without religion, how do you convince people of the need for justice and civil rights
Let me say first of all that with religion, we're having a hard time. Oh, I agree with Bono. And I agree with you. The problem is as I see it twofold:
1. My God, who's very keen on justice and equality, not to mention humility, has obviously mislaid the president's phone number. His God, who's unrecognizable to those of us with Protestant upbringings, appears rarely to mention these matters.
2. The president is only exhibit (a) of those people who can acknowledge everything Bono says and go right on propounding policies of decidedly sublunary origin. If the role of religion is to inspire morality, it is not up to the part.
Second of all, to answer your question more directly, you can do it without religion if you can reach people on the level of their own experience -- if you can get through the insulating layers of distracting culture (Superbowl ads, I'm looking at you) that tell us we're entitled to comfort, that everything is fine everywhere -- and say look, things are not fine -- not only in Africa but in Kansas.
But to do that, you need a bully pulpit. And, see above under (1), the present occupant of our country's bully pulpit isn't interested in using it for those purposes.
I think the answer might be for more liberal-leaning (where 'liberal' is defined as 'nontheocon') Christians to be a bit noisier. Right now in American politics, 'Christian' designates little more than 'wants to overturn Roe.'
There are plenty of liberal Christians, and it would be a refreshingly pleasant change if the only public message of Christianity weren't 'If it feels good, stop.'
In my fantasy world, I'd see a complete absence of religious language in secular discourse, and everyone would respond to moral reasoning, as opposed to references to religion. But given that the other side has laid claim to God's blessing, we ought to fight fire with fire, in language that ideally would demonstrate humility with respect to our ability to know the true will of God, and focused on human interpretations of religious texts, and was inclusive of us atheists. It's not my ideal; it's a response to the facts on the ground. I would certainly not go to a European country that (sanely) does not implicate God in its political decisions and start appealing to religion in public speeches to get the citizenry riled up and justice-oriented; I'd do it with moral reasoning instead.
without religion, how do you convince people of the need for justice and civil rights?
If you're using religion to do this, it's only a short leap to "non-religious people (or people of different religions) don't deserve justice and civil rights". It reminds me of an assistant scoutmaster in my Boy Scout troop: While teaching some citizenship merit badge class, he made the comment that atheists are dangerous people because they don't answer to any higher authority.
There's nothing wrong with relgious people using religious reasoning to come to a particular decision. When the government does the same thing, I get nervous.
I'm also wary about trying to use religious language even for our own noble aims. I know it plays well, and I know it's considered to be politically smart to undercut the Right's claim to have a monopoly on religiosity.
But I still think it's dangerous, for the reasons you mentioned. And I DO think it's possible to talk about justice without an overt appeal to religion.
Bono said, "This is not about charity, this is about justice and equality." And yes, he said it in the context of the (gack) Judeo-Christian exhortation to support the poor, but I think the sentiment is powerful on its own.
What if we talk about justice, and let the religious among our listeners fill in the rest for themselves?
In an Amy Sullivan article I read sometime, she noted how Bush speeches would have textual nods to Biblical text or hymns in such a wayso that non-Christian listeners wouldn't even notice. You can use the language of a tradition that contains a lot of wisdom without specifically appealing to the divine authority that's backing you.
I hear a real difference between "X is right because my god tells me so. Everyone should obey my god and do X," and "My god tells me X, because X is right. Everyone should do X, because it's right." The first style of rhetoric annoys me, the second, which is what I think Bono was doing, doesn't bother me at all.
You can use the language of a tradition that contains a lot of wisdom without specifically appealing to the divine authority that's backing you.
But Bush is appealing to divine authority -- he's just doing it in code.
I think MW's point in 9 is what troubles me about LB's Rhetoric Style #2. It sounds like code. If X is right, and everyone should do X because it's right, why do you need to get God in there at all?
But I think we gloss it that way because of the other stuff we know about Bush's attitude. I don't know if there's anything offensive about using the phrase "wonder-working power" or referring to a Biblical verse as an expression of, but not the sole source of, a moral principle.
10: Because we live in the most religious first world country in the world, and not letting the other party be the "party of religion" would help our electoral chances.
What LB said. Exactly. It's a public reason thing. Which means I think Tia's main point in 7 is right, it's just that Bush isn't really doing that.
12: Yeah, and like I said, I think it makes good tactical sense, but it's still troubling to me.
(I've always wondered why truly religious people don't think that the politicization of religion or the religiousization of politics -- what, shut up, I can't think of a better word there -- cheapens religion.)
Continuing 12, also because it might help people get behind a social justice platform if you could package it in religious terms. I would prefer that that not be necessary, but seeing the poor well-provided for is a greater good than avoiding references to religion in public life.
And also, even though I'm an atheist, I don't particularly consider religious speech unseemly or inappropriate in the public sphere. What bothers me is only people acting as if religious reasons alone, without more, should be enough to drive policy.
If you're using religion to do this, it's only a short leap to "non-religious people (or people of different religions) don't deserve justice and civil rights"
Maybe on a government level, but I don't think this is really true. The key thing to keep in mind is that religion is, above all else, metaphorical. It's a way of talking about issues of goodness, fairness, and justice in ways that feel intuitively right to people. It can be a really powerful tool, and sure, it can cut both ways. But I do think it's really stupid of the left to have given up an entire category of rhetorical persuasion because we think it's dangerous, or whatever.
ANY kind of rhetorical tool is dangerous. Avoiding emotional, metaphorical appeals because they can be misused ignores a really important part of human experience and thinking.
8-- Yup I agree.
9--I agree with that too.
I had real reservations about getting involved in political questions qua a religious person. (I don't think that's the right use of qua, but what I mean is as a religious person, not simply a peron who happens to be religious and also involves herself in political questions.)
But then the conservative Democrats weren't doing much to stop the abuses against nursing home workers, and they weren't doing anything to expand access to healthcare--even though they risked the loss of Federal money. I got involved as part of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, but the SEIU, Neighbor to Neighbor and people who are just intereted in health care participated via the lobbying organization Health Care for All.
I think that people who are religious need to offer non-God based reasons to those who don't believe in God, but I don't think it's right to expect religious people to shut up about God. One of the things that the Executive Director of HCFAMA, John McDonough said that I thought was poignant was that usually these debates get either wonky or crass, and that one thing that he really liked about having the religious communities involved was that the question was really more about what the right thing to do is.
It isn't just a question of our side versus their side. It's whether you can expand u[on your tradition and make it more broadly aplicable. MLK didn't tell non-Christians that they needed to become Christians to appreciate the justness of his arguments, but he never shied away from saying that the Chritian message was incompatible with legally imposed segregation.
14: As to the question in your parenthetical, some do. Jimmy Carter talks about it in his latest book (which is very good, by the way), and you'd be hard pressed to find a more "truly religious" person in public life.
u[on s/b upon. Preview is your friend. Repeat. Preview is your friend.
It does cheapen religion. But what cheapens religion more is the idea that religion is so awful that it dare not speak its name in public; abstract the morals, don't dare mention where some of these ideas, just fill in the details yourself at home. You can do that, can't you?
Come on. You can't just expect people to take a belief, which, if they're believing it properly means it constitutes the most serious commitment in their lives, and shuffle it out of public discourse entirely. Or to pretend they only believe it because it proceeds from secular ethics.
I do agree that it would be bad, and it is bad, when the President thinks that God is telling him to invade Iraq. And it shouldn't account for sole justification, either; big fan of religious freedom and all that. But if there was a Democratic candidate who believed devoutly that America's ignorance of social justice constituted a moral failing and was as loud about that as the right was about abortion, I think he'd be a lot more convincing than if he held up Mill & Kant.
If you're using religion to do this, it's only a short leap to "non-religious people (or people of different religions) don't deserve justice and civil rights".
Oh come on. No one said to throw out the Bill of Rights. (Nor, I might point out, is 'nonreligious people don't deserve civil rights' a general tenet of Christianity, but I suspect you knew that.)
No one said to throw out the Bill of Rights.
No one said to throw out the Bill of Rights.
No, and I'm speaking somewhat hyperbolically, but it does seem that a lot of conservative Christians don't consider atheists to be fully moral people. This doesn't mean that atheists will be locked up or anything, there is at least a rhetorical commitment to rule of law in this country, but it's discomfiting to hear people express the belief that atheists are dangerous. Say it enough times, and people will start to take it seriously.
That would be an argument for encouraging more moderate Christians to step up to the plate, no? Moderate Christians generally don't have the kneejerk response to atheism.
The only common public expression of Christianity right now is this theocon breed only obsessed with sex and for some reason I can't understand, ensuring that the rich remain rich. (Maybe that was the hidden l33t in the Gospels.) Don't believe me? Thought experiment: if in a debate on the economy someone prefaces their remarks with 'Well, I'm Christian, so...', do you expect that they'll swing rightward or leftward?
I suspect if there were competing public versions of Christianity out there (MLK, theocon, social justice Catholics), one brand of loons insisting that atheists weren't citizens would seem a lot less threatening.
Well, a more vocal moderate Christianity to counter-balance the neocon/plutocrat variety would be definitely be a good thing.
On the other hand, as a non-Christian I tend to get a little nervous about overtly Christian political rhetoric, whether I agree with its aims or not. It's possible I'm oversensitive about this.
Also, although it might be good/useful when religion is invoked as a justification for things we happen to agree with (social justice, etc) it makes it harder to discredit things we disagree with (anti-gay marriage, obscenity panic, etc) that are also justified by religion.
Hmm...good point. Now to get those moderate religious folks speaking.
Part of my hesitancy is that if a religious argument needs to be made to convince people of the rightness of an action, the implication is that if a religious argument cannot be made, the action is not right. Now, maybe the bible and other religious texts are vague enough that this isn't a real issue, but needing to make a religious argument anytime you're trying to get something done seems off to me.
Though from a political standpoint I agree, your point makes a lot of sense.
But what cheapens religion more is the idea that religion is so awful that it dare not speak its name in public; abstract the morals, don't dare mention where some of these ideas, just fill in the details yourself at home.
Also, just to be clear, I never meant to imply that religion is so horrible that it should be excised from the public sphere. If that was the impression I gave, I sincerely apologize.
What I was trying to get at was something more positive: a way to promote social justice a-religiously, not anti-religiously, as a good in and of itself.
Again, I don't think religion should be the only justification for any public policy. If religion is the only justification it should probably be off the table, actually. But I don't think MLK would have been as powerful if he had framed his arguments in utilitarian terms, even if those utilitarian terms provide a good reason for racial equality. ('When deciding which baby to strap a tank in order to save 10,000 people, utilitarianism gives us no information about a racial preference!')
But people who are religious don't like to feel like they have to hide it. And right now, the right can play that card all day. 'The left has people who say, "Gee, I've never known a Christian, don't we keep them locked up in Kansas? What hicks! I'm off to get an abortion now, and then to buy new shoes, byeee!", Christians. Vote Republican; you may not agree with all our policies, but you agree that 'values' are important and the other guys won't even acknowledge that you have a belief.'
Better, I think, to keep religion and state separate, but acknowledge that one's religious beliefs do affect one's political beliefs and while the party's reason for supporting welfare may be entirely secular, pointing out that it falls in line with some of the greater social justice traditions supported by X religious group shouldn't be off the table.
Cala et al., There is a nascent movement that is trying to be a bit more politically savvy. There have always been lefty Christians, but a lot of them had no media savvy and wore birkenstocks, because they really wish that we were still in the 60's (mostly men) or the 70's (lots of women).
