Religion tests America

[lwcon]

Most Americans aren't too bothered by religion, as long as it's Christianity (Excel spreadsheet), of course.

At worst, they think it's a benign cultural force, and at best it's the only way to a moral life and a fireproof afterlife.

Few Democrats fret when Obama plays with a deck of 52 religion cards.

And, Lord knows, being BFFs with Jesus has been berry, berry good to George W. Bush.

Our cultural taboos about criticizing religion keep stories like this from properly freaking out our countryfolk:

Huckabee's religious credibility, by the same token, appears to be a key factor behind his surge. Huckabee has opened up a huge lead among evangelicals, who are likely to make up about 40 percent of GOP caucus-goers on Jan. 3, the survey found. Among all Republican voters who identify themselves as evangelicals, 47 percent support Huckabee while only 14 percent back Romney.

Let's slow down and read that again. Forty percent of GOP voters in the influential Iowa caucus are self-described evangelicals. "Religious credibility... appears to be a key factor."

Since religion itself isn't credible, "religious credibility" ought to be seen as an awfully specious test for an awfully important job. I'd like to believe that my fellow citizens understand that. But my eyes tell me otherwise.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[papau]

1. I agree policy and competence should be the only vote determinants - but dumping on religion

guarantees the left- as defined by some on DU - will never be trusted with major political office.

Stark is an elected Democratic party atheist Congressman - but I have heard him dump on religion or the religious. I wonder if those two facts are connected.

[lwcon]

3. Please start making sense

1. "guarantees the left- as defined by some on DU - will never be trusted with major political office." That's the language of the concern troll. Suggests that honest commentary should be suppressed in the land of the free.

2. What are you saying about Stark? When did he "dump on religion"? What two facts are you saying are connected?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[papau]

14. CRAP - sorry - the word "never" was thought but not typed - as written it makes no sense - sorry

should read:

I agree policy and competence should be the only vote determinants - but dumping on religion
guarantees the left- as defined by some on DU - will never be trusted with major political office.

Stark is an elected Democratic party atheist Congressman - but I have NEVER heard him dump on religion or the religious. I wonder if those two facts are connected.

[NMMNG]

16. Are you suggesting that nobody "on the left"

dumps on the non-religous (or non-Christians)?

[lwcon]

18. Thanks for the clarification. The whole concepts of Dems...

"dumping on religion" is a GOP straw man (one which, unfortunately Obama and Biden have validated, while trying to play the "I'm the one, good, moral, religious Democrat" card).

I know of no Dem who has been elected or is running for office who dumps on religion. Unfortunately.

Religion is founded on lies and wishful thinking. It deserves to be criticized.

But "dumping on religion" should not be confused with dumping on people just because they are believers or otherwise like to self-identify as believers. That wouldn't just be un-Christian, it would be un-humanist. Hate the sin, love the sinner, I say.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Riktor]

27. I think this qualifies as "dumping on religion"

To quote the OP:

Since religion itself isn't credible, "religious credibility" ought to be seen as an awfully specious test for an awfully important job. I'd like to believe that my fellow citizens understand that. But my eyes tell me otherwise.

In short, the author flat-out says religion is bogus, and, by extension, the religious are dupes for believing it.

At any rate, this is still beside the point, as the vast majority of accusations of "religion dumping" are targeted primarily at inoffensive moves towards a secular society, not disparagements of religion as a whole.

[rasputin1952]

32. "Hate the sin, love the sinner, I say.".....Very few people know that

that statement came from Ghandi...most think it is a Biblical quote...:D

When people I know that are literalists, find that out, they tend to drop it from their vernacualar...after all, they "can't" see wisdom in other philosophes or religions. Sad really, because one can learn vast amounts of knowledge and wisdom from many philosophies...Christianity is not he only religion/philosophy out there, and it should not be singled out as the only door to enlightenment.

Understanding tolerance are the keys to wisdom; always have been, always will be.

[sam sarrha]

2. the death grip people have on barely bronze age goat herders superstitions constantly amazes me

especially when ALL their Prophets are obviously schizophrenic beyond any doubt.. voices telling them to sacrifice their children on the altar of a 'jealous' gOD.. historically, jealous gods are actually Demi-gods,

one major religion is based on a guy 'channeling' a Deity.. wandering the streets talking to the sky, till his father bribed starving people with food during a drought to listen to him.. in a time of chaotic climate change..

anyone of us out there in DU land that ever had a violent jealous husband, boyfriend, wife in my personal experience, she had a stop watch for when i went to the store, she stabbed me two different times, severely lacerated my shoulder with a vicious bite that got gangrene... why would anyone want a threatening jealous god of that ilk with a handy eternal burning lake of fire handy..

inquiring minds want to know.!!!

