bligh: "Oh, and they will blame you for anything bad committed by Christians in the last 2000 years."

Well, I also blame them for anything bad committed during the last 2,000 days. When you take on the religion, you take on its baggage (and Christianity has more of it than any other). If you don't like that, don't call yourself a Christian.

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that Jesus answered them well, he asked, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "'Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12)

Far be it from me to criticize Jesus, but I always thought that he misspoke when he commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. That's not really a very high standard, is it? Most of us, after all, don't really love ourselves all that much. Some of us, considering the many ways in which we abuse ourselves and the many more ways in which we try to escape from ourselves, really hate ourselves.

Really, in this context the better law would be, "Love your neighbor as you love God." I'm just sayin'.

But when election day comes all those Catholics and Evangelicals will go into the booth and cast their vote for the guy (gal) who promised to get abortion outlawed. Never mind that the candidate has shown by his "fruits" that he is hateful, selfish and dishonest. These same Catholics and Evangelicals will then tell you that Welfare takes care of all of the poor people's needs. Anything more than that would be ungodly socialism.

the actions you describe are what any decent person would do. religion has nothing to do with it.
What we really need are people who are more scientifically minded in all roles in America.
What is religious is a matter of opinion. religious extremists Muslim or christian have become dangerous but the christain extremists pose a much greater threat to American freedom than their muslim counterparts.
The USA became great because we had the scientific knowhow. This is how we won wars and prospered economically.
In todays America few Americans can even define the scientific method. This method is the ONLY way we have of determining reality. I like public policy that is based on reality.
If people want to be superstitious they should keep it to themselves. If one must have the security blanket of superstition it should be a private belief and should have no credibility in making public policy.

Beautiful piece/peace, Joan, and--almost--right on; however, we could use a President (AND COUNTRY) about being Spiritual and NOT RELIGIOUS. The term "religious" infers separation (As in "TEAMS"--see political parties) while the term "Spiritual" infers an all-encompassing belief system in your above-mentioned list.

A Spiritaul leader (or any TRUE Spiritual person) would not conceive of ordering , condoning, or performing the murderous ways of "religion".

Flying the flag of religion during ANYTHING having to do with politics--which is secular--should be outlawed. It is base and gross grovelling at its lowest point to simply secure votes. Separation of church and state: Where have thee gone?!

Sister, the Corporal Works of Mercy is a Catholic teaching. The Evangelicals will have nothing of "good works" as it goes against their "bible only, faith only" doctrine. As for Catholics, we are divided between the conservatives, the ultra-conservatives, the progressives and the uninformed (who vote for whatever the Church tells them). So it's a pretty big chunk of people who base their votes on the anti-abortion, anti-gay rights ticket instead of the Corporal Works of Mercy, unfortunately.

Over 50% of Catholics voted for Kerry despite the bishops' campaign to excommunicate anyone who refuses to go along with the campaign to strip women of personal rights.

Oh, btw, in case no one noticed, D. James Kennedy, one of the prominent christofascists, has been sent to the infernal regions this week.

Yes, let's judge by "their fruits": Alexandrian Library destroyed, Crusades 1,2,3,4 Inquisition, Pogroms, Slavery, Torture, Holocaust (remember, Hitler was doing God's work...see Mein Kampf). And brought to you by people who really don't believe what they preach, do they? Have you ever seen a driver with one of those "Jesus is my co-pilot" bumper stickers driving with their hands Off the wheel? You won't.

Organized religion is a complete joke and a cruel one at that. It's nothing but a profitable business for those in charge of said "religions". Not to mention a great big power trip for them as well. The root of the problem is people want to be told that death isn't the end and they will cling like morning glorys to a fence post to anything that reinforces this ideal. I don't have the answers myself and I too would like to believe that in the end, there is more to the story. That's not to say I will not live my life here on earth to the fullest. We will never get anywhere as a society so long as the majority believe their "real" lives begin at death.

Apparently, the "Sermon on the Mount" is difficult for many Christians to implement. Christians were told that they had 2 Commandments. One of the Commandments is "Love others as you love yourself." This Commandment seems difficult to understand and implement, even by a Christian. Yet, we could benefit from greater implementation of this Commandment.

