Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Unification of Church and State

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted October 5, 2005.


Big surprise, and big trouble: Bush's new Supreme Court nominee is a Texas conservative and a fundamentalist Christian.
Ivins

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins AlterNet Archive
An archive of the great progressive columnist's writings.
Jun 21, 2007

Stand Up Against the "Surge"
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders and we need to raise hell.
Jan 12, 2007

Now They're All For Bipartisanship
Apparently, the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists!
Nov 15, 2006

More stories by Molly Ivins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like that of John Roberts -- could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones, not as bad as Priscilla Owen -- and you should see some of our boy judges from Texas.

Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

She is enrolled in the Valley View Christian Church of Dallas, which she attended for at least 20 years before moving to Washington five years ago. Among that church's other members is Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, considered second only to Priscilla Owen as that court's most adamant anti-abortion judge.

According to Miers' friends, she was pro-choice when a young woman, but later changed her mind as a result of a Christian experience of some kind. Those who spoke of this did not know her well enough to say whether it had been a born-again experience or simply a different understanding of theology.

Miers had the support of feminists when she ran for office first in the Dallas bar and later when she became the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, even though the feminists were aware she was anti-choice.

At that time, the far more conservative TBA was at odds with the American Bar Association and sometimes threatened to withdraw from the national organization. Miers was considered a moderate in that she did not want to withdraw from the ABA, but favored a proposal to change the organization's stance from support for abortion rights to a position of neutrality.

One of Miers' key backers was Louise Raggio, a much-revered Dallas feminist lawyer. The women lawyers groups favored Miers despite her stand on abortion because she was a candidate acceptable to the Establishment, thus making her electable as a woman.

Miers sometimes took women judicial candidates through her very prestigious firm Liddell, Sapp for the obligatory meet 'n' greet and even donated to Democratic candidates. Both these behaviors were well within the conventions of Dallas city and judicial politics, particularly in the 1980s. Dallas city politics are nonpartisan, and rather like Texas tea ("sweet or un?") come in only two flavors -- Establishment or less Establishment. Miers qualifies as ur-Establishment, despite "being a girl," as a few of the old dinosaurs still put it. The slightly feminist tinge to her credentials is a plus, but she is quite definitely anti-abortion.

She ran for city council in 1989 as a moderate, but struggled during her interview with the lesbian/gay coalition. (At the time, it would have been considered progressive to even show up.) The Dallas Police Department did not then hire gays or lesbians, and when asked about the policy, Miers replied the department should hire the best-qualified people, the classic political sidestep answer.

When pressed, she said she did believe one should be able to legally discriminate against gays, and it is the recollection of two of the organization's officers that the response involved her religious beliefs.

Miers' church states on its website that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell.

I have said for years about people in public life, "I don't write about sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll." If I had my druthers, I wouldn't write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy's 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.

Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance -- and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to "drive God from the public square."

This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

Digg!

