The revolution will begin in church
Image via Wikipedia
A few days ago, I posted a piece challenging Sarah Palin on a remark she made indicating that the intent of America’s founders was to root our law in the teachings of the Bible and the Ten Commandments. Here is what Gov. Palin had to say-
Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments.
Huffington Post
While my piece set out to disprove Palin’s position, what ultimately proved to be the most interesting result of the article was the response it evoked from the numerous readers who provided comments – both in support of Sarah Palin’s perspective and those in sharp opposition.
These comments were often well documented, well reasoned and, in some cases, a bit frightening. If you haven’t seen the piece, I recommend you take a look – not to read my arguments but to check out the comment section as this is where you will find the real action.
One of those who strongly supported Gov. Palin’s perspective is a gentleman who once served as the chief propagandist for the Republican National Committee –although he now describes himself as a “recovering Republican.” We will call him John… because that is his name. Typically, I would not directly reference someone in this way but, to John’s credit, he was very comfortable disclosing who he is in his comments.
John is obviously an intelligent and well-educated man who served the purpose in the discussion of frustrating many of the others involved in the debate. This was because no matter what argument opponents to John’s point of view suggested, his answer was, in a word, “God.”
The nation is in dreadful shape, John argues, because it turned away from the Christian nation our founders gave us and became the Godless, endangered wasteland it is today. And no matter what attempts at logic others would toss John’s way, he was bulletproof in his response because logic was not required in his point of view – all he required was faith.
To be fair, John did suggest some factual basis for his belief that the foundation of the nation was intended to be a nation based on Christianity. He pegged this to what was happening in the two centuries leading up to the founding of America. But I think John would agree that I am not being unfair when I suggest that most of his arguments centered around his belief that all things are founded in God (including the country) and that by abandoning God , we have abandoned the nation.
Now, I can argue with John on the facts of whether or not he’s correct that American law was rooted in the Bible. But, I can’t ultimately tell him he’s wrong, or hope to back up such a claim when John suggests that our problems are the result of becoming a godless society (not that I think we are) because he could be right. I certainly do not think he is….but he could be. The problem here is that to argue successfully with John, I’m required to take a swing at faith and other things I cannot see, feel or touch. While frustrating, the fact that I can’t see, feel or touch the basis for John’s argument doesn’t mean that what he offers isn’t correct . And since I can’t prove that he’s incorrect, it becomes an argument I can’t possibly win.
That’s when it hit me. God is the ultimate political argument.
While one may disagree with another who waives God in front of them as the beginning, middle and end of the story, nobody can disprove the argument. And while we can suggest that John is in the same boat as we given the fact that he too cannot prove his argument – it doesn’t really matter. At best, we reach a a stalemate. More likely, any effort to disagree with John is a waste of breath on the part of his opponent. We could argue ourselves blue in the face and John is going to continue to believe what he believes. His argument is neither dependent upon facts nor logic. His argument is faith – and that can neither be proven or disproven.
Pretty convenient, no?
This is not to say that I think John is any way behaving disingenuously or falsely attempting to create an argument that cannot be rebutted. I feel quite certain that John’s faith is genuine and that he means and believes every word he says. Nor do I think this makes John a ‘bad guy’. Quite the contrary. I suspect John is anything but a bad guy. He is simply a believer. But that doesn’t mean that John, and those who see things his way, are not ultimately a great danger to the nation.
At one point in the ‘back and forth’, John noted that America is involved in ungodly wars. I pointed out that these wars were begun and conducted by a president who openly professed his strong Christian view, spoke of his frequent consultation with God when making the hard decisions and went so far as to count himself among the ranks of the ‘born again.’ John responded that George Bush was really not Christian – or at least had not behaved as a Christian – because he did not follow the dictates of the Christian bible. When I asked John what entitled him to make that determination (as I seriously doubt President Bush would agree with John’s assessment), he informed me that God was making that assessment and it was clear if one simply read the bible.
So now, we have one Christian accusing another Christian of not being Christian at all.
If a Christian becomes intolerant of the beliefs of another Christian, imagine the intolerance we can anticipate towards those who might believe in Islam or believe in no God at all.
This brought to mind an interesting quote by James Madison – the man who wrote the Bill of Rights – provided courtesy of another one of the clever responders to the piece.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
Got to hand it to Madison. He really saw it coming.
With all of this as a backdrop, I learned this morning that the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law yesterday that would prohibit private health insurance companies in the state from offering abortion coverage to Oklahoma residents, except in the case of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life.
Considering that – for better or for worse- abortion is legal in the United States, and that it hardly seems in the public interest to ban a private company from providing a benefit to a customer when that benefit is completely legal, this is one heck of a law. It is also a law that will cause women in Oklahoma to have to come up with up sums reaching $10,000 to pay for an unforeseen medical procedure that the law recognizes as perfectly legal.
