Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

By Ira Chernus, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 16, 2008.


We've got to find a way to take the conservative symbolic message of faith talk out of American politics.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Ira Chernus

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It's a presidential campaign like no other. The candidates have been falling all over each other in their rush to declare the depth and sincerity of their religious faith. The pundits have been just as eager to raise questions that seem obvious and important: Should we let religious beliefs influence the making of law and public policy? If so, in what way and to what extent? Those questions, however, assume that candidates bring the subject of faith into the political arena largely to justify -- or turn up the heat under -- their policy positions. In fact, faith talk often has little to do with candidates' stands on the issues. There's something else going on here.

Look at the TV ad that brought Mike Huckabee out of obscurity in Iowa, the one that identified him as a "Christian Leader" who proclaims: "Faith doesn't just influence me. It really defines me." That ad did indeed mention a couple of actual political issues -- the usual suspects, abortion and gay marriage -- but only in passing. Then Huckabee followed up with a red sweater-themed Christmas ad that actively encouraged voters to ignore the issues. We're all tired of politics, the kindly pastor indicated. Let's just drop all the policy stuff and talk about Christmas -- and Christ.

Ads like his aren't meant to argue policy. They aim to create an image -- in this case, of a good Christian with a steady moral compass who sticks to his principles. At a deeper level, faith-talk ads work hard to turn the candidate -- whatever candidate -- into a bulwark of solidity, a symbol of certainty; their goal is to offer assurance that the basic rules for living remain fixed, objective truths, as true as religion.

In a time when the world seems like a shaky place -- whether you have a child in Iraq, a mortgage you may not be able to meet, a pension threatening to head south, a job evaporating under you, a loved one battling drug or alcohol addiction, an ex who just came out as gay or born-again, or a president you just can't trust -- you may begin to wonder whether there is any moral order in the universe. Are the very foundations of society so shaky that they might not hold up for long? Words about faith -- nearly any words -- speak reassuringly to such fears, which haunt millions of Americans.

These fears and the religious responses to them have been a key to the political success of the religious right in recent decades. Randall Balmer, a leading scholar of evangelical Christianity, points out that it's offered not so much "issues" to mobilize around as "an unambiguous morality in an age of moral and ethical uncertainty."

Mitt Romney was courting the evangelical-swinging-toward-Huckabee vote when he, too, went out of his way to link religion with moral absolutes in his big Iowa speech on faith. Our "common creed of moral convictions? the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet" turned out, utterly unsurprisingly, to be none other than religious soil: "We believe that every single human being is a child of God? liberty is a gift of God." No doubts allowed here.

American politicians have regularly wielded religious language and symbolism in their moments of need, and such faith talk has always helped provide a sense of moral certainty in a shape-shifting world. But in the better years of the previous century, candidates used religion mostly as an adjunct to the real meat of the political process, a tool to whip up support for policies.

How times have changed. Think of it, perhaps, as a way to measure the powerful sense of unsettledness that has taken a firm hold on American society. Candidates increasingly keep their talk about religion separate from specific campaign issues. They promote faith as something important and valuable in and of itself in the election process. They invariably avow the deep roots of their religious faith and link it not with issues, but with certitude itself.

Sometimes it seems that Democrats do this with even more grim regularity than Republicans. John Edwards, for example, reassured the nation that "the hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me and every human being that exists on this planet." In the same forum, Hillary Clinton proclaimed that she "had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought. And that's all one can expect or hope for."

When religious language enters the political arena in this way, as an end in itself, it always sends the same symbolic message: Yes, Virginia (or Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina) there are absolute values, universal truths that can never change. You are not adrift in a sea of moral chaos. Elect me and you're sure to have a fixed mooring to hold you and your community fast forever.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: religion, faith, election 2008, campaign 2008

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.

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

Advertisement
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:
There is a difference though - and it is key
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jan 16, 2008 12:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the Democrats recognize that the majority of voters in this country would not elect an atheist as dogcatcher. That fact is sad but true. So they all profess their faith and spend some time in church. Until we change the electorate that is gonna be necessary.

The Republicans are different. They are reaching out to the hardest-core theocrats in the country and they are all promising - in one way or another - to "smite the unbeliever."

All can be counted on to pursue the drug war, the war on terror,on gays, on abortion rights. Romney's "Liberty requires religion" and Huckabee's fundamentalist bible-thumping are the most egregious examples - but they all have to bow to that constituency if they are to stand a chance of getting elected.

I would prefer that we could enter into an age enlightened enough that a professed atheist or agnostic would have a chance in election season - as a matter of fact, I have severe doubts that even the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson would stand a chance of election in today's climate. (For the sake of argument, let's put the fact that he was a slaveholder to one side for now.) With his strong stand on separation of church and state and the many statements he made critical of religion, I strongly doubt that he would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

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

» RE: Save God. Free Him from religions. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
We is doomed!
Posted by: polyquat50 on Jan 16, 2008 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth"

God help us. Oh wait, there isn't one.

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

» Entonces, Nosotros Somos Dios! Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: We is doomed! Posted by: Ellen Remore
Jesus Christ evolutionary
Posted by: guerillaTHOUGHTterrorist on Jan 16, 2008 1:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The primaries have arrived. It heralds a season of mudslinging and bullshit. It's also time for all of the useless religious rhetoric and posturing that I was hoping would finally take a backseat to actual policy issues.

I had a tentative hope that the candidates would actually practice what they preach and finally "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Mark 12:17 NIV). The context of this verse is that the pharisees, the religious scholars of the time were trying to trap Jesus into making a seditious statement about the ruling Roman Empire, in an attempt to have him arrested and executed. Jesus clearly lays out a separation of church and state within his teachings. Being manipulated by disingenuous leaders claiming one thing and doing another is not new. Jesus taught by example and expected his followers to do the same, as illustrated when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples (John 13:1-20 NIV).

Exploiting religion for political purposes is not new either as more people have died in the name of Jesus than anyone else in history. The early history of the Christian Church was marked by the Nicaean Creed under the Holy Roman Emperor Constantine I to create the first uniform Christian Doctrine for unification purposes.

Life is not a morality contest. There are no clearly defined lines separating what is good and what is evil. All humans are flawed creatures prone to what Christians call sin. Apparently, the only human in all of history to be without sin was the Christ, who taught by example, and not empty rhetoric. For a Christian to judge others because of personal choices that they make (i.e. choice of intoxicant, choice to have an abortion, or choice to fornicate, and so on) would be to sin. The Volstead Act and the subsequent prohibition have clearly shown that governments cannot legislate human behavior, unless they utilize secret police and want to be considered human rights violators by Amnesty International.

I'm not saying that religion is bad, but it just doesn't make for sound domestic policy. Just look to the Arab world and see the nations that model their governments around Islam. These are some of the very nations our government is trying to crush because of where their nonsensical policies are taking them.

Jesus didn't need people to blindly follow. He wanted people to struggle and grow their faith. He didn't need to spread his message through arms or lectures because people followed his example of understanding and compassion for those society deemed unfit for civilization. Our country doesn't need another spineless politician willing to exploit a relationship with God to get votes, but we will most likely end up with another false prophet this year, exploiting the teachings of the world's first socialist to promote democratic processes.

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

» RE: Jesus Christ evolutionary Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: Jesus Christ Revolutionary Posted by: guerillaTHOUGHTterrorist
» RE: Jesus Christ evolutionary Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Jesus Christ Revolutionary? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Jesus Christ Revolutionary? Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Jesus Christ evolutionary Posted by: FrameOfReference
» RE: Jesus Christ evolutionary Posted by: Intellect
history
Posted by: anchoorite on Jan 16, 2008 1:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you people learn anything from history?

America has become very backwards. Just imagine this speach in these days (originally by Ingersoll in 19 century!?!):

The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a Government with which God has nothing whatever to do -- and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the fundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be abandoned. In this country there should be no oaths -- no man should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in partnership with God, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to thank God. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to justify this religious impertinence.

For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our money: "In God We Trust;" and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the Constitution of the United States. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves without the assistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the position that the people are the real and only rightful source of authority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what is politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally expressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national superstition -- no room for patriotic gods or supernatural beings -- and this does away with the necessity for political prayers.

There has been in our country a divorce of church and state. This follows as a natural sequence of the declaration that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." The priest was no longer a necessity. His presence was a contradiction of the principle on which the Republic was founded. He represented, not the authority of the people, but of some "Power from on High," and to recognize this other Power was inconsistent with free government. The founders of the Republic at that time parted company with the priests, and said to them: "You may turn your attention to the other world -- we will attend to the affairs of this." Equal liberty was given to all. But the ultra theologian is not satisfied with this -- he wishes to destroy the liberty of the people -- he wishes a recognition of his God as the source of authority, to the end that the church may become the supreme power. But the sun will not be turned backward. The people of the United States are intelligent. They no longer believe implicitly in supernatural religion. They are losing confidence in the miracles and marvels of the Dark Ages. They know the value of the free school. They appreciate the benefits of science. They are believers in education, in the free play of thought, and there is a suspicion that the priest, the theologian, is destined to take his place with the necromancer, the astrologer, the worker of magic, and the professor of the black art.

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

» RE: history Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: history Posted by: Intellect
» RE: history Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: history Posted by: Intellect
» RE: history Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: history Posted by: Bibsi
» RE: history Posted by: anchoorite
» RE: history Posted by: spbreathnach
» RE: history Posted by: J_Mo
Religon And Government
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Jan 16, 2008 3:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing wrong with religon and a faith at all. There is a big problem with mixing religon and government.

Those in power tend to corrupt religon in order to use
peoples faith to get them to buy into a fascist agenda.

That is exactly what the Hitler did, He used the worst aspects of Christian faith, the dislike and distrust that many Christians had of the Jews, to push forward his fascist agenda.

The modern conservative agenda is strikingly similar to the fascist agenda of 1933. Direct government power toward helping the rich and big business. Disassemble any social net that helps the poor. Make constant war. Crush dissent. Spy on the entire population, and force them to conform. Subvert the media to control what people see and hear and think. Basically erase everything that was accomplished during the FDR years.

