A Discussion of Birth Control? In 2012?

A Discussion of Birth Control?  In 2012?

At first it took me a little time to figure this out.  I’m not really into culture wars, social wars, war on women, or war on terror.  That rhetoric really doesn’t get people very far in having a real discussion because it frames the discussion before it even starts.  However there have been some aspects of this discussion that have been really troubling to me.  One of the first is that so many Republican women are supporting Rick Santorum.  Why?

Then I had an “Ah, ha,” moment.  By not using artificial birth control methods, right-wing women can assure their husbands that, “This is the wrong time of the month, dear.  We couldn’t possibly!” thus keeping their rather smug, autocratic and authoritarian husbands at bed’s length.  What better excuse is there than that!

Seriously, however, this whole argument is pretty much a political set-up.  For one thing, for centuries Catholic teaching (which this current crop of conservative Catholic Bishops like to pretend doesn’t exist if it doesn’t correspond to what the Republican National Committee wants) has rested on the tripod of the hierarchy, the theologians, and the sensus fidelium, which is the experience-fed wisdom of the laity.  These three sources of teaching have been described as “complementary and mutually corrective” by, I believe, Cardinal Avery Dulles.  Thus, the fact that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control should be taken into account, to say nothing of their husbands, by the Bishops in their discussions of religious liberty.  Which is another political set-up, in my opinion.

For one thing, the Bishops are demanding that what they believe, in opposition to a massive majority of Catholic women, many Catholic men, and a great many theologians, must be the norm by which this whole controversy is measured.  This completely ignores the religious liberty of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, and people of all other religious or philosophical beliefs, or believers in non-belief. 

This goes back to the 16^th century in Europe after the beginning of the Reformation when all of the people, regardless of their consciences, had to conform their beliefs to that of the ruler of their city or country.  This became really difficult if a Catholic ruler was deposed by a Protestant and everyone had to then be Protestant, and that one would be run out by a Catholic, and, oops, there we go again!  Back to the old Papacy.  Europe fought a real war for 30 years over just this kind of thing, which is basically why our wise founding fathers and mothers insisted on the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Of course this really cut down on the secular power that prelates of any organized religion could wield in America, which was the whole point in the first place.  It would appear that some of our conservative American Catholic Bishops are longing for the old days.

As a Catholic woman who dearly loves her Catholic faith, I assert that in this instance, and in a couple of others I can think of at the moment, some of our Catholic Bishops are clearly out of balance with the other two legs of the tripod on which our Catholic teaching rests.  In a sense I am glad that this tripod is out of balance.  If it tips over, the hierarchy will have to reevaluate itself and, one would sincerely pray as a result, reform itself.

In the meantime, I have made up a little mantra regarding birth control that I think ought to be taught to all of our children:

Before you screw

You ought to do

Those things

You know you need to do.

Wackadoodles!

Some conservative last week commented that California didn’t count in the conservative primary race because it was just all full of wackadoodles.  For those whose native language is not English, a wackadoodle is definitely not a term of endearment.

OK.  We do have at least one wackadoodle – Darryl Issa of this week’s Congressional fame.  Issa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee, held a hearing without one single woman on the first panel, and only two on the second.  And those two had been vetted to insure that they agreed with the result Issa wanted for the panel’s decision.  Needless to say, women were outraged since the subject was whether President Obama’s decision regarding birth control coverage for Catholic institutions infringed on the First Amendment of the US Constitution that Congress “…shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  Regardless of the subject matter, or in this case precisely because of it, women should have been at least half of those testifying.  If a woman had been there to testify, perhaps Bishop Lori would have been taken to task for comparing a government involvement in birth control to requiring a Kosher deli to serve pork.  Talk about wackadoodles!!

With California out of the way, the political landscape all over this country is liberally dotted with wackadoodles.  Rick Santorum actually thinking that taking away birth control is a hot button issue for evangelical voters, and that this will actually get him elected.  Of course, evangelical voters are only about a third of the electorate, and since they do not have huge families one can only assume it has not been abstinence that made the families smaller. Santorum also wants to take away state and federal funding for education.  This would eliminate public schools from K through PhD for most Americans.  A few would be able to afford private schools, or some neighborhoods and small towns might be able to fund their own schools, but basically what we would have would be an uneducated, illiterate citizenry.  At the same time he wants to make America economically competitive.  So how can that happen with not enough people to staff the research and development labs that are required to come up with innovative new ideas.  Santorum is a wackadoodle par excellence.

But my all-time favorite is Mitt Romney.  This morning he gave a campaign speech in Michigan talking about why he loves Michigan.  One of his points was that the trees are the right height.  Right height?  For what?  For Michigan?  That then leads to the next question, “Does every state have to have trees that are the right height for that state?  And if so, how is that determination made?”  In California, for example, we have trees called scrub oaks.  They grow to no more than four to fight feet in height, and grow relatively near the ocean.  Then in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, also in California, we have the gigantic and ancient Sequoia.  These are the tallest trees in the world, attaining a height of 379 feet, or 115.5 meters.  They can reach 23 feet in diameter at the base.  So which is the right height tree for California?  This is the same man who, when questioned about strapping his Irish Wolfhound to the roof of his car for a 12 hour drive, said there was no problem.  The kennel the dog was in was airtight.  Airtight?  After 12 hours in an airtight container that dog would have been dead. 

Don’t tell me that California is full of wackadoodles.  We don’t hold a candle to the Republicans running for the Presidency this year.  In my youth I was a Republican.  I thank God from the bottom of my heart that I became older and wiser.

Why are some members of the hierarchy so afraid of women?

AN OPEN LETTER TO SOME OF THE DECISION MAKERS OF THE HIERARCHY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Why are some of you so afraid of women? 

I ask this because whenever the subject of women comes up, the reaction from some of those making decisions involving women or women's involvement in the church is extreme.  I have learned over time that when there is an extreme reaction to an expressed thought, fear is usually involved.   

To put this question in perspective from my point of view let me comment that I have been married for over 58 years to the same man, have had 5 children (one deceased), and obviously am too old for birth control or an abortion, am definitely not a homosexual, and have no desire for ordination.  Nor am I a theologian in any sense of the word.  I had a vocation to be a wife and mother for the first thirty years of our marriage, and then became a politician at the county level for the next 25.  It always seemed to me that not a day went by that I didn't use my experience and expertise from my first vocation for the next 25 in the art of the possible – politics.  From a political perspective, I was our county's very politically conservative base's favorite bleeding heart liberal.   

I do not call myself a feminist, but rather a 'personist' because I do not believe that anyone, men included, should be obligated to fit into a rigid role prescribed by someone else.  All should have the ability to be productive members of society and faithful members of their own religious communities.  Over time it became apparent to me that institutions basically operate pretty much the same, be they religious or civil. I mention all of this because I do not want anyone to think that I have a personal secret agenda.  I just want to know why the institutional hierarchy of my beloved Church is afraid of people like me -- women.

Several years ago Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement regarding evolution vs. creationism which was elegant in its simplicity.  The basic statement was that there is no contradiction between evolution and Christianity.  This statement was based on the best scientific thinking of the 21^st century.  Yet the hierarchy is willing to make decisions on over half of its members using theories regarding the 'proper role' for women from ancient Greek times at the least, and probably before that.  Sex was to be only for the procreation of children.  Women were to be considered useful only for the production of children and the maintenance of a home for them and the man, under the direction of the man who was preferably a husband.  Women were considered to be less than fully human, and particularly a woman who was married and presumably had sex.  No one has explained satisfactorily why a woman who maintained her virginity was considered to be more human than a woman who had sex.  To assert that God would create women for the sole purpose of the procreation of children, and then deny them their full humanity if they indulged in the only way to procreate those children is truly a Catch 22.  For those women who did not have a vocation to virginity, they were truly caught in the middle of a situation that fully excluded them from expressing their God-given wisdom and understanding.  If nothing else, this is completely illogical.  Doesn't Genesis claim that "male and female He created them.  In His own image he created them."  If women use the power of their God-imaged sexuality, and then become less than a full human, doesn't this imply that God is somehow incomplete as well if he created something that if used properly diminishes half the people who use it?  And further why doesn't sex diminish the men who indulge in its practice?  We have come a long way from the overt expression of this denigration, but obviously the shadow of it remains in some of the male hierarchy's attitudes toward women. 

