Obama's Former Faith Adviser: 'I, Frankly, Am Glad American Civil Religion is Dying'
By Penny Starr
January 25, 2012
Shaun Casey, the religious affairs adviser to presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008, said at a discussion on Tuesday about "God and Politics" that the demise of religious society in the United States is a good thing.
...
"There is also a negative underside to that history with respect to slavery, manifest destiny, to war, you know, to empires, so I, frankly, am glad American civil religion is dying," Casey said. "But it does raise the practical question, what does bind us together in some way as a country?
FULL ARTICLE AT LINK
COMMENT: Note how this bum links those things together as related to "American civil religion." Those politically incorrect things are aspects of our identity as a country. Destroying those destroys us as a country. One often cannot subdivide these into "I like" and "I don't like" groups. When Glenn Beck attacks Manifest Destiny, he's attacking "American civil religion." When Pat Buchanan attack our American Empire, he's attacking "American civil religion." When a religious leader labels slavery "America's original sin" (in the same sense as the Roman Catholics use the term--please don't Teabrain on me), they are attacking "American civil religion." When any politician declares war to be an absolute "last resort," they are attacking "American civil religion."
The Left attacks all of these as part of destroying traditional culture. It's not that they necessarily don't like any particular one of those, but rather they need to break down the entire structure. THAT, not opposing "liberty" or something like that, is the definition of "Left." Rightwingers like Beck, Buchanan, or certain religious leaders are unwittingly aiding in that effort. But unlike Ron Paul, who attacks of the points except slavery (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day! LOL), they really don't have the defense of claiming they believe in ZOG (okay, Buchanan maybe a bit, but I can't honestly hang that on him).
So please look beyond the mere partisan politics of this article. Look at the insight into Leftist ideology and agendizing provided here. Remember it when you post something that challenges anything traditional. Indeed, sometimes we must depart from a tradition--as I've often said, we all have a place where we "break Left" politically, where the "old ways" need to change (mine is animal welfare [oh, and encouraging miniskirts on women with the legs for them, but that's another story]). Yet in doing so, we must 1. determine if the change is worth the damage to the traditional structure, and 2. if deemed worth that damage, do so in ways calculated to prevent "slippery slope" cascades supporting the Left.
Give the Left its due. They have the education, the sociopolitical mindedness, and the terminology to identify things like this. Use their knowledge against them by identifying what to defend and where to attack (subject to necessary "break-Lefts"). Avoid on the one hand knee-jerk defensiveness, but also, and more importantly, avoid dangerous accommodation. Societies and cultures do change, but that change should come appropriately, thoughtfully, carefully, and most often, begrudgedly.