More Thoughts on (Mis)Interpreting the Synod

 

Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”)

—St. Thomas Aquinas

 

Introduction

A few days have passed since the preliminary synod has begun. I’ve been reading different things on Facebook, Catholic Blogs and news sites (secular and religious). And of course, there is the usual antics of individual Catholics making their comments on all of these places. There has been some good reporting from the Vatican Information Service and Zenit. I have unfortunately seen the other side: Too much commentary based on too little knowledge. This combination has shaken many of the faithful.

The Problem

Some are people who have misinterpreted the intention of the synod (to see how to better pass on the Church teaching and minister to those who have managed to place themselves outside of them) and falsely hope to see the Church changing her teaching on issues of sexual morality. Others are Catholics who fear the Church will change her teaching and teach error.

These false hopes and fears seem to stem from the fact that too many people are relying on what they think they know. When people hold their assumptions as true, and then encounter information which seems to reinforce these assumptions, they tend to think their fears or hopes are proven true. A person need not have a malicious intention for this to happen. It’s just what happens when a person wrongly assume they know something.

I think a lot of this happens to come from a vicious circle. The media sees Pope Francis as a liberal, and everything he says or does that may sound liberal in the ears of the listener (whether they approve of liberalism or loathe it) confirms the hopes or fears. They write about it from their perspective. People read these articles and have their hopes or fears reinforced by them. Pretty soon, it’s taken as a fact and the Pope is going to save or destroy the Church—but nobody ever asks whether their view is actually true. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, 

Once this view is held as fact (and it isn’t fact), it becomes easy to use the assumption as the basis of predicting all sorts of ridiculous things. The synod is one of these things. If a person sees Pope Francis as a liberal, they assume the synod will change the rules from Not-X to X, and think it is a good thing or bad thing depending on their political slant. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).

Now, yes, there are people in the Church who do choose to act and think from a political perspective. I don’t believe the Pope is one but, even if some do, we should not fear that the Church will embrace error . . . if we truly believe the Church is what she claims to be. Let’s look at this.

Why I don’t Fear the Synod

Christ made some promises to His Church, and these promises have rational implications whether one accepts them or not. They also have rational implications for people who don’t consider the ramifications of their views.

The first promise is:

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20  Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matt 16:18-19)

The second promise is:

8  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt:18:18)

The third promise is:

18  Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

The fourth promise is:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:22-23)

They’re pretty powerful promises. They establish that Jesus Christ has established a Church, and given it His authority to teach, binding and loosing. He is shown to be with His Church always—there is no trying to place Jesus in opposition to His Church. Trying to do so is to effectively deny that His promises have any weight: If the Church can teach error, then either Jesus Christ failed to keep His promises (blasphemous) or the Church simply misinterpreted what Christ intended to say (which means it does not matter what the Church teaches at the synod, because she has no authority to teach at all).

Now of course, to be a faithful Catholic, we cannot accept that Christ’s promises were false, and we cannot accept that the Church misinterpreted them. So we have to accept them.

The implications of accepting these promises are important. If Jesus gave His authority to teach to His Apostles and promised the gates of the netherworld (literally ᾅδου—the place of departed spirits) would not prevail against it. But they would die (see 1 Corinthians 15:22). So for Christ’s promise to be kept, it would have to be applied to the legitimate successors of the Apostles—the Pope and the bishops in communion with him until “the end of the age."

The next implication is that for things bound/loosed on Earth to be bound in Heaven means one of two things:

1. Either God will bind/loose error in Heaven, or . . . 
2. God will protect His Church from teaching error in binding and loosing.

But because nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27), we cannot accept the first option. So we can trust in the second.

Now, recognizing this, we can know that the Church cannot teach error when binding or loosing on matters pertaining to our salvation. The Church is sent to teach and baptize, bringing all nations to Christ. She can’t do His mission if she can lead them astray. Binding teaching is not just in matters which are ex cathedra (formally declared to be taught infallibly). Pope Pius XII made this clear in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This also applies to matters where the Church, under the authority of the Pope intends to teach what we must do. Now, think of it. If the Church can decree in a synod, “It is permissible for divorced and (invalidly) remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist,” and that decree went against God’s will, that would be a teaching contradicting a matter pertaining to salvation (see 1 Cor. 11:27). A matter which we cannot accept as Catholics.

