“The GOP is not a Christian club”
My friend and colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, an Indian American and devout Catholic, says the GOP has a problem with seeming like a “club for Christians.”
That rings true to me. I’ve attended dozens of conservative events where, as the speaker, I was, in effect, the guest of honor, and yet the opening invocation made no account of the fact that the guest of honor wasn’t a Christian. I’ve never taken offense, but I can imagine how it might seem to someone who felt like he was even less a part of the club…
Twenty years ago, conservatives started referring to Judeo-Christian values in an effort to be more inclusive. The challenge now is to figure out how to talk in a way that doesn’t cause decent and dedicated Christians to pull in like a turtle, while also appealing to non-Judeo-Christians and the nonreligious. That’ll be hard, requiring more than name-dropping Confucius or Krishna.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
You’re confusing “government” with “nation”. The United States is secular government, no one’s disagreeing with you there. But conservatives believe that “government” is not in totality synonymous with “nation”.
sauldalinsky on December 12, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Many of them owned slaves, too. Was this a Christian value? And you do know that there have been synagogues in the New World almost as long as churches. Jews shared a common heritage of many of the Founders whose ancestors fled England due to religious persecution.
There is a huge difference between John and Samuel Adams’ beliefs that only a moral and “religious” (NOT ‘Christian’) people are capable of self-government, and insisting that the Constitution is based on Christian principles and values, which it isn’t. And this is the sort of talk that turns off non-Christians, and many Christians as well.
rockmom on December 12, 2012 at 1:55 PM
The ancient Greeks, the inventors of democracy, were slave states. Rome, the inventors of the republic, was a slave state. Throughout history, and well before the advent of Christianity, slavery and despotism were the natural state of mankind.
Christianity was the first, and it’s still pretty much the only, ideology that fights that human nature, to state that we are all equal – and fighting human nature makes for tough sledding.
Rebar on December 12, 2012 at 1:56 PM
To be technical, the pure democracy was an Ancient Greek invention and the republic was an Ancient Roman invention, both of which were very much pre-christian. In fact, at the time Christianity began to appear as a distinct religion (bearing in mind that Christ and his followers still considered themselves Jews, and the idea of Christianity as a distinct religion from Judiasm didn’t come about for another 60-ish years after Christ’s death) Rome was in the process of being hijacked into a imperial monarchy with the Roman Senate being merely an illusion of power for the masses. By the time Christianity was “officially” the religion of the Roman Empire, the imperial monarchy of the ceasars was well and truly established. When the American and French Revolutions came about, the church was not on the side of popular democracy, having been firmly entrenched in the “divine right of monarchs” for over 1500 years. And most of the clergy coming from the upper classes and nobility, it wasn’t exactly in the official church’s interest to go against the monarchies. That said, numerous smaller groups of Christians did particularly support more populist political movements, especially those sects of Christianity not in line with the particular brand of Christianity in their home country (the Puritans jump to mind).
Personally, I would be more inclined to consider democracies and republics as a more European/Western construct than a particularly Christian one. I supect the connection between democracy/republicanism is not so much a direct causal relationship. That said, I certainly think some level of influence occurred in both directions between democracy/republicanism and Christianity, since it is so correctly pointed out that those forms of government rarely seem to occur in Easterm cultures. But is that because they are Eastern cultures or because they are non-Christian cultures? I’m inclined to believe both influences are present, though more the former than the latter.
gravityman on December 12, 2012 at 2:03 PM
You didn’t read a word of what I said – you’re just busy pushing your PR point.
I, the non-Christian, didn’t bash anyone. I was promoting unity by saying that Christians and non-Christians can be part of the Tea Party and help our country.
A pastor, a Christian, bashed me – publicly and unprovoked – by saying that people like me were the reason Hitler came to power.
You don’t get to turn that around and martyr yourself or your cause.
beatcanvas on December 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM
No.
Good, freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers were still Christian and not “Judeo-Christian” a term created in the 20th century and used by Dennis Prager-types to pander for the Jewish vote.
sauldalinsky on December 12, 2012 at 2:06 PM
You claimed…
Which is nonsense.
Traditional religions embody such concepts as monotheism, animism, vitalism, spirit and ancestor worship, witchcraft, and sorcery and vary widely among ethnic groups. The syncretic sects often merge Christianity with traditional beliefs and rituals, and may not be accepted by mainstream churches as part of Christianity.
