Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are misrepresenting if not lying about their theocratic tendencies. Contrary to what both candidates will tell you, the founders believed in a "wall of separations" between church and state. The US, in George Washington's words is "in no way founded upon the Christian religion".The founders were, in fact, not very religious at all, and fewer still espoused the Christian religion. Thought Mitt Romney tries to brush it all off, there are very real concerns about the kind of regime either candidate would try to effect. There are valid concerns about both men's public religiosity, concerns about what Thomas Jefferson called a "wall of separation" between church and state.
Romney wants to have it both ways. Even as he claims that his status inside the cult of Mormonism will not influence "his" Presidency, he implied that the founders were Christians, that the US was, in fact, founded upon the principles of "Christian religion". Romney's position is absolutely wrong. It is at best a mistaken view of our history, at worst, it is a deliberate lie.
It was Thomas Jefferson, though not a "founder", who described a "wall of separation" between church and state. George Washington, a founder who presided over the Constitutional Convention, stated that the US "was, in no way, founded upon the Christian religion". [click the pic for Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy"]Of the many assaults on US liberty, the religious assault is the most pernicious. It is an evil influence cloaked in Godliness, premised as it is upon a pack of malicious lies about our history. First things first --the founders were those delegates to Philadelphia who drafted the US Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention. "Christians" almost always get this wrong. Most statements made by religious folk lump all the past and famous folk into one bag: founders. This, like almost every other thing they say, is just wrong and wrong headed. Those not present at the convention and who did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution are not founders. Thomas Jefferson, who was in France, was suspicious of what he characterized as an assembly of demigods. John Adams, likewise, was absent. Patrick Henry also did not attend and said of the convention that he "smelled a rat!" Nevertheless, James Madison, our charter's "architect", drafted a workable, secular government, and later, the legal framework for individual liberty: the Bill of Rights.
We are less free than our 18th Century forebears. George W. Bush represents a powerful fascist threat to US democracy. He ignores Congress, he re-writes the laws, he has abrogated habeas corpus, he has dismantled the separation of powers, he is, in fact, ruling by decree. He is a tyrant by any definition of the term. His has the potential to be the most harmful, the most damaging, the most pernicious dictatorship in world history. When the US House passed the "Defense of the Ten Commandments" amendment to the juvenile justice bill, zealots of the Religious Right chanted the mantra: the USA is a Christian Nation! A press conference was attended by Gary Bauer and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R, Alabama), the sponsor of the amendment. Aderhold said:
The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of the values this nation was built upon, and the basis of our legal system here in America".Nonsense! And on various message boards, a chant, a mantra was taken up:
The legal foundation of this nation is the Ten CommandmentsThat is simply not true. In a single sentence, the founders put to rest any claim that this nation was, in any way, founded upon any religious principle of any type at any time.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.I suggest radical fundamentalists read the Constitution, count the number of times the word "God" is used! As E.L. Doctorow so accurately pointed out in his essay, Jack London, Hemingway and the Constitution, the word God is not used once. Nor are the names of any deities used. There is, in fact, no reference to any deity of any religion, no reference to a source of supernatural power, no reference to a transcendent being, a primordial force, a first cause, an elan vital, a non-temporal, non-spatial Platonic ideal, an unmoved mover. The framers were having none of that. This is not merely significant from a legal standpoint. Bluntly, with Faith-Based initiatives, Bush has robbed you in the name of God.--US Constitution, First Amendment
Opposition to Bush's faith-based initiatives has come from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Both organizations have stated that the initiative represents an unconstitutional merging of church and state.
