George Will has written a column saying many of the things I've long been saying about the tendency of some Christians to strike the martyr pose. I like the way he starts it:
The state of America's political discourse is such that the president has felt it necessary to declare that unbelievers can be good Americans. In last week's prime-time news conference, he said: "If you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship."So Mark Twain, Oliver Wendell Holmes and a long, luminous list of other skeptics can be spared the posthumous ignominy of being stricken from the rolls of exemplary Americans.
Let's add to that list a few of the more prominent founders, whose views on Christianity would no doubt shock the folks in the pews, particularly Thomas Paine, the forgotten founding father, and Ethan Allen. Will continues:
Some Christians should practice the magnanimity of the strong rather than cultivate the grievances of the weak. But many Christians are joining today's scramble for the status of victims. There is much lamentation about various "assaults" on "people of faith." Christians are indeed experiencing some petty insults and indignities concerning things such as restrictions on school Christmas observances. But their persecution complex is unbecoming because it is unrealistic.
He goes on to point out the success of The Passion of the Christ and the Left Behind series, but he could easily have listed far more mundane things than that. It has always baffled me that Christians could be convinced that they're an oppressed minority in a nation so thoroughly saturated with the presumption of their beliefs. They live in a nation with thousands of Christian newspapers and magazines, hundreds of Christian TV and radio stations, and tens of thousands of churches. They live in a nation where well over 90% of all of the legislators, judges and presidents in our entire history have been Christian to one degree or another. Where a court just the other day could rule that only Judeo-Christian invocations may be allowed at official government meetings, where our coins say "In God We Trust", where there are thousands of bible clubs and prayer groups in the schools. Yet they have managed to convince themselves, many of them, that they are a persecuted minority.
What they are objecting to, of course, is simply the fact that in the last 50 years or so those who do not believe as they do have begun to assert that they have a right not to be forced into following their rituals. Many of them still yearn for the day, and agitate politically for it to return, when they could take time out every single day in a school where attendance is mandatory and force children of all faiths or lack thereof to participate in their religious rituals. And they tell each other that because the courts will no longer give them that power over others, they are being persecuted. If you were to turn the tables and have their kids forced to pray five times a day toward Mecca, or perform a Hindu cleansing ritual, they would scream call that persecution, of course, but they can't think rationally enough to apply that same reasoning to those they seek to coerce. It's nice to see a conservative call them on this silliness:
Religion is today banished from the public square? John Kennedy finished his first report to the nation on the Soviet missiles in Cuba with these words: "Thank you and good night." It would be a rash president who today did not conclude a major address by saying, as President Ronald Reagan began the custom of doing, something very like "God bless America."Unbelievers should not cavil about this acknowledgment of majority sensibilities. But Republicans should not seem to require, de facto, what the Constitution forbids, de jure: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust."
Hear, hear.
- Log in to post comments
Such spoiled brats. It's kind of like a bully who throws you against a lock, hits you, and cries out holding his arm as if you were the one who hit them.
'They live in a nation where well over 90% of all of the legislators, judges and presidents in our entire history have been Christian to one degree or another'
This is a comment I doubt given the very nature of politicians I have known. I think many of them are freethinkers, agnostics, atheists, etc but belong because it is good for them.
The word 'Christian' has become as much about being in a club as it does subscribing to a particular set of beliefs.
Uber wrote:
That is certainly not true in my experience. I've known lots of politicians at all levels, and I dare say I've not met one I would describe as a "freethinker", regardless of their religious beliefs.
This is a comment I doubt given the very nature of politicians I have known. I think many of them are freethinkers, agnostics, atheists, etc but belong because it is good for them.
I've been sitting here thinking about who might be the highest ranking self-professed atheist (or even agnostic) in goverment, and for the life of me I can't think of a single name at any level at the moment.
Little help?
Jesse Ventura comes to mind-there's a quote by him stating that religion is for the mentally weak or the like. Of course, he ran as an outsider anyway, so perhaps a better question would are there any establishment (i.e. Democrats or Republicans) at the national level who are professed agnostics or atheists.
haha, let me explain my comment further.
I think many use the name 'Christian' as a good political club to be involved with as a politician.
I have rubbed shoulders with a few and the way they acted and talked in private was very different than what they espoused in public. The private expressed doubts, the public used the buzzwords.
where they real 'believers' who knows? I'm not even sure if you can be sure anyone is a true 'believer'.
I personally am quite sure there are many members of our government who use religion rather than by into it. That is not to denigrate those who do, but don't expect those who don't to be yelling it from capital hill either.
I'm not sure about professed but:
Howard Dean, Ventura, Arnold, B.Frank are 4 who come to mind as likely susspects.
The first 3 I'd bet money on:-)
Religion itself is political. As I said in a comment on another blog (Pharyngula), the goal of virtually all religious establishments is to obtain and wield power. The governing establishment wants to control the behavior of its society. The existence of a group that refuses to bow, at least publicly, to the religion's power structure, is viewed as a threat to that power structure.
But Ed, those are false, Satanically, inspired religions, and theirs is the one True and infallible faith, so of course they would scream persecution. In fact it's a wonder that they aren't demanding to be thanked by the parents of those pagan children for their efforts in trying to save them from eternal damnation.
Don't forget Dennis Kucinich (sp?). He kind of falls into the Diestic\spiritualist category.
Those American Christians who claim to be persecuted should try living in places in Asia or the Middle East. There Christians live under fear of violence or even death. It may put things into perspective for them.
Those who claim to be persecuted for their faith are more likely being criticized for their ignorance.
Jefferson could never be a politician today (well, at best he could be a representative for some really liberal district). His stripped-down version of the bible would be seen as heresy by most of the country.
I was recently involved in one of those ridiculous "framers intent" arguments being used to justify prayer in school and other forms of judeo christian expression in public venues. I was accused of being a commie on my own merits. My friend Eric however, was accused of being a commie after spending the entire debate quoting (without attributeing) George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin.
Subsequently we were banned from the site this debate took place, the thread was deleted and we were warned that these jackasses would be "keeping an eye on us."
I was recently involved in one of those ridiculous "framers intent" arguments...
I've been engaged in "framers' intent" arguments on internet message boards for at least ten years, and have come to the conclusion that most of the arguments are not worth spending a lot of time pursuing.
First, who are the "framers" whose "intent" is supposed to be considered supreme? The 55 (or so) members of the constitutional convention? The who-knows-how_many members of the state legislatures that ratified the constitution? The who-knows-how_many members of the electorates of the states that voted for those state legislators? Who were the "Framers"? And how are their "intents" supposed to be determined?
Second, we have some evidence as to what the general understanding of, for example, "legislative power" (Art. 1 of the US constitution), "executive power" (Art 2) and "judicial power" (Art. 3) was, from the Federalist Papers. For example, from FP78 (and some subsequent FPs), it is clear that what came to be referred to as "judicial review" following Marbury vs. Madison, the "judicial power" included the authority--not the right, but the authority--for the judiciary to determine whether a law passed by the legislature was "constitutional"--that is, whether the law was within the power of the legislature to pass the law. It was not a new concept invented in 1803. I've long wondered why the Marbury court believed it necessary to engage in a lengthy discussion to justify its exercise of what clearly was within its "judicial power" in that case. I could go on regarding the various amendments, but you get the idea.
Third, I'll point out that some wags on the Internet have referred to this as the fact that the judiciary has the "last word." Well, that's true, but only because the judiciary normally gets the issues last. After the legislature has passed the "issue" and the executive has signed it.