Posts Tagged ‘Christians’

Data Over Dogma

November 24th, 2012

dataThis can’t be stated often or emphatically enough. If you are willing to dismiss, suppress, or reject evidence because it conflicts with what you want to (or have been told you should) believe, then you are acting irrationally—by definition. And your judgement should be discounted accordingly.

While this situation usually comes up with regard to a specific topic, it reflects a larger problem with mindset. Sen. Marco Rubio demonstrated this most recently when, in an interview with GQ magazine, he was asked how old the earth is. After declaring “I’m not a scientist, man,” Rubio danced with all his might, ending with the declaration that “it’s one of the great mysteries.” (No Marco, it’s really not.) Rubio is previously on record as stating the “crux” of the disagreement is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level.”

It’s easy to dismiss this as being isolated to the topic of geology or evolution, something that doesn’t impact the lives of the vast majority of citizens.  Rubio asserts as much when defending his GQ statement.  He said this didn’t matter, pronouncing it “a dispute amongst theologians” that has “has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

Yet, as I’ve argued in this space before, and as Paul Krugman points out in his recent column, it matters greatly. It matters because we are hindering a crop of potential petrogeologists who are limited to guessing where God hid the oil.  But moreover, it matters because we are teaching kids that evidence can be ignored if it’s uncomfortable. And it is this mindset which is particularly damaging, and not just to the field of science, and as Rubio has demonstrated, not just to kids.

We have adults rejecting global warming and progressive tax codes, not because of evidence, but because of ideology.  We saw dismissal and rejection of pre-election poll data, not because it was inaccurate, but because it supported the wrong conclusion.

We live in an increasingly technological world with a complex multinational economy. Our success as a society, a country, and a culture depends on our ability to carefully and rationally understand and control that abstruse system.  Reliance on irrational explanations and positions in the face of evidence backed models of the world is simply dangerous.

That is not to say that faith and ideology have no place in society. They add value to the lives of many. All the world is not explainable using logic and reason.  Faith and ideology help most fill the gaps. But where data and dogma collide… bet on data every time. All our futures depend on it.

Aborted Reasoning

August 29th, 2012

God_is_pro-LifeYesterday, I had the questionable pleasure of driving by a small abortion protest in front of a local medical building. Two men and a woman were each holding signs while one of the men used a bull horn to shout something from the sidewalk. One of the signs in particular, caught my attention.  It read, “God Chose That Baby“.

In the wake of the recent Todd Akin debacle, I’ve heard a number of so-called Pro-Life advocates claim that abortion is always wrong. This troubles me. I agree that life is precious, but the mother has a life too. And life is much more than being physically not dead. I would never advocate for abortion as a casual form of birth control, but drawing hard lines around exactly when pregnancy is too much for the mother to bear is beyond my pay grade.  Choose life? Sure. But whose? And at what quality of life? I’m not qualified to make that decision, and frankly neither are you… or the government.

But the sign started the wheels turning in my mind. A Pro-Life friend recently explained that when God conceives a baby, He has a plan. If the mother dies, or is physically or mentally traumatized or disabled in the process, that’s tragic. But it’s still part of the plan. If God means for the mother to survive, she will. It is not for us to intervene. Hmmm… And then, the apparent worldview of these folks clicked into place for me… and then quickly went all askew.

While I don’t agree with the position, I can at least respect a position that says God plays an active role in our everyday lives. He chooses the key events of our lives, and we are not to meddle in His affairs.  He has a plan.  It’s not possible to know what it is, but He has one. At least I can respect the position if the person actually lives their life by that philosophy.  But I can’t see how that’s so.

According to this philosophy, there’s no reason to seek medical intervention on anything, not just pregnancy. If you have a heart attack, God meant that for you. If you were meant to survive it, you will. To expect that God’s plan included a paramedic with a defibrillator makes no sense. It would then be equally reasonable to assume God’s plan included a pharmacist with a morning-after pill.

If, in fact, God did choose that baby, who among us can say what for? God sent his own son to die for us—to teach us something. Is it so farfetched that he might send an embryo to die for a person or a family to teach them something?  There are several references in the bible to men being called to a destiny from the womb. Who is to say fulfilling that destiny requires reaching adulthood? The simple reality is, you can’t say there is a plan; no one knows what it is; but that thing there is definitely not part of it.

The only rational counter argument is that there is something special and sacred about the life of a child. That the value of a child’s life is always above and beyond the value of anyone else’s life. But (since we can’t know the plan) this valuation would have to be supported by the bible, and that’s not at all clear.  Jesus may have loved the little children, but Abraham was told to kill his own son, and Deuteronomy instructs fathers to have their non-virginal daughters stoned to death. Further, the bible says nothing about abortions. The closest it comes is in Exodus when it is stated that if you strike a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage, you must pay a fine to the woman’s husband.  God’s plan for the life of children is a bit cloudy at best. Clearly, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not quite the black and white rule you might assume.

Perhaps you believe that God chose that baby. But it seems that unless you’re purporting to know God’s unknowable plan for it, you’re a hypocrite.

Einstein’s God was not Yahweh

August 2nd, 2012

Einstein on GodThe quote attributed to Einstein, “The more I study science, the more I believe in God,” is getting a lot of play around the interwebs.  I though it might be interesting to look at what he might have meant by the statement.

Einstein is also widely quoted as saying, God does not play dice with the universe.” Together, these quotes are oft cited as evidence of scientists believing in God—usually by fundamentalist Christian groups defending themselves against the encroachment of science on their literal interpretation of their mythology.

First, Einstein was neither a Christian or even a Jew. He was raised as a Jew and was schooled as a Catholic. He had ample education in the Abrahamic religions, but rejected them nonetheless.

Still, Einstein is not properly classified an atheist either.  He rejected the notion of a personal god. Instead, he said, “I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

In other words, he was a Deist, and was in the spiritual company of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. Deists believe that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator.

So Einstein’s quote is an observation of the mathematical beauty, the order, the ever unfolding revelation of the inner workings of the universe that he perceived. It’s not remotely an affirmation of the bible.

Einstein’s god never intervened in human affairs or suspended the natural laws of the universe, and absolutely did not have a supernatural existence or the capacity for miracles.  This makes Einstein a curious poster boy for Christians in specific, or even theists in general.

It’s Political God(less) Rally Weekend!

March 23rd, 2012

First Amendment ELater today, people of all faiths will gather is Washington at the Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom.  Tomorrow, people of no faith will gather in the same spot for the Reason Rally.  Both sides claim the timing is a coincidence.

Moreover, both gatherings are hopelessly misnamed.

The Rally for Religious Freedom is actually motivated by the new mandate from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that requires all employers provide free contraceptives through their health plans.  Further, it’s organized by two anti-abortion groups, the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society.  So the freedom they are advocating for is the freedom to observe their religious laws over secular ones.  While I suppose you can argue that’s freedom of a sort, it’s certainly not the sort enshrined in the First Amendment.  And let’s be clear, while cloaked as an “all faiths” gathering, this is a Christian rally.

Meanwhile, the Reason Rally is advocating for the acceptance of atheists as normal non-threatening members of society.  In part. the hope is to also encourage more atheists to come out of the closet by making them less alone.  While that’s a noble goal, a good place to start might be to name your rally something that doesn’t imply that all theists are irrational.  The concepts of faith and reason extend far beyond the notion of God.  Rejecting God doesn’t make you incapable of having faith in anything, nor does accepting God make you immune to reason.

What’s also interesting is that both groups are positioning themselves as the victims.

The Christians, despite being in the vast majority, feel the secularists are launching a war on their religion.  This is as comical as the claims that the LGBT movement is destroying the family.  Just because you don’t get to impose your values on everyone else does not translate to a conspiracy to deprive you of your beliefs.

The atheists, who actually are a minority struggling for acceptance, are staging “the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history” in an effort to appear less threatening.  They are trotting out speakers like The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins, who is a perennial lightening rod for those fearing so-called militant atheism.  Granted, when atheists get militant, they tend to write books rather than buy guns, but it’s hard to see this as a vehicle for winning the hearts and minds of those who fear you.  This is much more like the secular version of showing up in ass-less chaps and chanting “We’re Here! We’re Queer! Get used to it!”

In the end, expect a lot of noise in the news cycles about each event, expect a fair bit of manufactured outrage, expect a lot of unhelpful rhetoric, but don’t expect too much productive to come of it.

Cranston West: The school where Christianity went to die

January 17th, 2012

Jessica Ahlquist

16-year old Cranston West student Jessica Ahlquist

To quote a favorite young lady of mine, “People suck.”

At Rhode Island’s Cranston High School West, student Jessica Ahlquist took issue with the banner hanging in the school labeled “School Prayer.”  She successfully sued her state-funded public school to have a it removed.  This was a classic textbook case of separation of church and state, and U.S. District Court Judge Ronald R. Lagueux even praised her for her courage in his written decision.