[rasputin1952]

4. As soon as I see someone that tosses out "religious credentials"...

they lose whatever support I might have given them.

I am a Christian, but I am not a part of whatever bastard-breed these so called "christians" are. I believe people should be left alone to find their own course in life, and those that say this nation was founded on "Christian Values" are clueless. There is a specific reason the Founders put into the Constitution that there be no religious test to hold office...(something those that profess to be "conservative supporters" of the Constitution, or "strict constructionists", fail to see), and that is because they had seen what theocratic state and royal govt's could do to undermine humanity...and they were not that far from religious persecution in this country as an every day event.

To me, if a person's religion is more important than serving the country, they should serve their religion, and forget about trying to serve the country. However, if they can serve the country, and not allow their impulses to "redirect" the nation according to their religion, I have little problem.

Looking at bush claiming to be a "christian" is revolting...no real Christian, (or any other believer in a religion that looks to the basic tenets of said religion), would run around lying to start wars that kill thens of thousands.The last thing we need is a "Radical Christo-fascist" running the country.

[lwcon]

5. I really respect that position

Now, I'm a complete skeptic, and it is my wont to say things critical of the legitimacy of religion.

But until Christianists started tearing down the wall between church and state and Islamists tore down the World Trade Center, it was no skin off my nose what anyone believed.

In the America I grew up in, I had little reason to worry about what you believed and vice versa.

Apropos of Pete Stark, whom another commenter cited, Ellen Goodman had some great stuff to say about this unfortunate change:
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/03/we-dont-need-divine-guidance.html

Though I'm not going to sing the praises of Yahweh or the supposed divinity of his son, it's always refreshing when believers in religion are also believers in the First Amendment, such as Jimmy Carter and John Danforth.

Rock on, my friend!

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

6. Thanks...I am essentially a Christian because I believe that the

teachings of Jesus are valid...Peace, Love, Understanding, Compassion, Empathy, Justice (not vengeance), Sacrifice where necessary, helping those in dire straits... a host of good things from him, and other philosophies, can make this world a better place. One need not be a "religious" person to see good in the teachings of great philosophies, and try to abide by them. One need not have a "religion" to seek out truth and wisdom...:)

What I see from those who vocalize their religious precepts, is an attempt to gain favor w/a fistful of self aggrandizing people that haven't a clue what their, much less any other religion, tries to teach. Too often, religion is used as a weapon, as opposed to a bridge to comfort and tolerance.

:)

[lwcon]

7. Joe Conason wrote a great piece about these pious jerks

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/

Distasteful as all the Bible thumping and ostentatious piety of the Republican presidential aspirants certainly are, the time may have come to address their religious pretensions directly, instead of turning away in mild disgust. For the truth is that no matter how often candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee promise to uphold the Constitution and protect religious freedom, they are clearly seeking to impose the restrictive tests of faith that the nation's founders abhorred...

We can begin with Romney's speech Thursday, in which he declared, as Joan Walsh noted with alarm, that there can be no liberty without faith. "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom ... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

This statement is so patently false that it scarcely deserves refutation. If Romney has studied the bloody history of his own church, then he knows that the religious fervor of its adversaries drove them to deprive the Mormons not only of their freedom but their lives, and that the Mormons reacted in kind. If he has studied the bloody history of the world's older religions, then he knows that the most devout Christians of all sects have not hesitated to suppress, torture and murder "heretics" throughout history. Only the strictest separation of church and state has permitted the establishment of societies where freedom of conscience prevails -- and those freedoms are firmly rooted in societies where organized religion has long been in decline.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

8. Thanks! That's what I've been saying for years...

(albeit, Conason is far more eloquent!).

Looking at power from a religious POV, (any religion)...what can be more pwerful than actually "justifying" terror, (in any form), with the mantle of said terror being "God's Will"...:grr:

No deity of the world's great religions demands that others be "destroyed" in that deity's "name". That is strictly a human bastardization of the tenets of said religion, and it should be called into the light every time it is brought up. Just like Robertson saying Katrina was "God's judgement", or absurd claim from Phelps that our soldiers are dying because of homosexuality. Katrina was a natural phenomenon; and homosexuals did not start the war in Iraq, nor were they the cause of the WTC bombing.

