McCain gladly accepts endorsement of intolerant, radical mega-church pastor Hagee

This week, Republican front-runner John McCain gladly accepted an endorsement from Texan mega-church pastor John Hagee. In case you don't know much about Hagee, Glenn Greenwald at Salon offered some excerpts from a 2006 interview with Hagee on NPR. In that interview, the following exchange occured between Hagee and the host, Terry Gross:

TG: If you use the Bible as the basis for policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you use the bible as the basis for policy, should Muslims use the Koran as the basis for their policy, and then again, what possible basis is there for compromise at that point?

JH: There is really no room for compromise between radical Islam --

TG: I'm not talking about radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in general.

JH: Well Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.

On Hurricane Katrina:

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

Hagee is also ardently anti-Catholic. McCain's embrace of Hagee's endorsement ticked off Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

There are plenty of staunch evangelical leaders who are pro-Israel, but are not anti-Catholic. John Hagee is not one of them. Indeed, for the past few decades, he has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system. In Hagee’s latest book, Jerusalem Countdown, he calls Hitler a Catholic who murdered Jews while the Catholic Church did nothing. ‘The sell-out of Catholicism to Hitler began not with the people but with the Vatican itself,’ he writes.

Hagee also has a bizarre end-times theology according to which the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ. Oh, and the head of the EU will be the anti-Christ.

Donohue also mentions something that Greewald talks about, too: that's it's messed up that Obama felt pressure to reject Minister Louis Farrakhan's support (and did in fact strongly do so) but that McCain can gladly and happily accept the support of a hateful, intolerant religious figure like Hagee. The same goes for Guiliani, who glad accepted Pat Robertson's endorsement a while back.

When asked about some of Hagee's strange beliefs and intolerant statements, McCain simply said “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.'’

That's just messed up. Add it to the long list of reasons I hope we get the Republicans out of the White House and Barack Obama into it.

UPDATE:

Today, McCain said the following:

Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.

I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.

Chris Hedges and James Luther Adams

In my last post, I talked about journalist Chris Hedges' upcoming book which criticizes the "new atheists" movement which has spawned the publication of numerous books that slam religion and blame it for all that's bad about the world. I noted that his opening statement from a debate with Sam Harris last year really echoes a lot of Unitarian Universalist principles and that Hedges' view of religion is basically in tune with a UU perspective.

Well, it should come as no surprise. I just found out today that Hedges received a Master of Divinity degree at Harvard and studied under James Luther Adams, who, of course, was a Unitarian parish minister and the most influential theologian among UUs in the twentieth century.

I don't know Hedges' current religious affiliation or beliefs. His father was a Presbyterian minister.

Well, I just want to say thank goodness for bold voices like Hedges that are at the same time progressive and religious. We need more influential progressive voices like him.

Chris Hedges takes on the "new atheists"

I came across a video on my favorite website. Nation contributor and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges is taking on the "new atheists" movement in a book that comes out next month. The book is I Don't Believe in Atheists. Personally, I think the name is unfortunate (maybe he wants religious conservatives to not be afraid to read it, or, more likely, the publisher thought it was more provocative than something more responsible). The "new atheists," of course, include folks like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens that have been churning out a slew of books raising atheists' attacks on religion to a new level.



The book doesn't come out until next month, but I was able to find a transcript of Hedges' opening statement from a debate he had with Sam Harris last year. I'm assuming that his book will draw on the ideas he presented at that debate. And, let me tell you - if that's the case, then the book will be fantastic. Hedges presents a scathing critique of Harris and others' arguments and tactics. It is a powerful and fair defense of religion. I found myself agreeing with just about everything Hedges had to say - he seems to really get it. Basically, he argues that Harris and others like him are really after the wrong targets. They just don't get it. He goes beyond that, though - Hedges argues that these "new atheists" are not unlike religious fundamentalists in ways. Here are some excerpts:

God is a human concept. God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world’s chaos, randomness and cruelty. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force—and you can give it many names as other religions do—which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust. In Exodus God says, by way of identification, “I am that I am.” It is probably more accurately translated: “I will be what I will be.” God is better understood as verb rather than a noun. God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself. And God is inescapable. It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence. The name of God is laden, thanks to our religious institutions and the numerous tyrants, charlatans and demagogues these institutions produced, with so much baggage and imagery that it is hard for us to see the intent behind the concept. All societies and cultures have struggled to give words to describe these forces. It is why Freud avoided writing about the phenomenon of love.

