The most concise statement that I made was that it was misnamed. It would be more aptly named a "Proclamation for Theocracy" than a "Proclamation for Morality." I don't remember exactly what I said, but the gist of it is that it would be best for legislators to adhere to the constitution, especially the first amendment, and let each religion issue its own proclamation of morality.
There are so many things wrong with Kern's proclamation that it would fill a book to correct them all. The best critique that I've seen is by Chris Moore, pastor of the Norman, Oklahoma UCC church, at his Pelagian Heresy weblog. Here's a quote:
There is more to complain about than just the "Christian revisionism" and the blatant attempt to co-mingle religion and government (always with the religion of the instigator in the primary slot, of course…because they're right.) The implication of this document is that our “moral crisis” has delivered us to a state of economic decline and ruin. Yet, the same people who profess this kind of Christian revisionist thinking have largely been in charge of the government for the past decade and nowhere in the "charges" leveled against our nation are things like unchecked greed, disregard for our fellow human beings, lack of love for our neighbors or any of the same accusations that Isaiah leveled against ancient Israel so long ago. Instead we get the same tired list of abortion, same sex marriage, and illegitimate births (among others). It wasn't anything on this list that caused Bernie Madoff to rob thousands of people of their savings, nor is it same sex marriage that somehow threatens "traditional" marriage to the point of a 50% divorce rate.
If you wish to be helpful, begin to offer solutions that work beyond a glib and over-sentimentalized "return to morality". It is clear that no side of this (or any other) argument has a monopoly on morality. We your constituents grow increasingly tired of one-upsmanship, the unambiguous support of party over country and the blatant attempts to enforce your own sense of religion as if it were the only answer. If that formula works for you, great. Knock yourselves out in your houses of worship and in your homes. But the capital building is where you serve everyone, not your own narrow interpretation of scripture, history or morality.
3 comments:
If EVER a shot hit the EXACT center of the religious versus political bullseye, this Pastor's verbal shot did.
I was a bit amused at the comments and thought about the phrase, "Mainstream Baptist." You certainly are not mainstream among the Baptists I know. I am not a Baptist, nor the son of a Baptist. But if I were one, I would disagree with you. Sin brings on many harsh realities, and she is right to say that sin brings on pain. Abortion, homosexuality, pornography and the others bring on untold pain, poverty, and disgrace to this country.
As far as the constitution is concerned, the founders were not opposed to religion interfering with daily life. They were opposed to one state church that kept out other Christian denominations. That this country was founded upon the Judeo-Christian principles is undeniable.
Phil Sanders
For me one of the main points of the Gospel is Jesus' insistance that we regard our own sins (logs in our eyes) and not judge the sins of others (specks)
That introspection and honest spirituality seems to be lacking from the politcial/christianist Right.
This clearly is an example.
Post a Comment