Redirecting

Godless Skeptic is now retired. You will be redirected to the new blog shortly.

-Taylor

Privilege Was Not the Original Sin, Arrogance Was

The forbidden fruit taken by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden certainly seems like it had a sour taste. For indulging in a little knowledge, the two brought sin and death into the world, got kicked out of paradise, and were each assigned their own specially frustrating labor projects. Bible commentators down through history have noted an obvious lesson here: sometimes what we learn through experience is pretty bitter. Thanks to the actions of Adam and Eve, we all have been corrupted and stand in need of salvation... or so the story goes.

Some right-leaning academics and activists have likened the concept of privilege to that of Original Sin. Both are things we are born into, that we cannot escape, and they are best dealt with by a confessional or penitent approach. James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian draw this comparison in their article, "Privilege: The Left's Original Sin," published at AllThink.com. There is no greater sin in the eyes of the left, they claim, than "having been born an able-bodied, straight, white male who identifies as a man but isn't deeply sorry for this utterly unintentional state of affairs."¹

Interesting similarities do exist between privilege and Original Sin, as noted. Yet concepts like apostasy, faith, and religion are frequently associated with secular ideas in ways that are more tenuous than they are convincing. The more the sacred retreats from the latter half of that equation, the weaker the analogy seems. If the mere association with religion is meant to be an indictment on talk of privilege, then Boghossian's unabashed borrowing from the evangelizing pages of Christian ministry in A Manual for Creating Atheists is no less guilty. Presumably, though, the main complaint is not the religious connection, but how privilege and Original Sin have both been used as shaming devices.

Certainly, privilege talk can be used to try and control or stop conversation. In that sense it is quite like Original Sin as it has been employed by brazen preachers spreading a message of hellfire and brimstone. But where many on the right have interpreted privilege in terms of personal attacks, many on the left have been endorsing it with the aim of calling attention to broader social issues. Mychal Denzel Smith, writing for The Nation, observes that when "people with privilege hear that they have privilege, what they hear is not, 'Our society is structured so that your life is more valued than others.' They hear, 'Everything, no matter what, will be handed to you. You have done nothing to achieve what you have.'"² Apology and repentance are not the goals for those who partake of the language of privilege – social reform is the goal.

Discrimination is offered in the article as a better alternative to privilege. This may be splitting hairs, but it may also underscore a valuable point. Discrimination has a history behind it, especially a legal one, and it has often been addressed on an isolated, individual-case basis. To suggest that there are more systemic problems in our courts, in our neighborhoods, and in our society, a bigger word seems necessary. Privilege stings. It evokes an air of elitism, of undeserved benefit, and it plays off the anti-magisterial sentiments that have long been a part of American culture. Privilege is less visible than we imagine discrimination to be. It saturates and it structures, as Maggie Nelson has written.

Granted, privilege has its conceptual flaws, too. It's been argued that it associates the advantages of privilege with luxuries rather than with rights. Others have suggested that it's not very conducive to understanding differences among various minority groups. Of course, these are conversations worth having civilly, and they have been ongoing in many areas of social justice for some time now. Boghossian and Lindsay are also willing to give a modest bit of credit to the term, conceding that it does describe something real and problematic. What they object to is how privilege helps to "glorify" the struggles of certain identities lucky enough to be born into the right group, while serving as a club to beat on those born into the wrong group. If social reform is what privilege talk is about, then these concerns are actually some of the focus for change.

What if these common problems with Original Sin and privilege are actually due to a confrontational attitude rather than to any conceptual similarity? There are Christians for whom Original Sin is not a weapon with which to persecute unbelievers, but a reminder to be humble and forgiving towards others. In Romans 3, Paul considers the standing Jews and Gentiles have before God. "Do we have any advantage?" he asks. "Not at all!" No one is righteous, not even one, as he goes on to declare in verse ten. Could privilege not serve as a similar reminder to humility?

Oddly, after explaining that "everybody is privileged," and that Original Sin and privilege are identical except in that they inhabit different moral universes, Lindsay and Boghossian contend that a distinguishing difference between the two is that the label of privilege is even more contemptible because it's seen to be a hindrance to the less fortunate among us. But everybody is privileged, so who can rightly take the moral high ground? Some might still claim the moral high ground, though there's no real explanation for why this would be tolerated more in the case of privilege than in that of Original Sin. Fighting privilege doesn't mean forcing repentance.

