Freethought Association | Tolerance and Truth: a Dialogue on Constructing a Free and Virtuous Society

Tolerance and Truth: a Dialogue on Constructing a Free and Virtuous Society

Meeting Minutes and Commentary for July 26, 2006; #212

COMING ATTRACTIONS: www.freethoughtassociation.org for the most up to date information about upcoming events and opportunities. And for questions regarding specific items of interest, send e-mails to: info@freethoughtassociation.org. Meetings are held at 7PM on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at the Women’s City Club, 254 E. Fulton Street, Grand Rapids, MI.

POD PEOPLE: Peace One Day (POD) is a celebration of the International Day of Peace, on September 21st. There will be a kick-off event locally at our Wealthy Street Theatre, on August 22. For more information, check www.peaceoneday.org or www.wealthytheatre.org.

FREETHINKERS GONE HOLLYWOOD: Our own Wayne E. and Rob St. Mary have been honored for two different film projects. Rob created a short, silent, black and white film with the title: Two Tracks that has been selected for the Atlanta Underground Film Festival. It will play in the Experimental Shorts Program: Film as Art, on Thursday, August 24 of this year, 10PM, at Eyedrum as part of a program of 14 different films. Two Tracks is in the running for Best Experimental Short because of its inclusion in this category at the A. U. F. F. For more information, check out www.auff.org. Wayne was featured in the David W. Potter film, Rhapsody in Red, where he was cast as a priest. Rhapsody in Red has been called a twisted love story and is described as one of a kind; bursting with irony and dark humor. This romantic comedy explores the painful side of love... uncertainty, anguish and desperation. It was accepted into the Rhode Island International Film Festival as one of 200 out of 2,000 submissions for screening.

STATE of REASON: In a recent USA News site report, that broke down the populations of all 50 US states according to religion (or lack thereof), Michigan residents who reported having no religious affiliation came in second only to Catholics for numerical representation. Incidentally, we were just ahead of Baptists, who came in third place.

THREAT DOWN! The Comedy Central television program, The Colbert Report (whose host assumes the persona of a Bill O’Reilly-esque hard-Right bloviator), featured Camp Quest in its Threat Down portion on the May 24th broadcast (which tells of grave societal ills befalling us from all manner of nefarious agents—from secularists and civil liberty promoters to Colbert’s chief bete noir, the bear). Camp Quest, you will recall, is the first ever summer youth camp specifically for the children of secular humanist families. It came in at number 5 on the list. Camp Quest of Michigan will be happening again this August (13th–20th; contact: www.michigan.camp-quest.com). Can it be long before the Freethought Association makes the list?

FREETHINKERS ENGAGED IN RACKETEERING: At the recent FA Annual Summer Picnic, at Rogue River Park, we had several rousing games of tennis in addition to badminton and other racket-wielding (and other) recreational activities. Thanks to everyone who contributed to the fun for all. It was very nice to see some new faces joining us for this occasion, too. Speaking of which, this Secretary has fielded several queries from interested people who are unable to attend our regular meetings but would like to participate in our other social gatherings. They often ask if these events are open to them. Of course! Welcome! These happenings are an excellent way to get to know others in the group in an informal, fun way and we look forward to meeting you.

COME TO THE TENT FOR SAVINGS: The next Freethought Movie Night will feature the Sarah Kernochan documentary/expose film, Marjoe, about one time soul-saving child evangelist Marjoe Gortner, who did the church tent revivalist circuit. This film will be shown at Jason’s house on August 2 at 7PM. For more information, visit our website or write to Jason at: jason@freethoughtassociation.org. The following FMN will be on August 16 and feature: CSA; Confederate States of America.

LOCKWOOD LADIES’ LARGESSE: Check out the Freethought Women’s Group to share in the gift of freethought and good social times. The next one will be on August 19, at 10AM. For more information, visit our website or contact Jennifer at jennifer@freethoughtassociation.org.

HUDDLED MASSES UNDER THE GUTTERING FLAME: Our next regular meeting on August 9 will on the topic: The Statue of Liberty’s Dark Torch: Immigration in America, presented by Richard Kessler, Esq.

SWEET SIXTEEN: The Freethought Association has, at the time of this meeting, garnered $16,500 toward our Fund Drive goal of $25,000. We thank all who have already generously given, or have pledged, their support for our organization’s growth and development and we are counting on those who have yet to make a donation to do so.

THE TOPIC for this meeting was: Tolerance and Truth: A Dialogue on Constructing a Free and Virtuous Society. It was presented by Father Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute. Rev. Robert Sirico received his Master of Divinity degree from the Catholic University of America following undergraduate study at the University of Southern California and the University of London. During his studies and early ministry, he experienced a growing concern over the lack of training that religious studies students receive in fundamental economic principles, leaving them poorly equipped to understand and address today’s social problems. As a result of these concerns, Fr. Sirico co-founded the Acton Institute with Kris Alan Mauren in 1990.

As president of the Acton Institute, Fr. Sirico lectures at colleges, universities, and business organizations throughout the US and abroad. His writings on religious, political, economic, and social matters are published in a variety of journals, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the London Financial Times, the Washington Times, the Detroit News, and National Review. Father Sirico is often called upon by members of the broadcast media for statements regarding economics, civil rights, and issues of religious concern, and has provided commentary for CNN, ABC, NPR, and CBS’ 60 Minutes, among others.

In April of 1999, Fr. Sirico was awarded an honorary doctorate in Christian Ethics from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, and in May of 2001, Universidad Francisco Marroquin awarded him an honorary doctorate in Social Sciences. He is a member of the prestigious Mont Pelerin Society, the American Academy of Religion, and the Philadelphia Society, and is on the Board of Advisors of the Civic Institute in Prague. Father Sirico also served on the Michigan Civil Rights Commission from 1994 to 1998. He is also currently pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Fr. Robert Sirico’s pastoral ministry has included a chaplaincy to AIDS patients at the National Institutes of Health and the recent founding of a new community, St. Philip Neri House in Kalamazoo, MI.

The stated mission of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty is to promote a free and virtuous society (hence the title of Fr. Sirico’s presentation) characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. It was named after Lord John Acton (1834–1902) who is famously known for his remark: Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Inspired by his work on the relationship between liberty and morality, the Acton Institute seeks to articulate a vision of society that is both free and virtuous, the end of which is human flourishing. It publishes widely, from essays for the general public to academic studies and papers aimed at segments of society dealing with economics, social thought, business entrepreneurs and religious thinkers.

Josephine K. provided the introduction for our presenter, which was done in a personal fashion, where she set aside written remarks to give anecdotes and recollections regarding Fr. Sirico. Among other special guests in our midst was the widow of co-founding Freethought Association member, Charles Leedy; Barbara Leedy, whom Josephine introduced.

Father Sirico put a watch on the podium and began with an amusing story about a priest who likewise did this and was asked questions regarding the religious service and the meanings behind the rituals. A couple of examples were the reason for genuflection which the priest explained acknowledged Christ’s presence at the altar, and the hand movement forming the cross in front of the gesturing person, which indicated that Christ was on the mind, lips and heart. Asked about the watch being laid upon the pulpit, the priest replied that it was merely to remain aware of the time spent addressing the congregation; no deeper meaning.

He next spoke of the various religious traditions and what they based their approach to life upon. He noted that organized bodies without a religious referent also had key concepts that they based their way of life upon, including the freethought tradition. Pulling from our organization’s written statements, he saw that we are composed primarily of skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. which, he said, told a lot about what we are not—but little about what and who we are. However, going to our mission statement, he found this missing part, where it it is stated that we explore ideas from a rational, scientific and non-theistic perspective. He found this satisfying, and perhaps unexpectedly, coming from his theistic vantage point—something he could relate to. He explained this by saying that his approach was based in the Natural Law tradition, which, he said makes use of a rational perspective. In Latin it is rendered jus naturale and is seen to be recognizable by human reason alone. It exists outside of the positive laws of a given political order, society or nation-state but is seen as undergirding all fair and just human constructions of ethical and moral behavior and treatment of others. Some of Natural Law’s basic tenets are that it is not made by human beings; it is based on the structure of reality itself; it is the same for all human beings and at all times; it is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover; it is a naturally knowable moral law, and it is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good. Father Sirico said it simply as that people apprehend the truth of things as they are.