It's not off the ground yet. One site which is still very small and sometimes overly earnest is crossleft.org. That was started by a bunch of Episcopalians, but they are trying to branch out. They had a conference in DC after the election called Values, Vision and the Via Media (very Anglican) in which Amy Sullivan (Baptist but now Episcopalian), E.J. Dionne (catholic), and Richard Parker (a professor at the Kennedy School who recently wrote a biography of John Kenneth Galbraith and has also spoken out on social justice issues as an Episcopalian). John Danforth was also there, but he was kind of an asshole and made all of the points about how moderates should just shut up and not politicize their religion.
But the thing is that moderates and lefties have to listen to right-wing wackos scream at us about what our religion is and what public policies ought to flow from that. So, while nobody needs to accept an argument that a particular policy is right just because Jesus said so, I do think it's important for those of us who are Christians to stand up and say that a lot of what Pat Robertson and Dobson have to say is deeply unChristian. Tolerance and turning the other cheek are important, but righteous anger also has its place. Jesus did throw the money changers out of the temple after all. And while I may forgive others for the sins they've committed against me, that's not an excuse for failing to stand up to those who use religious rhetoric to oppress the weak and the vulnerable.
This is exactly my problem with the issue – there are so many good points on both sides being made in this thread and I agree with just about all of them, even though many are contradictory.
You know, let me introduce y'all to a blog buddy of mine, Erudite Redneck. He's definitely a Christian, and when I met him, was very much anti-gay rights, on the grounds that homosexuality is (a) a sin; and (b) a choice.
In the time I've been reading him, he's changed his mind about that. Why? Not because I argued him out of it on secular grounds (though I tried), but because he joined a liberal church that preaches that Jesus' message was one of inclusiveness towards all god's children, that kindness and charity are paramount, and that no church worthy of the name should exclude anyone from hearing god's word.
I would suspect that ER's homophobia, which was, after all, primarily an emotional response (gayness! ick!) wasn't counterable through rational means, but *was* counterable through other, more powerful, emotional arguments--i.e., religious ones.
Part of 31 gets it exactly right. The other part disagrees.
Damn, I previewed and everything, but I still missed the fact that I failed to include the link to crossleft.
I do think that separation of church and state is probably best argued for by appealing to both religious and secular arguments. Baptists supported the original Virginia disestablishment, for example.
More progressive religious goodness (although it's Jewish) from the Religious Action Center.
I've always wondered why truly religious people don't think that the politicization of religion or the religiousization of politics -- what, shut up, I can't think of a better word there -- cheapens religion
Alan Wolfe made this point last year in TNR last year:
Given the degree to which Americans distrust politicians, it boggles the mind that religious leaders would consign themselves to that particular circle of hell. But they have chosen to do so, and they, more than anyone, will reap the whirlwind.
Did I mention he made that point last year? I don't know why I bother to preview if I don't proofread when I do.
When did Wolfe say that? Recently?
I hear it was last year, or thereabouts.
I've said this a million times, but I guess I have to say it again: I never repeat myself.
September is a subset of last year.
Oy. Gotta readjust my head to reading comments in a GreatNews application where no distinction is made between threads.
In the most recent issue of The Atlantic Monthly, I learned that the "religious left" is just as big as the hardcore "religious right." This comment thread seems to me to indicate some of the reasons that we hear so much more about the latter -- non-religious people tend to assume that the stupidest version of the religion is the most representative. That is, among the media elite, there is a presumption that "conservative Christian" simply equals "Christian," with no remainder.
See, if all the Christians in the US voted for Republicans, then we wouldn't keep having these fucking close elections -- Bush would've gotten 90% of the vote. There are already Christians in the Democratic Party, lots of them, and there are already people who are sympathetic to (our naive idea of) the Democratic "message" (assuming they have one). The issue shouldn't be "How can we trick the Christians into voting for us?" but rather, "How can we draw on the skills of the Christians who are already dedicated to our cause? How can we get the many, many left-leaning churches to mobilize voters?"
