2012 has begun; it’s a presidential election year, and I want to ask the 78 percent if they’d be willing to help us Americans clean up our political act.

By that number, I meant the 78 percent of Americans who continue to identify themselves as Christians.

Here’s a bleak statistical look at our current political reality: As we finally crank up the presidential nominating process in Iowa, seven out of 10 Americans are already saying they can’t wait for the whole thing to be over.

But surely, in this Christian-leaning nation, there has to be something more politically powerful than the “odor of mendacity” that has been emanating so strongly from the Iowa Caucuses? So far, our presidential politics have stunk worse than a factory farm turkey house. It’s truly been a sad, sad excuse for American democracy in action. And yet it rolls on and on, seemingly as unstoppable as an advancing tsunami.

What I think we need is for 78 percent to step up and say enough! – enough already of all this nattering about whether or not Jesus controls football results! What we as Christian-leaning Americans demand is that all presidential candidates …

1. Ask themselves this one simple question: If Jesus were running for president of the United States, what kind of campaign would He run?

2. Then, that they run that kind of campaigns.

The 78 percent already know the answer to the question, and they cannot help but be aware that not a single candidate is running a campaign that Jesus would have anything to do with.

So, surely, if 78 percent are even a teeny bit serious about their faith, they’ll demand to know why all these so-called “Christian” presidential candidates are campaigning as though they’ve never heard of Jesus.

HWJRFO? – How would Jesus run for office?

Tweet that, Tim Tebow! If you really want to promote a Christian way of life.

Fifty-nine thousand-plus On Faith readers recommended Thomas L. Day’s November 11th essay “Penn State, my final loss of faith.” Thirty-three hundred-plus Tweeted it. Six-hundred ninety-one commented. An on-line chat ensued.

That, gentle friends, is going viral. About faith, no less. But faith in what?

Basically, Mr. Day (who describes himself as 31, an Iraq war veteran, a Penn State graduate, a Catholic, a native of State College, an acquaintance of Jerry Sandusky’s, and a product of his Second Mile foundation), wrote to serve my Boomer generation notice that it had failed his Millennium generation.
Penn State coach Joe Paterno was dismissed by the university after allegations that he failed to pursue child abuse claims against an assistant coach. (Jim Prisching – AP)

This appears to mean that for the first thirty years of Mr. Day’s life, he believed old people were wiser than young people simply because they were older.

Back when I was a kid, I was always pushing my father to explain why things had to be the way they were. “Because that’s the way they are,” he’d say, when he was tired of being pushed. “You’re too young to understand.”

Even as I child, I could tell when adults were trying to hornswoggle me. Naturally, it was unsettling to realized that pop wasn’t the font of all wisdom. But a copout is still a copout.

So, Mr. Day, with respect, I never bought the merits of pop’s ageist argument then, and I don’t buy the merits of your ageist complaint now. It, too, is a copout. Generations don’t cop out; individuals do.

I do agree with you, however, that my generation has not done itself particularly proud.

Of course, many indignant Boomers begged to differ with Mr. Day’s apparently blanket condemnation of them, pointing out progress in Civil Rights, the “winning” of the Cold War, quantum leaps in technology, the dawn of a generalized environmental consciousness. (To the Boomer Accomplishment List, I would add the general idea that we should do for our country, rather than expecting our country should do for us; the Peace Corps; the stopping of the Vietnam War; and the energizing of Second Wave Feminism.)

So, as a Boomer, initially read through this e-fracas and thought: Mmmm. Not too bad, gang. “Talkin’ ‘bout my generation …”

Mr. Day hastened to clarify his position at the start of the online chat by writing, “I stand by my disappointment with my national leaders and the local leaders of Central Pennsylvania, but I want to make clear that I did not intend to ‘blame an entire generation.’”

So, his disappointment is with the leaders we Boomers produced, rather than with us. But wait, I thought, didn’t we Boomers choose our leaders? Aren’t we the generation that plucked Richard Nixon from the ashes to become the Phoenix who brought us Watergate and the birth of the New Cynicism? Didn’t we elect Ronald Reagan and allow him (yay, even unto his dotage) to popularize the mega-rich’s favorite parlor game: trickle-down economics. Didn’t we re-elect George W? Haven’t we produced a Supreme Court that has given free speech to corporations?

