Don't panic!

Like many of you, I was dismayed to hear that "moral values" was the biggest deciding factor of the presidential election. For one week, I struggled to make sense of what it said about America, and more importantly, about the American church. Is this election a cultural green light for the church to alienate anyone who's just a little different, when those are the people to whom Christ showed the most compassion? \nFinally, I sorted out the hundreds of ideas in my mind and settled on an explanation that was ideologically neutral enough to share with my Christian friends: I was worried the church would be ill-equipped to fulfill its mandate for ministry. But when I'd finally sorted that out, I discovered that everything we were saying about moral values was mumbo-jumbo. Sort of.\nApparently, the media blew it again. According to The Economist, a mere 22 percent of Americans told exit polls that they voted on "moral values." Close behind was the economy at 20 percent, with terrorism coming in third at 17 percent. The public was divided on so many issues that none of them actually dominated the field. Bandwagon voting was much less an issue than usual.\nFurthermore, morality was much less a concern for Americans this year than it has been in the past: 35 percent voted on morals in 2000, and 40 percent did it in 1996. In eight years, this number has been cut nearly in half.\nSo what's with the media playing chicken little? The sky is not falling, but this flimsy reporting is stirring a panic.\nIt is true that the Republicans have gained more power in Congress and that they've retained the White House for four more years, but not much else can be said. The Economist cited a television interview with Dr. James Dobson, in which the Focus on the Family founder seemed to believe the president is obligated to give the religious right what it wants in the next four years, or else the Republican Party will pay the price in the next election.\nApparently, Dr. Dobson was running off the same faulty information as the rest of us. At least the "faulty information" excuse works better for us than it did the president.\nIn much the same way as Bush sees a slim majority vote as a "mandate" to do what he wants, the members of the religious right now see their even slimmer majority as a mandate to be even louder pompous windbags than they've been for the past four years. \nThe Economist points out that the American church has no central leadership. In other words, Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not speak for the whole. If anything, this year's exit poll stats indicate that these demagogues of the religious right actually have less influence over American politics than they have in the past.\nSo if this election doesn't mean that America is full of Bible-toting, witch-hunting, God-fearing folk, what does it mean?\nFirst, it means that John Kerry lost the election for political reasons, not because of this "God stuff." The democrats came into this election as desperate as a lonely lounge lizard on ladies' night, and that reflected poorly on the entire party's credibility.\nSecond, it means journalists need to get better at doing their jobs. I don't know why a "liberal media" would misrepresent the facts in such a way as to make the nation appear overwhelmingly conservative. That just sounds more like a "lazy media" to me.\nThird, it means that Nov. 2 was just another day. It wasn't the most important election of our lives. We won't be any less free in four years than we were two weeks ago.\nArguably, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" said it best: Don't panic!