This Week in God

First up from the God machine this week is a religio-political angle that often goes overlooked. In the presidential race, the perception is that it’s Barack Obama who’s most likely to emphasize his Christianity on the stump, in part out of sincerity, and in part to respond to the coordinated smear campaign questioning his religious background.

But the Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody published a transcript this week of a recent interview Hillary Clinton gave on theological issues.

Clinton: I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth.

Reporter: Can I ask you theologically, do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, that it actually historically did happen?

Clinton: Yes, I do.

Reporter: And, do you believe on the salvation issue — and this is controversial too — that belief in Christ is needed for going to heaven?

Clinton: That one I’m a little more open to. I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way. But, ever since I was a little girl, I’ve asked every Sunday school teacher I’ve ever had, I asked every theologian I’ve ever talked with, whether that meant that there was no salvation, there was no heaven for people who did not accept Christ. And, you’re well aware that there are a lot of answers to that. There are people who are totally rooted in the fact that, no, that’s why there are missionaries, that’s why you have to try to convert. And, then there are a lot of other people who are deeply faithful and deeply Christ-centered who say, that’s how we understand it and who are we to read God’s mind about such a weighty decision as that.

Reporter: And your attitude toward the Bible about how literally people should take it.

Clinton: I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship, but we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point that we’re supposed to take from the Bible.

At a minimum, it’s a reminder that when it comes to Democrats and “God talk,” Obama certainly doesn’t have the stage to himself.

Other items from the God Machine this week:

* In a report about whether the evangelical vote will be competitive this year, Reuters noted that Obama may be in a position to peel off younger evangelical voters.

Analysts see Obama wooing some wavering evangelicals especially young ones by his activism in areas such as the global AIDS pandemic as well as his youthful, rock star image.

“If Obama is the nominee I think he will have an ability to appeal to some of the more moderate evangelicals and there will be a generational factor as well,” said Allen Hertzke, director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma..

He said while younger evangelicals also tended to be conservative and oppose abortion rights — which Obama supports — they also had a broad range of concerns such as human rights abroad, global poverty and the environment.

* In a court case that has seriously angered some segments of the evangelical community, a California court struck a blow against home-schooling this week.

California parents without teaching credentials cannot legally home-school their children, according to a recent state appellate court ruling.

“Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote in a Feb. 28 opinion for the 2nd District Court of Appeal. [….]

The parents in the case had argued that they had a First Amendment right to home-school their children, but the appeals court rejected that argument.

And finally, one of the bigger religious controversies of the week came this week with Richard Land and his interesting choice of words.

Speaking at the Criswell Theological Seminary in Dallas in late January, Southern Baptist Convention lobbyist Richard Land called U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) that “schmuck from New York.”

Land was worked into a lather recalling the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts, in which Schumer pressed the judicial nominee on important questions about individual rights.

In Yiddish, “schmuck” literally means – how can I put this on a family-friendly site? – “male genitalia.”

Controversy erupted in the blogosphere and elsewhere after EthicsDaily.com uncovered Land’s vulgar remark on Monday.

Evangelical scholar Randall Balmer wrote an op-ed calling on Land to resign as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Land’s use of the slur “confirm[ed] what Land and the Religious Right regard as ‘ethical’ behavior,” Balmer said.

“If [Land] doesn’t have the grace to [step aside],” Balmer continued, “he should be dismissed as an embarrassment to the Southern Baptist Convention and an insult to the faith.” […]

Robert Parham, who heads the Baptist Center for Ethics, said Land’s remarks don’t just make the SBC look bad, they hurt the future of the faith.

“When a Baptist preacher slurs a senator of Jewish faith with such a degrading word in a lecture to theology students,” said Parham, “he discloses a hostility towards Jews and may communicate that using Yiddish insults against those of the Jewish faith is acceptable for ministers…. Anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in the soil of Christianity. We need to be about cutting those roots, not watering them as Land has done.”

We’ll see what happens.

And God said to Hillary….

“Go Negative”

  • Our first President was a dope smoking Freemason who held Reason and Isis in the highest regard.

    How far we have fallen…even “liberals” have to come out and talk about how the resurrection was real and actual and Jesus bodily ascended to somewhere called Heaven.

