The Omnipresence of God

It's been a long time since I last posted on my blog, and I have to admit that I've missed it a great deal.     So, what better topic to bring me out of my blogging hibernation than my continued fascination with religion.    I know that this is a touchy subject, and I want to be clear that in writing this post I am in no way trying to "win people to my side" or propound on why I am right and others are wrong.   To the contrary, my previous posts on religion started some of the best dialouge that this little blog has seen, so let's see if we can't repeat some of that success.

I Realize God is Omnipresent - But Does He have to be in Every Story?
As the Great Backlash continues to march onward, gaining strength with every day despite that fact that there appears to be nothing left to backlash against, it seems that we are finally reaching a point where a majority of issues are viewed through the lens of religious faith.   Perhaps this feeling is influenced by the fact that it's hard to find a news story these days that isn't about Terri Schiavo, but I don't think it is.    Books like God's Politics are near the top of the non-fiction bestseller list, and Tim Lehaye's Left Behind series has now sold something like 50 million + copies (presumably these count in the fiction column).    Moral Values were supposedly key to Bush's re-election (I actually think this "Moral Values" catch all was more indicative of the fact that people didn't/don't believe Kerry had ANY values, than showing some countrywide shift towards evangelical belief, but that goes against the thread of this post, so I'll leave it alone).    Whether or not Creationism should be part of the US public school curricula seems to get more attention than how to fix the current shortcomings of an eduction system that has US high school students consistently testing in the 3rd decile worldwide in math and science.   Medical progress seems tied to stem cell debate.    Environmental policy is purportedly influenced by politicians' interpretations of biblical passages about Man's dominion over the Earch (Bill Moyers recently wrote a fascinating review for the New York Times Review of Books on this subject).    Some argue that Foreign policy is influenced by the "need" to have Jews reclaim the entire original Kingdom of David before the return of Christ, and on....and on....and on.

Watching all of this transpire in the media at the headline level, I find myself wondering if it has always been this way.   If so, then it would seem that our country has been built with the perfect equilibrium of faith and science, belief and curiousity.    If not, then I wonder where we are heading with this newfound desire to incorporate faith into every aspect of pubic life.

Religion in the US Government
It wasn't always this way.    Brooke Allen wrote a piece (it's an amazing article and well worth a read for anyone interested in this subject) earlier this year in The Nation about the role of God with our founding fathers.     In it, he starts by asserting that, contrary to what George W. Bush and Tom Delay would tell you:

Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enllightenment ones.    God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspiciously absent.   The omission was too obvious to have been anytime but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot."   But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954.

As someone clearly out of the mainstream on this one, I have to accept the possibility that I am woefully wrong on this issue.  And, as I recently discussed with my friend Brian, I may be heading towards a really miserable 10 years starting the day I get on the subway and there's nothing there but me and a bunch of clothes people have "left behind".    However, I have to say that I hope I'm at least partially right and that people will begin to get back to keeping their beliefs to themselves before this gets too out of hand.    Perhaps Ben Franklin said it best when asked about his own belief system a few weeks before he died:

Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As for Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.

For safety sake, however, it's also worth noting another of Ben Franklin's quotes on the matter:

A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law.

Comments

[Campbell Gibson]

Alex,

You know where to dangle the hook...

I enjoyed the articles and have read at least on of the books. This is such a difficult subject that I think we could wrestle with it for a very long time and still not come to any resolution.

Brooke Allen makes some very valid points and the Enlightenment certainly sparked seeds of freedom without which our revolution would have been long in the making. It seems to me that our colonies may have been founded by religion (or the search for religious freedom). This defiance and search for self determination coupled with a healthy dose of unrestrained taxation and a fair amount of Voltaire, Rousseau and others created a full scale revolt. To argue that our colonies were jam packed full of humanists and atheists may be a little strong. That is certainly beside the point. Our Founding Fathers worked to ensure that Americans were free to practice their beliefs and that the government did not prescribe what those beliefs would entail. That is where the current administration and the Christian right is wrong headed in their arguments.

My problem does not come with voters or politicians who bring their religious beliefs into the voting booth or Congress. I think that someone with strong moral, spiritual or philosophical beliefs has the potential to act in a consistent, thoughtful and compassionate manner and really can serve their fellow Americans well. I think of the wonderful progressive leaders who have been driven to public service by their deep religious convictions. Most of the major political movements in US history have serious roots in faith based initiatives (excuse the phrasing).

I think that part of the problem is that conservatives have been allowed to coop religion and act like Christianity is synonymous with Republican. Jim Wallis's book "God's Politics" is an excellent look at how both the Democrats and Republicans get it wrong. He argues that the Republicans stances on the environment, poverty, education, the deficit, war, etc run completely counter to Christ's teachings. He argues that the Democrats get it wrong because we allow them to act so sanctimoniously without pointing out these inconsistencies. His book is really an eye opener on the subject and it should be required reading at the DNC.

