First up from the God Machine this week is a striking shift in the number of Americans who no longer identify themselves as religious -- a trend that may well carry political implications in the near future.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life published these results earlier in the week.
The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public -- and a third of adults under 30 -- are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).
The percentage of Americans who consider themselves atheist, agnostic, or unaffiliated has nearly tripled over the last generation.
In terms of political impact, it's widely recognized that the Republican Party faces serious demographic challenges in the coming years. Americans are increasingly racially and ethnically diverse, and the GOP has become heavily reliant on white male voters to win elections. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently conceded, "The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."
What's less recognized is the trend the Pew Forum is pointing to in this new report: Republicans are losing the race on religious diversity, too. Those Americans who choose no religious identity are the fastest-growing segment of the nation's spiritual landscape, and these voters are overwhelmingly self-identified Democrats and liberals, far more so than the population at large.
Making matters slightly worse for the GOP, they also tend to be much younger than their older, more religious counterparts, with decades of voting ahead of them.
There's not much the Republican Party can do about this in the short term -- it's far too reliant on the religious right movement to serve as a huge chunk of the GOP base -- but it's another long-term challenge that may shape elections in the years ahead.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* "Nuns on the Bus" have hit the road again, launching a 1,000-mile tour of Ohio that will wrap up next week. "As Catholic Sisters, we work together with vulnerable people to enrich their lives and their communities. We want to remind our fellow Ohioans that voting is a chance for all of us to serve our communities and change lives," said Sister Monica McGloin, of Cincinnati, who is organizing the tour with local sisters, including Sister Mary Wendeln and Sister Fran Repka.
* Pennsylvania's House of Representatives approved a resolution this year declaring 2012 the "Year of the Bible," leading to a lawsuit from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. This week, U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner said the resolution was legally permissible, though the federal judge nevertheless chastised lawmakers for passing a measure that was "proselytizing and exclusionary." Conner added that the resolution was "pandering designed to provide a re-election sound bite" and resources would be better used in "meaningful legislative efforts" (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* And Right Wing Watch reported this week that the National Organization for Marriage's religious liaison, William Owens, said the Democratic Party is a "demonic party" that must be stopped. The National Organization for Marriage claims to be non-partisan.
Leave a Comment:
Lindsay Graham has it right - generating angry white guys is what the "new" Republican Party has been doing since Barry Goldwater lost - emphasis on "generating"!!
I'm very old and very white and very angry and the GOP hasn't a chance in hell of ever getting my vote again. They are the party of the 1%. Period.
I think that is part of what the disconect is between the right and the rest of the country. I think the thing that sort of drove that home for me was Ryan saying that "we are still predominately a center right country"...No we aren't and haven't been for a long time. From a public policy standpoint we are a center left country and have been since the New Deal. There is an argument to be made for the center right on areas of business practice but even these are overseen by agencies designed to protect the public trust. No matter how these people wish to deny the truth of the electorate you can't just go out and declare yourself the winner because you don't like the idea of having to change your starting lineup.
We are a center-left country but unfortunately when it comes to the number of people who actually vote and leaders being good at delivering a unified message that reaches the center-left of the country, we are still too much of a center-right country. So right now we only have two options. Vote and get as many as you can to vote. Remember no matter how bad it's being sold (and in lots of ways it's not that bad) …center, center-left or left is light years better than right and off the charts radical right.
As an extremely, perpetually white and occasionally extremely angry guy, I cannot consider the Republican party as a viable option until it breaks with religious fundamentalism and embraces science. As long as they are the anti-science, pro-zealot party, they are unacceptable, all other issues notwithstanding.
I pray
Dear God.... let no voter vote Republican
Ditto.
The following is why republicans will never get my vote again.
Romney robbed taxpayers through a complicated scam where Bain Capitol steals retiree pensions then places them on social security without paying into that system.
Romney is unfit for military duty because of brain injury suffered in a fatal French auto accident.
Romney has no respect for women.
Romney has utter disregard for all human life unless you are wealthy.
Senior Mormon clergy, like Mitt Romney, use tithing donations for personal profit instead of social support for the poor and homeless.
The Mormon faith has sunk $billions$ into lavish real estate development and casinos during the worst homeless crisis since the Great Depression.
This is the ultimate insult because gambling violates LDS beliefs - only non believers are robbed.
Mitt Romney is called the "Tin Man" for a good reason.
Coma indicates damage to the limbic system that control emotions.
The limbic system is the source of the emotions that make up our personality, and this is damaged by the kind of blunt force trauma that causes unconsciousness.
Romney has no conscious.
Romney was able to siphon the bulk of his wealth from the poor and unemployed because he is utterly devoid of empathy.
Pension funds are used as collateral to obtain impractically large loans, and these loan proceeds are siphoned off as consulting fees and profit instead of the legitimate purposes like factory retrofits and other company improvements.
This is a form of money laundering, which is why Romney used his wealth to purchase citizenship in foreign countries in case he has to flee the country like his Grandfather.
Retirement pension funds are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).
The lead investigator for the PBGC is Ms. Schneider, a former employee of Mitt Romney at Bain, which is how Mitt Romney and Bain have avoided penalties for stealing pension funds and defrauding taxpayers.
Romney and Ryan have been advocating social security and medicare cuts to reduce their own taxes after Romney profited from people forced to rely solely on social security and medicare after confiscating their retirement funds for personal gain.
Links provided for fact checking (click to verify).
So what? Got any proof Romney did something illegal?
By comparison, even with all the opinion and allegation above, Mitt looks Presidential indeed.
Kindly let me know why you are unable to follow any of the links from the following material that was already posted above.
Six different sources show Romney is illegally profiting by bankrupting pension funds and putting the retirees on social security because his close friend at PBGC refuses to investigate the criminal activity and file charges.
Mitt Romney is a crook.
His friend at PBGC is obstructing justice.
Proof.
You have allegations, not proof.
Obama made fewer recess appointments than any recent president.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397589/president-obama-has-made-far-fewer-recess-appointments-than-any-recent-president/
The "American Citizen" that was killed forfeited his citizenship by committing treason by according to article 3 section 3 of the US Constitution by "providing aid and comfort to the enemy".
The person in California that was arrested violated a court order prohibiting use of Internet, and that had nothing to do with Obama.
Republicans in the House of Representatives cut funds for embassy security by over $100 million in 2011 and cut embassy security by over $300 million in 2012.
That is why the Libyan ambassador had no marine battalion to protect him.
I posted Proof to support my statements.
From multiple sources.
I also posted proof that you lied.
Enjoy!
Shooter242 is magically trollicious because there are no links to support the delusional lies.
Right. Republicans cut so much money State couldn't have marines at both Benghazi and Barbados at the same time. On 9/11.
Look, Obama left his guy to die. Went to bed after hearing about the attack and then on to Vegas. It's a month later and he's still trying to cover his butt. Valerie Jarret gets 6 Secret Service guys in the middle of DC, but nothing for people in harm's way. It's colossally, callously, negligent.
And no you have no proof of anything. Actually you don't even have real allegations. Nothing you posted about Bain was illegal. The first two cites are about AMR hiring Bain AFTER declaring bankruptcy. I should have taken your handle as fair warning.
Cutting $331 million in 2012 and another $128 million in 2011.
Those cuts would have paid for about 6,000 marines. The secretary of state has to maintain staff in just under 200 countries.
That works out to about 30 marines per country (a platoon per embassy).
10 marines would have been enough to fight off the attack (a squad per consul).
Those are people that Obama did not have available to use in Libya because security was denied by the House of Representatives.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Isn't it?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/paul-ryan-embassy-attacks_n_1959951.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
6 different newspaper articles about pension fraud plus several active investigations is not enough proof?
You want a judge to actually sentence Romney like Bernie Madhoff before he looses your vote?
Really?
Why would that be?
And why can't you post any links to support your claims?
From the debate.
Romney is the first presidential candidate that needs to win so he can pardon himself.
That's why he would say anything to win.
And he purchased foreign citizenship so he can flee prosecution.
A) Blaming Republicans for the death of the Ambassador is truly lame. Grow up.
B) One can't prove a negative, what Bain did was entirely legal, and apparently you haven't read and/or comprehended your cites.
