# Posted 12:02 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

INAUGURATION DAY MINUS ONE: In several hours, I head downtown toward the general vicinity of the Inauguration. I don't have a ticket, but I figure with the size of the crowd expected, I'll still be in the midst of the celebration and get a sense of its feeling.

I also went down to the Mall today to see if I could take the pulse of the celebration a little bit early. I spent around two hours downtown, tracing a path westward across the mall toward the Capitol, then up Pennsylvania Avenue back toward the White House.

In short, the atmosphere was apolitical. I expected to see a welter of citizen activists handing out pamphlets, giving speeches and Being The Change that will begin tomorrow. Instead, there was only Obama. His face and his name were on t-shirts, hats, buttons, posters and everything else being sold by a small army of vendors that blanketed the Mall and its surroundings. Almost every one of the thousands of people I passed by was wearing one or more Obama item. The vendors must have been doing quite well. I hope they're ready for tomorrow.

If one looked carefully, there were a few telltale signs of citizen politics. A handful of individuals had Code Pink stickers on their coats that read "Make Out, Not War." A few people had video cameras or tape recorders. The only real noise was being made by three individuals with picket signs that displayed a long list of all those who are bound for hell -- Baby Killers, Homos, Porno Freaks, Idolaters, Muslims and various others.

Not surprisingly, the three with picket signs were surrounded by thirty Obama supporters shouting them down. The Obama brigade took various approaches to the nuisance. One man quietly approached one of the sign holders and sought to engage him in a calm discussion about religion and politics. Another man, responding to the picketers' challenge to show his knowledge of even one verse of scripture, yelled out "Just not lest ye be judged! Judge not lest ye be judged!" Two women started chanting "I will go to heaven! I will go to heaven!" The lead picketer didn't yield. He kept telling people again and again that they would go to hell. Eventually, the Obama brigade decided on the same approach as the picketers. In unison, they started chanting "You will go to hell! You will go to hell!"

That is how this sort of thing usually ends. People just yelling at each other mindlessly. I've been to a fair number of anti-war protests. When the protesters run up against counter-protesters, yelling is the result. But mindless yelling is democracy, too.

In this instance, I think the picketers only damaged whatever cause they were trying to support. I think they accomplished nothing except to validate the unfortunate stereotypes that so many liberals seem to have when it comes to conservative Christians. Precisely for that reason, Rick Warren's presence at the inauguration will be so valuable. While recognizing that Barack Obama also has political reasons for extending the invitation to Warren, it's still the right thing to do.

Labels: Christianity, Inauguration, Obama, Religion

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WHY DOES OXBLOG RESPECT BIGOTRY? In a post about Larry Craig, I stated my unequivocal support for equal rights for gays and lesbians. I also stated that "I respect the opinion that homosexuality is a grave sin from a Biblical perspective." One commenter observed that if that is what I believe:

Then you also respect a lot of other, ridiculous things.

Can't you just say that you don't respect that opinion?

Essentially, you're saying that you'd take a stand on a moral issue, except against certain, fervent people... Because what they believe is rooted biblically.

Great.

I didn't really take that argument seriously at first, so I didn't post a response. But then the author appended the same comment to a different post about a different subject. But he did so respectfully, so I believe that he is serious in raising this point. So what is my response?

Invoking the Bible as a justification of one's arguments does not provide automatic legitimacy. Often, the bible is radically misinterpreted. If someone invoked the Bible to justify racial segregation, I wouldn't profess respect for that opinion. Yet there are also instances in which I wouldn't respect an opinion that has a legitimate basis in the Bible. For example, if someone seriously argued for legalizing slavery since it is allowed by the Bible, I wouldn't profess respect for that opinion. Yet who in the United States would ever make that argument seriously?

As the example of slavery suggests, the community of American believers has come to accept over time that democratic rights must sometimes prevail over Biblical injunctions. This acceptance is often implicit, since I sense that few of the faithful feel comfortable subordinating the word of God to any other principle. Yet implicit or explicit, this acceptance is there.

So, then, how should one treat a fellow American who invokes the Biblical as a justification for denouncing homosexuality? The position of my anonymous commenter seems to be that one should deny respect to such opinions or even denounce them as "ridiculous". But I think that approach is entirely counterproductive. The scorn of the secularists accomplishes little more than postponing the day when equal rights for gays and lesbians are no longer a political issue. The tide is turning in favor of those who consider equality before the law to be self-evident and unthreatening.

But I also reject scorn as a matter of principle. Faith has a tremendously powerful influence over the faithful. As a Conservative Jew, I am not bound so closely to the literal meaning of the biblical text. But many other denominations do emphasize that approach. It is a powerful approach that brings much good and meaning into many lives. Of course, it has its drawbacks as well. Yet on balance, is this kind of commitment to the Bible such a terrible thing that it should be met with scorn?

I am certainly willing to meet it with disagreement, but I see little reason to deny it respect. Not all that long ago, I took part in the liberal consensus that evangelical Christians are deserving of condescension at best and vitriol the rest of time. Over time, I came to see that this approach accomplished little other than to close my mind, insult others and contribute to unnecessary polarization, which I can do without.

Labels: Gay rights, Religion

(15) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:31 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

BLOGGING THE BIBLE: I much obliged to my friend SL for pointing this out.

