Dark Knight speaks to our darker nature

August 16, 2008 by cpiatt.

‘Dark Knight’ speaks to our darker nature

By CHRISTIAN PIATT

I’m a big fan of movies. Always have been. As a kid, my folks took me to the drive-in all summer long, and we’d hit the theaters at least once a week.

Suffice it to say that having kids has stifled my movie-going habits dramatically. I see very little that’s not animated anymore, unless I catch it on DVD.

But when the buzz kept building about “The Dark Knight,” Christopher Nolan’s most recent iteration of the Batman saga, I knew I had to catch it on the big screen.

This movie definitely was unlike any comic-book-themed film I’ve ever seen. The characters were startlingly real and disturbingly complex in their moral ambiguity.

There was, however, nothing ambiguous about Heath Ledger’s Joker, the much-praised performance that may earn him an Oscar nod in memoriam. Together, Ledger and Nolan present a fiendish character whose most fearsome qualities are not in the depth of his power, but in his absolute lack of regard for himself or the rest of humanity.

Most bad guys - or girls - are motivated by things we can relate to, such as greed, revenge or the like. It’s almost fun in a way to live vicariously through certain villains, getting a kick out of the voyeurism.

This Joker, however, is no joke.

Ledger’s character is the embodiment of pure anarchy, content to sit back and watch the world burn, with himself at the center of the conflagration.

His power lies in having absolutely no fidelity to any person or thing in the entire world, including his own life.

The protagonist, however, has no such luxuries.

Batman’s (Christian Bale) desire to preserve life and his romantic inclinations toward Ms. Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) are Achilles’ heels that make him vulnerable to his opponent, regardless of the firepower he brings.

The Joker is fairly explicit about his relative weakness and lack of resources. He points out that his only passions in life - gasoline, gunpowder and knives - are cheap.

Yet he wreaks havoc on a metropolis out of sheer will, and because he has nothing at all to lose.

The terror of such a character lies in the salient reality of its existence in our world.

After all, if a handful of men with some box cutters are willing to go down with an airplane, what’s to stop them or anyone else?

How do you buy someone off who will burn a mountain of money out of sheer spectacle?

How do you intimidate him into compliance if he has no fear of death or suffering?

In battling such a force, how do you keep from becoming the very thing you are trying to stop?

The implications with regard to modern American society are disturbing.

In recreating our idea of villains, Nolan also turns the notion of heroism on its head.

Batman’s saving acts at the end of the movie hardly lead to a ticker-tape parade or keys to the city.

Instead - spoiler alert - he becomes the symbol for everything he fought against: a guiltless martyr.

The Messianic parallels, though not stated outright, are so mythically similar to the crucifixion of Jesus that any Christian is likely to sense the similarity.

After all, who has better demonstrated that doing the right thing may not lead to glory and adulation than Christ himself?

I won’t say the film is fun or that it left me with much hope.

But it did leave me with the lingering sense that choice really is the main thing keeping us from being as good - or as bad - as we imagine ourselves capable of being.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

AIDS data forces us to face facts

August 9, 2008 by cpiatt.

AIDS data forces us to face facts

By CHRISTIAN PIATT

I had mixed feelings about recent news that HIV infection numbers are way up in the United States.

On one hand, it’s a tragedy that anyone in our affluent, knowledgeable society still suffers from a preventable disease such as HIV/AIDS, but it is good news at least that the virus, which claims thousands of lives here every year, is at least momentarily on the public radar again.

I’ve worked in HIV/AIDS nonprofit care for the past seven years, and in that time, I’ve watched public interest - and subsequently, funding - for domestic HIV care and prevention drop significantly. While AIDS in Africa receives substantial dollars, the care systems here at home continue to weaken.

Meanwhile, those affected most are the poor, who lack access both to prevention education and materials, as well as access to the systems of care which can prolong the life of an HIV-infected individual indefinitely, and improve quality of life to the point that those affected can work, pay taxes and do practically anything else the rest of us take for granted.

The good news is that the recent blip in the media is due to improved testing, rather than a massive spike in infection rates. The bad news is that rates continue to rise among specific demographic groups - some unexpected - such as seniors, young people, heterosexual women, African-Americans and Latinos. There are a couple of reasons why there’s little political muscle behind HIV/AIDS these days, even though half-a-million people currently live with HIV domestically, more than 1 million have died of AIDS and 56,000 new infections emerge annually.

