The Rutherford Lawson Blog

Wright, Hagee, Parsley, and now Pfleger. How many more examples do we need to conclude that religion has no place in politics? Every few weeks, we get a glimpse of some religious spectacle and like idiots who cannot learn anything from the past, we repeat the same stupid mantras:

“How could [candidate name goes here] believe [bombastic religious leader name goes here]?”

“Oh my, this would NEVER happen in my church!”

First, if one is to subscribe to Christopher Hitchens’ theories, all of these ministers believe in stuff that does not pass any reasonable scientific test. When a man believes, let’s just take a random example, that the Red Sea truly parted, how can anything else that man says hold any credibility? Religion and politics reside in two entirely different spheres and mixing them up results in absurdity. Faith has its place. Belief in miracles, if it gets you through the night, has its place. Deciding on how to provide health care for everyone has an entirely different place. Deciding how to get out of Iraq has an entirely different place. Unfortunately, our candidates are so eager to appear pious that they align themselves, deliberately or not, with bombastic, controversial, and yes sometimes NUTTY personalities.

I have written before that I believe Obama is as religious as the typical person. He takes from his religious life what suits him and he ignores the rest. He has the distinct disadvantage of not being able to say “Oh my, this would NEVER happen in my church!” His church is on display on YouTube and the 24 hour news cycles. But folks, let’s be honest. Most folks have heard some pretty wild stuff from the pulpit. The trick is you get to hear your stuff in relative privacy. No prying cameras. No one looking to discredit you the day before a critical DNC committee meeting. The hypocrisy of the religiously self-righteous is staggering.

Either we agree once and for all to separate church from state or we take a more intellectual road and view some of this religious fire and brimstone as satire. Think about it. I give you an exercise. Listen to Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger with your eyes closed. I defy you to tell me how his characterization of Hillary is any different from the satire you might see on “Saturday Night Live”? In fact, to help you with this exercise, I provide two videos below. First Pfleger and then Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton. If we’re going to really listen to Pfleger then listen to him as satire. Satire is designed to illustrate truths through exaggeration. Both Pfleger and Poehler succeed at this. (Quite frankly, I thought Pfleger was hilarious, probably because as my wife points out, he is an entertainer. MANY pastors are entertainers. They are no different from Amy Poehler. They’re playing to an audience.)

Pfleger:

Poehler:

If we’re going to insist on religion playing a role in our politics then we better get used to the idea of religious leaders saying stuff that might turn a few heads. Accept it, analyze it from an intellectual point of view and get off your religious high horse about how offensive it all is. Otherwise, get the cameras out of the church and let’s just talk about how to bring our boys and girls home from Iraq.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Much has been made of Barack Obama not throwing his spiritual mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “under the bus.” I am among those who find Obama’s loyalty in this matter highly laudable. There is however, a truth that Barack dare not speak; a truth more offensive to the public than if he were to agree with the Reverend’s comments.

That truth is that in all likelihood, religion is to Barack Obama what it is to most Americans (and dare I say most people globally): a salad bar. Belonging to a church is as much a social practice as it is a devout one. Most people are “conveniently religious.” They take from religion what they like. If the edict or practice goes against their core beliefs, or is just plain too much a pain in the ass to follow, they discard it. The Catholic church is an especially good example of this, wherein the most commonsense of practices (such as birth control) are frowned upon. Just about every Catholic you meet, ignores substantial teachings of the church but still calls themselves Catholic. The same goes for most religions. If your primary purpose in going to church is to see and be seen, then it hardly matters what the pastor says.

I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama is a fake Christian. I’m simply suggesting that he falls in the category of most church goers who treat religion like a salad bar. They take the lettuce, tomatoes and shredded cheese but perhaps they ignore the croûtons. My guess is that Reverend Wright’s most controversial sermons were the croûtons that Obama simply chose not to digest. Why did he not leave the church? Because like most Americans, he had no problem staying and enjoying the lettuce, tomatoes and shredded cheese. He got sustenance where he found it, and avoided the parts he found distasteful. How many of you “Sunday regulars” have not done the same thing?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

It’s amazing how the media is focused on the subliminal cross found in the bookcase behind Mike Huckabee in his Christmas greeting commercial.

Folks, getting your undies in a knot over whether the bookcase was filmed with a deliberate attempt to imply a cross is a waste of time when instead you can focus on what the candidate SAID! “What really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ.” Holy cow! With that one statement, he just dissed Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists and a host of other non-Christians.

