megachurches and power: what would jesus do?

I just read an interesting and somewhat frustrating story (for me) from Reuters:

Megachurches build a Republican base
By Andrea Hopkins

LANCASTER, Ohio (Reuters) - It's not Sunday but Fairfield Christian Church is packed. Hundreds of kids are making their way to vacation Bible school, parents are dropping in at the day-care center and yellow-shirted volunteers are everywhere, directing traffic. In one wing of the sprawling church, a coffee barista whips up a mango smoothie while workers bustle around the cafeteria.

"There are people here from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day -- sometimes later," senior pastor Russell Johnson says as he surveys the activity.

The 4,000 members of Fairfield Christian are part of the growing evangelical Christian movement in middle America. In a March survey, a quarter of Ohio residents said they were evangelicals -- believing that a strict adherence to the Bible and personal commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ will bring salvation.

The fastest-growing faith group in America, evangelical Christians have had a growing impact on the nation's political landscape, in part because adherents believe conservative Christian values should have a place in politics -- and they support politicians who agree with them.

In that March survey, more than 82 percent of the Ohio evangelicals who attend church at least once a week said they approve of bringing more religion into politics.

"Christians stepped back too far. I prayed in school but my kids can't pray in school," said volunteer Lisa Sexton, 42, a Bible school volunteer. "I should have spoken up earlier."

Political analyst John Green said evangelical growth has had a major political impact in Ohio, a key swing state that narrowly decided President George W. Bush's election victory in 2004.

"Evangelical Protestants have become much more Republican in recent times, although 40 or 50 years ago more of them were Democrats," said Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

"There was a particular intensification of evangelical links to the Republican Party during the Bush administration in 2000 and 2004."

Sexton believes every word in the Bible, rejects evolution theory, and supports the Iraq war, the Republican Party and Bush -- in part because he is a born-again Christian.

"I trust his opinion because of his beliefs," she said. Read more.

I am not a religious person. I would venture to guess there are many more just like me who are not religious. But that does not suggest I think religion should be shunned from the public square, and I'm not talking about nativity scenes. If a group of Christians wish to congregate somewhere, that's fine. I think we all agree on that point. I also feel the same way about any special interest group -- gays, minorities, economy clubs, whatever. The issue I'm having anymore is with a movement that is making an end-run around the constitution to infuse Jesus Christ -- not religion, but their religion -- into government at every level.

There is a danger when a group with as much influence as evangelicals throw their full weight behind one party, or one candidate. As Ms. Sexton said, she is all-the-way behind the president because he's a born-again Christian.

That should sound a warning bell to everybody.

Cult of personality is a dangerous proposition for a country as diverse as the U.S. If you forget the current polling data for a second, you'll recall Bush won his presidency by the scantest of margins. Yet his followers are hopping on his back to set a course for this country that caters only to a very vocal minority.

Infusing a religious doctrine or set of demands brought forth by one sect of society that applies to all is dangerous. And it's where we're heading.

God, science and politics can co-exist. And it did a pretty good job for a long time. But not anymore. Not when people choose to use a 2,000-year old spiritual text as a science book.

Truth be told, I'm utterly baffled at the plight of evangelical Christians. In the case of this Reuters article, we witness a 4,000-member church that is gathering, celebrating, discussing and socializing. They are free to speak their minds and free to come and go as they please.

Somebody needs to show me how their rights are being infringed upon because public schools don't allow prayer. This just in: they shouldn't!! I, personally, choose not to pray. The argument that, "you don't have to participate if you don't want to" is crap. It's exclusion, pure and simple. Telling people to go stand in the hall for a few minutes is not and should be a matter of law. It's partisan and serves only to further disenfranchise and fracture society. There should be no organized, government-mandated effort toward prayer. Period. Anything to the contrary is wrong.

Such a view is different, mind you, than saying churches and religions should be banned. I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm merely saying you can bring your personal beliefs anywhere you like, but don't tell me that I have to take time and observe YOUR beliefs. If such is the case, where's my cut?

Do I get five minutes before the start of the day so you all can observe my love of Jerry Seinfeld?

You would call that absurd.

Well, now you catch my drift on how I think about any government-sanctioned recognition of a religion.

I do believe spritual leaders should have a voice in the community. And they should speak to power, as is the civic responsibility of us all. But the danger comes in when they ally with one party, when money moves back and forth between these movements. If evangelicals are so pious, why haven't they been more vocal in the human rights violations at Guantanemo? About rendering? About war, in general?

I've seen many religious people protest nuclear testing, death penalties and war only to be berated for being "liberal." Interesting how fellow Christians will ignore one's Christianity when it's not convenient to their own views.

I'm hardly a practicing Christian, but I find it somewhat antithetical to Jesus Christ that a church becomes drunk with money and power. It honestly makes me wonder: What WOULD Jesus Do?

yet another "good" point from a kool-aid drinker™.

Here’s a letter that appeared in the Friday edition of the Indianapolis Star:

Star goes out its way to show Bush in bad light
I am sick and tired of the left-leaning slant The Star puts into every editorial piece, and in reading other letters to the editor here, I see that I am not the only one. From the misleading headlines and snide comments, to the unflattering pictures you dig up, you rarely miss an opportunity to show our president or members of his staff in a bad light.

The last time I looked, this was a red state when it comes to elections, and it's high time we had a newspaper that reflected it. I swear, if George W. Bush negotiated world peace tomorrow, the story you would print would start off something like this, "The president, whose job approval rating is at a record low, has somehow managed to . . . "
Joe Fall
Fishers

One thing I’ll say about them Bush-backers: what a bunch of whiny CRYBABIES!

Awwwwwwww, whatsamatta, Joe? Did your wittow pwesident get made fun of? C’mon, show us how you cry, Joe? Squirt ‘em.

There are a few problems with Joe Fall’s assertions here. Just because a state goes red or blue in an election does not translate to blind support for any political leader, no matter party affiliation. This is my most critical issue with party zealots and Kool-Aid Drinkers™ –- they always believe their guy is above reproach.

In a word: bullshit.

It makes me laugh almost as much as it makes me pull my hair out to read these crybaby assertions about Bush. Hey Joe, where were when the entire block of Republicans and talk radio were beating on Clinton for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office? Oh wait. Since Indiana’s a red state, that’s allowed.

Talk about stupid logic.

Besides, it’s not the Star’s fault that Bush’s approval ratings are so low. They’re so low because the president is doing a lousy job. Of course, the red state hyenas pin it on the “liberal” media (whatever that means). Of course, they also pinned Katrina, Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Plame-gate on those scoundrels in the fourth estate.

It’s high time these sycophants wake up to the reality that this administration has only itself to blame for all its mistakes. It’s always ironic when tough-talking conservatives claim to be all about accountability until…well, they themselves have to be held accountable.

Sorry, Joe, you no longer are allowed to blame the media. How about looking at where the buck stops and start asking questions there.

I’m pretty fed up with the far right whining, chickenhawk, pin-the-blame-on-the-media, victim-card-playing jackasses. You’ve had a Republican House and Senate for most of the last 12 years and a Republican president now in his second term. How about you start assigning blame where it belongs, you head-in-the-sand (or other places) morons.

And while we’re at it, the next person who accuses me of being unpatriotic or “giving aid and comfort” to the “enemy” when I protest this administration gets a full-on kick in the nuts. Oh wait. Clearly, far right Kool-Aid Drinkers™ have no balls, since they whine and piss and moan about being picked on so much.

They only like a fight when it’s with somebody who won’t fight back.

enough with the ‘i’ word.

I’m reading the online liberal rags today and they’re getting more and more comfortable with The ‘I’ Word. Salon.com is reporting that people are hunky-dory with an impeachment proceeding against Dubya if he lied about the reasons to invade Iraq.

Liberals and anti-Dubya folks are popping boners the size of Texas over the thought. Before you all rub one out to thoughts of hauling Bush into the Well of the senate for a public flogging, it’s worth noting that’s a rather large and bulbous ‘if’ from here to impeachment.

For starters, if we learned one thing from Clinton’s impeachment, it’s that it’s a political process first, followed by a legal process. Guilt or innocence truly is a tertiary issue during an impeachment proceeding. Simply put: facts don’t matter as much as you’d like to believe.

Secondly, good luck proving Bush lied about an Iraq war. Oh sure. I may certainly believe he and the Pentagon cooked the books. And I may very well be right. But I have serious doubts about a paper trail.

Thirdly – and most importantly – do you really and honestly believe an impeachment proceeding is a good idea? I, for one, do not. It smacks of a vendetta over the ridiculous impeachment of Bill Clinton. Just because that was pointless does not give this Congress license to crack back.

It’s one thing if they have ironclad evidence of a lie, or cover-up. But I doubt they have that. As such, an impeachment just looks petty (and it probably is).

