IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

The controversies over teaching religion in public schools are especially acute on the topics of evolution and creationism. Various Christian groups advocate teaching creationism—recently renamed “intelligent design”—in public schools. Advocates want to counter what they regard as the false theory of evolution. Or, to use the phrase they repeat frequently, evolution is “just a theory.” 

While some staunch anti-evolution proponents argue that creationism should be taught instead of evolution, most conservative Christian politicians offer a different solution. Schools should teach both evolution and creationism as two equally valid systems of thought.

President George W. Bush expressed this opinion in a news conference in August 2005. This is what he said in response to questions by Ron Hutcheson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think — as I said, harking back to my days as my governor . . . Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
“Q Both sides should be properly taught?
“THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.
“Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”  George W. Bush

 Both John McCain and Sarah Palin publicly advocate the same position. Creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution.

As long as teaching evolution and/or creationism remains a matter of exposure to different viewpoints, once again the irreconcilable difference comes back to a matter of faith. As long as the issue is a matter of choosing between opposing beliefs, there can be no resolution.

Meanwhile, the real issue remains unstated. The heart of the matter is the question of genre. In classical rhetoric, one of the primary questions about any proposition concerns definition: “What is it?” (quid sit.) The question of “what is it?” underlies almost every conflict between differing religious viewpoints about the Bible.

There is no better place to begin than the beginning. Let’s look at the first creation account in Genesis. (The fact that there are two creation accounts in Genesis is a significant fact, which I’ll come back to in a later post.)

Genesis 1:1-2:13

1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 1:2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. 1:6  And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 1:8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. 1:9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 1:15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 1:16 God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars. 1:17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 1:21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 1:25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 1:29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation (New Revised Standard Version.)

The conflict over whether or not to teach intelligent design and/or creationism in public schools with the same attention given to teaching evolution comes down to this basic question.

 What is Genesis 1:1-2:3?

Expressed another way, the core conflict between creationists and evolutionists comes down to the distinction between history and myth. The real question is: Is this first Genesis creation account history or is it myth? And with this question, we have two more “quid sit” questions. What is “history?”  What is “myth?”

Now we have come to another problem, the distinction between ordinary speech and scholarly definitions. 

If you ask the  proverbial “man on the street,” the average person, the ordinary Joe or Jane, “What is  the difference between history and myth?” you will probably get some version of this answer. History is an account of what really happened. Myth is a false story. The difference between history and myth is the difference between truths and lies.

Ask a scholar the same question, and you will get significantly different answers. This is one of the reasons that scholars are so seldom heard in public debate. Scholars need to define categories, define words, and define questions, to be precise. This need to be precise often drives other people crazy and makes it hard for scholars to get to the point. (In the words of that old adage, It takes one to know one. I live this tendency every day.)   

Here are three definitions of  myth.

A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice. Myth

A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.  Myth

An improvable story, almost always including miraculous events, that has no specific reference point or time in history. Myth

The great myths of the world answer the “Why?” questions. A mythic story gives meaning. It is not about truth or falseness, but it is about answering “Why?” A myth is not about what really happened but about why the world is the way it is.
  
What about the word “history?”  In school, we were taught that history books were true accounts about what really happened. Anyone who has studied a bit more about the making of histories understands something else.

Here are three definitions of history.

A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events. History

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napoleon Bonaparte

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there. George Santayana

None of these definitions makes any claim that histories are accurate recounting of past events. Instead, they make clear that all histories are interpretations of events. This means that the real difference between myth and history is whether or not the interpretations include gods and other mythic figures, or whether they are limited to human beings and human events.

Those who argue that creationism should be taught in public schools are treating this first creation story in Genesis as a history—a  factual account of the way things really happened. The most ardent advocates of creationism and intelligent design take the whole account literally, and argue that God created the world in six 24-hour days.

Underneath creationism/intelligent design is the belief that this is history—in the terms of ordinary speech—and that the Bible is a true account of actual events.

Since creationists argue that the Bible is history, they are equally adamant that no part of the Bible is myth—using the ordinary speech definition of myth as an untrue story. And so we get to the real issue.

How do you reconcile the idea of an inerrant, infallible scripture with the idea of myth, when myth means a false story? The answer is that you can’t.

And so to maintain that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters, including matters of history and science, Genesis must be treated as an accurate history of what really happened.

This is also the reason why the idea of evolution is such a source of consternation for Biblical inerrantists. Evolutionary science does not explain the origin of the natural world and living beings as the result of God’s action. Therefore, evolution cannot be reconciled with a belief in Genesis 1:1-2:3 as accurate history.

When we ask “what is it?” questions, we come to the real dilemma of teaching the Bible in public schools. If this account in Genesis is regarded as history, how does its accuracy square with accepted norms about teaching historical subjects?

A related question is: How does history relate to scientific theory? (The claim that evolution is “just a theory” deserves its own post.)

On the other hand, if the account in Genesis is regarded as a myth, how does teaching a myth compare with teaching a scientific hypothesis? Do they deserve equal treatment in the classroom?

The real problem with teaching both evolution and creationism/intelligent design in public schools comes down to teaching a religious belief on equal terms with a scientific theory.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Going Broke With Jesus identifies untrue “myths” about what Jesus taught about money. Discover the difference between heroic stories about money and morality tales in Going Broke With Jesus: How Heroic Stories Intended To Liberate The Poor Become Biblical Urban Legends About The Evils Of Money. 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, creation stories, creationism, evolution, Genesis 1:1-2:3, George W. Bush, history, intelligent design, John McCain, myth, politics, religion, Sarah Palin, teaching bible in public schools

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence?

Any consideration of the relationship between religion and politics in the United States must take into account that most churches, religious organizations, and ministers are tax exempt.

Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law; however, certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business. (“Churches and Religious Organizations:  Benefits And Responsibilities Under The Federal Tax Law” )

Now we come to another fine line. What is the difference between legal and illegal actions by religious organizations with tax-exempt status? This an important question, especially in an election year.

 
Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Individual Activity by Religious Leaders

The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of church functions and publications, religious leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.  IRS “Tax Guide For Churches And Religious Organizations”

My intention at this point is to post this IRS material on the blog for future reference as we go farther into the political campaign.

For now, I will include two references to cases when Roman Catholic priests denied communion to church members.

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights? (“Denied the Rite“)

In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius [Governor of Kansas] also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her “spiritually lethal” message and her obligation to recognize the “legitimate authority within the Church.” (“Don’t Play Politics With Communion”)

In recent posts, I have been raising questions about the relationships between religion, politics, and the Bible by offering a series of specific, current examples of the collisions between political and religious beliefs.

Behind the specifics of any particular incident, lawsuit, political campaign, or religious organization, the basic challenge is this: the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that we must respect the rights of others whose religious beliefs and practices are different from our own.

It is also important to recognize that any belief about religion comes under the category of religious belief. Atheism is as much a religious belief as belief in God. (For a perceptive commentary on this point, see the comment by John Thomas.)

As our society continues to become more and more religiously, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse, this means that clashes between religion and politics will grow more and more frequent. The question then becomes a matter of authority. Which authority is the ultimate authority on such matters? Does religious belief trump federal law?  Or does Federal law trump religious belief?

I remember the 1960 presidential election when John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a major political issue, based on the question of authority:  Would John Kennedy abide by federal law or be obedient to the authority of the Pope?  

The basic question of authority has not changed, and applies to Roman Catholics who must decide if they are going to follow church teachings or federal, state, and local laws at the risk of being denied sacred rites.

The same question applies to evangelical Christians who treat the Bible as their highest authority. When there is a conflict, do they obey the Bible or the law? 

What happens when churches provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants against federal law, based on a claim that they are following a higher authority? 

Under Martin Luther King, Jr, the civil rights movement was fundamentally a proclamation that a biblical vision of justice carried higher authority than Jim Crow laws requiring segregation by race.

And since the question of Barack Obama’s faith continue to be the stuff of internet urban legends, with endless claims that he is really a Muslim and would take the oath of office on the Koran, what happens when a non-Christian is elected to political office? 

And if we are going to teach the Bible in public schools, are we willing to provide money to teach the Koran in public schools? Will we spend tax dollars to educate Muslims in private Muslim schools?

We might even add to the list, is it really possible for someone in the United States to run for President who claims to be an agnostic or atheist?

I don’t pretend to know the answers to such questions. I know only that religious and political beliefs can never be treated as if they inhabit separate realms. Like it or not, every religious question is also political and every political question is also religious. And in each case, the real question comes down to authority.

