Jim: Is this part of our problem?

Media Matters highlights a report that demonstrates significant media bias toward presenting conservative Christians over liberal Christians in various forms of media. Could this have something to do with the disconnect between my view of "average Christians" and Matt's?

Jim: Ugliness Not Limited to the 16th century

A Christian student at Liberty University constructed a car bomb to use against protesters at Falwell's funeral. The protesters he was concerned with were not leftists, but other Christians who protest the funerals of soldiers. In the '80s and '90s Christian terrorist made a concerted effort to attack abortion clinics.

These are not just acts of Christians, they are acts that the particular Christians believe to be an expression of their faith. The question is, but for Christianity, could these things occur? But for Islam, could you have so called honor killings?

It is a sobering question for me. But this much I know, as a Christian it is my obligation to stand up to this kind of evil. I must denounce everyone who would use violence in the name of the faith. As inclined as we are to be tolerant and accepting--indeed without these ideals in the Christianity that I practice I would probably not be Christian--we must nonetheless have the courage to condemn this violence. What is more, I believe we must condemn the ideology that leads to it.

Matt: Next Steps?

Okay, I agree with the new idea, we'll try to tag things for clarity.

One of my problems is that lately I've been busy at work, another is not knowing exactly how best to proceed. I research things, but then I have a hard time with figuring out how to pursuasively conclude that there are causations. So I am shrill and point out all these Christians who did dispicable things. To that point, in Red Man's Land White Man's Law Washburn quotes Charles V as writing in 1529:

We trust that, as long as you are on earth, you will compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom.

So again, I have a Christian King saying something terrible about non-Christians, and advocating violent conversion. So where does that get us? How would I be able to convince us or anyone else that this had a lasting impact on the culture of Christians in the New World?

Do you see my problem?

Jim: Jump Start

I wonder if the very careful format for which I advocated initially is slowing things down too much? I think it is. So, maybe we should talk about lots of topics and use the tagging feature to sort them out for when we write a book.

I will clarify and reiterate a little here and then maybe we can get the discussion going again.

First off, the point of this blog is to evaluate the impact of religion on our country. It is basically a backward looking blog--what has religion done for us. I am writing another blog that looks at where I think Christianity should go. So, that will help me keep the should've happened's out of a discussion a the did happens.

I think religion has had an impact on: tolerance, equality, justice, charity, optimism, the pursuit & use of peace/war, and the pursuit & use of science. I think on balance religion has been good, but acknowledge it could have been a lot better and at time was/is a hindrance to what is best for the country.

Jim: More on Equality & Tolerance

Here is a story from Acts 4:32-37

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:32-37;&version=31; (If you like a little wrath with your Biblical stories, the next chapter lets you know what happens to those who are not so civic minded.)

These people, at least in the eyes of the writer, were sort of absolute egalitarians. We know that eventually Christians will become as concerned with class and hierarchy as any caste system in India. Then some of them move the other way. But we don't see tolerance here.

Ditto for Luther, right? He brings equality to the church: perhaps echoing the civic movement, that by then was centuries old, to return equality to government. But, he is not tolerant.

I think the ebb and flow of power from distributed to concentrated may not be the Western value we want to investigate. Maybe what we're after is just tolerance. The origins of tolerance may be entirely different from the origins of equality.

Jim: Placing Magna Carta et al. in context

Is the Magna Carta a radical change--like a discontinuity in a function--or an inflection point in an oscillation. One of several books that had the virtue of challenging my world view is Lies My History Teacher Told Me. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/ In this book, Loewen challenges, among others, the notion that American history is a steady march toward liberty for all. Rather, we expand liberty for a while, then in contracts, then we expand it--and so on.

Anyway, and this is sparked by how far back the first document you mentioned goes, is there a habit among humans to give up liberty to a leader for certain social advantages, then take some back, then give some up? Are the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights Act all examples of taking some liberty back?

It impacts our primary discussion thusly: if religion does something for a society, it gives society values, desires, aims, etc. that would not otherwise be there. Likewise, with thinkers, I suppose. We don't need great thinkers to tell us to eat or have sex, for example.

Okay, I had a few minutes and I wanted to avoid letting the discourse die. Also, I haven't read enough of Spinoza yet.

Matt: The Magna Carta: Constitutional Law and Equality

As you noted earlier Jim, our notion of universal equality is central to the examination of our morality. Universal Equality is nicely captured in the United State's foundational literature: "...all men are created equal...". This is language from the Declaration of Independance. Directly following from that mission statement is the implementation instructions, The Constitution of the United States.

Constitutional law derives from holding that the rule of law is supreme. So that all goes back to the Magna Carta (13th century) (and further back to the Charter of Liberties (12th century) and perhaps even further), which boils down to placing the rule of law above the rule of the king. It starts the great discussion that ends with all men being equal before the law. From "law above king" to "all men equal", I present some of the following history:

The Charter of Liberties predates the Magna Carta by 100 years. In it, Henry I takes the throne with the promise of certain abridgements of his rights. He states, "I, through fear of god and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free". This had little to do with Christianity's notion of morality, and was a political move to get the Church of England out from under the rule of the Catholic Church of Rome.

Although God was invoked for the Magna Carta as well, religion plays no central role in the debate between King John, the Barons, and the Catholic Church. The Church was involved, but a Christian notion of morality played no role in the Magna Carta's central themes, which were to give the English Barons more power.

I will note from Wikipedia that perhaps the Charter of Liberties did not really abridge Henry's authority as much as it seems it should have, and not as much as the Magna Carta abridged King John's. Specifically these document codify: the rule of law over the rule of King, the Right of Habeas Corpus, and judge's rights.

Throughout the next few hundred years, the Magna Carta grew in influence as each new king re-affirmed it in their own charters as they assumed the throne. I think it was Henry III who took the throne as a boy who, predictably as followed from his age at coronation, lost the most power early, and then set that loss in stone as he ruled for over 50 years.

In the late 1500s, Edward Coke came along and helped interpert the Magna Carta as applicable to all citizens of the realm, and not just to nobles. He was Speaker of the House of Commons, and later was the Lord Chief Justice. Coke asserted the rights of free men in a variety of circumstances. Incidentally, he was also involved in landmark cases on anti-trust and judicial review.

I've read through several of Coke's rulings and I can't find a case where he harkens back to God or Christianity. He refers a lot to common law, but his rulings are largely secular. I invite further review as my research was far from comprehensive.

From Coke, although it took some more centuries, it is clear how we get the United State's founding documents, then an abolition of slavery, of sufferage, and of civil liberties of African Americans.

Clearly other forces apply, but this lineage of secular forces from the 1100s to the 1960s makes a strong case for a secular origin to the growth of human equality.

Jim: Aside: My God is not Spinoza's God

I labeled this as an aside because it does not directly address the impact of religion on equality & tolerance, but I think it is of interest to Matt.

In the first post I presented three questions, one of which was: Is God real? And I have pointed out from time to time that when I say yes to that, I mean something that is objectively true. So, answering that God is real to some people, just like saying Santa Claus lives in the hearts of all generous people, would mean the answer to my question is "no." (Both for God and Santa Claus.)

While reading Spinoza's chapter "On God" in his work, "Ethics," it occurred to me that what Spinoza is doing with talking about substance, attribute, mode, etc. is similar to what people like to do now when they talk about subjective truths. That is, he's applying the fashionable topic of his day to God.

Qualifier: I believe that God is in the hearts of people, and I believe God works through you. I also think it is possible that Spinoza and Anselm were on to something, some aspect of the existence, in their writing. But in both cases, I believe God is much more than that.

If you read the Bible you will see and evolution of the vision of God professed by the Hebrews. In Genesis, God is walking around with them. In Exodus, God is the best of all Gods, and not human like at all, to see his face would kill you. By the time of Jesus, God is the only true God. My time line may be off, and if there is someone reading who can correct it please do. Nonetheless, this evolution happened, and more directly points me to an understanding of what I'm talking about that the work Spinoza does, or, for lack of a better term, the current trend to create a subjective God.

* * *

One thing this does to further the direct discussion is that to the extent Spinoza adds to the Western Civilization's development of equality & tolerance, he is moving outside of and separate from the church.

Spinoza

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. publishes a book called The Great Conversation, and in that book is an author-to-author index cataloging “how the authors use, expand on, or refute the ideas of their predecessors.” According to these folks, Spinoza’s predecessors were the Bible and Descarte.

Spinoza was born in 1632. His parents had left Portugal to benefit from the religious tolerance of the Dutch. The Jewish community regarded his father highly, but that same community excommunicated Spinoza by the time he was twenty-four for “abominable heresies which he practice[d] and t[aught].” In 1670 Spinoza wrote the Theological-Political Treatise to assert “the liberty of philosophizing and of saying what we thing.” Great Books of the Western World, volume 28, Biographical Note Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza.

So, it appears Spinoza is definitely one for us!

Matt: Subdivisions

The most useful thing for me that you've said so far was: You cannot take [Christ's] words and use them like mathematical equations.

This is still, and since about our second post, a sticking point we have. Your Christianity is one thing, and that thing is just too narrow a definition to encompass 15th century Popes, evangelical radio hosts, modern Lutherans, George W. Bush, and the average liberal Christian in America.

Christianity today, and its history as it informs today's morality is going to have to be subdivided if we're to make much progress. My thinking on this starts with assumptions that Sam Harris made in The End of Faith and how that dis-serves you.

He makes the argument that functionally, thinking about the Almighty as a Muslim leads to very different results than thinking about the Almighty as a Christian. In fact I think I remember his reference to India's Jains. Harris makes the claim (very supportable, I think) that one main difference between a Jain and a Muslim from a real-world-results point of view is that you simply can not be a Jain and make enough leaps of logic to become a terrorist (perhaps he said suicide bomber). That Jainism's basic assumptions are fundamentally incompatible with the conclusions one would have to come to in order to decide on martyrdom as a course of action. I agree with him about this, and I'd expect you would too.

An earlier argument we had was whether your understanding of Christianity can represent enough of the American Christianity to make useful comparisons. I think we're in a position to decide that now. My interpretation is that we are going to have to crack Christianity apart in order to make progress.

Four years ago a CNN poll reported that almost 60% of the nation believes that Revelation prophecies are going to be a literal reality. I think we have to agree that someone with that position is pretty fundamentally different from you in how they gain their moral compass. As different as Jains and Muslims? No, I don't think so, but certainly how and why a person's moral compass may migrate over time (and into his progeny) has to be very divergent on whether they think the Rapture as depicted in Revelation is an inevitable reality for human beings.

This is one exemplar of what I think we would find would be a dozen fundamental differences between you and large numbers of American Christians. I won't push further into the argument I made lightly last month that maybe you and they are not both Christians, but I will assert that in terms of how your interpretations of Christianity will inform the logical extension of your morality, you are not headed in the same direction.

Equality versus Tolerance

Are these two values or one? If Equality means equality of all humans than it leads naturally to tolerance of others. However, if equality means equality of citizens, it does not necessarily lead to tolerance of non-citizens. Also, Equality has meant from time to time equality among qualified people: Whites, Men, Landowners, etc.

It seems the church's role might be different in each.

I would suggest that equality may be found more easily in the church that tolerance.

