Tuesday, 01 July 2008
-
Does God Belong in the White House?
by mr. maple
Recently the political ticker has been focusing on attempts by both McCain and Obama to court evangelical voters, a powerful and large class of citizens that helped put President Bush in office not once but twice. I always raise an eyebrow when I hear speakers proclaiming the need for America to "return to God." What does it mean to return to God? Does it mean lobbying to Congress to "protect marriage"? Does it mean pressuring the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade (the case that legalized abortion in the US)?
While these exercises in the democratic participation process are necessary and (sometimes) good, I think that evangelicals tend to put their hope in something false. Yes, America needs to return to God... but the movement to return will not begin in the halls of Congress or within the walls of the court. It will not be a "trickle-down" conversion, nor will it be won through the political power struggles of lobbyists and special interest groups.If we return to God, we must find him where he demands to be found.
Some two-thousand-odd years ago, a few kings of the Orient learned what this meant. They sought out the Incarnate God in an ornate palace, only to be re-directed to a manger pungent with the smell of animal feces. When God made his phenomenal entrance into humanity, it wasn't in any way we could have anticipated... or would have wanted to.
If we return to God, we must find him where he demands to be found.
When the Incarnate God began speaking with a human tongue and listening with human ears, he did it with a bunch of tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers and crippled beggars. When he dined and laughed and did great things with people, it was in the presence of the weak, the poor, and the unpretentious. When Jesus chose to be silent and hide the full disclosure of his nature and authority, it was to rebuke the kings, the courts and the religious authorities.
The modern church is very eloquent in speaking the language of politics and power, but we are at a loss for words when addressing the weak, the poor, and the humble. I readily identify with the rich and the satisfied, but I am most confused among the troubled and the distraught.
When God asks that I return to him, in which direction should I run? Towards the places of power? Or towards the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the lonely?
When God calls America to return to him, in which direction will we run?
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' - Matthew 25:34-40
-
recommend
- recs 4
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
.jpg)
Comments (46)
@shedinator@xanga - Hmm. You're making a lot of sense. Then again, I've likely been raised in a different setting, thus making my views so different. A lot of what you said has made me think, and I can no longer find words to say about it.
My school fails in teaching us tolerance and acceptance. In fact, my school holds student led prayers before games and the such -- the teachers put down church event dates on their boards, thus I am more likely to feel as if I'm supposed to be obligated to go to these. In my community, if you say you don't go to church, or that you're an atheist, everyone goes quiet.
I just simply fail to see how forcing Christianity on another or telling another they're gonna go to Hell is going to be of help later on. Throughout most of my life, more than 90% of my friends have not been Christians. They're reason? They don't like the way they are treated by them, and thus they have no desire being one of them. I know this isn't every Christian, but there are some of them.
@sheatoshea@xanga - I don't suggest that anyone shouldn't vote for a Christian - my point is that we should be very careful about allowing "God" in government - because, I mean, "God" and even "Christianity" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people - so, how sure are you that the "God" your legislature supports is your God?
I mean - Mitt Romney is a mormon. There are those that don't believe, as a result, that he is a Christian - if he were President, and started to influence his version of "God" on the public, how would you feel about that? How about Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Is his "God" your "God".
Far safer to influence morality in your home, in your Church - and demand the government give you that right - than to invite them to regulate just how they are going to legislate faith and morality.
Oh - and the argument that, "teaching nothing is teaching athiesm" is, well, just lame. Sorry. I am a Christian, I believe in God and Christ - and I don't for a moment have a second of concern that our public school is teaching my child to be an athiest becuase they teach evolution. Teach my kid math, teach him english - teach him broadly accepted scientific principals - and if I want to suggest that either God didn't create the universe or that God did, and in the bargain, created the concept of evolution - well, I'll take care of that myself.
Perhaps more effort should be spent turning off the televisions in our homes and spending time with our children - and less time lobbying school boards to hold another monkey trial.
@roblaw@xanga - I don't recall him making the "teaching nothing is teaching atheism" claim. I do know that the Committee responsible for modern education was led by and hand selected by John Dewey- every one of them professed Secular Humanism as their religion. Curricula pushed by the federal government are saturated with humastic morals- morals that stand opposed to Christianty, such as the view that homosexuality is natural, that it is normal for a person to want to become the opposite sex, and that experimenting with sexual relations and drugs during your highschool years is not just normal, it's healthy. Planned parenthood, reponsible for the Sex ed curriculum in the majority of states, describes sexual experimentation as health, benefitial, normal, and helpful in building creativity, flexibility, and responsibility.