20^th century research into sex and sexuality reveals that sex also has the equally important role of providing the two consenting partners with a knowledge of and loving relationship with the other partner.  It is definitely a relationship building activity, regardless of whether children are produced or not.  All we have to do is witness the many extraordinarily loving relationships between men and women where no children are involved. This learning is a far cry from that ancient concept of the role of women and of sex.  

Slowly, and slowly, attitudes toward women have changed in the general population, but not in the most inner sanctums of the Catholic Church.  The men in these circles do not want women involved at all.  By not allowing women into the decision making process, however, the men do not have access to the God-given intellectual and spiritual gifts that the excluded women possess.  Perhaps it is because if women were involved in the decision-making discussions, different conclusions might have to be reached.  The men might have to admit that they do not know everything there is to know.   

The five most notorious basic areas that are continually under contention in the church now, and that are causing a continual leaking of members of the church either to other denominations or out of religion altogether are birth control, abortion, homosexuality, a married clergy and women's ordination.  I contend that these all have a direct relationship to women and to women's experience, and to the fear that the hierarchy seems to have toward exploring this experience and knowledge.  Below, in order, are brief explanations of my thoughts on these five subjects. 

(1) Birth Control.  The hierarchy contends that every sexual act must be open to procreation.  This rigid attitude completely negates the new understanding of sex and the underlying strengthening of the relationship of the husband and wife.  Women understand this relationship-building quality of a loving sexual bond.  Men who have never married and who never listen to the experience of women can never have that understanding.  They may read about it, but they cannot truly understand it.  Thus, the stricture on artificial birth control is completely out of context because it does not take into account this new and more complete understanding of the role of sex.  To insist that only 'natural' methods, such as 'the rhythm system' work very well indicates a total lack of actual experience with this system.  My personal experience is that from the hierarchy's perspective the system works very well – a baby a year.   

(2) Abortion.  In all of my years of life I have never heard anyone say they are 'pro abortion'.  What many of us say is that although we as faithful Christians believe that all life is sacred, there are many, many women who do not hold our anti-abortion belief.  Nevertheless, we believe that the lives of these women are also sacred – as sacred as the unborn.  Are we making value judgments that say that this life is sacred, but that one is not sacred?  Probably the only time I have agreed with the radical religious right is that any abortion is wrong – including those involving rape or incest.  After all, it is not the fault of the fetus that it was not a loving act that caused its life to begin, so what right do we have to terminate it.  Thus, we need to really spend much time, effort and finances to educate men and women that irresponsible sex is the wrong, and that wrong is not rectified by having an abortion.  Adoption is a much better choice.  At the same time we need to respect the lives of women who do not believe as we do and see to it that if an abortion is chosen, it is safe for the sake of the woman.  It often appears to me that some anti-abortion speakers seem to feel that all women have no feelings about abortion at all – sort of an attitude of, “Well, should I have a manicure or an abortion today?”  Nothing could be further from the truth for the vast majority of women. Women recognize this as a life or death decision. Women, after all, are as equally beloved children of God as are men.  To believe otherwise is in direct contradiction of, "In Jesus there is neither…male nor female…."  Jesus treated women as equal to men.  We should do no less.   

