A Downfall of Experience-based Faith

"I had crises of faith...I thought you had to experience things if you want to know right from wrong. I'd go to Christian revivals and be moved by the Holy Spirit, and I'd go to rock concerts and feel the same fervor. Then I'd be told, 'That's the Devil's music! Don't partake in that!' I wanted to experience things religion said not to experience."

Calm down, ladies

By the time he entered college, Pitt had scuttled his fundamentalist beliefs. "When I got untethered from the comfort of religion, it wasn't a loss of faith for me, it was a discovery of self," he says. "I had faith that I'm capable enough to handle any situation. There's peace in understanding that I have only one life, here and now, and I'm responsible."

--Parade Magazine, Brad Pitt Interview

This just shows that experience, while certainly valuable, isn't all its cracked up to be. If that's what you base your faith/beliefs on, its pretty thin soup. Ya need more to base your faith and beliefs on. The good news is that more is out there; we don't just have blind belief or experience.

What do you think about what Pitt said?

HT: Brett Kunkle at Stand to Reason

Religion in the Political Arena: a Good Thing, Mostly

“Religion has always played a political role in America. The politicization of modern American religion began in the special circumstances of the 1950s, when the dynamics of the Cold War led many white Protestants and quite a few Catholics to become ardent supporters of the American status quo. But the most influential political movement with religious support was the Civil Rights Movement. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), the most visible spokesman of that movement, drew his power, insights, rhetoric, and images from his black Baptist heritage combined with an appeal to the unrealized potential of American ideals. King’s ability to draw on sophisticated philosophy, the pacifist social theory of Mahatma Gandhi, a deep familiarity with Scripture, and the preaching traditions of African American churches made him an extraordinarily powerful force...The strongest supporters for the civil rights goals for which King strove were the black churches, which eventually also recruited a few notable allies from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches.”

--Mark Noll, The Old Religion in a New World: The History of North American Christianity

Many today decry the influence of religion in politics and the public sphere. “There’s a separation of church and state in this country, don’t you understand?!” they cry. They think stances like the pro-life view or traditional marriage view smack of religion and therefore should be off the debate table in politics. For example, as I posted on a few weeks ago, some are arguing that the Mormon church should have its tax exempt status revoked because it financially supported the “Yes on Prop 8” campaign. Though he’s probably no separation devotee, even Cal Thomas poo-poos the political action of religious adherents (Ed has a post on Thomas here). Some even go so far as to want religious points of view out of the public market place of ideas entirely. They forget that religious influence has always been legal under the constitution. Establishment is what violates the First Amendment. There's a big difference between the two.

If that’s you, I really hope you read that quote nice and slow, taking it all in. Do you apply your criteria consistently? You’d better thank your lucky stars that religion has played a role in America, for it (specifically, the Christian religion) has been the impetus for many of our greatest political and societal gains in the past. For instance, if you remove the polemics of William Wilberforce from British Parliament, abolition would have come about much, much slower on the continent. If you remove the influence and participation of the black churches during the Civil Rights Movement, that force would not have wielded the tremendous power it did. Do the “separation” fans really want the church out of the state in the way they define that often vague doctrine?

Though no doubt religious people have done great damage at times in the political arena, they have done much good as well. This should give the “separation” fans pause in advancing their arguments.

but its a religious argument!!

I was at a teacher training the other day, and I overheard some teachers talking about the Mormon church supporting Prop 8. They were howling about the Mormon's support and saying that they should have their tax exempt status revoked.
"It's separation of church and state," they said.

I didn't enter into the conversation. I stayed waaaay clear. Frankly, I was kinda tired about talking about it and hearing about it. Or maybe it was just cowardice on my part.

At any rate, afterwards I was thinking about a few questions.

What's the big deal with religious people or a religious group supporting a certain policy? Why think that's a violation of the "separation of church and state?" I want to ask these folks: "what, do you think the Mormons (or any other religious group) shouldn't have a vote, or should they not have a voice?"

And, really, what's "separation of church and state" supposed to mean anyway? Where is that in the constitution (hint: nowhere.)?

What's the First Amendment say? "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I stress the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part.

Anyway, why think that "separation of church and state" is what the Founders had in mind when they penned the First Amendment?

What religion does Proposition 8 establish? Jews, Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and the members of many other religions agree with the Proposition. While many of the motivations to support it might be religious, the arguments themselves are such that people of many faiths (or no faiths) can agree with them. If the arguments don't establish a specific religion, then they don't violate the establishment clause.

Also, consider that many people *oppose* Proposition 8 due to religious motivations.

This is the case with almost *any* policy position in which people try to marginalize a certain viewpoint for being religious: the death penalty (Mother Theresa opposed it because "Jesus would forgive."), an Obama presidency (many evangelicals, like Donald Miller supported him), and many of Obama's economic policies. If my conservative viewpoint is out of bounds for being "religious," then so are the opposing points of view.

Bottom line: This screaming about "religion in politics" is a bunch of bunk. Its all just to marginalize a viewpoint they don't hold. Don't fall for it.