Holier Than They

[D. Allan]

December 13, 2007, 9:09 pm

Holier Than They (by Judith Warner)

Tags: Christianity, politics and religion

"For years, the left – and moderates – permitted the right to frame itself as the sole custodian of “family values” in the United States. It was only when vast numbers of American families woke up to the fact that they were not being valued at all – that, in fact, they were being fleeced – that non-conservatives shook themselves into a sentient state and began to talk about replacing empty words with substantive promises about health care, child care and college aid.

Now a similar thing is happening with religion. We are, we’ve repeatedly been told in the past week, in the grip of a faith war. There has been a lot of interesting discussion of Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism, about Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee outdoing themselves to appeal to Christian conservatives, and about John McCain’s belief in a “Christian nation.” There has been dismay about a political moment in which it seems a candidate must pass a religious litmus test to gain national viability. There have been comparisons to John F. Kennedy, talk of the Founding Fathers, of the separation of church and state, and of how the Puritans’ rather intolerant vision of religious freedom continues to trickle down to our day.

But one line of questioning, it seems to me, is missing. One point of view is inexpressible, taboo. I am not referring to atheism – the one belief system that clearly had no place in the vision of America Romney painted in his much-anticipated speech on faith last week. Rather, I’m thinking of the now entirely muted issue of whether the basic ethical foundations of Romney, Huckabee et al’s political views truly are “Christian” – in the good-neighborly sense of the word.

I am referring here to the sentiments that lie behind the candidates’ attitudes toward gays, which may have found their most honest and open expression in Huckabee’s recently resurrected 1992 suggestion that AIDS patients should be forcibly isolated. I am thinking too of Christian conservative opposition to progressive taxation, public spending for the needy and government “meddling” in such matters as anti-discrimination policies. And, of course, of the willingness to sacrifice women by genuflecting before a segment of the population that is scared witless by modernity and sugar-coats its fear and hate in the name of the sacred. (As governor, Huckabee, according to veteran Arkansas political journalist Max Brantley, once “stood in the hospital door, at least figuratively, to prevent state funding” for a mentally handicapped teenage girl who’d been raped by her stepfather and needed to have an abortion.)

In the run-up to the presidential election, some Democrats have made an effort, with greater or lesser success, to reclaim and redefine some of the religious terrain previously grabbed by religious conservatives.

“We cannot abandon the field of religious discourse,” Barack Obama, the most eloquently convincing of them all, said back in June of 2006. “Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.”

These days, however, for all the talk of religion, there is little public soul-searching about the absence of care and compassion, love, acceptance and inclusion – the things that many consider to be the essence of Christianity – in the words of our purported Christian leaders.

The Christian conservative vote is, apparently, splintering. Younger evangelicals are increasingly said to be interested in putting their faith to greater use than bashing gays, promoting guns and putting God on the presidential ticket. That would seem to indicate that we’re facing a moment of opportunity: a chance to expand and amplify the reach of the voice of religious moderation. The silence I’m hearing makes me think, though, that as a society we’ve come to accept the slippage of prejudicial and hateful attitudes into religious doctrine as somehow normal. Whether that’s due to cynicism or due to cowardice, it’s very troubling.

Last week, on the very day that Romney’s faith speech dominated the news, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former member of the Dutch Parliament driven into United States exile for her outspokenness against radical Islam, published an op-ed in the Times that pleaded for “Islam’s Silent Moderates” to step forward and denounce the horrific violence against women being carried out in Islamic countries.

Writing in particular about the case of the 20-year-old woman in Saudi Arabia who was gang-raped and then sentenced to six months in prison, she asked: “Where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say … that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted – and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?”

In the winter of 2004, Howard Dean – a man who considers himself a faithful Christian – raised similar questions about the nature of American fundamentalism. ‘’Don’t you think Jerry Falwell reminds you a lot more of the Pharisees than he does of the teachings of Jesus?'’ he asked in Iowa. ‘’And don’t you think this campaign ought to be about evicting the money-changers from the temple?'’

This may well have been the beginning of the end for Dean’s campaign. But what a moral, values-driven (if politically foolhardy) thing it was, what a breath of fresh air it was, to suggest that Christian conservatives ought actually to be Christian in spirit as well as in name. It would be nice today to hear a candidate step up and oppose all that is “appalling, brutal and bigoted” in the limited religious views that substitute for spirituality in American politics today. Who knows — it might even be good politics."

- published in The New York Times, Friday, Nov. 14, 2007

[carolaa]

My understanding is that the Saudi woman was also sentenced to 200 lashes, which has not yet been carried out because of international outrage.

What bothers me about your post is not so much on the political scene, although I recognize that's what this thread is about, but when the same type of thing happens in the church. People will not speak up for those who are abused, shunned, criticized by others who are powerful.

[Woody]

AMEN

[D. Allan]

....

What bothers me about your post is not so much on the political scene, although I recognize that's what this thread is about, but when the same type of thing happens in the church. People will not speak up for those who are abused, shunned, criticized by others who are powerful.

Perhaps they are afraid of the "others who are powerful." And that they may be abused, shunned and criticized too. But that is what a real Christian should expect, I guess. Even from church members, (and forum members, too, i could add, and just did , I guess.)

The cure for our fearfulness is love. Feeling loved by God, loving oneself, and then loving others and finally loving everyone (eventually, hopefully).

"Perfect love casts out fear," a famous man once said.

[Woody]

Thank you dAb ... Very good thoughts. And I think you manage to do a good witness of this here in the fray.

[Dr. Shane]

Judith Warner obviously has an idealogical position and is trying to get others to jump on her bandwagon. What I see over and over again is that liberal Christains who criticize conservative Christians place themselves in a hypocritical position.

This is the logic:

The liberal Christian says to the conservative Christian: How dare you question my Christianity! Since you are questioning my Christianity, I am now going to question yours.

Where does that argument get anyone?

I have demonstrated here many times. A person can be pro-choice and still be a committed Christian. A person can be against welfare and food stamps and still be a committed Christian. A person can be for the Iraq War and still a committed Christian. A person can be against the Iraq War and still be a committed Christian.

Christians have the same goals for society. However among ourselves, we disagree on the means to achieve these goals. Thus we disagree on political issues. But let not the conservative say the liberal is not Christian. And let's not hear the ;liberal say the conservative is not Christian. We are of one purpose, although we may disagree on the means.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I have demonstrated here many times. A person can be pro-choice and still be a committed Christian. A person can be against welfare and food stamps and still be a committed Christian. A person can be for the Iraq War and still a committed Christian. A person can be against the Iraq War and still be a committed Christian.

Shane, I respectfully disagree with your very first past-participle. "Demonstrated" could be replaced with "maintained:" and then I would be happier.

Ms. Warner seem to believe politicians should express their views about religion without fear. And especially that Liberals should not fear conservative backlash. But you know how all politicians fear slipping in the polls more than anything.

Peace,

[Woody]

Mrs. White says ....

"Keep your voting to yourself. Do not feel it your duty to urge everyone to do as you do."--Letter 4, 1898. 2SM 337

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Shane, I respectfully disagree with your very first past-participle. "Demonstrated" could be replaced with "maintained:" and then I would be happier.

See my thread Christians Can Disagree

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Christians Can Disagree

They certainly can!

The United Church of Christ has that sentiment as one of their main tenets (if thats the correct word to use). They 'agree to disagree,' is the way they put it. I like that.