Faith allows us to trust, rather, in human compassion, even in a cruel and morally neutral universe. This is not faith in magic, not faith in church doctrine or church hierarchy, but faith in simple human kindness. It is only by holding on to the sanctity of each individual, each human life, only by placing our faith in the tiny, insignificant acts of compassion and kindness, that we survive as a community and as a human being. And these small acts of kindness are deeply feared and subversive to institutional religious and political authorities.

And:

The problem is not religion but religious orthodoxy. Most moral thinkers—from Socrates to Christ to Francis of Assisi—eschewed the written word because they knew, I suspect, that once things were written down they became, in the wrong hands, codified and used not to promote morality but conformity, subservience and repression. Writing freezes speech. George Steiner calls this “the decay into writing.” Language is turned from a living and fluid form of moral inquiry to a tool of bondage.

The moment the writers of the Gospels set down the words of Jesus they began to kill the message. There is no room for prophets within religious institutions—indeed within any institutions—for as Paul Tillich knew, all human institutions, including the church, are inherently demonic . . .

Faith is not in conflict with reason. Faith does not conflict with scientific truth, unless faith claims to express a scientific truth. Faith can neither be affirmed nor denied by scientific, historical or philosophical truth. Sam confuses the irrational—which he sees as part of faith—with the non-rational. There is a reality that is not a product of rational deduction. It is not accounted for by strict rational discourse. There is a spiritual dimension to human existence and the universe, but this is not irrational—it is non-rational. Faith allows us to transcend what Flaubert said was our “mania for conclusions,” a mania he described as “one of humanity’s most useless and sterile drives.” Reason allows us to worship at the idol of our intrinsic moral superiority. It is a dangerous form of idolatry, a form of faith, certainly, but one the biblical writers knew led to evil and eventually self-immolation.

Finally:

The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart—the capacity we all have for evil. All human institutions with a lust for power give their utopian visions divine sanction, whether this comes through the worship of God, destiny, historical inevitability, the master race, a worker’s paradise, fraternite-egalite-liberte or the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Religion is often a convenient vehicle for this blood lust. Religious institutions often sanctify genocide, but this says more about us, about the nature of human institutions and the darkest human yearnings, than it does about religion. This is the greatest failing of Sam’s book. He externalizes evil. And when you externalize evil, all tools, including violence and torture, become legitimate to eradicate an evil that is outside of you. This worldview—one also adopted by the Christian right—is dangerous, for if we fail to acknowledge our own capacity for evil it will grow unchecked and unheeded. It is, in essence, the call to live the unexamined life.

I look forward to the book. I've long felt that religion is not the enemy. Religion is a medium for exploring and expressing our deepest hopes and wishes and our most noble desires. It is a tool for personal and social change. Yet, it can be used in so many bad ways, too. But we really miss the point if we get our targets mixed up. Religion is a product of human societies. And as such, is subject to all the other problems that human institutions face. Yet, because religion deals with the real meaty stuff of being human, when it's on it's really on and when it's off it's really off. Furthermore, I think that what Hedges' has to say is really in the spirit of religious liberalism. Unitarian Universalists and others understand that religion is essentially a tool that can be used for good or ill. We feel a responsibility to use it for good, and to let others decide how they will use it. But so many don't feel that way, religious and secular "fundamentalists" alike.

Election '08: media coverage stinks and Mormons are ticked

It's so frustrating to watch media coverage of the election. It really reveals how mainstream news media sees its role more as entertainment than stimulant of democracy, intelligent participation, and knowledge. Even good news sources are guilty of it to an extent, and sensationalism and scandal often reign.

The debates are pretty frustrating to watch, too. The questions seemed aimed at creating controversy and animosity instead of really educating voters and making differences between the candidates clear.

I'm frustrated by a flurry of stories trying to argue that Obama's campaign and his supporters verge on being a "cult of personality" and that he arrogantly fashions himself to be messianic figure. His "followers" have a fervor that borders on obsession and mindless devotion. I thought maybe it was just a fad that would pass through all the media outlets (more Fox News kind of stuff) until I saw this piece by David Brooks of the NY Times and then this one by Lisa Lerer at Politico. It's just frustrating. Clinton and McCain love this stuff, as it feeds the notion that Obama is all style and no substance. It's a simple idea that resonates with people (read: Clinton and Republicans) that are frustrated by his success.

Two articles I read are really strong responses to the flurry of "Obama-mania" articles. First, Cora Currier of The Nation writes:

There's a new favorite theme emerging in media coverage of Obama's campaign. Apparently, all of his supporters--and especially his young supporters--are in fact glassy-eyed, brainwashed cult worshipers.

And:

But the "cult" theme, and Dickerson's suggestion that young supporters succumb to and then "toss overhyped products," is insulting to young voters. It reaffirms stereotypes of young people as superficial and uninformed, a notion that the impressive rise in youth turnout in this year's primaries had started to undermine. Young voters deserve more credit-- whether supporting Obama or rejecting him--for being capable of making conscious, informed decisions.

And Robert Creamer's article at The Huffington Post:

It's one thing for supporters of Hillary Clinton to make the case that her experience in Washington politics would make her a better president than Barack Obama. But it's quite another to actually vilify Obama's ability to inspire as a "cult of the personality" or "nothing but words."

It is particularly disturbing when serious progressive writers who should know better repeat this attack on Obama's inspirational abilities. It demonstrates a failure to grasp the principal lesson of the last thirty years of American politics.

In fact, it is precisely the absence of inspiration in progressive politics that has kept Progressives on the political defensive for decades.

That's because to inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to something much more important than endless lists of policies and programs. To inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to our values and to our vision for the future.

Exactly. Can we all just move on? Yes, some people get a little too excited, but frankly it's pretty exciting to see people caring about this election, caring about the prospect of a very different kind of leader in the White House, with worthy goals and the ability to rally support.

The other thing I've been thinking about is Romney's failed bid to become President. I've wondered what went wrong, and what impact it will have on Mormons and the the Mormon church. I doubted the his Mormonism was a big issue until I read an article at NPR and one at the Wall Street Journal. There really was a lot of animosity. I think that as long as evangelicals make up an important part of the Republican base, a Mormon will have a hard time landing a big office.

A long talk with my mom the other night really helped me see things from Utah Mormons' point of view. My folks are living in southern Utah right now. She says Mormons are really bummed about the whole thing. They feel like the media was unfair and that McCain and Huckabee were unfair. They don't think highly of either candidate (my mom said she'd actually consider voting for Obama, which surprised me). I think Obama could do well in Utah, but ultimately think Utah will turn red in November, and McCain will do well enough to win. So many Mormons are just too conservative to go for Obama.

Religion, UU-style

It seems like a while since I just blogged about religion. I've been really interested in the presidential race and it's taken up a lot of my thinking and blogging time. Meanwhile, I continue to be heavily involved with a Unitarian Universalist congregation. I've been attending over a year now. A realization of that fact has prompted me to think about the last year and what Unitarian Universalism and my involvement in it means to me.

