Not to say that Joan Chittister doesn't have altruistic intentions, but I can see why Dawkins says religion is a virus. Chittister's proposal is in the first place counter Constitutional in keeping separate church and state, which was specifically crafted by the founding fathers to insure the secularity of government in order to guarantee freedom of religious practices or and by government fiat freedom from religious practice. It is actually called a "wall of separation" to prevent religious oppression and is so declared by the First Amendment. The insidious fallacy of the writer's thesis is that the good that men and women do, do not need to be done under the pretext of religion. True altruism, true brotherhood is done through genuine free intentions. The political candidates ought to completely shed any insinuation of religion in their campaign. Then we can see and judge them and their programs for their real merits.

There are two places in the US Constitution where the word "religion" is mentioned, once nominally and the other adjectivally. The best known is in Amendment I; the other, less well-known, is in Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Unfortunately, this is not binding on the voters, making it necessary for candidates to abase themselves with all kind of obsequious pandering to the sectarian electorate.

why doesn't the good sister get the catholic church to liquify most of their obscene amount of assets, and put the proceeds to helping those that are starving, and dying of preventable health problems? what say ye sister. i await your reply. i am not expecting one.

It amazes me how many people who criticize religion and Christianity in particular never actually read the New Testament, I mean REALLY read it. I challenge anyone to sit down with it for a few days and an open mind and not see that there was never a movement as 'progressive' as that one especially for that time in history. Also equally amazing how many so called Christians take quotes the OLD Testament to justify their crap.

If Jesus were to retun today and preach the EXACT SAME message that he did in the gospels, religious consveratives would be in a fury. He would be mocked, taunted, censored, and attacked as a heathen, godless liberal. Protests by so called Bible belivin' Christians would greet him wherever he went.

J CONRAD, SHARE TO SURVIVE & Paul BRAMSCHER you all get it. We will never agree on religion, and that IS up to each individual and their relationship with the Great Mystery. The issue we face as a nation is the corrupt USE of religion as a fig leaf rational for a very very diabolical war that's spreading like a cancer.

Well, no...actually, a "literal" reading simply means that something is taken at face value. Nothing to do with percentages of truth or falsehood. A perfect example is Jefferson who rejected the miracles in the NT (but kept the ethical teachings)because he didn't believe miracles were really, literally, possible. As you probably know he constructed his own bible, known as the Jefferson Bible. It was a rejection of a literal miracle, a literal raising someone from the dead, for example. On the other hand, if you understand the miracle metaphorically it can take on all sorts of rich and layered meanings.

That's what I meant by a literal repudiation... To read more about this theological viewpoint I recommend Sally McFague's book: Metaphorical Theology.

Thanks, MollyJ--you got what I was laboring to get across here!

Okay--I'm done.

Well, Tractorguy when you wrote:

"This would presumably be the same Jesus who advocated abandonment of family, who justified taking a luxury for himself by saying the poor will be with us always, who upheld every jot and tittle of OT law, who came to bring not peace but a sword, and who also gave us the charming parable of the king who had all who did not want him as their ruler brought before him and slain. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible is a complex mass of contradictions. There is no coherent view of him that is not the result of selecting some parts and ignoring or interpreting away others. Those who you think are not real Christians have as much Biblical authority for their view as you have for yours. They just picked different parts for their interpretation."

...That seemed like the Bible as you read it reflected a crazy mixed up person. But then above you said..."The unbelievers' position is overwhelmingly that some bits of the Bible are historical, some bits of it are demonstrably false, and the rest of it is simply unpersuasive." I guess I would say that some of it reflects history, and some of it reflects the culture of the times, some of it undoubtedly cherry picked, but there is something in those writing that keeps pulling people back in (as with Buddha, Confuscius, the rest).

Alot of us are attracted to the radical notion of someone who seemed to question all sorts of hierarchies and the underlying assumptions for mistreatment of the poor and the minorities of the times.

I agree with you that there is much that cannot be known--about Jesus, the totality of his message--but the commonalities of the mystical writers across centuries and cultures seems to capture some central truths. Jesus was the primary door-way for some of us to hear of that. I enjoy reading Pema Chodron's messages from Buddhism for the same reason. ANd Joan Chittster's interpretation of the Benedictine rule.

Bush and these other supposedly religious politicians give religion a bad name. Sr. Joan reminds us of religious truth and relates it to the real world. Politicians use religion as spin and personal image for their election or reelection. Sr. Joan lets em have it.

Yet the neo-religion of militant atheism... atheist fundamentalists can't see past their own criticism. How often do you hear them rail at the hypocrisy of what they see as a monolithic institution of wealth etc.? Always actually but when someone of faith and dedication to God actually says what many critcize as never being said... they don't hear it.

I agree with molly...this was a good read.

sj wrote:
"I appreciate your lengthy refutations of my posts."

