| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
-- GideonHart - 2 Apr 2008
| |
<
< | The Republican Capture of the Evangelical Vote | >
> | still in the revision process | | | | |
>
> | | | | --By Gideon Hart | |
<
< | Poverty in the Bible | >
> | Confusion in the Media | | | | |
<
< | The world described in the Gospels is one in which there is a clear division between rich and poor, with Romans, priests, urban aristocrats, and landowners possessing most available wealth. The rural masses were left horribly destitute through a combination of Roman and religious taxes, and widespread land seizures. The terrible poverty of the many played a major part in the message of Jesus. Jesus was at his most scathing and critical when considering the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Further, Jesus elevated the poor, oppressed, and suffering – he freely offered them salvation and placed their plight at the center of his teachings. Jesus squarely stood against the self-serving rhetoric of the wealthy elites and their manipulations of the poor. It follows that an individual today attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus would be very concerned with the fate of the poor and the growing inequality of wealth and power in America. | >
> | On May 7th a group of evangelical Christian leaders released a document entitled “An Evangelical Manifesto,” described by its writers as “an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for.” The LA Times described the Manifesto as “urging separation of religious beliefs and politics” and stated that it told evangelicals that they “err when they use their religious beliefs for political purposes.” A Reuters article characterized the Manifesto as a call to evangelicals to “step back from politics,” and an article on UPI stated the Manifesto was an attempt to “remove the term ‘evangelical’ from the realm of politics.” Although the document is at times vague and unclear, in my opinion these articles, and others like them, have mischaracterized and misunderstood the Manifesto’s discussion of the proper relationship between politics and faith for evangelicals. | | | | |
<
< |
- It "follows" only in an extremely bogus sense of "follow," meaning "ignoring history and what we know about human beings, concentrating solely on propositional logic relying on my interpretation of documents subject to multiple interpretations, it could be said that ...." This is a poor basis for the construction of a thesis that will suffer from extreme vulnerability and tendentiousness on account of its parentage. You could say with more basis that "it follows that some individuals will be very concerned, and that some individuals will be not only unconcerned, but fully engaged in grinding the faces of the poor." Christians "attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus" have included Franciscans of great holiness as well as Franciscans of immense greed, slaveowners, slumlords, Bavarian and Rwandan practitioners of genocide, socialists, anarchists, George Bernard Shaw, Dorothy Day, Angelo Roncalli, Rodrigo Borgia, Teresa de Avila, and Benito Mussolini. We have no reason in history or psychology to suppose that a sincere attachment to the teachings of Yehoshua of Nazareth, whatever they were, or to the teachings of the Gospels, whatever they are and whatever relation they bear to those of "Jesus," is incompatible with any social attitude expressed today, however repugnant.
| >
> | I think much of the confusion stems from the third section of the Manifesto, where it reads, “The other error, made both by the religious left and the religious right in recent decades, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth,” and later, where it reads, “Christians on both sides of the political spectrum…have made the mistake of politicizing the faith…a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church.” (15) When read alone, these lines do seem to suggest that the authors of the Manifesto are encouraging evangelicals to retreat from politics. However, that interpretation is difficult to sustain when those sections are placed in context. Rather than being a plea for evangelicals to retreat from politics or to insulate politics from religion, the Manifesto actually seems to encourage evangelicals to remain involved in politics, and to make religious convictions part of their political identity. The document is cautioning against not involvement in politics, but against involvement in partisan politics. Additionally, the Manifesto calls for the creation of a “civil public forum,” because, I believe, the Manifesto’s authors worry that the growing hostility towards religion’s role in politics will, in the future, sever religion and politics in America. The document is not an attempt to separate religion and politics, but rather, is encouraging behavior among evangelicals now that will allow them to make religion a part of their political identity in the future. | | | | |
>
> | A Retreat from Partisan Politics | | | | |
>
> | As a first piece of its call to redefine the place of evangelicals in public life, the Manifesto very strongly discourages further involvement in partisan politics. The passages read by the media as encouraging abandonment of politics are actually a criticism of how evangelicals have become very closely associated with political parties. It reads, “Called to an allegiance higher than party…we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology” (15). This line, rather than telling evangelicals to abandon politics, instructs them to remain engaged in politics. The Manifesto actually criticizes those Christians who create a duality between politics and spirituality, writing that secularization of politics makes faith “privately engaging and publicly irrelevant.” (15). Further, it instructs evangelicals to expand the scope of the political issues shaped by their religious beliefs, stating, “We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel” (13). Rather than being a plea for a withdrawal from the politics, the Manifesto encourages evangelicals to shape their political identity with their religion, but to do so in a way that will not fully equate evangelicals with a particular political party or ideology. | | | | |
