A Christian Nation?

Garrison Keillor writes a surprising article about non-Christians, who he says need to "get a life" or "work with it" if they are going to live in America, and if Christmas bothers them.

This is an issue I've considered many times, and I actually brought it up recently to a friend of mine. I was at some function, which escapes me at the moment, and pretty much every prominent Memphian was there. The occasion called for an invocation, and the Christian minister, an evangelical, not only concluded with "In Jesus' name we pray, Amen", he also inserted the gospel into the prayer with something like "and thank you for sending your Son to die on the cross for our sins".

Afterward I asked my friend if he noticed this. He said, "what do you mean noticed it? Its no different from what we hear in every other prayer." I said, "True, but do you know how many Jewish business owners were in the room? How do you think they felt as they heard this?" To which he said something like, "aw, they're used to it."

Well, perhaps. But this issue goes well beyond Christmas and Bill O'Reilly's claim that the holiday is being "hijacked" and that companies are forcing employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas". (Which, true to BillOh, has been shown to be another of his lies.)

Anyway...Newsweek says over 80% of evangelicals favor prayer in public schools. That's an easy one, right? I mean, they will state plainly that, "we are a Christian nation, and taking prayer out of schools has led to increased violence and disengagement be students. But how would you feel if you were a Jewish taxpayer?

In the comments that follow the majority is definitely lashing out at Garrison for his "get over it approach". Here's just one excerpt of one letter (one letter of dozens so far):

Here's what Christmas meant for me as a kid: Being forced to sing religious carols at school while harboring a secret fear that God would punish me later for doing so; utter confusion at home about why we had a tree and presents and opened them Dec. 25 but couldn't call it "Christmas" (my family's well intentioned but very flawed way of trying to fit in); a profound sense of alienation and outsider status that followed me well into adulthood (not entirely due to Christmas, but never more obvious than around the holidays).

Public schools are publicly funded. Jewish and Muslim people are American citizens and they pay taxes. Both of these faiths hold as a base belief that there is only one God/Allah, and that belief or worship of any other is the most serious of all sins.

If Christians would stop and take an honest look at this fact, we might understand how a young Jewish girl could FEAR singing "Silent Night". Should her parents (or the ACLU on their behalf) keep quiet about their tax dollars being spent for this?

Now...I don't advocate a sweeping beaurocratic clamp down on Jesus at Christmas....of course not. The key here is common sense and respect for all Americans. If two of my direct reports are Jewish, and they have been listening to songs on the Muzak about the Christ child for days in a row....I should be respectful enough to change that in their environment if it causes discomfort.

You think you disagree with me? How would you like to go to work for a company that played audio tapes of Islamic morning and evening prayer? You would storm and stomp and say, "Thats fine in Saudi Arabia, but this is America!" And you would be right....and America is a country of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no matter who you are.

How Republicans Trick Us With Language

A great blogger named Kelly Gorski introduced me to an absolutely incredible piece of writing called "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff.

Give yourself some time to read it...its 36 pages in pdf. It concerns Republican strategies, social theory and framing language (much like this book recommendation I posted previously.

Here is the link: Don't Think Like An Elephant.

(I probably haven't made it sound all that exciting...but if you are a person who continually wonders why people vote for Republicans NO MATTER what they do, you need to read this article!

Abortion & Queers: Surely Its All That Matters

Seems that the Rev. Joel Hunter has proven to be a man of principle. Doesn't mean he isn't heavily in favor of outlawing abortion and queers...but...but...wait for it....

For this Christian evangelical pastor, there are actually MORE things on a Christ-centered agenda than JUST abortion and queers!

Well, of course, the bad news is that Pat Robertson and the rest of the Christian Coalition couldn't jive with that, so Hunter resigned.

Does Pat MAYBE think this looks a bit bad? Might a FEW of the CC members see that Hunter quit because he "hoped to include issues such as easing poverty and saving the environment". (Hell, no wonder the Coalition didn't want him. Think how many blow jobs might be perpetrated while we're out there FEEDING SOME KID. The nerve of these liberals.

Now listen to what the CC told Hunter when he had the nerve to mention those snot-nose poverty people. ""They pretty much said, "These issues are fine, but they're not our issues; that's not our base,' "

Our base.

Its not our base, see?

You know...from the Greek word alkjoivuw,mn,mdlkuu, right? Where Jesus said, "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, yadayadayada.... but jab them fags in the eyes too, and get out the vote to make women drive to a different state for them abortions. And most of all, understand your base."

(Why is Jesus so misunderstood? Those instructions are pretty clear, right? The only way they would be more simple would be if he LEFT OUT EVERYTHING AFTER THE "PRISONER"!)

