The Politics of Religion in America
What in the name of God is going on in American politics? Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, riddled with mistaken assertions about religion, was itself a warning. But other presidential candidates, debate moderators, pundits, and religious leaders all share a dangerous confusion about questions of faith and citizenship. Here are only a few:
Is America's goodness grounded in God? When Romney and others assert that American virtues, generally summed up in the idea of "freedom," are based on faith, a cruel fact of history is being ignored. The politics of human rights, like the idea of individual freedom, were born not in religion but in the Enlightenment struggle against it. When Thomas Jefferson located "inalienable rights" in an endowment from the Creator, he was decidedly speaking from outside the mainstream of any denominational faith. Jefferson's point was not to affirm God, but to deny King George.
It is not an accident that "God" does not appear in the Constitution. Following the American lead, religions, too, learned from the nonreligious improvements of modernity, but it is dishonest to claim after the fact that religions somehow sponsored them.
Were "the Founders" religious? It is a convention of political speechmaking to ascribe faith to the Founders, but what kind of faith, and what Founders? The Pilgrims, for whom "freedom" and "rights" meant nothing, wanted a theocracy. One hundred fifty years later, the Deist revolutionaries assumed a distant God whose interest in creation, much less the young nation, was minimal. By Lincoln's time, traumas of war drove piety, and it was only then that present notions of public devotedness were born. (It was Lincoln who established the motto "In God We Trust.") In truth, the power of faith in American politics has waxed and waned. There is no consistent tradition to be upheld or to be betrayed.
Is "secularism" dehumanizing? When Mitt Romney praised vital American religion in contrast to Europe where churches are "so grand, so inspired, so empty," one could wonder what the collapse of institutional faith in Europe actually means. Romney condemned the "religion of secularism."
Yet such American smugness seems to miss the largest point of difference between the Old World and the New. In the very years that majorities of Europeans were walking away from organized religion, they were resolutely turning away from government-sanctioned killing, whether through war or through the death penalty; they were leaving behind narrow notions of nationalism, mitigating state sovereignty, and, above all, replacing ancient hatreds with partnerships. All of this stands in stark contrast to the United States, where the most overtly religious people in the country support the death penalty, the government's hair-trigger readiness for war, and the gospel of national sovereignty that has made the United States an impediment to the United Nations.
Does God send people to hell if they vote wrong? You would think so if you listened to the American Catholic bishops, who said in November that forbidden political choices "have an impact on the individual's salvation." The five Catholics running for president all hold positions that, in the bishops' view, might earn their supporters eternal damnation. Whenever preachers appeal to hellfire as a way of reinforcing injunctions, you can bet they have failed to make a persuasive moral argument.
What is discouraging here is that the bishops, aiming to reinforce their squandered moral authority, are resuscitating an image of a threatening, violent God that religious people generally, and Catholics in particular, have struggled to leave behind. Religion aims not to "save" from an unmerciful God, but to reveal that God's mercy is complete.
Is Mormonism a religion of myth? The answer, of course, is that every religion is a religion of myth. The symbols, rituals, and sacred texts of every faith grow out of contingent historical circumstances that seem at odds with the transcendent claims that religions make. Joseph Smith's origins in upstate New York might seem disqualifyingly banal, yet so did Jerusalem to those who lived in Rome, as did Galilee to those who lived in Jerusalem. Religions claim to be above such history, and that myths are revelations - but the glory of God is that God reveals through human invention. What Mormons believe is outlandish - which is the point.
Politics and religion, like art and music, aim to accomplish the same thing, which is to overcome absurdity with meaning. Religion does this by seeing God's hand in history. Politics does it by affirming that, if history is all there is, it is enough.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
81 Comments so far
Show AllHAKORI: I see it the way you do. Those capable of tolerance of other points of view are becoming targets for those with no tolerance, those who will (if given the chance) LEGISLATE the "right" beliefs, stances, actions, and utterances that authoritarians believe is their 'divine right' to force upon the rest of us. And woe to those who do not oblige. As one who believes--to the point of soul memory/intuitive flashbacks--in past lives, this BEAST has lived inside the human psyche a long time, and it gets OFF on human sacrifice. These rituals are church-sanctioned, or otherwise couched in faux religious principle, as if the followers' fealty is proven by burning, torturing, or tying others to the proverbial stake. Look at Bush's lust for torture, while never causing his flock to blink at eye lash at the incongruities of quoting Jesus as his personal guide/savior and then doing the unthinkable, sanctioning the cruel and lawless... just because he HIDES behind Jesus' name!
War=Peace:
"I'm not looking for an epiphany…and I wish you wouldn't have said that (reeks of us them, me you, student teacher)."
Relax. We are exploring the query you raised together, and my hope for an epiphany comes from that of a fellow explorer. Since it is your conflict, it is only you who can ultimately go "Ah," ergo, the epiphany usage. This is more about trying alternate paradigms to address the query, rather than any notion of teaching.
" Does not everything you desire create polarities?" Such as wanting peace? Wanting peace implies we don't have it, correct?"
We are talking about two different domains. One is the domain of agents, and the other the domain of agent actions/goals/values. Any classification can result in polarities, and my thesis is that such classification should remain in the domain of actions/goals/values. A good illustration of this distinction appears below.
"So my curiosity is aroused by how other Peaceful, Zen-ninja, warrior, thought shamans, such as your self negotiate the discrepancies between the "all being one" that we know is the ultimate truth, and truth of matters pertaining to the sustainability of the earth and its inhabitants. "
How did you conclude that I am "one of those" who espouses the "all being one as ultimate truth?" I have not posted any details that point in this direction. I have called for the discarding of the "us vs. them" paradigm. However, this does not automatically imply that I espouse the position "all being one…" For the record, I think such a position is unnecessary. The likely reason for this conclusion is that you classified me (an agent) into a group, and then proceeded to think that I exhibit the characteristics of the group, which as it turns out, is incorrect.
"What good is "avoiding the unnecessary categorization of people" in the face of systematic, genocide and starvation and slavery."
This is a very important point, and I periodically revisit the same. By avoiding the categorization of people, I bring fewer preconceived notions to a dialogue. It allows me to point out the distinction between "avoiding the wrong" and "doing right." Further, it eliminates the "identity" block that many people have (the "us vs. them" paradigm again) as questioning an action does not threaten them the same as questioning their identity. The important result I have found in practice is that it reawakens or highlights many ideas (typically progressive) people have submerged to conform to an identity. To quote a cliché - acknowledging a problem is the first part to solving it. For any progressive idea to succeed it must cease to be progressive and become mainstream and mainstream positions at the very least, influence systems.
After all this, I do share your fundamental concerns, i.e. will there be a change in the policy of systematic genocide, starvation, etc. (in my lifetime)? At least I can try, one mind, one thought at a time, and there are others such as you, who are also trying in their own way.
It's obscene how the religious right in this country has been allowed to take control of the political dialogue. They don't and never have believed in freedom religion. What they believe in is their perceived right to ram their fundamentalist brand of fire and brimstone down the throats of those who actually believe in freedom of and from religion. It's pathetic how they whine on and on and on about the perceived persecution they endure, while they engage in actually persecutiuon of a minority (gays) and use their religion as justification. You have to ask yourself, just how sane is any group that considers taking away a woman's right to choose and writing discrimination into our constitution the two defining issues of our time That if no other reason is proof enough why religion has to be left out of politics. If not, the insane zealots who speak so loudly in America would use thier religion to do anything they please and say they were doing it in the name of God. I'm sure they could produce some Bible verse to justify whatever action they were to take. It's past time the majority of Americans who aren't insane religious nuts...and I have no reservations in calling them nuts...speak out. How else do you describe an entire group of people who deny the FACTS on everything from evolution to global warming. And that begs the question, why is on one in the msm even questioning the role of religion in the 2008 presidential campaign. After all, it is the religious right that more than any other voting block that got us in the mess we're in now.
