Drew's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/31/2007 16:41 #41909
The Reformation PolkaCategory: religion
New posts below, too, but I couldn't pass this up for the 31st.
Luther's theology on the relationship between the church and the state, by the way, led to the church allowing Hitler to do his thing. Sometimes Christians HAVE to get into politics.
10/31/2007 09:01 #41902
Christianity and PoliticsCategory: religion
The popular thinking is that the two should not cross paths. There are countless examples of harm done in the name of God, by Christians and other people of faith.
So should religious values be removed from the realm of public debate? While some would like this, as a person of faith, I don't see that as possible. My faith involves values that encompass WAY more than the "moral values," that the media talks about. My faith says that I have to work for peace, for justice, for the hungry, homeless, and imprisoned, and for for the good of an alien/stranger. It says that I have to love my neighbor.
How can I separate loving my neighbor from the way that I vote?
I have not found an issue that is not, to me, a "'moral issue." If I could not base my vote on my faith, I could not vote based on the war, health care, marriage, abortion, education, taxation, or immigration am I leaving an issue out?
Should I just walk into the booth a pull a lever at random?
A lot of people see faith as something like rooting for a sports team. It effects how you dress sometimes, what you do on game day, and who you talk to. Some people are more into it than others, but obviously nobody bases all of their life decisions on their association with a team.
However, its not that way for me, and many other people of faith. All that I am is wrapped up in my faith. To say otherwise is to lie.
So, while I hate the blind obedience that was demonstrated in (e:changeisgood)'s post, and I disagree with that guy's conclusions, I find myself taking action on global warming, BECAUSE of my faith convition, not in spite of it.
Lots of people do horrible things, with and with out faith. Likewise, plenty of people are altruistic without faith to guide them.
Me, I can't imagine living any way except selfishly without my faith. I know (from observation, mostly) that others can do it, but without my faith, I think I would be all about me--which would change my perspective on the war, immigration, and global warming, to name a few things
Which isn't to say that I don't believe in the separation of church and state. More on that later . . .
PS. really, if anybody wants to take a trip to New Orleans, it will be cool. Scroll down in my posts to check it out.
So should religious values be removed from the realm of public debate? While some would like this, as a person of faith, I don't see that as possible. My faith involves values that encompass WAY more than the "moral values," that the media talks about. My faith says that I have to work for peace, for justice, for the hungry, homeless, and imprisoned, and for for the good of an alien/stranger. It says that I have to love my neighbor.
How can I separate loving my neighbor from the way that I vote?
I have not found an issue that is not, to me, a "'moral issue." If I could not base my vote on my faith, I could not vote based on the war, health care, marriage, abortion, education, taxation, or immigration am I leaving an issue out?
Should I just walk into the booth a pull a lever at random?
A lot of people see faith as something like rooting for a sports team. It effects how you dress sometimes, what you do on game day, and who you talk to. Some people are more into it than others, but obviously nobody bases all of their life decisions on their association with a team.
However, its not that way for me, and many other people of faith. All that I am is wrapped up in my faith. To say otherwise is to lie.
So, while I hate the blind obedience that was demonstrated in (e:changeisgood)'s post, and I disagree with that guy's conclusions, I find myself taking action on global warming, BECAUSE of my faith convition, not in spite of it.
Lots of people do horrible things, with and with out faith. Likewise, plenty of people are altruistic without faith to guide them.
Me, I can't imagine living any way except selfishly without my faith. I know (from observation, mostly) that others can do it, but without my faith, I think I would be all about me--which would change my perspective on the war, immigration, and global warming, to name a few things
Which isn't to say that I don't believe in the separation of church and state. More on that later . . .
PS. really, if anybody wants to take a trip to New Orleans, it will be cool. Scroll down in my posts to check it out.
10/29/2007 22:24 #41872
1984 quote.Category: sermon
Next Sunday's sermon, briefly. Based on Ephesians 1:15-23
When George Orwell wrote, "He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future," it was a scary picture of government controlling history.
For Christians, this scary quote is actually good news--not because we have taken control of the present (and therefore, history), but because we see efforts of control in the present as fleeting compared to the extraordinarily different power the Christ exhibited in the past, which we believe to be a guarantee of the future.
Fate is not in control, and neither is Caesar, or George W. Bush, or whoever comes after that.
So, because of an event in the past (namely Christ's resurrection and ascension) we have hope for a resurrection-life in the future, and claims to power based on death (i.e. all of them, save God's) are empty--setting us free to live a different way in the present!
We'll spend more time unpacking that idea on Sunday, and considering how it might affect us as individuals and a community.
When George Orwell wrote, "He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future," it was a scary picture of government controlling history.