Which is interesting if you study the Business Plot of 1933, when a group of rich industrialists, led by granddaddy Prescott Bush, attempted a fascist coup against FDR. It seems they have taken a different approach, instead of a direct overthrow of the government, they are now gradually subverting it. It takes longer, but in the long run it's a much more effective method. Step by step they change America, and as people get used to each step, they go on to the next step.

Oops, you folks weren't supposed to know all this, so just forget it, and go read some "news" about Britney Spears.

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

» RE: eligon And Government Posted by: Bibsi
Democracy =
Posted by: cordas on Jan 16, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely Democracy is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Not the Will of GOD.

their goal is to offer assurance that the basic rules for living remain fixed, objective truths, as true as religion.

Rolls on the floor laughing out loud!!!

Yes they are determined to tell us that they are as true as something made up by those who crave power and control over others, and will use a book that has been changed time after time over thousands of years in order to suit those who had the power at the time....

Don't you just love the irony of that statement.

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

see where politicians stand in relation to the Ten Commandments
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 16, 2008 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am the Lord your God
You shall have no other gods
You shall not worship idols
You shall not blaspheme
Keep the Sabbath
Honor your parents
Do not kill
Do not commit adultery
Do not steal
Do not lie
Do not covet someone else's property
Do not covet someone else's wife or servants

Killing, stealing, lying and coveting are clearly wrong. So how can any Christian candidate support a fraudulent murderous occupation of someone else's country and the theft of its oil?

Put their feet to the fire.

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

» Re You shall not worship idols Posted by: bitsfick
» Atonement Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: A priest once told me Posted by: UnEasyOne
The Frog Gives Singing Lessons
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 16, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now this is singular. Here we have a professor of religious studies who fails to see that the Constitution ALREADY conforms with the New and Old Testaments. With the exception of Tom Jefferson, it was almost universally written and adopted by Christians. To the end it conforms to the Old Testament we have the supposed " wrath " of God; wars, disease, pestilence, famine, noblesse oblige and the neocons. To the extent it conforms to the New Testament we have Social Security, universal health care, peace and security. How easy it is to misread the simple, humanistic approach of Jesus.

" What ever you do to the least of these, you do to me. "

That is the basis of all human compassion to all human beings. ( and probably all extraterrestrial life too, if you aren't still stuck in the 7th Century and think that we are the center of the universe.)

Play nice(r).

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

» RE: The Frog Gives Singing Lessons Posted by: surfreality
confused
Posted by: davy on Jan 16, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like religion has made America angry just like the religions in other parts of the world. Every religions roots are about love and brother/sisterhood, how "on earth" have we so missed the point? Funny, but in the "end" the only thing that will work is kindness. I think we have well proven that my gun is bigger than yours only works for the arms makers and dealers. Everybody loves their kids, do you think it will ever be possible for folks to listen to their hearts? It takes greater courage to love than to be angry.

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

» RE: confused Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: confused Posted by: hms2004
» RE: confused Posted by: davy
» RE: confused Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: confused Posted by: Intellect
» RE: confused Posted by: TheLimit
What values are going to succeed and be lasting?
Posted by: dmaciewski on Jan 16, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get uncomfortable around a lot of "God talk," like I get uncomfortable with candidates who take litmus issues like abortion and gay marriage as exclusive criteria for social morality. And not to be too moralistic or "holier than thou," to rephrase basic theological wisdom, we all fall short of divine grace and, in the end, although we have to believe and uphold in our religious and secular ideals, none of us has pure grounds for casting stones.
So, while I tend to believe in separation of church and state, and above all would like to understand and uphold the freedom promised by feminism in particular(perhaps without giving moral approval to the sad necessity of the institution of abortion), one way or another we need a deeply wise and moral humanity that also has a sense of urgency about matters of life and death and enough humility to have some humor and perspective about it all. I wouldn't want a theocratic zealot in the white house, but I also don't want to support amoralitic corporatism. Just some thoughts. Too bad for the person writing the article with such claimed credentials, but the content only skims the "public surface" of the current paradigm we labor under.

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

Certainty, error, and esteem
Posted by: fdgsr on Jan 16, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We, as humans, live in a world run by Truth, who is God. We submit to Truth by
choice, or by God. Errors are not mistakes. Errors are deviations from a curve
of expectations. We climb the mountains of information and reach the pinnacle of
certainty only by avoiding the insecure foothold on fact and falling into the
chasm of error. When we reach the summit, there is nowhere else to go. It is
heaven on earth. But, to be at the pinnacle of certainty is the most dangerous
position to be in; there is nowhere else but down. The next step is oblivion.

To be at the top of esteem of others is a rare spot of comfort, and insecurity.
One doubt, one error, one slip and you are history. A kiss and a hug, will keep
you there, but one fart could blow you away.

Frank Goodman, Sr.
Sunrise, Florida

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

Seamus Breathnach
Posted by: spbreathnach on Jan 16, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From earliest times the Christian conquest has meant precisely what it stands for: conquest!

With the ascendancy of an imperial papacy in the middle ages, Europe was governed in turns by Church/State alliances based on brute force and universal war. The Christian of the Crusades was a mean military monk, claiming privilege as a beggar but dishing the corporate dirt where he could. Catholicism is -- and always has been -- a messianic and totalitarian cult, subversive of anything that does not agree with it and its Papal hierarchy. It is also a paradigm for personal neurosis, suspect celibacy and disguised mysogeny. It has not national characteristics, because it has no nation. It has no family or other recognisable human features, but that it is broken into a divison of labour grouped around orders, mendicant and militant, that are defensive of the papacy. The monk has nothing to love in his life but his Order and his God. His female counterpart fares no better.

In a graveyard recently I noticed rows of corporate stone to some fifty or so fallen sisters of mercy. No one flower adorned their collective graves. It struck me as very sad; and I only noticed it because I remembered an auntie who went to serve the 'faith' in Malaysia and who last returned in 1935.

Nothing has been more corrosive of peace between people than the Christian's unexamined self-image. The Christian, from earliest times, assumes a messianic truth which, when proclaimed aloud, is really nothing more than an assertion of proprietorial right and a unilateral declaration of supremacy. In his Regensberg Lecture, Pope Benedict XVI's animus towards Islam could not be concealed. Remarkably, this otherwise gifted and privileged man, carries on exactly like his predecessors, and feels that he has a divine right to say and do as he pleases, no matter whose feelings he insults.

In the same way, through enormous and unprecedented wealth, power and subterfuge, the Christian churches subvert the democratic process and the high secular moral standards of our time. Behind every broadcast, whether in Europe or America, are the Church's plants, well-healed college graduates, catholic educated conspirators, ex-priests and ex-nuns, Opus Dei planted and jesuitically trained lawyers, broadcaters, accountants, economists, psychologists, etc, etc..

What we need, perhaps, is to recognise that 'Faith' is not 'Truth' and those who preach 'Faith' sometimes preach a very false message. If anything, 'Faith' is fanatic and we could well do without it. What we need is 'Faith in Truth and truthful people.' Let us then be more critical of our received wisdoms and more open to plain talk by people who have not sold themselves to the system.

Secret societies like Opus Dei and the Jesuits (as well as their monopoly of the universities) should be challenged and, to my mind, condemned. Secret societies operate in contempt of the democratic process: they are part of the messianic Christian notion that they can do as they please because their cause is Christian.

The secretness of these societies promotes conspiracies. The cleric's plan is to possess the democratic system without a vote. They are much more subversive of the system than the communists ever were. The best way to be a good Christian is to demonise some poor unfortunates, be they Jews, Pagans, Albigensians, Witches, American Indians, Protestants, Communists, Vietnamese peasants, Spanish anarchists or British or French Protestants. Once you have an enemy, everyone has an instant identity: the rest is easy.

Islam is the latest -- Tony Blair spoke to God about it. So did the Pope. So did George Bush. And God came up with the same response. The Christian conquest needs victories.....

Seamus Breathnach

www.irish-criminology.com

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

» RE: Seamus Breathnach Posted by: rinthy
» RE: Seamus Breathnach Posted by: EncinoM
» Good post, Seamus... Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Seamus Breathnach Posted by: leland61
OK article. Good discussion.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 16, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the lack of moral certainty is why liberals hate Democratic candidates almost as much as conservatives do. I mean, isn't that why a lot of us hate Hillary?

I'm pretty absolute in my convictions about Big Brother, corruption, prejudice, health care, poverty, individual freedom, etc...And I have some strong moral and spiritual reasons for being that way. Ideally, I want a candidate who is as unbending as I am about those things. Am I a conservative? Not likely, based on the popular definition.

This article seems to equate strongly held values and convictions with America's brand of redneck, Bible-thumping conservatism. I don't think that's necessarily true. But based on the so-called "liberal" politicians and candidates we've met so far, I can understand why we might not know any different.

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

» RE: OK article. Good discussion. Posted by: surfreality
Toss off the false corpirate God of fear!
Posted by: williameon on Jan 16, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion and The Ruling Class!

First let me clear up a few things.
Humans are essentially good.
Just look into a baby’s eyes!
He’s trusting, natural and pure.
Everyone knows by the end of Kindergarten
The difference between good and evil.
You can draw as many lines as you want.
GREED will never follow.
Selfishness and GREED is the evil we face in our everyday lives.
It is rampant.
It is destroying us from within.
GREED is evil.
GREED is driving the Cor-‘pirate’ system down the road to self destruction and
The Corpirates want to take everyone in the world with them.
Dead Eye Dick and the Shrub have murdered millions.
It’s quite obvious!
Mission Admonished!
The coffers are bare.
The cemeteries full.
Rome is burning as I speak.
All we get is blow back and more BU__! SH__!
Pick who you will serve!
Good or GREED!
Helpfulness, True Compassion, Peace, Brotherly love, and Cooperation
These are the fruits of the spirit.
Eat of them often!
Invest in yourselves and your families.
Become self sufficient and self reliant.
Toss off the false corpirate God of fear.
Soon everybody will see the light
It will be like turning on a switch.
Our whole world will change.
In a twinkling of an eye.
The Dinosaur Fossil Fuel age will end
And
A Greener, kinder, gentler, peaceful age will begin.

