My Problem with Christianism

Time.com ^ | Sunday, May 7, 2006 | Andrew Sullivan

[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.

[RobbyS]

If by "Christian state" you mean a state which reserves to Christians a priviliged place in government, no. But even a liberal like Jefferson saw Christianity as providing a moral basis for that government. That's why church services were held in the capitol, services sttended by Jefferson himself. Today's liberals view religion more or less as Tom Paine did , but his views were unacceptable to Americans . Paine was much more at home in revolutionary France.

[Raycpa]

but neither the bulk of the quotes of the founders, or their personal writings or the documents they produced

Not even the constitution's sections posted herein are evidence for you that the original states were Christian ?

[William Terrell]

Every man for himself. God is with every man through Christ.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

ChristianISM? -ISM? Whadda headline!!!

[gondramB]

>>Not even the constitution's sections posted herein are evidence for you that the original states were Christian ?<<

I wasn't disagreeing with you about the individual states (I have assumed everything in this thread about the states was correct) I was talking about the plan for the United States

[CzarNicky]

> Why do you attack me?

Wow. You're really working the whole victimhood angle, ain't'cha.

Some people love to be martyrs.

[Mat_Helm]

Excellant post.

Are you related to Bill Bennett?

America the last best hope.

[MissAmericanPie]

I was referring to the "Hate America" crowd which includes the entire planet so far. Or are you not up on current events? When Americans look for the reasons why we are hated it comes down to plain old green eyed jealousy on the part of those unfortunates whose nations reflect an indifferent relationship with our Creator.

And this is how God designed it, this is His plan, from the Tower of Babel, when he created nations and languages, not only to protect all men from finding themselves under the heel of a one world dictator, but also to implement His plan to bless those nations that love Him and stir the jealousy of indifferent nations that witness the bounties and blessings poured out on those nations who adore Him, in hopes that those nations will self examine and come to the realization that there is a God who blesses if they will come to Him.



No the government is not allowed to create a religion and demand it be worshiped, nor can it prevent the citizens of the nation from being a "Christian" nation, nor can it prevent the citizens of this nation defining and declaring themselves and the majority of it's population to be so.

Do we demand that everyone among us believe? No, but we do expect the freedom not to have to finance immorality shoved in our faces, by those that claim that they have the freedom to do so. Such as a cross suspended in urine for example, paid for by taxpayers of whom 75% define themselves as Christian.

Which hedonists claim is the right of one individual not to be offended by censorship or have his free expression repressed. And that his right takes precedence over the right of the majority to their free expression, and their objection to their monies being spent in such a manner should be repressed.

And so it has gone, for some time now. One person is offended by the Pledge of Allegiance in school so the entire community is forced to lay down their right to free expression. One person is offended by a Nativity Scene on the Court House lawn, so the entire community is forced to repress their freedom of expression, community, and commonality. And so it has gone from generation to generation until we find ourselves where we are now.

[JTN]

Liberals love to try to make the world better using the government to do their dirty work or try using guilt for being white/rich/etc to ram their fantasy world down everyone else's throat.

Sounds like Rick Santorum.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't see how an "every man for himself" philosophy can fit with Christians. For one thing, it would mean every person could add or subtract whole books of Scripture, if they prayed over it and it seemed to be according to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. This would make for even more chaos than we have now; and "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

[loveliberty2]

Some opinions expressed here and elsewhere about the principles and ideas underpinning America's Constitution.

The founding generations of America left voluminous writings that explain, in detail, their passionate devotion to liberty, as well as the meaning and intentions of the documents they instituted to protect that liberty.

Thankfully, we don't have to rely on agenda-based 20th or 21st Century lawyers, professors or lay persons to interpret the the Founders' documents for us. And we shouldn't speak from our own ignorance.

We can read their own words without even visiting a library, thanks to the wonders of modern technology.

The writings of Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, the Adamses, and others during the ratification process for the Constitution are available in their entirety.

One real treasury summarizing the history of the founding, containing an explanation of the principles and ideas upon which our liberty was secured, is John Quincy Adams' "THE JUBILEE OF THE CONSTITUTION A DISCOURSE, Delivered at the Request of THE NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, in the City of New York, on Tuesday, the 30th of April, 1839; Being the Fiftieth Anniversary of the INAUGURATION OF GEORGE WASHINGTON as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on Thursday, the 30th of April, 1789." In this lengthy treatise, Adams traces the ideas and philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, and the paths by which the 1787 Constitution finally structured a limited government to secure liberty.

Who better to outline the history? JQ Adams was 9 years old when his own father was instrumental in the adoption of our Declaration of Independence, 20 when the Constitution was formed, served in numerous posts prior to becoming President of the United States himself, and then served in the Congress until his death in his seat in that body. His words tracing America's historical documents are, therefore, particularly meaningful. "Jubilee" can be read in its entirety here.

Jefferson's writings also are particularly significant when we want to understand what he called "the American mind" of the Revolutionary period.

Many revisionist views (some expressed in this thread) are misleading and do not do justice to the genius and wisdom of America's Founders.

