Our apostate of the day, styled “dgm”, brings us a new twist:
One of the main reasons for me was the appropriation of Christianity by the right-wing and Republicans. It got to the point where true Christians were Republicans and conservative and that was it. One could not be even a little liberal/progressive and be a Christian according to most people I knew. Then the whole "it's o.k. to torture because we're in a holy war" thing really disgusted me.
Nick observed that this was emotional reasoning, and that he says this as a staunch conservative. I, too, say it as someone whose political leanings have been rated on the line between conservative and libertarian (and who is much to the left on certain environmental and animal rights issues). But in general, there’s a couple of points to be made on this.
First, briefly, on that line about torture: It’s hard to say what the point is here, since I know of no one who has used such reasoning. Maybe dgm went to some really far out churches in his time – and to that extent, I wouldn’t blame dgm for being confused.
But here’s the main issue. People seem to forget (or be unaware) that it was an appropriation of Christianity by the left-wing that got this all started. The right wing was just reacting to at the left wing was doing. I would hope (in fact, I would suppose) that dgm and others would be consistent and also object when it gets “to the point where true Christians were Democrats and liberal and that was it.” And then of course we have stuff like liberation theology that may say true Christians are Marxist, and so on.
I belong to no political party; none represents what I believe adequately about political values. I also think (rather cynically) that when a politician appropriates a religion, chances are 9 in 10 that it is just a ploy to get easy votes from a known group. That said, because moral issues lie at the heart of both religion and politics, it is inevitable that at some point, goals and purposes will intersect. We have to be realistic and suppose that despite what fantasies Skeptics may engage in legal terms, there will not be a “wall of separation” between the way people think about church and state and how those institutions impact their lives.
To that extent, it can hardly be avoided to suggest that this or that political stance is more or less in line with this or that religious stance. There should be no blanket assessment of Christianity as a “Republican” or “Democratic” arsenal. But it remains inevitable that some issues-stance will be more or less in line with what the Christian faith demands of its followers.
We would be foolish to deny that – and Skeptics would be fools to think they could prevent it.