The Religious Score Card

Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family, and others of the very Conservative Christian Right, are losing their power. Not every Evangelical, or every former Republican, or every Christian, is allowing them to speak for them anymore. That's good news for all of us Christians, and everyone who isn't a Christian, and for everyone in our country. Their votes and their public speaking, which they considered Christian, helped get our country into this mess - the war, the economy, the environment, the corruption and deceptions, the lack of justice and lack of respect for the Constitution - well, we all know the long, long list! All done by the man they - yes 'they' - elected because they thought he was such a strong Christian. All done by the voters who thought that America should be a more Christian nation, and voted for Bush because he bore the right title.

If you don't think that Dobson speaks for you, there's now a new website called www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com. There's many other organizations giving a place for Christians who make their voices heard, including the Matthew 25 Network Political Action Committee, that takes Matthew 25 far more seriously than Dobson does -- when God will assemble the nations at the Last Judgment and judge them according to how they took care of the poor and needy and the stranger and the sick.

Unfortunately, many on the Conservative Christian Right still make judgments based on two issues -- abortion and homosexuality. Their score card seems a bit tipped, considering how often they love to quote the Bible. What does the Bible say about these issues?

Abortion: Zero. Zilch. None.

The closest verse is Numbers 5:12, which seems to be for abortion, depending on what Bible translation you use. There are some verses about the sanctity of life, but since most conservative Christians do not have a consistent life ethic -- meaning they aren't against war and against capital punishment, nor are they for any governmental help for the family to help with the an unwanted child -- it's difficult to make a strong case that they are getting this stand from the Bible. And since this stance began to be popular during Reagan's White House election, it's not a stance with a long history.

Homosexuality: Six verses that are quite specifically about homosexuality.

All of these verses are about degrading sexual practices and none about loving
homosexual relationships or about homosexuality as identity.

A Nation should care for the poor and the needy: About 600 verses.

Most are ignored by the Christian Right, who believe that charities and the church and individuals should help the poor and the needy, not the government. As a result, the Christian Right refuses to make legislation that would help those in need. Unfortunately, they're not doing well on their own. They haven't yet fixed New Orleans, or Kansas, or Iowa, or the problems with the returning vets, or the mortgage crisis or unemployment or the economy. They insist that only they are the ones to help, but are uncaring, ineffective, powerless, or all of the above.

Caring for creation -- the environment: A minimum of 20 verses.

One could make a case that any of the 50-100 verses about creation imply that we are to care -- as God has cared.

Against War: About 150 verses about peace.

The Christian Right doesn't even mention these verses, nor the most important -- about the "blessed peacemakers". They seem to have no awareness of the possibility of peace, or of diplomacy, and their candidate believes that diplomacy and surrender are the same thing.

Most Progressive Christians do not believe every letter and verse in the Bible, but the fundamentalists, conservatives, and literalists tell us they are following the Bible and therefore can't vote for a Democrat. Perhaps it's time they check their translations before they get our country into even more trouble!

Comments

[Merlin7]

Religious people seem to be playing a game of Let's Pretend. "OK, we'll pretend that this imaginary god exists, even though there's not a shred of evidence that he or she does, and we'll also pretend that those old tribal writings are divinely inspired and then we'll expend considerable energy and time arguing over what the god really meant when he said so-and-so according to those tribal writings which, by the way, we realize were heavily edited by popes and other political operatives centuries later."

It's just nuts! I prefer to heed the wisdom of the Head Leprechaun. And by the way, there's just as much evidence that the Head Leprechaun exists as there is that God exists.

[meanguy]

nothing in the bible about abortion? try 'thou shalt not kill'

[bgregs]

Okay, it's a deal! We'll stop allowing abortion if you make it illegal to go to war! And at the same time, make it illegal for the state to commit murder by using the death penalty!

[RepublicanBrain]

I'm sorry, but someone has oversimplified. The Bible doesn't state "Thou shalt not kill" it states "Thou shalt not murder."

Glad to clear this up. Anyway. Under the law, we can go to war, and it is not murder. Same with the death penalty. By contrast, there is no due process for abortion. It's simply a selfish choice without the fetus having a say.

[RepublicanBrain]

As for the poor, the Bible only speaks of aid and charity, not of the group to do it. It actually goes more on a "noblesse oblige" path, that the landowners should leave any stalk of wheat that falls to the ground where it is, and not to harvest the corners of their lots, so that the poor may take it. It is an individual concern, and not that of the government. This is in Leviticus, by the way.

As for environment, God did not specify. Thankfully, you acknowledge this is an implication. God's command was to fill the Earth. Implication could certainly be to take care of it, but this is not stated.

You also don't seem to read the Bible much. You speak of peace, however, you're forgetting that a majority of the Old Testament, particularly the book of Judges, is about war. War is not reviled in the Bible, it is treated as an inevitability. Peace is good, but even God knows that peace does not last forever, and blesses His people in battle against their foes.

I'm not one of those Bible thumpers. I don't even go to church. However, if you're going to argue the Bible, please, do it properly.

[bgregs]

But in the new testament it could be argued that peace is the entire rule! Further, since the new testament is all about the new deal with god, and all the old rules no longer apply......

[RepublicanBrain]

Not only is your entire argument based on a "could've", but, even in the New Testament, there is still war, and conquering. Jesus's message was one of love and tolerance, not of pacifism. Turn the other cheek if one insults you, but if one kills another, Jesus did not say leave him be.

[RepublicanBrain]

Maybe you need to read it a little more, Ms. Seger. You dismiss sanctity of life because it is inconvenient for you, and use the flimsy pretext of inconsistency. Please, show me where in the Bible killing babies is approved. One phrase that's typically used in the Bible is Jeremiah 1: 4-5.

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 5 �Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart"

This states that, even before Jeremiah was conceived through sex, the Lord knew him, and set him on his path (prophecy, in this case.) This would, of course, come before some selfish woman ends a pregnancy because it's inconvenient for her.

As for homosexuality, here's a tidbit. You can't have a homosexual relationship without homosexuality. If the practice is decried, the relationship need not be, as it does not exist without it. A relationship between two men that is not sexual is not homosexual, nor is it decried by the Bible. As for identity, that's a distraction issue one attempts to throw out. The practice is called out, and that is enough.

[TJinSoCal]

Actually in its historical context, the references to homosexuality were more about the practice of conquerors sodomizing the defeated, a totally male ritual to emasculate the vanquished. Sort of a form of "man-rape". And yet there's nothing about girl-on-girl action, so I guess lesbians are allowable...

[RepublicanBrain]

And this means...what exactly? This hasn't answered Seger's point or mine.

[Merlin7]

It's pathetic that a resident of a relatively civilized nation, in the 21st Century, still cites a motley collection of old semitic writings, most of which were written with political and social agendas in mind, to make a point. Scholars now know that most of those writings were variations of tribal myths and folktales. There is not a shred of evidence that any of that stuff was divinely inspired or, for that matter, that any divinity exists to inspire anything. Religion is just strange and sad, and should be regarded as what it is -- a psychological aberration brought on by stress, insecurity and cultural influences. Instead, we have billions of these people, many of them fanatical, on our planet, which is why the modern world is constantly on the verge of self-destruction.