October 05, 2007 03:59 PM
"Christian Nation" mumbo jumbo cleared up once and for all.
Well, one can hope. Garry Wills and I are both believing Christians, though certain fundamentalists would argue that, since Wills is Catholic and I'm Quaker, we don't count. His interview on Fresh Air (NPR) Thursday was the strongest and most lucid argument FOR the separation of Church and State I've ever heard: separation of Church and State ENCOURAGES religious practice among individuals, rather than stymies it.
In a new book about the constitutional separation of church and state, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Garry Wills insists that that separation was meant as "the great protector of religion, not its enemy."
The entire interview is about twenty-five minutes long and well worth the listen.
frist? if so, does that mean i get to go to heaven?
Christian Fundamentalism is what is hurting Christianity. The so called Big-Box church's, they're kind of like the Wall-Mart of Church's and the goods just as cheap.
There is no heaven, but maybe reincarnation? Bush will get cut in half next life by someone digging in their garden.
actually, no reincarnation either, I was just joshing.
none the less, bush will get cut in two in the garden.
Maybe the good folks at ORU can help in this matter - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8S38PR80
James Madison argued for the separation of church and state by explaining that both religion and government would exist in "greater purity" the less they are mixed together. Indeed, there is a fascinating paradox in the western world. Countries with established religions have less religious populations. The U.S. has one of the most devout populations among western, industrialized democracies.
Karen @ 6:
and closing in on being the rottenest
Thanks for the link, Ricky Bones (#5). No wonder these people think that they should be running the country: They have so much in common with the kleptocrats who already do!
Throughout the 20th century, when religion has been completely separated from govermnment the result has been:
1. Nazi Germany
2. Communism
3. Fascism
4. France
Not a good track record.
Maybe people should see how a theocracy works out for the people of Saudi Arabia.
Ricky Bones @ 5:
Thanks, that was a breath of fresh air....I hope the media keeps this up ... what media was this anyway?
Randy @ 9:
HUH??????
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 11:
AP
There is reincarnation...
Notice the branches of Christianity that demonize other religions the most often accuse other types of Christians as being "non-Christian"... it should really be no surprise.
Ricky Bones @ 13:
I'd like to see them lose their tax exempt status first, then prosecuted second.
In the Southern Baptist Church, where I grew up, I was told to convert anyone I could to my religion.
i have thought long and hard about this !but ive made up my mind , the lord said if your hand offends you cut it off, well dear god my penis no longer is uplifting for me, as such it must offend me because it pisses me off , therefore tonight ill whack it off for the last time!!!praise be to jebus!
Karen @ 6:
... and yet on a per capita basis, the US is one of the industrialized nations that spends less on foreign aid, on the same per capita basis is one of the nations that donates least to humanitarian charities. On the same set of industrialized nations the US spends more of its budget distribution on weapons of mass destruction, and of its budget spends a relative poor (again compared to other industrialized nations) percentage on welfare.
So I think that you meant that the US has one of the most hypocritical populations among the Western industrialized world. If they are really that devout, then they must be really fucking idiots, which part of "Thou shalt not kill, thous shalt help thy neighbour, blessed are the meek, and it will be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of heaven" do they not understand/get?
I think that a big portion of this population is made up of selfish pricks and assholes (take your pick), who use a perverted version of Christianity to justify their bullshit and go to sleep with a clean conscience that their bullshit is somehow justified by some sort of god. The fact that you see a lot of these so called preachers dressed to the 9s in an Armani suit while talking about the gospel tells me that somehow the cognitive dissonance of a lot of "Christians" in this country is deafening. Christianity in this country has been perverted into some sort of weird compendium of charlatans and motivational speaking.
Anyone with half a brain knows it was set up to keep the government from interfering in religion. I guess tha's why the conservatives don't get it.
Randy @ 9:
The only one that is correct on that list is #2. Hitler often entwined Christianity with Nazism (he does it a lot in Mein Kampf), and while Mussolini was officially an atheist, he did nothing to shut down the churches, and even got baptized in the Catholic Church in order to appease the Catholic majority of Italy. And while France doesn't have an official religion, I can't think of anything they did to actively separate church and state.
I always thought Revelations said the anti-Christ would fool the believers, not the non-believers. Why is this always lost on the fundies?
Not that I believe G.W.'s the anti-Christ...
He's just a regular old @$$#0le who happens to have been born into privilege.
Randy @ 9:
Moran Alert! Moran Alert!
Blue Buddha @ 21:
Don't try and muddy the issue with rational discourse dude....
Randy @ 9:
Yeah, this tired argument will never go away no matter how many times it's discredited. People dead-set on believing that separation of church and state equals established atheism or that atheism leads to regimes like those quoted above are going to believe it no matter what. I guess that's why they call it faith.
The Nazis did not separate church and state. First of all, their goal was to kill all the Jews in the world, so basic religious freedom was not exactly on their list of priorities. Moreover, Hitler invoked his Catholicism throughout his rise to power and his reign over Germany. He justified his actions as the actions of a Christian Soldier. Not to mention that the Nazis also wanted to establish this weird neo-paganism once their conquests were completed.
Communism, as we've experienced it, was officially atheistic, and the Soviet Union did claim to separate church and state. But frankly, all it did was substitute theistic dogma for Marxist/Leninist dogma. And like any dogma, when questioned, it felt threatened, and had to kill of anyone who dared to disagree. Perhaps it did separate "church" and state, but it certainly didn't separate dogma and state, and for all practical purposes, the effects of the mixture are the same: Tyranny over those who believe differently from the established order.
Fascism has nothing to do with the separation of church and state any more than democracy does. They're both just forms of government. Each can use the church for its tyranny, and each has.
And France . . . . uh . . . um . . . er . . . what the fuck?
Throughout the 20th century, when religion has been completely separated from govermnment the result has been:
1. Nazi Germany
2. Communism
3. Fascism
4. France
Not a good track record.
_____________________________________
WTF he is talking about. Why don't you to move to Iran? There the government consist of priest or muhlas if you will. Is that what you want? Look at the religious leaders we got. Are you impressed? I'm not! Sooner or later one of them is a pervert with a thousand excuses when is caught. Come on move to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia. There are plenty of places where you can be happy forever after.
Blue Buddha @ 21:
Actually #2 doesn't fit either. Communism as it has been realized in the past REPLACED religion with the state's dogmatic ideologies and authoritarianism. And both dogma and authoritarianism is what most official religions have in abundance So technically they created a non-theological state centered religion and got rid of all others.
Randy @ 9:
You had to count fascism twice to make your list long enough? Incidentally there is nothing in the tenets of Fascism that forces the separation of religion and government. German fascism did not enforce separation of church and state at all, it just did not pick a specific flavour of Christianism due to the Protestant-Catholic division among Northern-Southern German states. In Italy and Spain, Fascism was not only embedded into the government. But in Spain specifically, Franco prided himself of being more Catholic than the pope, Catholicism was the official religion of the state, not only that but non-catholic religions were for the most part banned and prosecuted.
And BTW, until recently France had quite the Christian foundation in its government.
... if we want to play that game though, when religion was part of the official government, we have had:
All the classical empires and the merry reign of "fun," the decline of Rome, the dark ages, the crusades, the slaughtering of natives in Africa, Asia, and America, the 100 year war, the inquisition, the witch hunts, the Armenian holocaust by the Otoman empire, the fun and games that has been modern day middle East. Israel, Arabia Saudi, Iran, the rest of the Maggreb countries, the series of conflicts between India and Pakistan, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
So I don't know if you were just trying to be ironic/sarcastic in your comment, or you really are that ignorant.
Ricky Bones @ 17:
One of the more bizzare tales I heard about growing up Southern Baptist was by this one guy who grew up in the foothills of Kentucky in the mid to late 60's.
When he got out of high school, he went to a local lumber yard to get some lumber for a home project for his parents. After picking out his lumber, he asked a "good ol' boy" at the yard to cut some of it. While the good ol' boy was cutting with a handsaw, he asked in a friendly banter, "So now that you're out of high school what are you going to do?"
He replied, "I'm going to attend [such and such] seminary college." The good ol' boy got a threatening look in his eye, and rattled his saw at him and said, "Well, while you're wasting your time at school, you could be saving souls in the name of Jesus!"
Ricky Bones@17
I think I missed something!
Here in NYC, when the Jeebus people approach me on the subway, I tell them to get off the train, go to the nearest bar they find, get plastered, and get laid. Usually, they move on.
Blue Buddha @ 29:
Ignorance is bliss, ... but only for the ignorant ... we have to suffer their ignorance.
There's both GOOD NEWS and BAD NEWS FOR THE EVANGELICALS
Blue Buddha @ 21:
I'm not sure I would include #2 on that list either. I can think of several early US Christian populations that practiced a brand of communism for the good of the community as a whole. The Marxist-Leninist brand of Communism, however, was officially atheist.
The part of Communism which frightens the hell out of these Kleptocratic Klowns, however, is the portion of the M/L Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
Don Davis @ 33:
Very funny Don, That was good for a few chuckles.
Dr. Who @ 19:
Indeed.
No, I meant what I said. There's a weird paradox, at least in the western world, as we've experienced it. With the separation of church and state, we end up with religious people. In countries with established religions, we have less religious people.
This is an impossibility? Idiocy and devoutness are mutually exclusive? Please. We have a "free market" of sorts with religion in our country. And a multiplicity of interpretations on the predominant religion, Christianity. And more devout people, devoted to their own particular version of their faith.
Heh, well, they have their own interpretations. By the way, Thou Shalt Not Kill, was actually Thou Shalt Not Murder, and under the original meaning, it wasn't murder to kill someone of a different (read: wrong) faith. And the Christian Bible is loaded with enough contradictions and evils to justify everything from slavery to witch-burning to stoning gay people or people who work on the sabbath.
Just because folks are not devoted to your particular version of Christianity doesn't mean they're not devout.
I don't disagree. Though I'm not necessarily sure their version of Christianity is the "perverted" one. The southern slaveholders seemed to be on the winning side of the theological debate in the 19th Century.
And the weird paradox stands. This is what happened in the U.S. with our free market of religions. In liberal democracies with established religions, the populations often tire of the dogma, and grow into secular societies.
Don't misunderstand me. I'll fight tooth and nail for the separation of church and state. I'm not advocating abolishing it. I treasure it. But I would personally rather live in a secular society.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 35:
My Fav::
The Good News: Your Mayor refuses to perform gay marriage ceremonies.
The Bad News: Your Mayor is found in a theater balcony with a young boy.
Ricky Bones @ 17:
I attended a Baptist church and school in Miami and was sent to Miami Beach to "convert Jews." An elderly jewish woman handed the pamphlet I gave her back to me along with a tongue lashing I would never forget.
Randy @ 9:
That's funny. The Catholic Church supported the Nazis.
Dr. Who @ 19:
Just a point of correction here, out of interest. When the Bible was translated into Latin from the Greek, the "translators" used "Kamelos" instead of "Kamilos". Kamelos is Camel, Kamilos is rope, so it SHOULD read "it is easier for a ROPE to pass through the eye of a needle"...
What other things got mis-translated, either by accident OR design, hmmmmm?
xoites defends Constitution @ 39:
POPE Pius XII actually, then he apologized before he died.
garcia @ 26:
The connection between kicking god out of the public square and these terrible governments is a lack of respect for individual dignity.
If public policy were motivated by the idea that we're all children of a loving god, we would emphasize that our rights come from our Creator, and therefore do a better job at protecting individual dignity, individual rights, and individual responsibility.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 41:
Thank you for the clarification. :)
Randy @ 42:
That wont fly for most .... too deep most of the desenters here just come in, make a stupid remark and then giggle as they watch people respond.
believing in god is red state
believing in god is a mental defect
believing in god is killing us
believing in god is a product
believing in god is marketed
believing in god is so easy
Anyone with half a brain knows it was set up to keep the government from interfering in religion. I guess tha’s why the conservatives don’t get it.
