Pluto and Lost Causes

Pluto is a planet only by popular opinion. Many astronomers would say it's more a round chunk of ice, and that it's smaller than several similar objects discovered well beyond Pluto. A fellow named Mike Brown has discovered 15 such "planets," some of them twice as far from the sun as Pluto is. He's not in favor of giving them planet status. And yet, if tiny Pluto is considered to be a planet, why shouldn't Xena, a large round object which is even larger than Pluto?

In the past, Brown argued for eliminating Pluto as a planet. But public support for Pluto--not based on science, but on mere sentiment; it would be like taking statehood away from Alaska--was too strong. Pluto, since its discovery in 1930, has been part of our culture. And Brown, being pragmatic, says, "There are places where science reigns, and others where culture reigns. Science doesn't have to win this one. I'm willing to give up the hard-nosed science view of what a planet is in lieu of a cultural view."

I like that approach, and I see it applying to Christian political action.

We live in a secular, religiously pluralistic culture that values freedom of religion. That's bedrock America. But Christians constantly fight for causes which go against those values, advocating things which support our religion (Christianity) at the expense of other views. I'm of the opinion that we should just say, "On this one we can let the culture win."

For instance, I've never supported the hubbub over school prayer. Maybe it was okay once upon a time, but the culture has moved on. Prayer doesn't belong in schools. That just demeans prayer. Let this one go. Kids can still pray if they want. I did.

Nativity scenes on public property? That goes against religious pluralism, which I think is a much greater value in a secular society like ours. Likewise for posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses. What does it gain us? It does offend other religious groups. Maybe they're being overly sensitive, but that's okay. Better to live in peace and be able to submit to the other's desires (a Christian concept about which the Religious Right is clueless), than to stubbornly insist on a "Christianity First" approach.

Including "In God We Trust" on our money, and "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Those aren't battles I care to fight. Besides, they are lies. We're not a nation under God, at least not anymore. Why would I say it as part of the Pledge, which is actually a display of loyalty toward my country? I can pledge my loyalty to the USA without pretending that we operate under God's authority.

But other battles are still worth fighting. I don't want to see gay marriage legalized. I would be surprised if it's not legal throughout the country in 20 years. The culture will have moved on, and we'll need to deal with it (just as we dealt with the end of prohibition). But the inevitability doesn't mean we should cave in now.

Some issues, too, are just a matter of fairness. Like the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. We have a right to fairness. So do Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and all the rest (which  means if we can display our religious symbols on public property and post them in courthouses, so can they).

It's okay to fight on behalf of the public good, too, as in opposing gambling, the legalization of drugs, pornography, abortion, racism, and global warming. Those go beyond religion, and it's not necessarily necesssary that we craft them as religious causes and thereby exclude people who also oppose those things, but for more secular reasons.

We white evangelical Christians could, if we wanted, even fight on behalf of the poor. But alas, I've strayed to the back burner.

Posted on August 2, 2006 02:41 PM|

Post a comment

All comments are moderated, which means your comment won't appear until it's been approved. Thanks for your patience.

Name:
Email:
URL:
Comments:
(you may use HTML tags for style)