Now, it's true that no analogy is perfect, but Boghossian and Lindsay are ambiguous enough in their use of the term privilege that it presents a problem for their argument. Let's take a definition of privilege by Sian Ferguson at Everyday Feminism. Ferguson says, "We can define privilege as a set of unearned benefits given to people who fit into a specific social group."³ This doesn't tell us anything about most of what Lindsay and Boghossian attribute to privilege, such as its being an accident of birth, being inescapable, applying to everyone, or demanding atonement. That's because these are ancillary ideas about the function of privilege in society. Just as the concept of sin differs from the doctrine of Original Sin, the concept of privilege differs from the political and philosophical theorizing that has surrounded it.

The problem is that if we're going to bring in these ancillary ideas about privilege in drawing a connection to Original Sin, why stop there? Boghossian and Lindsay try to conceal the breakdown of their analogy with the line of qualification stating that Original Sin and privilege inhabit different moral universes. It allows them a little leeway to conveniently gloss over major incongruities like the importance of power systems for understanding privilege, or the supernatural nature of sin. Privilege functions between oppressors and the oppressed, whereas Original Sin doesn't really recognize anyone as being "in power," oppressing us sinners. Lindsay and Boghossian almost note this difference when remarking on how the labeling of another person as privileged is sometimes taken as a personal hindrance to us. Sin, on the other hand, isn't just a moral or interpersonal affliction, it's a spiritual one, and the "mechanism" by which it's passed down is frankly mysterious – not at all like the way that privilege persists through oppressive social structures. There is also the fact that, unlike sin, privilege actually represents a goal to aspire to. Sin can be viewed as a disease in need of healing, but the point of social justice is not to eliminate the privileges some people enjoy, it's to extend them to more people.

I'm not sure why we should feel persuaded by the criteria of similarity raised by Boghossian and Lindsay. They seem somewhat cherry picked, but their significance can be questioned, too. Death is something we have no say over, it cannot be escaped, and it's been said that all of us are dying from the moment we're born. Yet we might question the purpose of comparing death to Original Sin, or to privilege, on such grounds. It could be claimed that death isn't as comparable for some reason or other, but we have just seen a few ways in which privilege isn't as comparable, either.

It's admittedly somewhat amusing that privilege is denounced primarily when it's treated as a tool for shaming. Boghossian and Lindsay have both written in defense of ridicule when it suits their purposes, and they inhabit their own universe with other champions of ridicule like John Loftus and Jerry Coyne. They've advocated for shutting down academic studies like philosophy of religion and biblical scholarship when they dare to defend Christian beliefs, and they're quite fond of conceptualizing faith as a virus, not to mention defining it so as to be basically synonymous with irrationality. So why does privilege shaming catch their ire? One would think they'd be chomping at the bit for the chance to attack Christian privilege in such terms, which they more or less do in other language.

When it comes to our own privilege, we typically aren't exactly eager to own up to things. I can honestly admit that I still struggle with this. As Parul Sehgal eloquently observes: "It's easier to find a word wanting, rather than ourselves. It’s easy to point out how a word buckles and breaks; it's harder to notice how we do."⁴ The first sin wasn't being born into a certain class or identity. It wasn't being part of a majority group that benefits from the marginalization of others. The first sin was arrogance. It was selfish pride that motivated disobedience, as Thomas Aquinas said in his Summa Theologica.

I agree wholeheartedly with Boghossian and Lindsay that more perspective, kindness, and charity are needed. However, it seems to me that their critique of privilege has missed the mark in a number of ways. There is room for improvement, especially in how we talk to and treat the disadvantaged, but the encouragement given to "focus more on the positive qualities" you want to instill in others rings a bit hollow. It makes it sound once again like everyone else is the problem. Perhaps this is where the critic has more in common with religion than he likes to think. It would be an understatement to say that monotheistic religions haven't had very good track records of protesting privilege. On the contrary, they've often put in a great amount of effort defending their own privilege against so-called heretics and apostates.