Mr. Day, it seems, does have a point.

Talkin’ ‘bout my generation, indeed.

I remember so clearly marching arm and arm with my Boomer comrades in the cause of peace and fairness and equal opportunity for all. We were (weren’t we?) motivated by ideals and principles, with our actions firmly directed by our consciences. We wanted, as I remember it, nothing more than to leave the world a better place than we found it.

Am I remembering this wrong?

If not, what happened to us? When, exactly, did we, the idealistic, joyfully rebellious generation of Bob Dylan, sell out? What made us trade in dancing in the streets for piling up the profits? When did we stop smiling on our brothers and begin to exploit them instead? And, most importantly of all, why did those of us who do know better, let those who obviously don’t know better take over this country?

To borrow from the Eagles, did we get tired or did we just get lazy?

Who knows? The sad truth appears to be that, one copout at a time; we Boomers, as a generation, opted for what we could get rather than what we could do.

Alexander de Tocqueville may or may not have said “in every democracy, the people get the government they deserve,” but it’s still a good point to consider. We Boomers, in my opinion, have the government we deserve. We knew better; but we didn’t do better.

Here’s the deal Mr. Day: Each of us, at any age, can choose to serve God or mammon. Each of us. What my generation can really teach you is that the older you get the more the God part of you (your idealism, your conscience, your belief that there is real good in this world that you need to do), will be tested by the mammon part (greed, the quick fix, the easy answer, cartoon character gods, lust for power and importance). As a generation, we Boomers do appear to have been thoroughly seduced by mammon.

So, please, stay forever young, Mr. Day. Keep the fire bright in you; whatever in you that cried out in your fine op-ed piece against my generation’s generalized copout. But, make no mistake, your generation will be asked to meet the same challenge at which my generation: To keep faith with your own God-fueled ability to recognize right from wrong, and then to do what’s right.

Sam, Anna, Martha and Ben Wyse

It baffles me why so many politicians who tout their Christian credentials are millionaires. They claim they’re willing to follow Jesus Christ straight to heaven, but they’re unwilling to follow His example here on earth and sacrifice a little luxury for the benefit of others. And — shame on them — they think all voters are as materialistic as they are.

I hosting a Friday, midday show on radio station WMRA called “The Spark,” during which I talk with creative people. Yes, I talk to artists, musicians, writers, but I also talk to people who live creatively – among them Ben Wyse and his wife, Anna; whom I’d like to offer as evidence that Americans are better persons of faith than our politicians give us credit for.

Ben and Anna, who have two young children, grew up steeped in the Mennonite faith traditions of peace, love, family, community and simplicity. Anna, a nurse, now chooses to be a stay-at-home mom. And Ben, who graduated from college with honors, has chosen to earn his family’s keep as a mobile bike repairperson, a job that Ben says “has me running all over town taking care of broken down bikes. And I do this on a bike with trailer in which I keep tools and parts.”

Ben and Anna Wyse live and raise children very frugally. I’m sure our current crop of Christian politicians – so determined to conflate patriotism with materialism – find their lifestyle choices baffling because they necessitate accepting that being a person of faith means practical things about how one lives and not just things about one’s destiny in the afterlife.

For example, one of the couple’s deeply held convictions is that peace is better than war. I think it’s safe to say, after my one conversation with him, that Ben Wyse sees our country’s dependency on foreign oil as a major energizer of war. “Back when I was a high school junior,” he says, “the first President Bush got us involved in a conflict in Iraq that’s ongoing. And that conflict is in some degree about Mideast oil, even though I think it’s far too simplistic to say that conflict was only about oil.

“I’m pushing forty now, and it’s increasingly hard for me to think about the amount of suffering our conflict with Iraq has caused in the lives of soldiers and their families and the Iraqi people. Even during the Clinton years, up to 5000 children died in Iraq every month because of sanctions. Yet when Lesley Stahl approached then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright with these numbers on 60 Minutes, she responded that it was worth it.

