| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2005 05:12:10 AM |
| Object: |
Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers |
Subject: Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
From: "Robert Nordlander" [delete]
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:07:03 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Ixpandu [delete]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
*********************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