I'lll stand in as the other half... The seperation of church and state was designed to keep religion out of the states affairs.
Randy @ 42:
Ehh, sure. I suppose. Can we consider "nature" to be the "creator?" That's what many of the founders believed. Personally, I don't think we need a "creator" concept at all for the sense of individual rights and dignity.
And hey, I wouldn't have a problem replacing the idiotic pledge of allegiance with the Declaration of Indpendence's
I'd be fine with kids reciting that each morning, if it would satisfy folks.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 37:
Great thanks, Bob. Btw, what's the status of gay rights in Northern Thailand?
America was not set up to be a "Christian" nation. It was set up to be a free nation that recognized all practices or none at all.
The main exception was historically charities were run by religions so in some cases you had to accept their teachings or be preached to by them before you could accept their help, there being no welfare state as such.
The problem with being a Christian nation is how do you define that status? Wars had been fought for close to a thousand years over that very definition and practices. In the Cromwellian wars, you actually had Protestant against Protestant fighting.
I called my cable company recently to complain about the increase in religious programming and was told that we are a "Christian Nation" and to expect even more. I wonder what is going on.
DUBAI - Dubai's influential police chief has said Western powers should be warned that their relations with Gulf Arab states would suffer if they launch a military strike on Iran over its nuclear programme.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=22546
Quakers should know. When the puritans came over here, it wasn't for "religious freedom" as we were taught. It was for the freedom to impose their religion on others. They weren't allowed to do that back home, so they came here to escape the "religious persecution" of not being able to persecute. They ficed that when they got here. The puritans had a particular distaste for Quakers, and made it illegal to be a Quaker in Massachusetts, punishable by death. They meant it - they burned people at the stake who were guilty of being Quakers. The Quakers finally found refuge in PA.
Personally as an atheist it all seems very silly to me, but there you go.
47 Karen
One thing I always found interesting about that quote from the Declaration, "...endowed by their creator..." is the use of the terms THEIR creator and not OUR creator. It implies a distinction being made. For some people they take an entirely naturalistic view that their creators were their parents.
Another thing I found interesting is the so called strict constructionists view of the US Constitution seems to dovetail with those who are strict believers in the exact phrasing of the scripture. It's a form of secular sola scriptura, and makes no room for tradition and reason.
ysbaddaden @ 49:
Yep. Recognition of that state of affairs is what led to disestablishmentarianism. None of the individual states or people in them wanted to be oppressed by state or religion with a larger population. They reached a point of rationality, saying, hey, look, we've all experienced first hand the devastation of religious intolerance. How 'bout we all have an equal right to exist, and leave one another alone?
And indeed, the founding generation felt much closer to religious tyranny than we do. They experienced it. Perhaps that accounts for the paradox of the disestablished nation and the religious population. People in Europe feel much closer to tyranny at the moment. It wasn't that long ago for many of them.
Jesus white lol.
Chances are he looked more like Corporal Klinger than George Bush.
Randy @ 42:
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Randy@42
If public policy were motivated by the idea that we’re all children of a loving god, we would emphasize that our rights come from our Creator, and therefore do a better job at protecting individual dignity, individual rights, and individual responsibility.
_______________________________________________
This kind of talk scare the shit out me. As you can see, we are not doing a good job at:
protecting individual dignity
individual rights
and individual responsibility
anywhere in the world. Wherever we put our fingers in, somebody dies. We are killing hundreds of loving children in the name of the loving God you are talking about. Some how, the connection gets interrupted. We are nothing but hypocrites. Religion is padded by the millions of dollars they collect in every church. Eric Prince, super Catholic! Well he sure is spreading his love for the children of God by fucking everybody in Irak and ransaking the Treasury with help of Boss.
You nothing than naive blind human being.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"so they came here to escape the “religious persecution” of not being able to persecute. "
That's a great take on it actually. The seperation by the founders recognized this and intelligently placed the seperation of church and state in to keep the religion(s) from interfering with the state.
And this country was not founded as, or to be, a "Christian nation". It soon became clear, however, that the peaceful peoples that were here before the ships landed (Indians) would have to be murdered by the so called "good Christian" folk in order to appease their wrathful blood hungry Christian god.
Craig,
Silly, although it does have that a bit, is the understatement of the day. It is inhuman, repugnant, murderous and insane.
Don Davis @ 48:
Gays and Transexuals are not look down on too much. Transexuals are looked at as special "ladies" but no one ever treats them with disdain.
right now, on Ring of Fire / AirAmericaRadio:
Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, joins us to talk about the Pentagon's secret support of the right-wing fanatical group called the "Christian Embassy".
http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
this guy's story is also scary... "they're everywhere! they're everywhere!"
Ring of Fire will rebroadcast tomorrow evening... also podcasts...
http://ringoffireradio.com/
54 Karen
In our Founding Father's day, the British Parliament had it as a rule that Jews and athiests could not serve in Parliament. They gradually relaxed that, so those voted in would be allowed to take their seats on one day when there was a relaxation of the rules. I think Jews were allowed by 1860, so one of Britains greatest Prime Ministers was the Jewish Disreali during the Victorian Era. To this day sovreigns of Britain must swear upon their coronation that they don't believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, a holdover from the Glorious Revolution between the Catholic King James II and William III of Orange.
Additionally at the same time the dissident Christians, those who refused to swear to a belief in the 39 articles of Anglican belief were not allowed into universities like Oxford and Cambridge. These groups included the Church of Scotland (Presbyterians), Baptists, Methodists. Unitarians, Quakers etc. There are a few more but my memory is faltering. This meant their taxes were supporting universities they could not attend, thus closing off many professions to them. They ended up opening their own universities in Scotland, and became known for the practicality of their education. They were particularly known as the engineers. I had one History of Technology instructors say in a lecture, that to this day it's no coincidence that the TV show Star Trek had a very Scottish engineer.