In constitutional terms, charitable choice boils down to this: religious organizations can receive government money to provide public services without sacrificing their religious character provided (1) the funding scheme does not somehow give bonus points to organizations simply because they are religious, and (2) individual users of the services have meaningful choices among providers and are only exposed to religious providers voluntarily. It’s an approach to First Amendment interpretation that over the last two decades has been gaining ground at the Supreme Court, evidenced most dramatically by this summer’s landmark decision blessing the use of education vouchers at religious schools.It is doubtful that any of Bush's "faith based initiatives" money has gone to Jewish, Islamic, or, indeed, any organization but Evangelical Christian organizations!- Dennis R. Hoover, Faith Based Administration
"Bush's faith-based initiative also privileges Christianity above all other religions. After sifting through every grant announcement I could get my hands on from Bush's faith-based offices, I couldn't find a single grant issued to a religious charity that wasn't Christian -- no Jewish charities, no Muslim charities, nothing. And when I spoke with Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, he confirmed that no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group. This kind of religious favoritism is exactly what the Constitution's establishment clause was put in place to prevent."This is highway robbery. Your tax money finding its way into the coffers of Evangelical Christian organizations with which you most certainly disagree is most certainly theft!! You have been robbed. Like the Military/Industrial complex itself, Bush's axis of ideology is a racket designed to enrich his fundamentalist base.
"We will rid the world of evil doers"The world would be better off now had Bush started with himself! The Bush administration represents an insidious, dangerous sea change in how this nation has viewed its own history. Right wing attempts to rewrite our history are insidious and Orwellian. The US, it must be repeated, is not a theocracy. The founders have cited no other authority for their work but the people themselves. God does not get even a footnote.--George W. Bush
The US Constitution is not a "Ten Commandants" handed down by God. The US Constitution is the work of men, a convention of elected delegates to Philadelphia in 1787. If the Constitution should prove faulty, unworkable, or, in any other way, impractical, the people themselves bear the responsibility. It is no use blaming God.
The US Constitution is an existentialist document, a deliberate choice made by a people facing up to the facts of their founding, a people willing to take responsibility for a future they believed they could create, were free to create and adult enough to be responsible for. If God was to be summoned, it would be done by individuals free to act alone and within the dictates of their consciences. It would not be done by a theocracy; it would not be done by an act of Congress; it would not be done by a single article or phrase in the new charter; it would not be done by a GOP police state. The US Constitution is significant by what it does not do. It does not cite a transcendent being as its source of authority. It does not favor the Christian religion, nor any religion, in any language. It does not cite or reference the works of theologians, saints, or prophets of any religion. It does not anoint a "King" who, in turn, cites a "divine right" to rule. The word "Christian" is not used once. Nor "Muslim", nor "Buddhist", "nor "Hindu". No article mandates a liturgy. No article mandates a day of worship. The names of deities, religions or sects are not mentioned.
The word "myth" is too kind for latter day ideologues who persist in trying to rewrite our nation's history. Assertions that our legal system is founded on the Christian Bible are more than mythical. They are deliberate lies manufactured and perpetrated by American fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and other evangelists who make big bucks in the God business, exploiting irrational belief systems, misconceptions, deliberate lies, and naive myths.
Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.' " Everson, 330 U. S., at 16, quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879). The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose . . . was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31-32 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.).Following is the quote by Jefferson, referenced by the Justices, in which Jefferson referred to the "wall of separation" between church and state:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."The justices have simply buttoned it all up. There is no ambiguity in the decision itself. There is most certainly none in Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation." We may dispense with the persistent myths about our "Christian" founders. For a start, few of them were Christian, if any. Many were deists. Others were, we suspect, atheists.-- Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802
Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.Thomas Paine did say:- Wikipedia entry for "Deism"
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.But Thomas Paine was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. He was not a founder however great his treatise: Common Sense. Then, of course, there is the opinion of the man who has was and is called the Father of his Country, George Washington:
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."This sentiment would be echoed in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797:
Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.About that, Tom Peters writes:
Does the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli say that "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion?" YES!...This debate should be over, the case should be closed. By law, the separation of church and state is complete. But, as we have learned, the rule of law, under Bush, means nothing. As is typical of dictatorship in general, the "decrees" of George W. Bush replace the law itself.More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects [sic] the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.
