Intolerance personified

Geez -- our Prez can't win. He's taking a step he believes is the right step for him and for the government he represents, and both sides hate him for it. Fortunately, it's only the total whack-jobs on both sides: American Atheists on one side (approrpriately abbreviated AA for their need to find a 12-step program to stop being so intolerant and ignorant), and Shirley Dobson, wife of Dr. James Dobson, poster boy for the relgious zealots on the right (you know -- hate gay people, no abortion in even the most dire cases, and in no way does evolution occur -- the Bible is to be interpreted COMPLETELY literally, including the Old Testament).

First, we have AA who say that the complete separation of church and state includes not allowing our leaders to pray publicly -- or to organize events where prayer is included (nevermind that they're not FORCING anyone to attend -- it's an optional event and they can pay homage to any religion that wants to attend as part of a prayer event). These anti-religious fanatics are every bit as zealous and unyielding in their diatribe -- no religion for anyone in public. Keep it to yourself.

I say that's malarkey (well, I say it's worse than that, but this is a public forum). Our leaders are human beings who have their own beliefs and faiths; not allowing them to demonstrate their faith is just as intolerant as forcing faith on someone. The founders who wrote the documents were largely of a Christian bent, and yet they wrote the words of the First Amendment to allow the separation of church and state such that the church (specifically the Church -- as in the various flavors of Catholic church who act with the autonomy of governments) would never rule as they had in England, France -- most of Europe, in fact. Instead, we'd have a government that based it's decisions on foundational documents and agreed upon societal values.

These societal values/norms are based on the society at large and can change with the wind and times; a great example is the gradual change to allow forms of profanity on network television. When television and radio were first born, the thought of using profanity in a public media like that was unacceptable, and the rules were written such that it was a punishable act. This included all forms of indecency -- but as the years have gone by and society has grown to accept "ass", "damn", "crap" etc as acceptable content for public radio, the rules have been amended (or at least enforced appropriately based on the times, depending on the ruling body) to realize the shift in society's views.

But there's still a fundamental basis to these societal values/norms -- and nearly all of them come from some form of religious or moral compass/guideline. Some are based in practicality, to be sure -- a murder statute is a great example. Nearly all religions have some form of law/guidance against murdering -- but it's also a practical consideration. We don't want to have people killing each other, because eventually there would be mayhem. That's why eugenics doesn't fly -- who's to say who the killees and killers should be?

But there are other, less obvious laws. Why is prostitution illegal? Are there victims? What about smoking marijuana? If these things have "victims" (which I don't believe they do), why isn't alcohol illegal? Or tobacco? Or electronic devices? Or fast food? Nearly all have a basis in religion, so for the AA group to get their knickers in a twist over a Presidential Prayer Party is plain ignorant and intolerant.

Then we have the Dobsons, to whom vitriole is a pastime and hobby (as well as a very lucrative career). Like many others in the religious right, they've no problem in hawking their wares to any who would listen and accept their hate speech as dogma. I grew up listening to several Focus on the Family programs, and there are several that I still enjoy -- Adventures in Odyssey is a particularly well done piece. Unfortunately, many other FotF products tend to head toward the less tolerant and "love"-based Christianity, straight back to the Old Testament fire and brimstone rules.

One question I've still never gotten a decent answer to -- if we're still supposed to be following all that Old Testament stuff, why are we still eating pork? Why do we not label women as unclean during their periods? (Okay, some men still do, but they're jerks). Sue Bohlin of Probe Ministries posts a reply (I haven't vetted any of it for accuracy other than the statements on this page: http://tinyurl.com/d5sbdp).

Now -- back to President Barack Obama. He's decided not to schedule a big to-do event for National Day of Prayer -- he's going to pray at home, and encourage others to do the same. He's going to sign a proclomation as many other Presidents have done. So instead of portraying his religion as a big show, he wants to keep his prayers private. Instead of having a big flashy event with reporters and drama, he keeps his faith conservative (irony intended). His predecessor wanted all the posh and pizzazz of the event and wanted it all on the news (Fox News in particular).

So let's compare these 2 men:

George W. Bush -- BIG public faith
Barack H. Obama -- private faith

George W. Bush -- lied to us, dealt in murder, torture, etc., etc., etc.
Barack H. Obama -- so far, has opened up the details about all George W's failings/lies and is making things much more publicly accessible. I've not seen (meaning I'm open to people pointing out anything I've missed, but from what I've observed, he's been open, honest and forthcoming about everything that's going on -- even the faux pas and screwups)

So -- if I had to choose between a president who lies/tortures/murders and professes a faith that isinconsistent with his actions and a president who keeps his faith to himself (as do I) and consistently lives his faith, I can tell you who I'm going to pick everytime.

As the intro to the DC Talk song "What if I Stumble" says, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." The quote is from Brennan Manning, priest, friar, author and speaker -- and it's true in this case as well. Who wants to be the next George W. Bush? Who would follow that type of faith?

My Christian faith tells me that loving my neighbor as myself is one of the central tenants of my faith (Matthew 22:36-40); the type of spew and rhetoric that came from most of the religious right are as abhorrent to me as the liberalist leanings and anti-religious views espoused by the Atheist Association.

What are your thoughts on this? The CNN article that spawned my response is linked below.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html