But this did not stop the legislators in Oklahoma from taking matters into their own hands despite the law of the nation.
Who could do such a thing?
Only someone who is so absolutely certain of their position – a position rooted in their religious belief- that they would circumvent the law of the land, and the desires and needs of its citizens, to act on what they believe is their Christian responsibility.
Can anyone argue that this is what the founders of America had in mind?
This is where the notion of secular government, as I believe is the clear and verifiable intent of the founders, runs head long into those who believe America was created to be a Christian nation, responsible first and foremost to God and bible.
We are increasingly seeing the fruits of this clash. As a result, one can’t help but wonder what happens to the non-Christians should the ‘America as Christian nation’ argument win out.
And, make no mistake, it is winning out.
With our leaders increasingly using God as the reference point for convenient political gain, it is becoming more than clear that when the revolution comes, it will begin in church.
Good thing states are now allowing folks to bring guns to church with them.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rickungar. rickungar said: RT @trueslant – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant http://bit.ly/bPHH7C [...]
Fret not Rick! America has been through a long series of identity crises and have always come out the better for it. Ours, while challenged and befuddled at this moment in history, is still and will continue to be the greatest nation in the history of civilization. Those attributes of our society that are fundamentally fouled up are beginnings of the path to improvement. Churches will not lead any major changes in the foreseeable future. Libertarians will. Revenge of the nerds is coming. Why will the masses wake up to understand the screwing we all have been getting via corporatist elitists domination of society and democracy? Because wrong eventually rots.
“Got to hand it to Madison. He really saw it coming.”
Not only did he see it coming, the pilgrims lived it which is why he said it.
Whether or not I agree with John, and of course I don’t, it’s this type of religious discussion that is, in my opinion, the basis of the open and free society our founding fathers intended. If this country falls into the abyss of theocracy we will have an even greater potential for losing such openess and freedom, in the name of John’s one true God.
Rick, anyone who has complete, absolute faith that they are right and everyone else is wrong is dangerous. They have the answers. Either you accept their “facts” or you become part of “the problems facing America.” We saw that with John.
It seems that more and more people on the right are exhibiting this absolute faith that they are right and those on the left are not just wrong, but the root of everything that is wrong in America today.
Here is what Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, wrote about liberals on the Washington Post Q&A the other day, in response to this questioner:
Q: “…Liberals are just as American as you are and you and your movement has no right to question people’s patriotism or Americanness just because they disagree with you.”
J.P.: “Yes we do. You folks in the left do far worse. Patriotism is not something that cannot be measured. It can be. And you folks on the left, as a general rule are not patriotic. You do not love this country. You are embarrassed by us.
I hate to tell you this, but those of us in fly over country are the real americans.”
[http://tinyurl.com/2vwgczy]
Sobering, to say the least.
[...] The revolution will begin in church – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page … Booker Rising: The Paul Revolution 2.0A Tiny Revolution: Holocaust, Inc.Impact of the French Revolution on 18th Century Europe and …Smashwords – Out of the Rubble… Revolution! (An Allegory of …RealClearPolitics – Politics Nation – Two More Incumbents On …Giveaway of the Day – free licensed software daily. Wondershare …Super Saver 5-2 morning line choice for Preakness – Talking Horses …Issues that Drive the Polls | Fox & Hounds DailyDetroit Pistons Links: A.J. Slaughter of Western Kentucky worked …Stark Online: New Video: Club 8 "Western Hospitality" View the Contact Powered by Tools [...]
[...] The revolution will proceed in church – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page … [...]
[...] The revolution will begin in church – Rick Ungar – The Policy Page – True/Slant [...]
You think that’s sobering, ha! Wait until the fuel runs out and these “Left Behind” loonies all realize that they’ve been left behind! That’s when the real fun ensues. It’ll make the inquisition look like a bad dress rehearsal.
Andrew Sullivan covered a lot of this in his The Conservative Soul and discussed Oakeshott’s take at length in that one cannot govern well from a book because society is far too dynamic. In this case, where theocrats claim to have the truth and know the answers to societies problems, I’m sure that there are a lot of people who welcome that sort of certainty. I do not (’cause I’m john with a little j not the John in your piece). And I’m quite certain that in order to manage a society as complex as ours is will take institutions that reason, adapt, and learn more quickly than a religion.
To be an American means you have the right to pursuit your life’s happiness anyway you see fit, believe in any God, or no God, as long as you do not infringe on another’s right to do the same. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, remember? It is in this light that patriotism is truly defined. Patriotism is not believing in some collective notion of national truth or moral law, it is the love of a nation that provides the protected environment, which allows each of us to find our own.
A person, informed by religion or not, should recognize that, but for our laws, and this principle of separating church and state, we would not enjoy our liberty. And whether we allowed some king to define our national church, or we allow the popular vote to do so, our liberty would be destroyed. Thus, patriotism is not about love for and defense of a religion or some national truth, it’s about our country and the rich albeit sometimes frustrating diversity within it. Any person with that sort of love of country is welcome to join in the management of it, but any person puts their faith before country must be excluded. We may be informed by religion, but we can never be governed by it.
Join the revolution, Rick.
Please make this the last article you post about the former governor of Alaska. The only way to make her go away is for the media to stop covering her. I’ve started a facebook page, if we get a few million people hit the ‘like’ button for it, perhaps the rest of the media will eventually get the hint.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Media-needs-to-STOP-COVERING-the-ex-governor-of-Alaska/121752704519798
(well… it’s wishful thinking anyway)
i volunteer with teens at a small baptist in SC … these kids have been told that THE GREATEST THREAT TO AMERICA is homosexuality.
…sigh….
i thought it was found in 1 Timothy 6 (KJV)
when i talk to the kids about discrimination, they get it. (thanks to this book written by a baptist minister, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You: But Can’t, Because He Needs the Job). the elders, however, that’s a different story. at least i have the kids on the correct (IMHO) path.
you cannot convince the older folks — so i gave up with them.
A Southern Baptist minister. Who, apparently, assumes all Christians are conservative idiots. An assumption that sells books….
In response to another comment. See in context »Um, try reading. The very first 3 sentences to peg1’s link about the book show the Baptist minister addressing *centrist* Christians for whom the question of Christianity is faith, not politics.
That doesn’t seem to square with your assumption (that he doesn’t make at all in the book) that he skews all Christians as being conservative idiots. And later on in peg’s link it talks about the hijacking of Christianity being from a “militant minority of fundamentalists,” which means he doesn’t even see the majority as conservative idiots.
Funny that you go for the false dichotomy argument in a later post in this thread while blatantly creating one here about a book you clearly have not read and couldn’t be bothered even to read about. Well done.
In response to another comment. See in context »No, I didn’t read the book, but I did read the blurb you linked to. Sorry. And I’ll explain my comment–Thomas claims that centrist voices aren’t being heard. In other words, that conservative idiocy is the order of the day, which would have to be the case if centrist voices are, in fact, not being heard. But mainline voices ARE being heard (that’s the standard, commonly-used term–mainline, not centrist). I hear them every week at church, and have for years, and in a variety of locations.
Treating mainline C. like an aberration is the currently popular media misrepresentation of religion (it replaces the previous sin of pushing Catholicism as the one and only form of Christianity), and any writer who wants to sell a book on the topic, I suppose, had better cater to that received lie. I’m simply calling out that lie. If the book is better than, or different from, the blurb, then my apologies to the author.
“Centrists” who want to feel welcome need only go to a mainline church, of which there are many.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick- thanks for the shout-out.
Here’s the document from which I selected the Madison quote:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
here’s hoping the link works.
Rick,
You’ve delved to the heart of the matter. There are people who want a society that adapts to reality, and there are people who want to adapt reality to their society.
Western Europe lived under the latter regime for a thousand years. Now we call that time the Dark Ages. I’m afraid that “John” would call that an enlightened time, and might argue for bringing back the Inquisition. Eventually, we will all have to take sides.
Yup, it’s them or us. This or that.
“Next stop: False Dilemma Blvd.!”–Conductor.
In response to another comment. See in context »People stupid enough to believe in a “god”™ pretty much deserve what they’ve got coming to them (and that ain’t heaven).
I am an atheist. That said, I do believe Christ (the man, not the demigod) was one of history’s great political thinkers. The New Testament can be considered a blueprint for building a strong society by building strong and compassionate relationships between the people. Caring for the poor while condemning the rich, sharing bounties as well as pain – Jesus was an early socialist who taught that caring more for each other more than caring for our own amassing of wealth would lead to a happy and healthy society – heaven on Earth.
Over the intervening centuries, his lessons were twisted to support the opposite. First the amassment of wealth by the Catholic Church, then under Protestant theocracies in Europe, finally by conservatives who portray Jesus as John Galt so they can rationalize their own unquenchable greed.
So I would agree that a large chunk of our current problems are caused by abandoning the lessons of Christ, glorifying greed and the empty amassment of wealth, erasing the shame that prevented the rich in earlier decades from twisting our society into corporate feudalism that benefits only a few vastly bloated parasites who are ravaging our economy and society only to amass fortunes larger than they will ever be able to spend. If you set out to build an Anti-Christian soceity, you couldn’t do better, and homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with it.
[...] The revolution will begin in church (trueslant.com) [...]
I just gave John one last shot at walking back from his apparent belief that all non-believers should be executed but he didn’t take it. Should he be on the no-fly list? Or is advocating not enough? Do you need to be willing to carry out the executions yourself to be considered a threat? I don’t know what the criteria is but I’m just say – that man is SCARY!
[...] Tһе revolution wіƖƖ bеɡіח іח church – Rick… [...]