I rarely respond to any social posting and I think this is the first time responding with an article to an article by another medium writer, Andrew Beyer. However, the issues he raises are so on point, I decided to address them.
As he writes, he is an atheist and has no intention for his article to be an attack or to cause a fight.
I have no such intention either. I am a Catholic.
He responds to Brenda Reeves’ question: How does someone simply holding a belief in their mind affect anybody?
His response is: The short answer to that is covid denial, evolution denial, climate denial, opposition to LGBT rights, to single payer healthcare, to police reform, removing abortion access in Texas and so on. Beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, they inform action.
His point is that people can believe anything they want, however, when those beliefs become public policy then the believers crossed a line in the sand — my words not his.
The scriptures are not for general consumption
All the scriptures have an intended audience. The writers of the book Christians call the Bible direct their words always to a certain group of believers within the Jewish and Christian communities. For example, St. Paul wrote his letters to specific people or Christian communities. Everyone he addresses has the experience of knowing Christ in prayer and living that prayer relationship with him. Every instruction Paul makes, therefore, is not for the general public of his time. He is writing to Christians and not to non-Messianic Jews or pagans. He is not writing to all the people in Rome in his letter to the Romans, for example, but only to the Christians there.
We understand his teachings under the same condition. Therefore, every statement he writes we assume to be addressed to subjects of the Roman Empire who embrace Christ. There is no evidence in his writing he expected his words to become general public policy and, therefore, he understood no command to enshrine them in Roman law.
Mr. Beyer appears to be writing: “Believe anything you want, but once your beliefs become public policy they become my business.” Again those are my words, not his.
He has a list of policies rooted in Christian belief and it is a good list. I agree with some of his points and disagree with others.
What will be the foundation of our laws
I cannot use the Bible as the standard of my demand for legislation because many people who may disagree with my position such as Mr. Beyman do not ground their position in the religious doctrine. Quoting scripture to him means nothing unless we have a mutual agreement of it as a source of wisdom.
We instead have to first base our discussion on our position of what is best for our society now and in the future. This needs to be the foundation of our question on what policies should become the law of the land. This also means that there may always be tension between what we believe and what we legislate because our positions may not have a common ground due to our differences. We must at least try to come to some common understanding, nevertheless.
One of his points, for example, is evolution denial. There are some Christians who maintain the Earth was created by God in six of seven days because this is what the Bible says. I am, however, Catholic and we do not hold the same belief in biblical literalism.
We, as Christians, do believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Many take it another step and say that belief in Jesus is an essential aspect of our identity as Americans. That is comparing apples and oranges.
Similarly, I am not an atheist because I believe it is an illogical position. Atheism, as I understand, is the assumption all that exists I can either perceive or extrapolate to understand from what I can observe. Since God is not perceivable, he must not exist. I do not accept that position because I believe it assumes that I can perceive and/or understand all of reality. I can only believe that if I know that I have evolved as far as a human can evolve and I cannot know that with certainty. Therefore, I believe in the realm of faith because for me there is a part of reality that is beyond my ability to perceive it or fully understand it as a human being.
Obviously, my understanding of that other part of reality is what I learn from my faith practices. This also means that Christ taught from the same perspective — we have not evolved enough to comprehend all of reality so he is helping us understand what we cannot as yet fully comprehend because of our human limitations. Hence, as he says, we need faith.
So, Mr. Beyer and I have opposing positions of the nature of the world around us. How we address public policy should be within the scope of what we can address and not what the atheist or I consider to be the absolute truth respectively. That is because we do not stand on an equal footing there. His outlook and mine may be different and I cannot legislate for him and he cannot legislate for me as long as we disagree on the nature of our existence.
Religious practice turned public policy
Jews believe that they must keep kosher practices and many foods available at supermarkets are kosher but not all. What if legislation mandated all foods to be sold to the public had to be kosher because the Hebrew scriptures required it. Would those who were not Jewish, even if they were believers, accept this? Jews testify to their faith and their devotion by keeping the kosher laws in a society where they are not legislated to the general public.
