As "This Week in God" settles in on Saturday mornings, the God Machine has plenty to offer again this week.
First up is a fascinating report from the non-partisan Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which found that the conventional wisdom about Americans' appreciation for religion/political rhetoric isn't quite right.
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
A new survey finds signs of public uneasiness with the mixing of religion and politics. The number of people who say there has been too much religious talk by political leaders stands at an all-time high since the Pew Research Center began asking the question more than a decade ago. And most Americans continue to say that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics.
Nearly four-in-ten Americans (38%) now say there has been too much expression of religious faith and prayer from political leaders, while 30% say there has been too little. In 2010, more said there was too little than too much religious expression from politicians (37% vs. 29%).
One of the angles that surprised me about this is how the pattern applied across the board, at least with regards to partisanship: self-identified Democrats, Republicans, and independents all agreed that they see too many politicians making too many expressions of religious faith. While the conventional wisdom generally holds that American voters want and expect such talk from candidates, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
Also note, a majority of Americans want churches and other houses of worship to keep out of politics.
As for the political parties themselves, most Americans believe religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party, while a plurality of the public believes secular liberals don't have too much influence over the Democratic Party.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich insisted yesterday that it's President Obama's fault that his far-right critics believe he's a secret Muslim, despite all evidence to the contrary. Reflecting on those who continue to accept this nonsense, the former Speaker said, "It's not 'cause they're stupid."
* The "Reason Rally," billed as the "largest secular event in world history" will be held on the National Mall today in Washington, D.C. The atheists and nonbelievers on hand will hear from notable figures including scientist Richard Dawkins and actor Eddie Izzard, and the rally will feature a tribute to the late Christopher Hitchens. [Update: For more on this subject, be sure to tune in to tomorrow's "Up with Chris Hayes," which will explore atheism in considerable depth. I guarantee it'll be an interesting discussion, regardless of your theological perspective.]
* Eighty seven years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, Tennessee is still trying to undermine modern science with tactics intended to advance religion. This week, the Volunteer State's legislature passed a bill to require public schools to teach the "controversy" over evolutionary biology, climate science, and human cloning.
* President Obama this week issued a Nowruz message -- available online in English, Persian, and Arabic -- directed at Iranians.
* And radical TV preacher Pat Robertson is so mad about the Denver Broncos trading away Tim Tebow, he apparently thinks it would serve the Broncos right if Peyton Manning were injured.
Leave a Comment:
I think it would be a real good idea to keep church and state seperate. We should go back to the way it was a personal journey. Noone wants to be labeled a fascist. There are too many different religions in America right now. What our forefathers have set in motion hundreds of years ago is now becoming a reality. The true meaning of the Constitution. What America really stands for. It is hard not defending your God so keep him safe in your heart where he belongs. We are all God's children. We have nothing to fear. Now is the time for healing let's keep the peace. I think Christian soldiers should upholding the Peace.
Whether or not they want to be labeled so, the religious republicans in this country are fascists who very much want a fascist nation. It's kind of what the Puritans were all about.
The question is whether or not we'll be making a stand here in November to turn the tide and tell these bug-nutters that we don't want to go where they're trying to drag us.
Fascism is a political movement where an elite justifies its power with religion. The role of religion separates fascist dictators from dictators. Was Saddam Hussein a fascist? No, because he did not use religion to justify his power. Same with Gadaffi. Iran is a theocracy. Is it fascist? No, because secular leaders such as Ahmedinejad are elected and theocrats such as Khamenei do not presume dictatorial powers.
The Republican combination of religion and power is absolutely fascist.
Any student of history will tell of the horrific struggle for supremacy between the church and state over the last 500 years. The United States has been free of that due to the church and state keeping a respectful distance. We see Republicans banking on that respect for cash, using the respect for religion built up over generations as a lever to power and theft.
Try to discuss religion with a right-winger, they do not have a clue. They can only repeat what other people tell them. They cannot read the Bible because they are too dumb. They only know what other people tell them it says. And they are wrong, actually mislead by Satanists and blasphemers. For example, from below those who "follow their religious standards of conduct and avoid sex outside of marriage between a man and woman" would not be Christian and any actual Christian would know such as that "standard of conduct" mocks God by presuming virtue.
Santorum is a blatant blasphemer who is too dumb to read the gospel, and Romney is a Satanist, claiming we "envy" him for his wealth, which is exactly what Satan said, and which Jesus denied.
I've thought about if for several months - I'm not sure " fascist" is the correct term nor can I apply any such convenient label to all Republicans or all Democrats. Some "religious" Republicans are for a very strict separation of church and state - based on the views of Roger Williams (1630's). It apparently worked well for both government and the church in the early years of the nation - see Alexis de Tocqueville's - Democracy in America in the1830's -Vol 1 Chp 17.
There is then a block of mainly Republicans who seem to form a Religious Right Continuum from soft core Christian Nationalism to Dominionism and Reconstructionism - the Theocratic Right. The politicians aligned with them are driving Republican controlled states towards legislation that tries to define 1st Amendment as applying only to the Federal Government - not the State governments.