So in other words religions could be seen as states having their own rights, but not over each other, and none of the federal government, where in the late 19th century in Reynolds v US (1878) the Supreme Court said they can't regulate religious belief, but they can regulate behavior no matter what claims of religious freedom are made. The Supreme Court basically reaffirmed that later in Prince v Massachusetts (1944) and even added the caveat that when children are involved the government's interests increase.
ysbaddaden @ 53:
Hmm. I suppose. That could just be the result of Jefferson's using the standard grammar he was taught. Not to mention, the end of the Declaration reads:
Although the line has a funny history. At the beginning of the Declaration, Jefferson speaks of the rights entitled to people by "Nature" and "Nature's God." Nature's God was a largely Jeffersonian construct, and many, knowing that Jefferson was largely agnostic (deist at most in his beliefs, atheist at least), were unsatisfied. One of the more religious members of the Continental Congress moved to amend the document, at the very least, to add in at the end that they were relying on "Divine Providence" to see them through the war they knew would inevitably follow. Jefferson's response to this motion was essentially, "Whatever." He (and other supporters of the Declaration as written) let the amendment stand, figuring it made very little difference in the grand scheme of things. :)
Heh, there are very few genuine "strict constructionists" on the bench. That's a good thing. Strict construction is nonsense. But most people who invoke it just think their personal interpretation of the law conforms to strict construction. If you really want to see strict or narrow construction, check out Judge Richard Posner.
As for methods of interpretation, I'm a textualist. A lot like Scalia (come on, now, hear me out before you kill me). I part ways with Scalia on relying on cultural tradition when a law or Constitutional phrase is vague or ambiguous, but I agree that laws should not be interpreted either strictly or loosely, but reasonably. I actually use Scalia's method a lot, though I come to staggeringly different conclusions than he does -- but I think his prejudices get in the way of his otherwise brilliant reasoning.
In any case, I thought you might find it interesting that Scalia would agree with you, quite explicitly, that strict construction makes no room for tradition or reason. ;)
Karen @ 36:
Maybe it is due to the human trait of always wanting what we can not have? :-) Or maybe the perception that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
It goes with the old adage than in order to make something more desirable, you just have to outlaw it.
Bob-in-Northern-Thailand @ 60:
Some people say that it doesn't matter what color skin Jesus was, it only matters what he stood for. That's all okay to think if you want, but it does matter what color of skin Jesus had if one is to truly study the foundations of "Christianity" or do a thorough assessment of the man who was supposadly the son of God. Those that say this (white people) when one points out that the original text in the bible says that "Jesus was a wooly haired man with bronze skin." take the fall back position because it wrangles thier sensibilities and gives a whole new context to the "son of God" to think or imagine that he was dark skinned. -Just another of the many reasons that a majority of the people of this country are so terrible with geography.- ;>)
ysbaddaden @ 62:
Yep. And I find it fascinating that Britain's population is far more secular than ours. And their attitude towards secularism and atheism is far more tolerant and respectful than ours.
Yep again, though I didn't know that about Scottie. Interesting then that he'd be the one "beaming them up?" :)
Yeah. Though I find the law in this area very wishy washy and useless as a guide. I mean, it doesn't clarify much to say that behavior can be regulated no matter what claims of religious freedom is made as long as you're not regulating belief. When Mormons protested that laws against polygamy violated their religious freedom, the Court said essentially that they are entitled to religious freedom, but that they're not allowed to break the law. Thus, the laws against polygamy would stand. What? Isn't the whole point of religious freedom that one can practice his religion without interference by the law?
Frankly, our jurisprudence hasn't come up with very good articulations of American liberty in this regard. That's why we end up with idiotic decisions that uphold outlawing vibrators as long as the state reasonably believes people's morals are adversely affected.
katy @ 61:
Interesting thing is Mike is a Methodist and RFK (or course) is a Catholic.
“the great protector of religion, not its enemy.”
ABSOLUTELY!!!! And that's why the seperation of church and state is one of the things I'd fight for!
Religion = Control, scourge, blight, rape, delusion, exclusion, cast, mental illness, no burden of proof, denial, war, false righteousness, excuse for mistakes...... The list goes on and on and on! I feel better already!
bilhelm-X @ 70:
And how would you describe Martin Luther King?
Regulations on behavior are based upon their intent being to regulate the behavior of all, and not some target group.
However, the Supreme Court constantly says their job does not entail mind reading and they don't want to speculate upon the intents of the legislators if it is not otherwise clear in the language of the law.
It's like in Bush v Gore they used the XIV amendment to protect the vote of a minority to basically disenfrachise those whose votes wouldn't be counted due to the halting of the recount.
At least one of the authors of the RICO statute is still alive, and resentful that it's being used to limit political protests.
CD @ 71:
Um, he's dead.. I believe what I see, thanks, and I have seen enough of religion to "know the score". Or does George Bush know better?
Oh yes, and it was mainstream Protestants who really ran with the wording of the wall of seperation between Church and State, which was referrred to explicitely in Reynolds v United States. During the late 19th early 20th centuries when Catholics got tired of being referred to as supersititious, papists etc., and Jews got tired of being referred to as Christ-killers in public school textbooks, they started their own private schooling system. When they asked for public money to support their new schools, the Protestant mainstream said, "Oh no, because of the Seperation of Church and State, you must use our public schools or pay for your own."
I forget the exact wording of the scripture, but a favorite one of Clayton Moore's Lone Ranger was of a man who builds a pit only to fall into it themselves.
bilhelm-X @ 73:
How about Rev. Lennox Yearwood?
believing in god is red state
believing in god is a mental defect
believing in god is killing us
believing in god is a product
believing in god is marketed
believing in god is so easy
Religion = Control, scourge, blight, rape, delusion, exclusion, cast, mental illness, no burden of proof, denial, war, false righteousness, excuse for mistakes…… The list goes on and on and on! I feel better already!