I prefer to think I'm advancing alternate perspectives. They are only refutations if they happen to have that effect.

"I think most of our differences arise from the fact that while you are approaching (and understandably rejecting) the bible quite literally, I read the bible as metaphorical language, which is often paradoxical and even satirical."

The distance between a mythic Christ and a metaphorical Christ is not so very great. Probably the biggest difference between us is one of attitude: it seems to me inconsistent to have a subjective, interpretive approach to the Bible while also holding that other interpretations are incorrect.

(backtracking) "It's interesting to note, however, that the separation was to protect religion from government NOT government from religion."

It was neither. The intent was to protect the religious freedom of each person, not to protect religion OR government. But whatever the original intent (and plainly, the Founders sometimes goofed) it is inescapable that if you hope to maximize individual religious freedom, then it HAS to work both ways. Government must be kept out of religion, and religion must be kept out of government. To elevate or officially endorse any one religious perspective unavoidably does injury to all the rest, and theocracy is always the greatest enemy of religious liberty.

MollyJ wrote:
"I think this post has been a very enlightening post because it reveals a deep cynicism about religion."

More specifically, about religion in government. That's the key point to take away.

"I "knew" about the people who insist on a reading of the Bible as a literal truth but I didn't particularly appreciate the phenomena of people who repudiate the Bible based on a literal reading."

That's because that phenomenon is virtually nonexistent. Extremely few people reject the Bible on the theory that if it is not 100% true, then it must be 100% false. (That is almost exclusively the view of Christian literalists.) Most unbelievers are well aware that the logical implication of that view would be that if any bit of the Bible can be proven true, then it must all be true. The unbelievers' position is overwhelmingly that some bits of the Bible are historical, some bits of it are demonstrably false, and the rest of it is simply unpersuasive.

Paul B, my posts were more of a reflection of the interchange between SJ and Tractorguy. DH is also a Campbell fan and he very much leads you away from the literal reading to the allegorical or the mythological. Much richness and complexity.

Locust, many of us have been struck by JFK when running for the presidency, promising that his Catholicism would not impact his ruling. In essence, he said I'll be American first and Catholic second. And most folks understood that he was assuring us that he was going to maintain separation of church and state (well I do now; I was probably 6 or 7 when he said it). But Bush convincingly ran on the idea that he would compromise separation of church and state. Democratic candidates first avoided talking religion (viewing it like you do; a discussion that has no place in a prez race) and then they (a la John Kerry) tried to talk about it in a way that reflected their stance. Kerry tried to reiterate what Kennedy said when he ran and believe me he was seriously censored within the church. Many of clearly felt this was the church(es) promoting the coming together of church and state. It is an undeniably dangerous time. And neither response, ignoring or trying to articulate the religiosity has been that successful.

Since many of us see what Bush and Co have done in the name of religiosity as a travesty, Sr. Joan is trying to create some dialogue about how religious faith might inform public service. Witness the comments, it ain't an easy discussion to have.

what a joke, a religious standard to determine the worth of a political candidate. the cult member that authored this piece cherry-picked some "acts of mercy" dogma that her religion professes makes a follower sincere and devout. no mention of any "acts of mercy" that should be imposed on uppity women and children or gay people or enemies or people that do not believe the same beliefs. maybe the author should read the rest of the propaganda that her institution hands out to discover that perhaps our elected officials are acting devoutly.

mother to child: "be good while mommy shops and you'll get a treat."

religious figure to members: "follow our rules in this life and you will be rewarded in the next."

Reading this thread has been, shall I say it (yea, I shall!), a religious experience.
Thanks to all my brothers and sisters for the generally social interchange of ideas and thoughts-pretty good for the sacks of meat that we are, and given the emotion-laden topic.

re: the a-bomb
science produces knowledge
technology produces tools
humans use those tools
If an Earth-destroying meteor approaches or the aliens finally (again?) appear we'll be happy to have a- and h- bombs or anything else that could save us from obliteration or servitude to... (pick your favorite nightmare-mine's the aliens from 'To serve mankind'). So even nukes are a neutral tool. It is the context in which they are used that determines their morality.

Thanks again, everybody.
Peace and love to all.

In fact, the conversion of Christianity from a subversive spiritual movement to a religion of Empire probably caused a more subtle and deeper shift: it became a place primarily to find (literal and wrong) answers in history or science, rather than a place of spiritual inquiry & questioning which clearly was core to the Gnostics. Questioning of ANY sort is dangerous to the hegemons, whether church or state, and so it was gradually stamped out by the literalists -- who always demand a very literal obedience, tithing, compulsory attendance (as in the Church of England), one of several control mechanisms used by Empire over the ages.

