?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Rather than getting work done on schoolwork, I ended up spending a lot of tonight in a conversation on a friend's FB wall, inspired by this picture. As you can imagine, that made for some pretty spicy conversation. I thought some people might be interested in some of my comments. The post itself was only available to this particular person's friends, so I'm only sharing my words.

My initial reaction:

FWIW, just like the majority of Democrats would not support this sentiment, I don't think the vast majority of atheists would either. If they do they no longer deserve the "rationalist" label they're so proud of because it's basically relying on a might makes right mentality. I engage with a lot of atheists, including the more activist variety that are actively trying to make society more secular and convince people to give up their religion - and very few if any would advocate violence in the name of their cause. They actually believe in the power of human reason and words.

Doesn't change the fact that this image makes me sick to the stomach. Even aside from the Chhristianity aspect - violence and violent rhetoric is the last refuge of small minds.


And then later on I added:

Some people have said that the Dems are happy to win this election without God. Most nonreligious people tend to be liberal, that's true, but that's largely because they see conservatives as trying to force their religion on other people through policy. But in my experience the Democratic Party (and liberals more generally) are much bigger than atheism. Many minorities (ethnic minorities) gravitate toward the Democrat parties, and as a New Yorker I can say few people are as thoroughly religious as ethnic enclaves living far from their birth-culture. Being religious is often the easiest way to stay connected to people from a similar background. That means there are some very religious people in the Democratic Party; I suspect much more religious people than atheists.

The Democrats got into trouble by removing the reference to "God-given talents" from their platform a while ago, but this ignores the fact that there's a whole section on the importance of faith. They're actually taking knocks in the atheist community for that one! :-) (Not sure if it's a new section or just getting publicity because of the God-language thing.) Personally, I prefer my politicians not to use my faith as a tool to get votes. But to the question at hand: as a religious person I've always found that part of who I am and what's important to me was honored by the Dems.


Another commenter then pointed out that the DNC had removed "God" from their official platform and that this proved the current administration was anti-religion, to which I replied:

It's not quite that simple. I don't know why it was taken out, but they didn't take out whole sections on the importance of faith (with the implication that that faith must be *in* something!) and the importance of faith communities in making America great.

But even if what you say is true... so what? The Bible has strong words for people who call on God's name, claim it on themselves, but then behave in thoroughly ungodly ways. We are specifically ordered to care for the widow and the orphan, and to have fair courts to hold the rich accountable, which I believed American policies are failing at shamelessly. You may disagree, or think there are other problems with Obama that trump those concerns. I can respect that. But whatever your position on these things, if we truly want to do as the Bible says, I think we should all be less concerned on calling on God's name, and more with doing what God commands.

"He has shown to you, O man, what is good; and what does the lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Mic 6:8, NKJV)


Someone then said that if you were pro-abortion you couldn't really be Christian. As someone who is both pro-choice (which isn't the same as pro-abortion) and deeply Christian, I took issue. (She also questioned whether Obama was a Christian, and gave this as a reason not to vote for Obama.) I replied:

[on the idea that Christians couldn't be pro-abortion]

First of all, very few people if any are actually pro-abortion. Some people like me are pro-choice, but pray (and work!) for as few abortions as possible. But even if vast swaths of people were pro-abortion, I am simply baffled for where you get this idea that there's a simple litmus test test for who is a Christian and who is not (This is a question so unknowable we are told not to judge another person's salvation), let alone why you think this litmus test is our stance on abortion. I would have thought Christ or at least Paul would have focused more on it, but off the top of my head I can't remember any verses from either of them talking about abortion. Looking at what Jesus taught and rebuked people for, abortion simply doesn't come up.

But more to the point, even if abortion is the defining test for being Christian... so what? The Constitution explicitly says we're not to institute a religious test for who can be elected president. Surely being a good American means electing the best leader full stop and not imposing a standard the Constitution forbids?

