I'd like to be up front and admit out of the gate that I'm not religious myself, but I'd also like to note that I don't inherently dislike religion. I have never in my entire life felt as at home and comfortable and loved as I did growing up in my wonderful suburban church. Through my church I had an extended family that loved me, my family, and time and again helped us out. They helped me get my Eagle Scout award in the boy scouts, they were a major driving force in the international education philanthropy I was a part of in middle school, and they were always loving and accepting. Basically, they're the reason I became a professional boyscout scientist instead of an aggressive dropout without morality (picture a less insane and fatter Charlie Sheen).
They taught me the phrase "WWJD", or "What Would Jesus Do?" And that's a question I ask a lot, recently.
What WOULD Jesus do? I'm not specifically talking about the 2012 United States Presidential election, where one Christian (Obama) is against another Christian, and a Mormon more specifically (Romney). However, I think that with the importance of religion in the next election, it's probably relevant to consider as we move on that neither individual is an atheist or Muslim, as many poorly researched propaganda peddlers claim. It's also probably important to point out that if you seriously still think he's a "secret Muslim", hiding his beliefs in order to take over America using secularism, you're an ignorant twit whose understanding of religion, and basic logic is on par with the understanding of a rather slow child.
No, for better or for worse, Romney and Obama are both Christians. They both attend church every week. On national television, we've seen them lead and join in prayer. They love ending speeches with 'God Bless America'. So, though we hope they enforce the separation of church and state, we also hope that their own personal ideologies are compatible with kindness and generosity, important virtues in a possible president.
When it comes to American politics, it's not unusual to hear someone ASK, 'What would Jesus do?' (Well, it should be unusual, but that's because somehow 'separation of church and state' has become 'HOW separate, because we're totally unwilling to keep them completely separate.... cough cough republicans cough cough')
Well, I'll start by listing a couple things I don't really recall from the bible that many highly political people seem to think Jesus would've done. I don't recall Jesus ever picketing funerals (The Westboro Baptist Church). I'm relatively certain he didn't have much to say on abortion, since it wasn't really a well known option in his time, but I am damned certain he wouldn't be blowing up abortion clinics (Such as the "Lambs of Christ" or the movement as a whole). He had a lot to say, but very little of it was related to inflicting violence. He said he came as 'the sword' (Matthew 10:34), not to bring peace, but that doesn't tend to be the focus of the rest of his teachings. If it were, he'd be less often depicted as angelic, and more like the religious version of the terminator.
Hell, even as an agnostic atheist, I can enjoy most of what the guy supposedly said. You don't have to believe he was the son of God to see the merit in "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43) or the 'golden rule' of " do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). He basically pioneered the teachings of "Don't treat people like garbage" and "Stop being assholes to each other." It doesn't take a religious believer to understand why that might be a reasonable idea.
And here's where my real question, and my rant, begins.
Where the hell did all the angry and hateful religious shit come from? Pardon my french, but when did 'Devout Christian' become 'Intolerant Douchebag'? When did 'religious' come to mean the same thing as 'science denial'? And when, WHEN, did it become acceptable for anyone running for a political office to decide that their religion is now THE religion? I mean, I don't want to go all "Godwin's Law" here but....the last time I remember reading about a leader taking over and enforcing his religious beliefs on a country, it ended pretty poorly. (For those of you not following along, I'm basically comparing Romney to Hitler for illustrative purposes, making my point through hyperbole, though I understand it's not a direct or reasonable comparison).
Seriously, I have to ask: What would Jesus do? This is the guy who hung out with whores, he spent time with the homeless and the drunks, he told his followers to give up their money and possessions, and expected them to listen, and be good people for it. So how is THAT guy, the "No money, kindness for all, love one another" person being quoted by people who seem to hate everything he had to say? I mean, what bible verse did I miss where Jesus told his followers, "Also, hate gay people, and marginalize them, because Love as a concept is super gross when it involves Gays. I know in 1 Corinthians 13:13 I said love is the greatest thing, but only when it's straight love. Otherwise, not good."
