Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFaith and Politics: Rules of the Game
At the Republican CNN/YouTube debate in Iowa, Joseph from Dallas appeared on the screen, staring the candidates right in the eye. "How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you," he solemnly warned them. "Do you believe every word of this book? Specifically, this book that I am holding in my hand." The book, of course, was the Bible.
What's wrong with this picture? Yes, it brings religion front and center into the political arena. But so did the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and hundreds of other ministers of the Gospel. Without them there could have been no civil rights movement. So I doubt we want to say that it's always wrong to mix faith and politics.
Even if we wanted to keep the two absolutely separate, we'd be fighting a losing battle. Religion has always been deeply embedded in U.S. politics, for better and for worse. How could it be otherwise? You can't ask people to leave their personal values out of their political choices. And in a country so massively saturated with religion, you can't ask people to leave their faith out of their personal values. So religion will be in politics whether we like it or not.
Given that the faith-politics mix is inevitable, and sometimes a force for progressive change, why do so many progressives demand "Religion out of politics!"? The answer we always hear is, "They're trying to impose their religion on me."
But what exactly does that mean? Was Dr. King trying to impose his religion upon the southern racists when he demanded integration because blacks, too, are "children of God"? More recently, progressive faith-based coalitions have won living wage campaigns. The small businessmen who must pay their help higher wages may well feel that their freedom is curtailed due to someone else's religious beliefs. Is it fair to complain that "they're imposing their religion on us" when gay marriage is banned, but not when racial integration or a living wage is required? We need to think this through carefully.
The real conflict between religion and politics in a democracy comes not from what people say or do but how they talk about it and the authority they invoke for it.
The underlying premise of democracy is that we human beings get to choose our laws and policies, not discover them inscribed in the cosmos. The rules a community lives by are produced by that community, and by no one or nothing else. Any law or policy is fair game, as long as it is constitutional and achieved through the democratic process.
The distinguishing mark of religion, too, is not in its substance but in its style, according to one theory current among some scholars of religion. Any belief, statement, or action can be religious if it claims some transcendent or supernatural authority for its truth. Believing in life after death or giving alms to the poor is no more intrinsically religious than praying for a million dollars, dancing around a tree, or robbing a bank. As long as you say "Hey, I didn't just think this up on my own. I know it's right and true because some eternal transcendent authority told me so," it's religious. And that means it can never be challenged or change.
But challenge and change is the essence of democracy. The only valid authority for political values is the truth discovered by human thought, which is always open to challenge and change. Democracy requires that all the people (either directly or through elected representatives) be thinking and debating about their laws and policies, constantly and endlessly. Every claim made in the political arena must be open to debate without limit.
And the debate must be open to everyone. No one's ideas can be excluded. So everyone must have equal access to the terms of the discussion. No special terms, like the words and symbols of a particular religion, can be privileged, because that would exclude all the people who don't find those words and symbols meaningful. The terms have to be secular.
Those who base their political values on their religion have to translate faith statements into value statements that non-believers can evaluate and debate in rational terms. That's what Dr. King did. When he preached that we are all woven together in a single garment of destiny, no doubt he had theological ideas in mind. But the concept itself is one that any atheist can think about, interpret, and debate in purely secular terms. So Dr. King never imposed his religion on anyone.
There are people who would impose their religion on us, in the strict sense; they would turn their specific religious doctrine or practice directly into a law. And it's worth keeping an eye on them. But it's not worth spending a whole lot of effort worrying about and denouncing them, because there aren't that many of them and they just aren't very powerful. Treating them as if they were only inflates their power unnecessarily. (Mitt Romney had to go out of his way to promise he would never bring his religious doctrines directly into politics, not simply because he's a Mormon, but because even on the right it generally won't wash.)
The majority of people who bring their faith into politics, on the right as well as the left and center, translate that faith into statements of value couched in more or less secular terms. The critical question is whether they allow open-ended challenge and debate, or whether they claim "Hey, you can't challenge this because we didn't make it up. It comes from a transcendent authority than can never change and never be challenged."
If you hear that, it's fair to say "Religion out of politics!" Because at that point the only response adherents of another faith or none at all can make is, "I don't believe you." Then there's nothing more to say. The conversation comes to a dead end. And that means the democratic process comes to an end.
But unless the faithful push democracy to that dead end they have a place in the political arena because, no matter what their motives might be, they are playing by the rules of democracy's game.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. chernus@colorado.edu
92 Comments so far
Show AllTony - Dawkins wrote an essay called "Why there is almost certainly no God," and I think there's a chapter with that title in "God Delusion". He may not have expounded on that point, but "almost" means "almost." Asimov said something similar, something like "I can't absolutely prove no God, but I'm so sure that there's no sense pursuing the alternative." But I think we're splitting hairs.
As for the "unknown unknowns," yes I meant Rumsfeld, so I guess I have a strange sense of humor. Actually I think it was one of the few coherent things he said.
Excuse me, it's time for my prozac.
Dear ipenek, In fact, Dawkins never says anything of the sort, he makes a strong point of denying a supernatural entity. And who is that "philosopher" that speaks of "unknown unknowns", Donald Rumsfeld? Wow, you either have a strange sense of humor or are totally confused.
we are all ignorant, as to whether there is, or is not a higher power. if we were totally honest with ourselves, we would proclaim to be agnostic, with certain beliefs. beliefs,... are just that. beliefs.
It's very comforting to know that this zealot in the White House is standing by to guard our morals against the evils of family planning, stem cell research., and the dangers of measures to mitigate global warming & related pollution.
He understands from his divine guidance that the need for environmental preservation is a myth generated by the international scientific community, even though he has now been forced to retract this in a minimal way due to political pressures.
True, agnosticism may be the more valid position in terms of epistemology: what we can or can't know. Even most strong atheists like Dawkins or Asimov, when they're feeling charitable, will say something like "almost certainly" there is no God, or some such vacillation. A philosopher ;-) once said "there's a difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns." The only true atheists are those that don't know that they don't know. At times I envy them.
Ipenek: that sounds more like agnosticism than atheism. I have no problem with agnosticism. I am agnostic about flying saucers and fairies.