So, that’s why I am not afraid of the results of the synod. There are people inside and outside of the Church who may have false ideas about what the Church can do. Some of them may be at this synod. We don’t know. But even if there are, they will not prevail against the Church. Not because of the holiness or intelligence of those attending . . . but because Jesus promised us this.

If we would be the faithful Catholics we would claim to be, let’s keep faith in Christ, even if we are fearful of the reports across the world.

More Thoughts on (Mis)Interpreting the Synod

 

Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”)

—St. Thomas Aquinas

 

Introduction

A few days have passed since the preliminary synod has begun. I’ve been reading different things on Facebook, Catholic Blogs and news sites (secular and religious). And of course, there is the usual antics of individual Catholics making their comments on all of these places. There has been some good reporting from the Vatican Information Service and Zenit. I have unfortunately seen the other side: Too much commentary based on too little knowledge. This combination has shaken many of the faithful.

The Problem

Some are people who have misinterpreted the intention of the synod (to see how to better pass on the Church teaching and minister to those who have managed to place themselves outside of them) and falsely hope to see the Church changing her teaching on issues of sexual morality. Others are Catholics who fear the Church will change her teaching and teach error.

These false hopes and fears seem to stem from the fact that too many people are relying on what they think they know. When people hold their assumptions as true, and then encounter information which seems to reinforce these assumptions, they tend to think their fears or hopes are proven true. A person need not have a malicious intention for this to happen. It’s just what happens when a person wrongly assume they know something.

I think a lot of this happens to come from a vicious circle. The media sees Pope Francis as a liberal, and everything he says or does that may sound liberal in the ears of the listener (whether they approve of liberalism or loathe it) confirms the hopes or fears. They write about it from their perspective. People read these articles and have their hopes or fears reinforced by them. Pretty soon, it’s taken as a fact and the Pope is going to save or destroy the Church—but nobody ever asks whether their view is actually true. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, 

Once this view is held as fact (and it isn’t fact), it becomes easy to use the assumption as the basis of predicting all sorts of ridiculous things. The synod is one of these things. If a person sees Pope Francis as a liberal, they assume the synod will change the rules from Not-X to X, and think it is a good thing or bad thing depending on their political slant. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).

Now, yes, there are people in the Church who do choose to act and think from a political perspective. I don’t believe the Pope is one but, even if some do, we should not fear that the Church will embrace error . . . if we truly believe the Church is what she claims to be. Let’s look at this.

Why I don’t Fear the Synod

Christ made some promises to His Church, and these promises have rational implications whether one accepts them or not. They also have rational implications for people who don’t consider the ramifications of their views.

The first promise is:

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20  Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matt 16:18-19)

The second promise is:

8  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt:18:18)

The third promise is:

18  Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

The fourth promise is:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:22-23)

They’re pretty powerful promises. They establish that Jesus Christ has established a Church, and given it His authority to teach, binding and loosing. He is shown to be with His Church always—there is no trying to place Jesus in opposition to His Church. Trying to do so is to effectively deny that His promises have any weight: If the Church can teach error, then either Jesus Christ failed to keep His promises (blasphemous) or the Church simply misinterpreted what Christ intended to say (which means it does not matter what the Church teaches at the synod, because she has no authority to teach at all).

Now of course, to be a faithful Catholic, we cannot accept that Christ’s promises were false, and we cannot accept that the Church misinterpreted them. So we have to accept them.

The implications of accepting these promises are important. If Jesus gave His authority to teach to His Apostles and promised the gates of the netherworld (literally ᾅδου—the place of departed spirits) would not prevail against it. But they would die (see 1 Corinthians 15:22). So for Christ’s promise to be kept, it would have to be applied to the legitimate successors of the Apostles—the Pope and the bishops in communion with him until “the end of the age."

The next implication is that for things bound/loosed on Earth to be bound in Heaven means one of two things:

1. Either God will bind/loose error in Heaven, or . . . 
2. God will protect His Church from teaching error in binding and loosing.

But because nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27), we cannot accept the first option. So we can trust in the second.

Now, recognizing this, we can know that the Church cannot teach error when binding or loosing on matters pertaining to our salvation. The Church is sent to teach and baptize, bringing all nations to Christ. She can’t do His mission if she can lead them astray. Binding teaching is not just in matters which are ex cathedra (formally declared to be taught infallibly). Pope Pius XII made this clear in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This also applies to matters where the Church, under the authority of the Pope intends to teach what we must do. Now, think of it. If the Church can decree in a synod, “It is permissible for divorced and (invalidly) remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist,” and that decree went against God’s will, that would be a teaching contradicting a matter pertaining to salvation (see 1 Cor. 11:27). A matter which we cannot accept as Catholics.