For Christians, this scary quote is actually good news--not because we have taken control of the present (and therefore, history), but because we see efforts of control in the present as fleeting compared to the extraordinarily different power the Christ exhibited in the past, which we believe to be a guarantee of the future.
Fate is not in control, and neither is Caesar, or George W. Bush, or whoever comes after that.
So, because of an event in the past (namely Christ's resurrection and ascension) we have hope for a resurrection-life in the future, and claims to power based on death (i.e. all of them, save God's) are empty--setting us free to live a different way in the present!
We'll spend more time unpacking that idea on Sunday, and considering how it might affect us as individuals and a community.
10/29/2007 13:23 #41860
Want to go to New Orleans?Jan 6-12. Most of the people on this trip will be Presbyterians, but all types of people are welcome (and though my userpic may lead you to believe otherwise, there will be no coercion on this trip).
The cost of the food/lodging while you work will be $120. Plane tickets are reserved for $300 (round trip) and can be held with a $100 deposit. The deposit is due next Monday.
The work will be construction and deconstruction. There is a special need for skilled workers, but there is plenty to do for everybody. Even those with physical issues can assist in feeding other volunteers or handling the paperwork that is involved in the relief effort.
Want to go? Comment and I will email you an application right away.
The cost of the food/lodging while you work will be $120. Plane tickets are reserved for $300 (round trip) and can be held with a $100 deposit. The deposit is due next Monday.
The work will be construction and deconstruction. There is a special need for skilled workers, but there is plenty to do for everybody. Even those with physical issues can assist in feeding other volunteers or handling the paperwork that is involved in the relief effort.
Want to go? Comment and I will email you an application right away.
10/29/2007 10:23 #41857
I only wrote 13 blogs so far this monthI am slipping, since I was over 20 during August and September.
And of those 13, a few were lame, like this one, #14.
And the more lame ones I write, the less likely they are to get read.
Therefore, I will write a good one tonight. Really. #15 will be fantastic.
Will I get to 20 before the end of the month?
You'll have to stay tuned to find out.
Or realize that I would have to post 2 and 3 times a day to get there, which really just defeats the purpose.
So, no, I won't.
Are you still reading this? I'm sorry.
The party was fun. Happy Halloween.
(also happy Reformation Day, All Saint's Day, and All Soul's Day)
And of those 13, a few were lame, like this one, #14.
And the more lame ones I write, the less likely they are to get read.
Therefore, I will write a good one tonight. Really. #15 will be fantastic.
Will I get to 20 before the end of the month?
You'll have to stay tuned to find out.
Or realize that I would have to post 2 and 3 times a day to get there, which really just defeats the purpose.
So, no, I won't.
Are you still reading this? I'm sorry.
The party was fun. Happy Halloween.
(also happy Reformation Day, All Saint's Day, and All Soul's Day)
james - 10/29/07 11:19
I saw a humorous sign in front of a Catholic church that said "Come celebrate the true meaning of Halloween: ALL SOULS DAY!"
As if years ago groups of people lamented the commercialization of all soul's day, as it slipped from pure religious fun to the devil's secular holiday full of zombies, vampires, and candy corn.
Remember the miracle of Halloween? When Jesus was handing out candy to the lepers (the ghouls of their time) but he only had three snickers, four apples, and a box of razors but by a miricle there were enough for all the lepers?
or something.
I saw a humorous sign in front of a Catholic church that said "Come celebrate the true meaning of Halloween: ALL SOULS DAY!"
As if years ago groups of people lamented the commercialization of all soul's day, as it slipped from pure religious fun to the devil's secular holiday full of zombies, vampires, and candy corn.
Remember the miracle of Halloween? When Jesus was handing out candy to the lepers (the ghouls of their time) but he only had three snickers, four apples, and a box of razors but by a miricle there were enough for all the lepers?
or something.
"Information Shortcuts" - love that!
if people really felt exploited by a lack of information they would do something about it. Lazy voters like information shortcuts and as long as they keep voting through shortcuts they are tacitly agreeing that it is ok to not be fully informed. There is some very interesting literature on this phenomena from the NES. As I said before, there is more than enough slack in the system for an electoral revolution if people really felt hard done by...they just don't. It is like this in every democracy in the world
well said, DCoffee.
Haha. Information Shortcut. I like that, DCoffee. Sadly, I think I've only ever met a couple of people in my life who haven't already fallen prey to this. Americans love it, what can I say?
Of course Religious people vote, and their vote is partly based on their religious convictions, their religion is part of their life, and to ignore it is impossible. No problem with that, people are who they are, and they make their own decisions.
I agree with Drew, that the problem comes when a religion aligns itself with a candidate or with a Party, instead of the issues. No party can claim to support all the issues of a particular faith, except a theocratic one, and that would be patently un-American. So when a religion aligns itself with a party, that religion has betrayed itself, and it's members.
