Book Review: Why Christians Don't Vote for Democrats by Richard Miller - Page 3

Terminology is also telling in the chapter called "Secular Journalists," in which Miller objects to the use of the term fundamentalist. "Do fundamentalist Christians," he asks rhetorically,

have a different theology than other Christians?... Secular journalists seem to indicate that they believe fundamentalist Christians are a small part of Christian America... [but] to suggest [that] only a few Christians believe in the fundamental teachings of the Bible is insulting and offensive to all Christians. The term fundamentalist Christian, as used by secular journalists, is intended to project a derogatory, negative image of all Christians.

It's true that anti-religious bias exists in some intellectual circles. But Miller's parsing of the term fundamentalist ignores one whole dimension of its modern meaning, which is "one who believes in the literal truth of a scripture." This "f-word" may have taken on a derogatory cast for some, and it may not even be the best term for what it describes, but as long as there are many millions of Christians who do not believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible, we need a word for those who do.

To many, it is the philosophy and teachings of Jesus that matter most. For example, although today's Republican party is identified with the Christian right, many Christians — indeed, enough to form a majority of Americans — oppose its policies on both moral and practical grounds. Case in point: clergymen of many stripes have united to oppose Republican warmongering, while among the laity, bumper stickers ask "Who would Jesus bomb?" and broadcast convictions like "Jesus was a liberal" and "When Jesus said love your enemies he didn't mean kill them." Everywhere you look you see religious Americans joining nonreligious ones in calling for peace. In doing so they explicitly support the positions of the supposedly anti-Christian Democratic party.

Miller concisely states the heart of his complaint in a chapter called "Freedom of Education":

Secular Democrats want the wall of separation of church and state to be low enough for the state to reach over and confiscate the Christian community's wealth, but high enough to prevent Christians from benefiting from the very same taxes Christians pay. Secular Democrats do not want the school tax dollar to go to individual students, but to a self-perpetuating, tax-subsidized, secular school, which works to convert Christian students into atheists.

It's interesting to note that while the law does require him to pay property taxes to fund his local public schools, it exempts his church from those same property taxes. That, in turn, penalizes the nonreligious property owner who must pay higher taxes to make up for all that exempt church property. (And I live in Brooklyn, the "Borough of Churches." They're everywhere, man!) Maybe, in some indirect way, the church on my block provides a service for me by feeding some homeless people who might otherwise turn criminal. But in the same sense, doesn't his school tax dollar provide a service for him by paying for schools to educate all the kids from the parts of society that do not share his beliefs? We have many divisions in our society — but shouldn't we at least strive to be one nation?

Article Author: Jon Sobel

Jon Sobel is Blogcritics' Culture and Theater Editor. In addition to reviewing NYC theater, he writes a semi-regular round-up of independent music releases. By day he is a computer professional and a freelance writer and editor, and at night he's a …

Visit Jon Sobel's author page — Jon Sobel's Blog