<
< | Political Conservatism in Modern America and the Republican Party | >
> | Creation of a "Civil Public Forum" | | | | |
<
< | In modern America, the politically conservative, whose policies have often been centered on preserving the wealth and power of the few against the needs of the many, have acted as a major stumbling block for the advancement of many individuals. | >
> | As a second piece of the Manifesto’s call to redefine the role of evangelicals in public life is a proposal for the creation of a “civil public square.” The authors envision a public square that neither favors religion nor secularism (16). The Manifesto describes a public discourse in which “citizens of all faiths [this invitation is also extended to non-religious individuals later] are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too.” (16). The authors want to create a public discourse that allows individuals to interact in “public square” with a religious perspective, and not to have to choose between stripping themselves of that identity or conflicting with individuals who are not religious. The Manifesto’s vision of a healthy public dialogue seems to stem from a fear that the current public backlash against the role of religion in politics will create “an American equivalent of the long-held European animosity toward religion in the public life.” (17). Later, the authors condemn a “two-tiered public square” in which “the top tier is for cosmopolitan secular liberals and the second tier is for local religious believers,” (18) which, I believe, the authors worry is being created in America. The authors seem concerned that the growing hostility towards evangelicals' involvement in politics will make using religion in the “public square” unacceptable in the future. Rather than encouraging evangelicals to separate their faith and politics as the media claims, the Manifesto is actually attempting to build, by encouraging civility in the public dialogue, a “civil public square” in which it will remain acceptable to create political identities that are shaped by religion. | | | | |
<
< |
- What does this sentence mean?
This conservatism has been shaped by the concerns of social and fiscal conservatives, among others.
- What could this sentence mean, if anything?
In the 20th and 21st centuries political conservatives have opposed equal rights for minorities and women, affordable healthcare, expansion of welfare benefits, increases in the minimum wage, expansion of education and desegregation of schools, and tax cuts benefiting the poor.
- Tax cuts benefiting the poor? Surely you mean tax increases benefiting the poor? Surely no one is insane enough to believe that the political program of the poor is tax cuts?
Within the past thirty years, many of these conservative positions, and others in the same vein, have been strongly supported by the Republican Party and have been used to their benefit in elections.
- Is this the same as saying that the Republican Party is the more conservative of our two conservative parties?
Tension Between Christianity and the Republican Party
In recent elections Evangelical Christians have voted in large numbers for Republican candidates whose records are very conservative. It is undoubted that Evangelical voters propelled Bush into office in 2000 and 2004. Bush, and many of his advisors, are among the most explicitly Christian politicians in American history. Bush has very closely aligned himself with the Christian right, and like many Republican politicians, is dependent on its support.
- I don't know whether people's records are conservative: that sort of talk is usually bullshit. You mean that evangelicals have voted heavily for candidates of both parties who have said they opposed abortion and non-heterosexual marriages, and were in favor of permitting state-sanctioned Christian prayers in public schools. This made sense, because those people were voting for candidates (by no means only Republicans) who promised them changes in public policy that they considered desirable and godly.
The Republican Party's lack of concern for the plight of the poor and their desire to solidify the hold of large companies and elites on America is hard to square with the statements of Jesus in the Gospels.
- But not impossible. Every government's program is both hard and not hard to square with the Gospels, the Gitas, the Qu'ran, and the United States Constitution. Why say something so outstandingly, thumpingly, preposterously naive?
The policies advocated by Bush and the Republican party have largely been politically conservative. Bush's tax cut plan primarily benefits the wealthy (by 2010 fully 53% of the Bush tax cuts will have benefited only the top 1% of the population, while the lowest 20% will have only received 1.2% of the cuts). Further, under Bush's guidance the number of Americans without health insurance has steadily climbed. Bush has also advocated the slashing of Medicare and educational programs aimed at disadvantaged students. Although projected as a Christian administration, Bush's presidency has been marked by a shocking and callous disregard for the needs of America's disadvantaged.
This raises a question: how are many Republican politicians persuading Evangelicals that they consider the teachings of Jesus in their policy decisions, even though they often support positions that seem directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus?
