'An Evangelical Manifesto' criticizes politics of faith

oops, meant to put this in the Relgion forum. please move :(

Who wrote it Shoes? Reads like a Gary Willis enterprise, and do you have link?

Os Guiness? Gary Mwouw?

Never heard of them, CNN is about as trustworthy as eating peanut brittle with broken teeth...

The actual "Manifesto" doesnt come out until Wednesday I believe. So who is involved, and what it actually says wont be known until then I suppose.

It becomes an ideology when they tell us the want to amend the Constitution and dictate policy according to what their God tells them. Quit doing that and it won't be ridiculed by people who don't want the Bible replacing the Constitution.

I don't think anyone but Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to reflect biblical principles. The government can barely manage to govern what they already have, let alone trying to establish and run a religion? No thanks, leave that to the pastors and preachers.

However this does not equate to completely removing all references to God/religion from all aspects of government.

There has been a happy median since 1776. This country has done well and prosperred with Christianity right along side. The recent outrage from both sides is a result of one side trying to upset that happy median, and the other side trying to keep it in balance. Pitting Constitution in opposition to Religion, forgetting that all the while they have lived in harmony for over 200 years.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

I don't think anyone but Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to reflect biblical principles. The government can barely manage to govern what they already have, let alone trying to establish and run a religion? No thanks, leave that to the pastors and preachers.

However this does not equate to completely removing all references to God/religion from all aspects of government.

There has been a happy median since 1776. This country has done well and prosperred with Christianity right along side. The recent outrage from both sides is a result of one side trying to upset that happy median, and the other side trying to keep it in balance. Pitting Constitution in opposition to Religion, forgetting that all the while they have lived in harmony for over 200 years.

I get it, it is all one side and not the other

"Dolphan7 wrote:

I don't think anyone but Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to reflect biblical principles. The government can barely manage to govern what they already have, let alone trying to establish and run a religion? No thanks, leave that to the pastors and preachers.

However this does not equate to completely removing all references to God/religion from all aspects of government.

There has been a happy median since 1776. This country has done well and prosperred with Christianity right along side. The recent outrage from both sides is a result of one side trying to upset that happy median, and the other side trying to keep it in balance. Pitting Constitution in opposition to Religion, forgetting that all the while they have lived in harmony for over 200 years.

My dad's boss is going to run for Congress in TN. I was talking with my dad about joining the campaign so that I could get some experience. He is a Republican running against a Republican incumbent with $1 million in the bank. His message is that she isn't conservative enough. He wants to amend the Constitution in favor of it being in aligned with his Evangelical views. So needless to say I'm a bit concerned about joining his campaign.

References to God/religion is one thing (even then I could argue its endorsing one religion over another). The far right doesn't want references, which they have everywhere you look. You can't go half a mile in the south without seeing a church. And in that sense you are right. Its not like their ability to practice their religion is being oppressed. They have had that ability for over 200 years. The problem is that everyone else isn't practicing it the way they are and that is a problem for the rest of us.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

I don't think anyone but Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to reflect biblical principles. The government can barely manage to govern what they already have, let alone trying to establish and run a religion? No thanks, leave that to the pastors and preachers.

However this does not equate to completely removing all references to God/religion from all aspects of government.

There has been a happy median since 1776. This country has done well and prosperred with Christianity right along side. The recent outrage from both sides is a result of one side trying to upset that happy median, and the other side trying to keep it in balance. Pitting Constitution in opposition to Religion, forgetting that all the while they have lived in harmony for over 200 years.

Huckabee and his supporters. He wasnt being booed at rallies when he was talking about amending the constitution.

"DevilFin13 wrote:

My dad's boss is going to run for Congress in TN. I was talking with my dad about joining the campaign so that I could get some experience. He is a Republican running against a Republican incumbent with $1 million in the bank. His message is that she isn't conservative enough. He wants to amend the Constitution in favor of it being in aligned with his Evangelical views. So needless to say I'm a bit concerned about joining his campaign.

References to God/religion is one thing (even then I could argue its endorsing one religion over another). The far right doesn't want references, which they have everywhere you look. You can't go half a mile in the south without seeing a church. And in that sense you are right. Its not like their ability to practice their religion is being oppressed. They have had that ability for over 200 years. The problem is that everyone else isn't practicing it the way they are and that is a problem for the rest of us.

I guess you would have to ask specifically what does he want to amend?

Rights to Life of an unborn child?

Marriage as being between one man and one woman? These are the two hot button issues among christians.

"DonShula84 wrote:

Huckabee and his supporters. He wasnt being booed at rallies when he was talking about amending the constitution.

The two hot button issues are marriage and abortion. Amending the constitution is only one way to deal with these issues, and not the most popular. State by state legislation is the battleground for these.

It is a soundbite issue anyway, it takes all three branches of government to amend the constitution anyway and 2/3 of the states have to ratify it, or something like that. So it isn't just one guy that can fullfill any promise along those lines.

"Dolphan7 wrote:

The two hot button issues are marriage and abortion. Amending the constitution is only one way to deal with these issues, and not the most popular. State by state legislation is the battleground for these.

It is a soundbite issue anyway, it takes all three branches of government to amend the constitution anyway and 2/3 of the states have to ratify it, or something like that. So it isn't just one guy that can fullfill any promise along those lines.

I know he would never be successful in amending the Constitution, just wanting to try is enough for me to not like him though.