Labels: Bible, Religion

(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

EXACTLY THE WRONG WAY TO TALK ABOUT RELIGION AND POLITICS: WashingtonPost.com has a section entitled On Faith, to promote intelligent conversation about religion in America. This post, by Prof. Wendy Doniger at the University of Chicago's Divinity School, caught my attention. Here's how it begins:

I don’t care a fig about our next president’s personal religious views. The candidate can worship the Great Pumpkin, for all I care, as long as he or she doesn’t assume that the rest of us do too, and that the Great Pumpkin told him to do things such as, to take a case at random, invade Iraq.

If Prof. Doniger was trying as hard as possible to reinforce the stereotype that liberal academics belittle and trivialize the faith of others, she most certainly succeeded. Whether to Great Pumpkins or Spaghetti Monsters, this kind of reference is condescending. And so is the suggestion that serious politicians "do things" because there is a Pumpkin or Spaghetti Monster whispering in their ear.

Do some people take their faith far too dogmatically? Sure. Are some of those people politicians? Sure. But Prof. Dongier talks as if this were a nation full of Christian zombies. (An assessment I often encountered during my sojourn on the far side of the Atlantic.)

Prof. Doniger continues:

I pledge allegiance to the first amendment, which I interpret to mean that government shouldn’t traffic with religion—neither promote it nor persecute it—and this means that, in the public arena, the candidate should not use religious rhetoric, which does nothing but harm, fogging over the clear lines of argument on the issues and eliciting irrelevant and irrational choices in the electorate.

I'm sure Dr. King would beg to differ with the passage in boldface. As I mentioned just yesterday, conservatives love it when liberals fall into this trap. And in this instance, a professor at a divinity school, who really should have a somewhat broader view of the potential that relgion has to inspire us. Or was supporting civil rights one of thsoe "irrational choices" about which Prof. Doniger is so concerned?

Anyhow, if you feel like getting riled up, check out some of the comments on Prof. Doniger's post. She is clearly preaching to the choir -- and the views of the choir are far more vitriolic and condescending.

Labels: Martin Luther King, Religion

(29) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:35 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SUNDAY MORNING ROUND-UP HIGHLIGHTS: There's been no round-up for a couple of weeks because of the technical problems I was having. But taking that time off gave me a chance to rethink the whole idea. Grades were fun at the beginning, but now they don't seem to provide much value-added. And one-sentence summaries often take up space without providing content

Instead, I thought I'd post some of the highlights from each week's broadcasts. That way, anyone can engage the topic, rather than just those who saw the show or listened to the podcast. Will anyone be disappointed by this change? As far as I know, NJ from NYC is the only one who has ever expressed much affection for the round-up format. So with apologies to him, let's go to highlight #1. Here's Tim Russert talking to Arkansas governor and 2008 contender Mike Huckabee (photo above):

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you a couple things that you said earlier in your political career. “Huckabee ... explained why he left pastoring for politics. ‘I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.’” And then this: “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” Would you, as president, consider America a Christian nation and try to lead it as—into a situation as being a more Christian nation?

GOV. HUCKABEE: I think it’s dangerous to say that we are a nation that ought to be pushed into a Christian faith by its leaders. However, I make no apology for my faith. My faith explains me. It means that I believe that we’re all frail, it means that we’re all fragile, that all of us have faults, none of us are perfect, that all of us need redemption. We are a nation of faith. It doesn’t necessarily have to be mine. But we are a nation that believes that faith is an important part of describing who we are, and our generosity, and our sense of optimism and hope. That does describe me.

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say...

GOV. HUCKABEE: I’m appalled, Tim, when someone says, “Tell me about your faith,” and they say, “Oh, my faith doesn’t influence my public policy.” Because when someone says that, it’s as if they’re saying, “My faith isn’t significant, it’s not authentic, it’s not so consequential that it affects me.” Well, truthfully my faith does affect me. But it doesn’t make me think I’m better than someone, it makes me know that I’m not as good as I really need to be.

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say “take this nation back for Christ,” what does that say to Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists? What...

GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think I—I’d probably phrase it a little differently today. But I don’t want to make people think that I’m going to replace the Capitol dome with a steeple or change the legislative sessions for prayer meetings. What it does mean is that people of faith do need to exercise their sense of responsibility toward education, toward health, toward the environment. All of those issues, for me, are driven by my sense that this is a wonderful world that God’s made, we’re responsible for taking care of it. We’re responsible for being responsible managers and stewards of it. I think that’s what faith ought to do in our lives if we’re in public service.

I'd say that Russert was doing his best to help Huckabee establish his credibility with Christian conservatives. With Romney hurting on that front, such help is especially valuable.

As a matter of substance, I think the quotation in boldface above perfectly captures the way that many Americans want their elected officials to talk about faith. We protect the separation of church and state by granting no special privileges to any faith, not by checking our values at the door.

This approach clearly raises the question of whether a religious majority might impose its will on a secular minority. However, the Bill of Rights provides all of us with strong protection on that front.

In contrast, advocates of separation faith from policy have to answer the question that conservatives love to ask: Was it wrong for Martin Luther King Jr. to draw on his Christian faith to inspire the civil rights movement?

Sometimes, religious values will have a polarizing effect on politics. Yet values are indispensable to democratic deliberation. If, as Huckabee says, we use our faith not to condemn others but to challenge ourselves, religious values can have a more positive influence on politics.

Labels: Martin Luther King, Mike Huckabee, Religion, Tim Russert

(20) opinions -- Add your opinion