Political Capture of the Evangelical Christian Vote
Republicans have succeeded in capturing the Evangelical vote by placing several morally conservative positions at the center of their platform. This strategy deflects attention away from their disregard for other, arguably more important, Christian positions. The Republican Party's outspoken and vehement opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia have turned those issues into effective rallying points for the Evangelical vote. Without delving into a theological analysis (dozens of which can be found easily), it will be granted that it is not a stretch of Christian rules to oppose abortion and euthanasia, and possibly gay marriage, on biblical grounds. This is especially true for Evangelical Christians who tend to interpret the Bible literally. Although these positions may arguably be correct in terms of Christian theology, the Republican Party's advocacy for them seems to be little more than Christian adornment in light of their other policies favoring war, torture, the death penalty, and importantly, the abandonment of the poor. By fervently and very publicly supporting Evangelical/morally conservative positions, Republicans have succeeded in giving many Christians the impression that the Republican Party is a Christian party, and that a handful of highly publicized moral positions should trump all others at the polls. The support of the Christian Coalition and other prominent ministers has lent this position even more credibility in the eyes of Evangelical voters. The Evangelicals' support for these morally conservative positions has been so strong that they have been willing to ignore the other, often extremely un-Christian, policies advocated by many of the Republicans they vote into office.
The Future of the Religious Right
If the Evangelical Christian community is to truly vote in-line with the teachings of Jesus it must abandon its support for candidates that are supporting policies in conflict with the issues that were most important to Jesus - particularly those dealing with poverty. Evangelicals, justifiably, could continue to support morally conservative policies, and lend support to candidates advocating those positions. Evangelicals, must also however, consider the other policies advocated by those same candidates when voting. Recently some cracks have appeared, as some Evangelical ministers have spoken out against the Bush administration's fiscal and environmental policies. This movement may possibly be the beginning of a decrease in the power of the religious right. These leaders are beginning to instruct Evangelical voters to support candidates that reflect the values of Jesus overall, rather than allow their voting to be swayed by a single issue. Although this trend may in the long-run damage the heavy political clout of the religious right, it seems as though it could also allow Evangelical voters to make political decisions that more accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus.
u----
Note: The choice of this topic, and the essay itself, is not in any way an espousal of or an attack on Christianity, conservatism, liberalism, or a claim to factual accuracy of any information in the Bible. However, it is undoubted that the teachings ascribed to Jesus and the rest of the Bible have greatly impacted American politics. Individuals who are Christian profess belief in the words and actions of Jesus, regardless of their factual accuracy. This is especially true among Evangelical Christians who tend to interpret the Bible literally. Accordingly, a study of how an Evangelical Christians should vote must accept as true the teachings of Jesus, because those voters regard the teachings to be true. This paper is an attempt to focus attention on the way that Christianity has been used recently to increase the power of the Republican Party, even though many of the initiatives advanced by that Party seem to conflict with the most basic teachings of Jesus.
- The entire essay, and particularly this last preposterous note, proceeds on the basis that your reading of the Gospels is the reading of the Gospels, and that your idea of the social, ecclesiological and political consequences that flow from it will naturally be those of Christians whose intellectual approaches to the Bible (however "literal" you may think them) are at least as sophisticated as the one you present. But you don't show any sign of having learned anything about how Evangelicals in America have traditionally understood their relation to politics, or indeed of having tried to learn. What did you read before writing this? And how did you convince yourself that you could argue on the basis of your view of Christian doctrine? For George Bernard Shaw, in--say--the preface to Androcles and the Lion, Christian Socialism is presented as a provocation. "Liberation theology" is a view of doctrine, presenting itself to the Catholic Church as the views of the Spiritual Franciscans were presented, but I would remind you that the Catholic Church holds heretical the doctrine of the poverty of Jesus. To present yourself as having "the" view of the Gospels against which supposedly Christian political doctrine can be measured is simply bizarre.
| >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
>
> | To conclude, the “Evangelical Manifesto” has been widely misunderstood by the mainstream media. The sections of the Manifesto described as calling for a separation of politics and religion are actually cautioning against further involvement in partisan politics. In addition to actually encouraging evangelicals to shape their political identities with their faith, the Manifesto calls for the creation of a “civil public forum.” This forum will prevent, as the authors fear, the severing of religion and public life, safeguarding religion’s place in the public forum for the future. | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|