This diary is created in response to the content/discussion of
this rather inflammatory diary posted yesterday.
I'll start out with an example of a small town in a Southern state. In this town there are two Baptist churches. A White Baptist Church, and a Black Baptist Church. The White Church votes Republican. The Black Church votes Democrat. The White Church is pro-life. The Black Church is pro-choice. The White Church preaches social conservatism. The Black Church preaches social justice.
Yet, you would think by the way people argue about religion on this site, that the Black Church did not exist. The White Church is "THE CHURCH", and their view is the only view of Christianity. You would think that Christianity is a single element, even as we are reminded to remember the diversity of Islam before we judge the actions of extremists.
Well, how god-damned hypocritical.
I'm a pretty strange banner-waver for the rights of Democratic Christians, so I'll give you a little background on myself. I was raised a Lutheran in a nice Lutheran community. I never had much use for church, but I was also never officially disillusioned with it. I more just didn't care and liked sleeping in on Sundays or watching the Sunday talk. (I've always been a political nerd like that). Plus, the Redskins usually played at one and church almost always meant missing kickoff. I often referred to myself as agnostic. My attitude was pretty much: "Don't know. Don't care. Doesn't really affect my life one way or the other."
I can't really say I've had a big spiritual awakening, although I have gotten a lot fonder of the church, specifically my church and my pastor, who is just a nice guy, and has been great with my father since his heart attack. (The pastor had also had a recent heart attack at the time, so they've bonded). That and the Christmas and Easter services, because I like the carols and decorations they put up. I suppose the closest I've gotten is when I was working on the Kerry campaign and I interacted with the Catholics for Kerry folk, who were just some of the most inspiring people I have ever met. And they gave a message of religion and christianity and Catholicism, which is always the big bad of the Christian religions, that was positive and uplifting, and honestly, just made good progressive sense. Religion as compassion and social justice made sense to me. I was happier knowing that there was this active and powerful benevolent side to religion, and that that is what people mean by values voters, not the Religious Right crap.
For example, let's take the big one, abortion. Republicans schmooze the word pro-life, but don't really take action. Want to make a practical difference in the reduction of the number of abortions? Improve health care. Give day care benefits. Reduce poverty. Make women feel comfortable having children. You can't just pretend that social justice and the improving of society is a separate issue from abortion. They go hand in hand. And Republicans are terrible at improving society for its most vulnerable members, the same members who, were a pregnancy to occur, would have no ability to care for a child, and thus might consider abortion. Well, I personally think this is an argument that is likely to appeal to people who otherwise get lost in the "pro-life"/"pro-choice" debate. I think this is the sort of language our party is missing. A reminder of, instead of just saying, our party is better, explaining WHY. And not in condescending terms.
So that's where I stand. And that's why I get hella offended when I get told that I'm a bible-thumping stupid, intellectually dishonest Christian who selectively uses information and is not in the "rational" world for saying that the Bible is a significant document.
It occurred to me in the midst of this discussion that I know exactly why all those people voted for Bush and I can't say I blame them. He was the only one, after all, who wasn't calling them stupid. And that's not to criticize John Kerry, who I kinda viewed as a deer in the headlights on the whole religion thing. Very product of Vatican II. And I'm not saying everyone has to be religious or even a-religious like myself.
But I just ask you to consider if you have ever, even just once, been convinced you were wrong about something because somebody told you you were stupid. In fact, would you listen to anything that person had to say, no matter how meritous, if they started it with, "Unlike foolish people (like you)..." This includes all references to "sheep", "ignorance", and "not living in the rational world".
Secondly, on the "rational world" bit. The implication that anyone who believes in God is not only irrational, but not living in the real world, is not only insulting, it's inaccurate. Having, or not having, faith does not affect your ability to logically analyze arguments, or make rational decisions on things. Are there going to be irrationally religious people? Of course. We've all seen them on television. But considering 90% of the population believes in God, you're lumping a lot of reasonable, sane people in with wingnuts. And how does that engage in discussion? How is it at all helpful to suggest that any analysis on the part of the person who is not an athiest is irrational and therefore void. Well, if that's how you feel then there's no point arguing. Let's pack up and go home. It's a dismissal of their point of view. Consider it this way, a belief in God clouds one's judgment as much as a lack of belief in God can. Which is touching on a taboo subject...The religion of irreligion.
I consider myself secular, but not an atheist. My general observation about atheists is the strength, vigor, and vehemence with which they do not believe in God. Better said, the anger at God's non-existance can arise passions as deep, single-minded, passionate, unswayable, and dangerous as religious thought. Especially when it justifies being an asshole. As stated earlier, I've never been a spiritual person, either way. But I do believe that there's a certain level of kindness, respect, and general protocal that goes along with being a member of our culture. And you don't get a pass because you don't believe in God. I really think that a lot of atheists relish pissing off the faithful. Enjoy bad-mouthing religion and saying purposefully inflammatory things, because they don't believe in God, and can. If you got it, flaunt it. But you know what, it's rude. And don't complain when someone calls you an asshole. It's like goths who complain when people stare at what they're wearing. They have every right to dress like that. But they dress like that so people will stare, so quit bitching about it. You are also not de facto smarter than the rest of the population for having figured out the God thing is a myth. Faith is something you either have or you don't. Intellect is irrespective of that.
Now, let's get back to the politics part. There's a valid argument over whether or not God has a place in government. And I think most people here, myself included, would argue passionately for the high wall of separation. However, there is a difference between a high wall of separation in government and religion in politics. We need to engage the public in the debate of religion. For the past thirty years, only one side has done the talking. And we, in our eagerness to dismiss anti-choice groups as Christian extremists, have distanced ourselves from the religious tenets of social justice and aiding the poor. Taking care of the elderly, etc. We have allowed the Right to be the only one that speaks for religion and God. Well, they're not. And it time, instead of saying religion isn't important, we said, yeah, it is important. And this is why our religion makes us progressive. Because there's a lot of open ears out there that Democrats have not tried speaking to. Blue-collar people. Vatican II babies. JFK's religion created the Great Society. Why is it wrong to use religion to defend it?
Secondly, this isn't about a Christian persecution complex. I don't think the world is out to get Christians. I don't think it's the only religion. But I do think Democrats should stop running away from it. I think you can believe in separation of church and state and still let religion influence what you believe. I think it does no one any good to lump all of Christianity into one judgemental package, though. I think that's letting the Christian Right win. Of course they want to be considered the voice of all Christianity. That is what makes them powerful and a force to be reckoned with. That is how they get heard. But it's not true, and I think it's our fault in letting them own that point. Giving them Christianity without a fight, and then sorta lamely saying, well, I'm a Christian, too. They don't own Christianity. When and why did we conceed that they did?
There are two churches in that equation. And it's time our side acted that way.