Book of the Month

Michael Wolraich's picture

Persecution Politics: Christian Leaders Sign Historic-Futuristic Declaration

Friday, November 20, 2009. 145 evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience," in which they declared their shared opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Though only hours old, the declaration has already been declared "historic" by those whose job it is to designate historic declarations. Several reasons were cited for the historic designation of the declaration:

  • It is divided into sections with important titles, like "Preamble," "Declaration," "Religious Liberty," and "Life."
  • Famous people have signed it, including fifteen Catholic bishops, one Orthodox primate (not the monkey kind), and child psychologist James Dobson.
  • It refers to more or less historical things like Christian leadership against Roman infanticide, Christian leadership against black slavery, Christian leadership for women's suffrage, and Christian leadership for civil rights for every human being "regardless of race, religion, age or class." (Hmm, I think that they forgot one.)

While some may quibble with the Manhattan Declaration's historical accuracy, no one can dispute its inherent historicness. In addition, the declaration is also noteworthy for its futureness, envisioning a time when religious institutions will be forced to do really, really bad things by "soft despots." The signers vow that they will follow Martin Luther King Jr. in disobeying any law that would require their institutions to "bless immoral sexual partnerships" or "participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act." The day that those soft despots force the nation's churches to engage in embryo-destructive research will be a dark one indeed, and we owe our gratitude to these courageous religious leaders who are willing to face imprisonment or even loss of tax exempt status for resistance to such immoral hypothetical laws.

Thus does the Manhattan Declaration join the lofty ranks of other proud historic-futuristic declarations like the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Emancipation Proclamation (which while not technically a declaration has been awarded the designation of honorary declaration in light of its declarative qualities). Thank you, Christian leaders, for overlooking your petty theological squabbles to unify against our common enemies: desperate women, homosexuals, and all those judges, politicians, and newspeople who facilitate their immoral practices.

Witness history and sanity unravel in happy unison at my Persecution Politics series at dagblog.com.

Why is Obama's Administration is Anti-Religion?  It's because they are Communists and Communists do not believe in God.  Overwhelming proof to back this claim here: http://www.commieblaster.com/index.html

Why are cucumbers anti-tomato? It's because they are Nazis and nazis are anti-red. Overwhelming proof to back this claim here:
Cukes!

Geek out. (Does anyone really use Cucumber? It looks like another quixotic attempt to write software in business logic aka "English.")

Yeah, it's not exactly my cup o' tea, either.

I just watched the South Park episode last night where they discovered that if shove food up your butt, turds come out your mouth. Which instantly explained things like my celery-stuffing friend over at TPM, but which also perhaps explains the Cucumber-Commieblaster linkage you've just identified, N.

Commie Blaster? Seriously? Were you cryofrozen in 1980?

This is clearly a high-quality web site, as evidenced by the awesome banner with Ronald Reagan cartoon and this irrefutable equation:

PROGRESSIVES = SOCIALISTS = COMMUNISTS = LEFT-WING RADICALS = ANTI-CAPITALISTS = UNAMERICAN


If I can just sidestep Commieblaster's searing argument for one moment, I found reading the Declaration an interesting process, in 3 ways: (1) They've adopted a style and approach which they feel sets them inside MLK shoes, and the anti-slavers, and seem to believe this approach is the right one. (2) It's an amazing look inside their heads, where they clearly feel they're a minority, and this comes up repeatedly across these churches -- whereas we often see them as representing the majority culture. (3) They are claiming women's suffrage, civil rights and even slavery as historic victories - for them. Now, segments and slices of conservative churches actually played quite powerful roles in some of these movements, but certainly in recent decades, these folks have been opposed.

So, you have to wonder what goes through the heads - not just what comes out of the mouths - of people who: A) Support civil rights and women's suffrage; B) Know that Obama & Hillary have won, and were beneficiaries of these movements; and yet, C) Are the immoral monsters bringing you these new challenges.

I've seen the same thing repeatedly come up in churches in relation to the environment, where the churches all became increasingly explicit about supporting wealth creation and pro-capitalist means of doing that, and then... saw their own people, esp. the younger members, begin to challenge the environmental impacts. e.g. That whole "What would Jesus drive?" thing sounded funny, but was part of 000's of churches getting solar panels and so on. At a deep level, there's a big question here, of -- who's really winning? There's also the question of, if your "opponents" are actually having to take many of your attitudes and approaches on-board, how can you use this to peel members off, and split their ranks? And last but never least, there's room for some more thinking about Ressentiment, and the greatness of FN, and how the hell one handles a population that soaks in it.

How the hell one handles a population that soaks in it indeed.  On the one hand, I do wonder what the success of PR means about democracy.  If you can truly manufacture consent, then what does that imply about the consent of the governed?  On the other hand, Fox News only has the ear of about 1% of the population, assuming that their ratings figures are accurate.

Two opposing views on the Manhattan Declaration from WaPo's On Faith section. The first is by Timothy George, founding dean of Beeson Divinity School and a senior editor of Christianity Today. George embraces the "fundamental truths" found in the Declaration and invites believers and non-believers alike to "to join us in the defense of human life, marriage, and religious freedom."

The second and more interesting column is by Robert Parham, executive editor of EthicsDaily.com and executive director of its parent organization, the Baptist Center for Ethics, who is right on topic:

The document centered on abortion, gay marriage and anxiety about Christians being persecuted, having their consciences coerced.

Noting its "chest-thumping boldness and abundant fear-mongering", Parham also calls out the Declaration for its historical un-truthiness in the realms of slavery, women's rights, civil rights and AIDS. Finally, Parham takes on what the Declaration neglected:

Such signatories can hardly reinvent themselves as drum majors for justice if they ignore climate change, wars in two nations, health care reform, deepening unemployment at home and spreading hunger around the world.

Latest Comments