I attend Sunday services just about every week. I'd be among that really small group of people on a national survey that would seem pretty secular by looking at measures of religious belief but would seem pretty religious based on my church attendance and the value I place on my religious involvement. I guess that's what makes UUism so unique. Traditional survey measures of belief in the Bible, frequency of prayer, beliefs about God, and so on don't necessarily capture the way that I see myself as religious and spiritual. A long time ago I actually talked about why I consider myself both religious and spiritual. Now, there's no doubt that by most standards I would generally be considered neither (other than my weekly church attendance). But I still stand by those reasons I gave back then. Religion to me is about collective action and community-building. It's about bearing one another's burdens and nourishing each other physically and spiritually. Spirituality essentially is the connection we feel with others and with all of existence. That connection we feel can be a source of inspiration and motivation, or we can merely ignore it. Note that my definitions are free of any assumptions about the supernatural. I'm really agnostic when it comes to that. It's just not essential for my understanding of what makes us tick and why, and how we can be good people and work for a better world.

There's some exciting things going on in my own religious life. First, I volunteered to lead up an effort among my congregation's young adults to plan and run a Sunday service in April. We're meeting tomorrow to start planning it. Second, I will be going with our minister to Bethesda, MD for the Joseph Priestly District's annual conference. The JPD is one of the Unitarian Universalist Association's regional districts. I'm really excited about both of these opportunities and the growth I think they'll bring.

I'm also taking a Building Your Own Theology class with other young adults in my congregation. Now, just the name of the class would probably be offensive to many religious individuals who believe that we don't do any theology-building ourselves, but have to get in tune with the one and only true theology. The title strikes even myself as a bit odd, but in reality it's a great thing. It's giving me a chance to evaluate where I stand on a variety of theological issues, something which I either haven't wanted to do since ceasing my activity in the Mormon church, or haven't had the chance to.

So, that's a taste of religion, UU-style.

"The Age of American Unreason" and critiques of American culture

I keep stumbling across reviews of a new book by Susan Jacoby called "The Age of American Unreason" which came out this week. She's also the author of "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism," one of those books that secular intellectuals write for other secular intellectuals so they can all pat their backs and bash religion. I say that only somewhat jokingly, because I really do think that's true to an extent. With regard to "Freethinkers," Jacoby said herself that "my audiences were composed almost entirely of people who already agreed with me."

I haven't read either book, though, I'd like to. I'm getting my information from a NY Times review and a review at Salon.com. I have to admit - I'm a sucker for wholesale critiques of American society. I don't know why. Having said that, though, I admit that they can be perceived as kind of snooty and exaggerated (she'd say that's part of the problem). A great book about the role intellectual elites have played in secularizing American society is "The Secular Revolution" by sociologist Christian Smith. He offers a really great analysis of intellectuals and what they value and what motivates them. Critiques of society are really a classic practice of intellectuals, though these book reviews tend to treat Jacoby's book like it's some novel thing.

So, the book. Essentially, she decries what she sees as anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism pairing up to make for a dumbed-down, over-religious, media-saturated American culture. This is certainly not a new argument, though there's no doubt that technology, particularly for entertainment and media, continues to develop at an incredible rate, finding new ways to occupy our time and minds. She argues that there is "a new species of semi-conscious anti-rationalism, feeding on and fed by an ignorant popular culture of video images and unremitting noise that leaves no room for contemplation or logic." She says that the new pervasive attitude is so dangerous because not only do Americans not know much, they don't care, either.

The Salon review is a bit more critical (and longer) then the Times review. The Salon review suggests that her indictment of TV, internet, and pop culture is the weakest part of the book. This comment is pretty insightful:

Nevertheless, Jacoby has a hard time separating her legitimate worries about America's eroding attention span from simple disagreements of taste and generational preferences. She dismisses certain forms of popular art out of hand, automatically presuming that her readers will agree. But I, for one, see no reason why newspaper articles on "the newest trends in hip-hop" should be written off as no more than craven pandering to distractible young readers; the subject is interesting, and worthy, in its own right. I might not equate Bob Dylan with Milton, as some overzealous rock critics have apparently done, but I'm also aware that the pop fluff of one era (the operas of Puccini, for example) often becomes the classical repertoire of the next.

