Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Political Christianity????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Political Christianity????

    The rise of political Christianity
    Muqtedar Khan


    By getting re-elected in an unexpected turn of events, incumbent George W Bush has orchestrated a revolution under the cover of elections.

    His reelection and the gains made by the Republican Party in the two house of the Congress — they now control the Senate with 55 of the 100 seats [44 Democrats and 1 Independent], and the lower house with 231 seats out of 435 [200 Democrats and 1 Independent] — has made Washington DC a bastion of American conservatism. Adding insult to injury the Democrats Senate leader Tom Daschle was defeated to signal the absolute sway that the Republicans now hold on American government.

    The victory is comprehensive. It leaves those who reflect upon the nature of America and its future with a very profound and serious question. Are these results indicative of a fundamental change in American political culture or is it merely the consequence of transitory factors such as the war on terror, a weak Democratic candidate and the manipulative skills of a Machiavellian genius — Karl Rove, the political strategist behind the Bush campaign?

    If this was a fluke then the liberals and progressive elements in the country must prepare to launch a better campaign in 2008 with a strong candidate. Time to search for a Clinton clone, politically capable of running from the centre with confidence and culturally acceptable to the Deep South.

    There is no doubt that John Kerry in spite of his extraordinary performance in the debates and his remarkable recovery in the last week was inherently weak on the electability scale. The fact that he was the most electable of all Democratic candidates does not bode well for the party. John Kerry is a liberal democrat from Massachusetts, the Mecca of American liberalism, a ‘believing’ Catholic and a Senator. According to a Pew Survey, only 20 percent of the American population is liberal, 34 percent is conservative. According to The New Republic 29 percent of the voting electorate in 2000 was conservative but in 2004 the conservative constituted 34 percent of the electorate. This demographic edge forces Democrats to run from a position much to their right, while the Republicans have to make fewer adjustments.

    In the last seven elections, the Republicans have won five times and the Democrats only twice. In fact the Bush family has a better record at winning the White House than the entire Democratic Party in the last quarter century. Bill Clinton won the White House twice, in the opinion of some analysts, such as Paul Begala of CNN’s Crossfire, the Southern Democrat “was perhaps one of the finest Republican presidents we ever had.” Given this demographic and historical background, why was a Bush victory not a foregone conclusion?

    There were many reasons why those unhappy with Bush felt confident that he would be defeated. The biggest of all reasons was the mess and chaos that Iraq has become and the clear evidence now that American invasion of Iraq was unjustified. Bush critics felt that the Iraq fiasco would underscore the reckless and misguided nature of the Bush foreign policy forcing even the staunchest of his admirers to rethink their vote. The second reason was the state of the economy. The huge deficit, job losses, declining wages and high unemployment, many Democrats felt, would generate discontent and hurt the incumbent. Big issues such as social security and healthcare remain insecure. The shallowness of the case for Iraq, the growing anti-Americanism abroad, and the failure to apprehend or neutralise Bin Laden would expose the ineffectiveness of the so-called war on terror and therefore for a better security, better economy and a better future, Democrats thought that a majority of Americans would vote for change.

    Increasingly analysts all over are converging on the singular role of evangelical Christian turnout at the poles to explain the election outcome. They argue that George W Bush managed to preserve his formidable Christian coalition, even added to it, and thereby regained the White House on the strength of the ‘Christian’ vote. It is ironic that while American Muslim “leaders” bragged about the power of the ‘Muslim’ vote (1.2-1.8 million) as playing a potentially pivotal role in this election, the player that ran away with the election is the ‘Christian’ vote. It can now be safely estimated at about 40 million (34 percent of the electorate).

    In spite of losing the debates, scoring consistently around only 50 percent on job approval ratings for months, clearly appearing to have lost control of his most important project — Iraq, failing to bring Bin Laden to justice and while presiding over a very troublesome economy, George W Bush managed to carve out a historic victory. It cannot be a fluke; there is more to this than meets the eye.

