All Comments (17)

Politics and religion can be compatible, but too often the ambition of politicians will overrule their faith.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/07/death-penalty-politics/

Paul,
Thanks very much for your spot-on comments about the rather strange aside in an otherwise pretty good analysis. When I read that aside about the Book of Mormon, I also thought, "this is from a person who hasn't read the book at all." Ah, well. He is joined by many others, who when they make such comments help fulfill Paul's counsel that "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (1 Cor 1:28), and Isaiah's prophecy that "the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." (Isaiah 29:14) Isn't it great that anyone can get on the Internet and read the Book of Mormon without having to rely on an uninformed source to tell them about it?

Being a Mormon, I thought Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's comment about the Book of Mormon was interesting. Said he, "I could never envision myself embracing a faith with the wooly theology of the Book of Mormon that rewrites the teachings of Jesus in the jargon of 19th century backwater America."
Mr. Arroyo's summary of The Book of Mormon text is dismissive, incorrect, and uninspired. First, Mr. Arroyo labels The Book of Mormon as a "wooly theology"--which he misspelled. Apparently, Mr. Arroyo uses the word "woolly" to show that the book is marked by confusion or lack of clarity. Much to the contrary, the Book of Mormon is written in such a way that the doctrine of Christ is much clearer than the text we have in the Bible. One does not have to study religion too in depth to see that many of the differences between Christian religions are their disparate interpretations of the same biblical passages. If the Bible were so clear, theoretically we would not have as many Christian denominations. Part of the problem is that many passages in the Bible were not written with the intent to be read by people in our time; for example, Paul's letters were addressed to specific people and presuppose the people's familiarity with his prior counsel. The Book of Mormon, by contrast, is directed at a modern-day audience, and the authors made special effort to keep the doctrine simple to understand.
Second, Mr. Arroyo mischaracterizes the Book of Mormon's contents as mere rewritings of Jesus' teachings. Mr. Arroyo's comment reveals that he likely has not read the Book of Mormon because the book is self-explanatory in describing an ancient visit that Jesus made to the inhabitants of the Americas. The book is not a modern-day rehash of the Bible; rather, it is ancient scriptural text. It is true that Jesus taught the same sermons in the Americas as He did in Palestine, but we would not expect Him to teach anything different.
Finally, Mr. Arroyo says that the book is written in the "jargon of 19th century backwater America." By "backwater America," I assume Arroyo is referring to Joseph Smith's rural upbringing in New York. By using the "backwater America" and "jargon" adjectives, Mr. Arroyo paints an unseemly picture of both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. His comments are reminiscent of the uninspired heckling of anti-Mormon groups.
Surely Mr. Arroyo could do much better than this bigoted summary of the Book of Mormon.

I concur. The "religious" rhetoric in American politics reflects power dynamics, not personal spiritual practice or belief. This language devalues true spiritual practice or belief. It also contradicts the Constitutional principles on which our government is based.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo - You're article should be required reading for every "values voter" -- nay, EVERY voter.

I am going to require all my friends to read your article. Thank you.

As a Christian, I don't believe that the appearance of being deceitful--repeatedly, as in Huckabee's case bodes well for his character.
The members of parole board say he did try to influence him and he said he did not. Yet he has to admit being there. And the Clinton-hate
that was propagandized through Rubert Murdoch's
gossip Newspapaer the New York Post proclaimied this convicted rapist innocent without evidence because a distant Clinton cousin was raped. After Huckabee's interference he was released and then raped and killed two women. No reasonable person believes Huckabee about his non-invovlement invovlement as the vast majority of Americans don't believe Clarence Thomas the innoncent victem when four others witnessed and saw his sexual harrassement of Anita Hill. Only Clarence Thomas and Mike Huckabee are telling the truth though they are the ones with a motive to be deceiteful. As Christians were are to be as harmless as doves and as wise as serpants. We are not to be as dumb as doves and to be re-victimized by those who act like snakes.

I suggest, Mr. Needs-To-Say-Only-Jesus-Saves.com,

That you rest your head and meditate on 'Brother.'

It'd be a start.

So, I'm guessing you like Shirley McClain? ;)
Oh brother.

Yes!

Good works are good works if you are doing them because they are the right thing to do, or if you are doing them to avoid burning in Hell. Not that motivating factors are not important. They are. But there will be time to discuss philosophy and motivation later when we are sipping a beer and nursing an aching back from all the heavy lifting we have done. In the mean time there is work to do, so hand me that hammer.

GeorgiaSon:
Yes, I agree. One hell of a great article.

JoeT:
It does seem to be spreading, thankfully.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo:
Thank you, thank you.

GeorgiaSon:
Yes, I agree. One hell of a great article.

JoeT:
It does seem to be spreading, thankfully.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo:
Thank you, thank you.

It is in fact, a good article. :)

I think it's important to remember, Georgiason, that 'secular' only means 'irreligious' or 'anti-religious' to those who consider anything less than their own theocracy an 'attack' on 'religion.'

Secular government is meant to be *not based in religious authority,* ...based in reason, not 'attacking religion' or 'excluding the religious.'

Frankly, those who claim secularism is an attack on them are just trying to justify a power-grab, and cast more and more encroachment of certain religious points of view onto the private lives of people of other beliefs through government power as somehow 'defensive.'

It's not.

A flying and gentle sparrow.

When the last
lights of a sunrise
disappear behind
a melody I hear
the song of
a beautiful sparrow,
the sound of a
rank and the rising
beginning now
reflecting the pain.

Francesco Sinibaldi

The not so common common sense in your article is reaching other threads suggesting that readers check out your essay.

Isn't it indeed amazing that there can be a debate about candidates' religion that is so narrow that Giuliani, McCain and Romney can't even get in the ring (even though Romney tried) from the perspective of some who think they are the only ones who count around here.

we would do well to remember our history, including such ancient facts as Reagan's non church attendance (for which I give him enormous credit for courage).

At last! Someone actually makes sensible comments about reconciling religious beliefs and politics in America. Mr. Stevens-Arroyo comes closer to the mark of getting it right than anyone else ever has. His remarks should be a guide to all political candidates.

It's never going to be a case of politicians adopting a posture that satisfies those with an avowedly secular outlook. That will not fly in America, not in your life time. The issue is for candidates to find that balance that allows them to express their innate morality without crossing the line into being an agent for religious dogma. Even though they, themselves, believe sincerely that their moral sense stems directly from their religious beliefs.

But there I go again--trying to express the thoughts that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo has already expressed, much better than I.

To all who read his comments: Do what you can to spread them far and wide. There is a great deal of wisdom here that goes far toward reconciling the religious and the political in America.

Well said!

Well said!