yogavistastudio/flickr
First up from the God Machine this week is an amusing story out of California, where proponents of religion in public schools are suddenly deeply concerned about keeping religion out of public schools.
For the religious right movement, court rulings mandating that schools remain neutral on religion, leaving matters of faith to families instead of public officials, have been a major point of concern for several decades. Conservative activists are convinced that church-state separation doesn't and shouldn't exist, and secular education leads to a wicked society.
But as my friend Rob Boston reported this week, once in a while, the religious right forgets its talking points.
In Encinitas, Calif., an attorney named Dean Broyles has filed suit against the Encinitas Union School District, asserting that a voluntary yoga program for students violates church-state separation. Broyles runs a small legal outfit called the National Center for Law and Policy, which, according to its website, defends "faith, family and freedom." [...]
Was Broyles asleep when Sears explained that separation of church and state doesn't exist? How else can we explain his use of the principle in this lawsuit? Or could it be that Broyles and the ADF are just being hypocritical?
I'm inclined to take Door #3. Putting aside the question of whether voluntary yoga classes offer an example of "religion in schools" -- I consider the argument a real stretch, no pun intended, since plenty of folks practice yoga for reasons that have nothing to do with faith or spirituality -- there's nevertheless something hilarious about far-right activists complaining they want more and less public school promotion of religion at the exact same time.
These folks can believe the separation of church and state is a communistic principle intended to undermine religiosity or they can believe the separation of church and state is a bedrock legal principle that guarantees and protects religious liberty for all. They cannot believe both.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* This may prove to be a fascinating legal fight: "The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved legislation that would allow the use of federal money to rebuild churches and synagogues damaged by Hurricane Sandy, despite concern that such aid could violate the doctrine of separation of church and state."
* Pope Benedict XVI is reportedly "taking into consideration" efforts to change church rules so he can abdicate his post even sooner than expected.
* Famous-but-bench-warming quarterback Tim Tebow was set to speak at a hateful Baptist preacher's church, but when controversy erupted, the athlete backed out.
* Mahoney should probably try to avoid characterizing himself as a victim: "Los Angeles' retired Cardinal Roger Mahony, who was rebuked last month for his handling of the sex-abuse crisis, suggests he was 'scapegoated' in a blog post ahead of two important dates: his Saturday deposition in a lawsuit alleging that the church hierarchy protected a priest accused of molesting children and his trip to Rome to help pick the next pope."
* This was probably inevitable: "Prominent Republican lawmakers are standing behind a Christian-run arts and crafts chain in its lawsuit over the Obama administration's birth-control mandate. A group of 11 GOP members filed an amicus brief with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. The brief argued that the Obama mandate runs contrary to a federal law protecting religious practice" (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* The religious right was not at all pleased with this video from "Saturday Night Live," which I have to admit, I found hilarious.
Leave a Comment:
oh god. I do yoga all the time. It's stretching and working out. NOT praying.
Thanks for sharing this, Rachel. LOL
I blame yoga for this. Their the ones that tied stretching and breathing to a quasi-religious framework.
Yoga is religious?
:::blink::: ::::blink::::
Is this sort of the same thing as Pat Robertson talking about witch craft like witches actually exist? Do they think that people can really cast spells?
I have a cauldron. Maybe I'll cook up a recipe that calls for eye of newt and tongue of toad and cast a spell that says from this day forth, Pat Robertson will be forced to constantly clean lint out of his belly button. Bwahhahahaha!
Actually witches were originally the followers of Wicca, an ancient goddess of the pre-Saxon, pre-Roman period. The female followers of Wicca were called witches and the male followers were called warlocks.
It is possible that in the 17th Century when the burning of witches became popular that there were vestiges of this ancient religion in parts of England and the Puritans, wanting to keep Christianity pure, started using it as an excuse to harass anyone who did not follow their party line.
There has been some resurgence of Wicca and other pagan religions in the last few years.
No, because then you'd have lint coming out of your belly button, your ears, etc. You know, what you cause to happen to somebody else, comes back to you three times more.
