Superman on ethics

Heard this statement made by the late Christopher Reeve to students at Yale the year before he died: “When matters of public policy are debated religion should not have a seat at the table.”

I want you to think for a minute about the absolute incoherence of that statement. How can we talk about any dimension of morality and not have a "religious commitment?" Everything we say about what is right or wrong is based on "religious" assumptions we make about human nature, even if we are not religious. To say that human beings have rights is based on the assumption that there is something special about a human being that separates a human from a cow. That is a religious assumption, and one that many Hindus do not share. To say that all races are equal is built on the assumption that the human beings are, in essence, the same, and thus have rights regardless of their educational status, wealth, or skin color. That is a religious assumption, and one that the Nazis and other white supremacists do not share.

Furthermore, secularism is its own religion. A secularist says, “The only things we can know must be scientifically proven.” The problem is that statement can’t itself be scientifically proven! That statement is itself a credo statement arising from the a priori belief that there is a) not a God who reveals Himself beyond scientific data and that science is thus the only way to knowledge and b) the belief that our minds are capable to accurately perceive the truth that is out there. These are faith assumptions.

David Klingenhoffer, a Jewish secularist said this in the LA Times... I find it quite insightful: "What we are observing in our society appears to be the struggle of religion against no religion. In actuality, it is the conflict of various religions, including secularism. If you object, saying that secularism is not a religion because it has no deity, let's remember that other religions, like Zen Buddhism, also lack belief in a god. What is a religion then? Simply this: a system of beliefs explaining where life comes from; what life means; and what we human beings must be doing with our few allotted years. Answers to these questions are not provable, they are taken on faith."

It is impossible to talk about the world, morality, and even science without bringing some faith assumptions to the table. What is not fair is to say that only you can bring yours.

Comments

[Jared]

Your last two sentences are on point!

The issue is discussed at the intersection of those who sit at the table for discussion (differing perspectives/opinions/belief systems in tow), and the circumstance created where there is a need to actually make a decision.

[Clark]

Sounds like superman also knows the true meaning of tolerance.

[bubba]

is this not what your position is?:

"What is not fair is to say that only you can bring yours."

[Veronica Greear]

Bubba! I've missed you!

No, it is not what his position is. He thinks that everyone should bring their faith beliefs to the table and OWN THEM AS SUCH. Where this gets us, I am not positive, as the great American Experiment seems to be going rather badly at the moment; however, it is infuriating to be told that as christians we should leave our beliefs out of, it but the humanist or secularist or whomever can bring theirs and have it respected.

[Andy]

Clark,

Could you define tolerance for us? If your statement is correct, I'm interested to know what definition of tolerance you are using.

Thank you,
Andy

[J.D. Greear]

Clark, do you support "public policy" against racism? And, if so, could you tell me how you do without bringing some assumed view on human nature to the table?

[Clark]

I was being sarcastic about the use of the word tolerance. When I read your post, one of the first things I thought of from Superman's quote was...."ah, the new definition of tolerance at play." Sorry my sarcasm didn't come across and you guys were right to challenge.