My Christianity Problem

Obama's recent push toward the Christian community, especially as it comes to a White House connection to something resembling Bush's policies, has me a little edgy. The recent poll revelation that roughly 92% of Americans are believers in some form of religion (with Christians by far in the lead) puts me in a shaky 8% that misses the true separation of church and state that Jefferson enjoyed.

While riding in to work this morning and listening to public radio do a story on the Middle East, they gave up the statistic that over 80% of Arabs are convinced that the US's position in the Iraqi and Afghanistani campaigns is to replace Islam with Christianity, therefor giving Al Quaeda it's strongest recruiting message.

An article on Huffington Post this morning talked about Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's heir apparent) questioning Obama in public on whether or not he was a Muslim and trying to bring him to Christ in front of a group of clerics Obama was meeting with.

All of this is making me feel so far to the outside that I fear the worst happening both in the US and in the World.

Atheists rarely stand up proudly to declare their non-belief. More likely, they wish to be ignored by believers... left alone and unbothered. The organizations which have formed around atheism (The Brights, The Humanists, etc.) seem like they are competing more for membership and money than for the freedom from believing that everything is God-created and that we are doomed to hell for not taking part in the Jesus chorus.

It doesn't matter, it seems, whether you support a Democrat or a Republican. Both sides want to tie themselves to pastors and priests who advocate the most outlandish things... and who, when these things don't happen on schedule (you can look back for centuries and see the Rapture as having been expected and missed several times), simply revise the due-date.  At all political levels we are seeing this stuff happening (the Governor of Louisiana, for instance, just signed into law a bill making creationism ... excuse me, "intelligent design"... a subject being taught to the youngest of schoolchildren) and it is getting worse.

When I was younger I thought we were getting farther from religion as a culture, but we have actually swung the other way. I fear that my grandchildren's grandchildren will never see a religion-free cultural climate. Perhaps they will be able to finally disengage at least elective politics from this bugaboo.

Under The LobsterScope



Display:


One glaring problem (none / 0)

"Atheists rarely stand up proudly to declare their non-belief. More likely, they wish to be ignored by believers... left alone and unbothered."

This statement is just not true.  Militant atheism runs rampant, just check diarys over the last few days.  Or, go over to kos to see it at its worst.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST

I understand that edgy feeling. (none / 0)

I rejected my Christian upbringing when I was 11, and organized religion has always made me nervous. I understand the logic in reaching out to the Christian community -- we shouldn't just cede those voters to the Republicans -- but I still don't like the talk about faith-based initiatives. I just want every form of religion kept as far away from the government as humanly possible.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:42:35 AM EST

Re: My Christianity Problem (none / 0)

I am very, very agnostic.  I am proud of my Jewish heritage, but I consider it to be a cultural identity for me, and not a religious one.

Evangelicals give me the heebie-geebies.  I wish they'd be more like that Jesus guy they go on about.  He sounds pretty cool.  They're not.

Look, we're a pretty small slice of the electorate.  However right we may think ourselves (the other side, by the way, feels just as strongly that they are), like so much else in life we're going to have to split the difference.

I can live with my government involving itself tangentially with religion, so long as any involvement is ecumenical or neutral, and even then we have to be careful.

Government acknowledging the faith of its citizens is not necessarily an evil thing.  Government promoting religion, or a particular brand of it, is the danger.

Not all contacts between church and state are nefarious.  Jefferson wanted a high wall of separation, not a forcefield.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST

Re: My Christianity Problem (2.00 / 1)

Compiled from my other commentary in another diary:

Just imagine this scenario:

Obama's program goes into effect and suddenly we have a group that follows all the rules and regulations apply for funds to feed the homeless in Topeka, Kansas.  They know the law and the rules, so they follow them to the letter (because they always know just how far they can push the line).  However, we all know what they do with their normal operating fund: they protest military funerals and homosexuals funerals.

I seriously doubt there will be any type of provision that will preclude a "God hates fags" sign from being within view of the table  (First amendment, and these folks know how to tie this up in court).  And what will prevent those same folks from benefiting by feeding themselves along with the homeless, and pocketing their normal food expenses to make more signs?

Make you feel good?

Makes me sick.

Obama should decapitate this program.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST

Re: My Christianity Problem (none / 0)

Yeah, cuz Westboro Baptist Church does a lot of charity work.

They're too busy protesting funerals, pal.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But there is a valid point here (2.00 / 1)

Don't you think?  Westboro is an extreme example, but what about all the churches that are anti-gay but not quite as virulent?

I'm not overwhelmingly opposed to this, and this kind of thing has been going on forever, but I don't like it.

It is good politics though.


by JJE on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Christianity Problem (2.00 / 1)

Yes, that's today.

We know they also fund their activities largely by taunting  communities and individuals and then suing them (successfully, I might add).  They will do what they need to do in order to game the system and keep spreading their hate.  If they have to set up a homeless feeding program to usurp money from the taxpayers, they would.

Logically, you can't look at this program and state that because something hasn't yet happened, or isn't planned to happen, it will not.  Never underestimate the nature of the more egregious of the 'faith based' groups.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Christianity Problem (none / 0)

That's a fair point, but you don't actually think we can provide meaningful oversight?

Write the damned laws and regs well and enforce them.  This is a problem we can try to deal with.  If it doesn't work, kill the program.

I'm not saying it isn't a roll of the dice.  I'm saying I see some good coming of this, if it's done properly.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Christianity Problem (none / 0)

I think if we could actually provide meaningful oversight of a program such as this, then we could also provide meaningful oversight of funerals and the subject offensive group would not be performing the offense.

We can't, they are, and your next point would be?

Campaign finance was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread when the McCain Feingold bill was  passed.  It gave us the Swiftboat types.  Oversight is, at best, always prone to be plagued by bugs that we can't conceive beforehand.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Christianity Problem (none / 0)

Um, I did my thesis on the WBC and I understand the Constitutional issues very well.

What they are doing is within the exact genre of speech the Founders intended to protect.  You can't shut them up without infringing on a fundamental right.  That's not at all a fair comparison.

The WBC does not have a fundamental right to government funding for charity work.  That can be denied or withheld.  They do have a fundamental right to agitate peacably in order to effect a political change.

And yes, they're about the biggest bunch of dicks on the planet.  I'd love to muzzle them, but I don't see a Constitutional way to do it.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Christianity Problem (2.00 / 1)

I think it's not only a fair comparison, it's an very salient one.  If you have done your homework on WBC, then you know full well the extent to which they push the limits of the laws and the limits of the citizenry in order to do two things, continue their 'faith' based discriminatory activities and fund those activities by utilizing the courts and taxpayers funds awarded them by suit.

Of course we can't silence them.  But I sure as hell don't want my taxpayer funds going to underwrite them, either.

Groups like them who know how far they can go to both stay within the guidelines and still get out their 'message'  will indeed do so, and with a Democrat putting the carrot out there for them, they will surely do their best to use it.

I just read your commentary about the SC, tort reform, the NRA and  Obama's stance on the Bill of Rights in another diary, and now I understand more of where you are coming from.  You have to temper all that 'schooling' with some experience and reason.   Sounds like you have 18 months to grow some more.   Nothing bad about that, we all were there at one time or another.  And I absolutely agree with you that medical malpractice is a mess, and something has to be done.  Just don't adopt the Ohio model where if you are elderly, your life is value based on .. not much.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the difference? (none / 0)

How is that different from providing money to a secular group that has a message we disagree with? Couldn't the Lions Club in Bumblepants, Alabama hang an anti-gay sign on the wall just as easily?


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the difference? (none / 0)

Of course they can. That's why I often repeat, you can never separate the 'faith based' message from the 'help'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the difference? (none / 0)

Right. But you're presumably not arguing that we shouldn't fund secular charities, right?


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the difference? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, in the case of the Boy Scouts, I have in the past argued just that.  This discussion, however, has been about the expansion of the "faith based"  funding program.

Discrimination is discrimination, and taxpayer funding shouldn't be used to prop it up.  

Not even when a biracial person who will become the next POTUS  says otherwise  (I posit biracial because I would think simply because of that fact, he should know better, personally).


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the difference? (none / 0)

Presumably you didn't want to fund the Scouts because of their stance on homosexuality -- i.e., because of a specific discriminatory position they hold. I can get behind that. And I wouldn't want to fund any church organizations that are discriminatory, any more than I would want to find a secular organization that's discriminatory.