Teaching nothing is not teaching atheism. Teaching Humanism is.
And no, Mit Romney is not a Christian, Jeremiah Wright belongs to the UCC, which supports many anti-biblical beliefs. He said electing someone with your same morals. If someone is dumb enough to assume just because you and I claim christianity means we have the same morals, they probably have no business voting anyway.
@shedinator@xanga - amen! to all of your comments. well said. thank you for pointing out that so many people misinterpret the separation of church and state. and "judging". you are right. people hide behind not wanting to judge people. but there is a big difference between judging and discernment.
@shedinator@xanga - haha.. ok, good point.. I just think that a lot persons who profess a "fear" of the teaching of secular humanism is just a thinly disguised desire to force the teaching of their own brand of Christianity - which, to be honest, as often as not is very far from the teaching of Jesus as I know him.
@mamalove@momaroo- Thanks
3.5 years of Seminary should help me.
@roblaw@xanga - btw,sheatoshea=me... we are the same person... That said, I am in favor of the privatization of education. I think if testing and national curricula weren't so pushed, kids would have a greater chance to excell. And being that I just came out of the education system about 3 years ago, this is not a dated belief. No, I don't think all educational institutions should teach christianity, and yes, most "Christians" don't hold to Christ (take a look at the Barna Research Group's study on the Christian worldview, you'll like it).
God does NOT belong in the White House! Does anyone remember SEPERATION of chruch and state. If religion becomes intertwined in government like it has in the past, then it will revert back to the days when the church was a second governing body. How can America claim freedom of religion if the government is endorsing a certain a religion. The government needs to be unbiased. Its fine for a leader to make his or her religion known, but thats where it should end. He or she should not let her religous beliefs interfere with what they should be doing for the country, rather than their own personal beliefs. When you are a president your beliefs mean nothing, you are supposed to be there to service the people, no for your own agenda. You are supposed to do the most good for the most people. So I firmly believe in seperation between church and state.
the obvious answer to the title? a resounding no.
sorry, but there are other people in this country besides Christians. if you want a government based on a religion, you're asking for a theocracy. and that's something i definitely do not support. i do not believe Jesus is the only way to get into Heaven, i believe being a good person is far more important. and i don't think going around and telling your supposed friends that they're going to Hell is being a good person. if they're so sinful, why are you still hanging out with them?
"where he demands to be found"
See? This is why God and I don't get along. He's very demanding, it just wouldn't work out.
@shedinator@xanga - In your last paragraph, you claim "athiestic" ideas are taught in schools. I'm curious which ideas you are thinking of specifically. I find this a very interesting claim that I haven't often heard in comparison to the times I've heard people complaining that religious ideas are being forced on students.
I agree that often people mistake tolerance for condoning everything in a relativistic manner when there are obviously some things that are just wrong, but I also think it's important that people are aware of which of their morals are based on their belief system, because it is not ok to force your belief system on anybody. There are plenty of non-faith based reasons why cold-blooded murder is illegal. Hell, I can even give you non-religious reasons why abortion could be made illegal. But, If you can think of a logical reason why gays should not be able to marry that is not based on a faith's traditions, I'll be impressed. This is my prime example of why faith does bad, yes bad as in immoral, things when mixed with government.
I do consider democracy the best system of government. I think the majority often comes to the right decision. Majority, however, does not mean right. Majorities can oppress minorities. They can take away rights that they shouldn't be able to take away based on faith alone, something with no evidence from which you can argue. It bothers me that the government even has the power to do some of the things it is doing.
You may or may not be operating under the dangerous assumption that people who are not religious cannot be moral.
As for the original post, the fact that both candidates are sucking it up to evangelicals is kind of nauseating. If people want restore faith in something greater, they have to start with their own small circles and work up. Lead the life you want others to see value in. There's no real power for religion in politics. It discourages the very people you want to influence.
Your post is 100% right on! Amen! And Amen again!! It addresses how Christians of all the world, not just citizens of the United States, should love God and love their neighbors -- especially the less fortunate ones -- as our first priorities. And American Christians have a big opportunity to do that every time an election rolls around.
Many of us thought -- incorrectly as it turned out -- that we were sending a likeminded Christian to the White House last time. (Big Oil and Corporate America is NOT one of our less fortunate neighbors nor is it God!) Nonetheless, we should keep trying to do that, led by the Spirit of Jesus. And the same holds true for every elected official. Although God is ultimately in control of every election, He extends the privilege of participation to us for His own reasons.
