The One True Religion?

I saw this on Twitter the other day:

"Every religious person has the one true religion. They can't all be right. #atheist"

I agree with this tweet, mostly. But I would amend it slightly as follows:

"Every religious person thinks they have the one true religion. They can't all be right."

Most people do believe they have the "one true religion." If they don't, they have no business belonging to that religion.

If they don't believe that what the religion says is true, why are they a part of it in the first place?

Obviously, every religion can't be right. If you were to take just about any two religions, it is likely they are going to claim contradictory things. No serious person of faith should believe that all religions are right in all they teach. No one who values logic should believe this either.

Various religions can agree on many different things, and they can be correct about many different things, but on some point they will differ in a way that clearly shows they cannot both be correct.

So, I'm not exactly sure what this person is trying to say.

Maybe they are saying that most religions and more religious people are wrong in some way. If so, again, I'd have to agree for reasons noted above.

Maybe they are saying that this is somehow proof that all religions are wrong. However, it does not follow that since many people have different ideas, and that many are wrong, that everybody and every religion is wrong.

When Did We All Start to Hate Each Other?

I don't think it was always this way. I could be wrong, but I feel like there was a time not that long ago where people could have an honest disagreement about something and still be friends.

Recent events have caused me to question that more than ever.

Today, emotions seem to be running higher that I can remember. The year in politics that was 2016 certainly didn't help. But weren't we already heading this way?

In the last several years there have been so many hot-button issues that people feel strongly about. That must be the difference....

But is it really? That has always been the case hasn't it?

Yes. So what is the difference?

Well, as Bishop Robert Barron has said, we've forgotten how to have a good argument.

Not argument in the sense that we clash over something where there is strong disagreement. Rather, argument in the sense that two people will put forth reasons in support of their respective positions and then they will think critically about the other's position.

Now, we see something on social media that connects with what we already believe on an emotional level, we click "Like" and think "BOOM!" Then we continue scrolling.

Or, we see something that we have an adverse emotional reaction to, and become disgusted with the person who posted it. In the most extreme cases, we unfriend, unfollow, or even stop talking to them IRL (IRL = In Real Life for those of us who remember a time before social media). Because.... we assume we are good and they are bad?

Where did we get the idea that people who disagree with us are people we should not associate with? When did this happen?

I have a crazy idea. Is it possible that those who disagree with us on the controversial issues of the day might not be terrible people? Maybe, just maybe, they are advocating for something good. Maybe they are focused on a different good than we are. Or maybe we want the same good, but have different ideas about the best way to achieve that good.

Maybe people who are pro-choice are concerned about pregnant women and want the best for them. Maybe people who are pro-life are concerned about protecting the lives of innocent human beings. In either case, do these any of these people deserve our hatred or scorn?

Maybe people who support same-sex marriage want those who experience same-sex attraction to have fulfilling lives. Maybe people who support traditional marriage want what they believe to be best for society or are concerned about religious freedom. In either case, do these ideas make someone evil?

Maybe people who support refugees coming into the US are concerned about protecting those fleeing violence. Maybe people who want to stop or limit refugees coming into the US are concerned about the safety of their country, their families and neighbors. In either case, do these concerns mean they are irresponsible or bigoted?

Maybe people who voted for Hillary are concerned about the marginalized in society. Maybe people who voted for Trump feel like no one in government stands up for them or we need a change. In either case, do these views mean they are not worth our friendship?

I hope we can answer no to these questions. I hope we can make our arguments civilized again.

Is Faith Just Pretending?

I've often heard the saying “Faith is pretending to know something you don’t know.” I think that’s an interesting way to define faith, however I don't believe this statement aims to define it.

This statement is meant to mock it.

The intended message here is clear: It's irrational. It's intellectually lazy. Faith is silly. Just wishful thinking.

But let's set that aside for a moment, take the definition at face value, and define a few terms. Doing a quick Google search, we find the following:

Pretending: speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.

I don’t have a problem with this definition, however I have a problem with his use of the word in his assertion. His statement assumes both that there is, in fact, no God, and that the person pretending knows there is no God and is speaking/acting otherwise.

First, most atheists would say that we don’t know there is no God (in that we can’t prove that there isn’t). Second, people of faith clearly don’t fit this definition because they are not acting contrary to what they “know.” If they “knew” God didn’t exist, they wouldn’t have faith.

The use of the word “pretending” fails here, as does the claim. Faith is not pretending by the above definition.

What is it then? Let check back with Google.

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Here’s where the internet might get us into trouble (I know, right?) – unfortunately, this definition uses the phrase “based on spiritual apprehension.” This is incomplete and misleading in that it suggests that we develop faith by NOT thinking critically, that we gain it by some kind of "spiritual intuition."