On the other hand, Western music from Gregorian chant through Arvo Part, the gothic cathedrals, Giotto, Leonardo, Michelangelo, distinction of civil from religious power, habeas corpus, and universities, not to mention the fostering and flourishing of vernacular language & literature.

I'm very much opposed to the attempts of the Church to regain the influence over the state that it had for too many centuries; on the other hand, the Church remains an important cultural & intellectual repository, as long as the devout don't claim monopolies on virtue & values.

"Apparently, the "Sermon on the Mount" is difficult for many Christians to implement"

The religious reich would scream bloody murder if teachers tried to post the Beatitudes in the classroom.

Dichterfreund - all those things you mention could have been done without religion's influence. My guess is the church paid the bills, so the artist went along so s/he could keep creating. Or that the artist was capable of producing the artwork themselves without the overhead, but succumbed to the "drug" like most others.

"We Need Candidates Who Are Really Religious"

Unfortunately, religion has been the basis (even if superficial) for wars all throughout history. Religion (as a political tool) is no more than mind control to camouflage the worst acts with the best intentions.

We already have candidates/leaders who are REALLY RELIGIOUS.

to the extent that one's faith impels him or her to behave decently toward others, it's a powerful force for good in the world. but when the faithful demand that everyone bow to their deity, faith becomes superstition. and when superstition is enforced by the power of the state, it leads inevitably to stonings in the street and the worst kinds of corruption in the houses of government.

as to shrub, he's just a little hard of hearing. he thought he was called by god to do corporate works of mercy.

Of course we need more religious leaders. I will vote for any politician who comes out in favor of worshiping the Norse Trinity of Odin, Loki and Thor. Or Jupiter Optimus Maximus for that matter. Worshiping that desert deity, Yahweh, hasn't worked out all that well.

The Christian attitudes in America are largely different from Christian attitudes in other developed nations.

I will never tire of relating my experience in New Zealand (it would do every American good to at least temporarily live in at least one foreign country in their lifetime-- its quite an educational experience):

During my stay in New Zealand earlier this year, an anti-smacking bill was being debated in Parliament, something similar to what had been passed in Norway previously. A great deal of the kiwi population was opposed to making "smacking" illegal & protesters were out in droves. Normally kiwis are quite on the left in the political spectrum (and in many respects even their conservatives are more to the left than Democrats here in the US).

During my stay, I read about a bunch of church protesters out in force as well. I was thinking to myself, being an American, "Yep, here come the religious nutters spouting their god-given right to spank their child as they see fit, with their 'spare the rod, spare the child' mentality."

But I had to re-read the article-- I was confused because these church protesters were SUPPORTING the anti-smacking bill! You know whose side most American Christians would be on were such a bill to come up for debate in the States.

This is just one example.

I know in my online discussions with non-American Christians also, the mentality is very different. Its a wonder that the majority of American & non-American Christians have anything in common.

Unfortunately, in America, MLK is not the first name you'd think of with the word "Christian." You think "Jerry Falwell" or "Pat Robertson." Household names here.

Lets be honest,JESUS could not be elected President of the USA the hate groups would shoot him call him a liberal for feeding the hungry and healing the sick and housing the homeless with our oun tax dollars. Where would the money come from to bomb to make people in our IMAGE?

Drblack is right. These are things any decent person would do and religion has nothing to do with it.
I have been reading CD for 5 years now and I think it's time all you other readers take a break and lighten up. Let's sing:
SING:
John the Baptist after torturing a thief
looks up at his hero the commander and chief
saying "tell me great hero but please make it brief
is there a hole for me to get sick in?

The commander and chief answers him while chasing a fly
saying death to all those who would whimper and cry
and dropping a barbell points to the sky saying the sun's not yellow it's chicken
Mama's in the factory, she ain't got no shoes
Daddy's in the ally, he's looking for food
I'm in the kitchen with the tomb stone blues. (Bob Dylan)

There I feel better now I hope you do too.

Sister Joan is confusing Religion with Social Democracy and/or liberal politics. It's dangerous to blur the distinction between Church and State.