Actually, the ancient Goddess religion goes back much further, it was the religion of ancient pre-Indo-European Celtic Europe. And the persecution of "witches" goes back much further than the 17th Century and the Puritans. In the 12 and 13th centuries, the Catholic Church perceived the village "wise women" (the Wiccans) as a threat, since they actually had the knowledge of cure people of disease by methods other than praying over them (which mostly didn't work) so they went out and went after the witches, and their "familiars," the cats (most of the wise women, being wise, had lots of kitties living with them). The moron witch-hunting priest sent to the village would whip up the morons and get them to throw all their cats on the fire as the "witch" was burned.
The result in the 14th Century, after the devastation of the Hundred Years War, was that without the cats, Europe had no defense against the Norway rats and their fleas, so nearly half the population died in the Black Death. The good news from that was the Catholic Church lost much of its power among the people as the priests not only couldn't cure the disease but died of it themselves no matter all their prayers, which ultimately led to the Reformation.
But pretty much every disaster that has faced Europe in the past 2,000 years has been the result of religion. Same can be said pretty much elsewhere, but mostly due to "Christians" sticking their long noses and swords and guns where they weren't wanted.
Sigh. No, the "ancient goddess religion" is a modern myth. "Wicca" was invented starting in the 1930's or so (there is no such thing as a goddess called "Wicca"), and, although there has been "witchcraft", "sorcery", "magic-workers", etc. for, probably, as long as there are humans, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a "religion" based on it until the 20th century.
And, for what it's worth, there is no such thing as "pre-Indo-European" "Celtic" anything, since Celtic languages are Indo-European.
The oldest known (carbon dating) religious archaeology artifact found is pagan, and female. She was made of clay, no facial features, big belly and huge breast (obese), ending at the knees and elbows. She was found in the western Europe area.
True there is no such goddess called Wicca. Nor is there a god call Islam. Nor a god called Judaism.
As with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism there are different Wicca sects. Some Wicca sects do only dwell on the goddess aspect and ignore the god aspect, while in others there is a balance between the god and goddess.
In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it is all about the male, the female is property and irrelevant.
To clarify; my understand of Jesus himself is that women were not irrelevant, but the actions of the churches in his name disagrees with this attitude.
Male followers of Wicca are not warlocks they are witches.
The three time rule is for both negative and positive actions, you get your payback here on earth not in heaven or hell.
Celtic languages are not Indo-European but Germanic.
Oh by the way ‘pagan’ ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin paganus ‘villager, rustic,’ from pagus ‘country district.’Latin paganus also meant ‘civilian,’ becoming, in Christian Latin, ‘heathen’ (i.e., one not enrolled in the army of Christ).
As to Wicca being “invented starting in the 1930's or so...” it could also be stated that this religion has come out of the hiding.
Thank you @OldBat. This Pagan was about to go off on the ignorant.
As a Pagan with a graduate degree in Medieval History who has studied at least 4 ancient languages and more than that many ancient cultures, I am far from ignorant.
Umm. Perhaps you don't realize that Celtic languages are NOT Germanic - but even if they were, Germanic languages ARE (like Celtic and Romance languages) Indo-European?
Wicca has "come out of hiding"? Unfortunately (for that viewpoint) there is precisely zero evidence of that. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil.
We ARE all part of the "evidence-based" world, right?
But, by all means, feel free to "go off" on me about your mythology!
:)
#29.4
I have never met a pagan before. Tell me about being a pagan. What is the difference between being a pagan and being a heathen? I could look it up, but I'd love to hear about it from you.
Yes, I am serious. I am really curious about that, if you meant it literally.
A Pagan is, technically, somebody who believes in one of the old polytheistic religions - as in the ancient greeks, romans, norse, or egyptians. A "neo-Pagan" is a modern person who is (often) polytheistic and may or may not believe in those gods - and might not be polytheistic; there are some Wiccans who believe only in a single Goddess, for example. They tend to be "nature oriented" in their practice.
A Heathen is, technically, somebody who believes in the old norse or anglo-saxon gods. When the Vikings were descending upon the British Isles in the 9th and 10th centuries, the people (mostly Christian monks) writing about it talked about "heathen men" sacking Christian settlements. In modern Paganism, those who follow the norse or anglo-saxon deities call themselves "heathens". If you hear a Christian use the term, however, they mean anybody who is non-Christian: pagan, atheist, whatever.
