I have to say I'm baffled (again). Events over the past several weeks have me scratching my head.
First, there was the whole "Ground Zero Mosque" thing going on. Christian conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt expressed what lots of Americans in general and Christians in particular were thinking. "I oppose it because the land and buildings damaged by the assault are now part of the sacred space of America's great civic religion." America's great civic religion? What is that? American civil religion, it seems, is a blend of Christianity and patriotism. It's the source of ideas like "America is God's chosen nation", the reason that we can outlaw religion in the public square while honoring nationally holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas. Mind you, however, that this makes no real sense if you're a Christian. If there is a "religion" that blends Christianity and ____, it would be what Paul called "another gospel", and Paul didn't have nice things to say about those things.
Then there's this whole thing about "Obama is a Moslem!" Where are we going with this? Ann Coulter spoke out against it by saying, "I rise to defend him from this absurd accusation by pointing out that he is obviously an atheist." Thanks. Cleared that right up. I remember a big beef with Obama, the presidential candidate, was that he went to church too much, remember? He went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. What's up with that?! Now we're looking at the accusations that "No, he's not a far-out Christian ... he's a Moslem!" Why? No one voted against Mr. Obama for president because he was a Christian. No one voted for him because he was a Moslem. No one who voted for him cared what religion he was. The fact that he is the most pro-abortion president we've ever seen didn't in the least phase Christian voters who helped put him in office. So why are we bringing it up now? Are we afraid that a single human being in a single office of the government is going to vote out the entire government system and install Sharia law? What's this religious thing all about?
And then there was Glenn Beck speaking at his rally in August. He told us that he had planned to make a political rant (speech), but he talked to God and then had to make a religious one. Instead of beating his breast about the horrors of our current government and all that, he called on all of us to pray. Pray to God. Pray for our country. Good stuff, I suppose. I mean, isn't that the same type of stuff we heard after 9/11? We had ecumenical gatherings of all religions so that the Jews and the Christians and the Buddhists and the Moslems and the Hindus and so forth could all join together praying to God to protect and heal our nation. Except ... no one bothered to mention which God. I mean, the Buddhists don't really have a God and the Moslems have Allah who isn't at all the same God as the Christians and the Hindus, well, they have lots of Gods. So ... who were we supposed to be talking to? Now we're at the same point. Beck, bless his heart, wants us to pray, and praying is good. Unfortunately his God is a created being who fathered other Gods and now we're all trying to become Gods and, well, I think he was a bit unclear, wasn't he? Mr. Beck ... which God do you want us to petition? I mean, for most of America their God is their own desires -- "Me". Is that the God we should be praying to?
But this all coagulates into a mess. We have "American civil religion" with its own "sacred space" and we have presidents whose religions don't and do care absolutely and we have repeated calls for prayer without any idea of referencing to whom we're praying. What does it all mean? Since all religions claim exclusivity -- so logic dictates that only one can be right -- then what we're trying to accomplish here is insanity ... genuine insanity. Paul says that those which are not God but are worshiped as God are demons. That would include Hewitt's "American civil religion", whatever version of religion the President holds, and Glen Beck's call for prayer. Unfortunately in this country this has become the only "religion" allowed -- you know, the one populated by demons.
8 comments:
It seems you forgot that Mormons have a lot of gods too.
Yes, they certainly do. That's why I said, "[Beck's] God is a created being who fathered other Gods and now we're all trying to become Gods."
As I believe Hewitt is a Christian man (I could be wrong), I believe his statement of "an American civil religion" was just a rhetorical flourish, though I certainly understand the confusion it elicits, as well as agree with your sentiment regarding it.
As to Beck, a similar problem exists with his call to prayer. I think his point is more a call for people to move back toward the religious as opposed to the secular or material, because it's a safer play for all concerned. I listen to the guy somewhat on the radio and am trying to understand just what he means specifically. This is what I've come up with so far, but it is speculative at best. Obviously there is only one truth regarding religion, but those aspects that so many like to think unite us ARE something that would help the nation if all were to adhere to them, even if some of them. To clarify, they like to say that all religions say the same things, and regarding certain ideas of right and wrong, that's true. Most of those ideas of right and wrong are worthy of greater attention by the various people of faith. In doing so the whole country will benefit.
That's the plan, anyway. But how well it would work remains to be seen. Just how would it work with the differences still intact and held sacred by their various followers? We'd have to put a lot of faith in the notion that the similarities are the only things that matter for the benefit of the nation; that the differences aren't something upon which no one can compromise. There are certainly aspects of my faith upon which I won't compromise. Will I be expected to? Ain't gonna happen, just as I won't compromise on social issues such as abortion and homosexuality and how policy should be formed to deal with them.