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

» The Tree of Life! Kaneh bosm! Posted by: garry minor
On this date ....
Posted by: reval on Jan 16, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
......in 1786, Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom passed. The preamble is a sweeping indictment of state-dictated religion, noting that "false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time" have been maintained through the church-state. "To compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical . . . our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry. . ." The heart of the Statute has been replicated in differing versions in most state constitutions (see quote below). So important was this Statute to Jefferson that he gave these instructions for the epitaph to be placed on his tombstone: "Thomas Jefferson/Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom & Father of the University of Virginia." Omitting his two terms as president, Jefferson wrote these were the "testimonials that I have lived [and by which] I wish most to be remembered."
~Rev. El
Pastor, WVCSR
PS. Makes you wonder how it all went so haywire, doesn't it?

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

time to move to Canada
Posted by: Don Garb on Jan 16, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This ghastly charade of an "election" will continue to play out and won't be stopped. Like a movie whose ending you disagree with, all your wishing and hoping won't change the script, because it's already been shot.

Reality and the "pretend" world of the media gets farther apart every day, it's become quite ridiculous. America will elect yet another power mad beast in penitant's clothing to do the bidding of psychopathic corporations, who view the demolition of planet Earth as a bonus.

Time to move to Canada kids, where the majority of people are liberal and tolerant, where the weather's better and the dollar stronger. Canada, an oasis of sanity, where a free person can attend a same sex wedding, smoke some pot and pay the attractive person of their choice for some great sex! Think about it ...

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

» RE: time to move to Canada Posted by: dayenta
» RE: time to move to Canada Posted by: TheLimit
Great Article; Same old discussion
Posted by: Jbuuty on Jan 16, 2008 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ira Chernus nailed it. People are feeling like fish out of water. There have been rapid changes taking place in the world and in the USA over the past 40+ years. These changes have been leading to new ways of looking at and understanding the world we live in. Often these ways are called postmodernism, but whatever we want to call them, they are happening. Absolute truths, whether of the religious or the enlightened variety, give comfort in a time of change.

I personally love plurality and pluralism. However many, maybe most, people seemed to be genuinely frightened by others holding different views of the world. The comment section reveals this. On the left, many desire an absolute condemnation of all religion as oppressive. Historical data is applied very selectively to support this position. On the right, the claim that the USA has always been a Christian nation is made despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At times evidence is made up to support this mythological point of view.

Chernus' last paragraph is right on: change that enables voters to feel empowered enough to take the risks, and tolerate the freedom that democracy requires is what is needed.

How can we promote plurality and the acceptance of plurality? If we can answer that question, then we can move toward a solution to this unfortunate conservative reaction.

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

Dangerous Lunatics
Posted by: jmmartin on Jan 16, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes I wonder if the Founding Fathers went far enough. Deists almost to a man, they had grave reservations about allowing religion to play any role in government and went so far as to add prohibitions, in the First Amendment, against establishment or prohibition of any religion. But I wonder if they shouldn't have banned all religious practices entirely.

What we've ended up with is a steady stream of Dangerous Lunatics, including not only Gomer Shuckabee but any and all candidates who feel they have to tout their religious credentials as qualifications for office. Fully half of the participants in the earliest GOP debates said they did not believe in evolution. The only conclusion that we can reach is that they do believe in creationism (or its euphemism, intelligent design). These demented losers actually think our species was placed on this planet five or six thousand years ago and that we coexisted with dinosaurs!

How can you expect such fools to be anything but moral absolutists. You say that their faiths frame their positions on all of the social issues of our time. But to them, there is no room for a middle ground; everything is either right or wrong with no shades of gray. There is no room for any "difference"; it's their way or the highway to Hell. No matter that some of us don't believe in Hell to begin with.

There is some comfort in the hope that these twits will do themselves in. Shuckabee's position on abortion has led him to make some pronouncements that are so blatantly illogical they bugger the mind. For example, he says that we could put an end to giving jobs to undocumented workers by prohibiting abortion, since the workforce of native born Americans would replace "illegal aliens." More likely, these unwanted babies would grow up to be druggies or layabouts who'd refuse bent-back harvest and meat-packing plant work just as readily as such people do now.

Also, fortunately, the evangelical voting block is much more sophisticated than it was in '00 or '04. For one thing, a renegade Bush administration liason to the religious right quit quite early in the regime and wrote a book that exposed Arbusto's religiosity as a fraud, spilling the beans on the lip service that was paid to the Christer agenda. Spokespeople for the evangelicals readily admit that the voting block is split on who the GOP nominee should be. Some think Shuckabee is too liberal and, yes, some even think his homophobia is a detriment.

Some suspect McCain's religious credentials because, prior to kissing Rev. Faultwell on the dais of a graduation ceremony, he labeled the latter as well as Rev. Robber's son "agents of intolerance." And Romney, hey, he's a Mormon, and "they aren't even Christians." Some were touting Thompson, but he's so low in the polls he might as well go back to his day job.

But you're right about one thing: We really should find a way to put religion back into the closet when it comes to political races. The whole movement was started by the televangelists -- and look at the scandals that brought down many of them in the late 20th century. Real American values demand complete separation of church and state, and that should be reflected in both debate and policy making decisions.

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

» RE: Dangerous Lunatics Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: Dangerous Lunatics Posted by: Intellect
Yep! Outlaw
Posted by: Abe on Jan 16, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the words god, and religion, and church, and prayer, and faith, and anything else to do with them from all political campaigns.
Seems religious folks should be upset anyway, about the terms being used in concert with all the lies and bullshit we get from the so-called christian candidates!!

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

Please....
Posted by: reval on Jan 16, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....stop insulting Gomer already. Shuckabee isn't like Gomer at all. He's much more like Festes.

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

Worse than religion, the US Supreme Court delivers a MAJOR BLOW to the working class !!!!
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 16, 2008 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate Fraud Lawsuits Restricted

It's bad enough that they'd be all for allowing corporations to sue individuals/customers as they "felt like it" but with corporate scandals getting worse, the corporatist back court sure has a way of doing what Osama bin Laden couldn't even accomplish.

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

» Federalist Society Swine one and all..! Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
the nicotine patch
Posted by: zorro on Jan 16, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cant fight religion or keep it out of politics, esp not whn when the people are religious--it would actually be democracy to serve their needs. The problem is the reason why so many Americans are fundamental Christians--people turn to myths, esp, ones that promise redemtion, renewal, glory and love after death, when they are desperate, hoples, filled with dread, deeply in debt and/or living hand to mouth, when they need to forgive themselves for some terrible misdeeds. People turn to christianity when have no faith in themselves, when they dislike themselves, when they are very very afraid and they need a daddy to protect them against the baddies trying to get them. When there is something sick inside them. The need the Bible to meditate and obssess on to keep thier minds focused so that they can keep the sickness inside them (murder, rape, child-molestation, drink, drugs, violence, corruption, greed...)from coming out. Without it, they do know right from wrong, and compasssion, and kindness--they must appease the monster. n atheist or agnostic,, or man of science, philosophy, or reason rarely needs the bible or anyhitng else to instruct him on goodness and right or wrong--they know it, they feel it, they've been taught it. Religions such as Christianity are like the nicotine patch, or booze, or drugs--its just another crutch. Its a face-lift--but the same terrible ugly person is still undernath. The bible has nothing to so with content--its a lie. The problem with america is poverty and fear and corrupt capitalism.

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

» RE: the nicotine patch Posted by: TheLimit
^above still bad grammar:hands cold
Posted by: zorro on Jan 16, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my hands are cold so i have lots of typos--there are some missing words above--if doesnt seem write--put a 'NOt' in in

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

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Gods internet prophets Posted by: GR8R G8R
» RE: Gods internet prophets Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Gods internet prophets Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Gods internet prophets Posted by: Intellect
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Definition
Posted by: jmooney on Jan 16, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Faith: Belief that is not based on proof.

So why is "faith" so important?

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

» RE: Definition Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Definition Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: Definition Posted by: factbased
» RE: Definition Posted by: TheLimit
Passing On Life's Responsibilities
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jan 16, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people are afraid of life, the unknowns of life and of life's responsibilities. They look to a higher power to take care of them and to make decisions for them. Some politicians and religions use this fear to position themselves as agents of an all knowing God and to gain power and resources. When the religious and the political zealots gain control of government we the people pay the price of turning our lives over to them. We can look at what has happened during the Bush administration. Bush proclaimed himself a man of faith who communicated with God regarding his policies. He took us to war based on lies and deception and we the people bear responsibility along with Bush for destroying that country and killing innocent civilians. We should look at each politician who tells us that we should trust him or her and their policies because of faith or religion and be very cynical.

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

I'm a Christian, you can trust me
Posted by: GR8R G8R on Jan 16, 2008 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been around for some three score and eleven years, mostly as a businessman. During that time I learned that when someone puts his/her arm around my shoulders and says "I am a Christian. You know that I wouldn't cheat you", the first thing I need to do is reach for my wallet pocket. Unfortunately, mine is very often the second hand reaching for my wallet.
My point is that when one is an honest, moral and trustworthy individual - whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, or whatever - he/she has no need to announce his/her connections with any organized religion. One can always tell, because actions are to words as the whole Earth is to one pothole.

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

» RE: I'm a Christian, you can trust me Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Organized Religion is a facade covering greed for wealth and power
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 16, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, this country always has formally recognized the separation of church and state:

First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems that the current administration would like to toss that amendment entirely, along with several others, doesn't it?

Look at the last remaining allies of the U.S. under BushCo: Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which view "the separation of church and state" as "destruction of their nations." These states are medieval throwbacks obsessed with state security and controlling their populations with an iron fist.

