolution and historical geology), American
archeology (cf. The Book of Mormon), critical historical
scholarship (vs. "the Mormon myth").
-
The US and the world are changing ever more
rapidly, and out of the control of the church. Bush claims to be
"born again" and the GOP supports an "establishment" of religion
in secular life and government. This is appealing to the LDS
leadership and members.
-
Sociologists will tell you that, almost
inevitably, radical and innovative religious and social
movements, if they are to survive, must become
institutionalized, with articulated rules, leadership
structures, lines of authority, an "identity" recognized and
defended by both leaders and rank-and-file members -- in a word,
they become "conservative." This was true of early Christianity,
of Protestant denominations, of Soviet Communism and other
communist states (cf. Cuba).
That's my best take on LDS "conservatism." I hope
that it is helpful. For more of my ideas about the alliance between
fundamental Christians and the secular right, see my
"Suckers for Jesus," the second section of Chapter 20 of my book
in progress,
Conscience
of a Progressive.
Next, an exchange that was published in OpEdNews in response
to my essay:
Dear Dr. Ernest Partridge,
Your amazing rant against the religion of your fathers betrays the
fact that while you may have scaled the Olympian peaks of your
chosen profession (philosophy) you have never bothered to "waste"
much intellectual effort on a serious investigation of Mormonism.
Your Loony-tunes summary of the "basics" sounds, in fact, like it
was cribbed from some anti-Mormon site.
Perhaps your disdain for Governor Romney is because you know that he
is a very intelligent and accomplished person and you feel
threatened that he hasn't come to the same conclusions, philosophic,
religious, and political, as you?
Romney's faith cannot be explained by stupidity. (Google [Mormon
education religiosity].) How could it possibly be that 75% of LDS
scientists have a very strong belief that Joseph Smith was inspired
by God, with an additional 12% having a "strong" belief? (For what
it's worth, I'm among the 75%.)
As for the "great difficulty" of having your name removed from the
records of the Church, google [Mormon remove name] "I'm feeling
lucky!" Yes, there are indeed plenty of ex-Mormons willing to
support you in the Herculean task of composing, printing, and
mailing a letter!
Before you mail that letter, however, I beg you to exercise your
synapses a bit more and spend a few days seriously investigating the
religion for which your noble great-great-grandfather, Edward
Partridge made such great sacrifices.
You might start by googling [alma 36 chiasmus]. Don't believe in
miracles? Surely it is a miracle that in 1830 an unschooled 29-year
old farmer on the American frontier produced such a chapter -- and
such a book!
If you find Alma 36 in any way intellectually stimulating, then take
one more step. Try the suggestion of Nephi and "liken all scripture"
unto yourself, for your "profit and learning." (1 Nephi 19:23).
After all, your article does suggest that you are pretty much in the
same path that Alma was in before his life-changing experience.
If you can put yourself in Alma's shoes, then perhaps the core of
the message to his son, which is at the center of the "chi" (X),
will sink deep into your heart:
"And now, for three days and for three nights
was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.
"And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment,
while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I
remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people
concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to
atone for the sins of the world.
"Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within
my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in
the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the
everlasting chains of death.
"And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains
no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no
more.
"And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea,
my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!" (Alma
36:16-20)
I don't know how much religiosity is programmed into
Edward Partridge's Y-Chromosome, but since that chromosome is
contained in every cell of your body, you have the potential to
undergo a powerful physical and spiritual transformation.
Edward Partridge lives on in the spirit world, of course, and surely
he is aware of you, and praying for you. May the spirit of Elijah
yet work its wonder on you and turn your heart to the promises made
to your fathers. (Malachi 4:5-6, 3 Nephi 25:5-6, Joseph Smith
History 1:38-39, D&C 110:13-16)
With sincere best wishes,
Tracy Hall Jr
In OpEdNews.
Ernest Partridge replies to Tracy Hall:
The vituperation and sarcasm of your note are unworthy of you, so I
will ignore them. And most assuredly I will not respond in kind.
Without citation, your statistic that "75% of LDS scientists have a
very strong belief..." doesn't impress me very much. Who conducted
this study? What was the sample, and sampling method? As you state
it, this statistic is strangely circular. An "LDS scientist" would,
almost by definition, be assumed to have such a belief. I would be
much more interested to find out how many scientists have, as a
result of their scientific education, left the Church.