...--Tom Peters, 1797 TREATY WITH TRIPOLI
To bolster their case, accommodationists have produced reams of quotations from famous early Americans to the effect that religion is important to public life, or that the founders themselves were religious men. As we demonstrate elsewhere, some of these quotes are either fabricated or taken out of context. Others (as we suggest in this section) are taken from people who were either opponents of the Constitution (eg., Patrick Henry), or who played no role in the framing of the Constitution or other important American documents (eg., Daniel Webster). Finally, we argue that the overwhelming majority of these quotations are irrelevant to what's at issue in the separation debate: one can be religious, and even believe that religion is important for public life, without believing that the state should have the power to aid religion, either preferentially or non-preferentially. -Fundamentalists have lately tried a different tact, arguing that the "wall" is "one way". In other words, government may not prohibit or, in any way, interfere with religion but that religion may interfere with the functions of government. But which religion? I wonder. Islam? Hindu? Certainly, America's Religious Right would confine such "interference" to Christianity. The late Steve Kangas argued that if the Founders had intended that our nation be a Christian Republic, they would have done so in the Constitution. They would not have separated Church and State.
Many of the founders, the authors of our Constitution, were Deists or atheists, not Christians; it would have been uncharacteristic, hypocritical, indeed, impossible for them to have intended a Christian Republic. By definition, religious control i.e, "interference" with the "state" infringes upon the rights of other sects, atheists, deists, or agnostics. The best refutation, however, is found in a decision of the US Supreme Court:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."The Religious Right will often cite certain isolated professions of faith. In themselves, the quotes fall far short of proving that the founders had in mind founding the nation upon the Christian religion, indeed, creating a Christian theocracy. Worth repeating: the assertion that the US was founded upon the Christian religion is a pernicious, evil, destructive lie. And I happen to believe that facts are preferable to falsehoods. Facts are better than opinions. Facts are better than destructive myths.
Jefferson, moreover, backed up with deeds his belief that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. When Patrick Henry proposed to tax the citizens of Virginia in order to support "some form of Christian worship", Jefferson opposed it. He designed a bill for Religious Freedom which completely separated religion from government in Virginia. His bill passed while none of Henry's "theocratic" ideas were even introduced in either Virginia or US government. The right, however, will cite other aspects of American history, the Pledge of Allegiance, for example. It must be pointed out, however, that the original pledge, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892, did not contain the words "under God". I remember well when those were words introduced having first learned the original version. Moreover, it was not until after the Civil War that US currency had printed on it the words: "In God We Trust". Nor can fundamentalists find a principle of law in a SCOTUS decision of 1892. In the case of Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." But Brewer wrote this in dicta i.e., a personal opinion. As a personal opinion so qualified by the justice himself, it does not establish case law. It is not a legal pronouncement. It does not have the force of law. Feeling obliged to explain, Brewer himself stated:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.It may be left to the scrappy John Adams to close the book on the absurd assertions of religious folk.-
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.Though he had hopes that "...men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice", he foresaw the present debate. In doing so, he gave us the best ammunition against them. Reason! I love his line "...it will never be pretended that any persons ... had interviews with the gods ..." Isn't it interesting that the 21st Century is in danger of slipping into a new dark age. It is equally interesting that the antidote is found in the lucid minds of 18th Century statesmen - Jefferson, Washington, Adams et al. It is time to put aside the campaign of lies by the Religious Right! Mixing governance with religion is a bad and discredited idea as evidenced by those who espouse it.--John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788],
"The national government ... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."Have not similar statements issued from the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Ashcroft, or George W. Bush and the American Taliban of John Ashcroft, Pat Robertson, and Gary Bauer?--Adolf Hitler
At last, I refer interested readers to Joseph Storey's Commentaries on the Constitution - especially the significance he attributes to the Preamble which states:
"We the People of the United States, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."Significantly, the Preamble does not state that God ordained it, nor, indeed, any lawgiver but the people themselves. Nor is the Constitution based - as Gary Bauer had said - on the Ten Commandments. The "Ten Commandants" are not cited anywhere in the Constitution. Though it has the tone and voice of "Sacred Text" [See E.L Doctorow previously cited], the only authority cited by the Constitution is that of the people themselves. That is important. According to Joseph Story, a preamble may not enlarge or confer power that is not found in the body of the document:
§ 459. The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute.But until he is impeached, removed, tried, convicted and imprisoned, Bush conducts daily "interviews" with God. He has always implied a special relationship between him and a deity of his imagining. It is the basis of his dictatorship! It means that you are always wrong, Bush is always right. He's on a mission from God. He's not just a run of the mill, banana republic, tin horn dictator. He is infallible. He is the Pope!. . . . .