Thought Shaman
I'm not looking for an epiphany...and I wish you wouldn't have said that (reeks of us them, me you, student teacher).
But I don't mind massaging this out a little more either.
And since I am the one asking the questions and you operating from the position of having answers, I Query: Does not everything you desire create polarities? Such as wanting peace? Wanting peace implies we don't have it, correct?
So my curiosity is aroused by how other Peaceful, Zen-ninja, warrior, thought shamans, such as your self negotiate the discrepancies between the "all being one" that we know is the ultimate truth, and truth of matters pertaining to the sustainability of the earth and its inhabitants.
Not classifying agents is a handy rule of thumb.
It is surely not the end all be all of "us them" dynamics.
What good is "avoiding the unnecessary categorization of people" in the face of systematic, genocide and starvation and slavery.
peace
War=Peace: "I see not the distinction between people and their action."
This is a strange position. As long as you hold it you will fall into the "us vs. them" trap. Further, notice that I did not refer to the concept of "there is only us" either - for that is still agent focused.
Yes, knowing will not prevent water from being privatized, or food from being poisoned, etc.. However, it will avoid any unnecessary categorization of people (like Bush 43 calling Iran evil), and let the focus be on actions where it should be. Disagreement over one course of action should not preclude working with the same agents on other actions wherein there is agreement.
Not being drawn into polarities is no feat at all. Classifying agents causes polarities. If one stops doing so, there are no polarities to worry about.
Let us hope you find your epiphany...
Thought Shaman
Forgive me for not quite being satisfied with the response, but thanks for it…
I see not the distinction between people and their action. Therefore, I don't think I classified anybody, if I did how so?
good/beneficial/neutral actions (basically life), are being eaten by an unchecked "us/them" monster. Just because we know that there is only "us" does not prevent our water from being privatized, or our food from being poisoned, or our land taken away.
To be so centered as to engage in this battle and not be drawn into the polarities would be a true feat indeed.
War=Peace: "How do we acknowledge that someone's actions are detrimental to the whole (judge) without playing into (the appearance of) "Us/Them"."
The answer to your query lies within the the query itself. You moved from evaluating actions to classifying people. All one has to do is to stop after evaluating actions and shun the classification of the agents.
Understanding a position does not imply support for it. Just because one is aware that others use the "Us vs. Them" does not mean that one supports it.
The world would be a much better place if we stopped trying to be "good people," or "good [insert identity here]." Rather, we ought to focus on doing good/beneficial/neutral actions and give up the the detrimental ones. For the record, classifying moral agents as good/evil, dark/light, etc. is detremental.
A keenly insightful bit of journalism. I was intrigued by Carroll's questioning of the nature of the Founders' faith. He's quite right in pointing out that Jefferson's notion of the Creator, for example, was "decidedly...outside the mainstream of any denominational faith." It's important to recognize that the Founders – more than half of them, at least – were Masons. And the Masonic tradition is famously ecumenical.
In fact, many of our nation's Founders enthusiastically welcomed pluralism within the context of free expression. Jefferson approved of worship inside the House of Representatives and even invited several ministries to his University of Virginia campus.
Ben Franklin helped build a new hall in Philadelphia "expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something." So staunch was his defense of pluralism that he felt compelled to add: "Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
I suspect that unlike most secular intellectuals today, the Founders perhaps shared a belief in what Time magazine has called "the social usefulness of religion." But it's hard to have a civil conversation about these things since believers and secularists alike have adopted a mulishly insular approach to the issue.
Leon D'Souza
http://leondsouza.blogspot.com/
tumbleweed; Like Kernel, I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement, and I like your term, "Religious Reich" as it appropriately identifies the crackpots and the soothsayers from honest folks who are actually practicing Christians. "bye their works shall ye know them",.
We all see the different approaches in our comments on this one article, but ultimately, "all roads lead to Rome'.
eddievalgould; Half way Known, Half Way home. You other Dreamers...same thing. You're ALL on the RIGHT TRACK! I have no religion but the Golden Rule. That is why I agree with George Carlin.
Madam Blavatsky once wrote: "No religion is higher than Truth".
May the Almighty Bless You All With Wisdom and Understanding, Vibrant Health, and Good Cheer.
Thought Shaman,
As I said before, the basic tenets of fundamentalism does not imply support for any exercise of injustice. This does not mean that fundamentalists have not practiced injustice. It is that they cannot base the justification for practicing injustice on the tenets of fundamentalism.
Rebel Farmer,
I think that in terms of knowing if a person would enforce his/her religion onto the rest of the country, then knowing the religion of the candidate is important. Otherwise, it is a fixed cost that the news will report it.
EDDIE VALGOULD: I'd love to be part of THAT world!
THOUGHT SHAMAN: You raise an interesting point (or critique) of my comments. Here's how I see it: when we look at the formation of our solar system, in my view the planets--each corresponding with an aspect of human (modeled after Divine) nature--are placed into concentric spheres, and these extend outward. It's not a matter of one being better than another, but they have different vibrations, as do people. I do believe people vary in their LEVELS of evolution. Look at the human body. It appears as a singular entity, but it only functions due to the workings of various systems. We are not all alike. Like systems in the body/being of the Universe, we have specific functions, various levels of resonance.
I apologize if I add to strife by emphasizing the "us versus them" polarity, that was not my intention.
Thank you PEACE MAN, WAR = PEACE, N SPIRE for your kind comments.
REBEL FARMER: Wow! To be Ms. Hilary's mentor. Imagine her reaction when I'd have to pull up past lives that lent her the character of the (female) warrior this time 'round? I once attended an interesting workshop entitled, "The drum is the shaman's horse," and its facilitator said, "If you come here with your cup already full, I can offer you nothing." I think Hilary's pretty convinced her cup is full. I'd rather be close to Kucinich, but as I said in a post a few months ago, I believe he is a VERY enlightened soul and probably meditates, etc.
Happy holidays to all; and to Christians of HIGH consciousness like Kernel, I hope you recognize I am bringing to light the MISUSE of the religion and related rhetoric to incite the killing of outsiders. Remember, apart from a few wealthy citizens, the base of Bush's supporters do come from the megachurches.
peacenow says: "My problem with them is that they don't acknowledge that science is just as much based on perceived norms as religion."
Hmmm, you are missing a very important distinction. Science specifically limits its domains to that which is observable and testable.
While, what is commonly known as the scientific method is applicable to multiple domains including religion, scientific endeavor does not allow for random hypotheses or models like religion.
It is true that societal norms influence science. Take for instance the silly concept of the "food chain" with its implied hierarchy of beings. Had a vegetarian formulated this concept, it would be along the lines of a food cycle.
"
un-neocon December 17th, 2007 2:20 pm
Everyone should watch this conversation between 4 of our greatest living Thinkers….. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens… on the concept of god ….
"
YOu have got to be kidding. Hitchens? The man who has written that smoking cigarettes cures alzheimers, that massive amounts of alcohol are good for you, and,oh yeah, that the U.S. was "liberating" Iraq?
I'm not bringing up these things to be mean, but to show that my guess is that you call them "great thinkers" because their worldview corresponds to yours.
"Carlin is right. No matter what one believes about the ultimate nature of reality, the ultimate source of all the bursts of energy that become absorbed in one's brain through perceptions, a moment's reflection results in the unavoidable conclusion that there are an infinite number of such possible models of reality, and no one can prove that any one is definitely the best or the most true."
