Liberal geldings, Huckabee and Hagee

I especially like that line too.

'For it is only when you believe that you are right and others wrong that the virtues of graciousness and respect become real, manly, virtues.'

But I'm not sure Pastor Hagee qualifies as tolerant. I'll need to read up a bit more. There's a line that's crossed between differing theological interpretations, doctrines and plain ol' bigotry.

The Southern Baptists I've spoken with about this think the 'hatred of Catholics' phenom comes chiefly from ignorance. And maybe it's precisely the lack of graciousness and respect that are the problem???

I appreciate and agree with this quote from Mr. Beckwith.
However, have you (Rod) or has anyone here watched Hagee's show? The man is, shall we say, a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

I don't see a qualitative difference. If a 'liberal religionist' thinks no religions are true, then he must think that those who believe their religion is true must be wrong.

Perhaps the difference is that the 'liberal religionist' is not engaging the debate at the level where 'fine points' are argued (e.g. "Are buttons OK?" "Is the Pope infallible?") but at the core beliefs (e.g. "Does God exist and if so, how much can we infer from that fact?").

Personally, I don't see why arguing over doctrinal details like how many angels can dance on the head of the pin, or whether you can milk the cows on the Sabbath would be more 'virtuous' than arguing over the existence and nature of God.

I would also note that the 'religion is private' technique of getting along politely in a diverse society is distinct from the notion that 'religion is no different from matters of taste'*.

* With the caveat that religious beliefs do appear to track with proximity to local culture and so for most people it's probably not the result of deep, internal soul searching and reasoning but simply going along with what everyone else does.

Yeah, nice point. [sarcasm]. Piously refer to "the virtues of graciousness and respect" in one sentence, then point out that anyone who disagrees with you has no balls, in the next.

I wonder if the apparent prevalence of this type of "graciousness" has anything to do with the problems conservative men seem to be having with workplace relations in a recent topic. "Gee, all I really want is the right to freely express my obnoxious opinions whenever and however I please, and to pre-emptively deny you the right to take offense. Is that so much to ask?"

Frank (and Rod) are using underhanded rhetorical tricks here by conflating the right to say, respectfully, "I think your theology is wrong"--which is, and should be, an acceptable comment--with the right to spew irrelevant insults such as "you are a gelding!"--which isn't acceptable and ought not to be.

As a pagan, I always find it ironic that a religion (that being my personal perspective) that insists it has the only Truth will engage in internal bickering over whose Truth is truer than everyone else's Truth.

I have often heard or read from otherwise reasonable Christians that they are incapable of tolerance towards non-Christians, because that would be identical to denying their sole possession of the Truth.

It's times like these that I am most interested in avoiding magnets.

From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Spider_Robinson:

"God is an iron," I said. "Did you know that?"

I turned to look at her and she was staring. She laughed experimentally, stopped when I failed to join in. "And I'm a pair of pants with a hole scorched through the ass?"

"If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton, and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron."

Thomas J. was wrong.

the liberal religionist who thinks that no religions are true...The liberal religionist is like a man without genitals bragging of his chastity.

Who are these "liberal religionists?" Is there one in a coffee shop or junior college near me?

Seriously, anyone who wants to stand with John Hagee has more to fear than mere anti-Catholicism. CUFI has more kooks per capita than any organization of castrati I've ever heard of. Standing with John Hagee means standing with moral giants like Tom Delay and the assorted preemptive bombers in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K30_Zz7tHYs

The wisest theologian is the one who can say, "I am certain that 70% of what I believe is wrong. I am just not certain which 70%."

Actually, I would say that a humanist, who believes that religions are wrong and misguided, who is greatly outnumbered, and is force fed the piety of billions, is a nobler soul than the Catholic who respects his fellow Protestant traveler.

Really, why make it a contest though. As an atheist, I will never, ever see the day where I can simply express my beliefs in a political setting. In my neighborhood, for example, I would instantly be persona non grata and never be looked at the same way again.