Unfortunately, I know of no such study. I am personally acquainted
with many such persons, but of course, anecdotal evidence is also
not very impressive.
That there are some accomplished scientists that are also devout
Mormons is also a known fact, which I will freely stipulate. I've
known a few of these also. Dr. Harvey Fletcher, a pioneer in
acoustic physics and audio technology, was a member of our New
Jersey ward, when I was a child. The physicist Dr. Henry Eyring, as
Dean of the University of Utah, signed my Masters Thesis. The Dean
who signed my Doctoral Dissertation, and coincidentally also served
on my dissertation committee, was an agnostic "social Mormon," Dr.
Sterling McMurrin. (McMurrin once remarked to me, "if you want your
child to have a graduate education but also remain true in the
faith, then have him study the physical sciences or engineering. But
be sure he stays clear of the social sciences, and above all,
history.") But all this is moot. I don't base my fundamental
convictions on the testimonials of others.
Reports and summaries of extensive scientific studies, on the other
hand, I take very seriously. And the reports from new world
archeology, physical anthropology and linguistics have convinced me
that the Book of Mormon is not authentic. All claims to the contrary
are from LDS sources. In "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,"
Summer, 1973, new world archeologist Michael Coe wrote: "as far as I
know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is
not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing
the [the Book of Mormon accounts] to be true,... nothing, absolutely
nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would
suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a
historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our
hemisphere." (pp.42, 46)
Coe's report is corroborated by
this statement by the
Anthropology Department of the Smithsonian Institution:
"Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the
archeology of the New World and the subject matter of [the Book of
Mormon]... Certainly there were no contacts with the ancient
Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near
East." Perhaps you are aware of this statement. If not, you should
be.
The Smithsonian Institute statement reports that "American Indians
had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens,
horses, donkeys, camels before 1492." (New world camels and horses
became extinct about 10,000 years ago). In addition, "iron, steel,
glass and silk were not used in the New World before 1492." The
Smithsonian might have added that the wheel and axle had no
practical application in the New World, and are only found as Inca
toys.
Steel, iron, wheat, horses, chariots, etc. are all mentioned in the
Book of Mormon. Yet not one steel artifact, not one chariot wheel,
not one pre-Columbian horse bone has been uncovered in the New
World. Surely, if wheat and other near-east plants had been
cultivated prior to 1492, they would have survived the extermination
of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Yet, not a grain nor a leaf is in
evidence. Add to all that, the DNA studies which have conclusively
established the Asiatic origin of the American Indian.
Presumably, you can set all this aside and base your conviction on
something called "faith." I can not, for I am fully aware that other
"faiths," of equal strength, conflict with yours: faith in
Catholicism, in Islam, in the "inerrant Bible," etc. So instead, I
turn to evidence.
I do not share your conviction that it would be a "miracle" for
Joseph Smith to produce the Book of Mormon. Smith was clearly an
extraordinarily intelligent and creative individual. But even if you
were to convince me that Joseph Smith could not have written the
Book of Mormon, it does not follow that the book is authentic.
Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon, for example, were well educated,
and talk of the Indians as "lost tribes of Israel" was commonplace
in the mid-nineteenth century American revival. The Book of Mormon
is astonishing, but less than "miraculous."
While I have focused my attention on question of the authenticity of
the Book of Mormon, it is only a small part of the inventory of
reasons that I can no longer believe the claims of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have never written out an
extensive account of these reasons. However, I have more to say
about my solitary journey away from Mormonism in the unpublished
works mentioned in my essay: "A Peculiar People," and "Religion,
Education and Morality: A Dialog."
Sincerely,
Ernest Partridge
(In OpEdNews)
Finally, my exchange with a Mormon who wrote a lengthy,
point-by-point, rebuttal to the essay
which you can find here, (along with his name which I need not
disclose). Two paragraphs from a subsequent e-mail from this critic
sets up my reply
He writes:
I would guess that the wrong assumption
that's causing you problems is that the LDS religion is false. I
do know that this is incorrect, the religion is true. And it's
an important point.
If you fight against the Lord's restoration, try to discourage
others from it, you will have problems. It's inherent. You can't
make the religion false by wishing it were, or by any fiat man
can do. And maybe you're finding this out, and it's an
irritation.
