RE: The Religious Right

This letter was published on December 21, 2003 in Raleigh News & Observer.
 
Moorad
 
Law's foundation

Regarding the Dec. 17 article "Wake backs revising sex ed" and the People's Forum letter the same day captioned "The current status?":

There is a common fallacy that permeates much of the discussion pertaining to abstinence, abortion, capital punishment, etc. The attempt is to weaken or outright invalidate arguments based on moral/ethical principles by the mere fact that such arguments are morally and ethically based.

Surely, moral/ethical principles are part and parcel of the assumptions people make. One must remember that people's reasoning is based on chosen world-views, and all world-views are based on faith. Even atheists believe and have faith in their assumptions.

Therefore, it makes no sense, even for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, to oppose the use of the power of the state by the majority to enact statutes based on a particular set of moral/ethical principles. Any law that is enacted will invariably be based on some particular world-view with its corresponding, assumed moral/ethical principles.

It might as well be that held by the majority!

Moorad Alexanian

Wilmington
 

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Opderbeck
Sent: Mon 4/24/2006 9:28 AM
To: donperrett@interstrenuus.com
Cc: Robert Schneider; ASA Discussions (E-mail)
Subject: Re: The Religious Right

From my perspective, the question is much deeper than "religion vs. no religion" in politics. Concerning Evangelicals in the U.S. (of which I am one), the question is more "pragmatism vs. principles" in politics. If our religion says "Jesus is Lord," and we take that seriously, it's a non-sequitor IMHO to suggest religion is a "private" matter that shouldn't bear directly on politics. But at the same time, the conviction that Jesus is Lord must bear on politics in a principled way, first at the higher level of jurisprudential philosophy. It seems to me that Evangelicals, both on the right and left, too often skip that higher level discourse in favor of isolated pragmatic results. Thus, for example, Evangelicals joined the outcry over Terry Schiavo, but have done nothing about "living will" laws that exist in most states, primarily because most Evangelicals really don't have much of a qualm with those laws. If you want to fight a "battle" over ID -- and personally I thi!
nk "battle" is the wrong metaphor -- you need to provide a coherent Christian philosophy of education and the state first. The current ID brush fire will die out, and Evangelicals will move on to something else, until that something else flames out and ID flares up again.

On 4/20/06, Donald Perrett (E-mail) <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> wrote:

        Bob,
        
        To put it in perspective, this is not off-topic, it goes to the very heart
        of the issue. Continuously on the list there is discussion about the
        political efforts of the religious right with respect to YEC/ID. What I was
        addressing was the idea that the right has always been involved in this type
        of political activism. I didn't think it needed additional explanation.
        Therefore I made just one simple historical observation. But again I will
        connect the dots for those whos eyes are not open. I am a conservative but
        I do not believe in pushing a religious agenda. Seek and ye shall find. It
        doesn't say look or I force it on you. Only those seeking will see God's
        revelation. The religious right has and still does involve their
        religiousity into their politics. To some degree this is a imperative. All
        people will do so. They however tend to use religion, or should I say their
        view of it, as the only means of decision making when it comes to politics.
        Again this has been a continuous behaviour. The fact that the current prime
        agendas are abortion and ID in school does not change their behaviour.
        Unless you address the issue, their behaviour, you will never be able to win
        the fight against the ID movement. And I'm sure the issue of the ID
        movement is on-topic since it seems to be an all consuming topic on the
        list.
        
        Don P
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Robert Schneider [mailto: rjschn39@bellsouth.net]
        Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 07:45
        To: donperrett@interstrenuus.com; 'Carol or John Burgeson'
        Subject: Re: The Religious Right
        
        
        Don,
        
        This is getting off subject, but the Christian abolitionists who founded
        Berea College in Kentucky in 1855 could hardly be called members of a
        "Christian right." I think the term is anachronistic as applied to
        Christians in the mid-nineteenth century. Christians ought to bring their
        religious convictions to political issues; what they shouldn't be doing is
        using a political party to establish one set of religious beliefs and values
        as the law of the land. That's why our founders established the principle
        of separation of church and state.
        
        Bob
        
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Donald Perrett (E-mail)" < donperrett@theology-perspectives.net <mailto:donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> >
        To: "'Carol or John Burgeson'" <burgytwo@juno.com>
        Cc: "ASA Discussions (E-mail)" < asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu> >
        Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:46 PM
        Subject: RE: The Religious Right
        
        
> Considering that the Republican Party was founded by Christian
> abolitionists
> in Missouri, it should be no surprise that religious people have been
> involved in the policies and politics of the right. What is a surprise is
> that there are many who are not aware of the connection between the
> religious right and the Republican Party since its inception, and that
> somehow it is ok for religious people to be involved when it comes to
> issues
> such as abolition, but not when it comes to other moral issues such as
> abortion. Truth is, the left does not want any sense of morality force
> upon
> them. Understandable as that may seem, the south didn't want morality
> forced on them either when it came to slavery.
>
> Don P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Carol or John Burgeson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:36
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: The Religious Right
>
>
> For those interested, the paper that sparked the NYT's article on
> Evangelicalism last Sunday is at
>
> http://www.swp-berlin.org/common/get_document.php?id=1080
>
> It is by John C. Green.
>
> The interesting thing to me is that from it one apparently can get a
> count of how many anti-evolution folks there are in the USA. YECs would
> be, of course, a sub set of these.
>
>
> Burgy
>
>
>
>
        
        
        
        
        
        
Received on Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:58:57 -0400