Kimbanguist Church: 5.5 million believers…
Alongside Father Simon Kimbangu, the Holy Trinity are, Father Kisolokele (first son of SK), as God the Father, Father Dialungana (the reincarnated Jesus Christ, and second son of SK), Father Diangienda Kuntima (last son, reincarnation of Papa Simon Kimbangu, and second human form of the Holy Spirit), and Father Simon Kimbangu Kiangani (grandson of Papa Simon Kimbangu, third human form of the Holy Spirit, and current spiritual leader of the Church, reigning from 2001-present)
The Kitawala sect is barely Jehovah Witness…Theological messages varied from place to place, but a common core of beliefs included the struggle against sorcery, the purification of society, and the existence of a black God. Kitawala denounced all forms of authority as the work of Satan, including taxes, forced labor, and most other coercive elements of colonial rule. The movement’s anticolonial message was so strong that the worldwide Watch Tower movement formally renounced it.
…and the Jamaa movement are barely Catholic…Although accepted by the Roman Catholic Church (members continue to participate in parish activities and do not withdraw from the institutional church), the church hierarchy has periodically questioned the degree to which Jamaa deviates from Catholic belief and practice. The church has never denounced the Jamaa movement, but the hierarchy has grown steadily more wary of it.
Now you want to dance around and change what you are claiming because it doen’t hold up.
sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM
I’ll bite MTK. I suppose you’re inferring that Hitler was a Christian. I mean, because people who call themselves “Christian” yet massacre people and place themselves higher than God are certainly Christian in every sense of the word, yes? And I thought Nazi-comparisons were exclusive to the Left.
change is for suckers on December 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Yes. Regarding a Jew who accepts Evangelical Christian theology and then calls himself a “Messianic Jew”…
In Judaism such a person is known by a different label, namely “Christian.”
aunursa on December 12, 2012 at 2:09 PM
And he was wrong to do that and I would question following such a “pastor” as a Christian. At the same time, why not paint with a wider brush?
change is for suckers on December 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM
As I pointed out above, that was true of smaller sects of Christianity, but the Catholic Church (the primary official Christian hierarchy) was most certainly not a fan of the democratic revolutions of the Americans or the French. In 1864 Pope Pius IX wrote the Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors, both extremely critical of popular sovereignty and democracy, and reinforcing the “official” church belief in the divine right of monarchs as doing God’s Will.
gravityman on December 12, 2012 at 2:14 PM
What wide brush am I using when I talk about an isolated incident in response to someone twisting my story about that incident?
beatcanvas on December 12, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Maybe you’re not. If not, my mistake. It seems from your anecdote that the lesson to be learned is that if you call yourself an atheist, Christians will inevitably call you out an an enabler of tyrannical dictators. If that’s not what you’re implying, then we’re cool.
change is for suckers on December 12, 2012 at 2:16 PM
My point is, the entire concept of all people being equal, is a Christian concept that was never seen before in human history. Tribalism, despotism, and slavery, are the natural state of mankind, and Christianity is the only reason Western civilization had freedom at all.
I say had, because clearly we’re reverting into tribalism, despotism, and slavery once again.
Rebar on December 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM
I would be suspect about any attempt to separate the two. There are underlying cultural foundations that pre-date Christianity, but Europe and their immigrants to the colonies were very much infused with Christianity and its view of the world.
I would agree that new Christian states in Africa for example have not in fact embraced Democracy or civil rights. So it seems that Christianity may be a important condition, but certainly not the only condition needed. I have always suspected that feudalism played a significant part as well.
The idea that men (nobles/knights) have rights that are not to be violated by the king, slowly leads to that franchise being extended to the lower classes who did not initially enjoy the same level of protection. The kings of Europe tended to be restricted in their power, though that was short-circuited in Russia by the Mongol invasions, so perhaps there lies an explanation for why Democracy has difficulty catching hold in those regions.
sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM
By the way, I’m not trying to say the US wasn’t founded primarily by Christians with that faith as a major backdrop to their ideals. However, they were very savvy about saying that the US may be founded on the most basic Christian ideals, but that it is most definitely not a “Christian nation”, and certainly not in the sense that England was an Anglican Nation.
gravityman on December 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM
The entire Greek Bible, from start to finish, is about little but slavery. The word mistranslated in English as “servant” is slave.” Mary exclaims, for example, “I am the slave of the Lord.”
Jesus maintains that the slave of all is the greatest of all.
In fact, Jesus teaches not only that to be a slave is the best life, he goes so far as to claim repeatedly that slavery is the only life that does not “deserve” a torture and excruciating pain that exceeds anything possible in nature.
This is factually true. Whether he was correct is a different question. That is a matter of faith.
kunegetikos on December 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Here’s the context:
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/12/12/the-gop-is-not-a-christian-club/comment-page-1/#comment-2214977
My point was simply that in my experience, and evidently others as well, there are some Christians who have little tolerance for inviting others of different beliefs into the Tea Party or GOP. Some of them rise to a position of prominence and it has an effect on participation – and at a time when bodies in the booth are important to electoral victory, I’m not really sure why anyone would allow such a person into a position of authority.