“The rate of attempted suicide among our veterans is at critical, unprecedented levels. Those suicides, I think, tell us something about how troubling the experiences of these young men and women have been.

“So, anyway, there’s all kinds of reasons for me to want to do what I can to help change our foreign policy, but it’s very easy to feel impotent about affecting change in something that big, and simply give up trying.”

Ben Wyse had biked for fun and transportation since he was a kid growing up on a farm. “I started to see using a bicycle as transportation – and facilitating other people’s use of bicycles for transportation – as something I could actually do to work toward a world with less suffering and violence.

Their kids, Ben says, have given him and Anna motivation to live their beliefs. “It’s one thing for us to talk to our children about what we believe in and what we care about. It’s another thing for us to live what we believe in. Then maybe we don’t have to talk as much about our beliefs and they’ll just see them.”

There. That’s it. That’s why I think Christian politicians should get to know Ben and Anna Wyse; take a lesson from them. They’re people of faith who, unlike our leaders, want to live their faith. And they are perfectly willing to give up material possessions and convenience if, by doing so, they help makes things better for the rest of us.

I truly believe Ben and Anna Wyse are not alone. Americans are a great and generous people.

Where is the politician who will dare to recognize this?

Why, I want to know, are so many of us persons of conscience and faith so quiet?

Last Sunday, I took a web trip tooccupywallst.org, where I was greeted with the news that “the resistance continues at Liberty Square, with free pizza ”

Yes, that does sound young. And inexperienced. And gratuitously counter-culture. But to me, at least, it sounds like the beginnings of just what’s needed in our country.

Reporter Gina Bellafante described Occupy Wall Street in The New York Times as “a noble but fractured and airy movement of rightly frustrated young people…; a diffuse and leaderless convocation of activists against greed, corporate influence, gross social inequality and other nasty byproducts of wayward capitalism not easily extinguishable by street theater…” (Italics mine.)

The italics are mine.

When I read her phrase “not easily extinguishable by street theater…,” I wanted to remind Ms. Bellafante that that’s what they (you know, them, the Establishment) once said about the Vietnam War. As a veteran of that protest movement, I’m here to say that when all else appears to be in thrall to the all-mighty dollar, street theater can actually be a pretty effective extinguisher of wars and other“nasty byproducts of wayward capitalism.”

Ms. Bellafante goes on to point out that the “group was clamoring for nothing in particular to happen right away – not the implementation of the Buffett ruleor the increased regulation of the financial industry…” Occupy Wall Street, as a movement, she wants us to understand, operates in rather an “intellectual vacuum.”

Well, so what? Protestors aren’t supposed to be wonks; they are supposed to be the morality of wonks. I wasn’t an expert on America’s Southeast Asia policy in 1966, but I still knew in my gut – through my conscience, my connection with God – that it was wrong.

Then as now, those in power in America were more interested in maintaining that power than in the welfare of humanity.

Then as (so far) not now, we acted on our consciences. We didn’t mind being thought foolish, being vilified even; we knew we didn’t understand all the intricacies of foreign policy, but we also knew our government was acting in ways that were reprehensible and that someone had to call them on it publically. We asked ourselves, if not us hippy-dippy, anti-war peaceniks, then who?

We were not very dignified, but we did speak clearly enough to get our point across.

Once again, America is off the rails. The Tea Party shouts, politicians shout; we persons of faith and conscience turn away and stand mute. We let our confusion, our innate good manners, our fatigue keep strong hold of our tongues.

To me, it’s very simple. If we persons of faith and conscience don’t stand up against the greed, corruption and dysfunction that is currently driving America, then who will? If we’re not charged with being this country’s collective conscience, then who is?

Street theater, anyone?

So how, I want to know, did sex become a political issue? Talk about advocating intrusive government!

If your mind could use a good boggle, take three minutes to watch Rick Perry try to answer a question about why Texas public schools should continue to offer abstinence-only sex education when Texas teens are enjoying the nation’s fourth highest rate of teen pregnancy?

