Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Who Are The Dangerous Fundamentalists?

I was heartened to read a piece today by New York Times columnist Frank Bruni on the dangers inherent in using lables such as "religious right" to characterize Christians. Bruni makes some astute comments on the kind of Christianity espoused by US politician and sometime presidential hopeful Michelle Bachmann. Bachmann is back in the news for denouncing a prominent Washington politico and onetime Hilary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, as a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator and security threat.

Bruni asks the question, should we accept a poltician's self-description as being "deeply religious" when it clashes with our understandings (and there are many) of what it means to be a religious person? Why, Bruni asks, do "we accept [Bachmann's] descriptions of herself, and in turn describe her, as a deeply religious woman. That grants too much credence to her particular, peculiar and highly selective definition of piety. And it offends the many admirable people of faith whose understanding and practice of religion aren’t, like hers, confrontational and small-minded."

Bruni is right to point to a Christian spectrum in North America that is widely divided between left and right, and where some may be socially liberal but theologicaly conservative. He's right to remind us that extremism is extremism and fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether we are talking about certain Moslems or certain Christians. He raises the interesting question, are extremist Christians in government more of a threat than potential Moslem infiltrators?

Before we accept a leader's claims that they are religious, Bruni suggests that we first examine their actions. He quotes US mayor Corey Booker, who says “Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people. Before you tell me how much you love your God, show me how much you love all His children.”

4 comments:

Grenzer John said...

Yes indeed, sir!

Thomas Nissvik said...

Wow. As a Rightie, you know you have stepped over the line when John McCain tells you to chill out!

Lentulus said...

"should we accept a poltician's self-description as being "deeply religious" when it clashes with our understandings (and there are many) of what it means to be a religious person?"

Well, indeed, why should we not? I accept the statements of piety of my Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist colleagues. Why not accept the statement of a person who maintains that she is Christian no matter how much she and I might disagree about the proper relationship between God and Man?

What worries me is the idea that religion - and more so piety - should be a measure of the desirability of a politician serving in office. Judge them by their actions, yes, but not their actions as pious Christians but their actions as good politicians. The ability to compromise and organize support in order to put in place legislation and policies that I agree with is far more important than what holy days they keep.

Indeed, following the teaching "when you pray, pray in secret" I vastly distrust any politician who trumpets his faith on the street-corner for that is what "...the hypocrites do." They shall not have my vote as their reward.

Laura@HappyCanadianHome.com said...

Loved that article! Thanks for posting it!

Mad Padre

Mad Padre
Opinions expressed within are in no way the responsibility of anyone's employers or facilitating agencies and should by rights be taken as nothing more than one person's notional musings, attempted witticisms, and prayerful posturings.

Followers

Blog Archive

Labels