I agree with S. Joan, whose clear-seeing spiritual writings have impressed me since Catholic friends introduced me to her work. I suspect most of the people who have commented on this article would agree with her--in principle. But what stikes me--stuns me--about the comments above is how uniformly cynical and bitter they are about religion as a force in human society. What a pity! Not that cynicism and bitterness aren't justified by all the crimes and horrors perpetrated for thousands of years in the name of one religion or another! What is a pity is that so many of us who could use the consolation and courage of faith are, instead, condemned to disconsolation and bitterness by the politics of religion and, in close relation, by religion in politics. Power-seeking and ideological/ego-blindness corrupt, and we all lose.

Two quotes I like to trot out when this subject comes up:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Seneca the Younger, Roman philosopher (4 B.C.E. to 65 A.D.)

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.

Aristotle (343 B.C.E.)

And to We Are The 801,

The connections between policy positions and the groups that support them are tricky. As you say, the Christian Right in the US would support a parent's right to physically discipline a child, while most Christians in NZ would oppose that position, but at the same time most atheists and Buddhists in China would agree with the US Christian Right on that issue, while disagreeing with them on many other issues.

Sister, Don't you know that Christians are not welcome in the Progressive Community?

The good sister is wasting her breath posting an article on this forum. Most posters on this forum can't differentiate between super fundamentalist nut-job Christian religionists and all the other shades of the faith. They have boiled it down to the equation (All Christians = nut-job haters), doesn't matter if you are a snake handling Pentacostal or a good-works Quaker.

Oh, and they will blame you for anything bad committed by Christians in the last 2000 years. Good luck Sister, you'll need it.

There is a huge difference between religious and rightous.
Religion holds hands with Hypocrisy.

As I posted before, the "religious" are tearing this country apart. They are not followers of Christ but believe that they are. They smile and nod in Church but as soon as they leave the insecurity, fear, hate, and low self-esteem that truly defines them come back to control their lives.

The rightous are the ones that truly do good in this country and they are VERY few in number. All religions ultimately serve the same God and only the rightous understand the insignificance of denomination. The rightous man knows that true message from God will be one of peace not war. Jesus was a shepherd not a mercenary.

How many of these 'religious' Christians that support Bush have talked with or even know a Muslim? How many of these 'Christians' know that Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet? They don't. They only know what they see on TV or what the preacher tells them because they cannot think for themselves.

We do not need religion in our government. We need humanity.

Disregarding what American policy wreaks upon the rest of the world for a moment, it was largely because of the absorption of the ideas of charity, forgiveness, and tolerance into the secular progressive politics of mid-20th century America that caused the demise of "religion" here.

Society, through our secular government, began to provide those solaces that were traditionally the realm of the church. Add to this the inexorable refutation of biblical literalism and church bagan to appear as mostly irrelevant which, out of survival instinct, has caused a militant backlash among fundamentalists.

Wrapped up in this turmoil is the indisputable fact that church has much to do with community and the idea thereof. The secularization of christian humanist ideals has inadvertantly sawed off the springboard that accomplished that.

Religion is not necessary for any of the humanitarian actions outlined in the above article. Little children know what is right and wrong. We all know. Religion simply adds a tribal element that we could all do without. And, as we have seen ad inifinitum, the sacred texts of religions can be twisted. When people believe something is sacred, they hesitate to question it, and so we end up invading Iraq or, on the other end, suicide bombing. Religion is one of our problems, not one of our solutions.

What we need is to have elections like those in Europe; where the candidates religion is never mentioned because it is not seen as relevant!

And no, some stupid little american reforms; making new public housing projects, for instance, is not going to help anything unless you really address the need for nonprofit medicare for all, guaranteed housing, free education through phd, living wages for all. Anything less is a stupid lie, especially if it is still going to leave people behind in the gutter.

I don't think religious values hold out much hope in a countr where, for most "religious" people, the embrace of religion and the church is merely proof of "election"--meaning entitlement--as a member of the exploiting class. Religion in the US is mostly a combination of State worship and a doctrinaire adherence to the sanctity of the social and economic structures of imperialism and exploitation.

