The danger comes not of talking about America and God in the same sentence. It comes of the sentence being the wrong one.

“America needs to discern God’s will and follow it” is a far different statement from “What America wills, God wills also.”

I agree with you here.

Personally I would go further: it’s one thing to believe America (or some other country) ought to choose to implement the Kingdom of Heaven in the world, it’s another entirely to believe that it’s already been chosen, by God, for that purpose. Not that that’s not possible, just that the converse is also possible.

I realise that this probably goes against the grain of some varieties of American exceptionalism but people have been wrong about this sort of thing before.

Talk that sounds like election, or semi-election, sounds ominous.

I think that if it were possible to draw a map of the Kingdom of God on earth, some parts of the outline might be vaguely recognizable but it would not match the borders of any temporal political entity.

If it’s not the will of God, it’s not in our national interest.

The danger comes not of talking about America and God in the same sentence. It comes of the sentence being the wrong one.

“America needs to discern God’s will and follow it” is a far different statement from “What America wills, God wills also.”

I personally prefer a world where all action is individual, but the truth is that nations act, so separating the idea of the nation from the idea of God means the nation will act without reference to anything outside itself and it’s own desires. That leads to idolatry — in fact, it nearly defines it.

I agree caution is in order, but caution in both what we say and in what we refrain from saying.

For an example of how we can do better, I commend to your viewing the book “Render Unto Caesar” by Archbishop Chaput, or for a shorter read, his speech at Houston Baptist Univ approx 3 years back. Or most anything else he has said or written on faith intersecting public policy.

As for the passage from Santorum–he went overboard in a flourish of rhetorical hyperbole. Not the first time an orator has used that technique. He and we all know that in fact the sources of temptation Fr Klos used to remind us of when I was a kid–the world, the flesh and the devil–are clearly active throughout the world, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I hope I have a chance to vote for Santorum in spite of rhetorical flourishes.

Blessings,

Michael

While the Book of Momron is emphatic that “this land” (actually, the Americas in general, both North and South) is a “promised land” because those righteous people who live on it will be especially blessed, but those who rebel against God will be especially penalized. To whom much is given, much is expected. The Mormon view is not that the US (or other American nations) will always be on the side of right, but that they must be especially wary of not being corrupted and forgetting God. It is the opposite of a jingoistic blessing, or of a ceremonial pronouncement that the US armed forces are the Sons of Light and the enemies of the US are the Sons of Darkness. The Mormon view of America calls for personal and institutional repentance and dedication to righteous principles and the laws of God. It is a view that is reluctant to go to war, and does so only in defense, not out of animosity to US armed forces, but rather out of love for even our enemies. My guess is that a Mormon president would have been more reluctant to invade Iraq than President Bush was. I think a Mormon president would be more likely to station American troops as “hostages” in Israel against an Iranian nuclear attack, and make clear that forces in the Persian Gulf would retaliate against an attack on Israel, but not undertake a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear factories, essentially what has been done with the defense of Japan against North Korea.

I also am wary of a nationalism that is often a religion in itself. I think Chesterton warned of it, and I think it’s something to be on the lookout for.

But I grew up a military brat, and this kind of gung-ho talk was normal in my youth. As I left that culture and moved into the world at large, there was no talk of love of country, even in terms of loving it enough to save it. Now I’m in an Evangelical community, and I hear a bit of this again. It sounds jingoistic at first, but only because it’s so alien today.

What I hear when I hear “there’s no one else” is this — recently I got very discouraged and asked my sister if she wanted to pack up her family and I’ll pack up mine and we’ll run away to some other country. Where would we go? she asked. Yes, America is falling. And it’s been a long fall. But everyone else fell long ago.

A bit overdrawn. But if we wanted to find a nation with intact protection of liberties and a minimally intrusive government arm, where would we go but America? It’s the last left to attack.

But Santorum said, “There is no one else to go after, other than the United States.” What is that supposed to mean?

It means Santorum was emphasizing the importance of the great American experiment in government based upon theism and natural law, the purpose of which is to protect the inalienable, God-given rights of humanity, as a force for good in the world.

Thomas Jefferson remarked, in consideration of the abuse of human dignity inherent in slavery, that, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” One could nitpick that, too. Does God’s justice really sleep? How can justice sleep? Was Jefferson really trembling? Didn’t Jefferson own slaves? Doing so misses the point of his remark as completely as does asking, regarding Santorum’s comment, whether there is really no one else go after.

Fifty million children being violently dismembered by surgical abortion causes thinking Americans to tremble over the fact that God’s justice does not sleep forever.

harry,

But Santorum said, “There is no one else to go after, other than the United States.” What is that supposed to mean?