It's her treatment of religion that sounds like it might bug me the most. There's no doubt I'd agree with much of what she says. For example, she gets pretty nasty about intelligent design and the success that it's had despite its complete lack of scientific credibility and thinly-veiled religiosity. But, I get the feeling that Jacoby is one of those secular-minded intellectuals that thinks that anybody that prays or believes in Jesus Christ is a "fundamentalist." And while I do neither, I don't think that those that do are idiots or anti-rational.

Maybe I'm a bit critical about the book because I'm frustrated, too, and would probably end up agreeing with her on most points. Her media targets, TV and internet, can be wonderful tools of knowledge and culture, but too often they're used to mindlessly entertain and distract. iPods, cell phones, Blackberries, and such seem to isolate us and disconnect us in spite of their intent.

Rather than blast religion, let's try to understand what drives people to believe things that tend not to uplift, ennoble, heal, and enrich but to divide, ignore, and insulate.

A powerful but difficult work that offers a critique of American society is Herbert Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man," published in 1964. I read it several years ago for a class. A lot of it was over my head, frankly, so I should pick it up again. Basically, he argues that American society is so good at making us relatively comfortable, meeting our basic needs, etc. that we are willing to give in to a tremendous amount of conformity and unable to be critical of a society and envision a more healthy, creative, individualistic society. I probably didn't do it justice. Go check it out.

I'm getting involved with the Obama campaign!

Tonight I attended an organizational meeting on campus for Penn Staters for Obama '08. The chair of Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania talked to us. It was really interesting to hear a campaign insider talk about how the campaign is going and what they have planned for Pennsylvania. He told us that there's a good chance that Obama would visit Penn State if Pennsylvania still matters in the race (the PA primary is April 22, six weeks after the Mississippi primaries and seven weeks after OH and TX).

It was mostly Penn State undergrads with a few grad students, faculty, and members of the community mixed in. We introduced ourselves and talked about upcoming events and plans. I plan to help with a voter registration drive on campus and I may go to Ohio the weekend before their primary to help canvass. It was really exciting to be there. It felt good.

I got everybody laughing when I asked whether it's OK to have a man crush on Obama. After explaining that I was joking (sort of), I said that I really feel like Americans are more progressive than some people think they are, and that Obama can tap into that progressivism better than anybody else can. I hope he's our next President.

A cool side note: Jay Paterno, Joe Paterno's son, was there. So was Kenny Jackson, a former Penn State and NFL player.

Some Obama thoughts

Apparently, a lot of commentators have begun to criticize Obama's campaign by pointing out the sheer amount of fervor and devotion his supporters have, as well as some of the language and methods that Obama uses. Words like "cultish" and "messianic" have even been used by commentators.

I have mixed feelings about this. You hope that there's substance and commitment behind the enthusiasm, both from Obama and his supporters. But there's no doubt that it's exciting to watch and be part of. Turnout for the Democratic primaries has been tremendous. People are ready for change. If it gets people caring about politics and renewing confidence in the office of the President and what it can be, then I'm all for it. As for the "cultish" aspects of his campaign, I really second the sentiments of one commenter (CharlesFosterKane) on the article I link to above:

I don't like the cultish aspects either, and I was never enthusiastic about the call-and-response, Oprah endorsements, and vague uplift he opens his speeches with (he gets to the good stuff in the second half, as was the case Tuesday night).

But I am supporting him for several reasons, in no particular order...

One: he was absolutely right on the war. You can't overestimate this, in my opinion. Clinton was wrong, and to this day, refuses to admit it was a mistake.

Two: Clinton...I don't particularly like her nor do I think she would make a strong candidate in the general. Obama has a demonstrable ability to appeal to the center and even some conservatives, besides which he pulls a lot of new people into the process. I think Clinton has mostly done well in the Senate and would like to see her stay there, becoming in effect a female Ted Kennedy, an elder stateswoman of the party and a great legislator. I think that role suits her; I don't think she's suited to be leader of a divided country, pulling people together to achieve common goals.