However, Saudi Arabia and Israel are also some of the more corrupt nation-states. Dirty money and shady arrangements with arms dealers and Russian mafia are common in Israel (as well as a refusal to acknowledge their nuclear program!). Noone needs to look very far to find greed and corruption in the Saudi dictatorship.

Not surprisingly, their leaders also hide behind the mantle of religious authority- the conservative orthodox rabbis of Israel and the conservative orthodox clerics of Saudi Arabia both play major roles in the governments of those nations.

The same was true throughout European history, which is why the drafters of the Constitution introduced separation of church and state. In Europe, organized religion had always been a route to wealth, power and political influence. The Papacy was run like a mafia family during the Borgia era, for example.

The candidates aren't going to be discussing any of that. They'll be fed the standard wet nappy questions about their "faith" - no one at Propaganda Inc. is going to ask them questions like:

"Would you urge our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, to adopt a formal separation of church and state?"

"What does the First Amendment mean to you, on a personal basis?"

"Do you think organized religion can be a threat to democratic principles?"

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

"We have got to find a way to overturn the US Constitution"
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jan 16, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We've got to find a way to take the conservative symbolic message of faith talk out of American politics."

No. No, we don't. Not unless, of course, you wish to destroy the intent of the First Amendment, which is as much about defending religion from politics as guarding politics from religion.

Back to Civics 101 for you!

Grade: F

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

» Seems like Posted by: marid
» RE: Seems like Posted by: Philip Newton
Smartest article I've read on Alternet in a while
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 16, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This really filled in a blank for me. I knew that the "masses," all of whom do not acutally go to church or particularly live strict religious lives, get seduced by religious rhetoric in times of anxiety and uncertainty--such as 9-11. And I had perhaps known it was because of the need to believe in an absolute, but I couldn't articulate it that way. Thanks!

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

Check SNOPES before posting FWD's
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 16, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, check SNOPES. This is not true about Obama.

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

Nice article
Posted by: jesme on Jan 16, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot better than most of the village-atheist ranting you usually find at AlterNet.

BTW, I'm a conservative Christian who's been horrified by some of Huckabee's comments. I've always sneered at those who say that Christian involvement in politics is a sign of an impending theocracy. Well, it's a lot harder to sneer when Huckabee says

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

He's talking about his support for an anti-abortion amendment. I'd support the amendment--I'm a long-time pro-lifer. But I support it because there are good reasons to allow states to restrict abortion, reasons that do not rest on religious dogma. I believe that while Christians have a right and duty to involve themselves in politics, we have no right to seek to enact laws for the purpose of imposing our religion on others. Clearly, Huckabee is crossing that line. Creepy.

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

» You might be right.... Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Nice article Posted by: anchoorite
» That's the Problem Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Nice article Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Nice article Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Nice article Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Nice article Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Nice article Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Nice article Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Nice article Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
liberalibrarian
Posted by: liberalibrarian on Jan 16, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bottom line: Moral relativism is the only way this country can survive. John Adams was a Unitarian. Look it up in "The Google" as founding fathers religious affiliation. Then read what today's Unitarian-Universalism is all about. Either in uua.org or religioustolerance.org--both very good sources. You will see from the Worldview of many if not most founding fathters were inclusive and Unitarian in their view of mankind (as it was called then)..the Constitution is adamant about keeping Separation of Church and State. It's really the only issue. Read about U.S. first Treaty with a "Mohammadan" country--and the treatise --a binding legal document had to say about it. That was written by Madison, also a Unitarian and Enlightenment kinda guy. There is a good article in, I believe the Journal of Early America. There are many citations to it.

"The distance between Church and State is the measure of Freedom."
Namaste, Liberalibarian

By the way--I thought it was an excellently written article. Well done.

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

» Taft was a Unitarian, too Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Taft was a Unitarian, too Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: liberalibrarian Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: liberalibrarian Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: liberalibrarian Posted by: EncinoM
Democracy 101
Posted by: jim_altman on Jan 16, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, therefore we have elections. In elections, we the people vote for the person who sounds most like what we want to hear. The candidate who appeals to the most people who vote, gets to represent them and the others, too. Hence, people who want to be elected practice the fine art of sounding just right. Right now, the thing most people want to hear is that you believe in something remotely similar to what they do. Whether or not any of the frontrunning candidates actually believe any of it is debatable. Probably, if 80% of the electorate embraced Santeria tomorrow, Huckabee and Romney would be sacrificing chickens by nightfall, but that's not going to happen. Neither is 80% of the electorate going to convert to atheism any time soon. So, get over it. Take heart, all you theocracy-phobes, those who lead may profess Jesus in their hearts, but they have emptied their souls to politics long ago. Christianity is not ruining republican government, republican governement is sucking the soul out of Christianity.

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

» Hear! Hear! Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Hear! Hear! Posted by: jim_altman
Dinesh D'Souza
Posted by: pcushniesr on Jan 16, 2008 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Visit http://www.dineshdsouza.com/, the website of Christian apologist and author Dinesh S'ouza, and you can watch a debate between D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens. Because I'm an atheist, you can call me biased, but some things are true whether I'm biased or not. D'Souza's pro God/religion arguments are tired and shopworn, having been refuted time and again over the years, decades, and even centuries. Yet he raises them again as if they were something new. But I'm straying from the point here. D'Souza wonders why non-believers and secularists can't just be quiet and unobtrusive in their non-belief and secularism. Why have we become so aggressive, raising such a ruckus? Can't we just sit down and shut up? he seems to be saying. Well, we'd be happy to IF the high-volume Christian right would do the same "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret..."
--Matthew 6:5-6
But no, they want to run roughshod over the country and the Constitution, seeking favors and influence, dominating and dictating. I'll end with this quote from an Alternet contributor: “We must refuse to be polite when politeness means capitulation to lies.”
-- Robert Jensen, Alternet Nov. 22, 2007

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

» RE: Dinesh D'Souza Posted by: reval
a fear driven society
Posted by: steven w on Jan 16, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our wonderful conservative powers that be, the corporations that are controlling our gov't, love to scare the shit outa people about everything. It is all over the media. What I do not understand is that people of faith have courage, but these radical fundies are afraid of everything! I believe in God and I believe that no matter what happens, He will take care of me. I do not believe that HE recruited me or anyone else to monitor, influence or change what is in the hearts and minds of others, or to make the gov't do it. Ya know, I think I smell fascism creeping in. A control through media and fear. It wouldn't be the first time. I just don't worry about things I am powerless over anymore. If I were, I would be afraid of the afraid!

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

» RE: a fear driven society Posted by: TheLimit
words of wisdom from Rob Boston
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 16, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Roman Catholic priest, Reverend David K. O’Rourke, said, “Every religious group in the United States is a minority group. Some may be unhappy with this status and wish they had official standing. I am not unhappy with it. The Catholic Church, the largest of these minorities, has prospered greatly in this country where we separate church and state.”

The Religious Right is still spreading misinformation about church-state separation and Rob Boston’s 2003 book, Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State, debunks it. This book uses everyday language to explain why the Religious Right is wrong about separation of church and state.

According to Boston, “We have a vibrant, multifaith religious society that, with the exception of a few fundamentalist Muslim states, is admired all over the globe. We have a degree of interfaith harmony unmatched in the world. Our government is legally secular, but our culture accommodates and welcomes a variety of religious voices. New faiths take root here without fear...

“Americans remain greatly interested in religion and things spiritual—unlike their counterparts in Western Europe, where religion is often state subsidized but of little interest to most people....Children are no longer forced to pray in school or read from religious texts against their will, yet they are free to engage in truly voluntary religious worship whenever they feel the need. The important task of imparting religious and philosophical training to youngsters is left where it always belonged—with each child’s parents or guardians...Some European nations have passed so-called anticult laws aimed at curbing the rights of unpopular new religions. Such laws would not be acceptable in the United States or permitted under the First Amendment.

“In a multifaith society such as the United States,” observes Boston, “a type of religious marketplace does exist. Religious groups that aggressively seek converts, such as the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are well aware that people in the United States are able and even willing to change their religious beliefs. To these groups, it’s well worth it to enter the marketplace and advertise their goods. Lots of people might buy them...

“Because the U.S. government is secular, religious groups are left to contend for members based solely on their own initiative. They create a free marketplace of religion that spurs competition and a vigorous religious life. This explains why the United States, which maintains church-state separation, retains a high degree of religiosity among its people.

“The more sophisticated and perceptive believers realize that the separation principle is a boon to their faith,” notes Boston. “They see danger in any attempt by government to decide which religion is true and which is false. They know that a faith that is in favor with the government today can be out of favor tomorrow. These believers are thankful for the free marketplace of religion and the secular state that makes it possible. They understand that the way to get new members is through persuasion, not government aid.”

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

Humanism
Posted by: anchoorite on Jan 16, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, the majority of us are Humanists.

We believe in the rights of man, every man. While these values are present in Christianity, they are also present in almost every religion and among atheists and agnostics.

To call them Christian values is a non-sense. Believing that Christ is the sun of God, doesn't have anything to do with moral values.

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

Dockside
Posted by: rtmyth on Jan 16, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fear, ignorance, superstition, and arrogance lead to religion. And some religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, lead to violence and mayhem. Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.

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

2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning.
Posted by: wawa on Jan 16, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Jesus said: "Pick up your cross and follow me."



He was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.


The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be; Nonviolent, a Peacemaker and one who did the will of the Father .



"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8


Jesus was NEVER a Christian!

Jesus was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:

Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.



What got Jesus crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces of his time, by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant.





e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

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

deb
Posted by: debmcd on Jan 16, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ahhhh. It's good to be alive here in the 13th century. I wonder when the guys from the inquisition are going to show up. Before or after the election.