We need to put the ridiculous conversations aside (is the bookcase photographed to look like a cross?, was Barack ambitious in Kindergarten?) and closely examine what these folks are saying. There was nothing subliminal about Huckabee’s bible thumping rhetoric. Let’s wake up and smell the coffee folks. At the rate things are going, one day we will wake up to find White House press conferences resembling prayer meetings.

I’m not ready to sign up for that. Are you?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

When I heard Mitt Romney refer to the “faith of my fathers” in his recent “Kennedy speech”, I cringed. I watched various political pundits applaud Romney’s attempt at duplicating Kennedy’s much more eloquent clarification of his religious priorities. Then finally a breath of common sense fresh air (albeit a mighty gust) came from Lawrence O’Donnell on “The McLaughlin Group.” O’Donnell dared to comment on the gorilla in the room, namely some truly wicked aspects of “traditional” Mormonism.

Had Romney stated, “I am a practitioner of modern Mormonism, a religion that has recently attempted to abandon its previously detestable precepts concerning African-Americans”, then I would have little to say against him. But Romney chose to embrace the “faith of my fathers” and to explicitly refuse to “disavow one or another of its precepts”. He went on to say that “each religion has its own history” which is not a basis for criticism. Excuse me? It is the HISTORY of Mitt’s religion that makes it so odious. Romney went on to say that we Americans share a “religious heritage” with a common commitment to “equality of human kind”. However, Mitt’s religious heritage identifies Blacks as inferior, as folks who sinned in the world before this one, and hence are paying for it on Earth with dark skin and various deserved disadvantages.

Even if one could overlook the ethical deficiencies in the history of Mormonism, how does one get past Romney’s utter disdain for non-believers? “We are a nation under God”, he declared. Sorry, Mitt, not everyone believes that! “Liberty is a gift of God”, he says. Again, sorry Mitt but one can very clearly believe in liberty and at the same time believe that God is a fairy tale. “We welcome our nation’s symphony of faith”, says Romney thinking that he is being inclusive. Are all the agnostics and atheists’ “instruments” being muted in that symphony? Where exactly do they fit in?

In John Kennedy’s shorter and much more effective speech of 1960, he made only one “defense” of Catholicism when he said, “But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith–nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.” This wisely, was his only bow to those who felt he might be selling out on his fellow Catholics. The rest of his speech emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state. In stark contrast, Romney warned of the “religion of secularism” and seemed oblivious to the constitutional prohibition against the government promoting one set of beliefs over another. Kennedy said, “Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice” [emphasis added by me]. For Romney, those who choose not to attend are ripe for condemnation. To hear Romney’s view of our nation, agnostics and atheists are unamerican.

So, three cheers for Lawrence O’Donnell! Could his comments be construed as a rant? Probably. Did he lack a bit of decorum? I suppose so. But with our country on the verge of becoming a christian theocracy, some ranting might be just what we need right now.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

One of the recent headlines that has gotten much attention is that of the British school teacher in Sudan who allowed her class to name a teddy bear Muhammed. She was arrested and there were demonstrations calling for her death. Does religious tolerance call for us to “understand” this kind of total lunacy? The religiously skeptical among us consider many of the doctrines of ALL the religions to be awfully hard to swallow but there is no doubt that organized religion brings great comfort to many of its believers.

So I propose the following solution. I suggest that appointed representatives from all the world’s religions have a summit perhaps hosted in the United States, in which religious tolerance is a longstanding tradition. The purpose of this summit would be construction of a Theocratic Bill of Human Rights whereby all of these religious leaders would discuss in detail their individual doctrines and publicly pledge to not allow the “rules” of any religion to violate the human rights of any human being. In the case of the Sudanese elementary school teacher, common sense prevailed and she was released but wouldn’t it be a bold step for the religions of the world to come together and agree that we don’t kill people (or give them 40 lashes) for naming a teddy bear Muhammed? We don’t issue a fatwa on an author for freely expressing his views in a fictional book (i.e. Salman Rushdie). We don’t teach impressionable youngsters that if they fly planes into buildings, they will be greeted with ready and willing virgins in the hereafter.

Religious tolerance is the admirable and decent road to take for a civilized society but that tolerance must hit a limit when the religion itself calls for uncivilized behavior.

Respectfully,
Rutherford