Fine. Tell so-called rationalists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that.
My problem with them is that they don't acknowledge that science is just as much based on perceived norms as religion. The late great Robert Anton Wilson argued that one should be agnostic about everything, not just religion.
I find that a Zen Buddhist approach to Christianity fits me the best. I believe what I believe to be true, but admit that it is all based on probabilities rather than objective facts.
Dear eddievalgould,
Beautiful and well-spoken. The Reality of Oneness is all that we "need to know". All the rest is part of the journey of no distance and no time, back to The One.
peace,
st john
The Romans had their period, 700 years or so; the British had their rule 300 years or so, there have been others, and so the USA will have a shorter time period of empire, and as the Time speeds up we find that we live in and on the world and all preferences of religeon or culture began to look mighty puny as the sight of our oneness becomes inevitable. Me, I don't think God is religious at all but for those in need, please respect all orientation and preference, don't run over each other. Eventually, religion will be a grand feeling a genuine Uniting and not a dogma. Armageddon will have been realized as the destruction of Ignorance and certainly not Life and we shall enjoy it immensley. Government and money will disappear and only be remembered as abstract silliness. We'll get rid of the mechanical, polluting, killing and maiming contraptions with their roads of congestion. We'll be friends and compatriots to the animals and not predators and threats to them and we'll just take our time, walk in the gardens, talk of things far deeper and more beautiful and we'll levitate and float around and laugh easily. Our partial natures and becomings shall be reunited and there shall be fewer of us, no need for population worry. Why does the apple fall? Newton was wrong, the apple did not fall for gravity but rather to nourish the roots of the tree. The gravity is in our imagination and it is the gravity of our concepts which do feed our fears of decay and mortality which do put our bodies back into the earthy nature to be recycled once again, 'til we get it, as a Whole.
In a previous post on this subject, I stated that we are in movement of diverging out and diverging in. Meant to say diverging out and converging in. We diverge out and converge in simultaneously and our Beauty is Grand, is Divine. "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause." Just around the corner, in your heart. Keep your eye on the prize. Kisses.....
Google In God's Name for a trailer on a documentary to be shown on Dec. 23 on CBS. "IN GOD'S NAME, a CBS primetime special produced in association with the acclaimed French filmmakers Jules and Gédéon Naudet, will explore the complex questions of our time through the intimate thoughts and beliefs of 12 of the world's most influential spiritual leaders. These diverse and powerful voices offer provocative, compelling and enlightening perspective on myriad issues in our post-9/11 world, including the rise of terrorism, fanaticism, intolerance and war." http://www.themiracletimes.com/Christmas/CBS-In-Gods-Name.htm
This is only one link to information on this Special. Please open your minds to the possibility of a unification of all hearts and minds in resolving the challenges of our time. All divisions which our minds create are only temporary and are there to lead us into new realizations of our Unity. Whether atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, fundamentalist whatever, liberal, progressive, spiritual, religious, conservative, etc., there is information/awakening for you if you are simply willing to open to other possibilities. We will not stop war and violence as long as we "hold onto" diverse views and create separation. The war outside is simply a reflection of the war within; and, the leaders we judge as "wrong" are simply the reflection of our own "wrong thinking".
This season which is celebrated in so many cultures in so many ways is a reminder of the family to which we all belong. We are born of a Single Parent, whether we acknowledge it or not, and our family includes all of us. May Peace Prevail On Earth.
peace,
st john
Siouxrose - true that.
Arianna Huffington says the economic conservatives in the Republican punditocracy are having shitfits about Huckabee's surge. Were he to receive the nomination, they seem to fear the death of the Republican Party would soon follow. Divine Retribution maybe? Praise God.
www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huckabee-the-gops-cynic_b_77165.html
i dont think i have(personally) ever met a right wing fundalmentalist who adhered or resembled jesus christ in any way ! i still say,"no separation of church and state=no democracy-no freedom !!
tumbleweed___I agree wholeheartedly with your last posting. I think many sincere Christian people do not realize the damage that the right wing fundamentalist conservatives are doing to the religion they value. I also believe many of those fundamentalists do not care about the harm they are causing as long as they are running the show.
On the other hand, the secularists should also stop and realize that when they get too abusive when discussing the effects of religion, they are hurting their own cause the same way. People should learn to live and let live instead of doing their best to creat division and controversity as that gains nothing for anyone.
As far as I can see religion has seen it's better day in this country. Where it used to command a lot of respect and devotion. It has become little more than a cheap w....for sale to the highest bidder in the political market. Anyone who will push their agenda (anti-abortion,anti-gays and anti-sex) they are willing to cozy up to. Be it the most corrupt and immoral President in the history of this country or all the wannabe Presidents who fall over themselves to spout their religiosity to get more votes from the 'Religious Reich'! It has grown to the point of being sickening to watch this bunch of animals. As far as I am concerned they have done Christianity untold damage in a lot of people's minds. The longer the Bush administration goes on the worse the corruption gets and the more crimes are exposed. But these sainted people (fundamentalist Christian's, Catholics and etc) don't seem to have enough moral's anymore to see what's wrong with the Republican party. As long as the Republican's are willing to push their agenda upon American's they will overlook the most vile of behavior. Christianity is going down the tubes from the greed, bigotry and hypocrisy that it represents. Christian Fundamentalist's have hit the religion the hardest. More and more American's are going sick of having religion shoved down their throats. I look for the pendulum to swing the other way one of these days. It did in the 60's with the sex revolution and it's headed that way again. People in this country can only take so much religion before they start to choke on it! The Christian Fundamentalist's don't have the good sense to known when to stop pushing.
st. john; Thank you for the information about the Pasadena church. And, I appreciate your beautifully written explanation about science and spirituality. Yes, we are all One, and as yet, fail to grasp that concept, and insist that our way is better than another's way. We create conditions by our thinking and our actions, whether for positive constructive purposes, or negative destructive purposes. It is the choice we make as individuals and collectively as a group or tribe. That energy, or spirituality, or God-power, or whatever words used to describe it is neutral. We can be uplifting and comforting like the Dalai Lama, or menancing and brutal like Adolph Hitler. The path taken on the journey is ours to choose from.
Peace and Harmony
As a religious person (and a leftist) I find the assertion on these pages that religious belief is a mental disease very scarey indeed - a very scarey form of atheist fundamentalism, every bit as scarey as right-wing fundamentalism. The secularism debate goes round and round. Let's remember the basic idea - the whole p[oint of secularism is to divorce religious affiliation from citizenship. Remember that in England (and elsewhere) to hold divirgent religious views was synonymous with treason. Thus too in Islam where apostacy was (is!) synonymous with treason and so, like treason, is a high crime. Secularism was all about ending that situation and creating a nuetral state tolerant to diverse religious groups. But, from the start, secularism has two hazards. The first is that nuetrality can be confused with anti-religion and atheism. Thus in leftist politics too often "secularism" is assumed to mean atheism. And second - worse - the state itself can become a pseudo-religion. This is certainly what has happened in the modern USA. The cult of the state (quasi-religious patriotism) has replaced sincere and authetic spirituality. Most of what passes for Christianity in the USA is really the "Jesus loves America" cult in various disguises. Certainly, on the right of politics the confusion between religion and patriotism is pervasive. The challenge is to create a meaningful, healthy secularism - one that doesn't promote atheism as a norm and regards religious belief as a pathology, and one that doesn't allow the state cultus to subsume religion. Most of the secularism debate seems to miss these points.