You may have misunderstood where I was going. I have tremendous interest in the richness of the world's mythologies and religions. My repudiation of the "volk" expression of religion (Joseph Campbellian reading here) is not based on a literal reading of the Bible, but on the sorry state of religion and the historical record its left in its own wake. Nobody can deny that the literal interpretation has dominated the Church, caused many to be burned at the stake, propped up great corruption, in the past 1,500 years, kept humanity in the Dark Ages.

Campbell was clearly influenced by Schopenhauer, Jung, and many others in coming to see two sorts of religion, both in East and West. There's an idolatrous/debased "volk" version for the masses, and a mystical version for dedicated seekers and professional/titled specialists.

History apparently demonstrates that most people may not possess an interest in the esoteric, abstract, mystical, or related aspects. Arguably, the Gnostic concept of a man-god/crucifixion/ressurrection was intended as a vehicle, a "play", to illustrate a perennial and ongoing daily condition of things, the situation everyone faces in day-to-day life. It is an allegorical "mystery" or metaphor to illustrate a deeper understanding, a fiction or literary device that's more interesting/emotional than a long-winded or technical discussion. For this reason, it is intended to be read more like poetry than history.

I don't concoct a deep "cynicism" toward organized religion: it's damned itself throughout history.

I think this post has been a very enlightening post because it reveals a deep cynicism about religion. And I can certainly say I've had my struggles in that direction.

But I really think sj you may have encapsulated it correctly when you say that people who read the Bible literally--at either end of the spectrum of "literal believer" to "literal repudiator"--are missing something. I "knew" about the people who insist on a reading of the Bible as a literal truth but I didn't particularly appreciate the phenomena of people who repudiate the Bible based on a literal reading.

That puts some ideas into place.

The Gnostic approach was basically killed when Christianity became a religion of Empire, and after the first council of Nicaea in the early 4th century. So while the Greek/mystical/spiritual approach to Christianity is interesting, gnosticism has been heterodox/heretical for the past 1,500+ years. Occasional exceptions like Meister Eckhart or Bede Griffiths are either marginal -- or outright rejected by their own chuch maintream, who'd prefer either a materialistic, historical/literal, idolatrous, etc. reading.

There's something interesting thing about idolatry. The modern materialistic slants of the middle eastern mythologies, like Christianity, don't generally recognize that there are two levels of worshiping of idols, two sorts of barriers to the godhead. The material worshiping of statuary, etc. is only the "weaker" form of idolotary, if even. The "stronger" version is the worshiping of concepts or symbols-as-reality or destinations rather than gates, not merely limited to the crass erecting of physical objects. Attachment to concepts.

Why bother reinventing what the Buddha got basically correct?

Tractorguy--I appreciate your lengthy refutations of my posts. Actually, I think most of our differences arise from the fact that while you are approaching (and understandably rejecting) the bible quite literally, I read the bible as metaphorical language, which is often paradoxical and even satirical. Jesus lived at a time when wandering Stoics often taught in almost zen-like riddles and paradoxical stories. The parables are teaching tools not stories to be understood on a literal and superficial basis. The bible is not a literal, historical narrative--it is a metaphorical text that uses imagery from the time at which it was written.

Once the job is completed on the roof, don't you want the ladder?

I'm pulling your chain, got your point and you are correct. By and large, many churches are for money. ___ Lots of tax free money.

Bear in mind that none of the great teachers, Christ, Mohammed, Confucius, etc. ever established religions. Only their followers did. That means scientifically that the religion is one order (and more) removed from the actual teaching. Religion is not the way, but only points out the way. As with a ladder, when the roof-top is reached, the ladder is no longer needed. When one is in harmony with ones conscience, then religion is not needed, but for those that are fumbling around in the dark it can point the way. Unfortunately the churches have distorted the Masters messages to their own ends and we have the chaos seen today.

sj wrote:
"there really IS a way to determine who are "real" Christians–it has to do with being able to understand what the Jesus of the Gospel actually stood for: welcoming in all those are marginalized–in his society this meant tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. It was a way of radical welcome."

This would presumably be the same Jesus who advocated abandonment of family, who justified taking a luxury for himself by saying the poor will be with us always, who upheld every jot and tittle of OT law, who came to bring not peace but a sword, and who also gave us the charming parable of the king who had all who did not want him as their ruler brought before him and slain. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible is a complex mass of contradictions. There is no coherent view of him that is not the result of selecting some parts and ignoring or interpreting away others. Those who you think are not real Christians have as much Biblical authority for their view as you have for yours. They just picked different parts for their interpretation.

"No, science didn't LEAD us to horrors of Hiroshima, but it certainly made it possible."

Government made it possible. War made it possible. Inhumanity made it possible. Technology made it possible. Every link in a chain of factors made it possible, but it makes no sense to single out any one link as being the one responsible.

"I was just pointing out in response to someone else that science wasn't an unmitigated good…."

If you mean it is not an absolute good, or it is not inherently good, that would be true. But only trivially so, because it would be true for anything. All goodness is relative and contingent. A thing can only be judged good with respect to a distinct and independent standard.