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
yellowdogdem
Posted by: DCH on Oct 5, 2005 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would much prefer the factual application of Jeffersonian separation of Church and State. I once wrote an OP/ED piece that predicted a Christian litmus test to get elected to National Office. It is happening. It can only be turned around by rational people who vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yellowdogdem Posted by: verna1914
» RE: yellowdogdem Posted by: Ellie1
Molly a moderate?
Posted by: jazzyjer on Oct 5, 2005 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is awfully weak of you, Molly. Ms. Meirs is real bad news. She has the ethics of a vampire bat. Being ur-Establishment in Dallas means drinks at the country club and pissing on the poor. She's not better than Owen or Jones, she's every bit as bad. Sad to say, she's sure to be confirmed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Molly a moderate? Posted by: MTguy
George Will says about the same thing
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Oct 5, 2005 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In today's Washington Post, George Will asked his readers "Can This Nomination Be Justified?" It is pretty amazing that Molly and George Will are on the same track on the same day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bush
Posted by: okie11 on Oct 5, 2005 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the victor goes the spoils. get over it people, what do you think he is going to put up a bunch liberals.. hey he is major joke but he won, his right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bush Posted by: jwg
» RE: bush Posted by: mkwagner
» Rose Garden Press Conference Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Having a rough day my dear ? Posted by: sovinformburo
» Yes sweetheart, thanks for dropping by Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» For Eastcoker Posted by: sovinformburo
» RE: For Eastcoker Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Encourage Bush???? Posted by: mendomama
» Bitter! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Bitter! Posted by: sovinformburo
» I agree with you Posted by: eastcoker
» All right I give up Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: bush Posted by: brunowe
» RE: bush Posted by: okie11
» RE: bush Posted by: LPB
diogenes1
Posted by: diogenes on Oct 5, 2005 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the risk of exposing my profound ignorance, I'm not sure that there is any mention of a separation of church and state in the Constitution. Normally, Molly is so bang-on that I'd never even dream of contradicting her, so if anybody knows of such an injunction, please let the rest of us know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: lynnyv4
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: COC
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: jwg
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: hhartman
» RE: diogenes1 Posted by: Doubtom
will this be enough to convince you?
Posted by: roygib on Oct 5, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep wondering just what the Democrats have to do before progressive voters realize that these guys are the enemy as well.
We are about to turn the Supreme Court into the judicial arm of the fundamentalists, and the leader of the Democrats in the Senate has all but announced he'll vote for Miers already.
Half the Senate Dems made it clear with Roberts that the less they know about a nominee the better.
I know, we can't have "litmus tests", heaven forbid that we insist that a canditate assure us that they will uphold our civil rights. Democrats can't be expected to do everything the liberals among us want, like upholding our liberties, or fighting for health care, or opposing the war, or refusing to vote to confirm presidential cronies. As long as they protest the most agregious Republican measures (before half of them go ahead and vote for them anyway, like the Bankruptcy bill, or the Schiavo legislation), then we can happily vote for them and go to sleep content that we have a functioning democracy in this country.
Lets face it, this is a big game of good cop, bad cop, with both parties essentially on the same side. The only way Miers is going down is if the extreme fundies put up a big fuss, and they are rapidly being lulled into acceptance.
Oh well, civil liberties were nice while they lasted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Green Party counts for something! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Hello Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» AGREE 10000% roygib, Republicrats Posted by: Michiganman
Southern Evangelicals are hypocrits
Posted by: Jasonix on Oct 5, 2005 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with people like Meirs isn't that they're Christians, or even fundamentalists - after all, people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old have the right to take part in a democratic society. I could live with someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible as long as they're literal about what the Bible really teaches - a true "fundamentalist" would stand up for the poor, since one out of every nine verses in the Bible tells us to do so. A true "creationist" would support environmentalism, since they see God as the creator of the world and themselves as stewards of His creation. Someone who believes in adult baptism would never, ever try to force their religious beliefs on anyone else - because salvation can only be accepted by faith, not by coercion. There is much that is good and admirable in evangelical Christianity. The problem isn't evangelical Christianity - it's evangelical Christians! If they weren't such hypocrits, the country wouldn't be in this mess.

Evangelical Christians from the northeast, where evangelicals are a minority, usually take their faith more seriously than their southern counterparts. When a Baptist from Rhode Island, for example, visits churches in Texas or Alabama, he's usually shocked to find that these so-called "born again" Christians are in strip clubs on Saturday nights and in the pews Sunday morning. The southern and midwestern "mega-churches" are nothing more than community centers with a thin spiritual glaze. People use them to network for their small businesses, get deductions on their mortgages through special church programs, meet other singles in the Starbucks that are on-premise in the Bible mega-malls, etc. There is very little real spirituality in southern evangelicalism.

Probably the best thing we can do is to hold these so-called "born again" Christians to the words of their own Bibles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jesus and the Pharisees Posted by: Michaelmammal
» Inductive Reasoning Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Inductive Reasoning Posted by: sovinformburo
agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Oct 5, 2005 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes alot of agitating to keep church and state separated.

It takes constant vigilience, relentless questioning, total engagement and provacative debate to maintain a healthy state of our union.

Today, as it was 2,000 years ago, there is a vast difference of opinion on what it means to be a Christian.

The greatest challenge for us all today is provoking those citizens who have quit thinking at all.
Many have given over their very souls to idealogies and to politicians who confirm their own world view and thus, are blind to the true facts on the ground.

The greatest battle within Christianity today is confronting the fundamentalism that ignores active participation in the non-negotiable commands Christ gave His followerer's to do [Matthew 25:31-40] and neglecting to reflect on one's own heart and motivation.

"If enough Christians follow the gospel they can bring any state to its knees."-Father Philip Francis Berrigan circa: 1969

May God bless America indeed with more Christians who will question the status quo and then fearlessly speak the truth to power, for Christ told His follower's:
"Fear Not!"


www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: Michaelmammal
THIS ISN'T YOUR FATHER'S AMERICA
Posted by: ssegallmd on Oct 5, 2005 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's your America, people.

