Many Americans are concerned about the threat of a theocracy arising in Egypt and the Middle East as a result of the uprisings occurring there. Threat of theocratic government, or theocracy, is certainly a matter worthy of constant vigilance and I am among those who profess uncertainty about prospects for secular government in the Middle East. I recently engaged in a discussion with one of my conservative right-wing coworkers about the uprisings in Egypt and he was, intriguingly, supportive of the regime of Hosni Mubarak, not the people claiming to want a more secular democracy.
I found it unfortunate and disappointing that his entire perspective was based on incomplete information resulting from his own failure to adequately research the issues he was talking about mixed with propaganda transposed onto him by various right-wing media based on typical right-wing fear and denial about nuanced realities of the world. For instance, he slammed a newspaper onto my desk, pointing to a headline that said, “Protestors want a seat at the table”. Then he said, “See, that’s what I mean.”
Somewhat confused as to what exactly was his point, I asked, “What table do they want a seat at?”
He stammered just a bit, “Umm …well ...I don’t know,” with apparent recognition of the point I was about to make. “Well, let’s see,” I said.
I quickly scanned the first paragraph and informed my coworker that the table at which they wanted a seat was merely the table at which they could be included in determination of their new democratic government. Then I asked, “Isn’t that what democracy is all about? Why wouldn’t they want a seat at that table? Wouldn’t you?”
His only response was, “Democracy means Sharia Law to those people.”
When I pressed him for specifics about the situation in Egypt, it became clear that his primary concern was about “Sharia Law” possibly being instated in Egypt. His view is that to the protestors democracy means Sharia Law; something totally different than what we think of as democracy. I can not attest with absolute certainty to the correctness or incorrectness of his assertion, as only time will tell, but the protestors’ claims refute his opinion. My coworker has good reason to believe as he does, though, because, truthfully, there is a certain global dilemma in dealing with religion generally.
The United Nations has in recent years passed a “Religious Defamation Resolution” that supports criminalizing speech that criticizes religion. I blogged about this back in April of 2009 in a post titled, “United Nations: Combating Defamation of Religion”. The term “defamation” has a very specific meaning and it is logically impossible to defame religion because, as I discussed in that post:
“The act of defaming some-BODY or some-THING requires that the defamed entity can be proven to exist, or to be true, that it has been harmed by what has been said, and most importantly, that the defaming statement can be proven to be false.”
I’m always fascinated by the concern by so many Americans about religion taking control in other countries while they ignore – sometimes even encourage – the insidious religious threat that looms in America at this juncture. In fact, various elements of the entirety of American culture are diseased with religious remnants of the dark ages, a sort of dark plague, which retards societal progress, creates societal divisions and attempts to force religious mandates on society at large.
Christian elements are currently involved in efforts to impose religion in the U.S. military which represents merely one aspect of a cancerous religious attack. Practices in the military like “prayer breakfasts” and “spiritual fitness tests” are clear examples of this attack. The questions on the spiritual fitness test ask you to rate statements according to how closely they describe yourself. A sampling of those questions:
1) I often find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs.
2) In difficult times I pray or meditate.
3) I attend religious services.
Some soldiers who have failed the Army’s Spiritual Fitness Test have asserted that they were ordered to meet with chaplains where coercive attempts were made to instruct them in Christian doctrine.
South Dakota’s State House of Representatives considered a bill HR 1171 regarding abortion that would classify as justifiable homicide the murder of an individual who is attempting to cause an abortion. One is left to wonder where that slippery slope ends. For instance, what if someone destroys fertilized embryos in a Petri dish or a mother decides to have an abortion? In the quest to protect the “life” (life?) of the fetus, would these people be criminally prosecuted?
The absurdity of the legislation is more than obvious. Be that as it may, the fact that the legislature “tabled” the bill does little to mitigate the underlying dilemma, which is the blatant absurdity of the bill, not to mention the absurdity that it would have ever been considered seriously enough in the first place to need to be tabled. It’s important to note that merely tabling a bill leaves the possibility of taking it up again at some future date.
Continuing the theme of religious opposition to abortion, consider that the current U.S. House of Representatives has become the first chamber of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted Feb. 18 to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the country's No. 1 abortion provider, during the remainder of this fiscal year.
It is apparently the first time a chamber of Congress has ever voted to defund the organization, which recorded more than 324,000 abortions at its clinics in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available.
Is the defunding of Planned Parenthood based in religious pandering? Religious pandering may not be the only motivation, but one is hard-pressed to find a reasonable argument that wholly disallows religious pandering as a factor.
“Innocent until proven guilty” – does that phrase ring a bell with you? That phrase used to be one of the most precious tenets of American beliefs. However, the conservative right-wing is casually eliminating it. Have you ever heard of “prenatal murder”? The article GA Representative Seeking to Make Miscarriages "Prenatal Murder" outlines the legislative bill introduced into the Georgia State Legislature that would, in essence, define a miscarriage as homicide and would require a mother-to-be who suffers a miscarriage to prove the miscarriage was not intentional. It would not require a prosecutor to prove that the miscarriage was intentional. When I first heard about this, I wondered rhetorically whether right-wing conservatives would hold their god criminally responsible for a miscarriage that is, in fact, unintentional on the part of the mother-to-be, or someone else. The question presents some interesting arguing points.
Another good example of this dark plague is currently making its way through the court system in Indiana. An Indiana court deprived a father, Craig Scarberry, of his parental rights based, at least in part, on his religious beliefs being different from those of his ex-wife, Christine Porcaro. According to the court’s ruling:
“…evidence indicated that the Petitioner/Father did not participate in the same religious training that the Respondent/Mother exercises and that the Petitioner/Father was agnostic."
Ms. Porcaro claims the religious difference is only one consideration in the ruling. Porcaro's attorney said:
"While religious instruction for the children is an appropriate consideration for the Court, Ms. Porcaro contends that it was but one of many factors considered by the court."
“Religious instruction for the children is an appropriate consideration for the Court”? Really? I don’t think it is, at least not according to the U.S. Constitution. The courts have no authority in “religious instruction” and it seems particularly odd that an attorney would suggest they do have such authority. Does Ms. Porcaro have legal standing to assert that her religious beliefs override Mr. Scarberry’s parental rights simply because he is agnostic? There should have been no consideration of religious beliefs as any basis whatsoever regarding custodial rights and such events represent a clear warning of the insidiousness with which religion creeps into societal decision-making.
While some Americans worry about theocratic takeovers in other countries, their own country is also being assaulted on the religious front and while a theocratic takeover of America is certainly not as imminent as in other countries, the fact remains that the dark plague never sleeps and constant vigilance is needed to safeguard against such a takeover. Egypt is hardly a threat to America, whether theocratic, democratic or dictatorship. The real threats to America currently reside within its own borders, on many fronts, not only religiosity.
Unfortunately, too many people still defend religion, primarily out of a sense of Political Correctness. The continued defense of religion as something essential to society is misguided.
You can hear an interview with Mr. Scarberry on Free Thought Radio.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
I may have different insights because I've become very blunt lately. I was born a Copt in Cairo, my mother and I have different views on this. She tried to pass on the fears she had because I was born in a similar time in 1956. A few days after my birth she had to fled to Alexandria with me, her sister and her brother to accompany them. They weren't able to bring any servants, no cook, no maid, no nanny. She reminds me they treated their servants very well.
She is afraid of change in Egypt as her family is still there, they are doing quite well and still all have servants. They have no vested interest in change, quite the opposite is true in many ways. Though she and my father resented it, they could afford to bribe the officials and keep their lives safe and comfortable.
My parents prefer the system here in the US, they were able to hire cheap labor (immigrant women and me), they aren't afraid of religious differences, and they don't have to bribe anyone to get public services. They remind me they treated their employees well, they bought us all lunch every Friday. They're conservative republicans and I bet they've go to church less than once a year. They talk about God but I have no idea where they learned about Christianity.
I watched for the first two weeks and quit. I haven't been able to watch anything with violence or unrest as it triggers my PTSD but the first thing I thought of when she started saying Mubarek should stay was that it's the identical situation in the US. It's not about religion for my parents, either in the US or Egypt, they just want to keep an easy life and pay flunkies to do the work.
Another similarity I've always seen is that children are viewed as property here, just like they are in Egypt. If they are smart, talented, or attractive the parents strut with pride and those children are very precious. If the parents think the child is in some way inferior or imperfect they shove the poor child in a million directions, or they are embarrassed at their little failures. They might even say they love them anyway (???). Then they haggle over them in family court like a sack of potatoes. Many times the courts will award the child to the parent who is most "financially able" to care for the children. It's good now we have price tags for kids. Religion looks like another excuse for parents to be "right" or have "perfect children." Religions are used as a weapon in power struggles between property barons. I don't know why these people fight, can't they just fly to another country and get another child, perhaps pick the best looking one.
