Ellington

Here's the column that drew the ire of Mr. Kim Wade, radio talk-show host, as reported in this week's issue.

The morning after the presidential election, one of our regular posters dropped the "anti-religious" bomb—using the phrase as a descriptor in close proximity with words like "Democratic" and "liberal." I saw red.

The funny thing is, I know the blogger who casually dropped the "anti-religious" thing, and he's a nice guy. I even dated him a little in college. We both worked on the re-election campaign of Sen. John C. Stennis when a young Haley Barbour challenged the longtime Democrat. But since then, our lives have diverged. He is married with children, a staunch Republican, a conservative Christian. I an unmarried but with a long-time partner in love and business, own a newspaper, espouse progressive views. I am not a conservative Christian, although I am deeply spiritual in the way that I choose. Thank God I am an American; I get to choose my religious beliefs.

Being slapped with an "anti-religious" label because you support a certain political candidate is hardcore. It's mean. It's cruel. And it's a lie.

Not everyone who uses such a phrase is lying intentionally—they have just been told this nasty little fib over and over again, by conservative politicians, their parents, their spouses, their preachers, the media, whomever. They start to believe it, and it forms a nice and simple worldview for them. I vote this way; therefore, I am right and good and moral. You vote that way; therefore, you are wrong and bad and immoral. Ah, if the world were so simple.
This type of divisive religious rhetoric actually hurts me more for my deeply religious friends and relatives and heroes than it does for myself. My particular spirituality has a deep respect for a plurality of religious beliefs, and I find solace and inspiration in a variety of religious teachings—from Jesus to Buddha to Mohammed (who wasn't who they try to tell you these days, by the way). But I have dear, dear friends who attend a particular church every Sunday, tithe, study and teach Sunday School, fast, honor their Sabbath—and who have progressive ideas to their core. In fact, they have to "be in solidarity with the poor" (Proverbs 14:31) precisely because of their religious beliefs.

These people are not anti-religious, and it is a grave disservice to what is good and right about the world to say that they are. They believe in equality, helping the needy, reforming instead of executing, selflessness over greed, strong local business climates over corporate domination.
Now, that doesn't mean that they necessarily support prayer in the public schools. Or, I should say, they don't support a government-mandated prayer in the public schools—because they understand that such a mandate is exactly why this country came about. They know we can pray anytime we want, and that people cannot be told how to believe—and especially not by their government. These people—the "religious left" as Casey calls them in this week's cover story, beginning on page 12—believe (know), as I do, that a society can be spiritual at its core and led by people of deep faith and beliefs—but without becoming a theocracy that pushes one flavor of religion, whether Unitarianism, Christian fundamentalism or Islam. In order to enjoy our freedom of religion, we must refrain from the temptation to try to establish our religion as THE ONE.

America's founders understood this. You will often hear a half-considered argument that most of the founding fathers (or "founding dudes," as I like to fondly refer to them) were Christian; therefore, this is a Christian Nation. Therefore, Christianity (or the type preferred by that speaker) must be the one at the heart of our government.

Fortunately, our founders, although not perfect men, were smarter than this. They knew that deep religious beliefs in what is good and right and loving toward others could guide this American experiment; they also knew that forcing one brand of religion on the people would be disastrous. They also knew that throughout our history, people would keep trying to do just that.

Thus, the brilliant First Amendment was born—with both its freedom of religion and its anti-establishment language. And, yes, it is exactly about ensuring a "separation of church and state" regardless of what the talk-radio yucks tell you. Go read the writings of Jefferson, Madison and the others that explain their motivations.

But "separation between church and state" has nothing to do with being anti-religious. It means keeping our beautiful system of freedoms in place. It is the reason we are different from countries like Iran, China and Afghanistan, where the government forces and establishes religion and social mores. It is up to the government to ensure that no one blocks our freedom to worship (or not worship) as we please—and then get the hell out of the way. That is not anti-religious; it is as pro-religious as you can get.