I do think we need to nominate a non-church thinker as the starting point of tolerance. Or perhaps there was an event or change in society that we should investigate.

Jim: Sidenote: Evolving Christianity

In 1776, there was this idea in the United States that people were equal. Just because your father was a monarch did not mean that you could take my property away, or tell me to be quiet, or tax me whatever you wanted. The fact is, the power of the monarch, of the whole government, came from the people. All people are created equal; and all people have certain rights that no government can take away from them.

What those ideas mean now, is very different from what they meant in 1776. For one thing, property and government are very different. For another thing, we've taken the next logical step in some of those ideas.

America is where we are right now in this experiment in democracy.

In the first century A.D. there was this idea that the law was not enough. It was not enough to live into God's hope for humanity to simply follow the rules in the book. There needed to be a spiritual transformation, and without that transformation, you were lost.

The practice of Christianity has changed since then. When it was a cult, there were certain requirements, such as giving away all of your money to the group, that were not practiced with it was the imperial religion. It has changed and evolved with the science and sociology of the times.

Christianity is where we are right now in the experiment to find a connection with God.

* * *

I've just started Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith." (Or Regligion, not sure.) And what he wants to do, is claim that religion, unlike everything else is stagnant and not evolving. That is simply wrong.

It does not demean religion to say that it has been transformed by broad social trends. Religion is to bring people to God, and to do that it must be different now than it was in 1450 C.E., or 2000 B.C.E.

* * *

While speaking to fellow Jews, where the choices of religions were following the Jewish law or making offerings to pagan temples seeking the intervention of disinterested Hellenistic deities, Jesus said for the people to follow him. He said that he was the way to his Father's home.

Jesus was right. It was not enough to follow the law, that was an empty existance. There was more than the painful and oppressed world before them. And, to realize that truth was to be reborn into a new existence unlike what was left behind. It does not mean that I have to view the current manifestation of Judahism as less than the current manifestation of Christianity.

Jesus was a real person addressing real problems. He was talking to people who were suffering and bringing them relief. He was trying to transform their lives to allow them to live on this planet in greater harmony with the rest of creation. You cannot take his words and use them like mathematical equations. It just doesn't work that way. They have specific meaning in specific context.

* * *

What's become of that tradition? Is it lost, is it no longer of value to individuals and society? That's the main conversation we're having. But Christianity, is different now than it was then. There are very, very few things that were essential then that are essential now.

My goodness, in only just over two centuries our democracy has completely changed. We've radically expanded suffrage, but dramatically expanded federal power. New challenges, new understandings, and so on.

Surely, the human organization designed to bring us to God would have to change similarly. In Harris's book he makes the absurd claim that man from the 1400's would be at ease in our churches today. That is simply not so. The church has changed, as has science and politics. They are related, and that's okay.

* * *

Just to reconnect, I think that Christianity was a valuable influence in creating the values of equality and tolerance in Western Culture.

Matt: Luther as Everyman

The passage from Luther as a younger man is indeed a mainstream view born pretty directly from Christian scripture and doctrine. The latter passages are a terrible evil, and are quite a stretch from the original texts. In the evolution of Luther's thinking, we see the crux of our discussion.

While I imagine you will mount a credible defense that Christianity -- the strict adherence to Christ's teachings -- has no place for the killing of heretical rabbis, Luther's comments as an old man are the inevitable results of the assertion that a certain school of thought is the one true path to God. Hence the proposition that religion inherently leads to human suffering. When a school of thought claims The Way, The Truth and The Light, there is by definition a devaluing of all other claims to truth. When the argument revolves around one's fitness to sit at the right hand of the Creator, devaluing someone's truth is devaluing their fitness before God. It becomes inevitable that your opponents are heretics.

Jim: Topic I: Secular Sources of Equality?

Some time after the Reformation & Renaissance Western Civilization began moving toward greater equality for its members. That meant throwing off notions of royalty and a ruling class. Getting rid of slavery and, in the United States, ending Jim Crowe. We've named this move as one of the great values of Western Civilization.

I've proposed two sectarian sources of that idea: (1) The text of the Bible which demands kindness to the stranger and proper treatment of poor, as well as, lifting up all human beings as the intentional creation of God, and (2) the Protestant Reformation which began the process of tearing down church hierarchy.

So, what are the secular sources? Do we start with Thomas Jefferson or Locke? By secular I don't mean atheist writers, we'll never know whether anyone was an atheist. I mean people who did not use religion as the source of their move toward equality, or lets say primary source. You really can't pull the Bible out of Western thinking any more than you could pull the ideas of the Constitution out of American theological thinking.

Matt: On Personal Morality

Ahh... I can stop tearing down the famously righteous and just talk about me for a change. If there's a topic I like more than myself, I can't think of it.

You said:

If I were not a Christian, I do not think I would believe all people are equal.

I am a secularist. Or an atheist, or a materialist. Something along those lines. I am not unclear on my own beliefs, but consistant definitions amongst people self-identifying as any of those things are very hard to come by.

Being one of those, I believe that everyone is equal. Not in the eyes of God and not for any spiritual reason. I believe everyone is equal because I see no ultimate reason or order to the universe. There is no one keeping score, so how could you argue that I am achieving on some level more than anyone else? Or better than a gnat for instance? I don't think I am more moral, or better, or more or less equal than a gnat. It has as much "right" to exist as I do. Even the concept of having "rights" outside of a human context is silly in my mind. Again, with no objective standard, the concept makes no sense. Since I have no God that can stand immovable against this universe's frame of reference, there is no standard against which I can judge the relative value of lives, or life vs. non-life for that matter.