I am an ADF Druid. This is ADF as in Ár nDraíocht Féin, not the Christian fundamentalist "ADF" organization mentioned in various reports on this blog. I am a polytheist, who has done rituals to honor celtic, norse and hellenic deities. FWIW, I also honor Isis. I am not a Wiccan.
I am also a scholar, who is not willing to accept made-up religious pseudo-history. I have nothing whatever against Wiccans - but I am not willing to accept modern mythology about the origin of their faith, including, for example, talk about the fictional "burning times". Not that you, India, have any idea what I am talking about, but I bet those who poo-pooed me understand what I am saying. :)
Pld1762
Per a 1973 Anthropology class, English and Celtic were of the Germanic origin, French and Spanish were of Latin origin.
And time moved on
Celtic languages are descended from Proto-Celtic, or "Common Celtic"; a branch of the greater Indo-Europeanlanguage family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages
Would you accept as evidence for “come out of hiding”
“The New Forest coven were a group of Neopagan witches or Wiccans who allegedly met around the area of the New Forest in southern England during the 1930s and 1940s. According to his own claims, in September 1939, a British occultist named Gerald Gardner was initiated into the coven, and subsequently used its beliefs and practices as a basis from which he formed the tradition of Gardnerian Wicca.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Forest_coven#Gerald_Gardner.27s_Involvement
Yes the date are of the 20th century but Covens have been referenced in literature as early as the 12th century. http://www.paganspath.com/magik/coven.htm “
Least you forget, history is written by the conquerors and the dominate force in Medieval times was the Roman Catholic church. Witches and Satanist were considered one and the same in Medieval times, are you going to tell me that Satanism also is new invented religion?
Or is it your position that a coven was just a bunch of people partying.
What pray tell is your evidence at Wicca is 20th century invented religion, without historical roots. The word itself is Old English for witch.
I would suggest that you look at a Linguistics class, not an Anthropology class. Since you like Wikipedia, look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages
Germanic and Celtic are both branches of the Indo-European language family. Celtic is not Germanic, regardless of what your Anthropology class said. Sorry.
Regarding the cultures: look at Caesar's Gallic Wars. He starts by talking about the Galls, who "in their own language are called the Celts". Later on, he attacks the Germans. Celts are not equal to Germans, ever, in history, from Caesar to the present.
I KNEW you were going to bring up Gerald Gardner's "New Forest coven". Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all except Gerald Gardner regarding that. Gardnerian Wicca drew on Victorian ceremonial magic (Golden Dawn, etc.), Crowley, Celtic mythology, and other eclectic sources. There is no independent evidence whatsoever that there ever really was a "coven" of witches in England with any continuity back to ... any particular time. You believe that Gardner's "coven" (which may or may not have existed) had been in existence since the 12th century? Sorry. No evidence.
The 19th and 20th century influences - Golden Dawn, Crowley, etc. - are well attested, however.
As I said, I have no problems with Wicca - but it is in no way an "ancient" religion. "Wicca" is Old English for witch? Why, pray tell, do you think that is evidence that the 20th century religion dates back to Old English, rather than, say, that those who created it took the name from the Old English word?
I am sorry that my comment on Wicca was off the top of my head and not scholarly based. I appreciate the correction.
The word "pagan" comes from a Latin word which originally meant country-dweller or village. To early Christians it meant not a Christian soldier. See the American Heritage Dictionary.
A few years ago I read a biography of Spinoza: Within Reason: A life of Spinoza, by Margaret Gullan-Whur. Spinoza was a Jew and he was excommunicated from the Jewish religion because his writings implied that the deity was inside nature and not outside nature. Most of the ancient religions, which we generally refer to as pagan, were in one way or another nature religions. The god or gods/goddesses were a part of the natural world. Judaism and Christianity both posit a god who is outside the universe, i.e. outside of nature. This god existed before the universe and created it out of nothing.
