Why Civil Discourse is Vanishing and How to Bring it Back

Why can’t we talk politics or religion anymore? One reason is the social norm we’ve all heard that it’s the one thing we ought not do. But I propose it’s because we’ve developed bad habits that create an unhealthy way to talk to each other. What follows is my effort to capture the biggest obstacles that destruct our most meaningful conversations and how to overcome them:

1. We conflate the issue with the person.

Here’s a challenge:

Same-Sex Marriage: Equal Rights, Religion, and Bigotry

When it comes to controversial moral debates like same-sex marriage, trite sayings such as this one on the left are echoed quite often in a culture where the make-up man has become more important than the speech writer. It’s short, it’s rhetorically powerful, and it can be repeated, tweeted, and regurgitated faster than you can say “Anti-disestablishmentarianism.” Using only eighteen words, it gets the intended job done.

But often the truth of the matter takes a bit longer to unpack than can be offered in a thirty-second sound bite. A false assertion can be uttered in seconds, while offering a well thought out response which exposes the problem or mistaken assumption requires clear thinking, patience, energy, and time, virtues and luxuries many people either can’t afford or don’t want to.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a hot topic that is not going away anytime soon. Christian apologists need to be persistent in clarifying the issues, especially in the face of saucy slogans such as this.

So what’s wrong with this oft-repeated cliché?

Character Counts!

In an election season one issue comes to the front more than any other: character. Whether attacking another candidate's history or defending one's own consistency the underlying issue is almost always one of character. Attacking it, defending it, questioning it, and debating it. Character is ultimately what gives voter's confidence in what a candidate believed in the past and will do in the future. Not unlike politics, character of leaders of various religious movements counts as strong testimony to the legitimacy of their claims. It's one thing to say something, but it's a whole other thing to live consistently with what's said. If character counts for choosing political leaders, perhaps the credibility of religious leaders should be examined likewise.

In his brief theological treatise Basic Christianity, theologian John Stott provides Jesus' character as evidence for Christ's claims. The claims of Christ include those he made implicitly and explicitly during his time on earth documented in our extant New Testament writings. The greatest of these include his unique relationship with God, his own divine authority, and his miraculous acts. Since the claims of Christ are mulitply attested in early independent sources and consistently represented through 27 books of the New Testament, Stott concludes we're justified in calling them reliable. But even if we are to grant him that much, we must still ask ourselves - are they true?

Attempting to show reliability by merely stating that a claim is historical is misleading at worst and inadequate at best. Whether the claims were made in history is a different question than whether the content of those claims is true. After all, people can claim anything they want. There were so-called messiahs throughout and since second temple Judaism. As C.S. Lewis famously proposed, there are three options regarding our decision with the claims of Christ. If he wasn't Lord, the only remaining options are liar or lunatic (Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56). So to find out which claims are more likely true, it's important to examine life demonstrated by the one making the claims.

If the sort of things Jesus said are true, the evidence should be seen in how he lived his life. Whatever we may believe about him, it's clear what we know of Jesus is different from any other religious founder. Most notably, his character shows no flaws where we would expect to see them. For someone well acquainted with the doctrine of sinful man, we see in Jesus one who had no sin in him. He was tempted like we are, but never ever made the wrong moral choice.

When the rich man addressed him as "Good teacher" asking how he could inherit eternal life, Jesus replied, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:17-18). What follows is one of two possible conclusions. Either Jesus is not good or he isn't God. The New Testament is consistent in it's message that Jesus lived without sin. Therefore, since moral perfection is "good," and only God is good, then Jesus is God. What we get with this verse is both the divinity of Christ and his own self-claimed moral perfection. Jesus also pointed to himself as the means of redemption for sinful man. Many more verses can be cited (see Greg Koukl's Jesus the Only Way: 100 Verses), but there's more than merely what Jesus said about himself.

