"What role ought religious beliefs play in a pluralistic democratic society that often presumes strict boundaries between private faith and political life?" (141)
This is the question that Richard W. Garnett strives to address in his essay. He makes two arguments in this attempt: (1) that we shouldn't impose 'strict boundaries' as it is dishonest and distorting, and (2) we should bear authentic Christian witness to 'moral truth about human persons' not try to 'baptize policy analyses'. Garnett begins with establishing what type of argument this will be. He said that we need to make sure our presuppositions are truthful in order to continue moral analysis afterward. This is what he calls moral anthropology. In order to make sure we get the right answer about the death penalty we need to understand, "who these condemned persons are, what they were made to be and why it should make a difference" (144). As Christians, we have a countercultural idea about the specialness of human beings, that they are God's creation, imago dei, and therefore their value is unmeasurable. Regarding religious witness in the public arena, Garnett argues that faith has a legitimate place there. In fact, it is the opposite of liberalism to suggest that christianity is any less fit as a source of values than any other source. With that established, the question becomes, "if Christian believers - as Christian believers - do elect to engage the world, what should we say?"(152). What we should not say is something that is watered down to punditry. Garnett wants Christians define and speak of the moral truths about the human person, starting with the anthropological premise that humans being are sacred. This is followed by the moral claim that some things should never be done to a human being, such as capital punishment. Establishing this anthropological premise is important because it keeps us from joining in discussions about "human fallibility, discrimination, rehabilitation, or cost" (155). This discussions still share the same presupposition about humanity that those who are for the death penalty carry. Garnett demands that Christians turn those anthropological presuppositions on its head and be able to argue why someone who is 100% guilty of murder should not be executed. This is Christian moral anthropology, that our greatness comes not from our abilities to shape our destiny but being creatures of a loving God. Believing this does not allow any Christian to suppose that capital punishment is aligned with the dignity of the human person.
This is by far the best article I have read in this book so far (and I realize that I have probably already said that on a previous blog post but I really mean it this time). I previously have had my feet in two camps, involving myself in "human fallibility, discrimination, rehabilitation, or cost" discussion as well as the discussion about whether capital punishment is deserved by anyone. I have never realized until reading this article how different the moral suppositions of both these camps are so different. More shocking to me is that the former camp has the same supposition as that of those who support the death penalty. They both believe that not every human is infinitely valuable and not all humans share the same level of dignity. I think Garnett has offered up a position that is the most Christian as it is truly countercultural and not of this world, which are defining characteristics of Christianity. Our Christian moral anthropology or "story" should be different than the world's. It's easy to get caught up in superficial arguments about things such as the fallibility of the courts without realizing what the moral suppositions for those arguments are. It's hard for me to see now how Christians can believe we are created imago dei yet argue a position that devalues human worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment