BAER: Speak of the devil

OPINION:

Criticism of Sen. Rick Santorum for his reference to the devil in a 2008 talk at Catholic Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., illustrates the failure of America’s speech police to understand how religious language functions within particular religious communities.

Not only are references to Satan common in the rites and liturgies of various Christian traditions, but, surprising as this may be to those not familiar with the practice, referring to the devil sometimes functions as a humane way for Christians to express empathy and compassion for people in difficult circumstances. At a prayer meeting in a Protestant fundamentalist church, for instance, one may say things like: “Brother Jones needs a lot of extra prayer this evening. The devil is riding him hard and just won’t let go. Jesus, help our brother stop drinking and get back with his wife and children again.” Another might add: “Old Satan’s been after Brother Jones ever since he was born. Caused his father to lose his temper time and again, and beat him till he was bruised all over.” Through such language, fellow Christians are seeing Jones, at least in part, as a victim of circumstances over which he had little control.

It is understandable that people who spend their lives in largely secular academic or media environments are typically tone-deaf when it comes to such language and are unable to translate its meaning into their very different cultural settings.

But they themselves employ language stratagems that almost exactly parallel such devil language, perhaps something like: “If you only knew more about Smith’s experiences as a child, the terrible environment he grew up in, you’d cut him some slack and give him another chance to prove himself.” Rather than saying Smith is just irresponsible and lazy, friends and associates mention his dysfunctional family or perhaps a severe learning disability, racism or some other circumstance beyond his control. Like Brother Jones, he too is a victim, and fair-minded people, rather than simply condemning him, want to give whatever assistance they can to help him achieve a better and more successful life.

In both cases, such an approach and such language can backfire badly. Whether it’s Christians overusing devil language or secularists talking too much about victimization, there is always the danger that Smith or Jones will get the wrong message and refuse to accept his share of responsibility for his own failures and misdeeds. Promiscuous tolerance of bad behavior is destructive, whether offered by those who are religious or those who are secular in their basic worldviews.

Furthermore, references to Satan, used appropriately, suggest that there is a dimension of evil that remains mysterious and beyond comprehension, just as talk of God’s grace and mercy are seen by observant Jews and Christians as ultimately unfathomable. To hold people totally responsible for either their goodness or their failure is to flatten and distort the unbelievable richness and complexity of life. “The Appalling Strangeness of the Mercy of God” by Ruth Pakaluk and husband Michael has proved wonderfully helpful to my wife, Carol, as she struggles with the insults and humiliations of advanced multiple sclerosis. Indeed, people fighting to survive the effects of evil in its myriad forms may at times discover that the language and metaphors of “spiritual warfare” enable them to see events as something beyond their own failures or the sheer perversity and meanness of others.

If we are to survive and flourish as one nation and one people in our highly diverse society, religious and nonreligious Americans of all stripes must try harder to understand one another and the diverse language we use to describe our experiences. It simply is not consistent with our long history of religious freedom and accommodation for media critics and others to demand that people of faith check their religious language and metaphors at the door to the public arena and agree to use purely secular language as the price of admission. As heirs and keepers of the First Amendment, we can do better than that.

Richard A. Baer Jr. is a professor emeritus of environmental ethics at Cornell University.