Why am I moral at all? Because I was taught to be, and being taught to be something for a brain constructed like a primates' is reason enough, I guess. I would imagine that is not a satisfying answer, but it's the best I've come up with.

Matt: On Luther

There is an ugly trend brewing. Because as you point out, most scholars before very recent times were theists, or at least presented themselves as such, we are in a rut. You are presenting very good things about your faith, and I am left to refute that, inevitably finding ugly things to say about Popes, Cardinals, Church Elders and reformers of Western society. Oh well, nothing for it, I suppose.

Luther did indeed reform on the basis that common Germans should have access to the scripture. I believe a reasonable case can be made that a thread of the philosophy of equality of all men before God is found, generally, in that line of reasoning. However, let's examine some of Luther's actual published works.

In 1543, Luther wrote to Christians a proscription of the Jews:

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

Lest this be seen as just a general slur on the man, he gets more specific about how the Christian must treat the Jew:

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all hristians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us...

There's a lot, but here are the specifics:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them....

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed....

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them....

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb....

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews....

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping....

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam...

All of the ellipses do not change the meaning, each admonition I quoted above is the specific action, and the following paragraph which I expurgated is just the justification for the action, all about devils, evil, etc.

Here is the paragon of Christian scholarship, specifically advocating the destruction of Jewish homes and places of worship, the killing of Rabbis, the taking of their money and livelihood, the denial of safe passage and putting them to hard labor.

Did his more famous scholarly list have a greater (and more good) influence? Perhaps, but this more obscure list comes from the same Christian scholarship and might easily have been the playbook from which German horrors sprung 400 years later. I should do the research and discover if Luther's writings show up in Nazi propaganda -- it certainly sounds suspiciously similar.

What are we to make of this? I think it's hard to say. I conceded early on that Luther's battles with the Catholic church on behalf of the common (Christian) German can be defended as a statement on equality, but it is much more the relative of the equality of Orwell's pig Napoleon "...but some animals are more equal than others.", than it is the relative of Thomas Jefferson's notion "...that all men are created equal..."

The translation of On Jews and their Lies taken courtesy of Fordham University.

Jim: Topic I: Q3

Similarly, I propose the following as addressing the issue of equality as it relates to the existence of God. I've stated before that I believe God is everything and then some. God is all we perceive and more. Allow me to elaborate on a mini-step toward that:

What unit of life is most significant? There are cells and tissues and organs that are all alive. There are organisms. There are families, societies, and ecosystems. There are also atoms & molecules and planets & galaxies, but these are not living.

Among the units of life, we most often view the self as being in the organism. And, that's fair enough. But there has been some pretty serious stuff, I think by William James, examining our behavior in groups that suggests there is a self in a group. When the Buddhists say that self is an illusion, it is not because they don't believe there are organisms, it is because they think that organisms are not the most significant unit of living thing.

I'd be interested to push on this a little more, but specifically for the topic of equality I would say this: Because God is all things, all people are a part of God and it is natural or right for all people to be treated equally.

[Note: Remember this question is not about religion, its about God. I'm a Christian, and my view of God is derived almost exclusively from Christians & Christian thinkers, nonetheless under this question, I feel the least constrained to address "standard" beliefs.]

Jim: Topic I: Q2

So, let Topic I be Equality. We've started an historical evaluation of the impact of religion on equality. Seeking to answer: Is Religion Good for the Country? But, maybe this is too dry all alone. Here's another root, which is to explore: Is Religion Good for a Person?

If I were not a Christian, I do not think I would believe all people are equal. It is one of the most significant impact's my faith has had on my value system. Now, I would certainly be a Democratic Populists. But, you can be one of those and still think you are fundamentally better than others. It is my faith that brought me to truly see everyone as a child of God and therefore intrinsically equal.

Jim: MetaPost

Here is a story that sort of shows up a problem we'll have analyzing things. http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html Namely, everyone in government claims a religion. And, just about everyone in history has. So, it makes it super difficult to tell was is secular and what is sectarian.

Jim: Topic I: Equality: Luther

The big question is whether religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, has helped Western Civilization. The current issue is whether this religion brought about the move toward greater equality of its members.

The Protestant Reformation was a gigantic move toward equality. It challenged the authority of the church and right of church members to have access to the holy documents. The notion that, in the eyes of God, we are all equal was crucial to the march toward greater equality. Luther and the Church contributed to the establishment of this value in Western Civilization.

Jim: Topic I: Equality-Origins

By the end of the Fifteenth century inequality was dramatic in the Western World. I will suggest it was at a peak. Europe was ruled by monarchies that separated citizens into many classes with different rights, and much different quality of life. Even worse than Europeans on the bottom of the economic system were non-Europeans being held as perpetual slaves and traded as a commodity.

This system was the product of the savage pursuit of wealth and power. Neither secular philosophers, nor religious thinkers had much to do with the creation of the system. I've pointed out a couple ideas that could help facilitate this turn of events, but seems unlikely either were the cause.

Jim: Topic I: Origins

I have a thought I want to put up before we abandon the origins of slavery. I've been thinking about Machiavelli and any relation he might have to treating people unequally. Now, I've actually read The Prince. It was a long time ago, and I wish I could read it again, but here's the deal. Machiavelli is not about being cold-hearted. He's about being practical. He is talking about how to maintain control when maintain control is your business. As Schepman said to Mellancamp when he came to auction of his land, I'm just doing my job. (Calling it your job ol' hoss sure don't make it right.)

What Machiavelli may have brought that led to inequality, even dramatic inequality, is detachment. Maybe that helps transform an economy (biblical slavery) to an autrocity (atlantic perpetual slavery).

