Since I have grown up with the evangelical political machine, last Thursday night's debate provided at least one really fascinating twist. First, we all know how this thing works for both sides. As soon as a candidate and running mate are "sanctified" by their party, from that point on they can do no wrong. It is one of the most amazing examples of irrationality I know. Suddenly the opposer becomes the antichrist and the candidate of your party becomes the messiah.
So normally, Biden provided a great antichrist moment last Thursday. He supported full rights for partners of committed gay couples. Normally this is the moment the machine waits for so that they can rend their clothes and say, "What further evidence do we need?"
The problem this time is that Palin completely agreed with him, and this is McCain's position as well. There was no difference between Palin and Biden on this issue. Both rejected a redefinition of marriage, but both supported full civil rights between homosexual partners.
You'll remember that in the 2004 election, part of Rove's strategy was to put referenda relating to gay marriage on several ballots (e.g., Ohio) to steer people away from Kerry. California has something like this on its ballot this year too. But it's hard for McCain to use it when Obama's position is exactly the same as his.
I have also thought that Palin's comments on Roe v. Wade have been very interesting. Has she come out against abortion, per se? She has supported sending the issue back to the States by repealing Roe v. Wade. And of course, there we know that most states will continue to allow for abortion. It's a clever way of fitting the rubric--I'm against Roe v. Wade--without coming out too specifically against the issue in question.
Nevertheless, in the great Bacchanalia that is election season, most won't notice that McCain and Obama really don't look that much different in their specific positions on this staple issue. The masses will largely assume that the messiah holds their views and the antichrist vigorously opposes them--on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think a Pro-Marriage Amendment can work no matter what position of the head of the ticket has taken. For one thing, many conservative Christians just assume that McCain is one of them. I heard a Liberty University student assume just that on NPR this morning. As evidence she put forward that he had spent his life in public service (make of that what you will...)
More importantly though, these amendments are not tied to the candidates. The whole purpose is to get people to the polls that would not normally show up just to pull the lever for the Republicans. (Warning - Gross stereotype ahead) All those gray-haired church ladies are going to cast a ballot to prevent homoSEXuals from recruiting their grandchildren. If that cute, young John McCain is on the ballot, too, well, so much the better.
Why is it that any issue is seen in black or white terms? Certainly, if one of the candidates were homosexual, then, it would be seen as a "self-interest" issue, which could or could not be the case. And, then, if someone of the opposing opinion was a family member or friend, then the issue begins to not be as clear, because we don't demogogue those we have a relationship to and know (unless one is in an environment that deifies "Law)...Even Palin, herself, said she had a dear lesbian friend, who she disagreed with, but she still associates with....
Unfortunately, there are many fundamentalists that believe that the Scriptures forbid associating with the immoral and they can cite book and verse. I used to disassociate myself, as well, until I realized that there would be few left on earth, if I were honest about applying "scriptural principle".
I find it fascinating that those who are so venemous about some issues often end up being exposed for some hidden sin themselves. There must be a psychological term fot this phenomena.
I think it is important to understand that there are always at least two ways of looking at an issue. Discussion can only help bring understanding. But, politics unfortunately is a tight rope between being flexible in one's views without coming across as lacking conviction (anti-nomian)....OR, being convicted in one's views, without coming across like the Gestapo (nomism)!
Unfortunately, Christian culture in some contexts leaves little room to breathe, that is to differ. It is conformity to the extreme of labelling the other as an unbeliever. But, then, I think even identifying the "saved and lost" is futile and foolish. One can talk about what is more beneficial to life, but who really knows the mind of God?
The issues of homosexuality and abortion have one thing in common, sexual behavior. And since, sexual behavior is THE issue that defines the boundaries around the family unit, there is a hypervigilence over maintaining those boundaries. But, I really don't understand the fear that circles around the issue.
Is their fear about being "righteous" (self), or about being "right with God" (God), or about family identity (social structure), or society's flourishing (ethic), or all of the above? I can appreciate these concerns, but I may disagree as to how to go about expressing that concern...and to which concern is prioritized....
The "new Republican" party is offering the country an alternative to the left wing radical democrats, it is called "Liberalism Lite."
I never thought there was much difference between candidates in regards to many moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but I definitely have a hard time swallowing anything Obama tells me about the economy/change/tax break for 90%+ of americans when he is proposing some of the most massive expansion of the government ever. Granted the bailout plan already started to accomplish that. Still, the idea of reform and controlled spending proposed by Mccain eases my worries a little as does having a person in the white house with some executive experience. I find it so hard to believe how we can elect people to basically this highest executive position in the world after only serving a few months in Congress and having never run anything as complicated as a gas station, let alone a city or major company or state. Crazy.
Bush has definitely been a dissapointment, but for me it is only becuase of his economic policies and the continued increase in spending. He has been very un-republican in that regard.
I wish someone, the esteemed Dr. Schenck, or Coach D, or whoever (Bounds)would write something on the implications of civil unions, since that seems to be where we might be headed. I refer to the implications for the Church, for public education and for the nuclear family. I realize that I can get a definite opinion on this by looking over at Focus on the Family, and in truth I generally agree with their views. As one of my college profs said, "Dobson is an alarmist, but he is usually right."
But I respect the minds at IWU and think that you guys obviously play off each other with great benefit, I would love to hear what you think.
JM, many of your answers can be found by looking around. As for society, it's not illegal to be homosexual, to engage in homosexual activity in the privacy of one's home, and bear children (if you got the right body parts). You can live together and own joint property. All that a civil union provides is a streamlined mechanism for instituting a partnership that could otherwise be cobbled together with a bunch of customized legal documents. Surely there will be more such arrangements when the law makes it easier, but I have a hard time believing that it will cause more same sex couples to choose longterm commitments.
As for the church, well I don't see that civil unions will change much there either. Churches have full right to be more restrictive than the secular law. Already the Catholic Church can deny a church wedding for any number of reasons. Heck, some churches still refuse to marry two people of different races. My own denomination, The United Methodist Church, bars its clergy from performing any kind of same sex blessing, even in states where the law permits them. Having more states that allow civil unions will not change that, at least not directly. But what's going to happen is that social attitudes will change as straights realize that gays are not dangerous or scary. As a result, good Christians will rethink their theology and ask themselves again just what is God's will for God's people. Thinking about theology is good. More people should do it.
Jose,
No offense, but I find your comments scary. I know plenty of gays, and the fact that I don't find them "scary" is not enough to make me reformulate my theology. I would add, further, that just because gay people are "nice" doesn't mean they are not dangerous.
I am looking for informed opinions from real theologians, not corner Joes such as me.
Let me rephrase a point and see whether you agree. If an irrational fear or prejudice prevents you from confronting and accepting the true Gospel, then doesn't it make sense to put aside your fears and reconsider your beliefs? That's what evangelists have to contend with every day, getting people to see things in a new light and open their hearts to new possibilities.
Obviously I'm not suggesting anything other than searching for God's truth. Some people do find that prospect scary because it leads them in directions that are unfamiliar or uncomfortable. Maybe you are that rare individual who has no such prejudices, in which case I extend my congratulations. Pray for the rest of us to have a clear vision to see the truth and a strong character to act accordingly.
Post a Comment