To people like me, does it feel like a Christian Club? Yes, at times, it does. Likewise, I, as a non-Christian, don’t have the right to tell you to check your beliefs at the door. On the contrary, I ought to invite you in and encourage your freedom of religion and expression. I would hope for the same respect in return. If you’re willing to die for my freedom of religion like I’m willing to die for your freedom of religion, then we’re cool.
beatcanvas on December 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM
Speaking of Founders, on the other hand, wasn’t Locke a comic genius to ground liberty in Eve’s picking of the fruit? Reread the Second Treatise, and this time try not to be so flat-footed.
kunegetikos on December 12, 2012 at 2:30 PM
These ideas and practices were endemic in all major cultures, not just Christian ones, and the Christian ones dumped them as they matured.
Nice try. Actually, it wasn’t a nice try. That logical fallacy makes you a partaker of Stalin and Mao’s crimes, since they’re your fellow atheists.
So I sent 100 examples of Christianity being part of the founders’ vision for America and the states (Akzed on December 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM), since you complained about my having sent only two supreme court decisions that declared Christianity to be a standard for their decision making process.
You ignored that post, naturally, your being so concerned about the ethics of rhetoric and all.
Akzed on December 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM
And yet near universal belief in pre-Revolutionary Europe did nothing to actually produce equality before the law….
libfreeordie on December 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM
^This.
In particular, at times and in certain groups it feels like an Evangelical Protestant Christian Club.
Please let me keep my Papist mummeries and general Roman popery, and I promise not to attempt to burn you at the stake for heresy.
Even if I dispute Sola Scriptura and the premise that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old, I am still pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-school choice, anti-public sector unions, anti-tax raising, anti-deficit spending, pro-free trade, and pro-Constitution. Surely we have enough in common for us to work together to defeat the metastasizing Leftism in this country.
I may not meet your definition of “Bible-believing”, but I’ll bet I meet your definition of “freedom-believing”.
JimLennon on December 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Wow, this article blew my mind. The mask is really slipping off now, isn’t it?
Punchenko on December 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Changing human nature is a very difficult process, taking centuries or even millenniums.
Which is why progressivism is having such an easy time pushing us back to our tribal, despotic, slavery past – it’s far easier to cater to the worst aspects of human nature than to break them.
Rebar on December 12, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Actually, I was saying just what I said – people dumb enough to equate speaking about religious liberty to how Hitler rose to power are the kind of ignorant folk who think he was also a nonbeliever.
But, since you brought it up, do massacring civilians and waging war make any of the tyrannical popes and kings in European history any less “Christian” than they claimed themselves to be? No True Scotsman and all that. His claims and actions showed what he was, so I don’t get the fuss with trying to rewrite history. No one is claiming any of that led him to commit such atrocities.
mythicknight on December 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
But as a Papist you’re still part of that icky Christian Club with the icky praying, and icky symbols, and that German guy with the big hat and great art work. It’s all a bit much, really.
And as a matter of fact, you earned yourself demerits for telling us you’re a Catholic, a Christian, pro-life, etc. which turns off the voters we’re trying to reach here, Jim. Being an icky gun nut might also be an issue. You know what, just say nothing. No, better yet, gather your things and hide in the closet and don’t come out till we win another election.
Thanks,
Jonah Goldberg
Punchenko on December 12, 2012 at 2:57 PM
I long for the day we call that “American” and let that be the sole criteria for warm-hearted inclusion.
beatcanvas on December 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Liberals like you hate America and long for the day when America is freedom-believing…. conveniently defined with the sole criterion as your utopian idea of mushy-headed inclusion. While that pastor was wrong with his Godwinning attack on you, it’s not at all surprising that an Iowa Tea Party wasn’t too interested in your liberal ideas. Conservatives think America is already freedom-believing and work to conserve that freedom.
sauldalinsky on December 12, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Liberals belive that they have a monopoly on compassion. Christians believe that they have a monopoly on morals. Both are wrong.
growl on December 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM
My statement, “Actually, the more religiously diverse a country is, the more it likely that it’s a democratic country”, was not negated by anything you’ve written. You just called it nonsense and then….nothing.
I said that the Democratic Republic of the Congo(which I’ll assume you’re referring to) is 95% Christian(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country). You copied and pasted a lot of text, but none of that negates that its 95% Christian. Is your argument really that some churches don’t fully accept that people that identify as Christians are “barely” Christians? That’s a pretty weak argument.
You haven’t really produced anything of substance. You points aren’t even logically.
If Democracy is a Christian principle, why haven’t Christian countries always been democratic? Why were there ever monarchies? How does the Papacy exist at all?
segasagez on December 12, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2