A self-described red state unsophisticate advocates vanquishing the enemy as if 50% of American citizens are the enemies of the other half. And that they are just shit out of luck for several decades because of a very narrow Republican victory that probably was achieved illegally.

DHC above wants more rational people to vote, presumably against the union of church and state. But this (Okie) is what your schools system and mass media mass-produce in ever growing numbers.

And how can you compete with the churches that successfully compel their congregations to vote for theocrats? Or hackable ballot boxes that Christian conservatives control?

Unfortunately, as unfair, unwise and un-American as it may be, Mr. Joad here is right about the winner taking all. And to diogenes who asks what the Constitution says, that’ll be up to people like Justice Miers to decide, won’t it? And who thinks that they care what the Constitution says if it might disagree with their interpretation of the will of their deity? So it really doesn’t matter.

If you can’t live in a theocracy, you had better make plans to expatriate soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I got back up... Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: I got back up... Posted by: nellyman
» You are smart ssgallmd Posted by: La Femme Nikita
The Smartest Man
Posted by: honeyrose on Oct 5, 2005 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just the fact that Ms. Miers says that GWB is the smartest man she has ever known tells us all we need to know. Be afraid...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Smartest Man Posted by: timg98376
Christian = Criminal
Posted by: rkewen on Oct 5, 2005 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sad to say that the words Christian and Criminal are, thanks to this slime ridden administration of thugs and greed balls, becoming synonyms to me. I think junkies and Jesus Freaks are much more alike than different. Each simplifies their life by accepting an easy answer to every question. With a junkie it's the next fix, with the fundamentalist Christian it's saying the name of Jesus, while ignoring everything he stood for. All of Bush and Cheney's cronies should be considered as the accessories to crime that they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I am creative Soviet Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: I am creative Soviet Posted by: sovinformburo
» Everything Posted by: eastcoker
Same Old Same Old
Posted by: Sandra on Oct 5, 2005 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush who's incompetent picks a crony for the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience and she thinks that Bush is a great president. It is interesting that many right wing spokespeople have come out against her. I've become so paranoid with this administration that I wonder if this is a strategy to get the Democrats and the public to accept her nomination, because we don't want someone of whom the right approves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Same Old Same Old Posted by: Kajamian
» RE: Same Old Same Old Posted by: Jackson
rkewen
Posted by: esactun on Oct 5, 2005 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, at least junkies don't kill each other over who has the better drug. I've never heard of rampaging cokeheads beating up smack users, trying to convert them to crack.

And, in the end, they're all simply jailed for their "creed".

But, somehow, uber-pious nuts aren't subject to arrest over their spiritual addictions and holy wars. Odd, considering that drug experience and religious experience are just patterns of brain activity (and religious brain activity, it must be said, is strikingly similar to brain activity in schizophrenia--and that schizophrenics often develop very strong religious beliefs).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Would Jesus *Really* Do?
Posted by: FoxintheStars on Oct 5, 2005 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It never seems to occur to these folks that people have *always* been having babies they didn't want. In Jesus' time, I believe leaving the baby to die in a field somewhere was more popular than abortion as such, but same idea. Homosexuality was also far from unknown in the Roman Empire. Jesus had ample opportunity to condemn both had he felt a need---but not a peep. (He was too busy being economically progressive and chewing out hypocritical theocrats. ^_~)

Not long ago I decided to play "What Would Jesus Do" if people like these brought a woman before him and said "She had an abortion! What should we do with her?" And I highly suspect he would say something like "Care for the widows and orphans. If any child has ever died for lack of your hand among the poor to feed them, then you should be among the poor feeding children, not condemning this woman."