I can't even imagine how the Jesus that I see in the bible would react to someone like Mitt Romney, or the socially conservative political right.
"I love Jesus" said Mitt Romney probably sometime in his life.
"Really?" said imaginary Jesus, "Because it APPEARS that you just love yourself, and giving me a bad name. I said to give to Caesar what is his (taxes), I said to treat others with kindness (obamacare), I said help the poor (welfare and obamacare), and I said to not judge others (gay marriage, abortion, etc). I didn't say hate everybody you disagree with, you pompous manipulative little ass."
Wow, getting a bit aggressive there, eh Imaginary Jesus? Hey, that's the spirit imaginary Jesus, you tell him, I understand your frustration.
So it all comes back to that question I was taught in church, and that question I think we need to consider right now. What Would Jesus Do? Really, WWJD? Probably not paint signs telling everyone "God Hates Fags". Probably not try to enforce on the whole country the religious beliefs of only one part of the country. He'd probably avoid giving MORE money and MORE power to the rich while ignoring the poor. In fact, if I recall correctly (and I usually do), Jesus was PRETTY CLEAR ON THE WHOLE "HELP THE POOR" THING. Heck, that's a pretty clear message during the WHOLE BIBLE.
 |
| I can't find the original citation for the photo, but it's too good not to include. |
THIS is why all of us non-religious folks, and plenty of religious folks, are upset! Because when we hear someone say they're a very religious christian, and they care about others, they should ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING TO SHOW THAT. How will cutting funding to healthcare programs benefit the poor or sick? Is it more important to have a free market in every facet of American life than to save the lives of thousands of starving children? This isn't a goddamned hard question, folks. "Do we protect children from starvation?" YES. The answer isn't, 'if their parents are hard working taxpayers with strong christian morals, they won't need protection.' The answer is FUCKING YES. FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTHE THE POOR, and try to be good people!
In this election, vote however you want. If you're religious, feel free to vote based on that, I can't stop you. But I want you to consider one VERY important thing...which interpretation of the bible, of Jesus, of God himself do you think is the one that should influence the leader of the country? If you're really asking yourself the questions Christians say they ask, then what do you think? What WOULD Jesus do? Would he tell us only SOME people deserve love, respect, and fair treatment?
As I finish up, let's consider a few things never said by Jesus:
"Marginalize the poor!", "Screw the little guy, he needs to just work harder!", "Ban anyone who disagrees with my religious beliefs!", "Kill the queers!", and "Rebuild America as the theocracy our founding fathers probably really wanted."
I'm also pretty sure Jesus never said 'God Hates Fags' or anything about America whatsoever since it wasn't discovered (aside from by the native Americans) quite yet.
I'm pretty sure he never said 'Gays shouldn't marry' and I'm pretty sure he never said, 'Taxes are bad because the rich can't get richer!' He was a Jew in the middle east who gave out free healthcare to the poor, didn't judge those of lesser social class, encouraged working for philanthropies and the community, and he discouraged ever being hateful or violent. He said a lot about the world that might be worth listening to. But none of it encouraged the hateful bigotry towards gays, the marginalization of immigrants, the abuse of the working poor for corporate profits, or the enforcement of one religious belief system on those who don't believe in it.
What would Jesus do? I really don't know, but I can be pretty DAMNED sure he wouldn't vote for someone like Mitt Romney, and wouldn't support his name being used to spread intolerance and hate.
Thanks for reading, and I know this isn't quite as comedy oriented as what I normally post. However, if you like this style or theme, let me know in the poll to the right, and check out some of my other thoughts in posts like "Jerks Finish Last" and "Kid Rules to Improve the World".
I love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment below or follow me on Facebook and Twitter for more information and updates!