My reply:
I understand the strength of your convictions -- in the face of
overwhelming empirical, historical and scientific evidence to the
contrary -- because long ago, I shared them.
It is equally the case that "you can't make the religion TRUE by
wishing it were," yet that's the central function of "faith" -- the
faith of a catholic priest, of a devout Moslem, of a rapturite
fundamentalist, etc. "The substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1 -- conventionally
believed to be by St. Paul, but textual analysis shows this to be
doubtful.
Author unknown).
I respect your faith, understand that it is untouchable, and thus
see no point in discussing it with you. I doubt very much that your
faith in the LDS religion, which is to say your certainty as to it's
"truth," is any more fervent than the contradictory faith of the
aforementioned priest, Moslem, rapturite, etc.
"Lo here, lo there."
Given that logical impasse, I have no recourse than to look to the
evidence -- historical, scientific, textual, etc. This was the
decision that led me away from the LDS faith, during my freshman
year at BYU. That evidence led me to conclude that Genesis is,
scientifically and historically, bunk, from beginning to end, that
there is no independent evidence whatever of the events depicted in
the Book of Mormon or of the Semitic origin of the Amerinds. In
addition, the butchery and genocide described in the early books of
the Old Testament are deeply offensive to my sense of morality, and
contrary to the morality of the "minor prophets" (Hosea, Micah,
Amos) and most of all, Jesus of Nazareth, which I endorse. A just
God would not order, much less condone, the slaughter of the
residents of Jericho, the Canaanites, the Mideonites, etc.
Just as I respect your faith, I ask that you respect my perspective.
(And please, don't tell me that my secular/scientific point of view
is "just another faith." It is qualitatively and logically
different, as I argue in my
"Is Science Just Another Dogma?").
You are asking me once again to travel down a road that I have
traveled before and have observed and assessed scrupulously and
objectively. I have come to a different conclusion than you have.
And I see no reason to revisit that road.
"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8). No mention
here of faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands.
Sincerely,
Ernest Partridge
Regarding (the word) "media."
On January 15, 2008, The Democratic Underground posted my essay,
"The Great American Election Charade." There were forty replies to
the essay, half of which were about the trivial question of whether
or not the word "media" was singular or plural. By itself, that
question is not worthy of notice. But it did raise deeper questions
about the nature of language, which might be of some general
interest.
Immediately below is the reply to my essay that initiated the
discussion. Next a very intelligent rebuttal, and finally my
concluding comment.
"crud76" objects to "media" as singular:
"Media" Is Plural Form Of "Medium."
To say, "Following the conventions, the mainstream media rolls
out the heavy artillery..." is incorrect since you're referring
to more than one medium, be it TV, radio, etc. The correct way
to say this is "...the mainstream media roll out..."
"Troubleinwinter" rejoins:
"When referring to the media, as in the mass
media, i.e., the mass-communication industry comprising
journalism and entertainment, media is usually held to be a
singular noun (because it is not the plural of medium. It is a
term derived from the concept of an industry communicating
through different media, e.g., newspapers, television, films,
magazines). In all other cases, it is the plural of medium,
whether one is referring to artistic media, storage media (e.g.,
blank media, such as CDs), media players, etc."
. . . .
"Media, like data, is the plural form of a word borrowed
directly from Latin. The singular, medium, early developed the
meaning “an intervening agency, means, or instrument” and was
first applied to newspapers two centuries ago. In the 1920s
media began to appear as a singular collective noun, sometimes
with the plural medias. This singular use is now common in the
fields of mass communication and advertising, but it is not
frequently found outside them: The media is (or are) not
antibusiness." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media
... . .
The language is a living thing. You DO believe in evolution,
don't you?
Some things I found:
"People also use media with the definite
article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of
communication themselves so much as the communities and
institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means
something like “the press.” Like other collective nouns, it
may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended
meaning."
"Quite frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun
for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: The media
has not shown much interest in covering the trial. This
development of a singular media parallels that of more
established words such as data and agenda, which are also
Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning."
"However, "media" is today very often used as a singular
noun to refer to all the agencies of mass communication as
an entity. This usage is so widespread that it can no longer
be considered incorrect."
"Media can take either singular or plural and both are
completely acceptable."
"Latin plurals: Treat words like media as singular nouns
(e.g., "the media is...," not "the media are...").