This was hardly judicial activism. Any high school civics student should have recognized that this was the inescapable outcome were this issue heard in any court in the land.  Some might argue the law is wrong, but it’s hard to imagine anyone being surprised that it’s the law.

Cranston BannerIt might even be argued that had the school had the good sense to label the banner “School Pledge” and drop the Heavenly Father reference and the Amen that it would have been a completely legal banner.  But they didn’t, and so it isn’t.

Yet it isn’t the loss of this banner that diminishes Christianity. It is the violent threats of retaliation against Ahlquist from other students. In what appears to be a woefully misguided sense of defending their religion, classmates are not only verbally insulting the young activist, but physically threatening her with assault and rape, both in this life and the next. Just a few of the things posted to Facebook and Twitter are listed below.

“May that little, evil athiest teenage girl and that judge BURN IN HELL!”

“I hope there’s lots of banners in hell when your rotting in there you atheist fuck #TeamJesus”

“If this banner comes down, hell i hope the school burns down with it!”

“U little brainless idiot, hope u will be punished, you have not win sh..t! Stupid little brainless skunk!”

“Fuck Jessica alquist I’ll drop anchor on her face”

“definetly laying it down on this athiest tommorow anyone else?”

“Nothing bad better happen tomorrow #justsaying #fridaythe13th”

“Let’s all jump that girl who did the banner #fuckthatho”

“”But for real somebody should jump this girl” lmao let’s do it!”

“Hmm jess is in my bio class, she’s gonna get some shit thrown at her”

“hail Mary full of grace @jessicaahlquist is gonna get punched in the face”

“When I take over the world I’m going to do a holocaust to all the atheists”

“gods going to fuck your ass with that banner you scumbag”

“if I wasn’t 18 and wouldn’t go to jail I’d beat the shit out of her idk how she got away with not getting beat up yet”

“nail her to a cross”

“We can make so many jokes about this dumb bitch, but who cares #thatbitchisgointohell and Satan is gonna rape her.”

I know kids can be stupid and cruel, but I can’t fathom that somehow this level of malevolence is being wielded in the defense of Christianity.  Even assuming that somehow this was well intentioned, in so trying to save their religion they have made it considerably less.  Ironically, atheists are often accused of unfairly conflating religion and violence.  Yet these allegedly Christian students make a compelling case all on their own.

Young Jessica Ahlquist returns to school today for the first time since the ruling on the banner.  Her morning Tweet suggests a high degree of optimism, or maybe hope. “time for school. Woot. #bestdayever,”  I hope she’s right.

WWJD, indeed.

Cee Lo’s version of Imagine angers fans and atheists, but not the Evangelicals

January 3rd, 2012

Cee Lo - NYE

Cee Lo Green in Times Square

On New Year’s Eve in Times Square, Cee Lo Green re-imagined John Lennon’s atheist anthem to the horror of many.  Green performed a soulful version of the Beatles’ “Imagine” with the lyrics changed from “nothing to kill or die for / and no religion too” to “nothing to kill or die for / and all religion’s true.”

Twitter was immediately alight with outrage from Lennon fans as well as from the atheist community.  Fair enough.  Beatles fans are notoriously loyal and changing up lyrics is simply treasonous.  And despite Steve Martin’s musical assertion that Atheists Don’t Have No Songs, they do have a precious few… and Imagine was among them, at least pre-Cee Lo.

But the confounding thing would seem to be the deafening silence from the evangelical community.  Yes, at least a celebrity took a glancing blow at the godless.  But the claim that all religion is true should be as disconcerting to Christian fundamentalists  as claims of no god at all.

Activist Christians are pretty adamant there is but one true religion and everyone else is hell-bound.  Further, they complain loudly of being victimized, marginalized, and discriminated against at everything from not being wished “Merry Christmas” by Wal-Mart greeters to not being able to teach mythology as science in the classroom.  So, why doesn’t Cee Lo’s lyrical twist have their collective white cotton panties all in a bunch?

I guess maybe Evangelicals don’t feel threatened by pantheists?  Yet?

Oh no you didn’t

November 22nd, 2011

Oh no you didn'tMy morning coffee was interrupted by a gentle knocking on the front door.  On the other side was a delightful older woman and her apprentice proselytizer sporting bibles, Watchtower magazines, and other paraphernalia of the trade.

She opened by explaining they were there to make sure I understood what the bible had to say, because they’ve found many people don’t know.  I politely replied that I had a bible, had read it, and was pretty familiar with what was inside.  I finished by explaining that I really didn’t feel the need for any additional guidance today.

