Barack Obama could have been a preacher. But then, he couldn’t be a Democrat. Or could he?

 In Obama’s speech to Jim Wallis’ Call to Renewal Conference, Obama calls upon everyone- from Bible-wielding, front-and-center-pew Church-goers to well, everyone else, to consider political differences using "fair-minded words"- that is, not using one’s assumed religious or moral values to trump another’s views rather than using logic, reason and a thorough understanding of political or economic theory- for instance. Obama chides his Democratic/Progressive peers for creating an air that being Democratic/Progressive is incompatible with religiosity, which doesn’t just separate Democrats and Progressives from evangelicals like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but from the majority of American people, who by and large consider themselves religious or spiritual to some degree.

 Obama shows through his speech that he is as comfortable in front of a religious audience as with a secular audience- because he, himself, is religious (though perhaps hasn’t been able to find a venue to make this known as of yet), and his speech, likewise, is deeply rooted in spiritual imagery.

Though this speech is perhaps more often being interpreted to mean that Democrats need to try to achieve a more "religious-friendly" reputation, I think the most important part of his speech was his call to everyone to "extend the same presumption of good faith to others" and " hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all." It’s a belief that we’re all searching for the truth and finding it in different places right now but that we’re all searching, or trying to search, honestly.  Obama closes by saying "It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come". Hopefully we can continue to have this conversation, even here on this blog. And I hope people take the time to listen to my opinion as I also try to listen to theirs.

A week ago the Washington Post did a spread on Linda Hirshman’s article in the American Prospect, championing working mothers. Well, that’s looking at the glass half-full; conservatives saw Hirshman on a campaign against the American mother, flag waving in the background, apple pie in the oven. There was a huge tirade of stay-at-home mothers expressing hate over the blogs but today I found the first article championing Hirshman’s viewpoint on Slate.com.

I believe all sides will just defend their own mothers and to be upfront about it- my mother is a working mother. (and somehow I didn’t end up a crack dealer.) So I guess I took it personally when all these mothers were attacking Hirshman, herself a working mother, trying to show how their logic was so much better than Hirshman’s though, and not saying Hirshman’s was perfect either, the mothers’ logic is just based on stereotypes.

Consider some of these arguments:

 "It is unnatural and benefeits no one when women rebel against nature"

 Since when is working, rebelling against nature? Actually backtrack- does this mean that not conceiving a child is against nature? That would lead me to conclude that barren women are unnatural. However, I would think that artificial insemination and surrogate mothers are really what’s unnatural- hence their adjectives.

But also, working is hardly unnatural, even in the Christian community. Eve was created for Adam as "a helper to be his partner". Arguably, since this was said before the fall and the curse of pain in childbirth, conception was not supposed to be the "help" that Eve was created to offer. Furthermore, women were given generally the same capabilities as men- arms that could hold more things than toys, legs that could run after more things than babies and brains that could think about more things than diapers. I fully believe these were given for a purpose, though they do deteriorate without use.

 "Caring for children isn’t valued in our society".

If that were true, would Linda Hirshman have received such a backlash? 

 "Saying that women don’t have the choice between stay-at-home motherhood and working is a step backwards for feminism which originally stood for "the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men"

 Yet, stay-at-home moms are certainly not politically, socially, or economically equal to men. First they have no money because they dont’ work- they are completely dependent on their husbands. Second, they cannot socialize with the vast majority of the populace which is employed- almost all the men and many women. Third, politicians don’t care about stay-at-home mothers except as a symbol, or insomuch as it pleases their husbands. Stay-at-home mothers have no leveraging power and are really only an easy target as consumers. So Hirshman’s opinion is an attempt to realize that stay-at-home motherhood is not empowering to women as a whole or individually. Not only are you impacting yourself but, according to the Slate article, making it harder for women who need to work for the money, who may have lower education and fewer connections- from having bargaining power or role models with which to break the glass ceiling.

 "It’s wrong of her to say her way is right and the only way"

Isn’t this the argument most often used against Christianity? Honestly one only says this if they’re offended personally and don’t have any factual way to back up what they do or who they are. I mean, if she’s right then she’s just a woman publishing her research and you’re just a woman reacting.

"She differentiates between her biological children and her step children."
"I bet she never had children."
"I bet she has never worked in the corporate workforce."
"She doesn’t know anything about academia or argument"

These arguments are all irrelevant and are just catty and most often untrue. (Hirshman has 3 children, practiced law for 12 years in a firm and who cares if she differentiates between her biological children and step children for clarity in an interview?/) 

Honestly, I accomplish nothing but I do look to be a role model in the workforce just like my mother

I was really interested in Slate.com’s feature called “Blogging the Bible” which just recounts a writer’s thoughts after reading each chapter of the Bible, starting from Genesis. I thought, this is a great idea. We should all share our thoughts and feelings about the Bible and furthermore, we should refresh our memory of the Bible in the order that it was written.

