[Note: Other bloggers participating are: Bill Hobbs, Lance McMurray, Ed Morrissey, Jackson Miller, Beth Woodfin, Charmaine Yoest, Karol Sheinin, and Leon H. from Red State.]
7:29pm -- After ninety minutes at a breakneck pace, CCM superstar Rebecca St. James ends the event with "This Is Our Time." I'll have more thoughts after I have time to digest this event.
7:18pm-- Dr. Jerry Sutton, pastor of the hosting church, invokes Terri Shiavo, saying that she was “murdered by an adulterous husband.” I had to ask around Blogger’s Row to make sure I heard that correctly. Goodness. And this is the Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention? Well, he certainly doesn’t mince words, does he?
7:18pmDo politics and local churches go together? Yes, says Ted Haggard, there is nothing that we believe that does not affect public policy. Haggard encourages Christians to get more involved in politics, learning the skills needed to run for public office if necessary. All it takes is a God intoxicated generation to influence a people, Haggard says, quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
7:15pm --Cathy Cleaver Ruse is the first to warn of the bioethical concerns, such as euthanasia, that can result from judicial tyranny. The court, for example, will soon be deciding whether a New Hampshire law allows parents to decide if their daughter can have an abortion, a decision that will affect all parental notification laws. Ruse correctly points out that this decision could lead to young girls becoming victims of predatory males. (She doesn’t mention it but Planned Parenthood has a history of looking the other way when it comes to reporting cases involving older men and underage girls)
She also points out that the issue of partial-birth abortion will soon be returning to the courts. There is no right, says Ruse, to kill a soon to be born infant.
7:06pm -- Out-of-control judges are the biggest threat facing America today, says Phyllis Schlafly. She refers to them as “supremacists” because they put the courts as supreme over the legislature and executive branch. Those who say they want an independent court, she claims, really want a court independent of the Constitution.
Schlafly claims that the Supreme Court rulings should not be considered the law of the land, placed even higher even than the Constitution. It’s hard to argue with that point.
The Ten Commandments gets its fourth and fifth nod of the night.
6:52pm --For the third time tonight, a speaker mentions the Ten Commandments ruling. Whether you think the issue is important or not, it is hard to see how it is the best example of structural injustice caused by the tyranny of a court. Zell Miller is a proficient orator but he’s shedding mostly heat and very little light.
6:47pm -- Bill Donohue, the President of The Catholic League, missed his calling in life – he should have been a Southern Baptist preacher. Donohue is good humored and witty and speaks as if he has too many words and not enough time to say them (the speakers, who have only a few minutes to speak, are way too rushed). He makes too many quips that fly by too fast but he gets in some good jabs at Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Christopher Hitchens, and people who think monkeys fell out of the trees, lost their hair and became “Adam and Eve.”
6:43pm --“If justice matters to anyone,” says Bishop Harry Jackson, “it matters to minorities.” Jackson says that evangelicals, both black and white, share the same concerns and should work more closely together. Rev. Jackson is the type of religious leader that we need to hear more from.
6:38pm -- Tony Perkins comes back on to promote the "Save The Court" kit. It includes “Ten Commandment book covers” for school textbooks. Seriously. I couldn’t make this stuff up. Can you imagine going to school with “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” covering your Algebra textbook? Better to let the kids put SpongeBob Squarepants on their books and put the Ten Commandments in their hearts.
6:35pm -- “Let justice roll down…”, Chuck Colson says, quoting the book of Amos. Colson, who has seen the ravages of injustice first hand through his role with Prison Fellowship, asks when the last time we heard those words in public. With Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he claims. It’s hard to deny that these “words of God speaking to us” are not heard often enough.
Colson adds that we must suppress the temptation to get angry with those who disagree and that we need to love the people who stand against us. Colson notes that people complained about Lincoln imposing his “moral will” on them – but that we are all better off because he did. Still, we are not imposing, he says, we are proposing. We are proposing to make changes for justice not because we are angry but because we are loving, because our hearts should break with God when injustice is done.
Colson should have been given the entire time to talk. He’s a brilliant, powerful speaker.
