The Tension Between: Religion and Politics; Values, Faith, Character; Heart and Head.


I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.
- Mark Twain, Eruption

There are few things that create tension among mixed company like politics and religion. Both are deeply personal and are shaped over years of experience and observation. Every individual will at some point in their life make judgements regarding what is true and correct. While there are specific tenets in faith and politics that create divisions by faction or creed, there are intersections of laws both made by man and that of the eternities that will by necessity require the formation of relationships based on trust and ecumenical loyalties.

The stage for Economy is when two or more people are gathered to exchange values.
The stage for Politics is when two or more people are gathered to work out their differences by policy.
The stage for Security is when two or more opposing forces cannot work things out by politics.
The stage for Religion is when two or more are gathered to worship.

If any of these things were purely of an individual matter, we would not need discuss them, let alone spend an undue amount of time trying to prove the errors of ignorance, arrogance, envy, enmity, and all other antithetical behaviors to the supposed “virtuous path”. Our intuitive desire for higher understanding, the very desire that espouses the virtues of knowledge, humility, empathy, brotherly kindness, and love, is synthesized in social interaction. Without this desire, without curiosity, the world would we be an awful boring space for matter to occupy.

Exemplars, Heroes, Mentors, are sought after because it’s easier to subscribe to a set of principles and values than it is to come up with, and etch them on your own set of tablets. Subscribing does not require the follower to sacrifice as much in reputation and capital, until they become an active participant to the effect of leading in their own spheres of influence. The stakes for integrity, pure intent, and follow through are not nearly as demanding on the follower as they are for the leader. I suspect that each of us at some point in our lives will be challenged to take up our cause and become the leader where we stand at that time. Each of us will weigh the balance of what “is” and what “ought”, and what we can effect to “become”. Much of those experiences repeating in different circumstances will make up not just what we believe, but who we become. And thus we develop Character.

Those of us that know and understand the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, have a testimony that not only has a perfect exemplar lived and died, but that he lived again. That one life in presumably billions was able to rise above all things, and descend below all things, and then rise again, that He might judge with perfect judgement given to him by his Father.

Testimony is a thing that is difficult to debate with those that do not have that testimony. Again it is something that is acquired through desire, faith, action, and experience. Doctrinal differences aside, all arguments for and against must be weighed by the experience of synthesizing what has been written and analyzed. This is where faith begins, it begins when a truth exists with or without a hypothesis. By curiosity, by desire, or faith, without any evidence that our action will be rewarded with a better understanding, we move forward with what we do know finding the path ahead lighted just enough for us to know we should continue forward. Now when this is so done, and the truth is uncovered, that which was learned has now become experience, and truth becomes not just faith, but knowledge by faith. Without faith, there could be nothing known, for without having knowledge of truth by our own experience, we are just borrowing information from others. Such an existence would be wholly dependent, and yet be isolated in ignorance. Which is why most of us take the truth to be hard when we’re unwilling to interact with others.

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so”. -Ronald Reagan

There are folks out there that may have good intent, but they’re just wrongheaded. Sometimes they draw their experience from foreign sources to illustrate the correctness of their anecdotal assumptions. These are not enemies to that which is true, but their ignorance is indeed the enmity between truth and the path to hell paved with good intentions. When Reagan quipped about the “trouble with our liberal friends” it was tongue in cheek, but the observation holds true to those that become frustrated when attempting to articulate the hypothesis, analysis, and the synthesis of the “trouble” that we share concomitantly, along with the proposed solution, to another that simply ‘doesn’t get it’.

Humility provides us the opportunity to re-evaluate what we know, and what we do with that knowledge. So much of what Conservatism is, as an ideology, requires personal study, personal experience, and personal sacrifice to stand up to populist movements that are driven by group-think. One mustn’t assume that Conservatism is wholly on the side of tradition when pitted against progress. Conservatism is more about starting with personal effectiveness.

Rather than dealing with outliers by moving the goal posts and skewing production in the name of equality and fairness. The more limited the government is in manipulating the outcome, or redistributing the harvest of producers, the more individuals are required to prosper on their own merits, or depend on the charity of others for their substance. When government provides a safety net for that gap, they promote dependency rather than self-sufficiency, and government grows. When government provides a safety net for that gap, they deprive the opportunity for producers to work by charity, and then government grows.

