What — another epiphany?

A lot of Christians think John 3:16 is their ticket to heaven. You know — For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life . . .  or, you can be a real shit and still get into heaven. Wikipedia puts it this way: “It has also been called the ‘Gospel in a nutshell,’ because it is considered a summary of the central theme of traditional Christianity.” I bought into it myself when I was a kid, but after my epiphany (see the previous post), I began to think about the various elements of my former religion. John 3:16 was one of the casualties.

Aside from the fact that I’d stopped believing in God, I simply couldn’t accept that a religion supposedly dedicated to goodness would reward someone with eternal life if they just believed in Jesus, no matter what else they did in life — and as far as I can tell there are no exceptions. But it was only today that I figured out what’s wrong with the whole notion.

I should note that I had to do a little further reading to find out more about the Gospel of John, and the first thing I learned was that its author is not known, only that, according to the gospel, it was “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Then, the verse as it appears in the King James version is its seventh translation from the original Koine Greek. Finally, it’s impossible to know just how many times early versions of the bible were transcribed before the invention of the printing press, but it’s a safe bet that transcriptions were never identical, either because of errors or because of what individual transcribers thought was meant by what they were copying.

What settles it for me is this: as interpreted, the verse expects you to accept that the god Christians believe in would reward evil people with eternal life just because they believed in Christ — and if Christianity is the religion Christians think it is, they wouldn’t buy it either.

Count me among the countless people over the millennia who have interpreted the verse when I offer this: however it was worded in the original Greek, its intent was to reward those who were faithful to what Christ taught — which raises the bar considerably. Christ himself didn’t found Christianity, but if he had he sure wasn’t going to make it easy.

I’m not making this up!

America was NOT founded as a Christian nation, okay? So, to all those who claim that it was, as part of their efforts to win the hearts and minds of voters, I say, “Give it up.”

How do I know America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation? Because I’ve read the Declaration of Independence. It quite clearly lists the reasons the united colonies wished to become independent of Great Britain. It lists in great detail the grievances against King George III, and nowhere in that list is religion mentioned. In other words, whatever the reasons our forefathers declared independence, religion had nothing to do with it.

And what were some of those reasons? Well, some had to do with basic liberties — the ability of the colonies to govern themselves, for instance, to have representative government, to assure due process of the law. In colonial America, citizens were forced to endure the presence of British troops in their midst, to quarter them.

But many of the reasons were economic. Our forefathers resented unfair taxes, resented being prohibited from freely trading abroad. It’s worth recalling that among the events which so inflamed our colonial leaders were such laws as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townsend Act of 1767, which imposed taxes on colonial commerce. John Hancock, the first signatory of the Declaration of Independence, was indicted for smuggling tea into the colonies from Holland, in order to avoid paying what were considered to be unfair import taxes. In 1773 was the famous Boston Tea Party, when the Sons of Liberty, disguised as Indians, boarded the British merchant vessel Dartmouth and tossed casks of tea into Boston Harbor.

It is probable that however much the founding fathers cherished individual liberty they cherished free commerce and profit even more. I don’t mean to criticize their motives, however, for ultimately they devised a pretty decent system of democratic government.

What has evolved, I believe, is the hypocrisy of using the false notion of our Christian origins to ensure the continuation of what has become a ravaging free enterprise system, one that actually destroys many of the sought-after liberties detailed in the Declaration of Independence.

When religion did come up, it was in the Bill of Rights, and then not only to assure freedom of religion but to prohibit the establishment of a state religion. As far as I know, none of the founders ever thought of the US as a Christian nation. I wonder why some do today.

Today’s conservatives benefit from the collective ignorance of the electorate. It is in their interest to keep people undereducated and poorly informed. That so many people buy into their messages is proof of that.

When does religion matter?

Some of the pundits on MSNBC have been wondering why we’re even having a conversation about the religion of the various candidates for president, particularly the Republican wannabee nominees. The Founding Fathers, after all, made certain there would be no religious litmus test for office, and made the separation of church and state one of the key elements of our fledgling democracy.

And for the most part, I agree. However, Republican Mike Huckabee, a former governor from Arkansas who also happens to be an ordained Baptist minister, changed the substance of the conversation when in the course of his expounding on his religious qualities he stated that he interprets the Bible literally and believes in the biblical account of creation. In other words, he doesn’t believe in evolution.

Here’s the thing, Mike — evolution isn’t a faith, it isn’t a philosophy, it isn’t even a theory any more. It’s science. Inescapably so. So saying you don’t believe in evolution is like saying you don’t believe the earth is round, something we figured out a long time ago.

This is important because the presidency is a multi-faceted job. While a president doesn’t have to be an expert on everything, he or she has to be able to understand when something is a good or a bad idea, has to have the sense to choose capable advisers, and has to be able to make good judgements that will affect the direction of the nation into the future — and these days, presidents have a science advisor. So who would Huckabee pick — someone who shared his belief in creationism? What kind of a science advisor would that be?

In a president’s cabinet we have a Department of Education, and here again… would Huckabee choose a secretary who believed in Creationism, and perhaps be sympathetic to conservative school districts whose parents want their children taught creationism as science?

I really don’t care what religion my president practices — or whether he or she even has a faith — as long as it doesn’t get in the way sound judgement. And while it may be unfair to predict that Huckabee’s belief in the Bible’s account of creation will someday affect some aspect of public policy, the possibility is there. Personally, I find it stunning that in this day and age someone can dismiss the credible science of evolution, and indeed many devout Christians can reconcile their faith and biblical stories with science and reality. After all, if God did indeed create us all, I’m sure it wasn’t with the intention that we remain ignorant.

Ultimately the conversation about religion in politics is most troubling because the importance we accord our candidates’ religion restricts our choices. It’s made it all but impossible for many qualified men and women to serve, simply because they may not even be religious. In fact, as much as we revere men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, neither would pass the religious test we submit our candidates to these days. What a loss that would be.