Friday, January 8, 2010

Religion and Politics

I'm know I'm supposed to steer clear of these topics but since this blog is about one of them already, I guess that ship has sailed. First of all, let me say I don't politicize my faith, I think that's a big mistake. One need only look at the Religious Right to see where that can lead. I'd like to say that I don't inject my faith into my politics, but that's naive. Something as important as your faith worms itself into every facet of your life whether you want it to or not. And, that's not such a bad thing. This insinuation has made me a better father, a better a leader at work and, if I was married, I'm sure it would improve my husbandly skills. But, it's also caused a headache or two. Mostly, because while my religious beliefs are extremely liberal, my political beliefs are of a more conservative bent. This manifests in some interesting ways.

My dad put me onto a very interesting book a few years ago, called "The Hidden Jesus" by Donald Spoto. In it, the author puts forth some new ideas about Christianity. But, there was one in particular that I've struggled with since I read it. Spoto said that you can't be a Christian and be pro-death penalty. Because, as Christians, we are called to forgive and there should be no limit on this forgiveness. Once you execute someone, that pretty much puts an end to the forgiveness thing. That whole 70 times 7 thing wasn't a concrete number, you know. Now, I'm a southern boy, born and bred. And, in the south, we believe there are some folks that just need killing. In some places that's even a valid defense. We staunchly believe in the "eye for an eye" bit. Now, contrast that with what I read in Spoto's book and I think you'll see my dilemma. I also have a hard time with the idea of government assistance. Partly because I think if you're able-bodied, you have an obligation to produce, not just consume. And, there's the what government does to it's recipients self-esteem. There's not-so-subtle message in these programs that if you're on it, you're not able to take care of yourself and someone else has to do it for you. But, my faith tells me I should support anything that helps those in need. So, I support it. But, I also support the idea that it needs a major overhaul.

Sorting this out is part of the journey I spoke about in my first post. I knew some parts of this trip would be fun and revealing and interesting and some parts... wouldn't. I think this will fall in the less-than-fun column.

4 comments:

  1. I my bible study this we talked about an eye for an eye. There were times that the punishment for something was death. Those were God's rules.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In it's time, the concept of eye for an eye was revolutionary. Prior to this, the Code of Hamurabi was the standard. In this set of laws, the worth of a man's life depended on his wealth and standing in the community. If a rich man killed a poor man, he could be made to compensate the dead man's family. If the reverse happened, the poor man was executed. Under Mosiac law, it didn't matter. The punishment for murder was death. So, eye for an eye was actually an early call for equality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that is interesting and a very different way of thinking about it - which we also discussed in our bible study. Where we might think and eye for an eye is harsh, it actually was to be more fair. I never thought about it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your point about welfare recipients losing self esteem is interesting. That is also true for disabled and elderly persons who need a lot of help.

    ReplyDelete