Perspective, kindness, and charity seem mismatched to the disdain for what Lindsay and Boghossian call the religion of identity politics. It's telling where all the faith-based imagery is located in the picture painted by the two authors, and their contempt for religion is more than evident from their own writings, one of which bears the charitable title of Everybody is Wrong About God. "You don’t get to denounce identity politics," as Sincere Kirabo points out, "when your monomaniacal depreciation of all things religious is literally grounded in homage to the politics of your most treasured identity: atheism."⁵ Not everything religion has taught is worthy of derision – especially when it comes to the idea that change must begin with ourselves. There is likewise nothing patently religious about seeing ourselves as benefiting from certain social structures that disadvantage others. We should reject this claim just as we reject similar claims declaring morality to belong to the special domain of religion. Privilege talk that fails to recognize the need for humility and compassion is talk that is rightly criticized. At the same time, a critique of privilege that cloaks its main argument in anti-religious and politically conservative rhetoric is not doing anyone the favors its writers think it's doing.

References

1. James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian, Privilege: The Left's Original Sin, AllThink.com (May 24, 2016).
2. Mychal Denzel Smith, No One Cares If You Never Apologize for Your White Male Privilege, The Nation (May 5, 2014).
3. Sian Ferguson, Privilege 101: A Quick and Dirty Guide, Everyday Feminism (Sept. 29, 2014).
4. Parul Sehgal, How 'Privilege' Became a Provocation, The New York Times (July 14, 2015).
5. Sincere Kirabo, Navigating Critical Thinking, Intersectionality, and Identity Politics in the Secular Movement, TheHumanist.com (July 6, 2016).

The Revolutionary Message of Jesus

This is the first of a few articles from Godless Haven that has been removed and will be featured here for archive purposes. Originally written March 7, 2009.

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

Do a simple Google search for 'Jesus revolutionary message', and you will find countless Christian websites all claiming that the teachings of Jesus Christ were new and unique for their time, and remain so still today. Some argue that the figure in the four gospels was a perfect symbol of peace on earth, while others contend that he was a political and social extremist who defied the Roman empire and horrified the religious leadership of the day. Perhaps the most fascinating thing about the character of Jesus is that he is not so easy to pigeonhole, as the scriptures of the bible offer support for a wide variety of views. In this article, I aim to explore these different characterizations of Jesus and determine just how revolutionary his teachings were.

I. The Prince of Peace?
 
Christians believe that Isaiah 9:6 references Jesus Christ when it speaks of the 'Prince of Peace'. The title has since made it into countless worship songs and other Christian paraphernalia, as believers proclaim their messiah to be the greatest standard for peace that ever walked the earth. Jesus is often portrayed as a beacon of purest love, opposed to all violence and injustice, but how well do his own words in the gospels confirm this?

'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.'
-Matthew 10:34-39 

In these verses, the 'Prince of Peace' makes it abundantly clear that his teachings are not for those who desire peace. Christianity will divide families and friends, because God demands that you love him more than your own parents or your own children.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them -- bring them here and kill them in front of me. -Luke 19:27

Beginning in Luke 19:11, Jesus tells the parable of a king who lends out some of his money to several servants. Even though his subjects hated him and did not wish him to be king (verse 14), and one of them rightfully accused the king of taking what is not his (verse 21), the merciful dictator still decided to slay his ungrateful subjects in the end of the tale. It should not be too difficult to understand that this parable symbolizes the reign of Jesus over humanity, and those who do not accept him as their savior will be cast into hell on judgment day.
It has been said that actions speak louder than words, and not only does Jesus vocalize his opposition to peace, but his actions do support his statements, as we find in the book of John...

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, 'Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!'
-John 2:13-16

Why would someone devoted to non-violent protest cause such a ruckus in a public place of worship? Jesus could have simply preached against the atrocities he observed in the temple, but instead he chose to physically assault both humans and animals, in addition to destroying whatever he did not like to see in the building. To some people, this action of Jesus is an example of his fanaticism against the establishment, which leads me to the second characterization that is often applied to Christ.

II. Jesus the Anarchist
 
Many times the suggestion has been made that Jesus Christ was crucified for defying the authority of the Roman government or for causing general unrest with his 'revolutionary' ideas. However, there is little evidence in the gospels to depict Jesus as some kind of socio-political warrior, fighting for the people against the established order. When asked about paying taxes to Caesar in Matthew 22:16-22, Jesus says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". This statement is unremarkable and non-revolutionary, as Christ clearly instructs his followers to obey their government and pay their taxes, while reserving their hearts and minds for God. This submission to authority is also addressed by the apostle Paul in Romans 13:1-2...

