There are times when the true feelings, inclinations, beliefs of elected officials are blatantly made known. There are many people within the politicized Religious Right who are determined to do everything in their power to bring about (in their way of seeing things) or impose (in the minds of many other Americans) a form of theocracy. Most will never admit this in public because they know that it will not fly with a very large percentage of American voters, conservative or liberal.
A recent interview of Katherine Harris, a representative from Florida, is a good recent example. From the Washington Post:

Rep. Harris Condemns Separation of Church, State
By Jim Stratton
Orlando Sentinel
Saturday, August 26, 2006; Page A09
ORLANDO, Aug. 25 — Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a “nation of secular laws” and that the separation of church and state is a “lie we have been told” to keep religious people out of politics.
“If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin,” Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.
Harris, a candidate in the Sept. 5 Republican primary for U.S. Senate, said her religious beliefs “animate” everything she does, including her votes in Congress.
Witness editors interviewed candidates for office, asking them to describe their faith and their positions on certain issues.
Harris has always professed a deep Christian faith. But she has rarely expressed such a fervent evangelical perspective publicly.
Harris told the journalists “we have to have the faithful in government” because that is God’s will. Separating religion and politics is “so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers,” she said.
“And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women,” then “we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn’t what God intended.”

The reactions were swift:

Political and religious officials responded to her published remarks with outrage and dismay.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said she was “disgusted” by the comments “and deeply disappointed in Representative Harris personally.”
Harris, Wasserman Schultz said, “clearly shows that she does not deserve to be a representative.”
Ruby Brooks, a veteran Tampa Bay Republican activist, said Harris’s remarks “were offensive to me as a Christian and a Republican.”
“This notion that you’ve been chosen or anointed, it’s offensive,” Brooks said. “We hurt our cause with that more than we help it.”

What will happen now? If enough Florida voters wish to have this kind of representative, then they will – or if enough voters who do not simply stay home on Election Day. We get what we deserve.

Continue reading →

I’m having a frustrating time discerning our cultural indicators and what they suggest regarding the direction of our national life at home and how this commonly accepted life is effecting the world. I don’t know whether the time in which we are living is another cyclical period of human history or whether we may be living within a different sort of time – a time that marks a shift in human history or at least within our national life.
I watched the second half of Spike Lee’s HBO documentary (WHEN THE LEVEES BROKE: A REQUIEM IN FOUR ACTS) on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and how New Orleans and New Orleanians are dealing with it all. There was a comment made by, I believe, an historian from a prominent university who said that we as a nation can have available all the money we need to do what we really think is important. Of course, there is often a difference between what our government wants and does and what the people think should be done. I wonder whether the divide between the government and the governed is growing at an ever faster pace these days?
We spend, what?, almost one billion dollars a day on the war in Iraq that has ultimately made Islamic radicals and the resulting terrorists more resolved in their campaign against the U.S. and the West in general and more numerous in membership. We can find the money to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns. Yet, we cannot find the money to rebuild New Orleans in a timely manner; we cannot find the money to build new levies that are world class (as the Dutch do); we cannot find the money to enable poor New Orleanians to return to their refurbished homes; we cannot find the money to clean up non-tourist areas; we cannot find within ourselves the will to hold government and private interests accountable for the common good rather than their own exclusive interests, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Spike Lee included a video-clip of the senior Bushes at the Houston Astrodome not long after Katrina and Barbara, Mother-of-the-Nation, was saying how a lot of these people were destitute to begin with that this has actually made their lives better – as she surveyed all the people sleeping on cots with only the cloths in such a nice venue.
I have this underlying suspicion that those in positions of power are clueless about how average people live in this country and the world over. There is a disconnect that they do not recognize – a disconnect between what is assumed to be and what really is. Let them eat cake! I also have this underlying suspicion that those nefarious people in government whose only concern is the enrichment of their own is growing unrestrained and their attitude is increasingly unapologetic in their self-justification. The poor disserve to be poor because they are lazy and inferior. (Of course, this attitude is only encouraged by the very American but pseudo-Christian “Prosperity Movement” – God blesses those who are doing right by Him with material wealth and prosperity, and we can deduce what that then means concerning the poor.)
What does this say about our nation – about our government and the forces that shape our culture and self-understanding? What does this say about both the generosity of our people who helped those fleeing the hurricane and the same people who refuse to hold their government accountable? Perhaps, and this is sad, a majority of the populous is so disengaging from the political process, our history, current-events, and governmental processes, that a small group of self-interested people can run free as they use the government and the peoples’ money to enrich themselves. Are we more interested in being entertained than being competent and responsible citizens? A democracy cannot be sustained without an informed populace that is engaged in their governance.
One life-long New Orleanian woman said something like, “We need a government that really cares about the people!” We were warned many years ago that if the American people discover that they could raid the coffers of government for their own enrichment that the republic could not stand. Government officials have imbibed from the teat of the people’s money for a long time, but now it is becoming commonplace and unchallenged by the very people who are supposed to hold government officials accountable. The worse part is that the American people are now starting to become drunk on the same possibility of personal enrichment.
The bad that happens in government will continue unless we, the people, hold our elected officials accountable – unless we elect competent people in the first place, liberal or conservative. We need to hold our representatives accountable concerning how our money is spent and on whom it is spent. Our government can fund a misplaced war that at present seems only to be encouraging and strengthening our foes, or we can demand that it spends our money on assisting those that have been ravaged by forces not of their control. The issues are complex, I know, but something just doesn’t seem to right – and not right in a different sense than under previous administrations or previous times in our history. Is this true, or just my impression?
We have had periods of tremendous corruption and misplaced policies in our nation’s past. Is this just another of those kinds of times, or are we entering into a different sort of time when the trajectory of our nation moves in a different direction? It seems the direction we are moving is not good. That which is good is being called bad, and that which is bad is being called good.
Something like that, anyway.