Who's stupid idea was it to say, "Christian, therefore, Republican", oh, that's right, it was Jerry Falwell, and his legal "pittbulls". his mission was to overturn Roe v Wade, and he was willing to pervert the purpose of the church in order to do so. Church goers are a pretty cohesive bunch, so he decided to take advantage of them, by telling them who was good or evil in politics. Instead of sticking to the issues, many Christians stuck to the Republican party, or at least pretended to, so they would avoid being ostracized.
What a legacy, turning a diverse group of seekers into a mob, bent on imposing their will on the US through the power of government. Of course, not all Christians were drafted into this mob, and many thoughtful people were alienated from the church because of this Republican adventure.
In political science, blind partisan loyalty is described as an "Information Shortcut". We citizens are to busy paying off our debt and trying to survive the rat race, that we don't have time to pay attention to all the issues, or all the politicians. We want to trust a party or an individual to help us decide, so we don't have to bother with all this information. The result, we are being exploited.
we were talking about this in my seminar today. As a political scientist I see religion as an indicator of how people view life/will vote on certain issues so, for purely selfish measurement reasons, I don't mind when politics and religion come together.
Also, religion or faith is simple another facet to someone's ideology which instructs their propensity to vote, mobilize etc and if people want to merge their political views with their faith it's up to them, it is hard to divorce the two but that doesn't necessarily point toward forward or even inverse causation in policy opinion. People who are not religious simply have other, socially defined cues which we don't object to because we can't pin them down in a 'does god exist' debate Sure it can be a little crazy when people say 'god says a certain policy is wrong' but if you remove god from the equation I think people would have the same view so, like I said, great measurement tool and even if some people get out of control with religion and politics, Madison made sure that there is more than enough slack in the electoral system to reign them in...
Man, I keep writing a three page response, deleting it, and rewriting. This is such a great topic.
In the 19th century WNY was known as the 'burned over district' because of all the great religious revivals that came through it (including the Mormons). But one of the things that I really like about this period is how religion in the area was the voice of progressivism. Preachers fighting against slavery. Churches standing up for universal suffrage.
I don't know how 100 years later we have religious leaders calling for the subjugation of women, AIDS cures fags, and removing evolution and global warming from schools.
But, my point is, religion in politics is neither good nor bad. That depends upon the climate of the country and the climate of the religious community.
I just wish more religious voters now a days were like Drew and Janelle (I am sure there are cool religious folk on this site too.)
A case could be made that the moral majority never was either.
People are alright with religious values - but only the ones that are compatible with their own politics. I always laugh when I hear people trying to force Christians to only speak politically about these pre-approved, politically correct religious values. Be only a portion of who you are, otherwise shut the hell up - that's the message being sent.
There are many reasons people give for voting a certain way, or supporting a certain principle, that I find hopelessly naive, irrational, and immediately deserving of rejection, but I don't go as far as to say you can't have your own reasons for thinking whatever way you do about any topic. To do that is as Un-American as it gets.
But, Drew, I fundamentally agree with what you're saying - that a very small sect of Christians tries to speak for everyone, and makes a grab for power. I think their influence is shrinking by the day, but unfortunately there still are too many people who really don't know any better, and can't tell the difference between a Drew and a Fred Phelps. Hopefully, the Moral Majority is in its last days.
Jbeatty, I think faith (unfortunately and improperly)gets used as shorthand. Conservative Christians had framed things so as to imply that "I am a Christian," meant, "I will vote for the Republican party."
This did two things.
1. It alienated a lot of Christian voters.
2. It made it necessary for other politicians to speak of their faith in relation to their political stands, in order to disrupt said short hand.
That way, when people say, "Barak, how come you are a Democrat? I thought you were a Christian!) He can say, "As a Christian, I have a concern for peace, for the poor, and for the enviornment--THAT is why I have aligned myself with the Democratic party."
This whole thing is a reaction the political power grab made by some Christians a while ago. Now, even some of those who did it have realized that they made compromises that they should not have made. Other people of faith should have spoken more clearly then, but we did not.
Which goes to show that it's gonna take a while to get out of this mess.
We are cross-posting. Response to your post in under mine.
You should vote for exactly who you want to. Thats the beautiful thing about democracy. You can base your decision on whatever criteria you determine to be the most important. However what really irritates me as an atheist is how often religion gets brought up in political campaigns. It does seem insincere when politicians pander to certain religious groups, most notably the Christians. I'm not saying that these people can't be religious, but as future public representatives they should not be basing their platform on such matters. But I guess it is their right to do so. If the voting population (which is pathetically small) decides that these are the people that should be running the country then it reflects what people want.
Also I would love to go to New Orleans but I doubt I can swing all of that time off considering I'm taking most of Thanksgiving week, and some of Christmas week off.