During the 17th Century when nature was beginning to be investigated using the scientific method, many of the theological doctrines were shaken by scientific discoveries and by the philosophies of Descartes and Spinoza, etc.
The problem with nearly all the established religions is that they have insisted that their stories are facts and not metaphors. When science and history present evidence that challenges the religious stories as facts, the churchmen, those whose lives and fortunes depend on the "truth" of the stories, they get very upset. The "heathens," "pagans," "heretics" are driven out or executed.
pld1762, I just got home from mass and was delighted to receive your answer!
Thank you so much for the polite and concise response. That was quite interesting. So you are a Druid. Coming from people of Scottish/English origin I do know what a Druid is. Also, I studied religion in college as well as Anthropology. My husband is the linguistics scholar.
So you are a polytheist and worship many gods. I would like to know what brought you to the conclusion that Polytheism is the answer for you. As a former atheist and Episcopalian who converted to Catholicism, I am always intrigued by why people make the spiritual choices they make. I would love to hear yours.
Mine is not all that interesting or novel. I simply had an epiphany. I don't have an explanation for it; it must have been grace. It was life changing.
Hi, India.
When you said "I do know what a Druid is", I went "uh-oh", since you, perhaps, know what the ancient Druids were, which has little to do with what modern Druids are. :) In ADF, we believe there are three Kindreds - gods, nature spirits, and ancestors, with which we share a "*ghosti" (PIE word from which both "host" and "guest" are derived) relationship - sharing reciprocal duties of hospitality via offering and receiving gifts. Our Core Order of Ritual is derived from what is common across Indo-European pagan religions, but is not a reconstruction of any one of them - especially not ancient Celtic Druids, of whose religion we know little. I refer you to the ADF Web Site if you wish to know more; this is not the correct forum for me to elaborate, I think.
I was raised Episcopalian, went through a period in my adulthood where I rejected any organized religion, came back to Episcopalianism after I got married, but became increasingly dissatisfied with Christianity. In particular, I was never able to understand just why I needed a "Savior". I couldn't see why there would be a single creator god who took personal interest in all of creation, but, apparently was willing to smack down people who weren't willing to "believe". How petty! How small!
I eventually realized that I had never ever actually gotten a connection when I'd tried praying to this god, but all of my deep spiritual experiences had come in the presence of mighty natural phenomena. Mount Rainier awed me. These would be nature spirits. And I realized that multiple deities, each with its own portfolio of responsibility, made a heck of a lot more sense to me than the monotheism we see in the three major Semitic religions. I'm comfortable with that.
A very interesting book that you might like is John Michael Greer's A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism. Among other things, he demonstrates that all of the "atheist" attacks on monotheism fall apart when applied to polytheism.
Regarding those who believe that Wicca is a religion which has been passed down for centuries, rather than being invented in the 20th century - not that there is anything wrong with it being a modern invention - I direct you to Ronald Hutton's scholarly study The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft
And regarding the idea that there is an "ancient Goddess Religion" - using the Venus of Willendorf as "proof", and, presumably drawing on Marija Gimbutas's theory, I direct you to Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future
Thanks. :)
I never realized Yoga was inherently religious. I agree with those who say it depends on the individual. Christianity has obviously thought about this sufficiently to fix their own "Yoga" labeling and depiction problem:
WholyFit: "WholyFit is NOT Yoga. In fact, our mission is to rescue people out of yoga by offering a Christian alternative to yoga."
Odd, it looks awfully similar to yoga.
Or how about... "Pole Dancing For Jesus Is The New Workout" http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-03-22/pole-dancing-for-jesus-is-the-new-christian-workout/
I'm not sure I'm buying into this.
pld1762, #29.14,
I can't thank you enough for the response. Sorry I am so late in answering, but it's been a busy evening. I will check some of those books out, as I am simply an avid reader and like to see the different ways people have of approaching spirituality.
I am not a missionary, so I am not going to try to persuade you to take a second look at Christianity. I certainly wish you well. Thanks again for the polite and interesting response. You are obviously intelligent and learned and have given much thought to this. I wish you the very best.