While I'm on it, I think the Judeo-Christian tradition has some ugliness to deal with. Not the recognition of the practice of slavery. That's a sign of the times, and in fact the biblical tradition just regulates a common practice. What the Judeo-Christian tradition brings is the notion of exceptionalism. We are the God's chosen people. Africans aren't. This is a fine offering to a nomadic tribe that is getting conquered every few centuries by another Empire.

(Thanks to Matt for this btw, This really is super: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf )

But when Constantine invited Christianity to mount the horse, well, suddenly exceptionalism becomes dangerous.

Darn, that post wasn't short either.

Jim: Topic I: Secular Philosphers

We were poking around the 1450's. One way to look at this might be to consider the prominent thinker of the era. According to the Great Books Society big thinkers of the time were Erasmus and Machiavelli. Copernicus comes in a little later and Chaucer was much before. I'm just spit balling here because I really dig the idea of the Great Conversation.

Jim: Topic I: Beginning of the Slave Trade

I've done a little Googling around and found a general web consensus that economic motives started the slave trade. Any argument on that? It seems safe.

The idea of forced labor way predates the European slave trade. Matt mentioned its use by Romans/Greeks. You can't talk about slavery, civil rights, or affirmative action for more than ten minutes without someone raising the startling revelation that Africans also practiced slavery.

Do Western religious or secular thinkers bear any blame for the harshness of slavery that came when slavery became a racial issue? For example, the notion that one remained a slave forever and that one's children were the property of the owner. Those were new, right?

I hear that short blogging is the way to go, so I'll leave it there for now.

Jim: Topic I: Tolerance: Factual Background

Cause & Effect is tough. So, let's first lay out the facts without assigning causation.

I'm going to post and give you a chance to comment to make sure we agree on the facts.In the fifteenth century Europeans began extensive overseas exploration. Almost immediately they began taking slaves. That practice was sanctioned by Christian Church.

Both the Church and nations received great financial benefit from the slave trade and the land stolen by explorers from native people.

By the end of the eighteenth century Americans and Europeans began ending the slave trade. By the middle of the nineteenth century the institution of slavery had ended. Must of our history since that time has concerned treating non-whites equally under the law and within social institutions.

Christians were involved in the movements to end both the slave trade and the institution of slavery. Likewise Christians have been involved in the Civil Rights Movement. The Church, at least in the United States, was split on the issue of slavery. Most who opposed the Civil Rights movement were Christian.

I checked myself on some of the history here: http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/a.html
What other facts do we need before we start looking for motivation & causation?

Matt: Still Churning on Cause and Effect

I think the Civil Rights Movement is the better example. Abolition is less clear morally on either side.

I can't argue against the fact that Christians were often the primary advocates for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. I haven't done the research, but I wouldn't be surprised if non-christians (as well as non-theists) were also important (and I am assuming that Jews in this case fit into your argument that Judeo-Christian is the ethic here). That having been said, I am going to fall back on the earlier tack I took, but perhaps develop the point a bit.

So in 1455 (January 8th, by the way) the Romanus Pontifex Papal Bull was issued on behalf of Portugal and its claims regarding some (or all) of South America (please excuse this, it's incredibly hard to edit 15th century legal language for clarity):

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery...

So there you go. In the 15th century, the Catholic authority said that Portugal could enslave anyone they found in S. America at their discretion. The authority the papacy used to determine they could issue this permission was not more or less developed than that used by the mid-20th Century American Christians to argue against unequal treatment for blacks. Martin Luther King, Jr. was no smarter than Pope Nicholas V. He certainly couldn't claim to know more about the Bible or of Christian Theology and traditions. Not more about what the historical or biblical Jesus had to say about the treatment of other people. In fact the only thing MLK had over NV was a greater understanding of science&technology, and an ethic informed by 20th century Western thought.

Do you think MLK had a greater understanding of Christ or Christianity? I would assume you do, given that you come in to this discussion with the assumption that Christianity is almost MLK's vision by definition. But I would argue that an easier explanation (Occam's Razor) for the difference is that ethics have matured in the last few hundred years, and Christianity has moved with it.

Jim: A Real Problem

This is an alarming poll. The stigma that most Americans evidently associate with the term atheist is alarming. On this blog, I will argue that this sort of behavior is not the product of Christianity. I will argue that if instead of identifying ourselves as Christians, most of us identified ourselves as Star-Belly Americans, a majority of Democrats and/or Republicans would say that they could not vote for Non-Star-Bellies.

That argument will be tough. This graphic fills me with not a little shame.

Jim: Topic I: Tolerance: Methodology

In my first post on this topic, I argue that Matt had the cause and effect backward. That in reality Christianity drove people to be more tolerant. I provided some textual evidence from the Bible to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian tradition supports loving the stranger and the enemy. {See comments to that response for a brief discussion of whether my choice of scripture is fair.}

As we've said before, "the Bible says so," is not the end of the discussion. In fact, because I've rejected the idea that God wrote the Bible and that it is infallible, maybe I don't get to rely on "the Bible says so." {Probably not, I think I still get to use it as an indication of where the tradition started.}

So, what do we use? I think examples are the best. So, I'm gonna give some examples to help my cause:

Both Abolition and the Civil Rights movement were driven by Christians seeing the movement as an extension of their Christianity. The Civil Rights movement is a slam dunk for me, in that the change came from Christians, and the movement was tinged with Christian ideals. (True, many status quo folks were Christian, but the social change motivated by Christianity was for civil rights.) Abolition may be more tricky. But here's one essay that seems to post some evidence. http://www.jubilee-centre.org/online_documents/TheabolitionoftheslavetradeChristianconscienceandpoliticalaction.htm

Should we pick an example and counter example and delve more deeply into it?

Matt: Cause & Effect

I remain unconvinced that tolerance is necessarily derived from Christianity.

