Nathaniel Peters, writing at First Things, reviews Christiane Amanpour's God's Warrior series on CNN.  While Amanpour goes out of her way to draw parallels between the three great monotheistic faiths, Peters contrasts her interviews wth Jerry Falwell and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and writes the following:

The juxtaposition of the two demonstrates the difference between true theocracy and religiously informed politics. In truth, the whole of God’s Warriors shows that being God’s warrior means very different things to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. No Christian on the program ever says that being God’s warrior should involve killing an enemy, while many of the Jews and Muslims interviewed see violence as an acceptable part of doing God’s work.

 

For example, Amanpour interviews a Christian couple who homeschools their children to prepare them to live their faith in the world. When their son grows up, he wants “to be a preacher like daddy.” She also interviews a Palestinian Muslim family whose son gunned down civilians in an Israeli marketplace before being killed by the police. While his family did not encourage him to embrace violence, his mother and sisters are proud that he died a martyr’s death, giving his “most precious possession,” his soul, to God.

Peters' drawing of the line between religiously influenced politics and theocracy here is a good one.  It also helps define if Mormonism belongs as a part of the American political landscape.  The behavior of the LDS church in the last 100 years sits soldily on the "Christian" side of the divide Peters here draws.

Michael Gerson zings 'em…

Gerson, rapidly becoming a favorite around here, writes in WaPO about the Louisiana religious dustup.  There are two great pullquotes from the piece, in the first, he reminds of of the real source of religious/political problem:

The Democratic Party has undertaken an ostentatious outreach to religious voters, creating a Faith Advisory Council and cultivating clergy around the country. But these efforts might be more credible if Democrats were not simultaneously trying to incite conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants in Louisiana — and managing to offend both groups in the process.

Religion IS NOT a tool for politics, and the Democrats behavior here illustrates what happens when it is treated as such.  This kind of stuff, despite claims to the contrary, serve to devalue religion, make it other, if not less, than it really is.

Gerson then goes on to quote one of my personal favorite authors:

"Bigotry," said Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton, "may be roughly defined as the anger of men who have no opinions . . . the appalling frenzy of the indifferent." And religious bigotry is offensive everywhere, including on the bayou.

'Nuff Said!

Elsewhere…

This is a pretty good piece on the subject of a "JFK speech."  However, the goals laid out for the alternative speech could never be met in a single speech - it is the stuff of entire campaign.  The call for a definitive speech is, in this case, the call for a news story, that's all.  If Romney tried to give "The Speech on Religion" from any angle, it would be reviewed, spun, reduced, proof-texted, and generally criticized into a  nearly unrecognizable mass of bad press.  Mitt Romney is the right kind of guy, but it is about him, not a speech.

This story is just getting old.  Yes, Romney raises a lot of money from Mormons.  Yes, Mormons are regionally centered.  Go ahead, name any national politician that does not have a strong regional base somewhere in the country, maybe based on religion, maybe based on past service, maybe just based on hair color.  So what.

If you really need more evidence that there should be common political cause between creedal Christians and Mormons, please, read this blog post series in one, two, three, four (with more to come) parts.  The discrimination described is abysmal and if it is allowed with Mormons, we creedals will be next.

Finally…

Since when did The Wonkette become an expert on theology?  You know, snarky is only funny so long.  Eventually, the self-importance involved makes it simply offensive.

Lowell: Beyond being offensive, it's simply amazing that any serious news organization calls on her for opinions about any serious subject.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• I Guess This is Adieu
• Short and To-The-Point
• Since Lowell Brought It Up…
• Dems, Religion, Missteps - Even Mistakes
• When You Interrupt Normal Blogging . . .
• A Romney/Biden Debate - Warm Up The Laugh Track
• An Open Letter to George H.W. Bush
• A Little More on the “Mormons Lie” and “Mormons Are Not Christians” Memes
• The Evangelical Break-up?
• Sitting on Pins and Needles…