Tweet
WFU Old Gold & Black, NC
March 24 2006
Keep your judgemental religion out of politics
By Michael Berkowitz
Guest Columnist
March 23, 2006
I looked at the Old Gold & Black and saw on the front cover the
headline `Dialogue addresses the importance of religion in politics,
Democratic party' (Feb. 23). I looked inside, and I spied `Religion
and politics must lead to common good' (Feb. 23). My response was `oy
vey.'
Religion is a wonderful thing for some people; it gives them hope,
comfort, and conviction which they may have lacked otherwise.
However, because religions are judgmental in nature, and because the
topic of religion is often inflammatory, these viewpoints must not be
allowed to justify political arguments.
Sure, religion has been a key motivator for some tremendously good
works. Bernice King reminded us all of that power when she spoke here
recently, but the price one pays for using religious rhetoric is a
steep one. For many of the irreligious (which, by the way, is not a
synonym for immoral) people in America, this type of talk immediately
discredits an argument.
As for those it does reach, well, religion has, on more than one
occasion been usurped by the hateful and used to justify intolerance
and inequality.
I don't need to list the millions of abuses of religion ranging from
Sept. 11 to the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the
Inquisition or the historic oppression of women under the pretense
(real and imagined) of religious justification, but I did. `Wait!'
The religious person cries, `Those are clear abuses of religion; my
God is a
loving God.' True, the Bible says nothing of systematic murder as a
way to salvation. Jesus was a pacifist, ironically (see the above
listing). Unfortunately, by allowing for a religious dialogue, we
invite this manipulation.
This brings me to the crux of my argument - that religion muddles an
already unclear perception of reality, and often distracts from real
issues. Political speak never made much sense anyway, and has always
been a way of concealing real issues, but what are `Christian values'
anyway?
The title of the forum about the Democratic Party reveals that the
Republican Party has become the `more Christian' party. Some have
even argued that President George W. Bush won his most recent
election on the back of the religious.
To this, I say, `Huh?' I may not be a member of the `Jesus is my
Homeboy' Facebook group, but isn't Jesus the man who was essentially
a communist, advocating more than anything else raising the poor to
power? Isn't this the same Republican Party which opposes welfare at
every turn and supports an economic plan where the rich get richer?
The lesson is merely that the term `Christian' is very broad, and
could be used to support myriad views.
If religion could be taken out of politics, then gay marriage would
not be as big an issue as the war in Iraq, the inequalities of our
educational system or the near-crisis state of American health care.
Instead, we are forced to deal with the Pat Robertsons of the world,
speaking about the `message of God.'
Because of religion, lifestyles become `unnatural,' and just like
that, rational discussion is put back in the closet. Gay couples in
several states can't adopt a child when psychological studies have
shown them to be at least as competent parents as straight couples,
that Creationism lingers in public schools and that some schools only
teach abstinence and spread lies about AIDS proves that religion's
impact is often a negative one. I am more than willing to discuss
these things, and would love for someone to prove to me with
something more than quotes from the scriptures that gays, Arabs, Jews
or women are any less deserving of rights than the rest of Americans.
If you are think I am exaggerating the hazards of this concept, check
out the Web site family.org'
It is the epitome of the hazards presented when we allow a
religiopolitcal dialogue. James Dobson's organization spews hatred
from a political platform while hiding behind a supposed concern for
the family.
Very little in life gets me truly outraged, but the deception of good
people, the demand for sycophantery, and the elimination of
opposition by the use of divine right is an atrocity. The obfuscation
of reality by religious argument must come to an end. I have never
met an inferior people, nor do I think I ever will. Only by escaping
religious bickering, by calling for an open dialogue, and by
eliminating prejudice from our political sphere, can we reach the
promised land, whatever that means. I just wish I knew.
Michael Berkowitz is a freshman from Old Tappan, N.J.
http://ogb.wfu.edu/?id=3269_0_8_0_M
March 24 2006
Keep your judgemental religion out of politics
By Michael Berkowitz
Guest Columnist
March 23, 2006
I looked at the Old Gold & Black and saw on the front cover the
headline `Dialogue addresses the importance of religion in politics,
Democratic party' (Feb. 23). I looked inside, and I spied `Religion
and politics must lead to common good' (Feb. 23). My response was `oy
vey.'
Religion is a wonderful thing for some people; it gives them hope,
comfort, and conviction which they may have lacked otherwise.
However, because religions are judgmental in nature, and because the
topic of religion is often inflammatory, these viewpoints must not be
allowed to justify political arguments.
Sure, religion has been a key motivator for some tremendously good
works. Bernice King reminded us all of that power when she spoke here
recently, but the price one pays for using religious rhetoric is a
steep one. For many of the irreligious (which, by the way, is not a
synonym for immoral) people in America, this type of talk immediately
discredits an argument.
As for those it does reach, well, religion has, on more than one
occasion been usurped by the hateful and used to justify intolerance
and inequality.
I don't need to list the millions of abuses of religion ranging from
Sept. 11 to the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the
Inquisition or the historic oppression of women under the pretense
(real and imagined) of religious justification, but I did. `Wait!'
The religious person cries, `Those are clear abuses of religion; my
God is a
loving God.' True, the Bible says nothing of systematic murder as a
way to salvation. Jesus was a pacifist, ironically (see the above
listing). Unfortunately, by allowing for a religious dialogue, we
invite this manipulation.
This brings me to the crux of my argument - that religion muddles an
already unclear perception of reality, and often distracts from real
issues. Political speak never made much sense anyway, and has always
been a way of concealing real issues, but what are `Christian values'
anyway?
The title of the forum about the Democratic Party reveals that the
Republican Party has become the `more Christian' party. Some have
even argued that President George W. Bush won his most recent
election on the back of the religious.
To this, I say, `Huh?' I may not be a member of the `Jesus is my
Homeboy' Facebook group, but isn't Jesus the man who was essentially
a communist, advocating more than anything else raising the poor to
power? Isn't this the same Republican Party which opposes welfare at
every turn and supports an economic plan where the rich get richer?
The lesson is merely that the term `Christian' is very broad, and
could be used to support myriad views.
If religion could be taken out of politics, then gay marriage would
not be as big an issue as the war in Iraq, the inequalities of our
educational system or the near-crisis state of American health care.
Instead, we are forced to deal with the Pat Robertsons of the world,
speaking about the `message of God.'
Because of religion, lifestyles become `unnatural,' and just like
that, rational discussion is put back in the closet. Gay couples in
several states can't adopt a child when psychological studies have
shown them to be at least as competent parents as straight couples,
that Creationism lingers in public schools and that some schools only
teach abstinence and spread lies about AIDS proves that religion's
impact is often a negative one. I am more than willing to discuss
these things, and would love for someone to prove to me with
something more than quotes from the scriptures that gays, Arabs, Jews
or women are any less deserving of rights than the rest of Americans.
If you are think I am exaggerating the hazards of this concept, check
out the Web site family.org'
It is the epitome of the hazards presented when we allow a
religiopolitcal dialogue. James Dobson's organization spews hatred
from a political platform while hiding behind a supposed concern for
the family.
Very little in life gets me truly outraged, but the deception of good
people, the demand for sycophantery, and the elimination of
opposition by the use of divine right is an atrocity. The obfuscation
of reality by religious argument must come to an end. I have never
met an inferior people, nor do I think I ever will. Only by escaping
religious bickering, by calling for an open dialogue, and by
eliminating prejudice from our political sphere, can we reach the
promised land, whatever that means. I just wish I knew.
Michael Berkowitz is a freshman from Old Tappan, N.J.
http://ogb.wfu.edu/?id=3269_0_8_0_M