Religion and Politics

The left is in full attack on traditional religion. They show this by their oddly timed attacks on the Pope, and their selective outrage about what Conservatives say, while the actions of their allies get excused. The lesson is the left misunderstands traditional religion and they will redefine faith to fit their agenda. For the left, religion is political.

Pope Benedict has been under fire for weeks now. Critics claim, when the Pope was a Cardinal, he covered up sexual abuse of deaf boys in the 1950’s, ‘60’s and ‘70’s. As more and more information comes to light, we will all learn more about who was involved. It is curious, however, that the Catholic Church has had disproportionate media attention over the last decade. Now, it is obvious that abuse happened over the last several decades, but many in the media seem to take great joy in reporting the abuse.

Similarly, the reaction to Glen Beck’s statement, instructing congregants of churches who espouse “Social Justice,” to “run as fast as you can,” has brought outraged reactions from some churches and the usual suspects on the left. However, is the reaction to Beck’s statement, simply reaction for reaction’s sake? Likewise was President Obama’s appeals to left leaning churches to support his Health Care initiative, but that was not seen as offensive. The left will excuse their allies for manipulation of religion for political reasons, but they would never excuse someone on the right for similar actions. Maybe the attacks on the Pope and Beck are aimed at those who don’t buy their version of religion.

Pertaining to Beck, I’ll be honest; I didn’t hear Beck’s statement on the radio or later on television. When I did hear it, my first thought was, “why was I hearing about this from people who don’t watch or listen to him.” In fact I would wager that most people who are reacting weren’t listening to either of his shows but probably read about, or saw a brief clip on Huffington Post or some other left leaning source. So, after I heard about it, I went back to see what he had said. I looked for the actual clip in context, and as I did, I discovered a few things that the reactionaries ignored or missed.

Beck had been discussing Religion at length and had participated in a conference on the importance of faith (traditional religion) in the United States. He was also looking back at the use of the term “social justice” in the context where it has been used to accomplish any sort of “new” social plan, from Hitlerism, Bolshevism to the Jacobins. He’s not entirely wrong, but he does have a tendency to paint with a pretty broad brush. This has been seen in his use of the word “progressive,” to put John McCain under the same umbrella as Che Guevara. In the case of condemning churches that might have the term “social justice,” in their literature or on their website, again the brush is too broad, but he was not being attacked for using too broad of a brush.

The reactions to his statement and the attacks on Catholics are directed at a traditional view of Christianity. In many of the articles written about what Beck said, the immediate reaction usually has a passage from the New Testament about attending to the poor, self sacrifice or loving one’s neighbor. Few people of Christian faith (or many other faiths) would dispute the importance of these passages. Where those on the left miss the point is why charity is important and what “acceptance” implies.

Let’s explore the first point about charity. Many on the left speak of the importance of governmental social service programs reciting the Biblical admonition to serve the poor, while dismissing religious conservatives for not accepting this view. In an interview in the ‘90s, Arnold Schwarzenegger was asked about his choice of joining the Republican Party. The future Governor of California, after acknowledging his party affiliation, said, “-but I do believe that people need help.” Arnold’s quote implies that other Republicans don’t like to help people, and therefore are not real Christians. This perception is worsened by those who misconstrue Ayn Rand, who in an interview near the end of her life with Phil Donahue, spoke of avoiding the tendency of wanting to be overly charitable, which left Donahue awestruck. Phil would ask in his Shakespearean way, “Don’t you believe in helping people.” Ms Rand (who is an Atheist) wasn’t implying that personal charity is bad. She was warning of charity being the realm of governmental institution, which often leads to more despotic motives.

Neither Arnold nor Ms. Rand explained, or perhaps understood, that serving others willfully is a powerfully transformative act. This is also what the left often misunderstands. While charity is done to lend aid to our fellow man, it is actually meant to benefit both receiver and giver. When a charitable aid is done by a large faceless institution, how does the giver spiritually benefit? In Christianity, or other traditional religions, charity is meant to be a humbling experience of personal and intimate choice. This beautiful practice occurs when we can see both participants (receiver and giver) being transformed, for the better through, willful involvement.

The second way, of how he left redefines religion away from tradition is the misconception that a “pure Christian,” accepts all lifestyles and behaviors without judgment or criticism. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of Biblical teachings and often religious teachings in general. As I wrote in the introduction, for the left, religion is political. One sign on a church, reacting to Beck’s statement said, “Mr. Beck, Christ taught Social Justice.” One of the many problems with this statement on a church’s sign is that this church wouldn’t condemn anything but condemnation itself. In a press release the pastor of the congregation spoke of his belief that serving the poor and accepting gay, lesbian and trans-gender lifestyles is God’s will. This pastor has bought into the left’s remaking of religion.

In a previous article, I explained how some of Buddhism was transformed by the anti-war movement of the 1960’s, even to the point of ignoring the “Five Precepts” of the ancient and glorious faith. One of the precepts is that practitioners ‘avoid sexual misconduct.’ Buddhist teaching had traditionally described this precept to include homosexual behavior, but with the need for the new and growing faith, in the U.S, the traditional stance was inconvenient, so it was removed. The same thing has happened in Christianity. It has long been understood in the Christian world that relationships outside of male and female marriage are not acceptable. While the New Testament does teach of love for one’s fellow man, it does condemn extramarital relations. When John The Baptist condemned the extramarital affair of a public figure, which eventually cost John his life, his close relative, Jesus, did not say that it wasn’t John’s business to make a judgment of someone else’s “life choice.” On the contrary, Jesus praised John. This story is inconvenient, to the new and “open” Christianity of the west, or more specifically, the U.S; so it is ignored like an inconvenient Buddhist precept. Can Christians be Christian (or any traditional religion be true to itself) if they would sacrifices their traditional moral codes for a more “politically correct” version of themselves? Religion is meant to humble and to transform practitioners. If the practitioners transform their respective faiths to fit popular and social pressure, then what personal transformation do the practitioners achieve?

Catholicism and other traditional religions will continue to be attacked for their traditional stances. We should simply be aware that the left’s outrage is selective. Those who jump at the chance to defame the practitioners of traditional religion, do so because those practitioners don’t buy what the left is selling. For the left, if religion has a purpose it is only to forward their ideology.