Three: I like his rhetoric of bipartisanship, and more importantly his record of same. He really is someone who conservatives are comfortable with BUT who doesn't seek bipartisanship for its own sake, using it instead as a tool to achieve important goals.

Four: Symbolic value. Not just the race, though I think that + his unusual name + his relative youth + his oratical gift makes him seem like a fresh and interesting face to the wider world which desperately needs its faith in America reaffirmed. The shock value of a black man with a Muslim-sounding man would be a huge shot of vitality for American PR. I am uncomfortable with this reason deciding my vote (it's more important we vote for Chief Executive than for Head of State), but consider it a reason I feel not just compelled by, but enthusiastic about, an Obama campaign.

Five: Thoughtfulness. Hillary has moved to the center and worked with people from other parties, but she appears calculating rather than thoughtful. I've yet to see her stand on principle or take a controversial stand the way Obama did with the war, with mandates (I know he's taken flack for this, but it would have been a lot easier with the Dem base and "progressive" Left if he'd just embraced the concept), or with the general gist of his campaign.

I think Obama & his supporters could make a great case for him on substantive grounds. Look, he's already captured the inspirational side of the coin. Nobody's threatening him there. But by highlighting his record and grounding himself - maybe starting the speech with substance and building up to the grandiloquence, he could start to move in on Hillary's territory. I've seen him do that in small ways - in the debates, with campaign ads, but have yet to see him do it in a big way. I think he may have to if he's going to win the nomination, which despite everything is still Clinton's to lose.

So put me down in the "anti-cult but pro-Obama" territory. I suspect there are others like me. And I hated that stupid "Yes we can" video, by the way.

Yes, there are others like you, CharlesFosterKane. Also, I found this article by Eric Alterman about the ranking in the National Journal that had Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007. Apparently, their methodology is pretty flawed and has drawn criticism in the past. Alterman agrees that he could take some flack because of the ranking, as Republicans will try to portray him as an "extreme liberal" or something. But Alterman thinks that Obama should embrace the label more and claim it as a positive. This is something I've been interested in and commented on before - how "liberal" and "progressive" have sort of become bad words that people shy away from. This is a bit hard for me to understand, but then again I work in a sociology department and attend a Unitarian Universalist church. Those words are part of the vocabulary there.

Alterman also included a fantastic quote from JFK from a speech in 1960:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'liberal'? If by 'liberal' they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then...we are not that kind of 'liberal.' But if by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties--someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'liberal.

Good stuff.

"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"

In Notes on Virginia (1782), Thomas Jefferson said:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I love this quote. All at once Jefferson is asserting both the vital importance of separation of church and state, as well as the need for religious tolerance. People can believe whatever they want to and worship whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others. Yeah, I know - "as long as it doesn't harm others." We could debate about that all day. But the truth is, what my neighbor does believe really doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg. It doesn't matter.

Debate about the proper role of religion in society is seemingly endless. Surveys show that a majority of Americans accept the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation," whatever that is. About half of Americans actually believe that the Constitution established one, despite no mention of God or Christ anywhere in the document. Jefferson's wise comment should really serve as a reminder for people on all sides of the debate. As long as others' beliefs aren't "injurious," we need to let them believe what they want. This is one reason why I'm a member of the ACLU. The ACLU has consistently fought for religious freedom, even for unpopular groups.

However, perhaps also implicit in Jefferson's statement is that religious beliefs generally are not injurious to others, or that religious belief is private enough not to be injurious. Obviously, we know this isn't the case. We also know it's not the case that everyone will care as little what their neighbor believes as Jefferson did. Atheists are the least trusted minority group in America, according to a recent study. Likewise, throughout American history, various religious groups have been seriously persecuted for their beliefs.

Fortunately, today people in our country are rarely persecuted for their beliefs. When the battle of words escalate, we ought to remember Jefferson's words and respect others' right to believe whatever they wish. Determining when beliefs become injurious is another matter, and we cannot remain quiet when they do so.

