Religion and Politics

What is happening to the "Values Voter"? A new Pew study has found that

Fifty percent of conservatives think churches and other places of worship should stay out of social and political matters, up from 30 percent four years ago . . . On this question, the gap between conservatives and liberals is narrowing: just four years ago, liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to say churches should stay out of politics. Now, 50 percent of conservatives and 57 percent of liberals think that. Four years ago, 62 percent of liberals opposed church involvement in politics. Democrats and Republicans are about even on the question as well.
Hmmm. What is going on here? Are conservatives less religious than they were four years ago? Is our country losing its religion?!?!? No, I think the answer can be summed up in one word: disillusionment.

George W. Bush (with the help of Political Advisor Karl Rove) ran two Presidential campaigns aimed at garnering the evangelical Christian vote. Knowing that the religious base is a big component of their party, they capitalized on this base to barely squeak out a victory in 2000 and secure a respectable win in 2004.
Winning the souls, or at least the votes, of conservative evangelical Christians is central to the Republican Party strategy under President Bush . . . After the 2000 election, Rove lamented in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington that only 15 million evangelical voters had gone to the polls - 4 million fewer than expected. This disappointing turnout helped explain the close election, Rove said. Looking ahead, he vowed to pursue policies that would motivate evangelicals in 2004 - specifically the white conservative Protestants who overwhelmingly support Bush.
Rove's strategy worked well in 2000 and 2004 (and especially in the midterm congressional elections of 2002 when the Republicans had sweeping victories in both houses of Congress). After Bill Clinton and his sex scandal, I remember feeling energized at the thought of a "moral" President - someone who turns to prayer for answers. Our country can't go wrong with a God-fearing man for President, can it?
George W. Bush is among the most openly religious presidents in U.S. history. A daily Bible reader, he often talks about how Jesus changed his heart. He has spoken, publicly and privately, of hearing God's call to run for the presidency and of praying for God's help since he came into office.
That all sounds good to me. I want that in a President, and I voted for it!

The problem is that things haven't gone so well. I am not so sure we got what we were looking for in a President with GWB. Sure, he is a plenty nice guy. I appreciate and respect his religious views, but, to both conservatives and liberals alike, he hasn't done that great of a job of being President (as evidenced by his low, low approval ratings). The Iraq war, illegal immigration, the Harriet Miers fiasco . . .

GWB relies on "instinct" and "intuition" in making a lot of decisions.
Bush's top deputies - from cabinet members like Paul O'Neill, Christine Todd Whitman and Colin Powell to generals fighting in Iraq - have been told for years when they requested explanations for many of the president's decisions, policies that seem to collide with accepted facts . . . that [the President] relied on his "gut" or his "instinct" to guide the ship of state, and then he "prayed over it".
Maybe God-fearing isn't enough to be President. Prophet, perhaps. President, no.

At the same time, Democrats, seeing how effective turning out the religious vote was for the Republicans, have been trying it a bit themselves. I remember listening to John Kerry awkwardly try to inject scripture into his public speeches while running for President in 2004. He didn't come across as very sincere (in my opinion). But, fast forward to the Democrat National Convention of 2008: it's a regular old gospel fest!

At the first official event Sunday of the Democrat National Convention, a choir belted out a gospel song and was followed by a rabbi reciting a Torah reading about forgiveness and the future. Helen Prejean, the Catholic nun who wrote "Dead Man Walking", assailed the death penalty and use of torture.

Young muslims in headscarves sat near older African-American women in their finest Sunday hats.

Four years ago, such a scene would have been unthinkable at a Democratic National Convention. In 2004, there was one interfaith lunch at the Democratic gala in Boston.

But that same year, "values voters" helped re-elect President Bush, giving Democrats of faith the opening they needed to make party leaders listen to them
. . .

There will be four "faith caucus" meetings, blessings to open and close each night, and panels and parties run by Democratic-leaning religious advocacy groups that didn't even exist in 2004 . . .

One hallmark of Democratic faith efforts at the convention is diversity, which might soften objections from party activists wary of the Christian right or any mixing of religion and politics.

Behind the scenes, efforts to attract the religious vote will concentrate largely on Christian "values voters".

"If we create or become a mirror image of the religious right, we have failed", said Burns Strider, who ran religious outreach for Hillary Clinton's campaign and now does faith-based political consulting. "But if we have increased the number of chairs around the table, then we've succeeded".

Who exactly are the Democrats trying to "woo" with all of this religious talk (which honestly strikes me as a little hypocritical coming from the party in which so many states have added "separation of church and state" to their Democratic platforms)? It certainly can't be liberal Democrats. From 2004 to 2008, the percentage of Democrats who feel that churches need to stay out of politics barely budged. No, it's the conservative Republicans who are changing their minds. So, while more disillusioned conservatives are shaking their heads wondering what to do, the Democrats are welcoming them with open arms.

"People of faith are being engaged in the convention in a new and robust way, and it's because of Senator Obama's acknowledgement that people of faith and values have an important place in American public life," said Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign's religious affairs director.

Uh, sure. More like Senator Obama's acknowledgement that he can pick off disaffected religious voters from the Republican party who want a "faith-full" president, but who don't trust the Republicans to deliver.

The campaign is giving a platform to people who otherwise would not have been invited to or attended a Democratic convention. One example is Joel Hunter, a moderate evangelical megachurch pastor from Orlando, Fla., who will offer the benediction Thursday, the night Obama accepts the nomination.

"Now there's a genuine interest in speaking with groups and religious groups who were previously considered enemies, said Rachel Laser, who works on culture issues for the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way.

(Note - another evangelical, Cameron Strang, backed out of offering a prayer Monday night.)

Will it work? Will "values voters" really jump ship? Will conservative Christians give up positions on important issues like abortion because of "compromise language in the Democrat's abortion platform that acknowledges the need to help women who want to keep their pregnancies" and flashy religious hoopla? Are we really dumb sheep who just follow whatever political shepherd is calling out God's name? "Mumble, mumble, mumble, GOD, mumble, mumble, mumble". Must . . . follow . . . President . . . talking . . . about . . . God . . .

I don't think so, and it doesn't appear to be so.

Despite all the effort, there is little evidence religious votes are shifting. A Pew poll released last week showed the political preferences of religious voters, including highly sought Catholics and white evangelicals, have scarcely budged since 2004.

Catholics are up for grabs, but white evangelicals have become so solidly Republican, Obama has little chance of carving too deeply into the Republican lead, said Allen Hertze, a University of Oklahoma political scientist.

Recently, McCain and Obama both appeared at a forum on faith to appeal to religious voters, although Obama appeared to be working a little harder.

In several cases, Obama gave a Christian interpretation to his generally liberal political views. He said he is redeemed by Jesus, who died for his sins.

McCain tended to give shorter, less complex answers, winning somewhat more applause than Obama from the large, evangelical church's audience.

McCain has been smart to, for the most part, not use "religion" to attract the conservative vote as Bush did. For one, McCain isn't such a religious guy. Hearing him recite scripture would sound a lot like hearing John Kerry recite scripture - it just doesn't work for him. For two, we've fallen for that once (okay twice), and we are not falling for it again. Not from a Republican (Mike Huckabee gave a go at it, and it didn't work out too well for him either), and not from a Democrat. We just want the issues and the platform to be in line with our own values. So don't tell us that your views are Christian - show us. Talk is cheap anymore.


47 comments:

Anonymous said...

With so many of our country's differing religions (Baptists, Muslims, Hindu, Mormons, Jewish, etc.) having values and views that are in held in common (charity, respect, kindness etc.) I am not so concerned that our politicians views reflect Christianity as much as I am concerned that our politicians views reflect our Constitution.

A strict adherence to Constitutional values are what will sustain a nation. I think our Founding Fathers were able to distill the values from their various religious backgrounds and condense these values into a workable public document, that being the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights.

So when I look at a politician I search for a person with a solid understanding of the values expressed in the Constitution and then who works to preserve and establish those values in legislation and their judgements.

To me Christian values are simply truth and can be found wherever truth is found. Truth is found in the Constitution of the United States of America. Might I suggest we all read the Constitution before we vote. Vicki

dudleysharp said...

Sister Prejean's speech at the Democratic National Convention (Denver, 2008):

"(Sister Prejean) received nothing but a stony silence, however, when she questioned the basis of the biblical crucifixion story as a "projection of our violent society."

"Is this a God?" Prejeans asked about the belief that God allowed his son, Jesus, to be sacrificed for the sins of humanity. "Or is this an ogre?" "The audience -- to that point in strong agreement with the author of "Dead Man Walking" -- said and did nothing." ("God, ogre comparison doesn't fly with interfaith crowd", Paul A. Anthony, Rocky Mountain News, 03:35 p.m., August 24, 2008)

" . . .makes you realize the Dead Man Walking truly belongs on the shelf in the library in the Fiction category."

Dead Man Walking and Sr. Prejean's Death Penalty Disinformation
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters

I. Dead Family Walking: The Bourque Family Story of Dead Man Walking , by D. D. deVinci, Goldlamp Publishing, 2006

" . . .makes you realize the Dead Man Walking truly belongs on the shelf in the library in the Fiction category."

"Being devout Catholics, 'the norm' would be to look to the church for support and healing. Again, this need for spiritual stability was stolen by Sister Prejean."

The book alleges whole cloth fabrications by Sister Prejean within her book "Dead Man Walking".

"On November 5, 1977, the Bourque's teenage daughter, Loretta, was found murdered in a trash pile near the city of New Iberia, Louisiana lying side by side near her boyfriend–with three well-placed bullet holes behind each head. "

www(dot)deadfamilywalking.com/

contact T.J. Edler, 337-967-0840, infogoldlamp(at)aol.com


II. The Victims of Dead Man Walking
by Michael L. Varnado, Daniel P. Smith

comment -- A very different story than that written by Sister Helen Prejean. Detective Varnado was the investigating officer in the murder of Faith Hathaway. 2003


III. Death Of Truth: Sister Prejean's new book Death Of Innocents

For some years, there has existed a consistent pattern, from death penalty opponents, to declare certain death row inmates to be actually innocent. Those claims have, consistently, been 70-83% in error. ("ALL INNOCENCE ISSUES -- THE DEATH PENALTY")

Keep that in mind with "Death of Innocents".

Readers should be very careful, as they have no way of knowing if any of the fact issues in either of the two cases, as presented by Sister Prejean, are true. Readers would have to conduct their own thorough, independent examination to make that determination. You can start here.

Four articles

(a) "FOR GOOD REASON, JOE O'DELL IS ON DEATH ROW"
scholar(DOT)lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950728/07210224.htm

quote: "The DNA report commissioned by O'Dell and his lawyers actually corroborates O'Dell's guilt. There is a three-probe DNA match indicating that the bloodstains on O'Dell's clothing is indeed consistent with the victim Helen Schartner's DNA as well as her blood type and enzyme factors." "There is certainly no truth to O'Dell's accusation that evidence was suppressed or witnesses intimidated by the prosecution."

(b) "Sabine district attorney disputes author's claims in book"
www(DOT)shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050124/NEWS01/501240328/1060

quote: "I don't know whether she is deliberately trying to mislead the public or if she's being mislead by others. But she's wrong,"
District Atty. Burkett, dburkett(AT)cp-tel.net

(c) Book Review: "Sister Prejean's Lack of Credibility: Review of "The Death of Innocents", by Thomas M. McKenna (New Oxford Review, 12/05). http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1205-mckenna

"The book is moreover riddled with factual errors and misrepresentations."

"Williams had confessed to repeatedly stabbing his victim, Sonya Knippers."

"This DNA test was performed by an independent lab in Dallas, which concluded that there was a one in nearly four billion chance that the blood could have been someone's other than Williams's."

" . . . despite repeated claims that (Prejean) cares about crime victims, implies that the victim's husband was a more likely suspect but was overlooked because the authorities wanted to convict a black man."

" . . . a Federal District Court . . . stated that 'the evidence against Williams was overwhelming.' " "The same court also did "not find any evidence of racial bias specific to this case."

"(Prejean's) broad brush strokes paint individual jurors, prosecutors, and judges with the term "racist" with no facts, no evidence, and, in most cases, without so much as having spoken with the people she accuses."

"Sr. Prejean also claims that Dobie Williams was mentally retarded. But the same federal judge who thought he deserved a new sentencing hearing also upheld the finding of the state Sanity Commission report on Williams, which concluded that he had a "low-average I.Q.," and did not suffer from schizophrenia or other major affective disorders. Indeed, Williams's own expert at trial concluded that Williams's intelligence fell within the "normal" range. Prejean mentions none of these facts."

"In addition to lying to the police about how he came to have blood on his clothes, the best evidence of O'Dell's guilt was that Schartner's (the rape/murder vicitim's) blood was on his jacket. Testing showed that only three of every thousand people share the same blood characteristics as Schartner. Also, a cellmate of O'Dell's testified that O'Dell told him he killed Schartner because she would not have sex with him."

"After the trial, LifeCodes, a DNA lab that O'Dell himself praised as having "an impeccable reputation," tested the blood on O'Dell's jacket -- and found that it was a genetic match to Schartner. When the results were not to his liking, O'Dell, and of course Sr. Prejean, attacked the reliability of the lab O'Dell had earlier praised. Again, as with Williams's conviction, the federal court reviewing the case characterized the evidence against O'Dell as 'vast' and
'overwhelming.' "

Sr. Prejean again sees nefarious forces at work. Not racism this time, for O'Dell was white. Rather, she charges that the prosecutors were motivated to convict by desire for advancement and judgeships. Yet she never contacted the prosecutors to interview them or anyone who might substantiate such a charge.

"(Prejean) omits the most damning portion of (O'Dell's criminal) record: an abduction charge in Florida where O'Dell struck the victim on the head with a gun and told her that he was going to rape her. This very similar crime helped the jury conclude that O'Dell would be a future threat to society. It supports the other evidence of his guilt and thus undermines Prejean's claim of innocence."

"There is thus a moral equivalence for Prejean between the family of an innocent victim and the newfound girlfriend of a convicted rapist and murderer."

"This curious definition of "the victims" suggests that her concern for "victims" seems to be more window-dressing for her cause than true concern."

(d) Hardly The Death Of Innocents: Sister Prejean tells it like it wasn't -- Joseph O'Dell
by Anonymous, at author's request

In lionizing convicted murderer Joseph O'Dell as being an innocent man railroaded to his 1997 execution by Virginia prosecutors, Sister Helen Prejean presents a skewed summary of the case to bolster her anti-death penalty agenda. While she is a gifted speaker, she is out of her element when it comes to "telling it as it was" in these cases.

Prejean got to walk with O'Dell into the death chamber at Greensville Correctional Center on July 22, 1997. However, she wasn't in Virginia Beach some 12 years earlier when he committed the crime for which he was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death. That is where the real demon was evident, not the sweet talking condemned con-man that she met behind bars. O'Dell was, in the words of then Virginia Beach Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Albert Alberi (case prosecutor), one of the most savage, dangerous criminals he had encountered in a two decade career.

Indeed,O'Dell had spent most of his adult life incarcerated for various crimes since the age of 13 in the mid-1950's. At the time of the Schartner murder in Virginia, O'Dell had been recently paroled from Florida where he had been serving a 99 year sentence for a 1976 Jacksonville abduction that almost ended in a murder of the female victim (had not police arrived) in the back of his car.

The circumstances of that crime were almost identical to those surrounding Schartner's murder. The victim of the Florida case even showed up in Virginia to testify at the trial. Scarcely a mention of this case is made in the Prejean book.

Briefly, let me outline some of the facts about the case: Victim Helen Schartner's blood was found on the passenger seat of Joseph O'Dell's vehicle. Tire tracks matching those on O'Dell's vehicle were found at the scene where Miss Schartner's body was found. The tire tread design on O'Dell's vehicle wheels were so unique, an expert in tire design couldn't match them in a manual of thousands of other tire treads. The seminal fluids found on the victim's body matched those of Mr. O'Dell and pubic hairs of the victim were found on the floor of his car.

The claims that O'Dell was "denied" his opportunity to present new DNA evidence on appeals were frivolous. In fact, he had every opportunity to come forward with this evidence, but his lawyers refused to reveal to the court the full findings of the tests which they had arranged to be done on a shirt with blood stains, which O'Dell's counsel claimed might show did not have the blood marks from the defendant or the victim.

Manipulative defense lawyer tactics were overlooked by Prejean in her narrative. O'Dell was far from a victim of poor counsel. As matter of fact, the city of Virginia Beach and state government gave O'Dell an estimated $100,000 for his defense team at trial. This unprecedented amount nearly bankrupted the entire indigent defense fund for the state. He had great lawyers, expert forensic investigators and every point at the trial was contested two to five times.

There was no "rush to justice" in this case.

O'Dell's alibi for the night of Schartner's murder was that he had gotten thrown out of the bar where he encountered Schartner following a brawl. However, none of the several dozen individuals supported his contention - there weren't any fights that night. Rather, several saw Miss Schartner getting into O'Dell's car on what would be her last ride.

But Prejean would want us to believe the claims of felon Joseph O'Dell.He had three trips to the United States Supreme Court and the "procedural error" which Prejean claims ultimately doomed him was the result of simple ignorance of basic appeals rules by his lawyers.

Nothing in the record ever suggested that Joseph O'Dell, two time killer and rapist, was anything but guilty of the murder of Helen Schartner.

Justice was properly served.


IV. Sister Helen Prejean on the death penalty

"It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone,’ when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) - the Mosaic Law prescribed death - should be read in its proper context. This passage is an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment .” Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.

The sister’s analysis is consistent with much theological scholarship. Also, much scholarship questions the authenticity of John 8:7.

From here, the sister states that “ . . . more and more I find myself steering away from such futile discussions (of Biblical text). Instead, I try to articulate what I personally believe . . . ” The sister has never shied away from any argument, futile or otherwise, which opposed the death penalty. She has abandoned biblical text for only one reason: the text conflicts with her personal beliefs.

Sister Prejean rightly cautions: "Many people sift through the Scriptures and select truth according to their own templates." (Progressive, 1/96). Sadly, Sister Prejean appears to do much worse. The sister now uses that very same biblical text “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone” as proof of Jesus’ “unequivocal” rejection of capital punishment as “revenge and unholy retribution”! (see Sister Prejean’s 12/12/96 fundraising letter on behalf of the Saga Of Shame book project for Quixote Center/Equal Justice USA)


V. Redemption and the death penalty

The movie Dead Man Walking reveals a perfect example of how just punishment and redemption can work together. Had rapist/murderer Matthew Poncelet not been properly sentenced to death by the civil authority, he would not have met Sister Prejean, he would not have received spiritual instruction, he would not have taken responsibility for his crimes and he would not have reconciled with God. Had Poncelet never been caught or had he only been given a prison sentence, his character makes it VERY clear that those elements would not have come together. Indeed, for the entire film and up until those last moments, prior to his execution, Poncelet was not truthful with Sister Prejean. His lying and manipulative nature was fully exposed at that crucial time. It was not at all surprising, then, that it was just prior to his execution that all of the spiritual elements may have come together for his salvation. It was now, or never. Truly, just as St. Aquinas stated, it was Poncelet's pending execution which may have led to his repentance. For Christians, the most crucial concerns of Dead Man Walking must be and are redemption and eternal salvation. And, for that reason, it may well be, for Christians, the most important pro-death penalty movie ever made.

A real life example of this may be the case of Dennis Gentry, executed April 16, 1997, for the premeditated murder of his friend Jimmy Don Ham. During his final statement, Gentry said, "I’d like to thank the Lord for the past 14 years (on death row) to grow as a man and mature enough to accept what’s happening here tonight. To my family, I’m happy. I’m going home to Jesus." As the lethal drugs began to flow, Gentry cried out, "Sweet Jesus, here I come. Take me home. I’m going that way to see the Lord." (Michael Gracyk, Associated Press, Houston Chronicle, 4/17/97). We cannot know if Gentry or the fictitious Poncelet or the two real murderers from the DMW book really did repent and receive salvation.

But, we do know that St. Aquinas advises us that murderers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. We should err on the side of caution and not give murderers the opportunity to harm again.

"The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.


VI. On God and the death penalty
 
It is understandable that the audience was stunned. Sister Prejean is questioning the bedrock of the Christian faith.

But, none should have been surprised.

It is not uncommon for persons of faith to create a god in their own image, to give to that god their values, instead of accepting those values which are inherent to the deity. For example, death penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking) states, in reference to the death penalty, that "I couldn’t worship a god who is less compassionate than I am."(Progressive, 1/96). She has, thereby, established her standard of compassion as the basis for God’s being deserving of her devotion. If God’s level of compassion does not rise to the level of her own, God couldn’t receive her worship. Director Tim Robbins (Death Man Walking) follows that same path: "(I) don’t believe in that kind of (g)od (that would support capital punishment and, therefore, would be the kind of god who tortures people into their redemption)." ("Opposing The Death Penalty", AMERICA, 11/9/96, p 12). Robbins, hereby, establishes his standard for his God’s deserving of his belief. God’s standards do not seem to be relevant. His sophomoric comparison of capital punishment and torture is typical of the ignorance in this debate and such comments reflect no biblical relevancy. Perhaps they should review Matthew 5:17-22 and 15:1-9. Be cautious, for as the ancient rabbis warned, "Do not seek to be more righteous than your creator." (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Detective Varnado writes: "For those who believe in the teachings of Sister Helen Prejean as her journey continues in her effort to abolish the death penalty. 'For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And, no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2 Corinthians 11:13 & 14' " -- From Detective Varnado's new book Soft Targets; A Women's Guide To Survival
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
 
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
 
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
 
Pro death penalty sites 

homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, I think your "disillusionment" argument is basically right. I also agree that it's pretty dumb for the Democrats to play "me too" with a strategy that's just not a natural fit for them.

Another possible reason for this ongoing depoliticization: religions that go political open themselves up to public criticism of the impolite sort that characterizes political debate. (And why not?) It's not just that conservative Christians have gotten so little in exchange for their support of the GOP.* It's that they've suffered a lot of unusually harsh criticism because of their high political profile. I doubt that the recent wave of hard-hitting atheist books (by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc.) would ever have come out were it not for the rise of the Religious Right. Looking at it historically: the previous wave of vitriolic anti-religious discourse might well have been prompted by Christian political crusading for prohibition and against evolution (e.g., the Scopes trial). I don't remember much in the way of anti-religious discourse in the 1960s and 1970s--it started up in response to the rise of Jerry Falwell et al. Actually, there was always a certain strain of criticism, but it was directed at "Marjoe" style scoundrels like Jimmy Bakker, not against religion per se.

If you've seen the documentary Jesus Camp you'll see what I mean. There's a scene where the leader of the "Jesus camp" (a fanatical version of kids' Bible camp) trots out a life-size cardboard figure of George W. Bush and proceeds to indoctrinate a bunch of young children about his godliness--a scene that is absolutely chilling, that has now been seen by millions of people, and that makes evangelical Christianity look both idiotic and frightening. Were I a sensible evangelical preacher, those two minutes of video would be enough to make me reconsider the whole politics thing.

There are Mennonite and Amish communities in my area, and they stay completely out of the political arena. I think they're doing far more to improve the world through example than the more politically active Baptists and evangelicals. They're better cooks, too. And nobody criticizes them publicly.

I do disagree with you about one thing. (Surprise!) As an avid reader of the Bible, I can only shake my head at your comments about the "God-fearing" Bush and about Clinton. I mean, haven't you read the David story? King David, with his adultery, murder, and conspiracy, was far worse a character than Clinton, yet God loved him anyway. At the very least that suggests we distrust our own judgments about the ultimate moral worth of our leaders (not to mention our judgments about who God wants in office). Your initial hopes for Bush suggest a profoundly naive understanding not only of morality itself (typical pseudo-Christian obsession with sexual behavior as the moral touchstone, as opposed to the morality of things like, say, things like massive cronyism and ginning up a war). It also shows how little the moral complexity of the Bible had penetrated your consciousness and dispelled the fog of that self-righteous prissiness to which churches always seem to reduce the Bible. I think the disillusionment you refer to is a good sign. It's odd that it took politics to produce that disillusionment, when it might have come about through any honest reading of scripture, but hey--whatever it takes.

My first impression of Sarah Palin is that she needs to tune out her moronic pastors (I've just read a few of their sermons--sheesh) and really read the Bible. Anyone interested in doing what Palin needs to do--interested, that is, in undoing their church's chokehold on scripture and beginning to get a sense of its disturbing brilliance--might want to give a listen to Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah. Cohen knows knows, among many other things, how fatally misleading it is to try to express biblical truths by reducing them to dry propositions (the killer mistake of the churches). He knows instead that only art can respond to art without killing it.

--David

* Actually, they have almost gotten a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. But they might also be realizing that even if that ruling is overturned, abortion will still be legal in California, New York, New Jersey, and many other states--which is to say, abortion will still be legally available for one half of the country on exactly the same terms as now, and for the other half of the country by taking a short road trip. If evangelicals have been led to think that voting Republican would outlaw abortion, I'd say the preachers are as much to blame as the politicians.

Stephanie said...

There are Mennonite and Amish communities in my area, and they stay completely out of the political arena.

If you are saying that they stay out as a group, I see what you are saying. If you are saying that they don't vote or get involved at all individually (which a lot don't), I disagree that this is ideal.

The Faithful Dissident said...

David,

I know the clip you're talking about. Here it is on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg

Stuff like this, sadly, is how some people abroad define America. When I first moved to Norway, I was very disillusioned by the very negative attitude people have here about religion -- particularly Christianity. Some people are quite hostile to it, in fact. And with Mormonism, those who have heard of it regard it as an American religion and you instantly get labelled as a fanatical conservative. The bits and pieces people have heard about Mormonism, such as polygamy, do nothing to help our image, and I'm sure that many people would just assume that I'm much like the people in that youtube clip.

So at first I was very disillusioned by the European attitude towards religion and how it relates to politics. At first I really hated it, but now I've actually started to see the value in it, although I must admit that I wish that religious people were more respected. I suppose that it's gotten to be that way because of the "disillusionment" that you speak of. Not to mention hypocrisy. People wouldn't be so disillusioned with religion if it weren't for the hypocrisy.

Religion really shouldn't have a place in politics, and yet ethics should, and for most, ethics and religion go hand-in-hand. It's extremely hard to separate the two because our religion often defines our ethics. This is especially true in America and that's what makes American politics so complicated, fascinating and unique.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Congrats, guys! Politicalds was named "Blog of the Month" by "Bored in Vernal, Hieing to Kolob." She keeps a great blog, very popular and always thought-provoking. You should all feel honoured! :)

http://kolobiv.blogspot.com

Stephanie said...

Very cool! Thanks for the heads-up, FD!

The Wizzle said...

Good post, Stephanie. This aspect of politics is one of my least favorites (among many strong contenders for least favorite!). Even if anyone who cared didn't have the ever-present media in all its many forms to spell it out for them, it's pretty obvious to me that politicians in general, and the major political parties especially, are trying to use religion as a lever with which they can manipulate the "lowest common denominator". I think most people, even the most devout and pious, are pretty much beyond falling for that at this point (please, PLEASE, tell me I'm right!) seeing as how it's worked out for them the last 8 years.

I, too, am ready for a movement that embraces ALL Americans, not just Christians, nice as they can be, and has some substance behind the claims of devotion, if indeed they are made. I would truly welcome an honestly, openly atheist President, and would choose one 100 times over a superficially Christian one, all else being equal.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Christianity and politics, is that you suddenly have the president (or politician) suddenly viewing himself as a prophet or a holy crusader - settin himself up as God's instrament - that has been the case with Bush - and it has pissed alot of people off - alot of people meaning, the whole world. I agree with Wizzle. Any politician who claims to recieve stuff as a prompting from God is just setting his own faith on trial - and setting his religion up for hard times ahead, because, then people view his religion in terms of him. I think that totally has happened with Bush - so that folks who were fence sitting about evangelical Christianity have made up their minds in favor of his quackery. That is a huge reason I'm very glad Romeny secured nothing in his attempts at the presidency.

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, is anyone esle thoroughly confused by ol' dudlysharp there (second commentor) and his really long, confusing non-sensical mishmash?

The Faithful Dissident said...

Glad I wasn't the only one confused by that second comment, Rick. I was starting to worry that I was just ignorant.

:D

dudleysharp said...

Rick:

Everything is very straight forward.

If there is something you are confused about, be specific and I will respond.

Dudley

The Faithful Dissident said...

As much as I would love to see world leaders being truly inspired by God, I guess that when you look at history it's hard to see many that were. I'm all for presidents and prime ministers praying and practising their own religion in their personal lives, even seeking divine guidance in regards to their jobs. The problem is when they bring it into the political arena. Everyone wants to claim God as their own. God is apparently on America's side AND Iran's side, depending on who you believe. When you start insinuatng that you're doing God's will -- even if maybe you really are -- you are alienating people who don't believe that. And on top of that, when you screw up -- which all politicians do from time to time -- it leads to disillusionment, mistrust, and hostility towards religion.

In regards to the Palin pregnancy issue, I see a lot of irony in regards to my own personal feelings in the matter. I've been trying to pin-point what bothers me about this woman. I believe it's not so much what she stands for personally, but how she's become a footsoldier for the Christian evangelicals.

Am I happy that her daughter is not getting an abortion? Of course! Am I happy that she's a Christian? I guess so, since I'm one too! Am I happy that she believes in teaching abstinence, even if it fails like in the case of her daughter? Yes, I absolutely think that abstinence should be taught! But this is what bothers me about her immensely:

A) Many her daughter's age -- or younger -- are victims of rape and her policies would leave such girls plain out of luck.

B) Having her daughter marry the father ASAP to save face. When you think about it, what's done is done. This child was conceived outside of wedlock and nothing can change that. Sure, the father could be a great guy and maybe they'll have a great marriage, but what's the rush? They're 17! Let them see if they really belong together before they go down the marriage road.

C) Teaching abstinence is great. Everyone should be taught abstinence, and it doesn't have to always be on religious grounds. But teaching abstinence should never come at the expense of sexual education. Palin wants to throw America's youth to the lions by denying them knowledge that can protect their health, save their lives, and prevent the very thing that she is so adamantly against: abortion. I wonder if she even thinks about the fact that most kids in America are not being raised the way that hers are: with morals and values. And her family is living proof that doing so is not fool-proof. When I was in school, we got it all. We learned about all the differend methods of birth control, sex, rape, what to do/not do if you've been raped, pregnancy, birth, STD's, sexual health, and yes, even abstinence. Not in a religious sense, but abstinence was stressed as the only way to avoid all the above problems (minus rape, of course). And let me tell you, as a 14 year-old, all that knowledge was an excellent deterrent to have sex. One tends to feel overwhelmed and scared off by the whole thing. On the other hand, those kids who are denied such an education have no idea what they're really getting themselves into. The only real image of sex that they have is MTV.

D) Both issues are such smokescreen issues anyways. Americans in 2008 are never going to go for a total ban on abortion in these post Roe vs. Wade days. The focus should be on reducing unwanted pregnancies through education and contraception -- not creating a cultural war between Christians and everyone else. If enough smoke is created, the Republicans will win the election. And when they do, will the abortion laws change? No. Will there be more sex-education in schools? No. Will the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the number of abortions be reduced? No. America has been down this road before and politicians are just re-hashing old issues to get people fired up.

So what's new?

Sorry, this post should have perhaps gone under the Palin discussion, but it started off as politicians doing God's work.

Anonymous said...

So, two weeks ago Sarah Palin sat in church and learned that terrorist killings of Jews were God's judgment upon them for not accepting Christ. The "someone" was David Brickner, apparently a leader of Jews for Jesus, which organization is, shall we say, highly unpopular among most Jews. This morning I read that Palin has been meeting with Lieberman and AIPAC (the big pro-Israel lobby), presumably to do some preemptive damage control.

Not all theologies are created equal. Brickner's is among the stupidest. So, I suspect, is Palin's. Anyone whose theology has not fatally compromised their contact with reality and who thinks it through for five minutes can see the idiocy of seeing terrorism/hurricanes/earthquakes as Godly quid-pro-quo judgments. (Always, of course, judgments of one's theological/political opponents. Jerry Falwell never saw any hurricane as God's judgment upon corporate greed. Of course not. That would hardly help him suck up to the powerful, would it?)

Religion and politics? Is Palin a God-fearing woman whose particular mode of fearing God (religion) skews her basic understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (politics)?

What a schmuck McCain is to foist this simpleton upon us merely to get elected.

--David

Stephanie said...

Anon David, on the post about Obama and Wright, matt asked you:

I honestly would like to hear Davids take on the actual theology of Wright's church, all Mormon issues aside.

And you answered:

Matt, first my take on Wright's controversial theological claims: they're stupid. Not, however, any stupider than some other theological claims I could mention....

That is consistent with what you say here: Not all theologies are created equal. Brickner's is among the stupidest. So, I suspect, is Palin's.

I'm just wondering that if you feel this about Palin: What a schmuck McCain is to foist this simpleton upon us merely to get elected., how do you feel about Obama? And who are you voting for? Kind of seems like a tit-for-tat to me.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Palin's personal place of worship isn't really an issue to me personally, certainly not any more than Obama's or Romney's. Both Rev. Wright's and the LDS Church can be connected to some pretty "extremist" and bizarre theologies, among them racism and polygamy, Kolob, etc. People can look at us Mormons as if we're nuts for the things that we believe. The same can be said about Catholic politicians, Muslim politicians, whatever. Every religion can appear bizarre to an outsider. But I don't think people care so much about what a politician believes personally as long as he keeps it out of the political arena and it doesn't interfere with his job in office, which is to carry out the will of the people and not necessarily his own. I think Obama does this pretty well because:

Obama, although the more liberal of the two candidates, is arguably the more religious one. He's talked more about faith than McCain has. Come to think of it, I don't even know what church McCain belongs to or whether he is a practising Christian. I've never heard him talk about it. If he has, then I missed it.

Take same-sex marriage. Obama is portrayed by Republicans as being the "pro-gay, pro-SSM" candidate. Actually, Obama:

"Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Says he would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. As stated on the Obama campaign Web site, he supports full civil unions that "give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights."
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html

So, while Obama himself opposes SSM, he seems to feel that a consitutional ban is wrong. As well, he understands that there is a need for more equality among homosexual couples and that the country is moving towards SSM, even if he himself as a person opposes it.

Someone like Palin, on the other hand, has her personal beliefs and thinks that what's good enough for her is good enough for America. This is my impression of her abortion stance, which lacks the exception for rape and incest, as well as her abstinence-only education policy. McCain's personal abortion stance is in line with the Church's: he's opposed to abortion, but thinks there should be exceptions for the health of the mother, as well as rape and incest victims. Now he has adopted the GOP stance, which matches Palin's.

If Palin wanted to deny herself an abortion if she had been raped, then I would applaud her for her strength and say that it's her right to give birth to that baby. If she feels that teaching her children about birth control and sexual health is against her religion, then she should probably be allowed to pull them from class on religious grounds, as much as I would personally disagree with it. (I knew parents in my ward who did this with their kids when I was at the age that we were getting sex-ed at school and it wasn't a problem.) However, when she wants to ban both of these options for all, on the grounds of her personal religious faith -- when it means that children who have been raped will be forced to give birth, or that America's youth will be denied a sexual education, which will result in more diseases, more unplanned pregnancies, and therefore more abortion -- then that is where I feel that she has overstepped her rights. And that is why I think so many people have become so very disillusioned and cynical about religious politicians.

Anonymous said...

I just watched a video of Palin delivering a speech at some Assembly of God event in Alaska. It was, frankly, embarrassing. Not only stupid in its theology, but amateurish and immature in its delivery.

Were Palin to disavow Brickner the way Obama eventually disavowed Wright, I'd feel a bit better about her. Heck, I'd like Obama a lot more if he'd disavowed Wright even more emphatically than he eventually did, and if he'd done so for less obviously political reasons. However, I don't for a minute believe Obama actually shares Wright's primitive theology (no more than McCain shares that of the Religious Right), and I wish Obama would just say so. Palin really does believe that nonsense. That's the difference.

While Obama fudged his relationship to Wright in a blatantly political way, he's not a simpleton. Obama certainly knows better than to attribute the Pledge of Allegiance to the Founding Fathers! Palin does not. (She also seems to "know" that evolution is false. Maybe also "knoes" the remains of the Ark have been discovered on Mount Ararat. I wouldn't be surprised.) I'm guessing she's absorbed a lot of Christian-right faux history. Obama knows something about this country's Constitution and history. Palin knows a lot that ain't true. Etc. And yes, I'm voting for Obama.

--David

Stephanie said...

Obama, although the more liberal of the two candidates, is arguably the more religious one. He's talked more about faith than McCain has.

FD, this was pretty much the purpose of this whole post: that talking about religion doesn't mean much.

Someone like Palin, on the other hand, has her personal beliefs and thinks that what's good enough for her is good enough for America.

So, where is your evidence to back this up? You are accusing the right of making false claims about Obama and then give evidence to the contrary. Where is your evidence to back up your claim?

If you read her quotes, she says that she opposes "explicit" sex education. I agree.

The Faithful Dissident said...

In this article, she talks about how she would deny her own daughter an abortion if she had been raped. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html

As well, she says in the article:

"The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

OK, what does this mean? Does it mean that she will ONLY allow abstinence to be taught? Does she mean that she will somehow allow a "non-explicit" sex-ed to be taught in schools? How do you have a "non-explicit" talk about sex while still making sure that kids are really learning something about it? It's like trying to perform surgery without spilling any blood.

I just don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Not only does talking about religion not mean much, actually being religious doesn't mean all that much. Osama bin Laden is quite sincerely religious, yet we're not gonna vote for him.... And for all I can tell, Harry Reid is just as religious as Mitt Romney. Maybe we ought to forget about religion and focus on policy and competence?

--David

Stephanie said...

FD, you said yourself that Americans in 2008 are never going to go for a total ban on abortion in these post Roe vs. Wade days. I know that. She knows that. But, I like her position better than Obama's. He opposes a ban on partial birth abortion, and he opposed a bill that would prevent the killing of babies mistakenly left alive by abortion.

I admit that abortion is not my big issue. I don't think Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned, and I don't completely agree with Palin's position. But, I sure agree with it MORE than Obama's.

