We're getting closer to an election for President (among other things). You know politics will come into discussions of religion as time flows on, so let's get this one out of the way early:
Should Politics and Religion mix?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'll start the ball rolling here...
I believe that if someone can be utterly divorced from his or her religion when making important decisions, their faith probably needs reexamination and strengthening. There is a difference, however, between ignoring or neutralizing your faith and being objective and fair to other people's beliefs.
I'm more than willing to entertain rational debate on my views, but I think Bush II is an excellent example of someone who abuses his power to impose his beliefs in a damaging and distinctly unChristian way on government. Lincoln was a much better example of someone who took his faith seriously and yet was humble enough not to assume his plans always were in alignment with God's. We could have used a lot more of that humility over the last 6+ years.
I ran into this comment during the week.
"But the much bigger question is the difference of the role of government and the role of individuals. As individuals we are expected to be kind, gracious, loving, and just. But on the other hand government “bears the sword,” and has been set in place by God to maintain security and enforce the law (at least according to Paul).
I think Christianity (especially the Christian left) has a big problem with confusing admonitions against individuals with instructions on governing nations. Governments serve a far different role than individuals and to extrapolate admonitions directed at individual believers to governments is not only bad theology- it can be downright dangerous."
I am still working on this idea. The comment was posted in response to a comment I made about the statesmanship of the old testament being used to manipulate the attitudes of today, ie. a selfish national perspective. As usual I trust my instinct, which is that this idea is crap, and immoral government cannot be justified in any sense. Mixed up in this, though, was the idea of divine providence and it's awful flip side, divine improvidence. Stewardship also raised its head. You and I started some of this discussion about wealthy nations squandering resources to the detriment of poor people a while ago.
To me it's a question of a philosophical ideal vs. a practical construct.
I propose that there is nothing inherently wrong with a strong religious influence on a political system, if that is approved/desired by the populace as a whole. If the social contract mandates such a marriage, then it is not only desired, but required. I, for one, do not hold that this will inevitably lead to some sort of oppressive theocracy. Our early founding fathers were strongly in favor of a western christianity as the moral underpinning of their governmental system.
It is only in recent decades that the "separation of church and state" voices have not only become much louder, but also been granted a certain credibility.
Some would suggest that we are in a "post-christian" era. As such, you have to wonder if the original mandate based out of traditionalist christian morality and principles is "relevant" to a society and/or progressive schools of thought which are becoming increasingly hostile to such ideas.
The short answer is, yes, I believe that politics divorced from religion results in a humanist relativism, which will ulimately self-destruct, and so the two SHOULD be inextricably intertwined.
I also realize that this puts me in a shrinking minority.
There was a sincere and serious debate on this subject amongst people of differing faiths (our founding fathers) in the early days of our nation. This led to a balancing of the most absolute documented connections between Church and State (which some rigorously defended) and no mention at all (which others leaned toward). It's best and most clearly embodied in the separation of Church and State statement by Thomas Jefferson... a man who was hardly an atheist, but most certainly not a mainstream Christian.
From the beginning, we have striven to embrace and provide a safe haven for people to freely exercise their choice of religion even when it disagrees with ours. I have a real problem when people codify their faith into laws that impose those views onto other people. Although I might agree with a specific view imposed, who is to say I won't object to those of future leaders? The current administration is very disturbing to me in this respect.
The thing that bothers me most is that so many modern religious (Church, Mosque, Temple, etc...) "leaders" don't see how it's not just the State that needs to be wary of the Church's influence. The inverse is also true, if not even more dangerous. Churches and other religious institutions are being actively corrupted in the name of governance, influence, and power. The key to ending this corruption is vigilantly separating (while defending) any one person's or group's religious beliefs from their political actions. By this I don't mean that they should no longer be religious just because they assume office, but rather that they have a challenging responsibility to make every political decision as they maintain a balance between private and public responsibilities to faith.
The easy answer is to hide behind your faith and use it as an excuse to make decisions that seem right for you without considering the opinions of those who disagree. The challenge, in my opinion, is the supremely difficult and ultimately meaningful responsibility to make the more difficult decisions that allow others to live their lives without having the flick of an administrative pen impose your will on them. The U.S. is currently failing to do that in both the national and international arena. Even if we reverse course today, this has brought about a sharp decline in our security and safety... a problem I fear will haunt us for generations to come.
Post a Comment