The Theocratic Right believes that a mutual cooperation should exist between big business, the church, and government. As such they oppose environmental regulations, work safety regulations, minimum wage, unions and support the privatization of Social Security and all federal "welfare" programs - desiring "welfare" programs to be shifted to church controlled charities. This "cooperation" is a little like Benito Mussolini's Fascism. In Fascism, however , government is the "dog" and the church and business are the "tails". With what is going on in this country - I really can't make "dog" nor "tail" out of it so I'm not sure Fascism by itself - is the correct term.
The Republican party is clearly trying to destroy the historic financial base of the Democratic party by attacking unions. This will not kill of the Democratic party - it will simply force them to depend on other sources.
Large corporations will step forward to provide the needed support for the Democrats - they do to some extent now – for considerations of course. This could take the form of actual competition. If you are a large oil and gas company – the Koch Brothers are competition – perhaps you could get legislation that would give you an advantage. On an even more cynical note – corporations might simply meet and draw names out of a hat – Democrat or Republican – or perhaps just agree to fund both parties equally. The result would be the same – both parties eating off the same plate . While the parties might maintain some superficial issues to campaign on – pro/anti gay rights and pro/anti choice – the issues that truly impact 99% of all Americans would be determined as to how they can best serve corporate profit margins.
The United States could effectively become a rather novel form of Serial Fascist Dictatorship – the “dictator” might change every four years from Republican to Democrat - but the single source of funding for both parties would ensure the continuation of the “Corporate State”.
Again - who is the "tail" - who is the "dog" in this "pony" and "dog" show.
If This Goes On ...
By your definition, Hitler wasn't a fascist. Nazi ideology appealed to race rather than to religion. Hitler explicitly rejected any religious basis for antisemitism in Mein Kampf. In the laws of the Third Reich, homosexuality was classified as an offense against the German 'race' rather than against God. And, speaking of Mein Kampf, that book took the place of the Bible in some ways during the Third Reich. Traditionally, Bibles were presented as gifts at weddings and graduations in Germany; but after the Nazis came to power, Mein Kampf replaced the Bible at such events.
Fascism may go around in religious garb in the United States, but that's just a local adaptation. It's not essential.
I keep thinking that this feature should be called "This Week in Blasphemy," but maybe that's too provocative.
Each fascist country was a little different. Germany was less involved with organized religion but they made up for that by creating a religion of their own which they used to justify their power that served the corporations. And do not forget the close relationship between German fascists and the Catholic church. Speaking of Catholics, all fascists are Catholic except Japanese, who were Shinto (Buddhist).
American fascists are childishly religious but are not subservient to a dictator. American fascists put a puppet out in front to take the heat (Bush 43) while the corporations rob the treasury behind our backs- doubling the national debt with tax handouts to the rich under Bush. In that they are more like the Japanese, whose military dictatorship ruled in the name of the emperor.
Fascists attack their neighbors. German, Japanese, and American fascists were aggressive about invading other countries, Italians less so, and Spanish not at all. Portuguese fascists maintained colonies in Africa into the 1970s, well after democracies let their colonies go.
The Theocratic Right believes that a mutual cooperation should exist between big business, the church, and government.
That makes them fascists. Not every religious person is a fascist, only those who use religious posturing as justification for power which they then use to serve the rich. That is the modern form of the traditional aristocracy, where a king whose rights come from God, and who used to be crowned by the Pope, empowered an ownership class of lackeys who demanded privileges by birthright, a class which today's aristocrats call "capitalists". Read the Encyclopedia Britannica on this. The roots of modern fascism go back to the Absolutist Era that predates the Enlightenment Era. Fascism has grown organically in opposition to the Enlightenment Era values this country was founded on. This is why fascists resemble traditional aristocrats, and why they hate America.
they oppose environmental regulations, work safety regulations, minimum wage, unions and support the privatization of Social Security and all federal "welfare" programs
Yep. Fascists oppose any action that empowers the people in the face of the ownership class, particularly labor unions and legal rights that compromise corporate profiteering.
Historically, fascists serve the people with popular programs- Hitler made jobs, Mussolini made the trains run on time, Franco restored social order, Tojo revitalized the Samurai spirit and created a modern Japanese empire. American fascists are remarkably weak on that. American fascists are vicious, murdering enemies of the people. Traditional fascists industrialize their nations. Conversely, American fascists are eager to deindustrialize their nation.
I agree that the characteristics are there for fascism - at this time however the "military dictator" top down control is missing. (Yeah yeah Obama/Bush etc. is/was a dictator - no - though both have significantly increased executive power.)
A few extraordinarily wealthy individuals are attempting to maximize their future wealth by influencing the political process.
Many politicians are trying to maximize their future levels of power by promising access to that legislative process in return for financial support.
Some Evangelical Christians, neo-conservative Catholics, and Glenn Beckian Mormons (Theocratic Right) have formed a loose association to promote their social/religious visions by promising to deliver blocks of votes to politicians who create and promote favorable legislation. They are also exchanging their support of unregulated capitalism - for financial support from a few wealthy individuals and corporations.
Could be a conspiracy - but I don't think so - based on the "dead 'possum by the side of the road" test. First the flies show up, then the crows, then a coyote, then the buzzards - not a conspiracy - they are all just interested in a meal.
At this time, I think all three groups see the other group members as chumps to be controlled in the end game. I believe that within the unholy trinity of the Theocratic Right - the Evangelicals can hardly wait to see the Catholics and the Mormons in the bus's rear view mirror.
So yes - the characteristics are there - but it doesn't seem to be headed toward either the Italian or German model - which differed. What do you get when you cross Plutocracy, Theocracy, with Anti-Federalism?
Thanks Covah -a useful discussion.
Religion the way these politicians are using it today is just another form of political influence and societal control.
Let us not forget that just like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum is a RICH Christian who for all his pontificating for things NOT in the Bible, such as abortion, does not follow the things that ARE in the Bible, such as Mark 10:20.
Santorum is an erring human being who has no more answers to Life, the Universe, and Everything than anyone else. Worse, calling himself Christian, Santorum stumps for that which does not affect him personally, like gay marriage, while not adhering to those edicts of the religion HE chose which require sacrifice on his personal behalf, such as giving up his riches.
We have no need at all to follow any RICH self-appointed shepherd/politician. If Santorum or Gingrich (haha) wants to lead "moral" change, they can do it from a pulpit, not the White House, and they BOTH need to start leading by example with the cleaning of their own houses. Let's see EITHER of them sell all they have, give the money to the poor, and really follow Jesus.
It isn't going to happen because these politicians talk on and on about the sacrifices in personal freedom YOU should make for their religion, the religion they don't follow to the fullest because it's too sacrificial for them.
God says abortion is fine- Numbers 5:22. Also God says life begins at birth- "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" and the ridiculous "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" must mean that life begins BEFORE conception, which no one claims.
What we see is Bible-waving morons have no idea what the Bible actually says, they only repeat what other people tell them it says. It's like that across the board, what they claim the Bible says or what the gospel says is never what it actually says. In fact their gross errors in basic theology shows they have only contempt for the word of God and are blasphemers and Satanists.
Numbers 5:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
in other "twig" news:
scotus "no religious exemption for campus group discrimination"
AP
SAN DIEGO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a request by Christian groups on a college campus to allow them to limit membership based on religious beliefs.
Justice turned back a legal effort by a Christian fraternity and sorority at San Diego State University that challenged an anti-discrimination policy at California state universities.
The lawsuit filed in 2005 said the plaintiffs should be allowed to insist members follow their religious standards of conduct and avoid sex outside of marriage between a man and woman.
The decision to stay out of the case avoids revisiting questions that resulted in a 2010 decision that said a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that wouldn't let gays join. An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled then that University of California's Hastings College of the Law could refuse to recognize campus groups that excluded people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
In that case, the court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying a Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's nondiscrimination policy.
I know of a christian motorcycle group which has, in it's by-laws, a rule that single members must remain celibate, and infraction is cause for dismissal from the group.
Talk about micro-managing the personal lives of your members. This is a recreational group!
I wouldn't join that motorcycle group. But if that's what floats some people's social boat, I'm glad they have their own group to join. Let them talk celibacy among themselves.
The important difference being that the motorcycle gang is a private club, while SDSU is a state university receiving funding from the government, and therefore, it must adhere to governmental standards.
The 2010 decision wasn't just about "a law school" - it was about a law school that is a part of the University of California system. In other words, it's another state school. It can and SHOULD deny recognition to campus groups that are omitting people in ways not permitted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it ISN'T a private college, and it certainly doesn't fall under any of the exclusions permitted for primarily religious organizations. Just like their Tolerance Club (if one exists) is not allowed to exclude a member simply because they don't believe in homosexuality, their Christian Club is not allowed to exclude homosexuals.
Honestly, the fact that this has to be argued at places of higher education is really distressing to me. Part of the reason children attend school in the first place is to become socialized in society. If you can't deal with people being different from you, then how do you get through life?!
locknpost:
I wonder if the know the difference between "celibate" and "chaste." I would wager not.
I'm just speaking to the christian need to micro-manage personal lives and behaviors. Putting it into the written rules is what they're trying to do now on a national level, legislating against women. Not content to boss each other around within the church, they're branching out into the rest of society where we patently don't want them!
Well, we know what was on the minds of the folks who wrote those by-laws. Sounds like an, "If we married people can't have extracurricular sex, you single people can't either" kind of rule. Do the group's officers monitor the single people? (I bet they're standing in line for that job.) Do they perform transvaginal ultrasounds on their female membership, just to be sure? (OK, kidding...mostly)
Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone.
also from that pew poll...the split between republicans on religion in public
Nearly 60% of Romney supporters believe that churches should step back from political and social issues, while 60% of Santorum supporters believe churches should play a more active role.
These sentiments were echoed by another sharp divide found between the candidates' supporters regarding their views on whether there's too little expression of religious faith by political leaders.