I was born a Christian woman in Egypt and came here as a baby. I grew up, married poorly, had kids instead of an education and for twenty years I've been a disposable woman. I don't see what difference religion or country makes, I have the same point of view, my mom has a lovely view from a luxury window. I wonder where your co-worker got his point of view. I see nothing but blind people.
Hello from here, don't know if I'll go mute again. Thanks
.
I think that there are just so many people who don't want to bear the responsibility for their own lives that they find some way to foist that responsibility off on someone else, something else, anything, anything but themselves. Some of those people latch on to religion and use that for an excuse for failing to think, to engage, to arrive at a conscious choice as to how to best live their lives. They haven't a clue that they have defaulted on their own lives.
But not everyone who lives their lives this way is a religious person either. Some of them are folks who have faith in science. Some of them put their faith in a particular strain of politics. Each one of them finds a way to abdicate personal responsibility by adopting the dogma of whatever institution they follow. Generally these folks are like your colleague at work: they don't even know where their ideas are coming from, that would require too much work.
I believe that among the conservative side of American politics there are some very cynical folks who will say just about anything and link arms with just about anyone if they think it is to their material advantage to do so.
L'Heure Bleue describes very well how this works and shares it in a way that you can attribute to human nature rather than something tied simply to one culture, and that is worth note as well.
From a legal perspective, it seems to me that Craig Scarberry should be able to have the decision of the court overturned on the basis of undue bias. The religious upbringing, or absence of one, for a child is clearly not something that one parent should be able to have more say over than another--unless there was a prior agreement to that effect.
The effect of legal precedent in family law proceedings will come into play. When people divorce, and they have children, courts are often compelled to resolve disputes that the parties are unable to resolve themselves. In many states parents are required to attend mediation where such disputes are resolved. The basis for those decisions is a mixture of juvenile law which argues for the best interests of the child and parental rights, which are not easily abridged.
Those rights are to raise a child as a parent sees fit so long as there is nothing illegal or immoral. As far as I know, courts have never declared being agnostic or atheist to be illegal or immoral, so the judge isn't going to be upheld. If the kid is healthy and attending school that's about as far as the court goes. They don't even seem to inquire into whether or not a child is happy. The don't ask them what they want until a child is older.
I'm too tired to even begin to get into how I feel about politics & abortion rights. Maybe later.
I like your assessment, “…judges as attorneys who became CEO's …”. That sums up a lot of the current status of the U.S. government on all levels. Not to mention CEO’s that have entered government.
I have to say that your example of your parents clearly reveals the cross-over from one culture to another of the “I got mine – you get yours” or the “every man for himself” mentality that is always present in humanity.
You write, “It's not about religion for my parents, either in the US or Egypt, they just want to keep an easy life and pay flunkies to do the work.”
I believe that many “flunkies” who “do the work” don’t really care about being “flunkies” as long as their needs are met satisfactorily. I think a version of caste systems have virtually always existed among human cultures, but oftentimes the caste in which one belongs does not necessarily mean being unable to meet one’s needs. What I see occurring in America today is that many people are finding themselves unable to meet their needs while others have so much that they could meet the needs of a small nation.
What’s worse is that this trend seems to be not only gaining momentum, but that some of those who will be victimized by this trend are actively supporting it because they don’t stop to think long enough about what is occurring to understand how it might relate to them at some future time. While you and I may not agree with your parents’ values, at least your parents are able to connect the dots and recognize what is in their best interests. As you say, it’s not about religion for them, which reinforces well the very point I make; religion clouds people’s ability to reason and, ultimately, that affects all of us negatively.
Your point about children viewed as property is on point, as well. That single point is worth more than one entire post, so any comment is inadequate to address it. But within the context I’ve presented here, the concept of indoctrinating children into a belief system that nullifies independent thought BECAUSE they are “property” is of particular interest as a threat. You state, “Religions are used as a weapon in power struggles between property barons.” So true.
Finally, you say, “I wonder where your co-worker got his point of view.” This is a much larger question than it first appears and I wonder this about many of my coworkers. I find that some are more prone to independent thought than others, although all the conservatives are resistant to it. The particular fellow I mention in this post is one who is more prone, although I suspect often that because he’s much older he might just be too life-weary to actually change. There have been times when I have seemingly worn him down and I know that he sees my point of view but will only, at most, partially admit it. But, as I’ve said before, I’ll take “partially admit” over full denial any time.
