Quick Hits About Obama…

Contention on the NYTimes Sunday piece.

EFM on the WaPo op-ed.

A very funny and very short blog post about all of it, linking to, among others, this unbelievable bit of fluff at HuffPo.

Quick Hits About Other Stuff…

Playing the “huckabee card” in Utah. I am no more impressed there than nationally.

Equating Falwell and Wright. See where drawing religious distinction in the political arena gets us!

This story has grown old. Of course, any one that actually knew anything about Evangelicals knew they were never a “bloc” to begin with. I thought the point of the press was to learn their subject before they wrote about it.

Maybe The Message Is Getting Through…

This largely factual piece on an overview of religion in the current race leads this way:

The 2008 brand of faith-based presidential politics has prompted some political elders to suggest it may be time to reel in political debate steeped in religion.

“I think we should be moving away from so much discussion of public policy in terms of religious beliefs,” said Roy Romer, the former governor of Colorado, who was general chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1997 to 2000. “We have to be careful of religious zealotry.”

The piece seems aimed at chastising religious Dems and demonizing religious Republicans, but the point stands nonetheless. There is appropriate and in appropriate religion invocation in the course of politics. One of the problems this piece inadvertantly illustrates is that religion has some sort of party affiliation. As with most thing; however, the average religious person has to have such identity correspondence or things get weird. IT seems like if you tell someone Christians are not de facto Republicans, they don’t know how to vote, or they vote Democrat in some very haphazard ways to avoid being pegged.

This is why religious talk in politics just needs to be curtailed, period. There is no other way to do it and preserve a proper balance.

Continuing The Message …

R.R. Reno, writing at First Things, declares his thesis this way:

People often say that religion has become more important in politics. In a way unimaginable in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, these days politicians, pundits, and pollsters give explicit attention to religion. In his famous speech nearly fifty years ago, John F. Kennedy tried to reassure his listeners that religion was irrelevant to politics, while this year Mitt Romney wanted to convince us that his faith has a good and proper influence over his life as a public servant. The preacher-politician Mike Huckabee won in the Iowa caucus. The Democratic party continues to try to rally voices on the religious left in order to counter the religious right. Books get written defending and descrying the role of faith in politics. Europeans look on in dismay. How could anybody deny that America has entered a phase of God-saturated politics?

But what seems obvious may be an optical illusion. I’m pretty sure that religion has become less influential rather than more so in recent decades. Today unbelief has a strong voice, and this new secular confidence throws the role of faith in public life into sharp relief as a quite distinct alternative. Religious conviction is less widespread, especially less widespread among the rich and powerful who tend to formulate and finance political platforms, and therefore it becomes more controversial. It is now a wedge issue rather than part of our common culture.

Prof. Reno then goes on to cite stories of religious political activism, something which in this day and age would be called “ministry.” That is to say, the church actively seeking to address issues rather than simply elect candidates. This is a fascinating argument. Essentially he is saying religion is far more powerful a political force fixinf problems than electing candidates.

I agree - wholeheartedly. What Prof. Reno does not analyze; however, is that by legislation and adjudication, the government has increasingly stuck its nose into religious territory. This fact alone has mandated that the religious become more electorally active. The problem has arisen in that the church, in general, has largely abandoned the other aspects of its cultural activity for the sake of its electoral activity, which has in turn greatly harmed its electoral effectiveness.

I sum, our electoral activity is necessary so that we can keep a level playing field when it comes to cultural activism, but it is the cultural activism that is THE THING, not who we elect. We are a Christian nation by virtue of what we do as a nation, not who we elect.

There is a lot of deep stuff here, worthy of extended commentary. Feel free to chime in.
Sphere: Related Content

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

Recently:

• Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
• Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
• RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
• Say What?!
• In The Wake Of Prop 8
• A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
• Being The Target
• Encouraging?
• Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
• And Now…Terrorism!?