Posted on 05/10/2006 6:28:01 AM PDT by bondjamesbond
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda
Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.
The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.
And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple? Also, faith for many of us is interwoven with doubt, a doubt that can strengthen faith and give it perspective and shadow. That doubt means having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one's beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.
I would say a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term "people of faith" has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone. "Sides are being chosen," Tom DeLay recently told his supporters, "and the future of man hangs in the balance! The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won, and if we put our trust in Christ, they never will." So Christ is a conservative Republican?
Rush Limbaugh recently called the Democrats the "party of death" because of many Democrats' view that some moral decisions, like the choice to have a first-trimester abortion, should be left to the individual, not the cops. Ann Coulter, with her usual subtlety, simply calls her political opponents "godless," the title of her new book. And the largely nonreligious media have taken the bait. The "Christian" vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.
What to do about it? The worst response, I think, would be to construct something called the religious left. Many of us who are Christians and not supportive of the religious right are not on the left either. In fact, we are opposed to any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus insisted. What part of that do we not understand?
So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
That's what I dissent from, and I dissent from it as a Christian. I dissent from the political pollution of sincere, personal faith. I dissent most strongly from the attempt to argue that one party represents God and that the other doesn't. I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor. The word Christian belongs to no political party. It's time the quiet majority of believers took it back.
"Not *this* nation, sister. The First Amendment is *explicitly* non-Christian."
You truly need a history lesson.
>>Fair enough.
Question for you: why have not the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas been added then?<<
You would never get the various Christian factions to add a book now. The Vatican is only central authority that could possibly push such a thing and they have already examined those books.
That said, I think it is possible that there were genuine accounts of Jesus that are not in the bible.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s the celebration of Christmas and the traditional Russian holiday of New Year (Feast of the Circumcision of Christ) was prohibited (later on New Year was reinstated as a secular holiday and is now the most significant family holiday in Russia). Gatherings and religious processions were initially prohibited and later on strictly limited and regulated. In later years, a more subtle method of disrupting Christian holidays involved broadcasting very popular movies one after the other on the major holidays when believers are expected to participate in religious processions, especially during the Easter celebration. Apparently, this was intended to keep those whose faith was uncertain or wavering in their homes and glued to their TVs.
Sounds like Hollywood is using a play right out of the Atheist Communist Playbook.
From the Mayflower Compact signed November 11, 1620
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwitten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken for the glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony..."
To build a Christian nation is WHY we left England.
You have no idea what you are talking about with your anti-Christ rhetoric.
John 21:25:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Andrew has other QUEER views too..
I think YOU need a history lesson. Some of the Founders were atheists, humanists, or deists. There were a couple Roman Catholics, and the rest were mostly Protestant Christians of various denominations. The constitution is explicity non-religious in nature and no matter how much you Christians try to claim the Founders intended this to be a "Christian" government, they did not.
"But sometimes you have to hit certain people between the eyes with a two-by-four to get their attention..."
Some people shoot back when hit by 2X4's.
> They setup an Atheist tyrannical government...
No, they set up theocracies.
> It doesn't really matter when the Earth was created (6000 years ago or 4.5 billion years ago).
Then it also doesn't matter if the Earth was created 6000 years ago or last Thursday.
> What matters is who is God and who is Jesus and what are you going to do about it?
What matters is who is Odin and who is Baldur and what are you going to do about it?
It's both ways. Jesus says, if any man asks of you, give, and Paul says that when you are managing a church community, if there is a moocher among you, don't encourage him by handouts.
There is a time and a place for both responses.
When in doubt, remember that Jesus said that we would be rewarded by the measure we give by.
A real issue, though, is who is to be the provider of the assistance? Modern concepts seem to want to let the state take that job, where in Christian teaching, the state is to try to help insure justice between all people, rich or poor, and the burden of doing the charitable act is on the Christian, not the government.
At least IMHO
No, they set up theocracies.
More education for you from Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians
After the Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks undertook a massive program to remove the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church from the government and Russian society, and to make the state atheist. Thousands of churches were destroyed or converted to other uses, such as warehouses. Monasteries were closed and often converted to prison camps, most notably the Solovetz monastery becoming Solovki camp. Many members of clergy were imprisoned for anti-government activities. These victims are now recognized as the "New Martyrs" by the Russian Orthodox Church, the old martyrs being the victims of the Roman persecutions. Church property, including the icons and other objects of worship (especially those made of precious metals) was confiscated and put to other uses.
While religion was never outlawed in the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Constitution actually guaranteed religious freedom to all Soviet citizens, persecution was still government policy. The persecutions were usually carried out for political, not religious, reasons and abated during World War II, at which time Stalin's government reached a truce with the Church in order to use it as part of its program to inspire Russian patriotic fervor. Nevertheless, the Soviet government sought to put the Church under control by appointing loyal men as priests, allegedly ending up with the entire upper ranks of the Church being officers of the KGB.
Sounds like an Atheist State to me...
OK. Then explain to me where in the COnsitution it says that:
There is only one God
There shall be no carving or painting images of beasts, birds, etc.
Honoring you Mom and Dad are mandatory
Wanting to keep up with the Joneses is wrong
Saying "Jehovah" in vain is a crime
Remember, Jesus explicitly pointed out that not one bit of the old covenant was washed away, so those rules still hold. If the US was based on those principles... where are they enshrined in law?
The Mayflower Compact is not part of US law.
> your anti-Christ rhetoric.
Scary, scary, don't we look mean.
Pure bs. But please keep it up. It is very amusing...
Our founders indeed WANTED Christianity ...it was the whole reason for establishing this country in the first place. You really are quite ignorant.
They were NOT going to force it on everyone however.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION NOT FROM IT.
> Sounds like an Atheist State to me...
Read the Constitution. *That* would sound like an "atheist state" to you.
The Communists were not Atheists. They worshipped the State as a god.
Sullivan is a gay activist and a self serving individual who has no business commenting on any Christian denomination, or faith in general, and has no credibility or standing to draw any notice. His words show his lack or understanding and is for people of marginal or no faith to bolster their hedonistic life and justify their lack of being able to fully accept God's word and instead follow their own humanistic desires. His quote on Catholics is a good example in which he characterizes liberal issues and makes it appear that believing Catholics support those liberal things. Believing Catholics do not practice contraception, do not support gay rights and its assault against the family, do not support women in the priesthood while supporting women rights, do not believe that salvation comes from any other faith other than through Jesus Christ.
Yes there is a minority of people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry that are Catholic in name only on paper but are not Catholic and excommunicate when they support liberal issues that are contrary to the faith and Church doctrine. They both support abortion, divorce, etc... and openly opposes key issues of their faith. Like Sullivan they have no business associating themselves with the Church, talking about it as if they have any credibility or standing, or claim to be part of a faith they openly do not follow.
> Our founders indeed WANTED Christianity ...it was the whole reason for establishing this country in the first place.
Ah... no. Injustice from King George was the reason.
Man, your history education is *seriously* lacking.
> FREEDOM OF RELIGION NOT FROM IT.
Freedom from religion is part and parcel of freedom of religion.
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.