As it stands, I find basically this entire thread deeply insulting. It's just like how Democrats want to try to figure out how to appear "tough on national security" to appeal to those elusive "swing voters." The fact that people perceive a big problem with getting Christians to vote Democratic reflects a deep ignorance that there already are a ton of Christians who vote Democratic and who believe in social justice precisely because they believe in Christ. You could take whole chapters out of the Gospels and gloss them and use them as propaganda for social justice causes, without doing any fundamental violence to the intention of the texts. Just fucking read the Bible -- your mind won't be warped, and you won't turn into a redneck.
Lincoln, who belonged to no church, and whose actual religious beliefs he kept to himself, used a language that melded religion and reason, letting you take what meaning you would. Such as: "both prayed to the same god....The prayers of neither have been answered fully." See, you can take it or leave it, it makes sense either way.
But Lincoln said "better angels of our nature, he sure didn't say awesome god.
I disagree, Adam (or I disagree w/ the Atlantic). The reason we hear more about the religious right isn't b/c of anti-religious bias; it's because the "religious right" leadership made a conscious effort to mobilize voters under that umbrella, and have been very successful at it.
Bitch, Okay, fine, but why does fucking Cal Thomas (or someone like him) represent the "Christian" side on every TV talk show? My mom is a conservative Christian, but she is embarrassed to be associated with the guy. There is some complicity among the media elites, at least in terms of their sheer laziness.
Laziness I'll buy. Although I don't know who the fuck Cal Thomas is.
Cal Thomas is a not very bright, but widely syndicated, columnist
There is some complicity among the media elites, at least in terms of their sheer laziness.
Adam, I know you're upset, and I think I know why (and tried to give my own version of seriousness in 2 above) but, this isn't about laziness, it's about the media being leaned on. There aren't millionaire social democratic Christians funding skewed research agendas for their side; there are millionaire conservative Christians funding skewed research agendas for their side, pushing astroturf campaigns, putting bumpkin televangelists on high-wattage stations, etc.
I'll also add that there is a lot of stuff in "religion" that just is moral reasoning. There's a ton of stuff in the Bible, for instance, that contains moral propositions that basically everyone would agree with -- "love your neighbor as yourself," the Gold Rule, whatever. I'm sure there are parallel passages in the Koran. And there are real-live social justice-oriented passages as well. If anyone cares, I'll provide references. Just deploy.
In essence, someone just needs to sit down with the New Testament and a copy of Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone and report back to the DNC about what they find.
slolernr -- A lot of my anger is also sublimated anger at the religious-right types (among whom I grew up), who definitely turned something potentially very powerful and very good into something very stupid and very destructive. And it's gotten to the point where I don't think I'll ever understand why they did that or how to undo what they've done.
Now I'll stop monopolizing the thread.
There's something different about Christianity. I've never had a Buddhist, or a Jew, or a Jain, or a Bahai, tell me I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity if I don't do what they say. I've heard it from Christians more times than I could possibly count.
Christianity also has a rather bloody history of imposing Christian beliefs on non-Christians. Perhaps not uniquely bloody, but bloody enough to be worrisome.
So I'm a bit disturbed that this conversation about religion and politics seems to have turned, in part, into a discussion of Christianity and politics.
...it's about the media being leaned on. ...
Yes. The media, and everyone else. Every time I hear "But this is a Christian country" I check to make sure I'm still carrying my passport.
This isn't about someone saying "I, myself, should not eat pork." This is about a lot of people saying "Nobody should be allowed to do stem cell research, or vote for a Democrat, or open their store for business on Sunday."
2d thought: there's something different about some people's idea of what Christianity should be. I'm not going to try to define what's real christianity.