Mormons do not believe in drinking caffeine and at one time a famous chain of Mormon owned supermarkets would not sell products with caffeine in them. I drink coffee every morning and I drink what is billed as the World’s Strongest Coffee. If the law changed making coffee illegal because of the requirements of the Book of Mormon, the result would not be pretty after we coffee drinkers were stripped of our morning joe.
Many of the laws in the Hebrew scriptures mandated to the people were written to the nations of Israel and Judah. These were political entities and the people demonstrated their faithfulness to God or lack thereof by their level of commitment to follow those commandments. Their fidelity ensured their security on the political entity which was and now is their land.
Many Christians maintain the United States is the new Israel and, therefore, like the original nation, we are blessed by God by our observing Christian fidelity to Him. However, that is not a universal belief among Christians. Catholics do not believe this for example. It is certainly not a universal belief among Americans.
We express our devotion to Jesus by living his commands as Christians and testifying to him by our own lives, not by legislating the lives of those who do not believe. Therefore, it is my duty to teach others of my faith in Jesus, I do not do it by legislating Jesus, but by living my faith. The prime commandments are to love God and neighbor and to treat others as I would like to be treated.
Robert Mapplethorpe, St. Augustine, and public policy
Many years ago, when I was a philosophy student in Boston, the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) displayed photographer Robert Mapplethorpe’s work. Many demanded the museum shut down the display because they considered the images in the exhibit to be obscene. Others fought against that censorship. I agreed with their resistance. When the controversy died down and people began to visit the ICA to see the exhibit, a friend invited me to go along. I turned him down and he was shocked. He figured I would be one of the first to see it. I responded that I stood up for the right for the exhibit to exist and I maintain my right not to attend it. That is how freedom of speech works. So, in commitment to my Christian faith, I chose not to go see the exhibit but my belief in the freedoms of the Constitution led me to defend the right of the exhibit to be on display. I have never seen the works of Robert Mapplethorpe to this day.
This works in reverse as well. I embrace St. Augustine’s Just War Doctrine. This says war must only be an act of last resort, it must be prosecuted only to the level it stops an otherwise unstoppable evil. Chris Hedges explains in his book When Atheism Become Religion: America’s New Fundamentalists (2008 Free Press) one world-class atheist believed in a nuclear first strike against an enemy threatening our nation. I cannot adequately express my disdain for such an abhorrent idea.
I was also against the Gulf wars, marching in Washington against the second.
St. Paul called people to live at a higher standard than what the law allows. So whether it is civil law or canon law, I understand that the law is the minimum standard. I must live at a higher standard but I am not allowed to force that standard on another in the civil sphere.
Matthew 25 and the law
We can see it well in Matthew twenty-five. No law says I have a duty to do anything for the disadvantaged. Jesus, however, defined my salvation upon it. If I am devout in my prayer and in my observance of the laws of my faith, but I step over the person dying in the street begging for help on my way to Mass, I am not saved. This is specifically stated by Jesus in that chapter.
So, he, as does Paul, insists I live at a higher standard than the law legislates.
Many Christians including some leaders of my own Church do not understand this. So they require the federal law to match their understanding. I believe they have it backward which is Mr. Beyer’s complaint. I am required to live at a higher standard than the law allows and by doing so, I show my devotion to Christ. It is not my duty to force someone else to live by that same standard because of my devotion. I am called to help others understand the reason why I live as I do and teach them what I believe. I must not force it on them.
I would go even further to say that because Christians do not live by that higher standard and focus instead on legislation, we do not communicate well what it is we believe. This leads people to reject or even never understand our true beliefs.
Some leaders will say my position will cause the nation to collapse because our nation will walk down a self-destructive path. That is not my concern, that is the concern of the political leaders who have a duty to ensure that does not happen. My concern is to live my faith prophetically and I do not do it if I am busy forcing you to live my faith through public policy.