India LeCarre
pld1762,
I, to, have seen Mt. Rainier and it is awesome. I used to sail with a friend on Puget Sound. I have always been enthralled with the wonders of nature. I loved watching the full moon rise over the ocean. I would sit for hours on our Florida oceanfront balcony looking at it. It is so beautiful, enchanting even.
At times it does evoke the numinous. I can understand that perfectly.
India, you are very welcome.
Note that the first book I listed - Greer - was specifically recommended for you. The other two were primarily directed at those who were arguing that Wicca is an ancient religion and that there was a widespread matriarchy and associated "Goddess" religion in prehistory - neither of which beliefs is based on evidence. But, you are welcome to read them too, if you wish. Obviously. :)
All the best, and take care.
Peter
pld1762, # 29.18
It was actually the first book that captured my interest. I intend to read that one. Thank you for the thoughtful response.
It was really nice talking to you, and again, I wish you the best. I hope to see you on our blog again, Peter. :)
India.
29.7 pld1762, sorry if you have to sigh and feel offended, I too am a Pagan not a Wiccan and also very well educated in the histories and differences.
I can understand, especially with my name why you may be dismissive at first, but I came by it honestly. I was named at birth.
My mother used to own a place called The Goddess Center in Ojai, CA, her name was Rebecca DragonRain and she was well respected in her own right.
While she tended toward the more witchy side of things early on she is the one that taught me the difference between Pagans and Wiccans etc...and I appropriated much of her vast library when she passed away.
For myself a polytheistic but balanced masculine/feminine path is more comfortable and that is how my son Rowan is being raised.
We will have to agree to disagree on much....I get that a lot with Druids (or any one who thinks they and only they are an authority on something) although there are a few Druids who have crossed my path who I have amazing respect for. As well as some Shamans and some Isis folk, etc.
Separation of church and state being a communist plot? Our Constitution and the 1st Amendment was written at least 50 years before the Communist Manafesto. Communism did not exist in the 18th Century.
What a world we could have if all organized religions were banned and we were really free to chose what or who we believe in.
"...the Christian afoot is a formidable fellow - but - when he becomes prosperous enough to ride a horse ... a Christian on horseback will be just like any other man on horseback! This Jesus army will have to travel on foot - if it expects to accomplish anything!"
The Robe, Lloyd C. Douglas [379]
=====
Principal Causes Which Render Religion Powerful in America
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America 1835
I normally read others comments before I leave my own. Today, I did not. I am just leaving my own comment without checking out what others have said.
1. It's satire, folks. Satire from a program that historically has been somewhat sacrilegious, un-politically correct, and that has looked poke fun at what is in the current mindset of various groups.
2. The spot pokes its fun by asking, "What if...?" They are not trying to change history or confuse the true purpose of Jesus' life.
3. Interestingly, I'm sure that the gun-rights group that say "I will stand my ground, you can take my gun when your pry it from my cold dead fingers, I am a Christian Patriot and I will defend my "God-given" rights to own a gun" are the ones protesting this satirical depiction the most.
Christians shooting non-christians seems well within the "stand your ground" laws,, or at least not to far down the slippery slope.
#32. I am a Christian Patriot and I will defend my "God-given" rights to own a gun" are the ones protesting this satirical depiction the most.
I find it most interesting to see that the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to "keep and bear arms". The writer's of the 2nd Amendment decided to use the word keep instead of own. That thought makes me think about the need for militias at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
I doubt very much that the founding fathers were concerned, as 21st century people are, about owning guns to protect themselves from the government.
They were the government and needed a well armed militia to protect them.
It's long been obvious that they don't just want religion, in general, in schools. They want only their religion in schools. And the fact that they're targeting yoga, of all things, clearly demonstrates their complete ignorance of the rest of the world.
Not only does the sheer number of idiots in this country terrify and depress me, but the fact that they're so blatant and proud of their idiocy and constantly try to make the rest of us just as stupid really kills me.
What is scarey? In the UK in their last election, less than 1% of the voters voted for their version of right wing Evangelical nuts. in 2008, in Nevada, Sharron Angle got almost 45% of the votes. That's way too close for comfort. Sure, she lost, but she sure didn't lose in a landslide victory.
