| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| God's Country? |
| 2006-08-29 |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #4 That's true Frank. I agree with msgeek that this writer gets the facts right but misses the mark. In this context, the most important differences have to do with the degree to which each promotes optimism about the possibilities for a stable, peaceful, and enlightened international order and the importance each places on the difference between believers and nonbelievers. No two Christians have the same belief no matter what strain they belong to - but converted christians have an underlying belief that they all understand when discussing Christianity regardless of which of these groups they belong to. It's difficult to describe - but I'd describe it a bit like this: You hear two people talking about racism, diversity, and equality. One is Jessie Jackson - one is Martin Luther King. Both are proclaiming to be "civil rights activists" But they are not the same. Both have deep beliefs that will shape their views on how the laws should be written. Yet they have little in common. Why? Because Martin Luther Kind believed - truly believed - that all men were created equal. That was the foundation of his belief. He didn't limit it to black men - he meant ALL MEN. Jessie Jackson just takes the idea of equality for a ride and is a huckster. The point I think msgeek is trying to make - and if not, the one I'm trying to make - is that you have to understand the underlying belief, not catagorize who goes to what church. To make my point ask yourself who follows Jessie Jackson? Who follow Martin Luther King: in both groups you will find some who believe as deeply as Martin Luther Kind did that all men are created equal and will work towards that goal. And in both groups you will find some who just see opportunity for a free ride. And in both groups you will find people on a continum of beliefs that span between Martin and Jessie. And that is my point. You can't look at Jessie and understand the belief that drives those truly seeking equlity. You have to understand the underlying belief. And so it is with Christianity. Catholics, Protestants, Evanelicals who truly believe all speak a common language and hold a basic underlying belief. Evangelical Christians try to share that belief - much in the same way that others go out and teach you how to read or understand math. They think it will help you and help society if you understand. Non-evangelicals (such as myself) believe but don't feel compelled to teach others. Hey - it's all I can do to learn and live it myself. I'd go on and say how I think this relates to the war on terror - but I doubt anyone even read this far. But just suffice to say that I do think that the war planners need to get a better grasp on this and I'm glad to see them making an effort - even if they did only scratch the surface. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-08-29 18:18 |
| #3 It's a purely personal opinion, but I've always believed that a person whose politics are not governed by their religious beliefs, really has no religion at all It's a system of beliefs and morals. We all want to know what our representatives will do (or damage) while in office. If members of an identifiable religious group, we assume they hold the generally-held beliefs and will act accordingly. That doesn't mean they will, just that we have a baseline to estimate from |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-29 17:26 |
| #2 well said msgeek. Don't expect anyone to listen, though. They will just go on treating those who a foundation under their beliefs as being stupid, misguided or mentally ill. Never mind that the subject of the mortality v/s the spirit is one that has been discussed by the greatest minds for centuries - to discuss it today is taboo and will cause your opinions to be instantly dismissed by those who, you know, have it all figured out. It's a shame. As one who previously just believed that Christians were just nice people who needed a club to belong to - I really think it is a shame that discussion for the care and feeding of our souls has been dismissed as mere crazy talk. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-08-29 17:14 |
| #1 Well written from a purely technical explanation standpoint. But there's something here that the vast majority of writers on culture and religion just don't get, and that is true Christian CONVERSION. Understanding the differences between experiential Christianity and all other kinds helps simplify the matter greatly. Converted people have completely different thinking and motivations than those who aren't. It doesn't have to be much more complicated than that. The majority (in some cases the overwhelming majority) of church-goers on any given Sunday have never been converted. I'm not saying this to judge, but rather to simply make an observation. A non-convert is free to make up their own mind about his politics. A convert is not, because their entire world view, including their politics, is shaped by their conversion and adherance to Biblical principles. It's a purely personal opinion, but I've always believed that a person whose politics are not governed by their religious beliefs, really has no religion at all. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-29 11:37 |