6:25pm -- “We've heard the arguments for partial-birth abortion and gay marriage ... we just disagree,” says House Marority Leader Tom DeLay, “Activist courts impose these on society without passing a single bill” DeLay adds, "The Constitution is not a vehicle for the manipulation of the public will."
6:15pm -- Dr. James Dobson appears by videotape, claiming that the current judicial tyranny opposes Lincoln's view of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He mentions the ruling that barred the Ten Commandments display from government property, which is not only a symbolic rather than a substantive issue, but has nothing to do with justice. He also mentions the Kelo case, which is about justice and a prime example of why judicial tyranny violates the biblical concept of justice.
6:05pm -- Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, opens the ceremony, repeating a great line he used earlier in the press conference: "We do not claim the right to speak for every American. But we do claim the right to speak."
5:50pm -- After thirty years as an American evangelical you’d think I’d be used to seeing an American flag in the church. But while I respect the symbol of our country, I’ve never been comfortable with an object that inspires patriotism sharing the stage with the symbol of our Savior’s sacrifice. So I feel a bit uneasy seeing the two flags flanking a cross with a plaster statue of the Ten Commandments centered in front, being used as the backdrop for the speakers. The cross is sufficient for salvation. Why is it not sufficient for the church?
5:50 pm -- Beginning with “praise and worship” music, the activities open more like a typical church service than a political event. The joyous singing coming from inside the chapel is contrasted with the police officers standing at the doors, the media milling around the lobby, and the protestors standing on the street. The scene is a fitting metaphor for the way that the church fits into the modern world.
3:10 -- Press Conference: The press conference was held in order to allow the media an opportunity to better understand the event. As Tony Perkins, the President of FRC explained, the purpose of the event is to help make the Christian community aware of the importance of the courts and how to participate. Perkins then introduced Chuck Colson who pointed out that justice is central to the Gospel and that the reason we are here is because evangelicals have a “passion for justice.” Colson keeps the proper focus on the poor, the helpless, and the oppressed. I would be more comfortable with the event if all the speakers had the same perspective.
Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, draws a parallel between the guiding documents of the church and the state. “The standard for the church is the Bible,” says Haggard, “and the standard for the state is the Constitution.” When the courts politicize the process under the guise of a “living constitution” the process becomes subverted, allowing random decisions to be made. “Just as we appreciate the role of the Bible to keep the church on track,” says Haggard, “we appreciate the role of the Constitution to keep the country on track.”
Harry Jackson, Sr. Pastor Hope Christian Church, provides some perspective from the African-American community. “If justice matters to anyone,” says Jackson, “it matters to minorities and those at the bottom of the barrel.” The right judges are necessary to prevent “last minute” changes in the law, he adds. Jackson is representative of what he refers to as “new black church”: the old fashioned cornbread and beans message with a laptop.
The speakers provide reassurances that they are merely participating in a pluralistic process and that they do not represent the entire church. “We don’t speak for everyone; but we do speak,” says Perkins, “We have no desire to impose, just to participate.”
“We live in a pluralistic culture and all of us have a place at the table,” adds Colson. “There never has been agreement in the church.” A reporter asks why so many people are disconcerted by the event. “We evangelicals give offense because we talk triumphalistically,” admits Colson, “for that we should repent.”
Amen to that.
1
Wow. wonderful discussion points! I find it interesting how the "moral" emphasis is downplayed in order to highlight more of a "we're just doing our part and participating" rationale.
When you have time to digest everything -would hope to hear your overview of the general trend in evangelical political participation, if there seem to be new ones, or certain ones coming to the forefront.
So glad your blogging this :)
posted on 08.14.2005 7:20 PM3
I've been tough on these folks, especially insofar as they -- recklessly in my estimation -- seek to undermine the filibuster rule in the Senate. But they are well meaning and -- on the whole -- on the side of the angels.
I was part of this movement for awhile. Don't get me wrong: I'm still a troglodyte right-winger. But I mean, I was an Evangelical, before I reverted to Holy Mother Church. But before I did that, I began to see the subtle temptation in all this.
Subtle indeed: because it's not wrong to be politically involved; it's not wrong to bring ones faith, ones moral compass, to the political arena. Heaven help us! This is absolutely what we MUST do! No, that's not the problem.