That is scary, Willow. Sharon is a scary person. All evangelical nuts scare me.
I think Sharron Engel got so much of the vote was NOT because the people of Nevada agreed with her beliefs; it is just that they knew way before we found out that Harry Reid has no backbone and would sell us out .....
This actually provides a wonderful opportunity for 21st century Catholics to acknowledge that they've given their allegiance to an archaic, bigoted, reason-rejecting organization and quietly withdraw from same.
Years ago in College Station, TX, one of the grade school teachers was trying to do something to calm down a roomful of chronically rambunctious kids so she instituted meditation where they would close their eyes and just think quietly. Needless to say, the right wing christianist whackos had a hissy fit. In the Sunday supplement to the Bryan/CS Buzzard there was a picture of one of the kids sitting in what, when I was a kid, was called Indian sitting with her legs crossed in front of her and her eyes closed. Some total knothead goes screaming that this is the Lotus position and that she was being indoctrinated into nefarious Eastern religions. The teacher almost lost her job.
Looks like little has changed.
Okay, somebody is wrong here.
Aren't Christians supposed to go to New York and burn down the SNL studio while throwing rocks at the comedians and writers for mocking a religious figure?
Isn't that what you're supposed to do? Those other guys do it on the other side of the earth.
Are Christians too lazy?
No, christians are supposed to just laugh and accept that what they believe doesn't pass the smell test. They aren't supposed to get irate and scream about blasphemy and sacrilege.
“Impiety, n. Your irreverence toward my deity.”
― Ambrose Bierce
“Infidel, n. In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does.”
― Ambrose Bierce
Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. - Ambrose Bierce
If something doesn't pass my smell test, I don't find it funny. That video was crap on so many levels. I can't believe anyone found it funny.
I really like Steve Benen, too, but this was over the top.
If you want to stop the creeping (creepy?) movement of religion into the schools, just solidly establish the principle that Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and other religions are perfectly welcome there, too.
It's just like back in the 1960s, when we had lots of right wingers pushing for control over access to firearms. Then, it was the "black power" groups like the Black Panthers who were running around with automatic weapons. That was a lot less acceptable to conservatives. Now that it's a bunch of right-wing yahoos doing the same thing--not so much of a problem for those on the right.
A lot of the people on here commenting on the hypocrisy of members of the "Christian" Right arguing against yoga in schools on the basis of separation of church and state might not be thinking things through. If they can bring a semi-frivolous case like that to trial and lose, it creates a precedent of a court ignoring said separation that they can then use in their real fights.
But in their real fights they will have to show that what they want is not religion because the only reason that they will lose the Yoga bit is that it indeed is not religion. Otherwise they would win.
I hear where you are coming from - that yoga can be a purely physical activity. Absolutely. I agree. Just saying that up front.
But....
...you don't have to really dig at all to find the spiritual roots of the practice....despite the fact that as it is practiced by large numbers of people, of course, it has been stripped of its religious language...unless you know Sanskrit I suppose...or have access to the internet...or any books on Eastern Philosophy...or....
I just can't help but see parallels to the "Christians" attempt at stripping creationism of its specifically religious vocabulary in an effort to include it in public school curriculum.
And whether the ruling in this case is held up as another example of liberal hypocrisy and the attempt to persecute "Christians" while brain-washing their children...or whether they find a clever way to use the ruling in their other fights...This intuitive-thinker knows, this isn't as simple as plain hypocrisy on their part.
Micheal,
Spiritual does not equal religious.
Unfortunately the Romans stopped before they got them all
The best response I've seen to "Djesus Uncrossed" was from Fred Clark at Slacktivist who points out that the violence of that sketch is nothing compared to the violence performed by Jesus Christ at the end of "Glorious Appearing," the last book in the "Left Behind" series. There, Jesus is presented almost as a Lovecraftian figure who casually slaughters tens of thousands through his supernatural powers.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/02/20/snls-djesus-is-a-pacifist-compared-to-tim-lahayes-lethal-death-jesus/
Like "Djesus Uncrossed," the "Left Behind" series is nothing but Christian-revenge snuff porn. The reason the former is offense to Christians but not the latter is that the SNL sketch has the temerity to be parody instead of presenting itself as a serious depiction of how "gentle Christ, loving and mild" will deal with all nonbelievers when He returns.
There's so much hypocrisy here, where does one start...let's just mention a few:
1. Funny how those who don't want the church telling them how to run their lives want to tell those in the church how to run the church.
2. Many who praised Sec. Clinton and others for calling the film that sparked riots in the Middle East horrible and vile, think a film clip making fun of Christianity "hilarious."
3. And finally, there is nothing stopping President Obama or Warren Buffet from paying more taxes on their own, yet you see hypocrisy in the Right claiming that schools shouldn't allow humanistic religious activities and the like...if one is hypocritical, they BOTH are.
They can run their church any way they want, as long as they comply with the law. They can also keep their church OUT of the public schools. And, for that matter, they can also start paying taxes just like any other fraternal group that wants to promote a political philosophy.
As long as I'm not subsidizing them with my tax dollars, they're free to follow whatever faith they wish.
People paying taxes on their own isn't a solution. That's being dismissive of the real problem, which is inequities in the tax code. The solution is to amend the tax laws so that the playing field is more level. That doesn't always mean eliminating deductions for the wealthy, or raising their tax rates. It DOES mean an end to ridiculous loopholes like the 15% tax rate for hedge fund managers that makes no earthly sense from either a tax or accounting theory standpoint. (Those earnings are like inventory profits for a manufacturer or retailer. The hedge fund managers' inventory just happens to be securities.)
As for the SNL clip, things can be both offensive and hilarious.
mpguy, thanks for the comment...
1. I agree with your church comments but many others seem not to.
2. I'm not saying individual paying more taxes is the solution but if they feel like they are not "paying their fair share" they could remedy that part.
3. I don't think something can be both offensive and hilarious to the same person. If it is, someone needs to re-evaluate. If something is truly offensive, then it can't be funny without you being very insensitive. That's my point. You can't criticize the film on Islam as offensive and not do the same with the above clip...IMHO.
bullsh*t robtroll.
Nobody is telling any church how to run itself.
Your Clinton argument is a false equivalency and I call bullsh*t for you even trying to use it as a valid point in this.
Your Obama/Buffet argument is bullsh*t and it shows you to be a right wing "I got mine f*ck you" kind of troll.
And your last point is bullsh*t as well: schools should either honor ALL religions or NONE at all. To allow anything else to happen is hypocritical.
And you can criticize the film on Islam as offensive- but you think you can't because you are coming at it from a narrow point of view-that of christianity. The film can be criticized based upon its accuracy or its call to commit acts of violence.
And the SNL clip was fabulous.
RobDon
1. Please explain how I am tell those in the church how to run the church?
2. The film clip did not make fun of Christianity. That film clip is something one would find in Mad Magazine, taking two completely unrelated things and combining them. Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ made fun Christianity.
3. Sorry, I need some clarification on this one all I am seeing is apples & oranges
3a. How does not “paying more taxes on their own...” be hypocritical.
3o. The Right want Christian payer and ideology allowed in public schools, but not a yoga program, because yoga is an exercise associate with Hindu philosophy. My religion yes, your religion no. That is hypocritical.
RobDon . . . I disagree that people can't find something offensive and funny at the same time. I don't know if you're Catholic or not, but if you are, you might find this offensive--yet I defy you not to laugh, at least at parts it. This link is to Tom Lehrer doing "The Vatican Rag":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do
One of the problems with Muslims is that they seem to utterly lack a sense of humor when it comes to their religion (or, from what I've observed, much of anything else). One of the strengths of most Christians (a diminishing number, perhaps, but still most) is that they're able to take religious matters seriously while still being capable of laughing at some of the more outrageous elements of the faith.
