The ‘moral architecture' of religion, cracks and all
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Thank you for Libes's wonderful essay.
Advertisement
Jim Nicoletti
Wellesley
The following is an edited sampling of comments
readers posted in response to Liza Libes's Ideas piece:
C.S. Lewis 'was simply proposing a philosophy for how to live well,' Libes writes. I think the author of 'The Screwtape Letters' would disagree with this assessment. He had been, like Libes, a committed atheist. He became, very reluctantly, a convert to Christianity because he could not reason away the presence of God and the logic of the Gospel. (sideflare)
I find that the progressive bent of tolerance for everything except intolerance often turns into overt discrimination against people with certain religious beliefs. This is not an easy issue, but to me it often makes progressives look downright hypocritical rather than open-minded like this author. (DPier)
Advertisement
I identify with the strong progressive social justice posture that the author articulates. While I think there is something to be learned from the tenets of many religious doctrines, I have come to witness that religious ideology and certainly religious fanaticism can impart more harm than good. I am far more drawn to spirituality — a notion not at all mentioned in the essay. The capacity to ask deep questions and nurture one's soul, pursued both in solitude and community, offers meaningful benefits. I find that religion, which many might argue is a form or spiritual learning, also creates division in society, undermining the sense of acceptance, unity, and love that many religions purport. In my view, religion defeats itself. Perhaps it simply tries too hard. (Melting glacier up ahead)
True, religious fanaticism can do more harm than good, but let's take a look at what secular fanaticism has brought us. There are lots of examples around the world where religion and churches have been banned or severely restricted and things didn't turn out so well. The killing and suffering under secular regimes doesn't prove that religious societies are any better than secular ones, but I think it shows how we're all better off believing what we want and letting others do the same. The Founding Fathers got it right; there's a reason they made freedom of religion the very first part of the Constitution. (NicksterNH)
Freedom of religion means I get to be free of yours. It is when others try to impose their beliefs on me or take the attitude that they are superior to me because of difference in beliefs that it becomes something abrasive and frustrating. (RiecaElex)
Advertisement
This discussion would make a little more sense to me if Christians hadn't made the polar opposite of Jesus our president — twice. They exposed themselves and their beliefs as fraudulent and showed me that they're just like everyone else out there — in it for themselves and what they want. (rickefoose)
Christians come in many forms and beliefs. Some self-claimed Christians do evil in the name of God, but the United States has many good Christians who need to speak up more to show the love and acceptance of Jesus. (eastsight)
We're waiting. (9.10.61)
The former priest of our parish told us that the word bible is an acronym for basic instruction before leaving earth. Religion teaches people how to live a life with purpose and compassion. Man is corruptible. God is truth. (Saint George)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
38 minutes ago
Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A federal judge says Rhode Island's gun permit system, which requires residents to show 'a need' to openly carry a firearm throughout the state, does not violate the Second Amendment. In a ruling handed down Friday, U.S. District Judge William Smith granted Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit filed by a coalition of gun owners in 2023. The lawsuit stems from a Rhode Island law dictating how the state issues firearms permits. According to the statute, local officials are required to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets the specific criteria outlined in the statute. However, it also allows the attorney general's office to issue open-carry permits 'upon a proper showing of need.' Unlike municipalities, the attorney general is not required to issue such permits. The plaintiffs, largely led by Michael O'Neil, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition and a firearm instructor, said in their initial complaint that the attorney general's office denied all seven of their applications in 2021 for an 'unrestricted' firearm permit, allowing both open and concealed carry. Court documents show that the attorney general's office denied their permits because all of them had been granted 'restricted' permits, which only allowed concealed carry. Smith said in his ruling that unrestricted permits 'are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one.' The plaintiffs had hoped for a similar ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, where the justices struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Similar to Rhode Island, New York's law had required residents to show an actual need to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Yet, notably, Smith said in his ruling that the high court's 2022 ruling did not declare that the Second Amendment 'requires open carry,' but even if it did, Rhode Island's law 'is within the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.' Frank Saccoccio, the attorney representing the gun owners, said in an email Monday that they did not believe Smith's decision was in line with the 2022 SCOTUS decision and would be appealing.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
I'm done with birthday gifts for my kids