§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any impliedd power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Naomi Wolf Celebrated Author of "The End of America"
Nessun Dorma by Pavrotti
Paul Potts Who Just Came to "Sing Opera"
GOP
Theocracy
Romney
Spread the word:
11 comments:
I've already given it a name: Jesusistan. The Chimpy and his wingtard zealot buddies are no different than the Taliban, unless you are talking symbols. A cross isn't a crescent, but the hatred and persecution in the name of the Almighty is exactly the same.
jollyroger, you hit the nail on the head. A fanatic is a fanatic is a fanatic. All have their idols and will murder to defend them. Shakespeare said it best: "A plague o' both your houses!"
“……….the original pledge, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1992, did not contain the words "under God"………..”. I dunno, I have a feeling the date of the pledge was somewhat earlier!!!!!
Yours is an excellently researched posting which deserves to be read by all Republicans no matter where they live in the USA.
However, the fact is that no self-professed atheist can be elected to any public office in the USA, no doubt because only 5% of Americans or less are atheists.
And more importantly, more than half of Americans would never vote for an atheist candidate.
Therefore all (100%) of the members of the congress and senate are practicing religionists.
But this doesn’t make them representative of the population at large, since at least 14%, and maybe as many as 20%, follow no particular religion.
This raises the possibility there may be closet non-religionists, and even atheists, in the congress and senate, and among the presidential candidates.
Will any ever have the courage to come out?
Christopher, the phrase "under God" has something of a history and is under challenge in the US courts:
"In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust."
The Right has used religion to achieve certain political ends. So they're prepared to ignore the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Accordingly, it's always disappointing to see such idiocy as this:
The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation which was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the United States, George Bush(snr), indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the United States of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day, U.S.A.
You weren't aware that the USA was founded on the laws of Noah? It's here in the library of Congress and it's discussed here. Well, you live and learn. There.Is.No.Lobby.
On a more general note I'm somewhat sympathetic to the best of religion (I have to be as a former 12-year old altar boy and product of an unashamably Catholic upbringing, since discarded in toto). In an ideal world Filipina families would emerge fully-formed in a John Dawkins world of independent mindedness, but between stepping across the open sewerage drains and searching for cast offs in Manila's municipal garbage dumps they may choose to find hope in weekly prayer meetings, remembrance of a noble man who spoke about universal love and an ideology that reminds them that a part of them will always belong to the heavens. Who am I, or anybody else, to enforce our "wisdom" upon them. At it's best, religion can be an ethical stake against which mature and decent people can grow. At it's worst it can be a hiding place for the fearful and the intellectually dishonest, the "toe-tapping" of GOP fraudulents, insecure little men and women who have settled for the first convenient ideas to cross their path. At it's public, and worst, levels it can manifest in the Inquisition and the cultural genocide of many native cultures and the current US crossbreeding of evangelism and crass political opportunism.
Basically, there's something for everyone according to the disposition of their character. People should choose wisely: their friends and ideas will stay with them forever.
Christopher, you are correct. That date is a typo that I will correct. Instead of 1992, it should read: 1892. Thanks for the heads up.
...the fact is that no self-professed atheist can be elected to any public office in the USA, no doubt because only 5% of Americans or less are atheists.
There are several reasons for that outcome but foremost among them is an apparent failure of universal education. It is too easy to conclude that the founders were exceptional people. Many historians have pointed out that literacy and educational development were fairly widespread in colonial times. This might have something to do with the fact that education throughout England at that time was rigorous.
This raises the possibility there may be closet non-religionists, and even atheists, in the congress and senate, and among the presidential candidates. Will any ever have the courage to come out?
You're right. I don't see things changing. Atheists, agnostics, logical positivists, scientists, pragmatists and existentialists don't "organize" and they don't collect millions, perhaps billions in contributions.
Even if they pull that off, monies raised would be taxed to support wars of aggression, Pentagon contractors, and religiously-biased education. In America, belief in God is subsidized with atheists' money.
damien said...
At it's best, religion can be an ethical stake against which mature and decent people can grow. At it's worst it can be a hiding place for the fearful and the intellectually dishonest, the "toe-tapping" of GOP fraudulents, insecure little men and women who have settled for the first convenient ideas to cross their path.
