
(Guest blog by Taylor Marsh)
The Founding Fathers had ample opportunity to use Christian imagery and language in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, but did not. At the same time, they were not absolute secularists. They wanted God in American pubic life, but, given the memory of religious warfare that could engulf and destroy whole governments, they saw the wisdom of distinguishing between private and public religion. In churches and in homes, anyone could believe and practice what he wished. In the public business of the nation, however, it was important to the Founders to speak of God in a way that was unifying, not divisive. "Nature’s God" was the path they chose, and it has served the nation admirably. Despite generations of subsequent efforts to amend the Constitution to include Jesus or to declare that America is a "Christian nation," no president across three centuries has made an even remotely serious attempt to do so. – American Gospel, by Jon Meacham (p. 22-23)
Now I’ve done it. Brought faith into the mix. Everyone is either going to start ranting, raving or just running for the door. But those who remain will still represent the majority. It’s Good Friday, Passover, which means something to some of us, though not all, that’s for sure. Nevertheless, it is a holiday weekend.
We may not be able to define what religion exactly means in this country today. But most of us sure know there is something deeply spiritual about this place we call America. Democrats may have lost our voice on religion, while Republicans have found one, so it’s just a matter of choosing whether being mute or shrill is a better place from which to move forward.
Yes, we may get tongue tied at times, but at least Democrats have a rich history of putting our spirituality into practice through policies that sing arias around the Republican notion of government. What was it that Grover said? Oh, yeah, "get it down to the size…" …you know the quote by heart. Republicans want to drown government because they believe it serves no common good. Never mind we’ve got the most bloated government in 40 years, with a deficit to match. The contradiction is illustrative as to how we got in the mess we’re in today. And boy are we in a mess.
But since Republicans are supposed to be the religious ones, why don’t they ever infuse humanity into their policies? Why doesn’t the religious morality they tout make it into their foreign policy? What is it about the ultra-religious, who espouse their faith so openly, but who remain wedded to war first, talking reserved as a last resort? Why are Republicans so conservative with their compassion?
Democrats want to find a way for illegal immigrants to make a life in America as citizens earning a living wage. Republicans began by wanting to felonize 12 million people through law. They still want to separate them into groups according to time served in America. Then they want employers who hire illegal immigrants to get off free. They talk about border security, without funding it.
Democrats want to find a way to provide health care for all Americans. Republicans start paying the federal bill by yanking money away from programs that aid the poorest among us, including children. Is that Christian? Is it moral? For that matter, is it right?
When thousands were stranded in New Orleans, why didn’t the federal government jump into action, no-holds barred, all stops out, everyone rushing to do what they could? Why did President Bush need a DVD of news clips to show him what human suffering looked like in Louisiana?
Is saying you’re a Christian against gambling, then getting mixed up with a crooked lobbyist in gaming illustrating leadership worthy of your professed faith?
Why is poverty not the first item on the agenda for a president and a Republican Party who touts their religious roots? Why do tax cuts to the top 1% matter more than the middle class?
Democrats want to raise the minimum wage. We want to provide health care for all Americans. We want to put back regulation on corporations and others who are destroying our environment. Democrats want to engage with the world and solve our challenges together. And Democrats absolutely reject the notion of any type of nuclear war whatsoever. But that’s where we sit poised today. Talking about nuclear war. It’s nuts. Only the morally weak and spiritually bankrupt would consider it. Nuclear weaponry released in the Middle East is not an option. It is the end.
If religion and spirituality mean anything in public life it is that we have the choice to infuse the answers we uncover in private meditations into our public works. Where private faith and public works meet is a place where lives can be changed, the world moved. From Democrats it is a message of hope versus the Republican language of fear, war and almost certain doom.



191 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Fitz, Feingold, and Lamont!
Hail Fitzy, Full of grace, the Lord is with thee…
Well we do say “Fitzmas” after all.
Nice post, the last graf especially.
(From the Devil’s Dictionary: CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.)
Repost from below:
172 looseheadprop says:
April 14th, 2006 at 6:41 am
I know this is OT and I am EPUing myself, but I am really mad and there isn’t a new thread.
Yesterday, the ladies had this quote up:
Update: NYT printed this correction today: “Although Mr. Fitzgerald formally filed his corrective yesterday, accounts of it were provided to some news organizations on Tuesday night, and were the basis for news articles yesterday. The Times did not publish one, as other organizations did, because a telephone message and an e-mail message about the court filing went unnoticed at the newspaper†(hat tip MK). Who was doing the calling and the emailing? Three guesses, and the first two don’t count.
Today, the freakin’ NYTimes has an article that IMPLIES, but doesn’t say, that the leak came from Fitz.
Now, If they got an email and phone call, they KNOW who the leaker is..
I think if it was the tall man with the rumpled suit, they would not hesitate to out him. SOOO, I’m thinking this is just garden variety smear.
Note, they try to taunt him by asking his press guy for a quote, which said press guy can’t give.
This sort of fertilizer really fries my fritters. The little weasels are SOOO afraid of a fair fight. All schoolyard bullies are fundamentally cowards.
Just wanted to vent.
the Congressional Black Caucus is entirely Democratic, amazingly progressive and extraordinarily religious. We can be so proud!
Fitz…..My Hero
Conyers…..Come clean
Feingold…..Keep Pressing
Jane Hamsher……Time for a spineless rubber stamp to go to certain dems in the senate
BTW, to our guest author,
Sorry, I’m not trying to hijack your rather thoughtful post. Just mad at the NYTimes. Unfairness kinda pushes my buttons.
It seems from you post it pushes yours, too. Nice job. I liked the post very much. It had a nice gentle reasonale tone that contrasted with my own rather cranky comment. Thank you.
Great post and well said.
Hey, no problem, loosheadprop, you have to rant when the feelings moves you. Believe me, I get it. Thanks, sharkbabe, cathy.
Republicans want to drown government because they believe it serves no common good.
I’m sorry, but that’s dead wrong. Government gets in the way of private power. The Republicans want to weaken government because they know they can’t hold on to it for ever. A government accountable to the people is a threat to their economic hegemony.
Ownership society is plutocracy. That’s what they’re after, returning to an aristorcratic society and leaving a democratically constituted republic as a mere showpiece.
.
Faith = wishful thinking
Our species won’t advance until we stop asserting mythology as history.
The fundamental problem in America today, and indeed much of the developed world, is that any inherent spiritualism has been overwhelmed by rampant materialism. You can define materialism is a “me-first” attitude that in fact cuts across political, ideological, and religious, and ethnic lines. You can almost say that it seems like to be human is to be selfish and grasping.
Whether Republicans are more materialistic than Democrats is irrelevant if everyone is driven by the need to maximize their own interests to the detriment of others.
Certainly Easter and Passover are good times to reflect on ways in which we as a nation have contributed both weal and ill to humanity in general, and to find ways to re-align our hopes and aspirations more in the direction of the true spiritual origins of this country that you speak of. Thanks for the reminder.
