I’m glad I don’t live in Canada. What the U.S. is becoming is bad enough.
Some of you may know this Haroon Siddiqui (reg. req. maybe), described as an “Arab-Canadian”, but I’d never heard of him before yesterday. His column, “Bush Plays God Card” is not exactly a Bush/God-bashing piece, but I don’t think he cares for Bush, God or Americans all that much, which seems to be the case for most mainstream American journalists. He writes:
The most devout president in decades, Bush had expressed such sentiments before but not with such clarity. Which prompts the question: Is he cracking the constitutional wall between church and state? [No such thing. See last paragraph of post.]I spoke to two American experts and re-read some of the relevant literature.
It used to be that the more industrialized a nation, the less religious. But by the 1980s, religious activism was not confined to Muslims, as assumed after the 1979 Iranian revolution.
“Newly politicized movements were occurring in virtually every major religious tradition,” writes British author Malise Ruthven in his latest book, Fundamentalism. The biggest upsurge was in America, with the rise of the New Christian Right.
As Canadians were moving away from religion, Americans were getting closer to it. (My emphasis)
This section alone is chockfull of interesting tidbits. I don’t know about these so-called American experts, but what exactly is the “Christian Right” and how is its “rise” measured? Perhaps I should find out about the “experts” and read (or read about) the books before I evaluate their credentials.
I try to keep an open mind and give people the benefit of the doubt. I really do. But if a non-Christian (good guess?) purports to be an expert on Christians or Christian history, I’m skeptical, probably as much as an atheist is about God. 
Mr. Siddiqui (I hope he doesn’t write to me.) implies that Bush is courting a constituency of Americans who believes Jesus Christ is the risen Savior. Fair enough. I don’t have a problem with that. I would have problems if he were courting voters based on skin color.
Bush is a man of faith, and nothing in the Constitution requires him to leave his faith at the door as he leads the free world. All religions in America — Christianity, atheism, evolutionism and Islam, to name a few — can be freely practiced. Within reason.
Siddiqui continues:
He [John Kerry] has always kept his faith private and separated it from his public life, in the tradition of Kennedy and that of the Catholic Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien.But with a majority of Americans wanting their president to be guided by religious values and Bush doing better among the believers, regardless of denomination, Kerry came out of the closet: “I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. My entire person is affected by my belief structure.”
Obviously Siddiqui thinks “keeping faith private” is a good thing. At least he acknowledges that the majority of us want our president guided by an authority higher than himself. I thought the sentiment was universal, something deep within the human soul. Perhaps not. Again, I don’t want to assume the writer is godless, but by his tone, he’s definitely not a Bible-believing Christian. I don’t think he’s a follower of Muhammad, either.
I like his crack about Kerry “coming out of the closet” about his faith, which is, in my opinion, no faith at all. Kerry, who once said abortion murder, contends he will not allow his “faith” to influence his policy decisions.
On that issue and the made-up doctrine of separation of church and state, Kerry and I have “conversed” in “Incompatible Kerry’s Immaculate Deception.” We talk a lot, don’t we?
{ 40 comments }
But by the 1980s, religious activism was not confined to Muslims, as assumed after the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Does Mr. Saddiqui criticize the civil rights movement, where black folks were knee deep in religious activism? This is the model from which the Christian Right draws its own inspiration.
He also could’ve mentioned that the Pew Research Center shows that the Democratic Party’s most loyal base – ahem, blacks – are very similar in their religious views to white Christian conservatives, as both groups claim to be primarily evangelical worshippers. And politics and the black church have been intertwined since day one.
Of course, such nuance would undercut his analysis.
Should religion and politics intertwine?
There’s no question that many who would call themselves Christian have gained political power to the point where the world associates the Gospel with a political philosophy.
The “Moral Majority” was created so that Christians could flex their political muscle and impose legislation on a country that largely rejects the Gospel.
I am a Conservative (politically and theologically) Christian. But I think it is dangerous to tie the Gospel to a political agenda, especially when Scripture is silent on the political agenda.