Thanks,
Brian
A few things: many Christian groups wouldn't claim Mormonism as being one of them. The whole extra testament, Native Americans as the lost tribe of Israel, spiritual polygamy, and magical underwear thing just doesn't sit well with them.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, Mormons still believe in Jesus, just not the same Jesus that the rest of Christianity believes in. It's more of a Space Jesus. Because everything's better if you say the word 'space' in front of it. Space Beer. Space Bucks. Space Candy. Everything is better.
As to much of the rest of your post, I like and agree with much of what you said. Jesus did pioneer the peaceful acceptance movement in the western traditions. (The east had several that predated Jesus by about 400 years.) And for that I can say that as a teacher who leads people on the path to goodness and eventual enlightenment (both in a spiritual and social way), he's fantastic. Asking 'what would Jesus do?' is a great way of finding a moral pathway in one's life, but one could ask 'what would someone who isn't a total ass-hat do?' and get pretty much the same answer.
Morgan, I JUST heard about "Magic Underwear" the other day, and I didn't believe it. The Space stuff I knew, but not the underwear.
DeleteThe Middle East taught many of the moral principles well more than 400 years before Jesus (1000 to 1500+).
'what would someone who isn't a total ass-hat do?' Actually, I'm pretty convinced that most people feel pretty comfortable about how they measure up to that standard, and it diverges wildly from actually trying to follow Jesus' moral teachings.
I agree on much of your points, Robert. The truth is, my point in asking what would Jesus do isn't to say that it's necessarily the be-all and end-all of viewpoints on morality, but rather to ask how so many religious individuals think that the actions they take reflect the teachings of their spiritual adviser.
DeleteAs for the other point, I agree that many christian groups wouldn't consider the Church of Latter Day Saints christian...but by the definition of the word, and by classification by the united states, they are. I know that there are plenty of crazy beliefs they hold (aside from just the magic underwear, like their understanding of fate, and my personal favorite, the idea of magical golden plates that hold the words of God getting lost so Joseph Smith could find more things to lie about) but I'm more concerned personally in the idea that the morality of a group that claims themselves freethinkers, caring, and religiously sound includes any sort of bigotry, as well as a dismissal of the religious tenets they claim to espouse towards the poor, sick, weak, etc.
As for the morality concepts...the Golden Rule is written down as far back as you can find human writings. Literally, it seems as if every thinking human culture on the planet has been able to figure out the idea that 'being assholes is bad'...so it's way before Jesus, sure. But I also think that because christianity is so pervasive, that at least the teachings from it should STICK, right?
Anyhow, good points all, and I am similarly convinced that 'don't be a douche' could be a singular and all encompassing commandment. It just happens that people don't want to listen to that idea unless a man in a desert a few millenia ago said it.
For Jarrod's (ColtsAndDew), I also agree with the teachings predating Christ, and think it's fascinating. But I would also agree that most people think jesus' teachings probably do go further than simply not being a total asshat. I just happen to think that some OTHER lessons taught along side those (pretty much leviticus as a whole, Timothy, a fair amount of Paul and Matthew) begin to approach the crazy scale, since they stop being about moral truth, and more about cultural issues that are seen as religious standards. Well, either way, glad you're thinking about it, and good points by both of you guys!
Thanks,
Brian
Due to internet connectivity issues I sometimes have from my current country of residence, I sometimes write a post or send an email that somehow magically isn't posted or sent. I then must recreate that same post or email mostly from memory, which usually causes me to forget what I have said and what I have not yet said. Unfortunately, that has apparently happened with my post.
DeleteWhat I meant to say, Jarrod, was that in terms of significant, still extant religious traditions which have a clear and historical founder, Jesus was a pioneer in the western tradition. The Levantine faiths that existed pre-Abrahamic tradition era (and persisted into early Christian era) did have these same moral truths, but those were never ascribed to a singular, founder of the faith who was seen as some sort of prophet or special emissary of the divine. Abraham himself never revealed any moral truths (excepting taking his own story as a parable). Just so in eastern traditions there were a number of extant theologies that had similar moral teachings, but no singular master or founder.