For Romney's camp, there's little concern, with 24% agreeing that there's not enough religious discourse. But 55% of Santorum supporters see a deficit in religious speech by politicians.
Let's suggest that those that wish to have more religious speech attend the church of their choosing more often. Sunday, Saturday, Wednesday,--whenever there is a service offered---GO!!!!
But I don't care to hear what YOU believe in regards to faith in my politics. We can have a discussion outside of politics about that but only if you will remain open-minded and accepting--sort of like, you know--JESUS.
Religion doesn't allow for an open mind.
Do you know that religion was never mentioned in the Bible.
a definition does not contain the word being defined.
via the daily caller...marco rubio frets over the pope's visit to cuba
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he is "deeply concerned" that the leadership of the Catholic Church has "negotiated themselves a space of operation" in Cuba "in exchange for looking the other way," and expressed concern that Pope Benedict XVI's upcoming trip to the island may "reinforce that arrangement."
Rubio, a Catholic, said during a discussion at The Heritage Foundation that the Catholic Church has "negotiated a political space for themselves in exchange for their moral imperative."
as has been said by others elsewhere, "because a visit from the pope has never had an adverse effect on a totalitarian regime."
The whole Cuban-American thing is fueled by Castro Hate and the whole Castro Cuban thing is fueled American Hate . If relations were normalized , the embargo was killed and travel was allowed the regime would collapse. The Cuban Americans who pine for their country would only return to exploit it while maintaining their nice Florida homes.
And lets not forget Newt and Santorum publicly condeming the potus remarks on Trevon Martin. How they think the Pres's comments were dividing and politicizing of a tragedy!
Those two are horrible!
By definition God is all powerful. So why do people feel the need to defend God or push Him into peoples lives? If we are created in His image that must include our sexuality, questioning minds and evolution of our society as new ideas emerge. People who believe they are called up to interpret His word or speak for Him in any way are arrogant and egotistical. They are fallible like the rest of us and are assuming the power they already attribute to their God. If we are all supposed to meet our maker one day to be judged, let us have the freedom to make our own path. We may do things at our own moral peril but no one has the right to tell us what to believe. Lastly, I highly doubt that any God would care where Tebow plays unless he was betting on the game. Highly unlikely since He supposedly already knows who will win.
Exactly!
If we are created in God's image, then God is a clueless dumb@ss.
Human beings create gods, goddesses and other mysteries in OUR own images. All y'all have it backward, you know...and before y'all jump on me for blasphemy; somebody up there along the thread did suggest that this feature be titled This Week in Blasphemy.
<giggles and flutters fan>
All I really know to be absolutely true, without a doubt, extremely factual, undisputable, is that I DON"T KNOW and that I MAY BE WRONG.
Tebow would be my definition of taking the lord's name in vain. Swearing is just epithetical speech. Seeking to influence the outcome of a game through supplication is (silly, sad, funny, tragic) inappropriate.
Does Tebow actually think his piousness means that god favors him over his opponents? How egotistical!
Depending upon which Genesis story one wants to believe, God actually went to the other Gds and said "Let's make man in our image" and then he created He them - Man and Woman. I go by this version - not the second version where he molded Adam first, then gave him a bunch of animals to look after. No wonder Adam whined for a companion - he didn't want to look after God's creation by himself! Just like Santorum - easier to destroy something than upkeep it.
That was because Judaism came from a polytheistic culture and morphed into a Monotheistic one. When in Genesis, god said "let us" he wasn't speaking poetically, or speaking "to the holy ghost." He was literally talking to other Gods in the pantheon. When, in exodus, god creates a law saying, I am the lord, your God, you shall have no other Gods before me, he isn't saying, I am the only god, he is saying, I am the supreme god.
The whole of the old testament is filled with the debris of the polytheism that came before the changeover to monotheism. Such as God identifying himself as "the god of abraham and isaac." or the tribes of israel worshiping Asherah or Baal,"
Even his names El shaddai, El Elohim, Yahweh, were a product of him being positioned as the supreme deity in a group of deities, before the other deities are later declared to be false gods or demons.
The first commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This would make no sense if there were no other gods.
The other God he was referring to was a golden ox which symbolizes the worship of Gold or money. In ancient times they would construct statues and worship them.that is when Moses was given The Ten commandmentsafter they were worshiping a Golden Ox. Probably TheMeddlingMonk could explain this better. She has a vast knowledge about religion. There is no mention of more than 1 God in the Bible. False Gods refers to anything other than the Lord that people worship such as money, power, greed, addictions. God is a very jealous God. It does make one think , for about a second, but, I've only known 1 God. So far no other Gods have tried to contact me, just the one.
The Pew findings quantify something I’ve always believed about America: Politicians who keep dragging their version of a god into the public square are appealing to a relatively small segment of the nation.
That small segment gets smaller and smaller are will soon be small enough to drown in a bathtub.