Thanks Shenonymous, Jefferson was a deist, and also someone who went to church not to pay homage to a higher power but to understand his people better.
The Agnostic and Atheist Student Group (AASG) at Texas A&M University (yes, there was one in the mid 90's) printed T-shirts with Jefferson's quote on them.
SiouxRose wrote:
"I believe in miracles and I know there IS a higher spiritual hierarchy. If a driver can humbly own that he or she is lost to ask for directions, they might find unexpected ways to arrive."
"...the other blasphemers who sing war in the name of the prince of peace are DARK souls indeed..."
How are these statements not fundamentalist? These positions still foster an Us-vs.-Them mentality, and a Superior-Inferior distinction. In which case, who is higher? – The fundamentalist religious person certain of their truth; or people like you, who strive to be open but fall into the same trap.
I understand your attempt to work towards a dynamic, interconnected society where compassion is a (if not the) driving force.
Every individual follows his or her own path at his or her own pace. It is important to understand that moral agents are neither evil nor good, only actions are so.
To foster a dynamic society based on mutual respect, one must realize that there is no one above, nor is there anyone below; and anyone is welcome to help. No hierarchies, no us-vs.-them, no superior-inferior distinctions, no DARK souls, or light ones - there are only agents acting at the expense, or for the benefit of other beings.
Religion is not useful in the ambiguous way kivals puts it. Religions ought not to be funded in anyway for anything in this secular country of America. Religion is a private thing in this country. All religious and non-believers alike have the freedom of their thought guaranteed by the constitution. Atheists because they are atheists are not evil, individuals are evil and are found in every group, Christians as well. The evil ones are the ones calling atheists evil. It is a poor mentality that doesn't quite get that that is the way it is. Well we don't have to be concerned about the benevolent Jesus Christians, but we do have to be vigilant and defensive about the freaky zealot militant Christians, just as we do the freaky zealot militant Islamists, and freaky zealot militant Israelis. It is true that religion can be a symptom of serious mental illness. And power is power no matter where it finds itself, in politics, royalism, and religions and because it is built into the narrow mindset, it does become corrupt. Hazmat gets a medal for having found his critical analysis ability. Too bad all Americans can't learn to do that. Maybe if we had Golden Rule posters plastered everywhere as reminders, it might start to sink in? Naw, the power mongers would come by and rip them down, like Nazis.
Jefferson was a deist, forwhatitsworth. He served as president of the American Philosophical Society.
peaceman, here is the site for the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA. The IRS suit was dropped after 2 years. There is information on their site about the status of their case.
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_splash
BTW, God is real, but does not care if you believe, follow or ignore. As some have no doubt said here(I have not read all posts) it is more important how we treat each other and the earth on which we life than whether we believe in some Great Creator. There is an order in the universe and science is all about discovering that order. That does not rule out a Supreme Being; it just adds another factor into the equation. Ask the Dalai Lama about god and you will no doubt get a very acceptable answer, punctuated by laughter. As for Dawkins and Hitchens and their like, they are more concerned with the fine details of radical true believers than what I consider the Truth of our existence: We are all One and our purpose here is to recognize our relationship with each other. That is all sceince does, isn't it? Bringing into relationship all aspects of what is known about the universe and explaining the unknown in terms that can be demonstrated experimentally? Science is a process and Spirituality(not religion) is going direct. Both have relevance and meaning.
peace,
st john
It wasn't so much that mitt was the gov of my state and that his job performance would get a failing "F" but he made me turned off and sick of him a 1000x more after knowing he gave a speech on mormonism and for sure I feel he lost a big batch of repug supporters as he tries just too hard to appear like he is some godsend for our country, he sucks period! religion or not he just was bad for massachusetts as he claims to hate all the "liberals" and as he goes around the country insulting all the mass residents, why did he reside in mass but to use it as a door mat to parade around saying see i was an important politician so i must now go to the next phase as a president. he set up podiums on the boston commons many a times preaching how he hates gays!!! how he thinks how disgusting massachusetts is for being so liberal
separation of church and state,was a good idea,is a good idea and will remain freedoms benchmark......democracy,will not survive-without the separation of church and state...it is the hallmark of freedom and democracy !
SIOUX ROSE -- Blessed inspiration to sooth the famished and entangled spiritual space, that intersects our lives:
AS IF the waters of life had become a forgotten cure for the deserts around us, whilst its bubbling source lay within each our own pure hearts
ALEX LAWYER__ I believe you are right about the conservative fundamentalists being very hypocritical in their beliefs and actions. However, it is disheartening to see so many CD posters drsgging Christianity through the mud. There is a great difference between being Christian and being religious. Just because so many politicians are hiding behind a smoke screen of religion because they think it will get them elected or re-elected, does not mean that religious views are something to avoid. Let`s put the blame on the people that are misusing religion for their own purposes as some use fake patriotism or pandering to the gun lobby. We are in big trouble in this country, but is not caused by ordinary Bible believing Christians, any more than a belief in astrology is wrecking us. Our problem is the same one civilization has always had , that of tyrants gaing power and exploiting it for their own evil desires, and there are always those eager to join up and get their share of the spoils. If the teaching of Jesus were followed, which is certainly not the case now, our Nation would have a good life for all, and not just the rich and powerful. It is not necessary to believe in a life after death to gain much wisdom from religious study.
AlexLawyer; Excellent points, but it even goes farther back than the Reagan years. In the early part of the 20th Century, a rabid anti-union fascist from Norway emigrated to the United States and involved himself in rightwing political movements and started 'prayer' groups, especially in the Washington DC area. Use the name of Jesus and invoke Christianity and purport to be pious and you're flock will grow.
He started prayer breakfasts in the Whitehouse long ago, reactionaries only, and you can imagine what they talked about. Don't qoute me on this: but I think Hillary Clinton attended some of those meetings.
I like the acronym, Alex. Covered with bedsheets, they had a bible in one hand and a hangman's noose in the other. Ignorance is not bliss.
Souixrose: Thank you. I think it would be great if you could become Hillary's spiritual mentor.
For the past 27 years--since Reagan's election--we have seen the influence of conservative Christians in American government. This has culiminated in the Bush-Cheney regime, and indeed the BARN (born again redneck) voters are about the only ones who continue to support the most incompetent, lawless and criminal administration in our nation's history. We have seen warmongering, slaugher and suffering brought to innocents through illegal wars and cruel sanctions, war profiteering, torture, massive gains by the rich and losses by the poor, denial of healthcare to children, massive budget deficits, refusal to reform our ways as the world's #1 polluters and weapons merchants, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, and a host of other ills. Anyone who reads the Gospels would find it impossible to reconcile the right wing's professions of faith in Jesus with its positions on the issues.
Siouxrose; I'm very touched by what you just wrote to Tru Orange. I hope he or she (?) understands your reply. In fact I hope everyone reading your answer comprehends the message.
The last paragraph was right on the mark.
My Best to You and Yours.
If only those who call themselves Christians would actually put into practice what Christ was said to preach.
For those of you with open minds, this is a link to a five star rated video with over 20,000 ratings. There is some great insight here into religion, politics, war, international banking, the Fed and 911.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331
For some reason, we can not mention it by name on CD.
TRU ORANGE: You may wish to refer to Jack37's post. I gelieve the attack on the Divine feminine has been underway for several millennia. Its most overt forms include the several million women murdered by the church for not conforming to standards that robbed them of their own spiritual knowledge, basis for worship, and inherent gifts. The way nature is treated as a thing, the way women in so many lands are given compromised wages and/or vote/representation, the way rape is a common act of war, the way many intelligent men dismiss these things as being merely the way the world works, or some kind of necessary expression of one of Darwin's theories (survival of the fittest, etc) are all evidence that there has been a crime against HALF the universal force. I am NOT saying that either gender, the quintessence of Yin or Yang, is superior; but that they are intended to dance, just as DNA appears as a whirling dervish molecular structure that marries an equal genetic quotient from each in order to make life.