It's that requirement of being led by the Holy Spirit instead of our flesh which stumbles most "Christian politics." Fleshly argument over politics actually demeans and degrades true Christianity. But each Christian in America may enter the privacy of the voting booth with Christ at his/her side. Unfortunately, far too many have neglected to spend much time with Him and, therefore, have no such relationship with Him.
@abhorrentphantasm@xanga - I completely agree with this post. I am a Christian, but I recognize that there are others living in this country who have just as much right to practice whatever religion they like as I do to practice mine.
I don't care what religion our president is. This country was founded upon religious freedom and I don't care to see it run by a person who feels it is his or her duty to do so based on their religious tenents.
If our president has a personal relationship with Christ, that is their business. If they worship the Sun God, so be it. Just don't expect all of us to live in in a country that is slowly being turned into a theocracy.
@Sayitwell@xanga - Understood. I think a lot of people, whether Christians that evangelize or others who consider the claims of Christianity, don't have a realistic sense of exactly how much God demands. Of course, "demand" is a harsh way of putting it (you wouldn't call expectations from friends or family or lovers demands per se), but then again God often asks for harsh things.
@WasaiWarrior@xanga - God needs to relax if he expects anything from me. I honestly just can't be bothered to meet all of these inane requirements the doctrine has set forth. (sarcasm, I'll never follow a religion, even if they do chill out.)
To be truly be honest, I think I'm a better person in action than the vast majority of the religious people I have met.
If there is a God, I'm sure it's more concerned with my actions than my beliefs.
@IDontDoSadness@xanga - Many of these are in the Planned Parenthood Curriculum, which has been adopted by around 80% of American schools, but I also have friends who are education majors at SUNY schools (state university of New York) and they are encouraged to espouse them. I'm not sure what your religious background is, but I've never encountered a religion that encouraged these:
1) Do what feels good, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. This, believe it or not, is actually a direct quote out of Anton Lavey's Satanic Bible. Although I'm sure that's not where they got it from, I always found that interesting.
2) There is a difference between Sex and Gender- You can argue this one all you want, I'm pretty sure none of the religions agree with it. The monotheistics are highly opposed, and the polytheistics generally include reincarnation, and any of their past lives tend to be the same sex as their current one.
3) Sex outside of marriage is normal, healthy, and even beneficial.
4) Everyone has a right to choose their own lifestyle, therefore you have a responsibility to embrace their actions.
5) There is no room for discussins of G-d in school. I kid you not, this one is actually something several of my teachers looked me in the eye and told me.
In regards to a non-religious argument against homosexuality, here's the way I see it. People are born male and female. If there is no higher power ordaining who is born male or female, then it is all happening based purely on genetics. Many homosexuals claim they weren't "supposed to be" the sex that they are, because they are the other one "on the inside." These same individuals claim there is no personality controlling things, so logically the conclusion they're drawing is that genetics made a mistake and gave boy parts to a girl, or girl parts to a boy. Considering these characteristics are just a matter of X and Y chromosomes, that doesn't really add up.
Second, if there is no G-d, we all arrived via evolutionary processes, and are born with the natural instinct to perpetuate our own genetic line, something that can not be done with someone of the same sex.
Finally, there is the matter of "homosexuality in nature," which is kind of like the matter of homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome. In the species in which we have witnessed homosexual intercourse occuring, it generally occurs only in males, oftentimes as an assertion of dominance, not out of pleasure or love, and when it is for pleasure, it is due to a high male-female ratio, and used as a form of release. Most kids have seen a male dog mount another male dog and "hump" him in to submission. Of course, that same dog went at it with mom's leg, the couch, and the mailman before finally finding a female dog to make him happy. Natural processes dictate that although time can be spent on the same sex for a while, eventually all will gravitate towards heterosexual relationships.
50 years ago, even the most staunch atheists would have argued AGAINST homosexuality. I think their arguments are still pretty valid.
Interesting responses to the never ending debate
@shedinator@xanga - What a majority of people would have done fifty years ago in a different time and place is significant why?
I study biology. From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, sex and gender evolved because it works for us. There are a lot of ways organisms perpetuate themselves. Did you ever think that, with its prevalence in both our and other species, homosexual tendencies are there for a complex reason as well? We can't say for sure, so why should you? I don't quite see the link between your ideas about homosexuality and the view that you should stop other people from doing it. I may be misreading, but you seem to imply that homosexuality is somehow unnatural or not beneficial which it is probably either the opposite or at least neutral to society and, importantly, to peoples' lives.
