Gary Hart
I have a new-found respect for Gary Hart today after reading his op-ed piece in the NYTIMES 11/8/04.
He writes:
“My political philosophy springs directly from Jesus’ teachings and is the reason I became active in the Democratic Party.” He admits he is “a sinner” and asks “for the same degree of forgiveness from my many critics that they were willing to grant George W. Bush for his transgressions.” (probably too much theology already for most people reading his column!)
He explains why he didn’t Bible thump during his campain “because I am also a Jeffersonian; that is to say, I believe that one’s religious beliefs – though they will and should affect one’s outlook on public policy and life – are personal and that America is a secular, not a theocratic, republic.” Well put!
Emphases are mine in the next quoted paragraphs:
“Declarations of “faith” are abstractions that permit both voters and candidates to fill in the blanks with their own religious beliefs. There are two dangers here. One is the merging of church and state. The other is rank hypocrisy. Having claimed moral authority to achieve political victory, religious conservatives should be very careful, in their administration of the public trust, to live up to the standards they have claimed for themselves. They should also be called upon to address the teachings of Jesus and the prophets concerning care for the poor, the barriers that wealth presents to entering heaven, the blessings on the peacemakers, and the belief that no person should be left behind.
If we are to insert “faith” into the public dialogue more directly and assertively, let’s not be selective. Let’s go all the way. Let’s not just define “faith” in terms of the law and judgment; let’s define it also in terms of love, caring, forgiveness. Compassionate conservatives can believe social ills should be addressed by charity and the private sector; liberals can believe that the government has a role to play in correcting social injustice. But both can agree that human need, poverty, homelessness, illiteracy and sickness must be addressed. Liberals are not against religion. They are against hypocrisy, exclusion and judgmentalism. They resist the notion that one side or the other possesses “the truth” to the exclusion of others. There is a great difference between Cotton Mather and John Wesley.
There is also the disturbing tendency to insert theocratic principles into the vision of America’s role in the world. There is evil in the world. Nowhere in our Constitution or founding documents is there support for the proposition that the United States was given a special dispensation to eliminate it. Surely Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. But there are quite a few of those still around and no one is advocating eliminating them. Neither Washington, Adams, Madison nor Jefferson saw America as the world’s avenging angel. Any notion of going abroad seeking demons to destroy concerned them above all else. Mr. Bush’s venture into crusaderism frightened not only Muslims, it also frightened a very large number of Americans with a sense of their own history.”
— — —
A year ago (or longer) on This Journey…