Societies have cleaved to male power, masculine thought processes, and might-makes-right for centuries. These behaviors have become so long conditioned into the human experience with few notable exceptions that they are taken for what is real, or what portrays human nature. It's like crippling an individual and then studying what he can do on the basis of the handicap. The individual in this case is the entire world society. It is true that during the past century or so, various women have distinguished themselves in a variety of careers, some quite powerful. Many fail to recognize that the qualifications these women have been asked to satisfy still condition them largely to adapt to a patriarchal model of education.
There are always a number of souls from both genders who are natural rebels, geniuses who must fly over the cuckoo's nest and test the limited conjucture of their times. Galileo is a good example. Most who take on this role pay a price, as society tends to punish its visionaries in the interest of maintaining a status quo.
CD has many brilliant contributors, and a lot of them challenge a specific area of presumed truth. How many of us really analyze the basis for our education and cultural/religious conditioning? The very fact that millions in the US can no longer distinguish between the false teachings their religious leaders bring to them, and the "reality based community" is itself evidence that something has gone awfully wrong. All things come full circle. Our zodiac begins with Aries, the principle of the self, the ego, and its often aggressive measures to preserve itself. The signs follow in a succession intended to grow empathy for the whole. If the paradigm was not broken, by the time mankind evolved to the final sign, Pisces, we'd see compassion lived in such a way as to make ours a bona fide and blessed garden of Eden. Instead, with war and violence, might makes right given free rein, what we have is a world that's been poisoned by wars (and the war on nature), and incredible violence seen between the genders. Eden's lovers have instead become broken and maimed warriors, killers, victims and survivors. It's a tragic fate. Out of such long institutionalized depravity, in our common realization of pain, we might still return to the circle, learn to care for one another, and gradually heal the paradise bequeathed to us that life could appreciate the Creator by emulating creative, rather than destructive factors.
Frankly, it's my belief that patriarchal religions, particularly Catholicism, used sex as a means to promote the false idea of sin, so that human beings could not trust their bodies or their instincts, nor the carnal desire planted inside each of us that the perpetuation of our species be fulfilled. The sickness that's been wrought by turning the lovers against each other is seen in the many priests who molest children, in the girls raped by their fathers and step fathers, in the males who must use porn to experience desire (and those that go on to experience sex as a form of violence), and in how we treat our planet, the great MOTHER.
I just finished my children's allegory on the zodiac, a work no orthodox publisher would touch. Violence is Ok for kids, but teaching the Divine circle where there are no sides, where EACH has a place at the table, where the sacred 12 are explained as part of a higher plan... that's taboo. Our society arrests persons who speak of peace or want to smoke the peace pipe, but honors those who kill for financial perks. Obscene times we face because the spiritual values that were part of the Divine feminine have been as co-opted as all things from Nature. Without the intended balance (like both oars for navigating a boat), the patriarchal world view with its emphasis on force, has come to throw the great balance that life's designs rely upon decidedly off.
I believe in miracles and I know there IS a higher spiritual hierarchy. If a driver can humbly own that he or she is lost to ask for directions, they might find unexpected ways to arrive. Mankind is that driver... "A new commandment I give thee: That ye love one another." THAT is what Christ meant... Huckster and Bush-it and the other blasphemers who sing war in the name of the prince of peace are DARK souls indeed. Their time of karmic retribution will come.
Gail; Go Girl, Go!
Case in point to back you up. Remember a few years ago when a minister in a Pasadena, California church questioned the morality of the death and destruction, misery and suffering that the Bush/Cheney/Congressional Crime Family inflicted on the Iraqi people? (these are my descriptive words, not the preachers). Soon after, the IRS investigated the church and (somebody help me) and wanted to take them off tax-exempt status for being "political".
With one scandal after another for over seven years, it's hard to keep tract. That issue and a zillion others need to be addressed!
"Does God send people to hell if they vote wrong? You would think so if you listened to the American Catholic bishops, who said in November that forbidden political choices "have an impact on the individual's salvation.""
Yeah, right! And where may I ask is that written in the Holy Scriptures?
When were tax-exempt religous organizations given permission (on the books of congressional legislation or IRS rules) to decide which candidates would be "fobidden" political choices and still REMAIN as TAX EXEMPT organizations?
This issue needs to be addressed!
In spite of the best efforts by our government-corporate-MSM industrial complex to deflect and distract, Americans are sponging the message: we are all doomed if most of us do not simultaneously reset our "way of life" to the Save Earth configuration, like, yesterday. And we know there's not a chance in hell of that happening. So many are resetting to the God Help Us configuration instead. The bigger the insurmountable problem, the more wacky we become and, hence, the wackiest "leader" who is also the "closest to God" gets the votes. You know, cause he'll call the Big Guy direct and chew him a new cloud hole and save us all at the last minute.
Like in the movies and stuff...
Huckabee is only the worst manifestation of this "religious awakening redux" which has plagued us in recent years (decades?)with all this pandering to know-nothings in America's spacious plains. We will only be truly civilized in the United States when an atheist (or perhaps in the beginning an agnostic)can be nominated and win the Presidency. We probably don't have that much time before the "God-fearing people" bring destruction to the nation and maybe the Earth itself. Merry Christmas!
Carrol, one of the very few worthwhile aspects of The Boastin' Glob, writes: "The symbols, rituals, and sacred texts of every faith grow out of contingent historical circumstances that seem at odds with the transcendent claims that religions make." This is all fine as long as you are referring to Bible-based faiths. Religions centered on a Goddess---for example, the longest continuous period of peace and progress in Western history, Minoan Crete---had no need to make "claims at odds" with their historical circumstances. "Goddess" was never an "idol" or "magical being beyond everything" as the Bible and then rationalism told us---"She" was simply the consummate expression of the experience of living directly in Nature---rooted squarely in "historical circumstances," daily life practices, natural seasons, human cycles. People expressed all those things in the image of a strong creative beautiful female: she was not a dictator of morality. She was/is simply all the most worthwhile aspects of existence, what The Bible is STILL trying to forget, destroy and erase within us. "History" is a heap of shit demonstrating that what is not sustainable is suicide. All this political Bible crap (and even worse, "endorsements") is what we're left with when NOT ONE CANDIDATE except Kucinich can even begin to honestly address where we are and what is happening to us around the world because of the end-game of capitalism....Instead they're all smiling and smiling in order to impress an old Grandma (Dubuque Iowa)...http://ancientgreece-earlyamerica.com
Carrol, one of the very few worthwhile aspects of The Boastin' Glob, writes: "The symbols, rituals, and sacred texts of every faith grow out of contingent historical circumstances that seem at odds with the transcendent claims that religions make." This is all fine as long as you are referring to Bible-based faiths. Religions centered on a Goddess---for example, the longest continuous period of peace and progress in Western history, Minoan Crete---had no need to make "claims at odds" with their historical circumstances. "Goddess" was never an "idol" or "magical being beyond everything" as the Bible and then rationalism told us---"She" was simply the consummate expression of the experience of living directly in Nature---rooted squarely in "historical circumstances," daily life practices, natural seasons, human cycles. People expressed all those things in the image of a strong creative beautiful female: she was not a dictator of morality. She was/is simply all the most worthwhile aspects of existence, what The Bible is STILL trying to forget, destroy and erase within us. "History" is a heap of shit demonstrating that what is not sustainable is suicide. All this political Bible crap (and even worse, "endorsements") is what we're left with when NOT ONE CANDIDATE except Kucinich can even begin to honestly address where we are and what is happening to us around the world because of the end-game of capitalism....Instead they're all smiling and smiling in order to impress an old Grandma (Dubuque Iowa)...
"Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin."
"To heap more fuel on the fire ... of the 55, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed (which make up 45 of the 55) were Calvinists, for goodness sake! In other words, these weren't just Christians, these were among the most extreme and doctrinally strict Christians around. Of the 55 delegates, virtually all of them were deeply committed Christians"..these are he men who wrote the constitution..and the info is from their biographies..there is not one word in the constitution about church and state being excluded...there is the 1st amendments exclusion clause..that says the state will not mess with religious expression
After that you can reflect on Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1863. It begins this way: "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord."
Just because religious extremists try to rally around the lowest common denominator, does not mean that it is a subject that is "off limits" to everyone else. Rubbish.
How does removing this from the realm of discussion help?
It seems like another excuse to place restrictions on us.
Let the president answer whether he/she thinks Adam and Eve were literal people etc. I want to know to what extent they engage with the texts.
If they would rather watch football on Sunday let'em say so.
There is no way that a person's spiritual relationship to the world is of no importance to the decisions they make as chief executive. Bah.
Why don't they answer, as JFK did, that his religious beliefs were personal and that all the citizens needed to know was that there was a barrier between his personal beliefs and his public duty to the country?
Because they now can 'ride their faith' into either Office, or cover-their-lyin'-ass with a false-charade of 'morality' (or both). The point is...no one should care about 'faith' [or lack-of-same] when it comes to Governance. Else-wise, the destination is a Theocratic-duopoly, and the nation falls-prey (as has Israel, and purportedly Iran -- not that the US is far-behind, at this juncture) to a Talibanesque-totalitarianism.
Religion&faith [Mythos] is needful/inevitable for any conscious-lifeforms (in some fashion or another, at-minimum in 'early-development'), but for its-sake AS WELL AS the 'Laws'/imperfect-Justice governing civic/civil-affairs, the "twain should never-meet"...
[That's very-hard for any of the "children of Abraham/Book"-followers to get through their little-heads -- Separation was intended to (and DOES) serve ALL Interests, not just the Secular and mainstream]
The secular-Deists who wrote all-related well-knew that from Historic-example and Uncommon-sense.
Caday5: "How a religion fits into society depends on the space in society that that religion allows for the unbeliever. A religion that confuses what it means to be righteous in the Church and righteous in the state will leave less room in society for the unbeliever."
Such thought patterns cause fundamentalism to arise. It presumes, or at the very least implies, that religion is (or should be) the basis upon which society rests. Religion ought not to be something people "stand on." Instead, it ought to be a culmination of good actions and thoughts created by the collective of its members.
Free societies will allow religion to flourish, insofar as religion does not pretend to be the basis of such freedom.
"…there is nothing in the basic tenets of fundamentalism which implies that we are free to practice social injustice."
I beg to differ; fundamentalism allowed slavery to exist for millennia, until progressive minded people finally got rid of it. I do agree with the concept of working for social justice. However, it is important that people not confuse its impetus as coming from religious practice. Rather, if a religion promotes social justice, it is because the same provides a societal benefit.
I also have to disagree about whether or not a presidential candidate's religious practice matters…I have to say it does, how not?
I think it is very important to know the terms that a president's morality operates within.
Is their relationship to the almighty or the cosmos (whatever) not affect their decision making process? Or are they directly related?
SouixRose: "If anyone wants to hear the diatribe on how religions have shaped a concept of the deity most resonant with the old god MARS from astrology, just ask."
I'm asking. I'm interested to know how this will fit into the holocaust of the sacred feminine, as embodied in the female priestesses,healers, gnostics, and mystics of bygone ages.
ggpearl: I'm interested in hearing more from you, too.
Religion is political.
So is everything else.
The big con is making us think that politics (and religion) is something separate from our day-to-day lives.
How/what we eat is political, where the food comes from is political.
What we do for a living is political.
How we treat each other is political.
So, how we live is political…. not the opinions one might have about this or that.
caday5: Thank you for your post and your honesty.
The real question for me is how we as citizens got to the point of thinking that we had a right to know anything about a candidate's religion in the first place. I mean, why does the question get asked in the first place?
I remember when JFK addressed the question of his being a Catholic. He didn't respond by defending his religion or by saying that his religeous beliefs would define his presidency. He basically said that his religion was his personal beliefs and that they would in no way influence how he governed. He stated in very bold terms what the Constitution requires. That is that a persons religion (or lack thereof) was NOT to be used as a qualification for becoming president.
So, what has changed in America? Why don't any of these candidates stand up and say that their religeous affiliation is disbarred by the constitution for consideration as a qualification for office? Why don't they answer, as JFK did, that his religious beliefs were personal and that all the citizens needed to know was that there was a barrier between his personal beliefs and his public duty to the country?
COMarc: I loved your post about your visit to Jamestown.
Speaking a lifelong, practising Christian, I believe that being a Christian should be neither a recommendation nor a barrier to any person standing for elected office.
For God's sake Americans, reclaim the inspired principle your Founding Fathers gave to not just your country but the whole the world, that of 'the separation of Church and State'.
Send those priests and fundamentalists, who would undermine the very foundations of representative government through blackmail and threats, scuttling back to their cathedrals and palaces of dishonour like the rats they undoubtedly are.
un-neocon, to your list of thinkers I would add Michel Onfray, author of "Atheist Manifesto".
Being a religious flaming fundamentalist, I would like to offer a different take on Carrol's perspective.
How a religion fits into society depends on the space in society that that religion allows for the unbeliever. A religion that confuses what it means to be righteous in the Church and righteous in the state will leave less room in society for the unbeliever. Consequentially, the less room that a religion leaves in society for the unbeliever, the less religious the response by the religion in dealing with the unbeliever. This is why when some Islamic Fundamentalists in Asia or Christian Fundamentalists here try to deal with the ills of society, they resort to force or coercion.
Also, though much of our fundamentalist history merits examination and severe criticism, there is nothing in the basic tenets of fundamentalism which implies that we are free to practice social injustice. Believing that Jesus died for our sins or that he will literally return again implies nothing regarding capitalism/socialism, militarism/pacifism, social darwinism/providing a big safety net. I think you will find that support for more progressive values by Christian Fundamentalists will be more prevalent among those who are from other countries rather than American fundamentalists. Unfortunately, we American fundamentalists have been caught in a downward spiral of having or wanting to prove ourselves which leads to actions that betray the gospel. And often, proving ourselves not only includes defending the faith, it also includes defending the likes of a super "patriotic" vision of America.
God is what you don't know and God is also the Creative Faculty cognizable as and by the mental being. Religion is the endeavor of the mental being to give credence and substance to speculations which are based on what was experientally known,.....but Creation is always Anew and ancestors were only partially right when and then. This may seem a shaky way to grasp the foundation of life, but ultimately it is the only security to count upon, that is to resolve to live in the pure ray of Now and the journey to now is a re-gathering of the mulitplicity of innumerable Ignorances, wants, cares and so-called necessities to a personal yet expanding ground zero in Knowledge which is impersonal. We diverged out, and now we diverge in. Like the pluck of a chord, the vibration called life has a beginning, a middle and an end. Eastern thought names it Omkara, the Truth is the beginning, the middle and the end. No blame on anyone for God is what you don't know, and sits in Stillness and Creates from Nothingness infinitely beyond all speculation or preference,.... but in surrender there is Knowing.... and a re-evolution to expression of the Same. This you can rely on.