Anyone growing up in West Texas was surrounded by "God-fearin'" folk fitting your description. It was a time when "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers outnumbered jack rabbits, horned toads, and prairie dogs.
There were a handful of intelligent, enlightened, talented people living among the gun nuts and fundies. One of them was the Defense Attorney, Warren Burnett, who earned the moniker: heir apparent to Clarence Darrow. The late Molly Ivins wrote of Burnett: "Burnett, son of a miner, had a strong sense of how the legal system in this country grinds down on those without money."
Ivins recalls the time Burnett advocated the creation of an upper-level UT Branch to supplement the existing Jr. Collegte in Odessa, TX. Asked if such a new school could be justified, Burnett replied: "Mr. Chairman, there is enough ignorance in Odessa to justify an eight-year college." That's probably still the case.
At its public, and worst, levels it can manifest in the Inquisition and the cultural genocide of many native cultures and the current US crossbreeding of evangelism and crass political opportunism.
You describe the symptoms of certitude itself. Christians, however, are absolutely certain of the truth of their ideology. It is not merely the case that there is no evidence in support of it. By its nature and logic there cannot be.
If this "belief system" were called anything but "Christianity", it would be considered to be a symptom of psychosis. It is only sheer numbers and lack of facilities that prevents the permanent lock up of these folk. This is an intolerable situation, of course. People act upon what they believe to be true. It is hard to imagine how good can come of believing things that are untrue and other things that cannot be proven to be either true or false. The prisons in Texas are designed to warehouse "criminals", most often those who simply don't fit in the "established society". But what is to be said of this situation when the "established society" itself is absolutely nuts?
Len, you say...
Christians, however, are absolutely certain of the truth of their ideology. It is not merely the case that there is no evidence in support of it. By its nature and logic there cannot be.
I agree, Len, and the same applies to all religions. Religious claims are essentially "private statements" inherently inaccessible to other persons, unfalsifiable and hence completely unscientific. You'd probably know better than me on this but I believe A.J. Ayers has described God statements as essentially meaningless. The Buddha himself discouraged questions about the existence of God on similar grounds. But there are some side points that can be made.
Modern societies ought to be unflinchingly secular. I'm reminded of an English Muslim teacher who was recently sacked for insisting, as a religious right, on wearing her burka in the classroom -- which, of course, overlooks the rights of the children to emotionally relate to her by seeing her face. There's also no reason why schools can't insist on a secular dress code for whatever reasons they want. The teacher's rights to exercise her religion are still preserved, it's just that she has to bear the social consequences of her individual choice which should never be permitted to usurp secular laws.
If this "belief system" were called anything but "Christianity", it would be considered to be a symptom of psychosis.
I think this applies to most religious beliefs, and to the extent such beliefs influence government policy I think religion is pernicious. I don't mind if people hold religious beliefs, I just think it's obscene when people use them to classify themselves as morally superior and go on to abuse other citizens using religious standards. Society functions best with a secular ethical standard at its core. The current Presidential questions about religious beliefs and "moral values" are a dangerous load of crock signifying a deeply dysfunctional society.
The prisons in Texas are designed to warehouse "criminals", most often those who simply don't fit in the "established society". But what is to be said of this situation when the "established society" itself is absolutely nuts?
Absolutely. And it's interesting that the broader ethical questions such as welfare, worker and union rights never get a look in with these warped ethical views. At the level of government and society religion is very much a menace, distracting people from the essential task of reasoned -- and equitable -- public policy. (Noted Christian Jack Abramoff voted down the legislation that would give improved rights to Chinese workers in the Marianas, eliminating the sweat shops and the brothels.)
At the philosophical level I'm not prepared to entirely dismiss all religious statements as hallucinatory or self-serving. Some Buddhist meditations are designed to shift consciousness and separate a superficial sense of self from a deeper, and more substantive, awareness. A number of yogic practices do the same. And I'm curious about anecdotal accounts of reincarnation memories and questions about people's abilities to enter into the consciousness of other persons.
