Religious Conservatism « Spiritual wickedness in high places

Archive for the ‘Religious Conservatism’ Category

Winning the Culture Wars

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

American’s are rejecting organized religion because they view it as the source of conflict rather than the source of reconciliation.

I’ve predicted in past posts that our children will resolve conflicts that we created and failed to resolve.

It is now becoming clear how they are going to do that.

They are abandoning traditional church-based religion.

They retain their belief in God, but they reject how organized religion has taken that belief and attempted to turn it into political power.

They reject the conflicts of their parents and view churches as associated with those conflicts.

They don’t want to be told by others what God says and don’t trust those who claim to speak for God.

The good news is that they are going to figure this out for themselves.

The bad news is that those of us who would like a say in the outcome are going to become increasingly frustrated and marginalized. We won’t be invited to participate because we have already demonstrated that we are unable to compromise.

This new generation is searching for a new vision of the country that they all can share. They are going to be willing to compromise on all of the BIG issues that have fractured the country under the Baby Boomer generation of leaders. The sorts of passionate debates that have fueled the culture wars are rejected by this new generation of leaders. They not only will reject it, but the whole concept of single issue politics will be viewed as inappropriate, counter productive, and unpatriotic.

The most recent example of this was the Facebook poll asking for a vote on assassinating Obama. Most of those who didn’t read too deeply thought it yet another example of conservative backlash to a popular liberal President. Turns out that it was a prank by a teenager intended to parody the extreme positions revealed in the current healthcare debate. The younger generation is trying to hold a mirror up to their elders in hopes that we will see how ugly we’ve become in their eyes.

So the culture wars will end in the way that most modern wars end these days. No one wins. Forces disengage in some messy ungraceful way. Both sides declare victory. Life goes on. At some point in the future, we celebrate the veterans who personally sacrificed. Our kids also quietly rewrite the history of this sacrifice to fit their new view of themselves.

Posted in Bias, Politics, Religious Conservatism | 9 Comments »

Human Will

Monday, June 1st, 2009

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” John 5:30

The culture wars have claimed another victim.

I find it very difficult to understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and use that position to justify murder. It is hard enough for me to understand how nations that call themselves Christian can start wars. When an individual takes a gun, points it at another human being, and pulls the trigger, they are not doing God’s will.

It does not matter what the circumstances are.

It does not matter what the person has done.

There are no exception clauses to “thou shalt not kill”.

The nonviolence of the early Christian Church was legendary and ultimately so impressed the Romans that they stopped killing Christians and converted to Christianity themselves.

Jesus came to earth to share a new gospel of love. He came to deepen the understanding of those who saw God as capricious and vengeful. Jesus told us that God is a tender Father, a shepherd, and our guardian.

Those who seek to violently act in His name, are taking His name in vain. They are underestimating God’s power and completely missing His message. They are assuming that because they see sin in the world, that somehow God needs their help.

God doesn’t need their help.

God not only doesn’t ask us to be executioners, He doesn’t even want us to be judges.

He asks us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. He asks us to be peacemakers. He asks us to turn the other cheek and walk with those with whom we disagree until at least we understand them.

Those who demonize their opposition suffer from self-righteousness. They will find out soon enough that God loves everyone, and the simple sinner who humbly repents will find himself closer to God than the righteous man who condemns the unrighteous.

God reserves judgment to Himself and those who seek to usurp that role will discover soon enough how wrong they were.

Posted in Abortion, Religious Conservatism, Terrorism | 11 Comments »

Golden Age

Friday, April 10th, 2009

There is an opinion among some in the religious right that the current troubles in this country can be directly attributed to a departure from some earlier time when we were more moral, responsible, and uniformly Christian. I’ve tried to find when that time was.

The earliest Christian settlement in Jamestown imposed a death penalty for those who “speak impiously of the Trinity… or against the known articles of the Christian faith.”

Jefferson decried the persecution of the Quakers in Virginia and New England in the 1700’s.

The founding fathers created a nation where only land-holding white men could vote, slaves were property, and native Americans were savages.

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli with Muslim nations in 1797 which stated in part, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

We fought a civil war to end slavery. It took another fifty years for women to get the vote. It took another fifty years for America to formally recognize that all people were created equal. We are still struggling with how to compensate Native Americans for taking their land and destroying their way of life.

The reality is that there was no God-blessed golden age. The genius of the American experiment is that it is a work in progress. Our struggle isn’t to regain some previous perfect union, but to continue to redefine what a perfect union means.

The wisdom of the founding fathers was their trust in the power of individual conscience. An unlikely coalition of the evangelical Christians (Baptists and Methodists) and Enlightenment-influenced deists (Jefferson and Madison) ratified a Constitution that prohibits any religious test for public office. The right to believe differently made possible every advance in human and civil rights that has come since.

Posted in Religious Conservatism | 6 Comments »

Abstinence

Wednesday, December 31st, 2008

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Matt 1:18-20

The Joseph story is sometimes lost in our joy about Christmas. He was quite a guy because he was willing to accept Mary’s claim that she was a virgin even though she was obviously pregnant. He was willing to put aside all that he had been taught about how a devout Jewish man should respond in these circumstances and deal with the public ridicule he certainly experienced because the woman he planned to marry was pregnant.

There is a lot that we can learn from that story about how we deal with the whole subject of sex education today.

An interesting study was recently published by Pediatrics journal. It examined how effective abstinence-only sex education programs are. What it found is that those who participated in those programs, as indicated by their willingness to pledge to retain their virginity until marriage, ultimately do engage in pre-marital sex at more or less the same rate as the rest of the population.

That in itself wouldn’t be all that disturbing, but the study also examined the use of contraceptives. It discovered that those who pledged virginity, once they did become sexually active, were 12% less likely to use contraceptives compared to the general population.

One explanation for this difference is that abstinence-only programs either deliberately or inadvertently create negative associations with contraceptives.

The only difference that the study found is that those who had participated in the abstinence programs did tend to delay their first sexual contact longer than the rest of the population. Some who have analyzed the data suggest there is a greater correlation for this delay with the conservative families these people came from (restricted/controlled contact with the opposite sex, same sex schooling, conservative colleges, etc.) than their participation in a particular type of sex education course.

Ultimately, though, what this study states is the obvious. The natural drives to procreate that lead young people to explore and experiment with their sexuality are very strong.

What it also says loud and clear is that the money poured into abstinence-only education programs over the past eight years has not had the desired effect. In fact, the “standard” sex education programs which don’t attempt to place a value judgement on pre-marital sex, but simply educate teenagers about how to responsibly manage their sexuality, appear to be more effective in encouraging young men and women to use contraceptives.

What I’m interested in finding out is whether this makes any difference to those conservative Christians who pushed for abstinence-only programs.

My sense is that it won’t because they will view this as a moral choice rather than an attempt to reduce unwanted pregnancies. It is about pregnancy being an appropriate consequence for pre-marital sex. It is the hubris which suggests that parents can protect not only their own children, but the children of less pious parents, from bad choices by imposing a particular set of religious values.

Jesus spent a lot of time criticizing a similar pride of the conservative Jewish aristocracy.

“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” Luke 18:9-14

It is the humility of the publican that leads to the recognition that God directs the lives of all of His children, not us. At the end of the day, it is our responsibility as parents to provide our children with ALL the information that they need to become responsible adults. They are the ones who ultimately make the choices about their own sexuality, just as they make choices about the values they are going to use to guide their lives. God is looking for our children to choose Him on their own terms and not as the result of a choices we or any other set of parents have already made.

We have the great privilege to guide. They have the responsibility to choose.

Posted in Religious Conservatism | 5 Comments »

Peeping

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

“And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?” Isa 8:19

There were a couple of interesting things coming together in the last few weeks that seem to have a common thread. The thread is that some people find an idea so compelling that they become blind to any facts which undermine their position.

One is the ongoing Pro-Life opposition to the Obama election. The second is a report regarding the death penalty. The third is the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a suit challenging President-Elect Obama’s citizenship.