Nonetheless, I have encountered atheists who mean it in the way I said: that they are utterly without filters or bias, and that they *know* that there is no God. I prefer the honesty of agnostics.
"peacenow: I'm not going to continue in this pointless debate. I hope you have a nice life, and that your dying thought many happy years from today is that space daddy is inviting you to his house for cake and ice cream forever and ever amen."
I don't know this space daddy of which you speak. I guess we can at least agree that we should treat people as we want them to treat us, which suggests to me that you want people to be condescending and obnoxious to you. To each their own.
Wow, now that's lightning wit. You...you really devastated me with that one.
Dear Ipenek, have you taken your prozac?
peacenow -
Then we have a difference of opinion. Lack of belief can be demonstrated by existence proof. Most easily it can be shown via ignorance, using its non-pejorative objective meaning: the lack of knowledge. Some isolated aboriginal tribes have no "belief" in skyscrapers; they have never seen them, they've never heard of them, and they're outside the domain of their cognition.
For the most part this is all semantic knit-picking since I think we all know what "lack of belief" denotes. You can support the idea whether or not you're religious.
Also, I point out that in centuries past religious organizations (eg. the Catholic church) understood "lack of belief" well enough to punish the crime of apostasy, and that was a separate crime than vowing faith to satan.
peacenow: I'm not going to continue in this pointless debate. I hope you have a nice life, and that your dying thought many happy years from today is that space daddy is inviting you to his house for cake and ice cream forever and ever amen.
Be well.
"I think it captures things nicely. I wish we could all, regardless of belief, come to a correct consensus:
The lack of belief is not belief (isn't that tautology?) Atheism is NOT a religion!!!!!!!!"
And I would say in turn: there's no such thing as a lack of belief.
Nihilist #2: Iss not fair!
Walter Sobchak: Fair! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?
"
I've never heard of, say, a grizzly bear holding down a bear cub and forcibly sodomizing it. Of course, everyone who reads this and thinks a bit as he or she goes along is thinking…"
Well, then you need to keep looking. Not literally about grizzly bears, but in the natural world there are many examples of animals indulging in all sorts of sexual abnormalities. Rape is not uncommon among animals. The idea that animals have some sort of natural compassion is anthropomorphic nonsense.
But that's not the point. The point is if there is no point to existence, then how can you deem anything moral or immoral?
"I can think of nothing more immoral than destroying another society, depriving the people of a nation of their sovereignty and their lives, in order to steal the resources of the land under their feet."
If we are ultimately just collections of atoms, then what does it matter? No matter what we do on our planet, the hydrogen and other atoms that make up the universe will be inconvenienced not a whit.
I have yet to see an argument for atheism that solves the problem of nihilism.
No, you're confusing me with the Pentecostal STANDING RIGHT BEHIND YOU WITH A COBRA.
Learned it, I think, on one of the myriad, previously programmed Christian and now militantly pissed off, atheist websites.
I think it captures things nicely. I wish we could all, regardless of belief, come to a correct consensus:
The lack of belief is not belief (isn't that tautology?) Atheism is NOT a religion!!!!!!!!
… the power of the mind is as yet unplumbed, which could either be the source of the persistence, or the source of the source - or both?
The bible must be devinely inspired, how else could a book so full of villany and nonsense have persisted for so long.
Dear Ipenek, Very catchy, did you learn that while grasping snakes for Jesus?
I along with a lot of other people are really growing tired of all the religion in politics. I could really care less if one candidate is more religious than the other. All I am interested in is what they are going to do about the war in Iraq, health care, housing for the poor and such mundane issues. I am personally sick to death of all the Christian fascist's who insist one's religion qualifies them to be President of the United States. They are instantly a moral person if they wrap themselves in their religious belief's and strut like a peacock. To me this is the height of hypocrisy. They need to get their heads out of the bible and start using their brains. They have dealt this country a terrible blow with all the superficial religion. It's going to take all of us to undo the mess their ignorance got us into almost 8 years ago. So they need to start learning for the most part to think of the welfare of the country and leave their religion home when they vote.
For neomunk to consider:
"Calling atheism a religion is like calling 'off' a TV station."
Voxclamantis has (again) "Christ"-alized, if you will, an import point. In terms of conduct, intelligence outranks religiosity. And I think that's what disturbs most "seculars" (let's not use that apostate word "atheist"). Religion instills belief and conviction without the hard work of scholarship, if only in the school of hard knocks. There's something wrong in that equation: strident conviction without intellectual or hard-won intuitive experience, and it's available to anyone, just fill out the coupon!
Perhaps that's why in days past the only ones allowed any kind of spiritual authority had to spend eternity (well, almost) in a monastery.
In America the boy has cried wolf far too long, the lament-yelling, corner-standing preacher has done his damage. We are numbed to inane piety, and the pious politician is the new idiot.
peacenow: I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond to me personally as you have here, but I'm perplexed.
Although I don't use the term as such, I suspect that when you say "natural world" you're referring to that subset, in fact the vast majority, of all that exists that is neither human nor a product of human industry. But then I find no logic in the statement "there is no morality in the natural world".
I've never heard of, say, a grizzly bear holding down a bear cub and forcibly sodomizing it. Of course, everyone who reads this and thinks a bit as he or she goes along is thinking...
... "That's what Catholic priests are infamous for!" Humans, and not just humans, but leaders in one of the oldest of the sects of the cult of the invisible space daddy.
I can think of nothing more immoral than destroying another society, depriving the people of a nation of their sovereignty and their lives, in order to steal the resources of the land under their feet. But who's thrown their support behind King George's resource wars? The evangelicals, reconstructionists, and dominionists, the very bunch of psychotics who attempt to lay sole claim to moral authority. These crazed sects of the cult of the invisible space daddy are growing in number and power, and if they are not stopped then the war will come to American soil and we will all be caught up in it just as the millions of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan are today. All thanks to the space daddy cult who remains to this day too damnably stupid to realize that they are being manipulated by a ruling class who sees them as the easily malleable crazies that they are.
