Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineUh-oh, now that Obama has come out saying he approves of and wants to extend Bush's government backing for faith-based initiatives, what in the world is Andrew Sullivan going to do? He's one of the blogsophere's most prominent Obama enthusiasts, and the man who invented the sneer term "Christianists" to describe believers who bring their faith to the public square.
Well, not much, Andrew doesn't seem to know what to say, except to offer a weak response suggesting that Obama is more interested in the social activist side of things than the theology..Though at least he admits that Obama is guilty of Christianism. I'm with Ross and Daniel: this should make Andrew realize that the term "Christianist" doesn't mean much in a country in which religion is so historically a part of public life. Neither man is holding his breath. Here's Larison, taking it further:
The difference in tone and attitude towards left-liberal "Christianism" compared to Sullivan's dire warnings of fundamentalist takeover is remarkable, but not surprising. It is consistent with the sort of criticism of religious conservatism that Sullivan has been making for years, which is centered around rejection of any politics that would put religious imperatives into action in public life. That rejection does not include political action inspired by religious imperatives that are broadly in line with a socially liberal and activist politics. The rule seems to be something like this: the less orthodox or traditional the religion or church, the more acceptable its "interference" in political life.
It's always been clear to me that liberals don't really object to religion in public life; they object to conservative religion in public life. Church-state, "Christianist" talk is just rhetorical expediency. After all, how many liberals would have objected to the Catholic Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicating obstreperous segregationist politicians in the 1960s?
But here's something worth considering. Obama has recently declared himself opposed to the attempt to amend California's constitution, or the U.S. Constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. He says that each state should make up its own mind, but that's entirely disingenuous, because what he really means is that each state Supreme Court should make up its mind. If he were really in favor of the state making up its mind, he wouldn't oppose this ballot initiative. Anyway, here's the thing. If gay marriage gets read by SCOTUS into the US Constitution as a fundamental civil right, as Obama no doubt wishes, I'm pretty sure that no religious organization that adheres to the traditional Christian/Jewish/Muslim teaching about same-sex marriage will be eligible to receive taxpayer funds as part of any faith-based initiative. So his proclamation today that he will support and expand federal funding for faith-based initiatives would, in that case, mean that he would in effect support federal funding for liberal faith-based groups only. The only churches, synagogues, etc., that would be eligible to receive federal funds would be those that have abandoned traditional teaching on homosexuality. Right?
I know that's a lot of ifs, but it's something that conservative Evangelicals thinking of voting for Obama, and finding his comments about faith-based programs today to be encouraging, should think about.
Subscribe
Comments
But the "civil rights" approach to gay marriage won't allow it to be that way. I'm not sure if Rod is right here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the redefinition of marriage as a civil right doesn't eventually create the problem he foresees -- but if so, it likely actually would extend to straight couples seeking religiously illegitimate marriages, rather than the previous ability of the church to refuse those marriages, being allowed to extend to same sex marriages.
Posted by: pentamom | July 2, 2008 9:21 PM
I think you might be mistaken on that. A government official such as a Justice of the Peace would have to perform any marriage for any couple who may legally be wedded, but this is not the case for clergy.
Regarding the odd wording of my question, Rod had stated:
It's beyond marriage. If homosexuals become a protected class under federal civil rights law, then there is a real question as to what extent organizations that discriminate against them can receive tax breaks or federal funding.
But under what circumstances would a Catholic Church or Catholic Agency discriminate against homosexuals?
Clearly, at least one would hope, a CC/CA that had a government contract to feed the homeless would not discriminate against a homosexual, celibate or not. Same for a Catholic hospital. A housing agency becomes a bit more problematical for a non-celibate homosexual, but if such housing was given to non-celibate heterosexuals, it seems to me they would have to comply.
Before someone brings up the Mass. adoption agency, let me state now that I think they should have received an exemption from that law.
So I'll ask Rod again - aside from performing a marriage, which I am pretty sure is covered by the general right of clergy to refuse to perform marriages to those not thought to be suitable (for example an unmarried couple living together) and adoption services - just what service would a CC/CA be performing in which they would discriminate against homosexuals?
Posted by: | July 2, 2008 10:25 PM
Darn this software - the 10:25 AM post was mine.
Posted by: John E. | July 2, 2008 10:27 PM
"Christianism" and "Christianist" are bad terminology that concedes Christianity to people who would consider the Sermon on the Mount, if it were delivered today, to be too liberal, theologically unsound.
"Theocrat" is the term for one who would make public policy conform to religious teaching.
The bigots, hypocrites and fanatics - Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Hagee, et al. - who have sought to hijack Christian faith and confine it within narrow theologies and a hard-right secular agenda, are more accurately described as right-wing theocrats.
The more militant, authoritarian "Christian" theocrats are falangists - after the Falange, the fascist movement with a religious veneer that Francisco Franco established in Spain.
Posted by: allbetsareoff | July 3, 2008 12:18 PM
I disagree with your traditionalist agenda, as usual, but I think you are mostly right about the future not looking so great for retrograde religions which want to get government subsidies for hate.
my blog reply here
Posted by: JOE PEREZ | July 5, 2008 4:16 AM
Rod,
A clarification please: (1) Do you believe in a Church/State separation? If you do, then (2) how can you justify any State help for any Church? If you don't, then would you approve of State help for a Muslim mosque? If you reject that, how do you justify it? By stating that a mosque is not a Church?
Posted by: Jeff | September 14, 2008 6:56 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?