Could any religious or political agenda understand and implement this?,..... but no blame. This and that is merely a preference, a play so to speak. Remove the hostility and anger and it is enjoyable to the core.
Hearts open, Lights on, We be getting there!
one thing i find troubling so far with Mitt Romney has been the country's lack of interest in exposing his religion's major problems....
it is too long ago to prove or disprove Jesus, Abraham, Buddha, or Muhammed...so those have to be taken completely on Faith (something i find troubling in and of itself)....
HOWEVER...there is Plenty of evidence showing that Joseph Smith was a CON MAN....the two big pillars of his faith when he was alive were "Racism" and "Plural Marriage"...yes, he was a BIG racist....only to become a state did Utah renounce those practices, but 'real' mormons still believe them both.....
his stories about finding the stones with the writings of the nephites is HILARIOUS, if it weren't held as gospel truth by so many....
come one America, let's call him out on the absurdity of Mormonism, because we can prove most of it....(it was only in the late eighteen hundreds...so people wrote about him, and most was NOT good....the killings of mormons, and retaliation by Brigham Young by killing Whites and making it look like the Indians did it...yes, Brighman Young, the savior of Mormons was a Murderer.)
i wish we could call out the Christians, Jews, and Muslims too....but no one can prove or disprove much of anything about any of those faiths....
as for politicizing....religion was politicized when the Catholic Church looked the other way during the Holocaust.....yes, Catholics have blood on their hands from that time....
did anybody get the same creepy feeling that hit me, as a pimply kid suddenly lacking control of his vocal chords, when i first applied critical analysis to a hymn i'd been singing for years, "onward christian soldiers"?
that moment marked the beginning of my ascendance toward skepticism, but having a father who was a sunday school superintendent one day a week and a raging drunk the other six probably helped.
the golden rule (common across sectarian barriers, but most often honored in the breach) is the only prescription for life that's needed. the rest is utterly irrelevant dogma, certainly not worth killing or dying for.
The Smothers Brothers did a historical spoof on religion and war in the early seventies. Throughout history, as long as tyrants told the masses about "God" being on their side, they were able to convince the ignorant to take up arms against others which they knew nothing about. Apparently it is still working. Unquestioned belief is as rampant now as it was in the so-called "Dark Ages".
Many people desperately need to belong to something and if they are promised a better life in the next plane of existence for behaving in a certain way, or even by commiting crimes for the sake of the clergy who are in cahoots with the ruling class, all in the name of and for "God" and comply. This con game has been going on for centuries.
Look at the 'christianization' scandal in the Air Force not to long ago. It's permeated all of our military branches.
I didn't watch the George Carlin video, as I saw him on an HBO show just blastin' organized religion. I certainly agreed with him. Carlin was not only terrific in his routine, but struck into the core of it.
Any religion that doesn't teach the 'GOLDEN RULE', is disengenuous in my opinion. If it was "Gospel", the nations of the world could disarm and really turn "swords into plowshares"
kivals; A little footnote. During the 'Korean Conflict' one out of every three American POW's were easily convinced by the commies that they were war criminals and couldn't explain liberty, democracy, freedom, etc. So alarmed by this and the advancements made by the Soviet Union at the time, that the Pentagon instituted 'The Code of Conduct' and the Eisenhower Administration added the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I think it was 1955. I remember reciting the 'pledge' in school, every morning. ( Can you imagine pledging allegiance to Cheney and Bush?)
You have to be kidding.
Religion and reason?
Cmon.
I think the birth of new religions is cyclical, when old ones lose their way.
That was the reason christianity was born.
That was the reason that there have been rebellions agains christianity in the name of christ and protestanism.
That was the reason Islam was born.
Organized religion does the same thing as politics.
Put people in power, who then use their power to screw things up.
Everyone should watch this conversation between 4 of our greatest living Thinkers..... Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens... on the concept of god ....
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2025,THE-FOUR-HORSEMEN,Discussions-With-Richard-Dawkins-Episode-1-RD...
BTW, I'd be a little careful about smears towards "American religion" or "christianity". The fundamentalists in the Republican coalition are just one strain. They tend to be a loud and aggressive strain, so its easy just to think of them.
But, if you go to something like any anti-war protest, the protests outside Oak Ridge on Hiroshima day, or especially the protests outside the School of the Americas, you'll meet a very different type of Christian. You will meet some Christians that have taken their notion of the love of Jesus Christ and used it to propel them into the world as a force for peace and justice.
As usual, don't go by labels and don't lump people in to groups. Be ready to see each individual as such, and look at them with regard to what they actually do in the world.
In the history of Christianity, the Crusades are an important time in the shift from it being a religion of peace to a religion of war. The Kings and Popes of that era wanted to fight massive wars in the name of Christianity. But they had this minor problem in that what Jesus taught was just the opposite. Lets all march to the Holy Land and then turn the other cheek wasn't going to fit the Kings and the Popes an the Knights that wanted war and destruction and conquest and booty. So that's when some of the church writers started developing strains of thought that put forth the notion of being holy warriors in the name of Jesus Christ ... who of course would be completely appalled by the very notion.
Years ago, I took a trip that took me to the reconstruction of the Jamestown settlement in Virginia. They had a replica of one of the boats tied up on the docks there.
I remember looking at this little thing, and thinking I'd be nervous crossing a lake on a quiet day on this boat. Especially after your jaw drops when you read the number of people they had crammed on board.
So, what I remember thinking about while standing on that dock in Jamestown was just what in the world would make people crowd and jam onto such a little rickety boat to sail across the north Atlantic, land in a country that they'd never seen before, where there was no settlement waiting for them, where they'd have to build everything themselves.
That's what having religion tied too closely to government created. It created the awful conditions that led to people doing such a desperate act. And its a reminder why the founding Fathers of this nation were so wise and insistent on separating religion from government. They knew what would go wrong. They knew the religious persecution and wars that could result.
Our founding Fathers were wise to separate religion from government. And to those who want to reverse that, we should give a response that's familiar to any progressive who's protested say a war "Hey buddy, this is America. If you don't like the separation of church and state, why don't you go somewhere else." I'd suggest they go back to Europe, but Europe seems to have wised up a bit in the intervening 300 or so years. So where would they go? Well, Tehran seems to have the same sort of fundamentalists. Maybe our fundamentalists would fit in well there!
ezeflyer,
Carlin is right. No matter what one believes about the ultimate nature of reality, the ultimate source of all the bursts of energy that become absorbed in one's brain through perceptions, a moment's reflection results in the unavoidable conclusion that there are an infinite number of such possible models of reality, and no one can prove that any one is definitely the best or the most true. Since religions cannot be based on the most valid, most provable, model of reality, what are they based on? Generally they evolve to meet the needs of the elites in the society, though at times they may have utilitarian aspects as the elites recognize that they too can benefit from some degree of utilitarianism.
So when the elites find a religion no longer useful they will abandon and defund it. And, in the aftermath of the fall of the "evil" atheistic Soviet Union (with the atheism used by demagogues to convince the simple-minded to fear the dreaded "commies"), US elites are finding religion, including Christianity, to be much less useful and they are abandoning it. As the wealth polarization becomes more dramatic, and as the reinstitution of slavery or the use of others for their body parts become more desirable by those at the high end of that distribution, Christianity, with its claims that all human beings are of equal value, may even face a full frontal assault from US elites.
