The Moveable Theoblogical weblog has posted a blog renewing the debate over the "lite theocracy" of Stanley Hauerwas. That debate can be found in the comments that were made to an entry I made in May on Ecclesiological Fundamentalism.
My comments on Moveable Theoblogical are awaiting approval by the blog's author. Here's something similar to what I posted in the comments section there:
"Please don't take my criticisms of Hauerwas to indicate that I disagree with all that he says. I agree with him more than I disagree with him.
I'm just tired of being called a "secularist" because I believe that governments ought to protect the religious liberty of everyone. In my mind, that is the necessary political prolegomena to sharing the gospel in a pluralistic world. It creates a free marketplace of ideas where the gospel is free to compete for a hearing. It is wrong for the government to lend the weight of its authority to any religion in this free marketplace of ideas."
2 comments:
Tyranny has always resorted throughout history in combining government and religion. In Egypt, Roman Empire, and Japan the Pharoah and Emperors were also their God. The theory is that you don't revolt against your God no matter how ineffective or uncaring they become. In Europe it became "The Divine Right of Kings" again to keep revolutions and revolts down. In both America and France the Revolutions on the one hand to break away and the other to overthrow resorted to Social Contract and Natural Law for justification to rebel, and thus debunking "Divine Right" Which is why it is so silly for anyone who has ever read the Declaration of Independence in it's entirety to claim we have always been a Christian nation. If we were such a good Christian nation we would never have rebelled agains our Divinely appointed Monarch. Governments that do not meet the demand of the social contract (which is what is being demonstrated by Bush with his illegal war and ineffective management of disasters) try to hoodwink the people by saying God put them in power and to say anything bad about them is to talk bad about God. Religion had a lot to do with the last two elections, but God had nothing to do with them. If you really believe what Paul says in Romans ch 13 God backs whoever is in charge and His people should be good citizens regardless if we like them or not. Bush was allowed to win by a ruling of the Supreme Court in 2000 and let the tail wag the dog to squeak through a second close and contested election in 2004. If he was really God's chosen man and we were a Christian country they would have been landslides.
A government that fullfills its duty in the Social Contract does not need to claim legitimacy through religion. And being nuetral concerning religion is essential to the Social Contract.
If you don't understand what I am saying about the Social Constract again READ THE DECLARATION! Thomas Jefferson states it beautifully.
I don't know where I read this, maybe even within this blog, but I saw several comments from the same person saying something to the effect of "by criticizing President Bush, you're criticizing God - how dare you".
It appears to me that those who believe the government needs to legitamize and institutionalize their beliefs lack in faith - God is bigger than Congress.
Post a Comment