Your point about the teachings on the treatment of strangers is strong. But you also made the obvious counter-argument, that all the words about tolerance in the world can still be ignored when another central message is that non-believers are doomed to, and deserve, eternal damnation.

I wonder about the cause and effect angle here. You proposed that as Christianity swept into cultures, it became a reflection of those cultures, but ultimately subsumed those cultural values into a "truer" Christian ethos.

We have seen the West moderate over the last couple of hundred years, but I don't know that it is coincident with Christianity's spread. The Inquisition, mass killings of Jews, the burning of witches, and other cultural movements I believe would indicate that cultural mores stand independent of the current religious underpinnings of a culture. If a culture is currently burning heretics, they'll do it in the name of Christianity, in the name of mono-culturalism, or in the name of whatever the dominant national identity of the time is.

You mentioned that you had migrated to a kind of pluralistic view of Christianity and faith. Is it possible that this kind of view, along with other liberal (religiously liberal) interpretations of Christianity represent not the attainment of the true message of Christianity, but actually a secularized form of Christianity? A humanistic distortion, perhaps? In support of that question I submit that the most secular nations on Earth right now are Japan, Sweden, Norway, and France, and in recent studies, the United States is largely alone as a prosperous nation with belief levels approaching third-world levels. We share more in common, ethically, with Japan, Scandinavia and France, than we do with Nigeria and Indonesia which are closer to the US in levels of religiosity.

There is a correlation between secularization and what you and I would argue is ethical behavior.

To go back to your definition of Christianity for a minute, I would think that in the two-dimensional view of Christianity (the breadth of it today as well as the depth of Christians historically), you share very little in common in terms of your basic beliefs -- the Aquinas quote shows that. I think most of those Christians in both directions would agree with you that Jesus is the foundational teacher, but would vehemently disagree that your views of God, deity, afterlife and ethics are Christian at all. Your theology is sound, but Christianity is not, after all, the teachings of Jesus, it is the dominant ethical beliefs of the overwhelming majority of self-professed Christians at the time in question.

Jim: Topic I: Tolerance

Matt reminds me that Thomas Aquinas advocated killing heretics. And while Christianity does not currently advocate killing non-believers, the attitude of Christians towards non-Christians is a major impact on American Society.

First off, there are two very different issues wrapped up in the issue of non-believers. One issue is: What does American Christianity teach about how to treat non-believers? The other issue is: What does American Christianity teach about the fate of non-believers?

A. Treatment of Non-believers

Matt indicates that Christianity has moderated over time and wonders whether that is a response to Western thought. I would suggest that what has happened is as Christianity spread through the west it initially adopted the belief system of the society it spread to. Then, the values of Christianity percolated through the society, transforming it into a more Christian society.

1. The origins of the faith require tolerance.
The example we're looking at now is that of tolerance. The Judeo-Christian faith clearly requires hospitality toward the stranger and outsider. Jews & Christians did not always behave that way, for sure, but it is the mandate from the faith.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites are reminded that they began as strangers in a strange land:

The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor.

Deut. 26:4-6. The book of Hebrews, most Jewish of the New Testament letters concludes with:

Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering.

Jesus actually required loving not just brothers, or even strangers, but enemies. See, e.g., Matthew 5:43. Furthermore, the parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates, that Jesus professed judging people not on whether they were from a rival nation and religion, but based on their deeds. The foreigner with his heretical religion was the neighbor to be loved as oneself, not the priest or pharisee.

2. American Christians have run the full spectrum.
Whatever the origins of Christianity say, the discussion we're having is the impact of American Christianity. The Calvinists were absolutely not tolerant, to be sure. I will concede that. However, Christians were also Quakers who worked to end slavery. During the Civil War some denominations split over the issue of slavery, which I think illustrates that society can influence religions pretty dramatically.

3. Look at some tolerance issues today.
Consider the anti-gay today. Now, at first, they seem to be arguments for you. But I would suggest it demonstrates the work of Christian values toward compassion. The anti-gay movement is abandoning the hatred of difference in favor of reaching out to help the mentally sick. Now, I still think that is horrible--to call gay people sick--but it is more compassionate that hating people. My point is that people who are different are distrusted. But that Christianity acts as a moderator encouraging compassion--even if patronizing and misinformed--as a first step toward real tolerance.

B. Fate of Non-believers

This is the sort of pure theological question that will always be trouble for me. Many Christians will say that non-believers will go to hell. I frankly don't think Jesus was talking about the after life. I think He was talking about a Kingdom of God that was at hand. So, I don't worry about the afterlife much.

Still, the notion that everyone unlike you is eternally damned certainly encourages intolerance. It can serve as a vehicle to marginalize and dehumanize your enemies.

C. Conclusion

While it is true that the notion of damnation is bad for society, the overall admonition to treat the stranger with kindness and love is a Christian influence on western society. It has helped to moderate the fear of others that comes from man in his natural state. Love of the stranger leads directly to tolerance.

Matt: On A bit more on the Bible

I think the best point you made in the post is that people don't believe everything they say in polls. I quote polls a lot, because they can remove my biased view of the world to give me insights my biases wouldn't normally allow, but there are indeed flaws. Most Christians, when presented with a challenge like a poll question, might tend to present themselves as more conservative than they are.

Richard Dawkins gave a talk last year wherein he said tht after writing The God Delusion he had been approached by many Christians (including clergy) who said, essentially, that they no longer believed in God in any meaningful way, but that rejecting Christianity would be a rejection of their family and friends and the only community they really knew, and that that was the larger hurdle to disavowing their faith in God.