This question was put to Governor Perry back in in October 2010, during a televised forum organized by the The Texas Tribune. Perry, when asked about the seeming ineffectiveness of Texas sex education classes, confidently replies that “abstinence-only sex education works,” and appears quite taken aback when the audience laughs. He wanders around the issue for another three minutes without ever finding his way out of the weeds. In fact, he seems instead to hunker down in the weeds.

It’s no surprise that this video is making the rounds again, as it is quite effective at fueling some people’s suspicions that Governor Perry is not quite prepared to lead this diverse nation.

Hmmmmm. Wait a minute, though. Why would a wily politician, who rails against government spending, continues to spend government money on sex education that obviously doesn’t work in the way he thinks it should?

Might it be that Rick Perry sees the road to the White House as paved with our country’s legendary discomfort/enthrallment with sex? Might he have discovered that railing against all sex except that between a married man and woman is actually a pretty effective way to bring sex into the political conversation? We all know that sex sells beer and cars. Why shouldn’t it sell presidents?

Paul Waldman, writing for the group blog at The American Prospect, makes a (to me) really scary point when he appears to argue that one person’s fool is another person’s (electable) moral champion. Could Rick Perry’s insistence that “abstinence works” stem from his (and legions of religious conservative voters’) belief that the mission of sex education is to deliver a moral message straight from God and not to prevent teen pregnancy?

“The truth,” Mr. Waldman writes, “is that stopping teen pregnancy is at best a minor consideration for conservatives. If there’s going to be any discussion of sex in school at all, they believe it ought to express the categorical moral position that sex is vile and dirty and sinful, until you do it with your spouse, at which point it becomes beautiful and godly (you’ll forgive a bit of caricature). …”

We do forgive a bit of caricature, Mr. Waldman. You betcha! While crossing our fingers that it is caricature.

Back to that video of Governor Perry. As I watched him struggle to acknowledge that some people actually link the effectiveness of sex education to pregnancy prevention, I found myself wondering if the governor really thinks God is uncomfortable with human sexuality. Or might this just be Rick Perry’s shrewd marketing of Rick Perry?

As Kathleen Parker recently wrote recently, it does look as though the Republican presidential hopefuls are trying to out-holy each other. Is faith about to become the next competitive sport? To the victor belongs the White House!

As for Governor Perry, he appears to be hitching his political wagon to a cartoonish Almighty who resembles a vengeful anti-Dr. Ruth. Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not have anything but married, heterosexual sex; though shalt not have sex education that educates!

In the meantime, poor maligned God and poor, ill-served Texas teens.

I’d like to suggest the formation of a new 12 Step program for certain members of Congress: Arrogance Anonymous. My hope is that attending meetings will lead them to recognize they need help – both for their sakes and for ours.

I suggest the formation of Arrogance Anonymous for two reasons:

Oh what a patriotic tempest a small Anabaptist Indiana teapot of a  college has provoked:

Monday, June 6, 2011

Goshen College Board of Directors ask for alternative to playing the national anthem

GOSHEN, Ind. — The Goshen College Board of Directors announced today that it has asked President James E. Brenneman to find an alternative to playing the Star-Spangled Banner that fits with sports tradition, that honors country and that resonates with Goshen College’s core values and respects the views of diverse constituencies. …

Mark Schlonger, pastor of Springdale Mennonite Church in Waynesboro, Virginia, wrote a thoughtful support of Goshen College’s decision for CNN’s blog My Faith, in which he said,

To Mennonites, a living faith in Jesus means faithfully living the way of Jesus. Jesus called his disciples to love their enemies and he loved his enemies all the way to the cross and beyond. Following Jesus and the martyrs before us, we testify with our lives that freedom is not a right that is granted or defended with rockets’ red glare and bombs bursting in air. True freedom is given by God, and it is indeed not free. It comes with a cost, and it looks like a cross.

His point appears to be that Anabaptists, as Christians, really try to do as Jesus did, so singing a song glorifying violence makes a lot of them uncomfortable. But Mr. Scholonger also points out that not singing the The Star Spangled Banner does not make you un-American; you are not required to glorify war to be an American patriot.