So, that’s why I am not afraid of the results of the synod. There are people inside and outside of the Church who may have false ideas about what the Church can do. Some of them may be at this synod. We don’t know. But even if there are, they will not prevail against the Church. Not because of the holiness or intelligence of those attending . . . but because Jesus promised us this.

If we would be the faithful Catholics we would claim to be, let’s keep faith in Christ, even if we are fearful of the reports across the world.

Attacks against the Church: Fallacies of Composition

 

One of the attacks against the Church, or on Christianity in general, is to point to someone behaving badly is to point at somebody behaving badly who is a believer and arguing from that fact that the whole of the Church (or Christianity) behaves badly, or that the Church is the cause of the bad behavior.

 

In logic, we call this the Fallacy of Composition, and it works like this:

1. Individual A is a part of group B
2. Individual A has trait X
3. Therefore, group B has trait X.

We can show this is false by filling in A, B and X as follows:

1. Fluffy is a Cat
2. Fluffy is orange
3. Therefore Cats are Orange

Obviously untrue, because while individual members of the group “cat” can have the color trait of “orange,” the color is not a trait belonging to all cats.

 

The fallacy basically assumes that the individual possesses a trait because of the group it belongs to, when it is possible for an individual member has a trait independent of the group. It also assumes, in cases of human persons that the individual cannot differ from the group. If one member is bad, they must all be bad.

 

Humanity, however, has free will. An individual is free to behave in such a way that the group has nothing to do with, or even deplores. Moreover, individual behavior is not limited to one group. A moral trait, good or bad, can exist in individuals belonging to ideologically opposed groups, or different ethnic groups. 

 

But even though there is no basis for such an accusation, this fallacy is still used against the Catholic Church.For example, how many times have you seen this in the media or on the internet?

1. Bishop X is part of the Catholic Church.
2. Bishop X covered up for an abusive priest.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church covers up for abusive priests.

This is the same error as assuming that all cats are orange because Fluffy is orange. If Bishop X is being disobedient, not doing what the Church obliges him to do, his behavior is in spite of, not because of his membership in the Church.

 

Or, another common attack is to link the Westboro Baptist Church with Christianity in order to accuse Christianity of homophobia. Again, the assumption is because A is a part of B, and A has the trait of X, they must have acquired this trait from B. When the majority of Christianity looks at their antics with disgust, it’s a sate bet that their behavior isn’t caused by their being Christian.

Recognizing this logical fallacy will prevent the person of good will from being misled by muddled thinking or deliberate distortion used in attacking the Church, or Christianity in general. 

 

In both cases, what we have here is an presumption of cause and effect, when the association must be investigated. When the individual has a bad trait, we first have to ask about the origin of that bad trait. Does the group mandate this behavior? For example, if the Church mandates chastity according to one’s marital state, then those members of the church who are unchaste are acting in spite of, not because of the teaching of the Church.

 

The only way you can show that the behavior of the individual reflects the teaching of the Church is to show the individual is acting in accordance to the Church teaching . . . directly. None of this “Well you say this is wrong, and this person wouldn’t attack people who do this if you didn’t say this is a sin.” One who believes homosexual acts are wrong (for example) is no more prone to violence against the practitioners of those acts than the person who supports animal rights is prone to violence against people who disagree—some people might use their beliefs in a violent way,but that is an individual choice.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347) [emphasis added]

So we can see that even though the Church teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, she also teaches that seeking to harm people with this tendency is also wrong. One cannot support homosexual acts and be a good Catholic and one cannot support the mistreatment of people with this condition. So to use the fallacy of composition, and accuse the Church teaching for whatever crimes are committed against individuals should never be accepted as an argument.

Attacks against the Church: Fallacies of Composition

 

One of the attacks against the Church, or on Christianity in general, is to point to someone behaving badly is to point at somebody behaving badly who is a believer and arguing from that fact that the whole of the Church (or Christianity) behaves badly, or that the Church is the cause of the bad behavior.

 

In logic, we call this the Fallacy of Composition, and it works like this:

1. Individual A is a part of group B
2. Individual A has trait X
3. Therefore, group B has trait X.

We can show this is false by filling in A, B and X as follows:

1. Fluffy is a Cat
2. Fluffy is orange
3. Therefore Cats are Orange

Obviously untrue, because while individual members of the group “cat” can have the color trait of “orange,” the color is not a trait belonging to all cats.