One of the dominant themes of Senator McCain’s campaign was that you can’t trust President-Elect Obama. That point of view appealed to Pro-Lifers, Racists, Libertarians, Liberal-haters, Gay-haters, Free-Marketers, Isolationists, and many who legitimately questioned Senator Obama’s experience. McCain may have succeeded in sowing seeds of doubt regarding Obama, but he failed to convince a majority of voters that he was a better choice.

Of the whole spectrum of Obama opponents, the Pro-Lifers seemed most shocked by outcome. Many refuse to accept the election. Some predict the God will swiftly and decisively punish our country and all those who voted for Obama.

What is fascinating about this position is that, in practical terms, the past eight years of Pro-Life governance did not substantially restrict abortion rights in this country. It is also highly likely given the financial crisis that we are facing, that the next four to eight years won’t see substantial relaxation of abortion restrictions either. So the operative question is what motivates this reaction?

A group advocating changes in our death penalty laws released a report indicating that it now costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to incarcerate them for life. The rest of the report documents that far fewer capital cases are being brought in the courts because states recognize that it is both expensive to prosecute these cases and many convictions end up getting overturned as new evidence becomes available. So the operative question is why do we still have a death penalty?

The Supreme Court recently refused to take up a case claiming that Obama didn’t meet the constitutional citizenship requirements to be President. There is a second case of a similar nature also making its way to the Supreme Court. It will also likely also be rejected. The mainstream media including nonpartisan fact finding organizations have repudiated all of the claims surrounding this controversy. So the operative question is why does this controversy continue to flourish on the Internet even though it has no substance in fact?

The answer to all of the questions appears to be a conspiracy culture described in a Salon article on the citizenship controversy.

“There’s no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody’s mind,” says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master’s degree in psychology. “The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it … Once you’re committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind.”

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory “develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence,” Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. “As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy.”

Let’s examine each of these in the light of this evaluation.

The citizen conspirators are a classic example that requires little additional explanation. When confronted with Obama’s birth announcement in a HI newspaper, the citizen conspirators respond that the announcement doesn’t say where Obama was born, and even if it did, Obama’s parents could have lied, or Obama’s grandparents could have lied, to cover up the fact that he was born somewhere else. I’ve also read some who have suggested that Obama’s real purpose of returning to HI late in his campaign was to tie up the loose ends around this birth certificate cover-up rather than visit his dying grandmother. The reality is that a mountain of simple evidence supports the same simple conclusion that the Supreme Court action reflected. Obama was born in Hawaii and as a result, is a US citizen qualified to be elected President.

Those who support the death penalty have a similar myopia. They are fixated on punishment rather than practicality. As a result, they are willing to spend more money to kill someone rather than imprison them for life. And they are willing to run the fairly high risk that they may be killing an innocent man in order to make sure that they kill the guilty. At the end of the day it makes no difference that the death penalty may no longer be pursued by states attorneys. All that is important is that it is on the books and available for use when the public outrage demands it.

Finally, there is an aspect of this that is even reflected in the Pro-Life movement. That aspect is revealed when you talk with Pro-Lifers about the issue of reducing abortions. You would think on the surface, that this is something Pro-Lifers would welcome regardless of where it comes from. Even if I don’t agree with the premise that life begins at conception, if I’m willing to agree that abortion is bad social policy, shouldn’t that represent common ground?

What I’ve discovered is that, at least for some, the Pro-Life position has nothing to do with the number of abortions that are performed in this country and everything to do with eliminating abortion as choice. It is all about imposing a particular morality rather than addressing a social need. In the case of Barak Obama, this is manifested in the view that it doesn’t matter what Barak Obama does or doesn’t do to reduce the number of abortions in this country. As long as he persists in his view that a woman should have a right to choose an abortion, he is supporting a sinful act, is unqualified for the office, and those who support him are unqualified to call themselves Christians.

So just like the citizenship conspirators and the death penalty advocates, there is an aspect of irrationality in some Pro-lifers. It doesn’t matter that the number abortions in this country is going down at a fairly constant rate regardless of administration. It doesn’t matter that the best years of abortion reduction have occurred during the years when income for the poor rose. It doesn’t matter that good education and easy access to contraception have a direct affect on the birthrate among teenagers. All that matters is morality.