He spoke of how in the contemporary political discussion, regarding the social and political sphere, there is the concern by some of religion over-extending its influence in political debates. Certainly, he acknowledged, there are abundant examples from history of massive wrongs issuing from religion being wed to State power and of dogmatic truth claims being the precursor to intolerance. A current example he gave of where religious ideology insinuates itself into politically charged social issues is with the embryonic stem cell research debate. But, he contended, intolerance is not the exclusive province of religion. Opponents of the aforementioned stem cell research have been labeled theocratic and President Bush has been referred to as an ayatollah for his stance on the use of these cells for potential treatments, based on his interpretation of his brand of Christianity. Too, the Religious Right has been called America’s Taliban. A rational conversation is impossible, he asserted, when things are not seen for themselves what they are intrinsically—but for what they are associated with by inflammatory rhetoric. Liberty stems from a search for the basic truth of things. Christian truth claims, Father Sirico stated, are not claims to absolutes, or omniscience. There is an appreciation for relativity that fuels an honest quest for the truth, especially in politics. He gave examples not only of dogmatic religious assertions but also of politics not based on religion, such as Marxism, as being extreme and too absolute. Seeds were sown in history for what came to fruition in the 18th and 19th centuries as classical liberalism. Liberty is the political end of man, Lord Acton had declared, but this was not the totality of the human being. One may be free (have liberty) and be driven by vice or virtue alike. Liberty itself, in a search for meaning, cannot provide the whole context in which we draw from in order to make choices—good or bad without reference to a higher truth that helps guide our choices.

Fr. Sirico spoke of the philosophical absurdity of Fideism, with its circularity of reasoning, which allows one to believe anything so long as one claims belief. He contrasted this with Christian truth claims which he said were based on a rational/falsifiable and historical approach as well as revelation. This was stated flatly, without explanation. Religious skeptics tend to want such assertions, which fly in the face of their own observations, to be bolstered by examples. Our speaker left for our perusal on the literature table, a review he had written for Crisis magazine with the title Reason is Ours. It was a review of the book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. The book (published by Random House) was written by Rodney Stark. This review, too, may have left some of the religiously skeptical hankering for examples that never came. We are told that secularists foisted the idea of the Dark Ages being ruled over by Christianity until Enlightenment ideas pulled us out. This is declared in the review as bad history and countered only by stating that there were many innovations during that time and that this period gave us the foundations of science, universities and learning, music, economics, and architecture, along with a developing notion that recognized the importance of the individual and political liberty. One longs for supporting information, a catalog (even summary) of the innovations and how that timeframe provided such fertile intellectual and liberty-loving soil.

These assertions may in fact be absolutely correct, but it would be nice to have examples given, especially when they run so afoul of what is commonly understood about that period. He notes that Stark finds a strong relationship between faith and reason but gives no basis for the validity of such a claim. Faith is generally understood as belief in the absence of reason or evidence. If this is not the case, the person alleging the fusion of rational thinking and faith-based thinking ought to give support for this counter-intuitive notion. In his review, Fr. Sirico also shows how Stark highlights Christianity as something plastic and that could improve and become more clear and systematic over time, with new ideas infusing it with vitality and progress. The instrument that goaded all this progressive and new idea-loving approach was the Church. Again, for the apostate, the agnostic, the religious skeptic, these bald unsupported declarations may sound like reports from counter-Earth. This is not to say, however, that they are erroneous or without basis; many scientific truths about the material world are likewise hard to reconcile with what people generally construct about the reality of the world. Further elucidation, however, to one with an alert and open mind, may engender enormous perceptual shifts. But such edifying information begs to be offered.

In his presentation to us and in the review alluded to above, he claimed that an integral part of the development of civilization was bound up in ideas stemming from religious thought, such as the institutions of capitalism, including the notion of private property, freedom, trade, entrepreneurship, the legitimacy of profit, and strictures against promise-breaking and theft. Of course civilizations had been flourishing independent of Judeo-Christian concepts and no civilization or even pre-civilized tribe could be expected to survive without the basic notions of not stealing or killing each other off wantonly. Later these ideas that bind tribal affiliations and maintain the longevity of a group or society are codified into teachings attributed to a divine messenger or god, not the other way around. The Decalogue is composed of ideas of private property but only as owned by a man, including his wife and slaves. Freedom has little to do with the commandment. Intellectual freedom is also mitigated by belief in only one (of the large variety available at the time) of the gods (and a jealous and seemingly insecure one at that) conjured up by people, not producing images, setting aside one day as special—based not on natural circumstances but on one particular creation myth. Jesus exhorts his followers to rid themselves of all wealth and proclaims that it is more difficult for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. It is difficult to see the direct connection between Christianity’s core doctrines and accumulating wealth, though, again, this may well be the case it just wants for explanation.

