Posted on 06/20/2004 8:14:28 AM PDT by ejdrapes
One of the many ways in which America has always been exceptional is in the role of religion. It has far higher rates of church attendance than other developed countries, constant religious references in public life, an enormous network of religious charities that do amazing work and a perpetual churning of spiritual frenzy. If you are a person of faith, as I am, it’s impressive. But it’s also fraught with danger and occasional excess. American religion justified the enslavement of African-Americans and their emancipation; it fuelled the Great Awakening of the 18th century (a mass kindling of religious fervour among the working class), the anti-evolution Scopes trial early last century and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It has propelled activists of right and left, of reaction and revolution. What’s interesting about the current moment in American history is therefore not that it’s particularly religious. It is that religion has become such a partisan affair. The current upsurge in Protestant fundamentalism and, to a much lesser degree, Catholic orthodoxy, is finding its expression almost exclusively in the Republican party. Not so long ago, observant Christians could be found across the political arena: the Democrats were the natural home for Catholics (as well as a hefty proportion of conservative Southerners); the Republicans drew strength from mainstream Protestant denominations. Nobody dreamt of one party representing religious devotion and the other becoming the home for secularists and more easy-going faith seekers. But that is what is now happening. It’s part accident — a function of the Republican party reaching out to disaffected white Southerners at the same time as a religious revival — but also part design. The Republicans are now consciously organising their re-election campaign on a church-by-church basis, targeting groups according to their religiosity and church-going habits, while the Democrats are receiving more and more voters alienated by the piety and alleged intolerance of the new religious right. You saw a dry run of this divide during the fight over The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s film treatment of the last day of Jesus. The new Republican alliance — conservative Catholics and born-again Protestants — swooned over the movie. Jews, moderate believers, atheists and secularists were appalled. The polls tell the story. Should a president be guided by religious faith in making political decisions? A Time poll last week found that 70% of Republicans said yes while 63% of Democrats said no. Sixty per cent of Republicans attend church once a week; only 35% of Democrats do. Do George W Bush’s religious views make him too closed-minded? A full 65% of Democrats said yes compared with only 5% of Republicans. Among white evangelicals (about 17% of the vote) Bush is ahead of John Kerry, his Democratic challenger, by a staggering 50 percentage points. Among people who identify themselves as “secular” (about 15% of the vote), Kerry has a lead of about 40%. Devout Catholics are far more likely to vote Republican than nominal or less-committed Catholics — which is why they have become a critical group for Bush to target. So there is an uncomfortably sectarian aspect to this election. There was Republican pressure on the Catholic bishops meeting last week to criticise Kerry for his permissive stand on abortion. In Massachusetts, Catholic bishops have sent letters to parishioners urging them not to vote for state legislators who support marriage rights for gay couples. Various other Catholic bishops have said they will not give communion to politicians who support the right to an abortion — forcing the governor of New Jersey, for one, to withdraw from the communion rail. Some bishops have even said that communion should not be given to lay Catholics who vote for such politicians — ruling out a whole swathe of the Democratic party from the Catholic Church. Last week, President Bush addressed by satellite the annual convention of the Southern Baptists. The same week they pulled out of the international Baptist organisation because they feared it was becoming too liberal. And they returned Bush’s favour by promising to rally support for his proposed constitutional amendment to deny gay couples any legal protections for their relationships. They also began a new “I Vote Values” voter registration campaign designed to deliver the 16m Baptist voters for Bush. The Texas Republican party recently agreed a policy that would make it a felony for anyone to perform a same-sex marriage in the state, and it was addressed by a pastor who said: “Give us Christians in America who are more wholehearted, more committed and more militant for you and your kingdom than any fanatical Islamic terrorists are for death and destruction.” Virginia recently passed a law invalidating even private contracts between two people of the same sex — an attempt to strip gay couples of even the most basic protections for their relationships. And the National Catholic Reporter informed its readers last week that Bush, in his recent meeting with the Pope, had complained that some American Catholic bishops were “not with me” on social issues. By that he was understood to mean they had not condemned Kerry for being a bad Catholic for his support of legal abortion. The stances are hardening. Last week, Bill Clinton remarked that “what separates us is that we haven’t tried to have our politics driven by religion”. In a recent interview with religious-right journalists, Bush struck a different note. “A person’s faith helps you keep vision. As a matter of fact, helps clear your vision, is a vision,” he said. “In one of the prayers I ask is that God’s light shines through me as best as possible, no matter how opaque the window.” (My apologies for the president’s grammar.) In Plan of Attack, the recent Bob Woodward book, Bush famously denied that his father was a source of political advice. What mattered was the advice of his “heavenly father”. Bush knows not to push this too far. “The best way for faith to operate in somebody is, as I said, to let the light shine as opposed to trying to defend or alter or get my job mixed up with a preacher’s job. And the only way you can do that is just be yourself, without crossing any lines of politics and religion,” he said. “Separation of church and state (is) important in America. And by that I mean the people of faith should participate in the state, and there’s a difference.” That difference may not be so apparent in the White House. David Frum, the former speech writer, observed that one of the first things he was asked when he got his job was whether he was going to Bible study. He’s Jewish. Will religion determine this election? I hope not. As an admirer of the extraordinary energy, diversity and social commitment of American faith, I’d hate to see it become used in a political mud-fight. But Karl Rove, Bush’s political strategist, has other ideas. He knows how religious sentiment can be a political tool — and recently gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, the largest religious university in the country. He and Bush have delegated social policy entirely to the religious right: trying to divert federal funds to religious charities, opposing legal abortion, most stem cell research and any gay rights. Kerry knows his Catholic past — he got an annulment from his first wife rather than a divorce — is an asset to be used defensively. He also must know that his abortion position — supporting even the horrific practice of partial birth abortion — is morally hard to square with respect for human life. But he is also ambivalent about being targeted by the bishops. It could help him with liberal Catholics and secularists but hurt him among older, more orthodox Catholic voters. Either way, I hope he never has to face the dilemma of being turned away at the communion rail. The partisan fusion of politics with religion in this campaign is poisoning an already toxic cultural atmosphere. God help us if it makes its way on to the altar itself.Andrew Sullivan: God help us: a holy war for the White House
(My apologies for the president’s grammar.)