The above is much more in line with this definition of blind faith:

Blind faith: belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination

In truth, the statement "faith is pretending to know something you don’t know" treats all faith as blind faith.

Sure, many people do have blind faith. But this is not the history of faith.

Throughout human history, philosophers and theologians have wrestled with the question of the existence of God. They have written about and debated this topic for many thousands of years. They have developed arguments and counter-arguments and have contributed to a great body of work.

Similarly, our faith is not blind if we’ve investigated and tested it and questioned our beliefs - finding sound arguments and good reasons to believe that God exists, or at least that it's a rational belief.

Faith, at its best, does not replace reason, but builds upon it. It's rational and it's intellectually sturdy. It's withstood centuries of challenges.

I think it withstands this one, too.

Trump, Travel and (I hope) the Truth

I admit it, I was fooled a little bit. Watching my social media feeds this weekend, I was pretty upset about what was happening at airports around the country this weekend (or at least what I thought was happening). So I've taken a few minutes to try to do some research and sort this out. Here’s what I’ve been able to piece together so far.

President Trump did not institute a “Muslim ban.” He instituted a temporary travel ban on people from 7 countries in the Middle East, preventing all citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations from entering the US for 90 days. Who identified these countries as countries to be concerned about? The Obama administration in 2016. Were these countries chosen because they are predominantly Muslim? No, these are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.

President Trump also halted US refugee entry into the US for 120 days, and he is not the first president to do this. President Obama banned Iraqi refugees from coming into the US in 2011 for 6 months. If we are going to have a national conversation about whether or not we should ban refugees from coming into our country temporarily, let’s have that honest conversation, but let’s do so with facts on the table, and not let our contempt for the past or present occupant of the White House muddy the argument.

No legal US green card holders have been denied entry into the US and airlines have informed travelers that permanent green card holders can travel to the US, according to a senior Department of Homeland Security official. They do now have to go through an additional screening process. From what I can tell, it’s likely that green card holders being detained at airports was due to this additional screening or confusion over the executive order.

Which brings me to my last observation. It seems that based on the chaos of the last 48 hours, this executive order may have poorly implemented or communicated to US Customs Agents, or both.

These certainly aren’t all the pertinent facts – I tried to hit the highlights. Just about everything I learned was from the two CNN articles below (I tried to err on the side of getting my information from sources not friendly to the Trump administration, and I think CNN safely qualifies).

How Trump's travel ban affects green card holders and dual citizens

Trump defends executive order concerning extreme vetting

If you have anything to add, or if I got any facts wrong, please let me know. I'm looking to understand what's true, not criticize or defend anybody yet (OK, I will try to defend what's true).

Here are a couple of other sources of info you can take a look at well (thanks Mark Renner!).

Trump’s Executive Order on Refugees — Separating Fact from Hysteria

Most claims about Trump’s visa Executive Order are false or misleading

If you find something on any of these pages that's factually incorrect, let talk about those facts. But please, let's not dismiss facts simply because they might come from a source we don't like. That doesn't do anybody any good. 

Women And Humanity, Part 2

Well, another week, another March in Washington, DC. This one, the March for Life, predictably did not enjoy the same amount of media coverage, but it is still a significant event, just as it has been for decades.

A few days ago, I wrote to "voice my support for women and humanity everywhere." Now I'd like to develop some of those ideas a little more deeply.

Basic Human Rights

I listed a few basic rights which all humans share: the right to exist, the right to live free from violence or the threat of violence, the right to be treated with dignity, and the right to equal protection under the law. Of course, we'd all agree on these. I listed several ways in which women had their basic rights violated. But which is the most fundamental? Would we all agree that these have equal weight?

First and foremost, a person has a right to exist. If a human being is denied that right, no other right matters. The right to equal protection under the law can only be given to someone who is first granted the right to exist. Therefore, this right should be protected above all others. This is the first right enumerated by the authors of our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Who enjoys these rights? I would argue that we all do, that all members of our human family ought to have their right to exist protected regardless of any arbitrary factor such as sex, race, stage of development, religion, etc.

Therefore, if the right to exist of the most fundamental, and if all humans possess these rights, we must prioritize affirming this right on behalf of all of us, especially those who are most vulnerable - unable to march, etc. In fact we have no other logical choice.