Because the Jesus in *my* Bible was never one to give you the easy answer you expected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What Would Jesus *Really* Do? Posted by: woodford54
» Beautiful answer fox in the stars Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Homosexuality in the Roman Empire Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Thank you Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Jesus say's, JEEZ Posted by: Michiganman
» Gay not homosexual Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» Phd'd Posted by: Michiganman
» Why? Make up your own Dogma Posted by: Michiganman
» RE: Jesus say's, JEEZ Posted by: LouiseYesh
» RE: Jesus say's, JEEZ Posted by: eastcoker
Missing Justice
Posted by: jwg on Oct 5, 2005 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it axiomatic that a Supreme court justice is more concerned with precedent (strict constructionist) than justice, how would one ever overcome the injustices of the past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing Justice Posted by: Michaelmammal
Brilliant article Molly! I am impressed! You are my heroine!
Posted by: La Femme Nikita on Oct 5, 2005 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the BEST article I have read on Alternet since I have joined the community...this summer.
I took notes.
I am fighting a war against American Protestant Fundamentalism as you know, not a war of flesh and blood, but a spiritual battle due to my own abuse at the hands of American Protestant Fundamentalism Cult Orthodoxy, or APFCO for short. To read your deconstruction of Harriet Miers fundamentalism and fundamentalism and progressive issues is SO helpful. You have NO idea.
This article is a diamond to me, a diamond!
I even appreicate your guidelines about what you will and will not write about. When on the rampage against APFCO it must be written about. It is kind of like the thing with outing, what's the purpose?
If those in power use their religion to hurt people, in other words spiritual abuse, which is very real and very damaging, then they must be outed and their religion must be written about and it will make people uncomfortable, just like the outing of gays does, but it is the only way to bring about effective change.
Thank you for your courage to change the things you can, you give it to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The BEST qualified Court candidate? LOL!
Posted by: BobbyG on Oct 5, 2005 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush yet again displays his principal talent: that of patronizing audacity. The notion that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in the nation to ascend to a seat on to the U.S. Supreme Court (even assuming his political prerogative to name a “strict constructionist”) is preposterous on its face. Judicially, this woman is charitably nothing more than Clarence Thomas in Tammy Faye eyeliner and sensible pumps. Moreover, with this nomination, Bush essentially proposes to appoint himself to the Court by proxy. One need only reflect on his Miers nomination choice of words during his October 4th press conference, which was—predictably—all about him; what HE knew about her, what HE wanted from her tenure on the Court, and about his confidence that she would consistently deliver for HIM far into the future. Nothing about what the nation wants or needs from members of this most important institution, e.g., cream-of-the-crop jurisprudential intellects demonstrably capable of learned and rational constitutional analyses borne of long study, experience, and application. No, we are to get instead a dutiful size six shoe “pit bull” puppet.

Once again we have our national intelligence insulted by this dilettante Peter Principle hire. Jon Stewart’s Daily Show should be paying him royalties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» George Bush is a classic manipulator Posted by: La Femme Nikita
» RE: Sensible Pumps & size 6 shoes Posted by: littlemanintheboat
i live in texas but not as a proud texan
Posted by: americanx on Oct 5, 2005 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
their god scares me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How would you define their God? Posted by: La Femme Nikita
*sigh*
Posted by: MT512 on Oct 5, 2005 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, if only the ignorant were more apathetic...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you! Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: *sigh* Posted by: beetruetoyou
Danger Ahead
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Oct 5, 2005 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should read the danger signs along the judicial highway during Miers' confirmation. It's nothing but bad news for us all, except in Texas, maybe, where her views took root.
And let's hope (for a miracle, LOL) that Congress rejects her. They haven't mustered any cojones to fight Bush on anything in several years.
The scariest part is that she may cast the deciding vote on Roe v. Wade. Lots of women already have hard lives in this shitty country and her nomination will make it worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Annette
Posted by: Annette on Oct 5, 2005 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Harriet Miers made her political life as a born-again Christian who has professed to devoting her life to Jesus -- which has a very specific political meaning to her and the president -- and this makes her reasoning and judgement inappropriate for the Supreme court. She is certainly no moderate in any part of her life and has deep ties to this president. As a justice she will certainly be devoted to the political will of the president and his religion!

Appointing an anti-choice activist is a blatant corruption of the role of a justice. She has no family and involves her rare free time with organizations that promote the destruction of reproductive choice. Her boyfriend is Nathan Hecht, one the most conservative justices on the Texas Supreme Court and an activist against choice. No matter which side you take in the debate, it is impossible to see this woman as anything BUT an activist. So what's wrong with that, you may say...

It is difficult for many people to understand the value of a fair court because we HAVE deeply held beliefs that have been exploited for political goals. Most people don't see or understand how politicians exploit wedge issues. But the real issue at the heart of this appointment will be more profound than the political or religious issues themselves. It is more akin to what we saw happening to our civil rights at the time of 9/11 and just as dangerous for the average citizen.

We should not allow ourselves to be deceived into thinking that this court appointment is about winning the day on certain social issues. Rather it is the forms that must be put into place to promote this president's agenda that will be our downfall -- if we choose to see them for what they are: political patronage and an un-Democratic view of society based on a deeply personal religious conviction.