A gratutituous, cowardly and very unimaginative, wholly overdone slam. How cerebral...NOT!
And don't try telling us that homosexuality is about more than wanting sex with your own kind. Like it or not, your band of brothers loves to love indiscriminately, promiscuous is the word. So, it's all about sex, otherwise your love for your fellow 'man' would be called friendship.
Here's a bit of consolation for you though, if the 3,000 year old institution is lost, the loss can be laid squarely at the feet of the heterosexuals out there who brought the institution to its knees, rendering it meaningless, and as consequence, ripe for the homosexual taking.
It's an absolute certainty that if Marriage meant forever, you and your boys would want no 'lifetime commitment' part of it.
A technique they learned from watching Democrats work Southern Blacks and Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in the North in the past.
The dichotomy is caused by the Democrat Party becomming explicitly anti-religious.
SO9
"David Frum, the former speech writer, observed that one of the first things he was asked when he got his job was whether he was going to Bible study. He’s Jewish."
What's wrong with that? Does Andrew know the origins of the Old Testament? Does he know that the Old Testament is part of the Bible? Has Andrew heard the expression "Judeo-Christian tradition"? This is a "man of faith"?
Sullivan, like some posters here, has become a one issue voter...and he can see nothing else...I used to enjoy reading Sullivan, I've deleted his blog from my favorites.
Sullivan confuses liberty with support. A community is no more obligated to support a coupling of identically sexed individuals than it is to marry a trio, a quadrupling, or any other number.
Americans want men and women to marry. All Americans support that. Only a radical few want to redefine that. And why may we ask? For the collectivist benefits, for the blow to our shared sense of cultural morality (both in Christian terms and others), and our shared sense that children should be raised free from discussions of many of us find to be prurient and unsafe.
This is not to suggest that any Americans should hate people who follow Mr. Sullivan's preference. Neither is it to suggest that they are unacceptable citizens of our country. Their individual rights end where our shared value for the traditional family beings.
The most disturbing thing about Sullivan's and many other homosexual activist's attitudes on these matters is that they want to redefine our civil rights, which are soundly based on individuality as human beings and confer them to groupings of people. In this case, they demand it for pairings.
Does this impact religious Americans? Of course. Does it impact all Americans? Yes. And negatively. Suddenly we are asked to join in and bless behavior that we may find unwise, and do so in front of our children.
This is both taxation and legislation without representation. It is undemocratic, and it is the tyranny of the minority through government. What difference is there between this and communism?
Anyone who claims to be a conservative should understand this. Sullivan is a closet collectivist without a doubt. He's out of the closet now.
Spot on.
That's his man-kootchie talking.
Awfully picky, aren't you? ;)
I was initially going to say that this article has *some* valid points, before reading the second half, and your quote. Methinks there will be a gay-only "Christian" church opening soon for these vermin.
I discovered Andrew Sullivan's blog as a link off of Horowitz's frontpagemag.com about 2 years ago. I read it almost every day. My conclusions:
1. Is he an intellectual? Yes, top drawer thinker.
2. Is he a single-issue homo? No, he's a true conservative who happens to be gay. There are some out there. He's just obsessed with the gay marriage issues and his arguments are very strong even though I disagree with them.
3. If you think he's a liberal why don't you actually read his stuff: www.andrewsullivan.com
A lie.
Uh Deb, IMO, it seems that you are very fluent in john fffin kerryese.
Well-written. Thanks.
Andrew, get a grip. Most believers are flocking to the Republican party because the Democratic party now represents: Atheism and anti-Christianity (yet the Christian influence in founding and shaping this country towards its greatness is undeniable), the ubber liberal media (sure not many Repubs in this group), anti-Military (sure wasn't Repubs holding those peace rallies that encouraged soldiers to shoot their officers), Academia (left over 60's marxists run the Universities), hard core gay activists (not the log cabin types militantly forcing their agenda on America), Hollywood (Michael Moore...need I say more?), Class warfare specialists such as Jesse Jackson and Rev Al (where's their concern for Sudan and for present slavery in Africa?), and the outstanding political all-start team of Ted (I beat that rap) Kennedy, John (the flip-floppin' Frenchman who served in Vietnam )Kerry, Al Screamin' Mad Gore, Howlin' Howard Dean, Nancy (left her mind in San Francisco) Pelosi, KKK (kooky, kookier, and kookiest) Robert Byrd, Jim (misleads the American people) McDermott, among others.
PS Didn't even mention Hill or Bill
PPS If it dawns on the average American what the Democratic party now represents...there will be mass exodus to the Repubs and Independent parties.
Bingo!
I, me, mine. I think the Beatles had a song with that for a title. As I recall, it was tongue in cheek.
For Sullivan and others, it is a lifestyle and mindset.
Really? I don't think so, but maybe you know best. I wonder what Ann Coulter would say about that.
Would you care to explain your remarks?
Whoa! What did I miss? Was it really a group of Baptists that attacked the WTC? or would this numbskull prefer that we convert to islam to prevent any hard feelings?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.