Hitler, Christianity, and Antisemitism

Hitler, Christianity, and Antisemitism

The point of this post is not to bash Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular, only to remind us all of the dangers of mixing religiosity, nationalism, and a mythological revisionist history of our own past.
One of the uglier or more embarrassing parts of history is that Hitler was raised Catholic (as was Mussolini and Franco) and the Vatican cut a deal with him (the 1933 Concordat) figuring he was preferable to the alternative (communism, which made no attempt to hide the fact that it would abolish the church if it came to power).  The Concordat demanded that "Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty" to the Third Reich:

Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it.

In fact, the Holocaust was really only distinguished by the Christian-inspired pogroms that preceded it by its industrial thoroughness. A year after the pope had declared the first Crusade, for example, one third of Europe's Jews had been murdered. The church gave us the term ghetto (I went to visit the original ghetto in Venice).
For all its brave stand against Hitler in the 1940s, Britain had expelled all Jews from England in 1290 and did not allow their limited readmission until the 1600s (according to the London Imperial War Museum, which had a display on their checkered history when we visited). In 1370, first Kermesse held in Brussels to commemorate the entire Jewish population of Cologne being burned alive. Of course, we all know about (or should) the 1492 Edict of Expulsion leading to Jews being expelled from the Iberian Peninsula or forced to convert. Conversos were also known as Marsanos (pigs) and deeply mistrusted and persecuted. 13,000 conversos were killed by the Inquisition during its first 12 years.
I could go on and on, but if you look at the grand sweep of history with a Western church that had a prayer for the "perfidy of the Jews" in its mass until Vatican II, the question is not why the Holocaust occurred but why it did not occur earlier. Without the fertile soil provided by centuries of accusations of Deicide and ridiculous charges that Jews engaged in rituals that required the blood of Christian children (which is why in most ghettos they were forbidden to leave during Christian holidays as well as after dark), Hitler's lunatic charges of a world Jewish conspiracy would have made no sense and been thoroughly rejected.
Here are a few quotations (there are many more) in which Hitler cited god as many right wing nationalists tend to do, blending national mythology with religiosity (never mind that Mediterranean Monotheism was an import or that Jesus was Jewish):

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

[... until] the faint-hearted cry, "Lord, deliver us," which our patriotic associations send up to Heaven today would be transformed into an ardent prayer: "Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just. Judge now if we deserve our freedom. Lord, bless our struggle.

The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. [1934]

Let us thank God, the Almighty, that he has blessed our generation and us and granted us to be a part of this time and this hour.

In the two [sic] Christian creeds lie the most important factors for the preservation of the German people.

Apologists will claim - with much merit - that Hitler wasn't a "real" Catholic because he murdered so many people (including many Catholics who resisted despite the Concordat which ordered them to cooperate with the Third Reich). This is a bit like the argument made post-9/11 that the hijackers and al Qaeda were not "real" Muslims. While true, this after-the-fact redefinition does not help us going forward. It is as absurd as Will Rogers' quip about stock selection:

The way to make money in the stock market is to buy a stock. Then, when it goes up, sell it. If it's not going to go up, don't buy it!

Choosing leaders who are Adherents to Religion X, but then not choosing them if they happen to commit mass murder or other atrocities after you choose them is not helpful.  Redefining their religious adherence after the fact creates a circular logic system similar to the following:

1.  All Christians (or Muslims or whatever religion you choose) are good.
2.  If a Christian does something bad, he is not really a Christian.
3.  Therefore, all Christians (since the bad ones are excluded) are good.

Hitler identified himself as an adherent, he was recognized by his coreligionists at the time as an adherent, and the highest authority of Catholicism, the Vatican, recognized him and his government as legitimate and to be cooperated with.  As far as I know, Mein Kampf was never placed on the list of prohibited books (although Galileo's Dialogues that argued a heliocentric universe was until the 19th Century).  

