Religion and Politics

[SuperJerk 0]

'An Evangelical Manifesto' criticizes politics of faith

 

-Document from conservative Christian leaders to be released Wednesday

-Drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love"

-Among the signers are Os Guiness and Richard Mouw

-High-profile leaders such as Richard Land, James Dobson not among signers

 

(AP) -- Conservative Christian leaders who believe the word "evangelical" has lost its religious meaning plan to release a starkly self-critical document saying the movement has become too political and has diminished the Gospel through its approach to the culture wars.

 

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible, according to a draft of the document obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

 

"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become 'useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," according to the draft.

 

The declaration, scheduled to be released Wednesday in Washington, encourages Christians to be politically engaged and uphold teachings such as traditional marriage. But the drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."

 

"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," the statement says, "while we have condoned our own sins." It argues, "we must reform our own behavior."

 

The document is the latest chapter in the debate among conservative Christians about their role in public life. Most veteran leaders believe the focus should remain on abortion and marriage, while other evangelicals -- especially in the younger generation -- are pushing for a broader agenda. The manifesto sides with those seeking a wide-range of concerns beyond "single-issue politics."

 

Among the signers of the manifesto are Os Guiness, a well-known evangelical author and speaker, and Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Pasadena, California. Organizers declined to comment until the final document is released.

 

They say more than 80 evangelicals have signed the statement, although only a few names have been released. A. Larry Ross, spokesman for the authors, said the theologians and Christian leaders involved are seeking to "go back to the root theological meaning of the term evangelical."

 

Some champions of traditional culture war issues are not among the supporters.

 

Richard Land, head of the public policy arm for the Southern Baptist Convention, said through a spokeswoman that he has not seen the document and was not asked to sign it.

 

James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, a Christian group in Colorado Springs, Colorado, did not sign the document, said Gary Schneeberger, a Dobson spokesman. Schneeberger would not say whether Dobson had read the manifesto or had been asked to sign on.

 

Phil Burress, an Ohio activist who networks with national evangelical leaders, said that if high-profile evangelical leaders such as Dobson and Land don't support the document, "it's like throwing a pebble in the ocean" and will carry no weight.

 

But the drafters hope they can start a movement among evangelicals to reflect and act on the document. "We must find a new understanding of our place in public life," the drafters wrote.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/02/eva...s.ap/index.html

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Things must be bad for Bush if the evangelicals are turning on him.

[SuperJerk 0]

I think this has less to do with Bush specifically, and more to do with how many have wised up to how some conservatives have tried to turn their faith into a political action committee.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I think this has less to do with Bush specifically, and more to do with how many have wised up to how some conservatives have tried to turn their faith into a political action committee.

 

I think a lot of it is that the republicans havn't really lived up to their end of the bargain either. They probably thought Bush would have banned abortion or criminalised homosexuality by now. They seem to now realise they were being used ( 8 years too late, though).

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think this has less to do with Bush specifically, and more to do with how many have wised up to how some conservatives have tried to turn their faith into a political action committee.

 

I think a lot of it is that the republicans havn't really lived up to their end of the bargain either. They probably thought Bush would have banned abortion or criminalised homosexuality by now. They seem to now realise they were being used ( 8 years too late, though).

 

I think I tend to agree more with SuperJerk's assessment. Anyone who really thought Bush was going to do any of that stuff was just plain delusional.

[SuperJerk 0]

The article seems to indicate that rather than feeling betrayed on abortion or gays, they feel used because their support has been manipulated into an imaginary mandate for things like a capital gains tax cut, easing of consumer regulations, support for the Iraq War, and other things that have nothing to do with Christianity.

[SamoaRowe 0]

I think this has less to do with Bush specifically, and more to do with how many have wised up to how some conservatives have tried to turn their faith into a political action committee.

 

I think a lot of it is that the republicans havn't really lived up to their end of the bargain either. They probably thought Bush would have banned abortion or criminalised homosexuality by now. They seem to now realise they were being used ( 8 years too late, though).

 

I think I tend to agree more with SuperJerk's assessment. Anyone who really thought Bush was going to do any of that stuff was just plain delusional.