Also: are you voting? I assume you're going to vote for the GOP nominee, who fully admits that he is not a Christian, Mitt Romney. I have no problem with Christians voting for non-Christians, but as you seem to, I'm curious with your connecting Obama's non-Christianness to needing to get him out of the White House.

[on whether Obama 2016 proved Obama wasn't Christian.]

I haven't [seen it], but I've seen clips and read reviews. I've also read the book it's based on, and found that book to be thoroughly unfounded propaganda (and of a pretty fringe variety). But even if the movie's true, I'm not sure what it proves about Obama's *religion*. It tries to show he's not a good American, that he's not really bought into the American dream. How in the world does that make him not a Christian

[I was asked whether Jesus would be okay with pushing abortion taking away religious freedoms]

I think Jesus would be more than a bit wary talking about "rights" the way you seem so comfortable doing here. He was faced with a government that was far more oppressive than anything Obama is charged with, and His response to that government was not to fight for general principles. Rather, he looked at the person in front of Him and dealt with that particular situation. Instead of lobbying for a law that made religious freedom absolute and inviolate, I think he would have sat down with the women who had to deal with unwanted pregnancies and make sure they had the options necessary to make good choices.

If someone thought that the poor should be denied health care so that the rich would not have to pay indirectly for something they personally disapproved of, I can well imagine how Jesus would respond. And I fully believe it would be more in line with how he reacted to Pharisees than the woman at the well.


We talked a bit more about abortion, and she also suggested if I read my Bible I would agree with her. I said:

I've never had an abortion and to my knowledge don't know anyone who has, so I'm in no position to speak on that [how painful abortion is to the mother]. But you're being a bit sloppy on some other points:

1. Does *banning* abortions minimize them more than supporting contraceptive availability, sex ed, etc. does?
2. Does the Bible say abortion's not only wrong, but the CENTRAL wrong - so if you get this right you're a Christian, and if you don't, you're not one?
3. Does the fact that a president isn't wanting to make abortion illegal enough of a wrong that it defines him as a bad president?
4. If you believe Obama's not being Christian makes him a bad president, how do you square that with voting for another non-Christian candidate?

As for the baby having its own DNA - that seems like a bad standard, since *any*thing that's alive has its own DNA. Abortion is a complicated issue, much more complicated than many people. If you're really interested, you might read my recent blog post on abortion: http://fidesquaerens.livejournal.com/111574.html

As for whether I've studied the Bible... I'm a lifelong Methodist, and I've heard it preached on growing up. I also read it regularly on my own and have read it through several times as an adult. I'm also a philosophy grad student in philosophy of religion, meaning I work pretty much constantly with a lot of Biblical claims and see whether they run into logical problems or not. That's not devotional reading, but I think it's pretty save to say I'm thoroughly immersed in the Bible and the different traditions of how to read it. (Can't say I've sat in Chris's bible study since I'm not local, though I'm sure it's a blast.) I'm pretty insulted that you think that since I don't agree with you I must not be touched by the Bible, since my religion is so central to who I am, so close to my heart. But I'll pray for the grace to not get upset over that, and will truly try to think of you as a sister in Christ - I think you are one, even though we disagree here!


Finally, we got to talking about Obama's handling of the embassy attack, and in particular the fact that he was campaigning. My response:

the man has a cell phone, and he has aides and advisers around the world gathering information for him. He does not have to be physically in Washington to respond to the news of the day.

Frankly, I was much more upset with Gov. Romney taking the news and using this tragedy in such an obviously political way. I also kind of support the fact that Pres. Obama took the time to gather the facts he needed before making a statement with national security implications, rather than rushing into it. Speaking as the friend of a dead Marine who died in Iraq, I have a special admiration for presidents who understand the situation they're interacting with before making statements that could lead to Americans being put in harm's way.

But just to be clear, I'm not a diehard Obama fan. One can question attacks on his religion and the implication this disqualifies him as a president, without thinking the man can do no wrong.