Not all will value all in parity. So how is it that we can claim that equality is promoted by redistributing the fruits of productivity? All men are created equal, but going forward it is their life and their liberty that allows them to determine their own path in the pursuit of happiness. Liberty without independence is dead being alone. The less dependent we are on others (including Government), the more we can create, innovate, illustrate, and educate. (i.e. contribute/produce). Contribution is always more effective in production than Confiscation and Re-Distribution of talents, and when we are speaking about the conditions of mankind at the individual level, progress will be found in personal effectiveness, not dependence on others for substance.

There is indeed a tension between our head and heart. But when peaceful emotions seem to harmonize both, we are given the rare gift of clarity in that very moment. It is when we have these moments that we can be confident in the desire, the action, the faith, and the knowledge obtained. I have a suspicion that the absence of this clarity isn’t a judgement upon our ability to reconcile the tension between head and heart, but rather a clue that quite possibly we’re being distracted from that which is most important and urgent in the pursuit of happiness from the eternal perspective.

Each of us “ought” to evaluate where we stand. We “ought” to lift and contribute in that place to the greatest execution of our capacity. However liberty dictates that we are free to choose our own personal effectiveness to our own purposes. And herein lies the confidence that can not be stripped by detractors, defamers, and distractions. When we do what is right, we remain free. Neither can we do wrong, and feel good about it. As long as we all remain free to choose for ourselves what we produce, and what we contribute, the more there will be of necessity, ideologies that compete. Therefore we must recognize that the expansion and contraction of these tensions during the expected lifetime of an individual are conditions of the perpetuity of social interaction. Some conditions may require compromise, some conditions may require absolutes. Thus the need to set goals with the direction and purpose in mind, as much as the consideration of the destination and achievement. I suppose that on the ladder of knowledge and experience that there is not any one of us that can jump too many rungs at a time, and hope to understand something where we have not tread foot.

Therefore I find myself in agreement with the principle author of the Constitution when he said: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison


What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?


Note: The following article, which I’ve written, is cross-posted from American Thinker.

In the 2010 primaries, Charlie Christ, then-governor of Florida and Senate candidate, faced several serious contenders for his seat.  One of the most successful ads used against him by his staunchly conservative opponent, Marco Rubio, was an image of opportunist Charlie Christ hugging Obama at a rally where Charlie helped promote the stimulus package.  Rubio’s constant usage of the image, which reminded the Florida voters of Charlie’s support for the stimulus, was a key factor in ousting Charlie from his Senate seat.

In the few short years since Obama has become president, he’s caused unbelievable destruction for this country via the weakening of our global image, the wrecking of the economy, the heightened division between class and race, and other ruinous policies.  Any politician who had supported Obama in reaching any of his goals deserves to have his opponents harp upon it and to be thrown out of office, as happened to Charlie Christ.

It is now barely two years after we got rid of Charlie Christ, and I’m left to wonder what has occurred to conservatives’ demand for character.  If an image of Charlie hugging Obama was so powerful two short years ago, why doesn’t the image of one of our presidential candidates palling around with a different demagogue receive a similar outcry?  Yes, the rabble-rouser in this image hasn’t succeeded in dismantling the economy as Obama has, but that’s only because he had narrowly lost the Democratic primary several years back.  This individual has actually endorsed and directly participated in violence far more often and personally than Obama.  His actions of destruction haven’t occurred on a national platform only because he didn’t make it to the presidency, though the racial violence he’s incited in the past and continues to incite has led to the deaths of at least a dozen innocent individuals and destroyed the lives of many more.

Obama said that the police acted stupidly and then apologized via a beer summit.  This individual has led many rallies against police officers, including one at which cries of “kill the police” were heard.  This individual has never apologized  or admitted his wrongdoings in even a single one of his countless despicable acts.  Having been proven guilty in court meant the jury was wrong, and he never bothered paying back his buddies who’ve paid his remuneration to the innocent party.

For those of you who haven’t yet figured out who this disgraceful individual must be, I will no longer keep you in suspense.  This is none other than the rabble-rouser Al Sharpton, whose participation and incitatements at instances such as the Tawana Brawley hoax, the Crown Heights riot, the Central Park “wilding” case, and the Freddie’s Fashion Mart fire have led to the destruction of many lives and are too numerous to enumerate.

And the GOP presidential candidate who lavishes praise upon despicable Al?  That is Newt Gingrich, who has accepted the shields Sharpton has donned in an attempt to differentiate himself from the common thug sitting behind bars — intellectual superiority, racial healer, and education specialist.