Our base simply looks toward the queers and the baby-killers. Full time job though it is. And don't get us wrong. There are tons of organizations who do that poverty stuff. We're all for em. But look...we didn't build this place on the boring issues. Look, just that Sodomy Series on CD alone built that steeple over there.

Enough for now. I have a lot more to add to this story, but I may go have gay sex and an abortion, just to get the taste out of my mouth from this putrid story. Ok, so I can't stomach sex with a guy, plus I can't get pregnant....so I'll do neither. But by golly I threatened to.

Happy Thanksgiving and AAF

My third book recommendation of this blog:

Thanks to the spirit of the holidays, or luck, or fate, or good old-fashioned assertiveness on my part, I got to spend some time with a dear friend. For that, I am thankful.

I told my friend about a book that guided me toward a path of liberal Christianity (and afterward,liberal politics). I thought I should post that book here.

Click here for the Amazon link to "If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person"

Now, my friend grew up in the same evangelical mold that I did...plus she hasn't had the luxury of ever hearing a viewpoint any different from the modernism of literal textual interpretation. Anyway....that's beside the point. Just understand that topics like this can be tough on others. JUST LIKE the topic of fundamentalist Christian certainty can be tough on millions as well.

I am not recommending this book because I 100% agree with it. Actually one of the biggest premises in the book is one that I can not support. However, I believe these two Quaker ministers, Gulley and Mulholland, have truly captured the spirit of grace in which I believe.

Do yourself a favor and get this book.

And Happy Thanksgiving, enjoy the blog......and AAF.

"Purity Balls"; Dobson, Daddy, and Disgust

How I missed this, I'll never know. Paragon shares this video of Purity Balls, and Feministing adds that this gets federal funding.

Here's what the clip shows: Girls apparently between 2 and 17 go to this Prom-of-sorts with their fathers. It says they get dressed up and some arrive in limos. There's a voice-over by James Dobson (Ted Haggard's "scared straight" coach.) He tells the story of a 17 year old girl who says that she doesn't desire boys the way all her friends do. According to Dobson, this is because she is sitting on her father's lap, and therefore HE is fulfilling "every girls desire for the affection of boys" or something like that.

Then the video shows the dads and daughters reciting and signing these covenants, in which the dads vaguely promise integrity, while the daughters promise to abstain from sex until marriage, so as to give yourself as a wedding gift to her spouse.


I sit here wanting to give commentary to this troubling culture, but I simply can't get my head around it.

I've lived in the South all my life, and I grew up in a church where Dobson's writings were always readily distributed. But I've never in my life heard of anything like this.

I can vaguely recall a couple of "youth revivals" when I was in high school or college when the evangelists asked us to promise God we would abstain until marriage. I don't recall whether I ever made that promise or not, but I don't think I did. Not to give myself too much credit, but I think I was bright enough to realize that I didn't know what the future held, nor what my ability might be to fight off the power of the small brain. (See toward the end of this story to get an idea of how that turned out.

In all seriousness I do know what a noose guilt can be to a young person. It was implied to me, if not outright stated, that guilt was a good and healthy thing. Well, I can maybe see how it got the desired behavior out of me from time to time...but then again, I really believe that when I did the "right thing", it was mainly for very practical reasons.

I don't want my kids to be saddled with guilt. At 41 I generally behave within the bounds of socially accepted norms, and that behavior is no longer driven by guilt, but by understanding the reasons behind these behaviors being wise. What parents are generally saying, then, is that kids aren't capable of wisdom, so let's strap em down with guilt.

Kids ARE capable. But like me and all adults, they are also capable of screwing up. And when they do, I don't want THEM to be screwed up because of it.

I hope to do a better job of blogging this particular story, but tonight I'm just too blown away by the ramifications of this video.

I'm also greatly troubled as to how sex has somehow become the end-all, be-all sin for all time, while most of us have many other planks in our eyes. These other planks may not cause nearly the guilt, but they cause people to go hungry, they cause the earth to exhaust her resources, and they cause division among the peoples of the earth.

Personally, I think sex is the most talked about subject, to be so rarely experienced in the lives of most people. Hey, not that I wouldn't like it to be more of a factor in my life (ok, a factor at all), but at least I won't raise my kids to believe its dirty and filthy. Having a spouse who has been the victim of that upbringing, I know what it does to rob two people of intimacy.

Haggard's "Choice" for a Blow Job

Here's the latest on Pastor Ted Haggard from Salon.

I've avoided this issue, for no other reason than its on every blog on the internet. Also, I knew the real story would be how the fundamentalists spun things.

Would they realize that homosexuality is a genetic reality? That the reason homosexual clergy in homo-unfriendly denominations are a reality is that they were once young men who felt they could hide from their true self if only they became ministers?

No. Instead they are putting Ted Haggard in what the communists would call a re-education program, under the leadership of James Dobson.