No one person should ever have the right to decide for all of us! We should be making our country safe from ANY FUNDAMENTALISTS who think that only they deserve to protected by the law and that everyone else can GO TO HELL!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Annette Posted by: BobbyG
» Nathan Hecht is her boyfriend?! Posted by: La Femme Nikita
The Solution to the Christianity Debate (Part I)
Posted by: LoveYourEnemies on Oct 5, 2005 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone said that we shouldn't blame Jesus for all of this, it is not his fault. I agree.

I am a recovering fundamentalist. Last year was a very difficult year for me because I was ramrodded out of one church for having more biblical knowledge than the pastor (hence, I was known as a "troublemaker") and I had to leave a second church because they were distributing political tracts in favor of the Republicans (when I confronted the pastor about the illegality of this, I was told I "don't love God and [I] don't love America"). The third and final church I tried to go to had a pastor who got his sermons from Fox News.

After this, I was increasingly frustrated by the whole thing and I also attempted to blame Jesus. However, this also forced me to go into the New Testament and read it with fresh eyes.

I found a Jesus who the religious right would gladly kill. This Jesus would hang out with the worst of us (according to the religious right). In his day, he was known as a "friend of tax collectors and sinners". Today, he would be known as the "friend of homosexuals and liberals". Why?

He fought against the religious establishment, which was founded on a good premise, but quickly turned evil. The same is true today. Dobson started out wanting kids to grow up to be decent citizens, yet now, he's just as bad as the Pharisees of Jesus' day. Consider "Uncle Chuckles" Robertson and Jerry Falwell. They're just as bad.

How many of these "christians" would give their last dollar (before visiting an ATM) to a beggar on the side of the street? I actually tested this out last Sunday. There's a poor couple who begs not two miles from a local church. I watched as "fish" car after "fish" and "Bush/Cheney '04" car passed by, not one even slowing down. Windows rolled up as the light where they were turned red. I watched for about an hour and then I finally gave them $20 and a $25 gift certificate to McDonalds. After that, they packed up and went to get some food. That was all they needed.

Jesus tells us to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, care for the sick and visit the prisoner. I don't know of any liberal or progressive who would call that stupid or backward. I don't believe that Jesus is the problem here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Males and Religion Posted by: sovinformburo
» Reactionary Class Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Reactionary Class Posted by: sovinformburo
» Georgia Posted by: eastcoker
» Labels Posted by: sovinformburo
» Support for anti reproduction? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Support for anti reproduction? Posted by: sovinformburo
» The Great Schism Posted by: eastcoker
The Solution to the Christianity Debate (Part II)
Posted by: LoveYourEnemies on Oct 5, 2005 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I truly feel sorry for the congregations of these fundamentalist churches. They are told that they cannot understand the Bible by these political dog pastors. So, they go home and never crack open the good Book. If they did, they would see a different Jesus than the one that's presented every Sunday. They would see a Jesus who looks out for the widow and who loves true justice. They would see a Jesus who tells his disciples that LOVE not hatred or religious and political bigotry is what grants access to heaven. They would even see that their pastors and political leaders (conservative ones) are the very Pharisees that ultimately killed Jesus.

Like I said, I'm a recovering fundamentalist. I am also African-American, so my escape was sure once these fools said that America was a Judeo-Christian country and that slavery and genocide were only "minor" problems. Talk to your conservative fundamentalist friends. Ask them to read the New Testament like they would read a James Dobson book or any other book, instead of letting some pastor take things out of context. You will see a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CHRISTIANITY vs JESUSISM Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: CHRISTIANITY vs JESUSISM Posted by: LoveYourEnemies
» RE: CHRISTIANITY vs JESUSISM Posted by: ssegallmd
Kennedy's Address to Southern Baptist Leaders
Posted by: ericchil on Oct 5, 2005 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Referred to in Molly's column:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/66.htm

Some key excerpts:

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America...where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is La Femme Nikita Posted by: eastcoker
Bible as literal truth
Posted by: AuntFaintly on Oct 5, 2005 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May I point out that the Bible is a translation? Languages simply don't translate word for word. The word that English language Bibles translate as jackel, for example, is dragon in my Polish Bible. Personally, I think dragons are much more exciting.

Then there is the small problem that classical Hebrew didn't use either vowels or punctuation. Consider "rd" - does it mean read, red, rude, rode, rod, rid or something else? Clearly, you can eliminate some of the possibilities from the context but not necessarily all but one. And anyone who thinks punctuation isn't necessary hasn't read Eats, Shoots and Leaves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What's it about? Posted by: La Femme Nikita