On a related issue to abortion is the fact that approximately 20% of all pregnancies in women of optimal child bearing age end in either a miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion.  Thus, women, even those who ardently desired children, are more conscious of terminated pregnancies than most unmarried men.  These terminated pregnancies are usually quite emotionally painful, and are not therefore the common subject of discussion.  It has been said by the medical profession that these pregnancies terminated because of a defect in the fetus, but that is an assumption.  There are also terminated pregnancies because of hormonal imbalances in the woman.  Yet there is no outcry on the part of the Bishops over the proposed laws in some states to criminalize miscarriages.  These laws would once again put women’s lives on the line, since a woman who is having or did have a miscarriage would not go to doctor for fear of ending up in jail.  There could be a real danger of the woman bleeding to death.

(3) Homosexuality.  The issue of homosexuality is truly a very difficult one.  It leans directly on the question of the ultimate meaning of sex, and a sexual relationship.  At one time homosexuals were thought to be mentally ill.  That changed to merely disturbed, and that has, in some circles, become a 'choice' on the part of an individual.  Even the church recognizes that it is not a choice.  As one gay person told me, "Who in their right mind would chose this lifestyle that means one will be harassed, made fun of, excluded and ridiculed?  Only someone who is truly off their rocker would choose it."  When researchers finally find the genetic reason for homosexuality, a lot of people in churches are going to end up with a lot of egg on their collective faces for not having accepted homosexuals as children of God, in their own right, with their own place in God's plan for us.  Why God has chosen to create homosexuality will never be known until we are face to face with God.  Our job here is to remember the old 1960's slogan.  "God does not make junk."  Another issue here is the meaning of sex.  If sex is only for the procreation of children and has no other function, then obviously same-sex sex is a problem.  But if the equally strong function of sex is to create a loving and creative bond between two people, the strictures against homosexuality dissolve.  I doubt if the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony ever becomes available to homosexual couples for many, many years to come.  I don't know if it ever should.  But I do believe that if women were involved in church decision making, there would be a somewhat different attitude toward homosexuality than there is now.  After all, these are our children.  We know them better than anyone other than they themselves do.  The knowledge and experience of women, as well as homosexuals, needs to be acknowledged and included in any discussion regarding homosexuality. 

(4) Married Clergy.  The next issue is a married clergy.  Celibacy is a vocation for some men, and these men can be completely celibate in a mystical way.  The imposition of celibacy on all men as a prerequisite for a vocation to serve God's people as a priest should be banned.  Blaming the clergy child abuse scandal on possible homosexuals in the priesthood is truly immoral.  Immoral because it frames the discussion in way that precludes the fact that an imposed celibacy is the more likely cause.  It is truly possible that with better psychological screening prior to allowing young men into the seminary the possibility that this scandal will decrease is pretty good.  We know that a married clergy will not eliminate it because of the scandals that occur in churches with a married clergy.  But these scandals tend to be between consenting adults, as reported in the media.    It is time that marriage becomes available to the priesthood.  Women need not be feared, either as direct decision makers, or by their influence as the wives of decision makers.   If a man believes he has a vocation to be a celibate that is his choice.  Again, it should not be imposed by others.  Forcing men into a prescribed role is as damaging to them as forcing women into a prescribed role is damaging to them. 

(5) Ordination. 

The final issue is the ordination of women.  Over the years there have been all sorts of reasons presented for excluding women from the priesthood.  Each has fallen, one by one.  The only two left are tradition and that since the priest stands as 'alter Christus', a woman could not possibly be a priest because she cannot represent Christ at the altar for the simple fact that she is female and Christ was male, so ipso facto, she is out of the equation.  Any tradition based on ancient and discredited assumptions should be discontinued.  Jesus treated women with all of the respect He wanted women to receive.  For some reason, over the centuries this obvious degree of respect and consideration Jesus had for women has been buried under tons of cultural garbage.  Many great and wonderful treatises have been written as to why this has happened.  Archaeologists and other scholars have uncovered the fact that in the early church women were equal to men, and served as deacons, priests and bishops.  Therefore, the 'tradition' that is used as the excuse that women must be excluded now has been found to be a faulty tradition based on invalid assumptions by pagans, primarily, regarding the role of women.  The final reason for the exclusion of women from the ordained, even down to being ordained Lectors, is that because women do not in their bodies replicate the physical characteristics of men, they therefore cannot be an 'alter Christus'.  Jesus, however, was a Jew, and all male Jews in those days were circumcised.  So, if priests must emulate the exact physical characteristics of Jesus, have they all, all over the world, every one of them, been circumcised?    

