Osler's Razor

I agree with your larger point, but not that a "free market of religious ideas" is necessarily a good thing - from the point of view of all religious adherents, anyway. As you point out, the advantages of a free market for ideas in general is well established. 'Consumers' of ideas are generally interested in the power of the market to promote ideas that have high utility, often in the sense that they have practical applications or give the 'consumer' more accurate information about the world.

Religious ideas, at least to the extent that we're talking about ideas from competing religions or denominations, are often valued in very different ways than secular ideas. For example, an idea may be valued purely as 'revealed truth,' in which case market competition is unlikely to be viewed as helpful by those who hold the idea. Obviously this will not always be true, since a 'consumer' whose utility function is something like "does this idea improve my personal happiness, or my connection to my fellows?" can benefit from the market.

Here's a story that suggests what I'm talking about: an interviewer is talking to a priest from a small, reclusive sect. He asks about the sect's practice of walling its members off from the ideas of other religions, saying "If your religion is too fragile to survive open debate and discussion, of what value is it?" The priest responds by saying "That laptop you are using is very powerful, is it not? It can do many things. But if you drop it only a short distance, it will break. Does that make it of no value?"

I imagine that there is spectrum of views from "my church is the only true church and all others are lies" to "every religion may have something good to offer me, and may be a valid path to Truth;" the closer an individual is to the latter end, the more they are likely to value a free market of religious ideas.
 

A problem with any market of ideas is often not that there is too little information, but too much!

I know a little about the Episcopal Church, being a member and all, and something about most of the other major western Christian denominations, but not that much. I have a vague notion of the various Eastern Orthodox Christian Churches, a clue about Judaism and know the basic difference between the two major strains of Islam. I know that Buddhism is popular and considered peaceful despite the fact that Buddhists kill each other daily and know that Hinduism is polytheistic. And then there's Shintoism, Zorastorism and many, many others.

The problem is not that this information is unknowable. Its all out there in book and electronic form. But who has time to read it all?
 

John Stuart Mill wrote that even bad ideas deserve to be placed into the market, even when indisputably and obviously incorrect, because the contrast with good ideas helps reawaken our consciousness of them and keeps us from taking the truth for granted. I think he was right and his thoughts are particularly relevant to faith ideas. What reminds me of my religious obligation to love when I feel secure and stop consciously trying to live my faith? Seeing something terrible in myself or others that serves as a cautionary lesson. I don't think I'm alone.

To put it another way: the laptop's frailty limits its usefulness. Better to be aware of that frailty than to forget just because the issue rarely comes up. Better still to build a more robust laptop based on experience. Faith that is not challenged often does not grow.
 

I couldn't agree more with your "establishment" point. I'd even take it further, and say that the church benefits more from separation than the state ever will. When the church as an institution gets entangled in political debates like the Schivo dilemma or gay marriage, we abdicate our stewardship of essentially spiritual questions to temporal authorities. In effect, we render too much unto Caesar. We don't need the FMA or votes in the House to reaffirm Biblical teachings, or worse, enshrine injustices based on perverted Biblical justifications.
 

HIRT'S!!!!!!!!!!

its like the third place I am gonna visit if I EVER get back to Mich.
 

Jesse:

So I assume you think the Church should stay out of all political fights?

For instance, I assume you think it was just plain awful when the church used its "perverted Biblical justifications" in playing a major role in the abolition movement of the early 19th century?

Or I guess Catholic student groups and priests should've just kept their bible thumping out of the public dialouge during Vietnam?

Or Reverend Martin Luther King should've made sure that all of his speeches were secular in nature, so that all that "God stuff" didn't interfere with his message? So that he could fight injustice instead of enshrining "injustices based on perverted Biblical justifications," right?

Oh wait, what you mean is that they should stay out of it when they disagree with you....now I get it.
 

Geez RRL, you couldn't be further off in your interpretation of my comments. I didn't say "god stuff" has no place in public discourse. It's just more powerful outside the halls of congress or out from behind the campaign podium. MLK wasn't an elected leader, and so he could go places and say things (more effective things) that and elected leader never could have gotten away with. Ditto for abolitionists and the anti-war priests. When we rely on the government to make the change we want to see in the world, we limit our impact instead of amplifying it. Take civil rights, for example. The government made zero progress on that front until social (largely religious) movements forced progress. If MLK had made his speeches from the floor of Congress instead of the steps of the Lincoln memorial or the streets of Selma, they would have been lost among the pages of the Congressional Record and dismissed.

And look before you leap next time...I happen to agree with you on each issue I mentioned, and those you cited. We likely only disagree on the best way to resolve those issues.
 

Well, that would all be fine except that the abolitionist Quakers went right to the government as part of their movement. They understood that it would take government action to change the laws. Hence the Slave Trade Act of 1807.

King worked closely with Johnson on the Civil Rights Act, and King twice marched on Washington asking Congress to make specific policy changes.

Now, these groups seem to function exactly like "born again" Christian groups do today. They petition their government for change and hope to appeal to the conscience of the voting members. I imagine there were members of the houses of parliment in England that concluded they had to oppose the slave trade by legislation because of their religion, because it offended a sense of morality they had gotten from their faith. That is my point. And if you agree with it then your first post makes no sense.

See, I understood your post. And I don't agree with it. Because I not only want my legislators to be informed by their own personal sense of morality (no matter which faith or where it comes from) but I want them to use that faith to try to influence others.

If your point is that "It's just more powerful outside the halls of congress or out from behind the campaign podium" then your first post wouldn't have contained the language about "enshrine injustices based on perverted Biblical justifications." That language shows that what you mean is you don't like the current Christian efforts to legislate an anti-abortion/pro-life anti-gay marriage/pro-family agenda because you disagree with their positions. Fair enough, but it has nothing to do with thinking those groups would be more effective by ignoring politics, because that would be flat out wrong.
 

I Love hirt's They have the BEST cheese!!!!
 

rrl- And was it King or the Quakers that made massive campaign contributions to favored candidates based on a determinist, fundamentalist agenda? Petition of grievances is one thing. A declared intent to replace every member of congress with a born again Christian is quite another. As a born again Christian active in politics, I should know. I too want my legislators to be informed by their morality, and their faith. I just don't want them marching to the drum the Jim Hagee and his bunch are beating. I'll say again, you've missed the point if you think I'm advocating a divorce of personal faith and public discourse.

And you're assuming again, deciding for yourself which initiatives I would consider "enshrined injustices." I'm pro-life, don't support gay marriage. Quit over-analyzing and put down the kool-aid.