Moralistic Therapeutic Deism right for America?

"Nobody finds the courage to face down police dogs and Klansmen in the vapid mewlings of MTD. MTD Christians don't sing "We Shall Overcome"; they trill "We Shall Accomodate.""

You're aware of the theological background of everyone that participated in Civil Rights protests?

"They were the perfect epitome of a well-intentioned, feel-good assault on our civil liberties.."

To whom exactly is "our" referring in the context of this sentence?

Or "some" American citizens when speaking of the pre-Civil Rights Era.

Blake: You're aware of the theological background of everyone that participated in Civil Rights protests?

Of course. So what?

But Rod, MLK was a Christianist bigot imposing his values on others in a theocratic way.

It's a sign of how much progress we've made since the 1960's, that we can longer have a Deep South evangelical Baptist hijacking the Lincoln memorial and using it as a pulpit from which to preach his exclusionary and divisive dogma, based on false and atavistic mythologies from an unenlightened age.

The Founding Fathers have finally been vindicated, the great battle for human liberation from the dead hand of the past has finally been won.

Abortion and anal sex now.

Abortion and anal sex tomorrow.

Abortion and anal sex forever.

Surely there are examples of non-religious people facing great trials for a cause in which they believed.

Thomas Paine is a good example, despite my problems with him.

Those inhabitants deemed American Citizens under the Confederate Constitution...

Yes, continue wearing your obtuseness as a badge of pride, Jillian.

King wrote his dissertation on Paul Tillich...

You should use quote marks around the word "wrote."

On the other hand, I'm fairly certain there were not any 19th century pro-slavery Unitarians.

That's because Unitarians didn't live in areas that had slavery, and that wasn't for a lack of trying. Slavery was tried up north in the 1600s, but the climate wasn't suitable.

You should use quote marks around the word "wrote."

Well he did put pen to paper, but yes, there were plagiarism "issues."

I think Bryce unwittingly reveals what may be a core of his distaste for gay rights (or perhaps gay people): a certain "ick" factor having to do with men having anal sex. Lord knows his posts gratuitously refer to that particular act quite a bit.

And in other hilarious news, the National Organization for Marriage (whose acronym always seems to remind me of Cookie monster for some reason) is now apparently trying to set up gay sex three-ways around the country.

Are we quite sure that La Maggie isn't actually a double agent in the culture wars here?

Anon,

I was trying alliterate in my post above, with the aim of a euphonious slogan for your point of view.

My intent was not to be "icky."

If you found the post to be so, then I apologize.

The only other post in which I've ever referred to anal sex was in one in which I recounted the argument put forward by some that horses can "consent" to sex with men, because they have been known to be active and not receptive partners in sex with men.

If you find that as "icky" as I do, then I'm glad -- it shows there's some hope for you.

But, in any case, if the "ick" factor is not grounds for objection, and if the horse "consents," then what's your problem with such a sexual act?

You do have one, don't you?

That's not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely interested in knowing what grounds, if any, people give for moral objection to consensual sex -- especially people who reject the "ick" factor.

There's a lot of interesting research being done lately about whether the "ick" factor should or should not provide a basis (among other bases) for moral deliberation.

That research involves hypothetical scenarios like is alright to have sex with a horse if the horse consents or would it be all right to eat your own dog after he died.

Almost everyone everywhere in the world objects to those sorts of practices and they do so at least in part on the "ick" factor.

The only people who reject the "ick" factor altogether in every instance, or at least try mightily so to do, are upper-class secular liberals in affluent Western societies.

In order to navigate what clearly is at least the somewhat slippery slope we are stepping onto as we move into the brave new post-Christian age that all the cool kids on this threads are going on about these days, it's worth considering where -- if anywhere at all -- we will redraw the line in the sand between those acts we affirm and those acts we continue to regard as taboo.

Such consideration is aided by extreme scenarios, instead of more borderline ones.

The extreme scenarios force a certain clarity on the debate and are helpful in finding common ground.

I'm guessing that you and I both agree that it is wrong to have sex with a horse or to eat one's dog.

I suspect that the "ick" factor has at least some moral implication that we ought to take into account.

