Stan Speaks

If you've enjoyed the evolving saga of Stan so far – first the jab, then the apology – I hope you'll also enjoy this third installment.

(Yes, it's a trilogy, and I've already received one offer to turn it into a series of movies, starring Tim Robbins as Stan and George Clooney as me. Sorry, Stan. We collaborated on the script, but the casting is all mine. Plus, after nearly two decades of putting up with me, my dear wife deserves a little fantasy reward. But hey, look at the bright side: At least you're not going to hell.)

Today, our story starts with comments Stan attached to the last installment, wherein he took the high road, and honestly, I really respect him for that. He also offered the following by way of defending his world view. The emphases are mine.

I consider myself to be a Bible literalist ... I'm also aware there are literal fulfillments to various events God revealed to His prophets in Scripture. I'm not the prophet, but I am the student who gets to uncover what God previously revealed to the prophets. And after 20+ years of research and study I've come to conclude that America is the Biblical people group known as the "House of Israel". Our prevailing culture is that of the Saxon people (Saxon being short for "'saac's sons" or "Isaac's sons"), and we are children of covenant and obligation under God.

And this ...

In short, we have an obligation to keep God at the center of our national life. It's not that we morph into a Theocracy, but it does mean that we retain the rule of God's law central to our political machine. Our wall of separation in the Constitution is one-sided, keeping government out of the church, but it's not intended to keep the church out of government. History bears that out on many fronts.

OK. My turn, and as promised before, and because Stan did the same, I will keep this response focused on the arguments, not the person.

First, I find "Bible literalist" to be a cloudy moniker. If we interpret the Bible literally all the time in every passage, we can work ourselves rapidly into contradicting corners. For instance, Christ said "beloved are the peacemakers," but he also said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (OK. So which is it?) Moreover, if Bible literalists are truly committed to literalism, I think they would find it very difficult to justify their opposition to subjects like embryonic stem-cell research. Net, as you might have guessed, I reject Biblical literalism. I prefer to look for major, recurring themes, and go from there. But hey, that's me. Each to his own.

Second, regarding the argument about America being the "House of Israel," I'd really like to see the bread crumbs followed to reach that conclusion, since I imagine there are a fair number of Jews who would beg to differ, not to mention the Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and others who might take exception to the somewhat-more-than-implicit suggestion that only the Saxons are "children of covenant and obligation under God."

Third, I'd like to see the "history ... on many fronts" that disproves the notion that separation of Church and State works both ways, keeping churches out of government and government out of churches. I, for one, believe that it has to work both ways, otherwise, where do you draw the line? Christ himself was pretty adamant about dealing with Caesar and God separately. Seems to me we should be equally adamant.

I guess that hits the highpoints. Granted, Stan isn't Pat Robertson or James Dobson. And I'm certainly not Andrew Sullivan or Jim Wallis. But the arguments are essentially the same, even if it's just Stan and me toiling away here in our relentless anonymity.