Brit Hume suggested on air that Tiger Woods seek the Lord Jesus Christ for answers to his current problems, and people started talking. Selwyn Duke says the religious and the political are closely tied and always have been, so certain folk can reevaluate their offense to religious or specifically Christian evangelism when political evangelism goes on all the time. He writes, “I mean, could you imagine, let’s say, Jay Bookman stating, ‘You know, I like universal health care, but, hey, dude, whatever works for you’?”
Your comment is not completely clear to me but I’ll say this:
America started as a unified Puritan theocracy and rapidly began a long evolution into religious pluralism.
During the first few hundred years, Judaism and Catholicism were virtually outlawed, or at least viewed as heresies until somewhere in the mid-19th century.
Now Catholicism is the belief of close to 40% of Americans and the rest are Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Presbyterians, about 3% Jews, and a vary big pot potpourri of other “faiths”
It’s probably a good thing because it saves us from religious orthodoxy and a resurgence of theocracy.
I actually welcome a pretty big (minority) of Muslims to America, to further weaken any incipient attempt to build a virtual American theocracy.
I can figure out what Christ, Buddha, Mohamed and Vishnu meant, by myself, thank you.
Religious pluralism insures that I don’t have to cringe before the Pope’s faithful army, the Imam’s or the Buddhas.
Well, James, the point of the post and the linked article is that Christian statements in public are regularly frowned on by major media figures, and Brit Hume caught some flak for saying Woods ought to seek the Christian faith. Do you agree with those critics who say things like that should not be said in public or on the air?
Selwyn Duke is saying it’s strange to say religious persuasion should be private when political persuasion goes on all of the time, some politicians even using religious language to make their arguments. But neither he nor I nor anyone on this blog believes we should make citizenship a matter of orthodoxy, which is how I understand you references to a Christian theocracy. Sure, the puritans did have doctrine written into the law of their towns in the beginning, but that didn’t last long, maybe a few generations. (I don’t know what you mean by the outlawing of Catholics and Jews. Haym Salomon was a wealthy Jew who was a friend of the founding fathers and a financier for the War of Independence.)
So when you say you can figure out religious texts or teachers by yourself, are you saying believers of all kinds should keep to themselves?