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence? This is the most impolite and the most difficult of the Impolite Topics.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: authority, Authority And The Bible, communion, Impolite Topics, IRS, John F. Kennedy, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, muslim, obedience, obedience to authority, political authority, politics, Roman Catholic, tax code, teach Bible in public schools

For many of us, there are only two reasons to put both “religion”
and “politics” in the same sentence.

• The first reason involves etiquette in the form of this well-known social warning: “Never discuss religion and politics.” The belief behind this warning is that it is simply not polite. People get passionate about religion and politics. If religion and politics are topics of conversation at the dinner party, people might argue and never get around to oohing and aahing over the dark chocolate mousse with fresh raspberries. So, to save embarrassment for the hostess who went to all that trouble to make the chocolate mousse, polite people keep their political and religious beliefs at home, and talk about safer topics. “How about those Red Sox?” “Did you hear that Bob and Alice are divorcing?” “Can you believe the price of gas?”
• The second reason to put “religion” and “politics” in the same sentence is to claim that religion and politics don’t belong together. After all, we are supposed to have separation of church and state, don’t we? Religion is personal. Politics is public. Religion and politics have nothing to do with each other. Let’s keep them separate.

What about these reasons? I’m all in favor of politeness. In fact, we would probably all be much happier if we went out of our way to be polite and consider how our words and actions affect other people. If keeping your political and religious opinions to yourself will keep you from spoiling the dinner party, then the convention is a good one. But if not talking about religion and politics keeps you silent when you need to speak and powerless when you need to act, then this convention of etiquette needs to be tossed out of the window. Better
to be impolite than silenced and powerless.

What about the idea that religion and politics can and should be kept separate from each other? This notion is actually dangerous. Why dangerous? Because religions are always political and politics are always religious. It is dangerous to pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate because this effort to separate the inseparable blinds us to how much religious politics and political religion affect our lives.

And this raises other questions, which get to the heart of the reason for this blog.

• Why have we been taught to keep silent about religion and politics at the
  risk of offending people?
• Why have we been taught that religion and politics are somehow separate spheres, with very little connection between them?

The basic reason boils down to power and persuasion. The politically and religiously powerful have vested interests in keeping their political and religious power. One of the ways they do this is by teaching people that the religious should not be interested in political power and the politically powerful should not be interested in religion.

So, What Is “Impolite Topics” Blog About?

• It is a place to stop being so polite about these impolite topics of religion and politics, to see how religion and politics are intimately and inseparably related in our world.
• It is about techniques of persuasion as weapons of power. It demonstrates how you are persuaded to believe what you believe. And it also reveals how the powerful benefit from your beliefs.
• It is about religion and politics in the Bible. If you really want to know what the Bible says on any topic, you need to see how the inseparable connection between religion and politics affects every topic in the Bible. (If you want to see how religion and politics affect your bank account, see Going Broke With Jesus.)
• Most of all, “Impolite Topics” is a blog about how the Bible is used in our contemporary world as a tool of persuasion. Words are the most powerful weapons on earth. Words from the Bible are often used to persuade people to be silent and surrender their power.

What Is “Impolite Topics” NOT About?

• It does not challenge belief in God.
• It does not challenge Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
• It does not attempt to prove or disprove the validity of the Bible.
• It does not demean believers or attempt to persuade non-believers.

Who Is “Impolite Topics” For?

This is a place for seekers, who are no longer satisfied with old answers that separate religion and politics.

Our world is constantly in turmoil because of conflicts that are both religious and political. We cannot create solutions for these conflicts if we pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate.

Most of all, this is a place where we can discuss the “Impolite Topics” without being impolite to each other. I invite you to join me in this discussion.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Impolite Topics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, never discuss religion and politics, persuasion, politics, religion, separation of church and state

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is also called the “Authorized Version” (AV) (spelled “Authorised Version” using British spelling.) This leads to an important question: Who authorized the King James Bible?

For many reasons, the King James Version has been THE Bible for English-speaking people since its first publication in 1611. It is also the most published work in the history of the English language. In all of that time, it has carried the label “Authorized Version.” 

For those who do not understand the history and political purposes behind the translation, it is very easy to assume that the words “Authorized Version” stamped on the cover mean that this version is somehow authorized by God.

In fact, the one who authorized the King James Version was not God, but King James I. The story of the making of the King James Bible demonstrates the intimate connection between religion, politics, and the Bible.

