At the time of this nation’s founding, respect for religion was universal. Atheists were a silent minority, Deists – even those who, like Jefferson, tried to rewrite the Bible without a divine Jesus, genuflected to “the Creator.” Abraham Lincoln’s speeches and writings were filled with references to God and scripture.
How things have changed. Today Christians are told by the Libertarian right and the country club set to leave their beliefs at the door if they enter the hallowed halls of politics. Religious belief makes some people uncomfortable and transforms others into foaming fanatics who will consign you to the lowest parts of the Hell they don’t believe in.
To find a comparison on the Left you would have to imagine the Democrats asking their “African-America” voters to wear white-face at their meetings. I can hear it now: Frank Rich demanding Al Sharpton stop obsessing on race. Somehow, I don’t think the Left is as foolish as that because it would be political suicide.
Democrats without their 90% Black support would be a permanent minority. Republicans without social conservatives (read Christian right) can forget about winning elections.
Bob McDonnell – the Bob McDonnell who just racked up one of the most impressive landslides in Virginian history – wrote a college paper in which he expressed devoutly conservative and unapologetic religious views. Stating that women as home-makers are to be preferred to women in the workplace. Referring to “cohabitors, homosexuals or fornicators." You can't get any more politically incorrect than that.
From the Washington Post who hammered, hammered, hammered this issue in their campaign for Deeds, McDonnell’s opponent.
How things have changed. Today Christians are told by the Libertarian right and the country club set to leave their beliefs at the door if they enter the hallowed halls of politics. Religious belief makes some people uncomfortable and transforms others into foaming fanatics who will consign you to the lowest parts of the Hell they don’t believe in.
To find a comparison on the Left you would have to imagine the Democrats asking their “African-America” voters to wear white-face at their meetings. I can hear it now: Frank Rich demanding Al Sharpton stop obsessing on race. Somehow, I don’t think the Left is as foolish as that because it would be political suicide.
Democrats without their 90% Black support would be a permanent minority. Republicans without social conservatives (read Christian right) can forget about winning elections.
Bob McDonnell – the Bob McDonnell who just racked up one of the most impressive landslides in Virginian history – wrote a college paper in which he expressed devoutly conservative and unapologetic religious views. Stating that women as home-makers are to be preferred to women in the workplace. Referring to “cohabitors, homosexuals or fornicators." You can't get any more politically incorrect than that.
From the Washington Post who hammered, hammered, hammered this issue in their campaign for Deeds, McDonnell’s opponent.
He criticized a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing contraception for unmarried couples and decried the “purging” of religion from schools. He advocated character education programs in public schools to teach “traditional Judeo-Christian values,” and he criticized federal tax credits for child care expenditures because they encouraged women to enter the workforce.
McDonnell’s views which were based on his religion were no secret; in fact they were the backbone of the Democrats and the media’s attack on McDonnell. He won in a landslide. So much for social conservative can’t win.
What is it that makes people with whom you have large agreement all of a sudden reveal that they strongly dislike of the core of your philosophy of life? The people who seem compelled to do this appear to those who live in close proximity to the Liberal “hive.” They move in circles that disdain religious expression as exemplified by Barack Obama’s reference to the “bitter clingers.”
What I find puzzling is the underlying fear that sometimes finds expression, but is most often unstated, that the real objective of the “religious right” is theocracy; a Christian version of Iran or Saudi Arabia. That this is nonsense is demonstrated by nearly 250 years of this nation’s history; but it does not appear to penetrate to some gut level at which this fear resides.
Rush Limbaugh seems to believe that the issue is really a single one: abortion. Based on comments on blogs, this may very well be true. Abortion seems to be the divisive moral issue of the day, analogous to slavery vs. abolition in the 1800s. I believe that we will come to an agreement on this issue … without a civil war. But it will take some time. After all, the Supreme Court only decreed abortion a fundamental right 36 years ago. The issue of slavery was debated nearly a century before it was resolved.
7 comments:
I'm one of those 'check your religion at the door' types. I am a republican who holds some conservative positions (Right to Life, Fiscal responsibility, limited government), but who has an issue with a *particular sort* of Religious Right-winger.
My issue is not their religion ( I am a Roman Catholic), but with the mindset of some of the more zelous individuals who believe it is the government's job to legislate morality -- especially their particular brand of morality.
