An interesting article in Religion Dispatches about how "good" christians like Sara Sanders can lie for her boss and have a clear conscience.
https://rewire.news/religion-dispatches/2018/06/29/can-christians-lie-fundamentalist-bible-interpretation-shaped-truth/
I had never heard the term "harmonization" in reference to biblical interpretation until I read this article.
White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently defended
President Trump’s new policy of separating children from their parents
at the border, claiming that “the law” requires this procedure. As the Washington Post explained in a couple of carefully-researched articles, Sanders’ claim was incorrect, and her and other Administration claims about the policy earned them a “Four Pinnochios” rating, the Post’s highest rating for dissembling.
A year and a half into the Donald Trump presidency (well, before that too), we’ve come to expect routine deception from the President—as well as, to use the more technical term from Philosophy, “bullshit.”
But what about dissembling from the White House spokesperson, a known
evangelical Christian whose Southern Baptist preacher father Mike
Huckabee advised her “to be honest” as the press secretary—or other Christians serving in the Trump Administration? Could a Christian lie?
Obviously, Christians can lie—like other human beings. But
sometimes they do so in specific ways grounded in faith. Many
fundamentalists’ faith practices include the ability to “harmonize”
uncomfortable facts, and the history of creationism gives us some clues
as to how it works.
Full article explains what harmonization means to evangelical christians in interpreting the bible and in "interpreting" Trump..
I guess I just assumed they were hypocrites with a large tolerance for cognitive dissonance. And bullshit.
ReplyDeleteI should say that I mean the ones in the Trump administration, not all evangelical Christians.
DeleteKatherine - :)
ReplyDeletePretty interesting.
ReplyDeleteMy take on Sara Huckabee Sanders is a good deal simpler than the author's: all press secretaries lie. That's pretty much their job description: the president's chief propaganda minister. Go stand up there and buffalo the reporters. Spin like a 45 record.
The article brings up the possibility of a larger detachment from the truth within a white evangelical sub-culture. I don't doubt there may be something to that. Personally, I think that the examples the author looks at, from fields such as archeology and biblical scholarship, are fields where truth can be somewhat elusive, and a modicum of modesty in claims may be in order. Did St. Paul compose the letter to the Ephesians? The short answer should be, "We don't know for certain.". But that doesn't mean that we need to give serious consideration to creationism.
This is top of mind, as I got my flu shot yesterday and I took one of the kids to get one today: anti-vaxxers don't accept what most of us accept as being true about vaccinations: that vaccinations are very low risk, and it's necessary for reasons of personal and public health. Does that make anti-vaxxers liars? Are they earnestly wrong? Are they irredeemably ignorant? Have they closed themselves off from the possibility that the mainstream views of vaccinations are true? All of those things strike me as somewhat different than out-and-out lying.
One other thought: the truth has become so debased, especially by this administration, that we need to resist any or all attempts to compromise it.
ReplyDelete"Harmonization" is a good, neutral or even positive word; I wouldn't want to see it take on negative connotations by applying it to the ignorance and poor reasoning that the author is describing. I wonder if it occurred to the author to use the adjective "Jesuitical", which at least has a religious root.
There is a little unintentional misdirection in the way the article begins. For example, there are lies we tell or would tell that are real lies but not sins: "Your dress looks lovely." (A moral theologian might say, "Well, it looks lovely to the designer," but in fact we are lying.) Spoken to the Gestapo: "There are no Jews here. (Right here at the door. But there are five in the basement.) "I forgot."
ReplyDelete"Jesuitical," btw, when used properly by someone who is aware of what he's talking about, applies to the broad mental reservation, like the Jewish example above. "No, your majesty Queen Elizabeth, I don't know where any Catholics are" (right now, although I was talking to some a half hour ago).
But the "epistemic crisis" is a real insight. We know Trump's problem with the truth is clinical, and so do many of his followers. But if you want to put your faith in Trump, there is a whole "tribal epistemology" to support you.
A parishioner rarely seen without his MAGA hat always enters spouting last night's Fox faux outrage. I have taken to asking him to "give my regards to the crown prince." He says the crown prince's role in the Khashoggi murder is a liberal lie (even though Fox only entertains that possibility and doesn't insist on it). There are still people who believe in "no collusion" even though 16 people have been charged with, and some have pleaded guilty to, lying about it. In order to talk like Sanders you have to believe in something that does not meet the usual standards for "factual."
Of course, experts have to be ignored, denied or attacked. But there are cases in which experts HAVE been wrong. It's only a short extrapolation from there to USUALLY wrong to EVIL MOTIVES for what they profess.
