This Week in God

First up from the God machine this week is a big shake-up within the biggest Protestant denomination in the United States — the [tag]Southern Baptist Convention[/tag] elected the Rev. [tag]Frank Page[/tag] as the group’s president this week. Never heard of Page? You will.

…Page’s upset victory could be very significant, both to the nation’s religious life and to politics. He defeated candidates supported by the convention’s staunchly conservative establishment, which has dominated the organization since the mid-1980s. His triumph is one of many signs that new breezes are blowing through the broader evangelical Christian world.

No, this is not some liberal victory. Indeed, the Baptist Press reported that Page went out of his way to tell reporters that he was not elected “to somehow undo the conservative resurgence” in the convention. But he also signaled that the spirit he hopes to embody is quite different from that of the angry, right-wing, politicized preacher who has been a stock figure in American life for more than two decades.

“I believe in the word of [tag]God[/tag],” Page said. “I’m just not mad about it.”

Page has a more-tolerant, less-angry style, and even more importantly, was elected over the wishes of the SBC’s politically (and religiously) conservative powerbrokers. Page pulled off the victory thanks to grassroots support from SBC congregations — and, yes, Baptist bloggers — that have grown increasingly frustrated with the group’s trend in recent years.

As Bill Leonard, the dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School, explained, “Some people are tired of just fighting liberals. You need a reason to be a Southern Baptist other than just fighting liberals in the culture or in the church.”

E.J. Dionne described it as part of the “mellowing of evangelical Christianity.” If that’s right, it’s likely to have a serious impact on the culture, particularly the political culture. The SBC has become an appendage of the Republican Party in recent years. If Page moves the group in a different direction, it will, at a minimum, cause some heartburn in GOP circles.

Next up from the God machine is a story about religious activism from the opposite end of the theological spectrum.

A federal judge [this week] rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase “[tag]In God We Trust[/tag]” on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on [tag]Michael Newdow[/tag]’s avowed religious views.

“There is no proper allegation that the government compelled plaintiff to affirm a repugnant belief in monotheism,” Damrell said in dismissing the suit, Newdow v. Congress.

If Newdow’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the same guy who filed the lawsuit about “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance a few years ago that went to the Supreme Court.

In this case, Newdow argued that the 1955 law that mandated “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency is unconstitutional because it “excludes people who don’t believe in God.” The court cited a 1970 ruling that ruled the motto permissible. Newdow said the ruling was wrong, the court said it had to abide by precedent, and the case was over.

Knowing Newdow, it’s only a matter of time before he tries again.

And finally this week, the God machine leads us to a group of high-profile religious leaders who are taking on a real moral crisis of our time.

Twenty-seven religious leaders, including megachurch pastor Rick Warren, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, have signed a statement urging the United States to “abolish torture now — without exceptions.”

The statement, being published in newspaper advertisements starting today, is the opening salvo of a new organization called the [tag]National Religious Campaign Against Torture[/tag], which has formed in response to allegations of human rights abuse at U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Titled “Torture is a Moral Issue,” the statement says that torture “violates the basic dignity of the human person” and “contradicts our nation’s most cherished values.” “Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?” it asks.

The signers come from a broad range of denominations and include notable religious conservatives, such as the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Archbishop Demetrios, primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; and the Rev. William J. Byron, former president of Catholic University.

Good for them. The next time the president wants to talk about “faith-based initiatives,” maybe he’ll give the leaders’ concerns a serious reading.

The likelihood of the Dear Leader of Woebegonistan, formerly known as the United States of America, listening to any of this is right up there with you all joining me on the ocean end of the Santa Monica pier, where we can watch the sun rise over the Pacific. And it would take that much change in the laws of the universe for moron-boy to make that kind of turnaround.

However, it’s good news that guys I would not have expected, like Dominionist Ted Haggard, the preacher who subverted the Air Force Academy (his Vineyard Church is visible from the Academy and is where most of the people who cause all of the trouble there attend church). All these conservatives who are at least fairly close to what I would think of as a “real” conservative, taking this position does have an effect, as does the election of Frank Page to head the church originally founded to defend slavery and treason.

Let them all go back to snake handling and rolling in the sawdust and get ’em to stay out of voting booths – like they used to be – and we might be able to change Woebegonistan back to what it used to be.

As for Michael Newdow, anyone who wonders why most atheists remain private need only look at this obsessive moron to know why.

  • First, about Page, it’s about time a major religious body decided to give up knee-jerk ritual hate and return to what it perceives as The Word. Maybe Page can get the wackos to start taking seriously the Sermon on the Mount. It’s also gratifying to see bloggers playing a part in bringing about the change. There’s been a reaction lately to the original bloggers’ success (e.g., Howard Dean), with the MSM (Maureen Dowd, Ed Schultz) trying to reclaim ceded ground. I don’t think we’ve yet begun to fathom the impact of the blog technology; it has a very real capacity to topple dinosaurs. In fact, it’s a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy – i.e., unpredictability – always being maximized).

    Next, “in God we trust” ruling. A fine example of legal “reasoning”. What inanity! Expression of a belief in western monotheism is a secular slogan? Since when? And the Court’s only legal justification for finding the slogan inoffensive? a previous Court had found it so. Dred Scott is alive and well in the court system. As CB suggested recently:

    In 1954, Congress changed the language and inserted “under God” as part of the response to the Cold War. (If the enemies were godless communists, we did the opposite. Now that our enemies are deeply religious, should we go back to embracing secularism?)”

    Religious leaders opposed to torture? To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does McCarrick command? I’m glad to see churchmen acting as churchmen ought, rather than the way have for several thousand years, but does anyone really think Bush gives a damn? Remember, the Pope emphatically opposed the Bush’s death penalty and Bush’s Iraq crusade. Bush ignored him. Actually, the Regal Moron probably hauled out his scrapbook of all the executions on his record, fondling each one with his left hand while using the right hand to fondle his “Mission Accomplished” codpiece.

  • LOL on the “Mission Accomplished” codpiece.”

    If the Christians ban torture it’s going to put a crimp in the end days when their God tortures those poor unfortunates who didn’t get their free ticket to eternity.

  • I wish Newdow would cool it. When saying the Pledge, I just skip over the “under god” bit, and when it comes to currency, I’m a lot more concerned with the denomination than with “in god we trust.” Seems about as much of a problem as flag burning. I’d much rather see a law banning anyone who can’t sing from using a microphone when singing the national anthem in public.

  • It’s good to see that the Reich is beginning to crack. Now, if only Newdow could walk into the path of an on-coming bus—unless, of course, he thinks that it would somehow “exclude people who don’t believe in GreyHound….”

  • requiring the pledge is problematic even without ‘under god’ in it.

    i’m not happy about ‘in god we trust’ being on the the coins and currency, but using them compels no statement of belief. isn’t there a principle that ‘the law does not concern itself with trifles’?

    i’ll bet anything this guy is some kind of ding-dong libertarian.

    your pal,
    blake

  • Comments are closed.