A friend recently sent to me an article written by Michael Novak called "What Did Jesus Do?" in the print edition of the National Review (funny to speak of a "print edition") which draws a similar conclusion to the one I wrote about in Part I of this series. Novak writes:
The Democratic Left, especially in its non-believing wing, simply does not understand that for believers, reason itself is the Divine Light within each human being, and faith nourishes in us trust in that reason, and also in human experience, down many long centuries of reflection and careful argument. Not many ethical formulations have been "immutable" in the way they have been understood by people trying to be faithful to the Light given them by God. Jews and Christians have, in fact, made great progress in understanding their moral obligations, in many different fields of thought--in religious liberty, for instance.
In fact, it was the "theocratic" Baptists of what is today Jerry Falwell country who insisted on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the amendment that extended religious liberty to every other conscience--even that of "Mahometans," Jews, atheists, and others.
It's almost as if this article was addressed to Gary Wills himself. What Novak is saying here is that the difference between Islamic fundamentalists and American "Bible Christians" is that, despite the fact that both believe in a literalist interpretation of their sacred text, "Bible Christians" like Falwell, Robertson, and Co. all defend the American tradition of religious tolerance, which, incidentally, owes a great deal to the Enlightenment thinking of Jefferson and Locke. Morevoer, Falwell, Robertson and Co. always claim to defend the Constitution, which insures religious liberty. On top of this we have the fact that, as I have posted before, the idea of religious tolerance in America antedates its Constitution. So I really do not think Wills has anything to worry about. Most Islamic fundamentalists, however, do not have a tradition of religious tolerance to look towards within their own societies--or if they do, these traditions are distorted or erased by propaganda of intolerance and hate.
Interestingly enough, L'Espresso reports that Jurgen Habermas, the German atheist philosopher, defender of the Enlightenment before the postmodern onslaughts of men like Foucault and Derrida, is arguing that the Christian tradition is a necessary ally in the preservation of certain Enlightenment virtues in the West. The remarks were made during a two day dialogue between Habermas and, among other thinkers, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
Between the likes of Ratzinger and Habermas, naturally, the distance remains intact. Habermas defines himself as, and is, "a methodical atheist." But to read his most recent essay translated in Italy, "A Time of Transition," published by Feltrinelli and available in bookstores since mid-November, Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization: "To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."
This was all duly blogged, by the way, by Christopher of Against the Grain. There's more:
In commenting on "You shall have no gods but me," he writes:
"From a philosophical point of view, the first commandment expresses that 'leap forward' on the cognitive level which granted man freedom of reflection, the strength to detach himself from vacillating immediacy, to emancipate himself from his generational shackles and the whims of mythical powers."
And on the contribution of philosophy to the meeting between the Church and other religions, he says:
"In the dialogical dispute among competing religious visions there is a need for that 'culture of recognition' which draws its principles from the secularized world of the universalism of reason and law. In this matter, it is thus the philosophical spirit which provides the concepts instrumental in the political clarification of theology. But the political philosophy capable of making this contribution bears the stamp of the idea of the Covenant no less than that of the Polis. Therefore this philosophy also hearkens back to a biblical heritage."
Does Habermas think that one must first put away such dogmas as the Virgin Birth in order to begin a peaceful dialogue? Doesn't seem like it:
On relations with other civilizations, Habermas maintains that "recognizing our Judaeo-Christian roots more clearly not only does not impair intercultural understanding, it is what makes it possible."
He contests modern "unbridled subjectivity," which is destined to "clash against what is really absolute; that is, against the unconditional right of every creature to be respected in its bodiliness and recognized in its otherness, as 'an image of God'."
So in Europe, where Christianity is said to be in decline, an atheist philosopher, Habermas, defender of the Enlightenment, defends the Christian tradition as a necessary ally in the preservation of Enlightenment values. In America, where everyone is saying that religion is as popular as ever, we have a self-professed Catholic historian, Wills, arguing that Christian orthodoxy (e.g., belief in the Virgin Birth) is antithetical to the legacy of the Enlightenment (see Part I for my comments on Wills' piece). The cultural and ideological divide between Europe and America does not get more stark, or more ironic, than this.