"anything can be misused and misapplied–whether it be science or religion."

I'll agree that science can be misapplied, because science has a specific domain and purpose, but I'll also say the atomic bomb was not a misapplication of science. The findings of science were accurately utilized to create a technological realization of a chosen goal, but we chose the goal.

But I'm intrigued by the notion that there could be such a thing as a misuse or misapplication of religion. Is there some objective standard which establishes the correct use of religion?

Thank you sister Joan for a beautiful testimony to faith.
In his book "9/11 and the Christian faith",theologian David Rae Griffin comes to some unusual but probably true conclusions on the USA state.
He also proves in the back pages that 68% of USA budget is devoted to military.(More than half is hidden in other lines like Dept of Energy for Nuclear Weapons).
The total USA miltary is more than the total budgets of ALL the rest of the World TOGETHER.
So where is money for education , welfare,health care and justice ,just plain justice the first reason for the state.
In his book "The Upside Down Church " Greg Laurie of Riverdale CA Harvest Church proves that we need to return to the first Christians opposition to the Demonic Roman+USA Empire built on terror ,power and fear.
Thank you for your testimony and I hope those who have been hurt by official christianity , will go back to Matthew 5 The sermon on the Mount.
It is still appropriate.

We need candidates who are Statesmen, not Bible thumpers or ones who claim to have coffee with the Lord in the morning.

Honest religion is the truth a person lives, both consciously ___ and sub-consciously.

But enlightened Jefferson DID constantly refer to "nature's god," --and if you read his personal letters you see that he used this term purposesly to acknolwedge (and be mindful) that humans and the natural systems that they're part of emerge and come to exist out of a Creative Source beyond human comprehension.

The Source is beyond comprehension - not necessarily the rules of nature that we can (and should) adduce thru observation and experience.

It's important - vital I think - to simply acknowledge the existence of a Higher Source (and not get 'doctrinal' about it); - not just because it's provably true and reason demands it, but because if we don't, we humans then tend to start thinking that WE are gods: little independent universes unto ourselves who, with enough wordly power can do whatever strikes our fancy e.g: treat other people as slaves, make war in the name of our solopsistic needs, rule over the weaker by decree, violence, or guile, etc.)

The identity and ultimate intentions of the Higher Source are unknown metaphysically, yes. But since Higher Source created Nature, and Nature in turn created us, and since we humans provably do not prosper when we fail to abide by Do Unto Others, we can then say - legitimately though not conclusively - that such Higher Source intends that we Do Unto Others.

True, it's possible that such Higher Source might ultimately intend, or has designed, humans to be violent and socially self-defeating - but here we have to refer back to what we feel as creatures, and not let our imaginations create usless negations based on 'logical' possibility.

What we feel as creatures is that we like it when we're treated decently by others - just as we feel good when we treat others similarly. And that we prosper both spiritually and materially the more we abide by this ethic.

Nor do we need any kind of argument from authority or doctrinal arbitrariness to prove this: it is demonstrated by what we are as beings..

I heartily agree with the idea of separation of church and state--no argument here. It's interesting to note, however, that the separation was to protect religion from government NOT government from religion. Since so many had fled to the "new world" to escape religious persecution, they wanted to ensure that no government would impose ONE set of religious beliefs on everyone--as was the case in Europe where there were state-imposed religious beliefs in each country.

As far as the genesis of the law--there is no legal system that does not have its basis in what was originally religious prohibition. Laws did NOT develop out of the needs of "civilization" but rather civilization arose as a result of the "rules." Both ethics and religion came about at the same time--during what is sometimes called the Axial Age--approx 1000-200BCE. This was when the great spiritual and philosophical systems simultaneously arose in different parts of the world--for reasons still not understood. At that time Judaism, Platonism, Buddhism and other spiritual/philosophical systems were developed...which, in turn, led to what we know as "civilization."

"It's time, it seems, if we're Christian, to judge people the way Jesus told us to judge them: "By their fruits."

The biggest problem is instead of the "fruits" we seem to have a preponderance of "nuts" in politics, especially the zealot pseudo-Christians we see in the Republican Party.

What we need to demand is that honoring and defending our Constitution be strictly adhered to, especially the First Amendment which requires separation of religion and state.
That does not mean that our elected representatives cannot have personal religious beliefs, but that no religion's beliefs may be allowed to influence government or to gain government assistance in proselytising or enforcing religious beliefs....any religious beliefs. No religion may be allowed to gain ascendancy over any other using the government to do so nor may government enforce the dogma of any religion over any citizen. We are a nation of laws, our national government modeled after ancient Greece and Rome, and law can address equitably all our nation needs in government.

Most law in history developed from societal necessity - the rules necessary for civilization to function even though the non-religious portions of the laws of any society have always been thought to come from religion. They have not.
You do not have to believe in any religion to understand why murder must not be tolerated or that stealing your neighbors assets cannot be allowed.

