I would like to share one of my favorite Scriptures because, with all of the controversies surrounding the so-called "Culture War" over social issues and their effect upon the moral fabric of our society, there is a real need for us to remember the basic Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our country was founded:…
Article comments
26 - Margaret Romao Toigo
sydney wrote: "Hell, I just noticed I called myself non-Christian a few time in this article, yet I am Christian, was raised as one, and still go to catholic service every second Sunday. Yet I hate my religion when I see it’s current practical application in America…"
That is a very telling statement. And you are not, by any means, alone in your sentiments, unless the vast majority of Christians have forgotten the teachings of Christ in order to become fundamentalists.
The non-Christians have been going on and on about how the Religious Right is taking over America, often coming off as anti-Christian bigots in the process, when it is Christians who should be standing up to the fundamentalists and the politicians who exploit them -- or at least praying for God to grant His divine grace upon the fundamentalists so that they might find their way back to live by the truths He sent His Son to Earth to reveal.
27 - sydney
Margaret,
You make some of your smaller points very well, and I agree with many of them. However, I do think you miss the big picture in terms of the checks and balances. That is to say, that if the checks and balances work so well than why is it that you’re concerned that politicians are pandering to the Christian right? If there is no opportunity for religious doctrine to misinform our policy making than why would it matter that politicians pander?
The governing party has a lot of power to appoint people to powerful positions and to dictate the political stances of these people in turn. Many politicians make ideological compromises in return for power. I think this is what is going on right now, and this is a process that undermines the checks and balances. The religious right has more power, more representation than it should, and it’s presence is nearly systemic. Moreover, the rhetoric of the right has the power to influence large numbers of less discriminate hearers.
Religion shouldn’t mix with the public political sphere. We can argue the dangers (or non-dangers), but maybe we should be asking ourselves what good could possibly come of it. Personally, I find it offensive and dangerous. You may disagree, but convince me that it has valid place in an office that represents a pluralist society.
Anyway I think I am repeating myself, but again I wasn’t saying that GWB and his cronies shouldn’t be praying in the white house, only that they shouldn’t make this a political spectacle which serves their interests. It just shouldn’t be a part of this discourse. What relevance does it have to me, or to a non-Christian? Did Kerry or Clinton constantly allude to their god, or talk about their faith, their religious practices, constantly? No, because its suggestive, and its inappropriate, and it serves no common good.
Lastly, all this talk about the universal truths inherent in religion being all the same, is misleading. It may be partly true but in a practical sense its all garbage. The church makes practical stances on many controversial issues. Many of these stances I disagree with, though I think the universal truths at the core of Christianity are helpful. What if Islam had a similarly large presence in government and among the American population? Would there be no political, social or cultural ramifications, given the current mix between religion and state affairs?
So to suggest that religious influence on politics holds no threat is nonsense. Religion is a great divider when it is incorporated into national politics. Just look at how sharply it’s inclusion has divided America.
28 - Tom French
Sydney,
It seems from your comments that you are upset that the predominant view in the white house is not the same as yours.
Religion is used in this context as a philosophy. A set of ideas. Why does bush not have the right to use his philosophy in determining the stances he takes on public policy? How would he not do that? That is what he believes. How would he think any different. He is not making a national religion. And he is not persecuting anyone based on their beliefs.
We can all be upset that Bush doesn't share our views, but he was voted in, and he now has the right to pray or talk about religion as much as he wants.
29 - sydney
"...or at least praying for God to grant His divine grace upon the fundamentalists so that they might find their way back to live by the truths He sent His Son to Earth to reveal"
No offense Margaret, put this kind of language is what makes me hate Christian doctrine. I grew up in Canada, and for the most part, Christians there practice privately and don't feel the need to convert or control the moral direction of the country. This is because Canadians believe fundamentally in some socialist principles. They are very against allowing a dominant ideology to compromise the comfort and identity of the minority. Now, as a half Canadian, I can say, that yes, Canadians are occasionally hypocritical. But this is better than the bold and brash Christian variety in The US.
In the states, Christianity takes a more bible thumping, morally aggressive form. Christians here tend to say things like "I'll pray for your lost soul". When I hear a Christian say something like that I tell them to go fuck themselves. Excuse my language, but there is nothing more self righteous and condescending than to suggest to someone that they need forgiveness from your god.
So no I don't pray for anyone’s salvation, I pray for my own and hope that each person achieves their own, from whom ever they seek it.
30 - sydney
I'm not opposed to GWB having political ideas founded or influenced by his Christian ethics. However, if his ideas are based on Christian morality, than there is a problem.
