When Christians - liberal or conservative - invoke a biblical theocracy as a handy guide to contemporary politics, they threaten our democratic discourse. Numerous "policy papers" from liberal churches and activist groups employ the same approach: they're awash in scriptural references to justice, poverty and peace, stacked alongside claims about global warming, debt relief and the United Nations Security Council.

Christians are right to argue that the Bible is a priceless source of moral and spiritual insight. But they're wrong to treat it as a substitute for a coherent political philosophy.

Loconte errs in his claim that liberals invoke a biblical theocracy when they quote passages from the Old Testament. What is being invoked by liberals who quote from the Old Testament are moral principles. But some conservatives quote the Old Testament not only to invoke moral principles, but also to assert that ancient Israel's theocracy should provide a pattern for a theocracy that they are laboring to build in present day America. Liberals are not treating the Old Testament as a substitute for a coherent political philosophy; however, some dominionists do.

by jhutson on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 09:03:23 PM EST

"democracy needs the moral ballast of religion."

This is one of the things that irritates me most. The implication that somehow, without belief in God, I am "immoral." It is the sort of thing that for me immediately cuts off any possibility of dialogue. I infer from that position that I am percieved as somehow sub-human because I do not believe in the supernatural.

It is the sort of statement that leads to the useless downward spiral of "which side has committed more/worse atrocities?" with one side citing the Inquisition and the other Stalin's purges.
One's moral compass does not require a god to keep it pointed in the right direction. It is also true that belief in god does not neccessarily make a person any more or less moral than non-belief.

by bybelknap on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 11:03:06 AM EST

Two comments I have:

1 - the author completely missed the concept that the Democratic use of liturgical references could entirely be meant as a direct response to the Religious Right - NOT so much as an appeal to the general public... in other words, the use of biblical quotes is a way of saying "see, you can use the bible to justify anything... we (Democrats) can use it just as well as you GOPers"...

2 - How hypocritical is this?!?

A completely secular public square is neither possible nor desirable; democracy needs the moral ballast of religion. But a partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded. When people of faith join political debates, they must welcome those democratic virtues that promote the common good: prudence, reason, compromise - and a realization that politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven.

"A partisan campaign to enlist the sacred is equally wrongheaded"?  What does he think the Religious Right has been doing all this time?

"... politics can't usher in the kingdom of heaven."  I think we'd all be better off if more of the dominionists thought along these lines....

Oh - and I'd love to see some compromise from the RR at some point... these days they are most likely to cry "persecution" when someone tries to compromise instead of give in to their demands...

Personally - I think a more secular public square is possible and desirable... and democracy never needs religion - IMHO moral ballast is provided outside of the religious sphere... (however, what members of a democratic society do with their own religion, is of course, up to them...)

I'm hoping that Joan is right, and this hypocritical rant means we are getting under their collective skin...

-Emily
emilywynn.blogspot.com


by EmilyWynn8 on Tue Jan 03, 2006 at 01:11:01 PM EST