All that having been said, if half of Americans say they believe in Young Earth Creationism, even with our mitigating statements, a whole ton of people believe in YEC, or at least don't think deeply enough about the issue to know it's moronic to believe it.

I still argue that we have to proceed with the discussion of faith driving morality with the stipulation that Christianity, and specifically Biblical Christianity, is believed by most people to be the driving force of morality in the United States.

--

So let's do bring an issue into focus. I would like to examine how Christians generally beleive we should deal with non-believers.

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae concludes that heretics should be killed. I think we'd agree that this would have been a pretty widely held belief amongst Catholics at the time (in fact he was sainted almost 100 years later, so his views would have to have been considered as authoratative, yes?).

I think we could also agree that almost no modern sect of Christianity, no matter how fundamentalist, would agree that killing the heretic is justfied.

Chritianity has moderated to a great degree in the last 700 years. The question is, has it moderated and driven Western Culture before it (morally speaking), or has the secularization of the West pulled Christianity toward that change in attitude?

Jim: A bit more on the Bible

The Bible & Me
The Bible is extremely important part of the Christian Faith. The Bible challenges me to behave differently then I would without it. It challenges me to be uncertain where I might find certainty.

However, Christianity would exist without the Bible. The Bible is not the Book of Mormon or the Koran. By its own terms, it is a collection of works written by a varied people for varied reasons. To be a Christian, means to follow the tradition started by the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in c. 60 A.D. It means that I acknowledge the unique role of Jesus—through His teachings and the His spirit embodied in the descendants of His early followers—in improving my life today.

The Bible and the Christian Church of the World
That’s truth. But it is in fact off topic. As you pointed out, many people would find me not to be a Christian based on these stances. And, I think it is possible that such a group would be in the majority. I want to suggest the issue is more subtle than it might seem. Consider the following from Divino Afflante Spiritu written by Pope Pius XII in the 1940’s:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html

Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

But, paragraph 20, says:

Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.[24] It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God.[25] If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.

In other words, the Catholic Church recognizes scholarly criticism of the scripture, and recognizes that there is value is finding the unadulterated meaning. Furthermore, consider the Catholic Church’s position against capital punishment. This position is in direct contradiction to the Hebrew Scripture. The vast majority of Christians on the planet believe that the Bible is a tool to be used hand in hand with Church tradition and the Pope’s inspiration to find God’s truth.

The Bible and the Church in America
I think you have a really important point here. Adherence to the Bible’s moral teachings is super important to American Christianity. So much so, that for me to have a “liberal” view on gay rights, I must be able to explain to you why I find it not only consistent with, but mandated by, the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible.

So, if you say, “The Bible says X, and X is bad for the country,” I absolutely have to explain with either the Bible doesn’t say X and/or X is not bad for the country AND why it is not Christianity’s fault that people think the Bible says X.

From Gadfly, quoted again below: http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447

On to the bible:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?"

Word of God: 34%
Inspired word: 48%
Fables: 15%

Here’s the deal, the people who answer “Word of God,” don’t all believe that. The Bible says that polygamy is okay. It says that woman can’t talk in church. It says lots of other things, and nothing about abortion. The people who said “Word of God,” are saying “I’m a Conservative Christian.” Do they believe that there is water above the sky? No, because no one is telling them to believe that.

Now, this is really my problem (as a fellow Christian to these people) and not yours. So, like I said, I’ll have to defend things advocated in the name of the Bible, but people say stuff all the time they don’t really mean. (See e.g. 1970’s surveys about the desire for fuel efficient cars.)

Quibble about Creationism
I know this was not your source, but it sounds like the same Gallup poll.
http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200447

"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?"

Note that the question assumes there is a God - if you are not a believer, the closest you can come to an answer that fits your beliefs is that God is up there, but he just isn't doing anything. That aside, here are the answers:
Humans developed, but God guided the process: 38%
Humans developed, God had no part: 13%
God created humans as they are 10,000 years ago: 45%


Yeah, this is scary. The thing here is that the people were told to believe it, so they did. Here’s an article that says only 51% of Americans said that aliens have never visited Earth. http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_believe_051103.html I’m blaming education for both. Does the Church need to take heat for this? I don’t think say. At least not for all 45%. I think but for Christianity many of the 45% would believe that elves created humans. Or that they were descended from aliens. Same article says ¼ of Americans believe in astrology.

There is plenty more to say about the Bible, but maybe we should move on to an issue and examine the Church's impact on that issue. I'll leave it up to you.

Matt: New Terms?

Here's a question. I have always considered Biblical Literalism a sect of Christianity. Are we about to come to the agreement that the religion you practice and and the kind of religion a Chrisitan Biblical Literalist practices can't be called the same thing?

Matt: On Christianity and the Bible

"I do not believe the Bible is an unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe."

But very many people do. And for those who don't believe that, can we agree that the biblical lessons on how to conduct your life and how to treat others are inspired?

If we can't agree even on that, then I am left wondering what Christianity means to you. Is it just a collection of mutually agreed-to mores amongst people describing themselves as Christian? Do you see my question?

There are certainly Christians who would argue that you aren't a Christian.

"But it is my position that literalism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and does not represent the impact of Christianity on the country. But am I right?"

I disagree. Not with the theology of literalism, but with your assertion that literalism is not driving the cultural impact of Christianity in the U.S. It isn't the whole impact, but I think we know that the current administration is making some decisions based on literalism. Second-order effects are things like stem-cell research bans.

Additionally, since 1982 (within 2 percentage points and updated in May 2006), 45% of Americans answer that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" (Gallup: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=21814)

10,000 years indicates a literalist view of the Bible. When 45% of the country believes this, you have to believe that a literalist view of Biblical Christianity is a major force driving culture and ethics of a country, do you not?