HE represents a secular state, and many individuals who have varying moralities. Any policy should exclude religious allusions, and should be justified in terms of logical ethical thinking, not blind religious morality.
We can debate the ethics of his reasoning, but there is no recourse for a non-christian who has to abide laws based on the Christian doctrine, which are predicated on an ill-logical faith.
For instance, if you say, " I am Christian. I was voted into power. I pass a law against prostitution, not because I provide ethical reasoning, but because it is written in the bible that it is wrong. The lord has decreed it as such, and as a Christian I am obligated to do everything in my power to make it policy."
This is an exaggeratedly blunt way of mixing church and state, but I believe it is happening as such right now, only that it is more subtly executed.
GWB is saying to the Christian right, “I am your savior, if you vote me in I offer representation of your collective faith, and my policy will reflect this.” Instead he should be representing the Christian members in a more personal way, by providing transparent reasoning, which attempts to legitimize or convince others of its merits. And which allows to Christians to debate amongst each other, that then just creating rhetorical and false divisions in society. As it is now the mob is ruling and non-Christians, or moderate Christians are watching their country swing to the right, a religious right that is threatening to them.
31 - Tom French
You just contradicted yourself. You say that,"we (Canadians... believe in some socialist principles."
How is it ok to let socialist ideology guide your decisions but not christian.
If I was a capitalist, i might get just as upset if socialist views were being pushed on me.
32 - sydney
Socialist principles are legitimized by reasoning. They are not based on FAITH. Canadians don't expect non-believers to trust that their system of giverning is inherently just, they provide reasoning as such an objective debate is allowed.
Religions constitutes a set of moralities that are predicated on faith. There is no objective or logical reasoning behnd much of it.
33 - Tom French
Really? so, do unto others as you would have done to you is wrong because it is based on faith and not reason. Thou shalt not murder is faith not reason. Just because something is predicated on faith doesn't make it wrong.
You have to take each argument and debate the merits individually, not cast off everything becasue it is based on faith.
By the way, what are you afraid of? The fundamentalist christians in this country is still very much a small minority.
34 - sydney
I believe the christian right to be the most powerful demographic in America. You may disagree but that is my perspective.
Ya its true that man of the christian dogmas can be legitimized with logic, others though, can not. Also much of it is open to interpretation, and fundementalist christians take positions with extreme practical implications. The abortion issue for one, stem cell research, etc.. They don't justfy their stance on these issues with logic, rather they justify it in terms of their morality, their faith.
35 - Tom French
I have to agree that fundamentalists of any religion are dangerous, but i don;t see them as having the power to control america like they have many islamic nations.
Look at the present backlash right now. And they haven't even done anything major yet.
36 - Steve S
Thou shalt not murder is faith not reason.
Actually no. The individual benefits when it joins into a social group, this is why we form communities, governments and nations. When we work collectively, we benefit collectively. Making sure that we, in our communities, are safe is one of the primary reasons why humans get together. There is a sound logical reason why murder is detrimental to the group, and therefore the acceptance of it detrimental to the individuals within the group.
The punishment of hell is not the only thing that keeps some of us from being beasts.
37 - Steve S
I haven't commented much on this blog, because I am writing a similar one, but the focus is on vigilantism done in the name of Christianity. Lives have already started being lost in this culture war. It has already turned bloody. I hope to have the blog done late tonight.
Look at the present backlash right now. And they haven't even done anything major yet.
That is what most people think, because most people don't see much else in the news besides how to elect a Pope and what's happening in the Michael Jackson trial.
38 - sydney
YEs agreed, what you've done is used your ethical imagination to articulate and justify a christian doctrine.
If I am a aetheist I see your reasoning and liekly support your resoning, if not at least I have a grounds for debating it.
However, religious representation in state policy can take on more faith based, morality based, manifestations. Again I cite aborition discourse, and the terri shaivo case which was often debated in terms of faith based religious discourse.
39 - Tom French
What horrors have the fundamentalist christians done?
They can't do anyhting beacause of the buffering the voice of the middle has on any extreeme views.
40 - Bennett Dawson
Sydney, I think this is a very valid point: Anyway I think I am repeating myself, but again I wasn’t saying that GWB and his cronies shouldn’t be praying in the white house, only that they shouldn’t make this a political spectacle which serves their interests. It just shouldn’t be a part of this discourse.
I agree that whatever personal faith guides our various public servants, the details of their faith should be kept private. The outcome of their internal debate, the legislation they craft or the positions they take, should stand on its own merit, backed by logical explainations, not linked to religous beliefs.
41 - sydney
Tom,
I see what you are saying. Your trying to get me to give examples of where the christian right has done harm to our society.
I don't want to get into these details. Only to say that I think they have an impact on our society.
