Keep religion out of politics
At least that's what voters seem to be saying, according to this Rasmussen poll, and rightly so:
But only 14% of all voters believe it is appropriate for their local religious reader to suggest whom they should vote for. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say it is not right for their parish priest, minister, rabbi or imam to make such a suggestion. The latter figure is an eight-point jump from two years ago.
Christians (who account for a vast majority in this country) would do well to remember Jesus' own words: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is His. Many, many of the issues in our politics is entirely secular and religious leaders are better off not getting caught in the crossfire of secular politics. There are some matters of life and death where religion—more specifically, religious requirements—intersects politics, such as when Catholics are forced to pay for abortions by federal funding of abortion clinics, but those are, thankfully, far and few between.
Aside from those very few issues—and perhaps even on those few issues; if the pastor did his spiritual job correctly, he wouldn't have to worry about politics of his flock—religious leaders should stay out of politics, lest they become yoked with the wrong crowd.
Value of a human life = another human life?
National Review responds to a recent proposal in Nature:
The editors of Nature are well aware that this proposal might seem a little ghoulish, and they have two suggestions for making it seem less so. The first is that “death” be redefined. The law currently treats someone as dead if he has experienced an “irreversible cessation” either of all the functions of the brain or of both the circulatory and respiratory systems. These tests indicate that the person can no longer function as an integrated organism. Since people can pass those tests without, in the editors’ view, “being alive in any meaningful sense,” and since those people can be sources of working organs, the editorial proposes changing the definition. It does not specify what the new definition should be, but it is clear that the direction of the change should be toward relaxation. Problem solved: Fresh organs can now be removed from a patient deemed to be dead, and the procedure can’t, by (new) definition, kill anyone.
Existing law does not prohibit anyone from writing a living will which effects exactly what Nature suggests—for himself. What does not follow is that because a man can freely decide to do a good thing on his own, the state should force people to do the same act—the same way law does not require me to save someone from danger even though it would be virtuous of me to do.
But then, I guess to liberal academics, there is little difference between an act of kindness brought by compassion and voluntary will and a beneficial act enforced by the state. Just remember. This is supposed to be humor, not real life:
The dangers of religious political activism
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I'll admit: I couldn't watch through the whole thing. I stopped the video at 2:05. I couldn't watch through a demagogue deliberately and selfishly tear down and misinterpret a religion.
This is why the Bible tells us to follow the law of the land. Even Jesus himself said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is His" (paraphrased). This is not too far from the spirit of "friendship with all but entangling alliances with none" that our founding fathers espoused.
Christians (I can't speak for other religions, not having studied them) should not inject themselves into political debate. Except where the proposed (or established) secular law may force them to go against the spiritual laws—but that overlap is very small, and definitely does not extend to health care. Jesus healed the sick and gave his disciples the power to heal the sick as part of their ministry: he did not set up an HMO.
But, because Christians have been active in other issues, when they are silent on issues that they should really be silent on, they are criticized for their silence.
And this is the danger of religious political activism. Religion is often self-contradictory and very much open to interpretation on many, many issues, as we can see in the existence of so many sects and denominations in the three branches of Abrahamic faiths. Unless the pious people stick to the core values on which there is little controversy within the religion, one day, they will be undeservedly accused of hypocrisy because of some perceived contradiction in their position by demagogues and sophists—and when the congregation is misled by these critics, it can divide it so much deeper than any differing scriptural interpretation can.
Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Where is the outcry over this blatant "violation" of "separation of church and state"? Just imagine how we would have heard about it if it was a pro-life "prayer vigil" where the representative gives her commitment to a new constitutional amendment declaring every viable embryo a life under the protection of law, whose destruction is justified only in the case of "self-defense", i.e. for saving mother's life.
I, for one, am disgusted at churches that take side in political issues, especially where the issue isn't the core teaching of the church (such as health care: if anything, churches should be against it because the government takeover of health care marginalizes the church's voluntary charity role). Paul says as much: follow secular laws and secular leaders. Of course, the times were different then, but he doesn't say anything about any role the church is to play in a political process.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ‘alternative’ Christmas message
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims to channel Jesus:
If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly He would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.
If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.
If Christ were on Earth today, undoubtedly He would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime. The solution to today's problems is a return to the call of the divine Prophets. The solution to these crises is to follow the Prophets - they were sent by the Almighty for the good of humanity.
How typical of a Muslim to completely mistake what Jesus stood for. Of all things, Jesus would not, and more importantly, DID NOT fight the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems.
When Jesus first came to prominence (i.e. his triumphant entry to Jerusalem about a week before he was killed), people like Judas Iscariot thought Jesus would stand up and lead a rebellion against the Romans and their "tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems". When they discovered he would not (as evidenced by his frequent mention of how he is going to be killed soon), they (i.e. Judas Iscariot) decided to betray him and make a few bucks.
How typical of a Muslim to take the exact some path of logic that led Judas down his famous footsteps.
P.S. Frankly, I don't know what Jesus would do in the modern world (except if he came as a part of the Second Coming, in which case what would happen is foretold in the Revelation). But regardless of circumstances, I think it is a fairly safe bet that Jesus would not perform any acts of physical violence or offer any physical resistance to the forces of oppression.
Frankly, that's not my cup of tea (I believe in violence—at least in retaliatory violence), but to say anything else is to lie, in fact, the worst kind of lie: the blasphemous lie.