Amen, Barack
Today, Senator Barack Obama spoke at a Call to Renewal conference regarding the need for Democrats to address Evangelical voters. As both an Evangelical Christian and committed Democrat, I have felt a bit chafed in recent months by some of those on the left. It doesn't change my views (either way), but many work to pit science against religion, and leave little room for religion, except for perhaps a highly compromised version, in modern life. Many would find a liberal political position compelling, but we wouldn't all get there the same way. It begins, for me, with viewing the government's primary responsibility as facilitating "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all its citizens. We're considerably less free when corporations/the free market are allowed to do as they may. They must be regulated and controlled--I'm not for anarchy. I'm not for the libertarian version of freedom, economically or civically. I guess I can see the existence of social Darwinism, and I see it as evil when one insists on imposing his/her will on another. God doesn't work that way; we shouldn't either. The government should have some checks in place to control how we treat each other, and we should have some recourse in holding the government to the Constitution's standards. Conservatives don't like either of these things.
The two major issues to pit science against faith are evolution and homosexuality. I can comfortably blame persistent discussions of homosexuality on conservatives--they seem to bring it up in times where it behooves them to divert our attention or gain some easy support, much like flag-burning. Evolution, though, seems more brought up by the left to discredit those of faith. Honestly, I hold to the Bible's description of creation until another narrative of our origin discredits it. And if one does, I'll take that, and hold fast to my faith all the while. I don't buy that "In science, a theory is stronger than than the way in which that term is used otherwise." It's still a theory. That's a lot of conjecture to me, that we began as amoebas and ever so slowly evolved, becoming more and more complex. You can take it if you want it, but be honest, it hasn't been incontrovertibly proven yet. If that's what science studies, then that should be what is taught in science classes. But don't belittle those of us who don't entirely buy that narrative.
Two points there--science is another narrative. What I got from Postmodernism is that science is another narrative, which can be retold another way as easily. Things we thought to be true have later proven not to be so. I take this from Francois Lyotard. Also, I take from Foucault that sexuality is a construction. We talk a lot about agency. The dominant view of homosexuality removes any question of agency. If "You're born into it," you obviously have no control over it, which is convenient in convincing most of the people that they shouldn't rail against it. But I think that's dishonest (point two). Of course we play some role in the people we become. I think those who espouse this don't really believe it in any other area, that is, complete fatalism--that our destinies are laid out before us and we have no control over them. I would have more grounds for believing that as an Evangelical with exposure to Calvinism than an agnostic or otherwise. But I don't. Perhaps there is a genetic component to homosexuality--there also is for alcoholism. You know, though, if a foot fetish is rooted in early childhood experiences between a son and his mother (believe I heard that somewhere), then I think we'd have to concede that homosexuality might have begun in early experiences. Further, we are desensitized by what we're exposed to--plenty of studies on violent video games and this effect. But the cards are stacked against those who dare categorize homosexuality as a sin--you're born into it; you couldn't possibly choose it. Perhaps time will bear this issue out, but I hope science's value on objectivity will come to bear. Nonetheless, the Anglican/Episcopal church is in heated discussions on the subject, which is a good example of how if we honestly look at the issue, even those of us of faith, then it's not something simply resolved. I could have said a lot more on this, and I'm showing a lot of my conservative (theologically) side, whereas politically I side with liberals. Perhaps I'll get more into that in a later post.
The two major issues to pit science against faith are evolution and homosexuality. I can comfortably blame persistent discussions of homosexuality on conservatives--they seem to bring it up in times where it behooves them to divert our attention or gain some easy support, much like flag-burning. Evolution, though, seems more brought up by the left to discredit those of faith. Honestly, I hold to the Bible's description of creation until another narrative of our origin discredits it. And if one does, I'll take that, and hold fast to my faith all the while. I don't buy that "In science, a theory is stronger than than the way in which that term is used otherwise." It's still a theory. That's a lot of conjecture to me, that we began as amoebas and ever so slowly evolved, becoming more and more complex. You can take it if you want it, but be honest, it hasn't been incontrovertibly proven yet. If that's what science studies, then that should be what is taught in science classes. But don't belittle those of us who don't entirely buy that narrative.
Two points there--science is another narrative. What I got from Postmodernism is that science is another narrative, which can be retold another way as easily. Things we thought to be true have later proven not to be so. I take this from Francois Lyotard. Also, I take from Foucault that sexuality is a construction. We talk a lot about agency. The dominant view of homosexuality removes any question of agency. If "You're born into it," you obviously have no control over it, which is convenient in convincing most of the people that they shouldn't rail against it. But I think that's dishonest (point two). Of course we play some role in the people we become. I think those who espouse this don't really believe it in any other area, that is, complete fatalism--that our destinies are laid out before us and we have no control over them. I would have more grounds for believing that as an Evangelical with exposure to Calvinism than an agnostic or otherwise. But I don't. Perhaps there is a genetic component to homosexuality--there also is for alcoholism. You know, though, if a foot fetish is rooted in early childhood experiences between a son and his mother (believe I heard that somewhere), then I think we'd have to concede that homosexuality might have begun in early experiences. Further, we are desensitized by what we're exposed to--plenty of studies on violent video games and this effect. But the cards are stacked against those who dare categorize homosexuality as a sin--you're born into it; you couldn't possibly choose it. Perhaps time will bear this issue out, but I hope science's value on objectivity will come to bear. Nonetheless, the Anglican/Episcopal church is in heated discussions on the subject, which is a good example of how if we honestly look at the issue, even those of us of faith, then it's not something simply resolved. I could have said a lot more on this, and I'm showing a lot of my conservative (theologically) side, whereas politically I side with liberals. Perhaps I'll get more into that in a later post.
Comments