Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The Escondido Principle of Separation of Christianity and State - Reviewed

I was recently directed to this interesting review of Darryl Hart's book (The book is titled: "A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State"):
Hart thinks the root error of Christians who try to bring their faith into the arena of politics is the failure to understand that it just doesn't fit. Christianity is “essentially a spiritual and eternal faith.” It is “useless” for resolving “America's political disputes” and, because of its intolerance of other faiths, “impractical if not damaging to public life.” Christian evangelicals of both left and right come in for criticism in Hart's book, but the left—he includes Jimmy Carter and Jim Wallis in this category—gets blamed mainly for “lighting the fire of the culture wars,” thus legitimizing the right's crusade to bring its version of Christian values into the political arena.

We get the drift of Hart's own political orientation early on when he remarks that Sen. John Kerry, “an observant Roman Catholic,” was rejected by many voters because he “looked to be insufficiently devout.” That is a peculiar way of putting it. If looking to be devout were what Americans most wanted from politicians, Bill Clinton would have gotten 100 percent support in the 1992 election instead of the modest 43 percent he actually received. As for John Kerry, a number of polls have shown that the reason many people, not just Catholics, turned against him was not that he didn't look sufficiently devout but that he opposed all attempts to outlaw the physical act of [graphic depiction of the murder of an infant omitted by T-Fan].

But that gets us into religion, Hart might say, and religion should be kept out of politics. Religion belongs in church, and the purpose of churches is mercy; politics has to do with the state, and the state's purpose is justice. “To confuse the two is to misconstrue the bad cop (the state) and the good cop (the church).” Hart's church is one that would be hard to locate in Western history. It has an abstract quality, reflecting very little of the actual traditions of Christian people. In this country, as ­Tocqueville was not the first or last to observe, Americans have kept Christian denominations separate from the state, but not Christian morality or culture.
There is more at the link above.  I have yet to see Hart's response to this review. Doesn't the description in this review resemble items 10 and 23 of Frame's list

N.B. The credit line for the review was interesting: "George McKenna is professor emeritus of political science at City College of New York. His latest book is The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism (Yale)."  This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame's review.

-TurretinFan

12 comments:

  1. Truth Unites... and DividesWednesday, March 21, 2012 3:14:00 PM

    "Doesn't the description in this review resemble items 10 and 23 of Frame's list?"

    Yes. Frame's list is looking better and better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don’t know about Frame, but when Sweetman writes, “The controversy is about where the line is drawn. Hart's line is one that would push religion into the far corners of American public life. Christians would be allowed to go to church and to pray at home and at private gatherings, but they could not make any reference to their religion in debates over public policy, nor display any signs or symbols of their religion in any state-subsidized place” I wonder where she was during the introduction. It is there that Hart distinguishes the legal secularist from the Christian secularist. What she describes here sounds more like the former than the latter.

    Take, for example, that predictable and signature set of politics of abortion. (Why all roads lead to this one, I’ll never know, but it’s good for predicting with 100% accuracy the end of the second paragraph in the post proper.) I see nothing wrong with appealing to the sixth and second greatest commandments while debating this public policy. It sure beats appealing to the alleged right to life and alleged innocence of children, which are foreign notions to the Bible—you know, that thing by which anti-2k theocrats all want society normed. So why do anti-2k theocrats so uncritically adopt the unbiblical language and concepts of the pro-life movement when they want the Bible to inform all of life?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do the Hart-less bring up abortion? Three guesses; the first two don't count.
    Why does that bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Psa 94:6 They kill the widow and the sojourner, and murder the fatherless;

    They murder the fatherless/the aborted! This may be one reason why, Godith?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zrim: Could Sweetman simply be drawing out the result from the cause?

    "I see nothing wrong with appealing to the sixth and second greatest commandments while debating this public policy."

    How about appealing to the third and first greatest commandment when debating FCC regulations? Also "nothing wrong with" it?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see that you are on this side of the fence with us. On the other hand, I can't help but think that we're waiting for the other shoe to drop. I met with a heap of resistance for suggesting that this issue is not one that Christians can reasonably disagree about, for example.

    "So why do anti-2k theocrats so uncritically adopt the unbiblical language and concepts of the pro-life movement when they want the Bible to inform all of life?"

    That sounds like a problem, but a very different problem from the one we find in Hart.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  6. This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame's review.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame's review.

    This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame's review.

    "This should prevent (or at least alter) some of the ad hominem used by Hart against Frame for Frame's review."

    Of course, let us note there is a difference between "should" and "will".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Being new to this blog's format/procedure for posting, it is making me stutter!! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was quite unclear. Zrim somehow says he doesn't get why people like TurretinFan are so anti-abortion. It's pretty obvious. But why does that bother Zrim (and Hart)? Biblical Christians should not be simply one-issue folk, but mentioning abortion (the abortion holocaust) is surely warranted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "alleged innocence of children"

    If I'm reading you right, I don't think most would take innocence here to mean 'sinless', but innocent of any wrongdoing for which they might be put to death.

    It is biblical language
    Psa 106:37 They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons,
    Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan

    & Confessional language
    WLC Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
    ................. comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. See also Deuteronomy's prohibition on punishing the children for the crimes of the parents (as occurs in the case of abortion of children produced by rape).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Truth unites... And dividesThursday, March 22, 2012 2:07:00 AM

    Zrim: "So why do anti-2k theocrats so uncritically adopt the unbiblical language and concepts of the pro-life movement when they want the Bible to inform all of life?"

    The terminology of "anti-2k theocrats" in your question is not helpful.

    First, many of the folks opposed to Escondido 2k are 2k themselves. This leads to the next observation: folks opposed to E2k make sure to distinguish E2k as E2k or R2k or something similar. Folks supporting E2k call it 2k, which assumes that their version of 2k is "mainstream" 2k. It's kind of a funny dance. And I'm sure that both you and TFan observe this same dance. Third, just because folks oppose E2k doesn't make them theocrats.

    ReplyDelete

Comment Guidelines:

1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.

2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.

3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.

4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.

5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.

6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.

7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.

8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.

9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)

10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.