If these people truly wanted to honor the God they profess to speak for, they would be pushing for Peace, understanding and aiding those afflicted by bad circumstances in life. They would not sit upon poles of cash, they would be in the streets feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, warming the chilled, and getting medical attention for the sick.

If there is a hell, (I don't believe in the Fire and Brimstone aspect of hell), it was created for these hypocrites.

[lwcon]

9. And yet so many Americans, including a lot of progressives...

... are so defensive, like the commenter here who warns against "dumping on religion."

This omnipresent brand of believe-or-else religiosity deserves to be dumped on, yet it's granted free reign because of society's taboos against criticizing religion.

Your approach -- which takes religious writings as philosophy to be read and interpreted, not as a cudgel -- earns respect through thoughtfulness and however good it makes you as a person.

As Sinclair Lewis is purported to said, "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."


___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

10. There is no difference between beating a person with...

a club or a religious tome; the beating is severe, and you will not win over any hearts.

One thing I enjoy, is sitting down w/"literalists", and asking them why they are here. After all, if Adam and Eve had Caine and Abel....Cain killed Abel...we don't exist, the line died off. When they admit that there is a problem there, I can get them to see some other situations that just don't "mesh". I'm not saying the Bible, (or any other religious book is "false", I'm just saying we don't get the whole story. But I digress...the point of the NT is to try and get along w/people, and seek ways to alleviate pain and suffering. Not much more to it than that when one looks at what Jesus spoke of. Problems arise when people try to add in what Paul wrote to specific churches, and then try to put them into a modern perspective. Often, far too often, they overlook James' views, which are exceptionally progressive as far as society goes, sharing, communal living, no one goes hungry and the ill are cared for at community "expense". FWIW...apparently james knew Jesus, where Paul came along quite a bit later....big problem there, epiphany or not on the road to Damascus.

Really though, one need not call themselves Christian to try follow the good things, an atheist is just as good as Christian, Jew or Muslim, why clobber them w/religious tenets, they very often follow the same tenets as Justice, Mercy and Charity, even more so, than 'religious" people. One need not turn to a deity to be a "good person". Those that do accept a religion should not be bashed about, but neither should those that have rejected a religion...there lies the rub...:)

[lwcon]

11. Ah, yes. Cain's wife.

Some thoughts on that:

http://bs4a.blogspot.com/2006/12/genesis-4.html

[rasputin1952]

12. While I question the where-with-all, I also see there is a lot of

derisive writing on that blog...once again, one can't win friends by clobbering them.

The whole story, as far as I'm concerned, is a bit of a wash, it doesn't make sense, but then again, neither did a geocentric universe. it took years of hard science and discussion to bring people around to the reality that the earth was not the center of the universe.

When I come across people that believe in things like Creation, I basically let them believe what they want, I don't argue with them, that just creates more animosity. What they believe affects me in no way, I know better, and I explain my side, they can take it or leave it. Same thing when I get people coming to my door, preaching up a storm, I just ask them to leave, if they take their time, I ask them if they have driven all of the hate, mistrust and indignity from their own lives...at that point, they pretty well know they have little for me. No one can talk to me about salvation, if they still carry the baggage of preconceived notions of how people should live their lives. After all, it's extremely hard to "lead", if you never learned how to follow what was taught...:)

Like most books, I like a lot of what the Bible has to say, but there can be no literal interpretation to be taken as "fact", after all, just who would actually take their son out back and stone him, if he "offended" the father? But in the same book, there are directions on how to wash ones hands and utensils before eating...:)

Far too many people look to the "dark side" of Biblical applications, the whole hellfire and brimstone act is overplayed, and the tolerance, love and understanding are well underplayed, if played at all. Sad really, when i see what is going on with all religions these days...:(

[lwcon]

19. Not expecting to win friends with my Bible blog

Just searching for truth and an outlet against the absurdity of Bible literalism.

As I note in the latest post, literalism isn't an obscure or passing fancy. It's become a political litmus test, and beyond a number of the candidates themselves, many of the most powerful influencers on today's politicians are literalists. Thus, being blunt and ironic about how frequently distasteful much of the Bible is strikes me as a worthy endeavor.

But let's face it. This stuff is like "The Sixth Sense," because people largely believe what they want to believe. As a pragmatist, I well understand that.

A number of people have argued that I'll like the New Testament better than the Old. I sure hope so. I hope to find that I like the Jesus character, even though I'm unlikely to be convinced of his divinity. Haven't read that part, so I won't pass judgment. But I do know there are an awful lot of heels who use his name and who don't embody any of the things I've heard that he stood for.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[lwcon]

20. Oh, and I am glad that the O.T. recommends washing with water.

But as I near the end of Leviticus, I still haven't found any references to using soap

A quick search says that'll come up in Jeremiah: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=site%3Abible.cc%20soap

I pity the poor generations that didn't get that handy tip, especially Noah who handled all that flora and fauna (though he did live to a ripe old age -- certainly longer than any of his peers) and all the Aaronids who sacrificed animal after animal and inspected the lepers and whatnot.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

21. ......

:D


FWIW...just about any skin disease was called "leprosy" back then, and the priestsd, being the learned calss were a sort of physician. A lot was lost in translation. You'd think that there were very few dieases back then if you read the book literally, and most of those would be "leprosy". To be honest, since leprosy takes a long time to manifest itself, I'm thinking smallox, bubonic plague, and eczema were all considered "leproy, especially since there is ample evidence that "leprost" be checked ut very quickly. Actual leprosy would not have been an "immediate" but smallpox sure would have been...:)

[lwcon]

23. There's an awesome commenter on the blog...

... who posts in great detail from a *lot* of knowledge of the ancient translations. So, soon after I post my "modern eyes" interpretations, he backfills with that kind of lore. Never met this individual, and don't know his/her name, but I think we're making an interesting tag-team.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

24. Excellent....You know, in the Torah, the Commandments are

quite a bit different than in the KJV...for instance, the Commandment, "You shall not kill", actually reads, "You shall not murder". seems like an upgrade, but there is a tremndous difference between those two words, in both Hebrew and English...:)

[lwcon]

25. Not to mention there are three versions of the 10 commandments

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf (.pdf file)

Actually more, because are they the ones from Exodus 20 or from Exodus 34?

What's a southern courthouse to do?

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

26. Want to really twist your brain?

If you go back to Confucius, you will see that some of them are there as well...:)

Some of the 10 Commandments pre-date Judaism by 500-750 years. Ancient Babylon can be seen as the main route that most religious and civil laws that Central Asia came to accept. There are parallels all over the place in history. Murder, theft, adultery and bearing false witness are all parts of every civilization, the Hebrew God might well have "spoken" to Moses, but he apparently "spoke" to many other cultures as well.

The thing about Judaism, is that it was the first religion where a single all powerful entity really gained a foothold. I don't have problem w/that at all, nor do i have a problem w/people who feel they need many gods or no god. Thing is, religion is personal journey, one that can benefit some, and others see no reason to "believe", I have no problem with any aspect of that, w/one caveat; no one should be harmed along the journey in the name of the religion, or in the absence of a religion.

[lwcon]

28. What concerns me...

... is that when each new generation is indoctrinated into religion, brains and the truth get twisted.

Putting "fear of" a non-existent god into any child is, in my book, harm. Religion's being "time-honored" and pervasive makes most people consider wholesale criticism of it to be unwarranted. It's worth noting that slavery, subjugation of women, and persecution of homosexuals have prevailed through most of world history, and that doesn't make them right or objections to them misguided, eh?

Religion is a journey that begins with misdirection, and all the dogma, ritual, and peer pressure make it in a great many ways the opposite of a personal quest. Some people like yourself have the knack and/or good tutelage to separate the wheat from the chaff and take a philosophical and non-doctrinaire view. Others end up both narrow and warped. Far too many have had their trust scandalously abused.

If people choose to believe in untrue things, it's their right, but trying to make others believe them is to me a sin against the wondrous human renaissance of The Enlightenment, the path toward truth and humanism and away from superstition.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

29. Well...fear is a great motivator, and there are those who live in

it's shadow from the time they first aware of their surroundings. Then, there are those who use fear to keep people in the dark. Denying an all powerful deity in one fell swoop is neither enlightened nor particularly wise.
While a lot of things in every religious tome can be dismantled, like the literal version of Creation, the existence of an all powerful God can neither be proven nor disproved, therefore, the possibility exists that said deity exists. If there is a possibility, like in any theory, each person should seek an answer, seek out truth, seek out what they can...and that can only come about by keeping an open mind.