The point I was trying to make was that as far as a founder of a tradition and an expositor of moral rightness Jesus was no pioneer. Not only did his native traditions already have the ideas, but so did other traditions in other lands. While he promoted good ideas, they were neither new nor innovative.
As to Mormons and being crazy, the whole populating a new world with your spirit-children after death, is a bit much. Or the idea of posthumous baptism. Or the idea of a council of 'living apostles' who commune with God and know his will.
Whether or not someone feels that they measure up to a standard, that standard is necessarily subjective. So, when someone thinks, "Am I being a total asshat? No? Then I'm good." That is their definition of what it means to be an asshat. If I were to see the above person in the above situation and think to myself, "Is he being an asshat? Yes, a total asshat." Both those opinions are right in and of themselves. You didn't say this in as many words, but you are quite correct that we shouldn't use a subjective standard to measure or compare someone's morality to someone else's. The problem that I see with that is a complete lack of objectivity in the human experience, especially in regards to the interpretation of right and wrong.
Hypocrisy is a pervasive human failing. Perhaps it is THE human failing. Knowing that we shouldn't do something, but doing it anyway.
Amen, brotha! Preach it!
ReplyDeleteMy old pastor posts essentially the same things on FB each week. Regarding Jesus' statements about dividing households, etc., they seem to be about people deciding between religious tradition vs. actually doing, in sincerity, the moral things Jesus described - so those parts also support your point.
I wonder about the same questions a lot (and, more often, what to do?). I have some interesting, well-collected survey data from 2000-2008 that covers some related information - I will try to share soon.
I appreciate your post!
Thanks! I mean, I really try to be at least passably polite about religion...but yeah, I get pretty frustrated by it when I see it abused or used as a weapon. And I'm glad you agree or at least like the thoughts! My old pastor from my hometown is a friend of mine on Facebook, and I always love the inspiring or friendly words he puts out...it helps to generate good vibes and thoughts, instead of being so angry, as a lot of religion on public media sounds.
DeleteThanks!
At first I thought, "Nope, I'm stopping at the bears, skipping the religious/political stuff and waiting for a good moose story." But then I read this anyways and was really impressed, Boobab. Maybe it is because I have similar points of view, or wonder some of the same questions, but I didn't find this as offensive as I was prepared to. How great to compare a widely accepted leader of the past with a potential or current leader of today? Does it have to be about a religion? Does it have to be about something so personal? Why couldn't it be about being a 'good' human being?
ReplyDeleteMom may have to filter through the language, and Dad will have to glaze over the Republican comments, but I think they both could appreciate this piece of writing and that's sayin' something! Good for you for finding a way to express yourself without offending too many people (races, political affiliates, certain religions etc) and still being true to your POV.
Thanks! I mean, not exactly flattered you assumed I couldn't write about religion and politics without being rude or unfair, but AM flattered you liked it and were impressed. Still not loving 'not AS offensive as I was prepared to", but hey, that's what I get for writing on the internet.
DeleteI know you have similar viewpoints, and that's why I think your religious views are reasonable. Yours are based off of a cohesive and consistent belief system that you have considered from a moralistic standpoint. And no, it doesn't have to be about religion, because morality is separate from religion. They might overlap if you ARE religious, but the concepts are not inherently intertwined.
And I LIKE writing about these things, I just worry about exactly what you mention...offending people, because they decide my viewpoint is an attack. I always feel a twinge of bitterness whenever other people think their viewpoint should be spouted and forced on others, but if I even articulate mine, they're personally hurt and offended.
I guess that's why I'm such a relativist, eh?
Thanks sis, and I love getting the feedback. Next time I might even improve the language!
...
I might not though. It's pretty freeing to cuss, even if it is only typed, and online.
I'm glad to hear you ask What Would Jesus Do.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add some facts for your consideration.
http://www.guttmacher.org/index.html
Are you IN THE KNOW?
Abortion Incidence
How many abortions occur each year worldwide?
Answer
More than 40 million abortions are performed worldwide each year. More than 85% of all abortions occur in developing countries.[30]
How many abortions occur each year in the United States?