 

I had a coworker who tried convincing me to vote for Bush in 2004 because he was supposedly going to end abortion. He seriously told me to "think of the babies." I just shook my head, if Bush hadn't done anything about it in his first four years, what made him think he would in his last four?

[SuperJerk 0]

The Roberts and Alito appointments to the Supreme Court were a step in that direction.

 

The article seems to indicate that these Evangelicals were upset in being used to promote issues beyond just abortion and gay marriage.

[Jingus 0]

I just shook my head, if Bush hadn't done anything about it in his first four years, what made him think he would in his last four?

We need more presidents like Polk. He said "I'm gonna do these four specific things, and I ain't gonna seek re-election". And he was actually telling the truth. Imagine if a nominee tried to run a campaign like that today.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Tangentially related, but I had to put this somewhere. The American Life League has in their sights that great destroyer of life...the birth control pill.

 

 

http://thepillkills.com/

[SuperJerk 0]

Obama starts talkin' about religion and all of a sudden the conservatives think there should be some kind of wall of separation or something...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_...n_politics_poll

[Guest Vitamin X]

Oh really, NOW?

[Guest]

Jerk's probably dizzy from all that spin. One of these days he's going to die from a migraine.

 

Among the groups that shifted strongly away from wanting to see churches involved in politics: Americans who are less educated, those who believe gay marriage is a very important issue and those who think the two major parties are unfriendly to religion.

 

"To my mind, that spells frustration," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center. "But by the same token, we know these very same people are not interested in less religiosity in the political discourse. They almost universally want a religious person as president.

[Guest WhackingCockDick]

Religion and Politics

A Czech family dinner.

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem isn't what people say or what they check off in a poll, it's how they vote.

 

If people really want religion out of politics then they better prove it by making abortion, gay marriage, gay rights in general etc etc etc secondary or even after-thought issues.

 

I mean really, we'll see what happens come the debates.

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's where I have a real problem.

 

Abortion shouldn't even be a religious issue.

 

Was it ever mentioned in the Bible?

 

Christians are so sure life begins at conception, but there is no theological case to be made for this belief.

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Here's where I have a real problem.

 

Abortion shouldn't even be a religious issue.

 

Was it ever mentioned in the Bible?

 

Christians are so sure life begins at conception, but there is no theological case to be made for this belief.

I think there's a line in there about God knowing you in the womb, or something like that, which could be interprated as saying life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong.

 

Abortion has always been a practical issue, rather than a religious one for me. If a woman is determined to get one, making it illegal isn't going to stop her. There seems to be a lot of people out there under the deluded impression banning abortion will somehow eradicate it. Even in countries where abortion is illegal, women just order pills off the internet now and its that easy. You're not saving any 'babies' by banning abortion, just endangering the lives of thousands of women who are going to get an abortion regardless. I think a lot of these religious voters need to realize that what they're asking for is totally unrealistic. Especially, during this election. Mccain actually went on record a few years ago saying that he'd let his fifteen year old daughter have an abortion. Of course, he's changed his tune now but how genuine is he being?

[SamoaRowe 0]

Hold on... McCain let his 15 year old daughter have an abortion and now he's sitting there on television spewing "I'm happy to tell you, my friends, that I'm pro-life and will be a pro-life president" to thunderous applause and he let his own daughter have an abortion?!? Why is NO ONE calling him out on that!

[EricMM 0]

Perhaps, shades of Cheney and his daughter.

 

PLUS, who's gonna call him on it, the pro-abortion people?

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

Hold on... McCain let his 15 year old daughter have an abortion and now he's sitting there on television spewing "I'm happy to tell you, my friends, that I'm pro-life and will be a pro-life president" to thunderous applause and he let his own daughter have an abortion?!? Why is NO ONE calling him out on that!

 

To clarify, he hasn't, to my knowledge, actually let his daughter have an abortion, but he was asked what he would do if she did get pregnant and he said something along the lines of 'we would come together as a family and make that decision and it would remain private'. Which is basically saying abortion would be an option for them.