This is very similar to the conversations with the citizenship conspirators. They claim that they don’t oppose Obama politically. All that matters is the constitution. Or the death penalty advocates. For them all that matters is justice.

For all three groups, the world easily divides into believers and non believers and what’s worse, they don’t listen to anything a non-believer has to say. That’s because they prefer the peep and mutter of familiar spirits to any truth that may upset their world view.

I don’t know how a democracy effectively handles sections of the electorate who refuse to engage in a rational discussion. The last election proved that these groups are in the minority. Hopefully this minority will recognize that the issues which affect our suvival affect them too, and are far more serious and in need of their attention than those issues which seem to have them mesmerized.

Posted in Abortion, Bias, Politics, Religious Conservatism | 8 Comments »

Reconciliation

Monday, November 17th, 2008

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt 5: 21-24

Jesus was a radical thinker. He confronted the conservative fundamentalism of his time with some very difficult concepts. One of the most difficult concepts for the Jews to accept was reconciliation. They believed that God was vengeful and visited His wrath on sinners in the form of illness, poverty, and misfortune. So it was easy for the Jews to identify sinners and they treated them accordingly.

Jesus rejected that way of thinking. He taught that we are all God’s children. We all need saving, and it was God’s job to judge, not ours. In fact, withholding judgment isn’t nearly enough, we have to figure out how to love everyone – particularly those that we feel were sinners. In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is saying that if any of us are guilty of harboring ANY unkind thoughts about our brother, we are in MORE spiritual danger than murderers.

In other words, as He did through out this chapter, He is expanding the definition of what it means to be a disciple. It’s not enough to just follow the commandments. We have to love our brothers, even if we think they are murderers. That love by the way goes way beyond the simplistic “I love the man but hate the act”. Later in this same chapter He says we have to “walk” with them until we understand them. We have to embrace them, even when we think they have injured us. We have to trust them even when we feel they have stolen from us. In fact, it is so important that we sincerely resolve any differences with our brothers, that we should make that a higher priority than going to church and asking for our own forgiveness.

This is radical thinking that I don’t see many Christians practicing today.

Here’s just one example.

I’ve been corresponding with a handful of different people who felt that a vote for Obama was immoral because President-elect Obama is Pro-Choice. The news last week carried a piece about a Catholic priest in South Carolina who went so far as to suggest that a vote for Obama was a sinful act. As a result, those who committed that act needed to confess that sin before they could receive communion.

This may seem well beyond the pale for many, but I can confirm that there are some who feel that our country is going to suffer the wrath of God because of our failure to elect a Pro-Life Presidential candidate.

I’ve already posted a couple of things on abortion. I won’t repeat those posts here, but just provide a summary and link if anyone wants to do any more research.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/category/abortion/

Good ideas bad results – Practical ways to reduce the number of abortions
Eternal Life – Practical reasons why “life begins at conception” doesn’t work
Unto Us a Child is Born – God respects choice
Greater Good – Which is worse, abortion or sin

What I did want to spend some time on is this question of Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice as a political issue.

First a quick summary of the issues.

Pro-Life folks feel that there is Biblical evidence that life begins at conception, so abortion is the equivalent to murder. As a result, they feel it should be treated as murder by our legal system.

Pro-Choice folks are more concerned about the rights of women and the control that women should have over their own bodies.

Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision prohibiting states from enacting legislation prohibiting abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the 1992 Supreme Court decision where the court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade using the principle of stare decisis. Essentially, when something has been law for a long time and has become part of the fabric of society, it is beyond the scope of the courts to change it.

The bottom line is that the past thirty years have polarized the voting public and made a lot of money for politicians on both sides of the issue.

So let’s dig a little deeper into the claim that a a vote for a Pro-life candidate is a moral issue.

First an easy one. If a Pro-Life stance is just a moral litmus test of the character of candidates, I suggest that it is faulty because there have been plenty of Pro-life senators and congressmen over the past eight years who fell far short of the mark as ethical lawmakers. So there it has to be more than that.

