The Rintrarian Archive

This will be my stream of consciousness on this topic.

I understand that religion and politics should be kept at an arms length. That is to say, the church as an institution should not become involved in politics. The Pope, the Vatican, the church hierarchy whatever that may be, should not control government. This makes sense to me. I understand that.

I also understand that a voter would want to know where a candidate stands on the issues and, in particular, the issues which matter to the voter. Taxes, the military, policing, health care, education and so on. However, the “and so on” portion includes issues which others might find to be trite, insignificant or wrong to even be considered. Like creationism or gay marriage. I think the problem with these issues is not the position taken, but the positioning of the questioning itself.

Right now what I want to understand is this, why is the fact that a politician may wear their religion on their sleeve seen, particularly by the left, as such an issue? In my thinking, I see this as more profitable than holding their beliefs too close to the chest. Religion does guide a person’s decisions. As does any ideology. The questions asked of a candidate should concern the perception of what or who causes war, crime or poverty, and evolution and abortion should be left to the courts to weigh the evidence.

I do take issue with the religious right. Don’t get me wrong. But I also take issue with other lobbying groups – tobacco, arms, and so on.

The fact that a politician prays should not matter. Seems rather irrelevant as it is a personal matter. What does seem relevant to me is the question of representation and the proportionality of religious commitment. Seems to me that if one person is to fill a position, that person would/should need to represent a majority of the electorate. No matter what the electorate thinks. Because it is near impossible and virtually unlikely for someone to represent an idea that the representative despises. The majority can be wrong. They can be right too, but they can be wrong.

Even if the US were to elect another right-wing Christian who is in the pocket of “big-Church” this would not be a theocracy. A theocracy does not elect its leader. The entire government would need to be abolished. Even if it were to go to the biblical model which followed the Hebrew theocracy, it would have to be a monarchy. Democracy never factored into the Bible.

The demonizing of the religious is unfruitful and harms any sense of progress. Mockery does not help, except to help a person establish a personal sense of superiority. But isn’t this what people hate about the religious? Their connection to some “sky fairy?” Particularly hurtful, since it puts the religious on the defensive and all lines of real communication are broken because this is not even close to how the religious think of God. (The religious use language to describe God in ways which are convenient because the concept itself is not as simple as “sky fairy.”)

As in all things, it is best to find ways and means by which to work together with people. As long as it is a us/them dichotomy there is little progress which can be made. Unless you are wanting to have a battle-royal, but that seems hardly constructive in any way. Finding common ground – looking for areas where there is commonality. The term used in religious communities, maybe elsewhere too, is bridge building. Everything else is Anne Coulter-ish.

As long as the enemy can be demonized there will always be an enemy.