It seems to me that the strictures against women being members of the ordained priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church comes more from a fear of women than from scriptural or theological reasoning.  In the early days of Christianity before sex was completely understood, I believe that those Christian men who wished to be pure before God did not understand the perfectly natural sexual reaction they had when confronted with a comely woman.  Nor did they understand the psychological phenomenon of projection.  Since they had been raised and educated by those who still believed in the ancient Greek beliefs regarding women, it was quite easy to project onto women the blame for the men's own turbulent and perhaps unwelcome feelings of sexual desire.  This coupled with the pagan way of viewing women, made it quite easy over time to demonize women into a less than human person.  It is time, in the 21^st century, to discard these ancient methods of theological discussion regarding women.  Women are different from men, obviously, and having worked with many men over the years, I know that the thought processes of women are different from men.  I have also found that this is a good thing, and with men and women working together as equals, much can be accomplished.  In the first few centuries of Christianity women were considered equal; were ordained as lectors, deacons, priests and bishops.  Christianity swept the pagan world.  Now women are excluded from even being ordained as lectors.  The Church is shrinking in size and influence.  What is wrong with this picture?  Would we rather have a tiny congregation taught and led by only celibate men, or a life-giving and Jesus filled church with great energy to transform this poor tattered world of ours?

Perhaps it would be advantageous if those in the hierarchy who so adamantly oppose the presence of women underwent psychiatric counseling to understand and cope with their fear of women.  We really are not all that dangerous.  After all, Jesus loved us.  At times we can be really marvelous, in the true sense of the word.

My grandfather, a Hawai'ian judge, and the 1%

My grandfather was born in California in 1872.  He had probably a third grade education, but was a very successful businessman in the San Fernando Valley.

I admired my grandfather for all sorts of reasons.  He taught me that moss grows on the north side of a tree so I would know which direction to go.  Taught us how to make cuts on trees which he called blazes so we could always find our way home if we got off of the beaten path.  Blazing a trail he called it. He taught us responsibility toward guns and animals. And to always leave a gate the way you found it because you had to trust that the person before you knew what he or she was doing.  Lots of good stuff like that.  One thing that he taught us that I have thought about a lot these days is that there is nothing wrong in making money, but there is a lot wrong with making money on someone else’s neck. 

A newscast one evening when we were vacationing a couple of years ago in Hawai’i had a similar perspective.  A local entertainer had not paid his taxes, totaling some $15,000.  I assumed it was both federal and state taxes.  He had been found guilty of tax evasion, and I caught the sentencing segment wherein the judge fined him the same amount and sentenced him to many, many hours of public service as well.  But then the judge said, and I paraphrase, “You should be ashamed of yourself.  You have stolen from your neighbors.  You have stolen food from the hungry, good roads for all, medical care for some, police and fire protection for your neighbors.  This is what your tax dollars would have purchased.  This is not the aloha spirit, and if you are not ashamed of yourself, I am ashamed for you.”  I was truly shocked by that statement.

I am really glad I have these two memories these days when accusations of class warfare get bandied about so casually.  Few in these United States “envy” the rich.  We all would like to be rich.  What we don’t like, and I use Mitt Romney as a prime example, is when the rich take their millions and put those dollars in tax exempt bank accounts in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, all the while telling us we can’t raise taxes on the “job creators”.  What jobs?  What jobs have these millions in overseas accounts created?  What has happened to those millions by not being taxed is what the judge said in Hawai’i.  The owner of those millions has stolen from his neighbors, the citizens of the United States. 

When Bain Capital used its millions in private equity speculations, putting some businesses in bankruptcy, and causing hundreds of people to lose their jobs, but making even more millions in the process, was making money on the necks of other people.  Mitt Romney is one of hundreds of private equity manipulators in the 1%.  Everything he did was legal, probably, although one wonders.  But that aside, these manipulations of the so-called “free market” are not what made this country great or my grandfather so successful. 

As the judge In Hawai’i said, “If you are not ashamed of yourself, I am ashamed for you”. 

Jan Brewer

There are so many things to write about this week that I have been sitting here for 20 minutes trying to decide which one.  Let’s see.  There is the absolute fiasco which is the Republican Primary to determine who will be the challenger to President Obama.  We have the four stooges – Mitt, Newt, Paul and Santorum.  And that woman from Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer. 

For those of you not acquainted with Brewer, she is the one who got the bill passed in the Arizona (AZ) Legislature authorizing law enforcement to stop anyone they thought guilty of a minor infraction who might be an illegal immigrant from Mexico.  This, of course, in a state where there is a large population of American citizens of Mexican descent as well as Native Americans.  Now there is only one way to tell if someone “might” be an illegal immigrant from Mexico and that is by the color of their skin.  This, of course, is racial profiling and is illegal, but that didn’t stop AZ.  At the same time, she got the prison system in AZ privatized, and the corporations who now run the prisons are big donors to her campaigns.  Further, these corporations contract out the prisoners to corporations as very low paid workers to various other corporations.  This used to be known as slave labor, but in AZ and other states apparently it is now OK.  So there is a supply of prisoners to the private prisons who cannot strike, demand better working conditions, get medical care or other benefits.  What a bonanza for the corporations.

So, what brought her into the news this week is the episode at the AZ airport when President Obama went to Phoenix, AZ to give a speech.  She met him on the open tarmac, in front of his Secret Service detail, and I assume her security people as well, and all of the media with their cameras.  They had a verbal exchange of some sort, and she ended up with her finger in his face.  After this extreme rudeness, she had the temerity to state that she felt threatened by him.  Felt threatened?  Out in the open, with all sorts of security people there, and the media and their cameras?  What is wrong with that woman?  That was a racially charged statement.  She felt “threatened” by a black man.

I’ll tell you what is wrong!  She is a radical right wing Republican.  I’m not sure what her religion is, but it really doesn’t make any difference.  If she had any, it is defiled by racism because it has been superceded by her right-wing radicalism, which is obvious from the exchange with the President and her shaking her finger in his face, and her scorn for Americans of Mexican descent, and her wanting a steady stream of virtual slave labor for her corporate buddies.

Sometime take a look at her mouth when she is talking and take a good  look at her eyes.  In my opinion, there is pure maliciousness embodied there.  Not a pretty sight!  As a person I know, for whom I have great respect, and who lives in Tucson said of her.  “She is a total embarrassment for the state of Arizona.”

South Carolina Primary

A couple of blogs ago I was hoping for the end of the Iowa Caucuses.  Now I am desperate for the end of the South Carolina primary.  What a side show yesterday with Rick Perry ‘suspending’ his campaigning  (if a candidate ends it, no more fund raising, so they suspend instead); Rick Santorum actually winning, sort of, in Iowa, but no one really knows because ‘they’ lost ballots from 8 locations (whoever ‘they’ are); Mitt Romney stating that the 99% are trying to divide America, which is wrong because America is one nation under God, ignoring the many quotes in almost any sacred scripture about caring for widows and orphans, and others who cannot care for themselves, such as elderly parents, who are all part of the 99%;  Stephen Colbert sort of but no quite entering the balloting by making a deal with Herman Cain to use Cain’s name because Colbert is too late to get his name on the ballot, and South Carolina doesn’t allow write-ins, so a vote for Cain is really a vote for Colbert; and the final hysterical point last night at the Republican debate was Newt, after telling wife #1 he wanted a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery, marrying the woman with whom he was having an affair while wife #1 was in the hospital, and we presume before that, then asking wife #2 for an open marriage because he was having an affair with a staffer, but instead she divorced him (smart woman), marrying wife #3 with whom he was having the affair which caused the open marriage conversation with wife #2, and then blaming all of this on the media for daring to ask him questions about it.  I am desperately hoping that Stephen Cain Colbert wins in South Carolina. 