I would speak up if I felt the need, but this whole 'manly' bit seems pathetic to me. Manliness is probably better reframed as strength and courage, which either sex can have.

And the strength and courage to let others differ and disagree with you and coexist amicably is no small feat these days. It takes a great deal of understanding for me to 'tolerate' religious people who cannot back up their beliefs yet do not hesitate to ram them down my throat concerning any number of social issues such as abortion, school prayer, even the war. They use their faith as a club and are self-righteous, and they often cannot even give me a reason for why I should take their faith seriously other than that their feelings tell them so.

Of course thoughtful religionists may indeed have those reasons. My point is that most religionists do NOT have such rationales, and the strength and fortitude to deal with them (and other atheists, who can be just as difficult to deal with for different reasons) is just as noble.

So cut the crap and stop patting yourself on the back about this manliness stuff, and once again, that religion somehow bestows this special virtue upon you. It doesn't.

To the person who believes that such religious differences do in fact matter, it is intolerant of the religious liberal to insist to him that they don't.

Better to stand with a person who believes that such truth exists and matters, even if I strongly disagree with him on what that truth entails, than to stand with the person who says it neither exists nor matters because he is more "tolerant."

>>>
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Posted by: John E. | January 14, 2008 10:43 AM
>>>

>>>
Thomas J. was wrong.

Posted by: Sheilagh | January 14, 2008 10:52 AM
>>>

Sheilagh, how do you figure that it does you an injury for your neighbor to say their are twenty gods or no God?

How does it pick your pocket or break your leg?

Don writes:

"What gets me about many anti-Catholic fundamentalists is that their views are borne out of an unwillingness to consider the other side on its own terms. They set up straw men, and then beat the heck out of them. They lie about what Catholics actually believe, and then go about demolishing that lie. Campus Crusade did this at my undergraduate college--they do it on many campuses."

Don, that's a good point. However, I wouldn't say that they were "lying." As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, there is a difference between intentionally telling a falsehood and telling a falsehood you believe is the truth. Although the latter may be morally negligent, it is not a lie. In fact, in some cases, and perhaps this would include the Campus Crusade folks you mention, people rely on what they believe are trustworthy sources of Catholic doctrine that we informed Catholics know are not trustworthy sources. But that doesn't make them "liars." In other cases, informed Protestants get Catholic doctrine wrong--not because they are "liars"--but because they approach Catholic doctrine with a Protestant paradigm. For example, "grace" and "faith" are terms of art in Catholic and Protestant theologies, each with nuanced definitions. "Grace" for a Catholic is real stuff that infuses the Christian. For the Protestant, "grace," is more legal, having little if anything to do with a real intrinsic change in the Christian. "Grace," for the Protestant, is God's unmerited favor and nothing more. It is a relational term that does not refer to real stuff. For the Catholic it does. So, when a Catholic engages in the sacramental life in order to receive God's grace, the Protestant sees "works," which are inconsistent with the Protestant view of "grace." But the Catholic doesn't see that at all. The Catholic sees it as an act of faith, since it is by grace that we are saved through faith (Eph. 2:8). For the Catholic, accepting the gift of grace is not a "work." It is, mysteriously, itself a gift of grace that makes the sacramental life, the Christian life, possible.

Having said all that, I agree that folks like Hagee are theologically shallow when it comes to Catholicism. But they are well-meaning, with big hearts that love Jesus. Our job, as thoughtful Catholics, is to offer theme correction, but we must do so in a spirit of charity and Christian affection.

One more thing. I want to raise a question to charlie: Do you think that the sort of books written by Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins--with their often harsh rhetoric--would have been received the same way if they were believers of one sort criticizing all other religions? This is what I am suggesting: it is much easier to criticize all religions as false than it is to criticize one as true and all the rest as false. Why? Because religion is seen as a matter of taste, and not as something that can in-principle be knowledge. Religion is like ice cream preferences. It's okay to say that all ice cream is bad for you (i.e., Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins), but it's not okay to say only French Vanilla is good for you but not regular vanilla (i.e., typical religious believer) since it is just a matter of taste. Or to put it another way: why is okay for Sam Harris to say that we all ought to convert to atheism, but it is not okay for Ann Coulter to say that Jews ought to convert to Christianity? Why is the latter considered in poor taste while the former is considered a legitimate appeal? (Set aside Coulter's obnoxiousness for the moment). Why is Harris an intellectual and Coulter a bigot?