In this convergence of extreme religious stupidity and the unbridled greed of the ruling class, with the common cause of seizing control of the Middle East, it is the few among us who can both see and speak clearly to whom the responsibility falls to speak up before it's too late. It may already be too late, or it may be that no amount of speaking can alter the course of events, but someone has to try. The consequences of allowing things as they are to continue on their present course are just too dire to accept.
"No natural morality" my hairy white heathen ass!
The Chanukah Poem
'Twas the night before Chanukah, boychicks and maidels
Not a sound could be heard, not even the draidels.
The Menorah was set on the chimney, alight
In the kitchen the Bubba hut gechapt a bite.
Salami, pastrami, a glessala tay
And zayerah pickles with bagels, oy vay!
Gezunt and geschmack, the kinderlech felt
While dreaming of tagelach and Chanukah gelt.
The clock on the mantlepiece away was tickin'
And Bubba was serving a schtickala chicken.
A tumult arose like a thousand brauches,
Santa had fallen and broken his tuches.
I put on my slippers, eins, tsvay, drei,
While Bubba was now on the herring and rye.
I grabbed for my bathrobe and buttoned my gotkes
While Bubba was busy devouring the latkes.
To the window I ran and to my surprise
A little red yarmulka greeted my eyes.
Then he got to the door and saw the Menorah,
"Yiddishe kinder," he said, "Kenehora.
I thought I was in a goyisha hoise,
But as long as I'm here, I'll leave a few toys."
With much gesshray, I asked, "Du bist a Yid?"
"Avada, mein numen is Schloimey Claus, kid."
"Come into the kitchen, I'll get you a dish,
A guppell, a schtickala fish."
With smacks of delight, he started his fressen,
Chopped liver, knaidlach and kreplah gegessen.
Along with his meal, he had a few schnapps,
When it came to eating, this boy was the tops.
He asked for some knishes with pepper and salt,
But they were so hot, he yelled "Oy Gevalt."
Unbuttoning his haizen, he rose from the tisch,
And said, "Your Kosher essen is simply delish."
As he went to the door, he said "I'll see you later,
I'll be back next Pesach, in time for the Seder."
More rapid than eagles his prancers they came,
As he whistled and shourted and called them by name:
"Now Izzy, now Morris, now Yitzak, now Sammy,
Now Irving and Maxie, and Moishe and Mannie."
He gave a gesshray as he drove out of sight:
"Gooten Yomtov to all, and to all a good night."
—author unknown
Heathen, there's nothing I object to in your reply, but I still find it odd that you say that "Maybe religion provides morality for those who would come of it no other way." There is no morality in the natural world. It's just a different worldview, I guess. There's a wonderful saying "this is my truth, tell me yours." Believe it or not, there are religious people who don't claim to know the whole truth, and from my experiece there are plenty of so-called rationalists who claim to indeed know the whole truth.
"we shouldnt even have to have this conversation……freedom and democracy=(means) separation of church and state…if we are having this dicussion=we no longer have democracy or freedom."
Your first premise, that freedom means separation of church and state, is on the face of it true, but the next premise makes no sense. No "discussion" can eliminate democracy or freedom. Only laws can do that. And Professor Chernus is not even suggesting to remove the barrier. What he is pointing out that when people cringe at any mention of religion in politics, he wonders where that leaves the likes of Dr. King, who was both relgious and political.
"In other words, spare me your proclamations of "the truth", whatever that is."
Please cite where I proclaimed "the truth."
You didn't use those exact words, but you did say this.
""peacenow, you are correct when you say you can't understand it.
Until such time as you do, I recommend you to your own Golden Rule.""
It sounded very much like that you were claiming to understand something that I did not.
Governments don't and can't confer freedom. Democracy simply brings tyranny: the tyranny of the majority.
Religion is nothing more than a big stick, an ineffectual set of reins.
we shouldnt even have to have this conversation......freedom and democracy=(means) separation of church and state...if we are having this dicussion=we no longer have democracy or freedom.
peacenow, I have no "faith" or even an undue regard for science. Science is at times beneficial, at times detrimental, and I believe that at this point in time it is a net negative. While science saved my wife's life five days ago, it has also brought us an unsustainable lifestyle that is harmful to most of the life on Earth. It is what it is, and something akin to faith in it would be unpardonably foolish. Downright stupid, in my opinion.
I do not believe that we are "a cosmic accident of atoms". I believe that given the initial state of the universe, all of its matter and energy (or matter/energy), the current reality is the inevitable result. I neither know nor care to know how that matter/energy came into being or where it all goes from here. I'd prefer that I am fortunate enough to live out my life in relative peace and good health and eventually die a very old man, but if there's a black hole out there preparing to boil Earth's atmosphere away in the next 20 minutes, or a massive stroke about to make things very challenging for me for the rest of my life, so be it. This moment is pretty darn good and I'm glad that I'm alive to experience it, and that's enough.
It's okay that you don't understand what it's like to be me. I don't mind. You believe what you will, and unless/until you align yourself with that faction of the invisible space daddy cult that would deprive me of my right to self-determination, we'll get along just fine.
...and nothing exists in isolation. We think that politics is one thing and religion is another because we do not have the organic perception which is the result of an awareness rooted in wholeness, rooted in full-time, automatic awareness of the absolute level of existence.
We all want to see the world set right, to see peace, to know that life is loved and lived according to the laws of nature so that suffering belongs to no one. But we have to start with our own lives. It is our own lack of control over our own lives which leads us to want to control others.
The people of the world are being thrown together by a variety of forces, and it is essential that we learn to respect and honor the natural diversity of life in the universe. Only by knowing our common source can we learn that respect and avoid the inevitable clashes.
The scale of the world, the scale of governments today is so large that additional, more profound knowledge of life is necessary for peaceful survival. You want to build a tall building, you have to make the foundation very deep and solid. Any society has some basis of knowledge that allows it to function. It is no longer enough to know how to make better or more gadgets or widgets. We have to know how to create peace.
It's worth a good long look:www.uspeacegovernment.org
Neither religion nor democracy function very well. Both have been robbed of their purity and badly distorted. The human mind can justify anything for any reason.
