More About The Pope…
We pointed out yesterday, the interaction between the Pope and Mormons on this past weekend’s papal visit. As proof positive of the Pope’s ecumenical nature, at least when it comes to political action, apparently he is even willing to hang out with jerks.
Linked Without Review…
I am on the road this week (Boy! am I on the road – 7 cities, 7 nights from Florida to D.C. to NYC to Indiana) so time does not permit me to review this fully:
A passionate discussion is unfolding in public and in private among Evangelical leaders and communities. Should Christians be involved in politics and if so, how? What has gone wrong, and what has been learned from the Moral Majority up until now.
American Public Media gathered Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Clairborne. I think the discussion, particularly when combined with this book (also as yet unread by your humble blogger), would be fascinating. There is a shift afoot in the Evangelical vote in this country, we need to be aware of it.
England does not have the same church/state structures we do, though functionally they operate in much the same manner, more by common consent that constitution. Says a good Christian blogging blogging friend of mine who lives in the London ‘Burbs:
For my American readers, some useful background for you is that in the UK very rarely will an openly professing Christian stand for any political office as it is considered a handicap by all our main parties.
And yet, the same post points out a candidate seeking the London Mayor’s office on a strictly Christian platform. Shall we call this the “Huckabee Effect?”
Meanwhile, in South Carolina, I am forced to defend Barack Obama against a scurrilous attack by a preacher.
Byrd said that the message wasn’t meant to be racial or political.
“It’s simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” he said.
Precisely how does this pastor Byrd know what Obama believes or does not believe when it comes to Jesus? He professes a faith in Jesus, albeit quite different than mine. But then so did the candidate I backed – which is my point.
John Derbyshire defends the proposition that religion is relativistic. Don’t want to get into that debate, but do want to borrow this:
Suppose I line up a Christian, a Moslem, and a Hindu, and ask: “You guys all promote a different set of ‘fundamental truths.’ How can I figure out who’s right and who’s wrong? What external test can I apply? What can any of you point to in the beliefs of the others that doesn’t square with observable facts about the world, or about human life?” What will they say? After a lot of babbling and pointing, it will boil down to: “You gotta have faith. You have to feel the truth within yourself.” In other words, it’s an interior, subjective experience. What’s more relative than that? There is no objective test one can apply to confirm or falsify statements like “Jesus was the Son of God,” or “Mohammed was the Messenger of God,” or “Vishnu has four arms.” You just gotta believe.
PRECISELY! So the question is how to govern with those competitive truth claims all present in society. The answer, of course, is to place the truth or falsity of the claims outside of the realm of government power. Ah, the genius of the founding fathers.