The guy that nailed this is Pope Benedict XVI in both his Regsenberg speech as well as his book (that he wrote as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger), Truth and Tolerance.

The more I think about the post the more my head spins.

Vehement disagreement is a form of solidarity? In that case, Rod, I expect you to join the ranks of the PC immediately. They take their beliefs, and yours, very seriously, and there are few people more disagreeable.

Elizabeth:

You may not realize it, but you are making our point. The problem with the radical Muslim is that he does not believe that he is obligated to give others a reason for the hope that lies within him (to paraphrase I Pet. 3:15). This, ironically, puts him in the sphere of the privatized faith you are recommending. Like the liberal religionist, the radical Muslim would prefer his neighbors religion to be safe, legal, and rare so that they may not be a threat to his enforced hegemony. It's still the back of the bus, whether its Muslim or secular.

Hey Franklin, I just enjoy taking the arguments here to logical but ridiculous endpoints. Straw is often the order of the day in the blogosphere so why not join the fun?

Buddhism informs my perspective. From that point of view, much of the current public posturing on matters of faith/non-faith is an activity of the mind that generates a temporarily-solid sense of self through strong feelings. Nothing makes you feel stronger and more real than a righteous argument. (An outstanding example of a useful public discussion of faith can be found on Speaking of Faith each week.)

Actually living the way of the spiritual masters does not, as far as I can tell, require masculinist posturing. Where do "Blessed are the meek" and "Blessed are the peacemakers" fit into measurements of virility?

I have been accused of being anti-Catholic in the past simply for saying that I think that the dogmas of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception are heretical. So I do agree with Mr. Beckwith that some Catholics are a bit too touchy about supposed anti-Catholic raving. I don't think, however, that John Hagee is someone I would want to hold up as a role model for intelligent, civilized discourse.

I am quite happy being generous, gracious, and non-judgmental toward my Catholic brethren while still believing that they are wrong on a number of dogmatic issues and that the Gospel preached by Rome is a Gospel distorted by pharasaic legalism and lust for political power. I don't need to act like John Hagee to express my distaste for Catholic theology and spirituality. I can discuss it with people like a rational human being and respect their right to hold any opinion that they like. Tolerance for diversity in belief is not lukewarm "indifferentism," (as Rome used to teach), but rather it is borne of humility and respect for human beings. I agree with others who said that the fact that we might be wrong about some things, should make us more tolerant of people who disagree with us.

Why is Harris an intellectual and Coulter a bigot?

Other than for the obvious reasons right?

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

1)This is what's classified as an Intuition Pump.
It's the classic sophist's trick, supplant physical 'injury' for all types of injury. Ex. Well if it's true that I don't break my leg or lose my cash Then he must be right there must be no injury.

Causing many people to 'Stop right there' in their reasoning. But they should go further, What 20 religions - Santaria, hedonism, atheism, altruism, humanism, agnosticism, socialism . . . .??? The list goes on and on. And each of these belief systems has it's own ideal consequential actions. And while I can't come up with one that might break my leg (Cannibalism? :)) I can think of more than a couple that would pick my pockets.

2)No man/woman is an island.

If the environment in which I live is the same as the one you live in we effect and affect each other. Whether either party chooses to recognize it or not. If my next door neighbor is a thief that effects me. So yes TJ was wrong. We're not all so Grandly independent as he implies. And I can be injured by someone else's beliefs if they're pushed on my family and they are immoral or unjust or violent or . . . whatever you pick. That's the point.

3)Not all beliefs are harmless.

Francis, the problem is that I take my ice cream fat-free, if you catch my drift.