    I’ve no problem with spirituality or religion, but we’ve descended into nonsense. Never mind the strains of Christianity that didn’t buy Paulist doctrine…i.e. the strains that had actual contact with Jesus and his original community. This is America, what’s inside doesn’t count…only the shiny new vinyl siding tacked to the house that Peterbilt.

  • So, Hillary is a standard-issue Methodist – slightly on the conservative side of middle of the road. And this is surprising how???? And Obama is further to her left through his involvement in the UCC, a standard-issue lefty-intellectual Protestant church (which I attended as a child – under protest other than we got a good minister when I was in high school who started getting kids involved in the social issues of our day). And this is all surprising how????

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……..

    Now the news about home schooling in California is far more important. This is a serious whack at the Religious Riht that stems from a case of a pair of whackos who were brought up on abuse charges and while they were at it the authorities looked at the fact that Mom, the “teacher” was an 11th-grade dropout, and that it is all under the whacked-out theology of dear ol’ Dad, the physical abuser. And there is a good possibility we might have to have a constitutional amendment to change this, which is unlikely in the legislature since the majority doesn'[t believe in it, and could fail as a voter issue. Which could mean 200,000 Christian rightie voters and their future-voter children go move to rolling-in-the-sawdust land, which seriously changes politics here.

    That’s a Big Deal.

  • Richard Land’s remarks about Shumer are “meshuga.”

    Having had to work around some home-schooled children, it’s a mystery how many of the parents feel they are in any way qualified to teach their children and and how they feel that their kids are better off for it. When a fifth grade child writes like a kindergartner and thinks at about that level too we set ourselves up for a generation of fools who will become a drag on society based on their parent’s silly notions of religious education.

    “I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understandings of the time into the Bible might be actually missing the larger point that we’re supposed to take from the Bible.”

    That’s a very astute quote from Hillary not only because it’s very true but also for how delicately she puts it. Finally, something positive from her campaign.

  • Hillary talks about God in an interview specifically about theological issues. Obama distributes a mailer in which he refers to being called by God to run for the presidency. I don’t equate these two. Obama must emphasize his religion because he is being accused of being Muslim (black or middle-eastern, or perhaps both). Obama must emphasize his religion because he needs the black churches to mobilize the African American community on his behalf and church is at the heart of the subculture. Hillary’s relationship with God is the basis for the forgiveness of her enemies for the ongoing hatchet job that’s been done on them. Her faith keeps her from being bitter (based on interviews about that issue).

    Religion is an important issue in this election, but not in the “who is more religious” sort of way this report focuses on. Religion can play lots of roles in someone’s life. What does it do or not do for each candidate and how would they bring it into the White House?

    I am an atheist, but I believe I would have less to worry about in terms of conflation of religion and state with Clinton than with Obama, who can’t understand why God might be displeased with Donnie McClurkin, even if his constituency is not.

  • Time for a little insert-a-fun.

    Clinton:

    That one I’m a little more open to [traingulating]. I think that it is, as we understand our relationship to God as Christians, it is how we see our way forward, and it is the way. [Am I saying yes or no? Can’t tell can you?] But, ever since I was a little girl, I’ve asked every Sunday school teacher I’ve ever had, I asked every theologian I’ve ever talked with, [All my life I’ve been deeply spiritual and Christian.] whether that meant that there was no salvation, there was no heaven for people who did not accept Christ. And, you’re well aware that there are a lot of answers to that. [And let me just list a few here so I can triangulate around your question] There are people who are totally rooted in the fact that, no, that’s why there are missionaries, that’s why you have to try to convert [See… it sounds like I am for missionaries to save people from Hell]. And, then there are a lot of other people [Now let me flip this bugger the other way]who are deeply faithful and deeply Christ-centered who say, that’s how we understand it and who are we to read God’s mind about such a weighty decision as that.

    Now let’s return to her first sentence: That one I’m a little more open to.

    Crickets chirping.

  • Like Lex said, it’s sad that a less than literal interpretation of the resurrection would keep a person from being considered for election.The Fundies have won.

  • For a politician, I discount their talk of religion. Their answers are coerced. They have a gun to their heads.

  • I view an interview with a politician about religion like one of those videos of a captive “confessing”.

  • So—is it coming to the point that anyone who doesn’t hear what Mary wants them to hear—the way she wants them to hear it—is wrong? That’s a rather Clintonian thing to do.

