Religion, secular nonsense and pious stupidity
This Web only Speakout has not been edited.
Isaac C. Rottenberg
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Politics is a hot topic in the 2008 presidential election. God-talk is definitely “in.” Comments George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, “This election, the candidates are talking so much about faith that one would think they wanted to be in the College of Cardinals rather than the Hall of Presidents.” It is an old and universal story with a new American twist.
Religion and politics interact—always and in every place where religion is free to be practiced. Sometimes even where the religious voice in the public square is stifled. It is a long American tradition. In the presidential election of 1800, no “wall of separation” could spare Thomas Jefferson the taunts of the Puritan divines who called him an atheist. Two hundred years later, in the election of 2000, religion was still a lively topic. So lively, indeed, that it led the exasperated Herald Tribune reporter, William Pfaff, to publish a column entitled “Take religion out of politics!” National policy, he wrote, was Caesar’s department, apparently forgetting that the emperor had assumed the title of Pontifex Maximus with all its religious implications.
It is really nonsense to demand that religion be totally detached from politics and policy decisions. Scientist Richard Dawkins may pity the poor souls who still suffer from “the God delusion,” and Christopher Hitchins may spread his anti- gospel of a no-good God with fundamentalist fervor; but for many millions of people, “religion has been embedded in the core of human life” (Eugene Genovese) and is relevant to the crucial issues of personal existence and the corporate life of a nation. It is unlikely that a political platform advocating a totally secular society would win an election in the USA.
The religion/politics dynamic is as American as apple pie. But there is something new under the sun of our beloved land –even several things. First, the orbit of religious issues raised has been widening. In the case of John F. Kannedy, the issue was his Roman Catholic faith. Then Jimmy Carter came along with his “born-again” brand of Christianity. Joe Lieberman’s open references to his Judaic faith raised eyebrows, particularly among some of his Jewish compatriots. Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison’s decision to take the oath of office on the Koran introduced a whole new dimension into the debate. So does Mitt Romney’s commitment to Mormon doctrines. The diversity of religious voices in a peaceful election process is a remarkable phenomenon in today’s world.
But there is something else that is new under the sun of our collective life. Some of the questions raised are getting sillier and sillier. Washington Post syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer hit the nail right on the head in his recent commentary entitled “An Overdose of Public Piety.” The issue is not religion, but pious stupidities. He refers to “some squirrelly looking guy” who held up a Bible and asked candidates for the presidency:,“Do you believe every word in this book?” Only a person who is blissfully ignorant of the critical analysis of divergent manuscripts, the choices made by translators, and the complexities of all textual interpretation would ask such a dumb question. Not much smarter is the politician who is seduced into answering it. At any rate, judging by their writings, several of our nation’s founders would have flunked that “test”— Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin among them. Not religion per se, but mindless dogmatism on the Right and the Left are the culprits standing in the way of an honest-to-God-and-the-nation dialogue on the issues.
Religious voices deserve to be heard when they raise serious questions of moral significance. But, please—let’s take secular nonsense and pious silliness out of politics.
emThe Rev. Isaac C. Rottenberg is a Denver resident who has written extensively on interfaith and cultural issues. He can be reached at revicr@aol.com/em
Comments
Posted by NotChasB on January 8, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Issac
I'm sure glad you didn't say atheism and Godlessness are as American as "apple pie". I agree there are a few of the psuedo Christian and cult religions mentioning something they only pay lip service to at election time. But there also are real moral questions being answered to the dismay of the small Godless secular
population and to the the cafeteria Christians out there who are worse than the atheists.
Posted by jay on January 8, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep religion out of our lives, labs and learning institutions.
Why is it so hard to ask those who wish to believe in the supernatural to do it on their own time, with their own money and with their own children?
Posted by rg on January 8, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On this day in 1697, Scottish medical student Thomas Aikenhead, 18 or 19 years old, was hanged to death for blasphemy, in Britain's last execution for blasphemy. The young Edinburgh student was found guilty of denying the trinity, and was convicted on the testimony of five "friends" to whom he had confided his strong religious doubts: Evidence against him were atheistic" books in his possession. The Church of Scotland urged his "vigorous execution. “. . . it is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth, and to seek for it as for hid treasure. . . ” -- Thomas Aikenhead,
“All that my work has shown is that you don't have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.” -- Stephen Hawking
Today: Pope Rat (Ratzinger the nazi youth who sweeps his pedophile priests under the rug) claims that gays are a threat to world peace. Is that pope an idiot or what? Credulous "christians" for centuries have slaughtered Christ killers, the Jews, while their god is a jew morphed into an anti-Semitic god. Religion is so silly and so deadly. Richard Grimes:member of the deicide, the sword of time, that has killed 9 million gods with 9 million more to go who yearns to kill those three dudes in the trinity along with the Muslim dude. http://www.geocities/r22037/think.html
Posted by malis on January 8, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every candidate understands he or she must profess some religious belief as a prerequisite for running for office. I'm fairly certain a healthy percentage of political officeholders don't actually hold the supernatural beliefs they profess, but understand that's the price of being in the arena.
Morman, Christian (Evangelical or otherwise), Muslim, Wiccan or Pagan...the particular flavor of invisible-friend-with-superpowers doesn't much matter. From a personal point of view (and I understand it's a minority point of view), only when candidates convince me both of their true belief and that they would make governing decisions based on that belief (i.e., Huckabee), is the candidate unqualified to hold office. That does usually rule out Fundamentalists of any flavor, as their faith nearly always mandates they establish the rules by which others must act.
Posted by Spencer on January 8, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are the "cafateria Christians" worse than the evangelicals?
Posted by ripcord on January 9, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Spencer, what is a cafateria Christian? Thanks.
Posted by Michael on January 10, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Why is it so hard to ask those who wish to believe in the supernatural to do it on their own time, with their own money and with their own children?" - jay
Asking is not hard at all but you will not be happy with the response. And BTW - it is OUR time and OUR money and OUR kids who are in this too so we have as much right as any to inject our beliefs and opinions wherever we desire. As they say, if you don't like it, tough s*#t.
Posted by ripcord on January 10, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Michael, wooohooo! Well said!
Posted by hakj on January 10, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ripcord
from wiki
Cafeteria Christianity is a derogatory term used to label individual Christians or Christian churches who decline to follow particular doctrines of religion advocated by the critic. The term implies that the criticized individual's professed religious belief is a proxy for their personal preferences, not a legitimate hermeneutical interpretation.
Cafeteria-style means to pick-and-choose, as in choosing what food to purchase from a cafeteria line. The term implies that the individual's professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than a genuine interpretation of, or spiritual relationship with, Christian doctrine or the teachings of Jesus. The selectivity implied may relate to the acceptance of Christian doctrines (such as the resurrection or the virgin birth of Jesus) or Biblical morality and ethical prohibitions (e.g. a rejection of homosexual acts) and is often associated with discussions concerning the applicability of Old Testament laws to Christians and the Sermon on the Mount.
Posted by hakj on January 10, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
spencer
Are the "cafateria Christians" worse than the evangelicals?
it depends.
Evangelicals are supposedly Christian.
Cafeteria Christians are supposedly Christian.
Therefore, certain evangelicals could be cafeteria Christians.
and, not all Christians or evangelicals are cafeteria Christians.
However, in my opinion cafeteria Christians are not true Christians. For the term Christian means to be Christ-like. If one is picking and choosing that part of Christianity that is only palatable then that person is NOT being Christ-like. Which means that person is not a Christian.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.