Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Faith 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
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
92 Comments so far
Show AllDear Ipenek, Have a healthy, happy and prosperous 2008, God willing!
I have long been fond of the retort:
"How much of this am I supposed to believe?"
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.
"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.
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.
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.
I think Barack Obama will continue to put theological aspirations into secular language. The best example of it so far.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Religion was also invented by insecure conservative men to keep their women faithful and obedient through fear of God.
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.
"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.
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!
*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.
Siouxrose, I think they're talking about you too, so I don't understand why you're cheering them on.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 …
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...
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.
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.
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
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....
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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]
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 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?"
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
robert, not all, just most.
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.
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.
Marxism as practiced in the Soviet Union was arguably a religion, but it was predicated on a belief in a scientific theory of history.
"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."