"Oxford Dictionary citation from 1966 notes the use of media
as a singular noun"
"Although “media” is plural, it is used increasingly as a
singular noun to refer collectively to the agencies of mass
communication. Thus, the singular verb is used in cases such
as “the media is responsible for the increase in violence”."
"Many authorities nowadays approve sentences like "My data
is lost.""
Have you ever been to an opera? Would you have
said, "The opera was wonderful." or "The opera were wonderful."?
"OPERA": Singular noun. Plural form of "opus" (meaning a
creative work) is opera"
[Also:]
-My data is lost.
-The City Council agenda has been set.
-The opera was lovely.
-The insignia was applied to the plane.
-The media is fucked.
I found this to be particularly interesting: "Media and data are
nearly always treated as singular in English. To treat them as
plural is precious and rather like waving a little flag
inscribed, 'Hey! I studied Latin.' I'd suggest that when writing
you give priority to expressing yourself clearly and not to
sending irrelvant and distracting messages about yourself."
Partridge's (concluding) response:
"Troubleinwinter" has it nailed: language evolves. And his
supporting evidence is impressive.
Modern (descriptive) linguistics: "Correct English is what most
English speakers speak."
Old-fashioned (prescriptive) linguistics: "Correct English is what
English professors speak."
English professors today accept the "modern" interpretation. Don't
take my word for it, Dr. Elinore Partridge, Professor Emerita of
English and Linguistics, told me so. And in this house, she gets the
final word about things linguistic.
Crud76 writes that "popular misuse of a term does not make it
correct." Well, yes and no. If a few people use a term contrary to
ordinary usage, then they are "incorrect." But if more and more
adopt that usage, it becomes more and more "correct," even though
determined resistance to the change might remain among some
professions. (Thus English, strictly speaking, is a collection of
dialects; professional and vocational as well as regional). When a
usage grows (evolves) from a few non-conformists to universal use,
it becomes "correct."
Example: "disinterested." A generation ago, this meant "unbiased,"
as in "a disinterested judge." Now, to my great regret, it has
become synonymous with "uninterested." So I have given up using the
word "disinterested," and use "unbiased" instead.
Another example: Scholarly types recognize a crucial distinction
between "imply" (an objective, logical, function) and "infer" (a
subjective, psychological function). E.g. "The prosecution presented
evidence which strongly implied the guilt of the defendant. The jury
inferred that he was, and returned a verdict of guilty." In casual
discourse, "infer" and "imply" tend toward synonymy.
As for the singular/plural status of "media," "Troubleinwinter" has
given us a wealth of examples of plural words that have "evolved"
into singularity. "Data" is the word that comes immediately to my
mind. Also, I would never say that "Tosca" is my favorite Puccini
Opus -- it is an Opera. Until I read this page, I had never
encountered the word "insigne," the singular of "insignia," which
has itself become a singular ward.
"Media" as singular and "media" as plural have distinct connotations
aside from mere number. Singular "media," as in "mainstream media,"
suggests unity and perhaps collaboration, whereas plural "media"
suggests diversity. It is clearly the former, not the latter, that I
wish to convey with "mainstream media."
Oh, and I almost missed this from "Troubleinwinter:" the plural of
"medium" (as a "channeler" with the dead) is "mediums," not "media."
Terrific!
The English language is not a perfect entity, which must be
perpetually protected by us "educated elites" from desecration by
the "ignernt masses." It was not given to us, intact, by God
Almighty. It is not a perfect Platonic Form. It is the collective
"property" of those who speak it. English is as English does -- as
it is spoken, written and read.
And yes, it evolves.
So too does every natural and living language.
May 31, 2005
“BIBLICAL INERRANCY”
AND THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT
Last January
I posted
in my Crisis Papers blog the following clip from Rev. Jerry Falwell’s
column:
Some reading this column will
surely ask, “Doesn’t the sixth commandment say, ‘Thou shalt not kill?’”
Actually, no; it says: “Thou shalt not commit murder.”
I replied:
Sorry, Rev., but my Bible says
“Thou shalt not kill.” (Exodus 20:13). (Same with the King James and the
Revised Standard translations). Falwell reputedly preaches that every word
in the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Is he “improving upon” God’s
“inerrant word” here?