While accepting A.J.Ayer's dictum that religious statements are private and not open to proof or debate the long and varied history of religious phenomena suggests, to me at least, that there may be components that reflect subtle components of human awareness and existence (It's intriguing, for instance, that the Sikh scriptures, the Guru Granth Sahib(1604), contains lengthy passages that are almost a word for word reflection of the early chapters of St John's gospel).
I also take Godel's theorem on board: that in any axiomatic system that is at least as rich as the natural numbers there will always occur true statements that are inherently unprovable within the system. In fact, there are massively more such statements than provable ones. Which suggests to me that there may be human experiences of a so-called "religious" nature which may be true for individuals but inherently unprovable or undemonstrable to others.
All of which is by the by, and should not form the basis of any public system of government. And certainly should not be used to chop people's heads off, stick them in jail or infest civil democracies with policies determined by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Cheers, Len.
Apologies. Jack Abramoff may be Jewish not Christian. He worked with religious Right groups and with the religious group Toward Tradition and that may be the source of my confusion.
Again, sorry to blog hog, but I just remembered the US Christian pharmacists who are refusing to dispense the morning-after pill on religious grounds. This is a prime example of religious sensibilities run amuck. If they feel so strongly about dispensing these medications then the principled course of action is not to take the job in the first place rather than deny a customer medication to which they are legally entitled under secular law. What next -- vegetarian staff at MacDonald's who remove the meat from your burger before they hand it to you? It's crazy.
damien said...
Religious claims are essentially "private statements" inherently inaccessible to other persons, unfalsifiable and hence completely unscientific. You'd probably know better than me on this but I believe A.J. Ayer has described God statements as essentially meaningless.
You are, of course, correct. Ayer classified all statements as "synthetic" or "analytic". Synthetic statements, by definition, convey verifiable information about a "real" world. "Analytic" statements are either true or false by the definition of terms. Ex: "Bald men have no hair". Synthetic statements are "significant" if and only if the conditions by which they are verified can be described concretely. Bertrand Russell, meanwhile, proposed that "denoting" phrases refer to entities known to exist. His examples include "Scott," (to denote "the author of Waverly"), "the golden mountain" , etc. By 1905, Russell had become convinced "...that denoting phrases need not possess a theoretical unity." Even so, God cannot be said to exist because the definition "supreme being" necessarily implies existence. I apologize for painting this with such a wide brush, but I hope I have, at least, touched on the basics. A much more detailed analysis treatment of Russell's work in symbolic logic can be found here. Russell is not always easy going, but he is always a great read, a witty curmudgeon, a great intellect of both the 19th and 20th centuries. He was also committed to peace and nuclear disarmament and paid a social price for sticking with his convictions. Russell was not merely "smart", he was courageous. And he had integrity.
Modern societies ought to be unflinchingly secular. There's also no reason why schools can't insist on a secular dress code for whatever reasons they want.
That makes sense to me. An Islamic school which receives no public financial support whatever may have a right to require burkas but only if "citizens" have a similar right NOT to attend that school. Public schools, those supported with public tax monies, have a right to establish non-religious dress codes. It's a small price to pay for freedom, a small price to pay for the "wall of separation" between church and state.
I don't mind if people hold religious beliefs, I just think it's obscene when people use them to classify themselves as morally superior and go on to abuse other citizens using religious standards.
In my lifetime, I have tolerated all kinds of weird belief systems adhered to by "friends". As long as they accorded me the same consideration, all was fine. In the 1970's, however, I noticed that as the "right wing" grew increasingly virulent, an increasing number of "friendships" did not survive. I suspect that William Shakespeare was similarly torn as Elizabethan England radicalized in reaction to the appearance on English soil of the infamous Jesuit Priest Edmund Campion. Shakespeare might not have witnessed but was most certainly aware of the brutal executions of prominent "Ardens", relatives on his Mother's side of the family. Such a society is dangerous. Choosing the "wrong" friend could get you hanged, drawn, and quartered.
At the philosophical level I'm not prepared to entirely dismiss all religious statements as hallucinatory or self-serving. Some Buddhist meditations are designed to shift consciousness and separate a superficial sense of self from a deeper, and more substantive, awareness. A number of yogic practices do the same. And I'm curious about anecdotal accounts of reincarnation memories and questions about people's abilities to enter into the consciousness of other persons.
