Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Debelak
I am a little suprised that on a forum that comes from a VERY POLITICAL Christian group (in the broad sense of politics - not American politics) and having experienced the damage that comes from invoking God in the service of what is really just politics, there isn't more understanding of the point I'm making.
|
I understand the point you are making. I just think (1) it's fundamentally flawed, and (2) even if it isn't your fear about it is overblown in a democracy. If a theocracy starts invoking God that's one thing. That's a power play. But if a bunch of diverse people each start invoking God for different, diverse causes, they are just identifying that the root of their convictions is the spiritual. What's wrong with that? That sounds like honesty to me.
Really, what's the difference between saying "I think we should help the poor because it's right to do so" and "I think we should help the poor because God wants us to"? Both are saying that helping the poor is in line with what is essentially right and true. They are just saying it in different ways.
In fact, if you don't go back to God eventually, then all convictions are just opinions. Why should we help the poor, really? You can make arguments that it's in the best interests of everyone. But the fact is the power of the idea is that it is about
compassion. Now, why should we be compassionate? Why not just look out for number one? Who says we should help others? What's the source of that idea?
See? Eventually you get back to God whether you want to or not. You seem to be advocating that we should pretend truth doesn't resolve to God when making political arguments. I understand that people should make room for the idea that they could be wrong on their beliefs, and they should respect others' rights to hold their own beliefs. But at some point avoiding the fact that God is the source of what is right is actually a kind of political pretense. There are no "human" matters that do not eventually resolve to him. So why pretend there are, except, ironically, for political gain?