We are called to participate in politics as citizens, but we must never say that God supports the invasion of Iraq, or God is for tax cuts to the wealthy, etc. Scripture does not tell us one way or the other God’s stance on these issues. Instead we must reason with unbelievers–leaving Scripture out of it.
Don’t get me wrong, I support President Bush. I do think, however, that we shouldn’t politicize the Gospel.
God is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat.
God my not be a Republican or a Democrat, but I bet he isn’t very happy with Democrats right now and their championing of dnying references to Him in public places, unborn child murder, gay rights, racism, lying, poverty inducing, and terrorist enabling
Paul,
I don’t think President Bush has politicized his belief. For someone who supports him you seem remiss in knowledge about him. If the President was making his belief a political issue his true colors would be evident when he is away from the public eye; much like John Kerry. I’ve known about and read too many personal stories about the faith President Bush displays in private to believe it to be a show for political purposes. If you are a “conservative christian” can I assume that media opinions have caused you to be ashamed or embarrased of President Bush’ love for the Lord?
Professing publicly one’s love for God and his son Jesus Christ is the main reason I love this man. Ronald Reagan had no qualms about stating his belief in public and neither should anyone else. Pundits, the ACLU and others can try and take Christ from the public domain but the only way they’ll take Christ from me is from my cold dead fingers.
Kerry’s stand on abortion (DNC) is his first view and morally reprehensible only when it serves his purpose. His “religion” reminds me so often of the “phony christian” Bill Clinton was. With the President, christianity is a part of his very existence; not a means to an end.
The Bible in fact does teach us to follow our government and obey it’s laws. Separation of Church and State is not freedom from religion.
Kerry has never kept his faith private, if you look at the bills, and other issues he has supported or denounced, it is clear that Kerry is unabashedly worshipping, at the altar of Karl Marx. Socialism IS a religion also.
You’re right, Eric. People who don’t follow Christianity or believe in God don’t realize they still have a worldview. Atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism – these are all religious beliefs. We all have our presuppositions, and those are based on something.
I am unequivocally against the merging of Church and State. The Founding Fathers (who were deists and unitarians) opposed it, Objectivism opposes it, and I oppose it.
Individual rights can only be defended by Reason. From the early but limited discovery of rights by the Stoics in ancient Rome through the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, man’s rights have been a thoroughly secular achievement.
Although Christianity did play a role in the recognition of the sovereignty of the individual soul or self, rights could not have been achieved within a religious framework.
This is why the Southern states where plantation slavery and Jim Crow laws held sway in America have always been more religious than the Northern states, which banned slavery soon after independence and embraced the Industrial Revolution, itself an outgrowth of the pro-reason Enlightenment.
Reason allowed the North to see that, besides the moral evil of slavery, economic prosperity was better served by scientific progress, which the Industrial Revolution presented. Free men, free to use their minds, free to dispose of their property and profit as they saw fit, were far more productive than men in chains. This principle applied – and applies – to “lowly” workers as well as to captains of industry in large corporations. Rich or poor, self-made wealth or inherited, a man has his rights, period.
It is for these reasons that I oppose any attempts to erode man’s rights, including faith-based initiatives, anti-abortion laws, and laws restricting rational, non-governmental, scientific research.
I even wrote an article on my website in January on this very topic, titled, “A Stable of Arabian Nightmares.” The piece ties in with Miss Barber’s earlier post.
theindividualist.blogs.com/nouspoetikos/2004/01/towards_a_stabl.html
Here we go again. Notwithstanding that men will use the cloak of religion for evil, where does reason come from?
This defies common sense. Christians are being asked to be schizophrenic, leaving the most important component of their lives at home.
My understanding of the workplace, and the marketplace of ideas as well, is that they should be places where the “whole man” concept is encouraged.
Reason is not a belief, it is an aspect of human nature.
Reason is a peculiarly human trait, a trait not possessed by other animals. It is the characteristic that allows us to speak, do math, study for and attain law degrees, build roads, discover fundamental truths, perform lab experiments, etc. Notice that no other creature on earth does these things.
Reason is an aspect of man’s consciousness. Your consciousness consists of your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin (i.e., your senses), nervous system, brain, and some other yet-to-be-fully-explained, natural phenomena.
