Calling For Religion In the Wake of Newtown

To contact us Click HERE
(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

It's understandable that the religious will turn to their faiths for comfort in the wake of a tragedy like the shooting in Newtown. But it's important that our national conversation not devolve into a demonization of atheism based on the suggestion that religion is the cure for such incomprehensible violence. An example of what such a devolution might look like is this piece, "Evangelicals' Answer to Newtown Should Be Evangalism," by Mark Osler (linked to approvingly by Susan Stabile at Mirror of Justice). Osler says:

If a relationship with God is what gives a young life a connection to community, a sense of humility and service, and a devotion to what is good, that is exactly what Adam Lanza needed. 

*** 

What if he was living a life engaged with the lessons of Christ? 

In avoiding our own responsibilities, some look to the secular school as the problem, rather than the faith-hole that must have existed within the young Mr. Lanza.

Let me be clear. There is much that is admirable in Osler's piece, including his call for Christianity to be more genuinely welcoming of the true outcasts in society, rather than building a comfortable safe haven for conformists. But there are elements of the piece — elements which were Stabile's main takeaway from the piece, when she suggested that part of our response to Newtown should be "to help those without one to develop a personal relationship with God" — which boil down to the suggestion that atheism is equivalent with amorality; that is, it is impossible to be atheist without being amoral (or disconnected from community, lacking a sense of humility and service, and lacking a devotion to the good), and that it is impossible to be Christian without being moral.

The historical record belies these claims, of course, but they are still common and, for some reason, acceptable in 21st century America. In just this past election cycle, a serious candidate for the presidential nomination of a major party (Newt Gingrich) suggested that atheists cannot be trusted in government. This pronouncement didn't seem to damage his credibility or electability at all.

Certainly Christians should be asking what lessons Newtown has for them about their mission to be inclusive, to care for those who need it, and to be shepherds and caretakers. But they must do so without demonizing those who do not share their beliefs, and without pretending that theirs is the only path to a morally praiseworthy life.