Those closest to Christ agreed with him on this point. They lived with him, studied under him, and suffered for his sake. As devoted Jews they too understood the depravity of man, yet they upheld the testimony of Christ's sinlessness despite having every reason not to. While some witnesses explicitly state Christ's spotless nature (1 Pet 2:22, Heb 9:14, 1 John 3:5), the gospel writers seem only to mention it as an incidental aside from their primary message. While the sinful nature of all other central figures is exposed, Jesus, about whom much more is said, rests immune. While friendly witnesses would be expected to portray Jesus well, let's see what his enemies say of him.

As we might expect, Jesus' critics were unkind. They called him a blasphemer, friend of sinners, and sabbath breaker. In the proper context, these accusations were serious enough to portray him as a social outcast, rejected by God, and worthy of capital punishment. Ironically, it also speaks well of his character. The charge brought against him by the Jews was for insurrection which was a political crime rather than a moral one. Moreover, he was brought before King Herod and the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate only to be found guiltless by both. His accusers depended on false witnesses, rejected his messianic identity, and misrepresented his claim to be king. Often overlooked, the silence of any accusations from earlier in his life should be noted. With the zeal of his enemies, it must have frustrated them greatly to have nothing but lies to use against him.

From how he's depicted by friends and foes alike we've seen Christ wasn't just sinless but the only one who ever was in a culture where universal human depravity was presumed. For most of us who grow closer in our relationship with God, our human sinfulness brightly contrasts from God's almighty perfection. However, as his followers learned more of Jesus' closeness with the Father, his utter absence of sin became even more apparent to all.

Unless his claims were true, the types of things he said would be that of a megalomaniac. Christ's claims centered around himself and that the destiny of mankind depend on how people respond to him. This truth comes as an unexpected paradox. Jesus taught that he "came not to be served but to serve and be a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45, Matt 20:28). He spoke of himself first in his words but put himself last by his deeds. He was misunderstood and rejected by his foes and even abandoned and betrayed by friends. Ultimately he was shamed, tortured, and killed for living consistently with his true message and identity. Amidst the scorn, he prayed for those who hated him. His teaching was unique and unpopular, yet he wasn't a fanatic. He simply spoke the truth and lived it consistently.

Do All Religions Lead to God?

Maybe you've heard the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. In this parable, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like.

One blind man grabs the tusk and says, "An elephant is like a spear!" Another feels the trunk and concludes, "An elephant is like a snake!" The blind man hugging the leg thinks, "An elephant is like a tree!" The one holding the tail claims, "An elephant is like a rope!" Another feeling the ear believes, "An elephant is like a fan!" The last blind man leaning on the elephant's side exclaims, "An elephant is like a wall!"

This parable is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds.

There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: "the view that all religious roads - certainly all major or ethical ones - lead to God or to ultimate reality and salvation."1 This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as "All religions basically teach the same thing" or "All roads lead to the top of the mountain."

The elephant parable, while attractive to many, suffers from a number of problems:

A 'Religious' Problem

For the third time this week, someone said to me, "I'm not really a religious person," so I'd like to respond to what might be a common misunderstanding of the Christian religion. It made me wonder how a "religious" person is different from a regular person. If these three friends represented only anecdotal accounts, it wouldn't be worth blogging about, but I fear it represents an underlying assumption that's widely held.

Last month, famous biologist and UCI professor Dr. Francisco Ayala donated $1.5 million dollars to a UCI genetics program. Dr. Ayala was awarded the Templeton Prize in March which comes with the cash prize matching this gift he gave to the University. The Templeton Foundation was impressed by Ayala's work in solving the problem of faith and science. In reference to this, Ayala told the press "We don't have belief in evolution; belief is accepting something for which we have no evidence" ($1.5 Million Dollar Prize Donated to UCI, Orange County Register, April 22, 2010, Local 3) So, according to Ayala, once we relegate faith to the private and personal realm, and we allow science to determine the reality of our daily lives, the problem goes away. In short, science is objective; religious belief is not.

If You Believe People Are Basically Good

(Townhall.com) by Dennis Prager

No issue has a greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as basically good or not. In 20 years as a radio talk show host, I have dialogued with thousands of people, of both sexes and from virtually every religious, ethnic and national background. Very early on, I realized that perhaps the major reason for political and other disagreements I had with callers was that they believed people are basically good, and I did not. I believe that we are born with tendencies toward both good and evil. Yes, babies are born innocent, but not good. Why is this issue so important?

