The Democrats are clueless about faith
Protein Wisdom reports that the Democrats plan to make a great to-do about "faith" at their convention in Denver this summer.
But why should "faith," in the abstract, be seen as praiseworthy, or even worth noticing? In precisely what sense is "faith-" again, in the abstract- even meaningful? People can have "faith" in a great many things. And even people whose faith is religious have a great deal less in common than those whose faith is in, say, materialism tend to imagine.
Clearly, to make a similar to-do about Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or any other specific faith at a political convention would be no-no. I'm sure that the Democrats would agree that to be even more substantial, and single out a particular form of a particular religion- Catholicism, say, or Sunni Islam, or a specific school of Buddhism- would be even more out of place.
So is the point that "faith" is good, but only when it's general, insubstantial, and abstract? What about faith in Marxism, or Thugee, or the alleged superiority of the Caucasian race? The Democrat's discovery of "faith" makes about as much sense as their opening their convention to "people interested in politics," rather than to people whose political beliefs happen to classify them as Democrats!
Religions and other "faiths" teach different things. As hard as a great many people find this concept to accept, it's precisely in their differences that the substance of the various religious traditions are often found. The Democrats' problem with Americans to whom religion is meaningful not that they have been insufficiently attentive to religion as such. Rather, it's that their positions on abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues rather consistently and dramatically conflict with the historic teachings of the specific faith tradition to which a plurality of Americans belong.
Now, it's true, once again, that their are those who claim the specific Christian label- liberal Catholics and "mainline" Protestants, for the most part- who take the view that all prayer should be addressed, "To Whom it May Concern," and who strive to make what is fairly patent in the Bible and in the Christian tradition seem unclear and in need of either "reinterpretation," or some more honest form of dismissal. Barak Obama's United Church of Christ is one of the biggest offenders. But if the Democrats' concern for "people of faith" in general as going to resonate with anyone, it will only be with those whose religious viewpoint is so broad- and shallow- as to have no particular content other than social liberalism anyway.
The Democrats' problem with the rest of us believers isn't that they don't acknowledge religious believers as a class. It's that their positions on social issues are untenable with those who take the Bible seriously as a source of belief, rather than as something onto which they can project their preconceived ideas. And that, the Democrats' apparent rediscovery of "faith" doesn't even begin to address.
There is simply no such thing as "faith in general." Faith doesn't become faith until it has some content, and therefore some specificity. God, so to speak- literally any god- is in the details. But apparently, the Democrats have yet to figure this out.
HT: RealClearPolitics
But why should "faith," in the abstract, be seen as praiseworthy, or even worth noticing? In precisely what sense is "faith-" again, in the abstract- even meaningful? People can have "faith" in a great many things. And even people whose faith is religious have a great deal less in common than those whose faith is in, say, materialism tend to imagine.
Clearly, to make a similar to-do about Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or any other specific faith at a political convention would be no-no. I'm sure that the Democrats would agree that to be even more substantial, and single out a particular form of a particular religion- Catholicism, say, or Sunni Islam, or a specific school of Buddhism- would be even more out of place.
So is the point that "faith" is good, but only when it's general, insubstantial, and abstract? What about faith in Marxism, or Thugee, or the alleged superiority of the Caucasian race? The Democrat's discovery of "faith" makes about as much sense as their opening their convention to "people interested in politics," rather than to people whose political beliefs happen to classify them as Democrats!
Religions and other "faiths" teach different things. As hard as a great many people find this concept to accept, it's precisely in their differences that the substance of the various religious traditions are often found. The Democrats' problem with Americans to whom religion is meaningful not that they have been insufficiently attentive to religion as such. Rather, it's that their positions on abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other issues rather consistently and dramatically conflict with the historic teachings of the specific faith tradition to which a plurality of Americans belong.
Now, it's true, once again, that their are those who claim the specific Christian label- liberal Catholics and "mainline" Protestants, for the most part- who take the view that all prayer should be addressed, "To Whom it May Concern," and who strive to make what is fairly patent in the Bible and in the Christian tradition seem unclear and in need of either "reinterpretation," or some more honest form of dismissal. Barak Obama's United Church of Christ is one of the biggest offenders. But if the Democrats' concern for "people of faith" in general as going to resonate with anyone, it will only be with those whose religious viewpoint is so broad- and shallow- as to have no particular content other than social liberalism anyway.
The Democrats' problem with the rest of us believers isn't that they don't acknowledge religious believers as a class. It's that their positions on social issues are untenable with those who take the Bible seriously as a source of belief, rather than as something onto which they can project their preconceived ideas. And that, the Democrats' apparent rediscovery of "faith" doesn't even begin to address.
There is simply no such thing as "faith in general." Faith doesn't become faith until it has some content, and therefore some specificity. God, so to speak- literally any god- is in the details. But apparently, the Democrats have yet to figure this out.
HT: RealClearPolitics
Comments