First paragraph. 1) I'm assuming that this refers to sex since it's from planned parenthood, and isn't some general satanic rule they're encouraging (in other words, they aren't telling you to go get drunk because the buzz feels good and it's not hurting anyone). Just like with gay marriage, I don't see what anyone else's sex life is to you. I'm also sure that the dangers of certain sexual activities are being taught as well, or at least I hope so, because I agree that there's an issue if they're not. But don't they have a point: It's not HURTING anyone. Why isn't that valid to you? Think about it. Is it primarily faith based?
2.) I don't understand this. What is apparently being taught? What is wrong with it? I just don't understand the paragraph.
3.) so you disagree? don't do it. leave other people the fuck alone (that's pretty much what this all comes down to), because there is lots of evidence that it can be if done in a healthy manner. And again, I bet they're teaching about all the sucky stuff that comes along with it. Would you honestly think an abstinence only program would be right?
4.) Right. You don't have to condone everything. I don't condone murder just because the murderer thought it was a good idea. There are some things you just have to suck up and tolerate though.
Allowing people to make the choice between what they consider moral and immoral does NOT imply that you have to condone their behavior.
5.) Educating people about religions is actually really cool! Preaching from the teacher's desk is not. I don't know the context of your teachers' statements, so I can't really use your personal statements.
I'd also like to know what makes these viewpoints solely "atheistic" and not just what most people consider tolerance or good lifestyle choices. Of all the things you've said, this pisses me off the most.
Quick role reversal: there's a prominent religion whose followers believe that polygamy and having exactly 2 children of each gender is the ONLY right way. Do I force you into a polygamous relationship and stop you from having more children through legislation? Of course not.
Again, I'm going to make a general comment on the original post and say: AWESOME!
@IDontDoSadness@xanga - you asked for the non-religious arguments against homosexual marriage, I gave the ones I am aware of. I didn't say this indicates a need for a law agains it. In fact, if you go back through my other comments on this thread, you'll see I expressly stated that I don't feel the Federal Government has any right to do so. What I did say is that if the people of a state vote to outlaw something, that law should be upheld. There are still several counties in the United states that outlaw the buying and selling of alcohol, because their citizens voted to do so, and any time it has come up in a vote since then, it has been upheld. There have been no court cases on this being unconstitutional, even though the Constitution has expressly stated that the traffic of alcohol is legal. So when a convincing majority of a state votes to outlaw a certain form of marriage which is NOT explicitly promoted by the constitution, that law should be upheld as well. If the tables were turned and North Carolina outlawed Heterosexual Marriage, I would stay with my wife, continue calling her my wife, etc. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Gay couples doing the same thing, so if a state wants to legalize them getting married, I don't see how that changes anything, and then can go right ahead. However, I think if a state decides to make it illegal, they have that right as well.
In regards to what makes them solely "atheistic." Regardless of what the followers of any given religion do or claim, the actual beliefs of the religion are expressed in its holy texts. The statements detailed above, along with others, are in opposition to every holy book I have read- this includes the Torah, Quran, Bible, Bagavhad-ghita, Book of Mormon, various Wiccan texts, and L.Ron Hubbard's series on Dianetics. If there is no religion that supports a certain statement, does that not make it atheistic by default? And no, these are not what most people consider tolerance, these are what most people consider acceptance. There is a large difference between the two. The "do what feels right" did not come solely from the Planned Parenthood curicculum, but if it had done so, they actually take stances on why it's a good thing to experiment with drugs as well so... yeah, I don't think they consider alcohol a big deal.
I am a huge fan of educating people about ALL religions. I'm tired of hearing fellow Christians issue false negative statements about other religions- I mentioned in another thread about the Wicca-witchcraft disparity- simply because they don't know what those of other faiths believe. At my high school, a world-religions course was proposed by a board member, approved by the board, and no qualified teacher(preferably the history teachers) would agree to teach it. It was when I questioned them about this that I was told there is no room for the discussion of G-d in school. I studied many other faiths in depth during a period in my life when I honestly had no clue which one was right, and I came away from a three year search convinced that Christianity was the one. Odds are, I could argue in favor of Secular Humanism against most Christians and win. And in spite of that, I still don't believe that my son needs to be taught from an atheistic (or non-theistic if you want to parse words) standpoint through 12+ years of education. When theories, no matter how scientifically supported, are being taught as fact, acceptance is being portrayed as the same as tolerance, and hedonism is encouraged, this is a direct encroachment on a parents right to raise their child under a specific set of morals. If we are going to take G-d out of schools, that's fine. In fact, I support it. But that does not mean we need our curricula to come from the opposing side.
on point. GREAT post.
like one of you said God is in the White house. people will vote for who they think is a better president and God will do whatever he sees fit to do. yeah the next president might be a Christian or he might not. God is ruler over all .