Well I can’t start from Genesis because I know my reading would be tainted by what’s already been done so I’m starting from Matthew.

Matthew 1
Matthew starts off with a genealogy and it seems like just a review of all the celebrities of the Old Testament. There is a lot of discussion as to why this genealogy does not match up to the one in Luke and well, I don’t even want to touch that because I don’t have the tools to do it. But I’ll take it at face value and this Matthew genealogy shows that 1) Jesus really did have monarchy in his heritage and 2) not everyone in Jesus’ family tree were good, wholesome people.

Consider:
Jacob tricked his brother and father multiple times for blessings.
Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute to sleep with her father-in-law, Judah (and notably, Jesus didn’t come from Joseph, the “good brother”)
David committed adultery and had a man killed.
King Asa was so wicked he introduced numerous idols to his kingdom and was not buried in the sepulchre of the kings
etc etc

However, it is of great note that there are 4 women mentioned in the genealogy- a practice very uncommon in writing genealogies during that time. Even though these women weren’t all Jewish (Moabite, Canaanite, some other non-Jewish origin), weren’t all noble (a harlots, an adulteress), I think Matthew is propagating Jesus’ women’s rights activist side, not to mention extending the right to Gentiles. NOW would be proud.

Another thing NOW would be proud of is Joseph. Joseph isn’t hailed as any kind of feminist, even for his day (I mean, he’s a man after all). But Mary is pregnant and she and Joseph aren’t even married yet. In verse 19 it says that “[Mary’s] husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly”. It’s interesting that Joseph is described as “righteous” because I would think that “righteous” would mean following the law- particularly the law coming from God. And God’s law concerning adultery:

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. “(Leviticus 20:10)

So many “righteous” men had put their wives to death. Noah was a righteous man and he sailed away on an ark while the Earth’s population died. Lot was a pretty righteous man who ran away as Sodom and Gomorroah burned away. Abraham was a righteous man who almost killed his own son. Righteousness is almost equivalent with death or the willingness to murder in the Old Testament.

But in the New Testament, Joseph is righteous and he doesn’t want to even tarnish his bride-to-be’s reputation, let alone kill her. It seems that Joseph cares more about Mary’s reputation than his own because he would surely be justified by putting Mary to death, according to Levitical law.

In any case, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph just in time to prevent any reputation stain or bloodshed and tells Joseph, hey she’s still a virgin. Don’t be afraid because she was conceived through the Holy Spirit (yeah, doesn’t sound any less scary or weird to me). Stay with her- though that would probably hurt both their reputations since they weren’t married yet- and name the boy Jesus.

And then it says that Joseph didn’t have marital relations with Mary until she gave birth, some say to show that Mary was indeed a virgin when Jesus was born or maybe just to show that Joseph practiced good hygiene in case the angel of the Lord was wrong. That Mary ought to have gotten tested.

My pastor said that Christians who truly understand the gospel’s effect become better at forgiving. And yet so many Christians find it very difficult to forgive. My pastor pondered why this was so and he came up with this gem: if you find it hard to forgive it’s because you think that you had fewer sins forgiven at the cross than this other person. You think that somehow you are more righteous, more in-the-right, that you’re basically just better than this other person. I am completely guilty of this and furthermore, my Bible readings as of late have just struck me with God’s forgiveness. I feel really free.

This is a clarification. I’m Protestant. I believe in God. I believe in the Bible. And I also profess to not be stupid. You may feel that there is some contradiction there but I hope to prove you wrong. However, I also don’t necessarily do or subscribe to “everything” popular in Christianity these days. I have NOT read, nor ever will read, “The Purpose Driven Life” or similar poorly-written Christian drivel that keeps the Christian book business in multi-billion dollar form (“The Godly Diet”, “Find a Christian Man Before You Turn 25!”). I loathe George W. Bush, the Passion of the Christ, James Dobson, Focus on the Family, the Republican Party and most Christian pop music. I think they give Christianity a bad rap (have I mentioned Christian rappers?) and somehow, they’ve not only seized the religion’s politics and tastes, but also its tenets. So instead of a religion deeply rooted in God’s word, we have a religion deeply rooted in political agenda. Conservative politicians support their own biases with a mishmash of Bible verses taken out of context and a legion of lemmings who alternately shout “Life” or “Death” in accordance with the “Applause” signals. I’m here to defend Christianity from such onslaught. I believe popular Christianity is killing the religion- making it seem as if all Christians should have the same patently wrong answers to social issues and that the sins that society is against are the sins that God most hates. I think the Bible is radical and progressive, not backwards and conservative. And sometimes it helps to just read what it says.