If you have watched any of “The Tudors,” you will see some of the forces at work behind the writing of the King James Bible. I watched only two episodes while visiting friends, and so have limited knowledge of the entire series, but those two episodes were enough to demonstrate that religion, politics, and power were at the heart of the ongoing conflicts.

During the era of Henry VIII, the official language of the church was Latin and translations of the Bible into English were strictly forbidden. Sir Thomas More, who was executed for refusing to recognize Henry VIII’s authority over the church, was also adamant against allowing English translations of the Bible.

In England however, under the 1408 Constitutions of Oxford, it was strictly forbidden to translate the Bible into the native tongue. This ban was vigorously enforced by Cardinal Wolsey and the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, in an attempt to prevent the rise of English ‘Lutheranism’. The only authorised version of the Bible was St Jerome’s Vulgate, which was understood only by highly-educated people. (King James Bible)

There is too much history to outline here to reach the point when James I became King of England after the death of Elizabeth, but the critical issues facing James were ones that had surfaced during the era of Henry VIII.

As a result of the actions of Henry VIII, the king was the head of the Church of England (the Anglican Church.)  When James became king, the Anglicans and the Puritans were still involved in deep conflicts over which version of the Bible was “authorized” for use in the Church of England. This means that control of the Bible remained a highly political issue.

In a brilliant stroke of leadership, King James I “authorized” that a committee of scholars prepare a new translation, in an effort to control the conflicts between the Anglicans and the Puritans.

When James I ascended to the throne, both the Puritans and the Anglicans tried to claim him for their own. For English Reformers, the Church of England’s liturgies, doctrines, and internal politics mimicked all too closely those of the Catholic Church. During the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, James played both sides of the religious street as he tried to allay the concerns of both Puritans and Anglicans. Although most of the conference’s conversation favored the Anglicans and their politics, James made a concession to both parties (and to his own greatness as king) when he commissioned a new translation of the Bible. According to its preface, this version would be made as consonant as could be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and was to be used in all churches in England in time of divine service. Almost all contemporary Bible versions are done by committees, but the King James was the first English version to be done this way–the collaborative effort of fifty-four translators, appointed by the king and divided into six companies, each responsible for a different section of the Bible. (Here is a review article of three books about the making of the King James Bible.)

The critical point is to understand that, whatever else James I wanted to accomplish, his first goal was a political one. The first goal of King James Version was to reinforce the authority of King James I as head of the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. (Authorized King James Version)

Although there are many reasons why the King James Version has been beloved by English-speaking Christians for almost four hundred years, there is no benefit to assume that this version is the holiest Bible of all because it was somehow uniquely authorized by God as the official “Word Of God.”

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Anglican, Authorized Version, AV, King James Version, KJV, politics, Puritan, religion, Tudors

If you wonder about the connection between religion, politics, and persuasion, read the story published by the Washington post about Barack Obama.

“Obama rumors fly in Flag City USA,” by Eli Saslow, Washington Post,  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998/

The story is not really about Barack Obama, but about persuasion. How do you believe what you believe?   Why do you believe what you believe?  How do you decide what is true and what is false when you are confronted with radically different claims about the same person? 

The central figure of the story is Jim Peterman, who lives in Findlay, Ohio, and doesn’t know what to believe about Barack Obama.

The reason for his confusion is that the news he hears about Barack Obama in the news conflicts with the stories he hears from people he has known for a long time.

The news media say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is Christian. The local stories say that he was born in Africa and is a radical Muslim. And just to make the stories juicier, the stories also suggest that Obama might also be gay.

This story demonstrates the power of what is called “social proof.”  It is similar to the old story of the emperor and his new clothes. If “everyone” says it, it must be so. You can be persuaded to believe something contrary to what you see with your own eyes.

“I’ll admit that I probably don’t follow all of the election news like maybe I should,” Peterman said. “I haven’t read his books or studied up more than a little bit. But it’s hard to ignore what you hear when everybody you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they really all be wrong?”

This story also demonstrates the power of “urban legends.” Urban legends usually have some truth to them, but turn false as they get embellished and told and retold. When urban legends take hold on the internet, they become impossible to kill.

