I never thought I would feel the need to write in favour of the Office of Religious Freedom. I took my religious freedom for granted. I took my right to express my beliefs on particular subjects as inalienable as the right of others to express their opinions.
Over the years I have noticed a certain lack of research, data, citations, and facts underpinning many opinions expressed. There seems to be a great deal of emotion, and personal feeling behind the plethora of comments, especially those made about religion, on social media, many anonymously.
I recently wrote about assisted-suicide. I am against it. I received more than 300 comments many of them wishing me a terrible, slow death, full of pain and suffering. Comments filled with CAPITAL LETTERS and EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!
I am a Chaplain. It seems that the readers know all about me from that title. They released their ad hominem venom with delight. I was told that I believe in an unforgiving God who wants everyone to suffer. I was tried and found guilty of being hateful. I was told that basing morality on religion is wrong because it is phoney morality, without reason.
At no time did I mention my religious affiliation, nor did I mention God, but the comments show a real deep-seated animosity for Christians. No punches pulled.
It is said that dentists have a high incidence of suicide because of the hate people have toward them (fear of pain) but after what I read, dentists can move over and make room for the hatred shown to those who say they believe in God, especially Christians.
The culture is changing. We are losing civility. And tolerance is bandied about, but it only goes so far. It is no longer extended to Christians. There is an attitude, today, amongst too many, that it is not only acceptable but de rigeur to write demeaning, denigrating, disrespectful comments about those of us who believe in God. There is an air of entitlement toward anonymous vicious vitriol online without so much as a moment of thought regarding our beliefs, our right to those beliefs and our right to express those beliefs in the public square.
It is assumed that if one believes in God, there is a lack of intelligence, that one cannot believe and have a background in science, philosophy, economics, medicine, the arts. We have "Stone Age mental processes that force 10-year-old girls to carry babies born of rape." I wonder if these people ever heard of Hillel, St. Augustine, Maimonides, Botticelli, Michelangelo, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Marc Chagall and Elie Wiesel.
Too many today have no understanding of the connection between ethical monotheism and Western culture; the concepts of equality, freedom, free-will, intrinsic value, social justice. That is sad. But that lack of knowledge does not give them pause when it comes to writing about those of us who do believe, with phrases like "Religion poisons everything; Religion ruins everything, even death; Your 2,000-year-old superstition has no place in medical decisions (Chaplains are frequently consulted by the medical staff); Pastors are judgemental. That's what they do."
There is a thread running through their missives that if you believe in God you must be crazy. And that is what I was told: "You were clearly suffering from mental illness and continue to do so as evidenced by your belief in the supernatural." The salient point here is that I do live with a mental illness and have written a great deal about that. Double whammy of insensitivity. A two for one insult, sent into the blogosphere. Never let facts get in the way of opinion.
Lionel Tiger, author of God's Brain, 2010, wrote that religion can satisfy the most basic yearnings of human beings; which might explain why 80 per cent of the world's adults are part of some religious system. As Dr. Tiger said, "You can't have a viable society in which 80% of adults are morons." The brain recognizes a problem and religion tells someone what to do about it. The two systems work in harmony. Religion, the sacredness of its traditions and rituals and symbols can create what Dr. Tiger refers to as "brainsoothing." Participating in a religious service, people "are in a place and involved in a moment they respect and trust, one from which they leave wiser and better human beings."
The comments articulated would never have passed muster by the Politically Correct had they been aimed at gays, lesbians, visible minorities, the mentally and physically challenged. I wonder what the comments would have been if I had been a gay activist or a feminist expressing the same views. Thank God Canada has as an ambassador of religious freedom. He might want to start his mission, here, in Canada, to protect the rights of Christians.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danielle-tumminio/candida-moss-on-whether-c_b_2743722.html
Considering your recent adventures with commentators it may prove interesting to you. Personally I am flabbergasted Candida Moss thinks this book serves any positive purpose, esp in light of this comment of hers in the interview:
.........."As a historian, I think that remembering is an aid to avoiding future mistakes, and as someone who works on martyrs, I want everyone to remember them, but I also know that that process of remembering the past is unavoidably partisan and ideological. My own work included! I think we need to treat religious memories with care because they exert a great deal of power-for good and for bad-in the present"..........
If a more critical look at the history of the church is required that is fine, but what she has done is rather careless and very bizarre IMO.
It is also important to remember that the conservative government chose to fill this position with someone who is a political scientist. Frankly, if the office is really for protecting religous rights than someone like you would have been a much better candidate. In your role as hospital chaplain I would assume that you have found a way to navigate the delicate balance necessary to be true to your own beliefs and to bring the comfort needed to the sick and dying.
I've watched while the open-minded left made many attempts to diminish the rituals, symbols, holidays, beliefs of those who are Christian.