Religious practice these days seems to have degenerated into an unembarrassed worship of Moloch--though accompanied by occasional squirming attacks of conscience when, for some reason, the church-goer has an accidental and unpleasant brush with the actual teachings and example of Jesus.

The churches, in their choice of scriptural readings, avoid rather large chunks of scripture like the plague--namely the ones that call for social justice and the rejection of wealth and power.

There appears to be no danger that Christians will actually read the Bible. Recently I was watching a televangelist on TV, whose sermon not only misquoted the Bible, but presented a completely imaginative account of the context of the misquote. I commented to my daughter, "That's not what the Bible says in that passage; that's not what happened in that Bible story."

I've had this same experience several times when I happened to attend a church service, also: Scripture is misquoted--sometimes to distort the meaning, and sometimes merely for effect. I've often turned to the person next to me (if I know them) and remarked, "That's not what that Biblical passage actually says."

My daughter tells me that her "churchy" friends at school seem to know far less about the Bible than she does--even though we are not church-goers, and any religious education my daughter has received has been very casual.

Christianity is a problematic religion, anyway. Much of the Old Testament seems focused on providing a divine sanction for ancient tribal territorial and national ambitions, and divine justification for ancient wars of extermination.

Yet both the Old and New Testaments are also full of lofty spiritual and poetic passages.

The Bible is a muddied spring. It lends itself as easiy to the fostering of evil as to the fostering of good, and is as likely to uphold institutionalized evils as to demand their reform.

Meanwhile, no one has read the Bible anyway.

TheListener: "What a pity! Not that cynicism and bitterness aren't justified by all the crimes and horrors perpetrated for thousands of years in the name of one religion or another! What is a pity is that so many of us who could use the consolation and courage of faith..."

You say it yourself, bitterness (vast bitterness) is indeed justified. My ancestors in north Europe had beautiful religions that were exterminated by Christianity. I wasn't alive then, and know only fragments of those lost myths and customs, but hold a serious grudge nevertheless. As for "consolation and courage of faith," it sounds like self-help kitsch. The Christian religion is an abyss of fear and pity (I went to Catholic school, so I have some idea). Arbeit macht frei, the book of Job, the ghoulish Christian art of the Renaissance: these seem to be cut from the purest of Christian elements. Modern man should relegate it all to museums.

Religiosity is only the observance of, and adherence to, the imperatives and dogma of a religion. And whatever else they may be, all human religions have in common that they are human-made institutions which exploit and derive power from the human spiritual impulse.

One can be spiritual, or religious, or Christian without being any of the others. And being Christian ensures nothing with regard to ethics and human conduct, because virtually any imperative of one sliver of Christianity is utterly contradicted by at least one other sliver.

We don't need politicians who place first priority on serving a religion, or a god, or even some internal spiritual feeling. And we especially don't need politicians who think they are dispensing mercy whenever they are managing the public estate to prevent, minimize, or redress blight and suffering. A mercy is an undeserved gift from the strong to the very weak. It is not mercy when we humans build safety nets and collectively look after ourselves. And even if it were, it would be from the people, not from the politicians. Mercy is not theirs to give.

What we really need is politicians whose highest commitments are to reason, honesty, fairness, and the will of the people--in exactly that order.

Here is what ron paul thinks of religion, stupid far-right troll:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion...The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." - ron paul.

A cardinal in the midwest threatened to ex-communicate any parishoner who didn't vote for bush.

Most Christians in the USA are hypocrites. They are only interested in the old testament and Revelations. They have no interest in the Gospels. They want an eye for an eye and to use the old testament to justify their blood lust. Turn the other cheek when have you heard or seen a Christian do that? Love your enemies? These people need an enemy, the commies, the nigs, the fags and now the Muslems. They have to focus their hatred and glory in their own self-righteousness. They are far from Christians. They do not pray in their closet but rather in the classrooms and on TV. They are self-righteous people whose goal is dominate and use even enslave other people. The old testament and Revelations provide a flimsy justification for the acting out of their mental pathologies. You can read anything you want into those books. I know only one person who voted for Bush and she did so because her preacher told her to vote that way. He's a good man, she says. And when I challenge her she has no answer only her preacher says so. Note the Saudis who gave Bush 9-11 are similar. The royal family beheads people for their amusement and one of their number runs an extreme right wing fundamentalist religious group that takes attention away from the opression and unequal distribution of wealth. Don't be fooled. It is all about the moneyed few keeping their power.

lo Q. Lellity. Ron Paul is incorrect in the statement you quote about the Declaration and Constitution being replete with references to God. Reference to God is in the Declaration. There is no reference to God in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is a well-established principle from the 1st Amendment, the practise of the founders, and subsequent practise.