But you shouldn't assume that a church-based organization will be discriminatory just because it's church-based. That's bigotry. Take a look at the Mennonite Central Committee, for instance. (I mention them because our wedding guests have the opportunity of donating to them instead of buying gifts for us.) And you shouldn't assume that a secular organization will share all your values.  I wouldn't want my tax dollars going to an atheist organization with "Christians are bigots" on the walls, for instance.

The decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, as it is now. I.e., with oversight. It won't be perfect, but it's not perfect now.


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's the difference? (2.00 / 1)

I understand your tempered view of the situation based on your religious background. I myself am Baptist, and have all that baggage to contend with.
(Odd, I can't seem to find where my wedding guests can donate...oh wait, there's a real reason for that....LOL)

No, I firmly believe that 'faith based' should be just that, based on the funding of the faithful, and taxpayers funds should be utilized by the government for the good of the entire citizenry.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Do (none / 0)

Well, if you (or anyone!) are interested in turning some of your wedding gifts into charitable donations, I point you to the I Do Foundation (idofoundation.org). You can set up charities to accept donations in your honor (we chose the aforementioned Mennonite group and the Nature Conservancy) and/or forward a percentage of your gifts' purchase price to charity.


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Do (none / 0)

I think you missed the subtle inference that I am not afforded the luxury of being able to have a 'wedding', and I am not legally able to marry my partner of choice, as you are, simply because my partner of choice has the same set of genitalia that I have.

We know which groups keep me from doing that, now don't we?


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Do (none / 0)

Ahhh. I live in Massachusetts. I keep forgetting the rest of the country is still in the Stone Age.


by jere7my on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Do (none / 0)

...and yes, we do know who keeps you from getting married: conservatives, Republicans, and evangelists. Don't lump all Christians together under that heading; there are plenty of Christians who support gay marriage, and plenty who are progressives, and plenty who are Democrats. (Plenty who are gay, for that matter.) It's the noisy minority that gets all the media attention, but there are a lot of Christians out there who are on our side. "Fags burn in hell" is a minority position among Christians.


by jere7my on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 08:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you want the government meddling (none / 0)

in your place of worship?


by catfish2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Christianity Problem (2.00 / 1)

This country has seen a rise in religiosity over the last few decades. It's a very real, measurable trend. At the same time, there has been a drift away from attending church and religious affiliation. Two very contradictory observations.

I think part of it can be attributed to the war on terror. It's not only Muslims that think this is a religious war. Many Christians also believe that. This makes them less tolerant of anyone who doesn't share their believes.

Another part of it is that there has been an effort to make it appear as if Christianity is under attack in this country. I find this laughable when viewed from my little patch of the woods here in MS. The Christmas tree lighting at City Hall in my small town was a religious event with a sermon and hymns. There was a lighted creche in the city park. There are churches and billboards for those churches everywhere I turn. Even the local high school is turned over to a church group every Sunday. Yet, there are people right here who think their faith is somehow under attack.

Religious fervor in this country runs in cycles. I often wonder if this latest uptick can be explained as a prelude to a serious drop in religion in this country. It would be interesting to see if the same thing happened in Europe just before the European countries saw a large rise in secularization.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST

Always get a condescending vibe from some (2.00 / 2)

Christians. I too share this edgy feeling. I often felt the Christians I knew looked down on us non-Christians. That more of our tax dollars are funding these groups, even if they're funding just the non-religious activities of these groups, really bothers me.


by catfish2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:36:06 PM EST

Re: Always get a condescending vibe from some (none / 0)

How, could we work on the bigotry here? Replace "Christians" with any other group in this comment, and it suddenly looks pretty ugly.

I'm a Christian. My fiancée is a Christian. Our parents are Christians. We're all awesome people. We only look down on you because of the lack of scales and the barbels.


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Always get a condescending vibe from some (none / 0)

(The first word there should be "Hey", not "How".)


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Totally understand (2.00 / 1)

Your comment is very appreciated.

I said "the Christians I knew" and should have said SOME Christians I knew.

But it's part of your belief system that you will go to heaven and I will not, right?


by catfish2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally understand (2.00 / 1)

Not mine, no. Most Quakers don't believe in hell at all, or in an exclusionary heaven; I'm one of 'em.


by jere7my on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:43:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.