First, those affected most don’t happen to fall among the most politically powerful groups and lack the advocacy mechanisms to keep their needs front-of-mind among those in power.

Second, there’s still a social stigma around HIV/AIDS because it is principally transmitted sexually or though intravenous drug use.

As a result of decreased public support, the front line in the battle against HIV has - perhaps ironically - become our local churches. Though it’s a particularly sensitive subject among historically non-Anglo churches, that’s precisely where the greatest need is.

There’s a recent story about a caseworker who called a church in her community about coming to speak to the congregants about the risks of HIV, along with prevention and care strategies.

The pastor declined, noting defensively that no one in his congregation had the need for such information, and that the message would only scare people unnecessarily.

The case manager thought the pastor’s response was curious, considering one of the church members already was a client of hers.

I’m not a big fan of most messages on church signs, but one local church has had some great ones lately. The first message said that, “Giving with the expectation of something in return isn’t giving; it’s trading.”

The second read: “Charity responds to the need, not just the cause.”

If a church focuses only on the perceived moral implications related to HIV infection, without addressing the present needs of those living with the disease, they are not fulfilling the Gospel call to care for their neighbor.

Along those lines, if they give money or care only with the condition of the recipient conforming to their own value systems, they’re not actually giving, but rather trading, with strings attached.

Though it may be against human nature to give unconditionally to those with whom we have personal differences, it’s precisely the sort of litmus test that helps reveal whether we walk the talk we pay lip service to, all too often.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Evangelist’s excesses are in the spotlight

August 2, 2008 by cpiatt.

As if Christian ministers don’t have enough bad press to contend with, between financial scandals, extramarital dalliances and the sexual abuse fiascoes of the Catholic church, Kenneth Copeland is falling into a predictable stereotype for media-savvy evangelists.

Known as one of the fathers of Prosperity Gospel - the idea that God wants us to prosper not just spiritually, but also financially - Copeland has come under recent scrutiny by The Associated Press, Congress and the Internal Revenue Service for questionable financial dealings.

Personally, it’s enough for me that he has an eight-figure personal net worth, though this is not a crime by our legal standards.

Though under investigation for some time, however, it should be pointed out that no specific charges have been levied against the preacher or his ministry.

Some of the evidence speaks for itself, though. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune reports that members of Copeland’s board of directors have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees by the Copeland Ministry.

We in the nonprofit world call this a conflict of interest; it’s widely known that those governing a nonprofit should have arms-length distance from any financial gain.

Though it’s not law to do so, Copeland would have a hard time raising funds for his cause from foundations and the like because of this enmeshment.

However, he gets around this by accepting money principally from individuals who either don’t know about this or who don’t see anything wrong with it.

Another nonprofit no-no is nepotism - the practice of those in positions of power passing on goodies to close friends or family members.

Copeland seems unconcerned with this, handing over six- and seven-figure salaries to family, along with property belonging to the ministry.

There’s also the philosophy of separation of powers, which says that the staff in charge of running the organization should not be the same folks as those managing the vision for the organization on the board.

Though Copeland technically is not on his own board, he maintains veto power over every single decision its members make, causing them to be entirely beholden to his will.

Finally, Copeland avoids plenty of taxes by placing things like his $6 million house and $17 million jet in the nonprofit’s name, which doesn’t pay taxes.

While I’ll grant that the guy’s savvy as a businessman, I wonder how it is that anyone with even a superficial understanding of his holdings can possibly keep sending him money.

So why does it work for him?

Because he offers the kind of Gospel message people want to hear: Jesus honors your consumer-driven lifestyle. Though he lived in poverty, as did his followers, the plan all along was to set you up for excessive material wealth.

Sounds good, right? It allows us to be greedy and still call ourselves good Christians. But when we sit down with the Gospel books and really look at them, how can we use God as our excuse for how we live?

None of us is perfect, and I honestly don’t begrudge anyone - ministers included - living a comfortable lifestyle.

Congress and the IRS may or may not discover impropriety, but ultimately, the power lies in our hands.

If we truly want to use our abundance to make the world a better place, and if we honestly believe that our charitable giving is effectively giving to God, maybe it’s time to ask ourselves if we really think God is concerned with whether or not the Copeland family has another jet.

