A dangerous worldview

I read an article today about Michele Bachmann, from the New Yorker (hat tip Mere Comments); it was interesting. I don't really know what I think about Bachmann as a political candidate, but that article really made me think. The author was quite obviously not impressed with Bachmann, or rather, quite obviously hoping she wouldn't win and doing everything in his power to give her a negative slant while appearing open and unbiased. Anyway, I think my favorite aspect of the article was the way in which he alternately tried to make her appear laughable or dangerous for having a Christian worldview rather than a merely religious and personal Christianity. So many people who claim to be Christian are only so in a very private way, and act like everybody else on the outside - even when we don't agree with things like abortion, same-sex marriage, pornography, evolution, government welfare, the anti-family bias of schools and society, no-fault divorce, and so on (whatever we think the Bible disapproves of), we try to stay quiet about it so that we aren't laughed at or so that we don't offend those who have no problem with these things. Even when we feel very strongly about the importance and value of things like the family, the home, the Bible, church, truth, global missions, adoption, and even when we think there are better and more Biblically sound (and thus more true to reality) ways of dealing with poverty and broken lives, we stay quiet about it because it is uncomfortable to be vocal for our beliefs when people have already decided they're wrong or foolish. I personally am very prone to this kind of timidity...

Bachmann, apparently, is not so very timid. It seems that in every area of life, both personally and in the public political realm, she has formulated her views based on her faith. Honestly I think that is how it should be. What one believes about the world - about the nature of man, the existence and nature of God, and so on - should fundamentally affect the way one thinks about all the issues that come up in life. If you believe that there is a God, who designed men and women physically and emotionally for each other in the institution of marriage, for example, then you're going to be against homosexual relationships, especially when they're given the name of marriage. (If you also believe that we are all sinners before God and that you are just as much in need of grace as anyone else, the way you express that opposition will be very different than if you are self-righteous and proud.) Similarly, if you believe that there is no God and that moral standards should be created and dictated by society, holding fast to such concepts as autonomy, solidarity, and beneficence, you won't see homosexuality as an issue at all, but rather as something to fight for, so that these people can fulfill their desires just as easily as you can fulfill your desires. Obviously there's way more to say on both sides of that issue; I'm just using it as an example of how one's worldview does and ought to influence their position on current issues.

In addition, if you have one worldview, and someone else has another, it is very likely indeed that you will perceive them as dangerous and threatening, and attempt to discredit them in some way so that their worldview will be discredited by association. This was in large part behind the birth certificate controversy of Obama's presidency, I think - people felt threatened by this man whose worldview was so very different from theirs, and who did not pretend that he wasn't going to make choices based on that worldview, so they tried to discredit him. The author of the New Yorker article is attempting to do the same thing to Bachmann. I wonder if she counts it as an honor, to be mocked because she is considered a threat on behalf of her belief in Christ. It is an honor I think I would like to have... it's this timidity in my personality that keeps getting in the way.