Guest Post: Vivian on Christianity and Liberalism

Vivian, of The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife, recently shared with us her views on Iraq as a former military member and a military spouse.  Now MOMocrats welcomes her back to talk about another demographic the Republican Party likes to pretend that it owns: Liberal Christians.  Yes, Virginia, they do exist. 

******************************

Proud member of the spiritual left. Yep, that's me.  I settled on that moniker when I got tired of the pseudo-religion spouted by those like Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Well, that and I found this great bumper sticker:  Left-Wing Christian – able to pray…and think!

And speaking of the right, I have to say they certainly have done a good job of appropriating all things religious in nature. God is on "our" side, said Pat Robertson as he basically encouraged his faithful followers to pray for the death (excuse me, availability) of a Supreme Court justice.  Supporters of President Bush claimed a "moral victory" in the 2004 election. When we were stationed in Texas I remember Gov. Rick Perry using churches for backdrops of his bill signings.  But then, why shouldn't he? According to him, God doesn't care for same-sex marriage or equal rights for women. Does all this mean that God is really a Republican?

I think not. For many reasons in general and one in particular. The first being that God doesn't pick sides. He doesn't just bless the U.S.A. he blesses the whole world.

I have a family that comes first in my life, even though I have my own career path as well.  I am trying to teach my children the ways of Christ when, at the same time, ironically, it is getting harder for me to stomach most of his fan club.  We enjoy going to our Unity Church, we recycle, and help organize neighborhood get-togethers. But the fact that I support a woman's right to terminate an unintended, unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy relegates me to hell? I don't see it.

See, I think it is more important how we treat people when they are alive. Meaning, it doesn't get you any closer to heaven to be stridently anti-abortion if you haven't done anything to help the millions of abandoned children who are already here. If you are pro-life then help the living - adopt, donate, foster a child, heck, support comprehensive sex education and social program funding!

People who have those yellow ribbons on their cars are no more righteous (though I would say they are less informed!) than those who don't support the war (the war, not the troops - everyone supports the troops), especially if they bought those bumper stickers in Walgreen's and haven't done anything else to support our military personnel. Yellow ribbons don't wrap bandages – funding veterans programming does.

To me, supporting the troops has more to do with sending my husband and others care packages, and making sure they have the equipment they need in order to complete the mission, than slapping a yellow bumper sticker on my car. If it were up to me, those yellow ribbons would cost $10 each and the money would go into a fund for the families of wounded military personnel or go directly to Fisher House.  Heck – what about sending it to those coming back from the war and being told that their PTSD is really "personality disorder" - a much cheaper discharge that doesn't include the medical coverage they earned by honorably serving their country. 

That reminds me, supporting the troops also means standing up and asking questions of an administration that is clearly misusing and abusing the honor and integrity of the men and women who signed up to serve.  This is my interpretation of being a moral person: caring for our fellow serviceman in tangible ways that don't involve photos with "Mission Accomplished" in the background.

I remember a time when the mail lady asked me to call her supervisor and tell her she was running late. She said she had asked the man down the street, but he said he could not because he was on his way to church. That logic astounds me, but it is exactly the thinking that rules the so-called moral majority right now. They cannot see the forest for the trees. Wouldn't it be better to actually help someone than be at choir practice on time? Did the man think the Almighty would punish him for being late for helping someone? Would Jesus have ignored the lame man to get to the next hut on time?

I think my mom put it best when she told me it was much more important to become a spiritual being than a religious person. Spirituality is not dictated by political rhetoric or the church structure. It comes from a personal relationship with a higher power that makes you feel joyful inside and happy to be alive to do what you can to help other people. It isn't Republican (or even Democrat) and it certainly isn't served by swathing yourself in religious symbols and being self-righteous while ignoring the needs of real people.

Adapted from an article that appeared in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

Vivian Greentree is pursuing her PhD in public administration.  You can find her blogging at The Liberal Life of a Navy Wife.

Comments

[cynematic]

Vivian,
Love your posts!

Keep punching giant holes in the Republican coalition of religious fundamentalists, corporation-loving conservatives, and might-makes-right bullies, and we'll see them for what they are--none too moral and hardly a majority.

I'm always happy to see people of good faith take back their religion from the crazies (who believe it exists to increase division and distrust among people--wrong!).

[ms_teacher]

You hit the proverbial nail on the head on so many issues when it comes to the Religious Right. I will be adding Ms. Greene's to my (already too long) list of must read blogs.

[Karoli]

Amen. You've nailed it and I'm right there with ya.

[Ginger]

*Cheers & applause! Cheers & applause!*

[Marilyn]

Yay! So I'm NOT alone after all! :) I have a bumper sticker that says, "I'm a Christian AND a Democrat!" on it. I really think you hit the nail on the head here and excellently laid out why spirituality and faith have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics and more with being a decent human being.

[Daisy]

Love your bumper sticker! Pray and think - what a concept!

[Julie Pippert]

Wow. Simply put...brilliant. I so totally agree with your message, and the values behind the message, that I am verklempt. Overwhelmed. BRAVO!!!

And I love what your mom says. Amen. :)

[Florinda]

"God doesn't pick sides. He doesn't just bless the U.S.A. he blesses the whole world."

"I am trying to teach my children the ways of Christ when, at the same time, ironically, it is getting harder for me to stomach most of his fan club."

"I think it is more important how we treat people when they are alive."

I love, and agree with, so much of what you've said here - thank you! In my opinion, the heart of any spiritual/religious practice lies in what forges community, not what tears it apart; I don't think most religious conservatives see it that way.

I'm not actually a churchgoer these days, and a lot of that has to do with the second sentence I quoted. I don't think any human has a claim to know what God thinks or feels about anything.

Thanks again for an excellent post!

[Caroline]

Thank you for this post! I struggle regularly with trying to recognize my own spirituality and need to bring church to my children. I want my children to understand God, the bible, morality, spirituality... But options for suitable places of worship are lacking. BIG TIME. I feel like christianity has been taken away from so many liberal ppl. I am not a heathen. In fact, I think everyone is equal. So why can't I stomach the teachings at the majority of churches around here? Whats a leftie to do? I'm still searching and STILL pissed religion has been so poiliticized. And am trying to teach them at home the best I can but I don't think I am doing such a great job. Again, thanks for the post.

[progressive gal]

Caroline - I wanted to share with you that two churches that we have felt very at home in have been the UCC church (we attended in Texas) and a Unity church where we are now. I was taken with the Unity church from the very first time we visited. Every sermon ends with "The Peace Song" as my son calls it - "Let There Be Peace on Earth and Let it Begin With Me." The second time we visited the choir sang John Lennon's "Imagine." Seriously. It was awesome to me that a church would be open to that message. There are progressive churches out there...also I've enjoyed attending Unitarian churches (do you get the feel that we are church shoppers? haha - but, like you, I want to make sure my kids get the "love and compassion" message rather than the "this is why others are going to hell" message). That is why I love this site so much - I get such inspiration from other these others mothers, like you!, who are doing their best to "raise the next generation of blue!"

[Kyla]

THANK YOU. You said this so well.

[Caroline]

Progressive gal - Thank you!!! (And apologies for hijacking the thread a bit.) You know I did some research (we're in FL) and the best I could find was one unitarian church way far downtown with no sunday school or sense of community. Kinda just aging hippies it seemed and, as much as I LOVE aging hippies, just looking for a fam. environment. BUT, I can't stop looking. And now will see if there is something like Unity Church down here. We have a big spiritual void in lives. I am anxious to share religion with my children and not feel so odd at Christmas and Easter when they aren't sure what its about, and I don't want them listening to a lot of the folks who WILL tell them what they think its about. Its time we lefties get our God back, right? Thanks Momocrats for a platform like this to talk. :)

[Pamela]

My husband and I are Lefty Christians in a Far Right community. It is very frustrating to deal with the holier-than-thous. I love how you wrote about this. Good work.

[Natasha Becoming Something]

Wow, I don't even know where to start. How about the things upon which we agree?

You are right: The question is not "Is God with us?" it is "Are we with God?"

Neither the left nor the right can claim any moral or theological high ground. What flows from this proposition is that, consistent with the American constitution's separation of church and state, all rhetoric intertwining politics and religion ultimately cannot be a clear statement of either politics or religion.

For George Bush to claim a moral victory upon "winning" the 2004 election should be offensive to both the left and the right as no owns morality. The inference that Democrats are less moral is one at which I shake my head, sadly.

Being Canadian, I am neither Democrat nor Republican but there is much at MOMocrats that makes me nod my head in agreement. I've spent a little bit of time considering that maybe there is some community here for me somewhere, as I veer a little more to the left, myself.

But this post and some of the comments that have followed, has really disappointed me in its hypocrisy.

The important thing is to try to do good; think clearly but also be charitable to other people's opinions and to consider where they may have merit. Where they don't have merit, our own views and opinions should stand influential alone, if they are truly superior, without ad hominum arguments.

I realize that we all want to vent sometimes and that if an Internet reader doesn't want to read material with a venting tone, that they should steer clear of blogs with their informal nature. I realize that Fundamentalist Christians who've lost that lovin' feeling can be frustrating to many people (myself included), easily prompting a vent. But this isn't a personal blog. I view MOMocrats as a more professional, intelligent, empowering medium. What if this was the first MOMocrat post read by a moderate, a middle-of-the-road political newbie? Does the tone of this article have much sway-power or is it designed to attract like minds who will say, "Rah, rah"?

Do you really not see how someone could read this smack down on the Conservative right and Fundamentalist Christians (I separate them because I know that not all Republicans are Fundamentalists-- a point you didn't make very clearly) as very "strident" itself? Can't you hear critics mocking this site (if it is indeed comprised of posts like this-- I haven't spent enough time investigating) as a "estrogen-fuelled ventathon"?

Why make it so easy to be dismissed? There is power in emotion-free fact. There is power in extending tolerance to those whom you view as intolerant. Tolerance IS a two-way street. Imagine how much more impressive your really excellent suggestions would be if they were accompanied with acknowledgment and respect for the heart-felt beliefs of others.

Whether right or wrong, there are people who believe ALL of the Bible and don't pick and choose the scriptures they agree with or fully understand. There are people who are faithful because of spiritual experiences they've had that have led them there or because they feel some sense of honour in carrying on the faith of their parents (something I don't agree with but for which I hold some measure of respect).

If they are sorely misguided they only deserve more of your compassion and less of your ridicule.

Consider these scripture on charity:

"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 1 CORINTHIANS 13:3.

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." JOHN 15:12

To whom should we be charitable? We know that Christ meant even our enemies because of MATTHEW 5:44. When has "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" been more timely?

Did you bless those with whom you disagree in this post? Did you do good in your disagreement? I would say no. I would say that you only succeeded in rallying those who already agree with you anyway. Was that all you wanted? Don't you want to change America? Don't you want to change the world? Don't you want to change minds?

Good luck with such strident superiority; I believe your truly great ideas are drowning in it, not to be heard by those who need to hear them most.

[Robert]

I have to second Natasha's comments here. It's the potshots and barbs that have gotten really old in the political process, especially this year. Instead of looking for solutions together to energy, economics, and the war in Iraq, people are turning out the lights in Washington with a decree that "if you aren't going to take this seriously, then we're not going to discuss it." and "I'm saving the world". Washington is failing in a deeper way than it ever has, and forget political parties for a minute: doesn't it make more sense for thinkers to come together and find common ground on issues that matter than to spit on religious fundamentalism that really has so little to do with what needs to happen in the next year and beyond?

I can speak from experience: most of the leaders of the Christian Coalition I've ever met disgust me. They could shake people down in ways that make me sick to my stomach. That said, I am glad most of those people are falling away. I think the religious people I know now who happen to be Republican generally do try to help people out, and they do try to send support to the troop in tangible ways that have nothing to do with car magnets. The point is, it's pretty harsh to take shots at people we don't really just because we're angry about something they claim affiliation with. From a statistical evidence point of view, Republicans give far more to charities than Democrats do, but maybe those statistics are invalid. Who's to know. That's why it's unfortunate to see, as Natasha pointed out, some great ideas drowned out by the vitriol of this post.

For the record, I don't read this blog much, so Natasha's point rings strongly with me that this post does not lend itself to improving the image of this site. I read the post at her suggestion, and I must say I concur with her thoughts.

[jaelithe]

I disagree with Natasha and Robert. I think the tone of this post is something that would be difficult to understand if you don't live in this country, though. Natasha, if you don't live here, then maybe you don't know how bad it really is.