If you disagree, then I'm genuinely curious to know why you would not affirm such acts as sex with horses or eating dogs or why you would condemn them categorically.

Raising that question was one reason I've ever mentioned anal sex in any context.

The other, as I say, was for alliteration's sake.

If you found either instance too "icky" for you, then I apologize.

Has anyone asked Chrissy Hitchens this: How can you maintain that "religion poisons everything" when you consider in what kind of schools mass murders almost exclusively occur?

Ancient philosophers had plenty to say about ethics, and they were not from our point of reference "religious."

If one looks at the Corruption Perceptions Index, the least corrupt countries on the planet are the Nordics, the Netherlands, Australia and Canada. None would be considered religious. Decency transcends religion.

Although traditional believers can act with great courage, others without such a faith system can as well. One would think that there are sufficient examples in the Bible (the Good Samaritan, etc.) that it would not be necessary to point this out to a traditional Christian.

In other words: an actual traditionalist Catholic could very easily argue that the South embraced racism only because they had first embraced Protestant heresy. While I'm not Catholic, and would not make that argument per se, I won't deny there's some logic to it.

Hector - some Catholics would argue that protestantism paved the way for moralistic therpeutic deism in that the emphasis of individual interpretation of the Bible made possible rampant individualism.

Dreher,

The no-true-Scotsman fallacy isn't an argument.

What's the opposite of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism? Antinomian Pathogenic Fundamentalism?

What's the opposite of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism?

Clear thinking.

O.S.,

How exactly having libertarian delusions correspond with "goose-stepping" is beyond me, but oh well. If you'll look at my first post, you'll see I noted the governmental nature of the Jim Crow laws and said they were wrong, too.

Southern Baptist Convention renounces racist past
Christian Century, July 5, 1995

Wow, it only took 150 years for the SBC to realize that the whole reason the denomination became schismatic was to support the institution of slavery.

There is no way that Damon Linker actually read Christian Smith's book (in which he coins the term MTD), because if he did, he couldn't possibly hold the opinion that MTD is in any way a good thing. MTD is a bad deal for both orthodox Christians and secularists alike (and for that matter, liberal Christians), because it basically involves young people telling themselves that God loves and supports them no matter what they do.

A teenager can justify sitting around on the couch all day, smoking pot and playing video games, saying God doesn't mind. How is this in any way a good thing for our society? How could any self-respecting secularist, frustrated at teen indifference to war-environment-poverty-etc., think this is a good thing for our society?

The only possible explanation is that Linker has only a passing idea of what MTD is, gleaned from second-hand sources (he links to a Christianity Today story). There's just no way he has any real world experience with this (or that he's even read the book) and thinks it's a good idea. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, that he's ignorant on the issue, rather than assuming something worse.

You might ask yourself why the transatlantic slave trade was dominated largely by the English and Dutch, which were the most secular nations in Europe.

Well, Catholic nations, like Brazil, Spain, France and Portugal, were not laggards in that department, either. Too, it was the British who ended the Transatlantic slave trade altogether.

And I'm saying, you're wrong. From the Catholic point of view, Protestantism (especially the Calvinist-tinged Protestantism of the South) is not orthodox by definition. And the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches _never_ promoted or sanctioned anti-black racism. From Pope Paul III in his 1537 letter "Sublimus Dei":

I'm not interested in (literal) internecine squabbles. To narrow my point a bit further: clearly the heterodox Unitarians look better on social justice / slavery issues in retrospect that their orthodox Protestant neighbors to the south. As a Catholic this assertion may be of no interest to you, but it does undermine Rod's claim that somehow more orthodox forms of Christianity are more equipped to challenge institutional racism than less orthodox forms of belief.

As far as Catholics go, you may have a good point. I'm not familiar enough with how American Catholics responded to this Vatican teaching in practice to contest this issue. But, I think my basic criticism of Rod's post stands. Certainly plenty of nominally Catholic nations continued to be involved in the slave trade or practice slavery well beyond 1537 (Portugal, Spain, France). Indeed, Catholic Brazil was the last nation in the Americas to abolish slavery.

