Sunday, August 14, 2005

Religion in Politics

Since Renaissance Men seems to be back up and running, I might as well jump on the bandwagon and start posting again.

Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum recently posted quotes from two different Bush Administration Officials, one from 2002 and one from 2005. The first I recognized from an excellent Ron Suskind article in the NYTimes Magazine discussing Bush's reliance on faith to guide his decisions.
...open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith. It could result in a loss of confidence in the decision-maker and, just as important, by the decision-maker. Nothing could be more vital, whether staying on message with the voters or the terrorists or a California congressman in a meeting about one of the world's most nagging problems. As Bush himself has said any number of times on the campaign trail, ''By remaining resolute and firm and strong, this world will be peaceful.''
I've always felt strongly that religion -- and faith in particular -- has no place in politics. From the ridiculous Intelligent Design push going on to Terry Schaivo, religion is trying to nose back into the political scene after being pushed out by the likes of Locke and Rousseau. Although it's been long accepted that the right to govern no longer comes from a divine force, people continue quoting biblical passages trying to affect laws. David Corn's most recent post shows a press release sent out by Columbia Christians for Life. He shows them far more respect than I would. Personally, I find it hard to take any press release seriously when it has syntax like this:
Have we so dumbed-down what it means to be "pro-life" (thank you," National Right to Life, for repeatedly compromising on principle !), that pro-lifers would be so foolish as to give support to a nominee who has said he will "fully and faithfully" apply a baby-murdering court-ruling, despite what the Bible and the U.S. Constitution say? Are we insane?....

Roberts' promise to fully and faithfully apply a 30-year old judicial precedent instead of the eternal, immutable and universal Word of God, is tragic. Furthermore, if judges and all other officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States (as it is written!), then why would an opinion of a court, any court, take precedence over the written text of the original document That would be like saying the opinions of men about what the Bible says take priority over what the Bible itself says in the written text.

...Furthermore, we must always assert Biblical Supremacy over the laws of men. No law of man can rightfully command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands (e.g., Exodus 1:15-22; Daniel 6:7-13; Acts 4:19,20). "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29
David Corn gets it right calling them theocrats. What exactly makes our fundamentalists so different from the fundamentalists ruling in Iran? Besides the turbans.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home