If by religion you mean that rules and deeds necessary for harmonious and equatable society must be respected then we need more "religion", but not government collusion in forcing organized religious dogma of any kind or government support for any particular religion's beliefs.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."-Thomas Jefferson, 1808

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Examples: Martin Luther King, Jr., Daniel Berrigan, William Sloane Coffin, James Forbes...and many, many other courageous men and women (including Joan Chittister) of transcendent faith who continue to struggle to make this world a better place for us all...

This could go on endlessly...examples of the bad done in the name of religion, examples of the good; examples of bad religious leaders, examples of good. This proves nothing except that human beings are capable of great evil and great good...all in the name of religion. Or with or without religion, for that matter!

Noted Christian in action:

The bible-thumping evangelical superstar Billy Graham has blessed every Presidential/Congressional war crime since the Vietnam era. He has been the number one honorary White House religious war whore loved by the media and Americans. Body count to date, perhaps Four Million. Not to worry, they're just "gooks" and "ragheads" needing democracy via the barrel of a gun or under depleted uranium bombs. Better yet, convert them. And of course Graham was part of W's Texas style salvation. Billy's unholy endorsement of "war" has given a sick stamp of approval for torturers, rapists and murders representing America in Iraq. Could anything be more evil ?

Thanks, Tractorguy--you're reply is thoughtful and thought-provoking. And it is possible for folks to disagree respectfully.

However, there really IS a way to determine who are "real" Christians--it has to do with being able to understand what the Jesus of the Gospel actually stood for: welcoming in all those are marginalized--in his society this meant tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. It was a way of radical welcome. Just because people CALL themselves Christians does not make them Christians--you have to at least make an effort to adhere to the basic message, which is quite clearly set forth in the NT.

As doughyden said above, many of the misunderstood passages are actually subversive...I would include paradoxical and even satirical (the demons cast out by Jesus that call themselves "legion," for example were playing on the idea of the Roman military LEGIONS--it was a metaphor for throwing the Romans out! Get it?!

No, science didn't LEAD us to horrors of Hiroshima, but it certainly made it possible. I wasn't trying to say that science started humans down the road to horror, I was just pointing out in response to someone else that science wasn't an unmitigated good....anything can be misused and misapplied--whether it be science or religion.

About those ethical/moral systems. the point is not whether they were given us by a deity or simply arose from human nature...what IS the point is that they were part and parcel of religious injunctions as to how to live one's life. Ideas of helping the poor, etc. were already evident in Jewish law (that would be, religious law) 8,000 years ago.....

Finallly, I would just add that I do NOT believe in a deity per se--that is, a BEING. The nature of that mystery some of us call God is just that--a mystery and far beyond our limited understanding. Any God that I could understand is inadequate....that's why we use metaphors and imagery in our attempts to speak about what is beyond language.

You see, I HAVE thought about this a great deal...

I read Sr. Joan Chittister regularly at National Catholic Reporter and I guess I would encourage anyone who wants more information to go to her columns at www.ncrcafe.org There she is blasted and renounced for being too worldly, not following the constructs of the patriarchy, for being an uppity female, and for a number of other things.

Sr. Joan, Chris Hedges, Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers are people who have what I would call a refreshing and radical view of being followers of Christ. And I would argue that the word "radical" is used in the same sense that Jesus was seen as a radical in his time. Whatever the caricatures and images many writers here carry of christianity, I would tell you that for some of us the core message of Christ is not so much about pushing a radical right agenda, it is much more about treating others as you want to be treated, treating all of us globally as brothers and sisters, seeking a way of peace.

Ironically, there are people who think _I_ co-opt the language of faith and I certainly think that about a certain segment of those would identify themselves as "evangelical Christians". If you want to explore those ideas read Chris Hedges book, _American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America_ and Jimmy Carter's book, _Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis_. These are actually pretty amazing accounts by people who would call themselves Christian or religious and yet they are astounded and upset at the way religion is being manipulated in the service of power. (No doubt religion struggles to avoid abuse of power; it's an age old problem.)

One more plug for www.ncrcafe.org the web site for a bulletin board for the newspaper the _National Catholic Reporter_. This is the most amazing spot for actually witnessing catholics and some non-catholics dialogue about faith in modern day life. For those who thinks the Pope or the Bishop's Conference speaks exclusively for all Catholics, come and see our diversity.

sj wrote:
"I am so sad reading these comments. Not only do CINO's (Christians in name only) misunderstand and pervert the gospel message but those who (rightly) are disgusted with these so-called Christians also think that this perversion actually IS Christianity. It's not."

Says you. Other people calling themselves Christians say different. And they have plenty of Biblical passages to back them up. So by what authority can it be established that it is they who are wrong and you who are right? What can you do except ignore the parts of the Bible they point to and cherry pick other parts that you like better?