The root Latin words of "religion" are "re", meaning roughly "back", and "ligere", which means "to bind". Religion may mean then, "to bind back". If the purpose of religion is to lead a man to know his own source, then religion's goal may be to bind a man to his source, so that he may know his origin and goal, his past and his future. Knowing both past and future, the man has a better chance of being stable and secure and intelligent in the present. With clear, coherent, and well-grounded thought applied to the situations of the present—the result of knowing past and future, it seems to me—better life will be the result.
Religion as it now is does not successfully lead a man back to his source; religion does not give him a means or technique to experience his source. And that inner experience is certainly a possibility in human life; it may be a necessity. Many people, some famous and many not, have had the experience of their own source. They call it various names, but the details of the experience are not so different; and it matters not in what land they live, in what system they worship, or when they lived.
Christ, who is said to have visited India, had, I have heard from one source, two teachings. One was public and anyone could have it, in the form of his lectures and words. The other was private, reserved for only his closest followers. It apparently was some kind of meditation. When word of this private teaching got out and people began to clamor for the knowledge, that's when the authorities became fearful and clamped down on him. That's what led to his death. The man clearly had something great, and that's why he lives on today—but only in the most superficial and, unfortunately, distorted fashion, because the best of his knowledge was lost early on. This is the fate of knowledge, to crash on the hard rocks of ignorance.
I think all religions are branches of the same tree. Sure, we are all different on the surface. We look different, speak different languages and eat different foods. That's because the laws of nature in Rome are not the laws of nature in Moscow. They can't be the same: the climate and geography are not the same, so what sustains life in one place won't work in another. And thinking will thus be different.
But Muscovite or Roman or Kenyan or Australian, we are remarkably similar at the most profound levels, because we do have a common source. It's not hard to see. And we can and do get along with each other in all kinds of situations, despite the vagaries of our political leaders, who are often men of powerful yet severely limited egos.
There can be only one absolute: that which never changes. And that which never changes cannot exist on a physical level, because anything physical will change. There is no eternal truth available on the physical level of life, though some things on the physical level can and do reflect more of the eternal absolute (we call these things "classics" or refer to them as "timeless", perhaps).
The source of every man is that never-changing absolute. And it is possible for every man to regularly experience that source and bring peace to himself, to those around him, and to his world.
"In other words, spare me your proclamations of "the truth", whatever that is."
Please cite where I proclaimed "the truth."
Dear nspire, Regarding your amusing entry above of an animation of the Shrub metamorphosing into the Beast, please go to an equally amusing cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/2004-george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html , which asserts that Aleister Crowley, the British upper-class black magic devil-worshiper and patron of the Hellfire Club, notorious in the middle of the last century, is the Shrub's grandfather, and, of course, the father of Barbara Bush. His resemblance to Mom is uncanny. Just for fun, of course, don't believe in such things....
pastor, if my rant is disturbing, it is because it is meant to disturb people from a too-comfortable place from whence they throw undeserved stones.
And the vitrol present was a continuation of my feelings from the (then) still active thread here: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/23/5971/
I call out 'christians' who claim all others to be inferior due to not following the 'one true faith' and I will call out atheists who do the same thing. It is the same religious bigotry, and deserves the same mocking derision, as it is based on the same (false) sense of baseless superiority.
"We already have a man in the White House whose only qualification for the job was the fact he is a fundamentalist Christian."
Actually, he has another rather more important qualification. being the son of a former president. The true power elites care nothing about religion.
"peacenow, you are correct when you say you can't understand it.
Until such time as you do, I recommend you to your own Golden Rule."
And you are sure that you understand?
I'm not advocating absolute blind faith; far from it. I am saying that the idea that science will provide the ultimate explanation of the universe is as much an article of faith (and ultimately as unprovable) as anything in religion.
The late author Robert Anton Wilson put it this way "All phenomena are real in some sense, unreal in some sense, meaningless in some sense, real and meaningless in some sense, unreal and meaningless in some sense, and real and unreal and meaningless in some sense." He was a true agnostic, in that he said that no model of reality could ever be regarded as completely true.
In other words, spare me your proclamations of "the truth", whatever that is.
I realize religion has always been in politics and government to a point. But, in the last 30 years it has become a litmus test for candidates on both sides of the aisle. Which in a sense of the word I might understand if it weren't so riddled with hypocrisy, greed and power hungry people. It speaks to everything that Christianity is not supposed to stand for. These people will stand and say they are against a woman's right to choose an abortion. In the same sentence be advocates for a unjust war that innocent people are getting killed in. Never once taking a long look at their warped views on the term murder. Where do these people figure one is any worse than the other???? They will rail to the ends of the earth about some hapless gay while they ignore blatant corrupt in the government. That's what evangelical Christian's did the last election when they elected George W Bush for a second term. If these people are basing their behavior systems out of the bible. Then they need to throw the bible in the nearest garbage can and start learning what moral's are. From where I am standing there is literally no moral's in Christianity today. I don't have a clue where it went? Maybe there never was any large amount. Maybe they become so corrupted by their greed and lust for power they began ignoring the fact. But, a Priest who would deny a Catholic communion for supporting abortion while in the same breath he has ignored pedophilia among their own clergy. Is not something that I want in the White House. We already have a man in the White House whose only qualification for the job was the fact he is a fundamentalist Christian. How many more losers like him are the rabid Christian's going to elect before they get it through their thick heads that some of these people they are electing aren't qualified to do the job they were hired for.
peacenow, you are correct when you say you can't understand it.
Until such time as you do, I recommend you to your own Golden Rule.
"Maybe religion provides morality for those who would come of it no other way. Maybe it helps those who cannot forgive themselves to feel a little bit less guilty. For all of the maybes, there is one clear certainty: Faith, belief in an invisible space daddy, is being used (manipulated, that is) by the ruling elite to further an agenda that includes enslaving us all — and that, my friends, is reason enough to conclude that we can no longer afford to indulge those fantasies or those who hold them."
I've heard so many atheists say that they would be moral without religion, or else express some platitude like "I believe in love" or "I believe in beauty", and I can never understand it.