C) "Looses" is not a word, you mean "loses".
D) I have to ask, in what other country did Romney become a citizen?
shooter: dont know how you get the patience to do the back and forth with these kinda people,thank you for trying anyways and it gives me hope
Ahh Shooter, you MUST be a masochist - you come here and get beat up SOO often!!! Or are you so hard up that you REALLY need the paltry payment you get from posting here?
A) Blaming Obama for the death of the Ambassador is truly lame. Grow up! Especially since the REPUBLICANS cut funding for our overseas missions.
B) The "legality" of what Bain did is not exactly clear. Be careful of that limb you are going out on - it may not be as solid as you think!
c) Now you are an English teacher??? Or is that the ONLY REAL thing you could find to complain about in Crackhead's post?
D) From the Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/11/1143146/-Romney-to-Renounce-US-Citizenship-If-He-Loses-Election
Shooter - see, you aren't the only one who can silly nonsense to post!! At least this one is funny - as it was meant to be!! We can tell the difference between satire and truth - wouldn't it be wonderful if the rwns like you could!!!
Yes and no. So far as I can tell, you're trying to tell me that crackhead's statement that Romney acquired a different citizenship is satire, yes?
I'm sorry but can't distinguish this from of the other offerings from your side. The idiocy of Joe Biden's performance seems typical of the left. In fact it was an offering to the base as appeasement. A few of the commenters here are so vile, I've put them on ignore.
So yes, it would be nice if I could distinguish your real beliefs from a joke, but I can't.
Translation from trollspeak: It would be nice if you would just roll over and play dead when I post bullpucky, but you are a haynus librul."
From Airball the Hemorrhoid:
No, he hasn't. What he's telling you is that he can't hang and is giving an excuse for not responding to you. I mean, how could he respond if he didn't see you crush his balls, huh? What Airball aka Blank aka Mr. Mitty is owning up to is that he is a mental mediocrity and a coward.
You'll know America (and the world) is progressing when a question in the VP Presidential "debate" is "What are the benefits and costs of believing things for which there is no evidence?" instead of "Tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion."
Second that!
As a logical matter, there is no difference between believing in things without
evidence and disbelieving in things without evidence.
Bertrand Russell had it wrong. The answer to the Tea Pot question isn't,
"Of course it's not there and shouldn't be believed in." The answer
is "I don't know, and neither do you. Now why does it matter?"
Science and Logic cannot prove a negative. It is logically and scientifically incumbent upon the declarative party to prove their assertion before it can be taken as a fact. By those rules, declaring the non-existence of God is just as subject to the rules for a declarative party's assertion as a person trying to make the assertion in or of the existence of God.
You ignore the role of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that things like the quantum theory, relativity, classical mechanics (restricted to the world of ordinary experience), the cell theory of disease, modern genetics, and evolution by natural selection account for the concrete facts of our existence.
The proper contrast would be belief in things for which there is much evidence and things for which there is little or none. As I believe in the efficacy of evidence, I would put my atheism this way: The paucity of evidence for the existence of God --- particularly as conceived by the Abrahamic religions --- strongly inclines me to doubt that it is an actual fact. The undeniable existence of evil (both of natural and human origin) further suggests that a God which is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent is an empirical impossibility. And a God who would provide us with intellect and curiosity, and deny our power to use them is, in a word, ridiculous.
You are wrong Beahmont.
Choosing not to believe in god because there is no evidence is different than believing in god when there is no evidence.
Try to answer why that is the case. It is related to having to prove a negative. What is the consequence of having to accept as possible any premise for which there is no evidence? What are the consequences of actually accepting a premise for which there is no evidence?
You are wrong. There is no evidence that there aren't checker-boarded zebras. There is no evidence that the species we think are in decline aren't just hiding out in the Greek underworld. Today's idiots suggest there is no evidence that their chosen stupidities are not true. They think this gives them license to keep on believing it There is a price to be paid for having to take them seriously.
You are wrong. The burden is on those one that declares something in the positive, not on those the negative for which there is no evidence. I do not have to prove that global warming is not being caused by a herd of invisible elephants in geosynchronous orbit farting tremendously. Someone making such a stupid assertion must prove it. And since there is no evidence, I can dismiss the absurd. Otherwise, we must consider the uncountably infinite absurdities.
You are wrong. The more difficult, the more incredulous is an assertion X, the more obligation the apologist for X assumes to justify the assertion.
You are wrong. The burden is on you to justify your beliefs; the more they deviate from your sensory life, the more obligation and the solid evidence you need to bring to justify them. Otherwise, you can believe anything. Absolutely anything. In that world, you are a character in "1984."
You are wrong.
Well, it is almost after the sixth day, and noone has yet been able to stop Jesus from performing miracles on the Seventh Day.
Hopeless. Just hopeless.
I object to the notion that God is denying our power to use our intellect and curiosity. HUMANS, who INSIST on their interpretation of their sacred text (whether it is the Bible, Koran or Book or Mormon), stifle the debate before it gets started.
I beleive in God because credible witnesses saw Jesus die, rise from the dead and tell them to deliver His message to all peoples. His message has nothing to say about scientific inquiry and it is only the folly of some of the faithful that that message gets injected into scientific inquiry. Issues such as evolution, the Big Bang and what happens inside an atom are outside this message and should remain so. That said, scientific inquiry should not be injected into the message through the folly of some of the scientists, either.
Credible witnesses did not see Jesus rise from the dead. And everybody knows if that didn't happen, then ...
Beahmont, You're correct about no difference between believing and not believing that for which there is no evidence. I would go further and point out that the hypothesis of a creator god is, by its very nature, beyond the possibility of proof or disproof. It is, therefore, not accessible to any form of logical or scientific testing and hence inherently unverifiable. That is why it is called a belief, rather than a truth. It is a personal choice.
On the matter of scientific and logical validation, you're wrong in the assertion that neither can prove a negative. The null hypothesis is very basis upon which scientific knowledge is acquired: you cannot prove that something is indubitably true; you can only prove that its opposite is indubitably not true.
Unfortunately, the terms 'religion' and 'spirituality' have come to be used rather loosely. Not all religions believe in a creator god, yet they are unquestionably spiritual in their purpose. It is entirely possible to have a thoroughly adequate and profound understanding of birth, death, life, consciousness, the nature of existence, ethics, virtue, and the consequences of our actions without invoking the existence of a creator god. To equate non-belief in a creator god with immorality or evil is just plain ignorant.
The desperate need of believers in a creator god to entice or force others into their purely hypothetical belief system is an indication of how vulnerable they are about the unprovability of their conviction. Only by joining together in a shared belief in what is basically a fantasy can they exert the power and influence they desire.
Slurpidog's first two sentences are incorrect. They lead to worlds in which a man can be both innocent and guilt, and they lead to world's in which you can just make shhit up.
Credible witnesses saw Jesus alive after He died and credible witnesses recorded and spread His message. Nowhere in Jesus' message does he mention what to do about scientific inquiry and Christians should not take Scripture and attack scientific inquiry either. By the same token, scientists should not use scientific inquiry to attack religious faith. Politicians on both sides should act the same way.
Credible? These are stories, my friend, written by a disparate group of people over a long period of time. Hell, I suppose the ghost stories I used to hear should be considered "credible" if those are credible. The canon wasn't even settled for hundreds of years. I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the word credible does not match mine.
Believe what you're gonna believe if you must. But here's what a rational person does: believes what he must believe due to evidence and reason, not what he wants to believe.
But get religion out of the public sphere. Get it out of being asked of political candidates what it means to them. If religion is to be brought into the public sphere, here's the question that ought to be asked: Why in the hell do you believe something for which there is no evidence? And if you are going to believe things for which there is no evidence, why should the public consider you a rational person? And if you aren't a rational person, ...
Disgusted...,
People like that have a very self-serving definition of "credible".
Some of us have no choice, like for instance I didn't get to choose whether or not Alice wanted to search for that picture of my third grade bus driver. She just went looking by herself. I told her it wasn't important, she did it anyway. So, she's still looking, what good it's gonna do her I have no idea. Unfortunately, some of us can't even pick and choose who are friends are going to be. And some of them we need in order to save us again and again time after time. It's that darn diamond stud halo.