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

As self-explanatory as these verses may seem, there are still dozens of websites, books and articles devoted to characterizing Jesus as a political activist and even an anarchist. Through imaginative reinterpretations, they pretend that Jesus and Paul weren't really advocating obedience to government, just saying it because they were in a bind. If Jesus had told his followers that they could disregard the commands of Caesar, he would've been killed on the spot... right? There is another angle to this issue that deserves examination.

When someone asserts that Jesus was crucified for defying the local authorities, they usually mean one of two things:

- He was executed by the Romans for challenging the governing laws/values of their empire.
- He was executed for stirring up conflicts among the Jewish population, by blaspheming and teaching others to blaspheme.

Neither of these perspectives are concretely supported by scripture or by history. The Romans were well known to be very tolerant of other religions and beliefs, and typically incorporated some of them into their own doctrines after they conquered a people or region. In and around Jesus' day, there were vast numbers of sects and groups known as Roman mystery cults, which professed to have secret, divine knowledge [1]. If the Romans did not fear these cults or their many different gods, then why would they have objected to the teachings of Christianity? As we have already seen, Jesus taught nothing that was radically against the empire. It is strange to think the Romans would've felt threatened by the small Christian sect even if Jesus had been calling for the overthrow of the government. When Simon Bar-Kokhba led his revolt against the empire and reclaimed much of Judea a few decades after Jesus in 132 AD, Rome was largely unprepared and had to be petitioned by the local authorities to send more reinforcements [2]. Why would they have cared about the small following of a Jewish carpenter who had not yet resorted to full-blown acts of violence?

If the Romans were not the ones lobbying for Christ's crucifixion, then maybe it was the Jews. But again, for a few reasons this seems unlikely. Jesus was far from the only person claiming to be the Jewish messiah in those days. We have several historical references to over a dozen messiahs from before and after the alleged lifetime of Christ [3]. Of these self-proclaimed saviors, the ones who were eventually executed were executed for leading violent rebellions against the Roman empire, not for blaspheming against Jewish beliefs. The New Testament mentions numerous stoning incidents as punishment for blasphemy, so it is also a wonder why the Jewish crowd or the Jewish leaders would not have simply stoned Jesus to death on the spot for blaspheming, instead of taking their case to the Roman authorities who often seemed unsympathetic to Jewish concerns.

Could a man named Jesus have been executed for revolting against the Roman empire? It is possible, but with the evidence we do have, it seems fairly improbable.

III. The Good News is Old News
 
When Christians say Jesus was a revolutionary teacher, many of them mean that the ideas he advocated were revolutionary in his time. Perhaps they were a bit of a culture shock for first century Palestine, but Jesus did not teach anything that was new to the rest of the world too. The Golden Rule predates Jesus Christ by several centuries, his famous instruction to "love thy neighbor as thyself" can be traced back to Hebrew scripture (Proverbs 24:17, 25:21), and his advice to "love your enemies" in Matthew 5:44 is not original either. The first century philosopher and playwright Seneca the Younger wrote:

Someone gets angry with you. Challenge him with kindness in return. Enmity immediately tumbles away when one side lets it fall. [4]

Believers do indeed love to imagine that their savior was the first and the last of great thinkers and moral sages, but he was only one among many throughout history, and he was certainly not the pinnacle. Jesus was not the first character to willingly die for a principle (Socrates did this several centuries before Christ), and he was definitely not the first person to equate himself with God, as Egyptian pharaohs, Roman emperors, Chinese emperors, and countless others had done as early as 2,000-3,000 years prior. The Jesus figure may be unique and original in his use of parables, but all of his claims and teachings may be followed back to another individual from an earlier time. I am not arguing that Jesus intentionally imitated their doctrines, but only that the character in the four gospels of the bible was not as revolutionary as some would lead us to believe.

It may be that many Christians choose to hold such an idealistic view of Jesus because acknowledging other similar messiahs and teachers might provoke them to seriously question the divinity of their beloved lord. One can imagine how it would be difficult to believe in a god or supernatural savior who only rehashes old wisdom and brings nothing new to the theological or philosophical arenas. There were plenty of important issues that the biblical Jesus left unexplored, which we could possibly expect a truly divine and moral leader to have covered. There is no clear admonition of rape, spousal/child abuse, child molestation (which the Greeks were well known for engaging in around Jesus' time), or any number of other unspeakable acts that are curiously left out of the 10 Commandments as well.

Jesus was no revolutionary, not in a peaceful sense or in a political sense. If he existed and spoke the words the bible attributes to him, he was perhaps just a man teaching from the heart. In many ways he sought to conform some of his lessons to the Judaic traditions and customs of the time, yet he also tried to depart from them in other ways. He was one among several self-professed messiahs attempting to change minds and practices in the first century. Thanks to the endorsement from certain individuals and empires, his religion has continued on to the modern day. He has made his impact, and maybe that is the revolutionary part of it in a sense, but let's not forget that a long-standing legacy in no way implies a greater chance of truth in the person or his message.

Sources:

1. Anonymous. Greco-Roman mysteries. Wikipedia. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2009.
2. Schoenberg, S. The Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2009.
3. Lendering, J. Messiah (overview). Livius.org. Retrieved Mar. 7, 2009.
4. Seneca. De Ira, 2.

Fear and the Republican Party

Historically, traditionalism has always been a reaction to change. Christian fundamentalism arose out of a climate that had become increasingly progressive via higher criticism, liberal theology, and philosophy. Feeling the need to defend their orthodox beliefs, fundamentalists have worked to repudiate the advances of modernity and emphasize the value of tradition. In the last 30 or 40 years, we've seen the Republican Party of the United States adopt a very similar modus operandi. Republican leaders of the distant past, like Lincoln, Roosevelt, and even Eisenhower, each had political philosophies of their own, which they would typically justify through reason. Yet beginning in the Reagan era, reason has increasingly been abandoned in favor of emotional and religious appeals, with a large focus on that elusive beast, "American tradition."

I believe it's accurate to say that a significant component of traditionalism is fear. The fundamentalists fear what might happen if their biblical values are lost. The GOP fears what might happen if "family values" are lost. Traditionalism means one is fearful of change that could supplant the individual's favored traditions. We don't appeal to tradition because it works (otherwise it would make more sense just to say that), but because we find tradition familiar, nostalgic, etc., and we fear what is unfamiliar, new, and different. A certain kind and amount of fear is not unfounded, however, and it can be a good thing to fear the effect that an action will have, which may lead to being better prepared, or eliminating the undesired effect altogether. But there is also a definite point where the line is crossed. If fear has no basis in reality or is concentrated only in those with specific prejudices, then it is unreasonable to give into fear.

As the Republican Party has developed a heavier rhetoric for tradition, we have seen fear start to play more and more of a central role in Republican politics. In recent news, GOP candidate Rick Santorum has been the subject of attention for statements made in 2008 about Satan attacking the United States. [1] This struck me as particularly important because Satan is not just a symbol of evil for many people, but also a strong symbol of fear. Though believers may deny fearing the devil out of religious pride, it wasn't that long ago that "Satanic conspiracies" fascinated and terrified the American public, leading to incredible injustices like the West Memphis Three. Satan is a symbol of fear that superstitious people invest with all they consider profane, and so expressing the opinion that Satan is attacking the United States shows tremendous fear about the condition of America.

Rick Santorum's fears are unfounded, though, built as they are on homophobia and sexism. We've also seen the Bachmanns offer their homophobic views, we've seen Newt Gingrich say some highly sexist things, and more than a few of the candidates have made racially insensitive remarks. Fear is what seems to drive the current Republican Party, and it's not all that surprising that the Religious Right has virtually taken over the GOP in the last 20 or 30 years. As many have said, religion appears to be based upon fear of death, fear of the unknown, and so forth. The prophecies and certitudes of religion have proven popular in part because they provide comfort and serve to subdue our fears.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with the Republican Party today: it places value on tradition for tradition's sake. But longevity is not a reason to accept an idea over another. In religion, many people tend to associate truth with the antiquity of a belief - just look at the Muslims who try to pretend that Islam has always dominated the world, claiming that Abraham was even a Muslim. Tradition can be fun, and I have no issue with going along with something because it's a fun tradition, but when it comes to important matters of policy that drive social and personal well-being, there has to be a better justification for our positions than mere tradition. For all the complaining of the GOP candidates about Obama's freedom-hating Socialist behavior, it will be fear that will truly enslave and exploit us if we give into it irrationally.