I am curious about the large electoral victories of the right in 2010 after the Democratic sweep in 2008. Why? It is a failure of democracy. First, after the wins in 2008, the people thought, we won, and that's that. BUT right-wing media kept up the lies, smears, and agitprop, motivating their smaller number of followers to vote for right-wing candidates and skewed the election. They have since become more extreme, and are choking themselves into oblivion on their lies.
Covah, one can hope. Right now, they seem determined to make government so tiny it can climb into the uterus of every woman in the country!
Right now, they seem determined to make government so tiny it can climb into the uterus of every woman in the country!
That must be what they mean by "small government". They want it small enough to go up your anus or vagina.
I have a different explanation. The American people "bought" the idea that America is like a football team in a league where the other teams are China, Germany, Egypt, etc. The players are the Senators and Representatives. They thought that Obama is/was the coach and since we were "losing" games they wanted to fire the coach. They saw that he was not implementing the game plan that they had voted for. However, he was not up for reelection. So they took it out on his friends on the team.
But, we are losing games because the Repub players on the field are not cooperating with Obama. When he throws one the ball, he lets it fall to the ground as an incomplete pass. Repub blockers don't block and rushers don't rush, etc. Of course we are not winning.
But, in this analogy Obama is not the coach, he is the quarterback and captain. He is not the coach because he lacks the essential power that the coach has. The power to bench (in this case send home) any player who is not putting out 100% for the team. Obama can not send a Senator home (ie. out of the Senate) for not cooperating with him.
Who can do that? The voters in his state are the only ones who can. The American voters are therefore the "coach" of the team in this analogy. The non voters are the fans. In '08 the voters voted in Obama and a lot of Democrats and they wanted to see what the Democratic game plan would look like. They had seen that the Bu@!$%#e game plan did not seem to work so well and wanted to see something new.
But what did they see? Nothing. But instead of doubling down on the Repubs in 2010, they punished the Democrats for the "Nothing", that was clearly caused by the Repubs, they had admitted it.
This time we have to make the voters punish the right party for the lack of enough progress on jobs. And all those other things they have done, like attacking women's rights.
They thought that Obama is/was the coach and since we were "losing" games they wanted to fire the coach.
I doubt that the millions of Obama supporters capriciously changed sides and voted Republican just because Obama did not instantly create heaven on earth. More likely the same people who voted Republican in the presidential campaign voted Republican in the midterm, energized by right-wing hate speech, while the Obama supporters thought they had won and didn't vote.
Just one note, if you are a small government that is going to probe me it sure dosn't feel small. It hurts like hell. It hurts to be degraded, after so many years of human rights progressing. Imagine it all being wiped away by a small minority. It's hard to fight back again but, we have to. I can hear the drums beating, and they are getting louder. We need to start singing in unity. Spring at last, Spring at last, Thank God Almighty it is Spring At last. The American Spring. Thank you, Paul.
Perhaps people think that there should be LESS public expression of religion by politicians is because they don't 'practice what they preach'. You see a Newt constantly talking 'his religion' while denigrating everyone that doesn't VOTE for him. Yes, I know, he 'found' religion with Calista but how has he acted SINCE then? Romney? Yes an elder in his church but an elder that condones LYING in every single speech. Santorum, although I think he actually BELIEVES, also thinks YOU should believe just like him and 'sending your daughter to Mexico' is somehow a moral failing. I'm all for 'deeply held beliefs' whatever they are, but they are YOURS and not mine. There is a place to talk to like minded people and it's called CHURCH (or whichever house of worship you attend). Keep it THERE.
How... how exactly does Gingrich think Obama is personally responsible for perpetuating the idea that he's Muslim? Does he stop Cabinet meetings to bow towards Mecca or something? Are the bookshelves of the White House packed with copies of the Koran? What on EARTH is Gingrich babbling about?
[sarcasm]Well, Gingrich himself is secretly a Scientologist, so it makes sense that he would understand. You know his conversion to Catholicism was just a front by the Church of Scientology to get one of their people in the White House.[/sarcasm]
See, how easy it is.
Yes, tell me, Newt: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Gingrich always babbles about some dumb thing.
Here's some new fun from the whack:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/20/alaska-rep-says-women-should-have-to-get-mans-permission-before-aborting
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/22/alaska-republican-says-women-should-have-to-get-permission-from-men-to-get-an-abortion/
http://www.themudflats.net/2012/03/20/help-help-theres-an-elephant-in-my-uterus/
These men just want control, and feel their control threatened by change and progress. They want to take us all back to their childhood, in the 1950s, where they felt safe; where daddy was in charge, mommy kept the house clean, and people of color knew their 'place'.
"You've got a lot of nerve to say you are my friend, When I was down you just stood there grinning." Dylan warned us a long time ago. Let us be done with the aristocrats, historians and moralists and keep our country.
