Religiobabble in the Name of Patriotism

       Sometimes you see or  hear (or both) something so wrong, ill intended, or ignorant that instead of responding immediately, you let it stew until you finally have to stand up and scream, “That’s bullshit, and here’s why!” It happened yesterday, and after a day of reflection, I decided I need to vent.

        The occasion was the annual (here in veterans and retirement central) 4th of July church service replete with patriotic music and chest thumping about the nation, most of it deserved, some….well? The music was great, especially a superb rendition of my favorite patriotic song composed by a Jewish Immigrant  (Irving Berlin, born Israel Beilin, in Siberia) - God Bless America.

        Things were fine until the sermon, delivered by a large bloviating associate pastor, a Baptist by birth and ordination, but hired by the local United Methodist congregation. He rarely preaches, which is good, but he resonates with many (too many) of the more conservative parishioners.

        As is the norm for guys like him, he started with the usual assertions that all things American are all things Christian, and that “fixing” societal ills is simply a matter of prayer, not just in the name of a Deity, but in the name of “Jeeesussah.” In attempting to use historical references to prove his thesis he went so far off the rails that he almost disappeared. Examples follow.

        The first big lie was that the first Europeans came to the New World for religious freedom. By stating it the way he did, he included of course the Spanish. Need I say more about the "Black Legend?" He then continued referring to the continent of North America as “this country” when he alleged that the Pilgrims were the first English settlers (Roanoke, Jamestown, anyone?) and that they were, and he was correct in this specific case, religious immigrants. What he omitted, of course, was that Indians were almost immediately either forced to convert and live in "Praying towns" or were at risk. Within 14 years, these noble Christians, in alliance with the equally Christian Dutch from the west in New Amsterdam, committed genocidal war on the Pequots, whose only sin was control of the Connecticut coast wampum trade.

        He then sort of generalized that by the “early 1700s” slavery was introduced, implying that it was a reason for the Great Awakening. So, what’s wrong with that? For starters, the first slaves in North America were brought to Jamestown, in Virginia, of whose establishment in 1607 and commercial greed driven origins he is apparently unaware, in 1619, 100 plus years before the religious revival. Other English “Christians” settled in Barbados and instituted slavery there in 1627.

        Then in another trip into the ditch, he lauds Great Awakening preachers, including a Wesley friend and co-religionist, George Whitefield. Whitefield was undoubtedly a great preacher of the time, but the bumpkin in question also cites his high moral standards in almost the same sentence as he “sort of” condemns slavery. So what? So here’s the rest of the story on Whitefield: Whitefield saw the "legalization of slavery as part personal victory and part divine will." Whitefield argued a scriptural justification for slavery. He increased his number of slaves, using his preaching to raise money to purchase them after he split with the Wesleys and returned to the colonies in 1739. Hypocrite? Just a bit!

        As many Christians do, he also referred to the writings of several founding fathers who allude to some higher power when speaking of human rights and responsibilities. This includes Jefferson's "all men are created equal" verbage in the Declaration of independence. I can imagine TJ's slaves muttering about "equal this, m****r f****r." What he omits is that Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, Adams, (Deists all) never speak of “Jesus.”  Why do I make that distinction? Simply because as enlightenment era literate men (largely self- taught in Washington’s case) they would have been educated in the concept of “natural law.”  According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world. This concept precedes Jesus by centuries, was mentioned by the Greeks and others and has parallels in Asian religions as well, but don’t tell him; his head will explode.  

        To this ignorant preacher, belief in any higher intelligence in the universe apparently only means belief in the Christian version of God and, by inclusion - especially and specifically, a divine Jesus. Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, constructed by cutting, pasting and excluding some parts, tells a different story.  Jefferson's condensed composition excludes all miracles by Jesus and mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels that contain the Resurrection and other miracles, and passages that portray Jesus as divine.

        In like fashion, while Washington regularly attended church while in residence at Mount Vernon, his pastor acknowledged after his death that he never, ever,  remained for communion, choosing to leave instead.  Why? Deist, that’s why. The same thread holds true for all the others (Madison, Adams, Franklin) which the North Carolina hill-billy mentioned. Since the Ten commandments were common knowledge and mentioned in parallel language and intent in numerous non-Christian cultures, they were good tools for construction of a civil law code - then. A law code based on Buddhist principles would have been equally acceptable as a civil code, but they went with what they and those about to be governed, knew.   

        There’s more, but I’ll finish with focus on just three more topics. The first, while correctly mentioning that we have issues with racism in America, he actually said, “I thought we’d settled that.” I was hard pressed to remain seated vice standing and asking him just when he thought we had done so. Was it before the Civil War? Did the Civil War wipe out racism? The Klan and numerous lynchings show the lie in that case. Was it through the Jim Crow era? Has it happened yet? all these are answerable with a resounding “no!”

       Then he went to abortion, specifically late term procedures. His referral to infanticide (he called it “infancide”, but then he’s semi-literate) was what left my wife fuming through the rest of the day. Here is her verbatim reaction:

“ When I glanced at the order of service in my church bulletin this morning, I knew we were in for another tirade from our token Southern Ba(b)tist pastor. Seems he gets the July 4th 'Merica sermon every year. Thankfully, he doesn't get many other chances to preach.

He started with declaring that 'Merica was founded as a "Christian" country, totally ignoring many facts which I will not elaborate on. Toward the end, he described the abyss of current day backsliding, speaking "eloquently" about "late term" abortion, describing it in almost the same ignorant words that Trump uses. He evidently thinks what he parrotted is what actually happens. Nevertheless, this topic is one that should be clarified and documented before dispersing to a church full of people.

       Having been employed for over thirty years in a job where I daily observed birth of both premature and full term infants, and occasionally had to deal with the post birth death of a newborn, I can affirm that most late term terminations were not undertaken lightly, and no child, unless born with a defect incompatible with life, was "made comfortable" and then doctor and parents decided whether the child would live or die. In most cases, the much loved and wanted child was mourned, and if viable was cared for as any other newborn would be. I cared for children who were born much too early, and sat with parents who had found out a matter of days prior to birth, that a child would not survive. Termination of a healthy child on a mothers whim, does not take place. I have wept with women who have to carry a stillborn child until they go into labor. I have held a mothers’ hand as she holds her dying child, and says a final goodbye. I have sat with a family as they come to terms with the fact that their severely genetically damaged child has survived birth when they thought she would not, and are unprepared for what will be the prospect of taking home(and loving) a child who will die at 21 days of age. Don't ever try to convince me that this form of "termination" is done on a whim.

I know abortion is a sore spot. I know some people are able to be blase' about having one. I am not that person. But I also believe it is not the job of government or religious institutions to make decisions about a woman's RIGHT to make her own decisions about her body.”  She is eloquent and right!

       Finally, he did the “The problem isn’t too many guns” speech.” Apparently, the proliferation of banana clip assault weapons is cool as long as there is a fish symbol on the stock.

What an asshole.