If you truly believe that we are a cosmic accident of atoms, then what is the point of "believing in love" or anything? If you're going to go down the route that there is no higher meaning, then why care about anything? That's also why I find it annoying when people talk about rejecting religion on "moral" grounds. You can't have a natural morality.
Humans have a need to believe in something, anything, that transcends themselves, that connects them with the rest of the world. Even when you try to repress this belief, it will come out in other forms - utopian movements like communism are an example. Even Richard Dawkins believes in "human progress," a faith that has proven quite damaging in the past century.
Interesting range and depth of comments, but I still feel that you've made it too complicated.
Here's my sequence for understanding the religion/governance/evolution nexus:
Evolution gave us mirror neurons to see the minds in others, which naturally led to the golden rule: others ARE you, so it's easy to cooperate with them, since you feel their joy and pain.
That's how you cooperate, IN your group. But, THEN, in evolution-space, there were also conflicts with other groups, for which we developed the useful traits of xenophobia, shunning, exile, conflict, dominance.
But now we have to use our rational abilities to broaden our understanding until we can see others as us, worldwide.
Otherwise, we sacrifice all the cooperation, the medicine, the music, the joy of working together to live in a sufficiently difficult world to keep us cooperatively engaged for a long, long time.
Morality is easy; it's dictated by mirror neurons. It's been deduced by observation and insight by billions, expressed so well by some that we call them prophets, but if you read them, you find they all say the same thing:
See yourself in the other. Bring the other into yourself.
Theory of mind does it all. You don't need Gods anymore. They just get in the way, and we need much less religious friction. The time is late.
ormond at mail dot com.
Was never indoctrinated as a child. Have been open to it all and still am, but not one seems more probable than another. They lie outside the realm of even probable knowledge, and therefore, have found no reason to consider any of them. Would I die for my beliefs? Absolutly not; I could be wrong. Presently find consciousness to be heaven. And work to keep this blue-green Eden from being destroyed. Overall, seem to derive most profound spiritualness from the Periodic Table and peroidic orgasms.
Oh what a beautiful world it would be if people would stop playing the "my invisible space daddy can beat up your invisible space daddy" game.
Maybe religion provides morality for those who would come of it no other way. Maybe it helps those who cannot forgive themselves to feel a little bit less guilty. For all of the maybes, there is one clear certainty: Faith, belief in an invisible space daddy, is being used (manipulated, that is) by the ruling elite to further an agenda that includes enslaving us all -- and that, my friends, is reason enough to conclude that we can no longer afford to indulge those fantasies or those who hold them.
There's an evangelical, perhaps even a closet dominionist, in control of the most powerful arsenal of nuclear weapons ever amassed by one government. Do you trust the invisible space daddy to keep that bastard from using those weapons? I don't.
"Could somebody please tell me which bible that was? If it was the King James version, then we as catholics do not accept it. Remember Northern Ireland, that was their problem. By the way did they ever resolve their differences?"
Actually, "their problem" was quite a bit more complicated than that. The IRA and others in that fight regarded themselves as a colonized people, and the Loyalists and the Unionists felt a political tie to Great Britain. The suggestion that it can all be explained away by religious differences trivializes "The Troubles."
Marxism as practiced in the Soviet Union was arguably a religion, but it was predicated on a belief in a scientific theory of history.
Peacenow, I agree with you, but Marxism IS a religion. It has all the trapping of a religion- with priests, knowing the ultimate "truth", hostility to other faiths, ect. "Not very good results" is rather an understatement. 100 million dead in 100 years and counting.
More violence has been committed in the name of two forces than any others, and neither one is religion: they are property and language. Radical Marxism tried to get rid of property, with not very good results. More benign but ultimately just as fruitless was the creation of Esperanto as a "universal" language. Obviously, it did not catch on.
What radical atheists have to realize is that removing religion from the mix will not end conflict any more than doing away with property or differences of language. In general, utopian projects of any sort are doomed to failure, and its much more reasonable to accept people's differences, and concentrate on the possibility of shared values. Believe it or not, that's still possible.
robert, not all, just most.
One cannot blame religeon on all world's evils. Most of the abusive and damaging policies have resulted from the manipulation of religious principals just as this administration has mamipul;ated sound scientific principals to promote their dreadful selous to the special interests and religeous radicals.
if organized religions, would just quit killing each other in the name of their gods, i would have no problem with them. they should grow up, and concentrate their efforts on humanity.
"I agree with Chernus that bible thumpers are more a pain in the ass than a real menace. Worshippers of corporate profits are a real menace."
Exactly. I would argue that it's not the people who profess their beliefs passionately but those who profess them dispassionately - who claim that their world view is the "right one" based on bottom lines or "facts" - who are truly scary.
My point is that many of our so-called "secular" truths are as based in religion as anything else. There is no empirical, rational basis for a belief in equality, love, hope, beauty, or anything else for that matter. All that faith does is codify these beliefs.
Religion does not have a franchise on common decency. We all spend our lives wrestling angels, toggling back and forth between the best and the worst in our nature, whether we attribute this to a struggle of supernatural forces or a simple wish to replace bestiality with civility (or not). Even my atheist friends have a well developed sense of right and wrong.
In my own experience religious (God fearing) people are not by and large as "good" (charitable, altruistic, tolerant, fair minded) as intelligent people, many of whom are unimpressed by what passes for religion in the popular culture. With notable exceptions (Henry Kissinger) intelligence is a better litmus test than churchgoing. That said, I can't see anything the matter with the religious impulse, or with the best spiritual thought, and I don't understand why so called progressives have their shorts in such a twist about it. We all stand on some kind of belief system, so religion doesn't have a franchise on faith either.
I also have no personal experience with slavering Christians trying to ram their beliefs down my throat, not even my born again sister and her fundamentalist husband, whereas I will ram my belief in the depravity of George Bush down the throat of anybody I can corner.
There is probably a threat to the well being of humankind, lurking like Moriarty in the shadows of our culture, but it isn't an easy culprit like religion or republicans or street gangs or drugs or dogcatchers. Religion, like good windowpane acid, has been badly used by self serving political animals like you and I.
I agree with Chernus that bible thumpers are more a pain in the ass than a real menace. Worshippers of corporate profits are a real menace.