Finally, as members of one human family, we are all responsible for affirming this right, and we ought to demand that our government do the same. Frederica Mathewes-Green explained this eloquently earlier this week:

"If there are different degrees of injustice, surely violence is the worst manifestation, and killing worst of all. If there are different categories of innocent victim, surely the small and helpless have a higher claim to protection, and tiny babies the highest of all. The minimum purpose of government is to shield the weak from abuse by the strong, and there is no one weaker or more voiceless than unborn children. And so we keep saying that they should be protected, for all the same reasons that newborn babies are protected." 

As my daughter Emma said, "if even one of our brothers and sisters are deemed as disposable and replaceable, then the rest of us might as well be too."

Women's Rights
So how does this square with women's rights that many marched for and spoke out for last week? I would argue that it's all part of the same conversation in that we all have the same basic human rights.

Last week I lamented how women routinely had their rights violated. This is true. However, these rights are certainly not unique to women - they apply to all of us, men and children included. In many situations, women have their rights violated in a different way, and in some ways more frequently. The responsibility for our failure to protect women in situations like this belongs far more to our culture that our legal system. The basic right to exist? That's where the blame can be spread much more evenly. It is our Supreme Court that declared in 1973 that, in effect, not all members of our human family enjoy the same rights), and a large part of our culture that has bought into this tragic error.

The tragedy here is that our culture contributes to the creation of situations where thousands of times per day, women who are young, scared, and alone believe that her best or only option to destroy her child. Our government insists we allow it, and our culture tells us there is nothing really wrong with it. This is one of the most disastrous ways in which we have failed to stand up for women.

So again, to the extent that your march (or support thereof) in any part of the country affirms these most basic human rights for all members of our human family, whether it was at the Women’s March or at the March for Life, I applaud and thank you. I encourage you to keep fighting for those who have had and continue to have their rights violated, especially those who cannot speak for themselves, who cannot march, and who cannot exercise their most basic human rights: the right to exist, the right to live free from violence or the threat of violence, the right to be treated with dignity, and the right to equal protection under the law.

Women And Humanity, Part 1

Truth be told, I’d rather not be writing this, but seeing the outpouring of people marching on behalf of the rights and welfare of women, and especially the rights and welfare of all humans, in cities across the country has left me feeling that I must add my voice to the conversation. It’s my obligation to voice my support for women and humanity everywhere.

I believe that all humans have basic rights, and that our culture should be consistent in protecting these rights. These most basic and fundamental rights, to name just a few, include the right to exist, the right to live free from violence or the threat of violence, the right to be treated with dignity, and the right to equal protection under the law.

As a culture in the United States, we’ve done a pretty poor job of this. We’ve more or less come to accept, and in fact expect, than many men will shirk their responsibilities to the women in their lives. They will lie to them and use them for their own personal pleasure and subsequently abandon them. If they father a child, they will leave it up to the mother to take care of them, while they go off to do the same to another woman. In other cases, they will insist that the women commit violence against her child because he does not want the responsibility, further damaging her emotional and physical well-being. In other cases, women are forced into prostitution where a man will profit from her slavery. How many women in this country have had been abused by men in one of these ways? Obviously, far too many. Tragically, we as a society, and more importantly as individuals, don’t do enough to help women in these extremely difficult and heart-wrenching situations or to give them better options for short-term and long-term support.

Women in this country also have their rights violated routinely by domestic violence, rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment. Within marriages, many men cheat on their wives and abandon their families when his marriage and family no longer “makes him happy,” causing the woman and children financial harm, humiliation, and emotional injury. We’ve made it pretty easy to do these days – legally and culturally.

Violation of women’s basic rights happens at all levels of our society, in both impoverished segments of the population and in the highest positions of authority. In the past, CEOs, US Presidents, politicians and other powerful and influential men have been allowed to take advantage of women in one way or another. They have been able to remain untouched by our justice system due to their position, able to smear and silence their female accusers with their influential friends, and in the saddest cases their wives, as accomplices. This will without a doubt continue to happen.

So far I’ve been focusing on women, but of course all humans have these basic rights. It doesn’t matter if you are male or female. It doesn’t matter whether you are a Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist. It doesn’t matter whether you are attracted to the same sex or to the opposite sex. And it doesn’t matter what stage of your life you are in – young or old, child or adult, born or unborn. It simply does not matter. You have basic rights.

To the extent that your march (or support thereof) in any part of the country affirms these most basic human rights for all members of our human family, whether it’s this past week at the Women’s March or this coming week at the March for Life, I applaud and thank you. I encourage you to keep fighting for those who have had and continue to have their rights violated, especially those who cannot speak for themselves, who cannot march, and who cannot exercise their most basic human rights: the right to exist, the right to live free from violence or the threat of violence, the right to be treated with dignity, and the right to equal protection under the law. I hope we can all do that.