Kicking Religion Out of Politics

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

It always seems to come back to religion, doesn’t it? Now Barack Obama is telling the Democratic Party that we have to “reach out” to evangelical Christians and that kids don’t feel unduly oppressed by having to say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. I used to be a religious person and I still believe in God but I’m starting to believe that religion has become too powerful in hate and division. I think the Founding Fathers were smart to forbid the establishment of a state religion. Is there any way we can kick religion out of politics and back to peoples’ private lives where it belongs?

Alyson
Eugene, OR


Dear Alyson,

Auntie agrees with much of what you say, although I do think that those who rightly deplore the influence of religious extremists in political life need to be realistic about how religion also infuses the lives of millions of Americans who do not embrace extremism. People of faith who have no interest in forcing their views on others nevertheless become extremely defensive and suspicious when told that they should keep their religion in their “private lives where it belongs.” Many if not most religious faiths require a level of daily mindfulness and observance that goes beyond ceremonies in a place of worship, or private prayer in solitude. It's natural that when they are told public expression of their beliefs is offensive or inappropriate and should be restrained people of faith feel oppressed.

Americans should be free to vote in accordance with their consciences, and to urge public acceptance of their positions by their neighbors and fellow-citizens. This fundamental freedom goes beyond religion: If you sincerely believe, for example, that it’s important to minimize the impact of humans on the earth’s climate, air, water, and soil, then you should be free to vote for candidates who share your beliefs, and to urge others to do so. You should also be free to organize those who share your beliefs and attempt to influence the legislative process using any legal means.

Acknowledging the influence of faith on peoples’ lives and affirming its positive dimensions is not the same as handing the government over, lock, stock, and barrel, to religious extremists. Nor, in a time when religious extremists have been so very successful in perpetuating the fiction that anyone who disagrees with them is essentially “godless” and wants to deny Americans freedom to practice their faith, is it a bad idea to explicitly challenge that idea.

But there are considerable risks in doing so, not the least of which is legitimating the concept that religious discourse is appropriate or desirable in the political arena, and, by extension, in the government itself. Government’s only legitimate function in relation to religion is to maintain the political safeguards that allow all citizens to freely practice their beliefs so long as that practice doesn’t deprive other citizens of Constitutionally protected rights. When political discourse is hijacked into the realm of sectarian dialogue, can citizens be blamed for imposing their individual religious agendas on government?

Mr. Obama’s unthinking assertion that “It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God'” may be correct in essence (and I’ve addressed similar assertions in the past, see Auntie Pinko here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/02/58.html ). However, anytime religion or religious expression is the topic, one should choose language carefully. A rote recitation may not have much actual meaning, it’s true. But simply by changing the word “God” to a different word with the same basic meaning — for example, “Krishna” or “Allah” or “Yahweh,” — the problem is exposed. In a religiously pluralistic society, even a rote assertion can be a sectarian affirmation. And sectarian affirmation is exactly what government institutions such as schools, etc., should be avoiding. Mr. Obama, in his praiseworthy intent to refocus the Democratic Party on keeping the Republicans from ‘owning’ issues of conscience in the public sector, has fallen into the sectarian trap.

I think Mr. Obama was attempting to make an important point. By conflating issues of conscience with sectarian affirmation, the Republican Party has achieved two very damaging results: First, they’ve positioned themselves as the party ‘representing’ the sectarian interests of voters who self-identify as Christians and prioritize their sectarian interests in selecting candidates to vote for, and secondly, they’ve validated sectarian affirmation as an appropriate activity for political discourse generally and government activity specifically.