"I have a great respect for science–but science has no morality and has led us into some of the worst horrors human beings have perpetrated against each other–think Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Science did not *lead* us there, and there are plenty of Dark Ages examples of killings and torture on a far vaster scale.

"As for the argument that any decent human being could act morally without religion. Granted. But WHERE do you think the great moral and ethical systems came from anyway???"

It is you who have not given that question sufficient thought. Pick any religious system you like. Do you think there were no ethics prior to that religion? Are the ethics of that religion constant, coherent, and clear throughout the history of that religion? (Remember, it was you who claimed other Christians have got it wrong.) Do you think the ethics came from man or from some deity? If from man, then the religion is an adjunct and not the true source. If from a deity, then either the deity created the moral system arbitrarily by divine fiat (in which case the foundation of divine morality is just the biggest fist principle, and to say this deity is moral is only to say it approves of itself) or the deity was the messenger of an independent moral system which needs no deity, in which case it has to be asked how this does not render the deity morally superfluous. And what sort of moral behavior is it anyway when it is mere compliance with a list of orders, motivated by fear of punishment and/or desire for reward?

Kernel wrote:
"Too many folks are trashing Christianity and religion when they are not bad in themselves, but only when they are used for evil purposes."

The very fact that they can (apparently quite easily) be used for evil purposes is a serious black mark against them. It's like a gun on a playground. The gun itself is not evil, but that renders it no less dangerous.

"Without some form of belief in a higher power, we are no better off than animals."

News flash. We are animals. It is the arrogant conceit that we are somehow better than animals which has made us among the worst of animals.

bligh wrote:
"I'm afraid that most of the posters on this article (with the exception of iwarrior) make my point that Christians are no longer welcome in Progressive circles."

Some posters may be guilty of too simplistically lumping Christians together, but that's exactly what you are doing here. Some Christians may not be welcome, but others most definitely are. Indeed, someone like Bill Moyers would undoubtedly be far MORE welcome here than would anyone who attacked him for being a devoted Christian.

Now, it is true that Sister Joan's article was not very well received here, but there are several obvious reasons for that. One, it was sloppy. When she talks of the need for candidates who are "really religious" she probably meant "sincerely" but it looked like she meant "extremely". And she didn't mean religious, she meant Christian. Or more particularly, Catholic. Or really, just certain subdivisions of Catholic.

Which goes to the second problem. Progressives understand quite well that divisive sectarian religion and secular governance are sheer poison to each other, and they must be kept apart for the health and well-being of both. So the basic faith-based thesis of her article was doomed to a cold reception from the outset.

Which brings us to the third and greatest reason her article did not go over well here--because it was taken from a religious publication written for her fellow Catholics and deposited in a political forum for which it was never intended. I can see why CD thought it had relevance and information value, but she clearly was not speaking to us. So I can see why her language went over so poorly here, but I also feel she should not be faulted for expressing herself in the terms she thought would most connect with the fellow Catholics she was actually addressing.

I completely understand what the author Joan Chittister is saying. People like Bush who profess to be religious and then bomb innocent civilians are nothing more than phony hypocrites.

But I think candidates running for office should not be proclaiming how religious they are because we all know by now that this is just a bunch of pandering malarkey.

The born again Christian in the white house is a great example of how this double speak nonsense works. You get elected in this country by bashing fellow Americans who do not live up to the moral standard of the religious right. Gay marriage and abortion put Bush in the white house in 2004 not Iraq or important bread and butter societal issues.

This country will only get back on track when we begin to shun religion in our politics not embrace it.

I personally would prefer to see an atheist win the white house than someone like that bible-thumping charlatan Pat Robertson.

Frankly speaking I think that religious people with all due respect are closed minded ignorant blind followers who are willing to genuflect at the alter of an imaginary god.

Give me the intelligent curious mind of an intellectual atheist before I can accept the nonsensical wanderings of religious fools.

So yes Joan I get your meaning about candidates not living up to the tenets of religious teaching but do not accept that you have to be religious or believe in a god that no one has ever seen to be a good person.

Religion is authoritarianism

Siouxrose: With all due respect, your attributing "tunnel vision" to me reminds me of that Groucho Marx quote " who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Well, in this case - sorry, I'm going to believe my own eyes. You need not look to anything but the first few quotes on THIS post to see that the posters do not say "fundamentalist Christians that voted for Bush" they just say "Christians". There is no acknowledgement of the good that christians like MLK did BASED on their Christian beliefs. Those beliefs are held up to be silly superstitions at best, genocidal hatred at worst.

NO one seems to remember that George received only 54% of those Christians that attended church regularly, with the other 46% voting for Gore. Or that the most openly religious president of modern times has been, not George, but Jimmy.

I myself am not a Christian, so I have no particular bone to pick- except to point out the overwhelming stupidity of telling a group that includes over 3/4 of the country that someone with their beliefs is not welcome in our tent.

