Headlines are popping up more and more frequently indicating the “Christian Right” has found a new home at the Tea Party. Moral values are being championed as the only consideration to be made in electing a person to a position of authority in government.
The Tea Party has done an exceptional job in promoting this concept. I have no personal quarrel with that as such.
Certainly, it is desired that strong moral character be evidenced in one given the awesome job of governing. To be sure, an apparent lack of that quality has been responsible for major shifts in power at times. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton come to mind.
Nixon claimed that if a President partook of an activity, it couldn’t be illegal. Illegal or not, his actions in attempting to cover up a major scandal led to his ultimate resignation. His disdain for truth and honorable actions brought about public outrage and demand for justice.
Jimmy Carter was subsequently elected on a wave of perceived righteous cleansing. Here was a good old Southern Baptist boy, clean as a whistle and moral to a fault.
Bill Clinton may be responsible for the greatest shift in American fortunes in history.
His dalliance with a young female intern in the confines of perhaps America’s most hallowed room and his subsequent behavior to avoid severe disciplinary actions almost cost him his presidency. It certainly cost his party any chance of re-election. Hanging chad or not, the Moral Majority seized the moment.
Another Baptist to the rescue. This time a Republican . Had a political pedigree, too.
A case could be made that neither man would have been elected under different circumstances.
History will ultimately record its verdict of the achievements of both rescuers. Whatever the outcome, the course of American history was greatly altered in each instance, for better or worse. What might have been - was not.
Personal honor and integrity (or their absence) then, played a pivotal role in the actions of both Nixon and Clinton. Incidentally, who can tell us their religious affiliations? On the other hand, the professed religions of both Carter and Bush are well documented. How that ultimately appeared to work for them and for the country is an ongoing question. One thing is certain: affiliation with a recognized religion was not an especially good predictor of the ability to govern.
History indicates that great flexibility is required in great leaders. Abiding by a strict moral code is admirable, but translating that to public policy is not always so clear cut. Many, perhaps most, civil issues do not present clear choices based strictly upon the morality involved, or their interpretation under canon law.
If you insist on a religious analogy, (from the Christian Bible, at least) what if Solomon, for example, had been a strict fundamentalist. Would he have suggested the cutting of a baby in half to solve a parental dispute? In addition to the horror, that most likely would have broken some law or other.
How about Abraham? Wouldn’t he have balked at the idea of murdering his own son based on religious law? Surely the law did not condone such an action.
There are many instances of Jesus being taunted by what was then the religious right when he appeared to disobey rigid religious constraints. His common sense approach to “get the ox out of the ditch” or of healing infirmities on a Sabbath day, brought down wrath from the Pharisees. Who was he to flaunt the “law?”
Great leaders throughout history have found it necessary to balance obedience with wisdom.
The point here? Well, which religion are we going to sanction as being the proper one to govern America? Which is the most moral and has the most perfect set of laws? Christianity, you say? Well, which denomination, then? Baptist? Methodist? Lutheran? Episcopalian? How about Catholic - the mother of Christianity? Would a Mormon qualify?
Certainly not a Jew! They are pretty much reserved for the Supreme Court.
Merely denoting “Christian” sounds uplifting, but something more definite is required. Must not a Christian belong to a recognized religious affiliation? If one is, indeed, a Christian, is he not bound by the interpretations of the church to which he belongs? What if an enemy attacked us on a Sabbath?
One might, of course, refer to the case of Jack Kennedy. It was widely claimed that he would be beholden to The Pope, and America would be thusly governed. Kennedy had to ultimately show by example that a person can be personally loyal to his church without it usurping his governmental acuity and responsibility. Would a modern day advocate for “Christian Leadership” make the same claim? It doesn’t seem so.
The founders of this nation had a keen awareness of the complexity of this question. In most cases, they came from countries which had what amounted to a state religion. Certainly in England the influence of the church in government was extremely strong, as it was in most other countries. Inevitably this led to the stifling of individual personal freedoms and the inability of government to act without the approval of church law.
It was quite clear in the minds of the founders that a clear separation between the operation of government and the practice of religion was an absolute necessity.
Thomas Jefferson wrote of a clear “separation between church and state.“ as did James Madison. The words of Madison were, “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both”
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves the door open a tiny crack, however. It merely prohibits “the making of any law respecting an establishment of a state religion.” It does not appear to contemplate a usurpation of power by religious zealots.
How such a group would attempt to rule, though, is a crucial point. The U.S. has three very strong and independent branches of government for very good reason. Even Presidents have been sued over perceived breaches of law.
It has been often quoted that we are a nation of “laws, not men.” Men can, and often do, have strong opinions about what is right. Consider the authority of the Ayatollahs in Iran.
Theoretically, Iran is a Republic with a Parliament representing its people. In fact, however, it is ruled by religious leaders called Ayatollahs who control the state religion of Shia Islam.
A religious takeover could never happen here, of course. Official state religions are anathema to individual freedom and sound government. Unofficial state religions have the same effect.
If the Tea Party or other “Moral Majority” types of groups insist on popularizing the notion of a “Christian” government, it is to be hoped that by that they mean strong moral leaders in general. To specifically indicate that a leader must be “Christian,” however, demands some specific answers of exactly what that means, and how it is to be implemented.
So far, no one has demanded that clarity from them. They are getting by on negative popular slogans. They are getting a free ride without supplying responsible answers. Do they favor, for instance, breaching the traditional walls of separation between church and state? Do they contemplate strict adherence to church law in the workings of everyday legislation? If so, exactly how do they believe that will work?
It’s time for some definitive answers, not vague generalities.
My eight seconds are up. What a ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment