Marie, I have enjoyed your articles in The Preamble. Generally, they are thoughtfully written, and your strong sense of justice resonates with me. Often, I come away with a deeper understanding of historical context and current realities. I appreciate when you link sources, so that I can delve into them, and not solely rely on one author.
I found myself disagreeing with many of the points you made in this article. For example, your assertion that non-Christians or the nonreligious do not have convictions. Also, when you seemed to suggest that Christians were the first, and possibly only, group to believe in justice and equality. I invite you to learn more about other religions, including those that precede Christ and Christianity, some by thousands of years. I also encourage you to learn about philosophers, both modern and ancient, and their contemplations on ethics and moral behavior.
It is evident that you have come by your sense of justice and morals from your Christian faith. I hope that you might come to know that there are people who have morals and ethics, some not that dissimilar from your own, that they came by from a different source. A source that is not inferior to your own. We make better allies when we understand and appreciate each other.
First of all, I really appreciate that you took the time to comment and offer your critique with such care. I can fully accept that I could have been clearer in places and made my argument more precise. I can feel my inexperience when I take on this subject (given that I’m hundreds of essays into writing about race but only one or two into writing about faith), so I’m sure there are many things I still need to learn, and I appreciate having thoughtful readers point out where things may have come across differently than I intended.
I don’t intend to dismiss your criticisms, but I thought you’d probably want me to address them: I winced when I read that you felt I was suggesting nonreligious people are without convictions (yikes, I’m sorry!), and I can understand how the phrasing led you there. What I meant was to speak specifically to people who would readily admit that their moral demands for justice rely on mood, sympathy, or pity for compliance, because they believe it is all subjective—rather than on definitive truth claims in the way Douglass or King could articulate. I also wasn’t trying to suggest that Christians were the first or only people to believe in justice or equality (that’s definitely not true). My point was that, within the context of U.S. history, Christianity has been the primary belief system through which those ideas were advanced.
I truly appreciate you engaging so thoughtfully, and I’m grateful that you’ll continue reading.
Thank you for responding, and for receiving my feedback with the same care and respect that it was offered in. What a relatable experience to use a well-honed skill in a slightly different context, and feel that relative lack of precision and ease. I appreciate you clarifying what you intended to convey in the article.
Marie, I have enjoyed your articles in The Preamble. Generally, they are thoughtfully written, and your strong sense of justice resonates with me. Often, I come away with a deeper understanding of historical context and current realities. I appreciate when you link sources, so that I can delve into them, and not solely rely on one author.
I found myself disagreeing with many of the points you made in this article. For example, your assertion that non-Christians or the nonreligious do not have convictions. Also, when you seemed to suggest that Christians were the first, and possibly only, group to believe in justice and equality. I invite you to learn more about other religions, including those that precede Christ and Christianity, some by thousands of years. I also encourage you to learn about philosophers, both modern and ancient, and their contemplations on ethics and moral behavior.
It is evident that you have come by your sense of justice and morals from your Christian faith. I hope that you might come to know that there are people who have morals and ethics, some not that dissimilar from your own, that they came by from a different source. A source that is not inferior to your own. We make better allies when we understand and appreciate each other.
I look forward to your future articles.
First of all, I really appreciate that you took the time to comment and offer your critique with such care. I can fully accept that I could have been clearer in places and made my argument more precise. I can feel my inexperience when I take on this subject (given that I’m hundreds of essays into writing about race but only one or two into writing about faith), so I’m sure there are many things I still need to learn, and I appreciate having thoughtful readers point out where things may have come across differently than I intended.
I don’t intend to dismiss your criticisms, but I thought you’d probably want me to address them: I winced when I read that you felt I was suggesting nonreligious people are without convictions (yikes, I’m sorry!), and I can understand how the phrasing led you there. What I meant was to speak specifically to people who would readily admit that their moral demands for justice rely on mood, sympathy, or pity for compliance, because they believe it is all subjective—rather than on definitive truth claims in the way Douglass or King could articulate. I also wasn’t trying to suggest that Christians were the first or only people to believe in justice or equality (that’s definitely not true). My point was that, within the context of U.S. history, Christianity has been the primary belief system through which those ideas were advanced.
I truly appreciate you engaging so thoughtfully, and I’m grateful that you’ll continue reading.
Thank you for responding, and for receiving my feedback with the same care and respect that it was offered in. What a relatable experience to use a well-honed skill in a slightly different context, and feel that relative lack of precision and ease. I appreciate you clarifying what you intended to convey in the article.