Not just Christianity but Catholicism is held up in the book Fr. Sirico reviewed as being praiseworthy: ...for its tolerance toward investment and market institutions, its eventual liberality toward usury, its encouragement of the idea of separating church and state, and for its belief in the moral urgency of improving life for individuals. End quote. This Secretary had to look up the term usury to make sure he had it correctly defined in his head, when seeing it lifted as a high ideal. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate. End quote.

Four major postulates that Stark sees as emanating from Christian (and in this particular context that Rev. Sirico drew from—especially Catholic) ideology are that progress is possible and desirable; innovations in technology and organization are praiseworthy; political institutions should move beyond despotism to permit a wide sphere for the application of freedom, and that reason ought to be applied to the organization of commercial activity. These principles, Stark holds, built civilization. Bishop Shelby Spong, among others, has strongly contended that the Church, far from being an engine for progress and enlightened thought, is one of stagnation and ossification, doomed to extinction if it does not change. The president of the Acton Institute in his presentation noted the positive challenge that the Church provided to the absolute authority of the despotic ruler. The freethinker might counter that this is merely trading one set of shackles upon personal autonomy, liberty and freedom for another.

The potential salvation of every soul encouraged freedom and dignity for all, is one message from the reviewed book. But the question that logically follows is how is this salvation to occur? The answer is through blind obedience to Church teachings and the authority of its leaders and by submission to dogma that declares one religion to be the only correct one and to one figure (who may or may not have actually existed) from a couple millennia ago. It is very difficult to see the Church as an institution that cherished the free exchange of different ideas and approaches to life. One may see countless examples of Church authority proscribing progressive thought and deed, personal liberty and new technologies. If there exists a plenitude of counter examples, these would be much welcome to hear about. Also hard to reconcile with reality is the observation, in that same review, that: Catholicism, by emphasizing individualism, led to the victory of entrepreneurship and freedom. End quote. It would be so wonderful if this writing instead gave examples and then said: in this way, Catholicism led to individualism and entrepreneurship. While skeptical of these claims, as flatly stated, the freethinker, holding no dogmatic notions or special adherence to doctrines or authority sources/texts/institutions, is open to arguments that go against the grain. The supporting arguments just need to be provided, since she (the freethinker) does not tend take such statements passively, and on faith.

Rev. Sirico further made the connection between the realms of matter and the spiritual by saying that grace builds on nature; it doesn’t destroy it. In keeping with Natural Law ideas, the truth of things was presented as independent of human conflicts over different interpretations of specific aspects of the world. Truth is across the board, encompassing everyone/everything. He talked about the distinctions between Natural Law and utilitarianism; the former he saw as dealing with an enormous scope spanning from man’s origin to his ultimate destiny, while the latter deals only with matters of usefulness. He also referred to the Pope’s writing on Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio) as well as ideas from an unlikely source—George Smith (author of, among other books, Atheism, the Case Against God). Smith regards Lord Acton as one of his intellectual heroes. He wrote of (in Christianity and Liberty) how in Protestant regions, Catholicism and atheism were united by their vilified minority status. He notes that even enlightened thinkers such as John Locke believed that religious liberty should be extended to all save Catholics and atheists. Acton was quoted by Smith in the article as follows: The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. End quote.

Smith wrote of how the early Christians, as a persecuted minority, were pro freedom, which was subversive thinking in the Roman Empire. The Christian of that time saw his duty to his faith as above that to the land he was in. He would submit to secular punishment rather than transgress a divine law. Rather than fight Rome’s battles, he would pray for their victory. Apologists for early Christianity drawn from by Smith saw all institutions of the Roman government, even its charities, being based on brute force, whereas Christianity saw everything as voluntary. While this may have applied to those early followers of Jesus, the thumbscrew and rack, the conquests, Inquisition, Holy Wars, crusades, pogroms, and even missionary work arising from Christian zealotry against those of different belief systems that came later would argue against religious freedom being part and parcel with the Christian faith. In the article Smith echoes this by writing of how, once Christianity became the official religion, other forms of worship and beliefs were outlawed and that a church born in opposition to the state became its friend and ally. Lord Acton is quoted regarding this situation: Christianity, which in earlier times had addressed itself to the masses, and relied on the principle of liberty, now made its appeal to the rulers, and threw its mighty influence into the scale of authority. End quote.