Religious people on the left of the political spectrum are told almost daily by right-wing Christians that their faith is not real, that their views are evil, that they are corrupting the nation, that they are going to hell.

There are right-wing evangelicals on the TV and radio here calling for the DEATH of people whose views disagree with their own. Pat Robertson actually recently prayed to God on national television that our three more liberal Supreme Court justices would die so that right-wing judges could take their place. Lately some wackos have actually started listening to these exhortations to kill liberals, and they've been shooting people in churches and political offices.

So, maybe Vivian sounds a little fed up. Maybe she sounds a little angry. Maybe she's justified.

I myself have plenty of friends who are fundamentalist Christians (including some Mormons), and many of them usually vote Republican (often primarily because of their pro-life stance). I also have friends who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. I always try to be tolerant of others' religious views. I find religion fascinating and I know that personal faith is a powerful force for good in many people's lives.

But there is a difference between being open-minded and tolerant, and surrendering to vicious attacks on your character and lifestyle without a fight. I think Vivian has the right to shout about this. There's a reason she sounds defensive, and that is because religious liberals in this country live their lives under intellectual siege.

[Robert]

Jaelithe,

Religious conservatives live under the constant ridicule of popular entertainment and the media. They are termed "ignorant", "backward", or "out of touch" by many. Attacking Mormons is completely acceptable in the media, in fact, though a few conservatives came to the defense of Mitt Romney and his right to believe as he does. Obama clearly showed his perspective on people of faith who are conservative when he described them as bitter, holding on to their guns and religion.

So I guess the irony is that it cuts both ways. Sure, Vivian feels the attacks that come her way. That's why I think Natasha was so disturbed by her need to fire back as she did. Attacks definitely come from both side, and there clearly are more barbs fired by those in entertainment and mainstream media against conservative Christians than what comes the other way.

My point, and I believe Natasha's point, is that such attacks do not foster bridge building, and do not help people come together and stop this fighting and start working towards real solutions. For the record, I'm not a big fan of either political party right now in terms of what they're offering. I would love to see a complete change from the current line of entrenched part-line warfare. Orson Scott Card (a self-described "liberal Mormon" novellist) nailed it in his book Empire where he described how tenuous our political environment has become. He pointed out that it's no better than the environment right before the American Civil War (or as Southerner's call it, the War Between the States) It's a great read. I for one would prefer to build bridges.

[Natasha Becoming Something]

Jaelithe,

First of all, Mormons are NOT Fundamentalist Christians. We disagree on many points and do not hold the same "ticket to Hell" mentality. Our religion is actually quite logical, we believe in personal revelation, and we strive to exemplify love and forgiveness. I don't like being lumped with them, because I am aware of some of the hatred that comes from that direct. Some Fundamentalist Christian leaders spread videos and materials full of [ridiculous] lies about Mormons and threaten the lives of Mormons.

So, while I get the venting, I totally do, I don't think that Vivian's tone and generalizing lent much credibility to her great ideas. That was MY point.

As I said to Julie on my blog, The hypocrisy I referred to was in judging the man heading off to church, when she's complaining about the judgments that take place all around her. As I said privately to Stephanie, who knows what that man had to do at church. Maybe he had to teach a class or counsel someone and felt in that split second of a moment that being dependable himself was more important than helping someone else to be dependable. Christians aren't perfect. They don't always choose the best over the good every moment and certainly not when put on the spot. She is judging that man and judging the entire "moral majority". Judging when she doesn't like to be judged herself.

She defended Liberal Christians while alienating Conservative Christians simultaneously. She implied that if you aren't pro-choice, if you don't believe in gay marriage, that you don't know how to "pray... and think!"

You might think that all that she didn't say was obvious and didn't need saying. But it wasn't. I was left wondering whether or not she groups all Christians who aren't Liberal in the same group. I was left wondering whether or not she thinks all Fundamentalists are arses.

My point was that in her venting, she started to lower herself to the level of those of whom she was complaining. No death threats, I know. But the sound of the post was one of "Hey, Fundamentalist Christians? We hate you, too." And that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it?

I'd also like to fire back to Cynematic when she says: "I'm always happy to see people of good faith take back their religion from the crazies (who believe it exists to increase division and distrust among people--wrong!)."

I contend that NO ONE of any religion believes that their religion exists to increase division and distrust. Even the terrorists believe that the world would be better off if we were all dead so that one religion would rule all. Combating division is what each religion does, trying to sway people to their own way of thinking and believing.