Here's the "manifesto" for anyone who wants to read it, or see who's involved. I wouldnt expect any big named people to be involved, they're making far too much money off the way evangelicals are currently constituted to support and type of change imo.

http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/

a snippet of the summary:

First, we repudiate two equal and opposite errors into which many Christians have fallen. One error is to privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only. Such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity.
The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.
Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness.
Second, we repudiate the two extremes that define the present culture in the United States. On one side, we repudiate the partisans of a sacred public square, those who would continue to give one religion a preferred place in public life.
In a diverse society, it will always be unjust and unworkable to privilege one religion. We are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths. We are firmly opposed to theocracy. And we have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose beliefs and behavior on anyone. We believe in persuasion.
On the other side, we repudiate the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. This position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens, who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are.
We are committed to a civil public square – a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well. Every right we assert for ourselves as Christians is a right we defend for all others.

That's a pretty well stated manifesto. Being self critical and hitting both sides makes me somewhat sympathetic to the cause. Hopefully this has some influence on people.

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness.
Second, we repudiate the two extremes that define the present culture in the United States. On one side, we repudiate the partisans of a sacred public square, those who would continue to give one religion a preferred place in public life.
In a diverse society, it will always be unjust and unworkable to privilege one religion. We are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths. We are firmly opposed to theocracy. And we have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose beliefs and behavior on anyone. We believe in persuasion.

This is exactly the right approach. This is why I left the Republican Party in 2000, right after the dispicable election fiasco. Shame on both parties for that. We Christians should not place our faith in men, political parties or governments, because eventually they will all let you down as we have seen time and time again. No! Our faith is in Jesus Christ, who never let's us down - Amen!

I think that there is a place for religion in a secular country, as evidence that this country has prospered with religion along side for over 200 years.

On the other side, we repudiate the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. This position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens, who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are.

Couldn't agree more. Instead of taking God out of the country, stripping out the history of religion in this country, instead why not create various religious traditions. The feud over saying happy holidays verses merry christmas for instance. If you want to say merry christmas - say it and you shouldn't be ashamed of it. If you want to say happy hanukah, - say it, and you shouldn't feel ashamed....etc....If the Ten Commandments offfend you in a US Court room/house, don't remove it, add to it with your own moral code of conduct. We could all benefit from more morals in this country, not less. Amen!

People should be allowed to vote their conscience, whether that conscience is based on religion .....or any other source of moral value ..shouldn't matter.

I agree with everything you said except for the 10 Commandments being in a court room. The Commandments are a good moral code for anyone to live by. But if I've seen a state sponsorship of one religion over others that would be up there as a pretty good example of it. Our Constitution and laws are perfectly acceptable moral codes. And if a judge really feels so strongly as to display the Commandments because of personal faith I would advise that he/she should maybe be a priest over a judge.

"DevilFin13 wrote:

I agree with everything you said except for the 10 Commandments being in a court room. The Commandments are a good moral code for anyone to live by. But if I've seen a state sponsorship of one religion over others that would be up there as a pretty good example of it. Our Constitution and laws are perfectly acceptable moral codes. And if a judge really feels so strongly as to display the Commandments because of personal faith I would advise that he/she should maybe be a priest over a judge.

Ok I understand your view. But what harm is having the Ten Commandments in a US Court room? Three of the Commandments are staples in our Justice System- Don't lie, steal or murder.

Having them displayed is not a government endorsement - meaning there is no State mandate to force belief or establish a certain religion over another. It is just a plaque on a wall that means something to some, and nothing to others.

Like I said - instead of tearing an example of good morals codes off the wall, why don't we add other good moral codes alongside it?

Well the 10 Commandments are so general that its hard for any religion or nonreligion to be offended. So the only way people would be offended is because its clearly a Christian document and they would probably want a representation of their religion to go right along with it. And also as you say, three of them are staples of our justice system. So why bother with the redundency other than to show everyone how Christian we are? Why not let our Constitution and laws stand on their own?

"DevilFin13 wrote:

Well the 10 Commandments are so general that its hard for any religion or nonreligion to be offended. So the only way people would be offended is because its clearly a Christian document and they would probably want a representation of their religion to go right along with it. And also as you say, three of them are staples of our justice system. So why bother with the redundency other than to show everyone how Christian we are? Why not let our Constitution and laws stand on their own?

Because Christianity is also part of our history and our heritage. America is one of the most generous nations in the history of the world mainly because of it's Christian values. So why take a part of our heritage down, instead of adding to it?

"Dolphan7 wrote:

Because Christianity is also part of our history and our heritage. America is one of the most generous nations in the history of the world mainly because of it's Christian values. So why take a part of our heritage down, instead of adding to it?

I think displaying Christian morals where our justice system is played out is taking away just as much of our heritage of religious tolerance to non-Christians and secularism as it is not allowing it to be there.

I think the Christianity of most of the people in the US should be displayed in (like you said) the way we act towards those different from them in the US and around the world instead of in relation to our laws, which are supposed to be free of an established religion.

I was on vacation, visiting my daughter as she graduated from seminary when the manifesto was actually published. It did figure into some conversations among the alumni.

My faith informs my decision making, it shapes the way I consider problems and oppurtunities. Equating faith with a partisan political position is a formula for disaster imo, both for the nation and for the faith.