Concerning Christianity and Politics

[Lemur]

I find this essay outstanding, but I'm curious how it will be received by the Org:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sunday, May 7, 2006
My Problem with Christianism
A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

That always cracks me up. Im sorry, but if you believe in contraception, gay marriage, abortion, ect.- you, by definition, are not a devout Catholic. A devout Catholic (again, by definition) would believe that abortion is akin to murder and that gay sex is and will always be immoral.

Now, I too have a problem with the amount of religious pandering going on in politics- it seems many politicians use religious views as cover, while doing nothing worthwhile. However, the fact remains that the Democratic base rests on things that many/most practicing Christians are fundamentally opposed to. As long as their activist base is able to determine so much of the party platform, people will continue to run to the arms of Republicans who at least talk a good game, even if they don't really do much.

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.

Yet another common, fallacious, argument by the left. If you believe abortion is murder, standing by and doing nothing to stop it would be morally reprehensible- it has nothing to do with 'imposing your beliefs'. If it is, people that want to ban the death penalty had also better shutup right quick, because they have no right to impose their views on others. And while we're at it, lets throw in the anti-war crowd- stop imposing your morality on us hypocrites.

[doc_bean]

A devout Catholic (again, by definition) would believe that abortion is akin to murder

Where does it say so in the Bible, when did jesus talk about the unborn ? Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...

and that gay sex is and will always be immoral.

So is getting a divorce, I know devout Catholics that got one. Lots of things are immoral, doesn't mean we have to forbid them completely, a certain level of immorality is tolerable. Accepting that is part of being Catholic imho.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think there is confusion between a devout Catholic who is tolerant of other faiths and homsexuals (which is good) and a 'devout Catholic' who is "socially liberal".

Liberals in the US are not libertarians, but (warning: incoming generalization) lefties who support gay marriage, abortion, etc.

As for the article, I must agree with the X-man. It appears to me to be written by a more liberal Christian who tries to use our inability to fully comprehend God as an excuse to weaken any moral guidelines. And while I would not Catholicism to be tied down to any one party, I do not think a party with one religion as its centerpoint is any worse than a party that does not use religious morals as a guideline, assuming they don't try to force people to go to thier church.

All the people wailing against religious parties need to remember that in politics, religion is just the source of the morals, the party platform. All parties have a platform based on what they believe, and the platform coming from religion does not make it inherently worse.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ser Clegane]

Where does it say so in the Bible, when did jesus talk about the unborn ? Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...

Indeed ... I asked Navaros the same question a while ago - unfortunately he did not bother to answer.
The same goes BTW for contraception.

[Lemur]

One form of contraception is forbidden in the story of Onan. God doesn't like it when you interrupt the, uh, climactic moment. The Old Testament has nothing to say about the pill or condoms, however.

A question: A couple of people have asserted that religion is the foundation of morality. The implication being, naturally, that without religious systems, everyone would do what they like, and the world would look something like The Road Warrior, but with more sex and drugs.

Is it not possible that morality exists as a beneficial system with or without religion? In much the same way that the value of Pi doesn't change whether you're a Hindu or Mormon, doesn't "be decent to the people around you" exist as a universal truth whether or not it's backed up by the Divine?

I believe in the Judeo-Christian theology as our cultural heritage, but it's facile to declare that all morality flows from that tradition. If I've got the time, I'll see if I can find a link, but there have been studies that show moral systems developing in troops of chimps. Seems as though being decent to one another is a real survival characteristic for social animals like us.

[Kralizec]

Lemur: I take it that you are not a christian, in the sense that you believe in the divinity of christ, correct?

I agree with you that there is a small, yet fundamental core of morality that is present regardless of the faith of people. We're social beings, afterall.

[Xiahou]

Where does it say so in the Bible, when did jesus talk about the unborn ? Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...

This is another fundamental misunderstanding repeated often in this thread. There is more to Catholicism than what's in the Bible. I think people must be getting Catholics confused with other sects.

So is getting a divorce, I know devout Catholics that got one. Lots of things are immoral, doesn't mean we have to forbid them completely, a certain level of immorality is tolerable. Accepting that is part of being Catholic imho.

More apparent misunderstanding. Legal divorce is sometimes an unfortunate necessity- however, this does not terminate the Catholic marriage. Therefore they cannot remarry in the Catholic church unless they can prove grounds for an anullment.

So, if you know a Catholic that got divorced and remarried they are not "devout" since it clearly goes against Church teaching.

[doc_bean]

This is another fundamental misunderstanding repeated often in this thread. There is more to Catholicism than what's in the Bible. I think people must be getting Catholics confused with other sects.