Disgusted is correct that my first two sentences lack rigor.
As the creation of a postulated creator god we are implicitly precluded from testing the existence of the said creator merely by the syntax of the assertion (q.v. the Russell paradox of the class of all classes that is a member of itself), in a manner similar to the impossibility of a knife cutting itself. If I postulate the existence of a tiger outside my door whose nature is such that it disappears as soon as I open the door, the construct of the proposition denies the possibility of verification. Postulating the existence of a creator god, of which we are not the creator, falls into the same category of unverifiability. The kicker, of course, is that we are the creator of the hypothesis of a creator god.
An atheist who denies the existence of a creator god is no different from a theist who asserts the existence of a creator god. Their denial or assertion can be no more than opinion or belief since the possibility of proof does not exist.
I doubt if I will have satisfied you, Disgusted, but it is the best I can do.
Well, there's the deal of whether man created the creator or not. And if it's just that man is deducing the existence of a necessary creator but without evidence (as we know evidence to be either logical, physical, or sensory and as has been attempted throughout man's existence), then I don't think it follows that it is not possible to deduce the creator's existence via logical, physical, or sensory evidence. (I'm not sure Russell fits here, but it may be that I've had too much coffee. :-))
I simply don't buy that the possibility of proof of a creator god is not possible. Of course I'm not willing to get into what I consider rather silly epistemological and ontological arguments about how we can even know if we ourselves exist, think, etc.
I agree with the last three paragraphs of your first post, however.
Whatever. Maybe bring the tenor of the discussion down a little in formality will get us to settle on something. I think that almost all of us would agree with more simple assertions that things just work better for individuals and for us collectively when we require evidence and reason for believing the things we do.
Are you in Mathematics? Philosophy? (Feel no obligation to answer if you don't like doing so on the internet. I'm just curious.)
I would like to point out that even if we accept that believing without evidence and disbelieving without evidence are rationally equivalent, we are still ignoring the matter of relative probabilities.
For example: believing that my next throw of a die will yield a 2, is a claim without evidence. However, is it is still rationally superior to believing that my die will yield a 7. Why? Because a 2 is possible, even though it is not the most likely outcome, while a 7 is outright impossible.
I'm not saying that God is impossible. But the fact that we cannot prove one side or the other does not mean that they are equally likely. In order for God to not exist, we require natural explanations for the phenomena we observe. We have those. They are not complete, but we're working on it, and no one would argue that they're not more complete than they were a thousand years ago, or even 10 years or 1 year ago.
Whereas: In order for God to exist, we need to believe not only that there is a supernatural mechanism for the phenomena we observe, but also that all of the possible natural mechanisms that we observe are NOT in use.
Postulating that God designed all the animals and plants, etc. and that evolution is false means that not only there is a superhuman force (God) available to design everything, but also that evolution, which we OBSERVE TO BE IN EFFECT, is irrelevant.
That's like saying that things fall AND gravity exists, but that things fall and gravity exists independently because God wants them to.
We can't prove either one. But they are absolutely not equally likely.
The key word is "rational" which requires evidence and reason. They are not rationally equivalent.
The bigger problem for believers I think, in a rational sense, is that there is not only an insistence of creation, but the existence of all the other attributes are attached to the creator. So it is not only necessary to argue/believe that a creator exists, but that this creator exhibits all the other attributes of the belief. To wit,
- all-powerful, omniscience, all-knowing,
- all loving,
- he/she/it visited the Earth 2000 years ago in the form of a man, ....
And all the contradictions that result from just those. The unlikeliness of it is just overwhelming.
DisgustedWithItAlll:
Apparently you've never heard of Schrödinger's cat and quantum physics. Because that's exactly how the world works in science. The man is both innocent and guilty until observed to be either or neither.
You are mixing up possibility and probability. You keep making assertions that
are not founded by logic. You do have to accept the possibility of things for
which there is no evidence within certain bounds. It's just basic quantum
theory. All quantum positions are possible, but not all positions have the same
probability at any given moment. It is entirely possible for all the air in any
given room to spontaneously move to ‘corners’ of a room leaving a perfect vacuum in the middle and then move back to normal. It’s just not very probable at all!
Objective Reality is just that objective. And no matter how much you don't want
to talk about it, the Objective Reality is that there might not be an Objective
Reality. And it doesn't care if you don't believe in it or not.
You are right in that there is no evidence that checkered Zebra's do not exist.
But you fail to point out that the reverse is also true. There is no evidence
that they do exist. Understanding that absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence is a fundamental requirement for rigorous scientific evaluation. With
no evidence either way, we have to hold out scientifically that it is possible
they exist. But that doesn't mean we can't say with some variable of probability
that it's likely they don't exist at the moment.
You are attempting to create logical propositions that lead to the answers you
want. You want to not believe in God because it doesn't fit your world view of
what evidence is and is not credible. And yet you've proved you don't give credence to all science, just the stuff you know of and want to believe. The reality is that there is a definitive possibility that God exists. And given the
scientific and logic based definitions for God (An entity that can create,
destroy, obey, or ignore any rule, theory, or principle of science or logic
that is known or unknown, at will. A relatively scientific definition of omnipotent.),
it is impossible for science and logic to deal with the concept of God, let alone
develop a test that could prove an entity is God. That is according to science there
is an equal chance for any entity you meet, see, or don't see to be God. But
that doesn't mean anything. It just means that on the levels of science and
logic we are currently unequipped to deal with the topic of God; and the very
real, indeed most likely, probability that we never will be so equipped.
Welcome to the massive headache that quantum physics has brought with it to the Newtonian world.
*edit* As a matter of irrational note: I hate the lack of WYSIWYG in the comment posting boxes.
Slurpidog: As far as the null hypothesis goes, you can't even make the claim that its opposite is indubitably not true without a ton of caveats. See the various times string theory has been in and out of 'favor' and the various species that we declare to have become extinct only to later see them again.
That said you are correct that it is very important. However like all scientific knowledge, anything 'proved' by it must be subject to change without notice. The whole benefit of science is that it is designed to be revised within certain criteria without the malicious struggles and cries of heresy that come with the changing of 'truth' in other fields (i.e. most organized religions).
jprfrog: I have not ignored the role of evidence. I just don't understand the scientific priciples and fields you've listed as evidence of the lack of a 'God' entity, because it is entirely within the realm of posibility that a 'God' entity simply created the rules by which the universe runs. Evolution and the age of the universe like wise offer no proof that a 'God' entity did not simply create the universe as a thing that had already 'aged' how ever many years ago said entity did or did not create the universe. The concept of a 'God' entity allow for it to decide to destroy the universe and recreate it exactly as it was at the moment of it's prior destruction without the posibility of it being detected or even detectable from within the universe due to the 'system' and net force rules of physics. So your proof is just logical non-sequitur.
Good God!! Where are my boots? Way too deep...
I believe people should freely believe what they want without being called idiots. I believe in God, I'm not an idiot. I would never call non-believers names, it's not nice
You are wrong Beahmont.
I know about Schrodinger's Cat. And I do not want to not believe in god. And even though you might want, for reasons that make you want to believe in God, believe that there is the possibility that there is no Objective Reality, we have every reason to believe that there is Objective Reality. We have built up models of our reality that help us predict what will happen when we take certain actions. Sure, it could all be a ruse, right? Just a trick to fool us that cause and effect are real. Believe that if that gives you comfort and license in accepting your God. But don't expect me to consider you anything other than a fool.
You are wrong. Believe in your God if you must. But the burden is on you to justify it. The rationality you provide is ridiculously flimsy. And it is lazy to use that and a bit obnoxious to insist that to refuse to accept the possibility of a creator because there is no evidence is the same as your excuse to believe your Christianity -- if that is what it is -- without any evidence whatsoever.
We do not live in a world that you can just make shhit up; we do not live in your world. We don't live in "1984."
You are wrong.
Wow.
I thought I was the only one that heard that remark criticizing delusional thinking.
Bush collapsed the economy with these laws when unemployment was at 5%.
The first created "undocumented immigrants" because people making 10 cents per pound picking berries and vegetables can't afford to pay over $1,000 documentation fee and $3,000 legal fees.
http://www.goinglegal.com/an-estimated-total-cost-in-getting-a-green-card-1734334.html
http://www.gaebler.com/Green-Card-Costs.htm
Employers that fail to pay up to $5,000 to hire migrant laborers create undocumented immigrants when the employer fails to pay the fee. Here is the current list of employers that failed to document their workers.
http://www.uscis.gov/h-1b_count
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/mspa_debar.htm
"Undocumented immigrants" are converted into "illegal immigrants" when they get caught driving without a license because of the Real ID Act.
Employers are manufacturing "illegal immigrants" by not paying fees and taxes for immigrants that have to drive to/from the work site.
Police in western states began stealing and auctioning hundreds of thousands of vehicles from "illegal immigrants" every year starting in 2005. This violates the "illegal search and seizure" clause of the US constitution. The practice established by Gov. Swartzeneger has since been banned by the Gov. Gerry Brown.
Vehicle theft by police earned over $40 million just in California just in 2009 by violating the illegal search and seizure clause of the US constitution.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/12/california-police-illegal-immigrant-alien-towing-immigration/1
Organized unconstitutional theft by police caused 10 million immigrants to flee the country.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Impound-Policy-Illegal-Immigration-Drivers-Licenses-142099323.html
Which collapsed the automotive industry by selling 10 million excess used vehicles.
Which collapsed the real estate industry by causing 10 million dwellings to be abandoned.
Which collapsed ...
It's not like anyone can claim they haven't heard that undocumented immigrant populations have declined.
The undocumented immigrant population declined because police began unconstitutional confiscation and auctioning vehicles after the Real ID Act of 2005 made it illegal for states to issue drivers licenses to immigrants. KKKalifornia made $40 million by stealing vehicles from Mexican owners just in 2009.
The Real ID Act was nullified in Texas, which had no recession because Texas didn't outlaw Mexicans like California.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/real-id/
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/26/no-real-estate-bubble-or-recession-in-texas/
Police sold 10 million extra used vehicles, which collapsed the automotive industry.
http://californiawatch.org/public-safety/car-seizures-dui-checkpoints-prove-profitable-cities-raise-legal-questions
It's not like you can claim you haven't heard about the problems about how Detroit almost went bankrupt because nobody was buying new cars.
About 10 million undocumented immigrants departed the US between 2006 and 2010 after their stolen vehicles were auctioned by police.
There are about 160 million dwellings in the US, so this increased housing abandonment from about 4% to 10%.
It's not like you can say nobody has seen housing abandonment on the news.
Those 10 million undocumented immigrants spent about $200billion/year. That consumer demand employed about 7 million US citizens.
http://www.naid.ucla.edu/uploads/4/2/1/9/4219226/b46.pdf
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Hinojosa%20-%20Raising%20the%20Floor%20for%20American%20Workers%20010710.pdf
Many of the undocumented immigrants that left went to Mexico to work for Asian companies that build vehicles that reduced demand for US vehicles in Mexico (our #1 export destination).
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51044
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/09mexicoam/2009-06/05/content_8253861.htm
We can no longer accurately measure our population because of this situation.
Links provided for fact checking. Click to verify.
Beahmont, welcome to the massive headache that quantum physics has brought with it to the Newtonian world!
As an entity that can create, destroy, obey, or ignore any rule, theory, or principle of science or logic that is known or unknown, at will, I am amused and impressed by your not unworthy attempts to grapple with the enigma of my improbable existence.
To assist you in your exploration I will pose you a simple question: If I were to exist would I exist inside or outside your mind?
I hate doing this but I also hate leaving a stone unturned.
Beahmont's conclusion that
intends us to fall victim to a cunning trick (or logical oversight) of those who quite sincerely wish to give this 'God' thing a fair crack of the whip, by surreptitiously intruding its presence where it is neither required nor invited. It is a ruse to muddy the waters in favor of something which adds nothing to the investigation of the true nature of everything. It's like the value on both sides of the equation which cancels out.
-- like : Who said anything about 'God'?
Hi, Disgusted!
I studied Mathematics and Philosophy at University. It taught me little about my navel which I am now investigating.
Slurpidog
I will give it a shot , I am experiencing YOU , and this world I meet you in , in our mind , but I am also experiencing you in "the brain" of my star dust encrusted skull ..
The human mind is fragile and can die, or become immobile at any moment , but we always have access to the eternal universal mind that creates forever , creation is always creating , that is proven every moment all around us on earth , and in the eternal universe ....So take , for instance , humans actually are a small child , or new creation of this creative force , we are learning to create , with a small "c" , here in this world , in our minds , so I am experiencing you inside my brain , but this whole world is a creative process of our mind
Now on this earth we slowed the speed of star dust and light down to the point we are creating solid forms , but it appears we have to become some what dysfunctional to achieve , and experience this , i e the fragile mind of earth bound humans , but there is no way we can actually completely detach ourselves from the infinite mind that created us , and this world , so we always have access to that UNIVERSAL MIND , but we have limited that part of our brains temporally , so we can create with SLOWED DOWN STAR MATTER for now
So we exist in both our minds and this world , because it would be really boring , and nearly , if not impossible , to create anything all alone
Arrgh, way too deep for me to consider on a quiet Sunday morning!! Makes me wonder if the creators of the Matrix Trilogy had this discussion....
One way to maybe change your mind about God is to simply try a piece of my apple pie, it works everytime. That with the occasional fallen star light show is encouraging.
Well, I experience "God" every time I try a piece of something else. If you get my drift. :-0
Okay. I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to explain this rationally once more:
The status of the existence of God or a 'God' entity is unknown. There is no proof such a thing exists. There is no proof such a thing doesn't exist. And anyone who says that there is a God is making just as illogical, irrational, and unscientific statement; as is anyone who claims that God doesn't exist. They would both be making statements for which there is no evidence.
This is the start of a lot of the posters proving themselves to be illogical, irrational, and unscientific. They, especially DisgustedWithItAlll, start from the faulty premise that God doesn't exist and then try and make everyone work from there towards their prefered answer because they have created a logical fallacy as the basis of their arguement. Then our lovely friend DisgustedWithItAlll attempts to sound all logical and rational, but he slips up and gives the whole game away:
"[...] I don't think it follows that it is not possible to deduce the creator's existence via logical, physical, or sensory evidence. (I'm not sure Russell fits here, but it may be that I've had too much coffee. :-))
I simply don't buy that the possibility of proof of a creator god is not possible."
You don't think, you don't buy. No evidence required for these beliefs and thought processes just pure gut instinct and speculation. But let's be fair. DisgustedWithItAlll since you have now made the assertive statement that you " don't buy the possiblility of proof of a creator god is not possible," please show us evidence and proof for your assertion. And while you're at it could you please tell me the location and velocity of a single particle at the same time. I'd like to get next weeks lotto numbers.
No rational or reasonable person should any more believe you, DisgustedWithItAlll, when you claim to know the answer to one of the greatest thought questions ever to befuddle mandkind than they should anyone else. Anyone who claims to know that 'God' exists is lying. Anyone who claims to know that 'God' doesn't exist is lying.
You are wrong again, Beahmont. And you're not reading correctly. I didn't say I know a "God" -- whatever it means -- doesn't exist.
The burden of proof is on you. You want a license that says that if you choose to believe that a god/creator of your choice -- and any attributes you choose to ascribe to it -- exists without any evidence for such a creature is equivalent to someone who says no such thing exists because there is no evidence. Or you want others to place equal disdain to the denier of the believer's claim as they would to the believer.
That license application has been denied. And if you think you've been running around with such a license, then it has been revoked.
Believe anything you want. But take responsibility for those beliefs. If you have no evidence for such beliefs, then they are faith-based only and irrational. But the burden is on you. If you want to claim we live in a make-shhit-up world, prove it.
DisgustedWithItAlll You're an idiot! Please, please stop making assertions without proof! I don't believe in God! Never said I did! You have said that God can't be a possiblility several times through out the conversation. If 'God' can't be possible then by the definition of words you are then saying that you know the answer to the question of "Does 'God' exist?" And when you do that, I'm call you a liar!
And no! The burrden of proof is on you to say that the starting point of the universe is that 'God' doesn't exist and everyone must work from there. The only one engaging in doublethink here is you! You are the one holding beliefs that are logically and internally inconsistent! You beleive and claim to be reasonable, but you refuse to understand logic, reason, and science!
I brought in Schrödinger's cat as example because I'm trying to be nice and point out the logical fallacy of starting the conversation of 'God' not existing. It's like saying that the you can start from the premise that the Cat is dead, and anyone who wants to assert otherwise must prove so, but you never have to prove the Cat is dead. It's just hardcore wingnuttery!
No, I didn't. And your application has been denied and your license revoked.
If you are not saying it's impossible for 'God' to exist, then you are saying it is possible that 'God' exists. If you're saying it's possible 'God' exists then it is merely some probability of that possiblility that is in contention. And yet, you are definitively stating that the only people who have to present proof of assertion are the people who believe 'God' exists.
Under Quantum Mechanics and logical debate you literally can not concede that there is a posiblility of 'God' existing, after which you claim that 'God' doesn't exist, then establish conditions that make your claim the default position that the question is framed from. You'd be laughed out of the building.
On a more personal note: Who died and made you adjucator of acceptable beliefs and science? The Pope? You sir have no more right to stand in judgement of me for my evocation of actual science than the Pope did Galileo.
You sir are a Fundamentalist Atheist troll with no interest in actual science or logic that does not reafirm you own established beliefs. Perhaps you've been around IrishPat and Blanks too long, because you're starting to sound a lot like them. I've read your comments here and at the Washington Monthly for over a year now and I thought you were a guy who I simply had differences of opinion with but was actually a reasonable person. I was sadly mistaken. That however was not an excuse for loosing my cool earlier and calling you an idiot. For that I apologize.
You are a pedant and are trying to hide behind Schrodinger and the inability to precisely state the position of particles so that you can equate assertions that are nowhere equivalent. With you the assertion that someone can high jump 9 feet is equivalent to the assertion that they can jump over the moon. It's an excuse for being lazy, and a position from which to look down.
You're trying it on the wrong person.
Nor am I an atheist.
Who died and made you adjucator of acceptable beliefs and science?........Jesus
DisgustedWithItAlll, again with the assumptions based on facts not in evidence. I've specifically said that possibility and probability are two seperate things. I've even said that just because something is possible doesn't mean it is at all probable! It is entirely possible to High Jump 9 feet. It is entirely possible to "jump over the moon." But the probability of both are small. Indeed the probability of being able to "jump over the moon" is so small as to be rendered for all practical day to day purposes as to be so small that it can be said to be "practically impossible." However "practically impossible" does not mean actually impossible and we must always be aware that it is possible lest we start making false assumptions in later theories and hypotheses based on the information in question.
'Unaffiliated' is not entirely synonymous with 'not religious'. Sometimes, deep religious feeling provides the motive for disengagement from organized religion. This is a phenomenon with deep roots in American history. In the early 19th century, people like this were often referred to as Seekers (not to be confused with the 17th-century British sect of the same name). Sometimes, the religiously unaffiliated go on to found their own religions (Joseph Smith, for example).
Of course, the lack of a religious impulse is also a reason for a person to be religiously unaffiliated. The point is that a lack of affiliation by itself tells you nothing about whether a person is religious or not. It's a diverse group, which only makes the GOP's religion problem that much worse.
You could compare them to "independent" voters, many of whose political ideals cause them to consistently vote for one party or the other. It boosts some egos to consider themselves to be "independent" or "unaffiliated". Still, it's a start. Americans are finally beginning to grow up. Some day the earth will be free of the scourge of religion and "spirituality."
When I read this part of the article my thoughts went immediately to, "Maybe people don't want to be publicly affiliated with the zealotry and extremism and politicalization that organized religion has become in this country."
I have belonged to several different denominations of "Protestant Christianity" over my lifetime. Mostly now I am unaffiliated and just call myself a Christian - emphasis on New Testament teachings. When I go to church and the pastor starts preaching politics I'm outta there!
hla,
FWIW, I have no problems with "spirituality". I have plenty of problems with "religion".
Religion is a bunch of rules set up to control me.
Spirituality is sense of a "higher power" and a lack of rules designed to set me free.
pauly,
Unfortunately, one thing that "spirituality" often frees us from is taking responsibility for our actions in the real, physical world. "My higher power says it's okay,' is an excuse for, literally, anything.
That would be the conservative version of spirituality , and christianity for that matter HLA , you will also meet lots of conservatives who will tell you they are not CHRISTIANS , because jesus and all that forgiveness stuff is just to overwhelmingly liberal , but they will defend ,and shove, pat robertson speak down your throat at every turn any way , thinking no one will notice
They do the same thing with the u s constitution , they pick out the stuff they like , and pretend the rest is not there , you can not confuse liberals with these people in any way
As a believing Christian it saddens me to see how politics have infultrated our churches and it's leadership. I recently moved and have been actively seeking a church that i can support. Unfortunately I consistently find messages of self determination rather than love and charity or sadly one pastor bragging about getting his conceal and carry permit (to the cheers of the congregation). If I am brazen enough to voice my concerns I am condemmed by my fellow church going family and aquaintences. I know several others that have the same opinion but few venture to question the culture of our current churches for fear of ridicule. I will stay at home rather than support this attitude.
The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.
Why would anybody be surprised? When Republicans decided back in the 1970s that the flag belonged to them and nobody else, there was a loss of respect for what it symbolized. Making organized religion the province of conservatives will mean that people who aren't conservatives will be less interested in being associated with it.
As I've said many times before on this forum, mixing politics and religion degrades both.
Mother Hubbbard62, I suspect that this is part of why many (including myself) will have no affiliation with fundamental Christianity. I grew up before conservatism embraced religion as a political weapon. At that time, Christianity really was all about turning the other cheek, loving your neighbor as you love yourself, show mercy to others as God shows mercy to you, and of those who have much, much is expected. It was about humility and compassion.
Today, Christianity is all about hating gays, subjugating women, and doing all one can - including massive efforts of deception - in order to stack the deck in favor of one political party. It's so contrary to the actual words and teachings of Jesus. It is sickening to see a beautiful religion so debased.
Because of the teachings I received early on, my view is that the people who have corrupted Christianity and have led so many souls down a hateful and corrosive path will be held accountable.
In the meantime, it's heartening to see that there are fewer and fewer people who want any thing to do with Fake Christianity. Good on 'em!
Whether it is salvation in Christianity, nirvana in Hinduism, or enlightenment in Bhuddism, people all over the world look to become one with what I will call the Source of Creation. Peoples have organized what we call religions around principles they feel will unite them with the Creator. Most of our social customs (marriage and family, for example) this society relies on come from those principles and they serve society well. The problem is (and always has been) when organized religion starts DICTATING right and wrong to EVERYONE, regardless of what principles they use to unite with the Creator. The solution is to STOP THE DICTATING BEHAVIOR. The trick is to do it without throwing away the customs and values society relies on.
Scientific inquiry has done marvels for this world, from destroying diseases to taking us to the Moon and back, but it will never replace these customs and values. Scientific inquiry and religious faith must progress in their own sphere and when one intrudes on the other the INTRUDERS are at fault and must be brought to task, not religion or science.
jcricket: so go beyond fundamentalist groups and look at most mainline Protestant denominations. Not only do they believe in charity and forgiveness, but in preserving the environment, peace instead of war, the equality of women and all people, for scientific discovery, and so on. They even believe it's OK to question their faith and think for themselves. See my link posted elsewhere on this thread.
jcricket #3.8
If people are doing things contrary to the actual words and teachings of Jesus, then they are not Christians. Jesus will judge how well His message flows out of us in our lives, not how many times we pound it in somewhere. I am a devout Catholic and beleive Christianity cannot be corrupted in spite of Borgia popes and Spanish Inquisitions because Jesus' message can never be corrupted. You have been searching a long time and been disillusioned by the Christian leaders you found. May I suggest you find Christians you believe in and change the institution from inside with them, one congregation at a time? Good luck and God bless you.
The problem is that all of the so-called "Abrahamic" religions are intrinsically and fatally flawed. They are the fruit of the poisoned tree. When you start believing in a god who makes unreasonable demands, then trouble will inevitably follow.
The Southern Strategy is destine to die a slow cold death with the passing of the generations of heirs to the peculiar (read perverse) institution the South embraced for 200 years and clung to seemingly the same way FOXNEWS and its minions today are clinging to any and all conspiracy theories against our first African-American POTUS!
Why do FOX & Friends refuse to come on board to a broader Union? Why do they lead with the jab of race and division? Throwbacks to a different, long gone, alien America?
Perhaps! -Kevo
Growing up in the 70's we all kinda thought that too , that my generation and there after would be some how more enlightened , I do not see it happening to this day , if anything , it may have gotten worse , 1/2 of the people taking polls think romney would make a wonderful leader , " insert flabbergasted look here "
Patango . . . I had thought the same thing. I expected that white kids growing up in more integrated settings would become more tolerant and respectful of diversity. Instead, it seems to be going the other way.
I guess it's a testimonial to the politics of division practiced so successfully by the Republican Party. When you spend that kind of time and money for three or four decades to drive wedges between people, there's going to be an effect on the people those messages are aimed at.
I graduated from HS in 1964 and I also thought that the social changes that were happening around me would create a more enlightened or caring populace in future generations. Now I am flabergasted by the hate and ignorance that still plays such a strong part in our country.
I graduated in 1955 and foolishly believed that we had turned the corner on the divisions in our country. I thought we had reached a point of acceptance of our brothers and sisters as they are and was really thrown for a loop when a person I thought I knew started to spew the hatred and ugliness from the Republican Party. I tried to talk to her as a rational person and suggested she cut the President some slack for not agreeing with her. She came back like Glen Beck. So the "problem" isn't only the Republican leaders. There are too many who have swallowed the hate and "my way or the highway" meme of the Republican far right.
I feel that unless the Republican Party (as it stands) sinks into oblivion under the weight of its hatred and greed, there is no further chance for our 2 party system. Hopefully if they should sink, the moderates that have been run into silence will come back and rebuild what has been torn down, because I feel we need 2 parties.
I am praying that the Romney/Ryan ticket will lose and if so, I also hope we never have to see them in the political world again. May the God Quark help us.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)....you need to know that all us white guys are not angry and we are not all bigots or haters or whatever you want to use us as ....some of us are really nice guys who just want a chane to live our lives in the america we grew up in .....not the 1800's that romney/ryan would like to take us back to and i don't think all the rich people that back them have the right to set the rules we will follow in the future which is what will happen if they win and most of america knows it....by the way love your show rachel
Well, I'm angry. And I'm angry at the dumba$$ angry guys.
Let us remember that someone will have to govern us whether we are angry or not. Conservatives do not feel they need to govern 47% of us, progressives know otherwise. Elect those who have a firm foundation in reality.
Bill Mahrer's "No Rules" segment last night calls out Focus on the Family for their unrealized predictions voiced in a letter to members in 2008 about what would happen if Obama was elected president. It's the last three minutes of the segment and is posted on HuffPo. Kind of speaks to these previous points.
It is precisely this kind of demographic shift that is causing the GOP to try to disenfranchise voters. If they don't find a way to cheat, there will be no Republicans in our government at all. We can expect Republicans to try to eliminate voting altogether or stage a coup to prevent their losing all political power.
Right. Instead of adapting to a changing electorate, they are trying to make the electorate adapt to them.
in a followup to an item i left in last saturday's "twig" comments
(Reuters) - Orthodox Jewish groups sued New York City on Thursday to try to block a new rule requiring parental consent for a circumcision ritual in which the circumciser uses his mouth to draw blood from the baby's penis.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, says the regulation is unconstitutional and violates religious freedom by targeting a Jewish ritual.
The lawsuit also says it violates the right to free speech because "the government cannot compel the transmission of messages that the speaker does not want to express."
http://preview.tinyurl.com/8srwlkd
Symbolic rituals now seem barbaric, I don't think they should have been literally practiced to begin with. This kind of disgusting display is why certain people should not be allowed to interpret the word of God. Whether they have been practicing this for zillions of years or not, they simply have just got it wrong, the only prayer now should be for the one that asks that the baby not become haunted later in life by an act that they may find repulsive, noone has the right to touch a child except for the child's parents. And the parents should know better.
does the child who's getting sliced have a choice in the matter?
I have to say of all the ways to do this, the one described here certainly has the highest "ick!" factor I can think of.
Wow. Hope they have luck with this. Then maybe they can revoke/rescind the requirements of abortion providers to "counsel" the patients in certain ways (sorry to veer off-topic but it will be interesting to see how this works out).
And Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old education activist who was critically injured when a Taliban thug shot her in the face and neck remains in stable but serious condition in a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Taliban spokesmen say that, if she recovers, they will come after her again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/13/world/asia/malala-yousafzai-faces-new-taliban-threat.html?_r=1&
not if we get the bastards first.
They have no power over that little girl, they never have. She is already haunting them. The Taliban must have forgotten about our Superheroes, the ones who are not afraid and feel no pain. She is surrounded by them.
Ironically the Taliban's attempt to silence this brave young woman has instead amplified her voice throughout her own country and the world. And Angel#77 - perfectly said. The Taliban are cowards and bullies - afraid of a brave young school girl.
Be ready for American examples of this if Teabagistan politics wins. There's already been one shooting at an Obama campaign office while people were inside...
This feels like a "Rosa Parks" moment for the Taliban to me. I just don't see them winning the publicity war on this - not here, in Afghanistan!
This girl getting shot because she wanted an education is a perfect example of what happens, when you allow religious extremists out of control. These narrow-minded men sit there in their delusional state thinking up all kinds of nonsense. Extreme Religious narrow-minded men do not even come close to dealing with the realities of what every day life is for people. They will sit there demanding people hold to their delusional standards even to the point of killing people in senseless attempts to prove their point. And it doesn’t matter what religion it is you still have these extreme religious narrow-minded men and even women that will demand certain things that do not fit into any normal scheme of reality. This is one of the reasons why I will stand against any church, religion, or person because of this. These people do not even deserve to be listened to and should be handled appropriately as they really are as extremists of hatred. God has given each of us freewill to make our own choices and decisions and as a Christian Jesus has provided those statements on what we all can learn from. Because when you do listen to these narrow-minded people what you do get is little children shot in the head plus the added misery, despair, violence, and death for people’s every day lives. And that is definitely not a way to live, especially for a civil society. For me seeing these things happen are just a reminder of what happens when you have these religious extremists want power and control over people. They pretend they want what is best for you or you might go to hell, but in reality they are making sure you live in hell and go to hell after your life’s end. If anything they are the worst sinners of all for what they have done and still look to do to people. Instead of love, peace, compassion, understanding, etc, they want death, hatred, violence, misery, and despair. For me I know them too well don’t let them do it to you.
Pauly,
I wish what you say would be true, but unfortunately the Afghans aren't ready for a "Rosa Parks" moment. There are many women who have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan for education and freedom and we don't remember them any more than anyone will remember this brave young lady in the future.
The moment we leave, the Taliban will again take control of that country because the people of that country will allow it as they have allowed similar religious fascists to control them for eons! Afghanistan will continue to live in the dark ages until the people in that country figure out that there may be a better way to live - and they won't figure it out while someone is trying to "force" it on them! Unfortunately we are learning the same lesson the British and the Russians learned - it just took us longer!
in additional "twig" news
(Reuters) - A group of 63 former Catholic priests backed gay marriage in Washington state on Thursday in a challenge to bishops who have lobbied against same-sex nuptials ahead of a November ballot measure that could legalize such unions in the state.
"We feel the bishops are abusing their power in attempting to direct Catholics on how to vote on this civil matter and impose their position on all citizens, Catholic and non-Catholic," the former priests said in a statement.
http://news.yahoo.com/former-catholic-priests-back-gay-marriage-washington-state-025531378.html
The Church shouldn't be allowed to take a political stance on civil issues if it wants to remain untaxed, and the fact is that as long as civil unions bear legal and tax ramifications on a couple, it's a civil issue.
It's a shame that former priests felt they had to balance power (by reminding Catholics that they could think for themselves) that current Bishops have chosen to abuse. It would seem that it's the former priests who are treating their religion more as pure religion and less as cult.
We must be careful here. Is this a case of the bishops sending a letter to be read at mass Sunday or bishops (as Americans) expressing their opinions in the media or elsewhere? We all agree the bishops SHOULD KNOW BETTER than to make politically charged statements ANYWHERE but the Church can only be sanctioned if the bishops use the Church as an instrument to implement that policy.
The idea that the bishops are just expressing their opinions as Americans is laughable (I'm being very charitable here).
Whether the idea is laughable or not, bishops are allowed to as Americans. That is what the First Amendment says, so they cannot be sanctioned for speaking their mind. Statements from the pulpit are entirely different. Using the Church to affect secular political matters sets the Church up as a lobbying organization subject to tax laws.
I do not want ANY church ANYWHERE NEAR ANYONE'S ELECTIONS EVER. History is filled with the dire consequences from the church running the state (the Spanish Inquisition) and the state running the church (Nazi Germany) and they are all disasters. But opposition must be effective opposition. Be careful and do it right or YOU look like the oppressor, not THEM.
Those Bishops are not legitimately "Americans", they are agents of the Vatican. Oh, and you know what you can do with your lame guilt trip. I am not at all impressed with the Personal Virtue crowd.
Those 'agents of the Vatican' have American passports because they were born here. Church property does not have any diplomatic status in US law (remember sanctuary can apply to any church, not just Catholic ones). This is the way people who disagree with right wing blogs (no matter how mildly) are treated.
Every post on this blog supports the point that IT IS TOO DANGEROUS FOR EVERYONE FOR CHURCHES TO GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS OR SCIENCE, but, since I profess a belief in God, I must be some wacko trying to shove religion down everybody's throat. The chart at the top of this page shows that the majority of us still believe in God: are you going to drive ALL OF US off? Do you believe the Founding Fathers were wackos as well? Just look at what is being said here for a moment and you will understand we are working for the same thing. Getting religion out of society is impossible - keeping religion out of politics is ESSENTIAL.
Oh quit feeling sorry for yourself...you have no legitimate reason to feel sorry for yourself. And divided loyalty is an ugly reality, even here in the US (and it is found in a variety of groups). Just because those bishops have American passports (assuming they do), does not mean that they are cannot be agents of the Vatican. You have a strange grasp of logic. By promoting the agenda of the Vatican at the expense of Americans, those bishops are most definitely agents of the Vatican.
Whether you feel they are agents or not the law WILL NOT LET YOU SANCTION THEM LIKE THAT, unless you change the First Amendment. That has been my point all along - make the sanctions STICK. Make sure they are doing Church business and not expressing their First Amendment right to free speech. Anything else makes YOU look like the bad guy, not THEM.
Oh, I'm well aware that conservative Christians are routinely accorded special rights in the US. I'm aware of it every day of my life. However, granting them special rights doesn't change the unpleasant reality that the bishops are agents of the Vatican, no matter how much handwaving you do. And by the way, as a practical matter, no right of action based on belief can be absolute, no matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.
Entropy, do us both a favor and please click on my name on this post and look at the posts from other places. Once you find out that I am on your side we can get somewhere.
Thanks Russell , I always enjoy what you add to this sat. day post , I read about this some time ago and found it very interesting , american west coast old guard religious leaders may create a wave of change to the dark ages vatican yet
@patango
thanks for the kind words...
just wanted to add one fact to the discussion upthread...according to a recent article by simon brown the "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for years has lobbied in Washington, D.C., to make the hierarchy’s ultra-conservative stands on reproductive rights, marriage, school vouchers and other public policies the law for all to follow. "
the article lists lobbying expenditures of $26,662,111, but doesn't give a timeframe
here's the link
http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-most-dangerous-religious-right-organizations?page=0%2C1
McGonigle, with friends like you...
I think that there are many people, me included, who are deeply Spiritual and who believe in a Higher Power/Universe/Great Spirit/God (whatever one wants to call IT) and are not affiliated with an organized, publicly recognized Religion. I believe in the power of the words and actions of Jesus and am appalled & grossly dismayed at the words and actions of some of those who proclaim to follow Christ. I also believe in the power of the words and actions of Allah and am similarly appalled at the words and actions of some of the followers of Allah.
Like other fundamental things that we take for granted, religion has also lost it's usefulness. It now has become an old worn out shoe which it's only purpose now is to stymie the spirit of an open mind. As a society we have come up with better ways and means in which to grow in our knowledge about the spiritual world. The last time I set foot in a church as a follower was when I had a fierce disagreement with the Priest. The nuns had the right idea when they got on the bus and started moving forward.
Maybe folks are waking up to the falseness of the religious right evangelicals....the falseness of the self-professed "prophets" Glenn Beck is about as false as anyone can get...all the way to the Pope in Rome...the mullahs in Quom...to Bibi in Israel...even if you and I are religious or not, there are passages in the bible, Quaran, Torah, etc. that warn us of "false Prophets". I have always wondered what that really means...Is Moses considered a "false Prophet?" What does that term really mean? I think the prophet who wrote that one passage must have peeked into the year 2012, and while recovering from the shock of what he saw...he wrote that passage as best he could...Mathew 7:15-20...even if you are not a "true believer", one has to agree that the false prophet argument is kinda universal...Mormonism falls very much into this ideology...I know, I been there, I escaped...Mitt has a hidden agenda beyond ruling for the rich and corporations...The First Amendment is in serious trouble...from the lack of a free and honest press...to the breakdown of the wall of separation....I continually see the right's religious tests on all of their candidates and they try to force the same test on dems. We, 47%, need to fight back against the forces aligned against us...we seem to be facing a threeway cluster@!$%# from Corporations and bankers, Evangelicals and Neo-christians, and racists...I would add foreign interests but that is really shadowy anti-American Chamber of Commerce. Ok...I will put my tin hat back on and hide under my bed to await the end...or lunch...whichever comes first.
The politicians seem to think there is some kind of power behind using the church as a means to success. The church has no power , the people have no power, the power lies in the sweet smell of heaven that surrounds us. You can't buy that, you can't harness it's energy, and that is what is frustrating the Republicans, God doesn't take sides in any debate, he doesn't need to. He has already won the great debate.
The other thing to understand about the significance of one fifth of the population professing no religious affiliation is that except for a handful of outliers, as individuals, they are moving away from an understanding of their existence being the result of something supernatural. Many Agnostics are atheists in waiting; they are either a) atheists who are afraid to come out because of the violence that would be visited upon them by their religious communities b) agnostics who have yet to look closely enough to definitively identify themselves as atheists and c) 'spiritual but not religious' folks who understand religion and spirituality as nothing more than a metaphorical shorthand for describing concepts they have no scientific understanding of. Once these folks finish their journey we can look forward to atheism being considered as a self-identity safe enough to be freely expressed by all. We're already too powerful to be dismissed as a check in a box marked 'other'.
Andy- As a self-avowed agnostic, I can assure you I would not be afraid to proclaim myself as an atheist, and I have looked very close within myself and what I believe to know that I am truly an agnostic. While recently, I have come to believe that it is more likely than not that there really is nothing out there, I still refuse to proclaim that as "fact" and would readily admit I was wrong if something proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a God, Universal Consciousness, other plane, etc. The fact of the matter is, NO ONE can say with 100% certainty what does or does not exist. You can believe 100% that you know. You can feel with 100% certainty that your position is correct, but until you are dead and have not come back will your beliefs be proven or disproven, and at that point, you can't tell any of the living. That is why I am an agnostic, because even though I may lean toward atheistic thinking, I am still willing to admit that I could be wrong. There are things out there science cannot yet explain. There are things in my own life that are just plain weird, that for lack of a better term, seem supernatural. I can assure you that the agnostics I have discussed this with have all done a lot of self examination and know their own minds. I'm not saying that some agnostics don't fit your mold, but there are those of us out there that have put a lot of thought into how we label ourselves and we deliberately choose agnostic over atheist for a multitude of reasons, besides the one you have presented.
