Hello from my office upstairs at the Mini-Acre,
It seems like a normal February’s winter day for the first time in a year or more. A bit more than a dusting, but not a full-blown blizzard like many other places, made for some slow getting around this morning, but breakfast in Rohrsburg with two of the morning group was quite delightful. As I have noted the brutal weather that has assaulted much of the country (feet of snow and wind chills that will cause frostbite in minutes, whiteouts and disrupted travel from coast to coast), we have officially entered, yet again, the seemingly endless political process which focuses on Washington and how caucuses and primaries lead us into the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. While this election continues to shape up unlike any other in our 200+ years as a country, I find myself returning to the person who was the focus of my dissertation, the German Lutheran pastor, integrally involved in the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. It was just over 90 years ago he would be arrested for other reasons than the plot, but his involvement would eventually be discovered, and he was hanged.
What makes me consider Bonhoeffer anew comes by way of conversations with a former mentor, and a growing reality that his understanding of religion, of the church, and yes, of politics, seems as relevant in our current world (and perhaps more so) than it was from 1933 when Hitler became chancellor to when Bonhoeffer would write his Christmas letter that became titled “After Ten Years,” shortly before his arrest. In the light of the Barmen Declaration, written in 1934, and adopted by those who refused to take an oath of complete allegiance to Hitler, those Evangelicals still never officially denounced the brutality of the SS or the Nazis, they never voiced an unfettered support of civil liberties for the Jewish people, nor did they denounce “the Reich’s intent to create a world without the Jew” (Marsh, 2023). Bonhoeffer’s disillusionment with such inaction would compel him to write,
We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds – we have become cunning and learned the arts of obfuscation and equivocation. Experience has rendered us mistrustful of [others], and we have failed to speak to them a true and open word. Unbearable conflicts have wore us down or even made us cynical. Are we of any use?
Bonhoeffer – December 1942
In the midst of many of those my seminary professors referred to as giants of Christian theology in the mid-20th century, Bonhoeffer seemed to have a singular calling that pushed him to see the role of the Christian, and subsequently the actions of that believer, in a profoundly different manner. As the Christian Church (from Rome to Washington) turned its head to the evils of Nazi Germany, as the majority of the Evangelical Church in Germany, with a Hitler-appointed bishop, included oaths of loyalty,as demanded by Berlin, Bonhoeffer increasingly perceived the church to be morally bankrupt and as such impotent in facing the evils his homeland was consumed in. I am inclined to see a connection between the Bonhoeffer who did not grow up in the church (and as such shocked his family in his decision to study theology). I find deep and lasting connection between Bonhoeffer’s experiences in Harlem, his questions posed to his seminary professors at Union Theological Seminary, and the rituals that were (and are) such integral to our understanding of faith. His appreciation for a social gospel, a faith that went beyond doctrine, and his willingness to strip away the entrapments of the liturgy or the clergy pushed Bonhoeffer to ask what is Christianity?
As our world struggles to still understand the Jewish question (post-October 7th), as church attendance in the country is perhaps at an all-time low (in 2022, 56% of Americans say they seldom or never attend services – Statistica 16Jan2024) or during the last half-century in our country conservative Christianity has been defined by terms like the moral majority, family values, the 700 Club, or the Religious Right, and now Christian Nationalism, certainly the connection between politics and faith cannot be ignored. There is little doubt that Bonhoeffer would question the relevancy of our current theological practice, asking does it really do something that makes a difference in our world, but in a way that lifts up the other. The foundational tenets of Jesus included social ministry, questioning the powers of the day. And yet the actions of Jesus illustrate a person who regularly found time for a reclusivity to recharge. This would be followed by his reengagement, often with a prophetic response to the world he experienced daily.
