Not Even A Liberal Theocracy Is Acceptable
It isn't often that I agree with someone from the Heritage Foundation, but the op-ed writer in today's NY Times got it right, in my opinion.
NANCY PELOSI, the Democratic leader in the House, sounded like an Old Testament prophet recently when she denounced the Republican budget for its "injustice and immorality" and urged her colleagues to cast their no votes "as an act of worship" during this religious season.
This, apparently, is what the Democrats had in mind when they vowed after President Bush's re-election to reclaim religious voters for their party. In the House, they set up a Democratic Faith Working Group. Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, created a Web site called Word to the Faithful. And Democratic officials began holding conferences with religious progressives. All of this was with the intention of learning how to link faith with public policy. An event for liberal politicians and advocates at the University of California at Berkeley in July even offered a seminar titled "I Don't Believe in God, but I Know America Needs a Spiritual Left."
A look at the tactics and theology of the religious left, however, suggests that this is exactly what American politics does not need. If Democrats give religious progressives a stronger voice, they'll only replicate the misdeeds of the religious right.
...Democrats who want religious values to play a greater role in their party might take a cue from the human-rights agenda of religious conservatives. Evangelicals begin with the Bible's account of the God-given dignity of every person. And they've joined hands with liberal and secular groups to defend the rights of the vulnerable and oppressed, be it through prison programs for offenders and their families, laws against the trafficking of women and children, or an American-brokered peace plan for Sudan. In each case believers have applied their religious ideals with a strong dose of realism and generosity.
A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise - and a realization that politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven. [Emphasis added]
As I've mentioned before, I am a Christian, albeit a rather heterodoxical one. I know my thinking and (hopefully) my actions are informed by my faith. I do not believe, however, that people who are not Christian or who are non-believers are any less capable of acting with integrity, decency, and compassion. I also don't believe that people who are not Christian or non-believers deserve to be treated with less compassion or deserve to have their ideas on democracy and good governance accorded any less attention.
The Religious Reich continues to spout the nonsense that the founders of this nation and the drafters of the Constitution were deeply religious Christians. For the most part that is simply not true. They were Deists, secular Christians, if you will. They were also men who saw what a state imposed religion did to people, and they wanted no part of that, nor should we.
I don't see anything wrong with Democrats listening to progressive Christian evangelicals about what they think should be done and why. I do think that pandering to them by using the code-words exclusive to Christianity does a disservice to public discourse because it excludes a segment of the population from the discussion. There are better ways to move toward the free society that the founders envisioned for this country.
As Prior Aelred, a Benedictine monk and a friend of mine, reminded us recently, Democrats would do well to use that old saw that is still very relevant to our times: liberals believe that we are all better off when we are all better off.
From his lips to Flying Spaghetti Monster's ears.
NANCY PELOSI, the Democratic leader in the House, sounded like an Old Testament prophet recently when she denounced the Republican budget for its "injustice and immorality" and urged her colleagues to cast their no votes "as an act of worship" during this religious season.
This, apparently, is what the Democrats had in mind when they vowed after President Bush's re-election to reclaim religious voters for their party. In the House, they set up a Democratic Faith Working Group. Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, created a Web site called Word to the Faithful. And Democratic officials began holding conferences with religious progressives. All of this was with the intention of learning how to link faith with public policy. An event for liberal politicians and advocates at the University of California at Berkeley in July even offered a seminar titled "I Don't Believe in God, but I Know America Needs a Spiritual Left."
A look at the tactics and theology of the religious left, however, suggests that this is exactly what American politics does not need. If Democrats give religious progressives a stronger voice, they'll only replicate the misdeeds of the religious right.
...Democrats who want religious values to play a greater role in their party might take a cue from the human-rights agenda of religious conservatives. Evangelicals begin with the Bible's account of the God-given dignity of every person. And they've joined hands with liberal and secular groups to defend the rights of the vulnerable and oppressed, be it through prison programs for offenders and their families, laws against the trafficking of women and children, or an American-brokered peace plan for Sudan. In each case believers have applied their religious ideals with a strong dose of realism and generosity.
A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise - and a realization that politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven. [Emphasis added]
As I've mentioned before, I am a Christian, albeit a rather heterodoxical one. I know my thinking and (hopefully) my actions are informed by my faith. I do not believe, however, that people who are not Christian or who are non-believers are any less capable of acting with integrity, decency, and compassion. I also don't believe that people who are not Christian or non-believers deserve to be treated with less compassion or deserve to have their ideas on democracy and good governance accorded any less attention.
The Religious Reich continues to spout the nonsense that the founders of this nation and the drafters of the Constitution were deeply religious Christians. For the most part that is simply not true. They were Deists, secular Christians, if you will. They were also men who saw what a state imposed religion did to people, and they wanted no part of that, nor should we.
I don't see anything wrong with Democrats listening to progressive Christian evangelicals about what they think should be done and why. I do think that pandering to them by using the code-words exclusive to Christianity does a disservice to public discourse because it excludes a segment of the population from the discussion. There are better ways to move toward the free society that the founders envisioned for this country.
As Prior Aelred, a Benedictine monk and a friend of mine, reminded us recently, Democrats would do well to use that old saw that is still very relevant to our times: liberals believe that we are all better off when we are all better off.
From his lips to Flying Spaghetti Monster's ears.
posted by Diane at 5:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home