Religious leaders have been heading up the assault on the Constitution. These leaders have wet dreams of theocracy. Totalitarian control is the native religious political expression. Homo religiosus is not a freedom-loving subspecies because they believe in the intrinsic badness of human nature which can only be redeemed through enslavement by religion. The Roman Catholic Church is the model for the Orwellian nightmare.

It is a healthy exercise for the religiously minded, like the good sister, to learn to think in political terms and leave their religion out of it. Ezeflyer makes this point. The good sister has to express her religious values in secular political ideas when she goes to the polling station and leave her RCC back at the convent.

Clearly, Bush has used his so-called religion in a cynical way to further his political agenda. That's what happens when you expose religion to politics - it turns to shit. Religion needs to be protected from politics and politics from religion.

And yet, the sister is right on when she wants religious values expressed in political terms. If her religious dogma abhores abortion, she can surely vote against abortion as a political initiative and she can support the food stamp program as political expression of her religious belief in the Sermon on the Mount.

But she has to move over, as all religious people do, and allow for political ideas that do not express her religious faith. All sorts of weirdoes go into voting booths, snake-worshippers, athiests, pagans, and it's a beautiful thing when they check their religion at the door.

Cruxpuppy, I know that ron paul is wrong; that was my point. My posting of the libertarian scum's words was in response to a (now deleted) post above mine which said that voting for rp was the right decision because he advocated religious freedom, somehow. The poster was a troll, so it is good that his words were cleared, though it leaves my post out of context.

I hear what the author is saying. The people in power who pound on Bibles SAY that they're Christians, but they don't live what they preach. All she's suggesting is that if Bush and those like him truly believed, their policies would be different.

"The good sister is wasting her breath posting an article on this forum. Most posters on this forum can't differentiate between super fundamentalist nut-job Christian religionists and all the other shades of the faith. They have boiled it down to the equation (All Christians = nut-job haters), doesn't matter if you are a snake handling Pentacostal or a good-works Quaker."

Well I'm not one of those people, and I agree with you. It's just another example of how the left is shooting itself in the foot and how it's a subculture made up of too many people who simply have a beef with certain segments of the population.

The Right, which by its very existence alone, alienates people, yet they have that Big Tent. Many people in The Left can't grasp that.

"Most Christians in the USA are hypocrites. They are only interested in the old testament and Revelations. They have no interest in the Gospels. They want an eye for an eye and to use the old testament to justify their blood lust."

See what I mean? Now some right-winger is saying the same thing right now somewhere. Insert "Jew" or "Muslim".

But people can't seem to realize that everything has a dirty cellar. It's not just Christianity.

CRUX PUPPY, TRACTOR GUY & LORAX, excellent points. BLIGH: If you have read the comments, you should be able to realize that it is the religious who are backing Bush and thus war. This creates an enormous problem of epoch proportions, and is the basis for why you see justifiable criticism aimed at those who CALL themselves Christian. War is decidedly NOT what Christ would do, so how dare his purported followers back this crime against humanity? What, to preserve some seed in women's wombs? It's insane!

Sister Joan is right, though I wouldn't personally have used the words "really religious" to describe the issue we're having with people running for office on religious grounds. That we have leaders who ARE religious IS the problem. Christianity isn't just "thou shalt not commit abortion" and "thou shalt not be homosexual". Christianity has a long list of things we're COMMANDED to do for our fellow people - and help is NOT defined as judgmental spew or a copy of the latest popular book on "Christian money management". In fact, we're SUPPOSED to be helping out fellow people without pausing to debate whether they're "worthy" or "deserving" or to even tell them a long list of things they "should" be doing (like the ever popular with conservatives "shut up and go get a job").

We have religious leaders that merely claim to be Christian. We'd have a very different set of circumstances if we had honestly Christian leaders who lived and led as Christ commands us.

i'm sorry but we don't need any more religion or religious candidates. how about compassionate? realistic? fair? i'm so tired of "Religion". grabbing a few verses from the buybull (deliberate sic), and ignoring all the rest of the violent ones, doesn't sell me on the point. religion is belief in ancient, mythical beings, and needs to be left in the past.

The American President ought to be a skeptic and an agnostic with the ability to critically think about the needs of working Americans.

Each year we need to make the lives of working Americans a little bit better and little bit easier.

Let's start with Universal Healthcare that is free for everyone.

Universal Healthcare,
It's Free for Everyone

"Religion is not necessary for any of the humanitarian actions outlined in the above article. Little children know what is right and wrong. We all know. Religion simply adds a tribal element that we could all do without. And, as we have seen ad inifinitum, the sacred texts of religions can be twisted. When people believe something is sacred, they hesitate to question it, and so we end up invading Iraq or, on the other end, suicide bombing. Religion is one of our problems, not one of our solutions."

thanks, that's the truth! here in america, atheists are a "hated minority". yet we possess all the caring characteristics, we just don't believe in a mythical "god". really, how dare religion people expect us to be so respectful, when they believe only other religion people are moral? and for what? a "god" that conveniently can't be seen, heard or detected. one that "resides in the heart".

I still can't understand how the "pro-life" folks got a pass from the bishops on the war. How many babies have been killed in Iraq? There is more to being Catholic than opposing abortion and condemning gay people. i would like to see more corporal works of mercy performed by the churches, not just by the government. The Archdiocese of Baltimore spent $34 million to beautify the basilica. Baltimore is overwhelmed by poverty. Jesus left very clear instructions about what is expected of His followers. Maybe so many people are cynical about religion because religious leaders seem to ignore what Jesus taught.

"you should be able to realize that it is the religious who are backing Bush and thus war. This creates an enormous problem of epoch proportions, and is the basis for why you see justifiable criticism aimed at those who CALL themselves Christian."

But are they really religious? And are all people who classify themselves as Christians backing him? It's been said that the Republicans pander to the evangelicals and laugh at them behind their backs.

"yet we possess all the caring characteristics,"

No, unfortunately not all atheists do.

"how dare religion people expect us to be so respectful, when they believe only other religion people are moral? and for what? a "god" that conveniently can't be seen, heard or detected. one that "resides in the heart"."

And not all religious people would cast aspersions like that on people such as yourself.

Btw, I've said time and again that religion and politics should stay away from each other. But we needn't cast all religion intoothe fire either.

"Religion is not necessary for any of the humanitarian actions outlined in the above article. Little children know what is right and wrong. We all know."

I totally agree. I'm not a religious person myself, although I do consider myself to be somewhat spiritual.

"Religion simply adds a tribal element that we could all do without."

So does ethnicity? Should blacks stop celebrating Kwanzaa? Should the Irish stay home on St. Paddy's Day?

"And, as we have seen ad inifinitum, the sacred texts of religions can be twisted."

No doubt. But it's not as if the same hasn't been done with science and philosophy now has it?

"When people believe something is sacred, they hesitate to question it, and so we end up invading Iraq or, on the other end, suicide bombing."

No not everyone doesn't question it. And you think their our reasons for invading Iraq were religious?

"Religion is one of our problems, not one of our solutions."

I won't say it's a solution, but it's no more a problem than science is. Both have been used for ill but have been used for good also.

P.S. I'm seeing a lot of teetering towards intolerance here with the baiting of Jews and Christians. Be cautious with your anger folks.

Seems to me that Jesus was a socialist.

^^^

Seems that way to me too off22.

God save us all from religion.