Hello Dan,

The people who actually organized the March on Washington, Bayard Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph, were both secularists and socialists. The whole case for the emancipation of black America had already been made perfectly well by secularists.

They may have organized it, but they could not have sold it.

King could. Abernathy could.

The culture was still nominally Christian, in some cases more than nominally, and the appeal to the faith could stir consciences in a way an agnostic socialist could not have.

Sure, it's possible to find the odd atheist/collectivist who will man the barricades. But generally peaceful, successful social reform in the West has been a generally Christian phenomenon - Las Casas, Wilberforce, Garrison, King and so on.

Alas for Damon Linker - so great is his fear of the Theocracy that he would sacrifice such energies to eliminate even the slightest chance of a robust place for religion (especially Christian religion) in the public square.

Can you believe it? None other than Dr. Laura Schlessinger comes out in favor of long-term, stable same-sex unions.

---
KING: This week, the Washington City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. And the Vermont legislature voted to override a gubernatorial veto of a bill legalizing same sex. Do you think this -- now we have four states, about to be five states.

SCHLESSINGER: Well, it's issues of -- sometimes it's done by courts, sometimes it's done by legislatures.

KING: Basically, five states now say you can have it. What do you think of that? What are you laughing at?

SCHLESSINGER: Well, I don't have much of an opinion on it.

KING: You have no opinion on it?

SCHLESSINGER: Not much, no.

KING: But you've always favored that marriage must be between a man and woman.

SCHLESSINGER: I'm very big on human beings finding love, attachment and commitment and being faithful to it, because there's more to benefit when there is real true commitment and faithfulness to it. I still believe, as just every president has, and all the people who ran for office, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. So not calling it marriage works for me. But that two people would have that sort of commitment to me is very healthy and very positive thing in their lives and society as a whole.

KING: So, you favor marriage between a man and a woman, but you applaud the fact that even people of the same-sex can have that kind of commitment to each other.

SCHLESSINGER: That's a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.

KING: We'll be back with more of Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The book is "In Praise of Stay at Home Moms."
---

Wow! Same-sex relationships called "a beautiful thing and a healthy thing" by Dr. Laura.

Support for slavery, in any Christian denomination, was a change toward dissent. Christendom spent a millennium gradually reducing and stamping out slavery and serfdom in its territories. This was accentuated by the common threat, if one lived within reach of the Barbary pirates or other Muslim realms, of being kidnapped into slavery oneself.

When the Canary Islands were discovered to be inhabited by non-Europeans, greed encouraged the reintroduction of slavery by nominal Christians -- and the pope and other religious figures condemned it on the traditional grounds. Indian slavery, and then black slavery in the New World, was also opposed vigorously, and the new natural law scholars in Salamanca did their best to add to this. The fact that economically convenient dissent overrode traditional Christian values does not make support for slavery a traditional Christian value.

Led by Wilberforce, English churches eventually got back on the anti-slavery stick. Many of their American branches didn't go along; but that was dissent, not tradition. The popes spent a good deal of time trying to appoint anti-slavery bishops in the US and to condemn slavery in pastoral letters to America. That they were ignored by many is not a surprise; but it doesn't make them some sort of untraditional outlier.

Now, granted, when dissent becomes institutionalized over hundreds of years, it may begin to look like tradition. But it never really was -- and hence the uncomfortable pretzel-like twisting which took place in American churches on issues like slavery and racism.

None other than Dr. Laura Schlessinger comes out in favor of long-term, stable same-sex unions.

Schlessinger's held that position for quite a while. I remember her saying similar stuff in the nineties.

"None other than Dr. Laura Schlessinger comes out in favor of long-term, stable same-sex unions."

"Schlessinger's held that position for quite a while. I remember her saying similar stuff in the nineties."

I remember listening to her in the mid-nineties. A woman called her show who was extremely upset because a gay male couple had moved next door. She asked Dr. Laura if she should 'let the other neighbors know' that these guys had moved to their street. Dr. Laura inquired of her,"Why is it so necessary to 'let the neighbors know' that they're gay?" "Well, well, uh, ch-ch-children live in the neighborhood...." Dr. Laura cut her off in mid-sentence: "You know what you're going to do!? You are going to bake a pie right now and take it over to your new neighbors' house and WELCOME THEM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD!! Do you understand!?"

