If I Were King

As the Republican presidential campaigns stagger to what seems to be the inevitable conclusion, the subject of Mitt Romney’s religion is being handled reasonably quietly, considering how different Mormon beliefs are from those of other faiths, how important religion is to most people, and how skittish most people are about talking about it outside our homes and churches. (If you wear “the collar” it’s allowed, of course, but if you don’t get paid to talk about religion, most people expect you to refrain.)

Two specific things do pop up on the margins: Is Mormonism a Cult? Are Mormons Christian? The answer to both is no.

To the first question, there are two answers, depending on your proximity to the historical churches. Tom Wolfe once noted that, “A cult is a religion with no political power.” In other words, a cult is any religion too removed from the mainstream, too small, and just too weird. The Mormons have long since passed this point, there are too many of them and they’ve been around too long. They disavowed their commitment to polygamy which was the focus of most opposition in the early days of the sect. By that hazy popular definition, they would have been seen as a cult at one time but not today.

From a religious standpoint the answer is also no. There have been cults in the Christian faith for ages, and still are. Within this context a cult is a group of people that invests a human being with some god-like qualities. For example, the cult of Mary has been part of Roman Catholic tradition for centuries, as was the cult of Christopher, but in 1969 the church withdrew Christopher’s place among the saints (along with many others) and moved to eliminate his cult. If the members of a group adore and idolize a human being, it’s nearing a cult. If they pray to a human being, it’s absolutely a cult. Although there are figures in Mormon history that are treated with reverence for their part in the development of the faith, Mormons do not pray to them. It’s more akin to the way many Americans feel about George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.

The second question (Are Mormons Christian?) has been raised, loudly be a small number of evangelicals, and is readily answered. Given the wide variation among Christian sects, what is a Christian, anyway? It turns out this is very simple; the Christian church needs to define that in order to educate children and train ministers. The First Council of Nicea met in 325 to put this in a simple form, and the First Council of Constantinople met in 381 and made some clarifying edits. The Nicene Creed defines the faith of the Christian churches. It is trinitarian, Jesus is truly God and was present from the beginning (“before all worlds”), as is the Holy Spirit. The various unitarian sects (including Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists, and various deists) deny the divinity of Jesus and the separate existence of the Holy Spirit. You don’t have to study the various Christian sects to figure out what the core is, it’s already been done. Mormons, like the others mentioned, believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a good man and a prophet, but they deny his divinity. They do not accept the fundamental creed of the Christian faith.

Note that this is not to say that there isn’t much within Mormonism that is truly admirable, such as their strong commitment to family and community and the fact that citizens that work hard generally cause the community to prosper. Like any other sect there are a few problems as well. If I Were King, the question I would ask is, will this person strive to be a good president? Or is he out to be a Mormon evangelist in the office? For several reasons I will not be supporting Mitt Romney, but his faith is not among them.

On Sunday, wing nut Republican candidate for governor of New York Carl Paladino, side by side with sort-of Hassidic rabbi Yechezkel Roth, made a speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders. Among other things, he said, “I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.” Cameras were rolling, it’s on YouTube.

Note that the rabbi in question is not exactly a big deal, his synagogue has roughly two dozen members. That’s even fewer than the fundamentalist Florida fruitcake that made waves with plans to burn a Qur’an last month.

Well, Carl, homosexuality is not an option, it’s a fact. It’s valid in the same way as gravity is, and absent interference from outsiders with no legitimate role in the question, it’s successful.

It’s also a straw man here, nobody has any intention of brainwashing anyone regarding homosexuality. You’re straight? Fine. Nobody is asking you to have sex with a person of the same sex. Nobody even wants you to watch.

And your children aren’t going to choose to be homosexual because there are homosexuals in the classroom or homosexual couples living on your street. (Your legitimate children probably already have established their sexual orientation.) Nobody chooses to be a homosexual. It’s exactly the same as for heterosexuals, you and I didn’t choose that either. (Maybe I shouldn’t speak for you. I know I didn’t choose to be straight, and I’ve never heard of anyone who chose to be straight or gay. At some point we all become aware of our sexuality but we don’t choose it.) You don’t get to take credit for choosing to be straight.

There are options — choices to make — regarding sexuality. Promiscuity is a bad choice. Abusing positions of power for sexual conquests is a bad choice. Fidelity to marital vows is a good choice. You could, for example, take credit for being monogamous and faithful. That’s hypothetical, of course. You could have, if you had been monogamous and faithful. Having sex with an employee is an abuse of your position of personal power. I hope you are providing well for your former employee and the daughter you conceived.

If I Were King, my commitment to freedom of speech would allow Paladino to say the same silly things. Subjects like that could lead to great savings, a court jester would not be needed.

Today is Coming Out Day, an occasion for showing support for civil rights of the LGBT community. I’m straight, and I support human rights for humans and civil rights for those who are civil (and for some who aren’t, actually), without consideration of race, creed, age, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. (Is “confused” a sexual orientation? Seems that fits a lot of folks.)

But Van, you’re a Christian, isn’t homosexuality against your religion? Short answer: No. The longer answer? Christ loves every one in every situation, and if you happen to be a lesbian that detail is hardly enough to make a god of love back off, or even hesitate. God is love. “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love,” as we sang back in the ‘sixties.

But Van, doesn’t the Bible clearly say that homosexuality is wrong? Short answer: No. The longer answer? For good and valid historical reasons, the Torah is reproduced in the Bible. Specifically, the book of Leviticus is included. Leviticus has two parts, the Jewish Holiness Code and the Jewish High Priestly Code. I’m not a Jew, and I’ll never be eligible to serve as high priest (because I’m not Jewish and because my name is not Cohen or one of the acceptable variations thereon, both absolute barriers), even if the temple were rebuilt in my lifetime. I’m a Christian, and Christians are not called to follow Jewish law.

But Van, it’s in the Bible. Doesn’t that make it true? Sure it’s true, it’s part of the history of the Children of Israel. They were actually given all these laws over three thousand years ago. And there are even those who follow those rules today, observant Orthodox Jews. They keep two complete sets of pots, pans, plates, and silverware. I appreciate the dedication to tradition that this entails, but I do not follow them, for a number of reasons. I appreciate the fact that Jesus specifically swept the old laws away (story is found in Matthew, “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out.”) But even if he hadn’t, there are plenty of good reasons to live by the law of my time instead of the laws of Canaan circa 1425 BC: Lobster. McDonald’s Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Clams. Ham. Every sandwich I make. Bratwurst.

Scholars have proposed reasons for different parts of the Holiness Code, but we can’t really know what they were. But we can be confident that all the rules regarding sacrifices, the separation of dairy and meat, the absolute prohibition on meat from animals with cloven hoofs (i.e., the glorious pig), the prohibition on any seafood that doesn’t have scales, all these things may have had a reason at a certain point in Israel’s past but are not normative for life in the United States today.

And the God I worship would not smile to learn that I was taking a minor point of ancient law, out of context, and using it to be hurtful to my fellow creatures. Sex is a good and wonderful thing. Marriage is a good and wonderful thing. It is unacceptable for a Christian, gay or straight, to forbid these things to anyone old enough to consent intelligently.

Being a Christian is not a logical decision. We specifically believe that you cannot come to faith in Jesus Christ of your own will, that such a faith comes from a call issued by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the choice to enter ordained ministry, with all the requisite preparation, is subject to call as well, first a call from God and then a call from a congregation. If homosexuality were wrong, there is no way that an omniscient God (who would know who was straight and who was not) would continue to call homosexuals to faith and to ministry, yet he does. Logic says that if a call is necessary for faith, and there are homosexuals in the pews, then God loves them and wants them to be part of his church. There is no escaping that argument.

If I Were King I would still be Christian, I would still be straight, and you would absolutely be treated the same whether you shared my religion or my sexual orientation or not.

Back in January the Supremes handed down a decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, ruling that corporate funding of political advertising was protected by the First Amendment. Many commentators were horrified at what that would mean for the democratic process, and now that the elections are in full swing we are seeing the results. (See Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post for just one of many.) At the time, although I didn’t blog about it, I felt that it was the only legal decision possible. On the other hand, I felt, and feel, that the money behind political advocacy needs to be limited somehow, and must be identified. I presumed, vainly as it turns out, that campaign finance rules requiring publication of these contributions, would be in effect by the time the floodgates opened.

At the time, the biggest objection to the Citizens United ruling seemed to center on expanding the rights to free speech to corporate persons. Many were outraged that all “persons” would have the rights of natural persons, and others were offended that foreigners could contribute to campaigns as well. Neither of these bothered me at all. As long as the public disclosure rules were enforced.

At the same time, I also floated another idea, and as the scope of political speech unleashed by the decision expands, I continue to think it merits some thought. I have always been uneasy about the idea that there could be any limits on political speech. On the other hand, the idea of foreigners with no legitimate involvement in a campaign, other than the profits they might extract, contributing mountains of cash seems problematic. The most obvious example of this came last year when Mormons in Utah contributed a large part of the funding for the nasty Proposition 8 campaign in California, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (To me, there is absolutely no logical difference between Germans or Russians influencing national decisions and Utah churches or California movie stars influencing state or local decisions outside their own communities.)

So here’s my more complete opinion: If I Were King, anyone would be able to contribute any amount to any political campaign as long as two simple requirements were met: 1) All political contributions over $25.00 would be subject to public disclosure. 2) Political contributions in an amount over $25 could be made only by persons registered to vote in the jurisdiction affected. Partnerships, associations, corporations, churches, and labor unions would be left out. Hollywood stars would be unable to send large checks to influence campaigns in Colorado, unless they established their primary residence there, although they could buy a T-shirt or attend a $20 fund-raising potluck.

Yes, I would regret the loss of revenue for the media, but I don’t think overwhelming the voters with paid messages is the best way to save the newspapers.

Yesterday the Star Tribune ran “Schools struggle with gay policies,” an article of some concern that shows that, for all our recent progress, we still have a long way to go in dealing with sexuality. Given four suicides in the past year by GLBT students in or connected with the Anoka-Hennepin School District, it isn’t a minor issue.

The district has adopted a policy of neutrality, sexual orientation simply isn’t part of the curriculum. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean — it cannot mean — adopting a policy of neutrality toward harassment and bullying.

In the story, Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard is quoted as saying, “I don’t think parents want their kids indoctrinated in homosexuality,” and that teachers shouldn’t be saying that homosexuality is acceptable. Codswollop. Or to quote a great litigator of the past, “irrelevant and immaterial”. Schools don’t teach that gravity is acceptable, but they still teach that it exists, and that it has to be respected.

According to an article in The Minnesota Independent, there is a secretive group calling themselves Parents Action League that is campaigning to make sure the problem is made worse. They claim to support the district’s neutrality while campaigning to bring the “The Day of Truth” program to district schools, a program that teaches that homosexuality is a sin, that Christian students should be outspoken in condemnation of it, and that gays can be “cured” through prayer. In other words, a program that claims to be Christian but is completely uninformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The school doesn’t need to teach anything about homosexuality at all, I’m sure the curriculum has sufficient goals to keep everyone busy. This isn’t about teaching. This is about maintaining an environment in which it is possible to teach math and language and other subjects, it’s about maintaining an environment in which everyone can learn.

If I Were King, I’d still be straight, but education is simply too important to let bigots interfere with the process. I’d still be Christian, but possibly even less tolerant of those who call themselves Christian yet support vicious programs with proof-texting from parts of the Old Testament that they don’t follow in their own lives.

There are advantages to being Lutheran. For one, there is no Inquisition. For another, there is no Pope. The Roman church has had the former since 1542, the latter since St Peter was given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus himself. To protect the church from heresy, Paul III created the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition” in 1542, the name was changed to the “Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office” in 1908, and in 1965 it became the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. This body reviews all published work within the church to determine if heresy is being uttered, allows publication only of such work it finds conforming to accepted doctrine, and punishes those who break their proscriptions. Apparently the zealousness of the original members of this body, and the severe penalties exacted, were sufficient to frighten theologians and priests to this day: Few have been burned at the stake in recent centuries.

But the Inquisition is very much alive and well today. Three times the church elected the head of the Congregation as pope, presumably putting the fear of fire, if not God, into the hearts of those who might be tempted by thoughts not allowed by the canon. The last time this happened was in 1605. So with the church reeling from revelations of pederast priests, and church membership waning in many countries, it sent a mixed signal when this happened a fourth time with the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Benedict XVI in 2005. If the goal was to heal the rifts in the church, and to reach out to those who were drifting away from regular worship and tithing, then the chief inquisitor probably wasn’t the best symbolic choice. On the other hand, if the highest priority was to clean house and deal with pederasts in the schools and choir lofts, to make it known to the communities where the problems existed that such affairs would no longer be countenanced, the selection was ideal.

Sadly, it turns out there was a third option, that Joseph Ratzinger sees sexual predation by parish priests as a minor indiscretion, and that in his various roles the priority was not to parade the guilty before tribunals and deal with them but to sweep the whole thing as far under the nearest rug as possible. Any terror he might inspire was limited to Catholic writers, there is no sign that the main problem will be addressed. In fact, with recent reports that at least one priest in his own archdiocese, when he was still a German bishop, it seems that the church is publicly taking the stance that Ratzinger never even knew about such things in his own domain.

If I Were King I would draw the line at public execution by fire organized by the church, but as king or commoner I would welcome better judgment and greater action than we’re seeing from Rome.

During his recent campaign for the Texas governor’s mansion, Kinky Friedman was asked for his stance on the death penalty. His answer was pretty sensible for a politician in the American state most active in executions: “I am not anti-death penalty, but I’m damned sure anti-the-wrong-guy-getting-executed.” That makes sense, given the human longing for revenge and the simple fact that you can’t release a wrongly-convicted felon after lethal injection. But it doesn’t satisfy one crucial logical element.

Thomas Jefferson, among many other wise and sensible things, said “It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.”. In the history of government I see three sources of power. First is simply the power of power, the logic of the absolute dictator. Second is the divine right of kings, in which earthly rulers were presumed to have been granted power over their subjects by a god. And finally come the democratic forms, first appearing in pure form in the United States, in which the source of power and authority is the will of the governed.

In other words, the power of a republican government comes only from the citizens. As an American citizen has no authority to take life outside constrained circumstances, such as self defense, he can’t delegate that authority to the central government. He doesn’t have it to delegate. It necessarily follows that the government has no such authority.

The power of a community, including a republican state, to defend itself is, on the other hand, a power that can be delegated by the people. An individual may defend his bodily self, his family, and his home. It follows that the individuals comprising a community can delegate that power to the community. The rules of war have been evolving over human history and formally enumerated as Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello starting with Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century.

But for a community to decide, even with all the trappings of Miranda warnings, formal charges, grand juries, skilled representation of the accused, and a verdict of peers, that a person should be killed by agents of the state? It’s simply not logically possible.

It’s not always easy to be a devout Christian in an increasingly-secular world, but the worst of it doesn’t come from agnostics, or even the believers who just don’t feel moved to participate regularly in worship. I say grace before eating at McDonald’s and openly cross myself afterward, without attracting hostility. The hard part of it is that those who see me as Christian can’t help trying to reconcile that image with the image of some of the Lord’s spectacular fools. Yesterday, the day after a devastating earthquake in Haiti, the most spectacular fool was one Pat Robertson, who has a show called The 700 Club that appears on CNN.

