Category Archive

Yesterday Barack Obama gave a speech that has been widely talked and thought about. This ought to be another turning-point in his campaign, as he has now transcended the political system he is entering. For a well-written opinion see the NY Times. If you have not read or seen the speech yet, it is imperative you do so (barackobama.com).

And among those writing about this was the Family Research Council, a conservative Evangelical Christian political group founded by James Dobson. They have concerned themselves with the general issues that much of the Religious Right likes so much - ending abortion, abstinence-only sex education, Intelligent Design, et cetera.

However, they seem to have focused themselves on a narrow view of both politics in religion. Among other things, they have likened Al Gore to Chicken Little: “The sky is warming!“, calling him “a prophet of doom”, and stating “the proposed cure is more intrusive government”.

It is in this vein that they responded to Obama’s speech:

“Barack Obama just gave an eloquent speech, but one that does not address the underlying nature of Senator Obama’s beliefs. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, like Mr. Obama, believes in a state-centered 21st century form of big-government socialism. This 21st century form of socialism is at the heart of the Liberation Theology Rev. Wright preaches from the pulpit. Today, Mr. Obama again made it clear, with all his eloquence, that he still embraces these beliefs that would require dismantling the free-market system that has made our country’s economy the most prosperous in all of human history.”

Firstly, the social issues Obama spoke about were education, healthcare, and job outsourcing; he said nothing about dismantling “the free-market system”. Secondly, why should a religious lobby group take such an issue to “big-government socialism”, and value so highly economic prosperity?

“In contrast to Liberation Theology, the Christian orthodoxy teaches about the nature of God, the nature of man, the relationship between the two in this life, and about the hereafter. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, is a belief system about political agendas, socialistic economic policy, and redistribution of wealth. Proponents of Liberation Theology, like Rev. Wright, teach that God commands us to form a government that will supervise our economy to create government-subsidized jobs under central-government planning; guarantee healthcare and education by having government control both; and achieve “economic equality” by redistributing wealth through massive taxes on the affluent and massive government entitlements for the poor. And it advocates replacing governments that do not embrace this socialistic agenda.”

This is more than a bit hypocritical. If the “Christian orthodoxy” has nothing to do with “political agendas, economic policy, and redistribution of wealth”, why did they just argue an anti-socialism, pro-free-market agenda, economic policy, and distribution of wealth in the previous paragraph? Also, it can be noticed that nowhere does the FRC say that Obama is a “proponent of Liberation Theology”, just Rev. Wright. This is the very behaviour Obama spoke out against in his speech:

“We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.”

Did the FRC even read the speech?

“Those are the beliefs of Liberation Theology. Those are the offensive root beliefs underlying many of Rev. Wright’s sermons. And though Barack Obama does not embrace Mr. Wright’s offensive language, he does embrace this government-solves-everything-through-socialism worldview.

His speech was magnificent in its elegance and rhetoric, but today Mr. Obama reminded me yet again of his worldview that embraces, among other things, partial-birth abortion, military weakness, and economic socialism.” –Ken Blackwell

The progression (Liberation Theology > Offensive Rev. Wright > Obama > socialism > abortion, “military weakness”, “economic socialism”) is logically troubling at just about every step. While I may agree that abortion is immoral, and that Obama’s foreign policy may not be strong enough, I cannot see how this has anything to do with yesterday’s speech.

I appreciate dialogue from all sides, but if any group decides to issue material like this, I cannot take them seriously. Although I support Obama and think socialism is closer to ideal economic policy than the current consumeristic capitalism, I have no qualm respecting more conservative views. However, when a group goes out of its way to issue inflammatory material, contradicting themselves on which views are important, and taking offense in principle to different ideas without considering what their merits might be, I cannot help but see their views as irrelevant.

And I think many others feel the same way. Conservative causes can be presented in a well-reasoned, neatly-considered manner. Perhaps this is done by some people, and I would like to listen to them. But some higher-profile groups and people, have presented propaganda-like material like this. And it is because of things like this that Christianity is having an image problem [time.com].

I was listening to this episode of Speaking of Faith, which discusses the original intentions of the American separation of church and state. The guest, Steven Waldman, had researched what many prominent Founding Fathers of America, like Jefferson, Washington, and especially Madison thought about this separation.

His narrative begins in early America, where the Constitution did not include the First Amendment. In this time, there was a large amount of religious persecution between Christian groups. He gives the example of Mary Dyer, who was executed in Massachusetts for being a Quaker.

He points out that during this time, the proponents of the separation of church and state were the predecessors of today’s Evangelicals. Their focus on individual piety and spirituality fit this philosophy well, notwithstanding that they were the ones being persecuted by the existing religious establishments.

And eventually, through various political maneuverings, they got their wish.

Yet strangely enough, the same group that was pushing for this separation is attempting to bridge church and state again. This movement is generally called the “Religious Right”. Their stance is that by putting religious morality into law, that the state can be improved. But there is the problem that disagreement with the conservative politics, some of which is based on these conservative Christian viewpoints, implies that they are in opposition to Christianity. Also, Christianity is blamed for the failures of these conservative politics. People that want to distance themselves from the one side of politics find themselves nominally alienated from a religion.

Waldman notes this: And what we are seeing now is polling data that says that one of the effects of the dominance of religious conservatives in the last 20 years is that it’s soured a generation, not on politics, it’s soured them on Christianity. That’s the big issue that religious leaders have to grapple with right now. I think Waldman has this exactly right.

The problem is that both separation of church and state and merging the two both do not work. A completely separated, secular state becomes the church of the secular. The church-state, as exhibited many times in the past,  is corrupted by absolute power and can be quite intolerant. Therefore, I believe neither is the true answer.

To have a political sphere that is not at odds with the church, the entire constitution of the state must be based on religion. The state needs to exist solely for religious need, with religious objectives, and working towards fostering a just religious society. The church itself looks surprisingly similar to this paradigm. Perhaps the proper state is the church.

This is different than the merging of church and state. This process tries to tack on Christian values to the secular political sphere that has completely different objectives. Church as state is ideologically consistent, and is not corruptible in the same way as historical church-states have been, for the church ought to see power as ultimately Christ’s.

However, I have not the political experience or knowledge to know how this would work out. I can see how it would be very difficult to obtain in the first place, with the very heterogeneous religious areas that would need to unite to make this possible.

This is a complex problem, and I will continue my studies on the subject.