My late mother's Lutheran Church was a mix of far-right, center, and fairly far left. My mother was a Nation- and Progressive-reading liberal, and she was not alone on the church council. But there were Pat Robertson people there too. Small town life is amazing.
there already are a ton of Christians who vote Democratic and who believe in social justice precisely because they believe in Christ
Indeed! And good on them. I think Christianity's emphasis on social justice is one of its great gifts to the world.
But: I would still be more comfortable with a political exhortation to social justice that was not (overtly) Christian because, as Mr. Schneider mentions above, overt Christian political rhetoric tends to make some of us nervous -- not because of any failing in Christianity, or because reading the Bible turns you into a redneck (come on, I have three different translations of the Bible on my nightstand this week) -- but because "there's something ... about some people's idea of what Christianity should be" that is inimical to a truly tolerant and multi-religious society.
I also really do think that saying "do justice, and love mercy, because (among other reasons) God said so!" makes it far more acceptable for people that I personally disagree with to say "prevent gays from marrying because (among other reasons" God said so!" So, I'd prefer to undercut that kind of argument.
Adam, I'm not sure why you're offended. While Christians do vote Democratic, the organized Christian vote is predominantly right-wing. Maybe it's because 'Christians for Reasonableness and Fair Thinking' doesn't make a good slogan.
The 'swing' I see is that many Catholic voters who used to vote Democratic are now voting Republican. You can deny that these guys count as swing voters, of course, and point to all the Christians that do vote Democratic, but the fact is that the Democratic party did lose a significant chunk of Catholic votes. I suspect, though it's just speculation, that this is partly due to better religious rhetoric directed at middle-class voters who really could go either way on some issues.
And no one here said, "Time to trick those dumbass Christians!", so...
Americans dismayed as Pope remains Catholic
"A lot of Americans are upset that the Vatican ignored American religious sensibilities by making Cardinal Ratzinger Pope," noted CPFTASQ spokesperson Dina Horn. "Someone like Oprah or maybe Hillary Clinton would have been a great choice."
Maybe it's because 'Christians for Reasonableness and Fair Thinking' doesn't make a good slogan.
What about "the Right Christians"? Actually, I guess the slogan wasn't good enough, because the site seems to have gone away.
The guy running the Right Christians site gave up after years of being totally ignored by every mainstream liberal blogger. (Atrios, for instance, is openly hostile toward religion.)
Michael S., It sounds to me like you've already decided what the true Christianity is, and you're lumping me in with "them." Even if that's not your conscious intention! The fundamentalists really are a minority, even among American Christians. They're loud and obnoxious, yes, but they're still in the minority. (It's somewhat similar to how not all Muslims are terrorists or their supporters.)
MHS, Actually I think that you can make a good case that in Christianity is to be found the original formulation of the separation of church and state: render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's.
And in periods when war was much more common Eastern Orthodox frequently refused communion to those who went into battle.
Muslis are the one who have the serious church-state issues. They allow a certain tolerance for other religions and treated the Jews much better than the Christians did, but their most sacred text explicitly calls for a Muslim state.
Michael S., It sounds to me like you've already decided what the true Christianity is, and you're lumping me in with "them." Even if that's not your conscious intention! The fundamentalists really are a minority, even among American Christians.
Boy howdy. As soon as I say "I'm not going to try to define what's real christianity" someone is accusing me of error in my definition of true Christianity. Apparently it's is one of those questions where the majority rules, and fundamentalists are a minority. Okey dokey. About the time I think I've got a handle on the distinction between Catholics and Protestants, someone is going on about the Methodists and the Presbyterians, and pretty soon we're talking about the Sanctified Brethren. I surrender!
Such questions are often not solved peacefully. Sometimes it's Protestants killing Catholics, sometimes Catholics killing Protestants. But too often, whenever the arguments about true Christianity start, the non-Christians end up as road kill. When someone cries heretic! it's time for the Jews and the Rom and the Moslems to head for the hills.
