Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Litmus test.

We agree
Robert — (archived)

I think it was just a semantic disconnect. You phrased it '"Christian" politician', and I didn't give sufficient weight to the ironic usage of the quotes.

Now that I think about, the heart of the cynical game those politicians are playing is a one-two psychological punch: "You're embattled on all sides, everybody hates you; and I'm your only friend [so don't examine me and my motives too closely]". Their genuine Christian victims are waaaay too willing to trust and forgive.

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for them as a result. It used to be that Christian leaders and institutions made a point of staying out of politics, resisted getting drawn into it, and that was wise. Rendering unto Caesar only what is Caesar's is a good way to keep Caesar from interfering with your business. But the politicians chipped away at their resistance over the years, dangling the prospect of a shortcut to evangelistic salvation through wholesale conversion by making their beliefs the law of the land, and too many fell for it.

There are signs of a backlash these days. There's disillusionment with the experience of dabbling in politics, and having their beliefs examined in the public square as the basis of public policy, not to mention the failure of Republicans to deliver on just about every promise they made. The talk of starting a Christian third-party never turned into action, but at least they'd have had their own politicians instead of renting Republicans and timesharing with Big Business. If we had a parliamentary system a "Christian Party" could have a seat at the table, instead of settling for scraps from the GOP table.

I don't want to shut out Christians, I just don't want them taking over.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (144 posts)