Acton believed that neither church nor state favored liberty but that the contest between them for absolute authority and power over the populace produced a happy by-product in the form of individual liberty. Pope Gregory decreed that the pope may depose Emperors and may absolve subjects of unjust men from their fealty. But, of course, the pope himself was above deposition or judgment and was (and is) seen as infallible. The pope could claim that the despotic ruler was a mere man, but taking the unquestioned authority of the papacy and his interpretation of Church doctrines, he himself became elevated to a station beyond reproach, rebuke or redress. Still, the main point in this matter was that the monarchy eventually found itself under attack from both Protestant and Catholic camps. Sir Robert Filmier, said that it was crucified between two thieves. Smith summed up his article in the Acton Institute publication as follows: Throughout history, the love of liberty has transcended religious controversies. This is good news indeed. If an atheist who values liberty meets a Christian who values liberty, this common ground gives them a reason to value each other. End quote.

Something in the core nature of things may serve to protect and inoculate humans against what Fr. Sirico called accidental power. Accidental or arbitrary power occurs when humans are shut off from the truth of things as they are. While, as mentioned earlier, Fr. Sirico was supportive of relativity in examining different ways of being in the world, he is opposed to relativism, which allows for every view to hold equal weight and man being unable to examine arguments for their varying levels of veracity and cogency.

If my notes (that I draw upon here) are accurately rendered, it appears that our speaker made a connection between intolerance and the rejection of metaphysics that is seen in the non-religious worldview, saying that such thinking may be free but is also narrow or limited as to its approach to the truth. Rev. Sirico contrasted Islamic laws with Christian ones, saying that with Christianity there is a division inherent in its authority that helps to reduce the likelihood of the abuse of power. He quoted the famous line about rendering unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is His in support of this view. He also surveyed some of what had already been covered earlier regarding the early Christian impediment to absolute power in the Roman state. He added that corrective theological concepts helped delineate coercive power and that the Western civilization concept made a distinction between power and authority and that this helped to constrain extreme behavior.

To further illustrate the difference between succumbing to coercive power (with secular or at least non-Christian power being the referent) and willing submission to authority (with Christianity serving as the analogue) he gave an example of a husband rising on a lovely morning, donning his golf attire and taking equipment in hand to hit the links. His wife appears in the room and asks what he is doing doesn’t he remember that this was the day they were to attend her sisters wedding? He puts away his golf apparatus and begins to prepare for the wedding. The wife holds no coercive power over the husband in this example, but he willingly alters his behavior anyway. Christianity holds to modifying one’s personal behavior, then, even without the threats and loss of liberty that are inherent in military or police powers. He explained that the Christian concept of love and truth are identical. Truth has only one weapon in its repertoire: love.

As to tolerance, Father Sirico contended that it is not the same thing as agreement. It is, instead, a civil form of disagreement where one accepts what is not agreed upon while not relinquishing one’s opposition to the matter at hand. Tolerance does not strive to mold another to one’s own will or stop another from holding his/her different views. When tolerance turns to relativism by trying to be too open minded, intolerance can result. One does not have to quietly accept or acquiesce to extreme behavior. An example he gave was of the preacher who goes to a funeral for a homosexual to condemn the deceased. While he did not give a name, one real life example of this behavior is the Rev. Phelps with his mantra of God Hates Fags. One may disagree with homosexuality and not personally accept the behavior but should not take this to such an ugly level. An example he gave on the other side was seeing a bumper sticker that read: So many Christians, so few lions. While this message is accepted, if it was a similar type, targeting instead women or Jews (as examples he gave), this would cause an outrage. He employed, at this time, a line that has been used by Richard Dawkins as well—that one should be open minded, but not so open minded that one’s brains fall out. The evolutionary biologist and outspoken skeptic of religious claims, Dawkins, employed the line to encourage one to see as many sides of an issue as possible but not to let one’s skepticism of unfounded claims wither away to produce simple-minded credulity. Fr. Sirico also, in this portion of his presentation, made comparison/contrasts between claims of values and claims of virtue.