The saddest thing is the delusions of main street Republicans. They buy the lies, the fist-raising religious talk, the paper patriotism, and they line up to support their leadership, voting them into office again and again, regardless of failure, wanting little more than to just to be on the winning team, or to win one for God, or for a reason as flimsy as just getting Obama out, and they actually believe their loyalty will be rewarded when the GOP finds a way to finally take this nation over. Do Main street conservatives ever consider that they too will lose their way of life, their liberties, their wages just as much as that long list of folks they want to take revenge on: liberals, blacks, Muslims, and anyone else who ain't a white Christian conservative? I actually feel sorry for these poor fools who steadfastly refuse to see how the game is going to go. They think its us liberals who'll pay for this nation's sins...sorry kids, it'll be all of us below a certain level of power and wealth, left, right, and independents, none of whom the rich will remember to...ahem, thank when it's over and done.
So it's the main street conservatives who are in for the hardest bump because they never once notice how much their blind allegiance has contributed to the decline of this nation. News Corps and Clear Channel have given them an enemy to blame (everyone else) and they just can't stop pointing the finger long enough to see the cliff.
"Fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree.
I define fundamentalism as a group of invariably male leaders who consider themselves superior to other believers. The fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God. Therefore their beliefs are inherently correct, being those of God, and anyone who disagrees with them are first of all wrong, and second inferior, and in extreme cases even subhuman. Also, fundamentalists don't relish any challenge to their positions ... It makes a great exhibition of rigidity and superiority and exclusion.
There is an element of fundamentalism involved, which involves the belief on the part of a human being that his own concept of God is the proper one. And since he the proper concept of God, he particularly blessed and singled out for special consideration above and beyond those who disagree with him.
Secondly, anyone who does disagree with him, since he harnessed to God in a unique way, then, by definition, must be wrong. And the second step is if you are in disagreement with his concept of the way to worship, even among the Christian community, is that you are inferior to him. And then the ultimate progression of that is that you’re not only different and wrong and inferior but in some ways you are subhuman. So there’s a loss of concern even for the death of those who disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior and don’t deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man, then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior. This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the Christian right during these days.
And, of course, fundamentalists don’t believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it’s just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made."
Jimmy Carter
Also I don't think it is Gods intention to hurt other people and call them names and stereotype them. There is a great line from "On Golden Pond" It was one of those AH,HA moments for me. Henry Fonda explains to Kathryn Hepburn after being lost, "We are all just trying to find our way"
OMG! Yes, church and state should be separate in a country where there is freedom of religion! I am sick of hearing the candidates use the bible to justify their irrational thinking. But, as we know, religion has always been a tool to control the masses....mission accomplished in America!
I agree Cherie and I'm sick of all Republicans. As president I will have them arrested and sent to N. Korea for re-education. WholeWitt for President. Republicans are the American Taliban.
I don't believe that the GOP is the American Taliban. Some of them are my family members. I think it is fear that keeps them so closed minded. They actually believe that being open minded is a bad thing and that we should not trust anyone who is not a White American. Love conquers Fear. I'm sure there are many Muslims who love America that is why they want to live here. Some of us who have been here for a long time are not being hospitable. I'm sure they are confused, saying "Where is this Freedom they talk so much about? Love conquers Fear. I will be forever thankful to God for helping in our ability to elect An African American President. Now, everyone needs to come together and work for World Peace. Old Habits Die Hard. The anti-christ is another made up Boogie Man created only in the minds of those who lack faith and love. All we are saying is "Give Peace a Chance"
The ultimate trickle down, be meek and wait for your reward in heaven.
assuming, of course, that heaven exists.
What if it doesn't? What if you've wasted your entire life on an empty promise?
Yes, there is a problem to talk about faith too much by candidates, as there shall be no religious test for any office, according to the original Constitution, then we added freedom of religion, so as to ensure someone can practice their religion and those non religious do no have to practice any, no establishment of religion by Congress.
Our Creator is whomever people believe their creator may be (parents or God). Some want to tell us what to believe. I find that troubling. I have my beliefs. I used to fantasize about inviting people in that walked the neighborhood in and dicuss my beliefs. I later realized they did not want to hear what I had to say about my beliefs, but more or less wanted to tell me theirs and point out where I may be in error. I also noticed that they wished to invite me to their church and drop my money into the collection plate.
There was a time when nobody heard of Jesus, but today most folks have their beliefs, so they might feel like those that try to inform them of the correct beliefs might be overreaching and perhaps insulting to someone who has their faith or no faith. This is evident in that poll.
I also must add that Pat Robertson seems to be giving (by proxy) Christ a bad reputation with his blatherings about assassinating Hugo Chavez and insinuating Peyton Manning might have an injury coming to him to hurt the Broncos for trading Tebow.
God ain't got nothing to do with it.
You trade a young, off-the-bench, QB that can double as a full-back, for a QB with 3-degrees of neck motion. Note to NFL defensive coordinators, 90% of the Bronco's passing will be in the center of the field.
Your win/loss record will be karma enough.
I wonder how Pat Robertson would interpret things should the Broncos win the Super Bowl next year?
Looking at the drastic change in the percent of people who believe that the "expression of religious faith by politicians is about right" it seems to me that it wasn't that people's attitudes towards political religious expression changed. The thing that changed between 2001 and now is that politicians have been seriously playing to the christianist right whereas before, they weren't so much. The christianists have been framing the message so every politician is forced to make these faux statements about how much they adore the Bible.