On a related note, it's been interesting to read media coverage in the aftermath of Romney's withdrawal from the Presidential race. Many journalists, aware of survey data showing that evangelicals are the most likely to say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon and noting how poorly he did in the South, argue that his Mormonism really was an obstacle (and liability). It's difficult to know how much that may have been the case. It's also important to remember that many didn't find his claim of being a true conservative convincing after he was a pretty moderate, reasonable governor in Massachusetts. But, it's worth considering. I once read an article on the super-conservative American Family Association's website arguing that Romney shouldn't be President since he lacked the discernment to tell that Mormonism is false. Again, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. No wonder on surveys more liberal and moderate Americans had less problem with Romney's Mormonism.

Again, I'm not at all saying we should tolerate hateful or intolerant behavior. But talk is just talk, and beliefs are just beliefs. It would do us all good to remember that.

Dr. Seuss fan here!

Having kids has been excuse to read and buy children's books. There are some really great ones out there and I've really enjoyed finding new and old ones that delight both myself and my children. One of the great joys I've had has been rediscovering Dr. Seuss books. We started out by getting the classics The Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, Wacky Wednesday, I Can Read with My Eyes Shut, as well as some he wrote under the name LeSieg (his real name backwards). As our daughter has gotten older, though, we have been able to read longer books to her before bed. So in recent months we've bought some longer Seuss books: The Lorax, The Sneetches, and Horton Hears a Who. It's been these three that have really been fun to read and I've realized that they're full of powerful messages - messages that are decidedly progressive, as well.

The Lorax is a humorous, fun, but also seriously cautionary tale about the "Once-ler" who moves into a peaceful, almost idyllic area populated by cute little animals and beautiful Truffula trees. The Once-ler is very impressed by the Truffula trees and their valuable silk and starts knitting "thneeds" which he claims "everyone needs." Thneeds are a sort of multi-purpose article of clothing made from the Truffula trees' silk. He quickly recruits relatives to help with the operation, and soon he's knitting thneeds at a furious pace. Unfortunately, his thneed production has devastating environmental consequences on the area, including wiping out the entire Truffula tree population and forcing all the animals to leave. The titular character is a funny-looking little creature that speaks for the trees and the animals and repeatedly warns the Once-ler and pleads with him to stop. The Once-ler expresses some regret about the consequences of his thneed production but sees it as his "right" to take Truffula silk and provide his customers with the much-needed thneeds. It's his to right to keep on "biggering and biggering," as he puts it. In reality, he is brutally selfish and the thneeds sort of represent luxuries that we've talked ourselves into needing or which big businesses have convinced us we need. At the end, the Once-ler truly regrets what he's done to the area and gives a little boy the last Truffula seed, instructing him to plant it and nurture it so that the trees and the animals will return.

The Sneetches is actually a collection of several short stories. The title story is about a society of "Sneetches" in which some have stars on their bellies and some don't. The ones with stars on their bellies have all the fun and exclude the ones that don't from everything. Someone comes along offering to give stars to the ones without so that can "fit in" and be part of all the fun and games. Of course, they have to pay for it. After this, the ones that originally had stars pay to have their stars removed, so the others have theirs removed. Eventually, all the Sneetches are going in and out of this machine to have stars taken off and put back on repeatedly until 1) they're all out of money, and 2) no one knows who is who and who had stars originally. The man who came to sell stars leaves rich and pretty amused by the gullible and desperate Sneetches. Fortunately, the Sneetches realize how ridiculous they've acted and that it doesn't matter whether you have a star on your belly or not - all Sneetches are of equal worth.

Horton Hears a Who is about an elephant named Horton that finds a speck of dust from which he can hear a voice. He discovers that on the speck exists a little town called "Who-ville" populated by "Who's." They've gone adrift and ask Horton to protect him. Horton decides to, arguing that "a person's a person, no matter how small." Unfortunately, Horton's fellow animals are not too thrilled by his new task, and don't even believe him that there is anything living on the speck. They threaten to take the speck and destroy it, and lock up Horton in a cage. Horton pleads with the mayor of Who-ville to have everyone make as much noise as possible so that the other animals can hear them. Eventually, and with the help of the tiniest Who of all, they do make enough noise and the other animals believe Horton's story and promise to help Horton take care of the Who's.

