More on Bishop Schori; or, How the Left Destroys Religion

After publishing a previous post, we got a little curious about the new Presiding Episcopal Bishop, Katharine Schori, recently installed just down the road from Wonker at the National Cathedral, a magnificent gothic building beautifully sited at the top of a hill in Washington at the intersection of Massachusetts and Wisconsin Avenues NW, overlooking Georgetown below.

As most remaining Episcopalians know by now, the Episcopal Church—essentially the American branch of the Anglican Church—is in turmoil today for a variety of reasons, most of them boiling down to core issues such as allowing women in the priesthood, and permitting homosexuals to be ordained bishops. Both of which the establishment Episcopal Church loves and which the few remaining conservative Episcopalians, like most of their worldwide Anglican bretheren, despise.

Without getting into the relative theological merits of this and that (which Wonker's reasonably good with, actually, having been trained by Jesuits), the problem we're dealing with here is the intrusion of leftist politics into the theological arena. An organized religion, in the end, is a matter of faith, not feeling, a matter of dogma not choice. You can't really "change" the theology of an organized religion once it's set. You can only change religions. For if a theology or a creed becomes completely malleable, completely subjective, it soon ceases to exist as a religion.

Lefties, however, do not accept this. The secular left has been quite clever over the past half century or so in infiltrating its belief system into organized religion, finding an easy reception among already left-liberal Episcopalians, but wreaking habit on other Protestant religions as well.

Which gets us back to Bishop Schori. The good Bishop is no shrinking violet. Her thoughts are available on the web for all to see and approve. Let's take a look at some recent pronouncements.

Roughly a year ago, for example, Bishop Schori counseled her flock to oppose the pending FY 2006 Budget Reconciliation Act. That's a pretty strange tack to take for a religious leader, particularly when her religion, which has tax-exempt status, is prohibited from indulging in partisan politics. But no matter. Let's take a look at some of the Bishop's missive on this topic:

As the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada...I am deeply concerned for the working poor, children, and elderly of this country as the Congress considers the FY '06 Federal Budget Reconciliation Act, which could potentially cut more than $50 billion dollars from programs that serve those most in need.

The example of Jesus guides Christians today by instilling in us a commitment to the least among us. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita exposed the anguished faces of the poor in the wealthiest nation on the planet. Ironically, just as disaster struck the Gulf Coast, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that poverty in the United States is growing, with 37.0 million people living in poverty in 2004, an increase of more than one million people since 2003....

Congress must not exacerbate poverty across the United States and in Nevada by passing a budget that further impoverishes one group of already poor people in our nation in order to help those newly or more deeply impoverished by the recent hurricanes. Cuts in Food Stamps, Medicaid, child care and children's health programs do further harm and injustice to the most vulnerable whom this country seems to have already left behind.

Note the interesting turn here, as Bishop S cleverly consults with Jesus, getting Him involved in the budgetary process. Like most facile leftist propositions, this one looks reasonable on its face. (Plus, it's endorsed by the Lord!) However, this reasoning also forcefully argues that Congress embrace, with taxpayer dollars, the Bishop's purported religious beliefs which she is merely handing down from Christ. This is something, of course, that should nauseate all leftists as is breaks down the fabled "wall of separation" between secular government and religion. But then, the left only worries about the "wall" when it's conservatives who are making the argument. And logical consistency is not important to the left. (The dialectic is, along with class struggle.)

Bishop S concludes in the same vein:

Congress must instead bring forth a federal budget that reflects the values and priorities on which this nation was founded, and which we have historically championed: justice for all, especially those who have no other helper. Their aid must not be withdrawn or diminished. We must not ask the poorest among us to bear a burden which should be borne by this entire nation.

As I recall, Jesus never instructed his Apostles to found a Congress whose aim it was to extract money from the "rich" to distribute to the poor. (Caesar actually did most of the extracting at the time, and it didn't go to the poor.) Jesus did once challenge a rich young man to sell all he had and give it to the poor as a way of following in His footsteps. In fact, He issued this kind of challenge often and in many ways. But the challenge was always to individuals, to individual hearts and souls. For Jesus knew that institutions could not force true change. It could only come from within. It could only come from the heart. Conversion was, and is, a personal experience.

