Is the Republican Party About to Shift on Gay Marriage?

Evidently there is a growing pressure from local rank and file Republicans for the party and the leadership to stop opposing gay marriage. They argue that the issue distracts the party from dealing with more fundamental issues related to the economy and health care. They continue on to note that for the party to attract younger voters in larger numbers, they Republican party needs to formally change its position.

 

While nearly all of the nationally elected leaders and a large number of state leaders oppose gay marriage, while a growing majority of the upcoming leaders who are being elected to local offices are in favor of the party changing its position. Though the majority of Republicans over the age of 55 are against gay marriage, a majority of Republicans under the age of 30 are supportive of gay marriages.

 

Is a significant shift in the offing in a year or two?  Though some political observers suggest it is at hand within a year or two, I doubt that it will occur, at least not until at least two more presidential election cycles. I cannot foresee it has happening that quickly because of the evangelical and fundamentalist Christian wing of the party dominates the agenda, and Christians of that persuasion provide a significantly large portion of the party’s income.

 

The shift will occur as the dominance of the religious right declines, but it will not be for some time yet. Data going back into the early 80s signaled that the evangelical and fundamentalist churches were likely headed for decline in the first two decades of this century. Studies in the last decade have not only confirmed this but are indicating that the decline may become more rapid that anticipated two decades ago. There is also growing evidence that the more politically active the religious right has become, the more its sway and profile is before the public, the number of young people leaving evangelical and fundamentalist churches has grown. There seems to a correlation between the activism of the religious right and the lack of attraction for the younger generation.  

 

The power and influence of the religious right will decline over the next decade. Fewer election officials on the national level will feel beholding to the religious right for securing their election. It is then that the shift will occur. There will be much consternation within the religious right when the Republican party changes its position on gay marriage. And when it does, the religious right will face a conundrum, hold their noses while supporting the Republican on the ballet, or run a candidate of their own who is unlikely to win the seat, or not vote. While some will cease voting, running their own candidates in primaries will be first pursued by most. Eventually more and more will become engaged and support a candidate even if the candidate does not align with their views of marriage and the gay lifestyle. It will be a painful process but that is the price of being highly engaged in one party and pushing a narrow agenda.

 

Christians need to be involved in politics, allowing their faith to guide their thinking while speaking respectfully on a breath of issues, just as those of faith different than theirs should do, put forward their arguments in a cogent manner while recognizing that the government and society is not a branch of the church, or expected to do the bidding of the church. Expecting government to do the bidding of the church, or a theological brand of the church, it is unhealthy for the church, government and the nation.

 

When the distinction between faith and governance becomes enmeshed in politics, particularly so when heavily aligned with one party, the distinction between the secular and the sacred worlds are blurred but at risk of being erased, with candidates rejected on a narrow set of standards for not being “Christian” enough. Also, such political endeavors result in the church supporting government actions that are not only highly questionable but may well be contrary to the church’s proclaimed values and faith…which may partly account for far fewer under 30s attending conservative churches than their parents did in the 70s and early 80s.  

Using Religion as a Cover for Discrimination

This evening the nation is still watching to see if Governor J. Brewer of Arizona will sign or veto a bill that allows for “religious reasons” a business to deny services to anyone they so wish to do so. The rationale is that no business or person should be forced to provide services to a person for whom they view as living a lifestyle, or who has views that are against their religion. While the law is broadly written and makes no mention sexual orientation, gays are its primary target.

 

While Arizona does not have any laws protecting gays from discrimination with regard to housing, services, etc., three cities within the state have such laws. The law before the governor is an effort to override the laws of the three cities and allow businesses and individuals to discriminate with the State’s blessing.  I am disappointed that similar legislation is working through the Georgia legislature, and likewise under consideration in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Missouri.

 

The bill is driven by a cluster of "conservative" Christians who view gays as living an unhealthy and sinful lifestyle, and feel gays should be second class citizens. They are uncomfortable with interacting with gays. Their perspective is akin to John Calvin’s views and his rule of Geneva. The viewpoint holds that the Christian faith should govern the law of the land, and no Christians should be forced to work with or provide services to those who they consider to be offensive to them and their beliefs.