Part of the problem is that no religion can defend itself; it IS a matter of taste with religion. There's just no real evidence that doesn't rely on begging the question in the first place.

I don't know how serious you really want me to take your ice cream analogy anyway. I don't think it's going to get you any mileage. If you're a Christian who thinks that Jews need to convert, so be it. But really, besides your feelings, what do you have besides your feelings that you're right? I've seen the apologetics; they really don't work unless you already believe.

If you want atheists like Dawkins to ease up the rhetoric, eh, I would probably agree because they'll never be in anything more than 5% of the populace. Dawkins' rhetoric probably hurts and converts more than helps because he pisses off his enemies, he's red meat for the converted like a Rush Limbaugh.

But we live in god-soaked times; the primacy of religious verbiage is just deafening, it's taken for granted that religion is virtuous, when we all know that if you go to church, there are lives of quiet desperation there just like anywhere else.

I recently saw a Charlie Rose interview with EO Wilson, who advocated a kinder, gentler conversation with Evangelicals about the environment, so sure, I'll sign up for that. After 8 years of Bush's to Hell-with-you-America, I'll willingly shift my own rhetoric.

But again, let's just stop kidding ourselves that believers have some especial virtue; they don't. It doesn't grant 'manliness,' which still makes me chuckle each time I type it. It's like wishing for 'temperance'. Some virtues are stained by the past, like 'prudence.' Today, counseling prudence makes you sound like a wimp, when that's probably what we needed with Iraq, but I digress.

Yes, I did. But I'm reading it differently than you obviously. Did I get it wrong? I'm interpreting him to say

If My neighbor has 1 or 20 or so Gods,
Then that will NOT pick my pockets or break my leg.
So (Implied) having a neighbor with 20 belief systems is (always?) harmless.

I'm saying that argument doesn't follow.

I'm not interpreting it to be
IF my neighbor has 1 0r 20 Gods , . . . (and they're all Nice)
Then that will not pick my pockets or break my legs.

IF beliefs effect a person's actions, Then they'd effect that person's neighbors.

TJ is too simplistic. And by that his argument fails. Sorry if I was unclear.

I was checking back to provide a link on Intuition Pumps. It's by an old classmate and I think it's still quite sound.

http://www.lyceumphilosophy.com/Lyceum-1-2.pdf page 64

Some liberal religionists

1. John Hick (Presbyterian)
2. Paul Simmons (Baptist)
3. James Wood (Baptist)
4. Raleigh Kirby Godsey (Baptist)
5. Virtually any Unitarian-Universalist

Frances,

Conversion at the point of a weapon is the same as private faith?

How is an extremist who wants me to convert or be killed, with no concern for my actual beliefs or experience of the divine, the same as a liberal Christian who understands that we are different, but will nonetheless be there to help me when I fall?

Please give examples of religious tolerance producing inquisitions, pogroms, slaughter, deportations and terror?

Your argument is a non-starter for those who don't already believe, as Charlie points out above. Why should the current crop of obnoxious public atheists hush or tone down? In their strenght of belief, they are preferable to humble Christians who will accept you as you are without patting themselves on the back for being "gracious" for doing so, no?

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

ARE there 'religions' which promulgate picking the pockets of others? (And no, I'm not talking about the "send me a hundred dollars or God's gonna do something drastic to you and your loved ones!" appeals type of 'religion'.)

I think jaybird got it right and Sheilagh got it wrong on this one.

"Conversion at the point of a weapon is the same as private faith?"

No. That's not what I said. Read carefully. I was trying to say that the radical Muslim and the privatized religion advocate both believe, ironically, that religious belief is outside of the reach of reason. This is why, for example, privatized religion gives warrant to closed-mindedness not open mindedness. Think about it: if religion can't in-principle be true, and if all I have is my private world of devotion (a distinctly Protestant notion, I might add), then there is no reason to listen to the other or to offer to the other reasons for my belief. After all, if the other can't have truth in-principle, what's the point? Open mindedness is only a virtue if truth is possible. It is an instrumental good that makes acquisition of other goods possible. This is why secular liberalism fails: it can't account for tolerance except as a modus vivendi.

