s***@yahoo.com
2005-04-27 05:58:25 UTC
The war on religion
By Paul Greenberg
Mark Pryor, the junior senator from Arkansas, may not make the news
very often, but when he does say something newsworthy, it's a doozy.
The other day, he strongly objected to those religious fanatics
(fa-nat-ics -- anyone who disagrees with you strongly) who have
campaigned against the never-ending filibuster that denies the
president's judicial nominees a straight up-or-down vote in the U.S.
Senate.
Mark Pryor wasn't so much challenging these folks' political views
but their daring to express them. It's unbecoming, you see, for church
people to participate in the low rough-and-tumble of politics. Their
tactics, he says, could "make the followers of Jesus Christ just
another special interest group."
So shut up, he explained.
It's all enough to bring back memories of the good ol' bad old days
in these Southern latitudes. Back in the Furious '50s, those defending
the political status quo relied heavily on the filibuster, too, and
they, too, objected to preachers sticking their noses into politics and
riling folks.
Back then, it was the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (talk about mixing politics and
religion) that caused all the trouble and stirred up folks for no good
reason.
Religion may be a fine, stained-glass thing in its purely
ornamental place, but to actually take a stand on religious conviction
and fight for it, whether it's picketing a lunch counter or driving the
money-changers from the Temple, well, then you've gone from preachin'
to meddlin' -- and become a special interest, to use Mark Pryor's
damning description.
"We do need to think about the tone that we as Christians are
setting," Mr. Pryor said in a conference call with some reporters from
Arkansas, "and think about the examples we are setting."
Note the senator's reference to "we as Christians" -- he's not
above speaking for Christians in general when it suits his purposes.
And that is the charge he levels against those preachers opposing the
filibuster.
The senator's objections to religion in politics seem limited to
the Religious Right. Has he ever had a bad word for those religious
groups that have joined him in trying to save the filibuster? I have
yet to hear him go after the Interfaith Alliance, which just held a
teleconference to attack the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate.
Apparently Mr. Pryor wants to censor only some church groups. It
won't work. Anyone, including a U.S. senator, who thinks he can keep
religious ideas out of the political arena here must be talking about,
well, a different country. France, maybe, or the old Soviet Union. Or
Mexico in one of its anti-clerical seizures.
Religious concepts have been woven into the fabric of this republic
from its conception: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness. ..."
And what of Lincoln's immortal Second Inaugural, this country's
second declaration of dependence on divine Providence? Stripped of its
religious references, it would be meaningless.
And think of all the great protest movements that have made, and
are making, America what it is and is becoming. Successful or
unsuccessful, right or wrong, from abolition to civil rights,
Prohibition to Pro-Life, so many have been rooted in religious
conviction. Americans' moral imagination, so much a part of our
national character, is inseparable from our religious roots.
Mr. Pryor has every right to disagree with those whose religious
convictions lead them to different conclusions. It's a free country,
which means the political brawl is open to all comers. But the senator
has no right to keep some Americans from expressing their honest
convictions.
Most dismaying about the Pryor remarks is that he wasn't arguing
the substance of the political issue at hand -- the filibuster against
the president's judicial nominees -- but that some folks, namely
Christians, shouldn't express their views. Or at least should censor
their words to please him.
How strange. To borrow a line Mark Twain uttered when he ran across
an equally strange notion: It's not anti-American, it's not
un-American, it's French.
Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.
By Paul Greenberg
Mark Pryor, the junior senator from Arkansas, may not make the news
very often, but when he does say something newsworthy, it's a doozy.
The other day, he strongly objected to those religious fanatics
(fa-nat-ics -- anyone who disagrees with you strongly) who have
campaigned against the never-ending filibuster that denies the
president's judicial nominees a straight up-or-down vote in the U.S.
Senate.
Mark Pryor wasn't so much challenging these folks' political views
but their daring to express them. It's unbecoming, you see, for church
people to participate in the low rough-and-tumble of politics. Their
tactics, he says, could "make the followers of Jesus Christ just
another special interest group."
So shut up, he explained.
It's all enough to bring back memories of the good ol' bad old days
in these Southern latitudes. Back in the Furious '50s, those defending
the political status quo relied heavily on the filibuster, too, and
they, too, objected to preachers sticking their noses into politics and
riling folks.
Back then, it was the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (talk about mixing politics and
religion) that caused all the trouble and stirred up folks for no good
reason.
Religion may be a fine, stained-glass thing in its purely
ornamental place, but to actually take a stand on religious conviction
and fight for it, whether it's picketing a lunch counter or driving the
money-changers from the Temple, well, then you've gone from preachin'
to meddlin' -- and become a special interest, to use Mark Pryor's
damning description.
"We do need to think about the tone that we as Christians are
setting," Mr. Pryor said in a conference call with some reporters from
Arkansas, "and think about the examples we are setting."
Note the senator's reference to "we as Christians" -- he's not
above speaking for Christians in general when it suits his purposes.
And that is the charge he levels against those preachers opposing the
filibuster.
The senator's objections to religion in politics seem limited to
the Religious Right. Has he ever had a bad word for those religious
groups that have joined him in trying to save the filibuster? I have
yet to hear him go after the Interfaith Alliance, which just held a
teleconference to attack the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate.
Apparently Mr. Pryor wants to censor only some church groups. It
won't work. Anyone, including a U.S. senator, who thinks he can keep
religious ideas out of the political arena here must be talking about,
well, a different country. France, maybe, or the old Soviet Union. Or
Mexico in one of its anti-clerical seizures.
Religious concepts have been woven into the fabric of this republic
from its conception: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness. ..."
And what of Lincoln's immortal Second Inaugural, this country's
second declaration of dependence on divine Providence? Stripped of its
religious references, it would be meaningless.
And think of all the great protest movements that have made, and
are making, America what it is and is becoming. Successful or
unsuccessful, right or wrong, from abolition to civil rights,
Prohibition to Pro-Life, so many have been rooted in religious
conviction. Americans' moral imagination, so much a part of our
national character, is inseparable from our religious roots.
Mr. Pryor has every right to disagree with those whose religious
convictions lead them to different conclusions. It's a free country,
which means the political brawl is open to all comers. But the senator
has no right to keep some Americans from expressing their honest
convictions.
Most dismaying about the Pryor remarks is that he wasn't arguing
the substance of the political issue at hand -- the filibuster against
the president's judicial nominees -- but that some folks, namely
Christians, shouldn't express their views. Or at least should censor
their words to please him.
How strange. To borrow a line Mark Twain uttered when he ran across
an equally strange notion: It's not anti-American, it's not
un-American, it's French.
Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.