God and Politics

Oh , brother.  People are clueless about God and politics on both sides of the spectrum.  I'm for a "total mix",  because you not only CAN mix God and politics, one MUST in order to be "relevant".  This depends upon to a large extent,  upon the relevance and effectiveness of the political process.  But for me,  the political scene is one where we have given the charge to promote the common good of society. This post from Salon.com is concerned about the Religous Right's use of this,  and rightfully so.  I myself am constantly concerned about how the Religious Right does just about everything it does.  But religious leaders do and should have a responsibility to "preach" whatever the hell they think important.  The Religious Right has been doing this anyway for the past 20 years!  The Relgious Left has been doing it ever since people knew there WAS a relgious left (and even before that----- that's mostly how they got noticed in the first place----they had the gall to suggest that something n the process was flawed and that someone has a solutilon they'd like to try.  Time was when that was considered a no-no.   "Separation" of Church and State was the cry of the Religious Conservative.  We heard this during all the civil rights struggles from the lilly-white Religious Institutions of the South.  "The job of the minister is to lead the souls of men to Christ,  not to get involved in petty social issues" (the line of a Southern White Minister character spoken to Martin Luther King's character in the TV miniseries "King" in 1978).  NO.  They are not SEPARATE.  Whatever affects the lives of people in society,  particularly those of the poor,  IS INDEED to be the concern of the Church.  A Church that "stays out of politics" is just what the separatists want.  That way the role of the prophet is diminished and the political system can get off scott-free.

I must concede that this is the responsibility also for the Relgious Right, although their aims are not what I would describe as keys in my own theological concerns;  my own sense of what "justice" means in the Kingdom of God scenario.

The citing from Salon (linked to from the title of this Entry)

Congress is voting on a bill to let religious leaders endorse candidates from the pulpit. The right can't lose: If it fails, they'll have a campaign issue to use against opponents in November.
By Michelle Goldberg| Sept. 4, 2002 |

Regarding the Clueless about Churches post (scroll down from this one to Clueless about Churches who do this out of sheer obedience. , apparently,  the post on Salon is worried about it for reasons similar to why I get riled at the Religious Right for their "narrow" vision of the world.   Thing is,  even though I abhor much of what the Religious Right comes out for and against,  they too have the right to endorse anybody they please.  Why do they need a bill to do so?  They already do.  The "Religious Right" itself donates who knows how much to who knows how many candidates.  The "Moral Majority" had their "Scorecard" a few years back,  where they rated candidates on their "morality" (actually on points that dentified them as theologically orthodox in a fundamentalist sense,  on which Tony Hall from Ohio failed miserably,  although he is a dedicated Christian and works within the political system --- and outside it--- to promote values I consider Christian,  and what he openly identifies as important Christian values--- but the Religious Right rejects him because he is a democrat and "theologically questionable")

"On Sept. 11 last year, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a bill that would allow churches, temples, mosques and other houses of worship to channel donations directly to political campaigns, and to use church resources to help elect or defeat specific candidates without losing their tax-exempt status" 

© Copyright 2003 Dale Lature. Last update: 9/23/2003; 3:36:17 PM.