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

Sweet Nothings
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Jan 16, 2008 9:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of this religious gobbledygook means nothing to me. It's like lovers lying in bed and a dissatisfied partner knows their lover is lying through their lips. It's like whispering sweet nothings, telling each other things which isn't likely to happen. An empty void.
Religion has no place in politics whatsoever. The last time I checked religion never ended a war or prevented people from killing one another! And listening to these candidates blather about how holy they are makes for good comedy. Where's John Lennon? Imagine if we could leave religious beliefs out of politics. They spend so much time talking about their faith they sound like priests preaching the gospel instead of trying to be "presidential." (Shaking my head)
What I want to know is can they find good-paying jobs for us, provide adequate and affordable health care, make housing more affordable and quit leading us into disastrous wars.
They also need to end the wasteful war on drugs and find a way to build better schools and pay teachers more. America has serious problems and it'll take more than prayer to lead us out of the capitalistic malaise we're in today.

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

Excellent Analysis & Perspective On American Politics
Posted by: sslyon on Jan 16, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!
Very impressive analysis of the current American political arena and one that would serve our democracy well to propagate much more widely.

Too many citizens have little more than a vague feeling that "something is wrong with the process" and this article points to a major aspect of the overall pathology. Ignore it at your peril.

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

Yes! Yes! Yes!
Posted by: gjohloc@hotmail.com on Jan 16, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the America I was taught about in Civics Class. That's The America I pledge allegiance to, not under God. My God, whether I have one or not, is nobody's business.

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

Jesus hates the environment
Posted by: thelostsailor on Jan 16, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is terrifying how many religious fanatics truly believe that the more connected church and state are, the better. Yet many will vote blindly to that candidate who has the best "I'm holier than thou speech" who adds some talk about being anti-abortion - you know that moral high ground that is too precious to take a life here, but ready to give away their step brother to kill Iraqis....

The real loser in this terrifying religious fundamentalism stranglehold on federal politics is the environment. For next to none of these religious folks rally for an ounce of environmental protection- somehow the soul with the help of Jesus, taken care of at church on Sunday, will take care of all problems in the hands of the wholesome strongly religious GOP candidate or Democratic clone....

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

Smarts
Posted by: willymack on Jan 16, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever notice how most people are reasonably intelligent and clear-thinking in a one-on-one situation, but become blithering idiots in a group setting such as a political rally or in a megachurch? It seems these same people aren't always very smart, doesn't it? That's the story of our collective intelligence, which appears to be somewhere between sub-moron and imbicile. Just look at what we've collectively done to ourselves and our Mother Earth, throughout history. Would ANY of us as individuals wish this gastly situation to happen?

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

» RE: Smarts Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: Smarts Posted by: J_Mo
Pragmatically, Protestant CHristanity produces
Posted by: billwald on Jan 16, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pragmatically, Protestant Christianity in most all times and places has produced the best economic conditions for the working class.

Utah is close to the bottom of the states when it comes to education and income despite their restrictive moral code.

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

Poor alternet.org.
Posted by: Kryptman40k on Jan 16, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am an atheist.

You should look at yourselves before you start throwing stones though.

Look what you're doing to democracy by not standing up for kucinich.

The democrats are just as bad as the republicans.

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

» RE: Poor alternet.org. Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Poor alternet.org. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Poor alternet.org. Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Poor alternet.org. Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Poor alternet.org. Posted by: EncinoM
Can we work together? Part 1.
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 16, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a rule, people tend to get their legitimate complaints about organized religion mixed up with their critique of belief in unseen
forces. It's understandable, after all - organized religions have done a lot of damage, particularly (and crucially, I think) when they
have allied themselves with state actors. If people want to take on the general concept of faith in the unseen or in deities of one kind
or another... well, good luck to them. For all of human history that we know about, over 90% of the population in every place has had some kind of faith. It's like saying you want potatoes to be not so... potatoey.

If people want to go after Christianity as an institution (while hopefully understanding that there really is almost no such thing
anymore, it's a loose confederation of warring tribes, not a monolithic structure capable of acting in concert), I say go for it. I have no loyalty to the church as such.

Most who go after religion hold up science as the alternative model of truth-seeking. But there is a real problem with science, and it's not the scientific method - it's the fact that
science as a practice doesn't really exist independently of social and political and economic forces, much as individual scientists may wish to think they work in a vacuum, and as much as I respect their work and in general their intellectual honesty... it's always paid for, informed by, and regulated in the service of other institutions. In this regard it's much like "religion," or "democracy." Scientists really don't want to hear this, nor do atheists in general, because if you take away faith, science is pretty much what's left to hang your hat on, unless you're TRULY brave, and ready to accept NO explanation. Now THERE'S a person I would like to have a cup of coffee with.

More relevant and important to our current situation as a culture, perhaps, is this: the left (or whatever you want to call the vague
association of people interested in economic and social justice) is totally shooting itself in the foot with statements which I have heard versions of all over the place: "Religion is a
neurological disorder." (As a side note, if that's science talking, I'm a monkey's uncle; and I guess most Native Americans and Hispanics and African-Americans are
neurologically impaired... there's classism and racism lurking back there) The left has ONLY ever succeeded in the US when religious and secular people collaborated. The wedge being driven between progressives by this kind of rhetoric is doing the bidding of the Karl
Roves and the Dick Cheneys far better than they ever could for themselves. It's a huge distraction from the arguments the left will
ultimately win... about equity, fairness, the environment, civil rights, restraint of corporate behavior.

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

Can we work together Part 2.
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 16, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most religious activity in the US (unlike, say, India or Afghanistan) is really quite boring and tame. It's focused on "personal growth" or other self-help formulae, or else it's tiny little efforts at mercy and justice in local communities, under the national radar. The idea that there is a looming threat of theocracy here that needs to be
countered with... well, with what? ranting books by Christopher Hitchens? a ban on religion? - yeah, THAT'S progressive... it's just inaccurate - a denial of the measurable facts, ironically. The religious right is in decline, not on the upswing, every study along
with experience in churches will tell you that... it's aging out, losing its influence gradually. Secondly, this posture of fear is
pretty insulting to people who actually live under theocracy. Can there truly be any comparison between the incredible diversity of
religious belief in the US (including non-belief accepted as private and normal - yes, I know presidential politics is twisted and craven in this area, as in many other ways, but no less so than in its fealty to pro-business and pro-trade rhetoric) and the authoritarian and violent situation in so many
parts of the world? We're so far from that terrible situation, in large part because of the violent religious experience of Europe up to the 1700's which informs our political and social values. I think the rhetoric here reflects a lack of perspective, and sometimes a lack of experience.

People are just speaking their minds, reflecting their experience, and I actually agree with much of what's said.
But the InterLeft in general I think is hung up on this issue because it's much easier than doing something, actually working for justice
locally, getting to know people outside their usual circle, getting outside their comfort zones. I was thrilled, in Charlottesville VA to sit at the Martin Luther King Performing Arts center with a mix of hundreds of
Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindis and secular humanists, who have formed a group called IMPACT, demanding a focus on affordable housing, better public transportation for people without cars, and more recently dental care for lower-income children. No one in that room, or at the many meetings that led up to it, demanded any kind of litmus test to see if we believed in the same bits of words on paper. We were all interested in one thing: action for people in trouble. Are the followers of Richard Dawkins, or whoever, ready to sit at the same table with us and work together to accomplish something, or are they more interested in being right? If the former, then we have some chance of resurrecting the change movements of the 60's and early 70's. If the latter, we're all in deep trouble.

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

What you been smokin'?
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 16, 2008 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Jews controlled everything you wouldn't have that
little born-again wannabee in the White House.

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

» RE: What you been smokin'? Posted by: yellow
» I wish... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Sick! Posted by: Philip Newton
Let the morons do it.
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 16, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hysterical revisionists never realize that the clergy in revolutionary times whole-heartedly endorsed the separation of chuch and state. Remember all the noise about how The Pilgrims and The Puritans came over here for "religious freedom" ? They were fleeing coutries which did have a government sponsored religion.

Maybe we should quit fighting it. Let the morons elect a minister. Every sect has another sect that they're sure are going straight to hell - what happens if one of them gets elected?

Maybe a Seventh Day Adventist would outlaw going to church on Sunday. Maybe a Baptist would outlaw Catholicism. Maybe Jehova's Witness would outlaw Christmas. Maybe a Mormon would outlaw coca-cola.

Let the morons live with another religion dictating how they practice their own beliefs for a few years. They'll be screaming for a return of the wall between church and state.

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

» RE: Let the morons do it. Posted by: Intellect
Article shallow and ineffective
Posted by: herbal on Jan 16, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion has always been a part of every US campaign, just like with military jingoism. There is no solution offered in this Alternet article that could possibly turn this much inertia of rhetoric around. Religion has always been exploited by politicians, even Hitler and Mussolini.

What has changed in US politics since Reagan is the 'Evangelical' fundamentalist spin that has been exploited by a nefarious anti-Christian Adnministration and Republican Party. Why has Giuliani unexpectedly crashed and burned? Because he is an obvious hypocrite, that's why; having dissembled and violated the most obvious sins of marital commission. But as long as candidates of both parties keep their 'faith' talk general, there are two codes that can be understood. There are code words that identify and recruit fundamentalist believers like ''family values" and graphics like fish symbols on autos. Then there are the mainline Christian verbal symbols that are general and part of mainstream faith, like "human rights" accompanied by graphics like crosses.

Readers must get over recoiling from fanaticism and educate themselves on the basic tenants of Chirstianity to realize that the basic message of Christ is humanitarian and a message of tolerance and love.

What mistake are the Fundamentalists making in their intolerance and judgementalism? It is the difference between JERRY FALWELL AND FATHER BERRIGAN OR CHRISTIAN PACIFISTS (Quaker, Mennonite, etc.) or your local mainline Presbyterian minister. There is only one way to disempower the TV charlatans and white Baptists; and that is to expose their cults by knowledge of the very territory they claim, read the Bible and get the message of the real historical Jesus. The fake Christians can be easily exposed.

Especially you agnostics and atheists are powerless, and need to arm yourselves by reading about the basis of your own morality; "loving your ememy" and being "your brother's keeper". This is the basis for exposing a whole lot of fecal apostacy on the part of the charlatan Christians and Christian Zionists. You can discover how the ethics of the FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE HERETICAL and rooted in the Puritain ethic and prosperity theology abberations. Get a basic theological understanding of the underlying conflict between Christian factions.