That phenomena is reason, which is the faculty that integrates the data provided by the senses. We know it is there because we can observe it by introspection.
Because so little is known about it, many people attribute its origin to God/Supreme Being/Allah, etc.
But, there is no warrant for this judgmental leap. Like every other non-man-made existent, reason simply is. Existence simply is. Existence is eternal. We know from physics, after all, that Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
I’d like those who believe that there must have been a “beginning” to try this at home. Close your eyes and imagine a time when there would have been no universe, a time when there would have been nothing. Now, with all your intellectual might and concentration, try to picture that “nothing” in your head. Now tell me, what color is this “nothing?” what shape is it? what size is it?
If the color is pitch-black, then it can’t be a “nothing” — it is pitch-black, and then it is no longer nothing but something. If it is any other color, then it is that color and therefore, not nothing. To be more precise, there can be no such real (as opposed to conceptual) thing as nothing.
When we use the word nothing, we don’t actually mean a “nothing” exists. We mean “the absence of something, in a given context.” Since the universe is the fullest context, “nothing” cannot apply to it.
I know this is pretty abstract stuff, but spend some quite time thinking about it and slowly but surely, it’ll all come together.
Best wishes.
But, there is no warrant for this judgmental leap. Like every other non-man-made existent, reason simply is. Existence simply is. Existence is eternal. We know from physics, after all, that Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
You haven’t answered the question, “Where does reason come from?” New question: How do you know existence is eternal and from where does this belief derive?
Dare,
Spend too much time thinking that way and you risk becoming insane. I will note for the record that you make valid points, at least for those who believe as you do. For others who do not understand the concepts, even if they disagree with civility, you have just described a wholly untenable position. I applaud your description of reason if for no other reason than it is not the norm.
If I might – What do you think of those who profess a belief in Christ? Please use reason in describing your thoughts.
Dare,
Civil rights for black folks were hardly a secular achievement. It was the Quakers and other religious folks – in the “secular” North – who championed abolition against the religious slaveowners that you describe. And the civil rights movement – which happened both South and North – drew very heavily from the black church’s social gospel ethic, Mahatma Gandhi, and general Christianity. Malcolm X went from Nation of Islam to orthodox Islam.
I’m generally a secularist with libertarian leanings myself (although unlike you, I believe that our rights are ordained by God and not by “reason”) but even I acknowledge this reality. We’ve seen how scientists have used “reason” to deny rights to black folks. Had we waited for secularists, we’d still be waiting for our civil rights.
People who don’t follow Christianity or believe in God don’t realize they still have a worldview. Atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism – these are all religious beliefs. We all have our presuppositions, and those are based on something.
Yes, today, there is a strong anti-ideological streak in the culture. But, being anti-ideological is itself an ideology.
So, in this wise, you are right, each man has a philosophy. In fact, it is precisely because of human nature that everyone has a philosophy. And all philosophies have starting points. This is unquestionable.
However, not all philosophies are based on “something. Something means something that, something that exists.
In this regard, religion is an early form of philosophy which has always been around. However, primitive men used religion because they didn’t know how to explain the numerous travails that nature and life presented. But then the ancient Greeks, founders of Western civilization, discovered reason and its efficacy in man’s life. They jettisoned religion. The gods of ancient Greece were not supernatural — they were more like a different tribe of natural beings. Ancient Greece was a marvellous civilization which gave us the first items on what has eventually become the United States of America.
And the Founding Fathers knew this, hence their own lip service to religion, which they recognized as a spiritual hindrance.
Religion has no basis in reality, hence it is ultimately (metaphysically) baseless.
Raymond, Roundguy,
I’m not pointing fingers at any individual, just the political religious right.
I’m voting for Bush, and I also share your love and admiration for him. My problem, however, is when Christians tie God to a particular political agenda–when the Bible is silent on the issue.
For example, taxes, welfare, health care or the invasion of Iraq. I think Bush is right on these issues, but I will never drag God into the debate on these issues. God gave us reason, and a natural law–the basis of morality.
When we reason in the public square we should take part as citizens and appeal to our fellow countrymen’s reason and inborn moral code.
