It is understandable that Hollenbach believes that Christianity has something positive to contribute to the public dialogue on various issues, but sometimes I feel that he goes too far in arguing on behalf of this. For example, he claims that the cross can be a tremendous sign for friendship and mercy. For Christians, that’s a reasonable position to adopt; it is not, however, reasonable to expect anyone else to see the cross the same way.
On the contrary, it can be an incredibly divisive symbol because of the divisive and violent history of Christianity. Many Christians assume that the cross should be treated as a universal symbol of positive values, but that is not only an unreasonable expectation, it is also a rather arrogant and self-centered expectation. One religion’s central theological symbol cannot become a “universal” symbol without trying to impose something of that religion on others, something Hollenbach says he doesn’t want to do.
It’s important to keep in mind that, despite what popular appearances might suggest, this isn’t really a debate between liberals and conservatives. There are both liberals and conservatives who believe that religion should have a greater role in public debates; there are both liberals and conservatives who believe that religion should be restricted to the private sphere. Hollenbach’s book isn’t trying to take a liberal or conservative position, but it will probably appeal more to political and religious liberals.
« Back...