Answer
There were roughly 1.2 million abortions performed in 2008, and the abortion rate was 20 per 1,000 women aged 15–44.[31] Put differently, about 2% of American women aged 15–44 had an abortion that year.
=========================================================
Positions of U.S. political parties
Though members of both major political parties come down on either side of the issue, the Republican Party is often seen as being pro-life, since the official party platform opposes abortion and considers unborn children to have an inherent right to life. Republicans for Choice represents the minority of that party. In 2006 pollsters found that 9% of Republicans favor the availability of abortion in most circumstances.[66] Of Republican National Convention delegates in 2004, 13% believed that abortion should be generally available, and 38% believed that it should not be permitted. The same poll showed that 17% of all Republican voters believed that abortion should be generally available to those who want it, while 38% believed that it should not be permitted.[67]
The Democratic Party platform considers abortion to be a woman's right. Democrats for Life of America represents the minority of that party. In 2006 pollsters found that 74% of Democrats favor the availability of abortion in most circumstances.[66] However, a Zogby International poll in 2004 found that 43% of all Democrats believed that abortion "destroys a human life and is manslaughter."[68] Of Democratic National Convention delegates in 2004, 75% believed that abortion should be generally available, and 2% believed that abortion should not be permitted. The same poll showed that 49% of all Democratic voters believed that abortion should be generally available to those who want it, while 13% believed that it should not be permitted.[69]
The U.S. Green Party supports abortion as a woman's right.
The U.S. Libertarian Party takes no position on abortion, but the Party opposes any government funding of abortion.
Thanks for letting me comment.
Love,
Dad
Yeah, I checked this information for a while, and wrote a lengthy response before I realized I wrote more to respond here than I wrote in the original, relatively long, post!
DeleteSo, to be more brief.
Thanks, and always feel free to comment. I let everyone, and I try to respond charitably to them too.
The stats and info here is interesting, though incomplete. It doesn't include some pretty useful numbers, like the number of people who have multiple abortions, which districts it's reporting from, and racial/income comparisons in full. The CDC does a great job, and estimates about 40% less than the numbers here, but they are possibly being conservative. They are, however, the real main source to check out, since they're the primary information gatherers in the US related to abortion, if you're curious for the future. It's unclear where every number comes from, but still interesting nonetheless. Plus, they lump all abortions (those for mother or baby's health, those for financial reasons, or rape, incest, etc) together. That's a big no-no in stats, but that's ok. Also, I think that if your argument against abortion is secular, it should totally be involved in law, and if it's related to religion, nope.
But my REAL argument, my REAL point I'd want to make is....this is one tiny piece of a much larger story. My post isn't about abortion, it's about following a moral code and exemplifying the beliefs you claim to exemplify. If you call yourself a christian, then act christ-like. If you're not assuming morality from religion, then define your morality and live like that...but abortion really isn't a main point of this article, and frankly the info above doesn't really surprise me. I mean, 1 million sounds large (the CDC put abortion at around .8-.9 million per year, with the vast majority of them being from white individuals, but proportionally about 5x as many from african american individuals. Also, much more commonly in low income areas where the cost of raising a child ($400,000 over 18 years estimated from dept of education 2005) was greater than %1,000 of the annual family income. So, saying you cannot provide for a child, or will be unable to support yourself and a child successfully, seems a reasonable reason not to have a child in my eyes, right? or health reasons? Or rape, or incest? or because the mother is too young? I'm not necessarily advocating all abortions being acceptable, in any fashion. My post said that there was a reasonable hope for religious individuals to not judge others and not try to put their beliefs ahead of others. Hell, Jesus even agrees to that in the bible. As Mother Theresa put it, "There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."
Seems pretty fair to me.
But again, I come back to your response, which i appreciate and think has cool and extremely interesting/useful info...I'm just not sure what your GOAL is, what point you're trying to make. I wrote about trying to live a moral life as taught by the question of what would jesus do, and I argued that many religious individuals don't live up to the religious morality they claim. I don't necessarily see how national abortion statistics are clear here. Either way, I appreciate you reading.
