Politics and Religion
When considering the increased polarization of the American political landscape over the past 40 years, I find it instructive to note the role that Evangelical Christians have assumed in the process.
In my opinion, it began with the 1973 Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that essentially legalized abortion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Of course, Billy Graham had been fraternizing with the GOP and Richard Nixon long before this event. At the time, it seemed somewhat quaint that a straight-arrow Baptist like Graham would pray with and essentially endorse such an amoral, foul-mouthed person. But, possibly, even non-believers thought that Graham might be a positive influence on "Tricky Dick".
But the commingling of politics and religion began in earnest with the founding of the group "Moral Majority" by Baptist minister Jerry Falwell in 1979. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
According to Wikipedia, "The origins of the Moral Majority can be traced to 1976 when Baptist minister Jerry Falwell embarked on a series of "I Love America" rallies across the country to raise awareness of social issues important to him. These rallies were an extension of Falwell's decision to go against the traditional Baptist principle of separating religion and politics, a change of heart Falwell says he had when he perceived what he described as the decay of the nation's morality."
One might even conclude that the election of President Jimmy Carter in 1976 was influenced by the movement. But the extreme polarization came in 1992 with the election of President Bill Clinton. The rumors of his extra-marital affairs led to the 1994 "takeover" of the GOP by a firebrand congressman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich.
I think it instructive to take note of the plot foreshadowing in this tale by noting the irony of a moral crusade being led by a serial philanderer who served one of his wives with divorce papers as she was in hospital with breast cancer. This sort of moral hypocrisy might have been shocking then, but it has become commonplace today.
This might lead you to believe that this commingling is a new phenomenon. It is not. Oliver Cromwell led a Puritan-backed civil war in Britain in 1642. See http://www.history.com/topics/british-history/oliver-cromwell
According to history.com, Cromwell, a committed Puritan, and his godly "Ironsides" attributed their successes on the battlefield to divine intervention and now set out to create a godly society by establishing a body of evangelical preachers, by reforming the legal system, and by introducing legislation such as the Blue Laws (1650) against blasphemy, cursing, drunkenness, and adultery. Cromwell believed in liberty of conscience for his fellow Christians-"I meddle not with any man's conscience"; a truly revolutionary concept for the day-but in every other respect he remained a social conservative. He feared the democratic ideas of the so-called Levellers (English radicals); he believed in rule by the godly, not by the people in general.
But, this tendency to confuse the heavenly kingdom with the earthly one started much earlier. It actually began in the 4th century, not long after the memory of Jesus was lost, when the emperor Constantine officially named Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity
And I say "after the memory of Jesus was lost" for this reason. In John 18:36, the writer attributes these words to Jesus as he was facing death.
Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here."
I imagine the Christians of the day were quite happy that this proclamation ended years of persecution by the state. I also imagine they noted the usefulness of being friends with those in earthly power.
It is not much of a leap to see the incremental, moral justification good people could employ to confuse earthly with heavenly. Seeing your spouse or child burned at the stake would leave quite an impression, I suspect.
But that is the crux of the matter, is it not? Jesus, himself, the supposed founder of Christianity was not willing to make that compromise to save his own life. Why? Could it have been because he knew the cost of small compromises, and that their ultimate cost would be one's own soul.
That seems to be the case today. The so-called followers of Jesus, nominally called Christians, have elected possibly the most immoral President ever. The world and we have yet to see the cost of that betrayal. Judas betrayed Jesus for a mere 30 pieces of silver according to the biblical account. The reward offered today, was much greater.
Only time will tell if our modern-day Judases will come to their senses, feel remorse, and repent as did the first Judas.
Put me down as "doubtful".
To those of you who are not religious, are not regular church attenders, and who have yet to see the moral danger in which we currently reside - Nota Bene.
Unless you fervently resist today's puritanical leaders, we may soon see our own civil war. It will be lead by the most evil men possible - those who believe they kill in the name of God.
Comments
Post a Comment