Christianity doesn’t guarantee faithfulness
Jonathan Chait, responding to Peter Wehner and Ramesh Ponnuru writes:
I strongly doubt that Wehner and Shales [Ponnuru?] would be happy to see, say, Muslims going on television to blame Mark Sanford’s Christianity for his adultery and urge him to convert to Islam. Of course, I can’t prove this, because no major television network would ever allow it. But I’d at least like to hear them say that they’d be happy to see their rule applied to all religions. Otherwise, they need to admit that what they favor is not some wild theological free-for-all in our public discourse, with all religions touting their superiority and disparaging others, but rather a privileged place for Christianity.
I think Chait is right. And this has largely been the reaction to conservatives who have backed Brit Hume’s notorious statement. I think it’s also important to point out that many of the other high-profile infidelities we’ve seen the past couple of years have been committed by Christians themselves. It’s not really important whether you belong to one faith or another if that faith doesn’t compel you to act like a decent human being. That’s the real fallacy behind Hume’s statement. Simply becoming Christian (as opposed to Buddhist or whatever other religion) will not make you more faithful to your wife. It certainly didn’t help Sanford or the many other Christian politicians who have been adulterous these past years. No, that’s the trouble with free will. No matter how godly you may think you are, you can still act like a jerk when you want to.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tweets Tube, E.D. Kain. E.D. Kain said: Christianity doesn't guarantee faithfulness http://tinyurl.com/ydfpdj4 @trueslant [...]
“No matter how godly you may think you are, you can still act like a jerk when you want to.”
Well, that statement sums up the history of religion.
That’s true, isn’t it? Good call, Kyle.
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t think Christianity offers the kind of objectivity and sensible judgment that is offered by atheism. My message to Brit would be: Brit, turn to Atheism and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the whole world.
Now see, I would just turn the other cheek…
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Kain,
Mr. Hume did not actually say that Christianity guaranteed faithfulness. Rather he said that it offers forgiveness which Mr. Hume believes Buddhism does not.
“He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Mr. Hume of course is quite mistaken in this matter…
“To understand everything is to forgive everything” – Gautama Siddharta
“The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience,
tolerance, humility, forgiveness” – Dalai Lama
I think every religion has this component to some degree or another, David. In any case, Hume was certainly implying that a move to Christianity would not only offer forgiveness but a more holy existence – and by implication a less adulterous one.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Simply becoming Christian (as opposed to Buddhist or whatever other religion) will not make you more faithful to your wife.”
Overgeneralization based on select (however high-profile) examples. Common fallacy.
All we know for sure is that it won’t necessarily make one so. At any rate, it’s not clear exactly what you’re claiming. That the act of opting for C. vs. “whatever other religion” won’t make someone “more faithful”? More faithful than what? As for the high-profile cheaters you cite–do we know for a fact that they shopped around for their faith (as opposed to being born into it)? Do we haves stats on their pre-becoming-Christian levels of fidelity? Have studies been conducted to determine how they would have behaved if members of some other faith, and, if so, which one(s)?
The point is that becoming religious (regardless of the religion) does not defacto make you more faithful. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. There is no free lunch.
In response to another comment. See in context »