Beth Haile takes issue with my definition of Christianism:
For Catholics, the “live and let live” attitude that Sullivan endorses is simply not a viable option when there are clear affronts to human dignity and rights at work in the world.
Christianity, especially in the way Catholics see it, is imminently public and political. It demands that Christians attend closely to the "signs of the times" and seek to change those laws, practices, and structures which violate the tenets of the faith, especially when it comes to affirming and protecting the dignity of all human beings, attending to the needs of the poor, affirming the family as the fundamental unit of society, and working for the protection of all of God’s creation. … While Sullivan is clearly frustrated with the religious right’s efforts to ban gay marriage or make abortion illegal, these actions too are part of the Church making an effort to act out her social mission, just as much as it is the Church making an effort to act out her social mission that led Catholics to criticize the Iraq war, to advocate for the protection of the poor and elderly in budget cut debates, and to lobby for universal health care (a position Sullivan himself supports).
Bearing witness to what are regarded as social evils is one thing, and my libertarian Christianity would fully embrace the power of words to persuade, inspire and evangelize. And I never saw Jesus advocating against "live and let live" as a political matter. Yes, Christians should challenge evil and evangelize, they can and should wield the power of nonviolent protest as well. But using the power of one party to criminalize, i.e. use the coercive power of the state, to combat those evils is a dance with worldly power that is inherently dangerous to both faith and politics.
I think bearing witness and deploying persuasion is the Christian way; taking over a political party to impose a religious agenda is not (and in this, Beth and I are not, actually, that far apart). Kyle R. Cupp also notes a critical difference:
I'm a Christianist if my only basis for opposing torture and working to outlaw it is my Christianity. However, if I also have a non-religious moral basis in support of my attempts to outlaw torture, then I am not acting as a Christianist.
Exactly. Translating religious convictions into secular arguments is essential if we are to have any common weal at all in the modern world. Take my defense of marriage equality or condemnation of torture. Both are rooted in my Catholic faith. But I take extreme pains to present the case as neutrally as possible. Because my job is not to persuade Catholics, but to persuade anyone.
The Dish 