But the problem lies in not keeping things clear. The flag and cross -- that's a good metaphor for the whole thing. Joe described one cross, flanked by two flags. I love my country, but there is absolutely no equivalency. Kingdoms come and go, but Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.
I've been to these "God and Country" rallies, and it seems as though it's an awful lot of "rah, rah, America" and God is brought in as parsley on the plate. If it were billed primarily as a political rally, it wouldn't be so bad; but as "prayer," it's apalling. Scripture is quoted -- a few verses -- to bolster a political and ideological point.
This, in my opinion, is not showing respect to the Word of God. You do not trot out a a few verses, in order to advance some other agenda. God's Word, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, should have pride of place; it's not a prop.
Again, I think these folks are on the side of the angels. But I think the Church needs to be careful in these matters.
posted on 08.14.2005 9:02 PM4
"Better to let the kids put SpongeBob Squarepants on their books and put the Ten Commandments in their hearts."
I'm a Spongebob Squarepants fan. I might put him on my blog. Glad to see you've mentioned him as he's had a raw deal in the past. Ok - now back to the rest of your post. It's interesting following your updates.
5
It's good to see they're focusing ample time on the day's important moral/judicial problems, like Bush's chronic lying, torturing and Iraqi-killing, impoverished single moms and racial injustice, not to mention starvation in Niger and genocide in Darfur. Oh wait... I forgot Jesus votes republican.
posted on 08.15.2005 4:31 AM6
Amy--Thanks for reminding us that Chimpy McHitlerBurton takes great joy in personally torturing and killing Iraqi's (or as he likes to refer to them, "sand-niggers"), impoverishing single mothers, and keeping the brothers down, not to mention starving Nigerians and committing genocide in Dafur. Also thanks for clearly demonstrating that the loons on the left are at least as bad, if not worse than the loons on the right.
posted on 08.15.2005 6:32 AM7
Reading over the notes from "Justice Sunday", I am eager to hear more about Chuck Colson's affective stance on evangelical's "passion for justice" and his concern for the needy, poor, and oppressed.
Christians, evangelicals, buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Catholics---Susan Sarandon, Angelina Jolie, Coca-Cola, President Bush, my fourth grade history teacher, President Clinton, my friend Darren, members of the British Parliament, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, Chuck Colson, Malcom X, gay rights activists, right wing conservatives, centrist democrats, Vincente Fox, the last Pope, abortion practioners, a 22 year-old white woman on welfare, a Harvard buisnessman, a transgendered woman, Starbuck's corporate responsibility campaign, myself, and sometimes perhaps even my cat when she see's a stray, Virginia Woolf, Eminem, the new Pope, my grandmother, maybe your grandmother, and every person and member nation of the United Nations say at least in some way that they care about justice; they affirm justice; they care for and help in their own way about the poor, the needy, the oppressed.
Justice and morality are slippery terms. One should at least clearly define exactly how she defines justice, justice for whom, and justice how? What is 'just' for one person, may not seem 'just' to another. I understand, yes, that there is a particular God that you believe in, a Bible that you adhere by, and a specific set of adhered by principles that you emphatically believe in and live by. That is your choice of course, no one is taking that away from you. "Speak triumphantly", as your 'Justice' meeting minutes state. Get the media in as you do---let your voices be heard! It is important, and a privilage, that Americans (well, at least in theory) have the freedom of speech.
It is also important to listen to others with open ears and an open heart. It is also a matter of justice in at least attempting to put one's most dearly held moral beliefs aside temporarily (you can always pick them back up), in order to learn about cultures that are different from evangelical cultures without a moral lens. Moralism has a tendencey, if you will, to gloss over the real historical tensions and political natures of complex issues. Moralism implies a shared set of collective values, 'moral values'; values that a collective society or group of individuals 'should' all share.
But what would it mean to analyze critically rather than to moralize? What if the law is not a reflection of a community's historical and foundational consensus? What if one were to put forward a positive or affirmative position rather as an alternative to moralizing gestures?