Indeed, the meditative state can be "measured". Now, whether this proves the existence of "God", I cannot say. Ayer and Russell could most accurately explain why not. You also mention the Gospel of St. John. It is there, I believe, that the statement In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God can be found. I wish Russell had analyzed this sentence in terms of his theories of "denotation". In this statement from the Gospel of St John, it is implied that the word "word" --a method by which pure information is communicated --may have preceded "God" and is said to have been with "God". Moreover, "God" him/herself is defined as that word. If any agreement of terms could be achieved, a theory consistent with the theory of sub-atomic particles may derive from this single "religious" source. But --religious folk would will have none of it. The best they've been able to come up with is claptrap: "Intelligent Design".
I just remembered the US Christian pharmacists who are refusing to dispense the morning-after pill on religious grounds. This is a prime example of religious sensibilities run amuck.
Run amuck, indeed! In his "Unpopular Essays", Bertrand Russell published a short essay entitled: "Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind", filled with examples of similar absurdities. It is surprising that man has survived the extremes of its own religions.
There's a compelling reason the 1st Amendment calls for no church in state.
The Founding Fathers were all too well aware of how the integration of church and state in Europe have been the root cause of so so much tragedies - decades-long religious wars between states and among religious sects, inquisitions, crusades, burn alive at the stick, absolute power corruption hell, saints become devils in an instant morality, state-sponsored terror against secular and science. These have all been the way of life in Europe for a thousand years, since the Dark Ages.
With the chance to found a new nation in a new land, the Founders were absolutely terrified of only one big thing - create a European theocracy in America.
Looking back America's history, one find many examples of religions trying to gain a foothold on state power, but all failed to achieve even a small level of de facto theocracy. The current Bush administration, however, have achieved the highest degree of theocratic success.
It is amazing that the current crop of Republican candidates not only see no problem with de facto theocracy, the want to maintain or grow the theocratic success of Bush.
There is much debate about what will happen to America in the next 20 years, now in a historic critical juncture. I believe the predictions of the scholarly book The Fourth Turning (www.fourthturning.com), which says America will enter the epoch of Crisis beginning around 2015, which will last some 20 years. The authors analyzed history of the past 500 years and found that historical 'culture' cycles every 80 years, and there are 4 'sub-cycles' in those 80 years. The accuracy is such that its many predictions are completely believable. The last Crisis was the Great Depression and WW2. The one previous to that was the Civil war.
Just what will trigger the Crisis Turning? I am beginning to see the big powerful trends. First, the deep runaway culture of debt will blow up because $20 trillion of national and private debt can no longer be serviced. The USD will crash like one of those pesos, hyper-inflation rules the day. In time of such crisis, people turns to religion as they've always done. That will push America over the edge, becoming a full-blown theocracy. (Bear in mind that's exactly how Iran became a Islamic theocracy a quarter century ago.) A sort of religions civil war will break out between those who want to retain the original Constitution. And on how to fix the blown up economy, how to pay the horrific debts. This is Germany of the 1930's repeat. And like Germany of that era, a new strongman leader will emerge - either an American 'Presidential Pope', or an American 'Mao'.
BT said...
...the deep runaway culture of debt will blow up because $20 trillion of national and private debt can no longer be serviced.
First of all, welcome, BT. And thanks for the well-thought out comments. Indeed, every house o' cards will done collapse.
A sort of religions civil war will break out between those who want to retain the original Constitution. And on how to fix the blown up economy, how to pay the horrific debts. This is Germany of the 1930's repeat.
This is as good a scenario as any. All is up for grabs at the moment. Given what the GOP has conspired with Bush to do, it is amazing to me that GOPPERS dare show their faces in public.
If I were a GOPPER who had actively supported George Bush, I would give serious consideration to making a public apology, joining a monastery, or perhaps volunteering to deliver meals to elderly and homeless for the remaining years of my life.
Instead, the GOP is putting into the field the same old shit: Romney, Thompson, and a man who has become a pathetic spectable: John McCain.
Huckabee is something else again, specifically, a throw back to dark ages.
One of them surely hopes to be the American "Mao" that you warn about.
Post a Comment