I'll be the first to admit that I'm discriminatory when it comes to Christians. Whenever I find out someone is Christian, my first reaction is to get defensive, assuming they'll attack my beliefs and that they're arrogant and stuck-up. After all, that's what some Christians want us to believe (not selling birth control pills to non-married women, pushing for constitutional gay-marriage ban, etc). I've always realized that not all Christians behaved in such a manner (six of my closest friends are devout Christians).
Today I read this article from Zeke's blog, also copied below.
June 17, 2005 - Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH St. Louis
It would be an oversimplification to say that America’s culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.
It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.
People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God’s truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God’s kingdom, one that includes efforts to “put God back” into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.
Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.
But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.
When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.
When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors’ lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.
We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.
For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith. Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.
In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God’s side and you are not, that I know God’s will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God’s kingdom is certain to produce hostility.
By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God’s work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today’s politics.
For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord’s table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.
John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.
So, to start off, I'd like to apologise to anyone who's read my blog and been offended by my grouping of "Christians" and "conservatives" as one group. Heh, if all Christians were Episcopal, we wouldn't have any problems :)
Secondly, I would like to say that I disagree with many liberals as well. For example, issues such as the pledge in school and banning all references to God. I have no problem with the pledge (and no problems with the phrase, "under God"). I have no problem with the ten commandments being outside a courthouse, or a religious song being performed by a student at a talent show/dance. I mean, seriously, if you're not religious, is hearing the word "God" going to threaten your beliefs and make you question everything you believe? However, I do agree with the policy that the pledge is optional (so, if you are offended by such, you don't have to participate).
However, there is a fine line between having religious icons/phrases/terms in public things, and forcing religion on people, and Bush is doing the latter (most "you" following this point refers to Bush and the religious "right"). As John Danforth said, religion should influence decisions and actions. However, religion dictating policies and actions is wrong. It is true that America is a mostly Christian nation. I have read many opinions that state that, since they are the majority, they should be allowed to decide things. However, in forcing their opinion on the people, they are turning America into a single-religion-nation. What's next, procecution of Jews and Muslims? Muslims already face intense scrutiny as it is.
Don't agree with gay marriage? Fine. State that. However, don't impose that belief on the entire nation.
Don't agree with pre-marital sex? Fine. Then don't work as a pharmacist. Denying birth control to non-married women is no longer an issue of beliefs, it's an issue of not doing your job, and you should be fired.
Insist on prayer in the workplace? Then companies should be allowed to not hire you, not on the basis of religion, but on the basis of lost productivity. Why should they have to pay you for time you're not doing your job?
Don't agree with the idea of "killing" clumps of cells for research? Fine. But don't pass laws disallowing testing completely. Your beliefs aren't shared by everyone... don't take away opportunities for advancement because of your riteousness.
At the same time, don't ban prayer in school. If children choose to pray, they should be allowed to do so, provided that it does not interrupt class, take away from instructional time, or hurt other students. Don't like it, start your own school.
Don't ban religious icons from all public buildings. The founding fathers were, like it or not, religious. This nation was, like it or not, founded on some Christian beliefs. Having the Ten Commandments on a courthouse isn't hurting anyone, so there's no reason they need to be removed.
At the same time, this nation being founded on Christian beliefs does NOT make it a Christian nation, and you therefore have no right imposing Christian beliefs on all the people.
Not allowed to show your face in public? Causing a problem with your driver's licence? Then you shouldn't be allowed to get one. The point of the licence is identification. If religion dictates you must cover your face, that takes away the point of the licence (since, frankly, every covered face looks like every other one).
I do agree with seperation of church and state, but only because it prevents what Bush is doing: imposing his ideals on everyone. I don't agree when it is used to eliminate all traces of religion from the public. After all, there is a Constitutional right to religion and worship.
I disagree with banning the teaching of creationism and/or evolution in schools, provided evolution is taught as science and creationism is taught as literature (since, as far as I know, creationism comes from the Bible, and is not based on scientific fact, whereas evolution is). Both should be taught in schools. After all, no one is raising an uproar over the studying of other cultures' creation "myths," why make such a big deal over the bible's?
I disagree with the banning of any books from schools, but would agree with restrictions (for example, young kids reading the Communist Manifesto seems inappropriate). In particular, I highly disagree with the banning of gay couples and homosexuality from literature and television. Sure, kids and parents should be allowed to opt out of reading/studying this material based on religion, but banning it all together goes back to imposing your beliefs on everyone.
Okay, this wasn't really a rant, just wanted to get my thoughts out there. Moderate Christians rule! Certain conservative Christians (as well as some extreme liberals) need to stop expecting everyone to bow to them. Then, maybe, I can finally lose my bias and start looking past religion from the getgo, instead of having to get to know someone first. Bah.
Props to Zeke for that article.
Comments:
Post a comment:
