The Ugly Un-American: God and American Politics

Posted by Ray Church on 05.05.2006

Why is the American God so obsessed with monkeys, fetuses and homosexuals? Where is Christ in this Crisis? And why are American schools scared of religion? Ray Church looks at the role of God in American Politics.

Welcome to the Ugly Un-American, an outsiders view on American politics.

This week's diatribe… God and American Politics. Maybe I should rephrase that as Christianity in American politics as I am certain Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism will only have a tangential role in this column. I feel like I'm just asking for trouble here. Wise men say we should not talk about sex, religion or politics in polite company for fear of offending people but here I am talking about one in a column about the other and I'm sure I will mention the third in at least once during the duration of this column. Well, I better apologise ahead of time if I offend you, but I don't believe in ducking my head on the big issues.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should explain a few things about myself. I fall under the category of "other" under religion on MySpace. I come from a Methodist family, my grandfather was a minister, but I was raised pretty much agnostic. I have nothing but admiration for my grandmother, the type of pure Christian who donates her time and money to help those in need. Until recently she would deliver meals to the elderly, and by elderly I mean people 20 years younger than her.

I have (among other things) a degree in Religion Studies and have regularly participated in groups aimed at Inter-religious dialogue.

Today's topic, however, will not touch upon the people I have met in Inter-religious dialogue discussions. It is more to do with the people who would never consider entering such discussions. It is to do with those who are so convinced of their own truth that they would force it upon others.

I am certain there are many great Christians in America (and many great members of "other" religions) who would put my pitiful actions to shame. These people, however, are not the loud voices of religion in America. The evangelical movement which dominates the America landscape has less to do with God and Christ, and more to do with politics and power.

I don't see my grandmother in the voices of American Religion.

Inerrant and Literal

I hope I have made it clear that the Christians I am about to talk about are not all Christians. It refers to a certain group of fundamentalist (some would say fanatical) Christians who currently dominate American Politics. By and large they are evangelical groups, largely connected with the Council of Southern Baptists. To name some: the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority (now defunct), the Christian Coalition, Fred Phelps, and Jerry Falwell. In doing so I am still painting tigers of very different stripes with the same paintbrush, but the group above share many similar claims on dogma, interpretation of the bible and Christian politics.

Two claims these groups made need to be addressed before we can start, mainly that the bible is inerrant (without error) and literal. Perhaps a third point that they would make is that due to the two things above the bible requires no interpretation at all.

Generally people who claim that the bible is without error just haven't read it closely enough. The first two chapters of Genesis contain a direct contradiction (more about this later), but there are other contradictions as well. Noah, for example, was either asked to take 3 by 7 of "every clean beast", or 2 by 2 (Gen 7:2, Gen 7:8). Joseph, father of Jesus is either the son of Jacob (Mat 1:16) or Heli (Luk 3:23). Either Mary Magdalene went to Jesus' tomb alone on the Sabbath (Mat 28:1) or with Mary the mother of James and Salome when the Sabbath was past (Mar 16:1).

I could go on, but it seems clear to me that the bible contains competing accounts of the same events (or stories, as some might claim). To be fair, some Christians have gone to great lengths to explain these contradictions, but they all seem to pull off a mental backflip and then not land on their feet.

The other claim is that the bible is literal. The earth was literally created in 6 days before God kicked his feet back and watched the football, all mankind descended from Adam and Eve, Noah did make an ark, Moses did part the Red Sea, Jonah was swallowed by a big fish (not a whale, the Hebrews had a different word for whales) and Jesus did walk on water. To be fair, if God is who they say He is, then these things are not impossible, but these groups of Christians tend to be selective in what they think is literal and what is not.

Go out, find one now and ask them what the "Mark of the Beast" is and they will tell you a chip you will get put in your hand when the Anti Christ comes. Ask what the "seven headed dragon" is and they will say anything from the United Nations to the European Union. This is clearly not a literal interpretation, but a figurative one.

I am not trying to say that the bible is wrong or worthless. I certainly believe there is a lot of very spiritual truth in the bible, but Evangelicals must acknowledge that what they present is an interpretation of the bible. It is their view and there are other views.

Which leads me to the next point…

The Unholy Trinity

American religion, for these groups, has become focused on three issues that I like to call the unholy trinity; Darwin, Homosexuality and Abortion. I call them unholy not because their views on them are necessarily wrong. My own views on the subject scatter the spectrum between black and white. I call them the unholy trinity because they have come to define American Christianity in a way that makes it hard for other religionists to relate to.

Gone are the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule and "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me". Instead, Christ is focused on three things that feature little in Christ's teachings, or not at all.

Darwin

I do not understand why Darwin presents such a bugbear to Evangelicals. The biblical depiction of Genesis cannot be read literally. The bible contradicts itself within the first two chapters, giving two different accounts of the creation story (which more astute bibles point out by actually labeling the second account as "another account of creation). What is contradicted? Whether man came before the animals or the animals came before man.

This irony is lost on the Fundamentalists.

The result has been a push to call Darwin into question, emphasizing that evolution is a "theory" and trying to push teachers to "teach the controversy" and make room for a creationist theory of the creation of life.

This was not their first tactic, of course. Their first tactic was to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. This failed as far back as 1925, in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

So far this doesn't seem so bad. The idea of providing an alternative view point surely shouldn't be a problem for any teacher who seeks to aid students in becoming critical thinkers. So what is the problem?

The problem is that there is no controversy surrounding the Theory of Evolution. It is no more "just a theory" than gravity is "just a theory" and relativity is "just a theory". The theory has made adjustments over time and been added too and subtracted from by the army of biologists that have since entered the field, but the bulk and the push of the Theory of Evolution has held true. Evolution has held up to rigorous testing and has been acknowledged by almost all biologists.

Sure, the vast majority of the world once believed the world was flat and were still wrong, but we are talking about teaching scientific theory to school students here. If they are to one day participate in the scientific process then they must first understand the view held by the vast majority of scientists. There is no point in having them graduate to University, only to be told that their teacher was speaking excrement.

The bigger problem, of course, is that it is introducing unscientific principles into a science course. Belief, by its nature, cannot be proved by science. The reality is that there is no reason that Evolutionary Theory and Creation Theory can't work together. I see no contradiction in believing that God set in place a system where the life evolves from a single cell organism.

But Creation Theory isn't science. It is Philosophy or Theology, not something that can be proved or disproved in a science laboratory.

Homosexuals

Ok, here's one that will get people's backs up.

Homosexual acts literally make me sick. I can't even think about two men kissing without being repulsed by it. I had to watch Brokeback Mountain on fast forward. I was squeamish during Capote because his voice just unnerved me. I can't listen to Elton John songs since he came out without wanting a bucket at hand (I'm not sure if this related to his sexuality or just his songs in general). It's the same feeling I get when I think about my parents having sex.

Back up and read that again.

It's the same feeling I get when I think about my parents having sex.

One of these acts apparently leads to eternal damnation, and the other led to my creation, and yet they both make me sick. I point this out because I am sure that many people out there justify their reaction to homosexuality by their physical reaction to it. If this is how my body reacts then it must be unnatural.

The other corollary to this is that the sight of two girls kissing does not physically repulse me.

The Evangelic viewpoint runs the gamut from "Hate the sin but love the sinner" to "God hates fags". Needless to say the later of those viewpoints just plain makes me sick as well. These are Christians who have missed what Jesus said was his most important commandment, "Love thy neighbour as you love thyself". They missed his lecture where he asked "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and the one where he said "You see the mote in your brothers eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye."

For the group that merely loves the sinner but hates the sin, I raise a different question; why is this the focus of your efforts? For one, homosexuality is not mentioned in the bible by Christ himself. It's mentioned by St Paul. In fact the one time Christ talks about sex is when he tells his followers that aren't already married not to get married at all, but then I guess we have to interpret what he meant by that.

For another, there are plenty of other issues that Christians should be concerned about. Christ spent his days healing the sick and helping the poor (and occasionally smashing banks in religious temples), and some Evangelicals would have you believe that two men playing tonsil hockey is more important than the 37 million people in America living below the poverty line. (Again, to be fair, organizations like the Catholic Church have spent a lot of time on this issue with programs such as Poverty USA, but even they have to apologise for it with phrases such as "a hand up not a hand out").

The problem is not that homosexuality is trying to usurp American values; the problem is that the issue of homosexuality has usurped other issues more directly related to Christ's teachings.

Now, I have no problem with a man who has homosexual tendencies reading the bible and coming to the conclusion that he has to fight these urges. That's his personal spiritual journey and to argue with him about that is as naïve and blind as arguing that we should only have sex in the missionary position. I have no problem with a priest counselling his or her own parishioners, quietly and privately, to resist their urges. His parishioners chose him (or her) and his church, so they chose that interpertation. They are free to ignore this advice after all.

But when Evangelicals use the pulpit to rail against homosexuality while ignoring the things Christ actually spoke about, I have to wonder why they see that as the most pressing order of business.

Abortion

Now this is one where the liberals will have to take a deep breath, because I don't believe America has enough of a true dialogue going on with this one. By framing the question as simply pro-choice and pro-life, America has not understood what this debate is really about.

Now, bear with me for a moment. Imagine that in America 1 month old babies were routinely killed by their mothers for any of the reasons given to justify abortion, short of the life or permanent health of the mother was at stake. I'm sure that no one here would fail to be horrified and demand an end to the practice. Even the idea of abortion under the case of rape becomes repulsive.

By making the argument about choice liberals have missed what really upsets the religious about this point. The real debate is really about when does life begin, and many Evangelicals sincerely believe that life begins at conception. Think back to the 1 month old baby. Why is that atrocious and the unborn child acceptable? If you sincerely believe that the unborn was as real and as much a person as a 1 month old baby, then your view on abortion would be very different. All these people terminating pregnancies would look pretty offensive to you.