Yet for some reason, Bishop S has conflated Jesus' original challenge to the individual into some kind of extended Constitutional right. She is, in fact, inflating the notion of individual redemptive choice into a blanket pronouncement that inserts her interpretation—socialism—into a Constitution that did not and does not exist as a malleable vehicle geared toward promoting the government's redistrubution of wealth.

Under our system, I think, charity and the giving of alms remains an individual choice. Recognizing this, the Bishop should have ordered a special collection, not, in effect, higher taxes. But such redistributionist sentiments as the Bishop preaches come easily to those on the left. It's a way of taking the moral high ground in public without having to dig into your own pockets. It is, if you will, an update on the parable of the Pharisee and the publican. And as such, it's hypocritical.

Let's move on to the Bishop's 2004 push for what she calls "fair and just" immigration reform. Her version, of course, is quietly and subtly intended to undermine the meaning of citizenship and nationhood, replacing it with the kind of piety-without-borders that today's left intends to use to destroy all vestiges of our culture and laws:

The Judaeo-Christian tradition has always held up caring for the alien as one of the most central marks of a godly and righteous person. The Bible repeatedly enjoins people of faith to remember the stranger, to care for those without family or roots in a place, and to ensure that they are fed, housed, and shown hospitality. As a nation, we have largely forgotten that mandate, especially since September 11th. While I recognize the need for adequate security measures, the fear-mongering of late has eclipsed the demand to treat our neighbors fairly and humanely.

First of all, as I recall, the Bible discusses "strangers" or "guests," not "aliens." This subtle, intentional conflation of terms is a cherished trick of the left, allowing the propagandist to introduce an unrelated term with a contemporary meaning alongside an ancient term in this case, thus imbuing the contemporary usage ("alien") with scriptural gravitas.

Second of all, there is no "mandate" in the Bible to do such a thing. "Mandate," a word traditionally used in politics to describe the authority granted by the majority of the electorate, has been transformed into a term more akin to legislative fiat. (Although this usage has been abused by politicians and policy wonks for years.) This, the Bishop now expands into a Biblical fiat, when, in fact, hospitality was largely the local custom of many societies whereby a head of household extended courtesy to a visiting stranger. Regardless of Biblical meaning and intent, however, this custom is also nowhere enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a final, gratuitious slap, the Bishop tosses out, without supporting documentation, the term "fear-mongering," casually tarring with that epithet anyone who might dare oppose her personal observations on this topic. Leftists, whether involved directly in politics or hiding beneath the benign cloak of religion, can never resist making nasty asides, usually entirely out of context. Their seething anger at those who might disagree with them is so powerful that it always seeks an outlet. This, at least in part, is why we often see discordant comments such as these in documents that purport to be reasonable in meaning and in scope.

By casually demonizing an opposing point of view, a leftist like the Bishop does two important things. First, she communicates to all blue-state true believers that she is one of them, quickly and without much effort. And second, by means of this demonization, she absolves her readers of the bothersome task of having to evaluate an opposing viewpoint. They are thus given a dispensation to completely ignore the other side, saving them valuable time, not to mention the bother of activating the arduous mental processes of thinking and evaluating. Argument "ad hominem," since the time of the ancient Greeks, has been regarded as a logical fallacy and it's one we see almost daily on the political stump by cheap shot artists lacking a full mental apparatus. Since leftists, however, don't believe in logic (only the dialectic), an ad hominemn "argument" or comment is viewed as the most efficient way of winning an argument, since all you have to do is use an epithet to completely dismiss your opponent. Very neat and clean.

Let's try another paragraph:

I ask your support for legislation which will provide for a substantial increase in the number of workers who can enter the United States legally, and eventually work toward permanent residence and citizenship. I urge adoption of a system which would permit those already here to work toward permanent residence and eventual citizenship, recognizing that certain criteria must be met. I have the utmost concern that the ancient religious and humanitarian expectation of hospitality and care for the stranger not be deligitimized or legally sanctioned. The Episcopal Church and our interfaith partners are on record as strongly opposing any such action, and we urge the adoption of the language drafted by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In other words, in code as always, the Bishop endorses blanket amnesty for illegal aliens, which we've already tried at least twice and which has worked neither time. She is also implicitly instructing her flock to flout the law, via the usual hard-left tactic of selectively obeying laws that leftists believe in (i.e., those they themselves have written, as those written by their opponents are, de facto, not really binding.)

This, in turn, discourages observation of our immigration laws by foreign nationals. And it also absolves illegal immigrants of any responsibility for their actions by failing to impose on them an obligation to become law-abiding, productive, and educated citizens if they are allowed to stay. But now the Bishop wants us to fail in our immigration policy and enforcement once again. And once again, she presses as her "reason" the falsely construed obligation of "hospitality," i.e., income redistribution—which, last time I looked, is nowhere enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps the Bishop should take up yet another collection from her ever-dwindling flock.

The Bishop correctly concludes that we wouldn't be the nation we are today had we not accepted immigration over the years. Fair enough. But as I recall, immigration had to be legal, and attendance at "Americanization Schools" (where did they go?) was encouraged, as "Americanization promoted the values of liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity by making the new immigrants feel they belonged in their adopted country."

Citizenship and a new way of life different from an old, failed, and invariably impoverished life in the country of their birth, was the desire of most earlier waves of immigrants. Their native societies had failed them. This New World gave them a chance. They soon discovered that America's streets were not paved with actual gold. But the were paved with the metaphorical gold of limitless opportunity for the hardworking and ambitious, something that was never available to them in their countries of origin. So why would they expect or demand that their new country adopt the failed ways of the countries they'd just left just to suit their convenience? If that were what they had wanted, it would have been easier to stay home. The simple logic of this, however, has never penetrated the lead-armored skulls of the hard left.

On the contrary, the new attitude of the left on immigration seems to be that we are, in fact, ourselves an inferior society that can best "learn" from the new, prefereably Third World immigrants how to be better better people. We can and should simply adapt to their ways, not they to ours. In so doing, we can rid ourselves of our founding, European-Enlightenment skins and become truly happey by sinking into the poverty, disease, and overall wretchedness which to this day characterizes most Third World situations.

This is, of course, the whole point of the deliberately warm-sounding term "multiculturalism," which is the left's positive-sounding way of describing this phenomenon. It's the opposite of "Americanization" which the left assuredly wants to avoid. The American Way allows all citizens and legal immigrants unlimited opportunity to rise to their desired level of happiness and prosperity. "Multiculturalism," combined with other related leftist subterfuges, is really another disguise for the uniform wretchedness that socialism seeks by forcing all citizens down to the lowest common economic denominator, thus achieving universal "equality" by making everyone equally wretched.

And that's what's really behind the Bishop's non-solution above. Which, while being wrongheaded to begin with, also costs tons of taxpayer money; encourages the flouting of our laws and our national borders; and imposes no penalties whatsoever on lawless behavior. That's a great way to create new citizens who respect the law.

We could go on fisking the Bishop's pronouncements, more of which you can find here. But we think we've made our point. The Episcopal Church is now headed up by an individual for whom centrally administered socialism, hidden beneath the cloak of Christianity and Christian charity, is the primary goal. Gone is personal responsibility and gone are individual acts of charity. In this way, purported religious belief becomes subordinate and insincere, a convenient rhetorical stalking horse for achieving a strictly political end. We could, in fact, argue convincingly that Bishop Kate is a socialist first and an Episcopal Bishop second. For her, the Episcopal Church, and the flock entrusted to her care, are merely subordinate tools, meant to be used to accomplish a political goal. It is, at least to this writer, astonishing that Church members have failed to recognize this. The only logical explanation is that they are in agreement. At which point, unfortunately, their alleged religious beliefs would cease to have meaning.

It's small wonder that today's Episcopal Church is such a mess. Its church buildings, increasingly devoid of worshipers (as my Episcopal friends continually lament), have come to function in a manner similar to union meeting or hiring halls serving only politically activist Democrats, Socialists, and Greens. Except that the frequently magnificent architecture of these buildings is much grander in scale and otherworldly aspiration, something, rapidly being lost in the quicksand of moral relativism and cynical political calculations. Calculations made by folks like Bishop S, a secular humanist draped in the mantle of the religious authority she, and others like, her undermine casually, day after day as they slowly eviscerate the religion they purport to lead.