 

The fallacy basically assumes that the individual possesses a trait because of the group it belongs to, when it is possible for an individual member has a trait independent of the group. It also assumes, in cases of human persons that the individual cannot differ from the group. If one member is bad, they must all be bad.

 

Humanity, however, has free will. An individual is free to behave in such a way that the group has nothing to do with, or even deplores. Moreover, individual behavior is not limited to one group. A moral trait, good or bad, can exist in individuals belonging to ideologically opposed groups, or different ethnic groups. 

 

But even though there is no basis for such an accusation, this fallacy is still used against the Catholic Church.For example, how many times have you seen this in the media or on the internet?

1. Bishop X is part of the Catholic Church.
2. Bishop X covered up for an abusive priest.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church covers up for abusive priests.

This is the same error as assuming that all cats are orange because Fluffy is orange. If Bishop X is being disobedient, not doing what the Church obliges him to do, his behavior is in spite of, not because of his membership in the Church.

 

Or, another common attack is to link the Westboro Baptist Church with Christianity in order to accuse Christianity of homophobia. Again, the assumption is because A is a part of B, and A has the trait of X, they must have acquired this trait from B. When the majority of Christianity looks at their antics with disgust, it’s a sate bet that their behavior isn’t caused by their being Christian.

Recognizing this logical fallacy will prevent the person of good will from being misled by muddled thinking or deliberate distortion used in attacking the Church, or Christianity in general. 

 

In both cases, what we have here is an presumption of cause and effect, when the association must be investigated. When the individual has a bad trait, we first have to ask about the origin of that bad trait. Does the group mandate this behavior? For example, if the Church mandates chastity according to one’s marital state, then those members of the church who are unchaste are acting in spite of, not because of the teaching of the Church.

 

The only way you can show that the behavior of the individual reflects the teaching of the Church is to show the individual is acting in accordance to the Church teaching . . . directly. None of this “Well you say this is wrong, and this person wouldn’t attack people who do this if you didn’t say this is a sin.” One who believes homosexual acts are wrong (for example) is no more prone to violence against the practitioners of those acts than the person who supports animal rights is prone to violence against people who disagree—some people might use their beliefs in a violent way,but that is an individual choice.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

 

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347) [emphasis added]

So we can see that even though the Church teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, she also teaches that seeking to harm people with this tendency is also wrong. One cannot support homosexual acts and be a good Catholic and one cannot support the mistreatment of people with this condition. So to use the fallacy of composition, and accuse the Church teaching for whatever crimes are committed against individuals should never be accepted as an argument.

Slowly Moving Forwards In Communications

Read more »

Slowly Moving Forwards In Communications

Read more »

Two Senses of "Religion" and the Danger of Denying Them

Introduction

There are two senses to the word "religion." The first sense comes from the belief that it is true. The second comes from the belief it is not true. The importance of being aware of both senses is important to avoid the loss of religious freedom.

The first sense of the word is the sense of the believer. A religion makes claims about the nature of reality that impacts everybody whether they believe it or not. For example, if God exists, then the atheist worldview (which denies the existence of any type of divinity) must be false. If Jesus Christ is God in the sense that Christianity believes Him to be, then logically the religions that claim He is not must be false. That's the law of non-contradiction at work. It lets us know that truth exists about the accuracy of religious claims—which means we can find out truth about religion if we choose to seek it. And once we find it, we live in accordance with it. That's a binding requirement of everyone, whether they believe in a religion or not.

The second sense is the sense of how one who does not accept a religion as true can approach it.  One can know about a  religion even if he or she does not accept it as true. In this sense we can know about religion as an organized understanding of how people believe the universe works and how they believe people should live in it. Whether or not you believe a particular religion to be true, one can understand what the beliefs are and not be jerks about not believing the claims. For example, if I invite Rabbi Cohen to dinner, I don't prepare a meal of ham. If I know it's Ramadan, I don't invite a Muslim coworker to meet over breakfast. I don't believe the Jewish dietary law and the Muslim fasting are binding on me, but it is respectful not to put the believer of a religion in a situation where he has to choose between his beliefs and his friends or business etc.

So in the first sense, Religion teaches us to conform to the reality it reveals. In the second sense, we are respectful of a religion we don't agree with because we recognize it has behaviors which members voluntarily take upon themselves because they feel obligated. Even when we believe their behavior is wrong (as opposed to a difference of opinion), we behave like civilized people in doing so.