Well, it isn't, and when government attempts to do so, it usually fails, or worse, it overreaches and abuses the power it's been given by the governed (for their own good).
A political movement which is based upon the idea that "God wills it", even a benign one, will eventually, become an instrument of tyrrany. Because you can't argue with God, can you? And once you find a rationale to give "God wills it" some intellectual basis, it leads you to places you don't wanna go (see: Iran).
Often, same people who rail against government interference in their own lives, and the trampling of their rights, would probably have no problem with the formation of a government police force, tasked with the job of peering into people's bedroom windows -- to ensure they weren't engaged in sexual acts proscribed by scripture. It's a double-edged sword with some of them.
Historically, it has been the way of religious institutions to prevent people from exercising rights, especially intellectual rights, because doing so often leads people to disagree with scripture, or to question the authroity of the chosen elite of God -- just ask Gallileo, and many of the victims of the Inquisition, the Reformation, and many of those being gunned down in the streets of Tehran and Kabul as we speak.
It's why the Founders included the separation of Church and State at the very begginning of the Constitution. In fact, there would be no ideas of individual liberties and inalienable rights had the great philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment NOT shrugged off some of the more onerus aspects of orthodox Christianity
I don't say that religious folk have no place in the Republican party, or that their beliefs make them bad people. But, that your religious beliefs shouldn't be a substitute for rational thought.
Do what religion traditionally does best; focusing on individuals, to reach hearts and minds on a personal level, to grow grass-roots consensus on issues, rather than trying to subvert the electoral process with money and organized voting blocks. That process has always worked better than Parliamentarian fiat, or stacking Supreme Courts, to solve social issues that we're all concerned about.
I would like to have the 19th century Democrats back, or some new conservatives like McDonnell. Those early Democrats were libertarians following Jefferson to Cleveland, while the 20th century Democrats follow Rousseau to Marx and express Obama's ideals of the community interests being more important than are individual interests, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and www.claysamerica.com.
Matthew,
You realize, of course, that the Constitution does not mention the separation of church and state. Nor does it require to we check either our religion - or any of our other beliefs - at the door?
And you realize that all laws legislate morality, don't you?
But if you think that Christians are interested in establishing a theocracy, you are one of the people who I was referring to in my post who are unreachable at a gut level.
I'm sorry for your condition. I wish I could help.
Moneyrunner, I think you misunderstand me.
1. The Constitution (1st Amendment)prohibits the establishment of a state religion, hence, why it's called the Anti-Establishment Clause.
2. You did read where I wrote 'a particular sort of Religious Right-winger', i.e. not all of you? Whether you wish to believe it or not, there certainly ARE some religious groups in the country who would establish their version of the Taliban, if they could get away with it.
3. I DO realize that all laws legislate morality, but seeing as how people still continue to break them this cuts no ice. The point I was making (perhaps badly) was that the basis for those laws would change under a government influenced by relgion to a greater extent, morphing from a system of personal rights and personal responsibilities to a system of edicts handed down by a self-appointed authority who is answerable only to the Almighty (who is unanswerable HImself), to an elected authority who would be compelled to carry it out or lose their jobs. The governed who diagreed would have no recourse but ot vote that sort of people out of office.
And then we'd hear nothing except how Christians are misunderundertood and persecuted, and how they bought the republican party but got nothing for it, and how they'll take their vote elsewhere -- and we'll wind up with more Clintons and Obamas and they'll just become far more religiously militant. I've heard this song and dance before...it's all they talk about over at FreeRepublic.
4. My issue is not with religion itself, it is with the inconsiderate folks who believe they have the right to shove their faith in my face 24/7. Religion is a personal matter, and while I personally do not mind a public display/espousal of faith, I do have an issue with someone believing faith gives them the right to be sanctimonious and inconsiderate. Especially when my doorbell rings seven times on a Sunday morning and someone's here to hand out unwanted literature.
5. You can't argue/compromise with someone convinced an ability to quote Scripture makes him right no matter what (I know many people like this from my years in the South, and the two dozen or so Born-Agains of personal aquaintance), and that once the Word of God (as it has been transmitted, (mis-)translated, (mis-)interpreted, edited spindled and mutilated by fallibale men with agendas) has been uttered, that the argument is now over.
