In The “Lightest” Vein Of The Day . . .

The NYTimes writes on the battle for the Catholic vote. I have two reactions to this piece. The first is the reduction of an entire church to a demographic, but that seems to be an inevitable. The second comment centers on this:

There is widespread agreement that American Catholic voters are far more diverse than monolithic.

Now that is a reasonable statement about religious people in general, but the Times writers seem to want to paint other religious groups in monolithic and close-minded terms. I think it is because Catholics are not prone to sound bites. While Evangelicals find themselves somewhat cornered in Republican politics right now, the religious voice remains loud in the party and many of the leading voices are Catholic, or Catholic- educated.

Interesting.

Marx/Theology - Contrast or Competition?

R.R. Reno has written a fascinating piece at First Things in which he argues, on a deeply theological level, that the “revolutionary” fervor of the left is quite analogous to the religious fervor of the right. Old point, really, but quite well made. The other point it makes obvious is that the current highly competitive level between left and right thought and the general coarsening of political discourse, is probably a result of direct competition over the same territory.

I also think this can account for the rise of identity politics. With many people unwilling to work this hard at their political decisions, the labels become a handy shortcut.

On the Other Hand . . .

Another religious writer, Al Mohler, looks at Obama’s abysmal utterance (I hereby copyright that phrase:-)) and arrives at a conclusion that pretty well misses the point entirely when it comes to religious discussion in the political realm. Mohler notes that Obama’s statement has a “functional” view of religion:

A functional view of belief assumes or “brackets” the question of whether the beliefs are true. One who holds to a purely functionalist view of religious conviction is not concerned with the truthfulness of these beliefs, but only with the effects the beliefs have on the believer, both privately and in social contexts.

Now, I think Mohler is absolutely right about that as far as it goes there. Obama certainly has this kind of view of religion. But then Mohler moves on to use the comment to attack the right as well as the left:

In the early stages of modernity, many thinkers — assuming that there is no validity to religious beliefs in terms of truth — nevertheless noted what they described as its functions. Sigmund Freud detailed his psychiatric theory in Totem and Taboo. Karl Marx defined religious belief as “the opiate of the people,” used by the politically powerful to oppress workers and keep them subservient. Other figures spoke of religious belief in more positive terms, describing its contributions to social order and cohesion.

In other words, functional views of religious belief are found among both conservatives and liberals. In one famous example, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, conveyed a functional view of religious belief in an almost quintessential expression. Speaking on Flag Day in 1954, President Eisenhower said: “Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith–and I don’t care what it is.”

Now, not knowing well Eisenhower’s personal faith, I cannot say whether his statement reflects holding a “functional” religion, or if he is simply addressing the issue of what the function of religion is in our society. That is an important - very important - distinction. It is Mohler’s conclusion where the issues become incredibly clear:

Christians should learn to detect a functional account of religious belief when listening to public figures speak. Liberals tend to speak in functional terms of meaning and purpose. Conservatives tend to speak functionally in terms of social order, stability, and morality.

None of these is a substitute for authentic Christianity — a faith that is predicated on being true — not merely meaningful or helpful.

What Mohler has here done is advance an argument for his faith, precisely his faith, because, of course, it is the only one that he would view as true, as the only reasonable faith for an American. But what Mohler fails to look at in his analysis is how to operate a country when, excluding “functional religion,” different religions all make truth claims.

See, “functional” religion as Mohler here describes is not really religion, it is sociology. And that is fine, but it delegitimizes it in terms of being protected religious expression in our nation, a la Jeremiah Wright. But by the Mohler analysis, anyone who holds genuine religion, but is willing to set aside the competitive truth claims of various religions, for the sake of meeting the common communal good, based on shared religious function, is also disingenuous. What it boils down to is that because we have separation of church and state, our government is not the place where the truth or falsehood of any religion is to be determined, but all religion is to be allowed to function in our government.

Any religion has both function and truth claims, yet Mohler would appear to define religion only by its truth claims. That strikes me as precisely antithetical to the great understanding that is American religious/political life.

Lowell adds: The bottom line here is that Al Mohler sees politics and government as a vehicle for preaching the Gospel as he understands it. Over the course of the last 24 months I have come to regard Mohler’s views as borderline dangerous.

Something I Wished I’d Known About…

Where my friend Mark Roberts was last weekend. I might have gone, but then I am not Ivy League so maybe I could not have.
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!?