This should concern democratically-minded Christians most of all, but what can they do to weaken the authoritarian threads in their own religious traditions? Even attempting to do so requires denying the inherent authority of ancient scriptures and traditions, a tactic which poses risks for the rest of a religion which people might want to hold on to.
Writing about his year living strictly according to the rules of the Old Testament, AJ Jacobs has a lot to say about how religion can narrowly and strictly regulate the way one lives — and in fact how appealing that can be:
I experienced first-hand the how a life of restricted choice can be satisfying, even paradoxically liberating - especially as our choices multiply like cable channels. ...I recently did an interview on Newsweek.com in which I talked about how disoriented I was after my year ended. Without all my rules, without the stable architecture of biblical living, I felt unmoored and unanchored. I was overwhelmed by choice.
My know-it-all brother-in-law Eric Schoenberg - who teaches behavioral economics at Columbia - likes to lecture me about an experiment at a grocery store by researchers from Columbia and Stanford. They set up two tables offering free tastes - one had six flavors of jam, the other had 24 flavors of jam. Oddly, more people bought jams from the table with six flavors. The conclusion was that the other table was just too much, too many options.
Living biblically takes away a lot of those jam jars. What should I do on Friday night? Stay at home with the family. Should I waste my time reading about Cameron Diaz's love life? No. Should I give ten percent of my salary to the needy? Yes. Should I tell the truth about why I missed a deadline? Yes.
Source: The Huffington Post [emphasis added]
It's not just religious believers who have problems with choice — the "paradox of choice" is something that occurs with everyone studied — but many believers, and especially conservative believers, seem to have more problems with choice than average. It is they who try to transform the paradox of choice into a principle of living by arguing that real freedom lies in submitting to the commands and will of higher authorities (ultimately God, but also self-proclaimed intermediaries) and that real choice lies in not having much at all to choose from in the first place.
We shouldn't be surprised that order, structure, and predictability are highly attractive qualities to a way of life. Even people who prize spontaneity don't live lives devoid of order and structure — we all need those things in order to manage our regular, day-to-day existence. For some, though, more and more order seems necessary as more and more choice and diversity appear throughout society. This is why contemporary fundamentalism is arguably a reaction to the diversity and choices made possibly by modernity rather than simply a continuation of ancient practices.
Some people simply feel a need to be told what to do, where to do it, what to eat, what to value, and how to live; even those who don't really feel such a need, like Jacobs, can apparently experience a strong attraction to it once they try it out. Weighing alternatives and making choices take time, effort, and responsibility. Simply following orders takes less time, less effort, and can give on the feeling that they are absolved of any responsibility for the outcome.
Carter, a Christian who has been commenting on this site, expresses first-hand his own perspective on how there is more freedom and choice in submission and obedience:
Christians believe that the only infallible source of what we believe and how we are to live is found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. There will be times when what the Scriptures teach seems contrary to reason...or is unreasonable. 200 years ago it would seem unreasonable say that a 200 ton piece of metal could fly, but now no one thinks it unreasonable.
I think we would all be tempted to say it is wrong to give someone poison, but when given full information we will all say that giving someone poison is not only a reasonable thing to do, but it is also a very good thing especially when the poison (chemotherapy) kills the cancer which would kill the person if left untreated. I think the reason why we often struggle with some of what the Bible teaches and what God allows is because we don't know all that God knows nor are we as wise as He is. I believe if we knew what He knows and was as wise and powerful as He I believe that we would do exactly as He.
The Bible teaches that God is a righteous God...He does what is right and all his commands are righteous commands. That is the given from which Christians work. You may not agree, but that is one of the Christian givens.
That leads us to the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” I believe the context of Gen. 3:22 give us the proper understanding of the phrase. To “know good and evil” is to claim complete and absolute autonomy for our existence; to attempt to eliminate any sense of accountability to anyone else, including God. It is humans deciding by themselves what is good or evil without taking into consideration God's revealed will. Because God is self-existent He is the only totally autonomous being, not accountable to anyone except to His own character.
This type of existence is not possible for us. To be a creature is by definition to be accountable to the Creator. Any attempt to exist in total independence from God would ultimately result in death because He is the author and sustainer of life. The serpent led Adam and Eve to believe that they could aspire to and experience—come to know—this kind of autonomy and continue to enjoy life apart from God. They could certainly live in rebellion against God, perceiving themselves as unaccountable to Him. This I believe is what God meant when He said that Adam and Eve were "like one of us, knowing good and evil". ...
When created, Adam and Eve were free moral agents and they chose to rebel against God. God has granted us freedom to go our own way and to live our own lives, but we must realize that ultimately our existence depends on our relationship with Him. To claim autonomy is tantamount to rejecting the gift of life. The knowledge condemned by God is that which is sought in rejecting or rebelling against His revealed will. To rely on Him in our search for knowledge requires that we become dependent, like children....
