Apparently, the world is abuzz over Chris Mathews and the decision to deny Patrick Kennedy the eucharist. Eljefebob reviewed their performance this morning. It brought a huge discussion on the Hurricane and I thought I would expound on the issue. It is an important one from a political science standpoint and from a religious standpoint. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I can offer a lot to both.
Those who are aware of their history know that evangelical Christians entered politics for the first time in 1980 when the Christian Coalition energized them to get involved in the Ronald Reagan campaign. After that, the religious right (as they have been called generally) got involved in local elections like school boards and city councils. Their presence has certainly changed the educational landscape and it has had quite an effect on the national scene as well. In particular, the issues debated have changed. Overall, I suppose it is better to have more people involved, but the two worlds are hard to reconcile.
As most people know, I am a devout Catholic and very involved in youth ministry. As an informed Catholic, I am pretty up to date on the Church's teachings on most major issues and I can say if you wanted to follow the Church 100 percent you'll find yourself paralyzed when you enter the voting booth. Even the church is betraying its own members when it tries to boil it down to abortion. The church is also anti-death penalty and anti-war and those tend to be Democratic ideals. You see the contradiction and we are only dealing with issues of life. Let's not even bring up embryonic stem cell research.
So, when we discuss politics and religion we must ask ourselves a few questions. First, how do we reconcile a group of voters that feel as committed to their religion as they are with the fact that they support a political party that seems so opposed to a majority of their issues? You will be hard pressed to find a less Christian group of people than the Republican party these days. You have a group of people that are always trying to help out the ultra rich, big business, and the like at the expense of ordinary people. That doesn't sound Christian does it?
The answer to that first question is simple. Those people are focused on one issue because the right and left don't mention religion other than in the context of that issue. The Republican party doesn't talk about their desire to fatten their rich friends when they speak with the religious right voters. They focus on their defense of life. Of course, they don't defend life once its born, but they aren't going to mention that either. So, what are Democrats to do?
The answer is easy, but difficult to accept. We must reach out. We can do that by couching every issue in ways they can understand. Health care reform is about being compassionate towards those that can't afford health care. Every issue could be couched that way. Moreover, you could easily compare Republicans with those in the Bible that didn't help their fellow man. It has the added benefit of being true. Give them a reason to vote Democratic. Democrats can no longer be the the heathen party. We must use our own values and point out how they align with Christian values.
Frank makes a good point, however. The Republican party has mastered the art.
I just downloaded some Frank Zappa tunes...one of my favorites is Stinkfoot.
Welll, false comfort...now that's a good one. The problem with false comfort is that it is 'false'. Only the conscious mind is fooled and temporarily so because you can't fool the subconscious OR mother nature (I bet you like that).
Only a fool revels in false comfort, but admittedly there are many fools about.
AND (I just came across this on an NPR site):
"It's not getting any smarter out there.
You have to come to terms with stupidity
and make it work for you."
- Frank Zappa
It's new to me and gave me a good laugh.
AH,
Ignorance provides false comfort, and false comfort is just as comfortable and the real kind, don't you think?
Happy thanksgiving to you.
Bobo,
You'll have to explain how ignorance offers rewards because I've never found ignorance to offer anything of value.
AH,
It may be dangerous ground, but ignorance is its own reward.
You'll be fine.
Scott,
I actually think, now, that confession is a good idea. We're pretty hard on ourselves.
Confession of one's faults to another is cleansing.
It may be better practiced with someone other than a priest, though, in my opinion. Counselors frequently serve that purpose outside of the church.
Bobo,
I think I remember that sentiment and I was quite proud to be a Knight of the Altar. As for women being abused by the Catholic system it's debatable what are the reasons contributing to it. Incidentally, I agree with you that it is unfair (the example you cited) to the point of sinfullness.
I know I'm about to tread some dangerous ground here but I have always felt that women were more willing to be 'lead' than most men. Witness, the seeming preponderance of women as active practitioners of their faith. Women are drawn to the power of the clergy and as such relinquish what 'power' (there's that useless word, again) they inherently possess in any human interrelationship. My ex, again is emblematic of that dynamic. We were married by her parish priest who in my opinion had a power complex that reached to the heavens. The guy really, really bugged me but he was her choice as the presiding minister. She 'volunteered' a lot of her time to the church, in my opinion, as an in to influence and prestige AND more importantly to be in proximity to influential potential mates. I know that sounds sick but that is the very conclusion I came to. By her own admission that when the priest was appointed to her local parish many of the traiditional parishioners eventually left that church. That like so many other things about my ex was just plain weird!
True every Catholic has to reconcile the faith with those that administer it. I was screwed over a couple of times by those that worked in the church. I went to confession because I was still very angry about it. I was told that the church is still a very human institution. Needless to say, I still have some anger, but the teachings and enduring faith still makes the most sense to me (warts and all).
I agree with miemaw about the status of women in the church. It's lowly. They're the great unpaid labor force that keeps churches going -- necessary but not respected.
Last year, a friend completed several large mosaic murals at a church in west Houston. She's a woman, her project partner is a woman and all but two of the dozen volunteers were women.
When the work was done, there was a ceremony. And just who was honored at this completion ceremony? The head priest and the visiting archbishop! WTH?
At the reception after, I watched as people made a point of congratulating the priest and archbishop. They beamed, apparently very accustomed to getting accolades for nothing. It's just another corporate structure, where the main goal is attaining more power.
Maybe you have to be a female in the church to realize the extent of the bias. To this day, I can remember the face of my first grade nun as she told us "Little boys are closer to Jesus because they can become altar boys and priests."