Thanks for you thoughtful and connected response.
I’m truly glad you stopped by. How have you been, my friend?
Regarding the Founders, you write, “What is happening is exactly what they feared the most. Religion grafting with Politics and taking away all freedoms.”
Yes, indeed, absolutely. This slow, little-by-little advancement of religion is one of the biggest threats to the Progressive Founders’ vision. And this had been the M.O. of Christianity from its inception. Roman Emperor Constantine was an IDIOT!
You write, “The problem is that they are a growing breed and we are greatly outnumbered.”
This may be true, but I’ve seen a recent poll that indicates self-identified-atheists may be growing in numbers.
I think the people who are excluded from whatever religious compromise has a chance of winning are never going to be dismissed as a tiny minority.
Any state religion will become a bland, generic thing that will inspire few. There are far more atheists in England, with an established church and religion as part of the school curriculum than there are in America with freedom of religion.
When the state sponsors religion, there will be pressure on the state religion to allow, for example, gay marriage. The same divisions that are within society will take place in the state religion.
Glad you think so. Thanks for reading.
Thanks for reading and sharing your personal experiences.
I certainly don't share any of your views regarding something called "God" or the value of religion, but I do share your earthly values regarding the suffering of others. You are apparently doing something to alleviate some of that and I applaud your efforts. But an interesting aspect of what many Christians believe is that their beliefs often do not truly consider the suffering of others. They focus more on trying to ram their beliefs down the throats of others while ignoring the suffering around them.
I think you are selling yourself and all of us short, though, when you credit something else (God) for the good things you do or that you have, etc. This brings up one of the ironies I see often with religious apologists: they credit their god for good things, and themselves for all the bad things. It makes no sense to me. Be that as it may, it is clear to me that you are doing some good things.
You make an interesting statement, "I believe that the quickest way to discourage religion is to enforce the concept of a state religion ...".
I can see the reasoning behind that. But I think religion can dominate without actually being enforced as a "state religion". Simply having legislators that adhere to religious doctrine in passing legislation is what concerns me, which is what I think is revealed in the examples included in my essay.
Very glad you stopped by. I always like your input when I post about religion. I think maybe because you and I tend to come at the discussion from different sides and yet find much common ground. I see this as a microcosm of what needs to happen on a grander scale in society, but which I think fails because society appeases religion even when it should be refuted flatly.
You write, “I know a good many good and honorable people who are religious who have nothing to do with the crazy shit that a lot of people want to do in the name of religion.”
I also know some folks of the sort to which you refer. These folks are some who can be the most helpful in matters like those I’ve presented. I think, though, that oftentimes they are too conflicted regarding issues like these. If they don’t take a stand, then they become part of the problem simply by virtue of being religious and not standing against abuses like these. I think we have seen an increase in those who speak out more than in the past.
Next, you write, “Some of those people latch on to religion and use that for an excuse for failing to think, to engage, to arrive at a conscious choice as to how to best live their lives. They haven't a clue that they have defaulted on their own lives.”
I could not agree more with this; credit for all good goes to god, credit for all bad to someone or something else. And yet many of these folks will be the first to espouse “personal responsibility”. Regarding examples of other institutions that rival religion in this aspect, I think your example of politics is dead-on. I don’t think science works very in this regard, particularly because science is found on doubt, questioning, accepting evidence while both, religion and politics, often are not. That doesn’t mean, though, that science cannot be misused or abused or misinterpreted; it is quite often.
Regarding Craig Scarberry, I would think, like you, that precedent would play a winning hand for him. But doesn’t it strike you strange that a judge would even consider religion in his written decision? Doesn’t that, when combined with some of the types of other examples I’ve presented, give you pause? It just never should have even been written into the decision, yet even an attorney involved in the case has supported it. WTF?
You write, “As far as I know, courts have never declared being agnostic or atheist to be illegal or immoral …”
I guess I’m wondering, “What would it take for that to change, for courts to declare being agnostic or atheist illegal, or at least, immoral? Would merely be a matter of legal precedent?” Given some of the Supreme Court rulings we’ve seen in recent years, should we just assume that to be an impossibility?