You're confusing privatized faith with tolerance. What I am suggesting is that privatized faith is intolerant, for it is telling religious believers that there is only one correct way to think of their faith: it's private, so shut up!

You're also confusing the underlying rationale for two beliefs as the same as saying their equivalent. It is clear that radical Islam and privatized faith are not the same. But what they have in common is the same understanding of the role of religion and reason public discourse. That should give you pause. This is why, for example, the offense principle doesn't work with pornography but it does with religion among many elites in our society. If, in a public high school, you pass out condoms with Bible verses on them, there are many who would be more offended by the Bible verses than the condoms. And yet, sex is far more private than religion.

I think jaybird got it right and Sheilagh got it wrong on this one.

I agree. The mere act of professing one God, many Gods or no god at all does not steal or injure. That profession many offend certain sensibilities, but it does not injure. This is free speech.

But I'm pretty sure that atheists, monotheists and polytheists alike have done harm to their neighbor at one time or another, for a variety of reasons, religious and otherwise. All have sinned. There's no free lunch.

"Some liberal religionists

1. John Hick (Presbyterian)
2. Paul Simmons (Baptist)
3. James Wood (Baptist)
4. Raleigh Kirby Godsey (Baptist)
5. Virtually any Unitarian-Universalist"
As I thought,

not even a strawman argument... only a single solitary straw.

I never heard of these people. Beckwith is complaining about fellow philosophers,. Angels. Pinheads.

Also, I might note. People who advicate a pluralistic viewpoint religion are not saying "all religions are the same." They are saying your religion is mostly in error.

They aren't eunuchs. You just don't like their meesage.

To Franklin Evans

That's not exactly what I'm saying. Because obviously there's free will and multiple belief systems that play into everyone's decisions. But the distinction I'm trying to make (maybe not well) is that Jefferson can't divorce belief from action. Because unless that belief is very shallow, certain beliefs should result in certain consequential actions. Or at least that's the goal.

Based in part on my favorite verse in James, "Faith without action is dead."

Will
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor "to say" there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

On reading it again maybe I did fail to take into consideration "To Say" standing alone. Obviously you're right. To say something, won't pick a pocket, break a leg, . . . but it still might cause harm.

I tend to bind up words and actions as the whole of a belief system.
Mostly to remind myself that talk alone is cheap.

Having experienced some extremely multi-faith/ foreign belief systems/ lack of any moral system whatsoever diversity at my grad school. I had first hand experience of how other students' belief systems or lack there of can effect the outcome of a small moral microcosm.

Certain beliefs like those of some (Notice I said only Some)of the Pakistani men towards Women were not just beliefs, they were injurious to the women they had arranged marriages with. The women they worked with. People who disagreed. etc.

If a person could be only their words (anywhere else than the internet) I think Jefferson's quote would hold more weight. As it is, I still think actions and deeply held beliefs intertwine.

I think I could go with Erin's interpretation (maybe sans the idea of 'private' beliefs). I suppose that's what happens when we get TJ out of context. Left to our own devices we can get into trouble. :)
peace.

Francis,

You write: if religion can't in-principle be true, and if all I have is my private world of devotion (a distinctly Protestant notion, I might add), then there is no reason to listen to the other or to offer to the other reasons for my belief. After all, if the other can't have truth in-principle, what's the point? Open mindedness is only a virtue if truth is possible. It is an instrumental good that makes acquisition of other goods possible. This is why secular liberalism fails: it can't account for tolerance except as a modus vivendi.

I'm not buying or perhaps misunderstand you. There is such a thing as understanding as a reason to listen to the other or offer reasons for one's own beliefs.

Are you saying that those who believe their religion has a sole claim on Truth are incapable of being open-minded, which by your own definition implies that one must acknowledge the other as having the possibility of truth?

