Introduction:
It’s a sad truism of American life that religion has no place in the politics. Faith, it is said, is a private affair that should have no bearing on public policy. But this is not only unjust to the millions of religious (mostly Christian) voters and taxpayers in this country - it's also false. The United States has a long tradition of separating church from state, but an equally powerful inclination to mix religion and politics. Throughout our nation's history, great political and social movements – from abolition to women's suffrage to civil rights to today’s struggles over abortion, gay marriage and capital punishment – have drawn upon religious institutions for moral authority, inspirational leadership and organizational muscle. But for the past generation, religion has been woven more deeply into the fabric of partisan politics than ever before.
The 2004 election was the latest presidential campaign in which candidates openly discussed their religious beliefs, churches became increasingly active in political mobilization and voters sorted themselves out not just by their policy preferences but also by the depth of their religious commitment. In fact, whether a person regularly attends religious services was more important in determining his or her vote for president than such standard demographic characteristics as gender, age, income and region. Polling data also indicate that Americans are divided over how involved churches should be in the political process. According to a July 2006 poll by the Pew Forum, roughly half of Americans (51%) think churches and other houses of worship should express their views on day-to-day social and political questions, while 46% believe these organizations should stay out of political matters.
Although the public is divided over churches speaking out, most Americans view President Bush's expressions of religious faith as appropriate. Barely more than half (52%) say Bush mentions his religious faith the right amount and another 14% say he talks about his faith too little. Only about a quarter (24%) believe that Bush mentions his faith too much, a percentage that has stayed about the same in the past two years but is much higher when compared with July 2003 (14%).
The relationship between Christianity and politics is a historically complex subject.
Biblical foundations:
The Bible contains a complex chronicle of the Kings of Israel and Judah, written over the course of many generations by authors whose relationships and intimacy with the rulers of the several kingdoms fluctuated widely in both intimacy and respect. Some historical passages of the Hebrew Bible contain intimate portrayals of the inner workings of the royal households of Saul, David, and Solomon; the accounts of subsequent monarchs are frequently more distanced and less detailed, and frequently begin with the judgment that the monarch "did evil in the sight of the Lord."
The New Testament, instead, begins with the story of Jesus, crucified as a criminal who had offended both the Jewish priesthood and the Roman imperial authorities. At least to outward appearances, Jesus was at the periphery of political life and power in the Roman province of Judea. Nevertheless, a number of political currents appear in New Testament writings
Render unto Caesar:
All three synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as saying "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25) Jesus gives this answer to Pharisees who ask him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not; Jesus begins by asking them whose portrait appears on a Roman coin.
The incident can be read to support a position that Jesus announced that his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reading finds support in John 18:36, where Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
Conclusion:
Public debates about the role of religion in the government in America are often characterized by rancor and bad feelings. It’s questionable whether much progress can be made on this issue if people can’t learn to work together more, so some scholars have been seeking ways to decrease the level of animosity in the rhetoric and arguments. However, Christianity and Politics have always been fused and will (should) continue to be discussed and embedded into United States Codes. Besides all the rhetoric about the Bill of Rights having Christian influence as well as, US Codes having Biblical influence; Christianity and politics is ultimately good for America. Because Christian morals assist to uphold the constitution and indoctrinate people into becoming not only better Christians but productive members of society that are socially responsible.
Even without empirical proof, I would argue that since the Ten Commandment were removed from schools and court house crime, abortions, and divorce have risen. I am not saying that if the Ten Commandments where reinstated (although I think they should be) that these problems would necessarily dissipate. However, I do believe that eventually over time there would be de-escalation. Americans should return to their Christian heritage to salvage this country from the degradation it’s headed to. I pose this question very loosely, but I do wonder if more Americans were religious would there be a need for all this added security (i.e. the recent Foreign Intelligence Bill that was recently signed into law, giving the executive permission to wiretap without warrants)?
References
No comments:
Post a Comment