Bush is a lousy president, no doubt about it. But I’m not sure being a close-minded, slow witted, dull thinking, crony-loving, dim bulb of a buffoon rises to the level of impeachment. The ones with whom you should be pissed off are the Democrats. They’re the ones that screwed things up by not doing a better job of electing congressman, senators and a better presidential candidate.

You can’t replay the down, so tone down the ‘I’ word and focus on 2k8. I really wish liberals had half a brain about elections instead of playing armchair quarterback over the last election.

my last word about alan matheney.

In a couple hours or so a man is going die. He's going to be killed by the State of Indiana. Alan Matheney is going to be executed for the 1989 murder of his ex-wife, Lisa Bianco. It happened in Mishawaka, Indiana, when I lived in neighboring South Bend. I didn't know her or her family, but the story gripped the community and sent ripple effects throughout the nation.

Matheney was already serving time for beating Bianco. He was granted an eight-hour furlough. His mother drove to the prison, fetched him, brought him back to Mishawaka, where Matheney beat Bianco to death with a rifle.

And now, in a matter of minutes, he's going to die for his crime.

While I'm mostly against the death penalty, I can't help but not mind that Matheney is about to be killed. I make no apologies or excuses for my sentiment. I also do not revel in the carrying out of the sentence. It's a weird place for me, to be simultaneously against the death penalty, yet in favor of Matheney's death. I suppose I made it personal.

I'm not one for bloodlust. I'm also not going to fight to spare his life. My view of the death penalty is it does no good. It doesn't deter crime. It doesn't bring back the life of a murder victim. And, in many cases, the evidence is not as obvious and compelling (which is why the appeals process is necessary, I might add). At the end of the day, I'm not comfortable with playing the percentages when it comes to a sentence as final as execution.

But in the case of Alan Matheney, I'm going to suspend my personal beliefs and not feel the least bit conflicted over it. I'm not playing God. Nor am I dancing on a grave. But in this case -- at least for once -- I can go to bed tonight knowing he's getting what he deserves.

Believe me, there's no joy in saying that. Nor is there a guilty conscience. But there is sadness because it means we, as a society, still haven't gotten it right when it comes to crime, punishment, and domestic abuse.

Nevertheless, Alan Matheney deserves to die.

And that's the last thing I'm ever going to say about that.

what the hell was the objective?

While I have been against the war in Iraq from its outset, I have never confused my respect to the troops. They don't get to pick where and who to fight. But I'm growing more and more disillusioned and somewhat embarrassed when I hear stories of abuse against POWs.

Andrew Sullivan.com had a recent update that spoke of abuses against POWs at the hands of American soldiers:

Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public . . . Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat.

One word: unacceptable.

This is not a "bleeding heart liberal" cry, so please save that flailing, one-dimensional retort for another day. We can't call ourselves good guys when we're acting like the bad guys.

As Americans, we must universally agree to the principle of basic human rights for our enemies as well as our allies, despite our disagreements about the merits of the war in Iraq.

I've heard the arguments against me already:

They'll do it to us.

Or worse.

I don't care.

It doesn't matter.

Haven't we always said the difference with Americans is we hold ourselves to a higher standard?

After reading the accounts of Abu Graib and beyond, I'm beginning to wonder. It's not hyperbole when I say I have serious doubts that this administration has any grip on the true meaning of leadership. Bush and Rumsfeld are to blame here. You can't pin this on state and local governments this time. They have lost control of the military leadership. I'm with Andrew Sullivan: Time for you to go, Rummy.

What's scary about these human rights violations is nobody seems to care; least of all this administration. Heaven forbid something as pesky as human rights for Iraqis should get in the way of their objective.

What the hell was the objective again?

the money quote.

Arianna Huffington hits it right on the screws:

...it took less than two weeks after the unveiling of Janet Jackson's right boob at the Super Bowl before the president's congressional cronies were holding hearings on the matter -- but it took 14 months before Bush caved to public pressure and allowed the 9/11 Commission to be formed. Again, you pick the real obscenity.

fall in line, harry.

So Harry Reid is going to vote against confirming John Roberts as the new chief justice. Yeah, that's shocking. He can do whatever he wants, and his nay vote won't stand in the way of Roberts ascending the court, but I wish he'd just fall in line.

Under Bush, Roberts is about as good as it's going to get. He doesn't strike me as a loose cannon or a scary ideologue. I think the Democrats should do as the Republicans did when Clinton appointed Ginsburg.

And besides, it's the next justice that's going to be a lightning rod. I think we all know that's going to be a fierce fight. So why quibble over Roberts? Especially when he's all but assured to be confirmed.