Christians shouldn't be involved in a democracy, or if they are, they should be liberal

This is the "deadly serious" post I alluded to that has been rattling around my head for a few days, interrupted by the London bombing and my angry thoughts on that. This has been bugging me for a while, so I decided to drag out my Bibles (yes, I have more than one) and do some research. Research for a post? Boy, I must be serious.

Anyway, whenever I see evangelical fundamentalist Christians get involved in politics, it bothers me. Not just because they're usually on the other side of the issue than I am (this is America last time I checked, so they can have their opinion), but because of the two reasons I mentioned in the title of the post. "True" Christians, in my opinion, cannot be involved in politics. And if they feel they can be, there is no way they should be conservative. In my humble understanding of Christianity, being conservative is basically a betrayal of everything Jesus stood for.

Ah, a bold statement like that cries out for an explanation, don't it? Well, I know you come here for trenchant religious analysis, so let's begin! First, why I believe evangelicals are conservative. Most evangelicals are, let's face it, white. White meaning Northern European stock. This is a whole cultural thing, and I'll probably engage in some stereotypes, but bear with me. The so-called "Protestant work ethic" has nothing to do with Protestantism per se. The work ethic of the Dutch, Germans, British, and Scandinavians was simply grafted onto whatever branch of Christianity they happened to practice. Did the Dutch become hard workers simply because they adopted Protestantism? Of course not. There is a great cultural divide between Northern and Southern Europe, roughly corresponding with the borders of the Roman Empire. The northern Europeans have a different outlook on life than the southerners. I don't know if it's the climate - they had to work harder to grow crops, while down south oranges and grapes were falling off trees into maidens' laps - or what, but there is the stereotype of northerners being hard workers while the southerners - not so much. The French have a particular problem with this, it seems - they border both the Mediterranean and the North Sea, and some of their history is closely entwined with the Romans while other parts are linked to the North. I haven't been in Europe for many years, but it was very interesting how the southerners had a much more laid-back attitude. They worked hard, but they took siestas in the middle of the afternoon, for crying out loud! So this attitude of "hard work" has little to do with Protestantism. The colonists - British, German, Dutch - brought it to the U.S., where hard work was definitely needed - all those hostile Injuns, for example. Why were they so mad? The United States has always had this tradition of working hard - witness our total lack of vacation time or, God forbid, maternity leave at jobs. You don't want to spend time with your newborn - you want to get right back to work! I would argue our tradition of "working hard" has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with culture.

So what does this have to do with conservative evangelicalism? Well, the evangelical movement is essentially Protestant (in that it's not Catholic) and led by these British, German, and Dutch people who also helped build this country. People who are successful in business start out radical in order to make their fortune and then become ridiculously conservative in order to keep it. These evangelicals have the attitude that they need to work hard and that no one is going to help them out. It has nothing to do with their religious belief. They think it does, but it doesn't. Once they become successful, natural conservatism takes over. They never got a handout, so no one else deserves one. The government didn't interfere with their business, so it shouldn't interfere with anyone else's. They now have children, so the crazy things they might have done in their youth (before they were "born again," which really means they grew up) must be curtailed for their children, because children must be protected at all costs. They have investments overseas, so military force must be used to protect those investments, because capitalism made them rich, so it obviously can make anyone rich if only those people applied themselves. You'll note, again (I don't mean to belabor the point) that none of this has anything to do with religion. What these evangelicals do if graft their religion onto these personal beliefs, because they can't imagine their religion contradicting the way they want to think, and the way it is somewhat natural to think. What about young evangelicals, Greg? Well, these people have been raised by older conservatives, and despite Americans' claims to individuality, we are a product of our culture and family as much as anyone. So these rich conservatives breed young conservatives.

So far, so good. There's nothing inherently wrong with conservativism and wanting to preserve what you have built up. Everyone wants it. I want to pass on good things to my daughters, and I will get angry if anyone tries to take my stuff from me. But now we get to the religious part, and here's where we have to consult the Good Book.

Religious conservatives, it seems to me (I'm stereotyping again, and I could be wrong) believe in certain things. Evolution should not be taught in schools because it's just a "theory," or if it must be, equal time must be given to creationism. Gays are pure evil. Abortion is pure evil. We must use military force to kill anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus as the Son of God. God has given us dominion over the earth, so let's enjoy it! Censorship is good. If the government is "Christian," criticism of it is evil. America is the Promised Land. Sound about right?