His essay touched off a “fire storm” of comments, many of which seemed to consider patriotism, militarism and Christianity almost interchangeable concepts.

For example:

Texan … I thought the cross was blood-soaked. And that we were bought with a price. Spiritual freedom came at a price and physical freedom does too.

It does seem to me that “The Star Spangled Banner,” encourages such confusion. It is, after all, America as a song. And the country it lionizes is a nation of warriors, carrying big sticks and stomping enemies. That’s it. Nothing else about America rates glorification in our national anthem.

I’m not a Mennonite or even a Christian. In fact, I’m not religious at all. But I am a person of faith, who is a huge fan of Jesus. The guy’s message was, whether we like to admit it or not, pretty durn pacifistic. He talked a lot about turning other cheeks and loving enemies. If we really follow Jesus, it seems pretty clear that we shouldn’t be glorifying the resolution of struggle with clubs.  All the violence in Jesus’ life was perpetrated by the bad guys, not by him. Except, of course, for turning over a few tables.

It strikes me as bizarre when American Christians conflate love of Jesus, love of country, and a kind of “bring ‘em on” aggressive militarism. So on this most patriotic of holidays, as we Americans celebrate who and what we are, might it not be time for all us persons of faith to take a good long listen to our national anthem? Is it really an appropriate national hymn for a country that is predominantly Christian?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sits with his wife Callista before speaking at the Kiwanis Club luncheon, Monday, May 16, 2011, in Dubuque, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sits with his wife Callista before speaking at the Kiwanis Club luncheon, Monday, May 16, 2011, in Dubuque, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) (Charlie Neibergall – AP) I, for one, don’t care at all whether or not Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich cut some kind of special deal with Tiffany’s in order to deck his wife with diamonds. What I care about is why, when Newt’s always going on about being “pro classical Christianity,” buying diamonds occurred to him in the first place

Poking around in polling data, it appears that a hefty majority of Americans still link themselves to Christianity. So if that particular religion is so important to so many of us this country, when are we going to demand our presidential candidates live the Christianity they purport to espouse? And if we’re not going to demand this of them, why? What does that say about us?

Newton Leroy “Newt” Gingrich is easy pickings for anyone who wants to write about Christian inconsistency. Newt’s so prone to lecture and moralize, and yet will brush aside such personal Christian peccadillos as affairs and divorces by saying (as he did during a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network), “There’s no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

I ask you! What kind of hornswoggle is that? Uttered by someone who claims to have gone from being a devout Southern Baptist to being a devout Catholic? If Newton Leroy’s that charitable toward himself, where’s his charity toward all those other people whose behavior he’s pretty quick to disparage?

As I’ve said before in On Faith, I am a person of faith who is not religious. As I’ve also said before, I am a complete fan of Jesus Christ, largely because, according to the Gospels, the guy was so not a hypocrite. He flat-out lived his faith, putting into practice all those inconvenient rantings about inclusiveness and giving a damn about the poor; gunking things up for the rest of us with bothersome statements about rich men, needle eyes and camels.

At no point did Jesus say thou shalt covet diamonds that cost more than the houses a lot of Americans are losing.

Of course, Newt’s not the only politician who exudes the toxic glow of Christian hypocrisy. Almost all American presidential candidates claim to be fans of Jesus. So what are they fans of? The man’s outfits? His hairstyle? His commitment to walking everywhere and thus getting regular exercise?

It’s obviously not his selfless poverty, which, to me, non-Christian admirer of Jesus that I am, appears to be the heart of his message.

So, my fellow Americans, when are those of us who are either Christians or admirers of Jesus going to hold Newt – and all other presidential candidates – accountable for living the faith they talk about so much?

Do we shy away from doing this because then, we too, would have to follow Jesus a bit more scrupulously? Are we secretly reasoning that if we cut Newt some slack in the diamond-purchasing department, then someday when we, too, have finagled access to a half-million or so, we’ll feel free to buy diamonds ourselves instead of using our shekels to help those just struggling to survive?