The real question is whether or not people of different faiths can live together better the more each group is devout in their respective faiths. I would hope so, but the more I look at Islam, for example, the less I believe that could ever be true. Wintery Knight has a post about Hinduism and just how tolerant they are. Some religions oppose evangelizing. Now what happens?
The intention is good with Beck, but the reality might not play out as he thinks it will if people really take it to heart.
One more thing: I do consider the religion of the candidates where that information is available. All other things being equal, I will vote for the Christian every time. It's a no brainer. Should there be no Christian (which I think would be a bad thing if we were to have such a choice more and more), I would vote for the candidates who's positions and track record best mirror the Christian POV. I think the pecking order for me would have to be: Christian, Jew and then maybe Mormon. I definitely don't want an atheist in charge, and considering what I know about Islam, I would vote against such a candidate. Some might find that offensive, but I find much about that religion objectionable an I will not support contributing to anything that legitimizes something I think is bad for the nation and world. It's not anti-Muslim bigotry. It's anti-bad philosophy common sense.
I would say that most of the things people are saying that I addressed were all with the best of intentions. But there is a real problem with this idea of the "sacred" and I do not believe that Hewitt, as Christian and as well intentioned as he is, meant it as mere "rhetoric". There is, seasoned in among a lot of Christians, this very religion that he calls "American civil religion", a mix of Christianity and patriotism. "My country right or wrong!" I believe that there is indeed a sense of genuine "sacred" for Hewitt and many who protest the mosque.
And I think that Glenn Beck is often right. It's just that in this instance he's barking up the wrong tree. "If we go back to our prospective religions and be good and all, well, then, things will be better." Except many of them are false religions. How is that "better"? In fact, as you mentioned, it would be far worse if the average American Moslem actually returned to his religion as it is written in his Scriptures. That one tells him to "kill the infidels". The suggestion is that religious beliefs will make our lives better without the slightest regard to any facet of "truth". If by "religious beliefs" we are actually calling for "a lie", is that really going to make our lives better?
I also pay attention to the candidates. Now, here's my question. Did you not vote for Mr. Obama because you believed he was not a Christian (and, apparently, the one you voted for was)? That's what I said in my post. Not that no one cares. When the whole Jeremiah Wright thing blew up, no one cared because no one was concerned about Obama's religion. And by that I mean no one who voted for him. And by that I mean the majority of voters. They voted for a lot of things -- health care, "change", socialism, abortion -- but not "Obama the Christian".
Obama's pastor Wright is a complete heretic who calls his game the "Church of Christ". It's a misnomer.
One thing Beck got right is that the starting point to getting back on the right track is acknowledging that WE are not God. Regardless of who your god is, the idea that it is not you is significant. Obama's god is himself, so I'd disagree with Coulter that he's an atheist. ;-)
No. Absolutely not. I voted for McCain because Obama sucked far more as an option than McCain. I could say that his religion, or lack thereof actually, played a part, but not as a major factor. It was only one of them. But I could also say that others with the same poor faith background, likely hundreds of others, could easily have been a better selection. So no, his quality as a politician and leader was so bad that his "religion" never needed to enter into it.
As to the Hewitt thing, I still disagree. This is not to say that I don't think he means it as a mood or feeling. But I don't think he really equates it to Christianity.
There is a push, however, and I think a worthy one, of which both Beck and Hewitt are examples, to demand that everyone recognize the influence and inspiration of Christianity in the founding of the country and a desire that we again seek to emulate the spirit of the founders intention. That would be to live as people of faith are supposed to live because our country was founded for such a people.
Beck is trying to do this by assuming that if people became more devout, turned to God (whatever that means to each individual), then the country will benefit. (I know I'm being a bit redundant in saying this again.) I meant to imply that I, too, see a problem with it if people are sincerely going to do that. Muslims will be more violent, for example.
I saw nothing of the rally or the speeches made. I'm going only by what I've heard him say on his radio show (haven't seen his TV show in a while), but the theme was honor and I don't know how far the rally strayed from that one value. All in all, I think he's still concerned for the country but now sees the focus of his message to be of renewing relationships with God and from that the country can't help but be improved. At this point, I'm eager to see where he goes from here now that the rally is over. I know he doesn't have much concern for cultural issues, or as O'Reilly calls it, the "culture wars". Beck thinks there are more important concerns, but to me, from a God and country standpoint, the culture is part of that whole deal. Once you bring God into the picture, the cultural stuff is even more important than before. That is, if one is really concerned about God and His blessings on our country.
End of ramble.
Post a Comment