It's far from a straw man argument. It is actually a deep assumption of our cultural discourse. For example, suppose someone says that "Jones's argument against abortion is just a religious argument." What you immediately think about the person's assessment of that argument? You would think that he thinks the argument is poor, because it is religious. After all, if someone said, "Jones' argument against abortion is based on social science data," you would think that it has something going for it. What I am suggesting is that the word "religious" does not modify "reason" in any interesting way. "Reasons" are true or false, good or bad; "religious" does not tell us anything about the quality of a reason. FYI, I deal with all this in a recent article I published, "Bioethics, the Christian Citizen, and the Pluralist Game," Christian Bioethics 13 (May 2007): 159-170.. You can find it here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/ChristianBioethics2.pdf

For example, suppose someone says that "Jones's argument against abortion is just a religious argument." What you immediately think about the person's assessment of that argument? You would think that he thinks the argument is poor, because it is religious.

More straw. The problem is, the only thing pejorative or belittling about that sentence is the word "just." Mere religion. Take it out and it's an fairly obvious, innocuous observation. "Jones says the bible says that abortion is wrong."

Substitute "moral" or "ethical" for religious, and you'd likely elicit "What other argument is there?"

This is sounding more and more like victim politics.

Francis,

You intermix theology and morality and target the strawman "namby/pamby liberal" who has no convictions of right and wrong because everything is relative.

When a liberal (well, one like me anyway) reads "religion is private", I am sympathetic to that statement because I interpret "religion" in this context as meaning religious dogma such as the Immaculate Conception, the Holy Trinity, Transubstantiation, Resurrection of the Body, etc.

I consider morality and ethics as being different beasts from religion -> obviously any religious belief system has a system of morality and ethics that go along with it. But adherents from different religions can find common ground on matters of morality while being in complete disagreement on theological matters such as the nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, who Mary is, the requirements for salvation, life after death, etc. These are important matters in the sphere of religion; they are not so important matters in the realms of ethics and morality, are they?

PS: There is an interesting article by Steven Pinker about the possible origins and development of moral feeling in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine...

"What you immediately think about the person's assessment of that argument? You would think that he thinks the argument is poor, because it is religious."

You are not objecting to such an argument. You are claiming that that a person who makes such an argument is castrated.

That's the strawman.

The person who makes that statement is telling you that your religious based argument is as worthless as an ipse dxit. That's not an argument born of cowardice.

Your claim that such a person is somehow gelded because they give no right of privilege to religious-based arguments reflects merely your own (rhetorical)shortcomings, not the strength of the argument.

Erin,
The man who believes in twenty gods may think he has a moral duty to satisfy one or the other of them by picking my pocket or breaking my leg
And the man who believes in one god may think he has a moral duty to convert me by force, for the good of my soul. Should I therefore assume that all monotheists want to do this and are therefore to be feared and hated?

"I agree. The mere act of professing one God, many Gods or no god at all does not steal or injure. That profession many offend certain sensibilities, but it does not injure. This is free speech."

Just caught this thread; ain't no way I'm gonna read it all to catch up now. But found the above from Will.

What Will wrote above is of course true, but I think it misses something even more important. Man must be able to profess what he believes to be true even if he's wrong. That goes deeper than free speech I think. It goes to free thought and freedom itself.

Of course if that which a man beleives and professes somehow causes injury or incites violence, the man is then free to run till he is caught and properly smoted by the duly appointed smoting authorities.

"For it is only when you believe that you are right and others wrong that the virtues of graciousness and respect become real, manly, virtues."

Real, manly virtues? Pffft.

I'll keep my "fake", feminine virtues, thanks.

Well, Erik, it depends on the monotheists, doesn't it?

But I was speaking to the Thomas Jefferson quote, and Jefferson was speaking to people who largely shared what we term today Judeo-Christian morality. Forced conversions weren't really popular among that crowd, many of whom had come from England in the first place so they wouldn't be ostracized, taxed or jailed for not practicing the Crown's version of Christianity; we, their descendants, are even less likely to favor forced conversions today, so unless you're planning to emigrate to a part of the world where the monotheists still practice forced conversion I'd say any fear would be irrational and misplaced.