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
It’s nice to see you here. You’re the second person to make the point about “state religions” actually being detrimental in overall effect on religion and I think it is a good and interesting point. See my comment to L’Heure Bleue above.
I have to agree with your assessment that American probably could not become a “theocracy” in the classical sense of the word. I see a possibility of what might be a sort of hybrid theocracy in which there is no enforced specific “state religion” but that legislators from various factions of one major brand such as Christianity pass legislation based on general beliefs that are common among the diverse factions to which you refer. The constant assertion that America is “a Christian nation” is indicative that something like this could occur and I think the examples I’ve presented here reveal that it could sneak in the back door if we don’t remain vigilant.
Your example of England’s “established church” is different from what I’m proposing in this idea of allowing all “Christian” churches, all brands of Christianity, equal status over all others, rather than proclaiming just one church as a national religion.
They don't know about my friends who have spent ages in Haiti trying to help with housing and schools, and were there before the earthquake and after.
Everyone forgets about the work of Habitat for Humanity all over the world. They don't insist that the people who get their houses are Christian, but that they need the house and are willing to contribute to others being able to get a house by contributing their labor.
I've known interfaith groups that take turns hosting meals for the homeless. My women's group in California did that together once each month for many years. And we made a terrific homemade dinner like the kinds we all had at home. We sat down with the people we had cooked for and talked with them about their lives and did what we could to be genuinely helpful. It required that each of us go through some stuff about poverty and homelessness so that we weren't being assholes, but actually discovering what compassion means when it is put into action.
I think these conversations about religious belief get very far removed from how it is that many religious people live their lives. My religious beliefs were the basis for my two years of work in getting Barack Obama elected. I won't argue whether or not that was a good idea or not, I just know that I learned a great deal from that experience. Not once in my life have I ever tried to change another s beliefs. No Buddhist or Hindu would argue for your soul, they would assume your soul is fine. No Unitarian or Universalist would prosyletize or annoy you with their beliefs as a part of their religious practice. Most folks who are a part of mainstream Christianity don't have anything to do with the crazy shit that the ultra right wing commits against humanity. It isn't really Christian what they do.
I am a mystic. I believe that God is all that there is. Ken Wilber writes from a mystic perspective that encompasses my basic beliefs rather succinctly here:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/spthtr.cfm/
I will post separately about the legal perspective in response to your questions.
Being smart doesn't necessarily imply that one will use the capacity for reason and wonder completely or well. Hence, jackasses make into both the bar and the bench. People want attention and they usually want attention from the people who agree with them. Any judge or attorney knows that if they argue for an interpretation of the law that precedent doesn't support it will be struck down. Sometimes they go ahead and do it because it gets them attention elsewhere in their lives, or even money for speaking or publishing nonsense. They do it anyway for the payoff. I am sure that is what this judge was doing. He clearly hadn't distinguished himself in any other way, so cynically, he went where neither law nor precedent will support him. He will be a hero at the gatherings of those who think that ignorance is not a problem. This will be a substitute for finding respect and honor in practicing his profession to it's highest.
I don't think there is any reason to think that the Constitution will not be upheld or that parental rights can be abridged in the way this idiot judge suggests. He's just trying to find some pond in which to appear to be a big fish. It's such an abysmally cynical and openly mundane operation of ego on display. It’s the same kind of grandstanding committed by Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Karl Rove. It’s the commonplace modus operandi of the intentionally ignorant right wing. Sadly, this guy wants to emulate Clarence Thomas, and that is because if any group has lost its way, the whole bunch mentioned needs both a legal and a moral compass.
Craig Scarberry is unfortunately going to have to wear out his welcome at the appeals court to get this set right. The good news is that his case will strengthen the separation of church and state as it intersects family law, and while that is awful for Scarberry and child, it is good for families of divorce in the long run that this stuff get turned away like the birther nonsense.
You write, “I think these conversations about religious belief get very far removed from how it is that many religious people live their lives”
I know you’re right about that because aside from you, I know other people who do live by what they claim to believe. Unfortunately, their voices do not seem to be as loud and are not played to as much in the media. So, in many ways, the media once again must bear some responsibility in all of this, alongside the politicians and zealots.
You write, “I am a mystic. I believe that God is all that there is.”
