The Modern Mystique

Great “Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate” that Josh showed me the other day.  I like how most of these arguments are based on religion, and therefore invalid because OH YEAH, separation of church and state!  Gotta love the Constitution :).

-Caroline

Please bear with the dramatic music and voice…

I like this video because it addresses the hypocrisy inherent in our foreign policy.  

I’m disappointed that our politicians prefer to utilize our wealth and global power to go to war instead of working to promote and influence peace.

And let’s face it, Obama is no different than George W. Bush in this respect.  

I disagree with Ron Paul about many issues, but this is one where I feel he’s right-on.  

If we truly wanted to spread the ideals of democracy, we would do well not to tarnish its name with illegal wars and nation policing.  

-Caroline

It’s no surprise that Michele Bachmann would come up in a post sooner or later.  After all, she’s a strong Republican hopeful for the 2012 candidacy and an Evangelical Christian, so naturally, she opposes everything we seek to improve upon; the big ones being GLBT Rights, gender equality, women’s rights, foreign policy, and minority rights.  Basically everything.  Last Thursday, one of these issues (not surprisingly) came up in the GOP debate.

Bachmann was asked if she would be submissive to her husband if she became president.  Let’s break down her response.

“What submission means to us, if that’s what your question is, it means respect. I respect my husband. He’s a wonderful, Godly man and a great father, and he respects me as his wife.  That’s how we operate our marriage. We respect each other, we love each other, and I’ve been so grateful that we’ve been able to build a home together.”

So that seems fairly reasonable, nothing inherently sexist about that.  Mutual respect is critical for gender equality in society as a whole and in individual relationships.  However, let’s take a look at what the Bible says.

 ”Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Wait a minute, that doesn’t sound a whole lot like gender equality.  As a matter of fact, that sounds a lot like a typical male-dominated relationship, except worse.  The scripture quite literally advises women to submit to their husbands as they would to God.  But what does it advise the men to do?  Surely there must be a great deal of responsibility that comes with being the master of another human being.

” Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church.”

That’s it?  Where’s the equality?  The husbands don’t have to treat them as Goddesses or something, just love them?  My dog treats me like a God, and I love the little fella, but that’s simply not an acceptable relationship for two human beings.  And then there’s the especially problematic insinuation that women are incapable of making decisions and need their husband to do everything for them.  Biblically ideal husbands are essentially father figures to their wives.  Jesus Christ was seen as a father of the church, and husbands are told that they are “the head of the wife as Christ was the head of the church…”

Where is this notion of gender equality that Bachmann so vaguely implied?  It doesn’t appear to be found in the Bible at all.  And no, her interpretation is not akin to scripture, despite what many claim.  If she responded “Yes, I am submissive to him”, only then would it be.  Yes, respect should be involved in the Biblical definition of a marriage, but she did not accurately depict what it should be.  She gave a distorted version of either her marriage or the Bilbical definition of submission.  So we’re left with two conclusions.  Either Michele Bachmann is not following the Bible and is picking and choosing which scriptures to accept and reject (not a true Christian), or she’s lying for the sake of her political career (also not a true Christian).

Little needs to be said about the former. If you pick and choose what to follow in the Bible, you’re not really following it: you’re using it as a backbone for your actions.  The latter, however, is more intriguing  Bachmann infamously remarked in 2006 that she pursued a post-doctoral degree in tax law because her husband had told her to do it.

So it looks like it’s just another political flip-flop.  Will this be that big of a deal?  No, and here’s why.

1.     Most people thought this question was uncalled for and rude.  Religion is a touchy subject, even for people that run for government positions.  Politicians should ideally be grilled on every last part of their personal philosophies, regardless of how sacred and untouchable (foolishly) some feel certain things like religion might be.

2.      She’s already wearing the ‘Christian’ name tag, and the Republican Party is not really into dividing Christians into sects right now.  Various forms of irreligion are on the rise, and Christians are aware that their beliefs are being challenged.  Therefore, it’s becoming more and more commonplace for Christians to come together as Christians, not as Catholics, Protestants, and Lutherans (for example).

3.     Politicians do this all the time.  It’s just part of the political game.

But this event represents a much bigger problem with Bachmann worth looking at.

Bachmann obviously has a poor understanding of her own policies and religion.  She hints at having an equal marital relationship (unsupported by the Bible), yet supports policies that would throw that balance off.  Just look at her “family values” efforts.

Bachmann is also able to distort Biblical scripture in her favor, yet still be known as an Evangelical Christian, with this incident being a prime example.  That’s one of the biggest problems with religion in government: since it’s largely open to interpretation, it can be twisted to justify mostly anything.

                  The most important issue however is that Bachmann has in the past stated that she does play a submissive role in her marriage.  There are two possible stories behind her relationship with her husband, (one of submission, and one of equality) and one of them is extremely dangerous.  If elected president, it is entirely possible that her husband, a man with no political experience whatsoever, would have an alarming amount of governmental control.  Certainly she’s onto the fact that a submissive woman would not be a fit president, and she’s out to dispel the rumors she created regarding her submission in marriage.  Maybe her husband told her to.

-Josh

As Rick Perry prepares to announce his candidacy in the 2012 presidential election, I find myself increasingly troubled by his idea of the proper relationship between government and religion.  At his Houston prayer rally The Response on August 6, Perry called on fellow Christians to pray for God to guide America out of its troubles.  While the rally itself is troubling from a separation of church and state standpoint, its message is even more alarming.  Perry has made it very clear that he intends to use his Christian beliefs as a roadmap for his presidency.  