If it’s not just a moral litmus test and Pro-Life supporters are looking for real practical change, then shouldn’t those candidates who deliver real change be the ones who earn their vote regardless of whether or not they pass the litmus test?

In other words, since it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned anytime soon, and the longer it stands the more difficult it will be to overturn, then shouldn’t Pro-Life voters be demanding more substantive practical progress in reducing the number of abortions from their candidates?

Well as you might imagine, I’ve done a little research on the subject. Here are the statistics (abortions per 1000 women of child bearing age) for the last couple Presidents through 2005.

Reagan - 29.28 – 27.37
Bush I -     27.37 – 25.89
Clinton -    25.89 – 21.30
Bush II -     21.30 – 19.41

What is interesting is that the President who had the most dramatic affect on reducing the number of abortions was the only one of the bunch who was Pro-Choice – Bill Clinton.

Here’s the bottom line from what I have learned so far from those single issue Pro-Life voters. They are unconcerned about whether or not the person they voted for actually does anything substantive to change the status quo. They view their vote as a moral imperative that goes beyond any practical measure. They feel that when they vote Pro-Life, they are voting Pro-God.

My concern, at this particular point is time, is that we don’t have the luxury of this sort of debate anymore. We can’t have folks sitting on the sidelines self-righteously predicting God’s wrath for our moral weakness. Our country is in tough shape. Right after 9-11, a call went out to the American people and they responded as one, even though a lot of us thought the wrong person with questionable morals was in the White House then too.

I think that the situation is even more serious now. We all need to be in the same boat rowing in the same direction because our ship of state is perilously close to the falls. We don’t have time to argue about the details. On some things we are just going to have to agree to disagree at least until we are in a safer place. Hopefully, we CAN all agree that we care enough about each other to put aside partisanship, pick up an oar, and start rowing.

Posted in Abortion, Politics, Religious Conservatism | 12 Comments »

Family

Monday, September 15th, 2008

“Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Matt 19:18-19

The Bible spends a lot of time in both the old a new testaments talking about fidelity. The Jews even tempted Jesus at one point to stone an adulteress. He used the occasion to remind us all that it is not our role to judge, only to love.

In modern politics, however, what a candidate does in their personal life sometimes carries as much or more weight than the candidate’s policies. Bill Clinton was almost removed from office because he lied about an affair. Gary Hart never recovered from his affair.

The family narratives of both candidates is fairly well known.

Obama was the son of a single mother. His mother was married twice. Obama has a half sister from his mother’s second marriage. He didn’t know his father and was raised by his grandparents in Hawaii. They paid for him to attend a private prep school. He discovered his purpose in public service in college and once he did, he found focus and discipline. He transferred from Occidental College, a small academically rigorous California liberal arts college, to Columbia. He graduated from Columbia with a BA in political science. He worked in New York for two years and then moved to Chicago to become the Director of the Developing Communities Project. He had great success there over three years. He applied to and was accepted at Harvard Law school and became the first African American editor of the prestigious law review. He met his wife Michelle as a summer intern for a Chicago law firm. She came from a blue-collar south side of Chicago family. She attended Princeton and Harvard law school. They married shortly after he graduated in 1992.

Based on his success at the Harvard law review, the University of Chicago offered him a fellowship and the opportunity to write a book. He taught constitutional law there. The book was published in 1995 and titled, “Dreams from My Father”. The proceeds of this book paid off the student loan debt that both he and his wife had accumulated. His first elected office was in 1997.

He and his wife have two girls and live in a very nice area near the University.

He admits to drug use as a teen. He is also trying to quit smoking.

John McCain was born to a navy family. Both his father and grandfather were four star admirals. As you might imagine, he moved a lot as a child. He went to an exclusive prep school in Virginia and received a legacy appointment to the Naval academy. He had a number of minor problems with discipline which led to his graduation near the bottom of his class.

