A Word About Prof. McAdams

The ultra-conservative (maybe even paleo-conservative) Poli Sci prof John McAdams has been getting a lot of attention over this post a while ago, and the debate between him and a commenter that has ensued. For some humorous jabs at McAdams' "Omigosh, anti-Christian bigotry is everywhere!!!1!one!!" schtick, see illusory tenant and Capper.

My problem is, I sense, a tad different from my colleagues in the blogosphere (besides the fact that the link to this blog on his page continues to state that I am a first-year law student, when I am, in fact, in my second year), though Keith Schmitz did hint at it in a comment on Capper's blog when he wrote this:

The guy is an avid fan of the death penalty, derides social justice or any help for the poor -- even people who try to help out in a non-government way, supports war. What a poster boy for Christianity.

Now, I'm not going to go out on a limb and start talking about how Christians can't ever be pro-war or pro-death penalty, even though Christ was pretty adamant about peace and put a stop to a public execution. But making this point automatically reboots the fair retort that "Liberals are pro-abortion, so who's not a good Christian now?" Nor am I going to disclose my own relgious beliefs, because they're still my own, and they're not at all relevant. What I will say is that, for a self-proclaimed Christian, Prof. McAdams sure spends a lot of time complaining and accusing other groups of persecuting his religion, and well, not a lot of time discussing Christ's redeeming power, God's love, the need for charity (something I'm pretty sure Jesus was quite explicit about), or any number of other things one would expect from one who is so adamant about their faith.

Jesus and his earliest followers were truly persecuted, yet they did not spend their time complaining - they kept spreading their message. Professor McAdams complains when people say bad things about Christianity in public, though I'll grant he does keep spreading his message.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to McAdams' claims that Christians have it tougher in the area of political correctness than, say, gays. But if McAdams thinks for one second that that means Christians have it tougher in America (and American speech) than blacks, gays, or Muslims (to mention his favorite minorities), then the dear professor really needs to get out more. Don't believe me? Take African-Americans. How many prejudicial jokes have you heard about them? Far too many, I'd imagine. Can you say the same about Christians? Aside from jokes about Catholic priests, I seriously doubt it. I mean, I know lots of God-and-Jesus-on-the-golf-course jokes, but those aren't anti-Christian, so I digress. Ditto gays. Do Christians have to "come out of the closet" to their closest friends and family, risking shame and disgrace? Not in any place I've ever heard of. And finally, Muslims. If you're a white Christian, does your color and religion make you a likely candidate to be "randomly selected" for the special attentions of airport security? I highly doubt it. I don't deny that there are ignorant people who do say truly anti-Christian things, but that leads into my next point.

I see in Prof. McAdams' blog this problem: In the entry I link to above, Prof. McAdams quotes in full an article listing instances of "anti-Christian bigotry," but seems to be giving some of the people involved the attention they seek. For instance, the article mentions a professor from the University of Minnesota driving a rusty nail through a communion wafer, which Catholics believe to be the body of Christ. No doubt such actions are stupid, in remarkably poor taste, and even offensive to some, but consider this: Isn't such action just dumb attention-grabbing, and doesn't McAdams do the work of this misguided professor by drawing attention to it? Its like the rhetorical question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer to that is metaphysically, yes, it makes a sound, but it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to human experience. If this joker in Minnesota committed sacrilege and no one paid attention, what difference would that make? Isn't McAdams just playing into the hands of the offender?

But most puzzling in the article McAdams quotes in full is this:

Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, came under sharp attack by some in the mainstream media because she self-identifies as a Christian. The Washington Post published a cartoon by Pat Oliphant mocking Palin because she has a background as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian. A suspicious arson fire at Sarah Palin’s home church recently caused over $1,000,000 in damage.

Okay, these things need to be separated, because there is no link between the two. Yes, arson is a felony, and the arsonist should absolutely be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But the cartoons and jabs were not directed at Palin just because she was a Christian. It was because she was, and is, a fringe Christian whose minister begged God to "make a way" for her to be in power and to protect her from "every form of witchcraft." Attacking someone for being a Christian and attacking them for being extreme qua Christian are explicitly not the same thing. Besides, if Prof. McAdams was so upset by that, shouldn't Bobby Jindal's statements that Protestants are "heretics" be equally bad in his eyes? I think we know the answer to that.

No doubt that there is anti-Christianism out there. But by constantly drawing attention to the slightest hints of even suggested anti-Christianism (Jack Black in the Prop 8 video is anti-Christian? Anti-homophobic, Old Testament obsessed Christian, maybe, but anti-Christian I think not), and claiming that somehow African-Americans, gays, and Muslims have it better in American discourse, Professor McAdams undermines his own enterprise. Perhaps his efforts would be better directed at promoting the message of Christ, rather than constantly crying foul when stupid pranks and remarks meant to draw the ire of believers hit the mark.