It gets worse. My older son loves drawing, Transformers, and Legos — not necessarily in that order. Over the past three or four years of Christmases, Hanukkahs, birthdays, and other celebrations, he has gotten well over a half dozen sets of art markers, exactly 17 Bumblebee figurines (that's the yellow one that turns into a VW Beetle), and so many Lego sets that he doesn't even build them any more, opting instead to just tear open the boxes and dump the pieces at random in the giant bin we have in the corner of his room. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up All these gifts aren't just so much excess stuff; they also represent a remarkable amount of money and time spent by well-meaning parents with already full to-do lists. I know their pain. I can't tell you how many times I've raced through the toy aisle 20 minutes before a trampoline-park birthday party searching for something — anything — to give to an elementary school kid I couldn't pick out of a lineup. Advertisement Which is all just a long way of saying that while I love my kids and want them celebrated (and while I'm deeply grateful to all my friends and family for the presents), I've been looking to get out of the kid gift racket for years. As the Globe Advertisement But I think I've found the perfect escape. My salvation arrived, as salvation often does, from Canada. A dear friend who grew up in Toronto told me about a north-of-the-border tradition that we imported tariff-free for my daughter's party this year. It went better than I ever could have expected, and it goes like this. Instead of bringing a present, my daughter's friends were given the option of simply Venmoing her whatever they would have spent in cash on a gift. We then took that pool and split it in half, one part of which went to a gift she really wanted while the other went to a charity she picked in advance. (There are websites that manage the whole process for you — notably the Canada-based Echoage — but some do take a percentage in fees.) A few kids brought presents anyway, and I admit that my daughter first looked disappointed as she silently compared this year's haul with last year's. But then I reminded her that there was also the cash. 'How much?' she said hopefully. The total was a little more than $200. A smile spread across her face. But that grin wasn't the only benefit of our new approach to gift-giving. Advertisement Another was the meaningful decrease in our production of plastic waste. Most of the toys my kids have previously received are plastic, and most of that ultimately ends up in landfills — 80 percent, according to some A third benefit, however, is likely more important. Alison Body, an honorary fellow at the University of Kent with an expertise in children's participation in charitable giving, and others have But the last advantage is my favorite. Now I only have to put five barely used science kits on Facebook Marketplace this summer. Instead of six.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Neighborhoods rocked by disorder amid opioid crisis
By the time I saw Vennochi's column, I had also just read President Trump's executive order 'Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets.' Of course he wants to make it easier to force homeless people with addiction and mental health issues into treatment. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Bad news: 'One Big Beautiful Bill' will make matters worse for this very group because it shreds what's left of the social safety net. Advertisement In his first term, Trump's catastrophic policies manifested most horribly in hospital emergency rooms. Tearing away at the social safety net sets the stage for an encore disaster. Sarah Wright Nantucket The writer is a social worker. When and why did the focus shift away from public safety? Joan Vennochi's column about involuntary commitment is on target regarding the mayhem playing out in our neighborhoods due to the opioid crisis. The safety and well-being of the broader community must be taken more seriously. I support access to treatment for substance use disorder and understand that it is challenging to engage unhoused people who struggle with addiction and mental health. More resources are needed. But when and why did the focus shift drastically away from the needs of the community at large? It's not just Advertisement Pointing out that residents have the right to expect safe neighborhoods with a decent quality of life should not be controversial. Involuntary treatment does work for some people and could be one part of the answer. But a major shift in mind-set is essential. Elizabeth L. Merrick Somerville Involuntary commitment is a flawed and harmful strategy Re 'Involuntary commitment should be on the table in the opioid crisis': I am a physician board certified in addiction medicine whose work specializes in the care of people experiencing chronic unsheltered homelessness. While I empathize with the South End community, I argue that the use of involuntary commitment, known in Massachusetts as a Section 35, is a flawed and harmful strategy. This process was examined in close detail by a Most important, outcomes after a Section 35 are abysmal. Many individuals who are involuntarily committed do not transition to further treatment. In addition, Advertisement Involuntary commitment can be effective as a clinical tool in specific situations, but our experience in Massachusetts should lead to its being used less, not increased. The Section 35 process serves only to delay access to evidence-based treatment and increases the risk of death. A more successful strategy in addressing public substance use and homelessness would focus on increasing access to treatment — including overdose prevention centers, a proven intervention — and changing zoning laws to promote the building of more affordable housing. Dr. David Munson Charlestown The writer is the medical director of the Street Team at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the program.