The St. Mary Catholic Church priest next talked about how humans related to the material world differently than all other animals. Animals, he declared, are bound by instincts to the natural world and relationships with it and other beings. Humans, however, are self-reflective, thinking beings that have a reasoned and rational relationship with the world. This enables humankind distinctly, he said, to create culture and to have the ability to build civilizations. Humans and nature are linked by a reasoned response which enables them to form a sense of property, create a value system and the means and mechanisms for exchange. We are also able to extend our thinking beyond the immediate response to our environment so that we can plan and build for the future and can examine the past via our record making. We can communicate more broadly and permanently. Our imprint on the Earth is, therefore, deeper by far than can be made by any other creature on the planet. We must consume, but we are not limited to consumption, since we can accumulate and store, cultivate and build, retain and preserve to a greater degree than other beings. We create wealth and commerce. While Catholicism is negatively cited for its pressure toward procreation, seeing this as making for too many mouths to feed and too much of a hit upon the environment, Father Sirico countered that we are enabled to create more and extract more resources and thereby thrive even at greater densities. Children are not just a blessing but a resource for the future. One could, however, argue that this concept does not apply equally throughout the world. Already impoverished and disenfranchised people are kept ignorant of birth control methods for religious reasons, resources are strained, disease and hunger and suffering are increased and women are reduced to being baby makers only with no chance for education or improvement of their lot, while being infected with STDs due to lack of sex education. So while those more fortunate may benefit from increased numbers such as those who have attained a level on Maslow’s famous hierarchy of needs to not be limited to the basics of acquiring food and shelter; those who are not so fortunate become ever more desperate as their population increases to where even those basic human needs are unable to be met adequately.

Wealth, Fr. Sirico stated, is not only a matter of natural resources. To bolster this statement he discussed differences between countries, such as Japan with almost no natural resources and having had two A-bombs dropped on it, as contrasted to Brazil with abundant resources but less growth and development. It may have been surprising for some attendees to hear him cite these particular examples, given his crediting of not only Christianity generally, but Catholicism specifically for ushering in development and innovation, since Brazil’s largest (by far) religious denomination is Catholic and Japan has a vanishingly small number of Christians of all stripes (less than one percent). Different cultures draw out and create wealth from nature at different levels, he contended. Human capital, he also noted, is intellect; this is the source of prosperity. He then said that anthropological vision is articulated most precisely by Christianity—it led to freedom, prosperity and capitalism. The Christian concept, he elaborated, of people is that all are potentially able to have salvation. He also spoke of how Christianity was the mainspring for the creation of hospitals and universities and provided the thrust for institutionalizing charity services and programs and venturing out further in the world with this ideal. He further linked the Church’s theology with progress, capitalism and the legitimacy of profit long before the Industrial Revolution—and the sense of property with the dignity of man. Again, these links of logic are more akin to leaps of faith without supporting information, but this is not to say that the concepts are errant.

In the book by former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips, called: American Theocracy; The Peril and Politics of Radical religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, Father Sirico is mentioned in the chapter Church, State, and National Decline (page 238). Regarding environmental stewardship, Phillips writes about the pro-business, pro-development explanation of Christian stewardship of the Acton Institute and how it was aided over several years by ExxonMobil and published on market mechanisms and private property rights as being linked to stewardship. He writes further: The institute’s director, Roman Catholic Father Robert A. Sirico, contends that left-tilting environmentalism is idolatrous in its substitution of nature for God, giving the Christian environmental movement a perhaps unconscious pagan nature. End quote.

Father Sirico ended his presentation by apologizing to those of us who had been hurt by religious leadership—by being ridiculed, ostracized, etc. In a free and virtuous society one may voice opposition to an opposing worldview or practice without disliking the person or denying him his dignity.