If you want to explain more, I'd love to have a dialogue, and I appreciate your input. These are mostly credible sources and acceptable stats, and helpful for me to gain a better understanding of the scope and stats surrounding this morally confusing and politically volatile issue. But I would still like a bit more clarity as to what you're trying to say.
Thanks, and much love Dad! I appreciate your insights.
My points were pretty simple. The numbers when polling individuals in all parties are much broader than official party platforms would suggest. It is not ALL Republicans or all Democrats...
DeleteMy other point was simple and direct, (though the CDC reports the officially reported numbers, they acknowledge that it is an underestimate of the actual number of abortions.) 800,000 - 1,200,000 million abortions a year is a big number and is largely (though by no means exclusively) a matter of not choosing acceptable birth control. I'm not advocating that all those who have chosen to have abortions should be forced to give birth, I'm advocating personal responsible behavior along the thematic line of What Would Jesus Do. I believe these are lives that shouldn't be taken and probably should never have been started.
Gotcha! I didn't realize specifically what you were intending to point out, this makes a heck of a lot more sense.
DeleteYou're totally right about the variation between political groups and their interpretations of the morality associated with abortion (as well as, well, practically everything). In my post, I'm primarily focusing on the larger collective. After all, the majority of folks I know, republican or democrat, aren't science deniers...but I know more often than not, people who DO deny science (evolution, creationism, expanding earth theory, big bang deniers, denial of drug resistance, claims of HIV as a heavenly punishment, climate change denial, etc) tend towards more conservative viewpoints and are associated with the party. My point was to set up a juxtaposition of ANYONE and their moral teachings versus actions.
Thanks about the CDC, I hadn't seen their discussion about estimation, I'll look it up. A 50% difference in numbers REALLY matters, especially when they base their statistics off of those numbers and if 2% vs 3% of abortions are due to rape and incest, that seemingly small difference of 1% adds up quick!
I agree also, COMPLETELY, about how a large proportion of abortions are a result of improper planning or a failure to use/access proper birth control. Every study I can find shows that with abstinence only sex education, students are more likely to catch STI's and get pregnant, so if we're concerned about acceptable birth control and planning, it's super important we ensure that everyone receive accurate, non-religious biased information about sex. Telling them that wearing a condom is a sin means you're going to get a lot of terrified and confused kids who get pregnant or infected, and don't know what they can do! Also, keeping organizations like Planned Parenthood open matters. They've been shown now to NOT use federal funding towards abortion, which is actually 3% of their total services, and it is all privately funded. Mitt Romney has stated he wants to completely eliminate Planned Parenthood, and Paul Ryan has openly stated that his stance on abortion is it should be illegal even in cases of some kinds of rape (he pioneered legislation that differentiated based on the 'severity' of rape and the subsequent legal status of the fetus, a shocking consideration based on how much flack Akin got for a similar comment!).
Yes, 'God helps he who helps himself', but it's important to remember that Jesus was the one who said that protecting the poor and even the sinners was the key to a meaningful life. Jesus didn't refuse to heal you if you made a mistake, right?
I believe abortions should happen far less than they do, and I believe that improving our sex education, as well as family planning resources would help that. After all, the choice to deny condoms and other forms of birth control (obamacare and the fight there) might be the difference between an abortion or not.
I agree we should definitely take personal responsibility...but that doesn't mean that we outlaw the solutions found for those who screw up, get unlucky, or simply disagree about the moral stance. For people like me, it's not taking a life, it's taking a life in potentia. I don't call an acorn an oak, and I don't call a blastomere a baby.
Abortion is not something anyone LIKES. No one WANTS there to be more abortions, even though we are drastically overpopulated to a degree that we're ruining and killing our planet at record speed. But there exists in BOTH parties, an interest in helping our peers and not judging others, a lot like Jesus asked.
Love the feedback, and you have awesome points. Especially about the variation in each party. Thanks!
Brian