Sometimes, late night cable can be interesting. As I made a list, and checked it twice, the film Amazing Grace came on. I had never seen it, but wanted to. I own it digitally but not in HD. Well, here it was in 60" HD glory, so why not. It was either that, or wait for the Senate to pass a bill that is so wrong, so useless it could ruin Christmas.
Now, it's a biopic, and as such complimentary, of course. But it's based in fact, and centers around the British act to stop the slave trade and the person behind it, for 26 years. His name was William Wilberforce. He's proof an evangelical Christian conservative can be a good person. He abolished the slave trade in England, and he founded the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). I'm sure he would have frowned on my lifestyle, but I'm also sure in the true spirit of Obama he and I could have agreed on enough to make us allies.
Year after year, for 26 years, he introduced his bill to abolish the slave trade. He was the Ted Kennedy of slavery. Kennedy fought his whole life for health care reform; never giving up. Often, it was thankless, a true Davey and Goliath scenario. The same for Wilberforce. Each year for 26 years Wilberforce went to the Parliament as the member from Yorkshire (1784-1812). In 1785 he had a come to Jesus moment, literally, and became an evangelical Christian. But he didn't lose all his mind. It was shortly thereafter, as he was deciding to do "the lord's work or man's in parliament" that he was convinced by his soon-to-be Prime Minister friend (?) William Pitt, who became the youngest Prime Minister at the age of 24, that the Lord's work could be done in Parliament. The question mark is because the movie, and everything I've read, has Wilberforce and Pitt in a very close friendship, right down to being buried next to each other, not their wives. Draw your own conclusions.
After the movie, I read an entire evening's worth on Wilberforce. And yes, he was accused of ignoring atrocities and injustices at home while championing the rights of those from abroad, the slaves. He was a conservative by all accounts, and behaved as such. Yet, he found time to love animals, and founded the Society for the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals, the oldest animal protection agency in the world. His two passions, freeing those enslaved by other men and abused beyond humanity, and helping animals live with the cruelty of some humans. He was a good man, at least in those areas.
And I thought of our politicians, our Christians, our conservatives in America. As they openly pray to defeat a bill that might help save some of the 40,000 people a year that die from lack of health care access, as they lobby and campaign to deny other Americans rights, rights denied based solely on religious and conservative ideology, as they pray to interfere in a woman and her medical choices, as all they do is stand for division, hatred, power, I am reminded that some Christians, some conservatives, historically have gotten many things right. Wilberforce was one.
I am happy to have encountered the story of William Wilberforce. After 26 years he got his bill, he snuck it in, got crafty with the legislation and soon slavery was abolished. He corresponded with Thomas Jefferson. He spoke truth to power when power didn't want to hear. And he believed his god wanted to help the most needy, the most helpless of us all; at the time, it was real slaves and animals, now, it would be economic slaves (and still animals, unfortunately). And if you believe in a God how can you not believe that he or she would want to help the economic slaves in this country denied our bounty because of lack of money.
Wilberforce, Kennedy, crusaders. Two hundred years later in America we still haven't got the race thing right, but we're working on it. And in the future, we'll see if we are getting the health care thing right. In the mean time, American conservatives could take a lesson from Wilberforce. Caring, helping, fighting for people, not against them, is a Christian, conservative value. Or at least it was.
Happy Holidays.
Follow Charles Karel Bouley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/talkradiolive
Granting you are correct. If I understand, your criticism is of form not substance. I value the piece as written because it points out the inconsistency and pretentiousness in religious expressions. Spoken in a language that might (hopefully) slip past the guard of habits. Form is important but if it isolates you from the people you're speaking to then it is only soliloquy. We not only speak the language, we speak images and ideas associated with that language. Perhaps John Stuart Mill said it better than I can.
“…I shall not confine myself to any one, but shall employ on each occasion the word which seams least likely in the particular case to lead to misunderstanding; nor do I pretend to use either these or any other words with a rigorous adherence to one single sense. To do so would often leave us without a word to express what is signified by a known word in some one or other of its senses: unless authors had an unlimited license to coin new words, together with (what would be more difficult to assume) unlimited power of making readers understand them. Nor would it be wise in a writer, on a subject involving so much abstraction, to deny himself the advantage derived from an improper use of a term, when, by means of it, some familiar association is called up which brings the meaning home to the mind, as it were by a flash.”
System Of Logic, JS Mill
The more people I talk to (and listen to, which is important in seeking to understand) who are part of the religious right, the more I get a sense that many of them do want to help their fellow man, but don't trust the federal gov't. to do the job. My argument to them is that in our current religious climate, where even churches who wish to do some good are hampered by their desire for wealth, this is impossible to meet the vast needs the poor have in this country. And I will never understand, no matter how much listening I do, how someone who claims to follow Jesus would ever support tax dollars that pay for war, but not tax dollars that pay to help the less fortunate.
The problem is that our federal gov't. has shown itself to be self-focused...its goal seems to be keeping itself employed, rather than doing the most good for the least cost. This is why I voted for President Obama, because I hoped that he would make good on his promise of government efficiency: a government that works the way it's supposed to work. I suppose that was WAY too much to hope for.
