Take a look at Joe Knippenberg and Ann Althhouse commenting on Barak Obama's latest ruminations on faith and politics. See Joe's post for the details of Obama's speech. In it Obama claims that "the so-called leaders of the Christian right [have been] all too eager to exploit what divides us" and Christianity has been "hijacked" by conservative Christians.
What does it mean to be divisive? If Bob says the sky is blue, and Joe objects strongly, arguing instead that the sky is yellow, is Bob being divisive? It seems division is a negative thing when it is sought purely for political gain. We call this demagoguery. Let's see some historical examples. When Republicans of the 1850s cried out about the evil of slavery, the South and those Northerners with a stake in political stability (e.g. Stephan Douglas) called Republicans "divisive." No doubt the Republicans were. Their outspokenness on slavery clearly led to more political agitation on the issue, heightened sectional tensions, and was one ingredient that led to a civil war that killed over 500,000 Americans. Should the Republicans have kept their mouths shut, rather then be "divisive"?
Winston Churchill spent the latter half of the 1930s in the British political wilderness. He constantly urged his fellow countrymen to take the threat of German National Socialism seriously and to arm the Empire against a new German aggressiveness. Churchill was laughed at and ridiculed, even by members of his own party. He was called a fool and fear mongerer. Should Churchill have kept his mouth shut, rather than stoke the fears of the British citizenry?
If conservative Christians make certain claims and liberal Christians or secular liberals disagree, this in and of itself is not proof of political malfeasance on the part of conservative Christians. If one has strongly held convictions and airs them in the public square, some will disagree. One supposes this causes political division, but should we only speak on those things on which there is consensus? Indeed, was not the nation very content considering marriage as between one man and one woman until gay rights activists starting calling for a more expansive view of marriage? Did this not cause division? Should they have kept their mouths shut, rather than foster division over a touchy social issue? I do not think so, and am I quite sure that Barak Obama does not either.
All sides have their demagogues, those who exploit division and fear for political gain, but the mere fact of division is not proof of demagoguery. If Obama disagrees with his some of Christian brothers on this or that issue, pray let him discuss like a brother. Instead he has chosen the route of the politician, playing on the worries and fears of the secularist liberals in his party for his own political gain. How divisive of him.
Recent Comments