Had it happened in Iran, I wonder how this story would have been covered by the press? In a conference call with clergy last Tuesday, the governor of the second largest state in the union called for “Christian soldiers” to rise up and take the nation and give it back to the Christian religion. Gov. Perry called secular government a lie spread by Satan. He said the nation is engaged in “spiritual warfare.”
“In fact, it may be growing stronger as President Obama and his cronies in Washington continue their effort to remove any trace of religion from American life,” Perry said. “And it falls on us. I mean we truly are Christian warriors, Christian soldiers, and it’s for us as Americans to stand our ground and to firmly send a message to Washington that our nation is about more than some secular laws and activist courts.”
“…The idea that we should be sent to the sidelines, I will suggest to you, is very driven by those who are not truthful. Satan runs across the world with his doubt and his untruths and what have you, and one of the untruths out there (that) is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena.”
So riddle me this. If it is crazy when a leader in Iran calls for a holy struggle to establish an Islamic state, why is it not crazy when a leader in our country does the same thing using the Christian religion?
A longer article from the Austin Statesman on this subject is included below. (Thanks to Bob Dailey for link)
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/perry-and-the-devil-and-church-state-separation-2462392.html
I think the point about separation of church and state needs to be explained better. There are people believers and unbelievers alike who think that means government officials shouldn’t be directed in their actions by their faith. We need more voices saying that politicians should be guided by their conscience and faith is a part of that and that separation of church and state is about keeping one religion from dominating the nation through the government. If Risk Perry was saying that, he’s right.
Of course if he was saying, as you charge, that his brand of religion should be forced on everyone he’s crazy. But I’m not convinced by the quotes and the article that he was.
Of course, even if I agree there have expectations that politicians should ignore their religion, I do not think Obama is involved in that and it’s not a part of any Democrat agenda. Perry’s most definitely wrong there.
I don’t like Perry’s argument, but come on. The kinds of fatwas typically covered in the news are this kind: “I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film”
Do you really think that Perry’s proposal that Christian soldiers, you know, get involved in the public arena is equally worth reporting on? I don’t even think you do. This is propaganda or an attempt to get hits, but it is something other than serious.
I posted the following perfectly civil comment before, I hope you’re not deleting criticisms.
It is unserious to compare Rick Perry’s call for Christians to be active in the public square with the kinds of fatwas that have been in the news lately, that call for and may actually result in murders. I do not agree with Perry, but what you have written here seems to me to be either propaganda or an attempt to get a few extra hits by saying something striking. At least I can’t imagine that a rational person really sees Perry’s remarks as in the same ballpark as the recent call for Muslims to murder all the people involved in an offensive movie.
A fatwa is just a religious edict. They don’t have to be violent. I agree that America isn’t as bad yet as other places, but this is how you get to be that bad. Our ignorance about other religion keeps us from seeing the similarities.
I know what a fatwa is. However you led your post with the suggestion that there is double standard because the media covers Islamic fatwas and not Rick Perry’s. My suggestion is that since the fatwas the media actually covers are of the sort I described, and the fatwa calling for the murder of various individuals is the one in the news today, that it is sensationalistic and egregiously misleading to make the comparison you are making. I would add that even if you take Perry’s statement, which I, again do not agree with, at its most extreme, what it means is not that America should be a theocracy but rather that its values derive from and are dependent on the continued health of Christianity. It is not my ignorance of other religions that prevents me from noticing the similarity. It’s that there isn’t a similarity.
Jonathan,
I am assuming my readers either knew what a fatwa is, or had the humility to look it up. Your criticism assumes you are more sophistocated than they are, but people who have such ridiculous ideas of Islam as thinking all fatwas are violent leave my site pretty quickly because I confront Islamophobia on a regular basis.
Second, if you want objectivity, why on earth are you coming to a blog? I write persuasive essays. That’s what most blogs are. If you just want the facts go to wikipedia. Otherwise come and give your opinion, but don’t resent me for expressing my views on my own blog.
Third, the only reason the Christian right is not as dangerous as radical Islam is not because they are different in principle, it is because they do not have the power. Perry’s words were an attack on the wall of separation of church and state. If he were the only one doing it, you’re right, my concern would be ridiculous, but the Republican party has come to use the weak as fundraisers. To claim that vulnerable parts of the population are a threat to Christianity is incredibly dangerous rhetoric. It may not threaten you as a white Christain heterosexual male, but I have performed and attended funerals of people killed in hate crimes, so yes I am very passionate on this issue. If you really believe such rhetoric is not deadly I recommend you go talk to families of the Sikhs who were killed because they were seen as an attack on Christendom. It’s fine for you to disagree and say so, but do not come onto my blog and tell me not to advocate for the vulnerable.
Jim
Thank you for responding. Allow me a few more words on this, and then I will leave your comments section alone.
1. I think when you say that I should avoid blogs if I do not like people expressing their opinions, you suggest that it’s impossible both to express an opinion and to support it with sound arguments I read many blogs. I like to hear people express their opinions. I just don’t like the way you have defined murderous speech down.
2. I am sorry to hear that you have had to preside over and attend the funerals of people who have been killed in hate crimes, but a) the speech you identified hardly qualifies as hate speech; b) the object of the speech is, I think, white elite secular liberal intellectuals, not Sikhs, or Muslims, or other non-Christians
3. Finally, I assumed that since you have a comments section you would not understand disagreement as a demand that you stop advocating for the vulnerable. I just think that your argument, not unlike the frequent invocation of Hitler and Fascism in our political discourse, makes a mockery of genuine horrific crimes in an effort to score a relatively cheap political point. I suppose it’s possible that, if you have a sufficiently large readership who trusts you, there may be some short-term gains for the vulnerable in this kind of propagandizing, but I doubt it is good for the long run.
4. I would find it bizarre were it not so typical, that you assume I must be a white heterosexual male (I’ll give you the male because there aren’t many female Jonathans) because I, while noting my disagreement with Rick Perry, think it may be a mistake to compare his advocacy of Christians speaking up as Christians in the public square, to advocating murder.