Steamd

In a recent blob post, I talked about an email I received that claimed that Obama had mocked the bible. This was based on Obama’s ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address. I recently have been chatting about this with a relative of mine about what Obama said in this address. I’m not going to say which relative because I feel that he/she is rightfully entitled to his/her opinion. I love my relatives no matter what they think. It’s ok to disagree, don’t you think?

What surprised me was that I received a response that said that Obama’s comments were the most arrogant comments ever made by a politician and that he’s so far off base that it’s scary. Furthermore, Obama describing the Sermon on the Mount,  one of the greatest sermons ever given, as being radical apparently is a sign of arrogance as well. But what really struck me more than anything is the notion that our nation is based on Christian principles.

My relative is not alone in this way of thinking. There are many other Christians out there who feel that their heritage is being taken away from them, that we as a nation have lost our identity, and that our world was a better place when it was under the influence of Christianity. Thus they feel we should bring back the Majority Rule, bring back prayer in public schools, and overturn any liberal interpretations of the Constitution that supposedly restrict religious practices. 

So who’s right? The Christian Right? Or Obama? Let’s look at what Obama said again:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Personally, I don’t think these statements arrogant at all. The main underlying point he was making is that he is a man of faith and his Christian beliefs and relationship in God is very important to him. One’s faith does have a role when making decisions in politics. However, the position a politician takes must be more universal in nature. Politicians can’t make decisions that are entirely based on their beliefs. There are other factors involved.

And Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount was referring to the fact that if our government was to run by the Word then Jesus’ words like “rest not evil”, “turn the other cheek” and the “Golden Rule” then we would seize to have a military. Well, maybe no seize but it definitely would be for defense only. It’s “radical” only because so many claim to believe it and yet their actions say otherwise. The Sermon on the Mount has been one of the main sources for Christian pacifism, wouldn’t you say? Given the activities of our Defense Department, the idea of running our government based on the Sermon of the Mount is a radical departure from how things are now. If they did then they would have never invaded Iraq, and action that went against the teachings of Jesus Christ in so many ways. Let’s look a little bit at what the Sermon of the Mount says:

Matthew 5:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Wouldn’t invading a country under the guise of imminent threat go against the principles of love your enemy and turn the other cheek? To me, imminent threat means that our enemy is going to attack our country directly. Was there any evidence at all that would suggest this in the case of Iraq? At all? No, there wasn’t. Then how can anyone who claims to be a Christian not find fault in this? It would seem that the Obama is merely pointing out the fallacy of many Christians: that they don’t read their Bibles and thus are hypocritical in many ways. The irony is that these principles are not shared with Christianity alone. Other religions have very similar pacifist teachings. Both the Quran and Torah have similar messages as well as the teachings of Buddha. To say that these beliefs and philosophies are unique strictly to Christianity would be a very arrogant notion.

Christianity has been split along many lines for years even before the United States won its freedom and drafted the Constitution. Religious persecution existed as well and thus minority Christians like Baptists, Mormons, and others struggled to maintain their religious freedom. John Leland may not have had direct involvement with the writing of the First Amendment but he was among many Baptists who was very vocal and campaigning for that freedom. He is just one example of someone who represented a group people who wished to have religious freedom. The intent wasn’t to create a wall where religion couldn’t enter politics at all. That would be unrealistic. Rather it was a separation by a more permeable barrier where everyone’s beliefs would be honored. The fear was that state sponsored religion would have caused an opposition to some of the more progressive ideas of the time…like folks who wanted to teach the Bible to slaves.

If we are a Christian nation based entirely on Christian principles then we are going down a very slippery and dangerous road. What parts of the Bible are to become the law of the land? The Old Testament? The New Testament? King James version? Or the New American Standard? And who decides how it should be interpreted? The Pope? Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jerry Falwell? And what about other religions? What if certain laws go against other people’s religion? Do we just say, “Tough tiddy! We’re a Christian nation! Get used to it!“? This is the sort of thing that our First Amendment is supposed to protect. And if our government is oppressing your right to practice your religion then maybe you should do something about it. Personally, I fight for the freedom to practice all religions and not just Christianity. American Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, Hindus, even agnostics and atheists; they all have a right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) by the rights granted to them as native citizens of the United States and the First Amendment. After all, if there’s one thing that Jesus Christ was about it was tolerance. And love of course.

Finally, the idea that “liberal” automatically means “lack of morals” or “godless” (as Ann Coulter would have you believe) is ridiculous. Not that that’s what all conservatives believe but lately I’ve heard this very thing from many, many others and it’s just a lie. Separate the religion from the politics for a second. The only thing that really separates a liberal from a conservative is the fact that one side favors a more progressive approach than the other. That’s it. Doesn’t mean that one side is less religious than the other or is more socialist over the other. It just means that one side wants to do things in a more traditional manner and the other side is open to more progressive ideas. However, just because someone favor a more liberal stance in politics doesn’t automatically mean that their religious beliefs are liberal in nature as well. There are many issues both politically and religiously that I could have a conservative versus a liberal point of view on.

Case point, the very same relative for which I’m basing the post on actually described John McCain, the Republican candidate for the President of the United States, as being too liberal. Aren’t Republican’s supposed to all be conservative? Does that mean that McCain is any less religious? No, it doesn’t. Just because McCain is being described as too liberal doesn’t automatically mean that his faith comes into question. It just means that McCain isn’t as traditional as maybe he should be in my relative’s eyes.

But that’s politics for you. Everyone has an opinion and just about everything is subject to interpretation. And, let’s face it, the Constitution isn’t the only thing that is subject to so much interpretation. So is the Bible, Quran, Torah, and just about every other religious book or document. Wouldn’t you agree?