Last week, I received a letter with
a putative “correction:” “You take Jerry Falwell to task for saying the 6th
Commandment says "thou shalt not murder," and you point out correctly that
in the King James ... it says "thou shalt not kill." However, in the
original Hebrew it does say, "murder".
No, as a matter of fact, Hebrew version does not say “murder” (not a Hebrew
word), it says: “ratsach” which some versions translate as “kill” and
others as “murder.” As for “the original Hebrew,” that source is lost
forever – there are no original documents available. We only have copies of
copies of copies.... etc.
However, either translation – as “kill” and as “murder” – poses huge
difficulties.
First: “Thou Shalt Not Murder” is not a commandment, it is a
tautology – an empty “truth-by-definition.”
Let me explain: (Scholarship alert! Rough Ride Ahead) .
Presumably we take the “Thou Shalt Nots” to be statements of (allegedly)
God’s commandments as to what conduct is, or is not, morally justifiable in
The Lord’s eyes. Thus “Thou Shalt Not...” means “it is forbidden” or “it is
not justifiable.”
Now “murder” is surely defined as “unjustified killing” – i.e., not in
self-defense, or in a just war, or by God’s command.
Hence “Thou Shalt Not Murder” parses out as: “Unjustified Killing is
Unjustified.” Gee, thanks!
Begin to spell out the meaning of “justification,” and you are returning to
the realm of moral guidance.
Now to “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Surely this commandment is universally violated, and moreover, well it
should be. As noted, self-defense and just warfare are legitimate
exceptions. Still worse, those who believe the words of the Old Testament
must come to terms with the fact that therein God commands the Israelites to
kill, for example the inhabitants of Jericho and the Midianites – every last
man, woman and child of them. (See my
“Warriors of The Lord”).
Also, the same book of Exodus that commands “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” specifies
capital punishment for a variety of offenses. (Among them, adultery, a
child’s disobedience, working on the Sabbath, etc.).
So the Bible itself teaches that the Sixth Commandment must read, “Thou
Shalt Not Kill, except when...” What exceptions? Volumes upon volumes of
Talmud have been written in an attempt to spell out the answer.
"Interpretations," ergo disputes, ergo not "inerrant."
Returning to the question of “the correct translation.”
When the fundamentalists claim that the Bible is “inerrant” – literally true
from back to front – which Bible are they talking about? If they mean the
English translations, then there is no point going back to original Hebrew,
Aramaic, or Greek texts to dig out the “correct meaning.” It’s there in
plain English. The Lord God apparently guided the hands of King James’
scholars, through every word. Or if not those scholars, then those who
translated a different Bible into English.
But which? If God won’t tell us, then to the degree that those many Bibles
differ, to that degree they are “errant” – subject to error.
So instead, like my correspondent, we look to the sources, for the
“original” words and meanings. But again, which sources?
It gets worse. No one fully understands ancient languages. The best
experts on the meaning of ancient Hebrew or classical Greek and Latin were
those who spoke it and wrote it as their first languages – and they are all
dead, of course. (For that matter, “living” natural languages are inherently
vague and ambiguous to some degree – but let’s not get into that. To get
some idea of what I mean, one should read the late works of Ludwig
Wittgenstein, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone).
So modern scholars do the best they can by reading ancient texts as they try
to “get into the heads” of those who wrote them. And, of course, those
scholars disagree with each other – even if one or another of them
entertains the colossal conceit that they are reading, and understanding,
the “inerrant word of God.”
So who will tell which of these worthies really has a grip on “God’s Words.”
Possibly none of them?
The Mormons’ eighth “Article of Faith” reads, in part: “We believe the Bible
to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly...” This is
presumably the position taken by most Christians who believe the Bible to be
truly “Holy.”
The kicker is that “translated correctly” bit. Who is to decide whether a
translation is “correct” or not. On this, God is silent. So when the
preacher pounds his Bible and says "THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD (assuming, of
course, it is translated correctly, which we can't know for sure)" he can
not claim to be speaking God's “inerrant” truth.
It comes to this: If there is no “inerrant” way to determine which
translation or interpretation of text is the one, singular, “inerrant” Holy
Truth of the Bible, then there is no “inerrant”Biblical truth. Once you add
the qualifier, “as far as it is translated correctly,” you have given away
the game.
