Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: defending God's reputation

As I am not American I have always been confused as to why some Americans - obviously including this speaker - think that The Republican party, rather than the Democrats, are intrinsically more in line with Gods views. While not a Christian I went to a school that was and attended compulsory religious education and had to study comparative religion. From what I recall the Christian ethic is rather more tolerant and less militaristic than these people and would be inclined to view universal health care & social programs as a good thing.
What process led this lot to believe they are the chosen ones?

For my part, I've been earnestly praying to the atheist god that Obama wins, and when he does that will prove that atheism is correct!

JJackson--

As an atheist ("godless heathen") currently residing in the American South (one of the "pro-America" parts of the country), this is a question that is often on my mind.

The other day, I had a rather interesting conversation with someone who was born and raised here. He was raised Catholic, but converted to Southern Baptism. He said that before he got serious about religion, he had read the Bible and thought it full of inconsistencies. But once he became a Baptist, he realized that he had been wrong about this.

When I pressed him for an explanation of why, he said that (if I understood him correctly) it had all been explained to him by his pastor. He seemed to believe that because the pastor had spent his life studying the Bible, he somehow had a more complete understanding of it.

My suspicion is that there are a number of Christian sects that emphasize this role of the local leader in interpreting the supposed wishes of God and the Bible in general. And so they can say whatever they want. Why not tell their followers what they want to hear--that they are "special"?

Something I found especially interesting--the man I spoke to also commented on how "America is the greatest country in the world," a common theme in the McCain/Palin campaign (just one of their many vacuous statements). When talking about this, he used the same tone of voice as when he spoke about his religion. Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but I hadn't caught that parallel before--chosen people in the chosen country.

Going directly to the source and actually reading the Bible oneself seems to be uncommon in the South--perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I doubt that it is encouraged. People have a lot of very wrong ideas about what the Bible actually says. I suppose it's not unlike the Constitution, another rather important piece of writing of which the public seems to be shockingly illiterate.

Why, oh why, are people so gullible? How did our nation become so credulous?

At any rate, in my own experience, the Christians in the South are certainly not tolerant, and while universal health care and social programs seem to me to be exactly what Jesus was talking about, apparently they're the green peas in the cafeteria line that get picked over in favor of the meat and potatoes (whatever those are).

If only god would speak to normal people instead of crazies it might just make me believe in him/her/it/Cthulhu.

Let me echo what abc said about Bible literacy in the South: in my experience most have not read the Bible (but will tell you that they have) beyond the stray quotations used by their pastors and their inspirational calendars. The idea seems to be: "Since we are the right and good people (obviously, because we don't look anything like villains in movies, and because we feel right and good), the Bible justifies us and our worldview. So why read what I can appreciate at an almost intuitive level already?" This also ties into a widespread belief that the Bible is one long code of morals (which anyone who has read it knows that this patchwork of history, philosophy, and ritual isn't) and furthermore is the only possible source of morals. Its primary function seems to be more like that of a magical talisman than a book; it is an object to be invoked to win arguments and impose one's will upon others.

Oh, because no liberal could ever possibly be praying to the Christian God. And no Hindu (which this guy knows nothing about), Buddhist (btw, Buddha could be a god or just a really smart dude, depending on who you talk to), Muslim (ignoring the fact that most people consider their God to be the same as the Judeo-Christian one), or any other religious person could ever want a Republican to win. (Do Taoists hate America, too? Maybe, since both parties seem to think the Chinese are evil maniacs bent on stealing our jobs.)

I'm agnostic, and I feel religion can be a good thing in some contexts. But I think it's probably a good thing for clergy of one religion to not only know his own religion's history and mythology -- but a little about other major religions and philosophies as well. Maybe if his seminary had covered a bit about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc ... this guy wouldn't come up with such an insulting and boneheaded invocation.

I'm amused by how he threatens God: "God, if our candidate doesn't win, everyone is gonna think you're a sissy!" I'm equally amused by the fact that his threat won't work unless he acknowledges the existence of other, potent gods.

If there is an omnipotent Christian God, especially the vindictive, power-hungry, autocratic bigoted male one that these folks seem to believe in, I imagine He wouldn't appreciate being spoken to in this way by an underling. Heck, He'd probably make Mc Cain lose the election just to show the minister he can't push God around.

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

American Christians are on a Crusade -- they do not care that the first 17 crusades were disasters and that this one will have worse results, already has. 'Bringing democracy to the world' means 'bringing Christianity to the world' to them. Clinton is reviled because he protected Muslims in Bosnia -- the right wing cannot forgive him for that -- but they know they cannot say that openly. Bush et al hoped that the Iraqi war would implode all of the Muslim nations -- and they were sure we would then be able to complete the Crusade by taking over all of the Muslim (Middle East oil producing) nations. I cannot imagine that the Bush/Rove/Cheney group (who aren't interested in Christianity except that it give them control of people and profits -- it is only a tool) will allow this grand scheme to be defeated by a mere election in November. I am sure they have a Trump card that they will play.

Christianity, as it was designed post-Christ, requires that its followers claim that they consume human flesh and blood -- what a horrific symbol that is -- cannibalism. I said thanks but no thanks before I was 9. I couldn't believe how willingly everyone else seems to accept it -- like it. I think that distortion is responsible for their propensity to harm those who appear to be different.

American Christians allow themselves to be tools for the right wing crusade schemers because they hope it will give their lives some meaning. Most do not have much meaning in their lives -- many are working jobs in which they have no interest other than to get paid -- sometimes the job has been stripped of all meaning and sometimes the employee is mismatched or has a difficult boss, and their education taught them very little about humanity or critical thinkin while squashing their curiosity and interests. And many of them have very conflicted personal lives with so much regret and anger that they are isolated from each other. So they are ripe to follow what these extremist claim is 'doing what is right'. Jesus would be horrified for what is being done in his name.

Many Christians belonging to today's moral majority are single issue voters, and the right-wing has convinced this voting demographic that they are symbols of these issues. Abortion (right-to-life), gay marriage (one man, one woman)... these are the issues that today's moral majority are voting on. What many of these Christians don't understand is that the Bible is ambiguous at best on these issues. The issues that the Bible does emphasize - giving to the poor (socialism? :), love thy neighbor (not killing them) - apparently these don't encourage the same sort of knee-jerk appeal.
This drove me nuts growing up in a Christian home. And it still drives me nuts when I see the McCain-Palin stickers on my family's mini-van.

Tasha: Yes on both -- single issue voters and the Bible's ambiguities being rewriten for convenience.

Job has a statement that what we gain montetarily is to be given back.

And McCain clearly signaled to the single issue anti-abortion voters in his comment that Roe v. Wade supporters were not qualified for the Supreme Court -- you could see his discomfort with it, but he needed that voting block so he said that was how he would decide on appointments. I am surprised that more hasn't been made of his statement that he does have a litmus test.

I doubt that it is encouraged. People have a lot of very wrong ideas about what the Bible actually says