One's approach to justice depends directly upon how she approaches the politics of moralism. How does moralism actually play out in real politics? Moralist discourse gives license to the ignoble human emotions of self-aggrandizement, cruelty, and punitiveness. It foments resistance to, or abjection of, diversity. It tends to focus on individual failings and thus discourages people from reforming public spaces and their relationship to them. Moralism can be innefective as a rhetorical strategy in a pluralistic society with diverse normative commitments and moral sources. There it will offend and insult more often than instruct, inspire, or unite.
I am not going to give examples of how this sort of moralizing can be innefective and evil. I am sure you have heard it before---I could give a thousand examples, and becuase of most evangelicals rush toward moralism, I can most likey assume your argument to almost ANY issue---literally. There is no ambiguity, no doubt, no questioning. I can say, what of the woman who was just raped and now wants an abortion? Even though historically, women have been having abortions for thousands of years, all on their own, until it became stigmatized with the scientific revolution and the church, (long story---better not go there), or maybe it's just her decision (Yes, boys---women can make decisions without having to answer to you, confess, or justify anything if she chooses not to), you will answer 1) the bible says so 2) it is morally wrong 3) it is morally wrong to kill life. Take two: A young woman who is a lesbian. 1) the bible says that it is wrong 2) It is morally wrong 3) It is not as god planned. A woman that wants insurance to pay for a 'sex-change' opertion 1) the bible (somewhere) says that it is wrong 2) It is morally wrong 3) It is morally wrong to want to change your God-given sex. Poverty 1) Jesus helped the poor 2) It is morally right to help the poor 3) It is morally right to have compassion for another. AIDS. The Iraq War. Gay Men.
So, I know what you morally believe. I am challenging you to politicize and critically historicize your affirmations without universalizing them. Without moralizing them. How might you do that? To learn the languages of different cultures and religions. To look at the systematic structures of violences and public norms. How might you do that? Give me an interesting argument that I can't expect. Life is, after all, complex. Believing in God, or not believing in God. The fact is, there are tensions and ambiguities---the complexities of life signal that anticipated, universalistic, and taken-for granted moralistic triumphant cries don't necessarily speak to the real politics of contingent lifeworlds. jesus was a great trickster---he was always changing himself and pushing the norms. Already as a carpenter he was in disguise. The figure of the incarnation can never be other than a trickster, a check on the arrogances of a reason that would uncover all disguises and force correct vision of a recalcitrant nature in her most secret places.
Remember, jesus was wrongly crucified as criminal. Jogn staged the trial before Pilate in terms of the suffering-servant passages from Isaiah. The events of the trial of Jesus in this gospel are most likely not historical, but theatrical in the strict-sense: from the start, they stage salvation history which then became the modeal for world history in the seculat heresies of the centuries of European colinialism with its civilizing missions (much like ours right now) and genocidal discourses on common humanity. There were many translations afterwards, Greek, Latin (Pilate probably spoke publicy in Greek or Latin, those languages then became standard for 'universal' European scholarly humanism)---but from the start we are in the midst of multiples translations and stagings of a figure of suffering humanity that was not contained within the culture of the origins of stories. The presentation to the people of the Son of Man as a suffering servant (remember, Pilate says "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him" John 19.1-6), arrayed mockingly and mimetically in his true dress as a king and salvation figure, became a powerful image for Christian humanists. The suffering servant figure has been fundmental in 20-th century liberation theory and Christian Marxism.
The suffering servant is a check on Man, the servant is the figure associated with the promise that the desolate woman will have more children than the wife, the figure upsets the clarity of the metaphysics of light, which John the Evangelist too was enamored of. A mother's son, without a father, yet the Son of Man claiming THE father, Jesus is a potential worm in the Oedipal phsychoanalytics of representation; he threatens to spoil the story, despite or becuase of his odd sonship and odder kingship, becuase of his disguises and form-changing habits. Jesus makes of man a most promising mockery, butt a mockery that cannot evade the terrible story of a broken body. The story has constantly to be preserved from heresy, to be kept forcibly in the patriarchal tradition of Christian civilization, to be kept from too much attention to the economies of mimicry and the calamaties of suffering.
jesus came to figure for Christians the union of humanity and divinity in universal salvation narrative---the Sacred Image of the Same-but also the original mime, the actor of a history that mocks especially the recurrent tales that insist that 'man makes himself' in the deathly onanistic nighdream of coherent wholeness and correct vision.