    Many analysts argue that Karl Rove was able to mobilise and expand the ‘Christian’ vote by manipulating wedge issues such as gay marriages and abortion. Does this mean that the ‘Christian’ block will vote for its candidate regardless of his or her effectiveness? Certainly not
    .

    It is my contention that in the last three years, since the 9/11 attacks, deeply religious Americans have experienced an existential anxiety that is translating into a political backlash that is threatening American secularism, American democracy and America’s traditional respect for international law and international public opinion.

    Unlike Europe, America has always been a religious nation. Alexis Tocqueville in 1831 claimed that religion was the first political institution of American democracy. On November 2 was saw this institution unleash a backlash against the ‘assault on Christianity from Muslims’ — hence the support for Bush’s irrational and bloody foreign policy, and against the growing secularization of American society — hence the across the board support for ban on gay marriages. Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah and Oregon all passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriages. A large number of voters, nearly 25 percent, said that the primary issue for them was “moral values”. Moral values are being widely understood as the Christian conservative opposition to gay-marriage and abortion rights. I suspect that there is more to it.

    The rise of political Christianity — a coalition of white, born-again Christians, conservative Catholics, conservative African Americans and conservative Hispanics — is concerned with more than gay marriages and abortion rights. Political Christianity seeks to breach the wall of separation between the Church and State and wishes to make this country a Christian nation.

    America has been experiencing nativist resurgence along with the rise of a form of Christianity — evangelical — that is both self-righteous and “untraditional”. It is unwilling to compromise and uncomfortable with enduring American traditions of religious tolerance, freedom of conscience, fundamental equality of all and appreciation for diversity. This nativism can be heard in the calls for restoring America’s moral values and in political works of scholars such as Sam Huntington who ask, “Who are we?” or in the fears of Pat Buchanan who declares “The death of the West
    ”.

    George W Bush has returned to the White House on these nativist fears. He is probably convinced that God is firmly in his corner and his mission to “save America” is indeed divine. He is going to charge into battle against dragons overseas and wrestle monsters at home. By George! America will be born again, pure and Christian.

    On November 2nd political Christianity captured the White House, the Senate, the House in Congress and the Supreme Court. Bush is expected to appoint anywhere between two and four 4 judges to the Supreme Court which already enjoys a 5-4 conservative edge. With every branch of the government under control — effectively neutralising the much-touted divisions of power in the American constitution — political Christianity has taken American democracy hostage.

    It is time for American Muslims, American Jews, American Hindus and Buddhists, as well as American Christians of moderate, secular and liberal persuasion, to come together to form a moderate and pragmatic centre, eschewing the aggressive anti-religiosity of the extreme left, respecting the religiosity of the right, to restore balance, and preserve American democracy and its traditionally balanced relationship with its first institution — religion
    .

    MA Muqtedar Khan is chair of the Political Science Department at Adrian College and a non-resident fellow of the Brookings Institution. His website is www.ijtihad.org. This study was sponsored by the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding
    _____________________


  • #2
    Good article. I fully agree since my voting precinct here in Georgia this year was at a Church of God. Go figure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Julie

      With what specifically, in the article, do you agree with? Which points did you think, hit home? Is Dr. Khan correct in his perception and description of the "existential threat"?? How so??
      _____________________

      Comment


      • #4
        "Political Christianity seeks to breach the wall of separation between the Church and State and wishes to make this country a Christian nation." If that statement were true, then the Ten Commandments would not have been removed from the Courthouse in Alabama, and the Judge would not have lost his job.

        I believe that considering all of the festered issues floating around at election time, i.e., 9/11 Muslim extremism and gay marriages, pushed the Americans to embrace their faith and hold on for dear life.

        The US military will not be defeated, and the US economy will survive, and Americans will defend their moral values, when threatened, above all else.

        Comment


        • #5
          Osama and the WTC folly is responsible for the rise of Born Agains.

          If WTC had not happened, then the war on terror would not have happened nor would have Iraq galvanised the US. Job losses, the economy and health care etc would have been the key issues. Not the fear psychosis.

          The 'with us or against us' has translated itself within the US.

          It is futile for non US people to lament the US election result which has been the handiwork of non US forces at work.