That should have been the end of it, save for a few pleasantries, and I could return to my cooling cup of Joe and my newspaper.  But no.

She reaches into her stack of pamphlets and pulls one out while saying that perhaps she might interest me in some information on God’s creation because science is constantly trying to disprove it, and I might need to know how to respond.

It was at that moment I wished I was a woman and could pull off that whole finger-wagging head-shaking “Oh no you did not” indignation move.  But alas, I’m just a gesture impaired male.  Either way, it was clear my coffee was going to get colder.

I responded, “I’m sorry, but you have to understand that science is not trying to disprove religious mythology.  That is neither its purpose nor its intent.  It exists to explain nature in a way that allows us to predict and manipulate it.  This is a role that religion does not fulfill, nor aspire to fill.  Science is dependent on a method of discovery and rigorous explanation that is completely indifferent to your beliefs.  Science is not a democracy, nor is it dependent on faith.  You don’t get to pick and choose where it leads.”

“You drove up here in a car whose existence is the product of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, and a dozen other scientific disciplines.  You have a cell phone in your purse, you’re wearing synthetic blend clothes, and you’re schlepping out brochures drafted on computers and produced on high-speed printing presses.”

“The world you live in is the product of science.  It’s unfortunate that you feel threatened by aspects of science, but unless you’re willing to go back to your cave and huddle around the fire you need to find a way your theology can coexist with it.  Anything less is a major act of hypocrisy on your part.”

Science doesn’t want to play in your sandbox.  Stop dragging it in.

Steve Jobs Gives Dope-Slap from Beyond

October 6th, 2011

The Westboro Baptist church, which has a rich history of inappropriate and distasteful demonstrations at funerals, has announced that it will be making an appearance at Steve Jobs’ memorial service.  It seems the group found him insufficiently grateful to God in life, and a teacher of sin through his technical gadgetry.

The message was posted to Twitter… from an iPhone.

Westboro's Ironic Message

I’m pretty sure Jobs would have found the irony hysterical.  His legacy has become so interwoven into the fabric of society that even those professing to hate him can’t escape it.

Rest in peace Mr. Jobs.  You are truly one of history’s most talented geeks, and the tech world is less today without you.

If the economy tanks, will Conservatives repent?

July 19th, 2011

Debt Ceiling Implications Poll

The scariest debt-ceiling poll results, ever

The debt ceiling talks appear to have stalled and the August 2nd date of economic doom draws neigh.  Wall Street bankers, The Fed, the Treasury Department, and most every economist on the planet believe that hitting the debt ceiling will have dire consequences, and that actually defaulting on the debt would be even worse.  Estimates vary in terms of the degree of catastrophe, but virtually no one in a position to be considered an expert on macroeconomics thinks that hitting the ceiling will be no big deal.

In that light, the poll results depicted here are truly frightening.  53% of Republicans, 43% of Independents, and even over a quarter of Democrats believe hitting the ceiling won’t cause a crisis.  Further, somewhere around 60 Congressmen have vowed to vote against any debt ceiling increase, no matter the deal.  Clearly they aren’t worried either.

Chauncey DeVega, over at AlterNet, thinks the reason is that evangelicals have a strong hold on the GOP, and that the fervently faithful have a mindset that ignores numbers that don’t agree with their ideology.  He posits that the Tea Party and other far right conservative groups are running on faith rather than fact.  While there may be some truth to that, it doesn’t explain the plurality of Independents or the chunk of Democrats beholden to the notion that banging into the debt ceiling is a non-event.

I personally think there’s also an element here of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.  Political issues have become so hyperbolic in the media that virtually every issue is positioned as a looming Armageddon of one sort or another.  Unless you’re following the minutiae of the debates, you’re bound to get pretty numb to all the doomsaying.

However, presumably our elected officials are above simply blowing in the media wind.  They have access to data and discussions those of us in the cheap seats do not.   They are in the position to be able to discern hyperbole from actual danger.  Yet this would not prevent them from being blinded to facts by faith.

GOP legislators faith-blindness goes beyond the debt ceiling.  Similar faith-trumps-data rationale fuels denial of global warming, belief that tax cuts don’t have to be paid for, belief that progressive tax codes constitute class warfare and destroy jobs, belief that trickle down economics is always the answer, and government regulation is always evil.

The problem is that proving that tax cuts actually lower revenue, or that CO2 contributes to global warming, requires many years of data.  And even then,the results are subject to interpretation and are not readily understandable by the average Joe.