[Natasha Becoming Something]

Argh, I really need to start proof-reading my comments before posting them. I hate typos and grammatical errors!

I meant to say "that direction", not "direct".

[Debbie]

Vivian, your post nails it for me. I was raised in an extremist, fundamentalist Christian household; my parents gave me going-to-hell tracts to pass out at malls when I was five. They've been riding the JamesD0bs0n/F0cus0ntheFamily train since the eighties, and they are up to their gills in the Republican/Christian hybrid that TOTALLY goes against the teachings of Christ; there's a verse, in fact, that speaks directly to what they and their church (and all the other churches like theirs) are attempting to do in regards to influencing US Gov't;

John 17:14-16 (John is talking to God in this particular scripture):

14: I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15: I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16: They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

John's point? That Christ's followers are not to mix with the ways of common society. They are to follow Jesus' teachings and only that.

That's what is out of whack. That's what the complaining by the rest of us is about. Separation of church and state. Keeping organized religion out of our laws. It's what the founding fathers set up. It's what the churches wanted. They didn't want to mix with politics; it wasn't part of their belief system, thanks in large part to John's verses.

And now, this cult branch of Christian faith has decided to blaze a trail into politics, something that flies totally in the face of Jesus' teachings (remember all that stuff about Jesus and the moneylenders in the temple? It's in Matthew, Chapter 21:12-13

12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.)

So. To recap: Christians following the tenets of their faith are not to mix in politics.

The end.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is following somebody not named Jesus.

And people who live in countries outside of this one who aren't extremely well-informed about how US government is currently being run ought to know well enough to keep their (overtly uneducated) opinions to themselves. Otherwise? They sound awfully hypocritical. Matthew, again, hammers it out:

Matthew 7:1-5

7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I rest my case.

Sincerely, Debbie, MOMocrat and ardent atheist.

[Natasha Becoming Something]

Debbie, you made my point for me, yes you did. Thank you.

Also? One need not have a knowledge of American politics to have an valid opinion on communication. My critique was mainly on Vivian's style of communication.

[Robert]

I disagree with you, Deb, that our founding fathers wanted to keep God out of government. Many of them have been variously quoted to say that they feared for the day that this country forgot its Christian roots. What they didn't want was a state relgion. They didn't want the government in their religion.

I do agree that there are plenty of unChristian things done in the name of Christ. That's definitely gone on for centuries. I think both political sides are guilty of it, though. As Natasha explained, vindictive attitudes are definitely not in line with Christ. Cracking wise about religious fundamentalists, or a man going to church not being helpful, does not serve to promote the religion of love and peace. I'd love to see the world start to consider those things. This country could use a strong injection of Christ's teaching in the government - not an extraction. I agree that many of the people who claim to be the religious right have terrible tactics in politics. I've never liked them. It drove me away from the Republican party for a time. Now I'd say the general stance of the Republican Party is driving me away again. I am disgusted with both parties. It's like War of the Roses, the Clantons, or the Hundred Years War. As Orson Scott Card pointed out, we're just as divided now as we were before the Civil War. Wouldn't it be terrible for this country to tear itself apart because people want to be so divisive instead of working together to solve our problems? That's my perspective. I'd rather bring together great minds and work on real solutions. I don't care who gets credit.

[Robert]

The moneylenders offended Jesus because they were taking advantage of the poor. It was not a statement about keeping religion out of government. In the end times, the government of the world will be headed by Christ, so that's a far cry from keeping religion out of politics or out of government. I do find it unfortunate that you basically told Natasha to keep her opinions to herself.

[cynematic]

Isn't it interesting how doing good can be separated from doing god?

[judy haley (coffeejitters)]

I'm so glad to know I'm not alone. I have often wondered where all the Christian Democrats are. I feel so alone out here sometimes. Yay for Christian Democrats that think and pray

[ilinap]

Caroline at Morningside Mom inspired me to finally write about this topic. My friend Christy and I were just at the beach with our kids discussing this very issue. Thanks for such an enlightening, well written piece. Here's my $0.02 on the topic. http://www.dirtandnoise.com/2008/08/church-quandary.html

[backyard ni donglloyd]

VEry well said..it's illuminating.