Theocracy?

[acco40]

In the continuing saga of "discussions" on politics I thought I'd share the following editorial written by Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Notice his use of the phrase "traditional American values." I know some will not agree with it but you can see why I abhor the use of that phrase and the way the BSA trumpets it. It has no real meaning other than "feel good" to some and at worst inflamatory to others.

 

 

Listen to us talk at each other, will you?

 

We Americans are actually debating in the public square not which policy is the most practical or most wise, or which leader is the more competent, but which is the most Christian. We have taken religion the highest expression of human thought and spirit and we have cheapened it by using it as a weapon to attack and belittle those with whom we disagree.

 

Religious leaders are even daring to instruct us in how to vote, and in some cases are suggesting that those who dare to vote contrary to their leaders' wishes risk their soul and standing with God.

 

This is America?

 

We know better than this. Or at least we used to. We used to understand that government and religion function best when they function independently, when the only link between them is the indirect link of human beings acting out their private faith through public service. We used to understand that if religion takes a direct role in government, government must inevitably take a direct role in religion, and that the long-standing wall between them was built for the protection of both institutions.

 

But I guess those are some of the traditional American values now under attack by the dominant political and cultural elite, the Christian right. Yes, that group still likes to depict itself as the most victimized group in American public life, but that's a mere pose, a sham designed to stroke its members' egos and satisfy their need to feel persecuted. That same group, after all, is also beating its chest, proclaiming itself as the nation's most powerful political group to which even the president and Congress must now pay homage. Logically, both self-images cannot be true.

 

It's too bad, really, because in a rough sense we already know how this story ends. We've seen it so many times before. There is no case in recorded human history, regardless of era or culture, in which religion and government have been intertwined without eventually compromising basic human freedoms. Inevitably, every time, that relationship gets out of control and people get hurt.

 

Despite what the political and cultural elite try to tell us, though, there's still hope. The values that have made this country great and nurtured a strong religious tradition still have some power among the people. According to a nationwide poll taken in August by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, for example, 65 percent of Americans still say it is inappropriate for churches and religious leaders to endorse candidates. And 69 percent say it is wrong for political campaigns to request church membership lists, as President Bush's campaign did.

 

A substantial majority 64 percent say it would be improper for Catholic leaders to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who take positions contrary to church teaching. In fact, of all the groups polled, that practice was condemned most strongly by Catholics themselves, with 72 percent saying it was improper.

 

Unfortunately, those remnants of common sense may not survive what's coming. In his second term, President Bush has promised a significant expansion of his faith-based initiative, which envisions giving lucrative tax-funded grants to churches and other religious institutions so they can spread their faith in the name of social improvement. That's exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers tried to prevent with the First Amendment, but once President Bush appoints a few more activist judges to the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution his way, that kind of traditional thinking won't matter.

 

And money will be the true tie that binds. Once we've got politicians dangling million-dollar grants in front of cooperative ministers, and ministers free to pledge their flock's support to politicians who send money their way, oh what a lovely mess it's gonna be.

 

Of course, some may still believe that religious leaders will somehow be immune to the corrupting influence of power and money, but if so, they haven't paid much attention to history or the headlines.

 

Or to the Bible either, for that matter.

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[NJCubScouter]

Good article, thanks Acco. There may be a few nuances here and there that may be overstated, but on the whole I agree with it.

[Proud Eagle]

First, do we really want our religious leaders to start following public opinion poles in matters of public teaching on theology and morality? I certainly don't want them to. I would rather the religious leaders continue to follow the teachings of their religion and the guidance of the conscience in making such choices.

 

I have to wonder about their 72% of Catholics number.

 

Is that 72% of people who, when asked about their religion say they are Catholic? If so, a good number of those are probably people who don't really practice their faith. (There are people who were raised Catholic and haven't been back to church sense leaving home who still identify themselves as Catholic. There are also people who converted to share a faith with their spouse, and haven't been back since the wedding who identify themselves as Catholic.) You could call them "inactive". So, perhaps a survey of practicing Catholics would be a bit more informative.

 

Also, it would be far more telling to see the numbers for those diocese where a bishop actually made a statement of that sort.

 

Finally, the author is making the assumption that a majority public opinion carries with it theological authority, which it most certainly does not.