Democracy depends upon consensus. Consensus requires argument and compromise. Compromise requires someone who can occasionally see the error of their ways, or concede a point of logic. People who are assured of their righteousness (warrented or not) are not that sort of people. People throughout the Muslim world are basically enslaved by their inability to question their religious authorities (who often are also the secular authority) who operate in exactly this sort of way.
My intention was not to insult anyone.
BTW, this quote is indicative of what I'm talking about:
"...you are one of the people who I was referring to in my post who are unreachable at a gut level.
I'm sorry for your condition. I wish I could help."
See, there it is; because I don't agree with you on the importance and role of faith in politics, I'm supposed to be a moron deserving of your pity...even though I'd probably agree with you on 98% of everything else.
That's a fight in my parish, Money.
That's EXACTLY that sort of condescening attitude, which is prevalent among many so-called Social Conservatives, that I'm talking about. You're not better, nor smarter, nor more deserving than I am just because you happen to go to church more often.
I don't want you out of the party, I just want you to recognize that you happen to share it with some other folks who sometimes have different ideas.
Matthew,
The first amendment protected us from a state established church but it goes on to say that nothing shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. Something that is constantly impinged today, particularly in government schools.
Secondly, give me an example of any form of Christianity that wants to impose Taliban type of rule. Tell me of a Christian church that advocates cutting off the hands of thieves, denying education to girls, agrees that women are chattel, and would stone people to death. I believe there are Muslim who would like to do so, but I don't know about any Christians who would think that a good idea.
Pardon me for not having answered sooner,but I was at the ceremonies for the USS New York today, and was rather busy.
No one is suggesting you be denied your right to worship how you please. That's a specious argument. The fact that we have public schools which must not elevate one religion above another is simply a matter of consensus. If you wish your children to be brought up in an enviornment where they are encouraged to lead Christian lives, do what my parents did; sacrifice to send them to a religious school, or teaching them your values at home. School is for the transmission of information, not indoctrination (and that goes for both sides).
We can agree that no one is advocating chopping off limbs, or treating women badly. This is a silly argument. I'm talking about, in the sense of something being Taliban-like, is the imposition of a strict orthodoxy backed with the full force of the law and Federal Government.
Some Social Conservatives seek to bring about an orthodox electoral majority which would be beholden to them alone, in effect, bringing that situation into being. While this is not technically illegal in the sense that it's not imposed by Congress, this simply sidesteps the legal argument; Such a majority would, de facto, be a theocracy.
Examples of that orthodoxy in action: Bob Jones University, almost always the first stop for any Republican candidate on the campaign trail. I might also argue that Mitt Romney suffered in the primaries because some Christians regard Mormons as the next best thing to Satan worshipers, and would not pull the lever him (the Christians who kept Huckabee in the race, and who voted for GWB on because 'Jesus was his favorite political philosopher' apparently are not beholden to some form of religious orthodoxy? Go figure.).
Of course, Jeremiah Wright isn't an obvious example of a strain of Christianity wedded to a political agenda, right? The sword has two edges, habit.
There are also some who advocate the government advance policies -- like support for Israel -- as a matter of bringing the End of Days about (just like Ahmadina-doo-dad and his 12th Imam crap), rather than as a matter of support for a nation which shares our common culture, heritage and values. Some, like the Branch Dividians, go as far as to stockpile weapons hoping to incite the violence they believe this requires, just in case God doesn't get off the stick and create the necessary conditions himself.
Those lunatics ARE out there, and you only need to lurk around some web forums to find them. They're alsoi ignorant of the fact that while Christianity has, indeed, shaped the Western world, it was preceeded by the other great creative and stablizing impulse of Secular Rationalism (Rome and Greece) the other cornerstone of our culture.
This hybrid culture is superior to all others where faith is not checked by rationalism (like in Middle/Far Eastern cultures) precisely because while we value faith, we also know faith isn't always the best or only solution to our common problems. If we lived in such a culture, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation now; we'd be stuck with the Aristotlean views which earlier Christianity favored because it dovetailed so nicely with Scripture.
I don't begrudge you your faith; I encourage you in it. However, I remind you that not all share it, and that the only way the United States remains a free nation is when consensus reigns, and possibilities exist for mutual understanding. This is something which religious states/orthodoxies historically, usually forbid.
Religion can be a very good thing, and a force for good in the world. But, I think you'll agree that it's also something easy to abuse by those who have an agenda.
Post a Comment