neocon
What would Jesus do? aka WWJD
Sorry you found my post too opaque, neocon. I absolutely thought you would take my reference, or I would have made myself clearer. Mea culpa, then.
The WWJD phenomenon has been around for a couple of years. It's encourages people to approach decision making through reference to Jesus. Thus, for example, when deciding whether or not to have sex with his girlfriend, a Christian boy is advised to ask himself "What would Jesus do?" and act accordingly. Millions of teens have purchased WWJD bracelets, there's a WWJD summer camp, music CD, etc. Check the links, below, for more on WWJD.
I was prompted to post this to you following your exchange with John Lacelle about H.R. Clinton channeling Eleanor Roosevelt. You wrote
Of course, it is all surrounded by New Age claptrap, to indicate that Hillary doesn't REALLY believe that she can hold conversations with Mrs. Roosevelt through channeling...
I'll take your word that HRC doesn't believe she can reach Mrs. Roosevelt. But, from my point of view, this "New Age claptrap" bears a striking resemblance to the WWJD bent of mainline Christianity. Compare HRC's quest for answers to the process Senator James Inhofe went through to decide how to vote in the Senate trial, as he said "probably the most important vote I will cast during the course of my lifetime."
I think we have seen the truth. And I think the final truth is that this President should be held to the very highest of standards.
Sometimes when I am not really sure I am right, I consult my best friend. His name is Jesus. And I asked that question. Now I will quote to you the response that is found in Luke:'From one who has been entrusted with more, much more will be asked.'
Mr. Chief Justice, I think Jesus is right.
I don't think we'd be stretching it to suppose that Sen. Inhofe routinely seeks -- and receives -- guidance from his best friend, Jesus. This prayer-and-answered-prayer conversation is the routine stuff of religion. Here, Sen. Inhofe invokes it at the highest level of our political process.
So your response to HRC also causes me to look askance on the majoritarian position you took towards prayer at civic functions. (Krishna, please! just don't let it be the double-breasted bore from the Senate trial!) You asserted, as I recall, that it was reasonable to ask dissenters to sit still for religious ritual to which most in attendance do not object. We may assume, I take it, that this rules out most "New Age claptrap" in favor of what a minority might consider to be bible-based buncombe.
Even if you, personally, wouldn't object to, say, a Wiccan ritual -- in a gesture recognizing that Wiccans, like the majority of Americans, are people of faith -- I assure you that most mainstream religionists would be screaming to high heaven. No reciprocity, no equal access; the mainstream can, through its numbers, veto religious expression to which it does not subscribe. And atheists -- well, either way -- tough.
Although you probably won't need my little homily, I think it's important to remind ourselves what the first Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Your assent to majoritarian rule, in my opinion, violates the freedom of individual conscience that those words command. The non-conformists -- who, in large part, founded this country -- made clear in equal measure that they would countenance neither religious prohibition, nor its sponsorship. And, in writing the Constitution, the pious believers among the framers had at least as much interest in making this inviolate freedom clear as did the deists, skeptics and free-thinkers. As I said, you likely know all this. But if a majority today seems to have changed its mind -- not a settled point -- well, either way, tough.
Finally, while reading your post we noted with wonder your pique-ish reference to us in the third person. While we may in fact deserve an apology for such affront, we certainly aren't holding our breath awaiting its arrival; we deign to move on. For the time being, then, we leave you as we found you, asking What would Jesus do?
ian
LINKS
CNN report on WJJD: cnn.com
SI member counseling another to ask WWJD: techstocks.com
Official (?) WWJD website: wwjd.com
Sen. Inhofe's final, closed session speech (includes a patronizing howler about the little lady he calls the missus): cnn.com
U.S. Constitution: law.emory.edu |