It could just be that there’s someone else a little more deserving of our generosity.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

The Pueblo Question: Catholic or Christian?

July 26, 2008 by cpiatt.

The Pueblo Question: Catholic or Christian?

By CHRISTIAN PIATT

One strange question is usually an aberration. But when you’ve been asked the same weird question several times, over a number of years, it reflects a broader mindset.

The question is: “Are you Catholic or Christian?”

The following conversation approximates what happens next. We’ll call the fictitious person I’m talking to “Jim.”

Jim: “So you’re a church guy, huh?”

Me: “Pretty much, yeah.” Jim: “Are you Catholic? Christian?”

Me: “Well, yes.”

Jim: “You’re Christian?”

Me: “Yes.”

Jim: “Oh, I thought you were maybe Catholic.”

Me: “Technically, I am.”

Jim: “OK, so what parish do you belong to?”

Me: “I don’t. I go to Milagro Christian Church”

Jim: “A-ha! So you’re Christian.”

Me: “Right.”

Jim: “Not Catholic.”

Me: “No.”

Jim: “No, meaning you agree you’re not, or no to what I said?”

Me: “The last one.”

Jim: “I know, I know, you’re one of those lapsed Catholics, but you still call yourself Catholic, right?”

Me: “Nope.”

Jim: “So you’re not lapsed?”

Me: “I don’t think so.”

Jim: “So you must go to a Catholic church somewhere.”

Me: “I told you where I go to church.”

Jim: “But that’s not a Catholic church.”

Me: “Technically, it is.”

Jim: “Oh really? So who is your bishop?”

Me: “We don’t have one.”

Jim: “No bishop? You’re definitely not Catholic.”

Me: “Actually I am.”

Jim: “Look, you need to pick sides. You’re either Catholic or you’re Christian. You can’t have it both ways.”

Me: “Why not?”

Jim: “Actually, I have no idea why, but that’s just the way it is. You just can’t.”

Me: “If you say so.”

Jim: “So we agree you’re Christian, right?”

Me: “Yes.”

Jim: “Good.”

Me: “And Catholic.”

Jim: “You’re impossible.”

Me: “Thank you very much.”

OK, so maybe this is a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s not like being Catholic or Christian is comparable to being a Democrat or Republican.

Technically, I think what people are getting at with this question is whether I’m Catholic or Protestant, but unfortunately, that doesn’t make the answer any less confusing.

I’m Protestant because I go to a Protestant church, but I’m also Catholic, because the very definition of the word “Catholic” is “Universal Church.”

Some within Catholicism might not recognize me as such, but that doesn’t make me any less Catholic in my mind.

It’s not as if modern Christian faith dropped out of the sky as-is. We’ve built upon the histories, cultures, beliefs and traditions of Catholicism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Paganism and others to arrive at our own faith identity.

It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

So the next time someone asks you about your faith, consider for a moment all of the things you actually are, rather than defining yourself by what you’re not.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Gabriel’s Revelation: Changing faith as we know it?

July 19, 2008 by cpiatt.

Gabriel’s Revelation: Changing faith as we know it?

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

A stone tablet, 3 feet high with more than 80 lines of handwritten text, describes what some believe is a messiah who suffers, dies and rises again after three days.

The relic, called “Gabriel’s Revelation,” portrays an apocalyptic scene as supposedly recounted by the angel Gabriel himself.

Did I mention that archaeologists have dated its creation to several decades before Jesus was even born?

The tablet was recovered from the caves in Qumran, where the controversial Dead Sea Scrolls also were found, and whose authenticity have been argued passionately in the decades since they were found in clay jars in the far reaches of the desert. Though some of the writing on the Gabriel tablet is obscured, many linguists and archaeologists are closely studying the piece and its message.

Aside from being written on stone instead of scrolls, the fact that it’s written instead of inscribed in the stone is curious.

However, the message is stunning, particularly if found to be authentic and dated correctly.

“In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you,” says the text, or at least that’s the consensus among those studying it so far.

Some of the lettering is a bit worn and hard to read, and some of the verbiage is curiously hard to decipher, but to date, no one has contended the age of the artifact.

Some scholars, such as Israel Knohl, a professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, have hypothesized that the tablet refers to a man named Simon who lived before the time of Jesus. It’s believed that the author, or authors, of the tablets may have been Simon’s followers.