So Basic Lesson #1.

A. Real Christians emphasize the New Testament, the chronicles of the life and death of Jesus. (It is also true that Moslems accept Jesus as a prophet who is "the most beloved of Allah/God"; higher than Mohammad himself). Jesus brought a new message: tolerance ("we are not to judge one another") love God and all other people including the Roman oppressors, prostitutes, tax collectors and other collaborationists. Love your enemy. JESUS WAS A PACIFIST by His life's example.

B. The Anti-Christians (ersatz selfish 'christians') read and emphasize the Old Testament, 'an eye for an eye' stuff of Mosaic Law, the old message and obsolete relationship of man to God. They tend to be theocrats who want to legislate morals because they 'judge" their peers and misconstrue the message of Christ.

Basic Lesson #2

A) For the real message of Christ read the words directly attributed to him in 'The Sermon on the Mount.

B) Use the Old Tstament only for understanding context of what followed. Wikipedia the difference between Old Covenant and New Covenant.

Steal any Gideons Bible from a hotel, or google it up, and go to the first book of the New Testament, called the 'Gospel according to Matthew' and go to chapter 5 and read all the way to the end of Jesus' speech in chapter 8. That is the whole and and unvarnished message of Christ.

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

Life is Complex
Posted by: Libertine on Jan 16, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Adapting a philosophy of absolute morality in a dualistic right/wrong, yes/no fashion is maladaptive in that it ignores how complex human life is.

In our complex, diverse society, I think we're better off with a set of flexible ethical principles as guidelines that acknowledge and allow for shades of grey and varying situations.

So far as "controlling the passions" go, those who reduce the idea of "morality" to pertaining mainly to sex have a very limited view of ethics in my book. Morality, rather, is much wider, but stems from the basic principle of treating others as you would wish to be treated.

For myself, I don't adhere to traditional views of sexual morality, in that I'm not monogamous, and I engage frequently in casual sexual encounters. But that doesn't make me "immoral". I have my own sexual ethics that I believe are moral -- all sexual encounters must be consensual with someone old enough to give informed consent.

Those are my private beliefs and my actions are congruent with those beliefs. But I'd never try to impose them upon everyone. I believe that people have the right to determine their own ethics, just so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to believe and behave differently. And you don't need religion for that; just a sense of fair play and respect for others.

If the self-righteous moralists who care so much what goes on in other people's bedrooms gave as much care and attention to real moral issues such as poverty, health care, the environment, and so on, this country would be a much better place.

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

» Thanks for sharing, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
Religion continued
Posted by: herbal on Jan 16, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember that CHRISTIANITY IS AN INVENTION OF MAN. Don't make the mistake of judging Jesus by his followers. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Christianity of Obama, Huckabee, Paul, Mitt (way cult) and Kucinich is in the same ballpark! Clue: Aany thinking and sincere Christian President would immediately withdraw from all war and repudiate the foreign policy of intervention.

SO BE A PART OF THE REAL BATTLE. The resolution of politics can be found only on the battlefield of theology. The resolution of the World War of Religion is in the realization that we are only one people and we are our brother's keeper, equal in the eyes of God and told only to love and sharing one Creation that deserves our undying stewardship.

Fundamentalism is the fastest growing church in the world. There are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Moslems, fundamentalist Hindu, even fundamentalist Buddhists (Sri Lanka). It is the religion of Intolerance and all fundamentalists need to be confronted with the real tenants of their respective roots. Anthropologists and historians will tell you that all cultures and empires that have been underlain with a mythology of hate and fear have withered and fallen.

The author and Nation magazine need to get over their religious illiteracy before commenting in such an obtuse way. Individual theological education is the key and solution.

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

» Literacy is indeed the key Posted by: mr. joshua
» Dumbed Down Posted by: herbal
» RE: Dumbed 'Way Down Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: Dumbed 'Way Down Posted by: herbal
Who died and made America sheriff?
Posted by: atka on Jan 16, 2008 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton calls for "a bipartisan consensus to ensure our interests, increase our security and advance our values," acting out "our deeply-held desire to remake the world as it ought to be."
Sorry but it offends me that most people in this country believe strongly that the 'American way of life' is the best on Earth and that we have a right and obligation to remake everyone in our image. WTF? If something like 70-80% of Americans never travel outside their country, what the heck do they know about other nations' ways of life, their freedom, liberty, etc.? That is exactly what is wrong with religious influence over politics and policies! Religion gives people a a sense of moral righteousness that has been the cause of wars from get go. 'Got mit uns', said the Nazis (God with us, in translation).
I am with one of yesterday's posters based in Europe who said America used to be a role model and a country that was admired but not anymore. Now it makes me wanna puke!
The lives wasted, the trillions of $$ sent down the toilet, the lies, all perpetrated by our Decider who believes deeply (gut feeling) that he is doing the RIGHT thing, that GOD speaks to him and history will validate him. Puhleeeaase! Apocalypse now!

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

» Irony of Ron Paul Posted by: herbal
» Apocalypse now? Posted by: luckypuck
Religion Is Evil, Period
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 16, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion, as opposed to spirituality, is a very destructive force. For the purpose of this discussion, I do not consider Buddhism as taught by Siddhartha and his followers to be a religion, but instead a science of the mind.

First, religions teach that the body and spirit/soul are separate. This teaching is the opposite of spirituality, which teaches connections between all life, and it promotes environmental destruction and lack of caring about others in general; if your spirit/soul lives on after your body dies, what difference does it make what your body does? Western religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) are especially bad in this respect, because they teach that what's really important is what happens after you die, not while you're alive. This is one definition of pure evil in my book.

Second, religion depends on a non-reality-based belief system or systems. What happens to us after we die, for example, is unknowable, and no amount of ridiculous religious claims to the contrary will change that fact. Teaching lies to people in the name of religion or faith causes them to act in harmful ways (see above).

So, how do we remove religion from the political dialogue? Well, with our overused First Amendment, which by now has caused at least as much harm as good (protecting commercial speech and mandating that speech is money so that private campaign contributions cannot be limited, for example), it will be rather difficult without amending the Constitution. What we need is freedom FROM religion to take precedence over freedom of religion, and for it to be illegal for any political candidate to mention religion as a basis for proposing or doing anything in public office.

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

Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America
Posted by: rewassenich on Jan 16, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, there is the US Constitution requiring the separation of religion and state.

Second, the US is a country of immigrants, immigrants of many different religions.
But in the official US, from the very beginning, there is only one religion, Protestantism. Many immigrants were forced to change their religion if they wanted to succeed and have a good life.

The influence of religion in the US today can be compared to the influence of religion in Europe of the Middle Ages - religion taking control of life in America. Religion in the US is as fanatical as is Islam in the Middle East. The 'Bush' fanatics and the Iran/Syria/Saudi Arabia fanatics facing each other - what will be the outcome??
Religious fanaticism is the product of illiteracy - the average American is as uneducated as the average Arab (no child left behind)!!

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

» Illiteracy Posted by: luckypuck
An opinion from a religious guy
Posted by: warriornation on Jan 16, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a Muslim and I would like to say I'm moderate (I pray five times a day and all that stuff). As a religious person it saddens me to see that politicians are using religion for political reasons. Probably more than anything else, they are the reason a lot of people are pessimistic about religion in general. The worst part about it is that these politicians probably do not really believe in the doctrine they are promoting, but know that it will get them votes or instill fear in common people. The Prophet Mohammed would definitely not agree with the political situation that is going on the Middle East today (for those who don't know what is going on in the Middle East nowadays, basically it's a whole bunch of dictators who justify their power by referencing to religion or don't justify their power at all, but are still dictators). The corruption in countries such as Saudi Arabia is caused by religion. Now I'm certainly not saying that God is the blame for this, but I'm simply stating that the King in Saudi Arabia has managed to manipulate the masses by using religion. the people that are knowleadgable about religion know it's not right, but are passive.

As an Arab American, I know the true value of democracy just like the other readers of this website. I agree with most of you that religion should never mix with the government or politics. My point of writing this tidbit is to try to say don't blame God or the spiritual beliefs of people. I'm trying to say blame the politicians and the uneducated people that let themselves fall for the crap that the politicians are spitting out.

P.S. If you guys read my whole comment, I greatly appreciate it, whether you agree with me or not.

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

» Thanks for that. Posted by: morticia
» I agree, but I wonder. . . Posted by: luckypuck
» Good stuff. Posted by: luckypuck
» King Abdullah does . . . Posted by: luckypuck
Frank Herbert said it best "Fear is the mind-killer..."
Posted by: lissajayne on Jan 16, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religous fanaticism, extreme conservatism, extremes of any sort - all are a reaction to fear. Time to evolve, people. How are we behaving differently from chimps flinging poo at each other? We must embrace change, embrace plurality, allow for difference. Spirituality is not evil; people choose evil actions and justify them by citing religion or their particular brand of narrow-minded bullshit. I hereby pledge to refuse all identification of myself as liberal, left, pagan,feminist, or any other box that others put me in so they can define me within their comfort zone. I challenge you to do the same...

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

» Labels Posted by: luckypuck
Are we missing something?
Posted by: luckypuck on Jan 16, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't all our rhetoric, all our air-tight, reasoned logic off the fanatical Christians' topic? Isn't it clear that nothing we say or write will make the slightest difference? Isn't it equally clear their sole, entire, primary purpose is not to win a debate, but instead to change the law so as to establish Christianity as our one and only state religion?

They don't care if Jefferson was a deist, they don't care what the Treaty of Tripoli said, they wouldn't care if every member of the Constitutional Convention was a self-confessed atheist, Wiccan, Satanist, Catholic, Jew, serial murderer or drug pusher, they still would maintain that the Framers were totally devout Christians whose intention was to establish a Christian government and nation. . . . Okay, so I got a little overwrought there. Hopefully you got my point.

The irony is that while they are united in trying to establish Christianity as the one and only official state religion, they can't agree on which sect of Christianity would reign over the others and be supreme, so to speak. They each claim to be the only true religion and that all the others will go to hell unless they recant their laughably bogus religion and accept whatever form of Jesus worship the one doing the talking follows. They can’t agree on much of anything. If, God forbid . . . they ever did manage to establish a state religion, we'd all be cast into chaos while they fight over whose dogma would prevail.

The Pope just set ecumenism back several decades by declaring Catholicism as the only true religion. Orthodox Catholics don't know whether that includes them. Other religions have been claiming primacy for centuries. Baptists have been known to call Catholicism "the whore of Christendom," Calvinists think everyone other than Calvinists are satan's pawns, Episcopalians can't decide whether to follow Anglican's because they hate gays or stay American because homosexuality isn't so bad, and, I'm fairly certain, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Mormons, etc., etc., etc., all have their own opinions about the others too. I steer clear of Puritans, so I'm not sure what their take on the others is all about.

If this isn't enough to stiffen the resolve of we strict separationists, if this isn't enough to drive us to DO something other than endlessly debate the undebatable, then we deserve what we get.

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

» RE: Are we missing something? Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: Are we missing something? Posted by: Intellect
PS
Posted by: luckypuck on Jan 16, 2008 1:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just had another thought: What if this is a Christian Conservative STRATEGY? What if they are tying us up in nitpicking discussions, distracting us while they quietly change a law here, rewrite a rule there, bribe an official here, take over a school board there, threaten a representative with excommunication here, swiftboat a candidate there?

Oh, man. What sneaky buggers!!!

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

» RE: PS Posted by: illit
» I did Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: PS Posted by: Intellect
» RE: PS Posted by: luckypuck
Jesus Said:
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Jan 16, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's..!"

Jesus was the first to annunciate the Separation of Church and State and our Founding Fathers adopted this principle..!

These Heretics Zealots and Blasphemers like Huckabee and The Fundamentalists want to establish an American Taliban..!

Simple as that..

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

» RE: Jesus Said: Posted by: Dboy
» Simple, yes, and . . . Posted by: luckypuck
» Hit the wrong button Posted by: luckypuck
A contradiction in terms?
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jan 16, 2008 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doesn't democratic government, by definition, provide the governed with personal freedom? And isn't personal freedom inextricably linked with moral relativism? This is an essential socio-political concept that the great majority of the American electorate has always lacked the insight to realize. Americans prefer to be cossetted, like perpetual children, with the security blanket of absolutism.

The end result is that that this country, by placing its trust in the hands of those who make a show of putative "virtue," has come to bear a pretty fair resemblance to Calvin's Geneva. Why pretend to be "democratic" at all?

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

» Why indeed, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
Lots of viewpoints
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 16, 2008 3:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It does little good to say that one group is "Christian" and another group is not. Let's just clean up where everyone comes from.

Jesus of Nazareth was a mainstream rabbi who happened to live in radical times. He loved civil disobedience. He ran a school for healing and miracle working, and encouraged his disciples to exceed himself.

Social conservatives say they follow every word of the Bible. That's what they say. By and large, it's so easy to snipe at the way most of them mistreat the stranger, starve the widow and the orphan, and stone the adulteress. However, some of them personally go out and try to feed the hungry. Some are consistently pro-life when it comes to murdering prisoners, but the vast majority of Christians are pro-death on that issue. So there's different types of social conservatives. There's always a far end where Tinky-Winky is the Antichrist, but let's not overemphasize them.

You don't have to be a social conservative to follow Jesus. Most social conservatives might disagree, as they're a really intolerant bunch across the board.

High-level Christian politicians are by and large notoriously crooked. Thou shalt steal like Hades. They talk the talk and that's it. Conservative Christians by and large are notorious stooges for falling for the political Jeezus talk and no action again and again. However, the social conservatives always circle the wagons and broach no dissent of "their" guys for looting the national treasury, killing the Christians' sons for someone's money, or making a mockery of the Bible.

The nontheists don't personally see any sign of God. That's usually honest. Lately, political corruption has colonized scientific research, so nontheists need to watch their wallets too. Here, this new drug lowers cholesterol, sucker.

In between are a great number of people burnt out on the consistency of Christian hypocrisy, but not in the nontheist camp. That's honest. Some are members of liberal or mainstream religious denominations, but most are all alone outside of a small circle of friends.

Somehow all these people have to work together in a democracy to control the crooks. Are you going to work with certain individual conservative Christians that have partial brains, or are you going to label them all as nuts?

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

» Terrific suggestion, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
None of this is unique to the U.S....
Posted by: morticia on Jan 16, 2008 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it's that we were supposed to be the official exception.

Primitive human instincts are powerful and perennially assertive, expressing themselves within religion and without. These instincts will always find the course of least resistance and opportunistically look for a "vector" to "hitch" themselves to. Unfortunately, formal religion of any flavor tends by its very nature to be thoroughly "political," with its built-in internal hierarchy and its obsession with power and control. It resembles government too much for people to make a distinction. This is how it lends itself so handily to the expression of some of our worst instincts--like tribalism and authoritarianism--and why people can't separate "faith" and "government" in their minds and why the two are perpetually tangled up, to our (not just Americans, but the whole human race) great detriment. Without clear thinking and constant vigilance, without an Enlightenment or a Constitutional Convention every once in a while, we always, always backslide to this default position. It's a weakness of our species.

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

» yes, yes, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
Candidate values are best revealed in their records, not their professions of faith
Posted by: sanddollar on Jan 16, 2008 4:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious talk from politicians is cheap, worthless blather. Nothing they say on this topic should be given a shred of thought. Instead, each of them has a record which reveals where their values really lie.

Religious talk is fertile ground for manipulative hypocrites to exploit. The vocation with the highest rate of child molestation is priest. From Swaggart to Haggard, long before and since, and in countless smaller churches all across this land that never received much coverage, countless people who presented themselves as having a faith-based moral compass have been shown to be hypocrites. The born-again, war-mongering W, heavily supported by religious “value voters” because he said the right things about Jesus and his heart, has seriously damaged what was previously good about American and Christian values. Anyone making a show of being a “person of faith” immediately becomes value-suspect to me.

I am not anti-religious. My view is that we each have religious beliefs, whether we acknowledge them or not. I believe their framework informs each of us (including atheists, agnostics, and die-hard rationalists) who we think we are and what we think we’re doing here – they are the premises for the story in which we see ourselves participating (think of the director asking the actor, “What’s your motive?”). They are what we refer to in deciding to do this rather than that. For many (including most Christians, I’d say), the decision-level never rises above the “what’s in it for me alone” level. The difference we may recognize between “religion” and “spirituality” is among the consequences of what I consider our “religious beliefs.” Organized religion happens when these beliefs are manipulated for imperialistic purposes.

I understand why candidates pander to gullible voters this way, and it is sad commentary about us. For voters to raise questions of religious faith is tantamount to telling the candidates, “Go ahead, jerk me around, I’m a stupid, lazy, spiritually blind sob easily distracted by shiny objects.” Voters who take their answers seriously display gullibility on a par with those who take seriously anonymous emails from Nigeria requesting check-cashing help.

Each candidate’s record shows where their values really lie. Ask questions and let them explain their values in that context. The more we wade into the pool of religion and faith regarding candidate values, the more we are asking to be jerked around.

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

Direct Democracy
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 16, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The illusion of a deep and sincere faith movement in America has resulted from and is perpetuated by the management by terror campaign being conducted by the Bush administration with the eager cooperation of the media.

People only resort to supernatural hocus-pocus when every real world solution has either failed or is out of reach.

Direct Democracy will give the voting public a say in their government. People will believe in themselves.

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

» RE: Direct Democracy Posted by: EncinoM
Seneca said it best:
Posted by: doctorsquared on Jan 16, 2008 9:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

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

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jan 16, 2008 9:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious terrorism is right here in America. It's having to portray oneself as "having" a religion in order not to get persecuted...at least this is so in the primaries. How has this happened in America? Land of the free? Where is the free speech? Why should anyone have to say he has "faith" if that is not his belief. Why should I have to have a religion at all? Of course this government just proves that having religion and having morals can be mutually exclusive.

My faith is this. If there is a God, these scary people will be pushed underground again for at least as long as they've terrorized us....and that I hope will be for at least several decades, if we are to rebuild the Great Society and recover from their destructive and devisive ways. If this is modern day morality play, it is Sodom and Gomorrah - an orgy of greed, corruption, selfishness, and so on.

In an era where religion has become some sort of horrid focus, how is it possible that at the same time we have had the most appalling fascist and mercenary government seen in American history?

One more year to wait and then hope voters have come to their senses and will make a moral choice. The populists are the ones who really care about citizens. I don't know how religion got subverted from the other missions it has had such as the alleviation of poverty, etc., but it has been badly subverted and is in need of a reformulation. Well, we will see what the future brings and hope it is not more of the same. I'm putting my faith in that.

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

» What if . . . Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: What if . . . Posted by: CommonDreamer
» RE: What if . . . Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: What if . . . Posted by: luckypuck
» About memes Posted by: sanddollar
» RE: About memes Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: What if . . . Posted by: CommonDreamer
Dumbed Down
Posted by: herbal on Jan 17, 2008 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How embarrassing; I looked up Ira Chernus and indeed he holds a PhD in religion and has been an active anti-war advocate. I was fooled by the obvious dumbing down of a great subject; that of non-violence. Big difference, anti-war vs non-violence and I would guess that Dr. Chernus was not brought up Quaker or Mennonite. I will stand by my arguments and challenge Ira to do better. Non-Christian anti-war progressives need to be brought to a clearer understanding that their sense of decency and morality stems from Western Civilization that is Christian based. Further, the message of Christ has been diluted since the Roman Emperor Constantine converted the church to Roman militancy in year 312. It is time to take on the Fundie's apostacy head on by getting right into their pulpits and in their faces. There are not enough Ira Chernuses to do this. Do your homework.

