Sha-sha, can you contact Nancy Skinner and tell her two things?

[Berry Cool]

They have to do with two things on her show yesterday...

1. A man called in and asked her whether she was aware that the Three-Fifths Compromise had been based on a belief that black people were only "three-fifths human." She said she did not. Well, that piece of misinformation shouldn't be allowed to stand, because it's not true. The Three-Fifths Compromise was strictly a mathematical way of solving the problem of determining a state's population for taxation and representation purposes. Slaves could not vote, yet counting them as part of the census would result in disproportionately large political representation for slave states. The Three-Fifths Compromise did that anyway, but it did it to a lesser extent by counting each slave as only three-fifths of a person. However, the determination to use three-fifths as the percentage used had absolutely zippo to do with any sort of spiritual calculations or beliefs or evaluations of the "humanity" of a black person. Yes, the whole "being counted as three-fifths of a person" thing was insulting, just as the very idea of one human being "owning" another is morally revolting, but it was come up with as a strictly mathematical solution to the census problem--not one based on any serious philisophical beliefs regarding what constitutes being human or having a human soul.

2. Nancy (and sadly I have to discredit her with saying this), while trying to discuss the whole "Who would Jesus stimulate?" issue (which I think she shouldn't have let herself get dragged into), said that from what she recalled from her Catholic-girl education, Jesus had been "thrown out of the inner sanctum of the temple" or some such thing because he saw money changers at the temple and was angry. I just wanted to hold my head: No, no, no...the New Testament (Book of Matthew) tells us that JESUS threw the MONEY CHANGERS out! This is actually one of the most fondly recalled Bible stories of many Christians (because it depicts one of the rare situations in which Jesus really gets pissed off, and for a good reason--and some Christians feel much more comfortable with that Jesus than the one who tells people to turn the other cheek) and I was surprised Nancy got it that confused.

Of course, all of this matters only if you care about or take seriously the New Testament or Christianity, which is part of the reason I think it was a mistake for her to get too mired in it. Christians of course have certain beliefs about the importance of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and so on, or SHOULD...and of course they may well believe that the best kind of government is one in which their taxes will be used in part to help do that. But of course you don't need to be a Christian or follow Jesus to believe that, so the real issue is: Do you think helping the poor is the government's job, or don't you?

The trouble with anyone using Christianity as a justification for their support of government aid to the poor is that many conservatives have convinced themselves that they too are Christians and that they are actually "better Christians" because they believe in private (often faith-based) giving, rather than forced giving through the government and the imposition of taxes. They're just as convinced of their rightness as the liberal Christians, and it was one of those Nancy had on the phone--one who was trying to tell her Jesus never said the government should help people, he said PEOPLE should help other people. This is true. I can't think of any situation in the New Testament in which Jesus advocates that the government has a responsibility to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. (If the Rev, whom I hope is better read on this than I am, can, I defer to her, of course.)

From what I can see, Jesus is all about personal responsibility--but of course, he's about the personal responsibility to be a generous and giving person, not the responsibility to be a selfish git who says "I've got mine, let other people get theirs on their own"--a fact that many conservative Christians don't seem to be able to get through their skulls. However, what Nancy appeared to have on the phone was a guy who really does believe Christians should give to the less fortunate--he just wants to do it on his own, not have the government force him to do it--and he's saying to liberals "Don't use Jesus to justify your viewpoints, because I can use Jesus to justify MY viewpoint better than you can." (Which is why I think using Jesus as a justification for anyone's political views is a sticky wicket, and best avoided unless people really know what they're getting into. It's best done in a general sense--as in "Hey, Christians, Jesus never advocated being a selfish git"--rather than getting bogged down in debates with the Christian right over whether the government should help people or not. Of course, one could say "Isn't the government made up of people--people who hold office--and if they call themselves Christians, don't they have an obligation to use their position to get the government to do what Jesus advocated?" Trouble is, then you get into the messy area of whether government officials have the right to impose religious beliefs on a country, whether the United States is a "Christian nation," etc.--and boy, the conservatives will keep you arguing forever about that crap. And it goes completely off the track of the idea that creating a country in which everyone basic needs taken care of and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is far from just a "Christian" thing!)

Anyway, I'm listening to Nancy, and think she can build a good show with some time and work, but sometimes I do find myself saying (and make no mistake, I did this with Randi, too) going "Oh no, that's not it..." I think she's just finding her way in a tough situation, and I appreciate that. I just keep wondering if she doesn't work better with someone else off whom to bounce ideas. I find that one cool thing about listening to Stephanie is that she may not know a lot on every topic, but oftentimes she can find one of the Mooks explaining things to her or decrying some stupid Republican talking point better than she can because he knows more about it than she does. (Jim Ward, for all his comedy background, is a damn intelligent and well-educated guy.) The Mooks really help her a lot when some wingnut calls reiterating some talking point that she may not be knowledgeable enough to shoot down.

Agh, I've rambled on long enough. Got work to do. Just some thoughts...