And so Jim Peterman, a man who wants to vote responsibly, is confused by the conflicting stories and is not sure whether he ought to vote or not, because he doesn’t know whom or what to believe. Confused people don’t act. This is another way of saying that Jim Peterman is considering surrendering his power to vote, because he doesn’t know who is telling the truth.

“I don’t know. The whole thing just scares me,” Peterman said. “I’m almost starting to feel like the best choice is not voting at all.”

This is a story worth studying because this is how persuasion and manipulation work. If you have enough people repeating the same story, and if the people who tell the story are people you know and trust, you can be persuaded to deny what you see in front of you.

Jim Peterman is right. It is scary. The real point of this story is not Barack Obama, but all of the rest of us. How do we separate truth from lies, real facts from urban legends?  How do you know when you are being manipulated by lies?  How do you recognize the truth? How often do we surrender our power to act because we don’t know whom or what to believe? 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Barack Obama, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, politics, religion, social proof, urban legends

For many of us, there are only two reasons to put both “religion”
and “politics” in the same sentence.

• The first reason involves etiquette in the form of this well-known social warning: “Never discuss religion and politics.” The belief behind this warning is that it is simply not polite. People get passionate about religion and politics. If religion and politics are topics of conversation at the dinner party, people might argue and never get around to oohing and aahing over the dark chocolate mousse with fresh raspberries. So, to save embarrassment for the hostess who went to all that trouble to make the chocolate mousse, polite people keep their political and religious beliefs at home, and talk about safer topics. “How about those Red Sox?” “Did you hear that Bob and Alice are divorcing?” “Can you believe the price of gas?”
• The second reason to put “religion” and “politics” in the same sentence is to claim that religion and politics don’t belong together. After all, we are supposed to have separation of church and state, don’t we? Religion is personal. Politics is public. Religion and politics have nothing to do with each other. Let’s keep them separate.

What about these reasons? I’m all in favor of politeness. In fact, we would probably all be much happier if we went out of our way to be polite and consider how our words and actions affect other people. If keeping your political and religious opinions to yourself will keep you from spoiling the dinner party, then the convention is a good one. But if not talking about religion and politics keeps you silent when you need to speak and powerless when you need to act, then this convention of etiquette needs to be tossed out of the window. Better to be impolite than silenced and powerless.

What about the idea that religion and politics can and should be kept separate from each other? This notion is actually dangerous. Why dangerous? Because religions are always political and politics are always religious. It is dangerous to pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate because this effort to separate the inseparable blinds us to how much religious politics and political religion affect our lives.

And this raises other questions, which get to the heart of the reason for this blog.

• Why have we been taught to keep silent about religion and politics at the risk of offending people?
• Why have we been taught that religion and politics are somehow separate spheres, with very little connection between them?

The basic reason boils down to power and persuasion. The politically and religiously powerful have vested interests in keeping their political and religious power. One of the ways they do this is by teaching people that the religious should not be interested in political power and the politically powerful should not be interested in religion.

So, What Is “Impolite Topics” Blog About?

• It is a place to stop being so polite about these impolite topics of religion and politics, to see how religion and politics are intimately and inseparably related in our world.
• It is about techniques of persuasion as weapons of power. It demonstrates how you are persuaded to believe what you believe. And it also reveals how the powerful benefit from your beliefs.
• It is about religion and politics in the Bible. If you really want to know what the Bible says on any topic, you need to see how the inseparable connection between religion and politics affects every topic in the Bible. (If you want to see how religion and politics affect your bank account, see Going Broke With Jesus.)
• Most of all, “Impolite Topics” is a blog about how the Bible is used in our contemporary world as a tool of persuasion. Words are the most powerful weapons on earth. Words from the Bible are often used to persuade people to be silent and surrender their power.

What Is “Impolite Topics” NOT About?

• It does not challenge belief in God.
• It does not challenge Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
• It does not attempt to prove or disprove the validity of the Bible.
• It does not demean believers or attempt to persuade non-believers.

Who Is “Impolite Topics” For?

This is a place for seekers, who are no longer satisfied with old answers that separate religion and politics.

Our world is constantly in turmoil because of conflicts that are both religious and political. We cannot create solutions for these conflicts if we pretend that religion and politics are somehow separate.

Most of all, this is a place where we can discuss the “Impolite Topics” without being impolite to each other. I invite you to join me in this discussion.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Impolite Topics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, never discuss religion and politics, persuasion, politics, religion, separation of church and state