That is what is not being discussed. It is very easy for liberals to shut down the dialogue because Evangelicals can be so damn irrational about the inerrancy of the bible and the vitriolic attacks on feminists that they do not hear, or do not want to hear, are real concerns with the abortion debate.

The debate is a long and complicated one, and much too significant for me to butcher in this short (short?!) column. I can't say I have a clear opinion on this topic, but I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why life does not begin at conception.

Now, some other topics.

Prayer in Schools

I really don't see what the hubbub is about this one. I see no problem with prayer in schools as long as:

1) It is not compulsory.
2) That if Christians can do it, all other religions can do it as well.
3) That when other religions participate they are not humiliated for doing so.

Schools should be a place where students are exposed to the ideas that they need to deal with in the world, and like it or not religion is a big part of the lives of something like 90% or the population of the world.

The same goes for religious education in schools. It should be a true education about religions so that students understand the beliefs and ideals of the world around them. Is it any surprise that in the months after 9/11 the best seller lists were filled with books on Islam? America is woefully undereducated on the rest of the world, and religions are a big part of that world.

If you are a Christian and you don't want your children educated about other religions, then you should really be fighting against having Christianity in schools as well. It's the only fair answer.

Church and State

If you haven't read my ideas about American Democracy go back and read my previous column. Basically I don't think the government can get any worse by the introduction of religion into the American system. It is already fractured, partisan, indoctrinated and power crazed.

But I think religion has a lot to lose. Just look at religious groups like Focus on the Family who have allied themselves with the political right and are being marginalized because they have to support the Republican Parties claim that we don't know what is causing Global Warming.

When religion becomes a political tool it cannot be trusted, and it certainly cannot become a vessel for the elevation of humanity. Religion should be focused on making the world better, not a chess piece in a game of partisan politics.

So…

Please understand that I have nothing but respect for sincere followers of any religion, but the key word here is sincere. The problem is these organizations make many of the same actions that a political party would, swerving towards issues that are popular and away from issues that are essential to the religion itself religion itself. (Compare, Hillary Clinton's take on flag burning and the Evangelicals take on Marilyn Manson).

Wow, about 2700 words. My Religion Studies Professors would be impressed. I'll just sign this section out with a quote from Bill Maher, because nothing says I respect all people of religion than quoting Bill Mayer.

If you believe Jesus ever had a good word for war, or torture, or tax cuts for the rich, or raping the earth, or refusing water to dying migrants, then you might as well believe that bunnies lay painted eggs.

Short Shot

Ok, a quick take on Colbert-gate. For those who don't know, Stephen Colbert was invited to the host the White House Correspondence and received a someone luke warm response. A number of liberal blogs (such as the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars and Media Matters) are claiming that he was the funniest thing ever and that there is a media conspiracy to cover up the fact that he busted Bush at a national event. The talking heads on the right, of course, are saying it was in the most horribly bad taste and Colbert should apologize.

My take? Humour is always about the location. Chris Rock has a hillarious routine where he proclaims he loves black people but hates niggers. It's a cutting look at African American culture that works on his largely multi-ethnic culture, but if you took the same humour, put the man telling it in a white sheet in the middle of a KKK relay and you got a hate speech.

Colbert was funny. If he did it on the set of his TV show it would have ben hillarious.

But with Bush sitting right there the whole thing was like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the audience. Should we laugh or shouldn't we? Is it ok? Will we be part of the Left Wing Media conspiracy?

Meanwhile Bush was funny. He had the right material and was sufficiently self depricating.

I can't stand his demeanor, his (lack of) intellect, his moral ambivalence, his international agenda and the way he is behoven to special interest groups.

But that night, he sure was funny.

Weekly "Shut the Hell Up" Award

This week, Tom Tancredo, Republican Representative for Colorado on The Situation with Tucker Carlson.

I‘ll give you a face to put with the cult of multiculturalism, Ward Churchill—and a name, I should say. If you know Ward Churchill in Colorado and you know what he‘s talking about, this guy is the epitome of a member of the cult of multiculturalism. They hate America.

There are a few of claims here about multiculturalism that I need to pry apart.

Firstly, Ward Churchill is not the face of multiculturalism. Claiming that the workers in the World Trade Center were nazis, even low key bureaucratic nazis, is not an argument I have heard any multiculturalist make, no matter how much they despise the economic effects of globalisation.

Secondly, deeming multiculturalism as a cult rather than a philosophy is extremely offensive.

Third, claiming the multiculturalists hate America is another example of basically bloodying the image of anyone who dares to criticize their understanding of "the American Way". Yes, people like me are very critical of the American way, but that does not mean we hate America. We are critical and if you don't like those criticisms, debate them, don't demean them.

Ass kissing

If you didn't like my take on the Colbert Report, check out the Indiviualist here.

Strangely I wasn't the only one to mention Fred Phelps this week. Was this the guy who used to be too drunk to review wrestling properly?