THE RELIGIOUS WHITE RIGHT

By Ruth A. Sheets

Republicans today want power!  They want money too, and they want whiteness to be supreme (Jesus was white, you know, or so they believe). 

Many Republican leaders who still claim to be Christian, have bought into a "prosperity gospel" which tells them if they are rich and powerful, they deserve it; god did it for them.  They aren’t concerned with how they got there, because they believe they are truly in God’s favor, God was guiding them through their business life, their legal duties, their use of family riches, etc., so if they “sneaked” a bit from someone or didn’t pay employees what they earned a few times, or skipped taxes, or lied about an opponent, God knew and it was OK because God had forgiven them, right?  Isn’t it interesting that with this kind of “prosperity gospel,” God seems to only forgive them for their deeds, not others involved in the same practices?  And, whatever they don’t like is disliked by God, and therefore, a sin to be opposed at every opportunity. 

The new prosperity gospelers don’t really care what traditional Christianity believes or does because they regularly get revelations from God and anyone who gets in their way is a sinner, the enemy.  Not in the Bible?  Of course it is, you just have to read it right! 

The “Christian” white right’s efforts are moving toward making sure their beliefs become the law of the land.  That’s what they want to believe is God’s will, and they will get to be in charge of “god’s will.” 

Currently, we have at least 4 members of the Supreme Court and numerous members of Congress and even more members of state legislatures on board with this effort.  Theirs is a fanatical religious evolution that took about 45 years to fully develop.  Republicans and conservatives were having trouble getting traction for their message after Watergate, so needed something to motivate themselves and others of their kind:  white, straight, male, “Christians.”  The one issue that had potential was the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade.  Abortion!  What a great idea!  Claim abortion was a horrific sin, murdering a baby in the womb.  How dare those sluts do something so terrible.  I bet God doesn’t like that.  They also knew they had to get some loud-mouthed women on board or a lot of women would have ignored the men.  Phyllis Schlafly was perfect for the job.  And, as a power-obsessed lawyer, she knew just how to reach and manipulate vulnerable women who were scared of the changes feminism was bringing about.  All these years later, the pieces were in place.  

The Conservatives on the Supreme Court this year just knew this was the time to dump Roe v. Wade despite precedent, despite a majority of Americans not wanting it overturned, despite having no real argument to support the decision, they said “OK states, do your best,” and they did.  There is now chaos throughout the Confederacy and the confederate wannabee states.  The most the conservative court under the pen of Justice Alito  could do was claim abortion wasn’t in the Constitution, so it wasn’t protected by it.  That, of course is nonsense, especially when the only sources for Alito’s argument were Medieval white men who were misogynists, just like the Court’s conservatives.  Neat, huh! 

The prosperity gospelers claim the 1^st Amendment gives them the right to force their Christian beliefs on this country because the founders wanted it to be a Christian nation.  These folks have no idea, nor care, what the founders intended regarding religion.  Even if they knew that many of the founders were Deists or held religious beliefs they didn't share publicly is irrelevant to them.  The Bill of Rights declares no establishment of religion in the first amendment, but folks like Justice Barrett see all that as just words she doesn't have to follow because she has god's ear (or some other irrelevance) and her super-Catholic cult lets her know what God wants for this country, prosperity gospel Christianity where the haves have because God likes them better than God likes the have-nots.  Conservative Christian faith does not include folks who don't believe what they do, rather childish, but just what one might expect.  One’s personal religion shouldn’t be involved in any decision-making by our courts, but alas, the conservative justices don’t care about the oath they swore, it was just their way into a lucrative job for life.

I just read an article by Dennis Prager in “townhall.com, (a very right-wing site), called “Why Are So Many Young Americans Irreligious?  The Secular Brainwashing is the First Reason.”  As you can imagine, the article is full of the usual anti-left stuff regularly pumped out by conservatives:  “can’t say ‘Merry Christmas (happy holidays), can’t have Christmas parties or Christmas break” (holiday party, winter break).  Young people have abandoned religion because of the anti-religion stance “the power of the dominant secular culture, the failure of faithful Christians (and Jews) to properly explain their religion to the young, and every public institution has been made ‘god-free.’”  Ridiculous! 