Should we hit it, the debt ceiling presents an interesting test case.  If the experts are right, the impact will be felt in the very short term.  It will be widespread, affecting almost everyone, everywhere.  And the impact will be felt for awhile.  It will be virtually impossible to deny that such an impact was directly attributable to ignoring the debt ceiling.  The Conservatives who claimed it would be no big deal will be demonstrably and painfully proved wrong beyond any reasonable doubt.

Should that come to pass, the question is, will that shake the faith of Conservative politicians and supporters in their other sacred tenets?  Might they be willing to entertain the reality of global warming given the catastrophic impact of their blind faith in the debt ceiling non-crisis?  Or will this be swept under the rug much like the predicted May 21st end of the world predictions.  That was also proved wrong, but the faithful seem to somehow have accepted that failure with no apparent impact on their other beliefs.  Maybe a sufficiently strong faith is even able to overcome incontrovertible reality.

Either way, if the economy tanks, it should certainly cause the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” crowd to pay attention.  Maybe that bodes well for our collective political future if we can at least get the majority of the voters to begin operating from data-based rather than faith-based policies.  Although, it would be a hellish way to learn a lesson.

 

Would Jesus be a Conservative?

April 5th, 2011

WWJDI’ve been having a protracted email discussion with someone who’s a very fervent Christian and also a staunch conservative.  Anyone paying any attention to American politics will be quick to observe this is not exactly a rare breed—a point which I have trouble reconciling in my feeble brain.  It seems to me that Christian Conservative should be an oxymoron, at least within the context of what the conservative agenda has revealed itself to be in this country.

To that end, I posed the following question to my pen-pal this morning, and I’m posing it here as well in the hopes of generating some conversation and insight.

Presumably a Christian’s worldly politics are aligned with what they feel Jesus would advocate for if he were here today.  In essence, WWJD?  Yet most of the fundamentalist Christians seem strongly aligned politically with the conservatives.  I would go so far as to say there is a pretty strong correlation between those who profess to model their lives on Jesus and those who vote conservative.

It strikes me that in his day, Jesus was a flaming liberal.  He advocated for the poor, the downtrodden, and the sick.  He accepted everyone. He turned the other cheek. He taught to give away your worldly possessions, help your neighbors, and love everybody. He was persecuted precisely because he stood as an organizer of the people and was seen as a threat to the power structure of the day.

While I can understand Jesus might be strongly pro-life on abortion, most of the remaining conservative agenda seems to me to be against what Jesus would do.

  • Reduce or eliminate social security (meaning many elderly will live in poverty)
  • Reduce or eliminate Medicare/Medicaid (meaning most poor and elderly will not receive adequate medical care)
  • Place the tax burden disproportionately on the backs of the non-rich
  • Eliminate unions (removing the voice of the people)
  • Eliminate environmental regulations (leading to pollution, extinctions, ecosystem damage)
  • Reduce spending on education
  • Reduce spending on assistance for the poor
  • Increase militarism, don’t negotiate with our enemies

Note that all the bullets above are references to policy positions, proposals, or legislation backed by conservative politicians within the last year.  This is not about what they are saying, but about what they are actually doing.  (It seems Jesus would be big on the whole doing part as opposed to just giving lip service to high ideals.)  I can’t fathom Jesus entreating his followers to get behind any of this.

In that light, if good Christians are truly trying to create a world Jesus would be proud of, why are they primarily standing behind people and policies it seems Jesus would have reviled?  I don’t get it.

Gingrich fears an atheist country dominated by radical Islamists

March 29th, 2011

On Sunday, former House Speaker and presumptive 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was addressing Cornerstone Church, a megachurch in San Antonio, Texas, led by the Rev. John Hagee, an influential leader among American evangelicals.  It was there he expressed his worry that the United States could become “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.”  There were no reports of his head exploding from the apparent contradiction.  In fact, the line was met with cheers and applause from the group.

Newt Gingrich

Newt spreads fear to a receptive audience

One has to wonder if Newt somehow managed to actually envision a secular theocracy bent on opening up a big can of Jihad on God himself. I strongly suspect he stayed up all night on Saturday trying to figure out how to include gay pacifist baby killers into the speech as well.

This is a blatant and egregious example of the fear selling I wrote about yesterday. Guys like this have given up on even the pretense of rationality.  This is simply stringing together buzzwords that don’t even form coherent sentences.

