By Isaac Peterson
isaac 3rd@mediaone.net
Well, it's 2002 now, and that means it's midterm election year. Usually midterm elections are kind of on the dull side, but I think we might be in for some real entertainment this time. Bush got the recession he wished for while he was campaigning. We are in the middle of an undeclared "war" (with a concept instead of another country or government) on terrorism and "evildoers". And Enron didn't have the decency to wait until after the election to go down the tubes and bilk thousands out of their pensions and life savings.. Could be an interesting election this year.
One of the first shots was fired off by Jerry Falwell, who always looked
and sounded to me like a sitcom version of a preacher. In the 80's, I used
to watch his "Old Time Gospel" freak show for laughs when Channel 9 would
pre-empt the 3 Stooges on Sunday mornings. But he says he's for real, so
I'll just have to take his word. I have to wonder when he writes articles
like this, though: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25943
Looks like Jerry doesn't like people who look at him, his organizations,
and tactics and think "Taliban", especially the "Democrat" party.
What could the Democrats be talking about? When you take away Falwell's people's restrictive, angry, and bigoted views on women and homosexuals, the witchhunt mentality, the excessive moralizing, the fundamentalism and thinking it needs to be the law for everybody, they don't have anything in common with the Taliban. Not a thing. Jerry doesn't seem to believe that all men should wear beards and all women burkas. And as far as I know, the Taliban never had a "ministry" and TV show devoted to parting the elderly and the gullible from their life savings.
But back to what Jerry said about what he said the Democrats are saying:
"Those who adhere to biblical Christianity are remarkably similar to those
who adhere to the Taliban..." and "In America, conservative people of faith
continue to be the only group that can be rigorously denounced and persecuted
without the American Civil Liberties Union stepping in to defend them.
It has become fashionable to detest and denounce Christians because we
adhere to true and defining standards –
something the situational ethicists in the Democrat Party cannot comprehend".
I can't speak for the Dems, but I don't think they are talking about conservative
Christians who take comfort and strength from their religious convictions
and are content to live their lives quietly, secure in their own faith.
I think they're talking about people like Jerry and Pat Robertson who want
to run everyone else's lives and make everyone believe the same way. Sort
of like...the Taliban.
And trying to gain influence through the government is where many people, including the ACLU, part company with the religious right's aims. First off, there is the whole separation of church and state thing. Falwell and others say it isn't in the Constitution, and they're right; those words in that order aren't there. But the concept is. A section of the First Amendment that goes "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." puts it there. And Thomas Jefferson said "that the American people through the First Amendment had erected a "wall of separation between church and state." When it comes to what's in the Constitution, I'll go with Tom Jefferson over Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell 100% of the time. It's why the ACLU won't defend people trying to push religious views through the government.
Falwell has always complained about catching a hard time for his views. But my news to him is: if you want to get in the political game, you have to be ready to live under a microscope and answer questions about who you are and what you believe and want to do, just like everybody else. Your version of God may work in mysterious ways, but when you are in public and in politics, that "blind faith and/or obedience" thing you want us to do with you isn't going to happen.
I assume that when I hear Jerry say that we're a Christian nation and should live under Christian laws, he means his interpretation of what the law should be. And it makes me want to ask him lots of questions.
1. Since there are more than 200 denominations and sects in the U.S., whose version of the Bible would we use to base laws on? Jerry's a Baptist; where would that leave Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, etc.? Who would decide what was going to be the law for everyone? How would it be imposed on all the people who don't subscribe to that belief (and have the right not to) without forcing it on people? Like...the Taliban does.
2. Would these laws be based on the "eye for an eye" Old Testament, or the "turn the other cheek" New Testament?
3. Which version of the Bible would they come from? There are dozens of versions (translations-all with their own differences. There is no "The Bible") of the Bible; King James, American Standard, New American Standard, Living Bible, Webster's Bible, etc., etc. If I wanted to do my own translation, nobody could stop me.
4. Would we bring back some of the punishments prescribed in the Bible? Stoning people? Burning people? Could parents kill their children for being disrespectful?
5. The Bible has been used to justify some of the worst garbage people have pulled on each other. People on both sides of the slavery issue could quote the Bible to back up their position. White supremacists can find Bible passages that they interpret to say they have the right to kill people like me on sight. Oppression of women can be justified with Bible passages. Would the law be written so that this kind of stuff could be interpreted form it?
6. When Gutenberg came up with the printing press, the first book printed was a version of the Bible. The Church at that time went nuts. Bibles before had to be copied by hand, and only the very wealthy or the Church could afford them. If Bibles could be mass produced, it meant common people could get their own and not have to rely on what the religious leaders said was in the Bible. Isn't this something like what we hear from Falwell and Robertson on their TV shows when they harp on how much they need your donation so they can get the word--their word, or their interpretation--out to people who could just read the Bible themselves? Are religious leaders who want to tell people what to do through the law of the land any better than those old leaders who preferred an illiterate following that followed their every command?
I have more questions, but you get the idea. (I do wonder one more thing: if Jerry Falwell had his say, would we have had Congressional probes into whether or not the TeleTubby Tinky Winky is gay? And if he/she/it/whatever turned out to be gay, what would be the Bible-based punishment for a fictional character)?
But one last thing. Falwell and Robertson already have someone in government who is running their agenda for them: John Ashcroft. Ashcroft is right out there using America's state of constitutional distraction to push some of the issues fundamentalists get the most worked up about. Among these are trying to take away a woman's right to choose, bar human embryo stem-cell research, challenging Oregon's assisted-suicide law and California's medical-marijuana initiative and other laws they don't like. States can pass whatever laws they want, or put them on the ballot for the people to vote on, but if Ashcroft says his God (and Jerry Falwell's, I think) doesn't like the law, he believes he has God's authority to step in and do something. Like the Taliban does. And I never hear Jerry Falwell speak out against any of it.
So, about that Taliban thing, Jerry-if the turban fits...
isaac peterson
I report. I decide.
Special thanks to Fr. Mushroom