I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to words. Doing what I do, and being willing to be a chick who says what's on her mind, you get called names. Out of 100 insults, at least 99 are false, and most are code words for something completely different. Back in the 1960s, the word "communist" was a favored word in the South for anyone who supported civil rights for black people. Then it softened a bit into "socialist." When I returned to Mississippi a few years back, I was shocked to learn that "Democrat" is used widely these days by racists to indicate "black people"; it's replaced the n-word for sophisticated bigots, but it's still disturbing in that context.
And in our current "values"-obsessed world, the word "moral" has come to describe someone who is more against abortion rights and gay marriage than for leveling the playing field for the poor—which every spiritual leader I respect believed came first. Nowadays, the phrase "anti-religious" is used synonymously with "Democrat," "liberal" or "progressive."

These are word games, they are wrong, and they are not representative of America or Americans. There is room for all of us in this great nation, to participate in this amazing democracy—and there is space for all of our religious beliefs. The second we stop believing that, the experiment has failed.

Previous Comments

ID

69540

Comment

Read this story and thought about your op-ed: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0449/041208_news_antichrist.php Specifically this part: "People of faith - especially those whose moral values differ from the values exploited this time around - need to figure out a way to be figured into the political landscape," Philadelphia Presbyterian minister Cynthia Jarvis editorialized in The New York Times. "Maybe four years from now, when the number one issue cited by voters in exit polls is again 'moral values,' those values will have something to do with economic justice, racial equality and the peaceable kingdom for which we all were made."

Author

Scott Albert Johnson

Date

2004-12-09T03:39:50-06:00

ID

69541

Comment

Great one, Donna! I also read the link Scott put up - it's pretty good to (though I think it still misses some subtleties that aren't obvious to those of non-fundamentalist persuasion). Speaking of reading, I'd also reccommend James Mitchner's This Noble Land: My Vision for America. It was published in 1996 or so, but it's even more timely today. Not only did Mitchner speak to what I felt deeply all along but didn't have the emotional self-awareness to believe it (a LONG story there, trust me), he also brought up new perspectives that I wasn't even aware of. Three chapters that seem especially relevant, "The Young Colonels" and the chapter on the american family (I forgot its name) were really good. Two comments from the family chapter I vividly recall are went like this: When people say "familiy values" they are usually talking about discipline, adherence to a rigid morality, and stifiling of intellectual curiousity among the people and especially the children and My idea of family values is sitting at the dinner table and discuss challenging topics with them (as in "Well now, let's get an atlas and see where Iraq and Afghanistan are"). As for "The Young Colonels", he points out characteristics of young military officers in nations that suffered from coups: ïThey are patriotic but misguided about the nation's history ïThey want to turn back the clock and flip back the calendar to some dream time when a supposedly more moral kind of life prevailed ïThey have an almost worshipful admiration toward money (even if they originally sincerely favored the poor, they almost always wind up favoring the wealthy), ï Often, they are highly devoted to religion and traditional values, but inevitably leave the nation worse off than before Mitchener also devotes a whole chapter to our society's glorification of violence and "manliness" in one chapter -- "Our Macho Society". His comparision of Athens and Sparta is especially vivid (though I think it's more anecdotal than actually historical). This may not actually be a post about religion, but it's easy to see how religion / spirituality addresses these issues.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-12-09T06:50:58-06:00

ID

69542

Comment

another quote from the article of Scott's (and remind me how to use italics..) ""Yeah, I'm there. I have a physical, visceral reaction to Bush, to his image, to when he speaks. I mean, I think the guy is evil. They are willfully deceptive people, and I'm very angry. But . . . hatred is not a very useful strategy of resistance, nor is it very useful to create an alternative."" this is the problem for many of us I think. as for James Michener, must say, that's a surprise! I'll look for it. (as if my local library has it, ha.)

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-10T13:35:30-06:00

ID

69543

Comment

""Yeah, I'm there. I have a physical, visceral reaction to Bush, to his image, to when he speaks. I mean, I think the guy is evil. They are willfully deceptive people, and I'm very angry. But . . . hatred is not a very useful strategy of resistance, nor is it very useful to create an alternative."" That's a great quote ...I feel the same way about the Clintons.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T08:37:01-06:00

ID

69544

Comment

That's a great quote ...I feel the same way about the Clintons. I think it's super that you admit that, Lee. That can help move dialogue forward. Many conservatives complaining about all the "angry Democrats" and the "Bush haters" have been hit with a bit of amnesia when it comes to their own visceral reactions to the Clintons (remember the Clinton "death list" and all that?). I don't like the Clintons much, either; I don't think they're "evil," but I do think they are "willfully deceptive" too often. When I see either of them, I always feel a bit of distrust about what they're not telling us.0 Personally, I don't feel exactly the way described above when I hear Bush speak. I don't see "evil"; I am more overcome with fear and even some compassion for him -- I think he's in way, way over his head, and getting some really bad advice (maybe even some "evil" advice), and I fear what that it is going to mean in the long run for the U.S. and the world. I certainly have felt anger toward Bush, no doubt, but not really against him personally. I think he's doing what he thinks is right -- but it may well not be. I am angry when I believe that people do not understand, and thus do not support, the basic principles that America is built on. I think they should make us angry. (And, by the way, I believe we all should be angry about what Clinton did -- especially the way he broke the trust that many progressives placed in him, whether or not they should have.) So, anger has a place, although it needs to quickly be turned into something more useful, not just insults of other people.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T14:14:52-06:00

ID

69545

Comment

Lee, you inspired me to go look up the word "evil" on Dictionary.com. We forget, sometimes, that words do not have just one meaning. With this word, for instance, we tend to equate it with the truly horrible, unbelievable deeds of a man like Hitler. But, at least according to several of the definitions of "evil," most world leaders today and in the past probably show at least a propensity toward some degree of "evil": e?vil †† †P†††Pronunciation Key††(vl) adj. e?vil?er, e?vil?est Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper. n. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. An evil force, power, or personification. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. adv. Archaic In an evil manner. [Middle English, from Old English yfel. See wap- in Indo-European Roots.] evil?ly adv. evil?ness n. Source: The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. evil adj 1: morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds" [syn: wicked] [ant: good] 2: having the nature of vice [syn: depraved, vicious] 3: tending to cause great harm [syn: harmful, injurious] 4: having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force" [syn: malefic, malevolent, malign] n 1: morally objectionable behavior [syn:immorality, wickedness, iniquity] 2: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare 3: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world" [syn: evilness] [ant: good] Source: WordNet Æ 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T14:39:45-06:00

ID

69546

Comment

I agree... The RIGHT has turned negative energy torwards the left into WINS on election day. p.s. Yes Donna... you've been VERY forthcoming in your criticisms of former President Clinton. But... what about Sen. Hillary Clinton? She was the machine that drove him... the "brains" behind the operation. So, when she runs for president; will you apply the same standard to her.... especially when she pulls hard to the RIGHT? Regards, I LOVE You and Todd's Mag! Lee

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T14:42:31-06:00

ID

69547

Comment

You've apparently missed my snippy comments about Hillary. ;-) Frankly, I think she enabled a lot of the dishonesty, and I don't entirely trust her. And she's made some compromises in the Senate on education issues that I don't approve of. She's a New Democrat, which I don't like (hate the Democrat Leadership Council.) I also think she's divisive. Of course, I admire some things about her as well. But I'm not too hip to the idea of Bill being First Man. I'm ready for new blood all around: no more Clintons, no more Kennedys, no more Cheneys and no more Bushes (unless the kids coming up prove they have much more integrity than their elders). I'm sick to death of political royalty.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T14:46:22-06:00

ID

69548

Comment

Also, one more thing: Hillary's smart, but so is Bill. He is very well educated, curious and well read. He's interested in the world -- all qualities that Bush lacks. And he can quote the Bible a heckuva lot better than W. For whatever it's worth. It's too bad Clinton is (was?) also a lying cheat. Integrity matters in public office -- I don't care what anyone on the left or the right says about it. And anyone who would do what he did on company time with an INTERN with his young daughter in the same building (and then lie about it) lacks some basic integrity in my book. Of course, so does someone who would hype up reasons to go to a war that is killing both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. You've got to watch the moral relativism here. Just because Clinton was a cad doesn't make Bush some tower of virtue just because he's buddies with Bob Jones and panders to the evangelical right. And thanks for the compliment. We appreciate it!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T14:50:18-06:00

ID

69549

Comment

I concur about "royalty" on EITHER side.... I'm SICK of it. And... even though I read every issue... apparently I missed the comments about Sen. Clinton. Based on the comments about Bill I don't doubt you Donna. As far as "hyping the reasons to go war..." BOTH sides had the SAME info... left and RIGHT. Think about it... you can't do anything major with your business without consulting MANY poeple.... Those close to you would keep you from making a rash decision.... I mean, come on...no one would make mistakes on purpose. The Democrats could have stopped an ill advised move. Sen Ted Kennedy was FOR this..... as were MANY Democrats.... until election time that is.... the public just didn't buy it.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T15:07:34-06:00

ID

69550

Comment

I concur about "royalty" on EITHER side.... I'm SICK of it. And... even though I read every issue... apparently I missed the comments about Sen. Clinton. Based on the comments about Bill I don't doubt you Donna. Thanks. ;-) I don't think any anti-Hillary-isms have made it into the print paper, yet; haven't really had any reason to talk about her. She's not my senator. But I have blogged about her. I don't expect you to have read all this scribbling, though! As far as "hyping the reasons to go war..." BOTH sides had the SAME info... left and RIGHT. That's a bit simplistic, Lee. And it's not exactly true. This is a whole new can of worms to open and I'm on deadline. But we have talked about this rather incessantly elsewhere on the site during the campaign. The truth is, the administration stretched the truth mightily to the public and asked its agencies for information to support going to war, and downplayed what wouldn't. This is simply fact at this point. It's been shown over and over again. They even lied about WMD when they didn't have evidence that showed it conclusively. Blah, blah. And the whole "they all had the same info" and Kerry supported the war and flip-flopped is a bunch of misinformed hoo-haa. That is shown by simply going back and reading the comments he made when he voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. They're posted somewhere on the site and are easy to find. The administration simply misled the public on Kerry's position then, and too many people bought it hook, line and sinker without bothering to check the facts. But I'm not going down that road again now. Takes too much energy, and people don't listen to truth they don't want to hear anyway. The election showed that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T15:41:41-06:00

ID

69551

Comment

Yep...and as long as the left continues... the Right will win. Whatever the most radical wing of the left is... I'll contributeb $$$ to that side. If that's "simplisitic"... oh well... I'll win.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T15:53:43-06:00

ID

69552

Comment

Is it really about "winning"? That's really a sad way to look at all this. Lee, the right will never be alone in the game. You're not going to suddenly snuff out the left ("as long as the left continues...), although God knows tyrants have tried. It's extremism we need to worry about, both on the left and the right, Stalin or Hitler. My hope and my optimism comes from knowing that, so far, the human spirit and belief in progress has beaten fascism, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and I believe it always will. But I suspect it will be a struggle that is played out again and again throughout time -- because there will always people who want time to stand still or, worse, go backward. But, it's not going to. Out now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T16:03:37-06:00

ID

69553

Comment

'Is it really about "winning"? That's really a sad way to look at all this.' You're damn right!!!! Just ask Michael Moore or Moveon.org. Yes, come election day... it IS about winning. Respectfully...and SINCERELY Yours, Lee.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T17:49:10-06:00

ID

69554

Comment

"Also, one more thing: Hillary's smart, but so is Bill. He is very well educated, curious and well read. He's interested in the world -- all qualities that Bush lacks. " One thing that NEVER comes up is .....Bush scored higher on the S.A.T. than Gore. HMMMMmmmmm... and Gore is considerd the smartest man on the left...Let's look at the numbers; shall we?

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T17:57:56-06:00

ID

69555

Comment

er, I never met anyone who considered Gore "the smartest man on the Left" and I never met anyone who viewed SAT scores as an indicator of intelligence. Not following your point at all.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T18:45:10-06:00

ID

69556

Comment

The left has long viewed Gore as the smartest man in the world... what with his enviromental books and what not.... He seemed heir apparent to the "throne" of Bill Clinton.... who's the smartest now? W keeps winning.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T18:58:16-06:00

ID

69557

Comment

Hunh, well, if thinking Gore is the smartest man in the world is an indicator of being Left, then I guess I'm not "Left." And, I don't think anyone thought that presidential elections proved who was smartest. At least not in the "book learnin'" way of being smart. Do you have a point? Despite not being the smartest man in the world, I know that Bush won. I figured that out several weeks ago.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T19:03:45-06:00

ID

69558

Comment

Great... you're not "left" .... that's a move in the correct direction. good for you.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T19:06:42-06:00

ID

69559

Comment

There you go arguing with yourself again, Lee. No one was talking about Gore. Otherwise, I totally agree with Kate; I can't find a point here, either. I've known plenty of un-curious, un-smart people who scored well on the SATs. I'm not talking about objective tests here. My whole point to you was that you might be overstating to say that Hillary is "the brains behind Bill," or whatever you said. You've noticed that I'm willing to be critical without regard to party; the truth is, Bill Clinton is educated, well read and curious about the world in ways that Bush has told the media that he is not. Clinton's also a slave to his libido, apparently, and was willing to lie and cheat while in the White House.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:07:35-06:00

ID

69560

Comment

Lee, you are obsessed with left and right. It could be that it's getting in the way of a good conversation. Just a thought.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:08:42-06:00

ID

69561

Comment

Dude, I didn't move. Just not buying your caricature of the Left.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T19:09:02-06:00

ID

69562

Comment

Lee, Kate has a good point. So far, you're speaking pretty much in caricatures, or delving to them the second one of your points is questioned with a different set of facts. Why not step outside that for a bit? There has to be more to politics than simply trying to prove "the left" (or "the right") wrong. I'm all for criticism (note my characterization of the Clintons, as well as Bush), but simply throwing darts without substance just make you sound like an apologist for one side or the other who believes everything one "side" says and nothing the other "side" says. It really doesn't hurt at all to be willing to question all sides. In fact, it's a pretty nice place to live.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:15:33-06:00

ID

69563

Comment

Donna.. as a Life MEmber of the NRA... if W had signed the so-called Assault Weapns Ban... I would have voted for Kerry.... No kidding.... I've stated this on the talk radio show....many times...(which I know you don't care for... but you are welcome ANYTIME... I'll be you armed bodyguard;-)...) I can't stand liars and hypocrites. I am no apologist. As far as Bush.... You know... the left ALWAYS says he's not informed....interested.... smart.... whatever.....(see stupid)....he STILL beat the left's best....TWICE.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T19:27:36-06:00

ID

69564

Comment

Lee, let's just be clear. Democratic party is not the same as the LEFT.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T19:29:42-06:00

ID

69565

Comment

Lee, it would be an incredible waste of my time to go on a talk-radio show where people keep spewing a lie like, say, that "the left says Republicans want our soldiers to get killed" and then cut me off everytime I try to say that, uh, that's not what people say. I think today's postings have clearly shown why I'm not interested in doing talk radio with people who aren't actually interested in conversation. My blogging break is over now. Later.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:45:10-06:00

ID

69566

Comment

You would be VERY welcome on talk radio Donna. It would be hard for you to be cut off sitting at the board. Just doesn't happen. Oh well, anytime. you want; and I'm talking about THE MOST POPULAR show in this market. You are so welcome to come a discuss any topic you wish. I will NOT let you be ambushed. You have my word. As always LOVE your MAG... I race to Hal&Mals every Wed!!!! Lee

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T19:57:48-06:00

ID

69567

Comment

Thanks, Lee, I appreciate the offer. But I still decline.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-13T10:21:20-06:00

ID

69568

Comment

oh, just read this thread. not to keep it alive but, we lefties do not love the Clintons. get over it. move on. may I say even moveon.org? ha.

Author

sunshine

Date

2004-12-14T21:52:39-06:00