Churches should stay out of politics, like Ms. Barber points out with Kerry’s attempts to preach at a Church. The Gospel is not a political cause, nor should it be confused as such. The Gospel transcends politics and political parties.
Thank Goodness that God isn’t a democrat.
Paul
Gosh! Dare, that sounds exactly like the stuff I was so enamored with in college (are you a college student, by the way?). People always have and always will come up with ways of explaining the world around them, including the transcendent. And I suspect there’s a lot more to come. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. I pray that you keep searching so that one day will find the Truth.
Is it fair to say that anyone on the right who speaks of God is the religious right? While Mr. Oliver odes well in his description, for many, it is difficult to divorce their faith from their beliefs about politics.
How should one do that?
Paul, you’ve got it wrong. I can’t or won’t speak for anyone else, but I would never say anything as moronic as God is a Republican, and I don’t think any reasonable person would (or even imply it).
I can argue, however, that conservative principles are more in line with my Christian worldview, and there is absolutely nothing wrong supporting a candidate, mostly likely a conservative, whose own views are consistent with mine. For instance, your average liberal candidate will probably be pro-child killing; your conservative will likely not be. Your average liberal will likely be pro-skin color preferences (which I believe are immoral); your typical conservative, probably not.
You may use your Christian worldview to decide who to vote for, but when talking about it around the office or to your unbelieving neighbors leave God out of it.
God was used to justify slavery, the crusades, and segregation. Now with cooler heads we can look back and say God shouldn’t have been used as a token in these political battles, nor should he be used in today’s political debates.
Now when someone starts asking about justification and what is sin, by all means bring God into it.
The Republican party doesn’t have a monopoly on biblical teachings–I’d say Democrats focus on the Sermon on the Mount and taking care of the poor and less fortunate, while Republicans focus on the immorality of Homosexuality and Abortion. Both parties try to use the Bible to their advantage. NOTE: this is a generalization, and not all that far from the truth.
Those of us in the Church can agree that homosexuality is sin, but disagree how one applies that in the political sphere. Often those on the “Christian Right” will say that we need to pass laws to prevent people from engaging in homosexual acts.
Should we use the power of the State to enforce this moral code on those who reject it? I say no, because the secular state is not the Church. It is the Church’s responsibility to proclaim the Gospel to a dying world that needs to hear it. Legislation isn’t addressed in the Bible.
Paul
Paul, you are mistaken,
The Bible is not silent on welfare. It says and I am paraphrasing that if you do not work you do not eat and the Bible is rife with stories of just wars, vengeance and destruction of evil. Taxes? The Bible most certainly does mention taxes and tax collectors. It treats them as vile entities. One of the aposteles even gave up this abominable practice to follow Christ as his apostele.
What??? I don’t have to leave God out of anything! I can talk about my faith in relation to politics (or anything else) because my faith guides my politics. I am not required, nor will I ever take orders from anyone, to “leave God out of it.”
Paul, I don’t know you but I assume you’re an intelligent man. The fact that men used the name of God to justify all manner of evil is on us, not God. No one on this blog ever implied or wrote that “Republicans have a monopoly on God.” That is a ridiculous statement.
I have no idea why you’re capitalizing “church” unless you’re Catholic, which I am not. I don’t get my orders from Rome; they come directly from God.
People with belief systems other than biblical Christianity live by those beliefs. Their worldview guides their lives. But let a Christian bring up G-O-D and the sky falls in. I can’t believe you’re a Christian with that kind of thinking.
“True religion affords government its surest support. The future of this nation depends on the Christian training of our youth. It is impossible to govern without the Bible.”
– George Washington
Does the above quote sound like it came from a man who regards religion as a spiritual hindrance?
TV (Harry)
Hi Raymond,
As per welfare, the Bible also speaks of giving to the poor, but it doesn’t address the state’s role in this political issue.
The Bible condemns tax collectors, but never does it assert which tax code is the proper one.
So no, the Bible doesn’t tell us whether Kerry’s tax proposals or Bush’s or Badnarik’s or Nader’s tax plan is the “divine” one. Or whose welfare position is more accurate, either.