My point is not to prove the damage the religious right has done, but to argue that religion has no place in politics. I feel that you should be proving to me that there is a place for religion in politics, rather than me doing the oppositte.
I'v explained my reasoning. Now lets here why religion has a place in politics. Don't just say that it hasn't done much harm. Instead explain why it should be there at all?
By the way, I'm not on a crusade against Christians. Afterall, I am one myself. But I dont think my religion should be involved in national politics.
42 - Margaret Romao Toigo
sydney wrote: "That is to say, that if the checks and balances work so well than why is it that you’re concerned that politicians are pandering to the Christian right?"
Because it is immoral to exploit frightened and confused people for political gain.
"If there is no opportunity for religious doctrine to misinform our policy making than why would it matter that politicians pander?"
Because the politicians are lying in order to exploit those frightened and confused people.
And those lies have brought us to where we are now, in the midst of a divisive Culture War that fundamentalists have been fooled into believing they can win. The poor Religious Right has fallen victim to the temptations of power at the hands of false prophets who have used them so much and so well that they have begun to view our Constitution as an impediment to their religious freedom.
I'm not worried about the Constitution being tossed away in favor of the Bible. That is an oversimplification that politicians have used to exploit the fears of non-fundamentalists.
Meanwhile, the entirety of the American people are being systematically divided against their own best interests, duped into expending their time and energy on social issues that distract all of us from the painful truth that we do not have as much control over our destiny as we like to think we do.
sydney wrote: "...all this talk about the universal truths inherent in religion being all the same, is misleading."
Perhaps that is because it is difficult to separate doctrine from truth, rules from conscience, ethics from morals. There is no quick and dirty formula for making this determination as such transcendence requires a lot of courage and many of us are simply not up to the task.
But fortunately for all of us, our Founders did have that kind of courage and they drew upon it to create an idea for a system of government in which the people could be truly free. Of course they didn't finish it within their lifetimes and it is doubtless that it will be finished within any of our lifetimes, but the promise of it lives in each of us who are willing to work toward that goal.
And we have made progress. The prime examples, of course, are the abolition of slavery, womens' suffrage and desegregation. Soon, we will reach another milestone -- yes, there will be many battles won and lost along the way -- in the form of our eventual (and practically inevitable) full recognition of gay rights.
sydney wrote: "So to suggest that religious influence on politics holds no threat is nonsense. Religion is a great divider when it is incorporated into national politics. Just look at how sharply it’s inclusion has divided America."
I think we are in agreement in principle, even if we might have different interpretations of the various factors and events that have lead us to this truth. You're concerned about how religion affects government policies, I'm concerned about how the exploitation of religion affects people. But that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because contemplating how the division occurred is not really helping us to mend it.
43 - sydney
Yes, Margaret,
We are very nearly in agreement on all points.
I think though, that religion does have the power to mix with politics and sway public policy. You identify yourself as a supporter of gay rights. Surely, then you can appreciate how the Christian right has impeded the recognition of gay rights.
The logic behind the anti-gay movements are almost strictly buried in a religious morality based discourse. People don't argue that homosexuals are hurting others; they argue that they are going against some natural law, that they are corrupting the (Christian) values of our society. What recourse does a Homosexual have against this sort of illogical reasoning? They don’t subscribe to the same sense of morality, yet they are punished by it’s laws?
So how can you say that religion doesn’t influence policy?
44 - Tom French
Sydney,
I thought I had shown that religion has a place in politics. It can't not have a place in politics. it is a part of the philosophy that each of us has. If he disagrees with abortion, is it because he is a loony fundamentalist or because he is in disagreement with abortion. Your religious views are inseperable from your other ideologies.
He can't just say, i don't agree with abortion because god says it is bad. He still has to debate his stance. And he does. He never said god told me to invade iraq. He gave reasons for his choice. They were bad reasons but at least he gave reasons that were open to debate in congress.
45 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I do not pray for anyone's salvation as it is not my place -- or anybody else's for that matter -- to determine who needs saving.
But I do pray for people to find an end to their pain, which is why I pray for the Christian Right to find their way back to Christ (since that is the path they chose).
It is not about salvation from condemnation, but rather deliverance from the confusion and torment that results from a general lack of faith -- and not just the kind of faith that is associated with any particular religion or god.
Faith is not a religion or a book or even a god, it is a human virtue that exists in all of us to some degree.
Faith is that part of ourselves that helps us to deal with the trials and tribulations of life (the universe and everything) and when it is compromised by an imbalance of natural human weaknesses like pride and fear, the result is always pain, regardless of what theological constructs we accept or reject.