Many presidential press secretaries have retired with their reputation for truthfulness and probity intact. They are doing public relations, which involves telling the good truth and explaining to bad truth to the extent it can be explained. But if Sanders ever works again it will be a grave miscarriage of justice. Even though she may not know how wrong she is in what she speaks.
Tom, I was thinking about "mental reservations", too. I have always thought of them as mental gymnastics to avoid telling a lie when a lie wouldn't have been a sin anyway. However some people think lying is always a sin, being an intrinsic evil. My thought about lying, for instance, to save someone's life, is even if it is a sin, you take one for the team and trust in the mercy of God. I suppose that makes me a situation ethicist.
DeleteTo clarify, when I mentioned someone"who is aware of what he is talking about" in reference to "jesuitical," I wasn't accusing Jim of not knowing. I was trying to distinguish between what the Jesuits are accused of when the term is used as an insult as opposed to where it actually came from. Btw, the mental reservation can not be used against someone who has a right to know the truth. E.g., the American public.
ReplyDeleteEssentially the article says that fundamentalists lie more easily because of the way they interpret Scripture.
ReplyDeleteGod knows I am no fan of fundamentalists. My Baptist and Amish in-laws over the years have offered many examples of bullshit quasi-scientific arguments and conspiracy theories to defend their definition of Biblical truth and the decisions they have made.
And I would go so far as to say that fundamentalists are gullible and narrow-minded, willing to believe what their church leaders tell them, even if it flies in the face of scientific evidence because they're afraid of hell. And I believe that some of them are willing to peddle their clap trap to others. (Gosh, Catholics have never done that!)
However, to say that fundamentalists lie more easily than others because of their religious interpretations is, to me, a stretch.
I guess my rules for living in the truth (and as an imperfect human, I don't always follow my own rules) would be:
ReplyDelete1. God is the source of truth. The better I get to know God, the better I will be able to apprehend what is true.
2. We need to have a bias toward telling the truth. We should tell the truth unless there is a compelling reason not to, and we should be skeptical of our own discernment of what constitutes a compelling reason not to.
3. We need to be open to the truth, regardless of the threat to our own cherished preconceived notions, regardless of the demands the truth would seem to make on our comfortable and well-arranged existence.
4. Our approach to the truth should be that of the courtroom swearing-in: the truth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, i.e. it's all of and only.
5. Not everyone is entitled to the truth; sometimes telling the truth can be a disservice to oneself or others who are counting on us.
"How do I look in this dress?" is a complicated question. It requires the husband to discern what is being asked. If it means nothing more than the plain meaning of the words and she is looking for feedback, then in my opinion, the husband does the wife a disservice by failing to tell the truth (as kindly as a spouse should always treat a spouse). If it means, "Hey, you inattentive doofus, I took the trouble to make myself look especially beautiful, and I need you to notice for once!", then the appropriate reaction is for the husband to gush - truthfully - about how wonderful she looks. If it means, "I'm needy and insecure, and I need a little bit of an emotional boost", then answer - truthfully - in a way that addresses that. Not that I have any business doling out marital advice.
Jim, Wait a minute! :-) If the questioned has to discern what the questioner means by her question, shouldn't the questioner have to discern what the questioned means by his answer, as well? :-)
DeleteJim, #5, that's what the old Irish monsignor who was our pastor when I was a kid said; that ... "not everyone is entitled to the truth."
DeleteKatherine, right - in fact, in writing that rule, I'm sure I'm just parroting something that Andrew Greeley, another old Irish priest who would have been a monsignor if Chicago had been in the monsignor-award-pursuit business back in those days, wrote 30 or so years ago.
DeleteOf course, Tom had it basically right in an earlier comment: the American people are entitled to the truth when it comes to those governing us. I qualify that with "basically" because I believe there are occasions when the state is morally justified in not sharing the unvarnished truth with the public. But if the topic is, say, separating children from their parents at the border - we're entitled to the unvarnished truth. Now - whether what's mediated to us via the media is the unvarnished truth is a whole 'nother series of complicated questions ...
"If the questioned has to discern what the questioner means by her question, shouldn't the questioner have to discern what the questioned means by his answer, as well?"
DeleteCongratulations, Tom, you've just Socratically defined human relations :-)
I spend my working days trying to discern what the guy who just told me something really meant. Did he mean A, or A+B, or A-B, or Z? "Telling the Truth in the Working World" could be, depending on how you look at it, either a really thin book or a really thick book.