One could argue that the Democrats’ focus on taking care of the less fortunate is more Biblical than the Republican view on things. I would disagree with Democrats though, because I don’t think this is a State resposibility, but a Church responsibility.
Paul
I would invite you all to read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense; Especially the part where he relates the story of ancient Israel and Kingship.
Do not think for a moment that our founders did not ponder the role that God played in the birth of our Republic or the foundation of our rights.
Giving. Correct, but not stealing as is done with our present and most tax systems. Taxation IS NOT giving.
You do realize that in response to your argument being decimated you are being petty right? The Bible also never mention cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, “leap frogging”, using the “N” or the “F” word, homosexual necrophilia or many other things. Does that mean they are ok?
NO welfare position is more accurate when it involves a gun to someone’s head.
Democrats do not focus on taking care of the less fortunate. They buy the votes of and appease and pander to the less fortunate for their own poer at OTHERS’ expense. Taking care of the poor means using your own resources and not stealing the resources of others.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus commanded YOU to act, not some government bureaucrat.
PREACH Brother Kelso!
LB,
Christians are both citizens of Heaven and the world. When we engage in politics we are participating as citizens of earth, and we should behave so.
Because we have failed to do this, we’ve identified God with political causes and the Church has become irrelevant to today’s culture. Even if the blame of the Crusades, slavery, and segregation on us.
Not very long ago the Dutch Reformed Church (majority church in South Africa) argued that God was on the side of the Afrikaner, or the white South African. They pointed to victories over the British and other African tribes to prove this. The English viewed themselves as the new Israel at war with Babylon (Protestants vs. the Spanish Catholics). When they defeated the Spanish Armada this “proved” to the English that God was on their side.
In 1857 the Dutch Reformed Church declared that it was okay for churches to be built on racial lines: this was the start of apartheid.
There are countless times when well-meaning Christians dragged God into the political arena, to used His name to endorse their terrible cause. This is why many view the Church as irrelevant, and a majory setback to the Gospel.
One can use God’s name in the public sphere if the issue is theological, not political. And one must make sure that one recognizes the difference between the Church’s calling to proclaim the Law and the Gospel (revealed in Scripture) and the State’s calling to enforce civil justice as it is based on natural revelation.
As for my capitalizing “Church” it comes from my love for Christ’s bride. I’m not a Catholic, but a Reformed Protestant.
You haven’t made one biblical argument about why Christians cannot engage the world through politics or that our God, as he guides every part of our lives, including who we vote for, can’t be uttered in a political context. Because men have misused God’s name for their evil acts proves that man is infallible, not God.
I repeat: when men misuse, misapply and misinterpret Scripture, it is man’s fault, not God’s. You can cite all the historical examples of evil you want. Fallen man, as you know, will do anything to get what he wants. I’d rather have God in the public sphere because you know the god of secular humanism is always there.
I’m thinking of child-killing, which has become a political issue. It is not a political issue for me; it is murder. If I’m lobbying against Roe v. Wade in the public sphere, for example, I would invoke the name of God because the Bible tells me it is murder. Just because secularists have turned these things into “politics” doesn’t mean the issues are now hands-off for Christians or that we shouldn’t clarify the reason we oppose child-killing. Satan would love that.
And I am also a Reformed Protestant. I really don’t like to “argue” with Christians on the blog, so if you want to continue this discussion, please e-mail me.
Kerry has NOT been “in the closet” about religion.
He has been front and center – publically receiving communion and the center of a Church controversy about abortion.
And Kerry has been front and center in Black churches.
Actually, Dare, the founding fathers weren’t just Deists or Unitarians. Our first President, George Washington was a fundamental Baptist. I will agree that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, but even he acknowledged God in his statements. Furthermore, all of these men had some belief in God, as is evidenced by their mentioning being guided by God in forming our nation, and the necessity to continue to look to God to guide us, and as soon as we cease to do so, it will be the downfall of our nation. I am sure they are rolling over in their graves right now.