The author whines on that schools don’t refer to god and the Bible and actually hold both in contempt.  (I must have mist that one.)  He claims also with no evidence that religion is held by public schools to be an impediment to children’s learning.  The article continues on in that vein claiming it is brainwashing on the left that has turned young people from religion.  In schools mentioning other faiths is permitted, but not Christianity (of course, not true).  He whines that inside and outside home, religion is disparaged, again with no evidence, just his personal feeling or the claim of his church.

He wraps the article up saying that this “post-Christian age” has been “the bloodiest” in history.  This man has no clue.  Most Nazis were Christian and Stalin and Mao were Communists.  Together they were responsible for more deaths than anything since.  Unfortunately, Prager has folks out there who believe his manufactured “truths,” and will try to use them to push religious fundamentalism on our country.  Prager said young people aren’t religious, so in his new order, are they supposed to be forced into religion?  If so, who is going to do that?  And, what about the people who are Christian or not Christian who don’t want religion thrown in their faces every day?

Besides, young people from all backgrounds have been witness lately, to a whole lot of bad behavior on the part of conservative Christians in power.  They have seen women losing bodily autonomy, just because.  They have seen LGBTQ persons threatened with the loss of their human rights.  They saw an insurgency by white Christians who tried to take over our government on behalf of a non-religious man.  They have seen hospitals refuse to treat women in crisis because a fetus is seen as more valuable than the woman carrying it.  They have seen white Christian police officers shoot down or suffocate Black men.  They have experienced the presidency of a man those conservative Christians revere who cheats, lied over 30,000 times in public while in office, then stole secret documents from the White House while he was leaving.  In short, if that is Christianity, what would entice young people to want a part of it? 

I am a person of faith and do believe the Christianity of the social gospel has something to offer young people, but it is not my role to force anyone to choose or reject Christianity or any other religion. 

People of faith need to stand more forcefully for church and state being separate strands in life, maybe, each supporting but not dominating the other.  We need to talk about it more and why the separation is essential. 

There is a move in some more liberal churches to go back to some kind of heavier embrace of scripture, I guess to prove our faith is as real as Justice Barrett’s seems to be.  I do not approve.  The scriptures of any religion can give guidance, but they have definite limitations, particularly when they are nit-picked to glean pearls to “cast before swine.”  

I and many others are  advocates for a social gospel that is inclusive, accepting, and requires us to increase people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of opportunity.  What I believe guides my life but I don't need other people to believe what I do as Justice Barrett, the other conservatives on the Supreme Court, and their ilk do.  We who are for separation need to speak up often and clearly that we don’t want public religious demonstrations when they are coercive and just for show as that school coach’s 50 yard line BS was.  When we see that nonsense, we need to interrupt with more positive activities, like maybe a drum circle or a quick concert of love songs that will drown out their stuff.  They will still be able to do their thing as Justice Barrett and her kin want, but it will be positively challenged by the much larger coalition of people who value religious freedom, that is freedom to believe or not believe and even more important, freedom not to be dictated to by an extreme Supreme Court or anyone else. 

A “NEW RELIGION?”

By Rev. Ruth A. Sheets

There are times when reading an article I simply can’t believe what I have read, then I think about it a bit and decide maybe there is something to it and the presentation may actually be useful for understanding the opposition.

The article in question this time is “The New Religion of the Woke Left is a Faith Without Atonement” by Tripp Parker.  The article appeared in thefederalist.com.  Although I read occasional articles from “The Federalist,” it is not a favorite.  I find the articles I have read to be judgmental (as one would expect from an organization that hand picks conservative judges for the courts, even quite a few who are completely unqualified). 

This article piqued my attention because of several words:  religion, faith, woke, left, and atonement.  I didn’t expect all of those words to appear together in the same place.  Mr. Parker claims the “woke left” “does seem to resemble a religion.”  He says that should not surprise “us,” I assume meaning conservative academics.  It surprised me, though.