So next time you want to spout off about those stupid Christians, by all means think of George - but think of Jimmy and Martin too.

NELSON TERRY: Brilliant!
TRACTOR GUY: Apt "translation" of my intent. Many thanks.
BLIGH: You are the one with tunnel vision. You are so engaged in trying to prove the veracity of your own position, that there are (no argument on this, but it is NOT the driving argument of America's political reality) wonderful, deeply committed Christian progressives that you fail to see what the so-called Christian movement is doing to our military, the war-state, the waltz into totalitarianism/authoritarianism, etc. WHO IS BUSH'S BASE????????????????? Do you get it yet! I am not Christian bashing to those like Martin Luther King who gave mankind important, deeply valuable teachings. We are discussing WHY there is a separation between church and state, and given the EVIDENCE as to who supports this diabolical presidency, religion is a major factor. Therefore unmasking this religious basis for identification is mandatory to overthrow this EVIL from our land! (As it courses around the planet like a cancer, doing unbelievable damage in the name of a 'god.' THAT is the central blasphemy of our times. Eric Prince, owner of BLACKWATER, an army for hire, KILLERS!!!!!! is a born again Christian. Does that not hit some disconnect button in your psyche? No one is attacking GOOD persons who have a particular approach to worship, its when millions get together to stamp their breed on the rest of us, and that particular breed is anything BUT what the master Jesus taught, that yep... this mystic takes issue. It's destroying everything.

doughyden--you must have gone to the same liberal/progressive seminary as I did! Your reading of Jesus' essentially subversive response is spot on. It is too bad that the progressive community does not understand how radical the gospel message really or that Jesus was the paradigm for all resistance to empire and oppression.

I am so sad reading these comments. Not only do CINO's (Christians in name only) misunderstand and pervert the gospel message but those who (rightly) are disgusted with these so-called Christians also think that this perversion actually IS Christianity. It's not. Christians are actually called to create the Table of the Beloved Community--a place where all are welcome, all are included, all are loved. Jesus very specifically included at his "table" the marginalized as well as the privilged. The fact that far too many "Christians" not only don't practice this RADICAL HOSPITALITY does not invalidate its truth.

I have a great respect for science--but science has no morality and has led us into some of the worst horrors human beings have perpetrated against each other--think Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People may not live up to their religious teachings but that does not mean the teachings themselves are not ideals for us to live up to. Think: love your neighbor as yourself.

As for the argument that any decent human being could act morally without religion. Granted. But WHERE do you think the great moral and ethical systems came from anyway??? For msny of us our sense of morality and ethics are grounded in the Judeo-Christian traditon, whether we recognize it or not.

What answer can we have for what has happened in Iraq?
What answer do we have for so many abortions?

The vast, vast majority of American "Christians" see nothing wrong with murder.

Joan Chittister

I understand what you're saying, and though I personally don't think ANYONE should use "religion" as a campaign issue, IF people must do it, then it should be true religion, not dominionism. And I don't think people must be outwardly "religious" to be good politicians.

I believe religion is a very private matter, at its core an intense relationship of a religious individual with God, however one conceptualizes God. I am deeply offended at the talk and trappings of religion when brought into politics to get votes. I immediately conclude that such a person isn't religious at all, no matter what he/she says. I'd rather see a politician's record without any referral to religion at all. And in fact, that's what I do anyway, ignoring their religious claims.

True religion isn't a uniform to impress the public but a private relationship with something greater than oneself.

I'm afraid that most of the posters on this article (with the exception of iwarrior) make my point that Christians are no longer welcome in Progressive circles.

It doesn't matter whether the Christian agrees with every point made by the Progressive community, they will be ostracized and excluded the moment that they happen to mention that they are a Christian. Not a SUN-God worshiper, or a WICCAN, or an Atheist - these are tolerated if not welcomed. But not Christians. There is no differentiation made between what TYPE of Christian, all are unwelcomed and attacked for their beliefs the moment they open their mouths.

It is a shame, since the first "progressives" in this country were Christians. It was Christian groups like the Quakers that fought for the abolition of Slavery, something that was unique in human history at that time. And they were persecuted and reviled for it then also.

They survived that and I'm sure they will survive the progressive community now.

I'm sorry Sister, most minds here snapped shut as soon as they saw "Sister" in front of your name, It didn't matter what your article said.

"Sharing is divine. When you share you recognize God in your brother"
- Maitreya, the World Teacher
www.Justice4Peace.org

We need candidates who are unabashed secular humanists. As soon as you bootstrap being kind to your fellow human with something else - ANYTHING ELSE - you open the door to precisely the problems described in this article.