On the issue of separation of church and state, the constitution does not provide for such a thing. It says that the government cannot establish a state religion, i.e. The Church of England or Scotland. However, Christians do believe in the separation of church and state, BUT we believe that involves the government staying out of church affairs, and not setting up a state church. Nowhere do Christians or the constitution say that separation of church and state means that it is illegal or uncouth to mention the name of God in public, private or to practice your faith.
Nowhere do Christians or the constitution say that separation of church and state means that it is illegal or uncouth to mention the name of God in public, private or to practice your faith.
Nowhere have I said a person cannot do these things. Your assertion is a non sequitur.
I don’t know about “religion,” but as for Jesus, I’ve met Him, he is real!
Dare:
Religion has no basis in reality, hence it is ultimately (metaphysically) baseless.
By this statement, you’ve asserted that a person who “wears his religon on his sleeve” in a public capacity is illogical
Regardless of your clams to the contrary, you are practicing a form of religon — a belief system for things that you cannot directly explain. You cannot prove eternity for the simple reason that you have not been there per se. My belief system tells me that there is not only a creator, but that all of his creation can speak.
The fact that animals do not reason with you now is by design, notwithstanding that they once had the capabilty to do so and will do so agin upon His return.
Furthermore, I think plenty of secular scientists will take issue with your definition of reason as pertains to animal behavior.
As La Shawn stated. I hope you keep searching for the truth — the logic thereof. All the same, God has said that truth is self-evident, yet in our fallen state, we have become wise in our own eyes and deny the truth of the very things we can see. That being the case, how can you believe in things not seen nor understood?
This is where your reason become circular. And in no other religion — non-Judeo-Christian/Abrahmic — is there a linear and logical explanation given of who we are and how we came to be.
Dare,
Just the first paragraph was written to address your comments about the founding fathers beliefs. The second paragraph was to address some other comments.
“But then the ancient Greeks, founders of Western civilization, discovered reason and its efficacy in man’s life. They jettisoned religion. The gods of ancient Greece were not supernatural – they were more like a different tribe of natural beings. Ancient Greece was a marvellous civilization which gave us the first items on what has eventually become the United States of America.”
Yes, the ancient Greeks *did* jettison religion. Afterward, they became decadent and dissolute, and enamored by their own cleverness. That period spawned not only the Stoics you have mentioned, but also the Epicureans (hedonists whose philosphy can be summed up as “eat, drink, and make merry, for tomorrow we may die”) and a host of other philosophies. The Greeks became so caught up in the love of discussing and arguing philosophies (that the one doing the arguing may or may not have ascribed to) that their society lost cohesiveness, and was subsequently a pushover for Roman conquest. Their Democracy was a fickle mob rule that America has avoided only by the grace of God and by the Founders creating the Electoral College. The Greeks may have no longer believed that their deities were truly gods, but in turning those gods into abstract principles and the mere objects of morality tales, they also took away any relevance the gods may have had to their lives (and by extension, they took away the relvance the morality tales might have had). Far from being unified by dint of their Reason, the Greeks were ultimately torn apart by said Reason, because they could not agree upon the fundamentals of what constitutes Truth.
And that, as I see it, is the end of all exercises of Reason that reject God from the outset: decadance, dissolution, and impotence. As Solomon wrote, “Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done and on the labor in which I had toiled; and indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind. There was no profit under the sun.” Human reason is a wonderful thing, but is of itself insufficient to either discern ultimate meaning or to serve as an enduring principle of morality and social cohesiveness.
AWG, that cuts to the heart of “reason” . Nost excellent. Hence St. Paul’s sermon on the ID of the unknown god.
Looks like our neigbor to the north are becomming a socialist country but why else is the maple leaf on the canadian flag RED? In fact some canadians are refusing to register their guns becuase like any socialist country it will soon after confiscate their weapons and say its for the greater good, i,ll bet hitler did the same thing when he took over power in germany
Back to your original post: The author writes for the socialist-leaning, anti-American, anti-Republican, liberal, anti-Conservative, anti-Christian, left-wing, pro multi-culturalism, anti-military, minority-means-victim-mindset Toronto Star. In other words, he hates Bush.
“He [John Kerry] has always kept his faith private”
Yes. So private even he doesn’t know about it.
Comments on this entry are closed.