Biblical errors: why Genesis is not just wrong, but hopelessly wrong

Defenders of Genesis like to make the case that it's not wrong, just not to be taken literally.  Sure, the world could not have been created in 6 days (not 7 - god allegedly rested on the 7th), but who is to say those are really "days"? Maybe they were epochs or billions of years or whatever.
The problem is that the order is impossibly mixed up.  Also, biblical authors were not content at leaving it at that.  Perhaps in an attempt to impress a superstitious, agrarian audience who could never imagine that we would one day be able to prove or disprove their claims, they fabricated gratuitously.
Genesis I and II, for example, can't both be true.
In Genesis I,  God created "heaven and earth" but the universe is older than Earth (13.7 v. 4.6 billion years).  God then  "moved upon the face of the waters" then made Light (1:3) but didn't make light-producing objects (sun) until 4th day, then Darkness (dividing light into night and day) then Water divided to make the sky and the ocean (?)  (Gen 1:7)
We know that all heavy elements are born in collapsed stars that then explode, spewing their new non-hydrogen-only material into space.   So stars must have preceded oxygen which is necessary for water.  So there is no "water" for god to "move upon" without the creation and destruction of stars.
God then creates dry land, grass and seeds  but does this before sun created (1:16) which would have been necessary for photosynthesis.  Without the sun, the earth would be a frozen tundra; no life would have been possible.  And even if some life were able to evolve in such a cold, dark place, it would perish upon the sudden, blistering appearance of the sun, which would be a massive, cataclysmic game changer for which "grass and seeds" would not have been prepared.
The sun and moon (which is incorrectly described as lighting the night rather than reflecting the sun's light) were created THEN stars as an afterthought  ("he made the stars also" - Gen 1:16) to "give light upon the earth" 1:17 but most are not visible to the human eye.  He created Whales and every moving animal are created presumably before microbes (but after land plants, which is incorrect chronology of course)
Adam was made from dust (2:7) but was alone (asexual reproduction).  Adam names all the animals God parades before him 2:19-20, then, tired from his zoological exertions, goes to sleep.
God then "took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof" and made the rib into a woman 2:23.  Very strange stuff, but easily disprovable:  in 1543,Vesalius scandalized Christian Europe by showing that men and women have the same number of ribs.
Also, even if one were to accept that the earth's creation as described by biblical authors was not 6 days but some other long period, it still does not explain why we have fossils from the Cambrian Era 250 million years ago, whereas careful dating by generational analysis from Adam on gives us only 6,000 years.  Since one version of genesis claims man was created first, then the animals, the animals whose fossil remains we know to be hundreds of millions of years old could not possibly be explained.
So the Bible is either wrong about the appearance and order of life or the geological age of the earth or (most likely) both.  In fact, if you do accept "days" as "days" as most fundamentalists do, the creation of Earth is off by a factor of over a million, the proportional equivalent of claiming Los Angeles is only 17 feet from New York.
Nothing in quantum physics or modern cosmology helps defenders of the biblical authors.  If anything, every piece of evidence about how strange the universe is, how large, deep, and old, argues against anything those authors could have dreamed.   The idea that 99.9% of all matter was destroyed in the fraction of a second following the Big Bang by antimatter, for example.  Or that most of space is empty.  Or that most of our bodies and things we think of as solid are empty.   Very weird but unmentioned in the bible.  If god somehow oversaw or executed the Big Bang, he would have whispered in the ears of those who allegedly were channeling his spirit to write Genesis.  Since what we observe is so much larger and stranger and wondrous than what those scribes wrote down, isn't it clear that their inspiration was their own imagination, not god's?

In the Beginning Man Made God... a Very Brief History of Religion With Pictures

And then another man made a competing GOD and the problems got worse.

The first man told the second man that his god was bigger and better.



No, said the second man.  Your god is false and my god is very, very made that you made yours.

I didn't make it, said the first.  He was ... um ... always here.  I have this really old book (that I didn't write - I SWEAR!) to prove it.

You're just making it up, said the second man.  I have this even older book.  And my book says it's the ONLY book and that all other books are FALSE.

That's funny, said the first man.  My book says the same thing.  But it says that your book and your god are even FALSER.  In fact, my god is so awesome, he doesn't even let us make pictures of him.  So there.

Hmm, said the second man.   I will pray and pray and pray to my god to destroy you and all who think like you do so that all doubt will be removed.

- That's not very nice.

- I never said my god was nice, just really, really powerful.  And I didn't make him up.  I swear.

- [Waiting] OK, so where is the lightning bolt or whatever?

- Umm, I don't know.  Oh wait!  It says here that my god will wait until you are dead to punish you.
Then you'll REALLY regret having doubted me - I mean god.



- Oh, how convenient.  Why doesn't he just zap me now?  asked the first man.

- Because... because that would make it too easy.  Then people would just believe him because he revealed himself.  He likes them to choose blindly, hoping they get it right.  If they don't, look out!

- You're just making that up!

- No, really, it says here in this old book that other people wrote a long time ago.  Therefore it must be true.

- How do I know you just didn't write that book yourself? Or that people a long time ago wrote it down wrong?  Or were just making it up?

- They wouldn't do that.  People in the olden days didn't lie.  Things that happened long ago must be true.

- I don't believe you.  I am going to go celebrate my god in my way.

- But you can't.



- What do you mean, I can't?

- You will make my god really mad.  You MUST worship him.  I - I mean HE - insists!

- My god will get even madder if I don't worship him.  Renounce your god for mine!

- No, you renounce YOUR god for mine!  screamed the first man.

- Be reasonable - one of us is going to have to renounce a god.  Why not renounce yours?  He's false anyway.

- I can't renounce something that doesn't exist!

- Blasphemer!



... and with that, the second man killed the first man to prove how just and powerful his god was.

And they rounded up his followers, friends, and family, offering them a chance to repent and accept the One True Way which was now capitalized to show how Big It Was.



Yet, even with help from the community of the faithful, many could not make the final stretch and bring themselves to embrace the One True Faith.



So they and their animals were burned alive.



And all the people saw and were amazed.  When they were asked if they now believed, they ALL now said yes.  And the first religion was born.



Amen.

Thanksgiving and Pilgrims Quiz

Thanksgiving Quiz

Or "get to know a Pilgrim" as Colbert might say. Actually, none of the questions below directly involves Thanksgiving, but all involve the Pilgrims who celebrated it in 1621. Record your answers then send them to me.  The winner will get a beverage of your choice in the city of Geneva.   Unless otherwise noted, the source of the following questions and answers is the book   Mayflower, a story of courage, community, and war by Nathaniel Phil.

Questions

1.  From which country did the Mayflower sail in 1620?

a.) England
b.) Germany
c.) Holland
d.) Puerto Rico

2.  How did the pilgrims finance their transatlantic crossing?

a.)  They were frugal, worked hard, and saved their money, so were able to finance it themselves.
b.)  They had some wealthy sympathizers in England who gave them the money.
c.)  They found wealthy investors in England who financed their journey in expectation of making a profit.
d.)  They wrote to the Queen of Spain who provided ships and cargo.

3.  While still on board the ship, 41 men signed the so-called Mayflower Compact, which would form become the basis of the new colony's government.  In what European city is this document etched into the walls of a monument in a downtown park?

a.) London
b.) Amsterdam
c.) Geneva
d.) Berlin

4.  What was the intended destination of the Mayflower?

a.)  Florida
b.)  the Hudson River
c.)  Massachusetts
d.)  Puerto Rico

5.   Which statement best describes how the pilgrims fared their first winter?

a.)  thanks to prayer, frugality, hard work, and help from the local natives, most survived
b.)  despite prayer, frugality, hard work, and help from the local natives, most died
c.)  half of them died because of poor nutrition and inadequate shelter
d.)  half returned to England out of frustration

6.  Which of the following statements is true regarding Squanto, the Pawtuxet native whom the pilgrims encountered?

a.)  he had been captured by John Smith's expedition and intended for slavery, but escaped
b.)  he visited England, only to return to his people to find most had died from a disease outbreak
c.)  he taught the struggling white settlers how to plant corn, which was to prove critical to their survival
d.)  all of the above

7.  The Plymouth Rock settlers were not known as "Pilgrims" until about 1820.  When they first landed, which of the following terms were used to describe them (either by them or their contemporaries)?

a.) Old Comers
b.) saints
c.) pilgrimes
d.) all of the above

8.  Where did the Pilgrims first land?

a.)  Plymouth Rock
b.)  the Hudson River area around present day New York City
c.)  Puerto Rico
d.)  Cape Cod around present day Provincetown

9. The Pilgrims had religious motives for seeking the New World.  Which of the following was NOT one of their beliefs? 

a.) marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman
b.) celebration of Christmas was forbidden
c.) singing in church was forbidden
d.) working on Sunday was forbidden

10.  The first execution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was 16 year-old Thomas Granger on September 8, 1642.  For what crime was he hanged?

a.) murder
b.) rape
c.) theft
d.) bestiality

11.  56 years after the Mayflower landed, what had become the most profitable export back to England from the colonies?

a.) tobacco
b.) potatoes
c.) slavery
d.) frozen turkeys

12.  On a per capita basis, what was the most bloody war in American history?

a.) King Phillips War
b.) French and Indian Wars
c.) the Civil War
d.) World War II

13.  To pay for the war against the Native Americans, what did the Pilgrims do?

a.) cut taxes to allow for dynamic growth of the colony
b.) raise taxes for a few years, but quickly lower them to prewar levels once the war had been paid for
c.) hold an enormous bake sale, the first of its kind in the New World
d.) raise taxes for over a century

14.  By 1676, what had been legalized in the Plymouth colony?

a.) gay marriage
b.) bestiality
c.) slavery
d.) freedom of worship

15.  During the war against the Native Americans, the 9 year-old son of the Indian chief was captured.  An argument followed about what the Bible said should be done with him.   What was eventually decided?

a.) he was only a child, so was release for humanitarian reasons
b.) he was adopted by a pilgrim family, taught the Bible, and raised as a Christian
c.) he was imprisoned for several years, then released once he had pledged not to make war against the settlers
d.) he was sold into slavery, like his mother

16. What was the consequence of the war against the Native Americans?

a.) the pilgrims were now widely feared for their military prowess, so enjoyed a newfound independence and freedom
b.) the removal of friendly Indian tribes as buffer exposed the Pilgrims to more hostile tribes, increasing the settlers' dependence on England for military protection
c.) the pilgrims deeply regretted going to war against and taking the land of those who had helped them survive their first winters
d.) the pilgrims were able to decrease their independence on Britain, having proven their ability to defend themselves

17.  Approximately how many Americans are descendants of those who landed at Plymouth Rock?

a.) 1 in 1,000
b.) 1 in 100
c.) 1 in 20
d.) 1 in 10

Answers and explanations to follow....

Texas by treaty might be able to secede. There are a few reasons why they might not want to go there.

Texas by treaty might be able to secede. There are a few reasons why they might not want to go there.
Texas would have to give us back Fort Hood, Fort Bliss, and Fort Sam Houston (and 12 other military bases) and pay for their relocation. Of course, all those soldiers and their families spend money in the state so that money would be gone.
They would have to either give back Johnson Space Cent
er in Houston or buy it from us - it's a major tourist attraction ("Houston, YOU have a problem").
The interstate highways traversing the state were paid for with federal military funds under Ike. They would have to buy them back or perhaps we could make them buy a 100-year lease.
Any Coast Guard stations would have to go so they would be on their own protecting their ships and boats.
The TSA passenger screeners would go (I guess there is some upside to secession). They wouldn't have to complain about too few federal resources to guard their border with Mexico - they would get no federal help at all.
One of the major boosters of the state of Texas - defense contractors which create sizable employment for the state - would be gone (the United States would be foolish to outsource its critical military technology to a foreign nation.
Agricultural and oil subsidies would disappear.
Healthcare, most of which is now reimbursed through some federal program, directly or indirectly, would be badly hurt.
Their tourism industry might take a blow if we all need passports to go there.
The upside: their state tourism slogan would require only the deletion of a single word: "Texas: It's like a whole other country."

Why President Obama is not an extreme socialist (and why it matters)

Republicans disappointed in the 2012 presidential election tend to couch their animus toward President Obama in hyperbolic language that weakens their case by overstating it.  In their world view, President Obama is a radical, a socialist, an extreme leftist, who has raised taxed, choked off industry with burdensome regulations, and launched an aggressive government takeover of healthcare that will threaten our freedom.  These Republican talking points are commonly believed but demonstrably false.  
For better or for worse, President Obama is a right-of-center moderate in a country that has lurched so far to the right, he seems "leftist" only by comparison.  Even if he were considered left wing, I can't imagine how he could be considered "extreme."  
I follow French politics pretty closely, living a few miles from the French border.  France has a socialist president.  The communist party is viable but small.  Some intellectuals openly describe themselves as Trotskyists or Stalinists (don't ask me the difference or why they would associated with men who had such bloody track records).  France, in other words, could be described as a left-leaning country with its government controlled at present by la gauche.
Using France as a yardstick, let's point out some salient (and meaningful) differences between François Holland, the French president, and President Obama.  
A socialist (not a communist) tends to believe that the state has a positive duty to create jobs and provide for those who do not have jobs.  The state may be viewed as the engine of economic growth.  In fact, the state has many duties that in our society are left to the individual. Socialists openly question the need for and appropriateness of high incomes.
President Obama, on the other hand, has never seriously proposed regulating or capping high incomes.  He does believe they should pay their fair share in taxes.  Yet even here, the difference between his proposed top marginal tax rate and that proposed by the Republicans is a whopping 3% (the top rate on every dollar over $388,351 is 35% - President Obama would like to increase it to 38%;  under Reagan's first term, it was 50%).  This is hardly redistribution and nowhere close the 75% top tax rate of France and 50% mean tax rate (versus only 20% for the top quintile of American taxpayers).  
What is shocking is that surveys of Republicans consistently reveal their inability to state whether President Obama raised, lowered, or left tax rates unchanged (he actually lowered them both by extending the Bush tax cuts (which were supposed to expire) and waiving some payroll taxes). Socialists believe that the state has a duty to provide healthcare directly; President Obama believes that the state has a role in regulating it and supporting those who can't afford it, but generally leaves the system in private hand - even Medicare is a free market voucher system (any recipient can take their benefit to any private practice provider, so we compete for clients based on service and any other factors that drive businesses).  
Socialists do not mind if state activity crowds out or completely dominates some private industries; President Obama has taken great pains - for better or worse - to preserve the for profit health insurance industry in his healthcare reform, which meaningfully tweaked the system rather than overhauled it.  
The incorrect labeling of this program as a "government takeover of healthcare" perhaps adds to the perception the President Obama has been some kind of socialist trying to turn us all into Canadians (as though that was a bad thing). He's not. The closest international analogy to what the Affordable Care Act is attempting to accomplish is Switzerland, which also has a compulsory system of private insurance with some assistance for those who cannot afford the premiums. Hardly a socialist conspiracy.
Socialists believe that the state must insure some sort of equality, stepping in as a matter of social good when the imbalance becomes too great to unapologetically redistribute; words such as redistribution or equality are anathema in America (and are not generally supported (I certainly do not support them) except in the very weak and indirect form of a progressive income tax).   
A socialist will tend to embrace not only Keynesian but Marxist terminology openly; most Americans, including President Obama, believe that private industry is the engine of economic growth and the government's role is to assist at the margin and charge a small, fair tax to maintain its refereeing power. This is a cart and horse difference and drives what interventions a government would recommend in a crisis. A socialist (or Keynesian even) will tend to expand government activities to directly stimulate an economy. President Obama, after continuing President Bush's TARP stimulus and bank bailout, advocated for only one additional round of stimulus spending which was much smaller than what a socialist leader would have advocated (and arguably smaller than what was actually needed). A socialist would have nationalized the auto industry and the banking system; President Obama simply rescued them, leaving them in private hands.
Certain policies are becoming centrist or so universal to civilized, developed countries that they are noncontroversial everywhere except in the United States, but because of their universal acceptance are hard to characterize as left wing, just as representative democracy, women's suffrage, and the abolition of child labor were also all once considered left wing or even radical ideas but have become so universally accepted it is not meaningful to describe them using these terms.   These include the abolition of the death penalty, allowing gays to serve openly in the military and to marry, and a general repulsion toward aggressive "preemptive" war or overt militarism (which Europe has a very painful recent experience with).   Strict, effective gun legislation is also universal (there is no equivalent of the NRA here, although the Swiss do like their guns relative to their neighbors).  Virtually all European countries have low cost, socialized (you pay more as you earn more) daycare and far better, family friendly policies that allow young mothers to spend more time with their children.  All have health insurance of course, cradle to grave.  
Interestingly, President Obama is not advocating any of these policies more or less universally agreed-to among developed countries outside of the United States.  He has yet to propose meaningful gun legislation, has never advocated for federally funded daycare, and only begrudgingly at the end of his first term, perhaps prompted by an inopportune comment by his vice president, did he come to openly embrace the idea of gay marriage and drop the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that allowed prosecution or separation of openly gay service members.  
Socialists tend to focus on policies that promote tolerance (more open immigration, active efforts against racism and xenophobia); there are right wing, nationalist parties in France that oppose immigration and are in some cases overtly racist, but few as extreme as the Republicans, and none as large.  All have a penchant for revisionist history, blending national mythology often with religious overtones and a sense that the best times of France are a few decades in the past.  
Americans, since we don't really have a viable left, tend to be scared and frightened of these terms and concepts which they find as alien as German women with axillary hair (much less common now than in the 80s but I digress).  This is why the terms are so misused, but the terms do have meaning.  The lurch to the right has been fairly extreme in our country, so that we forget that both parties are large corporate entities that generally accept massive corporate funds and more or less do large corporation's bidding.  
If President Obama had to run for office in France, he would have to run as a right of center moderate.   Those terms do have meaning and I think it's important to use them properly.  

To my Republican Christian friend who posted the following right wing Christian link denouncing the 2012 electorate

To my Republican Christian friend who posted the following link:

Inspiring Faithful Stewards

The Real Battle Begins

Posted on November 11, 2012 by Chuck Bentley

The 2012 election reveals a sea change in the long-term direction of this nation. We are no longer guided by our historic values, but steaming full speed into darkness without concern for the rocks ahead...

Chuck Bentley, the blogger you cite here is long on speculation and short on actual facts (and in some cases a good editor).  He implies that anyone who voted Democratic must have done so because of "sour grapes" or emotion.  As someone who voted against my economic interests but on core values, I know I am not alone.  You may not agree with us, but pretending to read the minds of half of Americans who cast votes (and many more who didn't) smacks of sore losing.  

He claims that voters "endorsed the right of women to publicly funded birth-control and abortion."  This is incorrect on two counts.  Publicly-funded birth control (no hyphen needed) has always been available.  The ACA mandate the bishops council created such a public row about involved PRIVATE plans and whether they should be compelled to waive copayments on contraception (what is forgotten in all this breathless "war on religion" talk is that as it turns out, no, they don't).  No public funds support abortion (per the Hyde Amendment).  

He claims that President Obama is "running up the largest national deficit in our history."  This is incorrect.  President Obama's deficit is uncomfortably high, as was his predecessor's, but it has come down, not up.  It is not unprecedented.  Bentley maybe confusing debt and deficit (a common mistake); in nominal dollars, the debt is unprecedented, but in terms of GDP it is not, and is entirely accounted for by a decade of Bush tax cuts and two wars.  All three will be ended soon.  At any rate, Congress, not the president, controls the purse strings.  Last time I checked, the House was in Republican hands.

He claims that "Americans who are financially successful should be demonized and that their wealth be redistributed, turning the sin of envy into public policy."  Well, if this was a sin, Jesus was guilty of it too.  What he proposed was redistribution; what President Obama proposed was raising top marginal tax rates 3% to levels below where they were under Clinton.  It is bearing false witness to claim this is redistribution.  No one is demonizing people for being rich, but those who are rich, materialistic, and unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes should be called out.   Their behavior most certainly is not Christian.  

He falsely claims that the electorate has accepted "massive increases in government welfare as a form of compassion and care for the poor" and that the Bible teaches that "compassion and generosity are a personal responsibility that cannot be shunted off on the government."  I would be very curious to see that passage but it sounds like rationalization to me.  If "personal responsibility" sufficed, then there would be no hungry, poor, or homeless - no one is preventing Christians or people of any faith from sharing all that they have with them as Jesus commanded, but it does not seem any are doing that.  And why should they when their house needs a 22 car garage?

In the area of healthcare, one area I have direct extensive experience, he is as wrong as he could be when he claims that we are "virtually guaranteed" to destroy ... the finest health care system in the world."  First, our health care system is not globally ranked #1, not by a long shot, except in one category:  spending.  We spend about 15.6% of GDP on healthcare, more than any other country in the world but fail (so far) to cover all of our citizens.  Tens of thousands of Americans die for want of health insurance.   The United States is the only developed country where bankruptcy - losing everything you own - is the price you pay simply because you got sick.  I have seen it happen so many times that it really burns me up when someone such as Bentley talks about a reality that does not exist, ruined by a proposal no one made.  The ACA is an all-private deal except for some badly needed expansion of Medicaid.  And by the way, Medicare, with its 1.8% administrative overhead,is far more efficient than private plans, which often have overheads as high as 15-25%, much of it due to advertising and executive compensation.  And if the ACA were ruining healthcare, why are private insurers up so much since the law was passed?

And before condemning the Affordable Care Act as some dastardly Democratic plot to ruin America, let's not forget that it was essentially a Republican invention, later disowned when championed by an African American president.  Republicans years ago proposed such an idea in retort to Clinton's attempted healthcare reform, and - irony of ironies! - the man President Obama just defeated successfully implemented a state pilot of the program in Massachusetts (which now enjoys the lowest rate of uninsured citizens in the country).

He blames the president apparently for the votes of millions of Americans in support of marriage equality. (He incorrectly states that only two states did so - I believe the number was four.)

He bemoans the decriminalization of marijuana, claiming that cannabis takes a "tremendous toll" on "those poor souls who struggle to be free from its addictive power." As a psychiatrist, I think most people would be better off not seeking to alter themselves with recreational drugs, but alcohol and nicotine have a far higher death toll and are far more addictive than cannabis. This is not to say it's a good idea to welcome another legal drug into the mix, but countries that have de facto or de jure decriminalized marijuana have not seen increases in their overall rate of substance abuse or crime. If Bentley believes that no Americans use marijuana because it is illegal, I have news for him. The question is whether police have better things to do than hunt down nonviolent citizens whose only crime is possessing small quantities of a substance he does not like. I think they do.

On concrete, disprovable facts, the blogger continues to get it wrong. He claims that "13 million fewer Americans voted in the 2012 Presidential race than turned out in 2008." Actually,120,871,984 voted in 2012. 129,391,711 voted in 2008. The difference is currently 8,519,727, not 13 million. His figure is 152% the actual number!

But it should encourage him to note that more evangelical Christians voted in 2012 than in 2004; they were just swamped by everyone else, most of whom disagreed with them. That's democracy. And if everyone voted, he would be even more unhappy.

He claims that those who showed up to vote were "interest groups rallied by their self-interest." Fascinating. I voted against my self-interest and represent no interest group.

He compares debt reduction, immigration reform, a fairer tax code, and poverty reduction to "bread and circuses" repeating the discredited elderly- and veteran-bashing 47% remarks of Mitt Romney: "About half of America does not pay taxes, yet can vote to take more from others." First of all, all Americans pay some form of taxes, many of which are embedded in every product we buy. The majority of those in the 47% either paid income taxes and social security over their working lives, or are paying at least social security now. Calling disabled veterans or the working poor moochers because they do not pay federal income taxes today is rather callous. And isolating out a very particular tax and calling it "taxes" is disingenuous.

He states that "politicians are elected promising to take from those who do not support them to give more to those who do." This is callous and cynical (and ignores the fact that in 2008 Wall Street gave more to President Obama than to McCain). There simply are not enough Americans who are recipients of entitlement programs other than Social Security or Veterans benefits (the former of which was paid into by today's recipients when they were working) to make a decisive voting block. The vast majority of those who voted for President Obama work, many at 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. To say they are looking for a handout is insulting and frankly unchristian.

"We either see man as fallen and sinful in need of laws to enforce standards of moral conduct, justice and freedom or we see man as good and capable of self-governance without standards that restrain or restrict individual sinful desires," he states. So why then does he oppose efforts to enforce standards of moral conduct such as paying one's fair share of taxes, not cheating on one's tax return, not stealing the productivity surges of one's workers by paying them no more than when they were far less productive, or protecting miners from greedy mine owners who tamper with carbon monoxide detectors? Why does he believe "self-governance" will be any more successful with charitable giving, regulation of Wall Street (greed, last time I checked, was a sin), or carbon emissions than in other spheres?

He claims most Americans have "vastly differing worldviews" than he does, but is this really the case? Do we really disagree about the moral imperative to work hard, feed our children, fund our government, and be kind and compassionate to each other? I doubt the blogger has ever taken estrogen-progesterone or been confronted with an unintended pregnancy or (I am assuming from his homophobic slant) wanted to have to right to visit a dying life partner who happens to be of the same sex, so these are - for him - marginal issues that do not personally affect him. The ones that do, we mostly agree on. As to whether you believe in god or capitalize his pronouns or call him Jesus or Yahweh or Zeus, those are not world views but metaphysical views, speculations beyond the here and now that demands action from us.

He seems confused about the difference between losing an election and losing a war. We have a long and hallowed tradition of peaceful transfer of power in this country. His call to "battle" and his condemnation of "peace" as a "sin" (an idea I would imagine the pacifist Jesus would condemn) is upsetting. I hope he is only being metaphorical, but these sorts of violent metaphors may encourage others to engage in horrific acts of violence.

He writes that "Government in a democracy is merely a reflection of the desires of the people and their choices for leadership." Fair enough. So the people desire something and have chosen someone different from what he would choose. He is welcome to attempt to exhort people to agree with him but at present they don't. It's not his job to tell the rest of us what sort of culture or leadership we should choose. He claims that "the real solution to America’s problems is the return of the common denominator that once united a diverse people." Given the rich diversity of religious and political opinions that shaped this country, I don't think such a unity ever existed. I hope it never does because at that point we will become a theocracy. America's richness is that it doesn't much care what you think or believe, but it very much welcomes what you can do.

The idea of a "culture with common values and biblical principles" is oxymoronic since the bible is not shared by all Americans as an authoritative text and as John Adams and George Washington once wrote, the United States is "in no way a Christian nation." We are a secular republic but everyone is free to believe or not in god as they choose.

"We must work to rebuild our country as one nation under God" perhaps unaware that that phrase (under god) was inserted during the McCarthy era. For most of our history we were not "under god" and stumbled along OK. The Greatest Generation did not say "under god" when they said the pledge of allegiance each morning (if they did at all) but somehow that didn't stop them from storming beaches at Normandy and Iwo Jima.

"The GOP lost the election, but GOD did not," he says, but GOD was not on the ballot I cast.

He talks about "The Lion of Judah" which "has been about redeeming people from worldly philosophies since they chose to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." He is mixing up some biblical allegories here; I don't think Adam and Eve were doing all that much philosophizing (but perhaps they should have). And why is his "worldly philosophy" so superior to all the other competing Axial Ages philosophies or the much older traditions of Buddhism and Judaism that preceded Christianity?  Simply claiming that a philosophy purports to represent all truth, god, etc., does not make it so.

"Let us arm ourselves with the ultimate weapons of love and truth and let’s go forth and boldly engage in the battle for hearts and minds." Fair enough, but it seems that whole "love and truth" part is a necessary component. You do not express "love" for an electorate you dismiss as sinful and self-serving and beholden to (or part of) an interest group. You do not show a dedication to "truth" if you get so many disprovable facts wrong (from what the ACA mandates to how many people voted).

Interestingly, after condemning self-serving interest groups, he asks for money. "Crown," he says, needs "your financial support" among other things. There is nothing wrong with this per se - all worldly philosophies, even those claiming to have a monopoly on extraterrestrial reality, need to pay the bills - but it seems to contradict everything he said about "the biblical admonishment to work as unto God for your resources, if physically able." Is he physically able? Than according to his worldview he should not ask for other people's money.

Open letter to Mr. Huckabee on the recent election

Dear Mr. Huckabee, 

You believe that the defeat of your party in the most recent election must be evidence that "our country has slipped into a deeper state of dependence on government than I wanted to believe."  I am confused as to how an election victory for one party can have anything to do with our "dependence on government" unless of course you believe that anyone who votes for a black man must ipso facto be either of color, dependent on government, or both.  Since most of those who are dependent on government - through programs from social security and Medicare to Medicaid to veterans benefits to food stamps - are white, and many of them voted for Mitt Romney, how does this support your thesis?  Do you really believe, as your colleague at Fox News Bill O'Reilly claims, that minorities are looking for handouts from their government, like children looking for free candy?  What evidence do you have from exit polls or other demographic data do you have that this is the case?  

As a man well-versed in Biblical allegories, you compare your national government to "Goliath."  Since Goliath was a giant individual, not a giant government, is this not an odd comparison?  Also, in the Biblical contest between David and Goliath, David, not Goliath, won.  If you are trying to make the case that Mitt Romney was trying to slay what you call the "Goliath of government", why did he lose?  Since the Old Testament story is an attempt to show that god favored David even over a giant, doesn't the latest electoral outcome say exactly the opposite - that god must (at least this election cycle) favor what you see as a giant government?  Or perhaps Mitt just wasn't up to the role of playing David. 
Of course, for any of this to make sense, President Obama must have been responsible for runaway growth of this "Goliath" of a government. As it turns out, most of the growth in government came from his predecessors, particularly the last one, and only two presidents since Eisenhower have had lower rates of government growth than President Obama. 

You go on to claim that our "real problems are not political, but spiritual."  Do you really believe that those flooded out of their homes, men, women and children of all faiths, would agree with you?   Do you think FEMA should be put in charge of setting up places of prayer rather than distribution shelters for food and shelter (through cash vouchers)?  Do the one out of five American children in poverty many of whom have to skip at least one meal a day and go hungry - many who belong to devout families - really need spiritual fulfillment more than food in their bellies?  And why can't they have both?  Since both campaigns generally agreed on the problems facing our nation from the effects of the Great Recession to foreign policy difficulties abroad, what puts you in a position to be able to second guess both, identifying "real problems" that were evident to neither Obama nor Romney?  Since Romney never offered a spiritual solution for what ails us, how would voting for him have solved these "real problems" you believe actually face us? As you admit, "both parties have failed to acknowledge that" (meaning agree with you).
You claim that "Democrats have not wanted to even acknowledge the need for God in our public institutions" to which I must respond that you have not even wanted to acknowledge the need not to split infinitives.  

But I digress.  In virtually every public address, President Obama, a Christian, has acknowledged god in some form and has led prayers during time of national tragedy.  At no time has he moved to strip religious language from the Pledge of Allegience, for example, even though it was inserted in 1954 during the McCarthyist era.  He has not challenged any courthouse displaying the 10 Commandments, and has gone out of his way to please the bishops lobbying against having to implement healthcare reform, offering them multiple exceptions that they have publicly and loudly denounced through press conferences (rather than negotiating in good faith). 

You further claim that Republican leadership mentions god not to out of humility but only selectively, such as in the unquestioning, unconditional support of the current right-wing Government of Israel, which you describe as a "badge of courage."  I can agree with the absence of humility part, but how are Republicans behaving like lambs on the issues of "life and marriage"?  As I recall, they quite vocally opposed abortion prohibition even in the case of rape or incest and the life of the mother (which they believe is never endangered by pregnancy, something that many obstetricians would be curious to hear), and as recently as a week ago, Paul Ryan was telling evangelical Christians that President Obama was waging a "war on religion." The Republican party even went so far as to claim that conception through rape is god's will and that in the case of "legitimate" rape a woman's body has a way to "shut that whole thing down."  Is this lamb-like behavior?  

Regarding the Lion of Judah, his mention in the Bible is not associated with a war on abortion or gay marriage, none of which are really mentioned in the Bible at all.  In your Christian tradition, the Lion of Judah has come to represent Jesus who is allegedly (according to one Biblical version, contradicted by another) from the tribe of Judah.  In Revelation 5:5, this lion makes a cameo appearance:  

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.  

Again, loosening seals is not very violent and has nothing to do with gay marriage.  Even the version of the Lion of Judah that entered pop culture through Aslan in C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia does not rant against marriage equality or in vitro fertalization or stem cell research, as you seem to imply he should. 

You suggest the Republican party should "gear up and get ready for the next battle."  What battle?  We transfer power peacefully in this country via ballots, not bullets.  Are you advocating a coup?  And if you just accused the GOP candidates of being lambs rather than lions, why do you write next battle?  You just said they didn't really fight for what you call our "real problems."  I am confused. 

You claim that the Republicans are a "party of principle" but what principle are you referring to?  Do you not mean principal - it's accumulation and freedom from taxation?   Are you implying that the Democratic party is not a party of principle?  Or could it just be that we share many principles, but prioritize them differently, or that we see different means of achieving the same ends from alleviating poverty, providing healthcare to all citizens, ending war and capital punishment, and other Christian mandates?   Is it really your role, as a mortal among mortals, to be claiming that yours is the party of god and that any Christians who vote for President Obama would go to hell as you did prior to the election?

After bemoaning how the Republican party didn't mention god enough or in the right way, you then claim that they should not "stop believing what we believe" but rather "do a better job of doing what we're supposed to do."  Circularity aside, that claim seems to negate everything you said earlier.  

Finally, you claim that [only by Republicans] "attract[ing] voters and win[ning] elections" can you "save America from herself." Why are you so mistrustful of America that you feel she is inherently self-destructive and needs to be saved?  And do you honestly believe that this salvation can only come from the Republican party?  Since America is not a fixed entity, but a work in progress and a democratic one at that, who says America has to agree with you?  Apparently "she" doesn't.  You seem to confuse losing an election with losing a great Biblical battle between good and evil.  Isn't this a tad grandiose?

One thing the Bible does warn us against is idol worship.  When agreement with our own ideas becomes a litmus test for godliness and righteousness, are you not really saying "my will" rather than "thy will" be done? And if so, how is this compatible with the humility of a good Christian?


Sincerely,


Mike Victor


Appendix:

Growth of government:
After the spending burst of 2009, Mr. Obama, constrained by Congress and aided by repayments of bank and auto bailouts, increased spending just 0.5 percent a year over the next three fiscal years when adjusted for inflation; only two other three-year periods since Eisenhower had lower spending growth. - New York Times


Full O'Reilly and related quotations:

– BILL O’REILLY: “The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?” [Fox News, 11/6/2012]

– RUSH LIMBAUGH: “It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Clause especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/7/2012]

– SEAN HANNITY: “One other thing that we need to come to terms with as a result of last night. What appears to have happened is that the liberal welfare state in this country has now grown. More and more Americans have become dependent on that welfare state. As they have, they have found themselves siding with the party of government.” [Fox News, 11/7/2012]

– STUART VARNEY: “With Obama’s victory, the takers have taken over. The makers are clearly in the minority.” [Fox Business, 11/7/2012]