Anonymous said...

Anon David said:

"Maybe we ought to forget about religion and focus on policy and competence?"

Anon David is right in what he wrote. The Constitution does this very well. We ought to focus on candidates who focus on the Constitution.

Vicki

The Faithful Dissident said...

"I don't think Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned, and I don't completely agree with Palin's position. But, I sure agree with it MORE than Obama's."

Stephanie, I can respect that. I guess the reason why I would be more comfortable with Obama's position, as imperfect as it is, is because I know that if I were raped by someone like Charles Manson or Howard Stern, I wouldn't want to be forced to give birth to their child. As admirable as it would be to have the strength to do that, I don't think I would.

I was thinking about the Elizabeth Smart case. Remember that crazy guy who kidnapped her and brainwashed her? If I remember correctly, she was around 14 at the time. Just imagine if that guy had gotten her pregnant. The trauma that would have caused her, on top of everything else she had been through, it would have been unthinkable. But apparently not to Palin and those who think like her.

Anonymous said...

David writes, "While Obama fudged his relationship to Wright in a blatantly political way, he's not a simpleton. Obama certainly knows better than to attribute the Pledge of Allegiance to the Founding Fathers! Palin does not. (She also seems to "know" that evolution is false. Maybe also "knoes" the remains of the Ark have been discovered on Mount Ararat. I wouldn't be surprised.) I'm guessing she's absorbed a lot of Christian-right faux history. Obama knows something about this country's Constitution and history. Palin knows a lot that ain't true. Etc. And yes, I'm voting for Obama."

Obama said we have 57 states in the U.S., yes, that's right, 57!!!
Yep, he sure "knows something about this country's constitution and history." Please keep humoring me David:)

Anonymous said...

Big whoop, Matt--the man was tired and he misspoke. He later acknowledged as much. Believe it or not, he's a very smart guy. Palin is not unintelligent, but her religion and her political extremism have led her to believe some pretty bizarre myths. She did not merely misspeak about the pledge (in fact hers was a written statement). She also is incredibly ignorant about biology (she's been suckered into the "intelligent design" nonsense). Your lame defense reveals you to be quite the partisan hack.

--David

Stephanie said...

Anon David, perhaps she was tired and miswrote.

Just because you don't like the intelligent design theory doesn't mean that someone who does is ignorant. That is YOUR opinion.

Your lame defense reveals you to be quite the partisan hack.

This is clearly a personal attack on Matt. It is not necessary to make your argument, and it is not inline with the comment policy. You are not going to shut down the other side and our ideas by calling us names. We are just as entitled to give opinions and share information as you are, whether you like it or not.

Anonymous said...

Stephanie, you're right about my calling Matt a partisan hack. Matt, I apologize.

But belief in intelligent design is an indication of ignorance, in precisely the same way as belief in geocentrism. If someone today believes the sun orbits the earth, the most charitable interpretation is that they have not seen (are "ignorant" of) the full range of evidence for the competing theories. Ditto for intelligent design. Alternatively, if one has seen the evidence but adheres to geocentrism anyway, and refers to geocentrism as a viable scientific theory, then one is ignorant of what constitutes as scientific theory.

There really is such a thing as ignorance. And, FWIW, not all opinions have equal merit. Some are far better supported than others by evidence. It's really kind of silly for two people to debate their opinions, adduce their evidence, construct their arguments, and then when it's all over, say that no one can be said to have won, or even to have made a more plausible case, because after all, "All opinions are due equal respect."

--David

Stephanie said...

Perhaps it would help if I know exactly what you are saying. You said: She also is incredibly ignorant about biology (she's been suckered into the "intelligent design" nonsense).

What does that mean? That she is ignorant because she thinks it is okay to teach intelligent design in school?

Specifically, she said this:

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information.

Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject—creationism and evolution.

It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.


Or, is she ignorant because she actually believes that God had a hand in creating the earth and mankind?

Stephanie said...

FWIW, not all opinions have equal merit. Some are far better supported than others by evidence. It's really kind of silly for two people to debate their opinions, adduce their evidence, construct their arguments, and then when it's all over, say that no one can be said to have won, or even to have made a more plausible case, because after all, "All opinions are due equal respect."

There are so many "ifs" with regard to this. Not all "evidence" has equal merit. You can debate someone else and prove your argument with better support, but at the same time, you can respect that they may not agree with your "evidence" or argument.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Stephanie,

In regards to Palin saying about intelligent design:

"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information." (Which I by the way agree with, I've never seen any reason why all the possible theories, whether creationism, intelligent design, evolution, can't all be taught.)

Why do you think she doesn't have the same attitude about sex education and abstinence education? "Teach both. Don't be afraid of information."

Just wondering.

Stephanie said...

FD, I really can't say "why" Palin thinks anything. I can tell you why I endorse abstinence only programs, but I want to write a post about it. Stay tuned!

Frank Staheli said...

Stephanie,

Something clicked when I read what you wrote, that

After Bill Clinton and his sex scandal, I remember feeling energized at the thought of a "moral" President...

That's why I supported Alan Keyes in 2000--for moral reasons. That's also why I voted for Michael Peroutka in 2004, and that's why I supported Ron Paul and now support Chuck Baldwin--because morality comprises much more than one's actions with regard to human intimacy. George W Bush's father is George Bush, and the fruit doesn't fall very far from the tree.

Establishmentarianism subscribes to the domination of the world, while the LDS Church subscribes to setting an example to the world so that they will choose Constitutional principles. (Doctrine and Covenants 101:76-80)

The Bushes are woven into the fabric of the Establishment. Keyes, Peroutka, Paul, and Baldwin are not. That's my definition of moral.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see a definition of "morality" that goes beyond the merely sexual, Frank.

--David

Stephanie said...

Yeah, because when someone says that being unfaithful to your spouse is immoral, you can safely assume that they are either blind or ignorant to any other forms of immorality.

Anonymous said...

It's not something I "assume," Stephanie. It's something I infer from the way some people habitually use the term "moral" in relation to sexual misbehavior, but never in relation to other forms of misbehavior. Bush's support for Ken Lay and Enron was immoral. So was Cheney's drinking-and-shooting-his-friend-in-the-face. So is Bush's support for torture. Maybe I missed the conservative commentariat's characterization of these things as moral failings. How many times have you heard or read that "America's morality is going down the drain, as we can tell by all those unwed girls getting abortions and all those gay people marching in parades, and by the public's indifference to Clinton's affair"? I read that sort of thing all the time in the conservative media. But I never read conservative commentary about how "America's morality is going down the drain, as we can tell by all those millions of voters who remained absolutely nonplussed when Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay absconding with their employees' retirements." On the cultural right, the index of American moral decline is a matter of teen pregnancy, abortions, gay rights--not corporate malfeasance, police brutality, imperialism....