I'm not asking people to agree with me; that's impossible since you only have my side of the conversation. But my blog posts are often so long and formal. I thought some people might enjoy seeing how my thoughts unrolled tonight. If you have thoughts or reactions to what I was saying (so far as you can tell!), or just general impressions, feel free to leave me a comment.

Comments

( 7 comments — Leave a comment )
gardengirl6
Sep. 13th, 2012 01:22 pm (UTC)
Thoughtful and compelling as always. My only comment is that Marine is a proper noun as you've used it. That's a bit of a hot button for me, for reasons that are probably obvious! <3
marta_bee
Sep. 13th, 2012 04:12 pm (UTC)
I've corrected the mistake. Somehow I always forget to capitalize it, though of course you're right that it should be. Sorry about that!

And thanks for reading all this, mellon. :-)
gardengirl6
Sep. 13th, 2012 04:14 pm (UTC)
I almost always try (at least!) to read your posts. Sometimes I get bogged down, or short of time, but I always find your arguments well-constructed and interesting! Keep well, friend.
dreamflower02
Sep. 13th, 2012 02:12 pm (UTC)
You had a lot more patience with the conversation than I would have! I probably would have just given up about halfway through. Reading between the lines, your correspondent sounds a lot like my sister-- with whom I never have political conversations if I can help it. (The only difference being that she IS a Mormon, and considers herself to be Christian. *sigh*)

I think Jesus would be more than a bit wary talking about "rights" the way you seem so comfortable doing here. He was faced with a government that was far more oppressive than anything Obama is charged with, and His response to that government was not to fight for general principles. Rather, he looked at the person in front of Him and dealt with that particular situation. Instead of lobbying for a law that made religious freedom absolute and inviolate, I think he would have sat down with the women who had to deal with unwanted pregnancies and make sure they had the options necessary to make good choices.

If someone thought that the poor should be denied health care so that the rich would not have to pay indirectly for something they personally disapproved of, I can well imagine how Jesus would respond. And I fully believe it would be more in line with how he reacted to Pharisees than the woman at the well.


VERY well said! From one lifelong Methodist to another-- you acquitted yourself well.
marta_bee
Sep. 13th, 2012 05:43 pm (UTC)
Thanks, Barbara! We Methodists do have to stick together, I think - we've always struck me as the "Keep calm and carry on" branch of American Christianity, which may be why I love my tradition so much (at least times).

I'm much braver and more eloquent (I think) online than off. If we had met at a Christmas party I probably would have found a nice corner to stand in as quickly as I could. But with the internet I can gather myself, take lots of deep breaths, and respond when I'm ready. That helps a lot.

As for your Muslim sister - I honestly don't get Muslims insisting they're Christians. They're close as far as religions go, in the same way that Judaism and early Christianity were close, and certainly worthy of respect and civil rights. But as a factual matter I just don't see the Christian thing. And that's really not a value judgment, just a factual statement. Christians see the Old and New Testament as the only scripture; when you add a book or take one away, that makes your religion something else IMO. :-)
dreamflower02
Sep. 13th, 2012 07:06 pm (UTC)
Nope, not MUSLIM, MORMON, LOL!

And I don't see Mormons as being anymore Christian than I do Muslims-- the Book of Mormon is not a Christian text, anymore than the Koran is. So by your definition AND mine neither is Christian.

(((hugs))) Yep. We Methodists do need to stick together.
aearwen2
Sep. 13th, 2012 08:20 pm (UTC)
Discussing politics and religion effectively requires the kind of patience that listens to a point of view with which one vehemently disagrees with the attitude of understanding where the other person is coming from, rather than changing their mind. It is neither easy nor comfortable to do, but ultimately quite rewarding. Far too few people have either the intellectual or ethical prowess to do it, much less succeed at it. Sounds to me like you did quite well.

Good for you.
( 7 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

marta_bee
fidesquaerens
Website

Latest Month

October 2019
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow