This display of righteous credentials is not new. In 2000 George W. Bush was asked to name his favorite political philosopher. He responded “Christ.” Whereupon he took us into the longest war in our history with its millions of dead and the destruction of nation after nation in the Near East—a catastrophe that continues to plague the world a decade and a half later. One might doubt if Jesus really led him into this bloodbath.
The more conservative these present candidates seem to be, the more devout they become. And so it is that right-wing politics and deeply conservative religion have come to occupy the same ground.
Consider how, according to these devout Bible-loving politicians, “Christian” America is called upon to act around the world. If we confront an enemy, instead of trying to come to some peaceful agreement or détente, our articulated option is to destroy, kill, carpet bomb, eliminate. If we believed we were in danger, not even water boarding would be severe enough torture. That might not be what Jesus was about, but right-wing politicians continued to market that perspective, each one with increased belligerency.
When these swords were raised before friendly audiences they were strongly affirmed. Nobody stopped to ask even if this might have been a legitimate political option. When Jesus said, “love your enemies,” did he mean that we should kill them? Or was Jesus just politically naive?
If we could manage to twist Jesus into becoming an international warrior consider how in domestic affairs this coalition between conservative religionists and conservative politicians could sing out of the same hymnbook. Here are just a few matters they both would agreed to champion.
· Endorse capital punishment.
· Support the unrestricted proliferation of firearms.
· Cut tax rates for the very rich.
· Insure affordable health insurance for those who can afford it, and repeal Obamacare for those who can’t.
· Cut programs that support the poor, children and the elderly.
· Keep those of certain non-Christian religions from immigrating here.
· Build a fence strong enough to keep out unwanted aliens..
· Deny climate change and its science, believing it interferes with the economy.
· Maintain our right to torture suspected enemies.
· Reject multi-culturalism.
· Declare that the United States is a Christian nation.
All of these issues may constitute legitimate topics for debate, and many honest conservatives may affirm them as flowing from their political perspectives. But here is my question. If the basis for how one views the world comes from Jesus and a Christian understanding of society, how do these self-proclaimed religionists justify their affirmation? Why and how are these conclusions derived from their religious commitment?
Thus while it is perfectly understandable for a great variety of persons to affirm the list, because their fundamental orientation comes from their conservative political allegiances and commitments, how can they be justified from a Christian perspective?
If Jesus’ will is that the reign of God might come to earth, and he was the way God had chosen to proclaim that message, would that reign look anything like the way society would be realized given the implementation of the political agenda detailed above? Taking what Jesus said seriously might rather lead Christians to give their allegiance to exactly an opposite agenda. The Pope is a pretty good authority on this subject.
One might conclude that the many evangelicals who support the items on the above roster do so because they have been attracted to a political perspective, not because their commitment flows from their Christian faith.
The more conservative these present candidates seem to be, the more devout they become. And so it is that right-wing politics and deeply conservative religion have come to occupy the same ground.
Consider how, according to these devout Bible-loving politicians, “Christian” America is called upon to act around the world. If we confront an enemy, instead of trying to come to some peaceful agreement or détente, our articulated option is to destroy, kill, carpet bomb, eliminate. If we believed we were in danger, not even water boarding would be severe enough torture. That might not be what Jesus was about, but right-wing politicians continued to market that perspective, each one with increased belligerency.
When these swords were raised before friendly audiences they were strongly affirmed. Nobody stopped to ask even if this might have been a legitimate political option. When Jesus said, “love your enemies,” did he mean that we should kill them? Or was Jesus just politically naive?
If we could manage to twist Jesus into becoming an international warrior consider how in domestic affairs this coalition between conservative religionists and conservative politicians could sing out of the same hymnbook. Here are just a few matters they both would agreed to champion.
· Endorse capital punishment.
· Support the unrestricted proliferation of firearms.
· Cut tax rates for the very rich.
· Insure affordable health insurance for those who can afford it, and repeal Obamacare for those who can’t.
· Cut programs that support the poor, children and the elderly.
· Keep those of certain non-Christian religions from immigrating here.
· Build a fence strong enough to keep out unwanted aliens..
· Deny climate change and its science, believing it interferes with the economy.
· Maintain our right to torture suspected enemies.
· Reject multi-culturalism.
· Declare that the United States is a Christian nation.
All of these issues may constitute legitimate topics for debate, and many honest conservatives may affirm them as flowing from their political perspectives. But here is my question. If the basis for how one views the world comes from Jesus and a Christian understanding of society, how do these self-proclaimed religionists justify their affirmation? Why and how are these conclusions derived from their religious commitment?
Thus while it is perfectly understandable for a great variety of persons to affirm the list, because their fundamental orientation comes from their conservative political allegiances and commitments, how can they be justified from a Christian perspective?
If Jesus’ will is that the reign of God might come to earth, and he was the way God had chosen to proclaim that message, would that reign look anything like the way society would be realized given the implementation of the political agenda detailed above? Taking what Jesus said seriously might rather lead Christians to give their allegiance to exactly an opposite agenda. The Pope is a pretty good authority on this subject.
One might conclude that the many evangelicals who support the items on the above roster do so because they have been attracted to a political perspective, not because their commitment flows from their Christian faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment