Religious controversies always produce more acrimony and irreconcilable hatred than arise from any other source. (George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792.)
Curb your enthusiasm for progressive candidates who flaunt their religious faith. This essay
explains why godspeakers, attractive as they are, are likely to prove dangerous to the kind of nation JFK envisioned:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute… where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly on the general population. (September 12, 1960 at the Greater Houston Ministerial Association)
Obviously, all progressive candidates are preferable to typical far-right divisive fundamentalists like Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence, or just about any Republican in Congress, on the Supreme Court, or in Donald Trump’s cabinet. Yet the progressive candidate who flaunts his religiosity, even though he checks all or most of the well-regarded liberal boxes: gay, young, smart and well-educated, kind, attractive, funny, veteran, maybe even vegan. and so on – must still be viewed with skepticism as a likely danger to the preservation of what remains of our secular Republic.
This is not an idle concern. Not to mention midwestern mayors who at this point may seem too rosy to be true, concern for devout believers must be weighed by enthusiasts of science, rationality, and especially the strict separation of church and state . It seems advisable to exercise extreme caution with those who claim that theology informs their political positions.
Somehow, seculars may be heartened by an attractive Democratic presidential candidate who displays Christian piety, since the first thought might be the feeling that this increases their chances of electability. We have seen cases where a certain devout liberal, like the elders in the play goodbye little bird, who seems Perfect in every way questions Trump’s religion, self-righteously scolds the hypocritical vice president for being part of a presidency porn star and uses biblical references to support their positions. Unfortunately, the public interest in a secular democracy is not well served by politicians arguing over who is a good Christian or number one believer. Who cares or should care? Let the faithful have these discussions, if they wish, but keep them in churches and religious homes, not in candidate forums or political campaigns.
Personally, I confess that I would prefer an attractive Democratic candidate who adorns his speeches with Christian babble primarily as a strategy to win over segments of the religious right, from someone who actually believes in such nonsense. I never thought I would adopt or at least adapt Barry Goldwater’s infamous comment from the 1964 presidential campaign to justify such convenience (i.e. Extremism in defense of freedom is not a vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue). However, given the circumstances in 2019, I have no such qualms, so here goes:
The false piety in defense of freedom is not such a terrible vice, if it is done to avoid another term of Donald Trump. Discourse that diminishes the supernatural but damages the possibilities of reason in government is not a virtue.
Convenience aside, here are a couple of examples of the candidate’s current, otherwise brilliant, rhetoric that triggers my theocracy-alert sensibilities:
On CNN at a town hall meeting, he said: My sense is that the Scripture is about protecting the stranger, the prisoner and the poor and that idea of welcome. That’s what I get in the Gospel when I’m in church.
Actually, I much prefer someone who feels this way all the time, with everyone, and not just when reading a gospel and/or in church.
The ideal candidate also criticized the vice president in a way that just seems spiritually strange:
The Vice President’s perspective has a lot more to do with sexuality and, I don’t know, a certain vision or righteousness.
i find it challenging a connecting Pence to sexuality, especially given his overly developed focus on righteousness, moral correctness, and rectitude.
When a candidate spouts quotes from holy books and inflicts what he or she considers to be the revealed wisdom of religious dogmas and teachings, the clear message is that their political views are informed, guided, or related to spiritual or faith-based matters. . This, in turn, adds to the widespread illusion and hopes of religious fundamentalists that America is a Christian nation.
James Madison believed that religious bondage shackles and weakens the mind and incapacitates it for all noble enterprise, all broad perspective.
I wonder if an otherwise attractive candidate would agree with President Madison or President Kennedy’s commitment cited above to an absolute separation of church and state?
In a Washington Post article the other day, David Niose offered this take on an attractive candidate for president:
There is a reason progressives have toned down religion in their ranks over time, and that reason is called progress. Science and empiricism, along with values that recognize the dignity and worth of all individuals, are understood as the legitimate basis for a progressive political dialogue. (David Niose, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s progressive Christianity is also nothing to celebratein Hemant Mehta’s Friendly Atheist, April 21, 2019.)
What America needs now is a candidate somewhat in the mold of Courtland Palmer, described below in a funeral oration by the colonel. Robert Green Ingersoll:
He investigated for himself the questions, the problems and the mysteries of life. Majorities were nothing to him. No error could be old enough, popular enough, plausible enough, or profitable enough to impugn his judgment or keep his conscience clear. He was a believer in intellectual hospitality, in the fair exchange of thoughts, in good mental manners, in the comforts of the soul, in the chivalry of argument. He believed in the moral of the useful, that the virtues are the friends of humanity, the seeds of joy. He lived and worked for the like of him.
Unfortunately, neither George Washington, John F. Kennedy, James Madison, nor Courtland Palmer are available, but there are many others who would promote a political agenda that would keep the governmental affairs of all people separate and distinct from the conflicting spiritual agendas of Christianity and others. . religions