First, if you believe people are born good, you will attribute evil to forces outside the individual. That is why, for example, our secular humanistic culture so often attributes evil to poverty. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, former President Jimmy Carter and millions of other Westerners believe that the cause of Islamic terror is poverty. They really believe that people who strap bombs to their bodies to blow up families in pizzerias in Israel, plant bombs at a nightclub in Bali, slit stewardesses' throats and ram airplanes filled with innocent Americans into office buildings do so because they lack sufficient incomes. Something in these people cannot accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation. The Carters and Murrays of the West -- representatives of that huge group of naive Westerners identified by the once proud title "liberal" -- do not understand that no amount of money will dissuade those who believe that God wants them to rule the world and murder all those they deem infidels.

Second, if you believe people are born good, you will not stress character development when you raise children. You will have schools teach young people how to use condoms, how to avoid first and secondhand tobacco smoke, how to recycle and how to prevent rainforests from disappearing. You will teach them how to struggle against the evils of society -- its sexism, its racism, its classism and its homophobia. But you will not teach them that the primary struggle they have to wage to make a better world is against their own nature. I attended Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) until the age of 18, and aside from being taught that moral rules come from God rather than from personal or world opinion, this was the greatest difference between my education and those who attended public and private secular schools. They learned that their greatest struggles were with society, and I learned that the greatest struggle was with me, and my natural inclinations to laziness, insatiable appetites and self-centeredness.

Third, if you believe that people are basically good, God and religion are morally unnecessary, even harmful. Why would basically good people need a God or religion to provide moral standards? Therefore, the crowd that believes in innate human goodness tends to either be secular or to reduce God and religion to social workers, providers of compassion rather than of moral standards and moral judgments.

Fourth, if you believe people are basically good, you, of course, believe that you are good -- and therefore those who disagree with you must be bad, not merely wrong. You also believe that the more power that you and those you agree with have, the better the society will be. That is why such people are so committed to powerful government and to powerful judges. On the other hand, those of us who believe that people are not basically good do not want power concentrated in any one group, and are therefore profoundly suspicious of big government, big labor, big corporations, and even big religious institutions. As Lord Acton said long ago, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton did not believe people are basically good. No great body of wisdom, East or West, ever posited that people were basically good. This naive and dangerous notion originated in modern secular Western thought, probably with Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Frenchman who gave us the notion of pre-modern man as a noble savage. He was half right. Savage, yes, noble, no. If the West does not soon reject Rousseau and humanism and begin to recognize evil, judge it and confront it, it will find itself incapable of fighting savages who are not noble.

Less Religion Means More Government

(Acton.org) by Anthony Bradley

Soviet communism adopted Karl Marx’s teaching that religion was the "opiate of the masses" and launched a campaign of bloody religious persecution. Marx was misguided about the role of religion but years later many communists became aware that turning people away from religious life increases dependence on government to address life’s problems. The history of government coercion that comes from turning from religion to government makes a new study suggesting a national decline in religious life particularly alarming to those concerned about individual freedom.

The American Religious Identification Survey, published by Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., reports that we should expect one in five Americans to identify themselves as having no religious commitments by 2030. The study, titled “American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population,” reports that Americans professing no religion, or Nones, have become more mainstream and similar to the general public in marital status, education, racial and ethnic makeup and income. The Nones have increased from 8.1 percent of the U.S. adult population in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.

According to the study, 22 percent of American 18 to 29-year-olds now self-identify as Nones. For those promoting dependency on government to handle the challenges of everyday life, as well as those who wish to take advantage of a growing market for morally bankrupt products and services, the news of declining religious life is welcome.

The increase in non-religious identification among younger generations highlights a continued shift away from active participation in one of the key social institutions that shaped this country. It may also come as no surprise, then, that according to the research firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, voters under 30 are more liberal than all other generations. When asked about their ideology, 27 percent of those under 30 identify themselves as liberal, compared to 19 percent of baby boomers, and 17 percent of seniors. Pragmatic utilitarianism, favorable views toward a larger role for government in helping the disadvantaged, and a lack of ethical norms characterize this young segment America’s population.

The most significant difference between the religious and non-religious populations is gender. Whereas 19 percent of American men are Nones only 12 percent of American women are. The gender ratio among Nones is 60 males for every 40 females.

The marketplace and society in general will both reap the consequences of high numbers of male Nones. If more and more men are abandoning the religious communities that have provided solid moral formation for thousands of years, we should not be surprised by an increase in the explosion of demand for morally reprehensible products as well as the family breakdown that follows closely behind. With consciences formed by utility, pragmatism, and sensuality, instead of virtue, we should expect to find a culture with even more women subjected to the dehumanization of strip clubs, more misogynistic rap music, more adultery and divorce, more broken sexuality, more fatherlessness, more corruption in government and business, more individualism, and more loneliness.

Alexis de Tocqueville cautioned in his 1835 reflections on Democracy in America, that the pursuit of liberty without religion hurts society because it “tends to isolate [people] from one another, to concentrate every man's attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification.” In fact, Tocqueville says, “the main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality.” Religion makes us other-regarding.

Historically, religious communities in the United States addressed the needs of local communities in way that were clearly outside the scope of government. For example, as David G. Dalin writes in “The Jewish War on Poverty,” between the 1820s and the Civil War, Jews laid the foundation for many charitable institutions outside the synagogue including a network of orphanages, fraternal lodges, hospitals, retirement homes, settlement houses, free-loan associations, and vocational training schools. These were also normative activities for both Protestant and Catholic religious communities on even a larger scale in communities all over America before Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

The reported decline in religious life is an omen that virtue-driven local charity will decline, the passion to pursue the good will wane, and Americans will look to government to guide, protect, and provide. As we turn our lives over to government control, our capacity for independent thought and action are compromised. The real “opiate of the masses,” it would seem, is not religion but the lack of it.

Where Have All the Christians Gone?

(FOXnews.com) Bruce Feiler

Christianity is plummeting in America, while the number of non-believers is skyrocketing.

A shocking new study of Americans’ religious beliefs shows the beginnings of a major realignment in Americans’ relationship with God. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reveals that Protestants now represent half of all Americans, down almost 20 percent in the last twenty years. In the coming months, America will become a minority Protestant nation for the first time since the pilgrims.

The number of people who claim no religious affiliation, meanwhile, has doubled since 1990 to fifteen percent, its highest point in history. Non-believers now represent the third-highest group of Americans, after Catholics and Baptists.

Other headlines:

1) The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history.

2) The growth of non-believers has come largely from men. Twenty percent of men express no religious affiliation; 12% of women.

3) Young people are fleeing faith. Nearly a quarter of Americans in their 20’s profess no organized religion.

4) But these non-believers are not particularly atheist. That number hasn’t budged and stands at less than 1 percent. (Agnostics are similarly less than 1 percent.) Instead, these individuals have a belief in God but no interest in organized religion, or they believe in a personal God but not in a formal faith tradition.

The implications for American society are profound. Americans’ relationship with God, which drove many of the country’s great transformations from the pilgrims to the founding fathers, the Civil War to the civil rights movement, is still intact. Eighty-two percent of Americans believe in God or a higher power.

But at the same time, the study offers yet another wake-up call for religious institutions.

First, catering to older believers is a recipe for failure; younger Americans are tuning out.

Second, Americans are interested in God, but they don’t think existing institutions are helping them draw closer to God.

Finally, Americans’ interest in religion has not always been stable. It dipped following the Revolution and again following Civil War. In both cases it rebounded because religious institutions adapted and found new ways of relating to everyday Americans.

Today, the rise of disaffection is so powerful that different denominations needs to band together to find a shared language of God that can move beyond the fading divisions of the past and begin moving toward a partnership of different-but-equal traditions.

Or risk becoming Europe, where religion is fast becoming an afterthought.