Posted by
Bob Siegel on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:37:06 PM
Insisting that her background as a mayor and governor is not enough
experience to qualify for the presidency, all the while failing
to explain how he supports a candidate with far less experience, Matt
Damon also revealed grave concern about Sarah Palin's Bible beliefs in
an interview this week. Damon wants to know (in fact, it sounds
like he demands to know) if Sarah Palin believes dinosaurs once
inhabited the earth at the same time as people. Somehow, in his mind,
the answer to this thought provoking question directly correlates to
how trigger happy Palin would be in starting a nuclear war.
What a brilliant way of connecting the dots! A woman who believes the
Bible is too stupid to be president and only stupid people get involved
with wars. Smart people, like Chamberlain, make deals with the Hitlers
of the world. Speaking of the world, in as much as the world listens to
Matt Damon only because he's an actor, there is a question just
begging to be asked: How did Damon come up with this litmus
test? What exactly is it based upon? His knowledge of
world affairs? His science credentials in Geology, Physics or Biology?
His Bible scholarship? Is he even remotely familiar with what
Christians believe? Is he aware that his hero, Obama also claims
to believe in the Bible? Is he aware that many scientists dispute
how old the world is? Is he aware that the Theory of Evolution is just
that, a theory, and that Macro Evolution has never been proven? Is he
aware that Genesis Chapter One was written as a poem and many
Christians, (including myself) do not take it to be teaching a literal
six-day creation? We instead read in the Bible that God is removed from
time and that questions of how long it took God to create, or how long
it took God to do anything, are actually irrelevant. We are also
intrigued that Quantum Physics now says things about time and space
that the Bible said centuries ago. Other Christians, who accept a
literal six-day account, believe there was Pre-Adamic creation and that
the world may have existed in a different way before the time frame
spoken of in Genesis. According to this theory, dinosaurs might have
lived millions of years before the first humans, consistently with the
Bible. Still, others do in fact believe people and dinosaurs
existed side by side. Although I disagree with them, I have met people
with this view and they certainly are not the idiots Damon would make
them out to be. They give some compelling arguments about the age of
the earth with a scientific knowledge and credential that Damon doesn't
share.
In any event, Palin has not yet put forth her own opinion of this very
important topic. I suppose as Governor of Alaska, she was too busy
fighting corruption and earning her 80 percent approval rating to give
a rat's behind about dinosaurs. Having said that, supposing she
comes forward and articulates the "Old Earth" view, taking
Genesis One as a poem the way I and others do? Will this satisfy
Damon? For that matter, will it satisfy the hordes of other
arrogant, self-righteous critics who are burning up the blogs and
airways to explain why we should all be worried about Sarah's religion?
If Sarah admits that she believes in hell, will that not be a
greater problem than Fred and Dino? If she says she believes
Jesus is the only way to God, will she not be called a closed-minded
bigot?
Obama, on the other hand, claims to accept the Bible, but dismisses
every Bible belief that is not Politically Correct, including many
issues that the Scripture speaks clearly on (as opposed to dinosaurs,
which the Scripture says nothing about one way or the other). The
Bible does
say homosexuality is a sin. Obama disagrees. The Bible also says that
the unborn fetus is a life. Obama confesses ignorance on the subject
and seems unfamiliar with such passages. As for the two controversial
subjects listed above, hell and salvation through Jesus alone, Obama
adamantly dismisses those doctrines, claiming that all religions are a
path to God. When asked how he would reconcile his own opinion
with Scripture, Obama admits that he does not believe the entire Bible
is inspired by God. What is his objective test for determining which
passages are inspired and which aren't? As with many of his
answers to such questions, Obama is rather vague. Probably the test is
that whatever Scripture he likes is inspired and by an amazing
coincidence whatever Scripture he does not like, is not inspired.
I realize that Obama's Politically Correct view of Scripture makes him
more popular with liberals, but if this discussion is really about
putting religious bias aside, and if it is really about integrity and
if it is really about intelligence, then I am forced to raise our
discourse to a new level: Whatever you believe about Christianity, is
there an integrity issue associated with a man who claims to be a
Christian but denies so many major, central Christian beliefs?
And whatever you believe about Christianity, is there an intelligence issue
associated with a man who, on one hand, believes in the Bible, on the
other hand does not believe in the Bible and with a third hand displays
an utter ignorance about a book that supposedly was so central to the
core of his convictions? Are these mental gymnastics lapses in
judgment? Or are they mere political expediency laced with
double-talk? Is it a little of both? Why does this kind of
double-mindedness concern us less than a woman who knows what she
believes and stands by her convictions? And why did John
Kennedy's Christianity not concern us? How about Bill Clinton's?
He claimed to be a Christian. So did our very first president, George
Washington. It must have been quite a task, ruling a brand new
nation, but somehow Washington managed, despite his crippling Bible
beliefs. Not only did Washington accept Jesus, he warned that the day
our nation abandoned Christianity, we would begin a steady
decline. For an example of this decline we don't need to look any
further than this week's news story about people going into the forest,
screaming and crying as if trees (and even rocks) have just as much of
a right to live as we do. G.K. Chesterton once said that when a man
stops believing in God, he'll start believing in anything. Think
about it: We now believe (as a large part of society), that plant life
is equal to human life, indeed superior, if we are talking about an
unborn baby. And yet, science conclusively proves that one is a human being at
the moment of conception. Science also tells us it is unnatural for two
men to marry each other. Supposedly Damon and his friends are
very concerned about true science. But again, when a society stops
believing in God, it will start believing in anything.
Related to this discussion, is the issue of separation between church
and state. Does Sarah Palin accept such separation? Frankly, it
would not bother me if she didn't, inasmuch as the words "separation
between church and state" are not even found in our constitution.
But let's look at the concern more specifically, because this anxiety
involves another of those "hideous doctrines," the Second Coming of
Jesus Christ. Supposedly, those of us who believe in the Second Coming
are going to help Bible prophecy along and this pollutes our view of
the Middle East. As a Christian, I do support Israel and I do support
the war on terror. My beliefs about Bible prophecy have nothing to do
with my politics, even if the media elite find it impossible to see this
compartmentalization. If my Christianity ever relates to my
convictions, it is only in the sense that God has given me a love for
people and a hatred of injustice. In the name of Christianity, Martin
Luther King spoke out against segregation. In the name of
Christianity, abolitionists once spoke out against slavery. These are
the true examples of Christianity relating to political/social issues.
We are not trying to turn America into a country with mandatory
religion. Nobody is going to force you to become a Christian against
your will. Honestly, I wish everybody would just chill out.
A number of years ago, I spoke at Bethel
Seminary in San Diego. Generally, such talks are
followed by long Q and A times. One of
the seminarians raised his hand with an interesting question. He had taken many classes about the End
Times, the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and the Second Coming of Christ.
Although there is a wide range of viewpoint amongst Christians, several of the
popular teachings associate Jesus’ return with the nation of Israel.
They insist that the Jewish return to the Promised Land in the Twentieth
Century is a fulfillment of ancient scriptural predictions and they believe a
future battle (the Battle of Armageddon) will climax in Christ’s rescuing of
Israel from her enemies and ruling as king of the world, with Israel as His
headquarters.
Anyway, let me share the seminarian’s question: “As a
Christian, I feel obligated to take Israel’s
side because of Bible prophecy, but when I follow the news I become concerned
about Israeli abuses toward the persecuted Palestinians. What should I do about this?”
I appreciated the question and I offered a careful
response: “I believe in Bible prophecy
but I do not believe prophecy should be
the reason for Christians to side with Israel.
Let me offer you a better reason, a human rights reason. If we could correct the historical revision
going on today, you would find yourself siding with Israel,
regardless of Bible prophecy.”
Conclusion: If zealous Christianity now
disqualifies people to be president, then we are at odds with our
forefathers. Even the few (very few) who were not Christians felt that
Christianity was very good for the country and almost every single
president has claimed to be a Christian. But I think I understand this
latest popular philosophy: It's OK for Sarah to be a Christian so long
as she doesn't really believe any of it and so long as it is not an
important part of her life.
Relax, sweet Virginia. All you need to know
is that Sarah Palin will not force you to share her beliefs. As for any
other discussion of her religion, it is simply no one else's business,
not even Matt Damons'.
Related articles, by Bob Siegel:
Just
What Is It About Genesis That You Find So Illogical?
The Truth About Israel and Palestine: Part One