Cardinal Cody never would have made Andrew Greeley a monsignor. Riled by something Greeley wrote, Cody went to the mail room and personally removed Greeley's Addressograph plate from the archdiocese's mailing list. Greeley wrote about being de-plated in his secular column and so amused the op ed editor of The Trenton Times that he regularly threatened to do likewise to anyone who displeased him.
DeleteTom, that is a good story. Although you sent me back to Google with "addressograph". That sounds like something I should have run across at some point in my corporate travels, but somehow I've never spilled a can of Diet Rite on one.
DeleteThe example for #5 is real cute, giggle giggle, those silly women.
DeleteBut is there a more serious side to #5? Who does not deserve the truth and under what circumstances? Consider:
Do you tell someone she has Alzheimers when you know she won't remember what you said and it would only upset her in the moment?
Do you tell a pregnant woman that a drug she is taking will likely cause severe deformities in her fetus when you know that she is likely to abort it?
Do you tell a young child that his father is in jail?
Do you tell your boss that you have a medical condition that will likely preclude you from working full time in a year or two?
Etc.
Also, I don't know how you "get to know God, but I am guessing that's obvious.
As to Jean's third example, I think absolutely, people have a right to their medical information. They have to be the one's to decide what to do about it. For one thing, in the case of a drug that causes birth defects, they could stop taking it and perhaps minimize the damage.
DeleteThe case of the person with dementia is a little different. They may not have the capacity left to understand and make rational choices. Hopefully there is someone whom they named as power of attorney.
Jean - fwiw, my riff on "does this dress make my look fat?" wasn't intended to be an example of #5, but rather was a jump to another topic (which someone else had previously introduced). What I had in mind for #5 was the sort of thing that has been suggested elsewhere: when the secret police appear at your front door and ask, "Is Ann Frank's family hiding in your attic?", you don't owe them the truth.
DeleteAs for your questions, I'd answer yes, yes, maybe and maybe respectively. I don't know much about Alzheimer's but I'd defer to telling a patient the truth about her/his condition. I think it would be sinful not to share important medical information with a pregnant mom. I'd probably tell the young child as well; I figure, if he doesn't hear about it from me, he'll hear about it from someone else, and then he'll think I withheld something important. As for the boss, it depends on the relationship. If he's malicious and looking for an excuse to fire me, I might not.
I'm not really taking a poll, just thinking about how religious beliefs might inform truth-telling--or make it "easier" to lie when given messy, real-life situations.
DeleteSorry I didn't follow your dress example. Raber tells I am not tracking info at my usual level, and am more and irascible than usual.
My apologies to all. I think I will take a long break. The world can function for awhile without my input. Good holidays!
Jean, if you are still here, don't stay away too long. The difference between Advent as it should be and Advent as it is forced upon us makes me more than irascible, too. Pray for me, and I'll pray for you.
DeleteJean - I'm plus-one-ing Tom's message. Please come back soon, and have a blessed holiday season.
DeleteJean, you're missed already. Have an enjoyable and holy Christmas.
DeleteJean, I really do hope that this is just a break. I really do hope that you will come back.
DeleteThis is a tough season of the year for many and I can understand your desire to step back for a while. Savor the season.
I learn so much from your honesty, wit and intelligence. You make me stop and think. That has been your gift to me, someone you don't even know. So thank you for that. I might even start reading The Lives of the Saints again!
Peace and Blessings to you and Raber - and to The Boy and his wife.
Jean, miss you already. I wish you and your family Advent blessings. And a peaceful break, but not too long of a one.
DeleteOff topic - update by Melissa Hennenberger at NCRonline. In this article she talks about the reactions (positive and negative, kind and very unkind)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/why-i-left-church-and-what-im-hearing-about-it
I read the article, and was disappointed but not surprised that some people would send hateful messages.
DeleteAs an aside, I've noticed that NCR dropped the message that they intended to reintroduce comments. I guess some people will just have to gag on their own nastiness. Must hurt.
DeleteCommonweal, in its email this week, calls on readers to submit their own Why I stories:
DeleteIn our last issue, we published ten essays from a range of writers: male and female, young and old, cradle, ex, and new Catholics on why they came to, left, or stayed in the church. But there's a lot more to say. So we’re calling for your stories: Why did you come to the church? Why did you leave? Why do you stay? We hope you’ll help us expand our range of perspectives by sharing your view—positive or negative—of the church today. Then we’ll select some to feature on our website. Contributions can be sent to editors@commonwealmagazine.org and should consist of no more than 300 words. You can find more guidelines here.
I saw that too, Tom. I am contemplating sending something in, especially since it only has to be 300 words or less. Now if I can just get my thought into words!
Delete