Letters to the Editor
-
Therein Lies the Rub
Glenn, you concluded your post by writing "The religious views of our political leaders matter and ought to be open much more to examination and questioning. That is particularly true when they continuously tell us, even if we don't want to believe it, that their beliefs and decisions are grounded in theology and religion and moral absolutism, not politics or pragmatism."
From their rhetoric, we see that the religiously motivated apply the same view to the secular liberal. They believe that a person's faith should be on the table for examination and questioning. They, however, would come to very different conclusions than secular liberals about the relative value of those beliefs. By what common yardstick are we to measure two ideologies that are placed in opposition (even when that opposition is not always accurate or necessary)?
The problem is that there is no questioning or examination that can adequately probe their beliefs or move the believers from those beliefs. Their beliefs are self-evidently true to them because they come from the Bible. They are even immune to questioning from other Christians who have a very different interpretation of the same book. These particlular folk are not people given to deep questions about religion. You've seen the evangelists on TV. They talk, lecture, shout, exhort and the people nod their heads and "oh yea". There is no examination. There is no questioning. Deep thought leads to scary questions. Better to let God, the preacher, and the President deal with such weighty issues.
Fortunately, not all Christians treat their faith this way. But since George and certain of his followers do, examining and questioning those beliefs is not likely to yield much from them.
If greater awareness and deeper discussion of these issues is to occur, it cannot be simply along the secular/religious line. It must be intra-religional (yeah, I just made that word up). The rhetoric is too strong right now, certain words too poisoned to have a dialogue about the value of secular pragmatism versus blind faith. It must be a conversation about the merits of informed, examined faith versus the limits and evils of blind faith.
The only way to address these religious zealots is by engaging thoughtful believers. You won't change the zealots, but you will deny them the ground that they have falsely claimed that all people of faith agree with them -- that they represent all Christians. They don't. Never did. Other Christians need to step up and call these zealots to task. Only along those lines will any ground be made among the public that predominantly thinks of itself as Christian.