Is it right to shoot
someone in the head in the middle of dinner because you did not like what they
said? Is it alright to sell your daughter because she didn’t listen to you when
you said to put her dish in the sink? None of these things any sane person would
think were acceptable to do. These truths are not based in religion, they are
based in morality.
You do not have to be Catholic or Christian to have a sense
of right and wrong. So why, then, do we think that it is impossible in a
political setting for people of faith and people that do not believe in a God
to work together? Creating a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians
should not be a far-fetched concept, because there has to be a platform that
all citizens can agree upon on a universal level. Since the separation of church and state,
society has had to struggle with this concept. Gaudium et Spes, one of the four
constitutions from the Second Vatican II council, says that “according to the character of different
peoples and their historic development, the political community can..adopt a
variety of concrete solutions in its structures and the organization of public
authority. For the benefit of the whole human family, these solutions must
always contribute to the formation of a type of man who will be cultivated,
peace-loving and well-disposed towards all his fellow men”(74). The church
establishes that there are many different solutions, and structures that we can
use to have a dialogue between people coming from all different backgrounds. Each
citizen, no matter where they are in their faith life, can connect and agree
upon certain moral truths with other citizens. These moral truths will be based
in the betterment of the common good.
With this as the starting point,
the next question is how do Christians begin to maintain and bring forth their
religious ideas in a public forum?
In The Dialectics of Secularization, written by Jurgen Habermas,
Ratzinger talks about how Christianity needs to be acceptable to the general
public. He says, “When secularized citizens act in their roles as citizens of
the state, they must not deny in principle that religious images of the world
have the potential to express truth. Nor may they refuse their believing fellow
citizens the right to make contributions in a religious language to public
debates. Indeed, a liberal political culture can expect that the secularized
citizens play their part in the endeavors to translate relevant contributions
from the religious language into a language that is accessible to the public as
a whole”(52). With the increasing number of non-Christians it is important that
dialogue is able to take place within the separation of church and state. The
basic foundations around equality, human rights, and loving your neighbor as
yourself are things that most can agree upon as at least true in the United
States, if not universally. We have to find a way that these values will
connect with everyone. These values must relate to non-Christians on a deeper
level. In order to have a dialogue between two parties, both have to be engaged.
In order to convince others in political or public setting of your ideals, you
have to connect with them on their level. Christians must find a way to communicate
their ideas and connect with the majority in order for real changes to be
enacted.
However, this brings up
the problem of an unjust majority. How do we start a dialogue when we are talking
to a corrupt majority? How do we get our Christian values through, which are
important for the common good, if the ones in power are not willing to be open.
How do we find a moral foundation that we all can understand if some are not
open to change or new opinions? In every discussion, both parties have to at
least be open to the possibility of the other being right. The lack of desire
to see other’s point of view is what leaves us in this gridlock in relation to
inter-religious discussions. 
I do think you are right in that the first starting place is recognizing that the basis for most religious opinions does not come from religion necessarily, but more from a moral or natural law of nature that is innate in all people. Your question of how do we talk to one another with different backgrounds and vocabulary reminds me of the earlier document we read in class that discussed the option of translating the religious views into a secular format to be understood. Sometimes it can seem impossible to separate the religious aspects from the point, but if we are to believe that all religious beliefs are based on this moral or natural law, then there must be a way that we are not aware of yet to convince the other side of the merits of the religious side. I do not know when or if we will ever figure it out, but I can only hope so.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the points you raised about morality and natural law in this post! It is so easy to forget that despite the many diverse religions and belief systems present in our country (and in the world), we all have many common truths and convictions. It is important to remember these commonalities in dialogue together and I am glad you acknowledged this!
ReplyDeleteWhile it is certainly important to hear the views and opinions of others, it is also important to support and stand true by one’s own values and culture. As you say, hearing the views and opinions of others increases mutual understanding and ultimately fosters a more interconnected community. But this should be tempered with caution, you state about the fears of dialoguing with a “corrupt majority”, Alexander Hamilton often wrote about the dangers of the “tyranny of the majority”, urging the importance of dialogue and restraint with a minority.
ReplyDelete