Okay, evolution. Whatever. Evangelicals can be with the Republicans on this one, because the reigning Republican administration has shown nothing but contempt for science since it got into power. I simply do not understand how you can claim "intelligent design" should be taught in school. My old friend Dave (with whom I had a fun e-mail exchange about raising kids in a Christian manner) used to send me loooooong e-mails about "proving" creation and debunking evolution. The funny thing about it was that, in his attempts to scientifically prove creation, he was making the point of the evolutionists. He always was a scientifically-inclined kind of guy, and for him, faith in creation wasn't enough - he had to prove it using science. At least he tried it instead of simply saying, "It's in the Bible." Intelligent design does not stand up to scientific scrutiny - it simply doesn't. ID proponents want to question evolution endlessly (which is fine - that's what science does) but they don't want people to question ID endlessly, because it would fall apart faster than the Phillies do every June. Teach creationism (which is what ID really is) in Sunday School. Teach it at home. Don't teach it in school, because it's not science. Why don't we teach kids that the sun revolves around the earth too? Look at the sky - it's obvious it's going around us! But I can deal with the evangelicals siding with the Republicans on that - it's a relatively minor deal. Science is science, after all, and if it's true, it's true, and the yammering of people who think we should still read goat entrails won't change that.

How about abortion? This is really the only thing I can see evangelicals siding with so-called "conservatives" on, because it's all about your definition of when life begins. If you believe it begins at conception, then it's murder. Fine and dandy. If you believe it's murder, you should try to outlaw it. I don't agree with it, but that's a belief. It's not like debunking evolution, which has been tested and tested for well over a hundred years and always comes out looking good. I don't even have a problem with anti-abortion people trying to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would suck, but that's the way our system of government works. You don't like Roe v. Wade, elect people who will change it. I don't even have a problem with those same anti-abortion people telling me and my wife we're going to hell because Krys has had an abortion. They don't make that decision, after all. I do have a problem with anti-abortion people killing doctors who perform the surgery, since it's, you know, legal and all, but they're crazy and shouldn't enter into the equation. Abortion is a very personal issue, and while I don't agree that the government should tell us that what we do to ourselves should be illegal, I understand the objections to abortion.

Where this kind of evangelical politicization begins to bother me is with gay people. The last time I checked, no gays were recruiting anyone I knew to join their demonic cause. All those gay marriages in San Francisco and Portland and Boston didn't make me divorce my wife. Marriage has been two things in its history: a contract between two families to increase their power and money, with the two people getting married having little to no say in whether they actually wanted it; and a match between two people who love each other. Fundamentalist Christians have yet to explain how gay marriages would weaken either one of those interpretations of marriage. Evangelicals point to the Bible as their basis for not liking gay people, especially good old Leviticus. Well, let's take a look at Leviticus, shall we? (I know it's been done, but it's worth looking at again.) In Lev. 20:13, God says to Moses, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Sounds pretty straight forward, right? Christians everywhere rejoice! Well, the rest of the verse is fun: "They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Do Christians really want to kill homosexuals? I guess they do. Also in Leviticus we get the Ten Commandments: "Do not lie" (19:11); "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (19:19 - that's my personal favorite); and "Do not ... put tattoo marks on yourselves" (19:28)¹. Any Christians out there with tattoos or wearing polyblend clothes? You're going to hell. Some people will say that Leviticus goes over certain laws that are for the Jews at a specific time and others that are universal. Well, to me, you can't have it both ways. Also, I thought Jesus was the final authority on morality for Christians. Jesus says absolutely nothing about homosexuals. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Paul does (in 1 Corinthians 6:9), but for evangelicals, the word of Jesus is supposed to be final². What fundamentalists can't get around is that the only reason they don't like gays is because the idea of anal sex disgusts them. They define gay people by the fact that they have anal sex. There is no proof that gay people are less moral, or worse parents, or worse marriage partners, or more likely to molest children (the opposite is actually true) than heterosexuals. But to most people (evangelical Christians aren't alone in this regard), gays are icky. You can't build a sound political platform on "Those people make us uncomfortable and they're icky," so they must justify themselves. They don't find that justification in the words of Jesus, so they find it in the Old Testament. When you Christians start wearing clothes made out of only one fabric and stop getting tattoos, then we can talk about your attitudes toward gay people.