 

Under Calvin’s leadership, Christian values were imposed upon all citizens. Everyone was required to go to church, whether they were part of the elect or not. Swearing, playing cards, playing non-religious music, doing any work on Sunday, even quietly in private were outlawed and could land one in prison. Those whose faith was defined a little more broadly than Calvin, could find themselves in prison for what doing what they viewed as being okay by their understanding of faith, but which Calvin views as sinful.  After seven years, Calvin jettisoned imposing religious laws upon the whole population.

 

I am against the Arizona law on a number of levels and hope Brewer vetoes the bill. I am against imposing Christian views upon the country as a whole. Whose Christian understanding of faith should prevail, conservative Baptists? Conservative Methodists? Roman Catholics? Are we to outlaw the eating of meat on Friday? The religious beliefs of The Salvation Army which views smoking and alcohol as evil? What about those churches that view eating out on Sunday or filling up your car’s gas tank as sinful?    

 

I detest laws which set one group above another, giving one group the ability to use their majority to abuse and discriminate against a minority. The strength of American democracy and its Constitution is that it protects the minority and reminds the majority that they must be mindful of the minority and do not live in land where the tyranny of the majority is enshrined.

 

It infuriates me when people use the Christian faith as the cover for unjust discrimination and prejudice, to grant privileges of one group over another group, and to justify conduct that in other contexts would be criminal and ungodly. Such conduct contrary to the Christian values that I know and value. We have seen religious rationale as justifying the enslaving of other races, as segregating people of different faiths into designated “quarters” with inferior infrastructure, denying people with employment opportunities or advancement or equal pay for the same job, destruction of property, beating and killing, prohibiting people of different ethnicity from socializing and marrying, denying entrance to a college, and turning down bank loans. We are not talking about what has taken place in past centuries for many of these things have taken placed during my lifetime.

 

My belief system should not be imposed upon others, nor should the beliefs of another imposed upon me and my family. That said, if I am working in the world, I should be able to interact civilly those who have different beliefs and values, and I should not deny them services that I can reasonably offer and which they reasonably can expect. My interaction is part of life, and does not pollute my faith and life.

Value Voter Conundrum

The Republican primary race has been most interesting to observe as candidate after candidate postures themselves to court and please evangelical and tea-party voters. Given Mitt Romney is a Mormon and Mormonism is considered a cult and heresy, the evangelical Christians, and many tea-party members are facing a challenge as to which Republican candidate to support. I wish it were otherwise, but a canadate's religion still impacts a canadate's acceptability.

A series of non-Romney candidates have risen and then fallen. No doubt many statements are pandering in nature rather than firmly held core values. While the challenge is to keep from being fooled by shallow emotional appeals or false statements of piety, when “value voters” stress and emphasis religious piety, the typical chameleon politician will put on that mask.

Early flag bearers have been found lacking the necessary skills and balance to be President. Some have uttered views that sound right but lack an ability to argue their way out of a paper bag. Two who have balance and thoughtful positions are not considered as they lack the dynamism of an evangelical preacher that value voters prefer.

The latest non-Romney hope, Newt Gingrich and thrice married serial adulterer, is presenting a conundrum for the value voters who hold the sanctity of marriage so high, and living out those values tend to see it as one of the bedrock elements. Twelve years ago value voters and evangelical Christians lambasted Clinton, then called for his impeachment over the matter of being an adulterer. Clinton the example of what many evangelical preachers encourage from their congregants in such situations, the Clintons worked through matters and remained married, and Bill Clinton changed his life.

Gingrich is not only twice divorced but the manner in which he announced the end of his marriage to his two wives is highly troubling. Further troubling is that Gingrich’s first wife and children had to turn to their church for financial support for a period when he did not provide child support. Value voters are troubled further in that not providing child support goes to essential character and fathers not fulfilling financial obligation to their children is another major issue with value voters.

There is little doubt about Gingrich’s golden tongue. As one of the fathers of the current political climate of winning at all costs he put that tongue and his disarming smile to use in spinning things that sound thoughtful and intellectual. Gingrich is skilled in positioning himself to be highly appealing to Value Voters. But Value Voters are left wondering if what they are hearing is well contrived spin designed to seduce them.

Hence, these same voters find themselves in a box, they want to support Geingrich but doing so goes contrary to what they have argued in the past as being bedrock values.

For a host of reasons Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Adams were wise in noting that we must be take care not to align our faith with our religion.

At the end of the day, I hope that the Republicans will give the nation a viable choice. Unfortunately, I do not see much of the current slate of current or former front runners as a solid candidate worthy of my consideration.

