Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineSen. Sam Brownback has an oped in the Washington Post today on what Republicans should be focusing on in order to win:
I believe the biggest threat to our future as a movement is a negative public face, when we don't project a welcoming and hopeful message based on an authentic faith. The future of the conservative movement in our country will be strong if we can be moved by genuine faith and love for mankind, but not by political power.On the campaign trail I talked about being pro-life and whole-life. This is, first and foremost, recognition of the fundamental dignity of every human person. It says that every person, at every stage and in every place, is a beautiful and unique child of God. It says that every life, everywhere, has value and is worth fighting for.
He goes on to say that being "pro-life and whole-life" means dealing with poverty and homelessness and Darfur and other issues of social justice.
The conservative movement in America will succeed to the degree that it is faith-filled. We must exude the virtues of authentic faith: joy, hope and love. Our movement must be more compassionate, loving and welcoming.
A few thoughts:
- The McCain camp can't be thrilled. First, there isn't any mention of John McCain's name. Given Brownback's endorsement of McCain last week, that is just a little odd. Second, what Brownback is describing isn't exactly McCain's platform. Oops.
- But if the McCain camp isn't thrilled, the rest of the Republican field - save Mike Huckabee - has to be pretty pissed. Brownback's oped is jab to nose and a moral indictment of the GOP field. No one, save Huckabee, is talking about compassion for prisoners or the poor or matters of social justice.
- Brownback is scaring me. The GOP will succeed to the "the degree that it is faith-filled." Hello? The GOP will win if it is religious? What a terrifying, terrifying thought. If anyone needs further proof as to what the GOP will become if it tries to become a church, look no further than the current White House.
That is exactly and precisely wrong. America doesn't need the GOP to be more faith-filled. It needs our churches to be more faith-filled. It needs individuals and families to be more faith-filled. It needs priests and pastors to be more faith-filled. It does not need a political party to be more faith-filled.
It is this fusion of faith and politics that is destroying both faith AND politics. We need our politicians to focus on being great political leaders who can run the ship of state. If they are faith-filled terrific. Great. If they aren't but can do the job, great. But this notion that the two must be fused is one of the most noxious and frightening notions. Enough said.
Subscribe
Comments
"There have been efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from the currency and to remove "under God" from the the Pledge of Allegience. Numerous religious monuments have been removed from state grounds because some people can't stand to see anything with which they do not agree."
No Rachel. The reason they were (and should be) removed is that they have no business being there in the first place. Courts are not religious places. They are to be impartial (you know, the "Justice is blind" concept), and are not seen to be impartial when the trappings of one particular faith get 'pride of place' treatment over other religions.
It has nothting to do with "agreement" and EVERYTHING to do with freedom of (and FROM) religion.
Do feel free to try again, but if you do, you'll need better arguments.
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | November 16, 2007 11:19 AM
Rachel,
"Many liberals want to restrict the free exercise of religion by banning it from public view and from the workplace."
Worship belongs in a house of worship, not the workplace.
The "free exercise of religion" is PREVENTED for people who are not of the 'majority's religion'. Explain why quotes from the Christian Bible ought to have precedence in 'public displays' (AND at public expense, btw) over the religions of OTHER members of the public, say Buddhists. You want your tax dollars to go to the erecting of shrines to Buddha? Or how about having a bronze statue of the Quran on your courthouse steps??? That, too, would encompass the "free exercise of religion" you tout for 'your side'.
Oh, and what about atheist citizens and their right NOT to have another's religion 'shoved down their throats' (to borrow an expression from the 'right') and paid for by their tax dollars?
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | November 16, 2007 11:26 AM
"You got what you wanted in our public arena. No virgins in school anymore and oral sex aplenty in the hallways, playgrounds and bathrooms.
Gotta love those that don't want religion in the public square."
I'm not sure how positing preposterous, unbelievable and false reports of "oral sex aplenty in the hallways" of our schools adds a modicum of believability to your rantings, donny.
And how does either (false) example have a thing to do with "religion in the public square" or lack thereof?
Do you wonder why you are not believed? It is because you continue to bear false witness.
Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | November 16, 2007 11:33 AM
Faith informs everything that you do that is how I was brought up.
Faith is not something that you practice only on Sunday or Saturday or on any OTHER day of the week to leave it their in your Church or Synagogue or Mosque.
As a practicing Catholic Christian I know full well that Christ expects us to LIVE OUR FAITH EVERYDAY!
There is nothing wrong at all by letting those in public KNOW we are Christian by living our faith!
Posted by: | November 20, 2007 9:41 AM
"There is nothing wrong at all by letting those in public KNOW we are Christian by living our faith!"
Please explain why having religious displays in public facilities helps you live out your religious faith? Also, what did Jesus mean in the following passage?
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
How does this play out with regards to conservative Christian's attitudes to moderate and liberal Christians? Also, how does having a nativity scene in the courthouse lawn as opposed to your own lawn evidence what Jesus was teaching?
Posted by: ds0490 | November 20, 2007 1:38 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?