And, to be forthright and open, yes, I do follow a religious path. I am Buddhist.
yay, welcome back, Taylor!
I, too, rely on an inner voice (God’s voice?) to guide me in the right direction. But that voice never tells me to hurt or harm anyone but to only do what I can to help and to be compassionate when I least feel like it.
There’s a good read by Sidney Blumenthal on Czar George at Salon.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/b…../13/leaks/
God is Love, and don’t let anyone tell you any different. I don’t know where I’d be in my life today in this world without Faith, especially these last 5 years. I will not impose it upon anyone. I will share it with all who would wish.
Peace! Back by popular demand.
Happy Easter
There is nothing deeply spiritual about this country Taylor… you have been drinking the coolaid…
What the heck is deepl spiritual about this country? Any country?
We are as nation of laws. Our government belongs to US and it embodies the social contract. What does religion have to do with this?
You really are off on a dangerous tack here and I suggest you consider tacking back to reality based reality and not this faith based reality you seem to be on in this post.
Religion is magical thinking. Fundies and Republicans believe in the Old Testament’s fire and brimstone. They want to see their opponents in hell suffering eternal torment. They want Bush to blow up the world so that the end times will come.
Where are the people who believe in the kinder, gentler version of the imaginary entity that is supposed to be in charge? I don’t see these people doing anything.
And any candidate who doesn’t publicly proclain his believe in jesus (who never existed) will not be elected.
We are a country of superstitious children.
Loose at 8: Same with today’s story in the Post (byline R. Jeffrey Smith). Makes it sound like Fitz’ filing was the culprit that set Walton off.
I am also disturbed at people harking back to the founders of this nation 250 years ago for the answers in the 21st century.
When looking at THEIR reasoning you MUST caveat it by placing it in the context of THEIR times… the 18th century.
We live in different times and although what the founders did then was quite remarkable… it doesn’t work for these times… it is seriously flawed and needs to be tossed aside and a new constitution stood up… one that is rooted in the circumstances of our times.
To identify spirituality with mere blind faith or mythology is a mistake. This is a narrow view of spirituality. If you can stand next to a stranger, and in your heart of hearts, recognize that that person has a rightful place in the world, as much a you do, that is the beginning of having a spiritual outlook.
Taylor Marsh, as someone who is not religious in the group sense, I can only say: right on. Quite beautiful post, actually.
Jesus was tortured by the government. http://www.nrcat.org
Hey, pach, good morning.
As for defjef, we will just have to disagree, but don’t insult me by talking about “drinking the coolaid.” I’ve thought about this fully and deeply and come to my own assessment. I am not on a “dangerous track.” That is simply your opinion, which I respect, but I reject your judgment that faith at heart gets in the way with dealing with reality. That’s just nonsense. Not all faith looks like fundamentalism, my friend. I assure you mine does not.
Great post, Taylor. Thank you. I am Christian and a progressive on most issues. I still refer to a good deal of the Christian population as “so-called” Christians. It seems so difficult for them to practice what they preach, and in the end only give Christianity a bad name. And that, I believe is the Republican “voice” on religion, and I agree, it would be preferable to be mute. What matters most in this life is what you DO rather than what you say (or simply preach). In that respect the progressive agenda is more “Christian” than Conservative propaganda.
You don’t have to be spiritual to accept and recognise the humanity and dignity of other living things.
Religion is an artifact of human intelligence. Animals have done quite well with belief or “knowledge” of religion or spirtuality.
Spirituality is a rather inoffensive word and if it makes people calm and not agressive, I am all for more of “it” whatever “it” is.
Off subject, but it occurs to me that a great way to thwart the neo-con drive to nuke Iran is to join calls for Rumsfelds resignation. The neo-con bloodlust is like a multi-headed Medusa (lop off one head and another neo-con crony grows in its place). Bush/Cheney thinktank is hoping a nuclear attack would bring their numbers back up, shore up the mid-term elections etc. Lets pressure our congress members and perhaps we might get lucky and someone with a brain might take Rumsfelds place. On the other hand, with Rover calling the shots it’s not likely. Still we need to make life difficult for the bushies at every opportunity.
Religion = hypocrisy
Why do we need to revist this again and again.
All you need do is look at those at the “top” of the religions and see how they live, have always lived and always will live.
CASH, Gold, jewels, wealth….
Good Morning Everyone,
Taylor, thank you for nailing it! thoroughly fleshed out a meme in my head for a while
Fundies (well the fundies getting all the ink anyway) never really talk about Jesus. they claim their righteousness in ‘following’ him, but their pronouncements do not reflect a people who are down with him and you have said it here beautifully.
Well, the incident that triggered Walton’s letter did center on Fitz’s letter. It hit the media before it hit his office. How? Well, what purpose in God’s green earth would there be in Fitz’s office issuing an advance on his correction? Is there anybody else who had something to gain by (a) nailing Fitz on an error and (b) making himself/his client/the beneficiary of the defense fund look less guilty or at least confuse the issue? We’ll get to hear more about this next Friday, if not before.
Thanks, Taylor–Great post. Someone mentioned Eric Hoffer in the comments yesterday and I recommend that everyone who hasn’t read it pick up a copy of “True Believersâ€, which I believe Hoffer wrote in 1952. I can’t remember his entire bio, but he is usually referred to as a former longshoreman; he wrote the book after researching to understand how people could have fallen for the big lies that led to World War II and other atrocities in the 1st half of the 20th century. He gets it.
I remember watching the 60 Minutes (or Nightly News) interview with Jimmy Carter (yes, this dates me—I also remember rushing home at lunch to watch the Watergate hearings to hear the brilliant Barbara Jordan), after his famous Playboy interview when he was asked about adultery and he said he had ‘lusted in his heart’ and how that was pretty much as bad as committing adultery. I live in Oklahoma, and was forced by my parents to attend a Southern Baptist church, escaping only when I left home, though I escaped (in my heart) years before when the issue of civil rights was discussed at church and I was appalled. As I recall, the interviewer asked Carter about his ‘born again’ faith…and for the first time I realized that the majority of the country hadn’t been exposed to the fundamentalist religions. It gave me hope. But rather than revealing its narrow definition of morality so that others didn’t fall for it, in fact it began to spread…I have long been convinced that the direct mail guru Viguerie and his neocon pals watched that interview, too, and formulated a plan to take over the country using the sheep that they so artfully merged with in 1977 in the form of Jerry Falwell and his so-called ‘Silent Majority’. It was the beginning of the end of our democracy…next came Reagan and the tele-evangelists preaching that god wanted the sheep to be rich…then Newt…the horrible pious hypocrites on the Judiciary committee impeaching Clinton (who actually seemed to care about the poor and downtrodden and the world)…stolen elections…the criminal travesty that is the current administration…and the corporate media that has sustained and promoted it.