Old Bat, 1) not you individually, but others collectively who say the church needs to...2) I agree with your assessment...but let someone do that with the Muslim faith and the Left says it is insensitive OR let someone speak out against its teachings (as the Left does Christianity) and they scream as well (not everyone, of course) 3) If I am rich and say the rich needs to pay higher taxes yet opt NOT to pay higher taxes, I am following the law and being hypocritical...much like if I say Christian faith should be in public schools but say another faith should not because I can not, I am following the law and being hypocritical, too. Hope that helps.
mpguy, I agree...I never like to see someones genuine beliefs be the butt of cruel humor, but I have a sense of humor and do not hold others to the standards of a faith they do not believe it...that would be stupid of me. The reason Muslims are so sensitive as they see any replica of Mohammad as sacrilegious. I was just pointing out that there was a LOT of words of "offensive" and "horrible" used by the Left leadership about a film on Muslims but there is never that outcry when Christianity is treated with disrespect. If you know of an incident, please post.
Robtroll,
Bullsh*t.
Hey, Donna...love ya!
Are we sure that little girl in green in, the photo above, isn't a religious plant? Or have I got Ted Cruz on the brain?
Oh yeah, that's it.
Nevermind.
Where is the story about Fox News insulting, and then apologizing to Wiccans and pagans, after a petition and phone/email campaign to get them to make the apology? I am astounded that MSNBC did not pick up on this story.
I thought the video was hilarious, it's no wonder Christians are God fearing people!
To my knowledge Cathoilc priests are not allowed to marry because the church wants all their property to remain within the cuhrch. If the priests have no family all of their wealth and property goes to the church as opposed to being passed along to their families.
"The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved legislation that would allow the use of federal money to rebuild churches and synagogues damaged by Hurricane Sandy, despite concern that such aid could violate the doctrine of separation of church and state."
Just wait until a mosque applies for assistance. The House will find their Constitutional principals real quick.
Miguel, #45
And that would be wrong. That is, however, how they would react.
"The religious right was not at all pleased with this video from "Saturday Night Live," which I have to admit, I found hilarious" - I identify as a "lefty", and I find it disgusting that you would promote something like this. You are the problem in the world, the one who mocks what Christians believe and try to create an atheist left and a bible thumper right. Shame on you.
Maybe what is needed is a comparative religion course in the public schools.
Religion is not really evil, it has unfortunately become just another organize outlet for power games
Jim Jones any one? (that James Warren “Jim” Jones)
No, religion is not evil. People who do terrible things in the name of religion are evil.
I don't make fun of other people's religion, and find no humour in anyone making fun of mine. I realize I am not a typical, liberal atheist of 21st century America, but if someone else is, I have no problem with that. But why the hate for us who do believe in God? Why mock believers as if they were a bunch of superstitious dolts. I am not even superstitious. I see a relatively new, hard core atheist movement to undermine religion in America today. That troubles me.
I am well educated and scientifically minded. I am tolerant. I believe in God.
I apologize to no one for that.
Good night, it's been real.
India,
You should never have to apologize for your spiritual beliefs. They are, in my opinion, very private and very sacred.
I should never have to apologize for my spiritual beliefs... "" ""
It is when someone says my beliefs make me bad or evil or try to murder me or convert me that we start having problems.
If more people respected that each persons spiritual (or lack thereof) beliefs are a very private and sacred thing, and that your beliefs don't have to be my beliefs but we can still break bread together.....This whole planet would be a much better place.
Namaste
My mother is an ordained minister. In fact, she was ordained several years before my dad was ordained. Her entire career was one of service - she set up planned parenthood clinics throughout SE Asia, economic co-ops for village women 30 years before KIVA, she worked to improve sanitation and potable water supplies in very remote parts of the world, she instituted mental health programs for those often ignored in society, she taught college (theology, philosophy, education), she preached, she ministered. She presided at the altar, the communion table, and her voice raised in song could lift your spirit to the heavens. She didn't choose to be a minister - she was Called to be a minister. Priests, other ministers, educators, even the President of the Philippines sought her advice. She more than adequately served her Calling - she defined it. Don't ever tell me a woman isn't cut out to be a minister or a priest. Don't. Even. Try. To. Claim. That.
I'm into Acupuncture and Chinese Herbal Medicine, my
born again Christians friends believe to be evil or not
voodoo but close to it, there is no way to convince them
its just old world medicine, not alternative but the original
medicine.