Until Democrats and progressives stop bashing people of faith and acting like they are all conservative freaks, we have only ourselves to blame. When you look at some important Democratic voters, such as Blacks, Jews and Hispanics, and realize they are by and large extremely devout, you also understand the potential for further erosion to politicians who reach out and "talk their language". If Democrats want to win, we should use our traditional beliefs and reach out on the commonalities with major religions. Our beliefs such as stewardship of the earth, racial, social and religious tolerance and equality, workers' rights, education, uplifting the poor, etc poll incredibly well with even the most evangelical Christians. Tom Delay may stand up for Terry Schiavo but is not afraid to pack death row and start wars and send America's youth to fight them. Until we point out that BS then we have no one but ourselves to blame.

I would go on longer but am guessing you know where I stand.

thanks starting the dialogue.
cg

[Alex Collmer]

Campbell,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm actually really looking forward to reading "God's Politics". You're unquestionably right about how out of the mainstream the beliefs of Ben Franklin and the others were. It's interesting that a seemingly disproportionate number of deists and atheists made up the group of founding fathers when compared to the beliefs of the population at the time. I wonder why that was?

ac

[Liaitsboortab]

宿題など自分から進んで勉強しましょう。アナスイ バッグ,テレビやゲームの時間を決めましょう。いい加減にして欲しいよ…。

ストアの評価人数が合計で1人があり、ストア評価（最大5点）が4.5の高値になったこの商品を買ったら、302ポイントを獲得します。

ひろぱんもこの気持ちを覚えていてくれたら嬉しいんだけどなこれからもたくさんすれ違いとかあると思うけど、オークリー サングラス,二人なりに、支え合いながら進もうね。

でお届けいたします午後時までに注文が確認（代金引換）、ご入金が確認（銀行振込）できた場合即日発送させて頂きます。プラダ 財布,それ以降は、翌営業日の発送となります。（土日祝祭日は入金確認ができませんので翌営業日の発送となります。）

(12/15)福袋キャスキッドソン【女子力アップのアイテムがたくさん詰まってこの値段！？おまけもありだよ】激安送料無料

始業時間に教室に現れた彼は疲れ気味の様子だったが、ポリス 時計,持ち前の気合いと根性で自身が平日朝にアメブロにアップしている“怒号”について熱く解説。

私たちの住む惑星クイック、置くのファッションを変更し始めています. ファッショナブルなあなたが本当にプログラマーのほとんどになりたい女の子している場合は、ファッショナブルなと、ワードローブのものを求めて、私選択行く有効にするのにはコーチの出口のコーチ バッグ推薦します. うちのコーチかどうかを計算しました. コーチを増やすか？さらにグッチ、YSL、ダナキャランだけでなく、すべての指摘バッグ技術担当のエンジニアが最も可能性の高いコーチ. コーチ 財布,規律は、1941 年に設立されました. そのハード中コーチ維持継続的に高い等級材料と技術標準.

[レディス水着]

革 ウォレット [url=http://www.forshoppingchickenjp.biz/]レディス水着[/url] レディス水着

[ルイヴィトン バッグ 新作]

著書に『ザ・ルイヴィトン 財布 新作ウェイ上・下』、共著書に『ザ・ルイヴィトン コピーウェイ実践編上・下』、『ルイヴィトン 財布 コピー経営大全1人材開発上・下』、『ルイヴィトン バッグ 新作経営大全2企業文化上・下』、『ルイヴィトン 新作製品開発システム』（以上、日経ＢＰ社）ティモシー・N・オグデン（Timothy N. Ogden） コミュニケーション・ファーム、ソナ・パートナーズのエグゼクティブ・パートナー。 Ｍ＆Ａによる拡大路線をとってきたが、ルイヴィトン メンズの乱立はグループ運営の非効率化につながっていた３１日に統一ルイヴィトン 財布 コピー名を「ＣＡＮＤＩＳＨ」（キャンディッシュ）にすると発表した。 城崎温泉で見ごろ／兵庫毎日新聞新温泉町竹田の臨済宗泰雲寺の境内にある県天然記念物「しだれルイヴィトン メンズ」が満開を迎えている。

[ファッション通販サイト]

水着 セール

[Nike Air Max 2011]

It fantastic that you are getting thoughts from this paragraph The Left Mark: The Omnipresence of God as well as from our discussion made at this time.

[mxvquic]

KhSllg wksyghjqnwqx, [url=http://aegureasspbn.com/]aegureasspbn[/url], [link=http://qsszfebspxmi.com/]qsszfebspxmi[/link], http://rpxsgtrkybwv.com/