Gingrich had teamed up with Al Sharpton on Obama’s behalf on an education stint during which Gingrich piled heaps of praise upon Obama for his wonderful stance on education.  Who in his right mind would choose Al Sharpton, from the entire country, as the “education professor” who will help reform the broken system?  Where was Al when Obama closed the voucher program in D.C. which had helped poor, struggling, mostly minority students get a better education at a cheaper cost?  Admittedly, there are some other education professionals such as terrorist Bill Ayers who are equally disqualified.  However, that is not reason enough to dismiss Sharpton’s acts of terror, which have NYC trembling in their boots from fear.

After the 2008 campaign, the majority of the conservative field was sorely disappointed to hear that the following McCain ad against Obama hadn’t been aired due to McCain’s objection in mentioning Obama’s pastor:

Narrator: Long before anyone knew who John McCain or Barack Obama were, one chose to honor his fellow soldiers by refusing to walk out of a prisoner of war camp.  The other chose not to even walk out of a church where a pastor was spewing hatred.

Rev. Wright: Not God bless America! God damn America!

Narrator: Character matters, especially when no one’s looking.

Why has Newt’s chumminess with the violence-inciting Al Sharpton been shoved to a corner?  Perhaps there is no image of an actual hug, though there are plenty of images of joint appearances at rallies across the country.  Are people simply oblivious to Al’s heinous acts and unaware of Newt’s chummy behavior and praise of Al, or does character no longer matter?

Yes, Newt is a brilliant individual with savvy debating skills, but is that a good enough excuse for conservatives to dump their values?  What was our reaction in 2008 of the Democrats’ support of Barack Obama?  Obama, too, was defended as a cool, audience-drawing intellectual with great oratory skills — and an African-American to boot!  Conservatives, though, were appalled at the left’s support of a long-time attendee at Wright’s church and a buddy to Tony Rezko and William Ayers.  Conservatives explained that they would oppose Obama’s lack of character whether he was white, brown, black, or yellow, yet we now have many respected conservatives who have chosen to support Newt, Sharpton’s buddy, out of all other primary candidates!

Fellow conservatives, we can and should do better than this.  Newt’s propping Sharpton obviously doesn’t cause Newt to be as undesirable as Obama, for he hasn’t sat himself and his kids in Sharpton’s church for twenty years, and this is just one tiny example about Obama.  However, we are now in something called primary season — a time where we’ve got to choose a candidate who represents both our values and our ideology.

Newt lacks both character and a conservative record.  He has embraced just about every liberal big-government idea you can think of at some point in his career.  He demanded government intervention to help control global warming, called for “Green Conservatism” and even co-sponsored an environmentalist bill with Nancy Pelosi, praised FDR in two of his books as “probably the greatest president of the twentieth century,” and much more.

One last thought.  The widespread picture where Charlie Christ shared a stage with Obama was taken shortly after Obama’s election, when Obama was still extremely popular.  Christ’s actions can thus be seen as opportunistic.  Newt Gingrich, however, caused damage to the conservative movement at its height of popularity.  Prior the 2010 midterm elections, when anti-Obama sentiments were rampant across the country and the Tea Party was extremely popular, Newt supported ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, liberal Scozzafava instead of Tea Party conservative Doug Hoffman.  When originally confronted for his odd pick, Newt defended his endorsement with the old “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority” defense, but this is non-applicable since NY-23 is a Republican district.

Shortly after many Tea Party candidates joined Congress after their victories in 2010, Paul Ryan presented a reasonable plan to reform Medicare for future retirees, and it passed the House with an overwhelming majority.  It was short just a few votes in the Senate and quite popular amongst the public when Newt emerged on the scene and used his superior oratorical skills to lash out against the bill.  Newt blasted it as “right-wing social engineering,” which led to its demise.

These are but two examples of Newt’s value to conservatism while conservatism was popular.  Never mind the Newt and his actions when anti-Republican emotions were at their peak.  That’s the Newt who sat on the couch with Pelosi.

The following question has therefore been haunting and plaguing me, and since I haven’t found a proper response, I will present it to Newt supporters: what must Newt have embraced in the past, or which line must he still cross, for you conservatives who support him to say, “That’s it! I will no longer support Newt!” beyond taking a gun and going on a shooting rampage or some similar ultra-violent act?

 

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.