"Religion is a sister system of Politics with a similar goal of organizing people and attaining power, and feeling like you matter in some small way.
It is based on "belief" rather than one that delivers quantitative results that benefit a larger number of people.
Well, fuck belief and those who benefit from it.
Let's organize ourselves for the greater good."
The question is who decides what is "for the greater good?" People have argued for the "greater good" in favour of eugenics and other stuff that most thinking people would _believe_ to be offensive. It was a "rationalist" who came up with the notion of a "winnable nuclear war," for example. What "beliefs" would you get rid of? The "belief" that all people are equal? Because if we just went by empirical evidence, there would always be someone who could be considered "inferior."
The point is that ALL people have beliefs, biases, and things that they take on faith - ALL people. Even Richard Dawkins admits that his atheism is a matter of faith, not fact.
As for what good has ever come from mixing religion and politics - did you actually read the article? You cannot separate MLK, Gandhi and the monks of Burma from their religious beliefs.
I just skimmed through 38 comments from you geniuses and perhaps I missed it but I didn't see one mention of the US Constitution, which means that you're illiterate in US civics.
Article VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
So the only proper response to the question is: "I intend to take the oath as president to defend the Constitution which states that no religious test shall ever be required for office. Next question?"
Because we do not know how to relate to one another in the present LIVING moment, we invent belief and tradition, which we then become enslaved to, and condition our offspring to follow; it's like nipping a rosebud before it has a chance to blossom. All cultures, everywhere, do this to a lesser or greater extent. Authentic individuality is squelched in favor of what it considered acceptable or normal. Religious conditioning is perhaps the most insidious and poisonous kind of conditioning, which arises out of belief, most often based in fear and insecurity.
All belief/assumption is a substitute for "knowing," and/or factual, present moment perception. As human beings we unknowingly perceive through an acquired filter that most never question--or seriously question. That is one of the chief reasons we wind up fighting and exploiting one another, and why it makes it easier to see another as less than human, and therefore easier to kill.
I'm a progressive who never asked-for (much-less "demanded") "religion out of Politics".
However, I must insist upon 'Religion out of Governance' [once such-idiots get Elected].
That IS, after-all, what is clearly spelled-out in that Document they Swear to Defend (with hand on that 'every word is in-there', yes) Bible, is it not?
[Let's not confuse-the-Issues]
If anyone is truly interested in this subject as related to the current political race for president, I reccommend the following speech by Barack Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/ . When I marched in the South (Atlanta) against the war (Vietnam) and for civil rights, the places where most of these civil actions were planned and where people met were churches and church coffeehouses on college campuses. I'm not blind to the hypocracy and manipulation of religions of all kinds. This is basically due to the flaws in people (including self-righteous atheists). Real christianity is about indiscriminate love and forgiveness, which is to be found in all religious teachings at their core. The difference in what is practiced/preached and how this is distorted is what I cannot abide. We (progressives) gave up the religious conversation to the right-wing ideaologs who then somehow branded christianity as their bigoted, limited view. It seems that most of the blogs here subscribe to that branding. Maybe all of you are too young to understand that the biggest progressive movement in our country's history was organized in the liberal churches and synagogues.
Fun comments, though the ground is still quaking from where neomunk strafed. Prof. Chernus, speaking in hostile territory in Colorado, does a decent job, with an excellent central point that religion is usually at the forefront of a person's mind when it takes over, and thus can't be easily hidden. In Counterpunch, Alex Cockburn, listing further to the militia right, now derides "anti-religious bigots" as he praises Mike Huckabee. How about this: just about everything stupid, malevolent, militaristic, violent, or boring in American society is related to religion. Look at the sociology of advantage that institutional religion has in America, its $3,333 worth of tax benefits extracted from every American, its anti-intellectual power,its permeation through every aspect of being an upright sentient being in America, then tell me it's no big deal, Prof. Chernus?
oopps,
my apologies. I just now read the comments. I was sure this article would pull in the Neo-Con bible thumpers, but it appears only reasonable, rational, good Americans posted this time.
Mea Culpa
(lectured the choir again!)
Here's dreaming about the return of a even-keel secular government which will address the environmental thermal emergency we are on the brink of.
pac
(and I must say, what a learned, inspirational set of minds posted here above me. I only hope you can forgive my bombastic anti-christian perspective as I know I am in the minority. However, Jefferson and Franklin mantained that that was the main reason for goverment in a democracy: to protect the minority from the abuse at the hands of the majority.)
And the number one quote of the top ten is:
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality." Adolf Hitler, 1938
A sorry excuse for Americans are most of you! You don't even know the history of your own country!
You bible thumpers have the intellect of little children. This site is about Common Dreams. The Dreams of Islamic people. The dreams of Buddhists. The dreams of those of Hindu faith.
This is NOT the exclusive site of bunch of Christian bloodbath experts, who have maimed and killed more people on this planet with their offering plates than any other cause of death this century.
Freedom of Religion (and freedom from it's oppression) is the most important tenant and the very reason our country was founded. For Enlightenment read the works of Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams. These men were Free Masons who believed that religion should be between a man and his maker and should not be part of the government.
THIS COUNTRY WAS NEVER A CHRISTIAN NATION.
pacplyer
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." George Washington
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..." from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Thomas Jefferson, in his historic Danbury letter, January 1, 1802
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" James Madison, in "Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785
"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church and state." James Madison, March 2, 1819
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." The U.S. Supreme Court, 1947
"I am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning. ... We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings."
- Recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- a Republican, conservative-leaning Reagan appointee who helped deliver the White House to the Bush Syndicate in 2000 -- seems to have developed a serious case of conspirator's remorse.
Neomunk, your rant is quite disturbing and I am not certain who it is aimed at. You, the Christian Right, and all others would do well to remember the old adage, "Two rabbis, three opinions." There is no reason that religion must become a diving line between the left and the right or between two sets of groups on the left. There is considerable room for a broad range of ideas in religious dialogue without personal rancor or dissension.
I do believe all of the Bible. I don't necessarily believe that it is all fact, as Joseph, the questioner in the essay above seems to be implying. The problem with the Christian Right and many others is that they see spirituality as being better than all others. Their faith statements and worldviews become a test of who makes it in heaven or not, i.e. who is acceptable or unacceptable.
Jesus said in contrast that the first shall be the last and those who seek to lead must serve. Spirituality is a practice of humility to seek submission to divine purpose, will, and guidance in one's life. If we seek to prove our superiority to another than we stop the practice of spirituality and begin the practice of idolatry.
Spirituality has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with an enlightened state of being. It was not meant to be an exclusive club for a few, but for everyone who wishes to enjoy its fragrance. Unfortunately, those who are asleep and seek power exploit the words of "the prophets" for personal gain, and think nothing to twist the interpretation of the same into whatever aids them in achieving their egoic desire(s). Given that politics is arguably the ultimate ego play, why should the employment of artificial religion be so shocking?
Could somebody please tell me which bible that was? If it was the King James version, then we as catholics do not accept it. Remember Northern Ireland, that was their problem. By the way did they ever resolve their differences?
Just got back from mass.
It is singular how preachers have been repeating the same language for 2000 years.
After 13 years, it is still the same feeling, walking out of the church
Christianity rose as a righteous religion. It stood up against the wrongs done against the lay people around the area that is today called Israel.
It has become today, exactly what it stood up against. At least as it practised by some in this country. It is oppressive, segregationist, classist and unequal. Since the day that people realized that it can be used as a tool to control people, it has been exactly that, replacing what was being used by the lords and other haves before they became christian. It became the monks over the peasants.
Why, if this is ineed the light that shines on the world, do we have black/white and Korean churches?
The candle burns brightest just before it goes out. That's why the Christians are pushing so hard for the power to jam their "beliefs" down your throat. They know the game is over and we are left standing in the holy ambiguity of sunshine....
Perhaps you've seen this. It was making the rounds in private email forwarding lists some time ago. I thought it apropos enough to go searching through years of email (25 July 2002) to find it.
The next time someone asks a candidate if they "believe every word" in the Bible, I hope they respond that their first act will be to outlaw football, based on Leviticus 11:6-8. :-)
-----------------
Even the bible readers have an interpretation problem!
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack
Hi Ira,
I greatly appreciate your article. I particularly appreciated the following statments:
"The only valid authority for political values is the truth discovered by human thought, which is always open to challenge and change."
"No special terms, like the words and symbols of a particular religion, can be privileged, because that would exclude all the people who don't find those words and symbols meaningful. The terms have to be secular."
I only wish that there were religious communities that used these same guidelines for the discussion of values. I can never tell for sure to what the religious symbols refer.
Much of organized religion has moved away from God and into politics. I used to go to church. I no longer do. It is not that I don't believe in a God. I do. I'm simply not sure than organized religion does.
For me, the final straw was on "Justice Sunday". Do you remember that? That was when a US senator made the statement "Democrats are against people of faith.". This was, among other things, a violation of the commandment against bearing false witness against one's neighbor. It also made it clear that religion was to be exploited for polical purposes.
Rather than criticize religion, we should make it clear that we now have a political movement in the guise of religion.
nspire: Is that the famed 'anti-Christ' we heard about for so long? The one who was supposed to arise in the West and lead the world to doom? Looks about right to me...
HEAVY RUNNER -- Consider the possibility you are mistaken when you state that: "Believing that a book written by a men is somehow absolute truth from God makes about as much sense as believing the official line on what happened on 9/11/2001."
Geo the inferior shrub_in_chief already speaks in tongues, and clearly "knows" what happened on 9/11, and his reputation is demonstrably more credible than Moses, who supposedly conversed with a bush once.
We need but to listen to the meaning beyond his words, fiercely focusing the fires of Iraq burning into our hearts, while also standing under his new trip wire to the ultimate truth.
Without doubting (Thomas around), Geo out *shimmers the Sun of all, and being above all else, he believes his understanding eclipses any old book or testament of a mere mortal.
*possibly due to slimy slithering
Please just re-consider the absolute immensity of this dissolute heroic figurine, whose shadow castes so far wider than than his sardonic grin, and in whose hands we are wrung out of our heart's blood to the last drop and breathless sigh …
People seem to forget why some gods (the Abrahamic god in particular) were invented - to form a cohesive defensive force of the warring tribes that were being ravaged by invaders. Failure to do so is what brought down the indigenous populations - not so much superior technology, which did contribute to their decimation. Religion IS government - at least Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (since they are all claiming the same heritage anyway) - and in context can be recognized as such. Primitive religions and non-governmental religions also exist (Buddhism, for example) to explain events before science can supply the answers. It is important that we separate 'religion' into its proper components - 'spiritualism' is different than 'superstition' used as the force behind government. Study the history of the Abrahamic creeds and you will find answers to questions that DO apply today.
My own ancestors used Christianity to defeat both the Arab invaders that had ravaged Europe in the 7-15th centuries as well as the raiding tribes who pillaged as well. It worked until the leaders started believing their own hype - the empires fell because of religion, just as they had been built by religion. We have to choose whether to have a secular government, capable of evolution and progress - or a religious entity evolving to serve the ruling class. One seeks to improve the lot of all - the other to improve the lot of a few. Inequality dooms any society - just look at the state of nations today and judge whether inequality serves anyone in the long run...
frank1569:
Sounds like a deal to me.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what I've been hoping for the whole time, but I'm too optimistic.
How's this - keep the religion in politics, lose the insanity. For example, a religious POTUS, fine; one who claims some God told him - directly - to murder over a million innocent Iraqis in order to gain control over natural resources, to ignore all known laws, to violate the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect, to lie reflexively, and to steal all of our money then so warp the system as to make retrieving it impossible, not fine at all.
But POTUS wants to pray, maybe help the poor, protect the "creation," remind the flock that worshiping false idols like Santa and the E.Bunny is a flat out sin, that greed isn't good - all okay. But the minute he claims his God tapped him on the cell - straight jacket, rubber room.
This kind of rabid religiousity is very useful when it comes to controlling the population. I daresay most of the proponents of this religious zeal don't even believe in it themselves. Bush, Romney, Clinton...these folks certainly do not practice christianity.