Of course, tradition is of equal importance to the Bible (unless that dogma has been revoked...), I did include a second part :

Or are you referring to devout as in believing everything the papacy decides ? Because then nobody would be devout...

The Pope and the church are our supposed moral and spiritual guides, but nobody follows their teachings to the letter and without question. They regulary change things too, and they tend to ignore some dogma's (the non-virgin Mary, for instance), every Catholic knows the church is not perfect and run by humans, not God. At least every Catholic I know has that much sense. It's the most common fundamental misunderstanding repeated often that Catholics are blind followers of the church.

More apparent misunderstanding. Legal divorce is sometimes an unfortunate necessity- however, this does not terminate the Catholic marriage. Therefore they cannot remarry in the Catholic church unless they can prove grounds for an annulment.

Like, if you're a celebrity ?

It's pretty common here for priest to 'bless' a second marriage. I know priests who've explicitly stated that divorced people can and should still go to communion. I've never known one that didn't give communion to a divorced person. Divorce is accepted as a necessary evil here by the Catholic Church. They don't like it, but they've accepted it is somethimes needed.

So, if you know a Catholic that got divorced and remarried they are not "devout" since it clearly goes against Church teaching.

Eh, you're insulting some of my family here...

While divorce goes against the teachings of the Church, forgiveness is also an important part of the Church. It is human to 'sin', that's why we (used to) have confessions. God is merciful, and so is his Church.

And just in case someone wants to point out that in order to repent from the 'sin' of divorce, you have to get back together: several sins have no turning back (say, murder), yet can also be forgiven and I'm not aware of the Church ever demanding a thief to give what was stolen back.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

its definately close to the mark, people need to remember that christianity is a religion of forgivness, that we should not judge and that we should love our neighbours, god doesn't hate sinners he hates sin.
there are some issues where religion may come in and i don't think we should ignore the fact that religion may affect someones politics but i think that christians are being assumed to all hold the same view on certain issues when they shouldn't be.

[Kommodus]

As a Christian, I agree with a large part of the author's sentiments. I do not want the Church to be intertwined with any political party. There is indeed a great variety of views among genuine Christ-followers, and it bothers me to see them all lumped together into the same political mish-mash. It bothers me even more to think that many unscrupulous politicians think nothing of exploiting people's faith for their own personal benefit, pretending to be devout but secretly doing unconscionable things.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to define what we mean when we accuse religion of becoming intertwined with politics. If we simply mean that people vote a certain way because of their faith, then I profoundly disagree. As Xihou said, to vote (or act in any way whatsoever) as a result of faith has nothing to do with imposing one's beliefs on others - it has everything to do with doing what one feels is right.

Environmentalists vote a certain way because they want sound environmental policies. Socialists vote a certain way because they want more socialist policies. Peace activists vote a certain way because they oppose war. So why should I be ridiculed for voting for a pro-life candidate because I oppose abortion (whatever my reasons)?

One of the great fallacies of Western culture is that we can and should "compartmentalize" our ideas. Everything faith-related gets placed in one box (and generally hidden under the bed), never to influence the remaining, "secular" parts of life. What, I ask you, is the point of that? It's one step away from dispensing with faith altogether. This division is artificial and even harmful. I am a whole person, not several unrelated fragments.

Now let me say that I do respect the views and rights of others, whether they agree or disagree with me. No one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others, no matter what their belief. However, (as an example) I am much more likely to vote for a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice one, because it's the right thing to do. The fact that this candidate happens to be more often Republican than Democrat is incidental and irrelevant. I won't butcher my conscience simply because my motivation is viewed by some as "politically incorrect."

[A.Saturnus]

That always cracks me up. Im sorry, but if you believe in contraception, gay marriage, abortion, ect.- you, by definition, are not a devout Catholic. A devout Catholic (again, by definition) would believe that abortion is akin to murder and that gay sex is and will always be immoral.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Please read the sentence that cracks you up again:
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.

The defintions of devout catholic certainly doesn't contradict this. Can a devout catholic accept a multi-faith society? If yes, than he or she can also accept contraception and gay rights. Of course, he or she will maintain that contraception and gay sex are sins (in the case of contraception not much longer btw, my old neighbour Ratzinger is going to allow it), but that doesn't mean he can't accept that people do these things. After all, he knows that he's a sinner too and unable to throw the first stone. The rights that you have in society are independent from what is a sin and what not, including - and maybe especially - to devout catholics. Jesus didn't talk about how society should look like, he said how you should live.

[Kralizec]

It all boils down to the disadvantages of a two party system. It's why you don't have a secularist libertarian party, and why you don't have a religious leftist (on mainly economic issues) party. The political spectrum is far to elaborate to be condensed in only two parties, and people will end up always chosing for what they view as "the lesser evil".