So on the one hand the Wilberforce family contributed greatly to the elimination of slavery but on the other hand they fought hard against the science of human history as opposed to biblical history.
When The Origin of Species was first published Samuel Wilberforce said:
‘The principle of natural selection is absolutely incompatible with the word of God’
I would recommend Darwin as a moral hero, not only did he oppose slavery but he has brought the human race out of the dark ages and away from superstition and convoluted religious explanations that substituted for science.
The reality I more familar with is 9/11 and Katrina blamed on gays and lesbians, the foul bigotted LDS and Catholic Bishops in ...."8 A Mormon Proposition", or the disclosures of 60 years of child rapists in DUBLIN, or revelations CT Bishops were forced to produce through courts. The hateful "ex" gay ministers and C-Street FAMILY encouraging genocide of People Living with AIDS and gays in Uganda.
So I could use a dose of not THESE contemporary Conservative "Christians."
The paradox is connecting morality and religion you get both sides of the coin and if you only look at the merit side it becomes fallacy; ignoring the other side of the coin. Religious people do not wish to separate morality and religion, it "appears" as an argument in favor. Then one has to explain why Christians opposed Wilberforce; explain Oliver Cromwell and many, many others.
Pointing to what is admirable about Christian teaching like Jesus of Matthew one must also grapple with the unequivocally clear words of Jesus in Luke 19:27. It is clear such teachings can hide cruelty with spiritual purpose.
Merit exists on its own and in many nonreligious people. To homogenize morality with religion is dangerous.
Right.
This sentence is a modern classic:
"As they openly pray to defeat a bill that might help save some of the 40,000 people a year that die from lack of health care access, as they lobby and campaign to deny other Americans rights, rights denied based solely on religious and conservative ideology, as they pray to interfere in a woman and her medical choices, as all they do is stand for division, hatred, power, I am reminded that some Christians, some conservatives, historically have gotten many things right."
Are you denying all or some these propositions?
1) they openly pray to defeat a bill that might help save some of the 40,000 people a year that die from lack of health care access
2) they lobby and campaign to deny other Americans rights, rights denied based solely on religious and conservative ideology
3) they pray to interfere in a woman and her medical choices
4) all they do is stand for division, hatred, power
******* I will grant that number "4" is universal and overgeneralized. It is a "some" proposition not an "all" proposition. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the author he didn't specify he was referring only to those he had previously mentioned in the first 3 propositions.
5) Christians, some conservatives, historically have gotten many things right.
****** Where he refers to William Wilberforce and abolition of the slave trade
Are you saying that all the above propositions are the correct actions of a Christian ? If so why?
And there are plenty more who are kind loving people but they're from the South and culturally Not Like Us so you've never hung around with them (listening to country music and watching Nascar?), just like you probably don't hang around with folks from the black churches. And there are probably others right around you that you've never noticed because you're prejudiced against them.
Unfortunately, generalizing happens with groups. If there is genuine villainy, and neglect hiding behind Christianity (or other system of belief) when we say sinister interest is hiding as such it can't help but include Christians who don't participate. Similarly, secret prisons in the "war on terror" that are hopefully closed are seen as American responsibility. Many Americans had no choice in that matter. There are countless examples large and small of this happening.
Argument will likely not stop that generalizing. Whenever you are part of a group. Individual responsibility is reduced (extreme example) mob violence. When such a mob as a whole is viewed one should probably get away from it regardless of the varied actions of particular (the ones with the rope) individuals. Yet, we can disapprove. If you're going to try to change the group you will need reasons and reason eventually questions all beliefs. Reason doesn't merely challenge painful unfounded beliefs, it also challenges the consoling one's and that is frightening to many who don't participate in cruelty. Critical thinking was at one time thought synonymous with subversion.
To the degree that William Wilberforce worked for this, he was a conservatives:
"Wilberforce was opposed to giving workers' rights to organise into unions, in 1799 speaking in favour of the Combination Act, which suppressed trade union activity throughout the United Kingdom, and calling unions "a general disease in our society".[155][157] He also opposed an enquiry into the 1819 Peterloo Massacre in which eleven protesters were killed at a political rally demanding reform.[158" wiki.
Wilberforce initially strongly opposed bills for Catholic emancipation which would have allowed Catholics to become MPs, hold public office and serve in the army,[164] although by 1813 he had changed his views, and spoke in favour of a similar bill.[165]
He loved animals and worked to free the slave. Good for him. That has nothing to do with conservatism.
Heck, conservatives are working really hard to bring it back.
Conservatives also make the mistaken assumption that their experience is normative, and it generally isn't. I can't always explain the handicaps of poverty and abuse, but haveing known both, I can assure that they are real.
A good example is the current "debate" over improving education. What is most desperately needed for poor children is high-quality early education--you know, preschool--which will enable them to develop the language skills to excel in school. If we wait until kindergarten, it will take considerable more resources to achieve the same results, both time and money. Now, try suggesting that we fund preschool as an educational improvement.