If we consider carefully the intent of Jesus, was it to create Christianity? Think about that for a moment. Is it possible to call ourselves ‘Christian’ in America today when it is so integrally connected to a particular politic? It is possible that we use God (or Christ for that matter) using our own pathetic Biblical interpretation that is little more than proof-texting to justify our inhumanity? I am not sure Jesus hoped to become a religion. What does it even mean to be religious in our multifaceted, duplicitous world, where so many will claim they are spiritual, but not religious? Much like some have co-opted the flag under the guise of patriotism, too many claim some moral high ground as they hold up the Bible for all to see. Bonhoeffer saw what happened when elements of the church chose allegiance to a person or the state above all else. It was that very reality that compelled this somewhat pacifist person who believed in community to join those willing to risk all to stop the Nazi pogrom. It was after being integrally involved in the very basics of the plot, and before he was imprisoned that he would ask the poignant question, “Are we of any use?” And it was after he sat day in and week in, and eventually year in and out that he would continue to question the role of the church and if it had failed in its calling. In spite of Bonhoeffer’s privileged position, he seldom used it for his self-aggrandizement. He often used his position to serve others, to provide possibilities for his students, for travel to get the message about the reality of the Nazis out, or to assist others to escape the coming hope of the Nazi regime. Bonhoeffer (as well as members of his family) used their connections to work diligently against Hitler’s vision. Again, it should not go unmentioned that this concept of religionless Christianity came from a prison cell. There are many incarcerated people who feel God is very far away, who have struggled to see any sense of the church from behind bars (and I am aware that some “find Jesus” there also). Bonhoeffer believed that a fundamental part of our humanity was in “being there for others.” Peter Hooton, who has done extensive work on this Bonhoefferian concept writes, “a genuine existentialism (a thoroughly worldly life of constant decision, risk, responsibility, and uncertainty) is held in dialectical tension with a genuine Other (a real outside) . . .” (italics in the original). For Bonhoeffer, the other was found in the salivic actions of Jesus, but the consequence was in the living for the other in the here and now. The freedom granted in the actions of death on the cross and resurrection was to live unabashedly for the other. I am not sure that falls into the realm of altruism, but perhaps it moves us toward that. Perhaps it is fair to ask the question that William Tremmel once titled a book, Religion: What is it? It was the text used by Dr, John W. Nielsen in my Introduction to Religion class when I was a freshman at Dana College. Tremmel asked the important question, why are we religious? And his answer was also quite straight forward. Because we need to cope with our finitude. We want to believe death is more than an eternal dirt nap. I remember the first time I said that to someone and the shocked look on their face.
In our overwhelmingly secular society, where does religion fit? Bonhoeffer saw that with the consequence of the Nazis and what happened to the church under the power of the Third Reich. As I write this a few weeks after I began, Alexei Navalny has died in the last few days, and those who are even demonstrating in support of him are being imprisoned in Russia. His wife, Yulia Navalnaya, spoke only hours after receiving the news of her husband’s death at the Munich Security Conference. If one things about Bonhoeffer’s call for this religionless Christianity, what is certainly apparent is that totalitarianism is not compatible with caring about the other. The willingness to be subject to the other does not take away the government, however, but it does elevate the importance of the needs of the other. Without some structure there is chaos and anarchy, but Bonhoeffer foresaw that possibility. He was living its reality from Tegel and eventually Buchenwald and a hangman’s noose in Flossenburg. And yet Bonhoeffer’s Christology is in tact. That is for a different time, but what is important is Bonhoeffer’s Christianity is about the way one lives for the other. It meant it was necessary – it is necessary – to take seriously the suffering that exists in the world and to do what one can to ease it. As I listened today to those who mourn the death of Navalny, I believe he, like Bonhoeffer, believed in an limitless obligation to speak out against the corruption and injustices he saw in the government, and he was willing to lose his life for it. Navalny returned to Russia after being poisoned, and called it the best day of his life. Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in 1939 noting he could not be there to pick up the pieces of a country if he did not suffer with them.
What would it take to be Christ-like and not need to be called Christian? Is it possible? Certainly, my Lutheran theology would struggle with such a question. And yet might it be what we need in our secularized world? I have sat on my Bonhoeffer work for a while, but it seems it is time to resurrect it. Thank you to my mentor and friend, Dr. Patricia Sotirin, for pushing me to consider this. Thank you to Dr. Dale Sullivan for pushing me to return to Bonhoeffer when I had the opportunity almost a quarter century ago. Thank you to Dr. John W. Nielsen for introducing me to Bonhoeffer in his Christian Thought class through the book, Letters and Papers from Prison. If we merely followed Christ’s example of caring for the other and worked it in thought, word, and deed, what might we achieve? What might our world become? I will keep pondering.
Thank you for reading my ruminations as always.