JESUS said, "Render unto God what is God's and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That is pretty clear; separation of church and state. IT was also said, "It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." If I were one of those money grubbing power mongers, I think I would be more concerned about eternity and where I would spend it than amassing piles of wealth. If you're dead, you certainly can't take it with you. This administration has laughed openly and derisively at how easily the "religious" right has been led around by the nose. I, for one, take my belief in God very seriously, and have no interest in making a mockery of religion. I would think the so called "enlightened ones" would do so as well. However, that is an oxymoron. God rules the universe, not man!!! We would all do well to separate our religion and our politics. If one is not smart enough to do that, then be careful as you follow the leader over the cliff as all good lemmings do.

iwarror,

"I hear what the author is saying. The people in power who pound on Bibles SAY that they're Christians, but they don't live what they preach. All she's suggesting is that if Bush and those like him truly believed, their policies would be different." That is obvious to any one really raised a Christian or who has read the New Testament. How does Bush demonstrate: "Love your enemies"?
"The good sister is wasting her breath posting an article on this forum. Most posters on this forum can't differentiate between super fundamentalist nut-job Christian religionists and all the other shades of the faith. They have boiled it down to the equation (All Christians = nut-job haters), doesn't matter if you are a snake handling Pentacostal or a good-works Quaker." Most leftists can easily make that distiction.
"Well I'm not one of those people, and I agree with you. It's just another example of how the left is shooting itself in the foot and how it's a subculture made up of too many people who simply have a beef with certain segments of the population." Liberals in general do not have beefs with segments of the population. They believe all are equal. It is the right (starting with Reagan) that has mastered the politics of division. Nixon era Republicans adapted the race card as a way to grab the south from the democrats. The Reagan era-Bush era people have turned this into an art form. Divide and conquer.
"The Right, which by its very existence alone, alienates people, yet they have that Big Tent. Many people in The Left can't grasp that." Obviously there are some Christians who are not part of the Christian republican right and want to live as much according to the Gospels as there soul permits them. However, they are not the ones running the country. There is no big tent amoung Republicans. Not one senator or representative dares to deviate from the party line. It is a form of Stalinism or Authoritarianism to be more general. The Republicans have master the art of focusing poeple on hot button issues so they will vote against their econimic interests. Do you really think Cheney cares about abortion? How moral is it to shoot (hunt?) birds that fly out of a holding pen with a shotgun. It sounds like sadism to me. Read John Dean's book about Conservatives and you will understand this religious thing better. Christ was a socialist, liberal or whatever you want to say. If you have 2 coats give one to the poor and keep one for yourself. How many coats does Pat Roberson have?

Siouxrose wrote:
"you should be able to realize that it is the religious who are backing Bush and thus war. This ... is the basis for why you see justifiable criticism aimed at those who CALL themselves Christian."

iwarrior responded:
"But are they really religious?"

Interesting question. They say they are. Should we be skeptical of this? What proof should we be asking for?

"And are all people who classify themselves as Christians backing him?"

Okay, yes, that's a fair point, but also kind of off-point. I think she was trying to convey that loudly self-proclaimed Christianity is the dominant unifying characteristic of Bush supporters as well as being a strong indicator of Bush support in the US. I did not get the impression she was claiming that every single Christian on the planet supports Bush.

The focus was on those who CALL (all caps) themselves Christians. Evangelical Fundies are quickest and loudest at proclaiming their Christianity. They have a faith-based certainty which is utterly impregnable to all sense and reason, and they are seemingly proud of that. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, tend to be more interpretive, tentative, and circumspect. So those who most loudly CALL themselves Christians in the US tend to be the most reactionary, conservative, and militaristic (they've also had the greatest success in shaping the overall brand image).

"It's been said that the Republicans pander to the evangelicals and laugh at them behind their backs."

Probably true, but oddly, this seems to make no difference.

(godlessrant)"yet we possess all the caring characteristics,"

(iwarrior)"No, unfortunately not all atheists do."

Yes, technically true, but again not really a rebuttal. I think the former was a generality, not an utter categorical claim. By the trends, I note that in the US atheists tend to be more liberal than the general population, have more enduring marriages, and they are statistically underrepresented in convicted criminal populations. There is, at the very least, nothing to suggest that atheists, as a group, are less caring. They are, in general terms, ordinary humans with normal human feelings.