 

While I agree telling people that "God demands you to vote for candidate X" is stepping over the line, you won't find many cases of that happening, because churches know what they risk if they do that.

 

On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate for churches to advise their members as to how their religion may apply to certain political issues, if that churches leadership choose to do so.

 

It is also appropriate for the leaders of a church to discipline their members if that is what they feel called to do.

 

Now what would be inappropriate, would be for the political leadership to start creating penalties for not taking the correct religious positions.

[Backpacker]

Proud Eagle let me disagree with you on a couple of points. Firstly as a Catholic the issue of denying communion was not only strongly denounced by the laity but by most of the clergy. In my Archdiocese many priests publicly stated from the pulpit that they would leave the priesthood before denying communion. Your point about practicing Catholics is irrelevant, this is the first US election where the Church in Rome tried to dictate who to vote for and failed to achieve the support of both the clergy and laity. Only in a few dioceses nationwide did the Bishops even try to enforce no communion rule and they just alienated their congregations. NO church should have the right to interfer in politics just as the government has no right in running the churches, seperation of church and state is just as valid today as it was over 200 years ago.

 

If churches continue to enforce their ideologies into our governmental processes then they should lose their tax exempt status they enjoy in our country.

[Proud Eagle]

Certainly there were those opposed, but there were also those in favor. I must say I would actually commend those priests for standing up for their convictions. However, the place to disagree with their Bishop isn't at the pulpit, or in the parish news letter. The place would be with other members of the clergy and religious community. Most particularly they should take the matter up with the Bishop. If any member of the clergy were to speak out in such a way after their Bishop had decided the issue, it would be walking dangerously close to the edge on the vow of obedience, and could bring about censure by that Bishop.

 

It should be noted that the Pope did not endorse any candidate or any party, nor even a political philosophy. Rather, the Pope simply stressed what has been the policy of the Church all along. You can not divorce your political life from your religious life. It was simply made clear that a persons political choices have moral and religious consequences. That has been the case for centuries, if not forever.

 

If the Catholic Church decides to discipline someone because their activities on a grave moral issue are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church, that is its right in this, and all other countries, for that right is inherent, not given by any government.

 

Let me give another example. If Proud Eagle's church opens up based on some certain theology and has teachings on some issue which a politician is faced with, shouldn't those politicians who are members of the Proud Eagle's church be expected to follow those teachings? What would it say to the other members of the church if we let that politician, who publicly, openly, and deliberately went against the teachings of the church continue on as a member in good standing of the church as if nothing had happened? What would it say to the community at large if a high profile political leader who claims membership in that church were to take a position contrary to church teachings without any consequence at all?

 

I'll tell you the answers I thought of. The politicians should be expected to follow the teachings just the same as everyone else. If anything, their position as widely recognized leaders should make it more important that they follow the teachings. If the church does nothing when a member publicly violates its teachings, and in fact makes it known they intend to continue violating its teachings, then the other members will soon start to think they don't have to follow the church's teaching on that or any other issue. Also, pretty soon the community at large would get the wrong idea about the beliefs held by the church.

 

Now based on that I think it is certainly necessary that the Bishops take a stand on moral issues, particularly when prominent Catholic leaders are publicly opposing the teachings of the Church. To sit back quietly would be essentially the same as consenting to their actions.

 

Finally, it should be noted that while the Church has in the recent past focused very heavily on the issue of the culture of life, particularly as it pertains to the right to life for the most innocent and helpless members of our society, this is by no means the only issue the Church speaks on. The Church has also spoken on other life issues such as assisted suicide, continuation of life by artificial means, capital punishment, and a variety of non-life issues such as farm subsidies, fair trade, social programs, and all manner of other things.

 

The key difference is however, that while the Church can say that abortion is a grave evil, and supporting it in any form is therefore also evil, the Church has a harder time on social and economic issues. For example, the Church can say that we need to care for the poor. However, the question of how to care for the poor, and what is actually in the best interests of the poor, is something the Church does not speak on with the same sort of authority as life issues. It is the difference between moral imperatives and matters on which each person must exercise prudential judgment.

[fgoodwin]

What a crock!

 

Black churches and ministers have been telling their congregations who to vote for since the Civil Rights marches of the early 60s ("Rev" Al Sharpton, anyone?). Where has the righteous indignation been for the last 40+ years?

 

Or is it only a problem when conservatives get into the act?