Sometimes I think the repubs took Orwell’s cautionary tale and Hoffer’s analysis of mass movements that appeal to the weak and used them as playbooks to hijack the country. Scary and sad. I only hope that the sheep are waking up….their religion has been hijacked and used to help destroy this once-great democracy. Though it is not without flaws, there have historically been enough checks and balances to right the ship. Now, I’m not sure….but I’m an optimist at heart and I hope there’s still time. On this Good Friday, I’m grateful that there are people like Fitz who are working the legal route and Cindy Sheehan and the progressive bloggers….drip by drip the truth is finding its way into the public domain. I just hope enough people are paying attention.
Sorry for the really long post.
Thanks Taylor for the post.
Speaking of healthcare, this Medicare part D thing is a disaster for our elders who are among the most vulnerable in our society. HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt is lying thru his teeth (suprise–not) and all here who have family or friends who are enrolled in Medicare should have a look at this information and see how badly your loved ones could be affected should they sign up for part D.
This is a Republican debacle.
How sad that we have to protect our citizens against this government…
http://www.medicareadvocacy.or…..aulted.htm
ANOTHER REASON TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESS CRITTERS:
THE INTERNET IS UNDER ATTACK BY NEW REGULATIONS THAT WILL ALLOW THE BIG BOYS TO CENSOR EMAIL, INTERNET CONTACT, ETC.
SOON, SITES LIKE FIREDOG MITE JUST NOT GET THRU. Just another story you did not read about in the MSM.
.S. Subcommittee Rejects Net Neutrality Provision
APR 06, 2006 12:03:47 PM View/Add Comments (1) | Permalink
Advertisers
A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee has rejected a proposal to strengthen provisions in a telecommunications reform bill that would prohibit broadband providers from blocking or impairing competing Web content and applications.
The Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday rejected an amendment to strengthen so-called net neutrality provisions in a telecom reform bill largely focused on creating a national video franchising system for Internet television services.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, would have prohibited broadband carriers from impairing or blocking competing Web content and services. The Markey amendment also would have required the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to develop procedures for expedited investigations of complaints against broadband carriers.
Instead, the telecom reform bill approved by the subcommittee would allow the FCC to investigate blocking abuses after the fact, and it would prohibit the FCC from creating new net neutrality rules.
http://www.cio.com/blog_view.html?CID=20007
FOR MORE INFO, GO HERER:
http://www.democraticmedia.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/ar…../14/147241
Taylor,
In my opinion people who operate from a position of faith… have drunk the cool aid.
People who operate from a position of reason, logic, facts have not.
Looseheadprop
I think there’s a lot of speculation out there in the media, but I think they have it wrong for this simple reason:
The letter of correction that Fitz sent to the judge was CC’d to the Irving team as well. It’s dated April 11th and at the top it says it was filed on the 12th. I think Team Irving sent it to their media ho’s before it was actually filed, and the judge and both parties know this.
If the major news outlets are representing this leak ambiguously, it’s simply because they were partly complicit.
One just needs to look at the articles that Team Irving posts on their site to know who they were leaking to.
DefJef, 27
You are conflating spirituality with religion. They are not the same. The native Americans had deep spirituality without having a religion. Please give this some thought.
DefJef at 27
It may be an artifact of human intelligence. But try finding yourself in a circumstance of powerlessness, and you’ll find it is a survival tool. Spend some time with people in their 80s and 90s in assisted living facilities. You’ll see the people who can find some kind of power greater than themselves (if only in their mind) at peace with their situation. The atheists are railing and gnashing and appear to be miserable.
I’m just saying.
Ooops, forgot to thank Taylor for the great post!
The fundies are often surprised to discover that God is *never* mentioned in the US constitution, and there are only two places where religion is mentioned. Interestingly, both times the reference is in the negative. First, it says that there shall be no religious test to hold office, and second, there shall be no establishment of religion or abridgement of the freedom of religion.
That’s it on God and religion in the Constitution.
As a pastor, I’m comforted by that.
I don’t need to make the schools into churches, or the courthouses or legislatures either. Let the churches be churches, the mosques be mosques, the synagogues be synagogues, etc.
Sharkbabe #4,
nice one, Sharkbabe.
Nowhere in the gospels does it qote Jesus saying anything remotely like “Now I want you to go and beat your neighbour over the head with this. What he did say is “Go feed the hungry and cloth and house the poor”.
Don’t talk AT others but go DO for others.
Most Christian churches should be prosecuted for fraud.
.
typos, punctuation!
Preview is my friend …. my friend
faith is not something we need to advocate as Dems, nor is it anything we need to agree upon as humans. It’s divisive as you can get.
Rethugs appear to have adopted fundamental Christians as part of their strategies.
Thankfully Dems are not.
Spirtuality is just as susceptible to the frailties of humanity (power of corruption, CASH, Gold, jewels, wealth….) as a political party.
Pray that those who think Dems can be “better” than Rethugs are not duped by dick-asses who call themselves Dems and get elected only to do the same shit as the F*in Republican party, and even moreso, pray the Dems do NOT play regressive repressive pay back politics if and when they do get elected to the top spot replacing The Chimp.
OT, but in the spirit of miracles and all things coming back to life -
On Wednesday, led by the director, I got to tour the Neurologic Sciences Institute outside of Portland which is a research center at the forefront of discovery in the world. I was invited to join the tour by a friend and VP of a financial group along with their CEO, another client, and the parents of one of the researchers from Cologne. One discovery they have made is going to go commercial and they’re in the process of raising 50 million in venture capital. They have found a way for people suffering from loss of function of arms or legs due to cerebral strokes to regain movement without medications or surgery. Using an electric mechanical device to move limbs while stimulating proprioceptive nerves (lets us know where our extremities are without looking), two parts of the brain that normally don’t talk to each other are paired such that a new functional bridge in the brain is formed bypassing the tissue damaged by stroke. 18 out of 19 people they’ve worked with have responded to the extent of not requiring canes or wheelchairs. In as little as six weeks with regular but brief use of the device, the treatment can be effective with no apparent need for long term therapy. One of their patients recovered function after a stroke that happened 17 years ago. Incredible.
Religion HAS played a part in helping people deal with their mortality.
But this is such nonsense. Deal with your life, do what you can when you are alive and vital and then die and make room for someone who can help the living.
Life is here on earth. Religion has been faking people with heaven and hell since it was invented by them. What rubbish.
Let’s make THIS world a better place… and not waste time, energy or resources in the make believe.
Taylor, that was great. Thanks,
You say: But most of us sure know there is something deeply spiritual about this place we call America.
When I was a child, I was told this and perhaps twenty five years ago, as a proto-punk-hippy came somewhere close to believing it. I know spiritual individuals, and even spiritual communities. I have been to places where I am awed by the majesty of our natural treasures and cannot help but ponder a godly influence. But I do not think the genus loci of America can be referred to as “deeply spiritual.”
In fact, one of our current problems resides in this myth of American exceptionalism — it is what gives rise to Calvanistic presumption and slaughter. the idea of being especially spiritual and graced is, in my mind, largely responsible for the mess we are currently in.
America is a country saturated with blood and permeated with race hatred. In that sense, our country can be called “deeply spiritual,” (think Faulkner) but not the type of spirituality I care to claim as part of my faith or works.