The Democratic Left, especially in its non-believing wing, simply does not understand that for believers, reason itself is the Divine Light within each human being, and faith nourishes in us trust in that reason, and also in human experience, down many long centuries of reflection and careful argument. Not many ethical formulations have been "immutable" in the way they have been understood by people trying to be faithful to the Light given them by God. Jews and Christians have, in fact, made great progress in understanding their moral obligations, in many different fields of thought--in religious liberty, for instance.
In fact, it was the "theocratic" Baptists of what is today Jerry Falwell country who insisted on the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the amendment that extended religious liberty to every other conscience--even that of "Mahometans," Jews, atheists, and others.
It's almost as if this article was addressed to Gary Wills himself. What Novak is saying here is that the difference between Islamic fundamentalists and American "Bible Christians" is that, despite the fact that both believe in a literalist interpretation of their sacred text, "Bible Christians" like Falwell, Robertson, and Co. all defend the American tradition of religious tolerance, which, incidentally, owes a great deal to the Enlightenment thinking of Jefferson and Locke. Morevoer, Falwell, Robertson and Co. always claim to defend the Constitution, which insures religious liberty. On top of this we have the fact that, as I have posted before, the idea of religious tolerance in America antedates its Constitution. So I really do not think Wills has anything to worry about. Most Islamic fundamentalists, however, do not have a tradition of religious tolerance to look towards within their own societies--or if they do, these traditions are distorted or erased by propaganda of intolerance and hate.
Interestingly enough, L'Espresso reports that Jurgen Habermas, the German atheist philosopher, defender of the Enlightenment before the postmodern onslaughts of men like Foucault and Derrida, is arguing that the Christian tradition is a necessary ally in the preservation of certain Enlightenment virtues in the West. The remarks were made during a two day dialogue between Habermas and, among other thinkers, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:
Between the likes of Ratzinger and Habermas, naturally, the distance remains intact. Habermas defines himself as, and is, "a methodical atheist." But to read his most recent essay translated in Italy, "A Time of Transition," published by Feltrinelli and available in bookstores since mid-November, Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization: "To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."
This was all duly blogged, by the way, by Christopher of Against the Grain. There's more:
In commenting on "You shall have no gods but me," he writes:
"From a philosophical point of view, the first commandment expresses that 'leap forward' on the cognitive level which granted man freedom of reflection, the strength to detach himself from vacillating immediacy, to emancipate himself from his generational shackles and the whims of mythical powers."
And on the contribution of philosophy to the meeting between the Church and other religions, he says:
"In the dialogical dispute among competing religious visions there is a need for that 'culture of recognition' which draws its principles from the secularized world of the universalism of reason and law. In this matter, it is thus the philosophical spirit which provides the concepts instrumental in the political clarification of theology. But the political philosophy capable of making this contribution bears the stamp of the idea of the Covenant no less than that of the Polis. Therefore this philosophy also hearkens back to a biblical heritage."
Does Habermas think that one must first put away such dogmas as the Virgin Birth in order to begin a peaceful dialogue? Doesn't seem like it:
On relations with other civilizations, Habermas maintains that "recognizing our Judaeo-Christian roots more clearly not only does not impair intercultural understanding, it is what makes it possible."
He contests modern "unbridled subjectivity," which is destined to "clash against what is really absolute; that is, against the unconditional right of every creature to be respected in its bodiliness and recognized in its otherness, as 'an image of God'."
So in Europe, where Christianity is said to be in decline, an atheist philosopher, Habermas, defender of the Enlightenment, defends the Christian tradition as a necessary ally in the preservation of Enlightenment values. In America, where everyone is saying that religion is as popular as ever, we have a self-professed Catholic historian, Wills, arguing that Christian orthodoxy (e.g., belief in the Virgin Birth) is antithetical to the legacy of the Enlightenment (see Part I for my comments on Wills' piece). The cultural and ideological divide between Europe and America does not get more stark, or more ironic, than this.