Please read mega church pastor, Gregory Boyd's book, Myth of a Christian Nation, Zondervan for a great argument for separation of church and state. Also, read Alan Boesak's book Comfort and Protest : Reflections on the Apocalypse of John of Patmos for great insight and antidote to premilennialism of the Rapture and Christian Zionists.

Lament the exclusion from the canons of the 'Heretical gospels', the Gnostic writings about Jesus. It would be very interesting to people above like 'Religion is Evil.." person who says Siddhartha's Buddhism is not religious. Gospel of Thomas, and esp. the poetic and too short Gospel of Mary Magdalene for feminists, are great reading for peace keeping insights.

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

» You're right . . . Posted by: luckypuck
A little whiney?
Posted by: ultegratim on Jan 17, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article makes some valid points along the way. I agree that many times politicians are far from sincere when they make religious statements. I also agree that when these statements don't come from their actual convictions they are likely to say more than they should. When they are politically desperate they may truly conjure up fears and manipulate hopes. This has a lasting negative effect.
I have a harder time with the article going so far as to say a Democracy gets to choose its values whenever it wants to. We are citizens of earth. If we stop being compassionate and take up cold indifference won't we eventually stomp on others? The writer seems to hold that sexual morality should be purely individual. I agree that there is a lot of hypocrisy among religious people on this issue. The rhetoric often reflects this hypocrisy. Yet, wouldn't there be some boundaries? Shouldn't children be protected from sexual predators? Shouldn't everyone be protected from non-consensual sex?
And then there is the issue of justice in our land. The innocent should be protected and violent people should be restrained in some way.
My point is, I think almost everyone would agree that there are at least a few moral ideas that have some merit.
It seems like the article is flawed in one huge way. If people don't agree with any candidate's values, all they have to do is vote for someone else and encourage others to do so. So it ends up just being a rant against the values of the majority, which kind of undermines the main talking point of the article. Politicians will keep doing this forever. The only way around it is supporting other candidates more. The article is more than a little whiney.

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

» RE: A little whiney? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: A little whiney? Posted by: Bibsi
Policies based on Reason
Posted by: atheist-revolution on Jan 17, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Governmental policies based on an individual's beliefs is bad for this, or any country. They should be based on rational thought, public needs, and real ethical bias...not ones based on a 1500 year old book.

Atheists For a Free Society

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

» Yes they should, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
Shedding Superstition & Embracing Reason Empowers People
Posted by: Doug Indeap on Jan 17, 2008 6:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem of faith is larger than the risk it poses to electoral government. Faith burdens society in many ways other than what it does to electoral government. Apart from draining tax revenues, it subverts reason and science and leads people to adopt and pursue all manner of silly, harmful, or even dangerous ideas.

Even in the context to which he limits himself, Prof. Chernus's hopeful thought--that "[i]n itself, faith in politics poses no great danger to democracy"--is entirely dependent on his caveat--"as long as the debates are really about policies -- and religious values are translated into political values, articulated in ways that can be rationally debated by people who don't share them." To the extent that those championing their faith in the political arena don't play by those rules, faith itself poses a problem to democracy.

Prof. Chernus proposes a resolution seemingly aimed to get faith "off the hook." Premised on his preceding hopeful thought, he posits that "[t]he challenge is not to get religion out of politics," rather "[i]t's to get the quest for certitude out of politics." Accomplishing that in a society composed of individuals accustomed to basing decisions on faith, though, is problematic.

A more straight-forward and ultimately effective approach to empowering people would be to strive for a society in which the sway of superstition is reduced and decision-making is guided by reason and human understanding.

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

» RE: Okay, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: Okay, but . . . Posted by: Doug Indeap
» RE: But, but, but . . . Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: You're right . . . Posted by: luckypuck
To Intellect
Posted by: Bibsi on Jan 17, 2008 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I apologize. I was not replying to Intellect. My mistake.

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

AaronM
Posted by: amalsbury on Jan 18, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the article, that too many of our politicians use faith as a "business suite" to make their insides look good! But for those who are genuine followers of Christ, there is no separation. You see, true Christians have devoted every aspect of their life to Christ. Many say that they follow Christ, but do not yield everything to Him. The reason I bring this up is so that those who are not familiar with the Christian faith can see that for a "True Christian" there should not be a separation of church and state.

For a true Christian who believes in what the Bible says, God should still be the one governing the people. But only one things stands in the way of that, FREE WILL! The Jews didn't want God to govern them, they wanted to be like everyone else, so they got what they wish for. God finally said, "Give them a king then". And they paid the consequences for that.

For a Christian it is impossible to separate aspects of their life from their faith. We believe in integrity, and to completely follow Jesus that means not withholding any part of our life.

Please hear me out! I don't say this to try and push on others. The reason I explained this is to show why Christians find it impossible to separate government with their faith, that would be being FAKE! God has everything to do with their lives, and how they deal socially.

Christians who don't follow this do us an injustice, because they like to put on the name. Hope this helps make some sense to people.

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

» RE: AaronM Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: AaronM Posted by: amalsbury
"Adrift in a sea of moral chaos"
Posted by: Pegui Rose on Jan 18, 2008 11:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are people “adrift in a sea of moral chaos”?
Because they think democracy is something they inherited, a part of their personal assets, rights and protections that are guaranteed and given to them, rather than a capacity they exercise: the ability to govern themselves, individually and in community.
And just where in our current system does “the community gather to work for a better world”, with the legal power to act on their decisions?
If we are going to paint in broad strokes, the people of the US are in a moral crisis, grasping, searching, wanting an easy fix, because they are living within the lie, the system’s lie, and therefore they are both making it be that way and they are the victims.
And what is the big lie?
That life is about certainty and material satisfactions, that the system was created to serve life and the people, rather than its own perpetuation and imperialist impulses.

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

Republicans religious remarks violate the 1st amendment establishment clause of the US Constitution
Posted by: yellow on Jan 18, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any sort of proclaimation about America being a Christian Republic or about introducing relgious views, practices or teachings in public schools in effort to endoctrinate students religiously is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the US Constitution. If a student wants to pray in school or say grace before lunch in the school cafeteria that is acceptible on the grounds that it is being done as a purely private act and not as one orchestrated and sponsered by a public institution receiving tax dollars. If the teacher or some school official orchestrates it or if it is school policy than it is an illegal violation of the US Constitution's first amendment.

What is so difficult to grasp about this simple principle? It's the law!! The US first amendment's establishment clause was the first and most eloquent statement of the place of religion in a democratic society. It remains so today.

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

bikesnbach
Posted by: bikesnbach on Jan 22, 2008 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know what everyone is so excited about; priests have been stealing from honest citizens for 20,000+ years. When you put a human being between yourself and god, that human being starts to think he/she is god and acts accordingly.
Read "Elmer Gantry" by Sincair Lewis.
bikesnbach
denver

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

The Non-Separation Of Power
Posted by: spbreathnach on Feb 9, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHO OWNS DUBLIN’S PAEDO-FILES

America, the new world, was initially a refuge for Europeans fleeing the tyrany of Church/State religion. Much of this tyrany was reflected by the notion of the doctrine of the Separation of Powers. Men like Thomas Jefferson (in 1786) tried to enact laws protective of citizens against the inveitable push by religionists everywhere.

John F. Kennedy, echoing both Thomas Jefferson and Daniel O’Connell, carried on this traditional fear of religious inteference in State matters. One might refresh oneself with the clarity of Kennedy’s stance on the Separation of Church and State, especially in the present climate, where he invokes us to consider that ‘an act agasint one church is an act against all.’

http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=LAvHHTt2czU

John F. Kennedy’s notions would never be tolerated in most places around the world, least of all in the country of his origins. In the following current debate, it should be clear to anyone who is concered with this topic how dangerous it really is to allow any church to take over from the secular functions of the State. Where, however, one has a state -- as the Republic of Ireland -- which is so anaemic in the presence of the religious that it cannot bring itself to voice an opinon about the wretched levels of depravity to which the church has descended, one wonders what can be done. James Joyce ,who ran out of the place, fancied that 'Church-and-State' in Ireland went 'hand-in-glove'. And given the current debate on whether the Church should de jure hand over all files concerning the commission of crime by clerics, indicates how backward the so-called secular Republic actually is . It makes one wonder, given JFK's adamance about the separation of Church from State, how he ever got out of Ireland alive

SUMMARY: Cardinal Connell, ex-Archbishop of Dublin, seeks the help of the High Court in Dublin to prevent his successor, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, from handing out files relating to alleged paedophilia during his tenure. The question is: Is the State a secular entity or is it, as of old, owned by the Pope. On foot of documents the Donatio Constantini (circa 750--) and Laudabiliter (1155) Ireland was always owned as a Papal Fief, and despite the fact that the British were thrown out of IReland in 1922, there is nothing in the Irish Constitutions (1922 or 19370) that does anything but confirm the Papacy’s claim to ownership. So, can the very Catholic State really prosecute cases of ‘criminous clerks’ or should it be left to the Church?

(The Donatio Constantini, even though a thorough forgery, found its way into Canon Law and was used by the Papacy to make all kinds of claims, one of which was to the effect that Ireland was a Papal Fief. Laudabiliter was a Bull of Adrian IV granting Ireland on foot of the forgery to Henry 11 without the knowledge or consent of the Gaelic pagans then inhabiting Ireland, and , by the way, giving birth to a thousand-year war between the Iriish and the English.)

Take for instance the notion that in our written constitution we have a 'Separation of Powers'. It has been my experience that no such things exist except in places where it does not matter.

In the present case , it is not generally realised that pre-Reformation relations exist between the Churuch and the State --especially with respect to 'criminous clergy'!

It is but one indication of the church's powers over the secular powers
The Irish State has never had a Jefferson or a Kennedy and has never asserted its hegemony on behalf of the people over the RC Church.

What Cardinal Connell is calling into question is whether the Irish Church/State ensemble is capable of protecting children from clerical paedophiles?

Seamus Breathnach

www.irish-criminology.com

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