    As for the ‘Vangees, there’s this:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23531037/

    I anxiously await the news that John Hagee has exploded into a zillion itty bitty pieces over this one. He’s losing his nexgen foot soldiers—to Catholic mysticism.

    Wait’ll they start reading all those 1st-century apocryphal texts—the ones that actually had the audacity to answer the “WWJD” question….

  • Way to hear what you want.

    Did Mary, of all people, just mock someone else for hearing only what they want? Christ, I nearly just choked on my coffee.

  • The definition of the Yiddish word “schmuck” is more specific than “male genitalia.”

    A more exact explanation would be: After a circumcision there are two things left; a baby boy and a schmuck.

  • 14.
    On March 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am, bicmon said:
    A more exact explanation would be: After a circumcision there are two things left; a baby boy and a schmuck.

    🙂 I once heard of the Church of the Holy Foreskin, but I can’t remember if it was true or not. One thing is for certain, Yiddish is a very funny language, in a good way.

  • Wow. I have been referring to people as “schmucks” most of my life (behind their backs, of course), including Schmuck Chumer. Who knew I was calling them foreskins?

    Is “putz” real bad, too?

  • op99, @16,

    Richard Land is what my Mother would have referred to as “putz” (dick?). Only, in Polish Yiddish, it was “potz” and “schmock” (the latter, unlike in US, almost never used when referring to people; you might have heard “he’s a goim, with his little schmock in place”)

  • Ooooooooooo,
    I do NOT like teh idea that the state can violate or freedom of assembly and thereby force us to gather our children with adults we don’t approve of and leave them in their care.

    (Think of the alternative. Home school parents get to choose and evaluate which teachers may or may not teach their kids and if they don’t like ANY of them, they can get special accommodations.)

    Freedom of assembly and a freedom to privacy akin to the abortion issue means parents should be able to raise their kids however they see fit. It is not society’s place to protect minors from their parents’ ignorance.

    Its sole role is to test the children and give them a diploma if they pass the same minimum requirements public schools have. It’s not out of line to send warnings of a failure to achieve a diploma if the children are falling behind a minimum threshhold.

    Once they’re 18 and still unable to read, they can get a GED and attend the public schools their parents eschewed or get whatever employment they can without a GED/Diploma or attend college (a diploma is not required at some accredited universities though the entrance exams may prove daunting.)

    By placing academic achievement over moral upbringing, does the state not reserve the right to place morality over academic achievement? I strongly disapprove of this paternalistic effort by California, despite my agreement with its goal. These are the things despotic nations are made of. Freedom of speech should entail the right not to listen. No public education should be required. That said, woe to anyone who exercises this right!

  • too weary,

    i’d be curious if you feel that way about freedom to withhold modern medical care from severely ill or injured children due to the parents’ belief?

    because i don’t see the difference.

    in either case, the argument for limiting the parents’ right is that they are making a decision that will permanently harm the child and the child has no say at all in the matter. indeed, providing a woefully substandard education is a very lasting form of child abuse that will limit that individuals chances in life long after the freakazoid parents are long dead.

    maybe a guardian ad litem needs appointed every time a parent seeks to home school who can do an indpendent evaluation for a judge of how capable the parents are of imparting a reasonable education that provides the innocent child fair opportunities to succeed in life once he or she attains majority age, but such a system, however fair to both the parents and the children, would seriously overwhelm the court system.

    it is not merely placing academic achievement over moral upbrining, it is placing a legally-backed societal value on academic achievement, period. if 11th grade dropouts can homeschool their children, why have teaching certificates at all? why have standards for state-backed education if we don’t really mean for it to be universal?

    the First Amendment component to this is a red herring. I have no more right of association to ruin my child’s brain through poor homeschooling than I do a right of expression to ruin his brain by hitting him with a frying pan to “express” my anger with his failure to pick up his room. same end result, why would one be legal and the other not?

  • By placing academic achievement over moral upbringing, does the state not reserve the right to place morality over academic achievement? I strongly disapprove of this paternalistic effort by California, despite my agreement with its goal.

    As a parent who homeschooled two children in California (mostly in California, we were living overseas for a bit), let me just throw in my 2¢. Tom Cleaver and I have hashed these things out a bit in the past, he being pretty anti-homeschooling.