Ideally, I'd prefer if I never knew the 'religion' of a candidate, and if it was regarded as so insignificant that people would look funny at a candidate that bothered to try to say what it is.
We should look at a person as to what they've done. If their personal religion has inspired them to do some good in the world, then that's good. But I care more about what they've done than why they say they've done it.
And far to often, these professions of religion seem designed to cover-up the fact that they've really done very little that's good in the world.
If the church could get away with selling indulgences again (remember those nifty little documents? Give enough $ and you're "guaranteed" a seat in heaven!) it would!
GG PEARL & COUNTESS: Good points.
If anyone wants to hear the diatribe on how religions have shaped a concept of the deity most resonant with the old god MARS from astrology, just ask. It's so clear to me that a nation that boasts its "christianity" and leads the world in both weapons sale AND deployment ultimately worships the 'god' of vengeance, violence and bloodshed and that's about as far from Jesus as any sane soul can get. The old ways of Rome were retained, and just given a new name (Jesus) for endorsement. Tragically, everything being done in the name of this Master is a blasphemy, except for those who are TRULY devout and really do care about mankind and devote their lives to Service. When standing in line at a soup kitchen, or trekking out to some foreign terrain also involves prosletyzing belief systems that ultimately are false, then they, too, add to the legions of granting false witness to that which too many take for God.
billjv says: "What is most discouraging to me about the current state of religion is that people who are deep into religion have no objective standard from which to base their belief on. There is no debunking rediculous beliefs based on fact or standards - in fact, trying to do so only enflames religious believers, and entrenches their belief more."
You are missing the point here. Religious conservatives have a standard. Unfortunately, it is exactly what they believe. The objectiveness of the same only applies to the group of people with similar beliefs within a narrow tolerance.
The problem is that religious conservatives view religion as the *basis* for morality, life, knowledge, etc. It is something that they "stand on." Therein lies the error, religion should *never* be the basis for life, it should be the *culmination* of that which is good.
There is nothing wrong with a person having religious beliefs. Heck, I come from a family of Quakers. The problem is when tries to use that religious belief to justify something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place, or bullying someone into believing what you do..
James Carroll asks many questions in his article. Instead, he might as well have asked "What would a 'free' conservative theocracy look like in America?"
The juxtapositions of old vs. new world, American founders religious views, the implied damnation of going to hell, etc. all reveal aspects of what he thinks the system would look like.
However, his "Religion aims not to "save" from an unmerciful God, but to reveal that God's mercy is complete" is a progressive representation and will always clash with the conservative one. Simply asserting the point is not going to change the minds of conservatives.
Of course, I could go on and ask, "If a deity forgives, is it a sign of mercy?" Or, further, "Does forgiveness require mercy?" However, that would be an entirely different discussion.
American Religion is as hateful and reactionary as any on the face of the earth but this is easy to forget because our religious adversaries do not have a massive military industrial structure as we do which does our dirty work of imposing our ideas by force. Our enemies are often reduced to terrorism in order to combat the empire and thus can be easily demonized while our armed forces can torture and destroy while being cheered on by our media and the religious nuts. It is interesting to watch as religious indoctrination has made its way into our military schools and we can look forward to a more openly religious military as we build our theocracy at home.
Here's what George Carlin sez about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
If someday the corporate oligarchs find religion no longer useful in this country, it will fade away with not so much as a whimper.
What is most discouraging to me about the current state of religion is that people who are deep into religion have no objective standard from which to base their belief on. There is no debunking rediculous beliefs based on fact or standards - in fact, trying to do so only enflames religious believers, and entrenches their belief more.
I don't ever see a world without religion, unfortunately - and at the root of this problem is the desire for humans to think they are somehow "superhuman" - that there is in fact an "afterlife". That causes many sentimental notions, not the least of which is that they will see their loved ones in Heaven, and see their enemies roasting in Hell. Organized religion just plays upon this sentimentality, by providing the structure from which people can find added support for their position.
On top of all of this, religion provides an excuse for people to hold biases and bigotry in the warm waters of mutual shared belief, which becomes dangerous when large numbers of believers delude themselves into believing they are justified in thier destructive behavior. Religion tends to promote anger (posed as justified anger) toward anyone who does not agree or abide by the "rules" applied to believers via ancient texts and manipulative leaders. This is how, in the face of even their own biblical texts outlining very clearly that death is wrong, support of the death penalty or war is somehow justified.
In other words, religion gives an excuse for angry, controlling people to exercise their anger and obsession to control, all within a government-sanctioned way. No wonder the Republican party is the party of religion!
I have no problem with faith, or the belief in a higher power...but again, I must point out (preach to the choir...lol) that american christianity (fundie version esp) is no different from islamic fanatics or zionists. The three biggies all developed out of conquest by the Asian steppe invaders who brought with them a crazy warrior sky god who destroyed the balance in a more animistic, nature oriented male/female practice. This is the true Judaic beginnings, their roots. It is demonstrated in the archaeological records.
Furthermore, the gnostics warned of this being as an insane punitive diety that was cast out and then duped Abraham into believing in him, and entering into a covenenant that reduces male sensitivity perhaps even promoting a more agressive manner..
As a country, we do not sanction child abuse or slavery-and yet many still worship a diety who desires and promotes both. Any one who spouts the notion of the Rapture/End Times gives credence to this insane diety who will abuse/punish his children and enslave the non-believers.
These actions are not the actions of sane loving people, but rather fear filled vengence seekers who worship the very thing they fear. They hold no respect for the earth, and why should they, the diety has promised them a better world.
I would love to be able to forgive these folks....but they are hell-bent on destroying everything I hold dear.
Why is it that we lock up individuals who behave in this manner, but a group of them who proclaim they are following a diety gets sanctioned and supported? Some even get voted into the White House....
"What is discouraging here is that the bishops, aiming to reinforce their squandered moral authority, are resuscitating an image of a threatening, violent God that religious people generally, and Catholics in particular, have struggled to leave behind. Religion aims not to "save" from an unmerciful God, but to reveal that God's mercy is complete."
god's mercy is complete? one good read thru the old testament and thru much of the new reveals that god's mercy is complete...ly a fraud! the god of the bible is a threatening violent god. how about this little gem?
1st samuel 6:19
He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great slaughter.
yes the "lord" who's mercy is SO complete, struck down over 50,000 people for.....looking into his "ark". horrible!
as an atheist, it's so hard to live here sometimes and be absolutely soaked in religious bigotry and nonsense. even worse when religious people claim persecution because they can't get their way all the time. this nation was not founded for xianity or any other religion.
How do we acknowledge that someone's actions are detrimental to the whole (judge) without playing into (the appearance of) "Us/Them".
As long as the "us/them" mentality exists then there will be conflict etc.
The "us/them" mentality can only be combated within the self of the individual.
What about those who deny the whole, who insist on us and them (see I'm doing it).
St.John, Had to go after I wrote, but was wonderfully amazed at the timing and similarities of our posts. It is closer than current dementia and MSM can admit to, the latter must keep up their profits you know. This is how God is proven. Some do know.
SiouxRose, Half way Known, Half way home. At least it can be seen from here.
Holy men blessing bombs should be all the clues you need.
Religion is a symptom of serious mental illness.
It should automatically disqualify anyone suffering from it from holding any public office.
Even Tony Blair realised that the rest of the planet views him as a "religious nutter". His words, not mine.
"Religious nutter" is the nicest thing you could possibly say about Bush, a real compliment.
If the enlightenment is a bit bright for all the god-bothering nutters, I suggest that they try wearing sunglasses instead of trying to drag us all back into the darkness.