This Week in God

First up from the God machine this week is a strange fight over dating. Not the kind where two people go out for dinner and a movie, which might seem more likely to generate some kind of religious controversy, but literally how best to assign dates to historical periods of time.

A bill in the Missouri Senate would require the state’s dating standard to include the initials A.D. and B.C., which stand for “Anno Domini” and “Before Christ.”

The sponsor, Republican John Loudon of St. Louis County, says there’s a national move to replace the initials with the secular monikers “C.E.” and “B.C.E.,” which stand for “Common Era” and “Before Common Era.”

The purpose of the bill is to preserve what Loudon calls an American tradition.

“NASA has adopted it,” Loudon said. “It’s definitely coming to a neighborhood near you, textbooks and so forth, we’re just wanting to preserve another American tradition that’s under attack.”

What some religious conservatives choose to pick fights over never ceases to amaze me.

First, “B.C.” and “A.D.” aren’t exactly “American traditions,” given that they were in use before the United States even existed. Second, C.E. and B.C.E. have taken on broader academic use, but that hardly represents an “attack.”

And third, people, especially students, should be familiar with C.E. and B.C.E. as dating methods, given that they’re more likely to appear in university coursework and in college placement exams.

Does everything have to be a culture-war fight?

Other items from the God Machine this week:

* My friends at Faith in Public Life noticed a very interesting trend the night of the Iowa caucuses.

There’s a large hole in this conventional wisdom, though: Faith was effectively barred from consideration as a factor in Obama’s victory. The CNN entrance and NBC exit polls both asked Republican caucus-goers if they were “born-again or evangelical,” and neither one asked that question of Democratic caucusers. Democrats instead were instead asked if they were union members.

Thirty three percent of Iowa evangelicals voted for Kerry in 2004. The Religion Newswriters’ Association named “Democrats court people of faith” the #2 religion story of 2007. Winner Barack Obama is well known for thoughtful discussion of his faith.

So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus. That’s some serious institutional bias.

Good point.

* And finally, the fine folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State (full disclosure: my former employer) are launching an interesting ad campaign.

For the first time in a presidential election and on the eve of the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries a new series of television and newspaper ads is being launched to urge presidential candidates to protect religious freedom.

At a time when presidential candidates in both political parties are injecting religion into their campaigns at unprecedented levels, the new ads are designed to help provide a clearer understanding of where candidates stand on key issues at the intersection of religion and politics. The ads are scheduled to lead up to the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries later this month.

First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, is launching the new print and TV ads to encourage voters to ask presidential candidates their positions on a wide range of issues, from end-of-life options to protecting the right of all Americans to worship…or not.

The first advertisements feature legendary actors Jack Klugman and James Whitmore and are designed to remind candidates and voters that religion has a place in American life, but not as a political tool.

The First Freedom First Web site features ten sample questions for voters to ask candidates, such as “Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?” and, “Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?”

Sound like good questions to me.

Morbo, your AUSCC link is buggered.

And

Does everything have to be a culture-war fight?

Yes. SA2SQ

  • So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus. That’s some serious institutional bias.

    It also seems to be the bias of virtually all the posters on this blog.

    Anytime anyone mentions anything approaching faith in God then they are often blasted for believing.

    Atheism seems to be the official religion of left of center blogs.

  • “And third, people, especially students, should be familiar with C.E. and B.C.E. as dating methods, given that they’re more likely to appear in university coursework and in college placement exams.”

    Oh great, more fuel fore David Horowitz’s Cultural Revolution.

    “So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property?”

    You mean like how the Republican Party is supposedley the party you want to have in charge during wartime?

    It’s all part of the mythology that has its genesis during the Reagan years.

  • I’ve always felt that the introduction of C.E. and B.C.E. was kind of ridiculous. Maybe I’m not familiar with some context where there are a lot of Evangelicals who want a religious totalitarianism and B.C. and A.D. therefore seem like stepping stones toward oppression and are even spoken with a different tone. In the NJ I know, which I am starting to understand as like a separate universe from some other places in America, I’ve never gotten that impression. All that said, I certainly can’t say that insisting on B.C. and A.D. is any less ridiculous than insisting on C.E. and B.C.E. it kind of doesn’t matter. Jesus is a historical figure who was supremely influential in our society (meaning western civilization) for centuries; he’s not being shoved by anyone’s throats now, and definitely not by the use of B.C. and A.D.

  • I wrote:

    he’s not being shoved by anyone’s throats now, and definitely not by the use of B.C. and A.D.

    This should have been “shoved down.”

    I wrote:

    Maybe I’m not familiar with some context where there are a lot of Evangelicals who want a religious totalitarianism and B.C. and A.D. therefore seem like stepping stones toward oppression and are even spoken with a different tone. In the NJ I know, which I am starting to understand as like a separate universe from some other places in America, I’ve never gotten that impression.