Some logicians call this “the bottleneck problem,” but it might better be
called “the weakest link in the chain problem.”
Here’s another example. According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope speaks “the
infallible truth” when he speaks “ex cathedra” – from his “office,”
on matters of faith and morals.
Let’s assume he does so. (Of course I don’t, but let’s be hypothetical
here). But do we know, infallibly, when the Pope is speaking infallibly (ex
cathedra)? If not, then nothing the Pope says is infallible. The
“fallible” ex cathedra criterion is the weak link in the chain.
To sum up: Let’s suppose that when the Pentateuch (the first five books) was
written (presumably in Mesopotamia during the Babylonian Captivity in the
sixth century BC) The Lord God Himself was in the room dictating inerrant
Holy Truth to the scribes. He did so in a language half forgotten today, and
on a manuscript that is long lost. The “chain of custody” – copies of
copies, translations of translations – is long and replete with uncounted
“weak links.” This is equally the case with New Testament texts.
Because the “weak links” in this “chain of custody” are fallible (“errant”),
so too is the received text that we have today – no matter how perfectly and
“inerrantly” true the original message might be.
So when some preacher tells you that he is speaking the inerrant word of
God, hold fast to your critical intellect, and to your wallet.
“Henry Drummond” (patterned after Clarence Darrow) said it well in the play
and movie, “Inherit the Wind:” “The Bible is a Book. A good Book. But
it’s not the only book.”
May 19, 2005
Another letter to a Christian/Republican Friend. This one is for
real.
Last August I wrote and circulated
A Letter to a Republican Friend.
It was a faux letter to an imaginary friend (albeit a composite of many
actual acquaintances). As it happens, a real-live Republican and
Christian friend, who I have known since we were both in high school, sent
me a thoughtful letter which, after an inexcusable delay, I answered at
length. As my reply will reveal, my old friend had some strange, but
alas typical, ideas about "what liberals think."
But rather than get into all that, let's go directly to the letter,
most of which appears below.
You will be surprised to learn that we disagree much less, politically,
than you might imagine. Philosophically there is much distance between us,
but much more in the area of theology than ethics.
A lot of opportunistic politicians have attempted to divide individuals of
our respective views and, sadly, they have been successful -- as I hope to
explain shortly....
Let's begin with religion. I have much love and respect for authentic
Christians, and much distain for what I call "professional Christians."
Among the former, I include Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, and Martin Luther
King. Among the latter I include Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George
Bush. My complaint against the latter group is that these
"Christians" are insufficiently Christian. It surpasses my understanding
how anyone who has read and claims to adhere to the Beatitudes can launch
or support a war against an unthreatening nation resulting in the
slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, or can
enact policies of "reverse Robin-Hoodism" that take from the poor and give
to the rich, dismantle the public schools, and raid the Social Security
fund . (Today, the average Fortune 500 CEO earns in half a day, what his
median worker earns in a year. Twenty years ago, it took the CEO a week to
earn his worker's annual salary). "Blessed are the poor?" Not to these
folks!
Jesus' greatest rebuke was to the hypocrites. I find very little
inclination among the "professional Christians" to "go and sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and
come and follow me." (Matt. 19:21) I suspect that they would have great
difficulty passing through that eye of the needle. (Matt. 19:23) These, I
contend, are the Pharisees and Sadducees of our day, who would be the
first in line to nail Jesus to the cross. (Dosteyevsky had it right in
"The Grand
Inquisitor") .
Yes, I read the Bible. Most recently, the gospels two years ago. You can
read the result at my essay,
"What Would Jesus
Do?"
While I admit that I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God (except
in the sense that we are all sons of God), I believe that the surviving
record of his life conveys a supreme ethic. It is an ethic that is shared
by the noblest of men and women of all ages and all creeds: Moslem, Hindu,
Confucian, Taoist, Shinto and even atheists. Thus I am repelled by the
dogma of salvation through faith, not works. Am I to believe that the
scoundrel's deathbed confession of faith will give him a ticket to
paradise, while the entire life of an honest, compassionate, just and
courageous unbeliever will not spare him damnation? If heaven is to be
populated by the likes of Falwell and Robertson, and hell by non-believers
such as Socrates, Jefferson, Gandhi, Rousseau, Mandella and Sakharov, then
quite frankly I am content to go to Hell. I would much prefer the company.
