This week at Odyssey Networks, we'll be exploring the intersection of government and faith. And what better way to kick it off than President's Day?
Our founding fathers were instrumental in providing the framework for religious freedom. In 1786, the young state of Virginia adopted a Statute for Religious Freedom -- drafted and promoted by presidents-to-be Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It proclaimed that, "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief." Those powerful words were a landmark piece of legislation and the precursor to the Constitution's First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of worship.
But both Jefferson and Madison have been claimed by secular humanists as among their number. (Secular humanists uphold human reason as a guiding principle and generally describe themselves as "nonreligious.") If that were true, two "nonreligious" presidents played a very important role in securing a place for faith in the U.S.
Blogger, author, and secular humanist Chris Stedman -- formerly of Odyssey Networks' member organization the Interfaith Youth Core -- recently wrote, "Interfaith proponents must...expand their efforts to include people of other faiths -- Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. -- and those who fall outside traditional religious paradigms, including the nonreligious. Secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and the like must be an integral part of such conversations."
What do you think? Do secular humanists and atheists deserve a seat at the interfaith table? What might they bring to conversations among people of faith around common concerns?
We'll be talking about this throughout the week and we'd love to hear your views. Post your comments below or on our Facebook page.
interfaith conversations are not the same as faith conversations.
where the objective is to find common ground, perhaps as a basis from which to promote common action for the commonwealth, interfaith conversations that include people who reject faith (at least when the word 'faith' is taken to reference belief in diety) may be fine - after all, even atheists believe in something!
however, interfaith conversations can never be normative in matters of faith. the temptation is to allow the agreements reached through interfaith dialog to "condition" or "interpret" particular faith claims. such reinterpretation of particular claims by appeal to non-particular "agreements" or "agreements in principle" produces heterodoxy in the name of harmony. the problem would be compounded were participants to reinterpret their own particular faith claims on the basis of agreements interpenetrated by the concerns of people who reject God-oriented faith claims!
Here's what Mary Aktay of Xaverian Missionaries had to say: "The World Interfaith Harmony Week extends the Two Commandments by adding ‘Love of the Good, and Love of the Neighbour’. This formula includes all people of goodwill. It includes those of other faiths, and those with no faith."
What's your opinion? Join the discussion today!
...to conversations on religion??? Maybe not so much, but on conversations about issues that are common to people of many faiths (healthcare, poverty, domestic violence, politics and religion, etc., etc.), they would likely offer sympathetic and well-thought-out comments. After all, atheists and agnostics are humans with hearts and minds. And religious people, as well as all people, can only benefit from the wisdom of others.
Post new comment