The Failure to Respect Either Sense Leads to Persecution

Unfortunately, in modern society there is a growing tendency to reject both aspects of religion. Basically, there is no interest in seeking out the truth and no interest in respecting the conscience of believers. This has the result of doubly violating the freedom of religion.

In denying freedom of religion in the first sense, it is believed that there is no binding truth, therefore no person can claim that there is an obligation to behave rightly when doing so goes against the edicts of the state. There is a right way to act, because truth exists (for example, if the fetus is a person then it can never be right to kill the fetus by abortion). But if one denies the obligation to live according to truth, then moral obligation is seen as nothing more than personal preference. Opposing the legality of abortion is seen as no more reasonable than not eating pork. So the person who believes abortion is wrong is accused of "forcing your views on people." Even if a majority of Americans should happen to believe Christian morality is true, trying to pass laws that reflect that belief

In denying religious freedom in the second sense, our nation has de-evolved to the bigotry we claim to have moved beyond. Who gives a damn if the Catholic believes he can't support paying for contraception? Who gives a damn about a Muslim or Jew believing he cannot eat pork? If your religious beliefs interfere with my whims, then your religious beliefs must be opposed!

Logical Errors that Lead to Ignoring the Consideration of Truth

Whenever the appeal to religious freedom is made, one common response is to deny that the obligation to live according to what is true has any binding force, and deny that practitioners of religious practices can believe themselves bound to such a practice. These denials root themselves in a belief that "Well I don't believe in what you think, so why should laws exist that tell me I can't do what I want?"

Another response is an appeal to fear. The Sharia is mentioned (for example the behavior of ISIS/ISIL). Or perhaps the Satanists want a monument to counteract the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. The argument is, "You wouldn't want to give these things  authority over you. So don't try to put your own beliefs into law."

The problem is, both of these objections overlook the obligation of seeking the truth and living in accordance with it. Two hundred years ago in America, many people simply refused to consider the question of whether enslaving people was moral, even though 400 years before that, religious teaching had condemned it. In America, we know now that slavery is wrong—very few people think otherwise. But the fact is, if we go by the (lack of) logic that rejects a moral claim because of its religious origin (that's the Genetic Fallacy by the way), then we have to reject the opposition to slavery on the grounds that it is imposing a "religious view" on others.

Just because a person personally disagrees with a law because of they see a religious motivation, does not make that law merely a "religious law" that is unjustly imposed on others. The murderer, the rapist and the thief may think laws against murder, rape or stealing should not be imposed on them. Regardless of whether one believes that murder is wrong because of the Ten Commandments or for some other reason, it is reasonable for a law to exist that forbids and punishes murder . . . it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Buddhist or an atheist. So when Christians believe abortion should not be legalized, the response is to ask whether their claim about the human person is true.

As for an appeal to fear like the imposition of the Sharia or the erection of a Satanic statue on the Steps of an Oklahoma Courthouse, what we have is the fallacy known as the Category Mistake. One thinks these are the same thing as the religious freedom and moral obligation Christianity calls for. But they are not the same thing.

The general objection to the Sharia is not the fact that it teaches that a thing is wrong, but the fact that it mandates punishments we consider unjust. There's a difference between saying "we must stone an adulteress to death" and saying "abortion kills a human person." Likewise, the reason we can reject the erecting of a Satanic statue is because the purpose of it is not the same as the erection of the Ten Commandments. The erection of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse basically makes the statement that there is objective good and evil. It does not show preferential treatment for Christianity. But the Satanic statue, on the other hand, is erected to be confrontational—basically it's the same bad behavior as the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church who show up at the funerals of people who died from AIDS or while serving in the Persian Gulf. In both cases, the presence is intended to distress people whose behavior or beliefs they disagree with.

Understanding the Implications

When we recognize religion in the first sense, it makes sense that people who share a sense of right and wrong will want to see the government reflect that sense. Provided they do so in a civil way, in compliance with the law and do not use coercion on others, they have this right under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion and the rights "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Recognizing religion in the second sense means that when members of a religious minority believes they are obligated to avoid doing certain things that they believe to be evil, the elites in power do not force them to do these things.

Recognizing and respecting these senses of religion are the difference between a truly free country and one that is not free. Unfortunately, today, America is falling into that second category. I don't say that as an exaggeration. We behave differently than the cases of totalitarian nations, yes. But it is a difference of degree, not of Free vs. Not Free when it comes to religion.