Thank God that Erick Erickson has decided to give us some lessons in theology. Now everyone will go make fun of him and prove his point that fundamentalists don’t get much respect from our cultural elites. The thing is, and maybe Mr. Erickson understands this, there is no reason to spend any energy disrespecting his literal reading of the Scriptures. The problem isn’t that he actually believes Jonah was swallowed by a fish. The problem is that he wants to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us through the acquisition of political power. Here’s how he puts it:
Christians in politics must understand these things.
There was once a time when most everyone in public life professed a faith in the things of the Bible. That time is more and more becoming unacceptable to those who shape the news. These secularists have made a concerted effort to turn the world hostile to that faith and belief and have allied themselves with weak theologians to turn young Christians into more worldly, secularly focused milquetoast weepers worshiping an effeminate Christ who only hugs kids and cries, but does not fight, does not take sides, and is accommodationist to the world and its amorality and increasing immorality because, dude, he hung out with prostitutes and cried about another dude dying. They want to define the Christ they prefer to believe in, rather than believe the Christ that is…
…Christians must still believe. Christians must still engage the political process. There can be no sitting on the sidelines in the fight between Heaven and Hell and that fight takes place as much in the political arena as it does in the homeless shelter or the pulpit. Even now in the 21st century after the birth of Christ, there is still true Good and there is still true Evil and there is still true Truth…
…Christians can eschew partisan sides, but they must not eschew God’s side. They must not eschew Truth. Unfortunately, some within the center-right coalition and the left, as it expands within the Democratic Party, increasingly make that party hostile to matters of faith and Christ and have eagerly embraced a moral relativism that teaches the only real choice is embracing abortion, tolerating the subversion of marriage to a secular culture, and embracing a social gospel that has objectively made more and more dependent on government while relegating the Church and its mission to the margins.
Young Christians who have decided their path is to avoid the political fights that implicate the beliefs of their faith and old Christians who have grown weary of the fight must still fight and must still pick a side whether they think they must or not. The world continues to be at war with Christ and increasingly that fight takes place in the political arena. From Health and Human Services regulations to ridicule of believing politicians to Democratic Convention attendees opposing the inclusion merely of the word “God” in the Democratic Party platform, we are seeing that fight from the higher plane come down to eye level.
I don’t share Erick Erickson’s belief in the literal truth of the Holy Bible, but I have zero interest in discussing theology with him. He thinks I want to destroy him and that I am part of a political movement that is evil. Actually, all I want is for him to recognize that this is a pluralistic and multi-faith society and to realize that the law should reflect our diversity of opinion about moral matters.
A good example is his objection to the contraception mandate. That is a regulation that he finds morally offensive. That’s precisely why exemptions were provided for religious organizations. Good law recognizes the moral objections of significant portions of the populace without letting them hold good policy hostage.
This country was founded on the importance of religious freedom of conscience and tolerance of people from different faith traditions. That’s why I don’t mock Erick Erickson for his belief in Adam and Eve. I just oppose his decision to take his particular religious beliefs and try to translate them into political power and influence.
I object to the contraception exemption. I think it is unconstitutional for employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. It’s OK for the Catholic Church to not provide contraception to their priests and nuns (although I wish they would supply condoms to the priests), who accept it voluntarily, not on their lay employees. Even for the priests and nuns, contraception coverage should be only a dead letter as they are supposed to voluntarily eschew it. Does every crackpot belief have to have a legal exemption? They why don’t Old Mormons have a legal exemption from the polygamy laws?
I bet there are nuns with poly-cystic ovarian disease and other things that would require treatment with oral contraceptives.
Probably so. Bet the hierarchy won’t let them have them. Nuns are so mistreated we should consider them emotionally battered women.
With so many of the decisions of the Catholic hierarchy–they reflect those who have a seat at the table. When decisions are made by exclusively by men (mostly older and white and financially secure) you end up with exactly the results we are now witnessing.
The only “god” Erick Erickson believes in his himself.
Partisan hacks don’t believe in Jesus, they use him to score political points. I don’t take Erickson’s beliefs seriously because clearly he doesn’t either. Too much hypocrisy wrapped up to be any genuine faith in there.
I think you’re exactly right. Ironically, there’s a whole section of the Qu’ran that speaks of exactly this. The Qu’ran wasn’t trying to create a new religion. The word islam means “to surrender.” When it speaks of the importance of being islamic, it’s speaking of the importance of being surrendered to the will of God, very much analogous to a Buddhist speaking of non-attachment.
It speaks to many of the stories of the Bible and Torah in a matter of fact way, as if everyone already knows the stories and it’s expounding on them (though there are variations in those stories too). It speaks of Jews and Christians as people of the book and says their books should be respected. But it also says the central issue isn’t whether someone has a book but rather, whether they’re using it to know God or whether they’re hiding behind it. It speaks a great deal of “those who cover up the truth.” A central theme is spiritual hypocrisy. At one point it says, “Satan loves to say ‘There is no god but God.'” It recognized the ways in which faith gets twisted and tried to steer people straight.
Of course there are many so-called Muslims who are anything but surrendered just as there are many so-called Christians who are anything but loving and forgiving. It’s way easier to misuse one’s faith than to follow its teachings.
Erick “Erick”‘s association of an effeminate Christ with a passive Christ reveals his homophobia and sexism.