After graduating he received a prestigious appointment to a top flight program where he had a reputation for both crashing planes and partying. He married his first wife Carol in 1965, adopted her two sons from her first marriage, and they had a daughter.

He requested a combat assignment and left for Viet Nam in the summer of 1967. Within three months he was shot down. He remained a prisoner of war for five years and endured horrific treatment.

His wife also suffered extensive injuries from an auto accident while McCain was in Viet Nam. He admits that on his return and rehabilitation, he had numerous affairs. During that time, he met his second wife Cindy in Hawaii. She was 13 years younger and the daughter of a wealthy Arizona beer distributor. McCain wrote in his 2002 memoir that he and his wife had separated by the time he met Cindy, but his petition for divorce says the he lived with his wife for the first six months of his affair with Cindy. The same book also suggests that months passed between the divorce and his remarriage. He actually applied for a marriage license before the divorce was final and married Cindy five weeks later.

He was estranged from his children for some time as a result of the divorce. He also seriously damaged his relationship with Nancy Reagan who had become close to Carol McCain as a result of John’s support of Ronald Reagan.

John and Cindy had three children together and adopted a fourth from India. This child was the focus of a nasty whisper campaign in the 2000 South Carolina primary. The campaign, attributed to Karl Rove, suggested that McCain has fathered a black child. Many feel that defeat cost McCain the Republican nomination.

So what do we learn from this?

We have two remarkable men running for the highest office.

Both are intelligent with good political instincts. Both clearly love their wives and their children. Both have had periods where they strayed from the straight and narrow. Both appear to have learned from those experiences. Both have overcome serious challenges in their lives and have grown from it.

Does this make one any more qualified than the other to be President?

I don’t know. I’m not in a position to judge. I think that elections should be about issues, not personalities.

Posted in Politics, Religious Conservatism | No Comments »

Religion

Monday, September 8th, 2008

“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Matt 6:5-6

In this age of public professions of religion, we often forget that the best prayers are those we say in private.

Barak Obama wasn’t raised in any particular religion, but was inspired by Rev Jeremiah Wright to become a Christian. He has talked about that conversion extensively in print and in public. It was well before he became a politician and it continues to appear to be a fundamental part of his belief system.

Rev Wright practices a prophetic Christian ministry that is a tradition in the African American community. Rev. Wright’s congregation uses the Bible to try to make sense of two hundred years of slavery, three hundred years of legal segregation, and the current challenges of poverty, bad schools, unemployment, crime, drugs, and broken families. Just like Stephen Douglas before him Rev Wright holds the white American political structure responsible and predicts that God will judge them harshly.

This is going to make white people understandably uncomfortable because of its overt “angry black man” political message. I would suggest that this is no different than Irish Catholic Churches sending money that Northern Irish Nationalist used to buy guns and make bombs or Serbian Orthodox Churches sending money that Melosevic used to kill Croats.

At the end of the day it is difficult to judge any of the members of any of those congregations because the only part of their ministry we see is the part that makes us uneasy. It is also easy for us to say that the Serbian family should go to another church, for example, when doing so would sever cultural and social connections to the local Serbian population. Barak Obama did sever his relations with Rev. Wright because it appeared the Rev. Wright planned to take advantage of his relationship with Senator Obama to promote his own celebrity.

John McCain was raised an Episcopalian and, other than the cross in the sand story that has shown up in his speeches in the last few years, there is little in his early bio to suggest anything about his faith.

Locked in a tight race in South Carolina during the 2000 primary with George Bush, McCain announced that he had begun to attend his wife’s Baptist church. The pastor of that church confirms that Mr. McCain attends those services. That pastor also confirmed that Mr. McCain has not been baptized, which most Baptists view as a requirement to call yourself an adult Baptist.

He has also been associated with controversial pastors including John Hagee who called the Roman Catholic Church “the great whore” and Rod Parsley who referred to Islam as a “false religion” that America was called on to destroy.

Just as Rev. Wright felt that 9/11 was punishment for oppression, Rev. Hagee has said that Katrina was punishment for our acceptance of homosexuality, and Rev Parsley has said that America was founded in part with the intention to destroy Islam.

