Truth is Marching?

Last updated on: January 30, 2013 at 1:11 pm by tmatt

Truth is Marching? 2013-01-30T13:11:33-05:00 tmatt

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton spent many of his Sunday mornings in the choir at Little Rock’s Immanuel Baptist Church.

Thus, President Clinton beamed with pride as his choir mates performed the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” after his second inaugural address. The anthem was so familiar that many in this elite congregation may have missed its ironic message.

“He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat,” sang the choir, within shouting distance of the U.S. Supreme Court. “He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat. … Our God is marching on.”

Inaugurations are the holy days of what historians call “civil religion,” which blends references to God and country into a vague, lowest-common-denominator faith. Julia Ward Howe’s hymn remains popular at events of this kind, even though it includes explicit references to Christ, God’s wrath, the crucifixion and other sensitive subjects. In one verse the men repeatedly sing, without apology: “Truth is marching.”

Suffice it to say that people have gotten into trouble for singing much tamer songs at graduation ceremonies and other public rites. Today, the very concept of truth is controversial.

Moments before the choir sang, President Clinton warned against the dangers of religious extremism. The wrong kind of faith leads directly to division and conflict, he said. “The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future. … Will we all come together, or come apart?”

While focusing initially on racism, the president clearly had other targets in mind — all critics of cultural and moral pluralism. It was hard to miss this shot at the Religious Right.

“Prejudice and contempt, cloaked in the pretense of religious or political conviction are no different,” he said. “These forces have nearly destroyed our nation in the past. They plague us still. … We cannot, we will not, succumb to the dark impulses that lurk in the far regions of the soul everywhere. We shall overcome them. And we shall replace them with the generous spirit of a people who feel at home with one another.”

Despite that touch of optimism, there is little evidence in the polls that America’s conflicts will end any time soon on issues ranging from late-term abortions to physician-assisted suicide, from tax-funded safe-sex programs to legislation attempting to define the meaning of marriage.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to provide secular answers to the kinds of sacred questions that for centuries belonged to theologians. People on both sides of the philosophical aisle agree that the court crossed a crucial line in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision on abortion rights.

“Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,” said the court. It then defined “liberty” in the broadest possible language and tied this new definition to the 14th Amendment. “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” said the court.

Many asked if this made it unconstitutional to say that any actions are “right” and others “wrong.” What if individuals decide that euthanasia, polygamy, infanticide or cocaine is essential to their concepts of “existence,” “meaning” or selfhood? What if government enforcement of an individual’s liberty leads to actions that threaten or injure others?

Evangelical activist Charles Colson pointedly asked if the court had shredded the nation’s social contract. It is highly likely that Colson, and others, will be asked to march onto Capitol Hill during the next four years and argue their case in public.

“People of different beliefs -br from Christians to atheists to New Agers -br may disagree vehemently over the meaning of life; yet we can all agree to stop when the traffic signal is red,” he argued, in Christianity Today. “The distinction between private belief and public philosophy is crucial if we are to maintain public order. But it is precisely this distinction that Casey denied. It simply … transferred the most fundamental decisions about life and death to the purely private realm.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 15, 1997

Carl Sagan: TV Evangelist

Next Post

January 29, 1997 George Lucas, the Force and God

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Anglicanism Announcements books Catholics doctrine evangelicals family life First person Godbeat Islam Judaism Mainline churches Marriage mass media movies Orthodox Politics popular culture religion sex Social issues Uncategorized Web/tech World World religions worship young people

Select a Month July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 May 2001 April 2001 March 2001 February 2001 January 2001 December 2000 November 2000 October 2000 September 2000 August 2000 July 2000 June 2000 May 2000 April 2000 March 2000 February 2000 January 2000 December 1999 November 1999 October 1999 September 1999 August 1999 July 1999 June 1999 May 1999 April 1999 March 1999 February 1999 January 1999 December 1998 November 1998 October 1998 September 1998 August 1998 July 1998 June 1998 May 1998 April 1998 March 1998 February 1998 January 1998 December 1997 November 1997 October 1997 September 1997 August 1997 July 1997 June 1997 May 1997 April 1997 March 1997 February 1997 January 1997 December 1996 November 1996 October 1996 September 1996 August 1996 July 1996 June 1996 May 1996 April 1996 March 1996 February 1996 January 1996 December 1995 November 1995 October 1995 September 1995

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Hebrews, who is described as "king of righteousness" and "king of peace"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Josiah David Melchizedek Solomon