Should faith be a private matter?

Crossed

Aug. 26, 2017

Bill’s Statement
Sex, politics, and religion … the unholy trinity of forbidden subjects for public discussion. Most “polite” Americans have been ingrained with this mantra. Even in this age of social media self-exploitation, where nothing is left to the imagination, there is still a sense we must take care when expressing personal opinions, especially on religion.

The question is should faith be a private matter?  Many would say yes. However, if faith is private, there is no room for public discussion. That means a spiritual advisor to President Trump, Dr. Robert Jeffress, has every right to make the claim that “The Bible gives President Trump the moral authority to use whatever force necessary, including assassination, or even war, to take out an evildoer like Kim Jong-un.” There is no recourse. Faith is private.

But isn’t it better for the commonwealth when such matters are addressed reasonably and respectfully in the public forum? Rather than simply reporting Dr. Jeffress’ opinion, someone might ask, Is Romans 13 not a reference to the authority of a particular government over its citizens? Is this passage not deeply influenced by the political context of the first century? Is this mandate not limited to governments demonstrating their legitimacy by serving God’s justice? 

These are but a few of the questions one might raise were matters of faith discussed reasonably and respectfully in the public forum. The point is, such discussion holds the possibility of enhancing the commonwealth by changing belief and behavior.

It has long been an axiom in Christianity (and most faiths) that what we believe influences how we behave, and how we behave reflects what we truly believe. What we believe to be true and good — i.e., what we believe about God, God’s relation to the world, and human beings’ relationships with God and with one another — affects how we live our lives. To the extent this is true, those who can speak reasonably, respectfully, and openly, about matters of faith, can change our public life for the better.

Scott’s Reply
Bill and I came to a similar stance. The basis for positions should not be hidden in a private faith; one’s rationale should be visible so it can be debated. But Bill’s statement also reveals his expectation that the Bible be accepted as an authority, with discussion centered on interpretation. Interpretations of moral lessons from that ancient collection of writing vary widely and have no traction with those outside Bill’s faith. 

Discussion toward public decision-making requires rationality and recognition of universal human needs. It should call on our instincts toward fairness and the compassionate part of our nature. And it demands honest appraisal of real conditions, causes, and effects. One might be motivated by principles found in his or her faith, but must bring arguments meaningful to everyone to public decision-making. 

Scott’s Statement
Assuming some people believe that faith should be keep private, I suspect their rationale would go like this: People are fixed in their beliefs, offense and conflict arise when differing faiths collide, and the world might be a more peaceful place if everyone, while having full right to practice their faith, just kept it to themselves. 

Of course, an element of faith is personally felt, but it is largely a communal phenomenon. Faith is learned, shared, and reinforced in the company of others. It is part of our nature to want to feel connected to others, and with others, to something bigger than all of us. So, when faith is practiced in close-knit congregations to satisfy the human need for connection, should those groups then refrain from expression that brings them into conflict with other groups?

There is a compulsion among many to push the joy and rightness of their beliefs out into the world.  This evangelism is off-putting when not accompanied by consideration of ideas offered in return. Other believers are so intent on sharing the rightness of their faith that they feel a duty to prevail, to make the world over so it aligns with their religious vision. This rejection of pluralism is dangerous.  

Short of this danger though, is our society improved or injured by overt expression of faith, religiosity, and attempts to influence others’ beliefs? 

As an atheist and a citizen, I do not hope for, or advocate for, suppression of expression of beliefs or perspectives. When sequestered into clutches, beliefs can become incestuous. The psychology of group identity further calcifies erroneous and sometimes dangerous beliefs, shielding them from dispassionate evaluation.

What I hope for and advocate for, is productive and civil engagement with a greater expectation for rationality when people bring their thinking to a public discussion.  We should all bring a willingness to examine and a willingness to change our understanding when it can be improved by new information or insight. That is where growth for an individual and functionality for a society are found.

Let’s not refrain from exchanging perspectives — let’s just get better at it.

Bill’s Reply
Scott would be a good test case of my contention: What we believe influences how we behave, and how we behave reflects what we truly believe. He professes an appreciation for the public expression of beliefs. But is this because, thanks in large part to the work of the American Civil Liberties Union, public expressions of faith are no longer allowed in many venues? Would Scott endorse a Christian valedictorian offering a prayer after her speech? Would Scott welcome a public display of religious symbols reflective of the religious identity of a particular community? Would Scott embrace the restoration of the display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses? Our secular culture is compatible with Scott’s beliefs. There is no threat. What would come of Scott’s “appreciation,” if people of faith were truly free to publically express their faith?

Agree statement
Scott and Bill agree the voices of faith should be included in matters of public discussion. Beliefs underlie the positions we take, and the basis of those beliefs should be subject to evaluation in such discussions.