Like oil and (holy) water

The thing you don't realize when you're younger is that the things you do/say will most likely come back to haunt you in a few years.  No one discovers this faster than a politician running for president.

About a month ago, a clip of presidential hopeful Rick Santorum in 2008 was discovered.  In it, Santorum was asked about Christianity and liberalism.  He said that there is no such thing as someone who is liberal and Christian. "You’re a liberal something, but you’re not a Christian," he said.

So I started to think about this in light of everything going on in politics right now.  When Rush Limbaugh is calling a law student a slut because she stands up for women's rights, where is the line?  Is there a line?  And most importantly, is Santorum right and we're all just kidding ourselves?  Is liberalism the oil to Christianity's (holy) water?



 So I decided to begin by examining the Biblical roots of political stances.  The United States, with all of its glory of "separation of church and state," is clearly kidding themselves.  When our President is attacked for being a Muslim (even though he's not) and "God Bless America" ends every speech, we're so highly religious that its a little bit shocking.  We even criticize Romney for being a Mormon.  What happened to "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Looking to Limbaugh and his "prostitute" comments to Sandra Fluke is a great place to start.  This issue has huge religious implications, especially with the requirement that religious employers provide contraception to their employees.  I know that I've already blogged about this, but I really want to take a different look on the topic.

Fundamentally, the church (meaning Catholic church, mostly) is opposed to birth control for a variety of reasons.  Scripture (Genesis 38:8-10) says:

"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also."

Pretty cut and dry.  Also, sex is seen as a means to conception - "be fruitful and multiply" and so on.  So to use contraception is a sin.

The Catholic church also doesn't support contraception because it implies that pregnancy is a disease or illness.  Since all life is a blessing, this clearly doesn't fly.

However, Democrats argue that birth control is a woman's choice, and that many birth control methods (such as the pill) have positive medical effects.  The pill can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, can reduces the risk of symptomatic endometriosis, and can prevent ectopic pregnancy, among other benefits.

Some studies have also suggested that preventing unwanted pregnancies can actually decrease the crime rate.  While there has been much discrepancy over these claims (after all, correlation does not always mean causation), there has been evidence to show that unwanted children sometimes come from high crime areas and fall into these patterns.

So clearly the Republican, Catholic side wins on this, correct?  They have the Bible on their side.  So calling a 30-year-old law student a prostitute for wanting birth control is justified because, as Limbaugh said, "what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex — what would you call that woman? You’d call them a slut, a prostitute."

Why, then, will the Catholic church pay for Viagara, no questions asked?  Isn't that just a man "who wants us to pay for [him] to have sex"?  Is that man having so much sex that he can't afford the prescription for his erectile dysfunction?

And what about vasectomies?  Does the Catholic church pay for those for their employees?  Yes, they do.  But doesn't this procedure prevent what should be a pregnancy?  Aren't we standing in the way of God's will?  Why is that ok?

I'm not arguing with the Catholic church's position.   I'm simply asking, why the double standard?  If your principle is "nothing to prevent a pregnancy," then why are you only denying women the right to prevent a pregnancy.  Why is it okay for men to receive coverage for the same result?  Shouldn't the church and the Republican party be outraged with insurance that they're paying for these methods of birth control?  Where are the protestors?  Where is the anger?

Beyond the health care and contraception debate, there are many other issues supported by Christianity.  There is an incredible amount of evidence against homosexuality in the Bible, for example.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 18:22  - Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Romans 1:26-27 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Those are only a few.  There is a monumental amount of Biblical evidence against homosexuality.  So Santorum is clearly correct on this point - Republican Christians are battling evil liberals in their quest for equal rights for evil men (and women).

But what about that Jesus guy?  You know, the one who that whole newfangled New Testament is about?  Didn't he say something like....

"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." (John 8:1-30)

This verse is my own personal mantra to life.  If the foundation of the Bible is that God sent his one true son, Jesus Christ, to forgive our sins, then why are we focusing so much on the sins of others?  Look first at your own life before you begin to judge the lives of others.  But clearly this is only one verse of the Bible.  A liberal person who believes that can't call themselves a Christian for only knowing ONE verse from the Bible.

Ephesians 1:7 - In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.

Matthew 6:14-15 - For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

So, if you forgive others for their "sin" of homosexuality, then you will be forgiven for your own sins.  But if you hold it against them and, say, pass legislation condemning them and hold rallies and protests about how they're evil and how they're an abomination (just as an example) then your sins wouldn't be forgiven?  Am I right?  Interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002338125
Stephen Colbert's statement on religion and politics

Ok, ok, but there must be other reasons why liberals can't be Christians.  What about their crazy policies about poverty and the poor?  Wasn't Jesus an entrepreneur, just taking what was his and keeping his own earnings?  Jesus didn't like tax collectors either, right?

In Luke 19:1-10, Jesus calls Zacchaeus, a tax collector, "a son of Abraham."  Jesus ate with tax collectors (Mark 2:16-17), who were often considered sinners and treated terribly.  One of his disciples, Matthew, was even a tax collector.

Proverbs 11:25 - "A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed."

Doesn't this Proverbs verse say that we should be generous to others?  Throughout the Bible, Jesus took from the rich (kind of - by encouraging them to leave behind their worldly possessions) and gave to the poor (Robin Hood-style).

I'm not making the anti-Santorum argument.  I'm not saying that Christians are liberal and that there's no such thing as a conservative Christian, because that's crazy.  I am saying, however, that it's easy to pick and choose.  The Bible is a pretty big book and there's a lot in there.  I could go through and could probably make the Bible say almost anything I wanted it to.  I'm also pretty handy with Photoshop, so I have that going for me.

So I guess this very long and preachy blog post leads me to my REAL point:

Is the Bible the be all and end all?

Now before you start throwing stones at me and writing me off, hear me out.

The Bible has an amazing code of ethics.  It teaches how to be kind to one another. It teaches how to love, how to respect others, and how to live a fulfilling and moral life.  But it also says these things:

And what about Deuteronomy 23:12-13, which says "Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement."  Shouldn't we all be going outside with a spade to dig holes when we have to go to the bathroom?  What about Leviticus 19:27 - "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."  Or Leviticus 21:17-18 ("For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed")?

"But those are silly, Carin," you may be thinking to yourself.  I would ask you - what makes these "silly" and the others "correct"?  How can we say that we don't have to poop in a hole outside, but we do have to condemn homosexuals?  Who gets to make that choice?  You?

We all pick and choose, it's natural.  We pick what best suits our interests, and throw away the rest.  Only a fine few men want to grow an epic beard for the rest of their lives.  And who of us would see a blind person walking into church and turn them away?  We choose not to follow these things.  So why do we choose to follow other things?

Since we're also talking about politics here, I would say that the Constitution, like the Bible, should be a living document. These texts were written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and yet we treat them as though they were written yesterday.  Can we apply principles in these pages to our changed lives?  In a world of iPads and fighter jets, what still applies?

The U.S. Bill of Rights was certainly a necessary addition to our government, but is also a highly contested document.  Arguments over the First and Second Amendment are commonplace today.  But what about the Third Amendment?  Why aren't people up in arms about that?  In case you haven't brushed up on your Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment protects citizens from quartering troops in their home.

It's silly, right?  Why would we fight about that?  It's not even relevant.  This is my point.  The Third Amendment does not apply to our society at all today.  It was a right given to society during a war with England where we had an army wandering the streets.  So if this isn't relevant, why do we assume other Amendments are?  For example, the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.  But again, this was written in a time when there was a militia and war - an "all hands on deck" kind of society.  So if the Third Amendment is silly, why isn't the Second?  Why do we choose to defend the right to bear guns, even if it's not relevant anymore in the way that the Framers intended?


There's much to be said on this topic and I'll cap my lengthy blog post here.  Is Santorum right to say that a Christian liberal is equivalent to the Loch Ness Monster?  No.  But neither is a Christian conservative a Bigfoot.  We pick and choose what works best for our own agenda.  We decide to support the Second Amendment because we love our rifles.  We decide to hug our Bible because we oppose gay marriage, or conversely because we support the impoverished.  But maybe we should take a minute, put down our books, and take up each other.  We spend so much time putting each other down that maybe we should take a page out of that Jesus-book and just "love one another" (John 13:34).


Should politics and religion even be related? Are these texts a good indicator for our country's decision making?  Keep the conversation going in the comments below.  I realize this is a controversial topic - please be respectful of myself and others.