Did they believe this man who preceded Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy? Did they witness something that caused them to make such claims of his martyrdom and resurrection? Did he predict such a fate for himself, or was this imparted upon him after his death to bestow upon him some sort of mythical honor?

For skeptics of the uniqueness, or even veracity, of Jesus’ divine status, this is a rare documented artifact that may be used to further challenge the claims of sovereignty that some within Christianity make so strongly.

For those who adhere to the importance of the idea that Jesus was God’s “only son,” the very notion of another messiah who possibly could have conquered death is tantamount to heresy.

It’s a stunning proposition, to think that some of our Jewish ancestors just might have believed their savior had come, only 30 to 50 years before Jesus even arrived on the scene.

Of course, there will be those who argue passionately for both sides, and ultimately, we have no absolute way to establish what is truth and what is not.

After all, none of us witnessed the life, death and resurrection of Christ; we base what we believe on Scripture, on God as revealed through a community of faith and through the stories and experiences we share.

What I think is most interesting is not so much the existence of this tablet, but that there has been hardly any mention of it in the mainstream media. Is religion really treated with such kid gloves that a potentially paradigm-shifting story like this is too hot to handle for most media outlets?

Are folks too worried about the potential backlash, being blackliste by Christian activists or condemned in the public forum for calling the Christian faith into question?

In my experience, there is no information that is harmful to one’s faith, if approached with an open but critical mind. People ultimately will believe what they choose to believe, regardless of evidence.

So how can it hurt to explore the possible implications of the Gabriel’s Revelation tablet, and talk about what it makes us think about and how it makes us feel?

Does it scare us? Is it reassuring to know that people have been searching for a manifestation of hope and redemption since the dawn of humanity? Do we wish it had never been found? If it is eventually authenticated, would it change our faith?

All questions worth asking in my assessment - none with easy answers.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Follow-up on Colorado legislation and human rights

July 13, 2008 by cpiatt.

I got more mail after this week’s column than I’ve ever gotten before, partly because of the content, but also because I was placed, of the first time, on the front page of the paper’s Faith section with my column. Most letters were supportive, and others were simply - and predictably - one-sided rants. However, there were a couple who actually seemed interested in learning more about the law.

Here’s a good explanation:

“Introduced by Sen. Jennifer Veiga and Rep. Joel Judd, SB 08-200 will expand language prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including transgender status, in housing practices, public accommodation, eligibility for jury service, availability of family planning services, as well as many other areas.”

Basically, it expands the illegality of discriminating based on sexual orientation in the public forum, including public services, etc. So, of course, opponents go straight to bathrooms, which was never a focus of the bill, and paint a grim picture of what may happen by giving equal rights. They interpret the law as allowing people of the opposite sex to wander legally into other bathrooms and accost women and children. The points I didn’t go into in the article are that: 

• Nowhere in the more than 20 states that have similar laws have any incidents of sexual assaults increase, bathrooms or otherwise.
• Sexual assault is still a crime, regardless of discrimination law, and stalking women and children in bathrooms is criminal.
• Sexual predators are not particularly influenced by legislation. They are driven by sexual addiction, which transcends logic and reason.
• It is a parent’s responsibility to watch after their children, not the state’s anyway. If you’re concerned about your kids in public restrooms, for crying out loud, don’t send them in there alone.

It’s another example of lowest common denominator propaganda, dragging an otherwise affirming law recognizing the equal rights of human beings down to a handful of extreme hypotheticals that never have been realized anywhere else in the nation. What it says to me is that people are afraid of marginalized groups, particularly with whom they don’t agree, having the same rights and power as they. We’ve seen this before – same song, different verse.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Bathroom ads indication of slipping grip

July 12, 2008 by cpiatt.

Bathroom ads indication of slipping grip

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

I know I’ve been on a bit of a James Dobson-bashing spree lately, but I promise this is the last one for a while.

That is, unless he and his crew do something absurd again, which is entirely within the realm of possibility.

I opened The Pueblo Chieftain earlier this week to see a large ad depicting a little girl coming out of a bathroom stall by herself, with the nasty boots of a male, supposed to be a predator, lingering by the door.

The text below the photo goes on to rail against a new anti-discrimination law passed by the Colorado Legislature to include public spaces such as restrooms. Largely a symbolic gesture, the main point of the law, to me at least, was to expand the scope of anti-discrimination law in the public forum.

Further, there are dozens of states that have passed similar laws, and there isn’t a shred of documented evidence that the passage of such laws has done anything to raise the danger of sexual predators in public restrooms. This doesn’t stop Dobson and his anti-gay agenda, though.

The ad points out prominently that one supporter of the legislation is the Gill Foundation, founded by philanthropist and openly gay businessman Tim Gill. The ad implicitly ties those who advocate for gay rights to those who would, for some undisclosed reason, have no concerns or reservations about passing a law that invited sexual predators to descend upon our children.

Am I the only one grossly offended by this sort of fear-mongering?

Even if you don’t believe that a person’s sexual orientation has anything to do with their rights as a human being, it’s stunning to me that such a prominent religious leader would assume that these kinds of flimsy fear-based tactics are anything but transparent, hateful propaganda. Even the most conservative-minded among us would be justified in feeling their intelligence was being insulted.

Further, what exactly is the point here? Why on earth is Tim Gill, a gay man, tied to the lascivious photograph of a man purportedly attempting to prey on a young girl? Does anyone who hasn’t lived under a rock since birth honestly think that being gay fills you with an irresistible urge to molest children - of the opposite sex, mind you - in public places?

That just doesn’t make any sense.

The one consolation I have is that this ad has drawn nothing but consternation from people on all sides, at least from what I’ve read. The claims are baseless, short of the basis of illogical fear, and they represent a thankfully waning perspective that is working its own way out of the cultural mainstream by clinging to an angry, fearful and acerbic interpretation of faith.

All of the legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, who supported this anti-discrimination bill were listed in the ad, supposedly to shame them in the public eye for what they have done. Lest they grow concerned that this sort of public opinion manipulation does any good, I recommend writing your local representatives and thanking them for being brave enough to stand up for the rights of all people, and not just those whom they prefer or agree with.

Ultimately, it seems that the fear behind such ads is about something much greater: the fear of diminishing relevance. Hate, fear and judgment are strong medicine, but their effects often fade more quickly than the antidotes of hope, compassion, equality and love.

For this, I have at least some sense of sadness for those who honestly believe that they are doing what is right, yet they see their agendas slipping away from them as the rest of the country turns toward a more just and humane understanding of community.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Spoken Word “Cloud”

July 7, 2008 by cpiatt.

Here’s a cool word cloud I created by compiling all of my spoken word pieces into an application that generates word clouds. Pretty cool.

title="Wordle: Spoken Word Cloud"> src="http://wordle.net/thumb/wrdl/56242/Spoken_Word_Cloud"
style="padding:4px;border:1px solid #ddd"
>

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

‘Jesus for President’: Book puts old-school evangelicals on notice

July 5, 2008 by cpiatt.

‘Jesus for President’: Book puts old-school evangelicals on notice

By CHRISTIAN PIATT
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

The evangelical movement is trading in its cleanshaven look for dreadlocks, and starched collars and ties for hair shirts and sandals.

A new book, “Jesus for President,” by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, is yet another defining landmark in the ever-changing journey of Christian evangelicals. Dreadlocked, easygoing and outfitted with a hippie bus that runs on used vegetable oil, Claiborne and his crew are touring the country, espousing what they believe are the critical issues of the age.

“No one will probably ever start a war over used vegetable oil,” says Claiborne, in a recent article on CNN.com about his travels. Though avowedly pro-life and aligned with many of his evangelical peers on matters such as marriage and abortion, he also is against the Iraq war and takes positions on things like immigration that many evangelical leaders would find troublesome.

The pro-life agenda of many of these new evangelicals should be qualified to some degree, lest it be assumed consistent with the Republican right wing’s current platform. Yes, they are pro-life in every sense when it comes to abortion, but they are less concerned with pressing government to legislate their views, and more concerned about affecting public opinion from the inside-out.

They also are generally against the death penalty and our current military engagements in the Middle East, considering these all as consistently pro-life positions. Along with their pro-life emphasis comes a passion for conservation, touting renewable energy, lowering carbon emissions, simplifying our lives and generally reducing the impact we humans have on our planet. As another recent article in New Yorker magazine points out, this movement is dramatically changing the face of evangelical Christianity, which was once dominated by Pat Robertson, James Dobson and other conservative figures. This new breed of evangelicals does not align itself with a particular political party, and sees the importance of a person of faith’s role as one of action, more so than fighting for or against particular public policy.

“Jesus for President” is not a manifesto of hard-line ideology to which any “good” Christian must adhere, but rather it is a self-described “book to provoke the Christian political imagination.” There is a more inherent sense of trust that one who spends time with scripture and in prayer will find the passion and means they require to effect change to which they are called. There is a sense of urgency and a call to action, though the expression of that action may be widely varied.

Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine, and author-speaker-activist Tony Campolo have been beating this same drum for many years. It’s not a new movement, per se, but with the disaffection of millions both with the religious and political forums, this is a hopeful breath of fresh air. It gives permission for a difference of views, but lets no one off the hook for enacting change and championing justice for Christ’s so-called “least of these.”

Could it be that Christians can be Democrats or Republicans without guilt, and can - God help us - work together toward fulfillment of our mission as people of faith? Could it be that our love of the Gospel is bigger than Roe v. Wade or our opinions about the role of marriage? Could it be that peace, love and compassion could become the most prominent dimensions of the new face of Christianity?

A new coalition such as this certainly will not be easy, and who knows if it actually will ever work, but the idea that many of today’s evangelicals and I might have more in common than not gives me great hope. Personally, I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

Dobson’s Rhetoric is Damaging to Democracy

June 28, 2008 by cpiatt.

Dobson’s rhetoric is damaging to democracy

Christian Piatt - The Pueblo Chieftain

James Dobson has done it again.

It’s no real surprise that Barack Obama, the presumed democratic nominee for president, is in Dobson’s sights. There are so many things about Obama, his past and his policies that fly in the face of what Dobson and his cohorts espouse. In a recent CNN website article, however, he took a moment to pick out some issues in particular.

The head of Colorado Springs‘ Focus on the Family claimed Obama was guilty of distorting the Bible when he suggested that the rule of law cannot practically be based solely upon the Bible. To make his point with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor, he pointed out that a nation governed by the literal rules of scripture would justify slavery, and would make eating shellfish an abomination.

Dobson resented Obama’s position suggesting that he was making a relative mockery of the Bible’s authority by picking out what he called “antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.”
 
So if I understand this correctly, James Dobson, who claims the inerrancy of the entirety of scripture, is saying that there actually are parts of the Old Testament that are no longer relevant? Pray tell, then, which ones we should deem irrelevant, and which ones we should still embrace? And who exactly is the arbiter of this weeding-out process? Who has the authority? Further, who doesn’t interpret scripture with some of their own agenda, simply by reading it?

If you recall, Jesus said he did not come to get rid of the old law, but rather to “fulfill it.” Though there are many takes on what exactly this means, along with every other phrase in scripture, many scholars agree that Jesus’ fulfillment of the old law meant that he was taking authority to another level, so to speak. Obama does not suggest ignoring parts of the Old Testament, but rather than perhaps the Sermon on the Mount is more relevant to modern-day governance. It is Dobson who claims certain texts are “irrelevant.”

As if his condemnation of Obama’s take on the Bible was not enough, he topped it off with some old-fashioned name-calling, suggesting that Obama leads by the “lowest common denominator of morality,” that he deliberately is “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter,” and finally that his understanding of the Constitution is nothing more than “fruitcake interpretation.”

It’s not as if Dobson simply is trying to tear down the democratic candidate for the benefit of republicans, either. He already has claimed he will not vote for McCain, so in essence, if he can’t find a team who will take him on his terms, Dobson is resolving to take his toys and go home. 

Though I’m using a trite metaphor, it’s actually a disturbingly serious situation. The situation is more like a village under siege that opts to burn their own spoils to a cinder, rather than watch the enemy have any chance at them. The risk, then, is that a generation of evangelicals who have been otherwise politically active will determine it’s better to do nothing than it is to stay engaged and work within the system for what they believe. More than a blow to either major party, it’s an Achilles’ heel for democracy itself.

The name-calling is one thing, but effectively urging your followers not to participate in exercising their constitutional right to vote is entirely another. If you don’t like McCain or Obama, fine. Write someone in on the ballot, but for goodness sake, don’t sit at home and do nothing.

Posted in Blogroll, Columns, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »