tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post111585834223608200..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Christian Supremacy and Democratic PluralismDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-49917926900336920002009-05-14T12:32:00.000-07:002009-05-14T12:32:00.000-07:00'Christian Right' is a joke. They are looking down...'Christian Right' is a joke. They are looking down at people that are not like them, don't believe what they believe. This is simply prejudice and bigotry. Christians behave the worst in these situations.Areshttp://www.ares.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1139592907514768932006-02-10T09:35:00.000-08:002006-02-10T09:35:00.000-08:00David, This piece is certainly interesting. Howe...David, <BR/>This piece is certainly interesting. However, it only makes sense to me if you are using "Christian Right" and "Christian" synonymously. The Christian Right in America may have an agenda which is different than core Christianity; if so, your arguments make sense.<BR/> Considering core Christianity for a moment, though, I would like to make a few observations. Jesus insisted that each human person must freely choose him. So any coercive manifestation by Christian communities (and there have been many in history) were failures of those communities to understand and adhere to core Christianity. Although the term is anachronistic in this context, it is clear that Jesus understood that a Christian society is an "emergent" phenomenon which follows from many individuals choosing Christianity. Similarly, a Christian nation need not single out a Christian church and promote it as either a prerequisite nor a result of being a Christian nation. <BR/>In fact, can you please point out for me another teaching than Christianity which leads as naturally to the basic Democratic underpinnings the founders enunciated -- among them the inherent value and dignity of the individual, freedom of speech (cf. Jesus' insistence on individual free choice), freedom of persons from capricious domination by other persons or corporations, and so on. Even the ancient Greek model of democracy was inadequate in these respects because it was based on the small-holder's land ownership as table stakes, rather than on the fundamentals of the person. <BR/>To sum it up, I disagree with your statement that "America cannot be both a Christian nation and a democratic nation at the same time". Since I understand a Christian nation to be an emergent phenomenon rather that the coercive apparatus you describe, I think a more useful observation would be: "America would not likely have become a democratic nation had it not already been a Christian nation to begin with". I am a bit worried that losing track of these fundamentals will make us very susceptible to losing that democracy.<BR/><BR/>GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1115918780741837702005-05-12T10:26:00.000-07:002005-05-12T10:26:00.000-07:00Well, yes and no. First of all, the type of Christ...Well, yes and no. First of all, the type of Christian Conservative we are dealing with is not Burkean--there is nothing restrained or cautious about how they wish to run the country. But second, and more importantly, the part about a slowly revealed Providence still runs headlong into the Mouffe quote I provided, IE, insofar as it talks about the (albeit slow) "true providence" being revealed, Burkean conservativism still has some point on the (distant) horizon where pluralism becomes unnecessary because all becomes revealed. Furthermore, it means that the stuff we "know" is revealed now (Christ is the messiah, for example) becomes undebatable and not a subject of pluralism.<BR/><BR/>The Kant argument similarily doesn't apply--Christians DO "know" what that one route is. So I might agree with how you interpret Kant on a personal level (there is a single abstract morality "out there," but we don't know it), but following that paradigm doesn't make America into a "Christian nation" by any stretch.<BR/><BR/>Basically, I'm not saying Christians can't be pluralist (they can and should be), but rather that Christians cannot ask America to be a "Christian nation" and a "democratic nation" at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.com