When I left Toronto, Christmas had been turned into a "happy holiday". One didn't say Merry Christmas for fear of offending. City council tried to rename the Christmas tree a holiday tree.The Jewish mayor said, "WHAT? It's a Christmas tree!"
I live in a small rural community. I love Christmas here. People say Merry Christmas. The streets and stores are decorated with all things jolly.
One does not have to be a Christian to enjoy the festivities. Any more than one needs to be Chinese to take part in the Chinese New Near.
Tolerance that has been brought to us by the "progressives" taught us the importance of acknowledging other religions that were brought to this country. We've gone too far to the left. Comments on my blog about religion are filled with hatred toward Christianity. And that is sad.
The pendulum will turn again. We need to learn to live in the middle.
The Office for Religious Freedom is designed to protect those who are religious from being persecuted. Mostly overseas. We have persecution here. Look up the story of Faith McGregor, who caused untold stress to a law-abiding Muslim who started a business-cutting hair. She insisted he cut hers. His religion prevents that-which is why he chose to be a men's barber.DWB
It would be hard to consider anyone who supports liberation theology with a fundamental focus on the poor or people like the " nuns on the bus" who are decidedly on the left side of the American political spectrum as possessing this hatred toward Christianity. Bringing it closer to home, Tommy Douglas, a minister himself, considered the father of medicare and branded as a communist simply for caring about the well being of all Canadians.
If you want to find the true threat to the rights of religion look towards those who profit from people who turn away from their God. Look towards those who like to divide us into singles instead of communities.
Above all else, remember that Jesus kicked the money lenders from the temple. Clearly, when money has become god or when God's love is measured in the plumpness of your wallet, God is truly lost.
Hopefully, they are not targeting people who mock silly ideas, because that is free speech. Threatening or carrying out on threats is assualt, and there are laws in place to deal with that.
You're words are a perfect example of why many think the ORF is wrong, ie here go they religous thinking they are special, and need governments to validate their beliefs.
The ORF is not here to validate beliefs. The office, as I understand it, is to help protect the many around the world who are abused because of their beliefs. By the same token, I am appalled at what is happening in Uganda regarding the attacks by fundamentalists on the gay population. I find it terribly sad that an organization that can help with medical care, agriculture, developing infrastructure could show such a lack of compassion to the LGBTI community.
It is caused by an inability to understand that the teachings of the Bible are meant to evolve, like common law. DWB
I understand the situation in Uganda, not sure how the ORF applies, since it is religions limiting the freedom, not being a victim.
In any case, your article was about the need for it right here in Canada, with people making fun of your views as your example. You then proceed to call me names for not properly understanding the stuff you make up about your God. Do you suppose I need an office of non religious freedom to protect me from you?
I was one who wrote in on your article on assisted-suicide. My objection to your opinion was that it appeared as a totally religious-based argument against the right of people to make decisions about how they want to end their lives. Because of that your opinions were fair game. I don’t believe in the personal vitriol or ad hominem arguments and I’m sorry that people attacked you instead of your opinions.
I’ve get along in relative harmony with open-minded religious people. You know what works: it’s deeds. Be the caring chaplain that comforts other. Just don’t tell me how to run my life.
Interesting to me that you read it as a religious-based argument when I did not mention religion per se. I mentioned the beliefs of others. As others make a claim to speak for the right to assisted- suicide/euthanasia, I have a right to express my moral and ethical objections, too-whether it is religious based or not. All opinions, religious and not, are "fair game."
I find it interesting, too, that no one referred to the book, The Republic of Suffering. Unless people thought it was a religious book. It is about the Civil War.
What is the definition of an open-minded religious person? Is it the same as an open-minded non-religious person? DWB
My sentiments exactly!
As I understand from being in discussions with people on precisely those topics, very similar. This is apparently the standard theme of anonymous comments. Welcome to the internet.
Of course they wouldn't and they shouldn't. Religious belief is a choice to believe in something without any tangible evidence and almost always includes the desire or mission to convert others to that belief. That is not true of any of the other groups mentioned. Each of those other things is something that is real and tangible and beyond the control of the persons involved. Choosing to believe in a supernatural being is a choice and arguably an irrational choice. Furthermore, it is a choice that inevitably and profoundly affects the rest of society.
And it has not ever been extended to atheists. Maybe the reason so many comments are so negative is because the only place most people can express their frustration with Christianity (or any other religion) and not be treated as a pariah is in an anonymous comment. I recall reading something in the New Testament about how followers of Christ should expect to be persecuted, but the truth is that Christians have a robust history of persecuting everyone else. The civility and tolerance of the society the author misses is an illusion. It's just that now she feels some of the intolerance that atheists are well accustomed to.
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.
26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.
28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”
Judges 19:22-30