Wednesday, January 23, 2008

One nation under God

Like many things today, it is both funny and scary how deeply interwoven religion has become with the political establishment (and by religion, of course, I mean Evangelical Christianity). Lately this topic has begun to get the coverage it deserves, at least in the progressive blogosphere, where writers wax with lacrymal discomfort on the erosion of the constitutional separation of these two institutions. However, I do not wish to add to the growing body of religion/politics coverage with this modest contribution, and prefer to take a different approach to the question.

It is an undisputed fact that religion, particularly the variety mentioned above, plays a major role in the lives of the majority of Americans. Some 85% of us profess Christianity as our faith, and a good portion of us belong to denominations that, for the last 30 or so years, have been bound into a Faustian alliance with conservative politics. In fact, so religious is our nation that there is only one self-confessed atheist in the entire congress (Pete Stark). Observing the overwhelming majority of Americans who are religious, therefore, it is not too surprising that the Good Creed has entered into politics and is informing the decisions of our ruling elite. After all, if one's moral code demands that the world function in a certain way (ie. no gay marriage, no abortions, etc.), doesn't it make sense for that individual to elect a politician who is going to fight to make their restrictive orientation a federally-mandated reality?

Both common sense and the current state of affairs tells us "yes." In the past week, this intermingling of faith and politics has even taken up the audacious question of actually amending the Consitution. Yes, in recent speeches by Mike Huckabee, the Arkansas governor has suggested setting "God's standard" down as the law of the land:

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Wow. Whatever God's standards are (and Mr. Huckabee surely has a press-pass to the Divine Mind), and irrespective of how he would implement them, this sort of rhetoric really seems to work with lots of people. And Democrats are not innocent on this front. Even if one's candidate of choice is Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, a good strong Christian leader is what voters want (Obama's recent faith-based brochures in South Carolina are yet another indication of how important this population is on the way to the White House).

It stands to reason that voters are faithful enough to want their religious ideas to, if not overtly inform the political process, at least influence decisions from a distance. It would be easy, considering the political clout of the faithful, to assume that all individuals really understand the religious convictions that drive them. If the institution of organized Evangelical Christianity is at the wheel of our democracy - or is at least a singularly bossy back-seat driver - shouldn't we assume that the ideas powering the political machine are well-grasped by their adherents?

In light of this assumption, a recent Gallup survey (reported in the Economist Dec.22 issue) is, like everything else these days, funny and scary. Here are the results:

- Less than half of all Americans know the name of the first book of the Bible.
- Only a third know who delivered the Sermon on the Mount (Billy Graham is a popular answer).
- A quarter do not know what is celebrated on Easter.
- 60% cannot name half of the Ten Commandments.
- 12% think Noah was married to Joan of Arc.

Now that you've gotten the laughing out of your system you can start crying.

Can it even be said that an individual is "one of the faithful" when they know so pitifully little about their own faith? What this stunning poll reveals to me is that the commandeering of our government by religious fundamentalism is not necessarily about the tenets of religion at all: it is about collective ignorance and the power of a few to exploit this information asymmetry. Indeed, many of the issues taken up by right-wing Evangelicals aren't addressed by their religious texts at all, and if they were better educated in the Bible, they might be able to see through the chicanery to make smarter, more informed decisions.

A great example of this can be found in the abortion debate. There's too much screaming going on right now to actually look at the facts, but the truth is the Bible says nothing on the subject. This fact is convincingly elucidated by Garry Wills in an Op-Ed in the LA Times, Nov.4 2007. According to Wills, abortion was really a non-issue in global Christiandom until Roe vs. Wade; even Thomas Aquinas defines the beginning of personhood as when "the intellectual soul" is infused into the baby. Throughout the ages the church has either been apathetic or guardedly supportive on the issue of abortion. It has only been in the last 40 years that American Christians have started claiming it as a religious issue.

What are we to make of all of this? I close with an unorthodox suggestion: let's elect Mike Huckabee president. Perhaps a Huckabee administration would see to it that prayer and scripture are put back in the school where they belong. He might even make Bible study classes mandatory, and it goes without saying that he would refashion the Constitution and the judiciary to abide by Christian principles. If we elected Huckabee, he would make sure that the Christian faith played a prominent role in the governing of this nation, and in doing so, perhaps people would get around to understanding their faith better. Once they comprehend the true Christian message, they will be appalled at the world they just helped create.


5 comments:

chris bailly said...

Interestingly, Huckabee shows at least some understanding of the Constitution. That is, that the President and Congress have little influence over the abortion debate. Any action taken by the Congress or the President to outlaw abortion would be deemed unconstitutional and struck down. His comments reflect a moment of political honesty, since the only way for him to fully implement his Christianist agenda would be to amend the Constitution.