This reminds me of an experience I had in a religion class I took some time back. The instructor was referring to the monotheistic Abrahamic religions as “advanced religions” in comparison to some of the older forms of belief like pantheism. He was throwing the assertion out there and everyone was just accepting it as if it were automatically, incontestably true. I can’t really see Abrahamic religions as more advanced, superior, or more sophisticated, so I decided to challenge him on this point. I asked him to explain how they are more advanced, or superior or more sophisticated. (I think he liked having me in the class except in moments like this.)
He was temporarily stopped dead-in-his-tracks, and after pausing for several moments, he admitted that he could not say with total certainty that they are more advanced, superior, or more sophisticated, at which point I received some rather annoyed looks from a number of my fellow classmates. Needless to say, I enjoyed the moment fully.
AS for the judge and the wife’s attorney in the Scarberry case, regardless of their specific intentions, I find the fact that this has occurred at all quite troubling, especially in light of all the other examples occurring around the country lately. The judge should be removed and we should all be concerned about things like this. Ignoring such events have historically only encouraged them further. The wife’s attorney should, at least, be publicly reprimanded and embarrassed for his statement that the religious difference were a matter an appropriate matter for the judge to consider, if not officially, then at least in the public media.
This is precisely what I’m talking about here, and the combined threat of the White House AND the military just compounds the potential for disaster.
Of course, the potential for legitimizing vigilantes that decide to murder doctors who perform abortions or to criminalize miscarriages is not altogether much less disconcerting.
As I've said many times, two of our greatest Presidents, Jefferson and Lincoln, wouldn't have a chance of being nominated by either party these days -- unless they lied about their "faith".
Don't relax just yet -- you could still end up with a President Huckabee or Palin because of the inequitable "democracy" of the electoral college. That would be VERY much worse than even W, because while W and his cronies talked the talk, it was only for political advantage.
With Huckabee/Palin/Brownback et al, America would be much farther down the road to theocracy. Intelligent Design would be the new norm, and all American children would be being taught from LCD Texas style textbooks.
I have to agree with Tom -- you shouldn't relax just yet. And this is precisely one of the reasons for my posting this essay; I believe this kind of thinking is more prevalent than many want to realize.
Tom,
I'm not sure exactly what "place" you think religion has in society. I'm hard-pressed to see one; at least, not a beneficial one. Hopefully, you don't hold that against me.
Regarding Tarpley, I was not familiar with him and I sorta had the same impression, but I'm not one who keeps up on "conspiracy theorists". I guess I'll have to look into Alex Jones, now, too. Thanks for the heads-up.
I have no problem with evangelical Christians becoming engaged in the political process as long as the nature of their engagement remains true to the Constitution. I have no problem with an evangelical (or Catholic or Muslim or Jewish) politician's political beliefs being influenced by religion as long as his political actions remain true to the Constitution.
Where I do have a problem is when religious convictions become a litmus test for one's qualifications to serve in government. That is already happening in many parts of this nation at the local level -- not officially, but certainly unofficially. Try to run for office as an atheist in much of the Deep South, or many other places throughout our nation. Indeed, an avowed atheist or non-Judeo-Christian would never be elected president right now. Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever change, at least not any time soon, and there is nothing we can do about it. Misguided people of good intentions and strong religious convictions will far too frequently confuse religious convictions with political worthiness.
I wish Christians would remember that Jesus did not preach a political message at all, and that he seemed not to concern himself with the religious convictions of those who governed Roman-occupied Palestine. The closest he ever came to taking a political stand was not in disagreement with the pagan Roman authorities, but with the hypocritical, corrupt Jewish leaders of Jerusalem. Jesus had quite a bit to say about those who parade their faith before the public, and what he said about them was not positive. People of faith today should keep that in mind. A good way to do that is to keep religion out of the political arena.
Thanks for dropping by. You and I view religion a little differently, so I fully appreciate your thoughtful comments.
Regarding the statement, “...the quickest way to corrupt religion is to give it political power.”
Honestly, I'm not sure which corrupts which.
You write, “ I have no problem with an evangelical (or Catholic or Muslim or Jewish) politician's political beliefs being influenced by religion ...”
I can't fully agree. There are many examples we could conjure that would show why religious “beliefs” should not inform a politician's political beliefs. History, both ancient and recent, is replete with such examples. The problem, as I see it, is the very same problem that always exists with religion; it depends on which interpretation of religious beliefs do the influencing or informing.
The “religious litmus test” to which you refer is particularly troubling. And that is one thing that is specifically disallowed in the Constitution, yet the constitutional fundamentalists seem to conveniently forget that.