The idea that we must use military force to impose Christianity on the rest of the world is repellent to me, and it should be to good Christians everywhere. This is why Christians shouldn't be involved in politics at all. How can you call yourself a good Christian and be involved in politics? Has George Bush, since he was "born again," loved his enemies as his brothers? No, and we wouldn't want him to. We want him kicking ass! Jesus said, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well" (Mt. 5:39-40). That's not too difficult to understand, is it? I don't think there's much controversy about that translation. It is impossible for Bush to be a good Christian. It is impossible for anyone who believes in the words of Jesus to be in favor of this war. Jesus says quite explicitly, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Mt. 5:9), and I don't think Bush falls into that category. That's not to say I don't want Bush to find the terrorists and punish them (of course, he doesn't care about that, as I ranted about yesterday, but the point is, we need a president who is going to ignore that little beatitude when it's necessary. For Bush to claim that he's a Christian while ignoring the basic tenets of Christianity is hypocritical and somewhat facile of him. We are a "Christian" nation, so he has to appeal to that base. The fact that most Christians don't follow Christian teachings doesn't matter. It's good enough to claim you're a Christian.

If you're going to be a Christian in politics, you have to be a liberal. There is no way you can be on the side of the current version of conservatives, who have wedded themselves to big business and big money. As I mentioned above, Protestantism has a "work ethic" mentality at its core, but the idea of accumulating riches simply for your own profit is not a Christian ethic. Yes, you should work hard, but you should give it all away. Back to the words of Jesus: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal" (Mt. 6:19). Has Pat Robertson stopped storing up treasures on earth? He looks pretty well off to me. Jesus said, "Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received you comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry" (Lk. 6:24-25). Has James Dobson decided not to judge people (Mt. 7:1)? Not likely. Jesus tells a rich young man: "Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" (Mt. 19:21; Mk. 10:21). He's a goddamned socialist, that Jesus! There is no way rich Christians can justify their wealth. No way. They should be voting the biggest tax-and-spend liberals into office that they can, because they need to give away everything they have earned!

This is the problem with Christianity. Christianity is almost impossible to practice. I am not a Christian, nor have I ever really been one (I was a member of a church, but only because it made my mom happy), but I do have a lot of respect for people who call themselves Christians and try to live a Christian lifestyle. However, Christianity was almost immediately co-opted by Paul of Tarsus and turned into a vehicle by which people could gain and hold power. Jesus was a desert ascetic, Paul was an urbane dilettante; the idea of Paul doing anything that Jesus recommended is almost laughable. It's no surprise that the version of Christianity that eventually triumphed is not the one practiced by the people who, you know, actually knew Jesus, but by a convert after the fact. Converts to a cause, as you know, are the most obnoxious and zealous in trying to prove they're better than the originals. The problem with Paul's version of Christianity is that it became the reigning religion of the Roman Empire, and from then on, true Christians could not engage in politics. I have no problem with people acting Machiavellian (or even Bismarckian) in politics, but don't pretend that you're Christian. In politics you have to lie, cheat, wage war, compromise, and generally be a jerk. Not always, but sometimes. Christians can't be politicians.

What about the censorship and the "America as Promised Land" thing? I'm not even getting into the latter, because it's just stupid. But if you're a Christian, you believe in very specific things, many of which are completely anathema to democracy and freedom. Jesus is tough on free thought: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt. 12:30), "For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother'" (Mt. 10:35, quoting Micah 7:6), "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away" (Mt. 18:8). He brooks no argument, and allows no compromise. As I mentioned above, Jesus was a desert prophet. Those dudes were harsh and uncompromising by nature. Christianity is difficult, and totally against what the Founding Fathers were trying to create here - a land where people would not be persecuted for their beliefs (or lack thereof) and where everyone could get a fair chance. Jesus was fair, but also fairly precise and unwavering: believe in what I say or else. So therefore freedom of speech is out. Guns? Are you kidding? Jesus would have hated them. Say goodbye to the Second Amendment. All our freedoms that we cherish and die for are completely against Christianity.

I know there are Christians out there reading this who might be a little grumpy by my analysis. There might be others who think I don't know what I'm talking about. That's fine. This is just my opinion. I welcome people to dispute me, because I'm sure I'm missing something. I'm not going into the history of Christianity and how it has changed, I'm just saying that if you look directly at the words of Jesus, which most fundamentalists say they do (it's kind of the meaning of "fundamentalist," after all), you find that the words of Jesus don't jive with what a lot of these people say. We need to get beyond having Christianity in our politics, because it turns people into hypocrites and cheapens the faith all around³.

¹ My source is The New International Version Study Bible (1985 version); your Bible might say something different.
² Jesus, however, does say plenty about divorce. Here's just a sample: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Mt. 19:9). Any Christians out there who divorced because they couldn't get along? Yeah, you"re going to hell. The ex-minister of our church divorced his wife because she was a lesbian (no, his name isn't Ross Geller). As far as I know, she never cheated on him. Is he going to hell?
³ I just found out how to do footnotes in HTML. Awesome. I love footnotes. Beware!