Here’s the most screamingly hilarious/awful part, though. After condemning non-believers to “a very bad place” and then chastizing the Obama coalition and certain unnamed center-rightist for their anger, Erick “Erick” writes:
“My prayer for you this year is that you not be angry.”
Yes, “Erick” is not angry. He has displayed many examples of his peaceful nature. To select but one example from his illustrious career, we can all agree that his repeated descriptions of a retiring Supreme Court Justice as a “goat fucking child molestor” were absent of anger or malice.
Poor widdle Christians under attack. SOS. All bullshit.
Wussy Christ is crying.
As do you, Erick, as do you. After two millenia of interpretation and re-interpretation of what Christ is, it is supremely arrogant to think you know what Christ is.
I’m guessing he has never read Jefferson’s Bible.
Or Benjamin Franklin:
More importantly, he wants to define the First Amendment he prefers to believe in, rather than the First Amendment that is. The Christian Right’s First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion…” They have no use for the establishment clause.
Of course, what Erick son of Erick really is saying is that the only way Christians (or any people of faith) can be truly politically involved is if they approach politics (not religion) the same way he does.
A few years ago a candidate for a local office sent out a mailer to Catholics in the area denouncing the Dem candidate because the Dem was pro-choice and saying any true Catholic ould not possible support the Dem.
I called them up to complain about them trying to use religion as a political tool and then told them that it is precisely because I am a Catholic Christian that I supported the Dem candidate.
There are those people of faith who use religion to justify their already in place political views and there are those people of faith who, because of their religious beliefs, chose certain political views. The former are hypocrites and Erick son of Erick is one of them.
Right on Booman!
As Vice President Biden so clearly stated;
“With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide (doctrine ?). Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.”
Freedom is not imposing my interpretations on others.
Isn’t what Erickson is complaining about simply another one of the heads on the cultural and demographic Hydra that is slowly killing his Republican Party? This is just another expression of the WASP angst that “their country” is going down the toilet. And they have to lay the blame at the feet of someone. Whether it’s immigrants, gays, minorities, liberals or “secularists”. What the fuck are “secularists”, anyway? Wouldn’t that pretty much encompass the vast majority of the Founders?
This whining on the right is just becoming so tiresome. I’m not a Christian. But, like you, I don’t give a flying fuck if Erickson wants to get together every day with his other religious friends and have a big Jesus circle jerk behind closed doors. There is no sweeping “hostility to faith” in this country. There is still way too much pandering and ass kissing of people’s religious sensibilities in the public domain for my taste. This victim-hood mentality seems to always be their fall-back. They have milked it for forty years. But fewer and fewer people are continuing to fall for that lame act. And because it’s not working as well these days, well it must be because people hate his imaginary man in the sky.
Read your beloved Constitution, Eric. You’ll find nothing in there that gives you or your fellow Christians any special considerations or respect.
I have a serious problem with another aspect of Erickson’s writings (and those of most every fundamentalist wingnut). “Christian” does not mean what he thinks it does. He’s not only wanting to rally “Christians” to impose their moral beliefs on everyone else, but a very specific interpretation of Christianity.
Conservative evangelicalism is one of the most common types of Christianity in the US, but there are several other major branches and innumerable other offshoots. To claim to speak for all self-identified Christians on issues like abortion and gay marriage is simply factually wrong.
Erickson and his ilk finesse this, of course, by considering all of the other traditions fake Christianity, not The One True Way ™ like he believes. But he left that bit out in his piece here, didn’t he?
The part that always mystifies me about this is how these true-believers remain completely untroubled by all the other true-believers out there, who believe entirely different theologies.
They’re all equally convinced that they’ve got it completely figured out, and all the other guys are clueless idiots heading off into damnation.
That’s how little children think … it’s just me, me, me, me, my.
My gal is red-hot, your gal ain’t doodly-squat.
Oh yeah, let’s let these guys run the country.
Distinguish “the problem” from “our problem” and even “his problem.”
That the Protestant fundamentalist Erik Erickson of Fox News thinks Jonah emerged alive having been swallowed by a big fish and literally believes the story of Adam and Even is his problem.
That he wants to interfere with public education policy on that account is our problem.
That such stupid ideas have any prevalence at all is the problem.
And that problem is only made worse by his evident belief, shared with the entire American Protestant religious right since the mid to late 20th Century, that Biblically correct Christianity must embrace bare-knuckle capitalism, ignore the historic progressivism of Protestant fundamentalism, and explicitly reject the ideas of the also Protestant Social Gospel.
If we could “destroy him” in some perfectly non-violent, lawful, and not deplorable way, or at least significantly reduce the popularity of his ideas, that would be all to the good.
Islamophobes with some justice insist Islam is not so much a religion as a violent and totalitarian political ideology.
The clericalism of the Republican Party rests firmly on the fact that the Christianity of the Christian right is also irreducibly a political ideology, though a lot less given to violence and not quite so totalitarian – if one may think of that as a matter of degree.
Given that this is so, the disinclination of liberals to give more than hypocritical lip-service to (apparently) politically correct tolerance of the religion of the Protestant Christian right and equally hypocritical polite co-existence with the Catholic Church is entirely understandable.
And that includes the lip-service in your own pretenses at tolerance.