Here she was, a woman of the church, conflict all over her face, handing her authority to a bunch of squirming 6-year-olds.
Mie,
I disagree once again with this conspiracy theory against women. It's really more a matter of literally thousands of years of 'religious' practice that has created an intertial force against progressive change. I might sound foolish in stating this but I probably would have considered the priesthood if marriage was allowed. That single practice of requiring celibacy is a millstone around the neck of the Catholic church and many Catholic men. The ironic thing is that when I view my life in retrospect I feel that I would have had a more rewarding, productive life as a celibate. Which is why I must add that I consider my daughter a true gift from God. Sappy perhaps, but very true.
Scott,
I haven't read the responses so be merciful if my post is redundant.
I've tried that...it doesn't work. I have a good friend whose political philosophy I can sum by simply saying he likes Sarah Palin. This noer is no idiot...advanced degress, etc. He sincerely believes that I have no notion of the real world and that my 'upringing' is why I believe the government 'owes me something'. Yes, he's a friend but currently an unhappy one because he senses that his worldview is under attack from the welfare class. He doesn't understand why any normal human being could possibly support Obama's 'change'.
When I confronted him with the question of what I was taught that leads me to my position, he responded that he didn't know he just knew that it did. I've explained several times that I grew up in an environment every bit as redneck as his and that I consciously rejected the ugliness of prejudice, hate, and selfishness. He obviously doesn't believe me.
I have been asked by virtually every conservative friend what I think is in it for me when I support 'change'. I repeatedly tell them that it doesn't matter what's in it for me, the world is too filled with hate, many people are suffering and we have it in our capability to help and that's all that matters.
In our last debate, I finally made a dent in one friend's awareness. I stated that if the health care cost curve isn't bent we're all going to suffer. At best, I hoped that with 'change' I could at least maintain the status quo financially in regards to my health care. The response I got was very revealing. "Oh, if that's what you believe then I understand!"
Great discussion.
What I think I see from what I read is that a lot of folks think that "faith" and religion are one in the same.
That would be where I disagree to some extent. I do think that religion should be separate and apart from politics. I think, if we follow the Constitution -- it demands --- unequivocally -- that it should be. Church and State should be kept separate.
Faith, however -- is something else again.
Your faith --- is exactly that -- "your" faith.
Your belief system. In what is right, fair, and just.
Any church that interjects itself into the political discourse --- should not have tax-exempt status. They are no different from any other "k" street lobby.
However, people like Patrick Kennedy are obviously people who have (understandably) brought their "faith" into the political process. The Bishop has brought his church "religion" into the political process.
Kennedy is from a family whose faith mechanism is that "those to whom much is given.... much is expected." Helping the less fortunate is what Jesus taught. That's a "faith" belief.
The Catholic church teaches that "abortion is wrong." That's a "religious" teaching.
Regardless of what side of this issue you are on.
No church has the right to totally control the "faith" system of it's members. No church should be able to threaten it's members with punitive action... for not carrying out the religious teachings of the church. That isn't a religion... that's a cult.
And.. I see it on both sides of the discourse on abortion, war, and a lot of other issues.
Looking at the Catholic Church... from the outside.... they don't invite women into the hierarchy at all. So, I'm always asking myself -- it their problem with abortion... or with women in general?
The conclusion I have reached is that it's with women...I think they want "absolute" control over women. Women have a "place", which is supporting the men of the church, and they should stay in it. That's religion. It's not faith. And, it's an unforgivable arrogance.
My "faith" teaches "love thy neighbor." It doesn't teach "judge thy neighbor". And, it doesn't teach "pick only the neighbors who look and believe as you do" to love.
That's the difference in religion, and faith.
You can practice one --- without the other.
Sometimes, I think... the last place you find "Christianity" is in the church. "Faith" on the other hand, is all around.
JMHO
"Democrats can no longer be the the heathen party. We must use our own values and point out how they align with Christian values."
That definition is exactly how the GOP managed to get so many voters to take up their cause, for so many years. The GOP is notorious for its Orwellian approach, convincing voters to act against their own self interests and against the true values of their own religious faiths.
We heard Bishop Tobin say on Hardball that Catholic voters had an obligation - an obligation - to vote and act as their faith instructed them. Meaning,of course, do not listen to the facts or to reason or to your own judgment. Instead, in Bishop Tobin's case, Catholics must obey the authoritarian teachings of an unelected, unaccountable hierarchy, a small group of men living in their own strange isolated reality. This is so completely contrary to democratic principles that I found it hard to believe that good Catholic Chris Mathews didn't laugh outright at the Bishop's absurd statement.
Delezzia, well said.
Religion and politics, always two highly controversial topics. Always should be avoided in office discussions and family gatherings.
I am Catholic and feel Jesus was a very progressive and liberal person in his teachings. Help the poor, elderly, sick, etc. Have compassion and forgiveness. I don't see these traits too often among the right. Oh, they might talk a good show but when it gets down to it, most are quite greedy, not very understanding. Certainly not very sympathetic to anyone them deem as society's "plagues". (Hint: Illegals, gays, etc.) Most seem against helping society at large because let's face it, most of society are lazy bums who mooch off the rich. Catholics are taught to follow Jesus' ways so I try to spread that word. I hope more of them get it soon.
"First, how do we reconcile a group of voters that feel as committed to their religion as they are with the fact that they support a political party that seems so opposed to a majority of their issues? You will be hard pressed to find a less Christian group of people than the Republican party these days. You have a group of people that are always trying to help out the ultra rich, big business, and the like at the expense of ordinary people. That doesn't sound Christian does it?"
You forgot about Republican Jesus! Or, less colloquially, about Max Weber's work and its substantial progeny.