Am I the only one out there who is fed up with all the religious hooha concerning our country’s founders, leaders and would-be presidents? Was Kennedy too Catholic, Lieberman too Jewish, Bush too Born Again?
The founding fathers, no strangers to religious persecution, realized state-established religion could doom the Republic. Just think, if we had a Catholic president today, he (or she) might have to support the recent papal pronouncements, which many find supremely silly. Priests are being told not to shake hands with, much less embrace, parishioners after Sunday Mass. Parishioners, on the other hand, are still told during the Mass to shake hands with and embrace fellow worshipers. Go figure. And Catholic hospitals may no longer honor a patient’s written directive not to prolong life in a chronic vegetative state. (One could argue some of us are walking around that way.) Removing a feeding tube is considered euthanasia by an elderly cleric who may soon be on one.
Could a Jewish president be any more supportive of Israel’s actions than say an evangelical Christian? It’s been noted this may be a disingenuous courting of Florida’s Jewish vote by a gentile. Is it fair for the religious right to say presidential candidate John Kerry isn’t religious enough? And aren’t these critics the same folks who want taxpayers to support faith-based initiatives, vouchers for parochial schools, “Under God” left in the pledge and the Ten Commandments in the courthouse?
For those curious enough to read our country’s history, it’s obvious some of the strongest and most effective presidents owed no allegiance to any particular denomination, attended church rarely and even considered themselves agnostics.
And some of the most pious occupants of the White House, while undeniably well intentioned, were generally considered ineffective leaders.
So we blather on, wasting barrels of ink and hours of TV talk show chatter debating the religious quotient of the candidates. But there are those who think ethics more compelling than piety. If someone reads only the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran, for that matter, will he make better decisions than the scholar of history, economics or science? FDR didn’t seek the advice of a higher power before deciding World War II was unavoidable. And he didn’t have to bother with the fact that the majority of Germans were Christian.
Historians will also tell you that the bloodiest wars were fought in the name of God. Think crusades. What’s the difference between Christians burning heretics at the stake and Muslims blowing up the infidels?
I believe if we’re to be led into war to free oppressed peoples because God tells us to, we ought to take another look at the Bible. There probably never was a book open to such diverse interpretation. Love thy neighbor as thyself-but not his wife, whom thou shalt not covet. Even Jimmy Carter, whose Christian faith was unquestioned, admitted to lusting in his heart.
The Bible says we should “Go forth and multiply.” Early church leaders seized upon this as a way to increase their power. Romans outnumbered Christians, particularly since they were being thrown to the lions every week for public amusement. And the earth was sparsely populated. Now that the planet is bursting at the seams, its resources severely strained, would it be so wrong to do a little less multiplying? In a world with both the pill and Viagra, we better be willing to tweak such biblical directives.
The Bible (the NRA keeps reminding us) says God created the animals and gave them to Man for his use. I wouldn’t argue that animals are here for our pleasure, but I believe that means we’re supposed to take care of them. God didn’t say we could shoot them and hang their stuffed heads on the wall. And I don’t think He would be pleased to see us destroy their environment, pollute the lakes and streams that sustain them and drive hundreds of species to extinction. Nobody knows what He thinks about cloning sheep.
The Bible is full of saints and angels, but evangelical ministers seem loathe to acknowledge any of them. They talk only about Jesus and the Bible. But, but, but … In a wonderful example of ecumenicism, there is only one church in Big Sky, Montana, whose tiny population could hardly support more. Architecturally solid with round log beams, it has a huge window behind the altar that looks out on a small grove of aspens with Lone Mountain in the background. On one side of the altar is an organ and on the other side a piano. No choir loft, no choir. Everybody sings. The stained glass windows have flowers but no Stations of the Cross, and the sturdy oak pews have no kneelers. I thought perhaps this was a nod to skiers with dodgy knees, but later learned that community church members don’t kneel to pray and they were in on the building design. On Sunday mornings Catholic Mass is celebrated at 8 a.m., Episcopalians arrive at 9:30 and community service is at 11. Klaus plays the organ for Catholics and Episcopalians, and a young woman plays piano for the rest. Now that’s tolerance. A life-size bald eagle with wings outstretched hangs from a wire over the pulpit. A church for those who find God in Nature.
I wonder what the Bible would say about that.