Siouxrose, I think they're talking about you too, so I don't understand why you're cheering them on.
*shrugs* You all know my thoughts on this subject, and most of you see fit to completely ignore them, and every bit of sense in them. I suppose it's more important to be 'right' once again. You can have it then.
This sickens me to the core. I'm done with you. I mistakenly thought that the majority here were thoughtful people, here to try and make some sense of things, but I suppose I'm just a damn fool.
No, you're the damn fools, just as nasty, just as blind and just as adamant about your 'superior' beliefs as the worst die hard Evangelical 'christian'. You reek of prejudice, foolishness and thought-crushing fear. You're supposed to be better than that, at least you TELL yourself (and all of us, arrogantly) that you're better than that. That you're better than ME.
Grow up. Present me with a perfect (and accurate) model of the universe and then you can engage in all the hubris you'd like. Until then (and it's not today, is it? No, it's not) all your grandiose statements about how stupid someone else is sounds like so much braying of an ass.
Being driven by the same 'us vs them' and 'I'm right, they're stupid' idealism as the religious right is even MORE appalling here, as you are supposed to be the intelligent compassionate ones. No, you're just another group of fearful insects looking to slay those outside your big comforting peer-group. Your selective readings of history and your attacks/trivialization of the honest motives of many great historical figures shows that you'e not looking for the truth, you're looking to prove YOUR point.
I get enough of that bullshit from the idiot christians, I don't need more of it from the supposedly 'enlightened' (*snicker*) athiests. Stop pushing your religion on me, and trying to make it the only one acceptable. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't have a religion, you just have the Truth. Where else have I heard that....?
Sickening bigots.
Believing that a book written by a men is somehow absolute truth from God makes about as much sense as believing the official line on what happened on 9/11/2001.
The emperor has no clothes!
"Do you believe every word of this book?"
This is a silly question - every religion works as a metaphor of the interplay between man and the energy of the universe and never as a concrete fact. We have neither the words nor the ideas for this task.
The Christian Bible, mostly fabricated Jewish history, worked as a metaphor two of three thousand years ago. Times change. Whether we like it or not all is impermanate - ask any Buddahist.
To insist that an ancient metaphor is 'factual' today is absurd. We need a current metaphor. Ignore the charlatins who proclaim 'God is on my side' - such hypocracy! Who's ruling whom? Politics is murky enough without intangling the Devine.
GREENER THAN THOU & EZEFLYER: Right on!
I guess Chernus didn't see the Truthout org material on the evangelizing of our military? He sure is cavalier about a subject that history has given us ample pause to be exceedingly cautious about: how fierce the want to shed blood when those wielding weapons are effectively brainwashed into thinking they are naturally granted impunity, and that indeed their disgusting acts against their fellow man/woman constitute some perverse misconception of 'god's' will. This is the oldest poison to minds that might otherwise have a chance at coming together to collectively fashion societies that pay less homage to war (and investments in weaponry) and more to the ways and means to get along, and create the progeny of culture, in its countless expressions.
Religion was also invented by insecure conservative men to keep their women faithful and obedient through fear of God.
balakirev, Nazi Germany also used Christianity to back its plans. The Catholic Church helped Hitler in Germany and the Utashe in Yugoslavia, and was rewarded for their backing. They also helped set up the ratline to take Nazis to other countries after WW11.
As soon as I see evidence that religion helps make the world a better place, then I'll be comfortable with the Bible=thumpers. Not going to happen.
Bill Moyers in his Joseph Campbell interviews mentioned a story of a Hindu who visited the US and liked to get to know the religions of the places he visited. So he read the Bible.
Only problem was--he couldnt find any religion in it.
Its a story book, not a religious text.
Religion is a sister system of Politics with a similar goal of organizing people and attaining power, and feeling like you matter in some small way.
It is based on "belief" rather than one that delivers quantitative results that benefit a larger number of people.
Well, fuck belief and those who benefit from it.
Let's organize ourselves for the greater good.
One's perception is based on an illusion of truth.
Grandma to Billy: " You may not be what you think you are, but remember-what you think- you are. "
Family Circus.
I think Barack Obama will continue to put theological aspirations into secular language. The best example of it so far.
A country saturated with religion? Correction: a country saturated with stuffing its face with New World plenty, and using Christianity (a type of religion, not a synonym for it) to cover up the screams. "The white man keeps his religion just behind him, like a helper, when he takes whatever he wants." No candidate who "believes" in The Bible--whatever that means, since The Bible has nothing to do with reality ancient or modern---can for that reason possibly be fit to be President or any other "leader"....And because America is in a sadomasochistic relationship with its dessicated Grandma from Dubuque (see Wilson's painting "Daughters of the American Revolution"), this cannot even be addressed, no matter how many lives and worlds it costs.
Hey. Does anyone remember the radical social and politcal movements of the late-60s and eary-70s?
I do.
And I don't remember many people preaching or bible-thumping.
All this religious humping emerged with the rise of the Republican's domination of US politics.
"you can't ask people to leave their faith out of their personal values" yes you can ask them to do that. look at the rockridge institue. george lakoff notes that we all hold the same values. it is in how we express them that is important. he does not mention any faith. christianity does not have a lock on values as the article suggests.
When the UK was the center of the world's largest empire, religion permeated the political sphere.
For example, Gladstone, the great Liberal Party leader was a deeply religious man and his political speeches constantly made biblical references.
However, after the UK lost its empire and its need for "cant" (hypocrisy), religion dropped out of political discourse.
In fact, Tony Blair is the only recent British politician to make a show of his religious beliefs...and it served to remind the British why they stopped believing much in Christianity.
And Blair hugged onto Bush's neocon imperial fantasies. That doubled the typical Brit's non-religiousness.
The point! After years of elite use of Christian ideas to cover up the nasty facts of maintaining and expanding an empire, maybe the general population in the US will cast off those old imperial garments.
Of course, the US empire will also decline. So there will be less need for a muscular, imperial Christianity.
In addition, you can't use the increasingly limited military resources of a declining hegemonic power to spread the word.
If you don't have the force to force the Word on non-believers, many believers will lose the imperial faith.