And to add to what Cherie thinks, here is what other people have said about the same thing:
By adopting a mantle of piety and religious authority, a tyrant is able to keep others at a distance - not only when it comes to critiques of how they are ruled, but also anyone's overt challenge to the political system in general.
Any political system that people believe is sanctioned by the divine order of the cosmos will be much more difficult to even question, much less change. Only once it became common wisdom that government is instituted by humans did it become easier to create change on a more regular basis. (...)
Religion's effectiveness [as a means of social control] lies largely in the fact that a ruler doesn't need to invest as many resources into things like extra police or spies. When it comes to religion, control is obtained through mechanisms internal to individuals and with a person's consent rather than imposed from the outside and against people's will.- Austin Cline
The slippery slope that is keeping religion and politics meticulously demarcated (a task which has riddled the American imagination stretching back to the 18th century) continues to characterize the debate over separating church and state for this reason: there remains a broad unwillingness to accept that, irrespective of the formal separation, a religious mode of thinking drives politics and, conversely, a political mode of thinking drives religion. Unpacking this statement demands far too much space than that allotted here. For now, let me simply suggest this: the true and final resolution to this transhistorical issue is to invest in a discussion of, followed by – eventually – the actualization of reconciling theological systems of government and anthropological systems of government. The American community will continue to see saw on this issue until we deal with the core elements that define these two now antagonistic now collaborative ideological worldviews. Again, drawing a line between the “political world” and the “religious world” is a step in the progressive direction. But, it’s certainly not our final destination.
Religion and racism, the two of the pillars of ignorance.
Teach the controversy?
Okay,
Tell the kids that scientists have spent millions of man hours discovering and testing the evidence, formulating a hypothesis for how live adapts and changes over millions of years depending on the environment that it lives in. That this process is responsible for all the diversity that they see in life all around them and is still ongoing, and in fact is responsible for the rise in diseases that are resistant to antibiotics, as well as some possibly useful new bacterial and viral strains.
Then tell them that the gradual forces of natural selection and artificial selection also work with ideas, myths and stories, memes, (a word representing a basic unit of "culture" something that is remembered and passed on). These Memes grow over time, some ideas being naturally more tenacious, stronger than others, and others having been strengthened by mutation or deliberate alteration.
Ideas that work well together can inspire people to pass them on, especially if those ideas promote people to work together within their own society and encourage them to eliminate or convert people with competing ideas.
Tell the children that one such group of ideas "Monotheism" has been very successful both in binding society together and in encouraging its own spread, and has had thousands of years of flourish in the most developed countries in the world.
Tell them that the three largest branches of Monotheism have all been used with tremendous success by people who want to gain and maintain political power especially when their other political goals conflict directly with the well-being of those that follow and support them.
It has been an especially useful tool for the republican party to maintain a power base in the south, where the ruling class can use it as a scapegoat to convince disenfranchised conservative Americans that their decline in standard of living and ability to affect change in their lives is due to a decline in moral integrity of the country as a whole. That the nation's problems are not because of greed, crime, or complex global economic factors, but because of a lack of fealty in a Deity, providing voters with a simple problem and a simple solution, and a way of both venting their pent up negative feelings and inspiring false reassuring hope.
Tell them that this political power structure is directly reliant on the divinity and authority of this version of God. And that this version of God's authority is directly reliant on his being the creator of both the world and all of it's lifeforms, in a deliberate way.
Teach them that the scientific facts threaten a massive power structure that controls and directs their lives, and that is why the truth is controversial.
Vox, you silver-tongued devil. I could not have said it better.
There are a lot of teachers out there who would rather not let their students hear the idea that sometimes the person in charge isn't right. You'd be undermining their own authority! In a national school system that, to a great degree, opposes questioning minds - you'd be opening Pandora's box...
What national school system opposes opening minds?
I'm sorry but our progressive way of life is NOT threatening anyone's religion in this country. All one has to do is read just the tiniest bit about life in other cultures to realize how open and free religion in our society actually is in comparison.
Religion isn't being threatened, it's being used as a political tool to frighten people into voting against their own interests, 'cause you know you can't vote against God.
But God isn't running in our elections, some very questionable characters with questionable motives are running and they've found a button to scare, anger, and tear at people's security, the very people they want to "lead".
We have a decent president at the helm, who's lifting the economy after Bush crashed the up economy Clinton left him. We have a fine man who isn't perfect but he's sane, has good morals, and is fighting an uphill battle to keep the promises he made in 2008. No wonder the GOP wants him out, and they're using religion, that indisputable, Can't Fight God thing on their own voters to do it.
I have said before, nobody can take away another person's faith. We have a horrendous historical period when the Nazi's rose up and deemed a superior race which decided to persecute Jews among others. This is an example of how the actual persecution of a religous group/Hebrew race was nearly killed off, but those remaining managed to retain their faith, despite all of the horrific real persecution.
We see genocide in Africa and Bosnia. That is tribal and ethnic/religious persecution. Salem Witch Trials, the wars based on religion are too many to list.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_bosnia.html
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1999/genocide-in-africa2.htm
http://nyinquirer.typepad.com/nyinquirer/2006/08/genocide_in_dar.html
It is this type of thing that prompts us to try to coexist, rather that assert one dominates the other.
It is not a persecution (as much as people wish it were true) of one's faith or denial of practice of their religion to say there are too many differences of beliefs to establish one into law. There may be some out there that are atheist, but that is also protected right to be so in this country.
Now my opinion that sometimes it goes too far to try to say my child is subjected to saying under God, when one can be respectful and remain silent when they pledge Congress ADDED words "under God" to the pledge in 1954. It is still allegiance to a country, not necessarily to God.
http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm
We can debate all day long about the Bible and which church says gays can marry and which does not. Which church says women are beneath their husband and must obey his dominant will. Many faithful people are not even in a particular church (I use church as all congregations of religious sects). Many moral and upstanding people have zero religion. The fact remains, we have a variety and that is what is freedom, WE decide which religion is ours or none. That is how it is here, despite the desire to make laws that inject more faith or claim victimhood so we can make ourselves look more righteous than others. That is what I see and it is very sad to try to force one religion as THE religion when it just isn't so in a freedom of religion country.
Because there are a majority of Christians in this country, does not mean the Christians control the board. Because Christians are not allowed to stone gays and must witness them in public and not allowed to discriminate with their liberty and be tolerant. Rastafarians cannot legally partake of gangia wherever they want or whatever other religious rituals that sacrifice or stone to death people we deem sinful. We have the laws here and not seeing your religious symbols and displayed wherever you wish is not persecution of religious freedom. A marriage which you disbelieve does not assault your freedom, nor harm your marriage. I think some might have work to do in their own marriages before preventing others. Seems I read something like that in red letters somewhere.
If someone wants to tell me about Jesus, I already know quite alot. To assume someone does not have the correct beliefs is also very, very rude. To insist others follow yours is not freedom. It is also pretty sad to see the victimhood when it is a fact that Christians already have the majority, so claiming victimhood is just awkward. I have to tolerate an awful lot of things I do not believe in. Just walk away and pray on something else, we are not without many many people that could use some help.
Sandy! Agreed! But when there's a cross on every hillside in the country, it's hard not to feel bullied by intolerance.
I swear, the Jesus Crazies are relentless.
Am I the only one who noticed that there is only a narrow majority shown in this poll, and that almost 2/3 of the people polled think there is "The right amount" or "Not enough" religion in politics? I know one can manipulate any poll by asking the "Right" questions or the "Right" people, but this scares the s**t out of me. 38% is NOT ENOUGH.
Birth control is evil. Letting children starve to death is God's will. I am glad I do not have to justify that in my mind. Freedom from religion is true freedom. This way I get to choose what I want to be a hypocrite about.
Christopher Hitchens points out that if God's will is to cause children to suffer, the only moral position is to despise God.
I live in a Right to work state. I haven't had religion forced upon me. I have had my rights as a Women violated quite a few times. I have never stood up to this until recently, and now I have been labeled a Bully dike. I have been crying for the last week. I feel to a lesser extreme like the young women who was assaulted by Rush Limbaugh. I haven't been called a slut or a prostitute yet. I'm crying because I don't like being called a Bully dike. I recognize my own fears, I am trying to be proud of being called a Bully dike. It is an incorrect statement I have never bullied anyone in my whole life and I am not a lesbian. I know bullying is wrong, but to confuse that with being assertive and standing up for your rights is deceitful. My sister is a lesbian and I love her to death. I pray for her to be able to marry. It is sad that they think calling me a lesbian is offensive. I am still progressing, there are many forms of hate. Why are they all becoming evident now. Maybe God is helping us to expose it. Keep on trucking!
The hate against women's rights is more evident due to GOP arrogance. Also it is more difficult to covertly enact repressive legislation with the social media and some reporters courage to report the truth. Cry for the country, but be proud of your new insights and courage. I am proud of anyone who speaks out against injustice There has always been plenty of injustice around whether it is racial or religious and never has done well in the light of day.
Thank you for sharing what has happened to you - i admire your courage and your ability to shed tears - medically tears are healing and emotional tears have a different chemical composition than dust in your eye tears - they serve a purpose of release. Walk gently, Karen
Hugs to you, Shumuwada. I've actually been loving your posts.
Please, find a way to bring happiness into your life to balance your difficult work. Because the best revenge is to be happy and live well. You being happy will let them know their opinions and kindergarten name calling is not sinking into you. Find that which brings you joy and be happy, with yourself, with them, around them, and without them.
Ah, the old reliable 30 percent who say "too little" - and support every other misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-rational agenda item put forward by the folks who benefit from keeping them them ignorant and agitated. Let's just give them their own patch of land and let them set up their own theocracy. The hard part is going to be deciding which part of the existing country will have to host them. Maybe pick a couple of adjoining states where they are already in the majority, then fewer people will have to pack up and move.