To look at freedom a little differently that you – I think a bird is most free when it lives like a bird and not trying to live like a fish. If the cardinal said I want to be free and go swimming, the results would be like a fish flying – death. Let me give a few other examples: a musician is most free when she follows the rules of music; a violation leads to discordant cacophony of sounds...A screw driver is most free when used with screws, not in saying “I want to saw branches from a tree.” Humans are most free when they live according to the design of the Creator...it is in obedience that we find true freedom and fulfillment.
[original post]
Carter is preaching the doctrine of Natural Law without actually mentioning it. Whites who wanted blacks to remain in slavery or segregation used this argument. Men who wanted to deny women the right to vote or ability to work outside the home used this argument. Throughout the history of the Christian West, every group in power has sought to use Natural Law arguments as a basis for denying equality and rights to others by claiming that the status quo was part of the Design of the Creator — and thus that any attempt at radical social change was in fact a Sin against God like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
As noted above, the people making this argument don't have feel like they should take personal responsibility for the consequences that others must suffer because they are only following orders and repeating what God wants. That’s your Christian freedom: the freedom to submit to those currently in power and willing to use Christian theology to justify keeping everyone else under control.
Natural Law is not only not truth, though, but there does not appear to be any way to apply it that won’t lead to oppression. Furthermore, if we find that the application of some philosophical positions consistently leads to oppression, authoritarian social structures, and decreased liberty, the intelligent thing to do is start suspecting that there is no truth to it. At least, anyone concerned with liberty and equality would do that.
A person who sees the failures of their philosophy and insists that it’s still true, but not yet implemented correctly, is worse than a zealot. At least zealots have the decency to be in denial about the failings of their beliefs.
Disregard for natural law, the Holy Father said, has caused "a crisis for human-- even more for Christian-- civilization." In response to that crisis, he continued, Church leaders should mobilize "both lay people and followers of religions other than Christianity" to reclaim a common moral tradition. ...The natural law, he observed, "makes it clear that the ethical content of Christian faith is not an imposition dictated from outside man's conscience, but a norm that has its basis in human nature itself."
Because it is not a matter of faith, but a form of moral reasoning that is "accessible to all rations creatures," the natural law can form the basis for dialogue in civil society, the Pope observed, and society can reach a consensus on fundamental moral questions.
Once that shared recognition of natural law is withdrawn, the Pontiff warned, there is no means of resolving public debates other than a contest of political strength. Then process of legislation becomes "not the search for good but the search for power, or rather the balance of power."
Source: LifeSite
For Christians like this, natural law is beyond political, ethical, or philosophical debate. Natural law is a part of who we were created to be. Natural law teaches that whatever Christianity teaches is also a part of who we are; therefore, whatever Christianity teaches is also beyond political, ethical, or philosophical debate. Defying natural law and Christian ethical teachings is an illegitimate form of rebellion against God — it is a sin and a defiance of What Must Be.
Just as submission to natural law is "true freedom" as Carter tells is, ending all political, ethical, and philosophical debate over whatever is dictated by natural law is "true democracy" as Pope Benedict XVI tells it. Just as it's not real freedom for a bird to try to swim, it's not real freedom for women to try to use contraception and it's not real democracy for voters to elect to expand the nature of civil marriage to include gay couples.
What's especially disturbing about all of this are the false claims about natural law being "accessible to all rational creatures." Oh, that's always been a part of the doctrine of natural law, but it's not a principle that is ever truly accepted or put into practice by those proclaiming it. Strictly speaking, religious leaders like the pope are not supposed to be the final authorities on what "natural law" is — everyone is supposed to be equal in their ability to discern and understand it.
When someone reaches conclusions that differ from religious authorities, though, they are simply dismissed as wrong. It certainly won't be accepted as a legitimate understanding of natural law if an entirely society reaches a "consensus on fundamental moral questions" that differ from the conclusions of the pope or Carter — if a society reaches a consensus that contraception if moral and homosexuality legitimate, do you really think that religious believers in natural law will go along with it? Of course not.
In the hands of religious conservatives, natural law is just a scam. Natural law is used by people who have no sound, rational, empirical arguments for their position and who recognize that religious or scriptural arguments won't work; in place of all this they pretend that there exist a non-religious but transcendent source of moral truths which they claim is equally accessible to all people regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). It's impossible, however, for "natural law" to ever lead to moral conclusions other than the ones these believers have already derived from their scripture and religious traditions. That's not a coincidence; instead, it's the entire point. It's a scam because it's a way to get you to agree with their private religious beliefs without the benefit of any serious arguments.
Now, I'll allow that it's possible for a serious philosopher to subscribe to natural law without presuming to already know what it says, without presuming that it happens to agree with what they already believe and/or what their religion has always taught, and even without presuming that people or societies which come to opposite conclusion from traditional religion are necessarily wrong. It's possible... but your chances of coming across such a person in a debate are probably smaller than winning the lottery.
Aren’t these the same people who call mandatory priestly celibacy a “gift” and who call persecution of gays “love?”
“You can have your freedom, but you have to do what I say with it”.
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.
* * *
People died so you could have freedom of speech, so you’d better watch what you say.
* * *
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
- George Orwell, “1984″