They want us to march proudly backwards to our future. The best times for them were 100 years ago or so, when women didn’t have the vote and the only minorities in the country were household help. Underpaid, undereducated household help. They hate women, they hate minorities, they hate independent thought, they hate science. And we’re heading back there pretty fast, thanks to Bush’s nutty base.
A good satire of this is the book “The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual.” You can read sections of it at http://www.homelanddecency.com. It’s hilarious.
Dear Mr. Marsh: much of your article I agree with. Especially as you point out what I call the hypocrisy of so many evangelical types. Yet, you also talk of the Democratic party overlay on this.
I’ll add a side note: I think, over the past 20 years or so, the Democrats have sort of shot themselves in the foot on the religious issue. Evangelicals came out with some pretty objectio0nable ideas (at least for me), of amending the constitution this way and that to reflect their religious beliefs. The Democrats reacted like a pack of snarling dogs, looking “down” at these goofy religious types, making fun of them, calling them dangerous, etc. And so, they far right type christians sailed into the Repub harbor.
It’s all about the message! I still think a better way for Democrats to address evangelical types is to first APPLAUD them for many of their beliefs. (hey, not ALL beliefs! but, those cats DO also believe in things like…don’t cheat on your wife, don’t steal, help the helpless, be honest and truthful, etc etc). Democrats, would, in my opinion, get better mileage by just explaining that, on those occasions when the fundamentals want to CHANGE LAWS to reflect their many and varied beliefs, our forefathers teach us that, here in America we shouldn’t do that. It’s just the way our constitution is written.
Perhaps, I’m just advocating a softer approach to evangelicals by Democrats. Stop snapping and snarling at them as if they’re monsters from the deep. What’s that old saying…? you can catch more flies with honey?…etc. Sure, there will ALWAYS be SOME evangelical ideas I can’t abide by…but I would just encourage them to let their ideas be part of their lives, and god bless ‘em…but gently remind them that when they want to make their lifestyle a LAW everyone must follow, ole George himself, Mr. Washington cannot agree. Good article. Ghostman
Muzzy @ 43–
Oh thank you for that information! I am off to do some research!
If our government would only invest in research to alleviate suffering and cure disease and crippling conditions. Thankfully the private sector and some states are not allowing the government to shut down all progress.
Griffon @ 40 and DefJef throughout:
Perhaps “most Christian churches” that make the news “should be prosecuted for fraud,” but that’s a distinct subset of all Christian churches.
The college students doing the Spring Break party scene got lots of play in the press, including the “Girls Go Wild because of alcohol” item, but it rarely made the news that thousands of other college students spent Spring Break doing Katrina relief work or other trips to places to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the poor, and build schools for the uneducated. Many of these were organized by their places of worship.
There’s lots of flavors of kool-aid going around, DefJef. Be careful what you find in your own cup.
Defjef,
then die and make room for someone who can help the living.
and
Let’s make THIS world a better place
Why? What’s the philosophical or emotional source of your suggestion that we help the living or make the world a better place?
Pragmatism? That would work for the second of your suggestions, but after you’re dead, why would you care that you made room for anyone else? What difference would it make to you at that point?
Just wonderin’.
the Rev. William Sloan Coffin who died this week was one of the greats. His book, The Heart is a Little to the Left should be on everyone’s reading list. It is a collection of “essays on public morality” published in 1999. A few ‘graphs:
Bill Coffin was a deeply religious man, a prophet, a leader. We need more like him. He didn’t run away from politics in his faithful work towards peace and justice. He called it as he saw it and called us all to be better persons than we thought we could be.
On this day, in this “holy” week with all that is going on, being reminded of the words of this very public preacher is something I need to do and I hope others will wish to do so as well.
It would be difficult to read the New Testament and not conclude that Jesus was on the side of the poor and the oppressed. The fact that the Catholic Bishops have decided to defend their right to give aid and comfort to immigrants is the most hopeful expression of Christian values that I’ve seen for a while. Right-wing zealots like Pat Robertson promote values that don’t remotely resemble the values that Jesus spoke about two thousand years ago.
Great post. This has bothered me for some time. As a christian, and a liberal one at that, I am disgusted at how the religious right has hijacked christianity and become God’s Own Party. Their hypocrisy goes unremarked on by the mainstream media while the democrats are constantly portrayed as “anti religion” and anti-christian, which is BS.
Believing in a firm separation of Church and State actually promotes religious freedom. The dems need to stop falling into the Right Wing trap and getting so defensive on this issue. They need to openly confront some of the issues Taylor raised in her post- that there is nothing “christian” or religious about how the radical right have been acting. Their policies are greedy, violent and intolerant. They use religion in very cynical way and its time they were called on it.
Ann Coulter has a new book coming out. I posted about it on my blog because she was on Neil Cavuotos show unveiling it (although she couldn’t talk about it)- it’s going to be released on 6-6-06 to make the point that liberals are anti-god and evil. Clever, isn’t it? Anyway, the whole point of the book is that liberals and democrats hate god and conservatives and the GOP are god’s chosen people. Its time the media and the dems start looking a little more critically at these assertions.
Hey, at least it’s a day off.
RevDeb, I heard Coffin on a couple of occasions in the late 60s when I was in law school in New Haven. Quite an incredible man. What’s the link for the quotes that you posted?
Defjef, you owe Taylor an apology. Cough up.
Thanks for your comment, Emma. And thanks for mentioning Eric Hoffer and “True Believers”. I shall try and track it down.
Eric Fromm wrote really well on the subject, too.
DefJef-
Is the only thing keeping you from breaking the law spending time in jail?
Ms. Marsh, I’m delurking to say thanks for you wonderful post. I think it was the Krugman who commented that the Rethuglicans don’t want government to work because they ideologically oppose the concept of communal effort for the common good.
DefJef, don’t make a religion of your own rationality. I prefer to allow the category “religiously insane” to capture much of the fundie base.
Ghostman, the point you raise about Democrats shooting themselves in the foot is why I continue to bring up religion, faith and the Democratic Party, though I often get hammered for doing it, even when I do radio interviews. But that’s the way it goes.
A big thank you to RevDeb for that comment. Rest in peace, Bill Coffin.
Thanks for sharing 43 Muzzy, + what angie said wrt to govt and medicare. Oh the humanity!
I agree with defjef. And the fundies claim that there is a war on christianity. Ha ha, very funny. Say anything like me or defjef and you’ll be smacked down or lectured to. Sentiment on one side, materialism on the other. I have today off because the Stock Exchange is closed. I’m getting a pedicure and mailing my tax returns. The only reflecting I’ll do is on how I can pay less taxes this year, and why it’s so hard to find decent pink nail polish.
Emma,
http://www.erichoffer.net/
And does anyone remember “Eric Hoffer: The Passionate State of Mind” on CBS with Hoffer and Eric Severeid in 1967?
Hoffer’s political views were not entirely ones that I would endorse today. But some of his populism I would.
