Alas and alack for us, lawyers and pharisees, hypocrites that we are...

Can't tell if Atrios is lamenting the continued mixing up of religion with politics that has muddied the national debate for going on thirty years now or if he's grousing about Obama's contribution to the mix. 

Either way, although I'd like to believe it would be more productive (possibly) or less rancorous (as if) if when Americans argued about politics the argument was about politics and not about which side is going to hell when they die, religion is just not going to let itself get left out of the discussion anytime soon.

Most Americans are believers---or think they are, or want other people to think they are---and the subject's going to come up, somehow, some way.  There's no ruling it out of bounds.  You can't take religion out of the political air any more than you can take out mom, apple pie, the flag, sports, babies, and cookie recipees.

The big problem over the last generation is that the National Press Corps' decidion that one side has a monopoly on religion and that one side is going to be represented by its most vicious and most nakedly political snake-oil salesman.

James Dobson is an angry and twisted man who pushes a sadist's idea of child-rearing and a warped version of Christianity that has little to do what Jesus preached and a lot to do with giving men like himself permission to push around their wives and kids.

Who in God's name is he to be lecturing anyone in God's name?

He's a vile crackpot who should never be quoted in a newspaper, magazine, or on TV except in derision, and yet he keeps showing up as though he represents a sane point of view and a legitimate interpretation of Christianity's teachings.

And when he does he is never opposed by any liberal preacher, priest, rabbi, or other cleric or theologian.

Same goes for the other Right Wing charlatans and mountebanks.

But because most of the general public pays attention with only half an ear and is reflexively inclined to side with whoever seems to be speaking for God, the charlatans and the mountebanks have kept getting away with it.

It doesn't do us any good if all the folks at home see and hear is one side saying, "God wants this, God says that..." and the other side responding, "Well, recent university studies have shown..."

God's name wins the debate even if God Himself is spitting mad at how His name is being used in vain.

We're lucky that this time out we have a candidate who can speak comfortably and knowledgeably and eloquently about his faith and out of his faith.

The Dobsons and the Donohues and the Hagees aren't going to go away if we ignore them because the Media's not going to ignore them.  It's true, what Atrios says here, "the actual details of religious beliefs do matter and that religious people, even if you limit that group to Christians, actually disagree about a lot of stuff," but that's where Obama has an edge.  I'm not arguing for more God-bothering on Obama's part.  I just think that his natural inclinations and rhetorical habits will do the job.

The Dobsons and Donohues and the Hagees have been allowed to spout off as if there are no disagreements and as if they speak for all believers.  Most of what they say actually contradicts some important beliefs and I think that if people hear an authorative believer, like a candidate for President of the United States, talking about what he believes they will recognize the differences and realize that they actually read Obama's bible and not Dobson's weirdly interpreted divine book on child-torture and that they worship Obama's awesome God and not Dobson's God the Psychological Tormenter in Chief.   

Comments

[Daniel]

One of Obama's main points was that we can't legislate from religious beliefs because nobody interprets religious tenets in quite the same way.

Dobson's point was that Obama wasn't interpreting religious tenets properly.

I think that's going to be tough to spin for Republicans. Not that they won't. And not I won't be surprised by the millions of people who emphatically repeat what they heard on talk radio. And by the media's cautious endorsement of Dobson's argument. What the hell was my point again?

[MikeT]

Most of the liberal preachers have actually read the Bible and take it seriously, so they focus more on their own sins than those of others.

[hysperia]

As a Canadian, I have in the past been both put off by and curious about what seems to me to be the place of God-talk in politics-talk in America. It just doesn't happen in the same way here and, though I respect the rights of others to their religious freedoms, it is a relief to me to have political ground that isn't caught up in religious controversies that I am not only not interested in, but that I often find just plain offensive. Politics is offensive enough without adding religion.

But the difference with respect to religion in our otherwise similar (in so many ways) cultures did fascinate me. In conversations with friends, both dismay and perhaps awe, though not of the jealous kind, flavoured our ignorance; as in, WTF is THAT about?

I'm still no expert but, having immersed myself in the blogosphere for the last three months, and thus in US politics, and thus in the ubiguity of God-talk, I now take the conversation for granted. Almost. I haven't lost my desire to understand what it's all about.

I haven't done an academic study on it, but I have noted that I don't think this "Christian nation" stuff was present at the "Founding". A blog called American Creation has helped with that. Seems it's possible that the founding of America was, at some point in its history, recreated as an act of God. Likely I can't quite hide my sarcasm at this point; sorry. What I did learn from that blog was that George Washington DIDN'T include the words "So help me God" in his inaugural oath, likely because he was concerned to maintain the division between Church and State.

But this is what still confuses me. In a country founded so obviously in part as a reaction to the imposition of dominant religious beliefs on minorities and in opposition to hegemonic religious regimes in Britain and many other countries, I don't understand why the notion that God is as American in politics as apple pie, Mom, babies, flag pins and so forth is accepted with so little debate. It's not JUST because most Americans BELIEVE in God. From what I understand, most Canadians believe in God too. But he's not an inevitable part of our political discourse.

Believe it or not, I'm not writing all this just to hear myself think. Whatever one's views on religion, I think this is an interesting American phenomenon and it's likely quite important to try to understand what it's all about. One question that plagues me: it seems it's possible for a woman and a black man to have a shot at the American Presidency; and a Catholic, once and barely; is it possible for a Muslim, Mormon, Wiccan, Jew, Rosacrucian or that unmentionable, atheist?

P.S. I'm not a radical atheist.

[Former Brit]

To our Canadian friend: Jews and Catholics might have a shot at the presidency; but I'm sorry to say the other guys -- especially the atheist -- don't have a prayer. Modern American politics has moved a long way from the Constitution's "...no religious test for public office...." And speaking of the Constitution, the writers were reacting to our own Colonial history as well as to Europe's hegemonic religious regimes. The early colonies were led by Puritans, not a notably tolerant group. So the God-talk, unfortunately, is as American as apple pie, etc., etc.

[cebm]

I cannot forget the excerpt from one of Dobson's books about how he chased his wienie dog around with a belt determined to win the battle (his words). Oh yeah, and the part about fathers showering with their sons because the boys should see what was coming their way in the manhood department. This guy is a major sicko.