Political parties are divisive by their very nature (perhaps that’s why the Founding Fathers were so opposed to them.) Yet our system of government has evolved to be dependent on a party-based electoral process, and that won’t change any time soon. Parties will always look for ways to identify themselves with a numerical majority of voters, creating a perpetual tension between the realities of electoral politics and the ideals of the Constitution, which explicitly constructed our system of government to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Mr. Obama is very right to be concerned about the damage this Republican tactic has done, both to the political effectiveness of the Democratic Party and to the Constitutional nature of our government. But the remedy he proposes, while it might be somewhat effective in the short term, isn’t likely to undo the damage in either case. On the practical level, a “me too” approach to the Republicans’ co-optation of sectarian affirmation in politics might shave a few voters from the Republican rolls, but “me too” tactics rarely produce dramatic results from a marketing standpoint.

More importantly, such “me too” tactics perpetuate the damage being done to our government as a whole, continuing to infuse the poison of sectarian affirmation into the political discourse and validate the concept that sectarian religious goals can be appropriately addressed through government process. In the long run, that will result in the perversion of our Constitution and the rejection of the ideals of liberty and self-determination that formed our nation.

I believe that voters will awaken to this threat (indeed, I think that process has already begun,) and when they do, they will look for a Party that has stood steadfast in fighting the damage it has done. If the Democratic Party is there with a clear record of electing leaders who address issues of conscience appropriately but keep sectarian considerations rigorously separated from government action, the Democratic Party will benefit from that voter backlash. And such a commitment will make America stronger.

If, on the other hand, the voters are confronted with a choice between a Party that identifies itself with sectarian extremists, and a Party that appeals to sectarian moderates, the Democrats may make short term political gains at the expense of continuing to corrode the Constitution and risking the intrusion of religious tyranny into government. I don’t support such a dance with the Devil and I’m sure you don’t, either, Alyson. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[TayTay]

1. Sen. Obama is not trying to insert religion into the law

He is talking about the power of progressive religious thought that has, in the past, propelled the nation to confront the cause of civil rights, women's rights and the notion that the poor and the marginalized have a place at the nation's table.

Martin Luthor King, Jr. tapped into the great American faith tradition in his battle to bring civil rights to African minorities. He knew that this call to conscience was a powerful force that could be harnassed by liberals to challenge unjust conditions and to make Americans confront their own beliefs and committment to the ancient calls to care for your neighbor, love one another and live under just laws.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
http://www.almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

There is not one tradition of using religion in politics in America. There are actually several. Enlightened religious thought about improving the conditions in America for the poor, the marginalized and for women is also an American, thoroughly American, tradition. We lose something when we disregard this. We lose a voice that is powerful and that gets people to consider their conscience.

Maybe it's just me, but I can see the following argument against unjust war from the Catholic tradition as something that some liberal and progressive groups might want to bring up. They might want to remind the 50+ million American Catholics of what their religious leaders say about war and when it can be waged. It fits into the idea of religion imforming public life, not dictating to it.

Reasons that can Justify a War

Just cause. War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.

Competent authority. War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.

Comparative justice. In essence: Which side is sufficiently "right" in a dispute, and are the values at stake critical enough to override the presumption against war? Do the rights and values involved justify killing? Given techniques of propaganda and the ease with which nations and individuals either assume or delude themselves into believing that God or right is clearly on their side, the test of comparative justice may be extremely difficult to apply.

Right intention. War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.

Last resort. For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.

Probability of success. This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.

Proportionality. This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.


"Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation."

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/justwar.asp

This is powerful stuff. This is the basis for a moral argument that talks about current issues in properly placed religious terms. It enlightens, not diminishes the argument. No one wants this codified in law. However, it is ridiculous to dismiss the argument that we need to talk to people in language that makes sense to them. Many, many Americans have religious upbringing. It is pure foolishness to think that we should ignore that or ignore the power that comes with that and the chance to invoke those faith traditions in purusing progressive goals.

BTW, I am an agnostic. I haven't set foot in a church, except for weddings and funerals, for years. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be an agnostic. I can recognize the power of faith and the moral imperative to affect positive change that is the other side of the religious coin. I am not afraid of faith or religion. It can be a mightly force for change.

[ptolle]

3. agnostic

I too have to use that word, to be consistent with my beliefs that to take any other stance on the existence or non-existence of a deity requires incontovertible empirical proof and since I see none forthcoming, and can't myself figure out a way to objectively test for such a thing I have to eternally suspend judgment.My beef with Obama, and most of the rest of the religionists here is their absolute insistence that morality can rest on no foundation other than religion.I absolutely do not believe that instead believing that a comprehensive and consistent moral stance can be arrived at rationally through the application of reason.

[TayTay]

6. I agree. Morality can exist beside and inspite of religion.

But, there is a strong religious tradition in America. That exists whether I buy into it or not. That tradition has many sides and can be used in ways that forward a progressive agenda. Though I am not a believing Christian (though I was raised Catholic) I will not deny the power of that belief or it's ability to motivate actions and conscience.

I have no problem with people who are religious. I firmly believe, as Martin Luthor King, Jr did in separation of Church and State. Yet I can recognize that others find religion motivational and argue that we should bring out that positive side. It has been a factor in every progressive movement in America, after all.

[AndyTiedye]

4. Inserting "Under God" Into the Pledge IS Inserting Religion Into the Law

Oh, but it's only violating the Establishment Clause a little bit,
and the kids don't even know it, so we should let it slide.

I. Don't. Think. So.

This is not "reaching out", this is surrendering our Constitutional Rights.

[TayTay]

5. When is the Pledge of Alliegance required?

And I always either skip that part or say, "under gods' when I say it.

I can also affirm a right to not say the Pledge at all.

Who is forcing you to say this?

[AndyTiedye]

7. It Is Required of Children In Public Schools

They are told to recite it. The fact that they can probably get away with
moving their lips silently is beside the point.

It clearly establishes that some religions are more equal than others.

To specifically address your earlier point, it writes their religion into the law,
because the content of the Pledge of Allegiance is specified by Acts of Congress.
"Under God" wasn't there originally either. It was inserted by an Act of Congress
in the 50s.

[IndependentVoice]

9. Of course some are more equal than others,

Didn't the original pilgrims (not native americans) come here in the first place to escape religious persecution from the king because they had to pray to him also? Like it or not while this country was founded on democracy, it was founded by christians, not Buddhists or Islams, but christians. They have always had a stronger hold, they only choose to use that power now because back then they had to work for freedom, were grateful for it, and knew they need not involve religion to get what they want. Sadly enough, seeing as how we were born with it, not many of us TRULY appreciate our freedoms, that is why so many people are willing to give it up so quickly. And now because we have a group who does not appreciate freedom later on, they are using that potential power they have had for so long to oppress other to meet their needs. And so what if it says Under God in the pledge? If you find that offensive then get over it, and if you think its brainwashing them, well then...I don't know what your smoking but can I borrow some of it? Because look how many kids have became christian, our used it to get what they want, happens all the time, damned pledge, screwing over all those little kids :sarcasm:

[klyon]

23. I wish people would stop telling me to get over it.

<<And so what if it says Under God in the pledge? If you find that offensive then get over it, and if you think its brainwashing them, well then...>>

So what to you too, I care, you get over it. I will continue to speak up when I feel it is appropriate.

GET THE GOD OUT

[markbark]

8. "I always skip that part"

I don't skip it, I just modify it slightly...

I recite "One Nation, under LAW"

more accurate I think; since after all, "the Republic for which it stands" is basically synonymous with the Constitution, right?

--MAB

[Demeter]

2. Take My Aunt the Fundie--Please!

Auntie was always a little strange and different (well, the whole family is, myself included; she was obviously moreso) and usually on the losing side of any Reality-based argument. Being educated by nuns certainly didn't help.

So when Auntie remarried (so much for the Church's disapproval of divorce) she found a man who was righteous (read pig-headed, even more than us Pollacks) and converted to a Faith-based form of arguing.

Nobody could trump her now. Facts are totally immaterial. If God said something, or Jesus, or her own quirky brain could make the case that one of them said it, or Limbaugh, or whoever was designated Oracle of the Day, then the argument was over.

Religion (capital R) is the opposite of Education. You don't have to know anything, prove anything, feel anything (except superior) or atone for anything. Bullets will stop you, but not facts. Reality may catch up with you in the end, but you'll get your way until then, and drive everyone around you who isn't persuaded by your own personal Messiah crazy.

Nobody talks to Auntie much any more, not even her kids.

[paparush]

10. Obama, and the rest of America, needs to read THE END OF FAITH

by Sam Harris.

<<serious paraphrasing>>
The time for religion, with its exclusionary principles that have always resulted in slaughter, and religious tolerance, is over.
<</serious paraphrasing>>

[saberjet22]

11. Religion

Actually, and I am reluctant to be the one to tell you this but somebody has to, there is NO good religion. Every single one is a fraud, perpetrating superstition upon its ignorant parishioners who desperately but stupidly hope for help from beyond the mystic curtain.
Alas.
There is no help, except what you generate yourself.There isn't even a mystic curtain. The fraudsters, from the Pope to his TV minions, should all be thrown in jail, unless they can provide even the tiniest shred of evidence that there is truth behind what they claim. And since there isn't, BANG, it's the old hoosegow for these snake-oil salesmen.
Why are women so hot to join this club?

[mikelewis]

18. You may be right about there being no "Good Religion" but that does...

not necessarily mean that there is no God.

Many people understand that there is something known as a "Natural Law", a law that states we are all equal and deserving of the same dignities. However, the existence of a Natural Law is predicated on the belief that there is in fact a power greater than Humans in the Universe. For if there isn't a "Creator", Moderator or Judge then there can be no "Natural Law" and leads us only to the conclusion that might truly can make right. However, the course of human evolution has been toward this Natural Law and toward the notions of equality inspired and cultured by the "fraud" and "superstitions" of religious ideology. This progression has been cultured by the continuity of tradition and the evolution of our concepts of universal good.

However, this progress has been often slowed by intermingling concepts of the "Universal Good" with a mechanism for population control. The Dark Ages spring to mind as a wonderful example of how terribly harmful mixing Religion with control can be. Religion is not intended to shackle a populace to a government, it is intended to inspire self-governance through willing obedience to the "Natural Law".

This process has been given a huge boost by our ability to communicate the concepts of this "Natural Law". The Gutenberg Printing press was probably the most important invention in our march toward understanding this concept. Once humans gained the ability to communicate the concepts of self-worth, universal acceptance and the existence of a higher authority that values everyone equally, concepts like the Magna Carta (which called into question the Divine Right of Kings) and the Declaration of Independence (which called into question a need for a King) were soon to follow.

I understand that a lot of people see religion itself as an evil but it is not. It's the people who try to manipulate it to suit their own ends that are evil. In fact, two Commandments actually address this particular issue: Thou shall not worship false Idols and Thou shall not Take the Name of God and use for your own vanity. When wicked people try to create a government out of religious doctrine, they are in fact breaking these commandments. Because of their un-Godly behavior, the hypocrisy of their intent is often times translated into animosity for the group or philosophy in general. That is a sad reality and is counterproductive to the evolution of Man through his Creator.

As for proof of God, there is plenty of proof. If you choose to focus on the bad then look at the power of Corruption and how it can be used for Evil, look at the power of Hate, look at the power of Disillusionment. These powers are very real powers and as if by magic can manipulate people to do things that are contrary to their best interests. However, if these powers are real, then their opposite must also be real and they must also have equal power to affect change. Yet to be able to do this type of magic, one must be able to control the collective will of a people which means that in some way, all these souls are capable of being connected. So if it is possible to connect souls, then a greater spirit must exist. If it is recognized that the spirit is subject to Natural Law then that Natural Law must also have a spirit if it is to have any relevance. In essence, that Natural Law is God.

Describing God is not an easy thing to do and any description often times falls way short of the mark. I liken it to describing the color blue to a person whose been blind since birth. The reason we cannot not easily comprehend the nature of God is because our souls are merely an image of God. He is in a dimension higher than ours and we cannot yet discern his scope; though it is possible to communicate and even interact with Him. (Furthermore, it is widely believed that God's purpose for us is that when your spirit leaves your body, it is able to cross over through the looking glass and live in that dimension with God. However this is merely an unsubstantiated belief.)

The reason so many people throughout history have come to recognize God is simply because he does exist, not because all of these people were too stupid to realize they were being manipulated. You think I'm delusional because I can see God and have grown to trust in a presence you neither see nor feel. However, my delusions coupled with millions of others who share the same delusions, creates a potential energy that is greater than the power of any one human and that power is as tangible as these words that you are reading right now. Because I am part of this greater whole, our actions can more easily affect your reality than your reality can affect ours. So whether or not you are right or wrong, the reality is, because God exists to us, he also exists to you. Descartes defined his existence with the words, "I think therefore I am." My only proof that I can offer you to the existence of God is, "Because we believe, he is." However, that is not really the truth of the matter. It should read, "Because he thinks, I am." Though you're obviously not ready to come to terms with that reality just yet.

You may despise my faith and you can curse my ignorance. You can believe I am just trying to manipulate the truth to suit my own nefarious goals and you can deny the existence of God to your dying day. That is of course your choice. You are free to think and do whatever you wish but know this; after we're both long dead, God will still be here. The reality of God was here before we were born and his reality will be here long after we're gone. Nothing you or I could say or do can change that simple fact and that's truly more than "old hoosegow for these snake-oil salesmen."

(However, you are right about the Televangelists. I've watched them a few times and they appear to be what Jesus called the "Hypocrites". I wouldn't put too much faith in their sales pitches either and if that's all you've seen of the works of the Lord then I understand your negativity.)

I wish there was some way I could show you God but I can't. All I can do is pray that one day you understand that God is not a threat to you. Yes, there are assholes who call themselves Christians but they are not Christians. Christianity is not a club that you join, it is a state of being that transforms you into something greater than yourself. You either know or you don't. If you don't you're not a Christian, no matter how much you gain from those who do. So I pray that one day you do know because it really can save your life.

[saberjet22]

19. Thanks for your mostly interesting response.

I read the first half of your response with great interest. You sounded pretty intelligent, and well-reasoned. But then you started to drift and waver, accepting as true things for which you have no proof.And then there came a point when I just had to laugh that good ol' Hee-Haw belly laugh. Right here, when you say:

Describing God is not an easy thing to do and any description often times falls way short of the mark.

No other comment needed! You really had me going for a while, but it turns out you're just another idiot.

[mikelewis]

20. I may be an idiot but at least I'm not alone...

Which parts do I accept as true that have no proof? The only statement I made that was unsubstantiated included a caveat to that effect. Just because I am not up to the task of adequately describing God to suit your measure does not mean that he does not exist; just as I highly doubt you'd find it easy to accurately describe the quantum string theory and how it pertains to the Planck Epoch. However, we can gain an rudimentary understanding of both concepts and through our limited intellect, focus in on a picture that at best seems hard to comprehend.

My point is simply this, the reality of God exists because I and millions upon millions of other people believe he exists and act upon that belief in a very tangible way. Take the Right-wing fundamentalists in our country as an example. The reality of what they believe is affecting the course of our country in a very real way. Their beliefs have outlawed Abortion in South Dakota. Their beliefs have led us into a Jihad in the Middle East. Their beliefs have cut social programs like education, health care and a veritable cornucopia of other very real and very necessary services all because of their beliefs.

Because your reality only includes what you can do, all you are able to do is sit around and complain while they are fulfilling their stated goals. All you can do is deride people who are fighting against this sort of hypocrisy as fools. All you can do is lash out at what you despise because you do not understand the nature of what you are up against. What you fail to understand is that ultimately, that's all you will be able to do because your philosophy fails to recognize the existence of a higher power. Because your hatred has blinded you to the truth, they will continue to be stronger, they will continue to control your actions and they will continue to run roughshod over this country in direct violation of the mandates Christians have received from God. You are at their mercy because you are weaker than they; and it doesn't get any more real than that.

There are many truths that I do not like but that does not make them any less true. Reality is merely a dimensional perception that holds to a certain commonality. By affecting that commonality in negative ways, we can create a negative reality so why is it so difficult to believe that the opposite could be true as well? Did Newton not state that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction? So if evil exists and can influence reality, then Good must also exist and have the same capacity to effect change. This concept may seem idiotic to you but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't real.

My faith is not built on fairy tales and wishful thinking, it's as solid as the ground I walk on and as real as my thoughts that you read right now. Because I know that God exists, through me he can use my spirit to effect positive change; which he has done on many occasions. You believe that I am merely delusional yet all the effects I have witnessed are tangible and verifiable. I could show them to you but even then you would probably still not believe because your eyes are closed to the truth.

Hundreds of years ago it was believed that the Earth was flat and that if a ship were to sail too far, it would fall off the edge of the world. Because certain people had tangible and verifiable evidence to the contrary, they challenged that idea and proved to humanity that the world was round. However, no matter how much proof they offered to some and no matter how many others finally accepted the truth, there were those who refused to believe that truth and for them, the earth was truly flat. To me, your philosophy is as flat as the earth in these people imaginations and as hollow as your mocking tone.

If your reality is true, then there is no hope for humanity; no purpose other than what you can gain while you are here and no direction other than that which Kings and Presidents can envision. It means that there is no Natural Law and that we are only subject to the whim of Human Law. If your faith is true then what came before and what follows after is irrelevant because all that truly matters is what we do now; for there is no consequence other than that which we collectively deem appropriate to suit our own ends. If your philosophy is true then the Declaration of Independence is a worthless hoax because if there is no creator, how could he have endowed us with any inalienable rights? If your philosophy is true, then slavery is not an abomination because we are truly not equal. Because I may have been born stronger than you, I can decide what is right for me and need not trouble myself with what is right for you. If your philosophy is true, then Love is just as idiotic as the words that I wrote in my original reply. If there is "no help, except what you generate yourself" then we are all truly at the mercy of the strong and there is no hope, no fairness, no equality, no compassion; only selfish survival and then death. Your philosophy is as bleak as the Republicans' who are ruining this country and I'd just as soon live with my delusions. I know God exists because I can see, hear and interact with him just as easily as I am interacting with you right now. If this be a delusion, then I'll stick with my delusion while you suffer alone in your miserably impotent reality.

[saberjet22]

21. you make me laugh, you.

No no no, you've got your head on backward, michael, which hurts me because I can feel your niceness. You just miss the basic premise.
You say, " Just because I am not up to the task of adequately describing God to suit your measure does not mean that he does not exist." Listen...
No one can describe something that doesn't exist. Neither you nor anyone else can describe god, only what THEY think god ought to look like if there was one. The most popular winner is Michaelangelo's version. But that's only what HE thought god ought to look like. He had no more authority on that subject than do you or Soupy Sales. The main point is that THERE IS NO GOD!!!!
Can't you get that through your head. THERE IS NO GOD!!! Look through a couple hundred of pictures from the Hubble telescope, and maybe then you'll understand what I'm saying.
It's not that you are failing to achieve a particularly high standard of god-image. There is no such standard! Throw your bible in the garbage and read some philosophy. Don't give up, michael.
All you need is love.
Love conquer all, except stupidity.
Fight on!!!!

[mikelewis]

22. I'm glad you mentioned Hubble...

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxies velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubble’s observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory. "
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

As the story goes...

The Big Bang occurred at what is known as the Planck Epoch, a precise moment in time where all of the power of this universe was released instantaneously in a blinding flash of cosmic light. All matter and forces stem from this event and every known law of physics was bent around this singularity. The universe formed into a sort of dimensional tunnel around the newly created matter giving it shape, depth and a timeline in which to travel. Existence as we know it miraculously exploded upon an eternal void and yet because we know the nature of energy, we know that what began about 15 billion years ago must certainly one day come to an end. It’s the laws of thermodynamics that condemns this universe to death. However, there is some hope, the No Boundary Theory validated by Stephen Hawking holds that the Universe could eventually shrink along its own timeline and quite possibly return to a state of chaos which could then possibly replicate the conditions necessary to create another singularity. However, this theory is based on the presumption that the physical laws in our section of the Universe are consistent throughout. The low-level microwave radiation that fans out across our known universe tends to lend credence that our physical laws are constants but there’s no quantifiable data on which to base this theory (so it would be foolish to assume it's a fact).

What we can determine from our very limited vantage point is that space and time had a definite beginning and will have a definite end. Also because we know that the Universe is expanding, based upon our knowledge of Newtonian Physics, we know that some event had to initiate the Planck Epoch; although there can be no definition as to what that event was since the laws of physics would not apply to that event as we understand them in our reality. Everything that we understand about our physical world would have no relevance in that reality, its very nature is beyond our comprehension. No amount of star-gazing is going to answer the question of what came before and what is to follow after.

However, what we do know is that we do exist and our spirit interacts with this reality through the physical body. If you deny the existence of the spirit then how could you “feel my niceness”? How could you grow indignant if my spirit can’t connect with yours separate and apart from our physical bodies? Also, if there is no spirit, what chance does Love have of making any impact on the world? If it’s true that “there is no help, except what you generate yourself”, how can Love affect other souls, let alone our physical reality? By that measure, your statement cannot be true. For Love to be able to affect our dimension it must exist within this dimension as a force and since it has no discernable physical properties it must exist outside the scope of our dimensional awareness. Love can not be weighed, it cannot be measured. No one can see it, touch it, taste it or stick it in the frig and save it for a snack. It is a force that exists above our dimension yet its tangible impact on reality cannot be denied. No one has yet to discern its true nature or come to realize the full potential of the power Love can bestow; yet even you believe “All you need is love. Love conquers all.”

You told me to throw away my Bible; now why on earth would I want to do that? Within the pages of the Bible lay the story of Love in all of its limitless glory; in its pages Love is defined and in its wisdom Love is revealed. Maybe no one has explained this to you but God is Love. This is clearly stated in 1 John where it’s written, “Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.” Later on in First Corinthians, the Apostle Paul defines exactly what Love is. Why would I throw away something that by your own definition is “all I need”?

For me, the Bible is merely a conduit to the dimension where Love resides. I imagine that there’s plenty of other ways to tap into this dimension but I don’t really need another. I could try Islam or Buddhism or Paganism but I don’t really want to, the conduit of Christianity works well enough for me. However, I definitely would not try Atheism again. I can’t deny something I now know to be a fact. When I didn’t know, I thought some of the same things you did and said some of the same things you’ve said, so I understand your animosity. Also contrary to what you might believe, I am not really trying to convert you, merely to inform you that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” You can look into space and see an empty void and a dying universe if you want to but I can’t. Every time I look up at the stars, I only see God. However, it may be that you are right and I am just too ignorant to realize something that you in your leisure could so easily discard as “old hoosegow”.

[madmusic]

12. As Nietzsche said:

"I have always gotten along well with every genuine Christian."

The far right is more hypocritical than anything else. Religious teaching in the classroom was everyday stuff in our not too distant past and yet many still complained about the country's degeneration. It was often the religious who promoted eugenics as they tried to reconcile their religion with science. That is the real danger of the crumbling of the wall between Church and State.

This focus on Religion by the Democrats is a welcome change, as it appears genuine, but if it too tries to tear down the wall, it will be just as suspect.

[Voltaire99]

13. Obama? The black Lieberman.

If you can stump for Lieberman, oppose withdrawal dates from Iraq, confirm Rice, and reach out to evangelicals who would sooner burn you at the stake than vote for you, you're just another part of the problem.

But if you can give a nice speech, all will be forgiven. "Rising star," you know.

[stevenleser]

14. Reaching out, without selling out...

Obama made a mistake with his 'pledge' comment, but there are other ways of reaching out that are not selling out. We (as Democrats/Progressives, etc.) are not doing a good enough job of using JudeoChristianity's own tenets to combat the Republican Party. For instance:

A. Ample evidence of anti-war sentiment in the Bible. David not being allowed to build the temple, the Gospel's calling the peacemaker's blessed, the rejection of one of the disciples using violence to protect Christ himself. This is utterly inadequately used. As a side note, one of my favorite folks from the St. Petersburg for Peace Anti-war Protest group was a Quaker.

B. The forgiveness aspect of the bible with David and Bathsheba and Christs'let he who is without sin cast...' is completely opposite of GOP positions in many cases.

C. The anti-wealth aspects of the old and new testaments. Too many examples to list.

Probably more things that aren't immediately coming to mind...

The dialogue should, in my opinion, take the form of, "I dont understand, you claim to be Christians or followers of JudeoChristian law or tradition, how do you square these positions or actions with your stated beliefs".

Obviously the idea is not to 'Out religion' the religionists. It is to get the politicians on the party opposite to abandon religion as a justification and weapon due to being exposed as hypocrites of the worst order. Republicans have no real desire to be true ascetics and should be exposed as such.

[JDPriestly]

15. I belong to a minority religion. I am a Unitarian.

My religion is very American. Several of Founding Fathers shared the ideas and beliefs that I profess. Like them, I embrace Christian values, but I do not believe all the tenets of the Christian religion. I do not accept the literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe that Jesus, as described in the four Gospels, was essentially an exceptional man of compassion, but very human, not God incarnate. I believe that the beliefs of humanists are closer to Jesus' teachings than are those of many self-styled Christians.

Like members of other minorities -- whether based on race, national origin or disability, I value my right to be treated as an equal regardless of the fact that I belong to a minority. I want to be respected for who and what I am. I do not want to have to please or placate the members of the majority group or groups even though I know that they are more powerful or more numerous than my group.

Of all individuals in this country, Barack Obama should understand how I feel. And he should respect my right to be a member of a minority without apology. He should recognize that although I am a member of a minority, I have the same civil rights including freedom of religion as Americans of other religions.

The Constitution prohibits the use of a religious test for any office. It is just as wrong to apply a religious test for office or to make people of minority religions kowtow or "reach out" to the majority in public life as it is to apply a race test for office or to make people of a minority race kowtow or "reach out" to the majority in public life.

I think the right-wing Christians should "reach out" and respect my religion and my right to my personal beliefs. After all, they are the majority. They have the power. Not me.

[timontheleft]

17. Yes they should, but . . .

they won't because they are Dominionists. They will not stop until everyone else either believes exactly as they do or is dead. That is how Revelation ends; everyone is either converted or burns in hell.

[TwentyFive]

16. HEY BARAK - I've had it with all the bullshit religious people's demands.

Did you ever consider that not all religions have a god? If not all Americans believe in god, why can't you at least respect that...AND LEAVE HIM THE F*CK OUT OF OUR LIVES?

It's bad enough that I and others must subsidize billionaires like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other religious honchos who drive around in tax exempt luxury cars, live in tax exempt mansions...and even travel in private tax exempt jets? I spend money with the name of YOUR god plastered on it...can't you be happy with that?

But this isn't far enough for you....apparently, you and the other religious nuts won't be happy until every goddamned soul bows down to YOUR god. Well, screw you Barak for wanting our political party to bow down to your godamned god!!! Consider this: We are all born atheists. Religion only survives because it's forced down little kids throats before they're able to reason and understand.

You'd never give a 5 year old a credit card....so why is religion crammed down his throat?