The caller was obviously taken aback, totally chastened, said very meekly, "OK." and hung up. Dr. Laura lectured the radio audience for a few minutes on the evils of prejudging others who may not live as you and I, then took another call.

But then in a couple of years Dr. Laura went off the deep end....

So maybe she's come to her senses... I've always wondered if her sainted son was gay...

All I know is that:

• I believe in a Creator
• I am not, nor will ever be, a 'born-again' Christian
• Born-agains seek to use the government to relegate everyone else to second-class status
• This pisses me off beyond my ability to convey in non-profane terms

Find one reference to JESUS in the Constitution or Declaration. You can't. "Nature and Nature's God," sure. (That's a Deist/Freemason perspective, BTW.) But to hear the born-agains howl it, they're the only 'real' Americans and the rest of us are a blight upon the land.

I cannot imagine that America will not be a better place when these whackadoodles are largely ignored by the body politic as a whole. Believe as you see fit, but do not bother me with it; I bother nobody with my beliefs, and I expect the same cortesy.

"It is simply that if you drive substantive Christianity out of the public square, or cheer over its decay into irrelevance, you may rid yourself of the possibility of Pat Robertson, but you also close the door to Martin Luther King."
What a crock....Mr Dreher continues to denigrate the faith and teachings of Jesus with a morally corrupt and inept secular political agenda. MLK Jr was man of faith, but his goal was changing secular laws not forcing his theology on others. Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, W.A. Criswell and other conservative leaders gained national notoriety for their impassioned defense of segregation stating that full equality was against God's intent citing a couple texts used out of context.
Mr. Dreher continues to amaze in his deep denial of the reality that the conservative movement in the U.S. is simply incompatible with the Christian faith. It's telling looking at the political map after November 2008. The only conservative states are those dominated by Southern Baptists and Mormons, both nativist denominations based on false teaching of racial superiority. The potential VP attends a church hiring a witch doctor from Kenya.
Jesus was passionate about care for the poor and disenfranchised. He was the ulitmate liberal offending the defenders of "traditional values". He found public charades of faith to be shallow and meaningless. It's doubtful Jesus would support tax cuts for the wealthiest, disproportionate spending across school districts, preemptive war, millionaire teleevangelists, unrestricted gun ownership and other conservative agenda items.
The Founding Fathers created a liberal democracy in that they overturned the social norms of their era in creating the goal of treating all citizens equally. They were not fans of Christianity, insisting that religion should not be imposed on anyone. It's been an uneven road with reality being far behind the ideal.
I'm all for substantive Christian debate, just invite real Christians instead of phonies. During this substantive debate we should remind everyone that the so-called defenders of the faith are history's losers on most substantive issues- slavery, evolution, racial segregation, women's suffrage, Iraq and now gay marriage.

Rod says:

"It is simply that if you drive substantive Christianity out of the public square, or cheer over its decay into irrelevance, you may rid yourself of the possibility of Pat Robertson, but you also close the door to Martin Luther King."

To which I say, so what? Secularism in the west is what has saved the west. Not Christianity. The power hungry have always used religion to justify oppression, and they continue to do so today (Maggie Gallagher for example).

While Martin Luther King might not be possible, in a secular country, Gallagher and her cohorts DEFINITELY would not be around.

This whole article is such a crock and dangerously narrow minded. If according to your arrogant view that somehow traditional Christianity as you define it has a monopoly on morality and only traditional Christians are capable of standing up for what's right, then please enlighten us about how the founding fathers of this nation, being mostly deists, were able to stand up to Britain? Or are you yet another blind fool that believes they were christian even as you see that our constitution and declaration of independence are clearly dripping with deism's ideals.

I am a deist, and I believe God gave us logic and free will for a purpose and we should use it. Trust me, though I may not go to church, nor do I believe God interacts in my everyday life, I am still more than capable of standing up for what I believe in. I still have a strong sense of morality, and nor do I think my way is the only way.

My studies and experience in this world have shown me that evil always originates from those who blindly believe they have a monopoly on morality: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindi, Atheists, etc, alike.