Not to be outdone, Governor Palin has a history with Rev Kalnins who warned that critics of President Bush might be banished to Hell and that people who voted for John Kerry might not gain entry to Heaven. Gov. Palin has also said that the war in Iraq was a task from God.

So what do we make of all of this?

My conclusion is that there is way too much religion in politics. Religion is and should be personal and shouldn’t be a qualification or disqualification for any public office. We should respect the wisdom of our founding fathers who understood that we would have a much stronger union if government and religion remain separate.

Next up family life

Posted in Politics, Religious Conservatism | No Comments »

Brothers and Sisters

Saturday, July 19th, 2008

A month or so ago some Swedish research hit the news. It shows that there are measurable differences in the brains of gay men and women. Gay men tend to have brains that resemble straight women and gay women tend to have brains that resemble straight men.

This does not prove that sexual orientation is genetic, but this combined with a number of other physiological differences is starting to build a strong case.

So let’s assume, just for the purposes of discussion, that research does eventually prove that homosexuality is genetic rather than a lifestyle choice. The current research suggests that it may have something to do with the level of male hormones in the mother during gestation.

Where does that put those who feel that it is a sin?

Perhaps it finally relegates it to the same status as touching a menstruating women.

Doesn’t this start to feel similar to the situation two hundred years ago when the Bible was used to justify slavery?

Just to refresh your memory.

“When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (Exodus 21:20-21).

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded for the purpose of preserving the Christian basis for slavery. To their credit Southern Baptists apologized in 1995.

It will be interesting to see how many apologies are given when homosexuality is proven genetic.

The Bible is a wonderful book that God gave us as a sufficient guide to working out our own salvation. It is most effective in that role when understood as a metaphor for modern life because it was written in a different time. It was this understanding of historical context which allowed clergy to see past the explicit Bible passages supporting slavery to the larger message of God’s love for all His children and our obligation to love our neighbor as ourselves. They used this understanding of the Bible’s real message to oppose and eventually abolish slavery. I predict that this same historical context and understanding of the Bible’s real message will be applied to homosexuality too, and the clergy will again lead the charge to reverse the legal and social discrimination currently imposed on gay men and women.

Posted in Bias, Religious Conservatism | 19 Comments »

My People a Joy

Monday, July 7th, 2008

“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” Isa 65:17-18

A recent survey has revealed some interesting things about the spirituality of the US population.

The most interesting is that Americans are much more inclusive as a group than those who claim to represent them. We believe that there is not one path to heaven or one decisive revelation of truth. Even though both the Southern Baptist and Catholic religions base significant portions of their teachings on the fact that those of other religions are going to hell, 60% of Southern Baptists and 80% of Catholics didn’t share that portion of their religions dogma.

Similarly only 60% of Buddhists and Hindus claim to believe in central tenants of their religions (Nirvana and reincarnation). That reveals a refreshing honesty about where people are in their own individual search for God. They may identify with a particular religion, but are still uncertain about even the most fundamental elements of that religion.

Contrary to popular belief by fundamentalists, this remains a country that overwhelmingly believes in God (92%). Also most of us claim that our views about wrong an right are based on fundamental principles that are common to us as believers in God rather than members of any particular religion or demographic. Sounds like we Americans are really living the fundamental values expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – everyone has the right to their own interpretation of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I also visited a site that I’d like to share with you called JamesDobsondoesntspeakforme.com. The site was started by some evangelical pastors who feel that James Dobson has confused his political goals with their spiritual ones. I see this as consistent with the survey too. Evangelicals are awakening to the fact their spiritual goals are much more positive than simply standing in opposition to gay rights and abortion. Folks like James Dobson would like the rest of us to believe that Focus on the Family speaks with one voice for all evangelicals, but it just isn’t the case. The very nature of the evangelical movement is a search for personal meaning through a transforming relationship with God and then reaching out to others to share that experience. Because this is so fundamentally personal, it can’t really be defined or contained by any political party.

It is interesting to witness the process of thought being transformed into new and more productive channels. Building a new heaven and a new earth takes time, but the process never stops.