          People should work around this late lamented wails and instead try to work around their fears and bring some semblance of order in this world that is of late getting too topsy turvy because of the mindless terrorism that is being waged in the name of religion.

          Whatever be the religious persuation, it requires to be separated from the governance of countries.
          Last edited by Ray; 07 Nov 04,, 06:22.


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ray
            Osama and the WTC folly is responsible for the rise of Born Agains.

            If WTC had not happened, then the war on terror would not have happened nor would have Iraq galvanised the US. Job losses, the economy and health care etc would have been the key issues. Not the fear psychosis.

            The 'with us or against us' has translated itself within the US.

            It is futile for non US people to lament the US election result which has been the handiwork of non US forces at work.

            People should work around this late lamented wails and instead try to work around their fears and bring some semblance of order in this world that is of late getting too topsy turvy because of the mindless terrorism that is being waged in the name of religion.

            Whatever be the religious persuation, it requires to be separated from the governance of countries.

            I agree, which supports my opinion that Osama has been the main divider of the US.

            Comment


            • #7
              A Christian Revolution
              Americans have opted for a revolution based on faith, as Iranians did in 1979, and may live to regret it, as Iranians have

              'How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?' cried the British mass circulation Daily Mirror referring to the election of George W Bush for a second 4-year term as president of the USA. A similar question has been asked by many young Iranians of their parents' support for the Islamic revolution a quarter century earlier.

              What makes the two events strikingly similar is that in this election the "war on terror" or the debacle in Iraq or even the economy were not the number one factor for people to vote for President Bush, but the "moral values".

              This reminds one of the famous saying of late Ayatollah Khomeini that the Iranian people did not support the revolution for "bread or melon" but for Islam. What we are facing in today's America is a Christian Revolution with far reaching consequences for decades to come...

              The election of President Bush for a second term surprised most people of the outside world as well as a great many in America. However, the real shocker came when it was revealed that what clinched this comfortable victory was not mundane questions of war on terror or the effect of the American invasion of Iraq and the high casualty rate now being inflicted on the American soldiers.

              It was also turned out that even the unsatisfactory economic conditions (to put it mildly), the huge budgetary and trade deficits, the steep fall in dollar, the deteriorating job market, the fall in social security and medical insurance cover for millions of Americans, and the looming economic troubles emanating from the trillions of dollar deficit created by the double whammy of tax cuts for the rich and the expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, did not feature large in the reasons why people voted their president in.

              True to the spirit of a devoted people "sacrificing" their material needs for "higher moral values", the American people went for issues like abortion, gay rights and stem cell research.

              These moral issues seem to have been the driving force for both the high turnout of the voters amongst the devoted Christian Americans and their overwhelming support for George W Bush. They were convinced that their society is threatened by corrupt proponents of liberal tendencies, that a "cultural attack" is under way, that they have to take a stand against this threat, and that the God-fearing and devoted President Bush is the best person to provide them with the salvation they need.

              To that end, they were quite happy to ignore all the telltale signals coming out of another four years of the neo-cons policies that have cost them so much so far. As true believers, they were ready to pay the necessary price for their beliefs, to put their values higher than their material and worldly needs. True Christians.

              The millions of Iranians who answered Ayatollah Khomeini's call to support the revolution and his Islamic Republic had similar motives. They too were outraged by a "corrupt culture" (hajmeh farhangi) making inroads into the Iranian society manifested in the western way of life, emancipation of women, and collapse of the traditional values of the Iranian people.

              They saw in Khomeini and his preachings a salvation for all the ills of the society and a promised land wherein not only they can live their Islamic values but would also benefit from a better worldly life. It is intriguing to note that many Americans who voted for George W Bush too believe that he would also provide them with a better life with his economic policies.

              The Iranians who voted for the Islamic Republic were of course in for a big shock. They had to suffer terrible consequences of their choice for a generation in terms of a devastating war, rampant poverty, economic disaster, cruel suppression of their basic rights and freedoms, and widespread social ills such as addiction, prostitution, crime and corruption.

