(Written 26.August.2011)
So, against my better judgment, I decided to read an article written by Jordan Sekulow in the Washington Post. For those not familiar with Jordan, he and his father Jay are big wigs in the American Center for Law and Justice. He also hosts a talk show, is a column writer for the Washington Post, and is regularly featured on Fox News.
Below is an example of how he usually carries himself during his Fox News correspondences, it’s a pretty recent interview and essentially the basis of his entire radio talk show right now is to prevent the building of a (the) Mosque at “Ground Zero” in New York. Take a look:
I first came into contact with Jordan on my way home, his radio talk show was on. The thing that got me was not only how fast and emotionally charged his talking was, but that he screened calls and kept anyone with an opinion opposed to his off the air (even going so far as to play a recorded message over their airing.). Well then by a fluke, I happened across his Washington Post article–which, while not only being riddled with theological errors, jumped back and forth between defending Christianity and Conservative Republicanism (still don’t really know what his point was; I guess to him–as to the rest of the world, those two things are so intricately tied together that it’s hard to see one from the other.) from the likes of Richard Dawkins.
Now I’m no fan of Dawkins, but I have read a few of his books–I have two in my library right now, and to me, Dawkins is someone more against a dogma than the God it professes to believe in. Sekulow, however, seems to embody the type of Christianity that is not only so prevalent in our culture, but continues to merely give fuel to the fodder for those like Richard Dawkins.
Well so anyway, I wanted to write a response to Jordan for his shoddy theology and poor representation, who comes off more like a scared child (bully) than a professional in his field. But, as we all know, most internet comment threads are more about argumentation and yelling the loudest (so to speak) than actually voicing one’s opinion. So I decided to write my letter here and see what happens.
Before reading my response, check out the article first. Heres the link: Jordan Sekulow: The High Priest of Evolution
I know, right?
So here’s my letter to him (cross fingers! maybe it’ll help lead to something!):
Jordan, there are a number of issues I find with this column piece. Granted it’s a religious op/ed piece—and also that this is neither the time nor the place to fully address them fully; I resign myself to making a simple comment on your wall in hopes that this’ll be discussed.
Now I in no way intend this to be an attack, or “against” you per se, but there needs to be a voice which addresses these glaring issues which are brought up from your Washington Post column.
Firstly, you talk of what religion does best…I come from a mindset and belief system that “religion” is the thing which doesn’t do much of anything well—let alone best. But for the sake of argument, I will say that of not doing things well, we can affirm that of all those non-good things religion does, it can do something poorly “the best.”
You claim it to be conversion. Conversion? Really? Why then, is there a steady decline in those Americans who label themselves as “Christian” in polls taken year after year? If anything, religion seems to be failing at what you call “conversion” of the American populous.
Further, why is conversion what “religion” does best? Shouldn’t what religion does best be something like—change lives? Maybe change hearts which then affect the lives of those changed?
Perhaps you meant it sarcastically; talking of “religion” in a sarcastically glorified manner in which to address the real heart of the issue when it comes to Richard Dawkins and the theory of Evolution—more specifically, Darwinism.
Well, you then go on to talk of two options—option 1 being your take on Dawkins belief system and mentality, option 2 being what I’m assuming to be your Christian belief system and mentality. In any case, I don’t really know if “appeal” has anything to do with it. I mean, with that statement—no matter how it’s worded, but in this case how YOU worded it, it’s like reducing the action of “conversion” (I’m assuming what you would call conversion, but when can here define as a revelation and acceptance of what is Truth—namely, the fallen nature of Man, the desire for redemption between God and the world, the sacrifice and faith of Jesus to accomplish this, the changing of lives); it’s reducing all of that to something of a mere choice of pleasure over pain—which, having a “relationship” with Christ as the modern Christian Church would call it, is most definitely not (though it is what many make it out to be. A choice of the ego to “choose” Jesus and salvation as a means based empirically to seek and attain pleasure, and avoid pain.).
I don’t think Richard Dawkins is truly against God.
I think he’s against what the modern American Evangelical Christian professes God to be. And what God is that? The same which “92 percent” believe in? Is that really God? Maybe it’s a misconception. Maybe Dawkins is against the God built up by people who would claim God to be “conservative, republican, American.” Don’t you think that is a little beneath God? I mean, show me in scripture where God is a God of politics. Honestly, I would think it a form of hubris to think and claim that God is “political”—and more so even more prideful to believe God is backing and behind any political regime and party.
So if Dawkins is not faced with truth, how can he be against it? If he were to face genuine truth, “THE TRUTH”—Jesus, how could he argue against it? It’s truth. You can’t argue against it.
Lastly, you say that “Dawkins’ whole post is an attack on conservative Republicans…” And here again, since when are conservative Republicans Christians? Is it scriptural that to be a Christian one must be a Conservative Republican? Or legal that a conservative republican must be a Christian?
You jump from claiming Dawkins to be against and out to get Christians, to him attacking and being against conservative Republicans. If your goal was to set about labeling Dawkins as anti-conservative Republican, then don’t bring up the religious aspect. It muddles the issue and draws unnecessary—as well as very presumptive connections (between the Republican party and Christianity) which should not be there in the first place.
For someone like you who is pretty outspoken and a notably well known self professed Christian (some would go so far as to argue that like Dawkins, you are an “elitist” yourself—if only on this side of the pond, an American Elitist to rival Dawkins British Elitism), the lack of LOVE (which the God you express that you follow and worship commanded us to not only do—love, but that Jesus said they will know us {that we are Christians} by…“our love”) that you exhibit in this article seems to beg the same question you end with of and to you:
Is your “Christian” worship really about religion or politics?
->and the world will be better for this…
Leaving La Mancha
Leaving La Mancha 