    First off, tooweary, your either/or concept above is really spurious. One can have their kids in public (or private) school and still instill morals in them. If a parent feels that the school system is teaching their kids immorality, surely they can find some private school that they’ll feel more comfortable with. I just don’t buy that it’s either home schooling or moral degeneracy.

    That said, let me just relate what happened when we were homeschooling our two kids. (Did you notice these people have eight kids?! Red flag there.) We lived way out in the country up north, and we were pretty much just left alone. Then we signed up with a nearby school district because in return for having our kids meet with a home schooling coordinator once a month or so the district would provide us with up to a thousand dollars a year for the purchase of educational materials. The school district made out because our kids were technically then part of their district, so they got money from the state for each of them (probably more than they were handing over to us—not in cash, by the way, we had to order the materials through them). We made out because we had two grand per year to get some great materials for the kids. A bit of oversight was thrown into the mix, though it was not at all intrusive. The kids would just sit down with the coordinator (without us there) for half an hour or so once a month and talk about what they were doing. Even this extremely unintrusive system would probably have ferreted out a problem such as the fatherly abuse in the family in question. Maybe not, though.

    Later on the school district cut our stipend to $300 each, and started demanding more. If I recall, I think the kids were supposed to meet more frequently and perhaps there was some testing and reporting involved, but it’s been a long time. I remember the upshot of it was that we just didn’t feel like it was worth the hassle anymore for $600 so we just bailed out and continued educating our kids unsupervised. Nobody ever bothered us about it again.

    That said, we had many contacts with home schoolers over the years. I would say that the majority of them did a good to great job with their kids, but there were glaring exceptions to that rule. And the glaring exceptions are the reason why there should really be some sort of oversight. I say that only as someone who feels lucky to have not been subjected to such oversight, because it was wonderful to just do our thing without interference. But I could see some kids who ended up seriously hampered, albeit very few, who would have been well-served by an oversight system, perhaps similar to what we opted into there for a while. In fact, it seems to me that luring parents to cooperate with such a system via financial incentives like we had is not a bad idea. After all, the education of the kids ends up being a lot less expensive per capita than if they were attending school. And it could be set up to give them access to being involved with school-based athletic or musical programs as well, so they could have kind of a foot in both worlds, or at least have that option.

    Being an atheist, I would tend to stress that any such oversight system pay attention to science education, which would probably rankle the snake-handler set, but to me that’s one of the main hindrances a lot of these fundie home schoolers saddle their kids with. But let it be said that some of the most neglected “home schooled” kids I knew of weren’t from religious families at all. Fundies don’t have a corner on ignorance and neglect. Most of them, I believe, are much more attentive to their kids and really mean to do well by them, and aside from their weaknesses in the science end of things they probably do very well. Again, there are exceptions.

    In sum, I wouldn’t want to go so far as to take away a parent’s right to home school their kids, no matter what their level of education. But as much as I am relieved we were able to do it without oversight, I really think that in order to prevent the most obvious neglect that some sort of oversight should be in place. (Forgive me for those of you like Tom Cleaver who’s read of my own situation before, but I feel I must relate it a bit to illustrate my point about the parental qualification issue.) My wife had only completed 9th grade, and I had dropped out of college after a year. By most measures we would have been seen as distinctly unqualified to home school our kids. And we did so through virtually their whole childhood. The upside, at least in California, is that community colleges allow young kids to attend, so both of our kids started taking community college classes when they were 12. It worked great! By the time my daughter decided, at 16, that she wanted to go to high school just to try it out, she was a straight A student taking some of the toughest courses at the comm. college, and her profs were nuts about her. She did finally go to high school for one year, taking honors and AP classes and pulling straight A’s. Both kids ended up going on to fine colleges and my daughter’s in grad school in physics at an Ivy League school, my son still an undergrad and doing great. So it can work very well even with parents who may seem to be unqualified. There is no one size fits all, let’s face it. But oversight is certainly a good idea.

  • Oh, and lest I sound too long-winded after that bit, may I just say that in regard to Hillary’s religion interview, I would be SO impressed with a candidate who would simply refuse to discuss their religious beliefs with the press. It should be easy enough to use some Bible quotes to justify it (after all, you can find Bible quotes to justify anything!). I can think of a couple right off hand. I would be very impressed with any candidate who’d take that position instead of pandering to the degree that most candidates do. I can only imagine how interviews like that look to most people in Europe. Oh, but I forgot, we’re not supposed to care about what furriners think!

