I can’t imagine paying money for Winburn's book, but from the excerpt he does not seem to say that only the born again can hold office. He says that "We" (born again Christians) should elect born again Christians. This, in my opinion, is not news worthy. It would be like Tim Burke saying Democrats should only elect Democrats, which he does - he just is not very successful at doing it.
Winburn certainly does and says a lot of things I disagree with, this is just not one of them. And certainly not the one to pick a fight over.
Sinnard's analogy is improper. People choose (or at least should) party affiliations because they agree with certain tenets of policy and government. That is not why people join religions or cults.
Faith is personal (and should stay that way). Politics is public (and should stay that way).
I also wonder if Mr. Sinnard is consistent across the board. Should a neoChristian baseball manager only sign neoChristian players? Should a neoChristian only hire neoChristians to work on his house? What if his daugher started liking a Buddhist just a little too much?
3 comments:
Well said.
But as I understand it, most criticism is not "picking on Christians"; it is criticism of mixing church and state. It is not criticism of a particular religion; that is just what the neoChristians say because otherwise the real reason might make sense.
(neoChristian is the ClarkStreet word for the christian right since they are not true christians, as you point out. The label acknowledges their re-invention.)
Sometimes an open thesis is stronger because it does not have to have a structure.
Regards, Adam
Yeah, I was just about to say that.
Post a Comment