Sandals2009,
You are absolutely right, even though I am an atheist I cannot and do not categorically claim that 'god' does not exist. That would be conceited beyond belief (ha ha). I can't claim to know the unknowable so in that sense I am agnostic (in that strict sense of the word) however, I am persuaded by the evidence (or lacktherof) to the degree that I can comfortably identify as an atheist in the sense of having an absence of belief (if you can have something that isn't there). I used the word agnostic more loosely to describe a general antipathy toward theism in the absence of an intellectual follow through to argue for oneself an a-theist place to stand.
Andy- It is so refreshing to actually have someone look at something logically, and then respond with intelligence and no vitriol! I quit posting on message boards or Facebook posts about anything political or religious in nature around 6-8 months ago, because I realized I was just beating my head against a wall. The people that agree with me are still going to agree with me and the ones that didn't want to turn everything into a fight and not ever consider the other person's viewpoint. I took a chance posting on Rachel's blog and I'm glad I did.
Although I still don't call myself an atheist, in the last year my attitudes have certainly turned more atheistic. I used to believe that there were other planes and possibly a Universal Consciousness. I had a half hearted belief in ESP, psychometry and the ability to talk to the dead, but after reading a book (SuperSense, Why We Believe in the Unbelievable) I realized I was clinging to those things because I didn't want to face a world where we just end;where the bad deeds go ultimately unpunished; where coincidence is just that, coincidence and not some kind of message that the universe is sending. I desperately WANT to be wrong, but because of the lack of evidence, I fear I am right. I do not want the god of any religion though, because quite frankly they are more scary than this life being the end, in my opinion. I can't believe in what I used to believe in and I can't say with certainty that there is nothing, so put me down as a true agnostic.
Personally, I identify with this "group". However, I am uncomfortable with the need of both parties' candidates to embrace some organized religion, but I understand why they do it.
I suspect the GOP has a lot to do with declining religiosity in the US. What were once communities of benevolent neighbors have become hotbeds of intolerance and hypocrisy. And let's be honest. Don't we all just want to turn off the TV every time a reality show contestant or football player tells us how God blesses him.
Organized Religion is a useful tool to control the populous. As it always has been, since man invented it.
" My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thos. Paine. The Age of Reason.
It's too bad that Karl Marx got so involved in his wacky political system. Once in a while, he actually had a flash of insight:
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
in 1980, the prospect of the southern baptists being made over into an auxilliary of the g.o.p. terrified me (i was a baptist then). well, it happened. and guess what? the democrats can still win and the future looks brighter still. the republicans have pumped that well dry. if there's a southern baptist in existence who hasn't been told that jesus is a card carrying republican, i'd like to see him. meanwhile, the sbc is starting to shrink (helped along by mendacious preachers like falwell and robertson) and the stench is coming off the word 'liberal'. 'baptist' has become a synonym for 'bigot' or 'fool'. thats a helluva way to recruit. the republicans sold their souls to the devil and i'm thinking he's starting to knock on their door.
The Republicans have been using devout Christians to gain and hold political power for generations. That is now backfiring: people opposed to the Republicans are now rejecting Christianity.
What goes around comes around.
Do you all remember Pope Paul VI, the pill is a No No back in 1968
If memory serves, Pope Paul VI told us Catholics it was sinful to use the pill but did not tell bishops to CAMPAIGN for legislation AGAINST the pill. If these bishops are acting as Church representatives and involving themselves in this secular political issue they deserve sanctions from Rome and Olympia. If they are answering a question from a reporter like you or I would the First Amendment protects them. That is the difference.
Unfortunately for New York's Orthodox Jewish community, the problem isn't so simple as protection of free speech. The reason that outside sources became involved at all was due to infection passed to infants by the circumciser in the ritual when direct mouth contact was made.
Until life-threating - and deadly - infections occurred, at least one infected practitioner knowingly performed the rite without notifying parents of his own infected status. A CDC investigation found that several babies had been infected with, and a few had died from, herpes simplex virus Type 1.
The regulations imposed upon the church were an attempt to protect not only the members of the church, but also the public at large. In infants, herpes does not display with the irritating sores seen in adults. Instead, it creates a whole body infection with high fever, possible blisters, trouble breathing, easy bleeding, and jaundice (among other symptoms). If left untreated, or misdiagnosed, it can be fatal. Many infants who suffer through an infection receive brain damage. It requires antiviral treatment.
Since infections can be passed easily within hospitals, it's important for people to have as much information as they can about the source of infection. Caregivers for infants must have direct contact with them as infants cannot speak their needs. Emergency calls from one patient to another could create a vector and cause transmission.
The requirements placed on the church were simple. Any infected practitioner must use a straw, not direct contact, to perform the ritual. Parents must be notified in advance of the medical risks of transmission of disease through direct blood-mouth contact. Notification must be recorded. (That's the parental consent form. The parents can also request use of the straw instead of direct mouth contact.)
Here's another link to an abcnews report. In it, Rabbi David Niederman says, “We are convinced that the data is flawed and there’s no risk whatsoever,” but there's a problem with the statement.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/rabbis-will-defy-law-on-circumcision-ritual/
In 2004, Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer had a string of infants that he circumcised contract herpes. He was positive for the disease. In fact, he was still performing metzitzah b’peh even though he'd been banned from performing the rite by his own church.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/neonatal_herpes_cases_metzitzah_09_now_confirmed_rockland
There is a line that must not be crossed when pleading protection under your faith. It might start with the death of innocents.
All Fundamentalists are morons.
TC...,
They worship evil and call it good.
Then there are those of us that are definitely religious and also believe in religious freedom. I want to be free to practice my faith and I want everyone else to be free to practice theirs or not practice theirs. That is the beauty of America and what this country was supposed to be. I hope we don't lose that. I'm fighting not to loose that. We cannot express our rights by taking away the rights of others! If Conservative Christianity becomes the only acceptable religion in America, if people are persecuted for not believing in a one true male god, then we have truly lost what it means to be free!
Many of the teachings and the actions of the "so called religious" are so abhorrent, that many of us can not join them in praise and prayer. Their god is a male, who wrote a bunch of stuff through more male humans, brought together more men and canonized the "sacred scriptures," put more males in charge....then bugged out...leaving us alone with a few thousand words.....think about what we would call a human parent for doing this. We are like children sitting in an empty room crying for our daddies and making him into an imaginary friend....Their god gives them the ability to turn their backs on things that they could solve....they "give it to god." Now they don't even listen to their best prophet, Jesus who said you fed me when I was hungry( Matthew 25:31-46) ....The greatest sin that christians can do (according to them) is blaspheming the holy spirit (Mark 3:29) (nobody knows how to do that) and turning away one of god's children from their prophet....looks like they are not doing such a good job. Whoa be to them. We have turned away. The greatest father of the universe bugs out on his kids...good example for the rest of us! Time to get rid of your imaginary friend, friends!
don't think steve covered this yesterday.....todd akin is at it again
"Well, I've taken a look at both sides of the thing. And it seems to me that evolution takes a tremendous amount of faith. To have all of a sudden all of the different things that have to be lined up, to create something as sophisticated as life, it takes a lot of faith. I don't see it as even as a matter of science, because I don't know if you can prove one or the other."
-- Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), from a recording obtained by Think Progress at a Tea Party meeting this week.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/10/12/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html
[facepalm.]
todd's fave karaoke song is by joni mitchell
"I've looked at life from both sides now, From up and down and still somehow,
It's life's illusions I recall, I really don't know life at all."
That definately applies to me. Religion also allows that there is much more, this is not all there is. It also confirms, if you believe, that maybe there is some justice afterall. It is beginning more & more to fall on deaf ears, including mine.
Akin and sooo many others claim it to be impossible that complex things evolved from simple,, and then decide therefor the most complex, sophisticated, thing possible (gad) was the prime mover (simple to complex = crazy, while complex to simple is a sound alternative).
And if gad therefor christian gad.
I see this as VERY good news.
Thank goodness for that. Some of the religious views of your politicians have been eye opening to say the least. Two of the most recent examples are on your science committee???