"Is advocating a thinking reading of scripture copping out?"

No, but it is the minority view.

I would propose that we can continue the discussion with the stipulation that the Bible is one of *the* major forces behind culture and ethics in the United States. I would put the Constitution/Declaration of Independence/Revolution Philosophy up there with equal impact.

Even as we move forward though, I'm going to reserve the right to bring in the fundamentalist view, as I think it is relevant, especially given the 45% quoted above.

Jim: Christianity and the Bible

Matt pointed out that my last post was "one of the harmless ways to elucidate of the problem of believing that you have in your possession, the unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe."

I do not believe the Bible is an unedited, unadulterated how-to-live manual by the creator of the universe. I have not believed that since I was a child. And, I will provide one more sentence of testimonial: If one must believe that to be a Christian, I am not a Christian.

I don't know what strict adherence to the Bible would mean for the country. But it is my position, that literalism is contrary to the teachings of Jesus and does not represent the impact of Christianity on the country. But am I right?

Is advocating a thinking reading of scripture copping out? Is it legitimate to say you are Christian and that you believe the Bible was written by human beings and has value for precisely that reason, but acknowledge that it is chock full of factual errors? I offer the following only to survive summary judgment. That is, only to show there is a question here.

1. Some protestant denominations have explicitly rejected the notion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. See for example: http://www.disciples.org/ccu/dialogues/dialoguedocuments/2005Boring.html (Disciples of Christ)
The United Church of Christ, and I believe the United Methodist Church are two more example.

2. Although the Roman Catholic Church's position would be more complex I suspect, it pre-dates the collection of books into a Bible, and also would reject the notion that the Bible is the definitive word on what is Christian.

3. Finally, nothing in the Bible declares it to be the infallible word of God. Jesus (cf. Mohamed & Joseph Smith) did not declare the Bible to be the infallible word of God.

So, like I said, that doesn't mean I win, but I hope it means there is room to discuss the role of literalistic interpretation of the Bible on the impact of Christianity in America.

Matt also wrote, "Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings."

This is an awesome topic. I am happy to explore it.

Matt: More on Morality and Cherry picking

To the extent that what I said above is true, isn't it right that to come to a coherent set of beliefs about morality, musn't a Christian today cherry pick which biblical principles he will choose to believe in, and which he will not?

In the previous post's comments, I propsoed a question about stoning one's wife. I wasn't grandstanding, I aksed specifically because cherry picking is one of the principle problems with bad science -- in other words performing an experiment, but only choosing the data which confirms a theory the experimenter came in wishing to validate.

The bible would exhort you to stone your wife should she cheat on you, while at the same time proposing that you should love thy neighbor as yourself. I would imagine you reject the former and accept the latter, not because one is more clearly from the pen of God, but because it is more in line with the ethical position you already held. And so if your value system has come from a source other than the bible, from where has it sprung?

Now I know you have asked us to consider "Christianity" and not "The Bible" specifically, but the Bible, after all, *is* the foundational text from which Christianity, even today, purports to take its moral readings.

Jim: Christianity in America

Dear My Friend the Atheist,

Tonight my cigar is Arturo Fuente and my Scotch is Johnny Walker Gold. They are both best consumed slowly. Likewise, our inquiry into the value of Christianity in America is well served by proceeding carefully.

Is Christianity in America, the sum total of the acts by Christians?

Probably not. For one thing, that definition almost certainly ends the inquiry. It means that Christianity is a wash. Every U.S. President claimed Christianity. I don't think it would help if we limited it to a certain level of devotion. Maybe you kick off Ronald Regan & Thomas Jefferson, but wherever you set the bar, surely you'd be left with Jimmy Carter and George Bush. I bet we'd find similar results if we tried to examine school principals or engineers. It would be like saying the impact of the English language in America is the sum total of English speakers.

Is Christianity in America, represented only by those things that are in line with Christian teaching?

Maybe. But, this is begging the question. Anytime I want to take credit for something good, you can just say, "Yes, but that is not in line with Christian thought." Similarly, every time you want to impugn Christianity, I can say, "Yes, but that is not in line with Christian thought."

Will we know it when we see it?

Trying to do this only in the abstract is problematic. I think there must be some sort of nexus between what Christians do, and what Christianity teaches. So, let's just look at some examples. Which of these is the result, of Christianity in America?

The Civil Rights Movement
The Women's Liberation Movement
Bombing of Abortion Clinics
The Oklahoma City Bombing
Prohibition
Abolition
Slavery
Salem Witch Trials

What do you think?

From Jim: Where to Begin

I would like to begin by investigating the last question first, but before I do that, a few words on the first two questions.

Is God real? By this, I mean is there a sentient being that exists from the perspective of a non-believer. So, for example, sometimes people say that Santa Clause exists the the hearts of charitable people at Christmas. If God exists in that sense, and only that sense, then the answer to my question--Is God real?--is no.

I think this is a really hard question to talk about because it is hard to find any other ground rules. The idea of God clearly evolves in the Bible from the Hebrew God to the only God. Before the Israelites started telling stories, I think "God" was one of several gods. Since the Bible has been written, ideas about who God is--even the Christian understanding of God--have not remained stagnant. See Process Theology, http://www.process-theology.org/, teaching that God is still evolving.

So, that woud be a slippery question. Similarly, the lack of objective data makes Is religion good for people? potentially frustrating. I can give my story; someone else can give her story. Then what?

I think the beginning should be the easiest question: Is religion good for the country?

From Matt: First Post

I suspect the question "Is religion good for people/country?" is going to be most long-lived, but I am more personally interested in your answers to "Is God real?"

From Jim: First Post

Is God real?
Is religion good for people?
Is religion good for the country?