This attitude is not uncommon within the Republican Party.  Perry has been more blatant than most in sharing his hopes to bring God into the White House.  But anyone who knows the Constitution will immediately see a problem with his strategy.  It’s called the First Amendment.  Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause necessitate that he keep his religion private and his executive decisions secular.  No matter how ardently he believes that the values and laws set out in the Bible are the only ones worth following, they cannot be the basis for US law.  Inevitably, those biblical values and laws would trample on the values and religious laws of minority religions (or atheists, who are so often stigmatized and neglected for lacking religious beliefs).  Frankly, believing that your religious beliefs are more valid than another religion’s is ignorant and unjust.  We can argue till we’re blue in the face about who is right, but we can’t know the truth until we’re dead.  The Constitution solves this dilemma neatly by demanding that laws be free of religion and applicable in a secular manner that is fair to all citizens, regardless of religion or lack of religion.  The problem comes when politicians decide they are above the rule of the Constitution and flout it openly.

Despite what some Christian politicians would have you believe, our nation was not founded on Christian principles.  One of the first facts you learn about America’s founding as a child is that it was founded as a haven for religious freedom.  While Americans have not always been perfectly welcoming to non-Christian religions, freedom of religion is still the official rule on the books.  Furthermore, the founders knew that the new Constitution they were proposing was a risk.  It was an experiment in politics, and many didn’t think it would last.  But here we are 200 years later, one of the greatest and most prosperous nations in the global economy.  Democracy is a risk in that it demands active debate between diverse ideologies, as well as compromise.  Adhering to one ideology, namely Christianity, would leave the country vulnerable to tyranny and corruption.  To put it more simply, the founders were adamant on having separation of powers in the government.  And Republicans want to defer all their power to a divine being and his outdated Bible, neither of which can be proved as an ultimate authority?  That goes against the fabric of the government itself.

I think a lot of Christians have a sense of nostalgia for when the US was largely free of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on, because they felt a sense of community.  Perhaps this is why so many Republicans sympathize with and support Israel.  Maybe they even wish that they could create their own Christian nation, very wishful thinking indeed.  But since that isn’t a viable solution, they’ve chosen instead to attack religious freedom in America.  They would prefer a nation that is exclusive rather than the Constitution’s vision of an inclusive land.

Let’s think about the role of government.  Ideally, you want your government to protect your property and ensure your liberties.  A government based on Christian religion, however, would also tell you how to live, what morals to hold, and how to treat others.  Perhaps I speak for myself, but I think my brain is fully capable of managing that on its own.  I don’t need that kind of guidance.  I also worry that if Christianity determined all of our laws, we’d be going backwards in terms of social progress.  I like voting, I’m going to enjoy owning my own property one day, and I’m a sex positive individual.  I’m also a woman, and the church would likely tell me to give up all those rights.  No thanks.  But it’s not all about me.  Morals differ from religion to religion, and it’s unethical to impose Christian morals on people of other religions.  And again, let’s not forget about atheists.  They do not follow religious beliefs, but they manage to live lawful lives and respect others.  They don’t need a holy book to tell them not to kill; the government punishes murder as a violation of property.  Clearly the government is doing its job of protecting property and ensuring liberty already without any help from religion.  If current US laws don’t satisfy Christian’s (or any other religious group) sense of morality, or they can’t behave themselves without a strict moral code, there are other countries to live in.

Interestingly, there’s been a recent outcry amongst certain Republicans that Sharia law (Muslim law) is seeping into our government!  And Republican warhawks are always insisting that we must “nation build” overseas in the Middle East to bring democracy to nations that govern under Sharia law or diluted versions of it.  But aren’t they looking to do just that with their own religious law code?  I suppose it’s easy for them to selfishly want it in their own country on their own terms while simultaneously branding religious law as barbaric or totalitarian in Muslim majority nations.  This is hypocrisy of the highest order.  Religious politicians need to take a step back for honest reflection and realize that religion is a matter of faith, not fact, and it is different for everyone.  There cannot be uniformity of religion by human nature.

Let’s get back to Rick Perry, whose recent talk about his candidacy was the metaphorical last straw for me when it came to religion in government.  He is just as guilty of hypocrisy as some of his fellow Republicans.  He argues that social issues like gay marriage and abortion should be left to the states, following the Tenth Amendment.  Yet he also claims to endorse an amendment to the federal Constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Does he ever think before he speaks?  Probably not, based on his 2009 comments about the possibility of Texas seceding.  He did not outright suggest that Texas secede, saying, ”We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it.”   But he did acknowledge that “Texas is a very unique place” and it might come to that “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.”  Not a call for revolution, by any means, but he was definitely toeing the line.  Inconsistency is not something we need in a president, and in many cases his religion seems to conflict with his limited government principles.  That is a shame.

In a weak field of Republican hopefuls, Rick Perry is frighteningly close to a shot at the presidency.  He has great support amongst Christian voters, as seen at The Response.  My hope is that those Christians muster some empathy for their fellow citizens of different religions, and consider how they would feel in their shoes.  Would they want to see America transformed from a land of religious freedom to a country governed by Sharia or Halakha?  Of course not, and therein lies the beauty of our Constitution.  We don’t have to make that choice.  We cannot.  There’s something to say “amen” to, ironically or not.

-Caroline

(Source: heartthrobbstark, via liberal-lad)