Wednesday, September 21, 2005
More on the 'religious right'
In recent correspondence, I recieved an email which I thought may be in touch with recent posts (here and here). With the author's permission, I present it with my thoughts following.
A learned friend and I were locked in debate (which is not unusual) about politics (which is not unusual) on election night (which happens rarely). He argues that the religious right is an oxymoron (and that Don Brash is a moron) in that the "right" have differing views from those of Christianity. I argued that the basis is probably heavily drawn on issues such as abortion / stem cells / euthanasia i.e. the Life and death types where more liberal views would seem abhorrent to those who hold conservative Christian views. He said these were very small parts of the religion and they were missing the picture - I said twas dangerous to under value the life/death arguments as could be seen as fundamental questions of religion and we may be able to downplay it easily in the belief that we were being "liberal" (which makes us cool) but to those who hold such "religious" views they are sacrosanct and of much more importance than macroeconomic policy in determining where to vote.
I know we have had debates about being "Religious" what that means, and how it doesn't apply to many younger Christians ,but as a "religious" type, note the lowercase r!!! ;) what is your take on the reasons behind the 'Religious' right (Big R!!) and in fact on such issues like the ones above that are so divisive in the states.
Yours
Me!
vote brash de dar de dar de dar!!
I guess we can guess this one's political affiliation; and I'm a bit hesitant about bringing my wit to bare with a politics major. However...
My main contention would be that political and religious views are different things. My correspondent has made a good and legimate case for the correlation between the two.
I posit that a right-wing position is one which promotes 'small government' focussing on national protection, civil order and freedom of market wherever possible. A Left-wing party promotes 'big government' whereby the citizen trades in their $$ for state-supplied services.
These are ecomonic policies which effect taxation and services. On the whole, Jesus doesn't say much about these.
Traditionally, however, these parties side with moral viewpoints. Perhaps someone more specialised than me can explain why. At present I believe this is branding; it seems to have little to do with economic or government policy. I see no reason apart from precedent why a right wing government wouldn't push to allow civil unions or the legalisation of prostitution if they believed it best for the nation.
Please excuse the simplification, I'm blogging in detail, not writing a thesis! Please comment on your thoughts and correctives, though.
I see two main elements of Christianity represented in the NZ vote. We can call the first social justice. These voters understand the present and historic hegemonic abuse of aboriginal people by settlers. They understand that the so-called minority groups are disadvantaged by the system and that it takes a concerted effort to negate that power. They know Jesus sided with the underprivedged against the system, as Isaiah said:
This is the kind of fasting I have chosen: Loosen the chains of wickedness, untie the straps of the yoke, let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke. Share your food with the hungry, take the poor and homeless into your house, and cover them with clothes when you see [them] naked. Don't refuse to help your relatives. Then your light will break through like the dawn, and you will heal quickly. Your righteousness will go ahead of you, and the glory of the LORD will guard you from behind. Then you will call, and the LORD will answer. You will cry for help, and he will say, "Here I am!" Get rid of that yoke. Don't point your finger and say wicked things. If you give some of your own food to [feed] those who are hungry and to satisfy [the needs of] those who are humble, then your light will rise in the dark, and your darkness will become as bright as the noonday sun. Isaiah 58:6-10
Such votes go to Labour et al.1
The second set of Christian voters focus on an area we can call social justice. They recognise that life is precious. As such they abhor abortion unless the mother's physical health in in danger (and sadly, some even then). They resist legislation that would allow euthenasia. These "pro-life" advocates believe that life is God's gift and it is foolish to throw it away. They conceptualise a fetus as having a soul, therefore to abort is to murder a fellow human. Most people would campaign to stop unjustified murder. The arguments against euthenasia and stem-cell development are similar in the broad sense, but more problematic. And I feel my readers are waiting for a conclusion.
Both of these positions are defendably "Christian".
Perhaps there is a 'religious right', but in that case I posit we coin the phrase 'religious left' as well. It doesn't have the same alliterative qualities though. The labels, like the "conservative" and "liberal" labels, aren't overly useful for informed discussion.
My conclusion, when I look at the narratives surrounding Jesus I see many religious/political groups (the division wasn't applicable to 1c. Judaism) wanting Jesus to approve of their position...or at least claim a place on the spectrum. He refused. Time and time again we see Jesus refusing to ally himself with groups, instead he cared for individuals within the community. By drawing artificial "Christian" political positions said Christians alienate themselves from their true and high mission: a love without boundaries.
1 Some will point out that this passage refers to individual acts, not governmental acts. Excuse me. I'm going for a passage that easily outlines a theological strand instead of something laden with imagery that needs explaining.
4 Comments:
(Although, one of those "social justice" identities sounded vaguely like a conversation we had on Friday, so maybe
Shoot! I'm late for class. Later...
Perhaps I'm being oversensitive with labels here. Labels, like stereotype in moving image, provide a useful shorthand. However, it overly simplifies people's positions rendering them useless.
Apparently I'm somewhere between Bono and Ghandi -- and (shock! surprise!) on the opposite axis from GW the Second.
Im still trying to work out how much of that really is up to the government as opposed to the individual and maybe even if it shouldnt be up to them because of the slackness of people perhaps the government does need to take a large role in protecting and supporting the underpriveledged???