Religion and government remain a dangerous and volatile mix

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/religion-and-government-remain-a-dangerous-and-volatile-mix/2012/10/11/c50e8354-121d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_story.html



By Rick Wingrove, Thursday, October 11, 7:22 AM

Rick Wingrove is the CEO of Beltway Atheists, Inc, the Virginia State Director of American Atheists , and a contributor to The Washington Post’s local faith leader network.

Christopher Hitchens famously said that “religion poisons everything.” While a thorough search might turn up technical exceptions to this rule, one of the things religion certainly does poison is politics. Poison politics leads to toxic government.

Religious types have been leaning on government and meddling in elections since they were thanked for their input and given nice parting gifts by the authors of the Constitution. The problem for religious ideologues is this: despite some pretty extraordinary and self serving claims about mandates and dictates received directly from a micromanaging Bronze Age deity, the Constitution simply provides no role for religion in the government of the United States.

Official endorsement of any religion is prohibited. Religious tests for elected office are prohibited. The result of our constitutional non-establishment of religion has been a system of government that is nominally neutral on religion and which, by design, provides equal rights, protection, and access to all citizens regardless of their opinions on religion. What could possibly be fairer than that?

The worst elements of religion, however, don’t consider this matter settled. Rabid fundamentalism, based on biblical literalism, is rampant in our politics. It would be a tremendous redistribution of the facts to argue that religious adamancy resides equally on the left and on the right. The imbalance has grown so great that the right genuinely believes that the god and creator of the entire universe is a Republican, that they are entitled to govern, that whatever it takes to install them permanently in power qualifies as “democracy,” and that compromise is the work of Satan and entirely out of the question. Claiming a mandate from a supreme deity is the ultimate untrumpable hand.

more at link

[libodem]

1. Very informative

Thanks c. Great work.

[hrmjustin]

2. I never understood why some Christians get so pissed when you don't talk about God...

...every five seconds. The government is not meant to be religious. It was simply not built for it. Some things that the fundies do not understand is that many liberals get their values from their faith. Like when Jesus said feed the poor. That may sound like a commie plot to them, but Jesus did say to do that. Keep religion out of government.

[cbayer]

3. I am glad you have drawn some distinctions here.

The article is clearly aimed at those that want to legislate their personal religious beliefs, and, imo, continue to pose a significant thread.

[Leontius]

7. Let's leave the space where you typed religious blank to be filled in with

some other belief why would the threat necessarily be any less?

[cleanhippie]

8. No, lets don't, because it is specifically religious beliefs that are the issue.

[cbayer]

9. Because, imo, the religious right wants to legislate morals and ethics based

on their institutional religious beliefs. Those almost always infringe on others who do not share their beliefs.

[Leontius]

10. But the question still remains if you were to substitute eugenics for religious would the

threat be any less significant? So what if someone uses their religious belief that we are our brothers keeper as a principle of governments role to help the poor and disenfranchised is this a threat?

[cbayer]

11. If someone is led by their individual beliefs, can get elected on those beliefs

and then attempts to further legislation based on those beliefs, there is nothing technically wrong with that.

But when the legislation they are trying to further is religiously based and will impinge on the rights of others and violate the first amendment, then there is something wrong with that.

Helping the poor and disenfranchised is one thing. Calling for the restriction of rights of others, say GLBT people or women who want to control their own reproductive rights is quite another.

[Leontius]

12. So the fact is what we agree with is good and what we disagree with is bad

regardless of the source be it religion based or not. A simplistic description perhaps but true.

[cbayer]

13. You make some interesting points here, which I may be too weary to adequately digest

right now.

Since I don't agree with your concluding statement, I feel I have slipped in my arguments.

Can I get back to you, Leontius?

[Leontius]

14. No problem

The use of simplistic was in reference to what I said not to any of the points you made.

[pinto]

4. Well done article. Thanks for the find.

I like how the author takes a clear, logical progression to his point. From the hyperbolic and satirical to the crux of it all - religious extremists want to legislate self-selected social standards based on the standards of their personal faith not Constitutional standards.

Loved this line - "Religious types have been leaning on government and meddling in elections since they were thanked for their input and given nice parting gifts by the authors of the Constitution."

[cbayer]

5. I thought so as well.

I agree with most everything he is saying, although I wish he had made some clearer distinctions.

But it is well written and on point, imo.

[pinto]

6. Yeah, yet look at his starting point - Hitchen's broad brush quote.

Seems he was trying to set it in a bit more specific frame. Short piece, probably could have been better if it was longer or more detailed. Yet I got the point. And he's obviously a clever writer.

Didn't realize WaPo had this section. Scanned the site and looked like some good reads there.