tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post5806146911825366984..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-85714738875718956762007-05-25T20:16:00.000-04:002007-05-25T20:16:00.000-04:00It's kind of tricky, isn't it? Religionists genera...It's kind of tricky, isn't it? Religionists generally feel their specific creeds are the right way to address God, yet we are in a diverse society, so how to speak publicly? The Biblical <BR/>God comes across as pretty different and much more specific than a 'philosophical God', but that's not to say they aren't ultimately the same thing, seen from different perspectives. Seeing the forest for the trees kind of thing. Still, making generalised statements may be hard for some people to feel comfortable with, as they feel they are being insincere by doing so. It's kind of a compromise- if people from various faiths are present it's much kinder to be ecumenical about it and it's better than not talking about God at all (leaving aside the views of atheists!)<BR/><BR/>For me, there really are good points in many religions and, more so, there may well be divine revelations in scriptures across the world; so it's not a problem. As for people who are too fundamentalist about it to accept that possibility... well, I just won't have them over for tea!Starfirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11531890419181913078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-41757540785646105952007-05-20T00:41:00.000-04:002007-05-20T00:41:00.000-04:00Your points are well-taken---when in Rome, etc. B...Your points are well-taken---when in Rome, etc. But Parker's planned "benediction" was more like a commercial. It would be like making my dinner guests listen to the Nicene Creed before I let 'em eat.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-81834120524958858442007-05-18T22:50:00.000-04:002007-05-18T22:50:00.000-04:00Personally, I'm not offended at explicitly sectari...Personally, I'm not offended at explicitly sectarian professions said in my presence. But then again, very little offends me. If I am at someone's house who is a Christian and they want to pray in Jesus name, I'll hold hands and close my eyes. <BR/><BR/>I remember when I was young -- less than 10 -- going over to my friends house whose father was a minister. And they prayed before every meal. I was quite surprised by the experience given that our family had never done such thing. I thought it was nice that they thanked God for my presence at the table, and still wouldn't be offended at such sentiment. (And, in turn, around the same age, my father took us to see his first rated R movie -- Stripes.) <BR/><BR/>But such would irk me if it were a public school or any kind of public institution which purports to speak for everybody.<BR/><BR/>I have a lot of religious students and I try never to step on their toes when they comment in class. Though, I do sort of "act" a little like our Founders. I slightly criticize the more extreme versions of any religion. For instance, I've told them I don't believe in the literal tale of the Tower of Babel. I rail against the extreme stuff in Islam, and then stress that many if not most Muslims say this is not the authentic verison of their religion. But then I pretend like all religions are true, without recognizing that they each make incompatible claims against one another. For instance, I pretend like Gabriel might have revealed the Koran to Muhammad or Moroni might have revealed the book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, to make it seem as though I "respect" these different traditions.<BR/><BR/>Religious issues don't come up much in my classes. Though, there is a chapter on culture in the International Business Class I teach which deals with it in detail.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-53008972800077079412007-05-18T22:31:00.000-04:002007-05-18T22:31:00.000-04:00As you acknowledge, Parker has somewhat of a point...As you acknowledge, Parker has somewhat of a point when it comes to the sectarian origins of private institutions. One should not feel embarrassed about speaking about Christ in a chapel with a cross on it, nor feel an obligation to skip Him over.<BR/><BR/>I'd not be insulted if I heard about Allah or Vishnu in an appropriately dedicated chapel.<BR/><BR/>But the larger point, about generic benedictions in the public square, is at the heart of the matter, per Ben Franklin's American "civil religion." I would cringe on behalf of my Jewish friends if Parker started his intended prayer "O Lord Jesus Christ our God..."<BR/><BR/>If Parker felt the need, in a non-sectarian milieu, to testify for Jesus Christ as God, anyone in the audience who had a theological disagreement with that "Truth" would be well within his own needs to get up and disagree, or at least walk out. <BR/><BR/>We, as a society, don't need that noise. We've done everything we can to get around it.<BR/><BR/>Now we might discuss Mr. Franklin's "civil religion," that America has some established culturally Christian/monotheistic foundation, and that appealing to the gods or The Goddess---whoever she might be (or perhaps....SATAN??!!!), might likewise be an unnecessary provocation in the public square. But that would needlessly complicate things, eh?<BR/><BR/>What I would say is that God is our cultural baseline. If a Jewish friend is over, I say grace in some universalist fashion. Of course.<BR/><BR/>But it's "through Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen" if an atheist pal is over. He'll roll his eyes at saying grace to begin with, so, in for a penny, in for a pound.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com