So, what would Jesus do?
That was a historically, politicized question. Not a moralistic and trimphant cry. jesus wouldn't have it any other way.
posted on 08.15.2005 7:26 AM8
It's interesting how radical this rhetoric is. Don't any conservatives read Burke anymore? What's also interesting is that most of this 'tyranny' talk has nothing to do with judges not following the constitution but judges not following so-called 'popular will'.
Judges are not supposed to be legislators. There's a reason the founders did not make them directly elected positions (in fact, the founders didn't even make Senators directly elected...that came later). Time for the intellectuals of the right to file for the intellectual equilivant of chapter 7 bankruptcy protection before Bush's 'reforms' make it harder for them yet!
posted on 08.15.2005 8:30 AM9
Error in article. Link for Charmaine Yoest goes to Jackson Miller's website. Correct link for Charmaine Yoest:
http://www.charmaineyoest.com/
posted on 08.15.2005 9:36 AM10
6:15pm -- Dr. James Dobson appears by videotape, claiming that the current judicial tyranny opposes Lincoln's view of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He mentions the ruling that barred the Ten Commandments display from government property, which is not only a symbolic rather than a substantive issue, but has nothing to do with justice. He also mentions the Kelo case, which is about justice and a prime example of why judicial tyranny violates the biblical concept of justice.
The Kelo case concerns the use of eminent domain by the gov't to force property owners to sell their property to the gov't for 'public purposes'. The argument was that while this may be necessary for 'public goods' such as roads, parks, schools, etc. local gov't's have gotten into the business of taking property and then reselling it to private interests such as condo developers, mall builders etc.
The Court, interestingly, ruled that it could not get involved in trying to figure out what represented a valid public purpose and what didn't. Often large projects such as stadiums, bridges and transportation systems are owned by 'public corporations' or even private ones but built with gov't playing a role. I'm not sure what the Bible has to say about this but it would appear to be an example of the court being conservative....deferring to elected officials rather than trying to 'legislate from the bench'. Indeed look at Schlafy's thoughts:
7:06pm -- Out-of-control judges are the biggest threat facing America today, says Phyllis Schlafly. She refers to them as “supremacists” because they put the courts as supreme over the legislature and executive branch. Those who say they want an independent court, she claims, really want a court independent of the Constitution.
Schlafly claims that the Supreme Court rulings should not be considered the law of the land, placed even higher even than the Constitution. It’s hard to argue with that point.
Indeed let's imagine Kelo went the other way and the court ruled that the gov't could only take property for purposes that passed some test. How would Dobson's 'justice' result? Certainly plans to take property have gotten the approval of local legislatures and executives. Under Schlafly the ruling could be safely ignored because Supreme Court rules are not 'the law of the land'. The issue comes down to whose ox is getting gored here. If some school was preventing a Christian club from meeting or if a local school board decided to have a 'rotating school prayer' that included Muslim, Buddahist and Wiccain prayers being said at the start of the school day do you believe for a moment these characters will retreat and tell us that the Courts must respect these decisions of local governments?
posted on 08.15.2005 1:06 PM11
Right, ucfengr, I must be a nutter for thinking that politicians from washington are stealing your religion and traditions. Here they're coming with big smiles on their faces and making you feel important. You find yourself agreeing with pretty much everything they say. So, I may be a loon, but you best watch your wallets.
12
All I know is that God didn't appoint John Roberts, Bush did. Bush is just as flawed and just as sinful as me, you, Ted Bundy, the Pope, your mailman, a drug dealer, James Dobson or Mother Teresa. All of us need the grace of Christ, and the only way to get closer to God is to ask him into your life. That relationship doesn't make you infallible--it makes you redeemed. Bush's actions deserve just as much scrutiny and criticism as any other elected leader's.
What should our test be? The authority of Scripture provides us with a blueprint for a society built on God's Word. Isaiah 1 says "Cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow," and Micah tells us to "do justice, love righteousness and walk humbly with your God." Christ repeatedly talks about making the humble strong and the strong weak. So our test is this:
1) Justice--seeking the well-being of the poor, the oppressed, the weak, the humble, the widows (read: single mothers) and orphans (read: the 1 in 5 American children living in poverty). Leviticus 25 gives us the message of the Jubilee to give us the example of a society with permanent structures for social justice: we ought to seek the same kind of world. Every time we support policies that hurt or ignore vulnerable constituencies or that do not promote just social structures we are in sin.