That's what I like so much about commenters on "progressive" blogs. They are so open-minded.
ysbaddaden @ 72:
And therein lies the problem of prioritizing equality over liberty in our jurisprudence. Who cares what the intent of the legislature is? Congress shall pass no law . . . abridging the free exercise [of religion]. Do laws against polygamy prevent people whose religion allows or mandates polygamy from exercising their religion? Of course they do. It's a question of liberty, not equality.
Though all people are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. So the law should not only allow those religious people to practice polygamy while preventing everyone else from doing so. The law itself should not apply to anyone.
But we do everything backwards in American jurisprudence. If you the citizen, claim to have a liberty interest, the court will put the burden on you the citizen to prove that that liberty is a "fundamental right," whatever that means. You can say, well, religious freedom is fundamental. And then they'll possibly look at whether your religion is being discriminated against.
As a result, we get a nonsensical legal framework under which it's illegal to smoke pot ---- unless you can demonstrate that you are genuinely doing so for religious reasons, as part of a minority religion.
How 'bout we just restore the revolution? Everyone has an equal right to pursue happiness. Governments are instituted to secure such rights. Can government make pot-smoking illegal? No. It infringes on the right to pursue happiness, and making it illegal does not serve to protect the equal rights of all. Simple.
Ugh, don't get me started on Bush v. Gore. ;)
QuakerDave @ 76:
I'm not sure how you're using the term "open-minded," especially when you're classifying "commenters" on "'progressive' blogs" by the nature of one isolated comment.
QuakerDave @ 76:
They can be as narrow minded as Limbaugh fans on some topics.
Grandma Jefferson @ 40:
It is my understanding that the bible was written by commitee, in fact Chrisitanism as a whole is designed by committee. Centuries after the fact, a bunch of people with vented interests decided what the tenets of Christianity were, and for that I believe that it should be taken with a grain of salt. What is true for the Gospel is also true for the old testament.
The bible is written by people whose interests "magically" seem to coincide with God's interest at that specific point in time. If you take a book like Leviticus, you will find that the slew of stupid and inconsistent laws in that book coincide with the interest of the powerful "lobbies" in Israel at the time. For example, if you mixed fabrics in a piece of clothing, it was supposed to be unholy as God intended each element to be separated. Now, why would god give a flying fuck about mixing fabrics? Well, it turned out that some Israeli manufacturers came from Canaanite tradition, and did not posses the technology to compete with some of the mixed fabrics coming from other regions.
So god comes to their rescue! Interestingly... later on, God magically made exceptions to the rule. Girdles made of mixed gold/linen or cotton material seemed to be highly desirable by priests, and "voila" God made an exception once the Israeli manufacturers figured out how to make them -- to maintain the monopoly they made it sure that the fabric had to be "sanctioned" under a specific set of rules that only those manufacturers could meet.
Other examples, where the restriction of having a single crop per discrete piece of land owned by a specific individual. Small land owners had one or two pieces of land at mosts, so they could only grow a couple of crops... The few large land owners owned plenty of land pieces so they could afford to grow all sorts of vegetables/produce. This allowed them to maintain a somewhat divinely enforced monopoly on specific crops since smaller land owners could only concentrate on a small set of crops. For being such an omnipotent and all good God, Javeh sure cared about the "small" stuff...
Fast forward a few centuries, and the same MO still stands. Up to recently one of the Mormon patriarchs (or whatever they are called), had the famous vision that outlawed "caffeinated drinks" like cola, coffee, etc. Right after that, another patriarch had a vision that specific drinks were OK. Ironically it was discovered he had invested in some of the manufacturers of the excepted drinks. What a coincidence! Gee wiz, God sure operates in mysterious ways!
I consider religions to be as human and thus as crooked and compromised as any other aspect of our nature. I always wondered why the all powerful Christian god needed cash every time they passed the collection plate during the homily on Sundays.
QuakerDave@76
That’s what I like so much about commenters on “progressive” blogs. They are so open-minded.
______________________________________________________________
Well, excuse me that we are not as "Refined" as you are, but at least we are not pillaging and raping any nation in this world.
got my drift Bro?
Dr. Who @ 80: ....
I consider religions to be as human and thus as crooked and compromised as any other aspect of our nature. I always wondered why the all powerful Christian god needed cash every time they passed the collection plate during the homily on Sundays.
God doesn't need money Churchs needs money to keep the toilets flushing, the fans or heater on, and the needy fed.
garcia @ 81:
Did you just accuse all Christians of being rapists?
CD @ 75:
Stand up guy! I have nothing against him! I just don't believe in Jesus, "Virgin" Mary or God and he does. . I'm gay, I have to believe in me. I can't believe in any religion because religion (and it's "people" who want to control things well beyond a zealous scope) has declared itself an enemy against my very nature as a natural fucking being. Have your faith, eat it too! Rev. Lennox Yearwood is a swell guy, just keep that shit away from me and I'll stay out of your way.
QuakerDave @ 76:
I hope you are not too close minded to give up your false god and worship Zeus. All praise to Zeus! Don't be so closed minded! Zeus is only true god. Prove he isn't!
bilhelm-X @ 84:
You do know not all religions care about sexuality right?
Hell some Christian Denominations don't care.
ParakeetMan @ 85:
Last I checked in Americans are free to believe in whatever God they want.
Go join the FSM Church for all I care.
QuakerDave @ 76:
That is what I love about Christians, they ability to be the majority and yet be the persecuted ones. It is like having your cake and eat it too... Christians have figured out that they can be the worst offenders yet they can act as if they were the victims.
As an atheist that has had to endure the "fun and games" of having everyone around him decide that it is their mission in life to convert him to the "light" let me tell you this: cry me a fucking river.
The fact that the weakness of religious though is exposed when confronted with reason and logic is not my problem. For being the followers of such an omni-potent, omni-present, all good God, some Christians sure feel threatened by them evil liberals... LOL. Why does your god need defending if he/she/it so all-powerful?
The problem is not with some liberals prosecuting you, the problem is with some liberals having their own opinions that are tangential to yours and they have the gall to share them. You can believe whatever it is you want to believe, and I have the right to make fun of it. Democracy, ain't that a bitch, eh?
Love the sinner, hate what he/she/it does...
Sounds like bullshit control freakism to me!
Dr. Who @ 88:
Yes Yes all of Christianity wants to convert you because you're really the kind of person we want.
I understand during Prohibition they allowed churches who used wine in the Eucharist to continue doing so.
However, to my understanding smoking ganga for religious purposes has never been allowed, while peyote and mescaline has been irregularly allowed, but only for religious purposes and none other.
However a lot of your argument sounds to me like a cross (if you'll pardon the expression) between libertarianism and anarchy.
kudos to Garry Wills
CD @ 90:
Um, I think you just resouned his/hers/it's point. I'll prey for you!
; - )
bilhelm-X @ 93:
So long as you don't "prey" on me :p
QuakerDave @ 76:
One need not be open-minded about issues of truth and falsehood. What's true is true. What's false is false.
CD @ 82:
I thought 3 qualities defined the Christian god: he/she/it is a) Omni-potent, b) Omni-present, and c) Omni-good.
So god can create the earth in 6 days, but he can't make silly stuff like toilets flush? And he can't control the weather, or take care of his/her/its children. That is a half assed god in my book.
I think I'll worship them Nordic gods, at least that Thor looks like an ass kicker for way back. And you can't beat the hammer, plus I would love to have a viking funeral... and have a bunch of Valkyries take me back to the Valhala while kicking all sorts of ass would be awesome!
Or maybe I should go more with the Indian tradition. Their Brahma year for example is withing the ball park of the billion-year figure for the age of the earth. So they are faaaaar closer to the right mark than that bullshit about the 6 days. So maybe they are on to something...
Tom @ 95:
"believing in god is a mental defect" wow I've heard talk like this before.
It came from Michael Savage.
Dr. Who @ 96:
Ever heard of "thou shalt not tempt god"?
It's a nice way of saying wipe your own ass.
CD @ 90:
I have a functioning brain and I am not afraid to use it, so I doubt I am the ideal candidate to follow your myth.
Anyhow, interestingly enough I did not know that Christianity wanted a specific "kind of person" I thought we were all supposed to be "Children of God"(TM). Or are there some that are more Children of God than others?
Dr. Who @ 99:
Yes yes we are just dying for you to join us we exist so that you will join our Church.
CD @ 98:
No it is a nice way of saying "watch what you say and do what you are told" but thanks for playing!
In any case, if you are saying that god is omni potent but decides not to help its own children... then it is a lazy god, or even worse, a bad god? Doesn't that contradict the condition that god is all good?
CD @ 100:
So Christianity is an exclusive club, that only the "cool" kids can belong to. Interesting... so some people are indeed more "children of god" than others. How "Christian" of you. LOL....
CD @ 82:
God doesn't need money Churchs needs money to keep the toilets flushing, the fans or heater on, and the needy fed.
The pope and all his bishops, cardinals, sombreros, etc don't look too darn needy. In actuality, I've never yet met a minister, preacher, or any other title given to them, looking too darn needy. A friend of mine belongs to the United Church. Their pastor/minister sends the "flock" monthly bills they must pay instead of a collection plate. Nice.
I can't remember what Roman said this, perhaps Emperor Julian, but he complained that the Christians allowed criminals and cutthroats to join their ranks who would've been refused entry in any of the other religions of the day.
I'm outta here.
Dr. Who @ 102:
Dr. Who @ 102:
You don't want to join and your an asshole to boot why would we want you to become a Christian?
CensoredFan @ 103:
The pope and all his bishops, cardinals, sombreros, etc don't look too darn needy. In actuality, I've never yet met a minister, preacher, or any other title given to them, looking too darn needy. A friend of mine belongs to the United Church. Their pastor/minister sends the "flock" monthly bills they must pay instead of a collection plate. Nice.
On the other hand you have Quakers that don't even have a Church.
that interview ROCKED!!!! ...and if you liked that, go read Madison's petition that he mentioned in the interview:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html
its even more lucid than the interview!!!
Back in the 1700s (FTA) - Cromwell needed to hold together all forms of religious dissent in order to oppose the monarchy. This led him to tolerate the differences between Puritans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others, to the disgust of the New England clergy. In their eyes, Cromwell had sold out the cause of Reform at the very moment of its triumph.
Today - Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of “Focus on the Family,” has publicly accused Republican leaders of betraying the social conservatives who helped elect them in 2004. He has also warned in private meetings with about a dozen of the top Republicans in Washington that he may turn critic this fall unless the party delivers on conservative goals. -- http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=623&print=1&PHPSESSID=fccf6a...
Some things never change.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the need to have 3 separate but equal branches in the government. How does it follow that they believed 1 religion should be overseer of each branch?
rduke @ 14:
... then when did it start ... [deleted. - sitemonitor]?!!
True enough. But when anything in life is all consuming to the point that it is ALL you think about 24/7, that is a disease. A mental illness. No different than alcoholism. Or smoke addiction. Or porn addiction. At least that is my opinion. You are all welcome to yours, but I have never met a person that could have a discussion about religion (that was religious) that came off sounding anything but nuts.
Randy @ 9:
Nazism had a well-documented fetish for religion, and of course the Holocaust was a religious/ethnic cleansing effort. Fascism is the same thing. I don't know what point you're trying to make by listing France since, leaving your utterly feeble example of Communism as the only real meat of your argument.
Of course you've done nothing other than attempt to cast guilt by association on the philosophy of the separation of church and state. You've done a pretty shitty job of it, proving that reich-wingers have incredibly sloppy intellects and lazy thinking habits.
So bye now.
Hail Satan! (LOL)
I just had to say it because I'm with the bad guys..
Okay, I've said enough as well. You'll just go on believing whatever you like, just don't mess up my thing or there will be hell to pay. America, one nation under whatever the Hell it is..
CensoredFan @ 111:
I've met only a couple of people that are that fanatical and they generaly seem to have other issues to begin with.
Funny thing is one of them is an atheist. :lol:
ysbaddaden @ 91:
Yep. And this is senseless in my opinion.
Heh, yes, though the most recent Gonzales decision on hallucinogenic tea is regarded by many scholars finally to apply to marijuana. Though you're right that nothing specifically allows marijuana smoking for religious purposes. And it probably won't the next time it makes it to court. Peyote, hallucinogens, but not pot. This makes no sense to me.
And anarchy? I synthesize libertarian and progressive thought. Not sure how you get anarchy. Though it's interesting to me that by quoting the Declaration of Independence's words about the pursuit of happiness, and government's being instituted to secure such rights, that you would bring up the word anarchy.
To me, if one does not believe that each individual has an equal right to pursue happiness, s/he's an authoritarian. If one wants to limit someone's liberties simply because one does not like what that someone is doing, or simply invokes "morality" in order to limit liberty, s/he's an authoritarian.
Our government tortures people.
CD @ 114:
Hahaha.....I'll give you that one. There are nutbars in all walks of life. I'm referring more to the regular church going, elderly, or those who have came back from an illness, or those with feelings of guilt for their lives. I know one couple in particular, that have always went to church, but the last couple years, that is all they talk about. Constantly. To the point they even throw in gasps and sighs if they hear foul language! Best part is, they run a non-profit organization that helps the poor, but has made them wealthier than they've ever been in their lives. I mean, very wealthy.
115 Karen
I have to leave now, but the reason I saw anarchy was it appears such distinctions as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, not yelling fire in a crowded theatre could be taken as an affront against Freedom of Speech.
However, if I follow your reasoning aright, that could fall under a general statute of not creating a riot or a panic.
Dude Spellings @ 108:
Excellent resource. Thanks for the link.
ysbaddaden @ 118:
Holmes said it himself: Your right to swing your arm stops where the other man's nose begins. ;)
See, if everyone is equal, endowed equally with the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it only follows logically that a government instituted to protect those rights must outlaw, say, murder. Each person has an equal right to life. So no person may take the life of another. And the people can delegate power to government to prevent and prosecute murder. Screaming fire in a crowded theater likewise endangers life and liberty, and no one person has the right to threaten any other. Without such doctrines, we would indeed have anarchy. With them, we have equal liberty.
In any case, ysbaddaden, be well, wherever you're off to. ;)
CD @ 106:
Gee wiz how can I can compete with the logic of you calling me an asshole. Ironically, I thought you were the "victim" of name calling. It just takes a few choice statements to see your vitriol and true colours come out. LOL...
The cognitive dissonance of some Christians is magnificent, and entertaining to boot!
"One isolated comment"? Not hardly. As soon as I posted that comment, I knew the reality-based community would get all uppity about it.
The bottom line is that a fundamentalist brand of atheism is just another brand of fundamentalism, period. And when you attack ALL believers in religion as "mentally defective," you shut off all possible communication with some of your most dedicated allies. You have more in common with progressive believers than you do with ANY brand of conservative.
But hey, living in a world where you know everything, where you are free to mock folks at will, is always easier. Have a nice, easy time there.
CD @ 71:
plagiarist, adulterer, lackey, intergrationist, failure, dead, missed!
The lie from which all other lies sprung from is . . .
You only live once.
QuakerDave @ 122:
No offense intended here, but do you not think it sounds slightly insane to seriously believe in something unproven, and to faithfully follow all it's rituals? I mean, if you ran into an adult in say a bar, and that adult went on to tell you Santa Claus exists, and then went on to tell you to be a believer, would you think this person sane? There has never even been any remote proof of the existance of God, except theories, whatifs, and "it has to be true because there is a book written by God (who we've never spoken to or seen) that dispels all myths"..........um no, there isn't
Paul @ 1:
If you can find it - sure!
*
There is no real difference between Religion and Politics. They are both absolutely and completely about Money, Power and Control.
And for the most part - it's a private club - only White Christian Males need apply.
*
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)
But i suppose the founding fathers didnt know what their own intentions were.
Karl Bauer @ 22:
Maybe - but Pope John Paul II DID think Bush was the Antichrist ~~
*
Randy @ 9:
Wow - most people would hesitate to parade their ignorance around in such a public manner.
*
Karen @ 25:
And Fascism is what we have right now in the US, and Bush is cramming Church and State together like it's the San Andreas fault . . . .
*
QuakerDave @ 122:
You only quoted one comment, and then implied that all progressive bloggers believed what that commenter believed.
You insulted the entire progressive blogging community by quoting one hostile comment on one blog, and then predicted that many progressives on this blog would become "uppity" about it? You must be psychic.
Sure, a fundamentalist brand of atheism would be fundamentalist. If someone said, "I am sure there is no god. I do not care what the evidence demonstrates. There is no god. I have faith that there is no god, despite evidence to the contrary, and that's that, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong," would be espousing a faith-based, fundamentalist atheism.
Frankly, though, I have never met such an atheist. And I am certainly not one myself. I do not believe in god because have never seen convincing evidence that such an entity exists. That's not fundamentalism. It's default skepticism. Many atheists do believe that the evidence suggests that there probably is no god, and that isn't fundamentalism either. We're always willing to be shown new evidence.
We don't all "attack" believers. Check through some of the other threads, Mr. Open Minded. We can have respectful discussions. And politically, I have no problem allying myself with progressive believers as opposed to conservative atheists. It only makes sense if I am a progressive.
Someone on this blog posted the comment to which you objected. Rather than argue against that person's sentiments, you accused all progressive bloggers of not being open minded. You do so again with this statement. You want respect? Show some.
CD @ 107, '...On the other hand you have Quakers that don’t even have a Church...'
There are others. I was raised Unitarian (Universalist). We had a 'fellowship' rather than a church; church meaning there was a regular pastor who spoke while in a fellowship everyone who wants to takes turns. Our 'church' was a converted quonset hut. Our 'pews' were folding chairs - you picked up one as you came in, folded it up and put it back when you were done. A bowl got passed around for contributions that did indeed go toward things like electricity and water and paying for the coffee and cakes the ladies in the kitchen supplied for after services, but I doubt anyone got rich off the takings. Our 'faith' was based on tolerance and was incredibly inclusive - you could be an atheist and be welcome as a member (as, in fact, I was, and am).
I've been to a Quaker funeral when a good friend of mine died last year. I hadn't even known she and her family WERE Quakers. I was impressed by the dignity and the quietness of Quaker faith. If I were actually a practicing Christian, that is a church I could well find myself gravitating toward.
I have no beef with Christians, as long as they - like me - follow the 'live and let live' philosophy of life. Unfortunately, far too many just... don't.
What an idiot... You've probably never heard of the Protestant Reich Church, a single German Evangelical Church with a National Bishop:
"The Protestant Reich Church was formed by Adolf Hitler in 1933, by merging 28 regional churches into one church. The founding of the church was the result of work by the German Christians, who had gained a large majority at the 1933 church elections. It was based on Nazi ideas of creating a "positive Christianity", namely purifying Christianity of any Jewish elements including even the Old Testament, an idea which had existed in a small minority of Christian groups since the time of Marcion of Sinope, but the Protestant Reich Church did so for racial more than theological reasons. Ludwig Müller was elected "Reich Bishop".
Although initially supported by the regime, the Nazis eventually lost interest in the experiment after it failed to supplant or absorb traditional Christianity. After 1937, relations between the Reich Church and the Nazi government began to sour." (Wikipedia)
CD @ 97:
Savage is a Catholic.
Randy @ 9:
Let's talk facts now.
The notion of politicizing people as objective social evils came from only one philosophy since the fall of Rome and that was Christianity.
The realities you can't escape are as follows:
1. You can't establish freedom of religion without establishing freedom from religion first.
2. Mainstream theists (whether Christian, Catholic, Muslim or even Wiccan) only serve to enable the religious extremists by establishing, maintaining and expanding the social dependency on that voluntary schizophrenia theists refer to as religious faith and all things faithful to religion.
Its a malignant status quo that needs to be challenged and changed.
ysbaddaden @ 74:
I LOVE this info...can someone please source this? Maybe not word for word but any historical papers, news articles, etc which can embolden our cause against the silly "vouchers" crowd?
Looking forward to the ammo.
Big
Dr. Who @ 121:
I can feel the love of Jaysus channeling through you CD. Here's one for you:
" But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire." Matthew 5:22
The Bible says you can either love me or go to hell, so get with the program!
thepoetryman @ 66:
Now - assuming some sort of parental passing of physical (?) traits - we're talking about a "bronze" skinned "God" - which is going to make a whole lot of white christian men VERY UNHAPPY.
And how about physiology? If "God" made man in his image - one has to assume he has a package between his legs - or not? So what's with the virgin birth stunt? Did god need viagra, but it wasn't around yet?
*
Dr. Who @ 99:
Altar boys . . . .
*
Wills is Catholic and I’m Quaker, we don’t count
Isn't it funny that people who believe in Christ's message to be the Gospel they sure missed the part where he was all inclusive...I mean the man ate with Lepers, yet some of the so called Christians in this country believe there are people like Catholics and Quakers who don't count because they are not the right flavor of christian. I'm an atheist and I understand Jesus message that we should take care of each other...and that means EVERYBODY takes care of EVERYBODY ELSE!!! You see, it's all inclusive, everyone is equal in Jesus eyes (even Muslims and Jews!!!)...so if you say you believe his word then believe his word!
Hey Bluegal,
You say your being Catholic means that "you don't count" among the Super-Evangelists?
Is this a common perception among the American Faithful?
As a Catholic, I find it mind boggling to think that any true Christian could have supported Bush in any way, which disappoints me no-end when I hear people tarring us with same brush as those who did.
DonaldM @ 142:
Catholics are persona non grata among some brands of Protestants.
We all, all of us, have hate to get over.
"Love more" is a great motto for athiest and deist alike, I think. And for me, as a believer (and my regrets to those who reject God because they can't "prove" the existence of a higher power) the proof is in the calm and peace that comes from simply shutting off the noise of mortal busy so-called life and connecting with something, whatever it is, outside myself and some brain addled agenda.
The separation of Church and State is something ALL of us can get behind. I love working with atheists on this issue. Their intelligence and sincerity is usually far more developed than many of the fellow-Christians I know.
DonaldM @ 142:
Actually, she said she was a Quaker. Wills is the Catholic.
“Christian Nation” mumbo jumbo cleared up once and for all.
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Garry Wills' interview on Fresh Air (NPR) Thursday was the strongest and most lucid argument FOR the separation of Church and State I’ve ever heard: separation of Church and State ENCOURAGES religious practice among ...
Blue Gal @ 143:
Howdy, Blue Gal. :-)
The day I start agreeing with Gary Wills is the day I move to Canada. No matter how extreme the situation in this country gets, there are some conservatives who should be avoided at all costs.
The Christian nutwing would like nothing more than to turn the US of A into Margaret Atwood's Christian theocratic nation Republic of Gilead described in her novel "The Handmaid's Tale."
Jesus isn't white, but close: Nordic Alien Aryan.
Bodhisattva of high Austrian nobility.
As a reformed Roman Catholic (truly indoctrinated during the formative years), and an est grad (anyone else out there?!?), I have come to the conclusion that the 'god' out there doesn’t really care if he's worshipped, prayed to, ritualized, yadda, yadda, yadda, or not. Pffft, it's all a con game to keep the masses under control and take their money to keep them in business.
This is a 'Christian nation'?! Will someone please tell me which one it is: Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Ted Haggard, Episcopal, Jehovah’s Witness, Bob Jones, Methodist, Quaker, Mormon, Pat Robertson, Lutheran, Unitarianism, Congregationalism, Evangelical?
Actually, I have found that the American Humanist Organization reflects my realizations: Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/
But as with any communities this organized, I tend to take my own path. I don’t feel I need to be a member of a religious identity to validate my existence. However, I see there are some on this site who do and I say to you, ‘what ever floats your boat.’
Comments are closed on this entry