As for fear...I find it despicable that so many of faith use fear, as opposed to love, to express their thoughts on the matter. Since believing, or disbelieving is an act of faith on different levels, one should never accept as "fact" something based on fear of what is unknown, unprovable.

For me, God exists, not because I am afraid of going to "hell", but because of a combination of things, including, but not limited to, being brought up in a religion and personal experiences. I can't explain it, and I really don't have to, but things have happened in my life, and 2 NDE's, that have brought me to the conclusion that there is more to this life than just me and random experiences. I hold no animosity to those who have decided not to believe, but I do hold animosity for those that have taken any religion and made it into a path for their own aggrandizement and search for power. I have a deep dislike for those who would harm others, but that emotion goes somewhat deeper when religion is used as a tool to rationalize doing harm or justifying it. No religion, no philosophy, should be used to crush people beneath the heels of power.

Each of us go through this world both alone, and in the company of others. We find comfort when we discuss things w/those who hold the same views we share, and there is a level of discomfort when we come across something/someone that holds a different view of life. I think that if we all sat down, and discussed our similarities as opposed to our differences, we would all do a lot better. We all seek answers, some come to different conclusions, but the the similarities are really quite powerful and numerous than we would like to believe. The real problems arise when some are allowed to dictate just how answers should be searched for, or worse yet, profess to have all of the answers, and yet they go unchallenged as they lead others down a path of bigotry, hatred and ignorance.

[lwcon]

33. Even if I don't agree with you about deities...

I like the cut of your jib! Good talkin' with you!

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rasputin1952]

34. Thanks, the feeling is mutual...I always enjoy an insightful

discussion...:)

[tblue37]

30. The Pharisees were the priests and the spokespersons for

the religion of their day, and they had a wealth and political power. Jesus was manifestly against them and the way they wielded that power and the way they interpreted God's word.

I am not a believer at all, but I am appalled at how ignorant supposed beleivers are about their own religion.

[rasputin1952]

31. Ignorance is indeed amazing...

I can accept stupidity, but ignorance has no excuse.

Also, I am appalled by how so many religious figures are so hooked on sex, and yet, by far, hypocrisy is considered a far greater problem in the Biblical aspect of things, being mentioned far more often and universally condemned.

Another thing that people fail to see is the elevation of women in society. When the famous tale about the "adulteress" is brought into light, one must wonder, where is the male that was involved? By Jesus sending the woman off w/o even the slightest rebuke, only a statement, of "Go and sin no more"...he raised the status of women to that of men. He did it in other places as well, such as at the well, and when the "woman who bled for many years" touched his garment. There are a lot of things like that throughout the Gospels.

Take a look at James...he speaks of community and how to ensure that no one go hungry or unclothed in society.
To look at it in today's context, is is a from of socialism that ensures not just food and warmth, but also ensures justice for all of society. Pretty progressive for 2000 years ago...:D

[Irishonly]

13. I Wish I Could Recommend Your Response

I agree completely. This theocracy BS bothers me and I am just as offended as anyone when the founding father's words are taken out of context to try to force something on the public.

[rasputin1952]

22. Thank you for the kind words....I am often amazed at how some

people think that we are not trying to go down that road. It is easy to see where theocracies lead, they NEVER turn out well.

I was talking to my boss a while back, and he said God had put bush into the presidency, and then I asked him why he thought God didn't put Clinton in there, and why did he hate Clinton when God supposedly put him in there in the first place?

Right away, the idea that killing babies was wrong cropped up. To which i responded, the R's had congress for 12 years, why did they worry about flag burning and denying gays fundamental human rights, and not legislate "Abortion De-legalization"? The truth of the matter is, the R's use that to motivate their base, they have no intention of giving up that "gift".

[NMMNG]

15. K&R

There allegedly is no religious test for public office, but really there is. Just try to get elected to a higher office if you aren't Christian, and refuse to wear your faith on your sleeve.


And I see one of our own got cited in one of your links.

[lwcon]

17. Thanks, BTFS

As to citing a DUer, I think more bloggers should cross-fertilize their postings with DU interactions. You learn about some interesting items here quickly, and you get a pulse on what a lot of people are thinking.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[Perry Logan]

35. God was behind George W. Bush--and look what happened.