This is an article I'm submitting to the Johns Hopkins Newsletter this week.
Please help me out by providing feedback! Daily Kos always provides me with AMAZING suggestions and makes my articles so much better - keep it up!
I'm looking for spelling/grammatical errors, factual inaccuracies, and gross misinterpretations of opinions/statements. Any suggested improvements to content or layout (even the title...) are GREATLY APPRECIATED. This isn't time dependent (it's due Tuesday), but I'd like to get it out of the way.
As always, thanks for the feedback and support !!!
"The War on Christ(_)"
One wouldn't expect to hear about the "war on Christmas" in February. It's much more of a seasonal piece of television programming; on ABC we get to watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas"; on TNT we enjoy "A Christmas Story"; and on Fox News we're fed "The Apocalypse, brought to you by Nancy Pelosi and the Bureaucrats ". I always get teary-eyed at the part when the mean ol' activist judge removes the ten commandments from the schoolyard and the innocent townfolk decline into a savage chaos.
I guess I should clarify that I'm writing more to address a war on Christianity and the values it enshrines. A war fought not by our Muslim President or our Catholic ex-Speaker, but by the Republicans who claim such piety throughout the election process.
Republican voters have two choices as the convention grows near (let's be honest, Ron Paul was never a serious candidate): Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. With Romney's income and IRS statements in the open and Gingrich's ex-wife no longer valued in his property-tax assessment, the "Christian" values these two men claim to uphold are brought into question. Given the American ideal of sticking to our morals and beliefs, are we out of line to expect the same from our candidates - particularly when considering the positive social practices reinforced by so many Christian beliefs?
Although Romney's "I'm not concerned about the poor" quote is often taken out of context, his feelings about the poor are not misinterpreted. With a plan to raise taxes on the lowest earners by over 60% and significantly cut federal medicaid funding, there's no question that his concern about the "95%" of middle America does not accurately reflect his agenda. His allegiences remain with the rich, and it's relatively easy to see why.
Mitt Romney released his tax returns this January, revealing that he made over $42 million in 2010 and 2011 combined. With an effective tax rate of 13%, he pocketed most of that $42 million, with the exception of the several million he donated to the Mormon church.
For those of us who aren't familiar with cults and the exposed frauds who start them, Mormonism is a "denomination" of Christianity. They believe there was an Adam in the garden of Eden (which was located in Missouri) and that Jesus was in fact resurrected (and then spent some time in New York). Given that Mormons do believe the Holy Bible to be scripture, one would expect Romney to adhere to the religious organization to which he sends over a millon dollars each year.
Romney's piety is a hard claim to make given how Jesus felt about the rich (Matthew 19:24: Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God). It's even more difficult when considering how Jesus felt about providing for the poor (Matthew 25:31-46). And who could forget his $10,000 bet with Rick Perry during a December GOP debate? The Bible leaves no question about its views on gambling: "for the love of money is the root of all evil".
Now Gingrich's economic and tax plans aren't much too look at when placed next to Romney's, and it's extremely difficult to take him seriously as a candidate given the ethics of his past and present. It's his personal life that deserves the scrutiny under the context of this discussion.
Some may claim that Gingrich's personal affairs (see what I did there?) are not political fodder, but until he says the same about our personal lives, we'll give his the attention it deserves.
The facts: Newt Gingrich had an affair during his first marriage - and during the Clinton impeachment hearings. After marrying his second wife, he had another affair with the woman who is now his third wife. There is reason to believe he asked his second wife for an open marriage, but we'll leave that one for the wolves.
Newt Gingrich was raised Lutheran, converted to Southern Baptist, and then converted again in 2009 to Catholicism. He may not be certain which interpretation of the Holy Scripture he follows, but trust him when he tells you it's one of them (just make sure you note the date and time).
Let's leave no debate about Jesus' view on divorce. Luke 16:18 tells us that "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." Despite his open support for unconstitutional displays of the 10 commandments on public grounds via public dollars, he makes no qualms about breaking the 7th (adultery), 9th (false witness), or 10 (coveting your House of Representatives staffer).
With all of this in mind, there are two points that need to be made concerning the Republican presidential candidates. First, we can no longer take them at their word when they make any claims about their Christian beliefs. When Gingrich accuses Obama of waging a "war on the Catholic Church" with his decision to have the HHS fund female contraception, we're well within reason to assume he only cares enough about Catholicism to use it as a political battering ram against his opponents. Whem Romney talks about our country being founded on "Judeo-Christian" values and his willingness "seek guidance" from God for "critical decisions", we're well within reason to assume he doesn't have a damned clue what God - be it the one who taught in Jerusalem or Brooklyn - intends for his followers.
The dangerous hypocrisy of Republicans claiming piety and using Christianty to court religious conservatives is easily exposed when we realize exactly how far from their Christian values they've wandered.
And this leads us to the second discussion that these points raise. Although nobody should be so bold as to claim to "speak for God", let's not forget that Christianity is based on a book claiming to be his spoken word. And what does this book tell us?
For one, it tells us that giving to the poor is of utmost importance to followers of Christ (Luke 18:22-25, Luke 14:12-14). It tells them to care for the sick, and turn no one away (John 5:1-15, Matthew 8:1-4). And it tells them to honor our relationships - and not just those built on love.
The practices taught to Christians in the Bible - charity for the poor, concern for the sick and homeless, love and fidelty - are values that few would argue have no place in American society. So why does the party so intent on courting the Christian vote seem to have no concern for them? Why does Ron Paul get applause when he says that sick Americans without insurance should be left to die? Why does Mitt Romney want to raise taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich? Why are people still voting for a sleazy unfaithful liar like Newt Gingrich? Are these the "Christian values" that we want our candidates to enshrine?
The "war" on Christianity comes not from the left, but from the right - from candidates who flaunt their religious beliefs for votes, not for social concern. If Republicans cared as much about the sick and poor as Jesus did, they'd make Democrats look like the party of the rich.
And perhaps that wouldn't be so bad, after all.
03 FEB 2012 - Steve Iannelli