The Week
 
 
Why do so many  [so-called] liberals despise  Christianity? 
 
Liberals increasingly want to enforce a  comprehensive, uniformly secular 
vision of the human good. And they see  alternative visions of the good as 
increasingly intolerable. 
 
 
By _Damon Linker_ (http://theweek.com/author/damon-linker)  | October 8, 
2014
 


 
Liberalism seems to have an irrational animus against Christianity.  
Consider these _two_ 
(http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/oh-yuck-christian-doctors/)  
_stories_ 
(http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gay-rights-vs-religious-liberty-again/)
  highlighted in the last week by 
conservative  Christian blogger Rod Dreher.  
Item 1: In a _widely discussed_ 
(http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/pagans-and-christians/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=BlogPost-Title&version=
Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&
_r=0)  essay in Slate, author Brian  Palmer _writes_ 
(http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/10/missionary_
doctors_treating_ebola_in_africa_why_people_are_suspicious_of.html)  about the 
prevalence of missionary doctors and  nurses in Africa and their crucial role 
in 
treating those suffering from Ebola.  Palmer tries to be fair-minded, but he 
nonetheless expresses "ambivalence,"  "suspicion," and "visceral discomfort" 
about the fact that these men and women  are motivated to make "long-term 
commitments to address the health problems of  poor Africans," to "risk their 
lives," and to accept poor compensation (and  sometimes none at all) because 
of their Christian faith. 
The question is why he considers this a problem. 
Palmer mentions a lack of data and an absence of regulatory oversight. But  
he's honest enough to admit that these aren't the real reasons for his 
concern.  The real reason is that he doesn't believe that missionaries are 
capable "of  separating their religious work from their medical work," even 
when 
they vow not  to proselytize their patients. And that, in his view, is 
unacceptable —  apparently because he's an atheist and religion creeps him out. 
As he puts it,  rather wanly, "It's great that these people are doing God's 
work, but do they  have to talk about Him so much?" 
That overriding distaste for religion leads Palmer to propose a radical  
corollary to the classical liberal ideal of a separation between church and  
state — one that goes far beyond politics, narrowly construed. Palmer thinks  
it's necessary to uphold a separation of "religion and health care." 
Item 2: Gordon College, a small Christian school north of  Boston, is 
facing the possibility of having its accreditation revoked by the  higher 
education commission of the New England Association of Schools and  Colleges, 
according to an _article_ 
(http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2014/09/25/accreditation-board-gives-gordon-college-a-year-to.html?ana=twt&page=all&r=full)
 
 in the Boston Business Journal. Since  accreditation determines a school's 
eligibility to participate in federal and  state financial aid programs, 
and the eligibility of its students to be accepted  into graduate programs and 
to meet requirements for professional licensure,  revoking a school's 
accreditation is a big deal — and can even be a death  sentence. 
What has Gordon College done to jeopardize its accreditation? It has chosen 
 to enforce a "life and conduct statement" that forbids "homosexual 
practice" on  campus. 
Now, one could imagine a situation in which such a statement might  
legitimately run afoul of an accreditation board or even anti-discrimination  
statutes and regulations — if, for example, it stated that being gay is a sign  
of innate depravity and that students who feel same-sex attraction should be  
subject to punishment for having such desires. 
But that isn't the case here. At all. In accordance with traditional  
Christian teaching, Gordon College bans all sexual relationships  outside of 
marriage, gay or straight, and it goes out of its way _to say_ 
(http://www.gordon.edu/download/galleries/HomosexualityPolicy.pdf)  that its 
structures 
against homosexual acts  apply only to behavior and not to same-sex desires or 
orientation. 
The accreditation board is not so much objecting to the college's treatment 
 of gays as it is rejecting the legitimacy of its devoutly Christian sexual 
 beliefs. 
The anti-missionary article and the story of Gordon College's troubles are  
both examples (_among many others_ 
(http://theweek.com/article/index/264546/how-liberalism-became-an-intolerant-dogma)
 ) of contemporary liberalism's  
irrational animus against religion in general and traditional forms of  
Christianity in particular. 
My use of the term "irrational animus" isn't arbitrary. The Supreme Court 
has  made "irrational animus" a cornerstone of its jurisprudence on gay 
rights. A law  cannot stand if it can be shown to be motivated by rationally 
unjustifiable  hostility to homosexuals, and on several occasions the court has 
declared that  traditional religious objections to homosexuality are 
reducible to just such a  motive. 
But the urge to eliminate Christianity's influence on and legacy within our 
 world can be its own form of irrational animus. The problem is not just 
the  cavalier dismissal of people's long-established beliefs and the ways of 
life and  traditions based on them. The problem is also the dogmatic denial 
of the beauty  and wisdom contained within those beliefs, ways of life, and 
traditions. (You  know, the kind of thing that leads a doctor to risk his 
life and forego a  comfortable stateside livelihood in favor of treating deadly 
illness in  dangerous, impoverished African cities and villages, all out of 
a love for Jesus  Christ.) 
Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of  
self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision 
of  
the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an  
alternative vision of the good — one that clashes in some respects with  
liberalism's moral creed — is increasingly intolerable. 
That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition. 
Liberals should be pleased and express gratitude when people do good deeds, 
 whether or not those deeds are motivated by faith. They should also be 
content  to give voluntary associations (like religious colleges) wide latitude 
to orient  themselves to visions of the human good rooted in traditions and 
experiences  that transcend liberal modernity — provided they don't clash 
in a fundamental  way with liberal ideals and institutions. 
In the end, what we're seeing is an effort to greatly expand the list of  
beliefs, traditions, and ways of life that fundamentally clash with 
liberalism.  That is an effort that no genuine liberal should want to succeed. 
What happened to a liberalism of _skepticism_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Trilling) , modesty, humility, and 
openness to  conflicting notions 
of the highest good? What happened to a liberalism of _pluralism_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin)  that recognizes that when people 
are 
allowed  to search for truth in freedom, they are liable to seek and find it in 
a  multitude of values, beliefs, and traditions? What happened to a 
liberalism that  sees this _diversity_ 
(http://theweek.com/article/index/257959/who-are-the-real-liberals-on-gay-marriage)
  as one of the finest flowers of a 
free  society rather than a threat to the liberal democratic order? 
I don't have answers to these questions — and frankly, not a lot hinges on  
figuring out how we got here. What matters is that we acknowledge that 
something  in the liberal mind has changed, and that we act to recover what has 
been  lost.

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to