In the Q&A portion of the meeting presentation, an audience member asserted that the US is largely responsible for the dichotomy between Brazil’s and Japan’s development. Father Sirico replied by citing the system of law imposed in Japan that allowed for development, the creation of contracts, acquisition of property and private ownership of homes that can build equity. The people are not bound up in dependency as much there. The intolerance for homosexuality by the Catholic Church was next brought up by a member who has a gay son. Fr. Sirico asked if one’s love and acceptance of one’s son mandates acceptance of his lifestyle choice (Sirico’s phrase). There was an audible reaction against the use of that terminology in the audience but he stood fast to his belief that there is no hard evidence that one’s sexual orientation is not a matter of choice and environmental factors. He said that he was embarrassed, however, by those professing their religious beliefs that use it to proclaim that fags are burning in Hell, etc. However, the Christian view on sexuality is a small part of the overall structure of the Church and, he maintained, that homosexuality while it may reflect a disorder, does not invalidate choices made. One is still responsible for one’s choices ultimately. He went on to say that a person should not be defined by their sexual orientation. But that this is seen more now than it used to be. One could counter that a vilified segment of society striving for equal rights with fellow citizens simply IS defined, during the struggle, by what makes them different. During the Civil Rights movement, the melanin levels in one’s skin were highlighted. Gays wanting equal rights and protections are notable for being homosexual. The only alternative is to keep on with the status quo and second class citizenry or to remain in the closet.

One person said that counter reactions come from reactions that may be traced to initial proselytizing. If there weren’t the initial religious condemnation of some groups perhaps this would mitigate some of the problem. Father Sirico said we should be able to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

A self-declared apostate in the audience asked our presenter what he thought about the idea of authority coming only from God, divine revelation and our covenant with Him. He replied that this concept in the extreme form is termed theonomy and is seen in the Dominionist theology the late R.J. Rushdoony and his disciple (so to say) Gary North as well as, in weaker forms, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. In looking up the term, this Secretary found theonomy defined as a form of Christian ethics associated with Christian Reconstructionism (the Dominionists), which attempts to insert Old Testament ethical standards into modern society. God provides the basis of both personal and social ethics. Theonomy is the antithesis of autonomy. The Bible is viewed, under this construct, as the standard by which the laws of nations should be measured and to which they should conform. Father Sirico said that this view lacks the distinction between God and Caesar. Truths are inherent in all things and universal. Making distinctions between Church and State is not only good for the State but also for the Church. He disagreed with censoring as with the attempts to prevent access to Internet content in public spaces, as it was too much of an intrusion by the State in private affairs.

Asked about his opinion on the current administration’s faith-based initiatives, he allowed that he was an early supporter in finding ways to use faith resources to help organize charities but that co-mingled powers have led to problems. I would comment that since churches are allowed to discriminate, withhold certain services and be tax exempt, that this not only demolishes the separation of Church and Statevia public support of private faiths but also gets the government in the business of discrimination and withholding services and modifying programs in ways that fall outside of a non-theocratic government. He said that he does not believe, however, in separating religion from society, noting that totalitarianism can result from a wholly secular government as well as a holy religious one (my turn of phrase, but his thoughts).

A meeting attendee spoke of how she had had a Fundamentalist upbringing that taught that one is saved not by works but by belief, thereby dooming her to Hell no matter how good a life she led or how much she did to improve the lives of others, if she did not believe certain narrow doctrines on faith. He responded by noting the complexity of personal cognitive relationships with the world and institutional belief systems but also talked about how the Church cannot pronounce that anyone is doomed to Hell. He quipped that if one adopts Church faith principles one has to believe that there is a Hell but not that anyone is necessarily inhabiting it. He continued by noting that Christians have a whole smorgasbord of reasons to behave as they do—some are working out anger issues, etc. In classical Christian morality the sins of the spirit were considered worse than those of the flesh. Christians, he said, have the rabid, intolerant people here and there in their midst and non-believers have the militant village atheist. Both are extremes.

In response to another comment, he talked about how Christian ecumenical groups bend over backwards to accommodate all views. He believes this is taking things too far. Disagreement is good and airing differences is healthy. One may do this in a way that keeps everyone’s dignity intact. In another reply dealing with a potential conflict between working toward the accumulation of wealth and serving God—he said that one cannot serve God and mammon alike but that mammon serves us. The idea of private property and cultivation of resources is not the same as greed. He does not think it is proper to either canonize the poor or demonize the rich. One has to see things within their contexts. Those who are given certain talents or gifts have the responsibility to use them wisely without becoming overly absorbed. People can become owned by their things too much, he said.

The talk turned to ideas regarding freedom of conscience. Conscience is the guardian of one’s dignity and we are obliged to respond to it. But it is not the final arbiter of the truth; truth is ultimately what we have obligation to. People have the right to act upon personal conscience without coercion. The right to autonomy of conscience means one has the responsibility to respond to the truth. When asked about his response to President Bush countenancing God as the nation’s governing agent and even saying the God guides his own actions, he said that he finds that comforting. This sort of talk is far from comforting to the non-theist, however. Since all manner of horrors have been and may be introduced as a result of a powerful figure believing he is guided (and therefore blessed and justified) by God. Those of the atheist persuasion may even regard this as delusional behavior and therefore even more troublesome in one holding so much sway.

Asked about his unswerving allegiance to his beliefs, he replied with his own question: Don’t we fully embrace that in which we believe? Don’t we think that what we believe in is the truth of things? Good point, but one could go to investigating what forms the basis of one’s belief system, as Professor Van Till had (see an earlier meeting and topic) when he looked into what factors shaped his own portrait of reality (as he termed his worldview). Does one use evidence or faith; the teachings of one’s culture as the absolute truth for all places and people or does one examine other views? Belief is more tentative in the scientific approach, for instance. Even the most well founded belief about the workings of the world may be destroyed by the introduction of new and better, conflicting evidence.

The question of dualism was brought up, whereby those who believe we operate out of a spiritual/supernatural essence in addition to our physical state tend to move morality outside themselves into the ethereal realm of gods, souls, etc. Those who do not believe in this way, rely on themselves and take personal responsibility for their actions and have their individual interpretation of the truth of life and the way to behave well. Father Sirico responded by asserting that in lacking a metaphysic one lacks a governing agent and is unable to approach transcendent truth. Acting out of the belief that one’s own will is absolute and therefore divine can lead to totalitarian behavior. If one is his/her own final arbiter of truth, then one cannot argue against it, he noted. On the other hand do we not wrestle with our own perceptions and views all the time? That’s how we grow, learn and develop in a mature fashion. Arguing against supernatural agency—especially if this is believed to be the Creator of the universe and the entity that holds ultimate control over all things—would seem to be the more difficult path to take. Sirico’s reply here also seems to sidestep the reality that everyone who believes he or she acts out of supernatural agency acts as an individual—exactly as they would if there was no supernatural agency involved. Is the same transcendent governing force at play in the actions of a genocidal individual who feels he is motivated by God as in one who selflessly cares for others using the same belief system? Is it possible that the ideas of gods, angels, souls and such are human constructs that we set outside ourselves, rather than already existing outside the natural world of matter? Another comment Father Sirico made on this issue is that since Christians believe that the spiritual Divine presence became flesh—God incarnated in the person of Jesus—there is belief in the distinction in order to unite the two essences. He also claimed that he cannot execute his will arbitrarily due to his belief in a higher truth.

Asked about the tax exempt status of religious institutions while owning large swaths of land, etc. he said that rather than moving to a position where churches are taxed—that corporations should move the other direction—and be taxed less. He endorsed a limited government and a flat tax system. Once the church is taxed, government has too much say in church operations. On the other hand, in this country, religious organizations have undue influence in public life, unconstitutional governmental support and yet do not have to be held accountable by outside agencies—all while remaining tax exempt.

One ex-Catholic in the audience who considered herself a free person now, having extricated herself out of both the Church and a bad marriage, asked if God made all the contradictory ideas in religion and in the Bible itself. He assured us that there is only one final truth and it is free of any contradictions.

Father Sirico invoked the usual whipping boy—the ACLU—as being a prime instrument in the change of the concept of freedom OF religion to freedom FROM religion (actually that might be the Freedom From Religion Foundation he is thinking of?). The ACLU is actually simply very pro-constitution. Our government is not to establish, endorse or support one religion over another nor deny anyone the right to practice his or her personal religious faith and the ACLU is a tireless defender of this principle, among other constitutional principles. Examples he gave to support his view included forcing abortion drugs on pharmacies and mandating that Catholic hospitals perform abortions and the general societal move to abortion on demand and other things he finds personally objectionable.

Regarding taxation, one person talked about differences in access to societal resources but also about how it really does not matter if one has a lower tax rate personally if that person is surrounded by a society in shambles. Rev. Sirico opined that societies with the lowest rates of taxation are the most prosperous ones. He also said that economic truths are valid but they do not represent the entire picture of reality. His own approach is one that is a fusion of Libertarian and transcendent values beyond that philosophy. He spoke of how power guarantees his liberty but authority demands something that cannot be forced via the law. Justice and mercy have different connotations. He said that he won’t be standing before God on Judgment Day asking for justice but instead pleading for mercy.