Huckabee: Natalie Portman 'Glorifies' Unwed Pregnancy

Mike Huckabee has been an interesting person for me to watch since he announced his candidacy for the 2008 election. Unlike Romney, McCain, or most Republican politicians, he seems relatable, like someone you could go out and have a beer with. I'm also not alone in thinking this, as polls taken among conservatives show that Huckabee is overwhelmingly liked as a possible choice for the 2012 election. I've even heard some liberals say that he seems more 'level-headed' than most other Republicans. But remembering Huck's speech about amending the Constitution to fit with the bible [1], I know that he's just as far right and crazy as most other GOP candidates.

And now he's showing that side of himself again, by criticizing Natalie Portman for 'glamorizing' unwed pregnancy [2]. Huckabee told Michael Medved, a conservative radio host...

"She got up, she was very visibly pregnant, and it's really it's a problem because she's about seven months pregnant, it's her first pregnancy, and she and the baby's father aren't married, and before two billion people, Natalie Portman says, 'Oh I want to thank my love and he's given me the most wonderful gift.' He didn't give her the most wonderful gift, which would be a wedding ring! And it just seems to me that sending that kind of message is problematic."

Portman is engaged to Benjamin Millepied, a choreographer she met while filming The Black Swan. The two have been engaged since at least December of last year, when the announcement was made to the press. Typically an engagement ring is a big part of a couple getting engaged, so Huckabee may be dead wrong about Millepied not giving Portman the 'most wonderful gift.' However, I'd still have to take issue with his statements, even if Portman and her beau were not already engaged.

What would be the benefit of having a child in wedlock as opposed to having one out of wedlock? Child support may become an issue for some unwed parents later down the road, if they part ways, but even married couples may divorce and have to face child support. Huckabee brings up the expenses involved in having a child and notes that, "Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care." And marriage, which isn't exactly cheap, will resolve this how?

It cracks me up that these 'small government' types - even though they may not advocate government intervention in areas like this - still so often act like they know what is best for you better than you do. If a loving and financially stable couple wants to have a child without getting married, what's the harm, and who is Mike Huckabee to tell them it's wrong? He has no business telling a celebrity couple to set an example for poor single mothers. Perhaps he'd like it if they undid their evil unwed pregnancy by having an abortion? Maybe not.

If Huckabee is truly concerned about the financial burden of children on unmarried parents, the solution is simple: let's educate more men and women about the costs of pregnancy and childcare. Telling them to get married before having kids won't do a damn thing, nor will telling rich couples to be better role models. But Huck's focus is not on the financial burden of single parents, because, if it were, he wouldn't care about the parents who are stable enough to make it work. His focus is on the sinfulness of sex outside of wedlock.

Portman did not glorify or glamorize unmarried pregnancy, she is only happy to be a mother, which seems like it should be something that the 'family values' crowd would appreciate. The 'most wonderful gift' to her was not a baby outside of marriage, it was just a baby, and the odds are good that she would've said the exact same thing if she'd already been married for years. Huckabee can't be happy for Portman because what he sees is a sin: a child born outside the 'sanctity' of marriage.

Huckabee is a very skilled rhetorician. He knows just what to say and how to say it to make himself come across like a good and sensible guy, but his underlying beliefs are much more fundamentalist than he's letting on. I've watched interviews with Huck on Bill Maher and the Colbert Report, and it's been fascinating to me to observe how centrist he acts on liberal shows, while his appearances on conservative shows, like this one with Michael Medved, usually seem to produce a quite different and controversial side of him that is a lot more far right leaning.

U.S. Army Funds and Hosts Overtly Christian Festival

On September 25th of last year, a "Rock the Fort" event took place at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where Christian bands and evangelists performed for U.S. Army troops under the support of the Billy Graham Evangelical Association. While the event was not mandatory for anyone to attend, documents recently obtained from a Freedom of Information Act reveal that the military spent $52,475 on Rock the Fort. One worship leader was reportedly given a $1,500 honorarium. However, these are only disclosed expenditures, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which requested the budget documents, estimates the cost to have been much higher.

Government funding of a sectarian event like Rock the Fort is undeniably in violation of the First Amendment. "Our goal," the director of the event explains in the first link above, "is to share the Gospel with as many people as possible." The First Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from respecting an establishment of religion, and using taxpayer money on an overtly Christian event is doing just that. It does not matter if other religious events would be allowed at the fort with equal financial support from the military, because the First Amendment does not stipulate that it's okay as long as you let everyone participate. The point of church-state separation is that by no one being allowed to participate, no one is left out and no one is favored, and this is far more practical than squeezing in every religion. Government has no business in supporting religion, especially when Billy Graham's organization could have easily covered a $52,000 bill with its millions upon millions of dollars.

Yet even if the military had not funded the event at all, Rock the Fort would still be in violation of the First Amendment, because Fort Bragg is government property. This is the same issue as displaying religious symbols like the Ten Commandments on courthouses. The only way to truly guarantee that all beliefs and views are respected is to keep government neutral when it comes to religion, permitting no group to erect their display or hold their sectarian event on government property.

Of course, one additional point that should be added to this is that government complicity must be reasonably present. A religious group holding a prayer rally on the steps of the capitol would not be a violation of the First Amendment, because that government property is open to the public and the public is free to protest in such a manner, according to the Constitution. In the case of a military base, however, said government property is not public, and so the Army endorses religion when it approves of an event like Rock the Fort on its own private land.

Speaking of protest, an atheist response to Rock the Fort is in the works, called Rock Beyond Belief, tentatively set to feature Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, Eugenie Scott, and other notable atheists, as well as live music. I think people often misunderstand the point of reactions like these, though, as they are not about competing with Christians or attacking others. The point of atheist Christmas displays, atheist festivals like Rock Beyond Belief, and any equivalent response to violations of church and state separation is to emphasize the need for staying neutral. Where does it end if you allow all groups to participate? Will Fort Bragg let a Rock for Satan happen? Rock for Allah? Rock for Quetzacoatl?

If Rock the Fort had not happened, there would be no need for Rock Beyond Belief, Rock for Satan, or any other event. Once again, when government remains immovably silent on religion, no one will be offended except for those who wish to shove their views down everyone's throats. Unfortunately for them, we are not a theocracy, and they battle against a government that was created specifically in opposition of such tyranny.

Tea Party Christians Don't Make Any Sense

Today a rally for the Tea Party was held at the Austin capitol building, where a self-proclaimed "apostle" named Claver T. Kamau-Imani gave a speech on Tea Party values from a biblical standpoint. In his sermon, Claver cites 2 Corinthians 6:14,

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
According to this preacher, and the many cheering voices in the background, the bible commands Christians not to compromise with non-believers. However, these non-believers include more than just atheists, as Claver calls out liberals, progressives, moderates, and socialists too. The implication here is that only conservative bible-thumpers are 'true believers'. Why? Perhaps Mr. Kamau-Imani thinks conservatives follow the bible more closely than those other groups do. Yet this brings to mind one of the biggest problems I see in Tea Party Christians.

When it comes to politics, the bible leaves no room for revolution or a non-compromising philosophy. Romans 13:1-2 plainly states,

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
Take a moment to let that sink in. Not only are all elected authorities put there by God himself, according to the bible, but anyone who rebels against those authorities is, by extent, rebelling against God and inviting judgment on him/herself. In Matthew 22:16-22, when asked about paying taxes, Jesus famously instructs the people to, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". The anti-establishment rhetoric of the Tea Party could not be more at odds with the teachings of the bible.

Claver and his ilk cherry-pick passages to support their views that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. 2 Corinthians 6:14 is about idolatry, how those who worship anything but God can steer believers away from God. If we interpret this in a political sense, anything can be an idol, even the free market system that many Tea Partiers and conservatives seem to place a massive amount of faith in. Yet the real point is that these passages cited by Tea Party members are not a Christian call to revolution. The same (alleged) author makes this very clear in Romans 13.