              Not only that, but they got much worse than what they had bargained for in return: instead of an Islamic utopia where their moral values will be safe, they had to come to terms with all sorts of moral decays, hypocrisy at the highest levels of the Islamic regime, and a breakdown of the fabric of society at its root level. They could not expect much in terms of improving the economy -- a subject Khomeini regarded as "belonging to donkeys" -- but they could not imagine that their moral values, too, would be so trampled on.

              The American society of 21st century is of course much different from Iran of late 1970's. But the choice the Americans made last Tuesday may have also more far reaching consequence than they have imagined. They have already had a taste of what the new-cons have for them in terms of engaging Americans in bloody and costly wars in foreign lands.

              But a second term for President Bush with a higher number and bigger margin of votes than the last will act as both an endorsement of his policies in the past and an encouragement to do so more in future.

              The same applies to other policies of the President, most importantly in the economic fields. These policies will have consequences for much longer than the 4 years he will be in office. He will also have the chance of putting his stamps on more permanent bodies of the US institutions such as the Supreme Court, when he is given the task to appoint new members to replace one or more judges who will be leaving the Court soon.

              In short, the effect of this week's vote by the devoted Christians of the United States of America will chart the course for a generation of Americans. Its effect on the outside world too may not be less dramatic or short-lived. The Americans have in effect opted for a revolution based on faith - a Christian Revolution.

              The 59,054,087 people who voted for George W Bush may not be so dumb as the British daily suggested. Neither can it be said of the vast majority of Iranians who welcomed the Islamic Republic. It is the power of faith and religion, combined with the leaders with religious zeal who use and abuse this faith for their political ends. And true, religion is intoxicating and one may do things under the influence of religion that otherwise may found them unreasonable to say the least.

              The Iranian people have seen the terrible outcome of being led by their blind faith - and regret what they did to the core. Obviously, the effect of the American experience will be of quite different kind and magnitude (both locally and internationally). But the Americans too may live to regret this act-of-faith, and then start a long battle to reclaim the secularism and freedom that have been the cornerstone of American democracy and enjoyed by generations of Americans for over two centuries.



              Hossein Bagher Zadeh is a human rights activist and commentator on Iranian political and human rights issues. He is a spokesperson for Manshoor 81 (Charter 2003).
              _____________________

              Comment


              • #8
                Catholic bishops join Christian alliance

                This is a post-election article that will update this thread:
                http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/17/cat....ap/index.html

                WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's Roman Catholic bishops voted Wednesday to join a new alliance that would be the broadest Christian group ever formed in the United States, linking American evangelicals and Catholics in an ecumenical organization for the first time.

                The alliance, called Christian Churches Together in the U.S.A., is set to kick off next year. It would include mainline Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and black and other minority churches. With about 67 million U.S. members, the Catholic Church would be the largest denomination.

                "It's not to create some kind of megabody or megachurch," said Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the ecumenical committee for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "It is a forum for participation so that we can pray together, grow in our understanding together and witness together our faith."

                The vote came as the bishops worked to wrap up business at their fall meeting, which ends Thursday.

                It is considered a biblical imperative for Christians to find ways to build unity among their different denominations. Pope John Paul II has made such efforts a priority of his pontificate.

                The bishops approved the proposal 151-73. Blaire, of Stockton, California, called Wednesday's vote "important and historic."

                The Catholic Church has ongoing ecumenical dialogues with many denominations. However, some evangelical and Pentecostal churches have resisted participating. In the floor debate Wednesday, New York Cardinal Edward Egan noted those churches were worried that such talks risked "watering down their faith."

                In fact, the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, which has more than 16 million members and is the largest Protestant denomination in the country, has so far not agreed to fully join Christian Churches Together.

                Blaire said that among the evangelicals who have agreed to participate are the Salvation Army and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church.

                Later, the bishops will consider launching a multiyear initiative that would strengthen marriage, as the divorce rate remains high and gays lobby for the right to wed, which the church opposes. Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was also expected to give a presentation on his task force on the moral obligations of Catholics in public life.

                Comment

                Working...
                X