James Dobson is a demigod where I come from. People swear by him and finance him. That's fine....people do need to "focus on their family". But the belief that gayness rubs off on people is simply wrong.

Look, if it were contagious, I woulda caught it. I've worked closely with some great guys who were gay, and I've gone out drinking with them, and talked politics with them. Here's the scoop, folks: I could be at the bar after five beers and four months without sex (which is usually), and I'm STILL LOOKING AROUND APPRECIATING THE FEMALES IN THE ROOM. That is who I am.

(And by the way...they are smart enough to know that, so Dobson should know that these folks aren't "recruiting" anybody, EVEN IF that were possible.)

A couple of issues here, and I'm not going to try to document any of this, so you'll have to search for the supporting research.

First, I'm beginning to believe a premise I first heard from an Episcopal priest, a heterosexual I respect greatly. He believes that every person has within their genetic makeup SOME formation of BOTH homo- and hetero- attraction genes. This wouldn't be on a bell curve distribution, because it appears obvious that hetero behavior, not in small part due to procreation, is the predominate preference.

But when you look at people like Ted Haggard, who have five kids, it would support the notion that he would sit somewhere in the middle of that distribution. A "flaming queer" on the other hand, would safely fall on the homosexual end of the scale. And me? Well, I'm in the George Castanza category.

Remember that episode of Seinfeld, when George got the massage from a man? It moved. The fact that it moved convinced George, to his holy terror, that he was gay. Like George, my homo genes are rather non-existent. It would take my back being turned on the massage table for "it to move", and the movement would stop suddenly once I turned around.

Men don't do it for me, therefore I can't be recruited. Therefore I have no stake in voting for anti-gay laws rather than electing officials who will care for my safety and economic well-being.

Second Issue: If you think the above might be true, it would stand to reason that SOME homosexual experiences do amount to a choice by people, no different than any sexual one-night stand is a choice. So yes, probably there are teenage boys (and probably more girls) who are doing same-sex stuff because it is counter-culture and cool. Perhaps the battlefield that James Dobson has made this issue is the REASON it is counter-culture and cool. However, I can tell you that when I was in college, the only thing that would have made me try it would have been a large handgun aimed at me....therefore I still say its about the genetic makeup that would even make it possible. Just as a "flaming queer" would have never been able to stomach experimenting with the opposite sex.

Which brings me to this: If you read the Salon story, or just the quote issued by Haggard's overseer, what do you notice. Let me post it:

"I am a sinner. I have fallen," Haggard wrote. "The fact is, I'm guilty of sexual immorality." Mike Jones' allegations, the pastor insisted, are not all true, but "enough of them are true."

"Part of my life is so repugnant and dark," Haggard said in the letter Stockstill read. "I've been warring against it all my life." He told of how he had sought counseling to address his sexuality, which he said cured him for spells. But then, he wrote, "the dirt I thought was gone would resurface ... the darkness increased and dominated." Haggard asked his congregation for forgiveness for him, and also for his accuser, who he suggested was inspired by God to reveal his "deception and sensuality."

What do you see about illegal drug use, adultery, or paying someone for sex? Nothing. Why would that be?

Its simple. Gay sex is the end-all, be-all sin these days. I'll never forget in about 1984 a girl asked me out to homecoming at another university after she saw me in a play. I gladly accepted.

I drove down there and went to the game, and then came the time for "what do you want to do now?". This question was posed to me, since I was the guest. I suppose I answered nervously with the usual choices, which led her to ask, "you aren't gay are you?".

Being only 19 years old, I didn't have the self-understanding and presence to say, "no, not at all. I just come from a very conservative upbringing, which can be very tough in the guilt arena, and on top of that, I'm a little afraid of a girl this aggressive, cause I've never met one."

A few hours later, after things obviously went her way, I rationalized the guilt with the argument, "I damn shore proved I wasn't gay!".

What does this have to do with the topic? That was over TWENTY years ago. Admittedly that was a time that "are you gay" would have been the ultimate insult. But even then I had justification for meaningless hetero sex, DUE TO the gay issue.

What about kids today? Don't you think their young horny minds can build those rationales even stronger? Look again at the Haggard quote and ask yourself.

What about committed married men today? How long will it take someone to go on a business trip and meet someone and think, "well, pastor Ted's sin was queerness...what's the harm in hiring one of these poor whores as long as its a she?"

What about that married woman who gets so little real conversation at home? How easy today is it for her to say, "My husband is probably gay anyway. I need attention, and there's nothing wrong with this."

Now I'm one who believes that the mind will come up with rationale for sex if the body wants it bad enough, but still....does the evangelical church REALLY want to continue this process of RANKING sins like this?

We must get past this issue in America, just as we had to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1969. Homosexuality is no more a choice than race. If it were, Pastor Ted would have NEVER chosen a man for a massage and a blow job.

The Legal Drug Debate

Salon had a humorous article today, about an African-American professional helping her aged mother with her ballot. On the ballot was an initiative concerning marijuana.

In short, her mom said, "Jesus didn't smoke no weeds"....which was all she needed to know. Thus, her vote was no.

Well, I happen to believe that legalizing AT LEAST marijuana is one of the most important steps we could take in 1) reducing the deficit, 2) getting people out of jails who don't belong there, and 3) stopping crooks, black marketers and terrorists from profiting in this trade.

PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK, AND IT WILL NEVER WORK!

Anyway....what I wanted to share was this response to the article. The following paragraph states my fundamental opinion on this better than any I've ever seen:

I am sure most of the posters could care less about those folks. A not too wise man once said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." The truth is most of us really don't. If we did then we would not turn so many of their neighborhoods into war zones so that fewer of "us" run the risk of addiction.

The reason this is SO powerful is because this response is written to LIBERALS who read Salon. Many of the responses were from liberals who simply wrote off and discounted legalizers as "dope addicts" and "justifiers of their own addiction".

I must say now that I have never inhaled. (As a matter of fact, I've never even held a joint or pipe or whatever. I'm not a saint...I've been known to partake of hydrocodone recreationally, but I've never even seen marijuana outside of "drug education".

Forget the scientific evidence of how much safer weed is than alcohol (and tobacco). Forget the tax dollars and ridding us of crime. Just think about this man's point:

We care so little for black people that we are willing to turn their neighborhoods into war zones, JUST cause our own white folks MIGHT be less likely to try it.

How powerful.

And yet....we've already HAD an experiment in prohibition. Far as I know, there's NO proof whatsoever that fewer people TRIED alcohol, LIKED alcohol, or GOT HOOKED ON alcohol back in the days it was illegal.

The only difference was the supply and demand realities: Crooks, politicians, bureaucrats, policemen...many of them were the ones who profited. And even sadder....the ones who were HONEST were in more danger in their jobs. Its the same today.

I believe that if drugs were available in the same way that alcohol is available, that crime in this country would decrease by 70% at a minimum.

And believe me....me, my family, my friends....we are ALL more likely to be a victim of CRIME than we are a victim of drug abuse in today's world. You know why?? Because IF WE'RE GOING TO BECOME A DRUG ABUSER, WE CAN DO THAT JUST AS EASILY NOW AS IN A LEGAL DRUG ENVIRONMENT. The only difference is the crime and who profits.

I'm for the crime to go away.

CNN Profiles "Hell House"

I wish I could link to this, but the feature is not on their site at this time.

The Hell House they visit is in Plainview, TX, and its rife with high budget horror costumes and special effects.

Its also rife with different "sin" rooms. The first one, for example, shows a demon leading a gay marriage. He says that being gay leads to death by AIDS and an eternity in hell. Apparently it didn't get any better from there.

To say the least, this disturbs me, a Christian. Obviously there are a world of things wrong with this, but I just want to cover one particular question I have:

If they scare these people into "accepting Christ" on the basis that they will get to avoid hell, is that really a Gospel principle, as the pastor claims in the piece?

Did Jesus really say He wanted us to follow Him for the purpose of staying out of hell? Certainly Jesus said there would be a judgement. But I'm not sure He gave this as the REASON to follow Him.

The Gospels don't report that Simon and Andrew or James and John followed Jesus after He said, "Follow me or I'll strike you dead"....or even "Follow me and I'll give you mansions in heaven". Jesus just said "Follow me". Or "Follow me and I'll make you fishers of men".

Seems to me if I follow Him because I'm only interested in avoiding punishment or gaining heavenly rewards, then I'm missing the whole point of the very selflessness He taught.

I suppose it is easier to get a 12 year-old to walk down the aisle if you appeal to their emotions, especially if you show them a visual of them burning in hell because they drank a beer.

But I honestly don't see a whole lot of difference between this and converting someone to Islam by the sword in the middle ages. A person converts for all the wrong reasons. And a person, for the rest of their life, perceives God as a maniacal dealer of fiery death to 80% of all the people He ever created.

You may not believe in God.

I may not believe in a God who burns 80% of His creation.

But you and I should both realize that some things are real whether we believe them or not. So God could certainly turn out to be the Being that some fundamentalists believe He is.

If that be the case, I hope you live in the Southern United States and dropped by a Hell House or a Tent Revival at some point in your life, and then repeated the correct words they taught you.

If you are one of the other 4 billion people who haven't heard it explained in that particular theology, (or if, like me, you disagree with that theology, even though we've experienced Fear Evangelism), then I don't know what will happen to us.

As for me, I depend on the true grace of God to be infinitely greater than these people believe it to be. And I depend on Jesus' death and resurrection to be accomplished for infinitely more of God's creation than these folks dream.