Tea Party Christians don't make any sense to me, because while many of them claim to accept the bible as the infallible word of God - as Mr. Kamau-Imani stated himself in the speech - they apparently don't consider it important enough to take passages like Romans 13 to heart. Of course, that would disillusion them from their chest-beating radicalism, which I suspect is too enticing for most of them to abandon. The idea of being a 'soldier for God' is probably a lot more exciting than being a doormat for God, however more biblical one may be than the other.

Native Americans: Another Reason for Republicans to Hate Obama

You can name some of our slave-owning founders as your heroes and be met with praise and agreement, but should you name a Native American legend who killed an American general as your hero, Fox News and Republican pundits will call for your sacrifice to the gods of vain patriotism. Perhaps that's a bit of an exaggeration, but what's really blown out of proportion here is the fact that Fox has criticized Obama for naming Sitting Bull as one of his inspirations in a new children's book. Even though one of the other inspiring figures Obama cites is George Washington, this clearly proves that Obama hates America and wants to make us into a socialist country.

What is it about an admiration for Sitting Bull that offends the right wing? His defeat of Custer? His resistance to the expansionist policies of the U.S.? At the risk of sounding like a traitor to some, what exactly is so different about Sitting Bull from, say, the American colonialists of the Revolutionary War? Britain was extending its influence over us and we fought back. We killed plenty of their men. The only real difference I can see is that Native Americans had established lives here long before the U.S. government came to uproot them.

Speaking of government interference, isn't that the rallying cry whipping boy of Republicans now - that the government is too big, gobbling up too much they don't have a right to? It seems to me that Sitting Bull should be an idol of the Tea Party and other anti-government conservatives, not an enemy. But that doesn't appear to be the way they think. Government is good when we're talking about imperialism and military strength, but it's bad when anything else is involved.

It may not just be about chest-beating patriotism though. Remember that the Republican party boasts of such prominent persons as Rush Limbaugh, who has called Native Americans "injuns" on more than one occasion, and Glenn Beck, a Mormon who believes Native Americans are descendants of ancient Hebrew tribes (and their skin was turned red as a punishment from God). According to this news article from Fox, there are apparently plenty of conservatives who still resent losing Custer to those 'redskins'.

There are many valid reasons to dislike Obama, but when his respect for a Native American is one of them, I have to wonder if all the accusations of rampant racism in the Republican party don't have some truth to them. The Democratic party has its flaws and nutjobs too, no doubt, but I don't see this sort of ridiculous paranoia and blind-faith patriotism coming from the liberal side. I don't define myself as Democrat or Republican, but I do have to say, I'd probably rather be known as a "bleeding-heart liberal" than a hateful, war-mongering conservative.

Rest in peace, Sitting Bull.

Illinois Pays $20k to Restore Giant Cross

According to an article on Yahoo news, an atheist is suing the state of Illinois over a $20,000 grant given to restore an 11-story cross monument known as the Bald Knob Cross of Peace (kind of suggestive, isn't it?). Using taxpayer money for a clearly sectarian purpose is unconstitutional, no matter how you spin it, but what really stood out to me was a comment by the monument's administrator and local pastor, Steve McKeown.

"What [the plaintiff] wants is a United States that's free from religion. Our founding fathers never meant that to be the case."

McKeown is partly right - the founding fathers did not want a United States free from religion, but what they did want was a government free from religion. This is not a lawsuit against the cross or Christianity, as McKeown deceptively tries to portray it, but this is a lawsuit against government showing favor to religion, and the founders were very clear in their denouncement of just such a thing. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the first amendment states. Giving $20,000 of taxpayer money to restore a giant cross is most certainly violating this clause.

It never ceases to amaze me how little understanding or regard some Christians seem to have for separation of church and state. Imagine how irate believers would be if the mosque proposed at Ground Zero in New York City was also accompanied by a $20,000 grant from the state! This is why religion and government must be kept separate, because if we can't accommodate them all (and no, we can't do that), then the only reasonable course is to take a neutral/secular position. Not to mention that taxpayers generally don't like their money being put to uses they disagree with.

Whatever happened to a good ol' fashioned church bake sale, by the way? Religion is great at fundraisers (pass around that collection plate one more time, Billy!), so let them finance their own restoration projects for their own religious monuments.