The stories are all brilliant, funny, and beautifully-illustrated. But they all have deep and profound messages that are decidedly progressive. The Lorax is obviously a warning about the dangers of misuse and overuse of natural resources and the potential we have to seriously endanger the environment in the name of economic growth and progress, as well as businesses' right to keep "biggering and biggering." It's a call to protect the environment and take responsibility for it. It's also a critique of consumerism - the Once-ler claims that thneeds are "what everyone needs." The Sneetches is really a metaphor for anything that people use to claim superiority over others and oppress them: race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, etc. The man that comes to solve all their problems (and makes a fortune doing so) is a metaphor for any quick fix that we try to become something we're not in order to fit in or become like those that oppress us. Only when the Sneetches realize that whether you have a star or not doesn't matter can they accept one another completely. Horton Hear a Who has a lot of possible metaphors, too. First, I think it's about our responsibility to take care of others, especially groups that are disadvantaged or at-risk for whatever reason. After all, "a person's a person, no matter how small," as Horton reminds us. Second, it's about the ability for people to rally together to be heard and enact change. Who-ville rallied together and all joined in to be heard to save both themselves and Horton.

They're wonderful books that teach children valuable lessons. Imagine what our world would be like if everybody read and internalized the messages in these classic books.

I support Barack Obama!

I support Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential campaign. A while back I wrote a post in support of John Edwards. This week he dropped out of the race, though there's reason to believe that he made a significant impact on the race by making economic justice a huge issue. I felt like it was time to make up my mind and pick one of the two remaining Democratic candidates to support. It's become increasingly clear that Barack Obama is the choice for me. Here are several reasons:

1. Increasingly, I've been getting the vibe that Obama is the best hope for progressives. Christopher Hayes, Washington editor for The Nation, wrote a fantastic piece arguing that Obama is a better choice for progressives than Hillary Clinton. While acknowledging that the most progressive candidates are, again, and unfortunately, out of the race, and that since beginning his campaign Obama has moved noticeably closer to the center, there are several reasons for progressives to get excited about him. First, his consistent opposition to the Iraq war and decidedly less hawkish orientation compared to Clinton. Second, his track record as a progressive. Third, the sheer energy and enthusiasm he brings, signaling a chance to fuel a popular progressive movement in our country. Obama has done extremely well among young voters and independents. The Ted Kennedy endorsement is certainly huge, as well as MoveOn.org's recent endorsement and promise of support. Obama's response to the endorsement was pretty awesome. Also of note, the National Journal recently reported that Obama had the most liberal voting record of any senator in 2007. Of course, it occurred to me that this might be used as a point of attack in the general election (Obama isn't close enough to the center, he's an extreme liberal, blah, blah, blah) but I don't care. I think it's great.

2. As someone deeply interested in religion and concerned with its place in American life, it really matters to me how a candidate talks about religion. Mitt Romney's speech was incredibly frustrating and disheartening. In contrast, a speech Obama gave a couple years ago on religion and politics really hit all the right buttons for me. Some excerpts (but just go read the whole thing:

And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

And later:

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Then boldly and confidently, Obama recognizes a few things that conservative leaders need to learn:

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.

And:

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.

The speech is just fantastic and really sums up how I feel about religion and politics. He really couldn't have said it any better.

3. Finally, I just think it would be neat to have an African-American President. It would be a huge symbol of how far we've come and what we're committed to as a country. It was also be a sign of goodwill to the world letting everyone know that we're capable of electing a progressive, African-American man to our nation's highest office. A President who wants to change how the world sees us, and to restore the trust and respect of our friends around the world.

So, go, Obama!