Why Are Evangelicals Silent

Within a few decades of the American Revolution, the American political environment has gone through cycles of intense animosity and division. The bitterness ahead of the election of Thomas Jefferson and during the Andrew Jackson era are particularly notable periods if division. Of course the most divisive period was the fifteen years before the start of the civil war. America has cycled back to age of nastiness and where doing anything to gain political advantage over the other is viewed as expedient, justifiable and rationalized as good for the country as it keeps the enemy out of power, or frustrates the enemy’s legislative agenda.

As evidence by the governor’s race in South Carolina, the nastiness has spilled into internal politics where Nikki Haley is running against Andre Bauer. Haley, a woman who converted to Christianity from the Sikh religion has been called a “raghead” and her conversion many years ago questioned as been part of a great subterfuge to put a Sikh into the governor’s mansion. Out of respect for her parents, Haley occasionally attends Sikh ceremonies for which she has been criticized.

To undermine her credibility, without offering any proof two men have come forward saying that they had affairs with her. Innuendos and the subterfuge claim are intended to undermine her credibility. She denies the charges and though there is no evidence Bauer has outlandishly argued that she should take a lie detector test.

The party which proclaims to be the family value party and cries for honesty frequently turns to such tactics such as unfounded character attacks, use of derogatory terms, subterfuge, obfuscation and other negative attacks as a tool to destroy an opponent. And this from the party that aligns itself with the Christian Right and the Christian Right staunchly supports. What is further unfortunate about the Christian Right is that they not only remain silent on the use of such tactics, or say “that is them but not us,” the evangelical community is often the tool being used to help spread such attacks rather than being a tool to criticize their use.

Evangelicals should not be silent, but they are. Where is the outrage? Just as they were silent on the abuses and unethical actions of the Bush administration, evangelical leaders and pastors by enlarge remain silent. To those outside the church's influence it appears that they support the telling of lies and unethical attacks and conduct. It says to the world that religious beliefs take second place to helping their person get elected.

Are “War on Christmas” Warriors Helping to Further the Secularization of Christmas

For at least two decades the conservative element of the American church, particularly fundamentalist and a significant part of the evangelical church, has been concerned over the secularization of Christmas and fearing the Christian holiday in a secular holiday.

Since 2005 heavily driven by right wing Christian elements and spinmister Bill O’Reilly a “war on Christmas” has been waged. The “war on Christmas” is an effort to keep “America’s favorite holiday” from being secularized and neutered so that non-Christians are not offended. The Family Research Council argues “Christmas” is inherently a religious term and therefore the holiday is inherently a Christian holiday and should be celebrated as such. They argue that if a person is to celebrate Christmas then it should be celebrated as a Christian holiday or not at all. In essence this most benevolent position holds that whether a person is a Christian or not, they should use the religious greeting, use the religious symbols, the trappings as if they are Christians. The argument is that they should put on a mask and behave as if they are Christian.

As part of the war O’Reilly has created a “Christmas friendly” measure to which merchants are evaluated regarding their friendliness towards Christmas. Merchants who do not use “Christmas” in their advertisements, have their staff say “Merry Christmas” and who do not put up an adequate display of Christmas trimmings are scored poorly. A merchant is graded down and berated for advertising “Holiday” sales or using the phrase “Happy Holidays.” Rather than leaving it to their staff to decide what to say many merchants have mandated that their employees say “Merry Christmas”. Advertisements are festooned with Christmas greetings and artwork and stores are decorated according to the seasonally politically correct manner and that “Christmas” is prevalent.

Four years ago The Salvation Army was criticized by the soldiers of the war on Christmas for becoming politically correct and removing “Merry Christmas” from its kettle signs. “Merry Christmas” was never removed as it was not on the sign to begin with. The other day I was looking at some old pictures and came across three of with kettle signs from the late 1970s…no “Merry Christmas” was on these old “Need Knows No Season” signs either.

The other week O’Reilly and one of his colleagues running into bombast were pleased that they made a difference and are winning the war on Christmas. They are pleased to be in the forefront in beating back the secularization of Christmas.

For all their glowing pride, these soldiers who are fighting against the secularization of Christmas are decades late. Just a rose by any other name is a rose, Christmas by any other name is a secular holiday in both Canada and the United States. It is time for that we take a deep breath, get a life and recognize the reality that Christmas is a secular holiday. GASP.

Yes the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ rests below the surface, but it the celebration and worship of the Christ child has become encased in layers and layers of cultural celebrations. One only has to work one day in a Salvation Army distribution center or stand at a kettle outside WalMart for a day to see that people of various non-Christian faith traditions are participating in the gift exchange.

Though efforts are made to tie the Santa story into the Christian story of Christmas, Santa has nothing to do with the religious holiday. Neither do the decorations and the parties. The great Christmas feast is not part of the Christmas story. Likewise, the tradition of traveling great distances to spend the holiday with family and friends has no connection with the Jesus story and worship of the Christ-child. The timing of the holiday is tied to ancient pagan Roman, Germanic and other ancient cultures celebration of the winter solstice. All these elements have become attached to the celebration of Christmas and as each was added, each in their own way added to the secularization of Christmas.

A stone through from my office is the Egyptian Embassy where last week they put up a Christmas tree and decorations. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, druids, atheists, etc. are celebrating the holiday by putting up trees, lights, decorations, exchanging gifts, and partying with friends and family. Many of these folks are comfortable with being greeted by “Merry Christmas” and giving the greeting too. Evie and I know Jewish families that celebrate both Hanukah and a secular Christmas holiday. In Iowa I knew a Hindu family that celebrated Christmas as an American cultural holiday…they sang the songs and carols, they put up the decorations, they bought and exchanged gifts and other than going to church you would not know they were any different from our family.

Outside the Sunday Advent readings and carol or two sung, from my observations few Christians become mindful of the religious component of the holiday until Christmas Eve, and possibly part of Christmas Day. Why I say part of Christmas Day is that the birth of the Christ-child is not part of or upon the minds of the family during much of what happens during the Christmas Day celebration with family and friends. Sure we listen to Christmas music on the radio, ipods, stereos, etc., but the religious carols intermingle with the secular songs and the Santa fable to be part of a cultural celebration.

As for expecting, nay demanding “Merry Christmas” be widely spoken and be the standard retail establishment greeting once we are into December, a troubling question plays upon my mind. Given the “Merry Christmas” greeting being mandated by managers, and expected to be said to all and from all their employees regardless of their faith, how would the “Merry Christmas” advocates react to a store requiring all their employees to give a Jewish or Hindu or Muslim greeting during those religions high holidays and festivals? I fear that there would be a huge cry out from the Christian community over such a requirement being placed upon Christian employees and the greeting being spoken to all. Such an outcry would expose the fallacy of the “war on Christmas” position and that such a hard stance is not in keeping with the constitution.

I shake my head and laugh at the “war on Christmas” warriors. Instead of getting to the heart of the issue and challenging the Church to jettison the secular elements, to simplify the holiday and focus upon the heart of the Christmas story and the worship of the Christ-child, I suspect that in the long run the “war on Christmas” warriors are reinforcing the opposite of that which they seek. The more “Merry Christmas” along with all the celebration and trappings are used and spread about within the secular and non-Christian communities, the deeper Christmas will become an American cultural celebration. In so doing they are helping to reinforce the commercialization and secularization of the holiday that is celebrated by everyone, regardless of one’s faith system.

Warriors like O’Reilly are focused upon and battling for a phrase, as if that phrase was a mystical magical phrase. They are treating the phrase as if it were lucky rabbit’s foot, say it enough and all will be well with the country because God will bless us type of mindset. They are repeating the same error Israel did with the Tabernacle which they brought into their camp thinking it would give them victory (they lost badly).

These warriors push retailers and civic leaders to have the trappings of Christmas. They are attempting to keep the holiday from being neutered many decades after it has already been commercialized and neutered. In their fight for the Christian Christmas face, they are overlooking the message of Hosea 6:6, that it is not the trappings and the practice of a religious ritual that is called for, but the a generous compassionate heart.

Christian Right's - A Fallacious Claim

The American Christian Right putting forward its agenda upon the national scene frequently argues that they have a right to do so as the United States was founded to be a Christian nation and that they are only fighting to remain true with the original intent of the Founding Fathers. I have been reading on and off the Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography. In his work I came across the statement that makes fallacious such a claim.

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

The Founding Fathers held that the United States should be a nation that allows freedom of religion for all religion, as well as freedom not to believe any set of religious teachings. Though they did not think through the consequences, or envision how society would evolve, they also held that government should not favor any particular religion.