--David

Stephanie said...

Dave, I think the disconnect is with the word "moral" (note that I put the word in quotations in my original post as well). Moral has come to mean all things, which also means it means nothing. It is immoral to drink bottled water. It is immoral to drive an SUV. It is immoral to have more children when the earth is populated enough. Moral basically means "right" as in "right and wrong", but it can be subjective, particularly in an era when good is evil and evil is good, and when a lot of things just aren't wrong vs. right - they are opinion - and calling them "moral" or "immoral" doesn't really do anything except cheapen the word.

Stephanie said...

Sorry that was directed toward David, not Dave.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I would prefer the word "unethical" to "immoral" in regards to things like driving SUV's, environmental issues, etc. Things like Enron also fall under the "unethical" category, but I think that "immoral" is also appropriate when dishonesty and cheating is involved.

Morals are something that can vary, depending on our religion and upbringing. Ethical standards are something that we should all share and agree on as a society, but probably never will, because it's often difficult for people to separate morals from ethics. To many, it's all the same.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Ironically, some of the most "immoral" people I know are also the most "ethical."

artemisandollie said...

Hey! Where are you? Why no fMh? Are you ok?

-CWC

Stephanie said...

CWC, you are too sweet. I am crazy busy with my kids in school. Don't worry - I'll be back. :)

Stephanie said...

FD, I've changed my mind about abstinence-only programs in schools. I think that abstinence programs are only effective in the context of religious values, and since schools can't go there, they need to give the information they can to students. I don't like the idea of my children going to school and learning about all sorts of "explicit" sex acts they may not know otherwise, but at least they can come home and talk about it with mom and dad so we can put it into context. I feel sorry for kids who can't talk to mom and dad about it, but at least they are getting some amount of knowledge on how to protect themselves (and I hope it would include statistics on how ineffective any other forms of "protection" are).

This isn't really an endorsement of teaching sex to kids - just an acknowledgement of where our society is at.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I agree. I think that if all parents were doing their job and teaching morals + sexual health at home, then there wouldn't be the need for it at school. But I think the majority fail to do one, let alone both. Aside from sex and birth control, I think that many parents fail to give their kids information about their sexual health or what to do if they've been raped or touched inappropriately. McCain's latest ad against Obama and the supposed "kindergarten sex-ed" is such a crock. Any parent who objects to their child learning age-appropriate information about their bodies -- and especially what to do if touched by someone else -- is failing their child, IMO. Especially in the sexual environment that we live in today.

As I said before, I got it all at school, including abstinence. (As detailed as it was, my friends and I used to joke about how despite all this information we were getting, they never actually told us HOW to "do it." Guess we had to use our imaginations. :) Although abstinence education is probably most effective when combined with religious values, I don't think that it necessarily has to be that way. To many, abstinence means waiting until in an adult, long-lasting monogomous relationship, perhaps not necessarily marriage. Although we were never told explicitly at school to wait until marriage to have sex, I do remember being encouraged to abstain from sex because it was the ONLY way to be sure of avoiding unwanted pregnancy and disease, until being in an adult, monogomous relationship. We went through all the STD statistics (which I'm sure are probably higher than when I was in high school), as well as failure rates of all the different methods of birth control.

I was talking to my mom about this a while ago and she was telling me about what it was like to be in RS back when this comprehensive sex-ed was being introduced to schools. She said you should have heard all the comments from some of the sisters! They were so upset, and they were going to pull their kids out of it, that their children were NOT going to hear of such things, etc, etc. Sadly, many of the girls in my ward ended up getting pregnant. I bet we had at least 10 teen pregnancies within 2 years in the girls that were 1-2 years behind me in YW. Whether or not sex-ed would have prevented those pregnancies, I can't say because I don't know all the details of their lives (maybe they did get sex-ed after all and it still failed to prevent their pregnancies). But I have to wonder, how could it have hurt?

The way I look at it, even married adults need to know about sex, birth control, and their sexual health. It's easier now with the internet, but how many teenage girls take the time to research HPV and cervical cancer? I agree that sex-ed has to be age appropriate and you can't start talking to kindergartners about the pill and condoms. However, failing to educate about sex leads to igorance and that hurts people, many of them innocent children. Look at the AIDS epidemic in Africa, all the myths that are perpetuated and the resulting further spread of the disease, sadly even in the youngest of children because of rape.

The Catholic Church has taken a lot of flack for its involvement (or lack thereof) in the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Many want the Catholic Church to promote safe sex with condoms. I disagree with this. It's not a Church's job to hand out condoms. Can you imagine our Church doing so? LOL. On the other hand, certain Catholic leaders have spread false information about condoms, that they don't protect against AIDS at all, and that has led to people not using them and therefore being infected. I think this is a disgrace.

I don't think we can ever realistically expect the gov't to preach marriage-only abstinence. That's a job for churches and parents. However, I think it's the gov't's job to provide citizens with an education about their physical and sexual health because it's a job that churches can't really do.

Stephanie said...

I still probably disagree (with mainstream American) on the appropriate age to start, and I separate child safety from sex ed. Kindergarteners need to be taught child safety but not sex ed in school.

Stephanie said...

I think that's what Obama was saying, but we need a clear distinction.

Stephanie said...

On Theocracy and Double Standards - an article by GOPUSA that talks more about religion and politics and the hypocrisy in attacking Palin over praying.

Tanya Leigh said...

The irony over the religion issue is stiflingly hilarious. If people don't smell the complete bias, we are more lost than I feared.

RE: sex-ed. I had to laugh at a headline a couple weeks ago, "Abstinence sex-ed not hitting home w/ valley teens" [as is shows a picture of a teen mom]

As if THAT is the ONLY sex-education these kids are recieving!? What is plastered ALL over TV?? Kid shows included! Sexual immorality is flaunted as normal & expected. Deviant forms included.

There is far too much sex-ed out there, and everyone seems to think the cure is MORE of it. Tell kids that everything they do is okay, as long as they go to the doctor and use protection. (just ask takecaredownthere.org)

"Educators" ignore the truth that abstinence is actually a cure for STDs. Seriously.

The schools do not have the obligation to "educate" on these issues. The more schools take on, the more they are telling parents, "YOU'RE not able to do your job as parents, so let US tell YOUR kids what WE think they should know."