As for personality, and his attitude toward writing, first-rate.
(Probably someone here will find some really awful stuff and set me straight. Oh, well.)
Arabella-
It sounds like the stock exchange is a good place for you.
Taylor, I really like this post, and the last paragraph is wonderful.
I am reading Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy, and last night was slogging through the history of religious sects in America. One thread is the strong influence of “end times” thinking, including on this WH. Seen through that lens, your words–”Nuclear weaponry released in the Middle East is not an option. It is the end”–take on an even more frightening load of meaning. I have always thought of the fundies as uneducated zealots, but with the arrival of the Bush administration I have been forced to see them as much more influential in American life than I ever thought possible. If you believe that the end of the world will bring on the next (better) life, nuclear war in the Middle East will just hasten the happy day of the rapture.
Phillips’ book, by the way, is really interesting. It’s only the long list of religious flavors and how they came to be that is a slog, so far.
cathy,
Is the only thing keeping you from breaking the law spending time in jail?
Not to answer for DefJef, but for me, it depends what law we are talking about. For many many of them (particularly the regulatory ones), the answer is “yes.” For a somewhat lessere number of them (for which there is an independent ethical (and moral if I can say it) basis, the answer is “no.”
I don’t think DefJef owes anyone an apology. I disagree with that particular point of view, but one important aspect of my faith perspective is to not force my faith perspective onto others.
Reading these posts, all of which are totally sincere, I sense a huge confusion between the “spiritual” and the “religious.”
Religion is a man-made artifical construct that is created in order to “tie together”, as the word literally means, the spiritual beliefs of a group of people.
Spirituality as such does not need the imposed superstructure of religion. It is basically an attitude towards life and existence. This attitude is the recognition that the world is more than just one’s personal playground, that all creatures have a common stake in living.
Historically, religions have tended towards emphasizing the collection of power, authority, control of people lives, as well as material wealth. And yes, religion promotes myths that are not suported by science. These are some of the reasons why I left the Catholic Church early on.
Spirituality by contrast is an attitude, not a structure. And many comments here tend not to see the difference, or not to believe that the difference is meaningful.
Someone here said you don’t have to be spiritual to recognize the right of others to a life. Fine, I have no problem with that. At that level its all semantics.
The founding fathers wisely wrote the constitution with the explicit exclusion of organized religion as an aspect of the state, but also made it possible for each person to define their own spirituality, whether or not that mean embracing a particular religion. I see not need to change that.
Arabella- with all due respect, what brought you here? (I mean this site, not existentially)
Mind you, Eric Hoffer wrote in THE TRUE BELIEVER that such a person was a “hitchhiker who thumbed a ride on every cause from Communism to Christianity.” He concluded that the need to believe was, for some people, separate from the object of the belief.
immanentize-
I agree with that. But that works both ways. I don’t think athiests should push their religion on anyone either.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
And thus we learn that Mr. Jefferson was an Enemy of Freedom.
I really like the Meacham quote. The idea of a broad notion of god that could be understood and agreed upon universally has a lot of appeal to me (but then again it would because I am a Unitarian)
The problem is: I don’t know that god can be universalized. Some people violently reject the notion of any god. Some people strongly believe that you should not ever address g*d. Some people reject the idea of coming together with others whose idea of god is so different from their own.
In a sense, the founding fathers were able to get away with god in universal terms because peoples’ beliefs were pretty similar and/or those with different beliefs did not really insist on a place at the table of public religion. I had law professor from Israel, and when we discussed the notion of “our judeao-christian heritage,” she used to say there was really no such thing, and that it was just a matter of trying to universalize the christian experience. It was always done, now the fundies are just more overt and righteous about it.
I don’t know what the answer is. But I appreciate you diving in to the morass.
Angie,
just saw your heads up downthread re: Feingold comiung to Austin – a big Texas thank you for that!
and I am LMAO over the Coulter crap – a God so limited in scope that it has chosen it’s Party ?!?!? this could prove a nice little opening for mainstream Ministers and Churches to publicly question the rhetoric of the Religious Right
Many of the founding fathers were absolute secularists. Many were not. There was always a tension in the colonies, because some of the original colonists were basically religious fanatics who came here both to escape persecution and to be able to persecute non-believers.
The Massachusetts colony essentially established a theocracy that burned witches, publicly flogged Baptists, and when two Quaker women showed up on a boat from Barbados, they were imprisoned, stripped, searched for signs of witchcraft, and then put on a boat and shipped back to Barbados. In Virginia, you couldn’t get married unless an Episcopal performed the ceremony.
Other colonists were intellectuals who had embraced Enlightenment ideas and came to the colonies to establish a life free of the tyrannies of Europe.
When the Constitution was written, it was written by the intellectuals. It is nearly a perfect example of Englightenment secular humanism, beginning with “We the People”, mentions God not at all, and only mentions religion to tell the governemnt to stay out of it.
As late as the 1840s, a Christian preacher could complain that not a single president of the US had been a “proper Christian.” Finally, the US Treaty with Tripoli, negotiated by George Washington, signed by John Adams, and unanimously approved by the Senate, contained the following article:
The difference in attitude towards Islam by the secular humanists of the 1790s and todays Christian fundamentalists is striking, which is why we need more secularism in our society, not more religion.
The varying views of religion’s role have deep divisive roots even within Christianity. The challenge results from the various mechanics of different ’salvation theologies.’
One major dimension of difference, Faith vs. Works, could easily describe many aspects of the current conservative vs. liberal debate.
The dogma of Faith-based salvation among many believers in regard to ‘accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour’ and the resultant absolution, allows various televangelists and politicians to act with impunity, knowing they can always regain/enhance their position with those who espouse Faith over Works simply by being ’saved.’
I believe that deep spiritual experiences often result in either Righteousness or Tenderness (empathy.) This is another dimension of the current conservative vs. liberal debate.
An understanding of the influence of religion (basically Christianity) on American politics must, IMHO, be considered in light of these differences. Lacking an understanding of these different approaches to religion leads to huge semantic (or perhaps semiotic) misunderstandings which we cannot continue to afford.
Immanentize,
“I don’t think DefJef owes anyone an apology. I disagree with that particular point of view, but one important aspect of my faith perspective is to not force my faith perspective onto others.”
I was calling Defjef on this comment (#18):-
“There is nothing deeply spiritual about this country Taylor… you have been drinking the coolaid…”
Taylor called him on it and we have a policy here of no personal insults … is all. I agree with you otherwise.
Peterr, I’m not argueing with you. I said most churches. I’ve been in quite a few but no more although I call myself a Christian.
The fact is that the hierarchies mailine churches won’t call the fundies on their abuses because they have been doing it themselves for centuries although maybe more politely in more recent history.
Thanks, Taylor. Your post made me get off my ass and finally blog this story I’ve been sitting on since yesterday.
Real faith is death to the cynical exploitation of faith.
.
Just as a reminder, the 1st amendment to the Constitution guarantees the Four Freedoms:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press
Freedom of assembly.
Take away any of these and you destroy democracy as we know it.
Tim, that is interesting stuff. But I am not sure if deep spiritual experience ever genuinely results in righteousness. Because I think any deep spiritual experience has acceptance of mystery at it’s core. I think righteousness is a result of deep religiousity, not deep spirituality, if that makes sense.
Taylor,
I think this “special destiny of America” is just a belief that Americans have, and is similar to beliefs that other people in other dominant nations have had during history. It doesn’t mean that the nation is blessed by God, or has a “manifest destiny” to rule the world.
At this point, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to try to out-religious the right wing. I do think it’s worthwhile to show the degree to which their alleged religiousness is a shallow sham.
Today’s “Christian” leader seems more interested in imposing a patriarchal societal order than in paying any attention to the teachings of Peter and Paul. Indeed, one of the more prominent leaders, Pat Robertson, recently opined on the need for the assasination of a foreign leader.
Finally, I don’t get the graphic. What’s EPCOT center got to do with religion? Or is that a giant Easter egg?
The thing that the founders understood, which seems to escape most modern fundamentalists, is that religion – how one relates to and attempts to understand the mysteries of life – is a deeply private affair, and one which government institutions have no legitimate role in. Hence,
And here is a great quote by Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”
cbl– you are welcome, you lucky person!
shargash #73– nice post!
blahblahblahblahblahblahblah!
what a bunch of wankers
get off your fat asses
John Meacham claims that the Founding Fathers ‘wanted God in American public life,’ but the one document that inarguably expresses their plan for the United States, the Constitution, makes no mention of ‘God’ and mentions religion only to counsel government to stay away from it. The expression he quotes, ‘nature’s God,’ is from the Declaration of Independence, a document that predates the United States by more than a decade. That expression was placed there, not to articulate some social desideratum for a country not yet formed, but to claim every conceivable authority for the planned armed insurrection against the established government.
Peter, 82
blahblahblahblahblahblahblah!
what a bunch of wankers
get off your fat asses
Off all the posts here today, this one makes the most sense. Thanks, Peter. Lgging out now.
This reminds me of the immigration debate:
Parable of the Vineyard
Matt 20:1-16
1. “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2. “Now when he had agreed with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3. “And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4. “and said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went.
5. “Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise.
6. “And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’
7. “They said to him, ‘Because no one hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and whatever is right you will receive.’
8. “So when evening had come, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, ‘Call the laborers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first.’
9. “And when those came who were hired about the eleventh hour, they each received a denarius.
10. “But when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received each a denarius.
11. “And when they had received it, they complained against the landowner,
12. “saying, ‘These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day.’
13. “But he answered one of them and said, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?
14. ‘Take what is yours and go your way. I wish to give to this last man the same as to you.
15. ‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’
16. “So the last will be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.”
(NKJ)
The quote of Bill Coffin’s is from the book The Heart is a Little to the Left referenced pages 18-19. I typed it all out (not on the net that I know of)
from the preface:
Sadly, that last statement written in 1999 could not have foreseen the taking over of our government by what Marc Maron calls the Christo-fascist Zombie Brigade.
I met Rev. Coffin when he was at the book launching of Scott McClennan’s ‘Finding Your Religion.” Coffin was there along with Garry Troudeau as the character Scott Sloan in Doonesbury is modeled after a combination of the two ministers. Scott was Garry’s roommate at Yale and Coffin was their chaplain.
Coffin signed his book for me and his signature statement was “lots of hope!”
As someone once said, “Faith can move mountains, but it’s better to bring a shovel.” We’ve lots of shoveling to do.
Thanks for a wonderful post Ms. Taylor Marsh.
“Unbelief” is not the exclusive property of atheists, imo it’s part of faith. Jesus had it on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
A lot of fundies are really very selective literalists, who understand nothing of the “fundamentals” of Xtianity. These find a certain phrse or sentence in the Bible, rip it out of context, and ignore other Biblical texts that provide a pluralism. Only one of four gospels, Luke’s, has a section on the “virgin birth.” In Matthew’s Gospel, Mary is an unwed mother, pregnant by another man. Mark’s gospel, written before Luke and Matthew, and John’s gospel, written after Luke and Matthew, simply avoid the subject. Xtians who decided which books belonged in the “canon” included all four , because the “virgin birth” was not to them a litmus test for Xtianity. This is just one of manyy examples.
Wrt social justice, James 2:25: “so also faith without works is dead.”
to paraphrase Karl Marx:
Religion is the groan of the oppressed, the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of a spiritless condition. It is the Prozac of the People.
Everything that Taylor Marsh says Democrats want to do I want to do – based on my faith. My faith informs my politics and that is why I tend to the progressive side. I am saddened when progressives dismiss my faith as nonsense, but I won’t leave because that would be to deny my belief. If non-believing progressives can tolerate this, then we have the beginnings of a beautiful friendship.
ojs and timewarp, thanks for both commenting the 1st Amendment.
Lovely post, Taylor. The right has perfected the religion of selfishness and greed. We have to show real morality and spirituality and show them how far they’ve fallen.
Bumper sticker:
God bless the whole world. No exceptions.
Taylor– that picture reminds me of Maxfield Parrish– what is it???
Re: #11 – waaaaay upstream.
You are right on, Grand Moff Texan. I’ve seen the resurgence of aristocracy in our country for – hmmmm – five years, now. Who can afford to own a home? Who can afford a good education? Who can afford good health care? Who can afford to retire?
The folks that Bush gave a tax cut. Like hell that’s going to trickle down.
Stacy says:
April 14th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Re: Ann Coulter has a new book coming out.
Two beings I hope to never meet:
1) Ann Coulter’s God; and
2) Ann Coulter
Really on the fly today–family medical care trumps everything else in life–hope to get back to read the essay and comments later.
I was thinking this morning as I watched a bunch of self-satisfied suited folks leaving their Christian breakfast at the local Holiday Inn and totally oblivious to my husband, trying to get through their swarm to go to his continuing education in his wheelchair. The true spirit of Christianity can be summed up in the parables and words of Jesus. Smug and sure/braying man at the front of the church isn’t the hero. Woman with bowed head in the back is.
Oliphant had the perfect take this week in calling himself spiritual, not sectarian.
Back when I used to be a Lutheran, the pastor’s parting was go in peace, serve…
Here’s to a lot more going in peace and serving at the highest echelons of Bushco, instead of the smug and sure braying.
As I watched the the whiteman massacre our warriors, women and children by the thousands, breach every treaty ever made with our people and slaughter animals by the millions for sport, I thought to myself, this has the makings of the most moral and spiritual nation the world will ever see.
-Chief Telling It Like It Is
Taylor – that was a great post, and the basis for a great discussion; thank you.
I think it is too easy for some religious people to get caught up in assuming that all morals and values necessarily flow from religion, and that one must be religious or profess a particular faith in order to be considered a good person. I think, for example, that you can teach your children about compassion, and caring, and doing the right thing because it is the right thing, without ever bringing religion into the conversation, and without ever setting foot in a church, synagogue or mosque. You can help feed the hungry and help older people, volunteer your legal services to the poor, buy books for schools and libraries without ever believing in anything other than that helping others helps all of us, and elevates the level of our humanity. Giving to the community is a good thing in and of itself, regardless of whether the giving is done by someone of faith or someone without.
I think Democrats, liberals and progressives are better able to recognize that not all people have the power to help themselves. I think we are better able to understand that when the lives of others are better, we all benefit. We are less able to understand the philosophy that helping others must always be a private undertaking. We are less able to understand how those who claim to be people of faith can be so blinded by their faith that they object to the government helping people in need because those the government helps are not deemed to be worthy of help. There’s a judgment that attaches to those in need – if a person engages in a behavior that a person of faith believes is counter to certain religious precepts, the person in need is deemed not to be eligible for government help because it would be the equivalent of condoning or encouraging the behavior. There’s an inability to see past the faith to the person in need that I think turns faith on its head.
While we do not want to encourage behavior that is damaging to individuals and families, I think we are better able to understand that while we may have gotten where we are all by ourselves, we also have not forgotten that many of us started with advantages that a lot of people have never had. But anyone who’s ever gotten a break because of who they knew, or through a well-placed phone call, or because they were able to afford the better schools or the better neighborhoods, or because wealth has come to them through inheritance has received “hand-outs†themselves, and should ponder where they would be had they not had the benefit of those advantages; perhaps it would change their understanding of the differences that can be made by getting help and the differences one can make by giving it – even if that help comes via tax dollars.
Sorry for the long post.
Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1957).
“Tillich defines and explores faith as ultimate concern. Faith is a centered act of being ultimately concerned.
This definition is ambiguous, and needs further explanation. If faith is ultimate concern, with what is it ultimately concerned? To be concerned, we must be concerned with something. Tillich says that the content of faith does not matter for the definition of faith. But, to resolve this ambiguity, Tillich’s definition of faith may be interpreted to mean that faith is a concern with ultimate reality.
According to Tillich, faith is an act of the total personality. Thus, the dynamics of faith must account for the dynamics of personality. Faith is the freedom to choose to believe in something. Faith is ‘ecstatic’ in that it is a centered act of the total personality.
Faith is not simply the will to believe, says Tillich. It is a cognitive affirmation of the transcendent nature of ultimate reality. This is achieved, not simply by a process of intellectual inquiry, but by an act of acceptance and surrender.1
Religious faith brings an awareness of the sacred. Tillich says that faith is certain, insofar as it is an experience of the sacred, but that it is uncertain, insofar as it brings finite beings into relation with an infinite reality. The element of uncertainty in faith cannot be avoided, and must be accepted.2
Tillich argues that doubt is included in every act of faith.3 The dynamic concept of faith helps to explain the interaction between faith and doubt. Every act of faith recognizes that there may be a possibility for doubt.”
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/tillich.html
What is this “comment awaiting moderation” stuff?
Prof–where do you teach? can I come to your class? I went to law school but have the distinct feeling that your con law class is unlike any I suffered through in law school…
Are certain people’s comments held for “moderation” or is this a browser issue?
orangejumpsuit, thanks for bringing up Native Americans, being one I need to make a slight correction when you said, “The native Americans had deep spirituality without having a religion.” We have spirituality and it’s federally recogonized and protected as a religion per se.
I tell people I do go to church 7 days a week: I step outside. To us there is no “holy week”, everything in the universe is holy and sacred every moment of every day.
“You are right on, Grand Moff Texan. I’ve seen the resurgence of aristocracy in our country for – hmmmm – five years, now.”
Just look at pop-culture. Hummers, gold chains, Kristal, $100.00 steaks at restaurants, high roller poker, reality show decadence, rich and exotic foods(”this is buffalo scrotum with a gold leaf pate and corn bisque extruded from Ivana Trumps colon”), millionaire mansions, Trump, Hilton, Wall St, worship, $7,000.00 shower curtains, million dollar birthday parties in Sardinia with ice sculptures urinating champagne and nude models as statues, the cult of lobbying, Dukestir Cunninghams trappings of corruption…
The state of the nation is not so good.
-GSD
lhp, thanks for number 5.
hoho, not sure.
If you have more than two links in your comment, it might be some troll software that Jane installed?
Angie, I’m not sure about the picture because when I found it there was no artist associated. But you’re right, it does look like Parrish. If I can ever find the artist, I’ll attribute it.
Thanks, Anne, and JohnCasper, “doubt” is an important element to bring to the discussion. Thanks… to everyone, no matter what side you fall on the issue.
*ilson @88
Marx? Is that what this discussion has come to?
Taylor put forward a proposition that hope can conquer fear, war and almost certain doom. For me, the source of that hope is found in the Christian religion. Not in a pie-in-the-sky, by-and-by kind of way, but in the love and care for the neighbor that I have seen and felt and experienced.
DefJef, from his comments, obviously has a different answer – but (also from his comments) I can’t for the life of me tell what it is, other than “not religion.”
Harvey Milk, the martyred openly gay SF City Supervisor, built his whole campaign for office in the 1970s around hope. Hope not just for gays, but hope for working people getting jerked around by corporate bigwigs, hope for elderly people whose world was changing faster than they could imagine, hope for the poor whose voices were being lost in the big business of urban renewal. “You gotta give ‘em hope!” he told his campaign workers and supporters, time and time and time again.
That’s the message I hear from Taylor. In contrast to the fear and death coming from the right wing, we can offer something better: hope.
Some of us have shared the source of our hope. From the rest of you, where do you find yours?
I don’t think I said anything I have to apologize for.
My comment about Ms Marsh is that she is buying into a meme that is out there now and it is not a rational based notion.
As religion is a private matter, and if it informs some to behave well, all the better. I’ll take that, but I assume that very person would behave equally well without leaning on their “faith” for guidance.
The discussion about faith and relgion should be about how to keep it a private matter and how to better separate religion from public life and government, not the reverse.
Anne #98
I think it is too easy for some religious people to get caught up in assuming that all morals and values necessarily flow from religion, and that one must be religious or profess a particular faith in order to be considered a good person. I think, for example, that you can teach your children about compassion, and caring, and doing the right thing because it is the right thing, without ever bringing religion into the conversation, and without ever setting foot in a church, synagogue or mosque. You can help feed the hungry and help older people, volunteer your legal services to the poor, buy books for schools and libraries without ever believing in anything other than that helping others helps all of us, and elevates the level of our humanity. Giving to the community is a good thing in and of itself, regardless of whether the giving is done by someone of faith or someone without.
I agree but would also add what an added gift it is to be in a community where these values and activities are shared. Being part of a religious community has the kind of benefits that we on the blog find with one another. We have people to share ideas with, to challenge us, to work together with. We can share common wisdom and our stories, and help the children in our midst be part of the liberal community that works together for peace and justice.