2) Righteousness--seeking to create a culture based on the understanding that there are certain moral rules to live by. Pornography, violence on television, materialism, greed, hate, abortion, sex outside of Bibilical marriage and dishonesty are all condemned. Violence in the form of war, when that war is not absolutely necessary is also sinful because contemporary war is impossible to wage without taking at least one innocent life. That one life was created by God and ordained for his purposes. Unfortunately our current war in Iraq has killed tens of thousands of innocent human beings. Peace, character, modesty and integrity ought to be at the heart of our society-- any system that promotes otherwise is sinful.
3)Humility--promoting a culture of materialism, rewarding wealth for wealth's sake, using our strength to threaten other nations instead of building up the weak, giving more and more power to the state, to large corporations or to any other secular entity is sinful.
Can the Bush Administration pass this test? No. Would a Kerry Administration have? If we look to the things he promised to do, the answer is no. How about any of the Democrats who ran in 2004 or any of the other Republicans in 2000? No. The fact of the matter is that Christians need to stop shilling for the Republicans or Democrats and work as a countercultural movement within each party and outside of the parties to create a new consensus that pushes justice, righteousness and humility. Lesser of two evil arguments don't work, because God does not support evil whether it is lesser or greater--he demands perfection. Perhaps that is asking for too much, but God wouldn't have asked us for it if he didn't give us the capacity to achieve it.
Any "Christian" leader who claims that God wants us to vote for a specific candidate or party is ignoring the message of the Almighty God and is perverting the gospel for their own selfish purposes. That is not to say that Christians shouldn't vote--they should. But do not attach the Gospel to any mortal candidate. Use your faith to guide your vote, but don't make your vote an article of faith. Such is a sin, and we ought not countenance it in our Church.
posted on 08.15.2005 3:21 PM13
Septimus says:
But they are well meaning and -- on the whole -- on the side of the angels.
And the road to Hell is paved with? ;-)
___________________________________
On the whole what really sticks out about the speeches is how many times I've heard them before. Only not from Right-inclined Christians.
These are speeches I've heard before from Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, etc. Even from Dukakis! These are Politically Correct speeches couched in the Left's civil rights rhetoric. There is no substantiative difference.
Are these Christians really so sure it's such a great moral step forward to join the culture of victim-hood? Is this the new definition of seeking Justice?
It funny how easy these speeches make it for me to charge that these Christians are asking for "special rights". To be treated differently by the laws of the land than everybody else purely on the basis of their religion. Or in other words, on the basis of a behavior that they freely choose to engage in, rather than an inborn, unchangeable factor such as skin color.
Do you think the people at this event would accept a non-Christian Supreme Court Justice? Would they accept a prayer to someone other than Jesus at the opening of each Court session?
Isn't there somewhat of a logical disconnect that a movement that claims to be the voice of the majority of Americans is using the language and reasoning of a minority group seeking redress for historical "wrongs"? Is this a civil rights movement for Christians? Have they suffered such systemic grievous wrongs that they can make this claim in truth? Would they not be be hard put to come up with such evidence? (Small individual anti-Christian prejudice cases aside).
If they take up the mantle of civil rights, and of suffering wrongs that they have not truly experienced, then what does that say about the moral integrity of the movement as a whole?
posted on 08.15.2005 4:32 PM14
Patrick,
As a conservative evangelical Protestant Christian, I have to say you have correctly identified some right-wing political correctness. Ouch. But I do not believe this is civil rights for Christians. We simply see a leap-frogging, tortured-reasoning, inconsistent, sometimes results-oriented Supreme Court. And the effects seem (to me), not anti-Christian but anti-God.
That moves people to care, and to speak. (The Bible is full of guys who can't help but speak when God is snubbed).
IMO, JSII is not all victimhood and pandering. That said, based on what Joe reports, it may fall flat for other reasons (excepting Chuck Colson).
posted on 08.15.2005 9:36 PM15
Gray,
If you have a moment, I'd like to know specifically what you mean when you characterize the Supreme Court as "leap-frogging, tortured-reasoning, inconsistent" and "sometimes results-oriented." Since this is off-topic, you're welcome to e-mail me directly.
Best wishes,
Amy
posted on 08.15.2005 10:33 PM16
Gray,
You are correct in that the Evangelical movement is indeed not characteristic of the Civil Rights Movement.
That is, the Evangelical movement is not similiar to the Civil Rights Movement, not becuase the Evangelical movement does not realy soley upon victimhood. But rather becuase the Civil Rights Movement did not rely upon victimhood. The Evangelical Movement is not similiar to the Civil Rights movement, becuase the Civil Rights Movement succcessfully ***politicized*** rather than simply ***moralized*** the systematic structures of racial-class inequalities in the United States (and globally).
The Evangelical movement is triumphant to the extent that it triumphs in moralizing politics; who would really feel like a victim on the moralizing bench? Moralism after all needs a sense of 'moral depletion' in order to sustain universally shared 'moral values'.
The evangelical movement, historically, is a minority struggle---mostly pushed aside and ridiculed as extremist, lacking political power in the beginning of the 20th century---only in recent years gaining access to the political threshold. Like many oppressed groups, the Evangelical movement has used Moralism, just as Christian Marxism and humanist Christianity has done, to wage their cause for recognition.
Fair enough. So the story has usually gone. Moralist politicization is not a new phenomena embedded within Evangelicalism.
Yet, let us be respectful and recognize that the Civil Rights Movement, and many collective individuals and groups resistant to the harms of moralizing, ***politicize*** and ***historicize*** their struggles--- not only becuase they actually live within the real life *consequences* of moralizing's dark shadow, but also becuase the complexities and ambiguities of their lives require complex understandings that moralism not only glosses over---but depoliticizes and dehistoricizes.
Yours,
brianne
posted on 08.15.2005 11:39 PM17
Brianne,
To the extent that I understand what you said (and I'm not sure I do), you have some good points. Certainly I did not mean to imply that the civil rights movement relied on victimhood. My view was that the civil rights movement was about undoing injustice and oppression toward man, while the justice movement (if it can be so called), for ME, is about arrogance toward God, not about moralizing politics.
posted on 08.16.2005 2:37 PM18
Dear Gray,
Thank you for clarifying; although, now I am unclear as to how a justice movement about arrogance towards God is not a moralist politics. In order to understand what you are saying, can you expand upon this latter point that you made?
That is, what is "arrogance towards god?". And since moralism relies upon universalism, how might your conception of 'arrogance toward God' be politically and historically situated?
Perhaps an example?
Yours,
Brianne
posted on 08.17.2005 4:35 AM19
Patrick:
As a Catholic (who became an Evangelical for 10 years, then reverted--what meaning do you assign to that?), who is "right wing," but libertarian...
I'm not comfortable with the idea that we drift away from the milieu of being a (Judaeo-)Christian nation.
Non-Christian justices? We've had 'em.
A prayer not to Jesus? They usually aren't, at political events--they are vaguely deistic, and I always pray--while they pray--that they're mercifully short.
But I'll come right out and say it: this is fundamentally a Christian nation. Yes, strained through the Enlightenment, but even so. That's who we are. A Christian nation, but a very tolerant, limited-government one; and as far as I can tell, that's about as good as it gets.
And I do not consider a shift to a secular ethos to be progress at all. Because the record of history isn't good for secularism protecting human dignity and human rights. And, I just don't believe it. Without God, all things are possible (saith Dostoyevski)
And I simply refuse to take seriously the idea that America, being a "Christian nation," as I described it, is somehow "permission" for intolerance: I'm sorry, that's just...idiotic. That's not our history, that's not the risk. All the breathless worry about "theocracy" is just paranoia.
posted on 08.17.2005 9:52 PM20
Patrick:
My comments, springing off of yours, might be misconstrued as implying your comments were opposite mine. In fairness--I simply responded tangentially to your comments, then zipped off in my own direction (I tend to do that)...
posted on 08.17.2005 9:59 PM