[orionblamblam]

> And so it has gone, for some time now. One person is offended by the Pledge of Allegiance in school so the entire community is forced to lay down their right to free expression. One person is offended by a Nativity Scene on the Court House lawn, so the entire community is forced to repress their freedom of expression, community, and commonality.

I'd love to see someone hoinestly and adequately defend those oft-repeated assertions. However, they are myth. You can say "under God" all day long in school, and so long as you're not disruptive, nothing can stop you. What *can* - and should - be stopped is the government being used as a preaching arm of a religion.

Besides: be specific. It's one nation under *Odin.*

[MissAmericanPie]

What business does government have dictating what goes on in a community school? Because they throw some money at it, it automatically becomes Federal property?

There is no such prayer restrictions forbidding public schools providing a class room for Muslim students to pray in, now is there. Now doesn't that mean that the Fed is supporting one religion over another religion in a public Federally funded building? There is an example for you, or did that fly over your head?

[Antoninus]

Dear Andrew,

Here's something for you from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is hope. Leave the deathstyle and repent before it's too late!

[orionblamblam]

> What business does government have dictating what goes on in a community school?

If it's a governemnt school... then the governemtn is responsible.

> Because they throw some money at it, it automatically becomes Federal property?

If you take someone's money, you are beholden to them. Same reasoning why most Freepers have no idea with laws that say "If you take federal dollars, you cannot ban military recruiters from your campus."

As to the Muslim issue: yes, that's a violation of the principles of the Constitution. No, that doesn't mean you should turn your local Publik Skool into a theocracy. What it means is that the Muslims need to be reminded that they ain't special, shut up, and go back to class, and if they don;t like the school's ham sammiches for lunch, they're free to bring their own.

Or do you suppose that if Muslims were gettign a pass on violent crime, as seems to be happening in Scandinavia, that the proper response should be to give *everyone* a pass? Or should the gubmint actually crack some head?

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

"If Jesus were alive today, 99.99% of FReepers would label him a "liberal". He spoke of equality, love, compassion, tolerance, and peace."

The difference is Jesus did more than just talk.

Liberals are all about feeling good by throwing money they take from the evil Republicans, who as the employers pay most of the taxes, and throwing it at the cause du jour.

[William Terrell]

I don't see how an "every man for himself" philosophy can fit with Christians.

From my viewpoint, it can.

Every man can read the scriptures and follow them. If they can't read, they can get someone to read out loud to them. God's law is in every heart. I believe most individuals can discern malarkey from truth as well as any council.

Any council is just men, each with the same access to God as any individual on the face of the Earth.

The current scriptures are the guideline. We've used those scriptures in our lives over the centuries and found no unGodliness or social chaos in them. Anyone living as a Christian should be able to detect discords glaring enough to redflag the text of newly (or oldly) discovered ancient writings.

I figure we are all God's creatures, with the gifts and tools He gave us, which He didn't give to other creatures. Each of us. We ought to use His gifts.

Aren't Catholics Christian? If they're not, what are they?

[Mrs. Don-o]

To answer your last question: Yes. Catholics are Christian. Wildly divergent interpretations of Scripture have caused, and still cause, chaos and bloodshed. You've only to look at the horrendous religious wars of the 16th century to see the social division, anarchy, and war that accompanied the wrecking and splitting of the church.

Even today, if you try to have any discussion with, say, pro-abortion Christians, gay Christians or divorced-and-remarried Christians, you find that they have their own interpretation of Scripture which says that abortion, homosexual acts, and serial polygamy are OK. If you try to correct them they come back at you with their sacred right to "discern malarkey from truth." This is not just the occasional wacko. This is millions, tens of millions.

There was deep discord in the early Christian community over the question of whether Christians had to get circumcised and keep kosher. They did not say "every man for himself." They had the Council of Jerusalem, and the Church decided the question with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

[MissAmericanPie]

Let me try to clear your head on Federal money. The Fed has no money that you and I don't give them. What needs to be repealed is the requirement that your employer must raid your paycheck and give your money to D.C. before you even see it.

The Constitution declares that Americans have the right to have their grievances addressed, all avenues to that ability have been cut off. You can't even get an operator on the phone when you call a government agency. Try to call the INS or even your local Driver's License Dept.

Americans should retain the ability to starve D.C. out if their grievances are not addressed by withholding their tax bill in mass. What are your feelings about that?

[William Terrell]

the Church decided the question with the authority of the Holy Spirit.

How do you know that they had the authority of the Holy Spirit? They said so? Ecumenical councils always have the authority of the Holy Spirit? Leadership of the Catholic automatically have the authority of the Holy Spirit?

The connection with God within each person is liken to a physical muscle. Use it or lose it. When you let a council of men do it for you it atrophies away.

Do you deny each individual has a connection with the Holy Spirit, or that an individual's salvation is lost in the decisions of a group of the same individuals? The Lord gave individuals the gifts of the spirit, not groups.

You can choose to lode your will to a group of corruptible men if you like. I think it is dangerous to the integrity of your soul.