It is absolutely no
coincidence that freedom of (and from) religion is the very first of the
agreed-to 10 Constitutional Amendments referred to as the Bill of Rights.
In the mid-19th
Century Alexis de Toqueville (1805-1859), a French historian and philosopher,
toured the United States to see for himself how our fledgling democratic
republic was working. The results of his observations appeared in his signature
work, Democracy in America, published
in 1835 (Vol. 1) and 1840 (Vol. 2).
One of his significant
contributions was his observation concerning the impending opportunity of “…the
majority raising formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion,” if, in
fact, the democratic process spilled over from America’s arena of politics to
the arena of everyday social life. This idea of de Toqueville’s led, later,
Lord Acton (British Historian, 1834-1902) to coin the famous phrase: “The one
pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny
of the majority….”
In his opinion de
Toqueville saw the very detrimental possibility in our society that voting on
political/legal/economic policies would morph into similar “voting” on
social/cultural/personal values as some form of un-official national policy. His complete observation was: “In
America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers [someone
may write or think] what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.”
Remember, this was 180 years ago.
Watching some of the
debates for the GOP presidential nomination and hearing some of the
commentaries (both conservative – FOX – and progressive – MSNBC), I am struck
by how much the religious views of our candidates play in the
nomination/election process. It’s as if voters want to hear how religious and
spiritual our elected (or nominated) officials say they are. How utterly
inappropriate this is, according to our Constitution. As stated by Phillip E.
Johnson (American Educator, 1940 -) “The restriction of religion to private
life therefore does not … threaten the vital interests of the majority
religion, if there is one, and it protects minority religions from the tyranny
of the majority.”
This raises, for me, the
question: Why is the opinion
(to use de Toqueville’s term) of religion so critically important in an
election cycle?
My initial answer? Fear and
Ignorance. To assuage their fear and the world their fear thinks it sees, folks
perceive their religious “world view” as paramount in their decision-making.
They have to find something that will provide them with a certainty of faith.
They have found that certainty – not in their personal transformation and
acceptance in the Kingdom of God – but in the literal words of the Bible. Any
verse anywhere in the Bible is the Word of God, and if verses contradict each
other, then that’s an illustration of the mystery of God.
I discussed this issue in
my book (pages 345-46) under the heading of “Recognizing the Dangers of Bibliolatry.”
“There
is always a tension between the faith itself and our attempt to communicate it
in a rational language at a given historical period. A relatively static
authoritarianism, either of the Roman Catholic type or
fundamentalist/evangelical type, so confuses the authority of the Church, the
Bible, and the faith of the people that the tension, which is between God, as
we understand God, and our human understanding, is removed. Without that
tension the doors are opened to idolatry – in this case a blind worship of the
Bible itself – or Bibliolatry.”
As Karen Armstrong pointed
out in her book, The History of God,
fundamentalists cannot conceive that I experience and think about God
differently than they, which may be different from that Abraham experienced as
a middle Bronze Age nomad or as Paul experienced as a first-century Jewish
Roman citizen.
Back to an election cycle:
It seems fearful religious conservatives have extended that belief-form (everybody
everywhere thinks of God in the same way) to apply the Founding Fathers.
Surely, Franklin, Jefferson and Paine, all of whom referred to “God,” must believe as we biblical literalists
believe. The problem is they didn’t. They were essentially Deists. God was the
prime (or first) mover. The Creator. God didn’t interfere in personal lives and
liberty. Jefferson’s Bible had been all crossed-out except for those passages,
especially parables, which began “Jesus said....“
When biblical literalists
use a quote from Isaiah or Deuteronomy to justify their actions/beliefs they
are denying the message of Jesus the Christ. He said He was the fulfillment of
the Law and the Prophets. His was the new message from God. The Gospel. The
Good News – the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear. He gave us three
commandments to follow, replacing the Ten Commandments of the Israelites.
But religious conservatives
cling to the Old Testament and its Ten Commandments. It’s simpler. It’s easier.
But it’s incorrect, and it’s a grave error when it’s used as a litmus test for
politicians.
To elevate the Bible in
ways that overshadow the Gospel of the Lord is a supreme sacrilege. To pursue a
political end of enacting legislative laws to ensure the apparent “sanctity” of
the United States so God will once again bless us above all other nations is an
act of unbelievable un-love in the name of the God of love.
Thanks for listening and,
as always, feel free to share this message with my blessings.
Don
#2 March, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment