Davison's Doodle

Religion and Taxes
— Alexander E. Sharp | August 18, 2011

The deficit and budget battles in Washington make clear that the divisions between us are deep, even spiritual. The fight is not over the size of the deficit, nor even about expenditure cuts. It is about taxes as the lifeblood of government.

Why are taxes so important? The playbook is no secret. Grover Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform and the driving force behind the “no-tax-increase” stance, said it over twenty years ago:  “Our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bath tub.” The way to do that is to cut taxes.

The George W. Bush administration supported this goal. It happily organized the political religious right concerned about social issues: pro-choice, sexual orientation, sex education, and school prayer. Many of the religious right feared that secular values were eroding their fundamentalist reading of the Bible. Their numbers swelled Republican ranks.

Those seeking to limit the size of government surely continue to welcome this faith-based support, but they now have a new moral underpinning: Ayn Rand as their resident philosopher.  We do not need to tackle her 800-page novels to get her message. The title of one of her shorter essays says it all: “The Virtue of Selfishness.” In it she writes, “Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism, and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.” For her, the Great Commandment to love your neighbor is tantamount  to “moral cannibalism.”

Michele Bachmann brings another clear spiritual perspective. She received her legal training at Oral Roberts University School of Law. The curriculum was based on Christian Reconstructionism, which argues that “God granted certain jurisdictional authority to the government, the church, and the family—therefore any government action exceeding its God-granted authority is in violation of God’s commands.” Under this view, it is not within the government’s “authority” to take care of the poor.

Recalling her own family’s struggle against poverty as she was growing up, she has said, “We had our faith in God, we depended on our neighbors, we depended on ourselves, and we just did without… And we were just grateful for what we had. We knew that one day things would be better than they were. And God was faithful, and they were better.”

Her view of government, perhaps shaped by her law-school training, may explain her questioning of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in a congressional hearing over federal bailout programs. She asked, “What provision in the Constitution could you point to that would give authority for the extraordinary actions taken by the Treasury since March of ‘08? What specifically in the Constitution?” In the current Iowa primary she is calling for the abolition of the Departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce: “Wherever we can cut and abolish, we should cut and abolish.”

Those who believe government has a role in providing society’s safety net think it is essential to give a hand to those whom society counts least. Protestants for the Common Good, for example, supported the recent tax increase in Illinois because we were both saddened and shocked at the cuts in human services. Aid to children, the elderly, the mentally ill, and the disabled has been reduced by $3.1 billion since 2002 and $600 million in the current year alone.

Protestants for the Common Good believe that freedom exists in two forms: we are free from loyalty to anyone or thing other than God; and we are free for the opportunity to serve all whom God loves. We are free to care for, and love, others. That’s what our faith calls us to do.

The political religious right may argue that they want the same things we do.  But they would say that it is freedom from government that makes it possible for people to flourish.  The best way to help others is to get government out of the way.

Those who are for smaller government rarely express  concern for people in need, even though almost twenty percent of Illinois children live in poverty, only about half of the people who need treatment for mental illness receive it, and after health care reform, there will be over 700,000 Illinoisans without health coverage.

Those of us who think government is central to establishing community and serving others have been enablers in this debate. We have not insisted that the political religious right, and those who oppose raising the debt ceiling, explain why the current deficit is so high. We have not pressed for a public discussion of how the economy performed under the tax cuts and financial deregulation starting in 2000. How can the views of Ayn Rand be reconciled with Jesus’ concern for the poor?

There is no Christian answer to complicated matters of public policy, but there are spiritual values that should inform how we think about such questions. They are expressed as ideology and pursued through politics and the media. But they have an underlying spiritual basis that is as profound and explicit as it was at any time in our national history.

References
Sarah Posner, “The Perry vs. Bachmann Primary at Liberty University,” Religion Dispatches, July 11, 2011.

The Rev. Alexander E. Sharp has served since 1996 as the founding executive director of Protestants for the Common Good, a faith-based education and advocacy organization in Illinois. He received his M.Div. from the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1996 and has a Masters of Public Affairs from Princeton University.

Breivik’s Christianity
— Martin E. Marty | 8/1/2011

Sightings returns to work after a month away. Start with a timely quiz. Q: What do the following have in common? Anders Behring Breivik, killer of scores of innocents in Norway; assassins Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK) and Sirhan Sirhan (RFK); serial killers: Dennis Rader (Kansas, murdered 10); Charles Starkweather (Nebraska, 11); Jeffrey Dahmer (Wisconsin, 17); and Dylan Kiebold (Columbine, CO, 13).

Answer: they were all Lutheran Christians.

Regular readers of Sightings know that I try to be “objective,” “fair-minded,” and the like, so I remind subscribers of this in my duty to be a conscientious reporter and commentator. Ergo, this register of crazy villains is not here to give Lutherans a bad name. If I weren’t “objective” and “fair-minded,” I’d give the game away and admit what some have detected: that I like to give Lutherans a good name. So why bring this up?

First, a word about the use of “Christian” and, specifically, “Lutheran” with these names. Read their biographies or news reports at the time of their crimes and you will see that the label has to be qualified with reminders that some were Lutheran because their mothers placed them in a Lutheran orphanage or academy or they attended a Lutheran church and its educational agencies when young. We’d have to call them “accidental” or “automatic” or “casual” Lutherans somewhere long the way. But the label sticks.

Think of Breivik, who was one of the 90,757,570 reported Lutherans in the world (as of 2005) and who must have been one of the 3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran, as 79.2 percent of Norwegians are. It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church. Then think further; it is hard to picture that Breivik was anything but one of the 97 percent of the members who never shows up. That he caught many ideas from this religious background is clear from citations in his monstrous manifesto and elsewhere. But he probably could not even recite Luther’s Catechism and may not have been seen at the communion table since who knows when—if ever.

Never mind. Split seconds after the murders were reported, many American commentators, especially prominent Islamophobe or Generic-Muslim-haters assumed and announced that al-Qaeda legions had done the killing. The implied message and command; “Get ‘em,” “‘em” being Muslims anywhere and everywhere. Then, split seconds after his “Christian” religious identity became the prime subject on cable TV and in the press it was turn-around time as formerly embarrassed Muslim world(s) played “Gotcha!” to embarrass Christians. Never any to take these attacks lying down, the embarrassed Christians quickly got back into action to prove that Breivik wasn’t really a Christian and that he was a nut, and only Muslims were sane attackers.  See Thursday’s column for analysis by University of Chicago Divinity School’s Dean Margaret Mitchell.

The back-and-forth polemics continues. To what point? Each “side” finds it important and urgent to use a broad brush to paint the “other” most monstrously, in order to deflect criticism from themselves and to assure themselves of their own virtue. That obscures what should be a clear-eyed critique of “self-and-other” among all when clarity is so important. The instant and inaccurate portrayal of “the other” makes the self look good in his or her own eyes. It does not provide the accurate data about and sane perceptions of people we need to understand more than we need to fire people up, motivated by Islamophobia and Christianophobia, neither of which needs more heat in our flammable or inflammable world.

References
Nicola Menzie, “Norway Shooting Suspect ‘Christian’ Faith Heavily Debated,” Christian Post, July 29, 2011.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-set-record-straight-on-alleged-norway-shooters-faith-53069/

Christopher Hitchens, “A Ridiculous Rapid Response: Why did so many ‘experts’ declare the Oslo attacks to be the work of Islamic terrorists?” Slate, July 24, 2011. http://www.slate.com/id/2299959/