On his broadcast yesterday, Robertson delivered this absurdity:

And you know Christy, something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said we will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French. True story, and so the Devil said OK it’s a deal. And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they’ve been cursed by one thing after the other.”

His broadcasting operation, CBN, doesn’t seem to be bothered by this. They admit it in this release, and they have the video online. (My system wouldn’t play it, but that’s okay, it’s all over the place, including right here.

Now it happens that a voodoo priest named Dutty Boukman performed a ceremony in August of 1791 which precipitated the start of the revolution, which lasted until 1804. I’ve not seen any accounts that include the number of people involved, but as it wasn’t broadcast we can assume that there were a half million Haitian slaves that had nothing to do with this, other than sharing the desire to end their slavery. I’ve not seen any account that suggests that Satan attended, nor that he clearly committed himself to a deal. We do know that Napoleon III was captured in battle, and the monarchy he led was dissolved on 4 September 1870. He was the last Napoleon to have anything to do with the government of France, and he died on 9 January 1873. Robertson’s pact with the devil didn’t take place until over twenty years after the last Napoleon left power.

I suppose it’s a waste of time to point out that earthquakes are the result of tectonic motion in the rigid structure immediately below the surface of this liquid-centered globe we live on. That’s not covered in the only book Robertson really accepts, my telling him the details of how the planet God created works would be lost on him.

It’s hard to admit to being a Christian when there are “Christian” embarrassments of this magnitude spewing their nonsense on national television. I want to make one thing clear: Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for me. I seriously doubt that he speaks for Jesus Christ. If he does, he has managed to find a Jesus that isn’t present in the Gospel I’ve read. Never mind that he has the historical scholarship of a third grader and the intellectual capacity of cauliflower.

In an article in today’s New York Times entitled Iran Stepping Up Effort to Quell Election Protest today, Nazila Fathi and Michael Slackman said, “The nation’s leadership cast anyone refusing to accept the results of the race as an enemy of the state.” I can live with that.  I cannot accept the election results released earlier this month, there’s no way I can even believe them. I am proud to be a declared enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

President Obama, in his commencement speach at the University if Notre Dame yesterday, said he supported a “sensible conscience clause” for medical professionals to refuse to perform abortions, and presumably other procedures, which they found to contradict their ethical and moral beliefs.  The exact terms of such a clause weren’t stated, but despite my normal belief that the convictions of the individual should guide their own actions rather than external considerations, I have to oppose this.

That is not to say that a doctor shouldn’t be able to hang up his shingle and define his practice in any way that suits him. If a surgeon opposes abortion and decides to open a practice specializing in ophthalmology, of course he shouldn’t be expected to perform abortions. But if that surgeon went to work in a clinic that provided abortions, and then refused to perform them while drawing his salary, then that doctor should suddenly, and without ceremony or honor, find himself unemployed.

In previous invocations of this concept it has been suggested that pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions for drugs of which they disapprove, notably the “morning after pill” abortifacients. But what if a pharmacist was of the opinion, apparently held by many otherwise-sensible persons, that ADD is not really a disorder and that treating it with drugs is wrong? Should that pharmacist be able to refuse to fill prescriptions for Ritalin or Concerta or any of the other drugs that make life with ADD manageable? The answer is no.  Federal law requires most drugs to be dispensed by pharmacists, and as such they are, in effect, a public utility and must not be able to impose their own standards on who can or can’t make use of their services.

I can certainly see a case for professional standards being maintained by physicians.  To say “I do not believe in abortion after the first trimester and therefore decline to seek the training to perform procedures to handle later cases” seems completely reasonable.  But, If I Were King, it would most certainly not be acceptable for someone to take a position that required certain work and then to refuse to perform it.