Parker proceeds to explain that “humans use sacred rituals and symbols as unifying forces that allow us to participate in large scale societies.” 

Then, he slithers off into the real intent of the article.  His next sentence tells us that all “non-insect creatures” participate in close kinship networks, while insects like bees have large societies (notice the reference to insects – well done).  Then, those insects share a large amount of genetic material (bring in the science).  Why the insect reference?  Is that to prove your credentials in science of some kind, or perhaps a comment on how much you appreciate the Lefties?  But of course, Parker must tell us that humans are different, we can choose who will be siblings with us.  We recognize those siblings through the “sacred”  you know: “a rock, an ancestor, even a god,” and we organize around that “sacred artifact.”

OK, now, here comes the “Left” into it.  Parker claims the Left has increasingly rejected Christianity (as if that is a sign of anything real), and thus, need something to fill “the void – it’s inevitable!” because we humans need that unifying force; we can’t help it, according to Parker.

At this point, it occurred to me that the article has the flavor of a documentary, studying the Woke Left the way early anthropologists studied chimpanzees before Jane Goodall came along.  The author doesn’t really know what he is talking about, but he has assumed some things he just has to remark on, also hoping to inform his own group just what those creatures are like in their own language. 

Parker proceeds to tell us that the Woke Left is a religion.  He says that even without a supernatural element the Lefties have all the necessary religious trappings:  a core set of beliefs you cannot question, myths that are not subject to “normal” academic inquiry (the 1619 Project), sacred texts (White Fragility), an idea of original sin (being born white and male), rituals (self-flagellation – whatever that is), symbols (he doesn’t describe those), heretics (J.K. Rowling), and de facto priests and prophets (doesn’t name them either) “to enlighten, then initiate us into this new religion.”

He continues by claiming that the Woke Left wants to force everyone to adopt their new way of viewing the world.  But despite this near perfection, there is one truly holy thing missing – atonement.  Huh!         

Parker has now tied the Lefties to Christianity  even though he previously told us the group has left Christianity.  If that is the case, what does the new Woke Left religion need with atonement?  He asks what they do if they sin (original or otherwise), how do we make up for that; “how can they balance the scales?”  He tells the Left a price has to be paid for their sins.  Really, why?  The Woke Left is supposed to have to make some kind of sacrifice because of the horrible things they did in their past life, you know, before the Woke. 

Jimmy Kimmel is one of Parker’s targets because he once hosted a sexist racist show.  Hosting a funny honest show now cannot possibly make up for that past according to Mr. Parker, so Kimmel can’t be part of the Woke Left faith.  Says who?  Then Kimmel is accused of being a Progressive!  O heavens!  What a sin!  And, horror of horrors, Kimmel called out a Republican Representative (Parker doesn’t say who) for not having a soul.  I say that a lot when I hear the appalling things those mostly white Christian men say in hearings and Fox News interviews about their fellow citizens.  They claim Christianity.  Where is their atonement or do they just get to claim they’ve made their sacrifice in private? 

It appears the Woke Left are supposed to “repent” somehow while not calling out those who are doing actual harm to their brothers and sisters, Christian or not.  That’s rather hypocritical, I’d say.

Then, as if that were not enough, the Lefties are accused of getting people fired (the equivalent of human sacrifice in the past).  This means that the ones being fired (whoever they are) did nothing to deserve the firing or whatever public shaming they received.  It is all the fault of the Woke Left, that horrible cult.  Parker ignores the very very many times Christians have fatally accused folks of all kinds of things:  worshipping wrong, being witches, being uppity women or Blacks, not being servile enough, committing crimes they didn’t actually do, whistling at white women, and on and on.  Then there are the actual acts committed against those ancestors and their descendants:  constructing statues of traitors to intimidate a whole people and let another people believe the Civil War was a good cause, destroying whole Black or Native American communities because . . ., denying housing to people because of their color, setting up scams to rip off poor people, wearing sheets and hoods to cause murder and mayhem (boys will be boys, I suppose). 

None of the “shaming” done by the Woke Left even comes close to what has been done by folks on the Christian Right.  Where is their atonement or is that only for the “new religion?”  What actions should a group being oppressed by a more powerful religion do, just knuckle under and go along?  The ancestors of the Woke Left did that for generations, only now and then being able to break through and force some concessions.

One thing this nation knows well, if you are used to being entitled and to being seen as the most valuable group, when you don’t get what you want, it feels like oppression.  And, like the early anthropologists, you are reading the situation wrong.  You, the oppressors are blaming the oppressed for wanting some of the power and rights you have and not being properly sorry for it.  

I understand your fear.  You are used to being in charge of just about everything and now, for the first time you’re not, and I think, somewhere in the depth of your faith, you know you are wrong and have been wrong for a long time.  White isn’t automatically right.  Male isn’t the head of anything.  Straight isn’t godly in itself, and rich is just having more than you need while you leave others to suffer.  That is pretty scary. 

You want no stones thrown at you while you are constantly winding up to toss stones at so many others.  You claim Jesus while you denounce nearly everything he stood for – you know, love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others . . . , love your enemies, blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, etc.

Perhaps Mr. Parker and those on the Christian Right would do well to step back a minute or two (if you can spare that time from your judgment jags) to listen to the Woke Left.  Instead of being defensive at every turn, acknowledge you have participated and continue to participate in the oppression that has awakened the Woke Left.  The Woke Left is not really a new religion.  It is a movement of people who expect a nation of many races, genders, and religions to live up to its promise as described in the Constitution and its amendments and the Declaration of Independence.  OK, that’s pretty WOKE!

And, Oh, by the way, Christian Right, don’t forget to take the log out of your own eye before you go after the mote in someone else’s eye. 

HONESTY

by Ruth A. Sheets

During this past election cycle I have thought about honesty, probably more than at any other time in my life.  I suspect I am not alone in this.

Politicians are not generally credited with honesty, but in my lifetime, there has been an understanding that someone running for the highest office should demonstrate a certain level of integrity, perhaps a bit higher than other politicians.  If the candidate were to “lie,” he would make it a small one usually related to party-inspired promises he would naturally not be able to keep. This was expected. And, if a president put the country and its beliefs at risk, he could be impeached.

This time, a self-proclaimed “great businessman” Donald Trump felt no need to keep to any known standard for honesty. It is hard to say whether this lying was to cover up things he does not want people to know or if he just wanted to confuse everyone. Perhaps it is just habit. Who can tell? 

Hillary Clinton, and Trump’s primary opponents were called on nearly every possible falsehood, by Mr. Trump, his crew, and even the media. However, Trump’s lies were so numerous, the press could not figure out how to deal with them, and still can’t.

A disturbing factor in all this for me is the way Republicans and Evangelical Christians have rallied to this liar in droves. Aren’t these the folks who wanted The 10 Commandments posted in every courthouse in the land?  Isn’t one of these commandments “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor?” (pssst, it means don’t lie.)  And, doesn’t Jesus say that everyone is our neighbor?  Where are the Christian zealots who wanted to condemn any Democrat or other lesser mortal who valued religious freedom enough to nix the courthouse 10 Commandments tablets?  Why, they stood with the liar, of course. To people who are not Evangelicals, the choice of the religious right seems to be any man, no matter how unqualified over any woman, no matter how qualified. God must have told them that the “lying” commandment isn’t as important as keeping a woman out of office. “I’m not sexist. I just don’t trust Hillary.”

Religious paragons claim their choice was for an outsider who would fix things for them, but honesty isn’t part of their repertoire.  How often have we heard in the past few months “I am not a racist.  I voted for Obama, but he divided the country more than anyone else ever has.”  Lying to yourself is still a lie, you guys. 

So, let’s see,  Mr. Trump can lie in nearly every speech he gives and tweet he tweets, but the “I’m not racist, I’m not sexist” religious don’t really care and were just fine with saddling all of America with someone who has no clue what honesty is.  I say this about Trump because I don’t want to believe he is deliberately manipulating good little Christians with his lies because he is truly evil.  Oh wait, maybe THAT is the truth!

