« Who lost? | Main | Duke's First Mistake »
May 09, 2006
Andrew Sullivan Syndrome (ASS) Reaches New Heights
I have absolutely no idea what world St. Andrew of Perpetual Victimhood lives in but I can assure you it is no where in America:
The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power. There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is. They have no problem living next to an atheist or a gay couple or a single mother or people whose views on the meaning of life are utterly alien to them--and respecting their neighbors' choices. That doesn't threaten their faith. Sometimes the contrast helps them understand their own faith better.
Who has problems living next to atheists or gay couples? Christians? Absurd. I would like Andrew to provide a study with some scientific validity to show that Christians in this country are campaiging to throw atheists out of their neighborhood. Most Christians also know and fellowship with openly gay people. I would suspect that even Reverend Fallwell has a gay friend or two.
And there are those who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls. If God is ultimately unknowable, then how can we be so certain of what God's real position is on, say, the fate of Terri Schiavo? Or the morality of contraception? Or the role of women? Or the love of a gay couple?
God is NOT unknowable--that is the fundamental basis for Christianity! Christians believe they can have a relationship with God because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins. That is the definition of being a Christian. And God provides us with his positions in something called the BIBLE:
“For the Word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a critic of thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12.
“His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of Him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these He has given us His very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” 2 Peter 1:3-4
"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Andrew Sullivan will have none of this "preachy" talk in the Bible. He wants to talk about "his truth" as defined by his feelings and politics. He sits in a tower casting judgement on the evils of the Bush administration and its supposed "torture" of terrorists. To him that evil is absolute; there is never a gray area in issues that do not criticize his behavior and fundamental character. Sure, he will admit to some sinning that society now perceives as petty, but he would never admit that the Bible objects to something substantive to his life (and I am not talking about his homosexuality).
"...teaching, for reproof, for correction." How is this possible if you never take seriously what the Bible says? If you cannot know God, why even be a Christian? His entire argument is based on the fact that he is a person of faith based on nothing. How could he know that God wants him to be a Catholic if God's desire for us in unknowable? This is 8th grade rubbish.
But he saves his most arrogant pronunciations for the end:
So let me suggest that we take back the word Christian while giving the religious right a new adjective: Christianist. Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
Andrew Sullivan first wanted to take Truth out of the Bible and now wants to take Christ out of the Christian. He alone can now divine who is a real Christian and who is simply a Christianist--someone so blinded by their love of God that they insist on following his teaches and defies government indoctrination of fluid morality.
I guess Jesus' mission against the standing government was unnacceptable to St. Andrew. Ah, yes. We find that Jesus Christ too was a Christianist. "Christianists"--what utter garbage and nonsense. Too bad there wasn't an Andrew Sullivan back then to set Him straight on all that infernal preaching.
So, there it is. Religion to St. Andrew is something to be objectified; it is not something that transforms a people and society. Religion is a private hobby, a pass-time, that should not be all up in peoples' face and never interfere with what is of utmost importance to the future of society...gay marriage.
Posted by Aaron at May 9, 2006 09:01 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2393
Comments
So do or do you not want to make your religious views the law of the United States of America?
I know there are those who do, because they've said so and even tried it on occasion. Terri's Law was a perfect example.
And just for a reality check, why don't we have everyone on this site who claims to know God's mind through the bible write down what God really thinks about, say invading iraq and same sex marraige. No cribbing off of each others papers, now. Support it with maybe three bible verses a piece. Then we'll see if you're all reading the same mind.
In the mean time let me suggest that, unless you are a christianist, you have less quarrel with Sullivan than you pretend.
Posted by: IaintBacchus at May 9, 2006 05:58 PM
To Andrew Sullivan's commentary on Christianism, I say "Amen!"Plus, it appears to me that Aaron has mis-read Sullivan's commentary.
Posted by: Dodo David at May 9, 2006 09:12 PM
I thought the unknowable thing was like something to do with humility ... that we as imperfect sinners cannot devine God's will for us, which is why belief in God requires ....
FAITH
... yeah, that.
Not humble in the least,
your agnostic pal,
paul
Posted by: paul at May 9, 2006 10:31 PM
I didn't misread the piece, Dodo. I know exactly what he was trying to do. He takes examples of things that hardly exist based on a charicature created by the Left...that somehow, the religious right is trying to make Christianity the law of this country.
Like I said before, religion, to those who believe, is the most fundamental part of their life and to bash those people who support candidates that share their view of, say, judges and how they should interperet the constitution is totally unacceptable. Likewise with marriage.
Sullivan does this all to often to try to find the "other" and attribute to them things that don't exist to justify his own beliefs (or lack thereof).
As an example, it is just as valid for a person to support abolishing the death penalty as a matter of faith (Catholic) or because you believe it is applied in a racist fashion. Both are totally fine. Andrew wants to say that one is bad because it is based on religion.
Posted by: Aaron at May 10, 2006 08:01 AM
You did misread the piece, and your description of his argument proves that.
Posted by: paul at May 10, 2006 03:21 PM
Hiya:
Saw this argument/debate and wanted to jump in - I hope you check the "comments" as this is a bit late - like, three months later, so you might not read this -
Anyways, this sentence jumped out at me:
"As an example, it is just as valid for a person to support abolishing the death penalty as a matter of faith (Catholic) or because you believe it is applied in a racist fashion. Both are totally fine"
The answer: Yes, both reasons are fine - on the personal level -- if you're debating with a friend or family member, and say "I don't believe in abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty because as a (insert religious affiliation), I believe it's wrong to have an abortion, be gay or execute criminals..." But when you move into the political sphere, it becomes inappropriate, simply because there are so many religions in this country, with sometimes conflicting view points, that bringing in a topic such as religion - which is faith-based, renders many arguments moot.
For example, two politicians are arguing against gay marriage: One guy uses psychological/sociological data that supports his thesis that gay marriage is damaging to society -- w/this individual's argument, you can bring rational debate against his position - you can bring out other reports, journal articles, personal examples, etc and the argument can develop and progress as each party discusses their respective positions further -- using measurable date, that remains constant no matter who is interpreting it is important.
Now, with a poltician that says he's against gay marriage because it's a sin and God hates queers, well, then the argument stops there. You can't bring any debate, because how can one argue w/"God says so." Bringing in Biblical scripture isn't really a compelling way to solve a debate, it would be just like throwing around quotes from Shakespeare or Moliere - Biblical scripture isn't research, resulting from years of work and toil - it's a written text, that is questionable (as any "holy book" would be)...
Furhtermore (I hate using that word, it sounds so pompous), bringing in relibion to the political sphere would be simply messy and ungainly -- imagine if a Wiccan politican, a Satanist politican, an Atheist, a Catholic and a Muslim started discussing an issue and each drew back to their respective faiths - there would be a stale mate.
I am an atheist, though I do not have a problem with religion - I believe it has its place in the world - I don't think banning it from public discourse is the answer either (What France did was awful banning French girls from wearing veils to school), but I do think it's something that's highly personal, and should be avoided in political debates.
Posted by: Peter at August 20, 2006 08:47 PM