On Passion
"An unabashedly Christian message is not by definition anti-semitic"
Fucking A. I wish more people in public positions would take that, and related sentiments, to heart.
My own religious background was in dour Methodism, and it never really took. As a teen, I bounced around from Methodist to Episcopal to Lutheran to Congregational churches, and never really found much that resonated with me.
What I mainly took away from Christianity when I left (did I leave? I was confirmed a Methodist, but confirmation seemed to be just something you "do" rather than something that "changes you," which runs counter to the whole idea of confirmation in the first place. I mean, I got confirmed, but I never had that inner-light experience that Wesleyans seem to hold as the hallmark of the saved person. Saved? Maybe by a technicality, but don't ask me to accept Jesus as my saviour, because I tried that once and it felt like I was faking it. Better to be an honestly sinful person than a falsely pious one.)
Whew - digression. What I took away from Christianity when I walked away was this understanding of the basic lesson that Jesus taught: that it's good to be nice to people and let them live their lives and you yours. Even though the spiritual aspects of Christianity are lost on me, the ethical and moral lessons went deep. Which is why it burns me up when people use religion as a test or (loaded word) crusade. Since Christianity is inherently an evangelical religion, youre bound to have some measure of urgent fervor for converting nonbelievers, since their eternal happiness in some measure your responsibility. But the flip side of that is the message of tolerance and goodwill that Jesus preached.
This actually came up in a post on Blogmother Kathy Kinsley's site. Kathy excerpts an article from the Observer which compares the Pledge of Allegiance to a test oath, which, as the article observes, was one of the MacGuffins behind the founding of the USA in the first place.
Let me remind those who have forgotten: There is a "pro-God," pro-American argument against putting God in the Pledge, against the worship of a graven image (the flag) that the Pledge requires. If I'm going to pledge allegiance to anything - under God or Vishnu or Whomever - it would be to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is more worthy of true Americans' allegiance than a piece of red, white and blue fabric.
Perhaps it's the sheer historical inattention - if not ignorance - of so many of the supporters of the Pledge, and the all-important "under God" insertion, that gets on my nerves. Could they be unaware of the unsavory history of the "test oath"? I'm sure I don't need to explain test oaths to Observer readers, but for those who skipped that day in class, test oaths were the essential reason that religious and other dissidents fled England to found America. Test oaths were the means by which the Established Church in England enforced its repressive regime: Those who refused to mouth oaths required by the Established Church were often imprisoned, tortured and executed, leading many religious dissidents to leave for America.
Test oaths were one key reason the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the making of laws respecting the establishment of religion. That's what they were talking about. An enforced Pledge of Allegiance - especially the Pledge of Allegiance with the "under God" clause - is nothing but a test oath. It is a violation of everything American democracy is about. If you want to be - was this Mencken's phrase? - a "God botherer," go ahead, wander the halls of the schools, the streets and sidewalks affirming that we are "one nation under God." Just don't force everyone to take a test oath and worship a graven image made out of cloth. Or you can go reside in a nation founded upon test oaths and the worship of graven images. Look them up under "theocracies." You'll be happier there.
This also pertains to my post earlier this week about General Boykin, the chap at the Pentagon who declared Muslims as idolaters. By the way, since when was God an idol? From a Christian perspective, Muslims may well be idolaters, but last time I checked all three People of the Book (Christian, Jew, Muslim) worshiped the same dude.
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
It is important to remember
It is important to remember that the test oaths were specific to the anglican church - if you took the oath, you would be violating some tenent of your faith if you were quaker, methodist, dissenter, catholic, etc. It was a tool to ensure that the established church was supreme. The pledge of allegiance is nothing like that, except that it contains the word "God." Granted, Atheists might be excluded, but they're all commies anyway.
The Pledge would be probably be perfectly fine without those two words. I oppose removing them because I hate change, and that's what I grew up with.
We've had this discussion here before - but to establish a religion means making a state religion. We in no way have that here, unless we're about to make secularism the state religion.
And, there is a difference between idols and gods. Idols are representations of gods, and Christianity, Judaism and Islam forbid the representation of God with varying degrees of fervor. So, technically, Muslims are not idolaters. Boykin is clearly confused on his demonology:
Idolaters worship images
Heretics are people of the same general faith who deviate in doctrine
Pagans are old school polytheists
Infidels are Christians and other non-Muslims
Side note - I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, which has to be the most dried out, dessicated faith ever. I've been much happier since I converted to Orthodoxy.
Tests oaths were specific to
Tests oaths were specific to the Anglican church, but that's all the more reason why the Pledge can be compared to a secular version of the same.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Pledge cannot be compulsory, but that doesn't rule out the use of social pressure or tacit requirement, like in the case of schoolchildren. Thing is, that ruling can only require; it can't force compliance.
I support taking the "under God" part out of the pledge, because it's irrelevant to the mission of the piece. We are uniting under a common flag, not under a common God, regardless of what the Cold Warriors may have said. I fear change as well, but in this case I'd be fine with it.
And anyway, as I remarked at Kathy's site, I'd much rather we teach our children to be engaged, critical patriotic citizens, rather than waste our time arguing about a set of words that can be mouthed without agreement or understanding.
Finally, although Boykin is confused, it seems I was too in my original post. Heretic, infidel, heretic, infidel, who cares? They're all hellbound anyway!
I remember driving by the
I remember driving by the First Baptist Free Will Whole Gospel Bible Church of God back in Ohio with Mrs. Buckethead. I pointed to the church and said, "You know, they probably don't even realize they're heretics."
Mrs. Buckethead (who was not at that point Mrs. Buckethead yet and not quite familiar with my unique comedy stylings) looked at me and said, "Well of course not!"
I'm going to teach young Sir John the as-yet-not-very-large to fear and hate those who do not look, sound, smell or think like him. Then, he'll rebel and be an upstanding and compassionate citizen.