[dsteele]

The last I checked, I was alone when I voted. While I believe God was with me, it was my hand that punched the ticket . . . not His.

 

I don't care who tells me how to vote. That's much like telling me to go to $#&& --anyone can tell me, but only God can enforce it!

 

Unc.

[Backpacker]

Proud Eagle,

With the Catholic Church's abysmal handling of the priest pedophile and clergy homosexual issues they are hardly take a position of any real moral authority anymore on any issue. If these are the kind of people you want deciding who our next president to be then you threaten our democratic process itself. Up through the 1960's in the USA Catholics were called Papists and denied jobs because of their perceived loyalty to the pope over every other authority. As ridiculous as this may seem this last election brought inner turmoil to the American Catholic church. Bishops and priests endorsing and denouncing candidates as never before seen in an election leaving the laity confused and angry. I for one condemn the Catholic Church from the Vatican to the local priest who used their position of power to try to influence and corrupt our election process and our freedom of choice, as should every Catholic no matter what side of the issue you were on.

[firstpusk]

"The key difference is however, that while the Church can say that abortion is a grave evil, and supporting it in any form is therefore also evil, the Church has a harder time on social and economic issues. For example, the Church can say that we need to care for the poor. However, the question of how to care for the poor, and what is actually in the best interests of the poor, is something the Church does not speak on with the same sort of authority as life issues. It is the difference between moral imperatives and matters on which each person must exercise prudential judgment."

 

I think the same argument can easily be made for abortion. How best do we deal with the issue? I think the Church speaks quite clearly on the need to help the poor. I might disagree with you on the manner in which we help or whether it is even helpful. Simply saying abortion should be illegal does not make it go away. Abortion was fairly common in the US when it was illegal in most states. It was also readily available and safe for the rich and extremely dangerous for the poor.

 

Do you really think that it would be different now? Under this administration? Do you think that abortion could be outlawed with the easy availability of RU 486? Who do you penalize? Only the doctors or do the women bear criminal responsibility?

 

Abortion has been used as a blugeon to gain political power by the Republican Party. There efforts against it have been largely grandstanding with no intent to outlaw the practice. Much like the gay marriage issue, the social conservatives are played for chumps on the abortion issue.

 

My alma mater, a Catholic university, hired one of the authors of the famous torture memo used by the Bush administration to justify myriad of abuses, torture and even murder of prisoners In Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and who knows where else around the world. Combine that with the sex abuse issue, I could give a skinney rats patoot who any bishop says I should vote for in any election. In fact, they seem to be a pretty effective reverse barometer for moral issues. See you at Mass.

[packsaddle]

Ed, you out there somewhere? This might be a good time to elaborate your thoughts. I have noted that you seem to question the idea of separation of church and state. What would you propose as a better approach?

[Proud Eagle]

So who do you want to speak out on moral issues?

 

Do you think some committee of the laity should have that job? The same laity who, over half don't really believe in the real presence, mostly because they haven't been educated well enough to understand it.

 

Or perhaps you want the political parties to become the voices for morality in society, of coarse, they would have to define the meaning of the word "is" first.

 

Everyone makes mistakes. That includes the Church and its leaders. While those mistakes do reveal the truth that they are human, they do not remove all moral authority. The bishops and priests can and do make mistakes. They sometimes don't always agree on every issue. In the end however, they are one of the more competent authorities on matters of theology and morality, because they have been educated and trained for that, and spent their lives dealing with those issues.

 

Also, I know of no priest or bishop who directly completely endorsed, or denounced any candidate by name as part of their official work. There were priests and bishops who spoke up on issues. Some even went so far as to outline who some candidates agreed and disagreed with the Church on certain issues. However, I never heard a single endorsement of a candidate or party from a member of the Catholic clergy this past election. If you did, I think that is highly irregular.

 

 

 

As to a certain lawyer and his memo, keep in mind that was his legal opinion. A Catholic can agree 100% with the Church on an issue, and yet still believe that the law says something else. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, but it could be.

 

As to how best to end abortion, I think we could all agree that supporting an unlimited right to choose, even to the extent of taxpayer funded abortion on demand is certainly not the way to go. Certainly other tools besides the law should be used, but the law is a tool that must be used in some way to end abortion. As to what type of law would best do this, and its exact mechanisms, that is something I don't have the background to determine.