So what do the single-issue abortion voters get by electing Huckabee as president? Absent a constitutional amendment (virtually impossible), they get judicial appointments. I don't mean to trivialize this power, since those appointments have some of the farthest reaching effects of any presidential decision. Rather, I'd like to examine the attenuated chain of events that would have to take place to outlaw abortion. First, you have to stack the court with strict constructionist judges. Then, they would have to violate stare decises and overturn Roe v. Wade, a big if. Even if that were to happen, Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it makes outlawing abortion illegal. So presumably all the blue states would keep abortion legal.

Does this help the sixteen year-old girl in Texas who is pregnant and scared? No, which is why it is a good thing that she has a right to privacy under the Constitution. But it shows that even if everything goes smoothly for the Christianists, they face an inherently losing battle. Even with some setbacks, the history of this country is a history of expanded civil rights for all people, a trajectory that even a Huckabee administration couldn't fully reverse.

Ruxton Schuh said...

One thing people don't look at when they elect a president, and probably the most important thing, is what kind of people this president will be surrounding him/herself with. Who would Mike Huckabee select as his cabinet? As Chops pointed out, who would be his judicial appointments? We get so distracted with the patriotic rhetoric that gets thrown around during the debates that we forget to look to the root of all the promises and assertions. Likely our next president isn't going to balance the budget, bring health care to the poor, improve life for the middle class, or find a healthy solution to the immigration debate, but his/her supporters might. We also neglect to think about how this president will interact with other state leaders. That in itself should be a high priority given the absolute failure our current president has proven and is proving to be.

Lusus Naturae said...

Ruxtomikron brought up a great point. We, as a people, must ask ourselves this: if Huckabee was elected President, who would he surround himself with?

Well, if his victory speech in Iowa is any indication, if Huckabee wins (and I’m crossing every appendage on my body in hopes that he does) American politics would instantly become more kick-ass – Walker, Texas Ranger style! No, my eyes did not deceive me, for hovering over Huckabee’s right shoulder was the deliciously fuzzy, tight jean wearing, evil-doer kicking Chuck Norris, savior of the United States.

That’s right, you read right - I’m pro-Huckabee solely for the fact that Chuck, Huckabee’s apparent right-hand man, would be the shot of adrenaline this country so desperately needs.

Abortion? Round-house kick to the face.

Education reform? Round-house kick to the face.

Fiscal policy? Round-house kick to the face.

Am I the only one who doesn’t see the amazing potential of this arrangement? Think about it: if we get in a skirmish with North Korea, President Huckabee would just send over Chuck. Hey Kim Jong-il: remember what Chuck did to that Asian guy in Return of the Dragon? Yeah, that’s right. Step off bitch.

“Homeland Security”? Please. Chuck Norris IS homeland security.

Here’s a draft of a campaign commercial I’m working on for Huckabee:

- Shot of bald eagle flying over the heartland of America. Patriotic music playing (something distinctly American. John Williams?)
- Narration, male-voice. Slightly bored sounding: This country needs a leader with guts…
- Image of Chuck Norris spinning in full round-house kick glory falls in place beside the eagle. Chuck is suspended, like a helicopter. Eagle looks at Chuck and winks. Chuck gives eagle thumbs-up.
- Narration, continued: A leader with a clear idea of what this country needs…
- Music changes to non-offensive heavy rock. Shot of Chuck hitting a punching bag with a picture of Iraq on it.
- Narration, continued: A leader with Christian values…
- Shot of Chuck and eagle playing catch with the decapitated head of a dark skinned person of ambiguously foreign descent. (Note: Somehow make head look like a terrorist. Maybe horns…)
- Narration, continued: A leader who loves nothing more than his country (except maybe his God).
- Shot of nude female breasts. They explode, triggering a patriotic firework show. God Bless America plays.
- Narration, continued: Vote Huckabee.
- Shot of Mike Huckabee sitting at a big desk. Turns to camera, smirks. Terrorist appears in background, looks un-Christian-like. Aims rifle at Huckabee but is thwarted by a round-house kick in the gut delivered by Chuck. Mike and Chuck shake hands then save the universe. Fade out.

I know. Pure gold.

Ruxton Schuh said...

Alright Lusus, "Shark vs. Bear" time. Who would win, Chuck Norris or John Edwards' hair?

That's right, your vote has never been more important.

Zach Wallmark said...

Haha, this is hilarious, Lusus!

I think you should run this idea by the Huckabee team. It's right on message.

Save for Edwards's hair vs. Chuck ad for when they're both running against each other for president. That should ensure a quick and painless GOP victory.