Yes, BG, I've heard about 'render unto Caesar.' But I've also heard a whole lot of stories about Christians seeking temporal power. Whether it's Spain deciding to be a Christian nation in 1492, or the history of the papacy, or the criminalization of contraception in Connecticut before Griswold, there's been a whole lot legislating Christianity.
It's not only the fundamentalists who terrify me. Last year, as a delegate from my precinct to the county Democratic party central committee meeting, I was instructed officially from the podium to stand, bow my head, and pray in the name of Jesus. I think the speaker was a Catholic priest, but I'm not sure. I am sure that when I rather pointedly refused I did not get warm welcoming feelings. When the Rpublicans and Democrats are competing about which is the better Christian party, I'm road kill.
Mr. Harvey said I also really do think that saying "do justice, and love mercy, because (among other reasons) God said so!" makes it far more acceptable for people that I personally disagree with to say "prevent gays from marrying because (among other reasons" God said so!" So, I'd prefer to undercut that kind of argument.
I agree. And the only place I can see undercutting that argument is to say that religion, as religion, can never justify legislation. That the wall between church and state must be able to withstand even trumpets.
"My god tells me X, because X is right. Everyone should do X, because it's right." The first style of rhetoric annoys me, the second, which is what I think Bono was doing, doesn't bother me at all.
So one should be able to justify one's politics and one's message without reference to God or a particular scripture at will--and I have a feeling even Bono can quote pretty good economic and logical justifications for his particular platform. . .and less confidence in certain other political positions one hears bandied about with the God-imprimatur these days.
But just b/c one CAN do that and one SHOULD do that in certain public fora--and I would argue that the nation should not be having an official prayer breakfast in the first place--does not mean one should NEVER bring out more religious arguments, when the context is appropriate. (Say, with fellow believers. At a church, for example.)
I think MW's point in 9 is what troubles me about LB's Rhetoric Style #2. It sounds like code. If X is right, and everyone should do X because it's right, why do you need to get God in there at all?
You may not need God, (see above)but that doesn't mean you can't call on Him when useful and necessary.
"My God tells me to do this because its right" is not actually, just a trite thing to say. A truly deep-seated belief and confidence in God will allow one to recongize truth found without directly being tied to one's conception of God, b/c one will simply assume that any truth found otherwise must be some new and interesting, heretofore unrevealed aspect, one one's true, perfectly good God. The usual monologue quoted in thse discussions goes like this, "Hmm, I don't know if X is right, but this [reading/holy person/twinge in my heart] that I'm interpretting as God tells me it is, so it must be right." But there is a perfectly valid flipside to that--"Hmm, X doesn't seem right to me, and even though this [reading/holy person/twinge in my heart] that I usually interpret as God tells me it is, I have such strong faith that God wouldn't tell me to do the wrong thing that I would rather question the connection of these signals to my Beloved God than delude myself into going against out my Beloved's wishes." Being willng to question all such conduits to God--even the conduit of one's own mind--can lbe a very solid expression of faith.
With that in mind, sometimes you know what the right thng to do is, but you still need some inspiration--literally, an infusion of the Spirit within you. You can get that from a pep-speech from your sibling about what your beloved grandparents might have wanted, or your can get it from your significant other--or you might, on occasion, get it from a pep-speech connecting the right thing to pleasing God. Taking doing good and encapsulating it into a deed done for the sake of pleasing one's Beloved Personification of Good. We have in us some capacity to love and to want to please someone we love, and so if we conceive of God as all that is good, then doing the right thing simply for the sake of pleasing that God can sometimes be easier than doing the right thing in the abstract. In this capacity Bono is like your bride's best friend, helping you to put the finishing touches on that extra-special birthday cake you're making by encouraging you and giving you a friendly reminder that your bride really likes the chocolate icing best. Making a really cool chocolate cake is generally a good thing to do, but you're much likelier to make it for a wife you're madly in love with then just on your own.
er, after the necessary in the opening line of that second response I meant to say "necessary for inspiration."