Chaos must be OK because it is God’s will?

Hypocricans

by Ruth A. Sheets

Whenever an election season comes around, folks begin talking about third parties.  I want to get a head start.  I have a modest proposal for a third party, or rather, a second and a half party.  I would call them the “Hypocricans.” 

In order to be a member of this party, one must meet a variety of rather strict criteria.  But these criteria are DOABLE and I suspect that there are a great many people who could join tomorrow.

First, a member must want only to associate with people who believe the same things he does.  This is very important because it can make a person uncomfortable to have any beliefs challenged, and God knows a lot of folks can’t bear to be challenged on anything, especially related on their cherished beliefs. 

Members must not have an original thought.  Original thoughts can alienate those one would like to emulate.  It might make others think a person is too smart to be included in their set, and that would be a tragedy.

Members must be male or hold to the “honored” tradition that white men are superior to everyone else.  We know that a lot of women and a few people of color have this essential value, so, for awhile at least, there will be a strong pool to draw from.

Members must be Christian, and assume that our founding fathers were all Christian (no matter the actual religious faiths of George, Thomas, Benjamin, and the others).  Only Christians truly have God’s ear and know exactly what God wants everyone in America to do.  In their heart of hearts, they must know that God has ordained them to be His army on earth.

Members must hate “Big Government.”  That hatred, however must only extend to programs that help people who are poor, struggling, aging, disabled, unemployed, uninsured, and children.  The role of “Big Government” is to enforce the values of the hypocricans:  Big Military, Big Money, Big Brother in the bedroom, Big Security watching everyone everywhere. If you’re doing the right thing, you won’t care who sees you.

Members must hold forgiveness in high esteem.  That forgiveness, though can only come after tearful, if not too sincere apologies for infidelity, extortion, embezzlement, influence peddling, insider trading . . .  And, this forgiveness wipes out all previous offenses, but only for members and their supporters, the true believers.  

Members must LOVE guns.  Despite all evidence to the contrary, members must KNOW that guns are the only way they can be safe.  Members will adhere to the “keep and bear arms” clause of the second amendment, but carefully forget the “well-regulated” or “militia” parts of the same amendment.  

Members must believe that science is a hoax and that nothing science or scientists have to say can be counted as true unless it directly helps the military, provides drugs to improve members’ lives, or contributes to members’ comfort and convenience.

Members must know how to make mountains out of mole hills when small problems arise within the opposition administration:  Benghazi, IRS targeting a few right-wing organizations to be sure they really are “social welfare” and not political, tapping phones of a few journalists.  They must also know how to make mole hills out of mountains when they are responsible for outing CIA agents, starting wars due to a series of lies (so what if more than 4,000 Americans died--it was for the security of America), not showing up to help minority victims of a natural disaster, remember Katrina.

In short, Hypocricans must value hypocrisy above all virtues.  There are a whole lot of people who would make terrific members.  I nominate Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Michele Bachman, and Marco Rubio as the token minority figure.  I’m guessing that Karl Rove will design their platform for them.  He’s had a lot of experience and anyway,  he is a charter member.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This past week, the Obama administration took a bold step, not as common an occurrence as I would like, but certainly welcome at this time. All private insurance companies will be required to cover contraception for women, no co-pays, no denials of service. This includes religion-based institutions who serve and employ people not of that particular faith.

Most people, when polled, thought that women should have access to free contraception.  As of August, even working-class women will be able to plan their family size and decide when and whether they will become pregnant.  An added bonus is that the number of abortions and unwanted children will decrease significantly.

This sounds like a win-win scenario, don’t you think!  Even the right-wing conservatives should find something here to love.

Not so fast!  The Roman Catholic clergy are vowing to stop this service from being implemented in all facilities that are in any way associated with the Church.  It doesn’t matter if the person to be covered by the insurance is not herself Roman Catholic.  The Bishops’ argument is that this is a matter of freedom of religion. 

This is fascinating!  The Roman Catholic Bishops don’t seem to have a problem interfering with everyone else’s freedom of religion as they campaign against abortion and contraception despite the fact that many religious people do not agree with their stance.  They even want to criminalize it, calling women murderers.  In Pennsylvania, the bishops support the bill that is before the Assembly that forces women to have an ultrasound which they must watch, before they can have an abortion.

I guess that religious freedom only counts when the clergy get to force women to follow their archaic world view.  If one’s faith allows for a more progressive understanding, too bad. 

Does President Obama’s position on this matter mean he “hates” the Roman Catholic Church as implied by some commentators?  No, of course not, but the bishops are highly skilled at using inflammatory rhetoric.  They will vilify the current administration in the Church’s campaign against women, a centuries old effort. 

In the Roman Catholic scheme, women cannot win.  They are to submit to their husbands and the Church.  If they get pregnant, that must be God’s will.  If they are too poor to raise a child, that’s their fault.  According to the Church hierarchy, all male, of course, pregnancy is perfection for women and choosing not to be pregnant is a sin, unless a women has chosen a chaste life.

What I don’t get is the number of women who go along with this  nonsense.  Is it their penance for some imagined sin?  If the women left the Church en masse until some real changes on behalf of women were made, it wouldn’t take too long.  Women hold the Roman Catholic Church  together, just as they do most denominations, no matter what those in charge think.

I hope President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services will stand their ground.  Maybe that will keep the bishops distracted long enough to allow progressives to reverse the Medieval abortion laws springing up all over the country.

PSEUDO CHRISTIANS?

by Ruth Sheets

As a Christian minister, I am appalled with the way Christianity is being tossed around by the Republicans these days.  It seems that claiming Christianity as the center of one’s life is all one needs to prove one is a “real American.” 

The candidates stand before the American public and declare that they believe in the Bible word for word and “know” that creation is just as described in Genesis (although which creation story, they are not always sure since there are two quite different accounts).  These candidates are also sure there is a “Second Coming” as described in psychedelic dream that is  the Book of Revelation.  In between, they also are committed to the one verse in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality.  So, we know they accept Genesis, Revelation and a verse of Leviticus, but what about the rest of the Bible? 

If one looks at the “deal” the Congressional Tea Partiers proposed and examine their plans for the future of America, it is hard to see that the gospels, for example, are any part of their public considerations and actions.  (I cannot speak for their personal lives.)

The conservative Republican proposals support the wealthiest Americans, yet, Jesus says that it will be harder for a rich person to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.  He also told the rich young man in Mark, to sell all he has and give it to the poor and follow Jesus.  That doesn’t exactly sound like it meshes very well with what is happening among these professed believers and their relationship with the top 1 percent of American earners.

It is the “Good Samaritan” who stops to help the man along the road in Luke, not the wealthy religious travelers, and the Samaritan was of a hated race.  Jesus said “Go and do likewise. " I see no evidence of Tea Party support of anyone who is in need.  And, their attitude toward non-Christians is not particularly Christ-like.”

Jesus spent a lot of time teaching people, yet, education is certainly not a priority of the Republicans.  Well, sometimes it is, if they can introduce privatization, vouchers, and other destructive elements to “public” schools.  Who benefits?  It is rarely the children.

Jesus said “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  I don’t see the Republican representatives offering Americans the same kind of health care and pensions that Congress enjoys.  In fact, Republicans are doing everything they can to be sure American citizens never do.

Jesus fed the 5,000, yet the Tea Partiers would cut the programs that help to feed their fellow Americans who are not as privileged or lucky as they are.  Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, yet many Republicans across the country have eliminating gay rights as a centerpiece of their platforms, along with abortion which is also not seen as important enough for Jesus to mention either.

Instead of the gospel of love and caring, they read and understand a “Gospel of Prosperity” which tells them that they are receiving all the good things that America offers because they are God’s favored ones.  They pray loud and long in public so that everyone can see how pious they are.  It seems to me that if anyone chooses to claim Christ as their Savior, they must remember the saying of the Civil Rights Movement:  “You can’t just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.”  We’ve all been hearing a lot of the “Christian” talk, but where is the walk?