Believe it or not, I intended writing this blog on some history of capitalism, referred to as our ‘free market system’.  Our economic system titled ‘capitalism’ actually was formalized when Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, published on 3/9/1776.  Business had flourished before that for some 10,000 or more years in various forms from bartering to the exchange of money for goods.  But to hear the radical right, both religious and secular, the free market emerged simultaneously with Christianity, and they are somehow synonymous.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  This linking of capitalism with Christianity actually emerged during the 1930’s in an effort to thwart FDR and his efforts to bring the United States out of the Great Depression.  This linking is beautifully described in an article from the New York Times, 1/18/12, by Kevin M. Kruse, “For God So Loved The 1%”.  The following quote is from the article:

“During the Great Depression, the prestige of big business sank along with stock prices.  Corporate leaders worked frantically to restore their public image and simultaneously roll back the “creeping socialism” of the welfare state.  Notably, the American Liberty League, financed by corporations like DuPont and General Motors, made an aggressive case for capitalism.  Most, however dismissed its efforts as self-interested propaganda.  (A Democratic Party official joked that the organization should have been called “the American Cellophane League” because “first, it’s a DuPont product and, second, you can see right through it.”)

Realizing that they needed to rely on others, these businessmen took a new tack: using generous financing to enlist sympathetic clergymen as their champions.  After all, according to one tycoon, polls showed that, “of all the groups in America, ministers had more to do with molding public opinion” than any other.

The Rev. James W. Fifield, pastor of the elite First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, led the way in championing a new union of faith and free enterprise.  “The blessings of capitalism come from God,” he wrote.  “A system that provides so much for the common good and happiness must flourish under the favor of the Almighty.”

This new united faith was really most comforting.  One need worry no more about those who lived in our areas and were impoverished.  If they really wanted to, they would get a job and work.  Since they had no job, it was obviously their fault.  It was obvious they had a flaw in their make-up that made them lazy.  Thus, poor people of whatever color were portrayed in film and fiction as shiftless and lazy, or shiftless and violent.  Certainly not anyone over which we need spend time worrying about.  Our efforts will be spent making sure we gain salvation and in sending missionaries overseas to convert the savages to Christianity.

This attitude really rang a bell in my consciousness when Newt Gingrich commented about the Occupy Movement that these people needed “to get a job, after they took a bath”.  In truth, I was personally offended in that I had attended an Occupy rally in a town near me, and had taken a shower first.  Painting thousands of people as though they were all one indicates to me a great lack of intelligence.  But then, this bunch of candidates for the Republican nomination have not struck me as having much grey matter between their ears.  Please read the first paragraph again.

Jesus plus nothing

This Republican primary season is truly remarkable.  The rhetoric is surfacing all sorts of coded messages, some of which are blatant, and others are much more subtle.  It is the latter where one must be rather careful not to read into what is being said something which is not there.  The one that I actually thought rather clever, and not very destructive, was calling Mitt Romney “a lighter version of the President”.  This could be taken two ways.  Romney is actually closer to the center than his campaign is portraying him, or his skin color is “lighter”. 

Recently the radical religious right has started saying that President Obama wants to remake the United States into a form of European socialism.  There is a lot of underlying meaning in that phrase that may not be obvious to anyone but a political junkie like me.  First, however, I must explain that much of my thinking about the radical religious right has been shaped by two books by Jeff Sharlet:  The Family and its sequel: C Street.  Thus, I must refer any reader to about the first half of Sharlet’s book, The Family for an in depth historical description of what I can only sort of allude to in a short blog such as this one.  My own family experience from the 1930’s, however, corroborated what Sharlet had to say.

When our country was first founded, the Puritans had what was, to my mind, the rather peculiar notion that one could tell who God was smiling on because of the man’s material wealth.  Thus, the acquisition of wealth became the goal in order to be one of God’s obvious chosen.  If a man was not wealthy, it was due to some fault within the man (women were not included in this discussion) that prevented God from rewarding him.  Also part of the Puritan theology was that salvation came through faith in Jesus as found in Scripture, and not also through “good works”, as was promulgated by the Church of the anti-Christ in Europe, the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently the Lutheran and Anglican Church.  Martin Luther coined the phrase: sola scriptura.  That is, one could only be saved by faith alone, which could only be found in the Christian scriptures.  The Puritans firmly believed that America was to be the New Jerusalem – the City on a Hill that was to be the Christian beacon for the rest of the world.  The old ways in Europe were corrupt and false, and were led by the Pope – the anti-Christ. 

In Sharlet’s book, the new Puritan attitude, was first taught by Abram Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant, and subsequently taken up by Doug Coe.  Coe is the current spiritual leader of The Family and of C Street.  In this theory, the owners of the companies are to be given absolute loyalty by the workers, even if the owners, or CEO’s, do not reciprocate.  This loyalty is to be given because the owners can be seen to be blessed by God because they are the owners.  Because employee unions expect the workers to be loyal to the unions, and because the unions work for the welfare of the workers which may be antithetical to the aims of the owners, unions are anathema and are to be fought to the nth degree.  Further, the fat treasuries of the unions are a danger to the owners because these funds can be donated to elect politicians who will restrict the unfettered freedom the owners really want.  So we have the proliferation of Right to Work laws, which prevent unions from organizing and collecting dues, which is blatant union busting.

Probably one of the most astounding chapters in The Family was the one titled, “Jesus plus nothing”.  Very simply put, all one needs is a personal relationship with Jesus.  It doesn’t hurt to read the New Testament, but not particularly required.  What basically just having “Jesus plus nothing” does is eliminate all of the great religious and spiritual thinking of the past 2000 years.  Ignore St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, all of the great Catholic teachings on social justice, and after WWII, all of the great writings of theologians such as Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Dietrich Bonhoffer, et al.  Not that one needs to read or understand all of these theologians but thoughtful people need to have a least an understanding that there are many ways to live Christianity, and to relate what Jesus actually taught to how we live our lives.  And how we live our lives is vitally important for the common good of all the earth.  According to a philosophy of “Jesus plus nothing”, one simply prays to Jesus and He will let you know what you should do.  I have often wondered how often Jesus absolutely supports what the person petitioning Him for!  Further, by ignoring the Hebrew Scripture entirely, this right wing radical Christian fundamentalism loses all of the great wisdom and spiritual writings without which Christianity is nothing lacks any considerable substance, and becomes form over substance.

So how does this relate to what is being said in this election cycle?  If a candidate truly believes that God will reward the ardent believer with material possessions, and that the person without the possessions has none through some grievous fault of his or her own, then of course social safety nets are in direct opposition to what God really wants.  And anyone who promotes social safety nets, and wishes to tax the wealthy to provide the funding to do so, is an anti-Christ European socialist, taking away the goods that God has rewarded people with to give to someone God has not smiled on. 

The sad thing is that although many people do not subscribe to the religious belief that God rewards with material goods, that mind-set is still very prevalent among many conservatives and liberals alike.  One hears it all the time:  blame the victim.  If someone doesn’t have a job because they worked for a company Bain Capital destroyed and lost their home because they couldn’t make the payments and is protesting with the 99%, then Newt Gringrich thinks they should just get a job, after they take a bath! 

I’m looking forward to the upcoming debates about what kind of a country we want, and what form of capitalism results from these debates and concerns expressed above.  The conclusions from this debate will also determine what kind of people we will transition into.