Posted by Charity on May 23rd, 2006

I have long felt that it is a BIG mistake for the conservatives to attach their religious agenda to their political agenda.

From a religious standpoint, it’s bad religion (not to be confused with Bad Religion). I personally believe that the best way to show people the unconditional love and grace of Jesus Christ is to … well, show them the unconditional love and grace of Jesus Christ yourself. Most people will not accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior just because someone judged them harshly, hit them over the head with the Bible, and told them they were going to burn in hell. Instead of using the government to force social change, we should be living our faith by reaching out to others in our communities with love and compassion.

From a political standpoint, it sets a bad, bad, bad, bad precedent. Once it is established that the government can make laws based on a moral imperative, you end up with this – the “Spiritual Left” and their “Spiritual Covenant with America.”

Rest assured, I will do many more posts on the separate tenets of this nightmare policy, but for now, I will focus on this little gem:

The Social Responsibility Amendment (SRA) to the U.S. Constitution that we propose requires corporations to get a new corporate charter once every ten years which would only be granted to those corporations which could prove to a jury of ordinary citizens that it had a satisfactory history of social responsibility.

Okay, let me get this straight. The “Spiritual Left” wants to put it in our constitution that corporations must adhere to some arbitrary standard of “social responsibility” or they can’t do business?

In other words, they want to write it into the constitution that leftists get to call the shots in order for businesses to be able to continue to exist.

Where do they get the right to exert such a heavy-handed policy? From the same place that the so-called “Religious Right” gets the authority to use legislation to further their social agenda – from God.

This is exactly why I have long thought the GOP needs to stick to the issues of freedom – free-market, lower taxes, less intrusive government – because if everyone agrees that it is okay to make government more intrusive as long as it is attached to some sort of moral imperative handed down by a higher power, we are going to end up with liberals controlling every aspect of our country’s political and economic landscape in the name of their “progressive” spiritual mission.

7 Responses to “The Spiritual Left (part 1)”

  1. Bob the Optimizer
    May 23rd, 2006 at 7:06 pm

    “…corporations to get a new corporate charter once every ten years which would only be granted to those corporations which could prove to a jury of ordinary citizens that it had a satisfactory history of social responsibility. “

    I don’t see what your problem is. A ‘satisfactory history of social responsibility’ is something that can be accurately defined AND objectively measured!

    What a farce. So the large corporations that drive our economy would have to justify their existence to a bunch of yahoos who may know nothing of what they do or how businesses in general operate? Yikes.

    From a logistical standpoint, it would probably take ten years just to process all of the businesses in the country!

    Juror #1 says: I like the idea that General Dynamics produces weapons that keep our enemies off our shores, but I don’t think they’re really committed to that composting program they started five years ago! I’m also a little put off by the fact that they haven’t fully embraced homosexual marriage by hiring a gay CEO. I’m going to have to vote No.

    Juror #2 asks: Is there a non-profit alternative to General Dynamics?

  2. Bob the Optimizer
    May 23rd, 2006 at 7:27 pm

    This is all just the same old leftist crap with a laughible ‘spiritual’ window dressing.
    Unfortunately for them, they can’t dress it up enough to fool most people.

  3. “the GOP needs to stick to the issues of freedom – free-market, lower taxes, less intrusive government”

    I couldn’t agree with you more. Religion (from the leftist granola kind all the way over to the far right snake-handler variety) has no place getting mixed up in the laws.

    I especially love the part about social responsibility. WHo gets to decide what or who is socially responsible? “social responsibility” is a totally arbitrary term that means something completely different from one person to the next. What next?!?

  4. This liberal agrees with everything written in this post and comment thread so far. There are already (sometimes poorly-enforced) laws on the books against corporations behaving against the public good. An amendment is goofy. Religion of any kind has no place in law-making.

  5. I have to respectfully disagree with She’s Right on the issue of keeping religion out of law-making. If one separates one’s faith from one’s politics then that person really isn’t being honest with his or herself. If you are a modern Episocpalian and your view of tradition and Scripture is that homosexual unions should be sactioned by law then you have the right to advocate for that. If you are a traditional Evangelical and your view of tradition and Scripture is that homosexual unions should not be sanctioned by law you also have the right to advocate for that. The political question always runs into the philosophical question which always runs into the religious question. As Chesterton once said “Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”

  6. I spelt Episcopalian incorrectly.

  7. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I think that if you just take the government out of it all together, then gays can get married in churches that sanctify such unions and churches that do not can refrain from performing such ceremonies. It is not up to the lawmakers to decide which the correct religious view is, so they should just stay out altogether.

    I think that religious conservatives take the wrong approach when they want the government to enforce their beliefs. It is not the government’s job.

    That is not saying that they have to remain silent on the issue of homosexuality or gay marriage, just that they cannot expect the government to enforce their religious beliefs and their own religious freedom to remain safe at the same time.

    I choose religious freedom.