| Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Christians and Politics | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 29 2012, 05:06 AM (156 Views) | |
| Damian | Mar 29 2012, 05:06 AM Post #1 |
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
The basic question is, are politics an appropriate venue for Christians. In the college environment in which I work I am constantly told that religion and politics should never be mixed. Religion, it is said, should be confined as far as possible to the private, personal devotion for those who need its “crutch”. Religion is outside the purview of materialistic considerations; it must be relegated to the clandestine inner-sanctum of the emotional life. In the public square, it is secular considerations alone that ought to get a hearing. Many Christians seem to fall victim to such a mentality. My uneducated analysis is that many Christians a.) feel beaten down by the constant media barrage, making them appear to be backward troglodytes or b.) a tacit embarrassment at the sacren sweetness (and decidedly lame arguments) put forth by the likes of James Dobson, or the intelligent design crew. So in the intellectually vapid environment that we live, Christians often retreat into a theological (or in this case, socio-politcal) fideism. ‘Deeds not creeds’ is the safety net for non-thinking piety. But suppose, that someone did defend a view about abortion, same-sex marriage, or some other contentious matter by appealing to religious considerations. Why should this be considered unacceptable? The problem, in the view of many a-religious (a view often unwittingly conceded by orthodox Christians), is that religious considerations are matters of faith, where "faith" means in their minds a kind of groundless commitment, a will to believe that for which there is no objective evidence. Opinions on matters of secular policy can only be arrived at by methods of argument assessable by all members of the political community, not by reference to the idiosyncratic and subjective feelings of a minority. If religious arguments were in general really like this, then I would agree with the a-religious that they ought to be kept out of the public square! But in fact this description of religion is a silly caricature that displays the ignorance that those who make such claims themselves most often accuse others of. Thomas Aquinas, for example, would have found it unrecognizable, committed as he was to the idea that the foundational truths of religion could be demonstrated through reason alone. To have faith, in his view, is not to believe without evidence; it is rather to trust in the truth of a God for whose existence one can have overwhelming evidence, and whose will can be known (at least in part) through a study of the ends and purposes inherent in nature. Frankly, this was the primary view of Western religious thought for centuries - religion can and must be given a foundation in reason. Suppose, then, that someone is convinced that the mainstream Western tradition of rational theism is correct, and that the arguments supporting it are superior to those supporting any rival point of view. Suppose that we are convinced of the correctness of a rational system of morality -- the natural law theory of Aquinas and his successors. What reason could there possibly be for him not to allow these entirely objective and rationally defensible considerations to influence his views about politics? Of course, that there are many philosophers who do not accept the arguments of Aquinas, Augustine, John Locke, Leibniz, etc (they, in my opinion are not only denying a particular system of thought but rejecting basic laws of rationality such as the Law of Non Contradiction and the Law of Causality, but be that as it may). So? What that shows is that arguments for the existence of God are no different from every other argument in philosophy, including arguments for atheism, or arguments for abortion and same-sex marriage for that matter: they are controversial, matters about which intelligent people disagree. Do secularists demand that those in favor of legalized abortion and same-sex marriage refrain from advocating their positions in the public square simply because their arguments are nowhere near universally accepted? Of course not, nor should they. So why do they demand that religion and politics be separated in the sense that religious considerations, however well supported by rational arguments, should get no hearing in the public square and have no influence on public policy? Instead of the constant call "separation of church and state," perhaps we should say, the "separation of naturalistic metaphysics and state," the "separation of feminist theory and state," or "the separation of Marxian theory and state"? |
 |
 
|
| Deleted User | Mar 29 2012, 05:57 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
I kinda think your framing is faulty. How can anybody who has watched the Republican party over the last 50 years say that Christianity has no influence? or, That policy towards Israel and Israel itself is utterly sacrosanct? I would say that it is the Christian Church's utter whoring itself for the Republican party which has marginalized it far more than any conspiracy by the media. It's a dense article you wrote so I will have to come back to it. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Mar 29 2012, 06:04 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
Christianity is not a philosophy and separation of church and state spun as separation of philosophy and state is not a good direction. The absolutely clear theonomist intention of many of the "Religious Right" folk (even those who are not theonomists) is exactly something which the separation clause was supposed to free the country from. |
|
|
|
| Damian | Mar 29 2012, 07:12 AM Post #4 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
X, I actually agree with you. My point is not directed towards a narrow political spectrum of Republicans and Democrats, nor even the broader and often ill defined "conservative and liberal". My objection (which was not stated in this blog) was against a "conservative" Christian who wrote a piece arguing against Christians being involved in politics - thus the "creeds not deeds" statement. I'm attempting, however poorly, to address the distinctly American attitude that religious convictions should not be taken into consideration when forming a socio-political world-view. That's a materialistic pragmatism that pervades American culture. Thus, I'm making an argument for the validity of a Thomistic Natural Law as a basis for guiding in personal political decision making. D PS - This will probably get me in trouble with most here but you mentioned Israel and the Republicans support of it - I think that's partly related to a large portion of their population being of American descent and partly the influence of dispensationalism, which I've personally never been a fan of and therefore reject as a basis for support. Edited by Damian, Mar 29 2012, 07:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Mar 29 2012, 07:35 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
I was talking about the church not the Republican party. I would disagree that there is an "American attitude that religious convictions should not be taken into consideration when forming a socio-political world-view". Sure, people who oppose a position may falsely claim that it is imposing your religion (but so what?), but there are times when people not only are imposing a religious position but declaring opposers as anti-God. How many times on Theo was I told I was not a christian because of some political stand I took? (Answer: several. But, Hey! They meant well and every one of them had sincere hearts which were in the right place, after all.) |
|
|
|
| Damian | Mar 29 2012, 07:50 AM Post #6 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
Yes, I agree. And anti-theonomism is clearly a Lockian priority which the separation clause stems from (although often misinterpreted by folks who claim Locke's political theories.) Edited by Damian, Mar 29 2012, 07:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Mar 30 2012, 12:13 PM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
I see Christians are being told there is only one Christian running for president and so he is the only one they should vote for. You think maybe this has some dampening effect for mainstream Christians? Since Christian leaders feel quite free to talk like this and as well as the "Pray Psalm 109:8 for Obama" crowd argues against your (not uncommon) premise that Christians aren't involved politically? I suspect more likely the preponderance of "Christians aren't involved politically" come from politically involved Christians who are trying to drum up enthusiasm and rock the vote for |
|
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Mar 30 2012, 02:21 PM Post #8 |
THE Bald Assertion
|
Hold on a tick! Santorum and Gingrich are foul papists! Papists are apostate... now the entire group of prospective presidents are unelectable. I shall go to my closet and pray for the current President, that he may find his way out of his apostasy. 'Tis our onliest hope. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Mar 30 2012, 02:59 PM Post #9 |
|
Deleted User
|
From the article Rick Santorum is from God and will win with Christians and Catholics uniting for Santorum |
|
|
|
| Damian | Mar 31 2012, 03:25 AM Post #10 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
Yeah now there's some John Locke for ya! :-) He wanted to exclude the Papists for fear of allegiance to a foreign power which, at that time in England, was a very real threat! He also wanted to exclude atheists from political discourse since they had no basis for morality which he saw as crucial in the free society. Edited by Damian, Mar 31 2012, 03:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Blogs · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
8:16 AM May 25