And then you spend a couple thousand years guessing whether the leader, candidate, politician, etc. was well-meaning and a person of faith, or just prostituting religion and superstition for politican gain. The most obvious way out is to be clear that all things: money, power, symbols -- othodoxy and the gods themselves -- play second-fiddle to essential secular humanism. Anything else is the same old chicanery.

Does Hillary Clinton fit Joan Chittister's definition of "more religious"? Ahh. . . No.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

"Render unto Caesar, etc." has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. Jesus, after he was finished laughing, would have scorned the very idea of church/state separation. In a world where the emperor was considered the son of God and therefore divine himself, how could it be otherwise? No, when the Pharisees asked Jesus whether or not it was okay to pay taxes, they were attempting to trap him. They thought that if they could get Jesus to commit either way he would be in trouble: either with the Roman authorities for incitement to tax evasion, or with the Jews for supporting the Roman occupiers. Jesus neatly avoids the trap here by using language that no imperial authority could find objectionable, because to Rome and its lackeys, everything belonged to the emperor. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's? Nothing wrong with that. But there is something subtly subversive going on here. To Jesus, and to all those who bore the brunt of imperial taxation, what, really, belonged to the emperor? Nothing! The emperor had no legitimacy. He was an illegal occupier. Whatever he took from the people was stolen goods. So when Jesus says to give to the emperor what belongs to the emperor, he is really saying, "Give nothing to the emperor," that is, "No, we should not pay taxes to the emperor." Everything in the world, on the other hand, belongs to God. We owe our very lives to him. Therefore, we should not keep more than is necessary for survival, at least until everyone is fed, clothed, and housed, because what we have does not belong to us: we have it only in trust from God. When you pair this pericope with Jesus' later remarks about the widow's mites, you begin to realize what Jesus thought about the concept of private property.

Acknowledging that something other than you created you, is the limit of any truthful religious metaphysics. Such an acknowledgment is at once both an irreducible and unexpandble induction.

The rest of religion-as-metaphysics is speculation and opinion - usually arbitrary, dogmatic, and always undemonstrable by guiless Reason.

By distinction, Religion-as-ethics, based on observations from the particular to the general, such as Do Unto Others...can guide humanity far better than metaphysical religious systems which require belief in Arguments from Authority, doctrinal bigotry, and suspension of Reason as the commonly-given human social tool.

When people say: We need more religion in politics, they ususally mean: We need a politics which operates by replacing arguments from demonstration with arguments from authority. I.e, they want to ground collective ethical standards in their personal doctrinal beliefs about God - a goal completely contrary to the dynamics of democracy and collective self-governance.

If instead what they really mean is that: We need more ethics in politics, they should use the correctly distinguishing word, and then we can all agree with them and stop fighting about who or what created us and the color of his or its pajamas, etc.

Otherwise, such statement makers are simply trying to overthrow humanitie's hard-won Enlightment principles, to thereby erect a theocracy in place of a democracy.

This theocratic goal has been the sad and violent saga of Unenlightened humans since the dawn of recorded history. And history showns that it's counterproductive, unnecessary, and doesn't work!

"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."

All those creatures are of God's creation too! I happen to be one of them listed above.

To Godlessrant.........

18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?

It takes developing your spirituality to come to see, hear, feel know and love. There is nothing and I mean nothing more rewarding for your efforts! I highly recommend it! : )

Sista Jayee, Lookee here, ya gotta try ta understand dis. Da USA way back in 1776 was religous but asked for sepatation of church and state ( meaning gov ) but dey wer all white, men, over 21, land owners ( some slave owners ) and paid some kind of tax. Did I say men ? yes I did. Back in 300 something a bunch of white, men, over 21 some slave owners set up this Christian Church. It puzzeles me ta see whatever you are trying to say if you really understand what progress means. oh ya btw, Muslims are very very religous. And dey are not to keen on your corp of works stuff. Lastly are you trying to be on the side of the Roman Catholic Church ? The one who only in USA gets a wrinkle in their shorts about abortion ? RC is petty strong in Europe but they get abortions there, sort of a personal matter. Now for da very last point...most Catholics work for a living..aka money therefore should not be republican or consevervative dem for that matter....take care sista

PAULA___ You took the words right out of my mouth and off my keyboard so I will just say I agree with you entirely. Too many folks are trashing Christianity and religion when they are not bad in themselves, but only when they are used for evil purposes. Without some form of belief in a higher power, we are no better off than animals. That higher power can be anything from God or Jesus to a totem pole, but it still has an effect on people ___maybe good, maybe bad, and humans seem to need that, particularly in times of trouble. My own method for deciding who may be a true Christian is to imagine that person as Jesus. Some seem to resemble what is commonly referred to as the devil, or Satan. I think if the religious people just had sense enough to do their own thing and leave others alone to do theirs, the bitterness would cease in a hurry.

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.

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?

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.

God save us all from religion.

^^^

Seems that way to me too off22.

Seems to me that Jesus was a socialist.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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".

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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. 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.

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.