    I mean, where I am, I’m never confronted with people who are breathing down people’s necks about this stuff. I am of course perfectly familiar with Evangelicals’ presence on the national stage and their intentions for the larger society (America as a whole). What I don’t have experience of is whether or not in peoples’ individual neighborhoods the Evangelicals make people feel really pushed around, and seem hard to get away from.

  • Neil, I disagree. I think that the “official religion” of left-of-center blogs is to build up the wall of separation between church and state, and to base arguments in reality. I’m a churchgoer, but I believe in leaving my politics at home when I go to church. And I leave my religion out of it when I discuss politics, here and elsewhere.

    That said, you have to love Morbo’s headline from earlier today: “Many scientists believe that the Earth is round.” The question “Do you believe in evolution” is nonsense, as is the question “Do you believe that the Earth is round?” Never mind what someone “believes.” Faith has nothing to do with it. What do the facts say? If being reality-based constitutes atheism, then I plead guilty. Like Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson, both (falsely) accused of atheism.

  • Does everything have to be a culture-war fight?

    If you’re threatened by the fact that the world isn’t fitting very well into your system of beliefs, you have three choices.You can adjust your beliefs (not a classically conservative thing to to), you can passively deny the dissonance, or you can actively lash out against it.

    My personal theory is that the pace of change in the past 50 years, the explosion in scientific knowledge and the intermixing of cultures and peoples through communications, travel and economics have overwhelmed the ability of conservatives to cope. What we are seeing is the reaction of people pushed by events into the corner of their own ideology by events, striking out as any animal with no way out. The culture wars happen because, to these people, the threats are real.

  • The idea that there is an unofficial “official religion” of left-wing blogs is silly. This is talk like the right-wing would engage in.

    I’d like to see less of people volunteering divisive and stressy comments on a post about what a few silly people are upset about.

  • What official state documents in Missouri would even require dating prior to the birth of Christ? Do those people have cable TV bills that are 2045 years past due?

  • #12 LOL, I was thinking the same thing, though not in the humorous way you put it (2045 year-old cable bills, ROFL).

    On the subject of religion in liberal blogs, I would like to see fewer comments and ridicule from non-believers about people of faith believing in “fairy tales”, “magic”, and so on. It is possible to be firmly rooted in reality *and* have belief in a higher being. Brain, heart, soul – humans have them all, it just depends if they choose to use them.

    It is also logical for people of faith to honor the separation of church and state. For example, I don’t want someone else’s faith foisted upon me, just as I wouldn’t dream of foisting my faith on them. As if that could work anyway.

  • Good question, Mag7.

    “NASA has adopted it,” Loudon said.

    Because however long ago volcanoes last erupted on Mars or whatnot has very little to do with Christ. I mean, Christ!

  • #5 “Jesus is a historical figure”

    According to some. The evidence is in fact perishingly thin.

  • There are many like me who have grown up thinking just the opposite about the republican party seeing them as the party of hypocrisy, not good at war but good at taking credit for it, not the religious party but the money party whose values go as far as that point in which they might have to lose money for their beliefs. Spouting off about ‘moral’ behavior while indulging in the opposite behavior behind closed doors. Those who believe anything else about republicans are either stupid or part of it. The press, at least the MSM are part of it.

  • Why does separation of church and state always equate to atheism? Sorry but I don’t need someone telling me their flavor of religion is the finest, only, and best. How about you let me decide which faith I care to follow and keep it out of schools, law and government?

    For THAT is what separation of church and state is.

    What makes state sponsored religious demands in America any different than Saudi Arabia? Don’t force me to be a Muslim and I won’t ask you to be Jewish (or Baptist, Protestant, or a Buddhist, or or or….)

  • Atheism can’t be the religion of liberal blogs, because atheism isn’t a religion. It is the absence of religion (or more precisely the absence of belief in gods.) Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

    As for Hannah’s comments in #13, humans have been proven to have brains and hearts, but the soul is merely a wild-assed-guess people made 3000 years ago to explain the difference between a living person and a corpse. This was before the discovery of electricity and EEG machines.

    Religions get ridiculed by some atheists because religions deserve it. If you disagree with that statement, I suggest that instead of whining you actually counter the arguments.

    It is generally acknowledged that Jesus of Nazereth was a much less important figure historically than Paul of Tarsus, but we don’t date years from Paul’s birthday. In fact, it would make more sense for Christians to start dates from the year of Jesus’s crucifiction than from his birthday.

    What’s Latin for “In the Year of YOUR Lord- I don’t have one.”

    On the other hand, the BC-AD dating system has one advantage- it prompts schoolchildren to learn about Bede, who is commonly creditted with starting it up. That way they learn about the word “Venerable”, which would otherwise be unknown to them.

  • There’s a woman on “The View” who thinks that nothing predated Christ’s birth. Which amazes me to no end. I just want an answer to “who did we all come from if Adam and Eve only had 2 sons and one was killed.”

  • Comments are closed.