They also conveniently forget, as you point out, that Jesus is credited with chastising “...those who parade their faith before the public,” as well as the money-lenders and the hoarders of wealth.
I guess my inspiration for this post is the idea that we hear so often about ideologies sneaking in while people aren't paying attention; Hitler's Nazis, Cheney's neo-cons, etc. Based on what I see, I think there's a good chance we're at risk.
It could also go the other way. I believe a religious person, a fully committed Christian, could still hold a laissez faire attitude toward government intervention in the distribution of wealth. Holding that religion is most pure when it is left out of the political arena, a committed Christian or member of another faith might say such charity should be limited to the private actions of individuals or religious institutions, not the government. While I disagree, I can also understand where such a person is coming from. I just would not vote for him!
I agree; I think we are pretty close on this one. I understand what you say about a politician's political beliefs being influenced by his religious beliefs. My only point on that matter is the one I state: the problem with religion is that it can always be interpreted in more than one way, and we see this all the time. For instance, there are those Christian legislators who believe that only God can determine events in nature, and so their religious belief informs them that we shouldn't invest financial resources in protecting the environment, that the environment only exists to serve us, and that we can do whatever we want to it because God has said it is so.
In my view, any legislator that sits in a congressional chamber making statements to that effect is not worthy of holding public office and should simply be immediately removed from office.
There are good things stated in religious scriptures, and there are bad things, so it becomes a matter of which specific aspects a politician deems most important. And it is clear the decisions make a difference to all of us, not just those who hold a particular religious belief.
I know there are those who claim that, but I have always suspected they use religion as an excuse to do the bidding of their corporate donors. If they really believe their faith dictates destruction of the environment, or at least ignore its demise, they have a pretty twisted interpretation of God's admonition to be stewards of his creation!
I'm more like Delia than anyone else on this post, I used to call myself Christian but when they dumped Jesus and God I had to dump the Christian thing. The bible is mostly parables, it was written for people who couldn't read, how that's hard to understand is a mystery to me. It's not like there were printing presses back then.
I agree with you 100% that we are not to blame God for what we do wrong, nor does he ask for credit when we do right. Whoever the Creator is, he simply gave us the will to choose freely and asked us to choose Love.
I'm unsure what term to use instead of disposables, it seems to upset people even before they're thrown away. It seems flunky missed the mark, I'm quite serious as to not having a good term for people who can be thrown away at someone else's convenience.
I'm so glad I've found your blog. Thank you.
I get what you're saying. If I were religious, ...no wait – when I WAS religious – I had what I assume is your interpretation of biblical scripture, which I consider to be good and correct; not that religion is needed to achieve those morals. Attending church every Sunday because it was required of me allowed me to see not only the hypocritical nature of most of those who attended with me but also the frailty of biblical scripture as anything other than fables and parables along the lines of Aesop's fables and all other fables. Why those other fables do not garner the same respect as the bible is beyond me; I truly see no difference among them, aside from the insidious thing called “religion” that undermines any good that biblical fables might have to offer.
Most fables are clear on their morals, but religion destroys that clarity because it mixes in some fictitious supreme, omnipotent, unprovable entity to which religious authorities claim a supreme connection that too many people accept. As I say, you and I interpret one way, while religion makes mass ideologies out of various interpretations and then forces them on society in a destructive manner. And of all the religions throughout human history, few have rivaled the socially destructive nature of today's major monotheistic religions. And when those religions gain governmental authority, there are few forces that are more tyrannical.
I think your interpretation of the bible as “parables” is accurate. There are those who see it as a sort of historical record in some ways, as well. In the final analysis, that book is open to so many interpretations that its value as anything else is seriously diminished, if not completely eliminated.
Whatever force lies behind our existence, any religion created by man will only corrupt any understanding of it that might be possible, however unlikely.
Bill Maher's Religulous is a very good revelation regarding this issue. I rented it back when it first came out on DVD and then quickly bought a copy so I could access it at will. I find its sane presentation regarding religion comforting.
I just thought of another video you should see and which is free online, or at least is was when I last searched for it. It is called "The Doomsday Code" and it is quite long, but more than well-worth the viewing because it gives some inside info of some religious manipulations going on behind the scenes. Just do a search (google or whatever) for Doomsday Code; there are various versions available, but I recommend watching the full version of the movie.
Check it out; I highly recommend it.