Why are so many Christians under the impression that the Constitution and U.S. law have some Biblical basis? As I pointed out in the comments section of another blog recently, some politicians' understanding of the foundations of the American legal system seems to run something like this: murder is illegal; murder is forbidden by the Bible; therefore, American law is Bible-based. (As if there is a country in the world in which murder is legal or a religion which permits murder; true, different cultures have different understandings of what constitutes murder, but whatever they call "murder" is always forbidden.)
Recently we've heard a lot of talk about The Ten Commandments, specifically about monuments on public or government property. Ironically, many of the monuments in question were placed there in the 1950s as part of a marketing strategy for the Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza The Ten Commandments, despite Hollywood being one of the Christian right's favorite whipping boys and despite the fact that Charlton "My Cold Dead Hands" Heston as Moses goes around reciting a lot of pretty liberal claptrap on the nature of slavery ("God made men; man made slaves," etc.) that is a far cry from the words of the Biblical Moses ("When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.")
As I read the Ten Commandments, I see only four in common with American law: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. But these laws are unique to neither Christianity nor America.
Yet some politicians and religious figures persist in maintaining that American law has a Judeo-Christian basis that reflects Biblical law. That link is made most often when people talk about gay marriage. There is no rational basis for discriminating against gay people, only religious prejudice. But because so many people operate under the false assumption that American law is Bible-based, they feel it's sufficient to point to Leviticus and that ought to be the end of the discussion.
Despite their protests that Biblical law and American law are interchangeable, and that all things Biblical and Christian are good, and that everything in the Bible is still currently valid, relevant and enforceable, and that everything in the Bible is literally true, conservative Christians only agitate for Bible-based legislation that doesn't inconvenience them and allows them to legitimize cultural prejudices.
For example, cotton-polyester blends are forbidden. Women having their periods are unclean and cannot be touched for seven days. All debts must be canceled every seven years. (That would certainly solve Bush's budget problem!) It is forbidden to send a man to war within one year of his wedding. It is forbidden to yoke an ox and a donkey together. (Someone please explain that one to me.) Pork chops are an abomination. Let's not forget Deuteronomy 23:24.
None of this is reflected anywhere in American law, or even in the lifestyles of most conservative Christians. I'd like to see someone push legislation to enforce the requirements set forth in Leviticus for dealing with mildew.
Actually, what I'd really like to see is conservative Christians acknowledging that they are selective about Biblical truths and requirements, just like everyone else, and that American law does not have to have a religious basis to be valid and moral and that secular or non-Christian ideas are not necessarily bad or amoral or even different from Christian ethics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Wow, Andy. So well stated and your points well illustrated. Wonder what would happen if you tried posting it to a right wing blog? I suspect it would get deleted. And they're the one's who need to hear it.
All I really have to add is that it's forbidden to yoke an ox and a donkey together because it would be a really bad yoke, and that pork chops truly are an abomination. That's why they went out in the seventies.
Really? Thanks, Paul. All day I worried that this was the most obtuse thing I've written in weeks. : (
I blogged on this topic a few weeks ago:
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/a_priori_ad_lib/17860.html)
However, you said it far more eloquently. Thank you.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/a_priori_ad_lib/17860.html
(Got cut off)
Excellent post! Recently, I saw someone citing Jefferson as one of the Christian fathers of our country. I almost lost it. One of my favorite Jefferson quotes on this subject is: I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
Of course, the right-wing gang would then write him off and say the others were all religious, etc. Except that a look at the Constitution puts the lie to that assertion.
In Article II, Clause 8, it requires that the President take an Oath of Office. It says, "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"
"Swear (or affirm)"??? If the leader of this nation is expected to be a religious man, why would he have any problem swearing to God, as opposed to just affirming the Oath? The answer is simple—the Founding Fathers wanted religion to have no place in the running of the government and would have had no problem with a non-believer being the President of the United States. By the way, even though the pandering politicians who have recently been elected to the office like to add "so help me God" to the end of the Oath, you’ll notice that it’s not in the official Oath dictated by the Constitution.
These religious zealots have twisted the truth. Why isn't it enough to have the freedom to preach whatever they see fit in their houses of worship? Don't they know how lucky they are to live in a country that guarantees that right? Why do they feel compelled to force their views on me?
Dig deeper into the Right's ideological pathology. You won't find any mention of this or that particular Judeo-Christo law being the foundation of our constitution. That's not exactly what the Right's academics are trying to say when they state "America was founded upon Judeo-Christian" ethics. It's an over-simplification, no matter how popular.
Like it or not, our Revolutionary Fathers were, more often than not, raised in very, very Christian households -- far more Christian than many such homes today. Such an upbringing cannot be dismissed, ignored, or explained away. It had to be influential in their subsequent thinking, writing and debates.
While popular American Christian culture might like the idea of some form of "Christian Law" being the nascent foundation of the US Constitution -- and while the Left might eagerly jump at that mistaken notion -- it doesn't accurately describe the concept. Nor does it serve the Left's cause not to address the real issue, and the Right's actual position on the matter.
Supporting/bashing the popular idea, no matter how mistaken, with such things as attempting to match-the-Mosaic law to this or that modern law is missing the point. With that defense we stand the chance of being rhetorically out-flanked.
Unfortunately, like it or not, many of the Revoltionary Era shakers and movers share more in common with the likes of Heury Long and Pat Robertson than they do with Harry Hay or Hillary Clinton. The Left needs to reconcile itself with this fact and form a rational defense. As we gear up for the Battle-of-2006 and the War-of-November-2008, we had better gain a far more nuanced understanding of our enemy and its ideas than we have today in popular Left-Culture.
Let the Right's masses (mistakenly) defend their ideas.
Not to be out-flanked, we in the Left should attack their ideas' *real* and accurate underpinnings, and not be further distracted. That's how wars are lost, again.
rob@egoz.org
Wow, I'm really surprised I'm getting comments on this one! I thought it was so terrible, I almost deleted it. I'm glad you guys are finding it worthy of further discussion!
Rob, I fully concede that our founding fathers were by and large Christian, and lived lives much closer to an orthodoxy than practically anyone alive today. But I think that's what makes my point even stronger: the strife that had occurred in Europe within their living memory between Protestants and Catholics, Jewish persecution and all the nonsense that resulted from having the head of state be tied to one particular church or faith really convinced them that, no matter how strong their religious beliefs, a secular government was the only strong and fair system.
Of course their Christian heritage shaped their outlook in countless ways, and I think the principles set forth by the Fathers would have met with a thumbs-up from God.
You know what? I haven't had any coffee yet. I can't finish this, can barely think. Later.
Fundamentalism is a methodology. It is a way of relating to people. There are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist political zealots. We meet fundamentalists in every walk of life. Fundamentalism’s method is confrontation, and its fuel is anger. There can be no dialogue and no mutual respect. There will only be winners and losers. They are right. You are wrong. End of discussion.
Fundamentalist Christians carry a terrible, secret burden. Your soul is their responsibility. If you go to hell, they will answer to God for their lack of witness. Imagine carrying THAT load around all day. Naive Christians are shackled to this burden by ministers whose need to enlarge their personal church kingdom, has an Enron type feel to it. With such hellish stakes, extreme measures are called for in the certitude of their narrow minds and hearts. The end justifies the means. This is why so many Christian fundamentalists want to use the government to push their agenda.
Ultimately fundamentalists will consume their own young and gnaw at their own flesh. The way of anger always leads to poisonous consumption.
My father used to say, "You get the God you believe in". If you define God in narrow, angry, rigid, vengeful terms, then so too, you believe God judges you. This is very frightening on a personal and a collective level.
I believe in a loving, merciful God, one who embodies transforming love ... anxiety dissolving love ... unifying love ... vulnerable love ... pointing to healing and wholeness.
(Andy, thank you for the beautiful message you left on my blog. It was a beautiful affirmation.)
Very well said, Andy.
Good to see someone like you out there with your radical left-wing Christian perspective. These days it seems we who are left-wing or liberal and christian need to let each other know we exist (like a remnant, perhaps) so that we don’t give up hope.
I happened on your site because I had just written “you get the god you believe in, maybe” and decided to search on that to see if anybody famous had said it. And Joel said it in a post on your blog. (There were no other hits.)
To comment on your article, it seems that both Christian and non-Christian conservatives tend to pick and choose their litmus test issues, sell them with hype, and conveniently ignore or remain silent when a challenger asks why they have nothing to say on other issues which should be consistent with their stated beliefs.
This is your point about when women are supposed to be unclean and untouched for seven days. And what do these Christians think about service to the poor? A similar issue is that the conservative mantras about the inherent badness of big government and government spending don't stop republican administrations from establishing new agencies and spending lots of money (even money we don't have) on wars. The fact is that they do want to spend money. It's just that they want to spend it on the things THEY want to spend it on. Like keeping the world safe for Walmart shoppers and Starbucks imbibers!
nirtog (dan moore)
Post a Comment