|
Edited on Sun Jan-20-13 11:09 AM by No Elephants
January 19th, 2013
10:00 PM ET
My Take: An almost chosen nation
Editor's Note: Joseph Loconte, Ph.D., is an associate professor of history at the King’s College in New York City and the author of The Searchers: A Quest for Faith in the Valley of Doubt.
By Joseph Loconte, Special to CNN
When Barack Obama is publicly sworn in for the second time as president on Monday, he will use two Bibles. One belonged to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the other to Abraham Lincoln —two of the most religious figures in American political history. Both men saw clearly the moral contradictions that tore at the fabric of American democratic life. Yet both also believed deeply in the exceptional character of the United States and the spiritual significance of its democratic mission.
In a speech to the New Jersey legislature on his inaugural journey to Washington, February 21, 1861, Lincoln reflected on Trenton’s heroic role in America’s fight for independence:
<snip?
“I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made, and I shall be most happy indeed if I shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle.”
Lincoln’s description of America as an “almost chosen people” captured brilliantly the qualified and uncertain character of the nation’s democracy: deeply and grievously flawed, but nonetheless caught up in the righteous purposes of God. Unlike many of his religious contemporaries, Lincoln stopped short of identifying America as the new Israel; no spiritual covenant between God and the United States could be presumed. Lincoln well knew the capacity of religious zeal to poison our politics. Nevertheless, he insisted that America’s commitment to liberty and equality was consistent with the character and intentions of the Almighty. <snip> Modern liberalism scorns the very idea of “the sacred heritage of our nation.” It rejects the view of America as “an almost chosen people,” an exceptional nation devoted to political and religious ideals anchored in a transcendent cause. In this sense, Mr. Obama’s party, the party of liberalism, would not know what to do with a Lincoln or a King. It is heartening, and symbolically important, that Mr. Obama will be using the Bibles of these two great leaders as he takes the oath of office. It would be more significant, though, if the president found room for their moral vision of the United States in his administration and in his party.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/19/an-almost-chosen-nation/
First, we have no evidence that MLK, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln were two of the most religious people in American political history. MLK certainly had faith or he would not have become a minister. But, was he more religious than, say Billy Graham? Or the Mathers/ And is he really properly classed with politicians?
As for Lincoln, he said some things while in office that would indicate a belief in God, but most politicians do. I don't assume that means a politician is actually deeply religious.
I don't see Obama as deeply religious, yet one could assume that from his words. And, if Dummya were deeply religious, I think he would have gone to church services more and funded faith-based initiatives more. Indeed, David Kuo quit Dummya's administration because he thought Bush's alleged love of religion had more to do with politics than it did with a Deity.
I have a book of his writings and sayings of Lincoln before he was President, gathered by his one time law partner. They reveal a man who was highly intelligent, highly charitable and highly humorous. Highly religious, not so much.
In any event, without the ability to read minds and hearts--and posthumously at that, how do we know who was truly religious and who was not, let alone the degree of religion each figure in American political history had.
So, of the bat, LoConte don't impress me much.
Second, per the Bible, God's only chosen people were the Abraham and his descendants. And, if you wish to stretch a point, converts to Judaism. Lincoln claimed no ability or authority to speak for God. So, why does Loconte so why does what Lincoln said as though it were the newest addendum to the Bible? Besides, ya know what "almost chosen" means? Not chosen. Lincoln said we are the people not chosen by God. He did not even say we were first runner up.
Third, Loconte says. "In this sense, Mr. Obama’s party, the party of liberalism, would not know what to do with a Lincoln or a King."
Rank b.s.
The party of Obama is the party of a "moderate Republican of the 1980s" because that is how Obama describes himself and pretty much how he behaves. The same is true of all DLCers, New Democrats, progressives, Third Wayers and No Labels folk. (Have I forgotten any? They seem to go by as many names as the average check forger.)
I think Obama's description of himself is inaccurate only in that Reagan was to the left of Obama in a number of ways.
Trying to give the impression that all Democrats are liberals is a trick favored by the deceptive--and any Christian would say that deception is never from God.
Also, Democrats knew exactly what to do with a Lincoln and a Martin Luther King. It was Democrats who outlawed Jim Crow laws, while Republicans courted the once solidly Democratic South with dog whistle cries of "states rights." It was Republicans who developed the "Southern strategy," which btw, seems to have worked beautifully for them. Lee Atwater wrote proudly of it in his autobiography. And people like Rove learned well from him.
It was Truman who desegregated the military. It was Eleanor Roosevelt who honored African Americans publicly and went to the White House to beg Eisenhower to implement the Supreme Court school desegregation decision.
It was JFK who got King out of jail, began desegregation via the Interstate Commerce Commission and began the framework of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was LBJ who got it through a combination of Republican conservatives, Republican liberals, Democratic liberals and Democratic conservatives while the Dixiecrats and the Dixiecrat type Democrats fought it tooth and nail. (Thanks to one of those Southerners who slipped in equal rights for women in the hope/belief that the provision would result in defeat of the bill.)
It was no accident that African American vote went from Lincoln Republican (because of Emancipation) to to Democratic. Indeed, MLK, Sr. was originally a Lincoln Republican but promised JFK he would vote for him if he helped his son, which JFK did.
Lastly, Loconte says:
"It is heartening, and symbolically important, that Mr. Obama will be using the Bibles of these two great leaders as he takes the oath of office. It would be more significant, though, if the president found room for their moral vision of the United States in his administration and in his party."
Gosh, I hope Loconte did not hurt himself too badly when he suddenly moved that goal post from the bogus stuff he wrote about religion to morality.
A lot of preachers and religious folk justified slavery, rape of slaves, and Jim Crow from the pulpit, distorting, er, I mean, citing the Bible. On the other hand, a lot of people, religious or not, who do not share Loconte's conservative political views have morals far superior to that.
Conservatives often say that they wish that show business folk would stick to entertaining and keep their political views to themselves. Of course, they say this only about show business folk who speak left of Rick Santorum. They lavish praise on show business folk who speak right of center.
Be that as it may, I wish people who profess to be experts on religion (Loconte has taught it and written on it) would stick to religion and keep their political views to themselves. Especially when their politicdal speech is as inaccurate and deeply flawed as this piece by Loconte.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
