Children of Abraham - 0412
During election season, I was wondering what the Abrahamic faiths teach about politics. Then, in the November 5 edition of our Conference’s “Instant Connection”[1], I read, “In a 200-year-old tradition, Bishop Beverly J. Shamana joined with other United Methodist bishops to sign a Bible being sent to President George Bush and issuing a statement of congratulations following his re-election.” It seems that, for the past 200 years, the United Methodist church, or its antecedents, has endorsed the winner of the US Presidential election. The Council of Bishops offered "to build bridges of understanding" with the new administration. Do we see here the church separated from the state, or the church engaging the state, perhaps hoping to work with, even through the state?
Frank Pastore, a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA, exhorted Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished [Liberals]” in his op-ed article that ran in The L.A. Times on Friday, November 5th.[2] It sounds like Pastore is discouraging “bridges of understanding.” Is he suggesting the Administration should not engage the [Liberals’] churches in dialog? Or that they even have churches?
Before the election, some of America’s religious leaders supported specific candidates. For example, “We couldn’t care less that Bush is a Republican. If (Bush) were a Democrat, we’d still be behind him because of who he is and what he believes,” said [Jerry] Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority that mobilized millions of evangelical voters in the late 1970s and early 80s.[3] Is it really possible that the Moral Majority might support a born-again Democrat, Green, or Libertarian?
Like Christians, there were/are Muslims for Bush (http://www.muslimsforbush.com/) and Muslims for Kerry (http://www.sarawaktribune.com.my/publish/article_44101.shtml). No doubt Jews formed groups to support one or the other candidate too. Yet, some Abrahamic faith groups presented a balanced view of the candidates and they laid out issues. For example, the Muslim Public Affairs Council prepared the “Presidential Election 2004: A Guide for American Muslims.” They claimed to have compiled the efforts “…of outreach to American Muslims by the Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards Campaigns and their positions on issues of concern to American Muslims”[4] [from the respective campaign websites]. Among their topics were the USA PATRIOT Act/Homeland Security, Civil Rights, and Iraq and Palestine/Israel.
One can read extensively about the historic interplay between religious traditions and political systems, and changes over time. For example, one finds on one Islam-oriented web site[5], “The Christian tradition, for example, in pre-modern times, provided a conceptual foundation for divine right monarchy; in contemporary times, it fosters the concept that Christianity and democracy are truly compatible.” Similarly, one finds arguments from various perspectives within Islam that their tradition supports (or does NOT support) democracy.
So, it seems church and state are (still) inextricably linked. On Monday, November 8, 2004, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE ran an editorial by Cynthia Tucker[6] entitled, “Contempt for gays unites Christians.” Tucker sprinkles her piece with references to, and quotes from, 19th century pastors’ writings in defense of slavery! She suggests that, decades from now, “…some Christian churches will find themselves apologizing for their contemptuous treatment of gays and lesbians…”
In his November 7th sermon, Pastor Schuyler said he hoped we would stand for what’s right, not just what’s politically correct. How should we stand for what’s right? How should we follow the Bishops’ example, and build those bridges of understanding with the new Administration? How should we build those bridges with our Muslim and Jewish sisters and brothers? And when? And who will start the building?
[1] The Instant Connection - November 5, 2004. Compiled and edited by Jeneane Jones, Director of Communications, California-Nevada Annual Conference
[2] from “Voting Without the Facts,”, by Bob Herbert, New York Times, November 8, 2004
[3] http://www.sbtexas.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=923&issue=10/25/2004
[4] http://mpac.org/bucket_downloads/MPAC%20American%20Muslim%20Election%20Guide.pdf
[5] http://www.masnet.org/contempissue.asp?id=1552
[6] Tucker is the editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Frank Pastore, a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA, exhorted Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished [Liberals]” in his op-ed article that ran in The L.A. Times on Friday, November 5th.[2] It sounds like Pastore is discouraging “bridges of understanding.” Is he suggesting the Administration should not engage the [Liberals’] churches in dialog? Or that they even have churches?
Before the election, some of America’s religious leaders supported specific candidates. For example, “We couldn’t care less that Bush is a Republican. If (Bush) were a Democrat, we’d still be behind him because of who he is and what he believes,” said [Jerry] Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority that mobilized millions of evangelical voters in the late 1970s and early 80s.[3] Is it really possible that the Moral Majority might support a born-again Democrat, Green, or Libertarian?
Like Christians, there were/are Muslims for Bush (http://www.muslimsforbush.com/) and Muslims for Kerry (http://www.sarawaktribune.com.my/publish/article_44101.shtml). No doubt Jews formed groups to support one or the other candidate too. Yet, some Abrahamic faith groups presented a balanced view of the candidates and they laid out issues. For example, the Muslim Public Affairs Council prepared the “Presidential Election 2004: A Guide for American Muslims.” They claimed to have compiled the efforts “…of outreach to American Muslims by the Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards Campaigns and their positions on issues of concern to American Muslims”[4] [from the respective campaign websites]. Among their topics were the USA PATRIOT Act/Homeland Security, Civil Rights, and Iraq and Palestine/Israel.
One can read extensively about the historic interplay between religious traditions and political systems, and changes over time. For example, one finds on one Islam-oriented web site[5], “The Christian tradition, for example, in pre-modern times, provided a conceptual foundation for divine right monarchy; in contemporary times, it fosters the concept that Christianity and democracy are truly compatible.” Similarly, one finds arguments from various perspectives within Islam that their tradition supports (or does NOT support) democracy.
So, it seems church and state are (still) inextricably linked. On Monday, November 8, 2004, the SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE ran an editorial by Cynthia Tucker[6] entitled, “Contempt for gays unites Christians.” Tucker sprinkles her piece with references to, and quotes from, 19th century pastors’ writings in defense of slavery! She suggests that, decades from now, “…some Christian churches will find themselves apologizing for their contemptuous treatment of gays and lesbians…”
In his November 7th sermon, Pastor Schuyler said he hoped we would stand for what’s right, not just what’s politically correct. How should we stand for what’s right? How should we follow the Bishops’ example, and build those bridges of understanding with the new Administration? How should we build those bridges with our Muslim and Jewish sisters and brothers? And when? And who will start the building?
[1] The Instant Connection - November 5, 2004. Compiled and edited by Jeneane Jones, Director of Communications, California-Nevada Annual Conference
[2] from “Voting Without the Facts,”, by Bob Herbert, New York Times, November 8, 2004
[3] http://www.sbtexas.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=923&issue=10/25/2004
[4] http://mpac.org/bucket_downloads/MPAC%20American%20Muslim%20Election%20Guide.pdf
[5] http://www.masnet.org/contempissue.asp?id=1552
[6] Tucker is the editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
posted by Ric at 11:21 AM
1 comments