Look out!  Terrorist, homosexual, Nazi, socialist, intellectual elite, sprout eating, flag burning, tree hugging, liberals are coming to steal your money and murder your children! Oh, and I have a bridge to sell you too. Friggin’ idjits.

Pole Dancing for Jesus

March 23rd, 2011

Pole Dancing For Jesus

Tiffany Booth says the pole is her temple.

Church-going women are spinning and slithering around poles in the quaint turn-of-the-century Houston suburb called Old Town Spring. While pole dancing fitness classes are gaining in popularity nationwide, the women in this group claim the stripper poles bring them closer to God.

Not surprisingly, the Christian gift shop owners next door and the community in general are a bit less open minded. Dee Bovati, who owns the Lord and Nature gift shop says, “We have to watch those boundaries that we cross over and not allow the enemy to take it in another direction.” After all, Satan is long and lean, and apparently made of brass.

Meanwhile, pole dancing instructor Crystal Dean says, “God gives us these bodies and they are suppose to be our temples and we are suppose to take care of them and that’s what we are doing.”

By all accounts, pole dancing is great exercise, and there’s nothing sacrilegious about keeping your body toned and healthy.  But it does take a fair bit of rationalization for dancers like Tiffany Booth to claim that pole dancing, even when set to Christian music, creates a spiritual connection to the Lord and makes her feel closer to God.  Although, maybe it’s God who is long and lean, and made of brass.

Clearly some force is flowing through those poles. After all, the Best Shape of your Life studio only holds Pole Fitness for Jesus classes on the second Sunday of each month. And if attending a fitness class once a month keeps you in shape, that’s clearly an indication of divine intervention.  So God’s hand is in this somewhere.

The other War on Christmas

December 14th, 2010

War on Christmas

The War on Christmas isn't what you think

Right-wing media outlets are fond of reminding us this time of year that liberals are out to destroy Christmas.  It seems that if the political left had their way Christmas would be reimagined as a crass secular event focused on excessive shopping, and outlandish light displays paying homage to flying reindeer, elvin toymakers, a jolly fat man with Ninja-like stealth skills, and other symbols of pagan magic that would make Hogwarts seem positively Muggle-ish.  And we would never stand for that.  Christmas should be preserved as the solemn low-key religious celebration of the birth of the Christian savior.  Although, this argument seems oddly similar to the one that gays can’t marry because it would destroy the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour long marriage.  The ideal of the institution already doesn’t match the reality.

This Christmas season, Congress is trying mightily to wrap up its business so all the little boy and girl legislators can get home for Christmas Eve in time to be judged naughty or nice by Santa.  But as Fox News shouts from the rooftops, Christmas is also a celebration of Christianity and a time to remind the faithful what it means to be Christian.  Given the Christian right has long been a supporter of Republican policies, and assuming that the GOP Senators and Congressmen don’t want coal in their stockings, it should follow that Republicans are advocating for the same laws and programs Jesus himself would vote for.  It is Christmas after all.

Yet that doesn’t quite seem the case.  Jesus was an advocate for the poor, the weary, and the downtrodden.  He brought hope to the hopeless, and love to the unloved.  He fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and cared for the sick.  He brought a message of peace, understanding, and compassion.

It’s not remotely clear how to reconcile those values with the GOP opposition to unemployment insurance extensions to keep families in their homes and well fed over the winter, the down vote on the 9/11 responders care to provide relief to people and their families who sacrificed for us in our time of need, or the DREAM Act to allow marginalized people to come out of the shadows and live amongst us.  These seem like the sort of policies to which Jesus would have given a big thumbs up.  On the flip side, Jesus doesn’t say much about protecting the wealth of the rich.  He’s not known for speaking at length to the Roman aristocracy as an advocate for how important it was for the Empire to keep its taxes on the wealthy low so that coins would trickle down to the plebeians and out into the Hebrew homeland.

Some Christians have argued that Jesus wanted individuals and the church to carry out these good deeds and not the government.  Yet in a democracy where the government is of, by, and for the people, isn’t the government simply an extension of the individual?  It could be argued that if the government does it, then the minority is forced to go along and so that somehow doesn’t count toward your eternal salvation.  Yet aren’t some Christians also asking that Government enforce other Christian values on the minority like bans on gay marriage and abortion?  Why is it okay for the government to coerce some Christian behaviors and not others?

The Christmas season is often a time for reflection.  Perhaps you might reflect on Gandhi’s observation:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Are you like your Christ?  Are your politicians?  There may well be a war of sorts on Christmas, or at least the spirit of it.  But you may want to take a closer look at who is on the offensive.