Note: I don't agree with a lot Harry writes (below, for example, I'd
omit Thomas and put John in its place) but he gets me thinking, and I
for one am not threatened by that! Rowland Croucher).
*****
Believing in Jesus and running for office
By Harry T. Cook
The candidate who runs on his or her belief in Jesus - or upon some
variation of
that confession of faith - had better understand a few things about
the Jesus depicted
in the more reliable of the gospels, viz., Thomas, Mark, Matthew and Luke.
The Jesus ****trayed in those do***ents is, by turns, a radical
egalitarian, an economic
socialist, a pacifist and a willing speaker of truth to power.
Belief in that Jesus can only be a commitment to model one's life on his
teaching
and example. Name me one serious candidate for the presidency of the
United States
who would admit to being radically egalitarian, an economic socialist, a
pacifist
or a confronter of entrenched power. Name me one.
Yet many of those candidates have paraded their religious pretensions
modulated
just so, depending on the geography and demographics of their audiences.
It has become commonplace for a U.S. President to end his addresses with
"God bless
America," but the in***bent topped that by his answer to a question
during his first
presidential campaign in 1999. The question was with which "political
philosopher
or thinker" did he identify most?
Bush's answer: "Christ, because he changed my heart." Given the past
seven years,
you'd have to ask, "Changed it into what?"
The 2008 presidential campaign is awash in silly piety, with each
candidate trying
to outdo the other in proving his or her religious bona fides. Even the
sole Mormon
in the contest has been busy trying to be seen as a bible-believing
Baptist. The
effort is a perfect fit with his chameleon ways.
How strange in a nation that was deliberately founded by religious
people as a secular
state with a clear separation of religion and government. A big part of
America's
genius is the First Amendment to its Constitution, which, without
nuance, forbids
an establishment of religion, and prohibits the state from interfering
with its
free exercise.
The question, therefore, is not whether candidates for public office are
permitted
to speak publicly about their religions. Rather, the question is why in
America
it should matter what a candidate's religious sentiments or persuasions
are. The
answer to that question is:
It doesn't.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the body of law that has flowed
from them
contain a surfeit of wisdom, precedent and inspiration upon which to
govern. There
is no need for Sunday school or catechism lessons to be exhumed for
direction in
the setting and carrying out of public policy.
No need for any of that. Neither for such subjective boilerplate as "God
has spoken
to me, and therefore I must do such-and-such." Planet Earth is just now
rife with
leaders of nations, tribes, kith and clan who claim just such private
revelations,
and, on the basis of them, proceed to bring ruin upon those they rule.
What has more often than not set America apart from the lot of them is
the kind
of clear-eyed secularity of its governance. Franklin D. Roosevelt was
encouraged
early on in his first term by such otherwise progressive types as
Walter Lippmann
to use his executive powers as a quasi-dictator on the grounds of
revealed wisdom
to save America's Depression-broken economy. Roosevelt declined. His
salvific efforts
were confined to working his will through the legislative process and
the exercise
of permissible executive power.
If any of our 43 chief executives since 1789 could have gotten away with
the claiming
of messianic revelation by force, they were Abraham Lincoln and
Roosevelt - both
men of Christian orientation, both familiar with the cadences and
eloquence of
the King James Version of the Bible, both naturally articulate and
focused. Yet
neither was willing finally to be led into the messianic temptation.
The idea that President No. 43 - he of demonstrably C-minus abilities
whose favorite
political philosopher or thinker must be a comic-book character inspired
in equal
parts by Jerry Falwell and Niccolo Machiavelli - should have been able
to establish
his faith-based initiatives both foreign and domestic because Christ
changed his
heart is an insult to both church and state.
Meanwhile, it is probably too late in the game to exorcise all the Jesus
and God
talk from the rhetorical grab bag of the 2008 campaign. Yet after the
"I-Can-Out-Jesus-You"
taunts that have passed for the Iowa primary campaign, maybe the
American electorate
would be willing to avail itself of a rudimentary civics lesson on the
First Amendment.
© 2007, Harry T. Cook. All rights reserved. This article may not be used
or reproduced without proper credit.
--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
(20,000 articles 4000 humor)
Blogs - http://rowlandsblogs.blogspot.com/
Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/
Funny Jokes and Pics - http://funnyjokesnpics.blogspot.com/
|