But of course, I can't conceive how one who truly believes in a just God,
can believe that He would condemn billions to eternal damnation, and
"save" ("rapture") a few hundred thousand believers. I think that the
prophet Micah had it right: "what more doth the lord require of thee but
to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah
6:8).
On to politics. I too endorse free enterprise. Which is why I also endorse
government regulation. History shows that unregulated free enterprise is
self-defeating, and leads to monopolies -- the death of free enterprise.
Hence the anti-trust laws (enforced, gasp!, by government). Just
because some criminals go free, and some destructive fires destroy
property, it doesn't follow that we must abolish the police and the fire
departments. Instead, we should improve them. So too with government. The
remedy for bad government is better government, not no government. The
founders of our republic tried that with the Articles of Confederation,
and soon repented and drew the Constitution with a strong central
government (Read the Preamble).
We share an abiding concern for the condition of the environment.
Libertarians believe that the environment can best be preserved by
privatization of all environmental resources, unconstrained by government.
In a [published]
essay, I have crafted a careful refutation of that claim. You
want to protect the environment? Then if you think it through, you must
also endorse government protection.
Government is good, or government is despotic and evil. It depends on the
government, and the people who sustain it or, in worst cases, tolerate it.
But government, in the civilized condition, is indispensable. If you
disagree, then you disagree, not just with me, but with Jefferson and the
Founders: "... to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
We both deplore pornography and smut, and I would add to that the
depiction of violence in the media. But please note that this is the
result of unregulated "free-enterprise" in action. The Government doesn't
promote these evils. Quite the contrary. Thus I note, with some amusement,
the current Congressional response to Janet Jackson and "boob-gate."
"Bring on the regulation!" And the so-called "conservatives" are leading
the charge.
I must tell you that this 2nd Amendment business really ruffles my
(Partridge) feathers! Again, not because we disagree, but because we agree
-- and some scoundrels have taken great political and financial advantage
over a concocted but essentially bogus issue.
You say, "private ownership of fire arms is viewed as politically
incorrect."
By whom, pray tell? I have known hundreds of "liberals," and
not one of them believes in the confiscation of private firearms. Sure,
there are fringe nut-cases who advocate total abolition of guns. But they
are universally so regarded -- as kooks. But the opposite fringe, I
maintain, holds that there should be absolutely no restriction or
regulation of weapons -- be they bazookas, TOW missiles, cop-killer
bullets, assault weapons. Even the NRA endorses regulation and restriction
of gun ownership by felons. Somewhere in the middle between these
extremes, honorable citizens of good will can disagree, and should debate
their differences calmly and rationally. For myself, I see little harm and
much benefit in the registration of deadly weapons -- all guns should be
identified by serial number and ballistic "fingerprints." This, for the
advantage of law enforcement. We register vehicles, so why not firearms?
Beats me. But if anyone wishes to offer a calm, well reasoned rebuttal, I
will respectively listen and deliberate.
So we agree: private citizens have a constitutional right to own firearms.
And I suspect that some 98% of the population (liberals included) also
agree. Those who contend that "the liberals are out to take away your
guns" are up to political mischief.
Liberal press? Consider: Paul Begala did a Nexus-Lexus search of news
stories during the 2000 campaign, and came up with this:
There were exactly 704 stories in the campaign about this flap of
Gore inventing the Internet. There were only 13 stories about Bush
failing to show up for his National Guard duty for a year. There were
well over 1,000 stories -- Nexus stopped at 1,000 -- about Gore and the
Buddhist temple. Only 12 about Bush being accused of insider trading at
Harken Energy. There were 347 about Al Gore wearing earth tones, but
only 10 about the fact that Dick Cheney did business with Iran and Iraq
and Libya" And of course, Gore, in fact never claimed to have "invented
the internet."
I rest my case. And if you are still unconvinced, read Eric Alterman's
"What Liberal Media?"
To sum up, I confess that I am thoroughly confounded by political rhetoric
today. Most self-described "conservatives" aren't conservative at all --
they are radical anarchists, out to tear up our Constitution and undo the
social progress of the past century. Witness the "Patriot Act," "First
Amendment zones," and the Bush budget. Progressives ("liberals" if you
prefer) such as myself, are struggling to preserve our liberties, our
received rule of law, and the Founders' checks and balances -- in short,
we are the authentic "conservatives."
No need to go on, since I've written and published about all this at
length. But if you can stand a further dose of my political rantings, see
my "Conscience of a Conservative" (that's me!) ...
I close as I began: we agree much more than may have suspected. And our
agreements, as friends and as citizens, are far more important than our
differences. I think you may agree that our differences are best dealt
with in the context of a well-ordered and civil political arena, based
upon "conservative" principles of justice and tolerance, envisioned by the
Founders of our republic, and of late banished in the corrosive political
diatribe of the present day. I trust that we are united in our desire to
restore the civility in the body politic that we knew and respected in our
youth.
Your enduring friend,
Ernie
"Habemus Papem" -- and perhaps a rough road ahead for us
heathens.
When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI, William
Cole of the Associated Press
reported
the following:
On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the
College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing
the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered
dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism,
agnosticism and relativism - the ideology that there are no absolute
truths.
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church,
is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said, speaking in Italian.
"Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along
by every wind of
teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards."
If "liberalism" is now anathema to faithful Catholics, may we now expect
a mass excommunication of Catholic liberals"? A tiny Baptist Church in
South Carolina appears to be leading the way. I had heard that Popes
John XXIII and John-Paul II were "liberals." Will they now be declared
"Anti-Popes"? (Better put a hold on that fast-track beatification of
JP-2).
To be fair, the new Pope delivered that homily in Italian, and perhaps
there is some nuance to the word that was translated as "liberalism."
So we'll await some clarification.
The Pope's condemnation of "relativism" has struck a responsive note
amongst the (largely protestant) religious right in the US. However,
"relativism" has numerous interpretations, not explicated by the Pope in
that homily. I'm working on an essay that will spell these out, which
I will share with you when it is done. The working title, "In Praise
of Relativism" may suggest where I stand.
Finally, Max Blumenthal has excavated
this remarkable quotation by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger in 1990:
At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason
than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.
No doubt, this gives great comfort to the embattled "Intelligent Design"
crowd in Kansas and elsewhere.
March 24, 2005
When we acquired our TV satellite dish, we had hoped that
from among the hundreds of mostly worthless channels, we might find a very
few gems amongst the rubbish.
The History Channel looked like a good bet, and to be sure, there are some
worthwhile programs there -- more often than not, originating from our
English cousins across the big pond.
For the most part, however, when it comes to The History Channel, you can
just fagetaboutit.
First of all, there are those endless showing of WW-II pics, leading some of
my friends to call it "The Hitler Channel." (I've lost count of how many
times I've seen the exact same footage of the Arizona exploding at Pearl
Harbor).
Then there are those feasts for ignoramuses about UFOs, The Bible Code,
Astrology, Nostradamus, etc., without one on-screen contrary word from an
informed scientist. Some of these are narrated by none other than Leonard
Nimoy. ("Gee, Maude," there's gotta be somethin' to it, after all he's the
Science Officer of the Enterprise!")
The capper came last week, with "The Search for Noah's Ark," a program
featuring fuzzy photos of a rock outcropping and ice cornice at about 10,000
feet identified as "a possible location of the ark." Some unasked questions:
"Is it just possible that Mount Ararat got its name from The Bible rather
than vice versa?" (After all, nobody believes that Bethlehem Pennsylvania is
the site of the nativity). "If the entire planet was flooded up to 10,000
feet above current sea level, where did all that water go?" "Last month here
in Southern California, we had a downpour of 20 inches in a week, which is
about the limit. How then could 10,000 feet of rain fall in forty days?"
"Where is the world-wide geological record of the flood?" (Oh, sorry, I'm
told that the Grand Canyon was carved all at once, 6,000 years ago, by the
flood). "If the entire world was flooded some 6,000 years ago, howcum
there's no contemporaneous record of this event in other cultures?" (Same
question, re: Joshua stopping the motion of the sun -- and I always thought
it was the Earth, not the Sun that was doing the moving. Oh, well...).
None of these questions came up at "The History Channel."
I truly wonder about such things, which is why, I am assured by Revs Falwell,
Robertson, et all, that my soul will suffer eternal torment in Hell.
With junk like this passed off as "history," is it any wonder that a sizable
portion of our population believes that they will live to see "the rapture"
and the Second Coming of Jesus?
|