 

Mccain is all over the place on abortion. He said in 1999 he'd never support a roe vs wade overturn because of all the illegal abortions that could happen. But now he's acting like its his number one priority.

 

Jon Stewart had a funny line about this (but he was talking about Mitt Romney): 'Life doesn't begin at conception, its begins when you want to run for president.'

[SamoaRowe 0]

Ah, thank you for the clarification. And yes, McCain is all over the place on certain issues.

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's where I have a real problem.

 

Abortion shouldn't even be a religious issue.

 

Was it ever mentioned in the Bible?

 

Christians are so sure life begins at conception, but there is no theological case to be made for this belief.

I think there's a line in there about God knowing you in the womb, or something like that, which could be interprated as saying life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong.

Can someone track that down for me?

 

But that's a pretty spurious connection, regardless...a baby just a few minutes from being born is technically still "in the womb."

 

Yeah, there's a point where a fetus goes from being a mass of cells to a organism capable of thoughts and feelings. But I don't know exactly what that point is, and I don't think its conception. I don't think the position of the government should be that life begins at conception, because there's no proof that's when life begins.

 

According to our best estimates, 1 out of 4 pregnancies results in a early term miscarriage...if we are going to adopt the idea that life begins at conception, then does that mean all of those unviable fetuses were really people? Are we going to treat that like a health epidemic?

[At Home 0]

Well, infant mortality is one of the ways that general health is measured, so yes.

[SuperJerk 0]

You mean count miscarriages as part of the infant mortality rate?

 

That runs completely contrary to the science of pregnancy. Those fetuses don't make it for a reason.

[Turbo Lion 0]

As a believer, and as someone who is walking away from his Christian University after this semester, I think there are some insider things happening with this that, hopefully, have little to do with politics. The responses in this thread even automatically tie 'evangelical' with 'republican' or 'conservatives'.

 

When asked about Gay Marriage, my answer is decidedly not political. Vote for it if you want to vote on it, because I see no constitutional reason that it can't happen. The church's job is in no way to be political, or to force it's values into the makeup of the legal system. The church's job is to deal with the church.

 

Another way of putting it is: I'd vote for the legalization of Gay Marriage, but I'm glad that I'm a part of the line of Anglicans that disagreed with the promotion of a practicing homosexual into leadership, and so broke away to observe what scripture teaches. Outside of the church, we have no right to discipline anyone. Someone not in the church hasn't agreed to uphold scripture, and I cannot ask them too.

 

I think alot of Christians, especially in my age range (I'm 25) are sick of having our faith twisted into a political ideology. It is not that. Jesus worked hard to make sure that it was understood that faith and power do not mix well, and that it isn't about that. Anytime they mix, the focus is lost, scriptural teaching is misrepresented, mistaught and misunderstood. And worse, hate is propagated in the name of the Lord. And that is, frankly, a horrible sin.

 

I'm an artist and a writer. I work in theater and film. There are all kinds of interesting people with different lifestyles and beliefs. My job is to get to know them, regadless of any of that, and love them. Because they are worth something to God, and are worth something to me because I understand what they mean to God (and because I'm a fellow human being). Christ died for their sins as much as mine. Not to judge them. Not to interfere with how the laws affect them, as the laws are not the church.

 

I am sick of how my own school does its faith. And I am sick of my faith being used to promote anything other than an accurate understanding of itself. I think this document might be born of a similar movement among believers.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Oh, shit. It's SpiderPoet, resident TSM Christian. Good to see him back, and more than anything, posting in this thread.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Oh, shit. It's SpiderPoet, resident TSM Christian. Good to see him back, and more than anything, posting in this thread.

I was wondering who he is.

[tekcop 0]

If SpiderPoet is who I think he is, he's still my favorite Christian. He should post more.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is like the religious world's version of politics' Goldwater VS Religious Right arguments.

 

Barry G used to talk about how the fundies would bring them down sooner or later if they took control of the party. Well, it did take them 28 years of control to ruin it.

[Turbo Lion 0]

Yep, I'm back/ still around. Unfortunately my internet usage is limited.