Dr. Martin
thewritingprofessor55 
Dr. Martin,
This is a very interesting topic and point of view regarding this topic. As someone who has struggled with where I fit in the world religiously, it really made me sit back and think about what it means to be Christian. I was raised catholic, and although I may not be the most religious, I still carry many of the beliefs and lessons I learned from my time attending Catholic schools for a majority of my educational career. For me, being Christian is not something I use merely as an identity but is how I try and behave. I live by the idea that everyone should always be treated with respect, and civility, and be lifted up by the people around him. Last year, I was introduced to the phrase “WWJD? HWLF.” This phrase answers the question of “WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?)” with “HWLF (He Would Love First)”. This has been something that has really guided my perspective on life and how I approach difficult situations. Instead of my first reaction being to judge people or react negatively to their decisions, I try and approach them with love first, and support them the best I can. When thinking about the upcoming election, I am filled with immense stress. At times, I struggle to separate my upbringing with how I morally identify today, which can be hard when deciding who to vote for. I consider myself to have pretty strong stances when it comes to my political beliefs, and yet, it is still difficult to find someone who represents me in office. That being said, I really appreciate your perspective on Christianity and politics in this post, and I feel that anyone who reads it will be encouraged to look at things in a different way.
Thank you so much for your response. It is always interesting, particularly as we have become more secularized, that being not especially connected to any specific denomination (Roman Catholic) or religion (Christian), to see how people decide to employ their morals or principles.
There are so many issues that most do not realize about the founders of the country, where religion actually fits into our constitution (and it really does not) or the fact that we believe we can legislate morality. I appreciate your thoughts and the honesty of your struggle.
If you ever want to chat more, I would buy the coffee.
Thanks!
Dr. Martin
Dr. Martin,
I took a Sociology of Religion class last semester. In that class, I learned what makes up a religion. As someone who has gone to church all my life (and still chooses to go at my own will), it really made me think. Last semester, I went to a local church in Bloomsburg that I have attended a few times. The sermon was entitled “Losing Your Religion”. Nothing in church I ever listened to stuck out to me more than this sermon, hence me even remembering the title of it. Pastor Jay talked about how religion shouldn’t be the practices and rituals the people (Christians in this case) partake in, but rather your relationship with God. Just hearing that changed my world upside down.
I feel like nowadays, people will say “Oh yeah, I go to church every Sunday, of course I’m going to Heaven” or something like that. In reality, I feel as if people are just “going through the motions” when they go to church on Sundays. They go, recite the Bible passages, sing the hymns, and maybe pay attention to the sermon. Unless you’re actually putting in more effort and putting your words into actions, are you really creating a strong relationship with your God?
Personally, I have been having a hard time getting to church on Sundays due to life getting in my way. It has been a lot harder since I’m here at college due to too much work to do, not feeling well, or not being in the area on Sunday mornings. I didn’t feel as guilty as I have this semester. I finally found a church here that works for me and I want to go but I haven’t had a chance yet. I felt as if I’m not being a good Christian but reading this post and reflecting back on that sermon is reminding me that I don’t have to feel bad about not going to church. Would I like to go? Yes. But I shouldn’t be making myself feel bad about not being able to make it. I still practice my faith my own way and I don’t need to be in the physical building of a church to do so. I should just focus on my relationship with Him rather than making myself feel bad for things I can’t control.
Dr. Martin,
A little fact about me was that I grew up Catholic, I am the only child out of my siblings that was baptized. Neither of my brothers has and now that my family has stopped attending church I doubt they ever will. I was born in California, my biological father was in the Navy and was stationed in San Diego. When I was born it came with a lot of complications, I was later diagnosed with Spina Bifida and flew out to Philadelphia to receive care at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). Since the surgery was high risk and I was very small still, I was baptized prior to the surgery. Considering I can write this response today, the surgery went well. In my younger years, my family attended church and my grandmothers in particular were very religious. Over time my family has since faded from the church life and only brought it up when politics are involved.
I find your take on religion to be very interesting. As a Sociology major, I have come to appreciate all different viewpoints, especially on very touchy subjects such as religion. I identify as Agnostic, but that does not hinder me from learning about other practices. I hope to take the sociology of religion course that is offered at Bloomsburg sometime in my remaining years here.
I struggled with organized religion immensely throughout middle and high school. I was a part of a community that had a standard, and if you didn’t fit that standard, you simply did not fit. I went to youth group with a few friends of mine from time to time and had a really hard time fitting in. I didn’t know the verse being referred to or the hymn everyone was singing along with. Because of those experiences, I was met with a lack of understanding of what it truly meant to have faith and be proud of it. This is in no way to say religion is bad, or organized forms of faith are bad, but I was dealt a poor hand in terms of religious practice. Maybe this is because what it means to be Christian, what it means to be Lutheran, what it means to be Catholic has been so politicized. From what I have seen and experienced since coming to college I have noticed the standards are very different. It’s very refreshing to know so many people practice their faith in ways that make them feel loved and are uplifting in comparison to some of the hateful messaging that was shared within my community as a child.
Dr. Martin,
After reading this post, I cannot but be reminded of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In this letter, he calls out religious leaders of the South in their decision to “call upon their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law.” He was disappointed that the church would stand on the sidelines of injustice and watch as their African American brothers were oppressed. While the “evil deeds” Bonhoeffer refers to lies within a different category of evil than segregation, oppression is still oppression, and it could be argued within the church that MLK refers to that they too have become “silent witnesses of evil deeds.”
In addition to calling out religious leaders, MLK also talks about the power-loss of the Church. He reflects on a time when the church was powerful, a time when “Christian rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed.” He then goes on to compare the contemporary church to a “thermometer that [records] the ideas and principles of popular opinion.” This church that MLK refers to is very much like the Evangelical Church in Germany, and the Christian Churches around the globe, that Bonhoeffer perceived as morally bankrupt. The question that remains from this is why now, and why in the 1930’s and 1960’s, did the church become a “thermometer” of popular opinion? Why did they become morally bankrupt? The Jesus that the once powerful Christians followed is still the same Jesus that contemporary, 1930’s, and 1960’s Christians claim to follow, so how can an inaction to immorality be so present?
I believe that religion today, and society in general, is too focused on self-interest. I was very religious growing up and I always thought the whole point of religion, and the point for following Jesus, was to be led down the path of righteousness. This path of righteousness would then, much to the point of the need to cope with our finitude, ensure a pleasant and luxurious afterlife in Heaven. If the point of religion, however, is to be good to others and provide justice to others for the sake of ourselves and our own leisure after death, then religion has an ulterior motive – self-interest. Perhaps my opinion is out-of-touch (I have not regularly attended church in quite some time), but far too often have I encountered Christians who ‘act now and ask for forgiveness later,’ with their actions normally veering off the path of righteousness for the sake of other forms of self-interest. This ability to veer on and off the path of righteousness in religion can explain how the southern white Christian Churches of the 1960’s could obey the desegregation decision for the sake of following the law and how the Evangelical Church in Germany could turn a blind eye to the monstrosities of the Nazi regime; it was not in their self-interest to be in trouble with law enforcement or risk sharing the same fate as Bonhoeffer.
To your question of what would it take to be Christ-like and not need to be called Christian, the yearn for Heaven needs to be removed. The path of righteousness, and Christ, needs to be followed only for the sake of goodness, not for a place in Heaven and certainly not for self-interest. Just like Jesus had no intention of becoming a religion, to become Christ-like should not come with a reward, it should be followed for the sake of being righteous because it is the right thing to do.
Dear Dr. Martin,
I resonate with the ideas here about letting our doctrine or party speak for us. I have heard it said that many times someone believes something because their party believes it, and not that they are in their party because of what they believe. The same can be said of certain religious groups. It seems to me that often in society we have a good central idea, or person to follow. Then we build up many rules, and councils, and cliques around this central thing. All to often many groups forget what they were founded on or what they originally meant. I think we see this in essentially every ingroup.
It’s interesting that many religious leaders in Nazi Germany seem to parallel the behaviors Jesus himself spoke of: “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.” (John 15:18-25 NIV) It seems many religious leaders in Nazi Germany chose the path of the world.
This could lead into a discussion of what it means to truly believe. Many have said they would be killed for their faith, but would they, as we see they could be, or would they fall in line, as most do. I think it would be accurate to assume that many of the religious leader before the Nazis rose would think they would.
All this being said I think we are at an unprecedented faith based crossroads in the history of the world. Never before has religious belief or spiritual belief been so low. All cultures have had such backgrounds. I wonder if humanity will have a crisis of meaning, or if we will come out with a greater understanding of our humanity.
Emerson
Dr. Martin,
As a Christian reading this post hits different. A relationship is different than religion in the Christian world from my point of view. Religion is something that you believe in, and then it almost feels like you have a check list of items you need to complete. A relationship is different, it becomes a get to and not a have to. I feel like religion can be forced upon someone, whether that be good or bad, but for the religion to have an impact on them, they must make the religion a relationship.
I think that religion has an impact on how the United States views politics, whether for good reasons or bad. If we go back to when the United States was founded, there was an influence of religion on politics, and that has carried on throughout the years. Christians tend to be more conservative because of what the Bible states, and this is more of the religious view of Christianity. People see it as rules they must follow, and things they must do. Christians are known for being forgiving, but is that because we have to, or we get to model that because Christ forgives us?
You asked the question, “What would it take to be Christ-like and not need to be called Christian? Is it possible?” My response to this is you cannot be Christ-like and not need to be called a Christian. How can you model something without knowing what you are modeling? You can have the qualities of being a Christian and I think many people who grow up in the church tend to model these things without knowing it; but you cannot be Christ-like without know Christ.
-Morgan
Dr. Martin,
This post, and your perspective on this topic, was incredibly interesting to read. I imagine this hit home for a lot of people, no matter their religious background. As someone who was raised so conservative Christian that some have called my childhood a “cult,” this post resonated with me on a different level. I feel like you expressed some of the thoughts that I have mentally debated over for years. During, but especially after, high school, I began to question the faith I grew up with and where I fit into religion as a whole. This was jarring because faith was all I had known, but I was a curious child so questioning was very much in my nature.
One of the things that sparked my initial questioning of faith was the idea of what it means to be a Christian. My mother was the one who found faith and encouraged my brother and me to participate. My father, however, is a devout atheist. He was raised with Catholic, Protestant, and Buddhist influences – all disagreeing in beliefs – which ultimately led him to turn away from all religion. I grew up being told that my father would never make it to heaven and my family were following him to hell for not being able to convert him. The religious fear that those comments sparked in me as a child was incredibly intense, but ultimately, made me question the validity of what I was taught. All my life, I heard the teachings that “proper” Christians were gracious, generous, slow to anger, etc., but never saw that reflected in the Christian peers and adult figures I interacted with. My father, however, was all of those things and more. To be told that he was going to hell, only to see him act like a “better Christian” than those who claimed that faith, ultimately led me to struggle with my own beliefs.
Recently, I’ve begun reconnecting with my spirituality, however, and discovering what it means to be religious for me, as an individual. It definitely isn’t a political thing, nor something that I feel should be used to demonize or control others. But as I continue on this journey, I will consider your words and the questions you raised here.
I also have not been very pleased with the reoccurring cold weather, but the groundhog did predict an early Spring so hopefully that will come to fruition soon. I enjoyed reading a bit about Bonhoeffer’s history and what you thought of him as well. I feel as though many religions, specifically speaking about Christianity and Catholicism, are becoming more relaxed and the need to attend church services or be heavily involved in a religion is not required in order to practice that faith. Personally, I am not religious and growing up my parents never were either. My grandparents are casually Christian so they never forced me or my parents to go to church services, which I think reflects a lot of modern American families. Since I was never exposed to religion I was always agnostic and never knew what to believe since there were so many people from different religions preaching different things. I also took a philosophy course last semester and because of that class and discussing further into the topic of religion, I am still agnostic but I have started leaning more towards atheism. I feel as though faith and politics are two things that really should have no correlation to each other yet they always seem to be paired together. I understand that religion is assumed to be the thing in charge of teaching proper morals and ethics and that if you “follow the ways of God” you are a good person and worthy of being a leader. The thing is, there are many heavily religious people that are awful human beings and have awful morals so I do not believe that following someone based on whether they pray to God should be a determining factor in choosing an important figure, such as a president. I have noticed that older generations are the ones that care so much about this topic, but they need to realize that the times are changing and the world is evolving. People have more to life for than just reading the Bible and going to church services to worship a God that they have no real reason to stand behind.
Dr. Martin,
What is religion, and what is its place in the modern world? Your blog was thought-provoking as always and this question stuck with me. I think that religion is essentially a set of values and beliefs that drive and guide our actions in life, sometimes with the hope of certain reward after death. But it seems like religion is a set of values that are externally suggested, and then internalized by the believer. Whereas the secular human is guided by their largely internal values, their conscience. It seems as if my definition is missing something, but this is just my initial thought. I think that humans are already engineered to gravitate towards religious-type thinking from the start, because our beliefs and values are constantly driving our actions whether we realize it or not.
I was just talking about the existence of God, an afterlife, and how we want to be remembered with a dear friend yesterday. His deepest desire was to be remembered as a “good” person that people thought of fondly, or at the very least as “not selfish.” He is not religious, and I don’t think of myself as religious either. And nevertheless, we have this desire to be “good” – based on what information, and whose assessments? Is it our own conscience, that sees our selfishness or other flaws and charges us with the responsibility of proving otherwise? I think that people generally have a desire to be good, whether they have a strong idea of what goodness means or not. Our secularized world is moving away from organized religion, possibly in reaction to past experiences, but I feel as though the pendulum will eventually swing back again and people will find themselves in church again. Or, at least, they will take up some form of religious practices. We do not have an inclination for things unless they offer us something irreplaceable. Maslow’s hierarchy doesn’t mention the sacred or the transcendent, but I think that it should.
Religion is a comfort of sorts – the presence of God and an afterlife is comforting because all we have known, all we can know, is existence. The thought of simply “stopping” is unthinkable – because we can’t be consciously present to witness it, surely. And if we are, then what remains to catch us? Who remains to care about us and be with us? In today’s world, it’s not our employers or workplaces. It’s not always our communities or friends, assuming we have those. It’s increasingly lonely and isolated out here and people treat others as if they’re disposable, like bell hooks’ Dixie cup metaphor. Use it up, toss it out once it’s no longer useful. And people can’t stand that. But if religion remains as a source of acceptance and unconditional support, religion will fulfill a deep and abiding need that we have to be loved unconditionally.
Dr. Martin
I have been through 12 years of Catholic schooling and I have learned a lot of about people who use religion as their crutch. They excused all the rude or offensive things they say is because of their religion. Most of my religion teachers throughout the years were the rudest people I have met. The sister at my high school was the rudest of them all. My teachers never acted Christ like and has made me hate the religion. The only people that were devot and kind Catholics that I knew, were my friend Katy Anne and the priest at my high school. My friend Katy Anne was nice to everyone, even people I hated and thought were the worst people ever. She never shoved her religious beliefs down people’s throats and she was very open minded. The priest at my high school wasn’t uptight and would just have casual conversations with students. I could make jokes about Catholicism to him and even inappropriate jokes that my religion teachers would yell at me for. He knew the most about his religion and knew there were some flaws systematically and institutionally and he was always open for discuss about them. He wouldn’t get mad and blow up at students, like my teachers would do, when confronted about touchy topics.
One teacher I who really had no authority on religion and would say the most outrageous things was my Latin teacher. He thought he was a religious authority figure because we would translate the four Evangelist books from Latin to English. He would say that if you are Catholic and believed being gay was okay, you have to pick a side and can’t support both. I wonder what he thinks of the current Pope. Catholics make Catholicism their own religion that they decide to personally govern themselves. I believe unstructured religion is best, yet sometimes leadership is need. I personally think religion should be more focused on yourself and self improvement. You shouldn’t concern yourself with how other people live. Especially if they aren’t apart of your religion.
Grace D’Agostino
As a religious person, I found your post interesting. I was raised Catholic but am currently exploring other Christian religions. My dad’s family was devoutly Catholic, but he has left the faith and is now an atheist. My mom was baptized Lutheran, confirmed Methodist, and married Catholic. She is still an active member of our local parish.
You talk about the need for people to speak out when they see others being mistreated. I see that among my own religious friends. Somewhere along the line, being religious has made them fearful. Some of them don’t want to speak out because they’re afraid they will be seen as preachy or aggressive. Others are worried they may be ostracized by other members of their religion for speaking up for “the least of us.” As I mentioned earlier, my mom and I are both practicing Catholics and we have both had to deal with this. I can’t count the number of times people are surprised to find out that I am both religious and open-minded. My mom is very pro-choice and has people in our church tell her she should not be allowed to take Communion because of this viewpoint. Her response was. “Well, it’s a good thing you’re not the one who gets to judge me.” She understands that she might get called out as a Catholic, but will still advocate for women as an American.
Thank you for this blog post. I am grateful to have a place where we can freely and safely have these conversations.