And Jefferson, speaking of pagans and atheists, was saying something similar, really: no need to fear them unless they start acting against the prevailing standards of morality. There's nothing wrong with that, either, until there no longer IS a prevailing standard of morality. Like now.

"... the liberal religionist who thinks that no religions are true..."
for good reason...
it seems likely that religions are based on the imaginations of superstitious ancient men who invented supernatural stories which are mismatches with Reality...
or is there a Myth that IS reliable and true?
I doubt that there is even one...

"For it is only when you believe you are right..."
yes, I believe I am right...
"... and others wrong..."
yes, and those others are free to graciously disagree...

the liTeral religionist is like a man without "something" bragging that he knows that in the future God surely will be giving him "something"...
feel free to disagree...

Myth faith hope love joy peace to all...

Man must be able to profess what he believes to be true even if he's wrong.

Absolutely! Please continue, Max.

"Liberal religion is, by and large, the opposite of humble, and is just as insistent about its purported correctness as is the most backwards redneck fundamentalist."

Actually, I'd agree with you on the last point (not the lack of humility one), to some degree. Liberal religionists do believe they are right, which makes the argument that they stand for nothing an absurd one. It just happens that their position emphasizes tolerance and skepticism rather than dogmatism as virtues, which can admittedly make some issues more problematic in their worldview than in others (such as the extent to which one should tolerate the intolerant, the point at which "understanding" should stop and punitive judgment should begin, etc.). But liberal religionists can by and large live with that. It gives them (us) something to talk about.

Well, Erik, it depends on the monotheists, doesn't it?

That was my point, yes. I called it out because you seemed to me to be siding with Sheilagh's position that it is reasonable to assume that, as a class, non-monotheists *are* more likely than monotheists to "pick your pocket or break your leg", without reference to the character or beliefs of the individual non-monotheist. As a non-monotheist, I will fight against this assumption.

Sheilagh, you seem to misunderstand my skepticism. Your skill in applied logic is obviously excellent; it's your specific analysis in this topic that elicits my doubt.

Rob, how are ya? ;-) Since you and I have been around this block many times, I'll just make a general comment about dogma: human experience has shown every time that belief can be trumped by reality, all too often fatally. Dogma is its own bane. IMO, the mistake that Christian dogma makes is in willfully denying experience.

"...you and I have been around this block many times..."

Indeed we have, Franklin!

"IMO, the mistake that Christian dogma makes is in willfully denying experience."

And I'd argue that Christian dogma, when properly understood, can be seen to be directly related to experience. As a matter of fact, one of the great works of Orthodox dogmatic theology, by the Romanian theologian Dumitru Staniloae, is called "The Experience of God" (and he does not mean that ironically!)

Not to be a nudge, Rob, but the experience I refer to is the ubiquitous incidence of reality disproving belief. I left it general and vague to acknowledge that the details are important, not to ignore them.

For me, the conflict is not the existence of dogma, and I readily acknowledge the validity it has for many people. No, the conflict is when dogma includes the belief that it must be imposed (a term with connotations, I know) on non-believers. This is the essence of "one true way", both its efficacy and its demise.

Perhaps my point would be clearer if I restricted my usage to subjective experience. Belief, after all, is deeply embedded in the subjective.

Not if the Eagles can prevent it. ;-)

Without genitals? I agree, but C.S. Lewis named them "men without chests."

"how does one go about 'disputing about', say, whether or not the bread and wine offered at a Catholic Eucharist really is or is not the flesh and blood of Christ?"

Read the philosophical and theological discussions between the Catholics and the Protestants at the time of the Reformation to find out.

As far as Francis Beckwith goes, he's just one more ex-evangelical who excuses anything evangelicals say on the grounds that they are "faithful" or "taking a position on the truth." Other than that, the increasing flow of evangelicals into the Catholic Church is slowly eroding any kind of Catholic identity and practice in favor of shallow, subjective, evangelical "Christianity."

Got Eucharist?

John.