  • I agree that it is inappropriate to falsely claim that Obama is a Muslim, although I don’t believe that being a Muslim in and of itself should be anything about which someone should be ashamed. I do think, however, it is important for America to better understand the kind of “Christianity” which has so fascinated Obama for the last 20 years. Obama claims to belong to a Christian Church called Trinity United Church. He considers the just-retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to be his “mentor and spiritual advisor.” According to the church’s website, their members are “unashamedly Black and unashamedly Christian,” and swear allegiance to the mother continent, Africa. Obama’s church gave the racist and Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan a “lifetime achievement award” last November. Rev. Wright teaches Black Theology, and thinks about everything pretty much in terms of black versus white. He called 9/11, for example, a “wake-up call to white people.” Commenting on the recent murder of Natalie Holloway, he decried the press coverage by stating that “one 18—year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and gives it up while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months.” Rev. Wright likes to throw around the name of James Cone a lot when it comes to his theology. James Cone is another proponent of Black Theology. Here are just a couple of James Cone’s quotes: (1) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people.” [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140]. (2) “While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.” [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 15] (3) “All white men are responsible for white oppression.” [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24] (4) “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.” [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 40] (5) “If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it.” [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 73] **** Need I go on? These are the kinds of concepts that Obama has been soaking up for 20 years. The focal concern or center of black theology is the white oppression of blacks. Therefore, the usual theological discussions about God, Christ, and salvation are much less relevant. Although I respect anyone’s right to belong to any religion they wish, this does not sound like a positive form of “Christianity” for any of those who are not members of the “chosen people.” And, maybe Obama needs to be a little more candid about the brand of “Christianity” to which he adheres.

  • So now we have guilt by association twice removed. Pray tell, how is it that you know that “Rev. Wright likes to throw around the name of James Cone a lot…”? Are you a member of Rev. Wright’s church? And in what way is he throwing it around? This criticism of Obama has about as much weight as the Manchurian Muslim kindergardener email. Now we’ve got the Manchurian Black Panther radical, with solid proof that because the minister at the church Obama goes to (did it ever occur to you that he attends that church because it happens to be in the inner city area where he was working?) talks about a guy who says some offensive black radical type things. And Obama’s black, so that must mean he thinks the same way. This is as silly as expecting Obama to defend Harry Belafonte because, well, they’re both black! Give it a rest.

  • Think @ 19.
    Actually, yes. Parents DO have the right to withhold life saving medicine. I am consistent in my view of parental control over their kids. Permanent harm? Not really. Are the nutjob parents such a problem to our society? Not from what has been reported.

    We have teaching certificates because the taxpayers have been led to believe that they are a necessity for good teaching. I suspect there are some high school dropouts who would be better teachers than some public school teachers I’ve seen at work. My father dropped out of high school and graduated with honors from Georgetown law school. You mean to tell me some putz with a piece of paper from a teaching college will ALWAYS do a better job teaching? I’m not saying it’s a common occurrence. I just quail at the idea of the government forcing their judgment on any one of us. I’d sooner give parents the chance to fail.
    Teaching standards and universal ACCESS do not necessitate universal COMPULSION. Just because we think we have a better product than you can provide and we can even PROVE that you’re an idiot for not accepting our help. this does not give us the right to stop you from being an idiot. I suppose you’d require sex ed? I highly recommend it, but I would never force a Bible thumper to send his kid to such a course. If you wouldn’t either, why not? I you would, at what point can we still consider ourselves a free nation? What beliefs may we still hold in conflict with the majority?

    Prez Linsay @ 20

    I didn’t mean to suggest homeschooling and teaching morality were linked in any way. These specific folks seem to link them and I respect their right to keep that view and hold it as a more important goal than academic proficiency (whether they see the two as exclusive or not).

    The oversight you mentioned, if mandatory could be a violation of the 4th amendment. I would support the state providing such oversight so home schooling parents can be aware of how poorly they’re doing, if they are, indeed, substandard.

    I’ve long supported the part-time system you suggest. Take gym music or whatever the parent doesn’t feel confident in. Parents gripe about class size but public school systems see home schooling as a problem rather than a solution. If parents volunteer to help ease crowding, why do we fight it?

    So far, we have very little disagreement between us.

  • Comments are closed.