In the Name of Politics

I found This One on Mefi the other day and this paragraph really stuck with me as being particularly insightful. It's refreshing to read something about politics that's not inflammatory.

"When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another."

This was written by John C. Danforth, a former United States senator, ambassador to the United Nations and a current Episcopal minister. +1 insightful to Mr. Danforth.

Comments

Re:Episcopal Church

That is just the tip of the iceberg, crimson crusader.

Somebody wrote else wrote about that...

Check out David Lipscomb's 1913 treatise Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It which advocates Christians having next to nothing to do with government except for perhaps serving as teachers and librarians.

what's the diff?

When it gets down to what you believe in is there really much difference between your political beliefs and your religous beliefs? To say that only religion can be divisive ignores over 200 years of political throwdown.

Episcopal Church

and a current Episcopal minister.

I don't think he is qualified to write about this because the Episcopal Church stopped being a religious institution a few years ago.

Amen

Amen!

Alot of diff

I would say yes there is. There are very liberal, even Marxist, Catholics. There are very Conservative Catholics. There are very Liberal and very Conservative Methodists. Some denominations tend toward one end of the spectrum or the other... Fundamentalists tend to be politically Conservative, while Unitarians tend to be poltically liberal. Taking it back a step, people who call themselves Christian are all over the map poltically. Unfortunately, one segment of the Christian population has done such a good job of promoting their own political agenda that in the minds of many the term "Christian" means politically conservative. I don't blame the FOF people, I blame the liberal Christians for not fighting back and working to make the term Christian more neutral. Of course, they have one hand tied behind their back because they don't have any desire to impose their religious beliefs on Civil soceity. Still, they could do more.

Re:Episcopal Church

Oh, that's right, they chose an ordained gay minister as their bishop. We're all aware that real Christians only like gays as long as they stay in the closet, pay their taxes, and don't expect to be made full members of American society.

Re:Alot of diff

A Christian can be all over the map politically. A Republican or a Democrat can be all over the map politically. Chances are both a Christian Republican and a Christian Democrat are basing their decisions on both being a Christian and being a Republican/Democrat. Chances the reason they are a Christian/Republican/Democrat is in some way influenced on the fact that they are a Democrat/Republican/Christian.

"Of course, they have one hand tied behind their back because they don't have any desire to impose their religious beliefs on Civil soceity"

What a load of crap.

FOF?

Re:Alot of diff

Name a liberal Christian denomination that seeks to impose it's concept of Christianity on the actions and laws of everyone else.

Really, if you're going to accuse someone of talking a "load of crap", it would be nice if you backed it up.

FOF = Focus on the Family. James Dobson.

Re:Alot of diff

I'm not going to name a 'liberal Christian denomination' because the arguement I've been making is that there's no difference between the religous and political. I could say the Episcopalians who now have a gay bishop are doing it. Are they doing it within their church? Probably not. Are they doing it through other groups and organizations, probably. People who try to legalize gay marriage, who promote abortion, regardless of what banner they do it under they are promoting their own political/religous beliefs. To do it under a church banner is no more right or wrong then to do it under a NOW or ACLU banner.

Re:Alot of diff

I just see a huge difference between in inclusive (such as Gay marriage) and exclusive. Gay Marriage does not force anyone to marry a gay. It wouldn't even require Churches that oppose Gay marriage to conduct ceremonies in their church. Preventing Gay marriage, however, is an attempt to force the rest of the nation to abide by a particular Christian view of homosexuality that not all Christian denominations share. The issue should be discussed in the secular arena, and the state has no business supporting one religious doctrine over another.

Re:Episcopal Church

LOLOL.. I like the name Crimson Crusader. However, no matter how much you beg, I'm not gonna wear tights.

Syndicate content