Not even a mile after I crossed the Brooklyn Bridge there is a Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers) Meeting House. It is an old meetinghouse sitting in the midst of modern and tall buildings – near skyscrapers.
As I passed by the meetinghouse, I saw hanging on their chain link fence a large plain white banner that reads, in black letters, “Honor God. Don’t torture.”
What in the world have we come to in this country? This isn’t a commentary on the present administration, but a commentary on the state of the Christian religion in this country. Something is desperately wrong when those in this country who profess to be Christians need to be reminded that it is not honoring to God be allow, consent to, or carry out torture of other human beings!

I wonder how consistent our national policies are over time, despite the focus of each policy or the party/man in power. Maybe it is the underlying understanding of ourselves as a people, as a nation-state, held strongly by the people in power.
We protected our interests in the ‘banana republics’ when the large fruit companies where threatened by ‘natives’ who were no longer willing to accept exploitation and at times virtual enslavement by their American overlords. We can protect our interests, but the interests being protected during that time and by those leaders where not our national interests, but the economic interests of an oligarchy of companies and their owners. The results proved to be Cuba, dictatorial regimes, communist insurgents, and the like and has resulted in an unstable Central and South America where the perception of the United States is palpably hostile. We did not do what we did for the sake of the people. If we had, the whole region may have been far more prosperous and stable. We continue to pay the price for our arrogance, selfishness, and shortsightedness.
Now, we are protecting our interests in the Middle East. In the guise of spreading democracy or fighting terrorism, we are enforcing our policies and interests without consideration of what may be best for the people there, but rather for our own economic interests, our companies, and the wealthy people who run them. We won’t succeed there, either. We could, but that would mean truly and honestly considering what may be best for the Saudi’s, for the Iraq’s, or for the Iranians for that matter. But, we won’t. We won’t because just like the English did not consider the best interests of the American colonies, but their own, only led to revolution, so too will our policies in the different areas of the world only lead to the present day equivalent to the American revolution against England. Why are so many fighting against the United States? There are a myriad of reasons, but it probably isn’t because they are jealous (although some are), it is because they perceive that we are selfish, arrogant, and only concerned in our own best interests in opposition to their own. For our current leadership, and for many of our citizens, their perception is true.
If we truly want national security – safety for Americans – we must stop and realize that what we like and think best may well not be. I do not believe that all cultures are equal nor do I believe that all forms of government or economic systems are equal. Over the span of history, and despite atrocities, I think Western Civilization is superior. Democracy and free-enterprise has shown to be the best of all flawed systems. But, democracy cannot be imposed – it must be won, and not by an outside force demoliting all contrary options. Corruption free free-enterprise cannot simply be mandated, it must be experienced in a way that shows that the common person can and will benefit.
Our arrogance is our undoing. Our inability to realize the similarities in our policies toward and approach to Central and South American, the ‘banana republics,’ in times past and the negative results of those approaches/policies with what we are doing in the Middle-East, in the ‘oil republics,’ will result in the same kinds of outcomes.
We could truly be a positive force for world improvement and freedom, but we are too busy looking after our own best interests – really the best interests of multi-nationals and their managers, along with an American oligarchy. We honestly fail to realize the national aspirations of other peoples, their desire for their own welfare free from interference from outside forces. We fail to realize that what they actually respect about this thing called the United States is the very thing we are forgetting and leaving behind as we move into these nations with our demands and our military.
We forget why we revolted against the English over 200 years ago. We forget our own heritage, and we do so because it is so inconvenient to the present interests of certain people. We do what we do to our own detriment, because an American empire will only lead to an American disaster.

An interesting review of a new book entitled Islamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh, head of the Mediterranean Studies Program at the University of London.
Click here to read the review.

A new study from the American Sociological Association reports on the dramatic rise in the population reporting “no religious preference” over the past decade or so. One primary reason, they posit, is the rise in the intertwining of religion and politics – people simply are turned off by it all and end up disengaging in organized religion or not becoming involved in the first place. Most of this group considering themselves “spiritual” (even believing in a traditional Christianity) rather than being “religious” and part of a Christian church.
Once again, I have been saying for a long time that I believe a reason for the demise of the U.S. mainline denominations, our own Episcopal Church included, is the intertwining of liberal politics and liberal theology. Each ‘system’ – political or theological – on its own has an integrity and strength and each can contribute to the understanding of the other, but when one is equated with the other both fail to live up to their potential. “Theo-politics” just doesn’t cut it, and in my opinion is an affront to the cause of the Gospel. The same can be said for conservatism, and the same dynamic is being witnessed even now.
Since the 1980’s another whole segment of American Christianity has become increasingly political and polarizing. This time, the politicized Religious Right has succeeded in enmeshing conservative politics and conservative theology within American Evangelicalism (and somewhat within Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, etc). I believe we will witness soon an exodus from American Evangelical denominations that have aligned themselves too closely with conservative political causes. Where these people will go, I have no idea. Perhaps to the increasing numbers of Americans who claim “no religious preference?”
Here is a paragraph from the study report:

Hout and Fischer maintain that one important reason for this change in religion preference is political. Specifically, their study found a link between having no religion and rejecting clerical activism, which supports their hypothesis that during the 1990s, having a religious identity increasingly became seen as an endorsement of conservative views. Hout and Fischer found that many liberal and moderate Americans felt that religion became distressingly politicized in the 1990s. As to the role of secularization (i.e., skepticism), the researchers did not find this to be a cause of the increase in “no religion,” because most “no religion” responders maintain religious faith, a belief in God, and a belief in life after death.

Continue reading →

Another response to Harding’s essay by Alan-in-London. Actually, just go to his site and read responses.
Might I refer to myself as a “pragmatist?” Then, as A-in-L states below, are we Anglicans going to throw away this more pragmatic way of approaching the faith, if in fact we do approach the faith in this way?

My friend, Jon, one of the few people from my Chi Alpha days with whom I am still in contact, wrote a response to Harding’s essay I referenced in a post, yesterday. Even though he accidently posted the comment to my weblog and I am glad he did, it is still a good and interesting response. So, I am posting it here. Thanks, Jon. I will say this, however, that we need to remember that Harding is attempting to apply Polanyi’s ideas to the troubles within The Episcopal Church…

The essay was interesting, but ultimately disappointing; I think that Polanyi’s thought is caught in the same loops that he critiques. In short, (pardon my rudeness) philosophizing like this seems like just more mental masturbation about mental masturbation.
Polanyi’s thoughts are understandable given that he saw World War II close up… but could he have written about the “self-destruction of all the major European institutions” if he had lived to the present day and seen European prosperity, and powerful trends for increasing unity and peace, flower so beautifully?
Postmodernism is only “hyper-modernism” in the realms where the mind believes that the “right” knowledge equals truth or salvation. And that’s as much the core of the allure of Fundamentalism, as it is of atheism. The former, by the way, is continuing to grow and become ever more controlling and political in the US, despite the increasing diversity of religion, culture, and lifestyle in the country.

Continue reading →

There is a fascinating essay by the Rev’d Dr. Leander Harding on his weblog. The title is Michael Polanyi, “Moral Inversion” and The Episcopal Church. I first came across the ideas of Polanyi in one of my Master’s classes at Kent. We were studying ideas of truth and knowledge as they related to human development, particularly among the young and even more specifically among college aged students. The idea of “tacit knowing” and how we in the West understand and categorize what “knowing” or “knowledge” really is simply grabbed me. Whether you agree or disagree with Harding’s use of Polanyi’s theories in describing some of the pressing problems of Western Christianity in general or The Episcopal Church specifically, it is an essay well worth reading! Here is the link to the essay. Hat tip to Titus1:9.
From the essay:

“Until the churches can find a way to work their way out of the false scientism and objectivism of the hyper-modernity that is called post-modernity we should expect a relentless and irrational attack on the Church’s teaching tradition from within the churches’ own intelligentsia that will be an echo of the self-destructive intellectual history of Europe. The ideologues of this attack will be cocooned in a self-reinforcing circularity of thought that will be impervious to criticism because all critiques can be dissolved in the acids of its skepticism. At the same time we should expect to see an increasing preference for power over persuasion legitimized by the conviction that for the long overdue new age of justice to come the only moral thing to do will be to play a very cruel version of hard ball. Given the history of self-destruction of all the major European institutions we should not doubt the potential destructiveness of this dynamic for church life if it is left unchallenged. I say these things in the spirit of biblical prophecy; that is as a form of prayer that it might not be so.”