46 - sydney
Ok, But i get uncomfortable with that sort of loaded religious language. :-)
47 - Margaret Romao Toigo
sydney wrote:"You identify yourself as a supporter of gay rights. Surely, then you can appreciate how the Christian right has impeded the recognition of gay rights."
I can appreciate how the Christian Right has tried to impede the recognition of gay rights because history has already demonstrated that the Christian Right have lost more battles than they have won in that arena.
The gay rights movement has progressed at lightening speed, even if there have been a few stumbles along the way. Only 30 years ago -- an instant in the context of human history -- homosexuality was considered a mental illness and a crime throughout most of the country. And now, not only are all of those archaic anti-gay laws gone, discrimination based on sexual orientation is now illegal in most of America. So, the gay rights movement is progressing very well, regardless of the general inconsistency of human progress.
Contrast that with how it took over a century for women to get the right to vote and how long it took for the institution of segregation to fall.
The quest for freedom is not a straight line and as we progress toward reaching that goal we take forward and backward steps, various battles are won and lost and we can only grasp their impact by studying history.
sydney wrote: "The logic behind the anti-gay movements are almost strictly buried in a religious morality based discourse."
And that is why it will ultimately fail. The truth is revealed in logic, not dogma. BTW, it is not religious morality (there really is no such thing because morality is the manifestation of conscience while religions are merely the institutionalization of doctrines usually based upon worship of deities), but rather religious ethics that the anti-gay groups are using to rationalize their prejudice.
sydney wrote: "People don't argue that homosexuals are hurting others; they argue that they are going against some natural law, that they are corrupting the (Christian) values of our society. What recourse does a Homosexual have against this sort of illogical reasoning? "
Well, logic for one thing. Not only the use of logic to combat the untenable assertions of bigots, but also the intellectual logic to refuse to be intimidated by that sort of anti-homosexual propaganda.
And then there are the people who are trying to break the deadlock in the national conversation by inventing new ideas and arguments instead of rehashing the same old back-and-forth gets-us-nowhere debate in which fundamentalists and other homophobia sufferers use intellectually dishonest arguments in a vain attempt to revise history in efforts to turn back the clock on gay rights (think putting the toothpaste back into the tube) while gay rights advocates keep talking about justice and human and civil rights.
The essay above is my contribution to this effort. My idea is that, if some people want to look to the Bible for guidance in matters of the state, they should at least understand the difference between the dogma it outlines and truths it reveals.
48 - sydney
wow, your optimism is contagious. I like reading your stuff. :)
49 - Georgio
Margaret...Never have I been so impressed with ones writings and views ..I intend to read everyone of your articles.... you are amazing..and the comments and the debates where all done in good taste where one could actually learn from them..I have so much I want to say but I am so overwhelmed that I want to digest your writings further and read the rest of your articles..Thank you...
50 - Nancy
Just putting in my 2 cents to say that I am SO impressed by, and enjoying, the entire blog, which so far has been without name-calling or nastiness (guess those folks aren't up and online yet ;) This is the best-written, best-discussed, most rational and civil blog I've ever read! Way to go, all of you/us; would they were all this way.
51 - Georgio
Nancy..I don't know you but I have seen your comments on other blogs and you are one of my Favorites...I always look forward to what you have to say..
52 - Dave Nalle
>>"Separation of church and state means the church cannot run the country."
This is not what separation from church and state means. I was looking for help from someone who knew. Looks like you need some help from me. So I'll offer what little I have to give...<<
Correct, that is not what Separation of Church and State means, but Separation of Church and State isn't actually what's expressed in the Constitution. The first amendment actually says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which says nothing at all about most of the separation of church and state issues we talk about today and only refers very specifically to the idea of establishing an official religion for the US, which it clearly prohibits. The broader concept of secularizing government isn't actually in the Constitution and was added later by Supreme Court justices who chose to expand in a very creative way on that small prohibition in the first amenment.
Dave
53 - Steve S
refers very specifically to the idea of establishing an official religion for the US
It specificlly states that we cannot establish an official religion. It doesn't take much creativity on the part of the Justices to understand that endorsing a religion is tantamount to establishing an official one.
54 - Nancy
If we can't even agree on the actual meaning of "separation of church and state", no wonder no one can agree on the bigger aspects of the issues. Amazing the nuances of language, where determining the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin can affect so much so radically. God forbid anyone should ever misplace a comma (no pun intended). And thank you, Georgio; that's very kind of you. Especially when I'm blogging to such a high-level group as this is.
55 - Georgio
this high level group spends too much time looking for the misplaced comma Nancy rather than the meaning or tone of the comment
56 - Steve S
It's been my experience here that 'tone' is misinterpreted 90% of the time, anyway.