The Religious Reich’s moral pipe bomb.

March 29, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

Well as March runs out, Wayne Besen never misses a thing of interest. He heads up Truth Wins Out, which he started to counter the “Truth Won Out” pray-away-the-gay movement. the graphic is from Besen’s site; you can read it more easily here.

What is so transparent in the Harvard thing here is that Wallnau is trying to position his group or himself in the midst of the public discourse. Commentator Besen calls it red meat rhetoric.

And did we catch the “us who are Christians”? The phrase is not incorrect, but it’s opportunistic. Christians are not all of the same mind. Wallnau has no more moral authority to speak for “us who are Christians” than I do. He apparently wants Harvard University to bunch all LGBT people, abortion, all Muslims and “the financial collapse” in the same pot. “Ain’t it awful?” we used to say. Tsk, tsk.

Transparently, he positions the “us” opposite the “you”: “you remove God from public discourse.” Who is he speaking about here? You who? Obviously in his opportunistic world of us-and-them, the “us who are Christians” are meant to be opposed to the you” of “your homosexual activity, your abortion activity,” and “you” who “removed God from public discourse.”

Nobody has removed God from the public discourse. Almighty God, who is Play-Doh in the hands of demagogues, has never been more in the public discourse. As the partisan right wing tries to make everything there is into a political issue if it can benefit from it, the religious reich tries to make everything there is into a religious issue if it can benefit from it.

Certainly, there are issues of profound importance to America and to all human beings, which deserve public discourse, but which do not directly involve one or another religious view of God. Jesus was wise enough to distinguish between the things that belong to God and the things that belong to Caesar (state), Mark 12:17. There is a moral issue in the abortion debate, for example, that is not directly a religion issue, but Christians have differing views of the moral factors in anyone’s decision to have an abortion. And some people who differ profoundly on religion may be on the same side on abortion, for example.

Wallnau’s “baiting” over Islam is especially odious, because there are some of “us who are Christians” trying to promote serious and responsible dialogue with the adherents of Islam about our views of God, revelation, obedience, morality and peace. But to suggest that “You’ve got Islam invading the United States,” as Wallnau did last fall, is irresponsible and only brings more shame on Christians in America. Red meat rhetoric is the moral equivalent of a pipe bomb, and the religious reich doesn’t seem to give a rip about that.

Worse, these people are extremists even for religious wing-nuts. Besen quotes Rev. Bill Harmon, for example, who states that Leviticus requires “the penalty of death, bareness or excommunication” for adultery, etc. and “any sexual activity other than between husband and wife.” Not sure what bareness means to him, but Rev. Bill apparently hasn’t read the Song of Solomon, where erotic pleasure is beautifully described in some detail, and the lack of an actual marriage in the relationship is unmistakable. And, Rev. Bill, if you would check Matthew 1:18–21, you will see that when Joseph and Mary were betrothed, and he thought she must have committed adultery because she was pregnant, but he understood Leviticus to allow him to break the engagement quietly and not hurt Mary. If this was good enough for Joseph and Mary, why is Rev. Bill Harmon trying to incite the masses and beat the drum for the death penalty for any morality that doesn’t fit his personal preferences?

The quote from Dr. Pat Francis is pure “woo woo religion.” If he weren’t wasting his breath about “false religion” (in a nation which guarantees freedom of religion), maybe he could pay attention to James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” In other words, do some actual good for people who carry heavy burdens, and practice self-discipline in the things you think are not right for you. If such people don’t believe in abortion, then don’t have one. If they don’t like homosexuals, then don’t be one. If they don’t like Islam, then don’t convert to Islam.

But as to the “financial collapse,” they’re on their own. Jesus is opposed to serving both God and money anyway, according to Matthew 6:19 and 24. “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth,” says Jesus. “You cannot serve God and mammon” (money). I know, that won’t go over very well among the economic/political/religious right wing, but then they don’t pay close attention to the Bible anyway. I am sure the Social Transformation Conference will find a way around the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Such people always have.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

　

　

Posted in Go figure!, wingnuts, Family, Sex, Bible & Interpretation, LGBT Christian, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

White privilege rejects Jesus’ social values.

March 8, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

I’ve been trying to figure out this Tea Party movement since it began catching headlines, but it seems not so much like revolutionaries throwing tea chests into Boston Harbor as much as loose cannons firing on anything. Or is it mostly the same old white conservatives saying, “We’re cheap as ever and we’re not going to pay for it anymore.”

(A conveniently forgotten aspect of the Boston Tea Party is that the rebels who dumped the tea in a protest against taxes had dressed themselves up as “Indians,” in effect to hide their true identities and to scapegoat others.)

Geoff Farrow’s Current Blog has a rambling half hour speech in Wisconsin from filmmaker Michael Moore insisting that America is not broke. According to Moore, “400 people in America have more wealth than one half of the entire population of the United States of America. Those 400 individuals have more wealth than 155,000,000 people do.”

So it’s plausible that the tea party is revealed as the wealthy few agitating not just for no taxation without representation, but no taxation of them, period. Specifically, they are angry about the white privileged class being taxed to support the underprivileged class.

But I have had other nagging suspicions about the motivation of tea partiers. All of this would just be mere political finger-pointing, except that there is a strong religious connection.

The Pew Research Center has released a new study, citing exit polls from last November’s election, that reveal tea partiers as being largely white evangelical Christian Republicans.

“Does the movement draw support across the religious spectrum? Or has the religious right “taken over” the Tea Party, as some commentators have suggested?”A new analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds that Tea Party supporters tend to have conservative opinions not just about economic matters, but also about social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. In addition, they are much more likely than registered voters as a whole to say that their religion is the most important factor in determining their opinions on these social issues. And they draw disproportionate support from the ranks of white evangelical Protestants.”Reflecting on the research, a sociology professor at Pitzer College in Claremont, Phil Zuckerman (co-authoring with Dan Cady), has characterized the religious/political connection of the tea party is sharper contrast in a Huffington Post article, “Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.” “White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumbfounding ironies in contemporary American culture.”The irony—which the Pew Forum research would seem to support—is that contemporary American Christianity has become a smorgasbord at which you can choose what you like and ignore the rest. “People look at the content of their religious tradition—its teachings, its creeds, its prophet’s proclamations—and they basically pick and choose what suits their own secular outlook.” So white evangelicals pick only the parts of the New Testament Jesus and that message that makes them feel good, and ignore those things that call for love, compassion and self-sacrifice. “Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of “socialism,” even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.”This lays bare the classic distinction between the religion of Jesus (”I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was naked and you clothed me…) and the religion about Jesus (”praise the Lord! He’s the greatest!”). While Zuckerman’s editorializing analysis pushes the hypocrisy to the extreme, the distinction, the black and white contrast can be stated quite simply: there is nothing in the ethical demands of Jesus in the New Testament that supports the astonishing materialism of our times, and the public squalor/private wealth which this supposedly “Christian” nation now reveals.And for me it confirms a point I’ve been gently bringing up for a long time: because we each have our own political views as well as religious values, it is critical for each of us to understand which is driving which. Do our political views select our religious values, or do our religious values shape our political views? Which one has greater influence on our decisions? Which one is in the driver’s seat?

— Pastor Dan Hooper

---

---

Posted in Doctrine, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Score one for parody.

March 2, 2011 by Pastor Dan.

He must be dancing a jig tonight, that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that it’s a free-speech country and Phelps can demonstrate his particular brand of hatred at military funerals.

This is two decisions about free speech rights and the First Amendment in two years. the prior one was the idiotic decision that corporations can spend an unlimited amount of cash to sway public opinion and therefore to buy elections.

The Supreme Clout does not mean the highest wisdom, apparently.  But who am I to question free speech?  I am, however, deeply disappointed that only Justice Alito dissented from the majority opinion. Where were our so-called liberal justices on this?  But free speech itself–especially in this day and age of Twitter and Facebook influence over global events—is extremely important even if it can be used by people on the wrong side of virtually every moral issue (as I believe Phelps is).

But I do think that this is still a moral victory for our side, because Phelps and his little tribe of hate-mongering imaginary Christians are pretty exposed out there. Many other Christian preachers and churches have staked out their market share based on their hatred of abortion, homosexuals, you name it. But nobody is joining Phelps on the streets in front of funerals. Nobody else has web sites quite as filled with deranged, Gadhafi-like rambling.  Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps stands pretty much alone.

And I kind of think that when he croaks (or when God’s long-suffering patience is finally exhausted), nobody else is likely to pick up where Phelps leaves off. Maybe because Phelps’ command of irreality has been too sweeping.  It was not enough for him to say God hates fags. He has to say that God hates America for tolerating homosexuals.  God hates Sweden, too.  And God hates Canada.  But that God hates and therefore kills U.S. Marines because America tolerates homosexual expression is a bit more than a “stretch” even for most Christian fundagelicals. At Godhatestheworld.com, Phelps gives you an country-by-country explanation of his godly opinion.

And if Phelps himself is not a living parody on homophobic ministers, other people’s parody is the best revenge. For example, God Hates Figs (It’s in the Bible, read: Mark 11:12–14!—all a matter of interpretation.) And if you have time, check out Hank Moody’s book God Hates Us All. Entertainment, I guess.

 

Enjoy the new irreality in America, thanks to John “W” Roberts, whose sense of justice is certainly a parody all its own.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Go figure!, wingnuts, Homophobia, Bible & Interpretation, Fundamentalism, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »