In a religious context, it is a vulgar but completely legitimate expression of faith. In a political context in a secular society, it is a toxin that will eventually corrode civil discourse into sectarian warfare. Which is, of course, what the Christianists want. They have the biggest sect, after all. ~Andrew Sullivan
If they existed, Christianists would be interesting people. They would have to believe at one and the same time that they must make God’s will into the law of the land and enforce Christian doctrine throughout society and be convinced that the best instrument for this goal was the utterly secular, Mammon-serving Republican Party. They would have to be completely fanatical and at the same time completely indifferent that their chosen vehicle of political power was basically hostile to everything they sought to achieve (which is one of the reasons why, despite decades of trying, they have achieved next to nothing). They would have to be able to turn their fanaticism on and off with a readily available switch, which makes them rather less worrisome as the founders of the future theocratic nightmare to come.
Sullivan’s larger point is worth keeping in mind: so long as it remains nicely separated from anything involving real life, confined to an irrelevant private sphere of “religion” that need never include venturing outside beyond the front door, religious faith is fine, albeit a bit crude for the high-minded doubt-filled pundit, but once it moves into the public sphere it is poisonous and vile. Devotion to the Lord, once it escapes the safe environs of the closet, becomes an acid that destroys the bonds of the political community. That is what Sullivan and other such “skeptical” conservatives believe about religion. Religious conservatives would do well to remember this whenever they are tempted to entertain sympathy for the appeals of the “skeptics” to reason and moderation.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 15th, 2007 at 7:09 am
JohnMcG
And this dis-integration of religion and public life is more radical and un-conservative than anything in the “Christianist” agenda.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:07 am
amsam
If you consider the Republican Party to have pursued an “utterly secular” legislative course over the last term and a half, I’d hate to see the party you’d consider religious. In any case, the Christian Right did choose the Republican party. I have trouble seeing what you’re disputing in Andrew’s statement.
Interesting that to keep religion in the private sphere renders it “irrelevant” for you. My impression was that most people consider religion to be primarily a private spiritual practice. Your contempt for that notion reinforces Sullivan’s concern.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Kosmo
All for … as much latitude as John Rawls thinks appropriate?
August 15th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Kosmo
All for … at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life?
August 15th, 2007 at 11:27 am
JohnMcG
“…most people consider religion to be primarily a private spiritual practice. ”
If they do, then what they are practicing is not Christianity, or at least not the Christianity Jesus espoused Himself.
That there is a public aspect of Christianity is not a modern innovation of the “Christianists.” It has always been a part of it. It’s why there are Christian hospitals and shleters and food banks.