Personally, I get a little tired of the conversation that pits religion against spirituality. One can be either or both. “Religio” is about binding together, about community. Within a religion we are each of us on a spiritual quest. Some religions define very carefully what that quest will look like and have to conform to, others are there to encourage a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Not all religions are alike.
The bottom line for me is that no religion will tell me what to think or believe or foist a set of beliefs on me. That is my journey and I want to travel that journey with a community of people who are similarly inclined.
It is hard to resist the urge to ridicule much of what passes for Christianity. And I will admit that I am often very very angry at them, because as a woman, I take their assaults on the free expression of one’s sexuality – particularly the innate right to choose whether or not I will or will not bear a child – very personally. I am also appalled at their hatred of the “unfortunates” among us (the oppressed, the sick, the poor).
That said, I think Democrats and those of us who identify ourselves as liberal-progressive-left or whatever should take great care in how we speak of this. I live in Brooklyn, and I am surrounded by African American Evanglicals and Latino Roman Catholics who take their religious beliefs and practices very very seriously. As it stands now, the white fundamentalist movement has frightened them perhaps more than they do us, simply because as minorities they understand the coded racism in “small government” and “self-responsibility.” But woe unto us if the Christian Right ever manages to make some real inroads into these communities based on shared religious/moral values. Although there has already been a serious attempt to do this, so far, they have been largely unsuccessful, I think because most do not relate to being Christian in the way that the Fundamentalist Right describes it.
For this reason, I think that it is very important for the Democratic Party to openly embrace the universal messages of compassion and responsibiity to care for the quality of life of all people, rather than dismiss religion wholesale simply because a certain fringe has managed to hijack it in their quest to grab and hold political and economic power.
It would do us well to understand more of the lives of William Sloane Coffin (who I had the great honor of meeting once) or Michael Lerner of Tikkun. Or our very own RevDeb for that matter.
I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew, but that does not mean that will ever pass by an opportunity to break bread with them. And sometimes I benefit from attending some of their religious services, as a means toward finding and building common ground.
We should not ridicule religion per se – lest we find ourselves wounding our own friends.
I’m a big girl. I can take whatever is dished out and have heard much worse, including on right-wing radio, believe me.
But as for “hope,” my last line says just that, defjef.
angie says:
April 14th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Taylor– that picture reminds me of Maxfield Parrish– what is it???
Angie – I just happened to see your post while I had a few minutes for a brief visit.
He’s my paternal grandfather. I was named after his father.
No, I don’t think that’s one of his illustrations, although I can see why it reminds you of him. Look at Daybreak or one of his other illustrations with a column and the shades of blue you see in the picture above, featuring a geodesic dome which has never appeared in any of his illustrations that I have seen.
Taylor – if you haven’t already mentioned it upthread, please tell us more about where the picture came from.
Two thousand years ago,
the Greatest Radical,
walked the Earth,
and said,
“We are forgiven souls.”
Have we forgotten Him,
and made religion king?
Love and Grace is what
we should be offering.
–from, “The Solution” by Paul Colman Trio
Oops – I thought I had closed the italics tag in my post.
While religion bashing is something that we see occurring on a regular basis via people like Maher and Corsi, just to name a few, I think sometimes people forget what is a the core of a lot of the world’s major religions, Free will in the face of oppression.While my knowledge is very limited in regard to religions other than Christianity, I do make an attempt to understand, at least, the perspectives of the others.
Most of the great literature in western civilization has its foundation in the Bible. Could you imagine Les Miserables or Don Quixote without their Biblical foundations?
“Personally, I get a little tired of the conversation that pits religion against spirituality.”
Agreed. Ken Wilber addresses this stuff nicely in “The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion”
http://wilber.shambhala.com/ht…..id,5800264
Another good read — different take — is Simon Blackburn’s “Being Good”
totally OT, but I just wandered over to DailyHowler, and he has been writing about Fitz. He’s probably worth checking out, but I find him unreadable anymore. Actually, I stopped reading him when he went off the deep end in his anti-Wilson diatribes, more than 2 years ago.
Stephan Parrish, wow! Talk about a family legacy!
Michael Lerner of Tikkun is a wonderful and thoughtful man. Nice post timewarp!!!
OOPS! Ok, I guess owing to my ignorance of much of the internet…I referred to dear Marsh as “Mister”. I then as I saw some comments refer to “her”…I clicked on the Taylor name, and ooops! You are certainly a female, and I apologize for my own goof-up in calling you a “he”. Carry on. Ghostman
Stephen P.
Cool about your Grandfather…
Now get back to tax returns! ;~)
Shez #103.
Thanks. Says it all if you have ears to hear.
Life itself is the greatest miracle and it surrounds us everyday. Yet how many see it?
timewarp says:
April 14th, 2006 at 8:39 am
It is hard to resist the urge to ridicule much of what passes for Christianity.
—
Alan Watts succinctly observed that the problem with Christianity is that people replaced the religion OF Jesus with a “religion” ABOUT Jesus. (a business, actually, in my view)
I don’t know what the question is Peterr… and so I can’t even think about the answer.
I understood the thurst of Ms Marsh’s post to be that the progressives have made a mistake in how they have dealt with religion in america.
To that I say, they have not. Religion in american belongs INSIDE of churches, etc… in people’s private personal lives… end of story.
If progressive need to take on religion is must be to ENFORCE the separation of church and state not use it to seduce people to vote in their own economic and civic interest.
Free will in the face of oppression
Is as good a definiton of “spirituality” as I have ever heard. As Woody Allen says, “Why would a just and all-powerful God stoop to organized religion?”
And BTW, I’m a practicing Catholic, taught at a Catholic University, subscribe to the social justice mission teachings, — but I have doubts.
DefJef’s strategy, while based sincerely on his beliefs, would lead to the Permanent Majority (TM) that Republicans are openly talking about.
My take on this has always been, you have to believe in SOMETHING, right? I mean, who would vote for anyone who didn’t believe in anything. The key here is putting your faith, whatever faith that is, into action without belittling the faith of others.
immanentize says:
April 14th, 2006 at 8:44 am
I’m almost through with them!
timewarp says:
April 14th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Thank you very much!
And call me new school, immoral, or whatever, but doesn’t that show Big Love on HBO kinda make you go:
Who gives a shit if you marry 100 people as long as your happy, being productive, and taking care of your family?
I feel the same way about homosexual marriage. To deny it is to deny basic civil rights, and its denial is the basic definition of double standard.
Oh shit, I said it. I guess Pat Rbertson and the dickhead who screws with soldier’s funerals are gonna send hurricanes and meteor showers to Cheyenne today.
Quick, say a prayer or call FEMA…aw hell, just say a prayer, its got a proven track record…
Stephen Parrish @ 114
Oh my– he is one of my very favorite artists and to think I ‘know’ his progeny… wow. ;)
have to rush out, sorry to leave a thread with both Hoffer and Coffin references but will depart with two of my favorite quotes
when asked about the existence of God, Einstein enigmatically replied
“either everything is a miracle or nothing is a miracle”
and
faith is a steering wheel, not a spare tire !
(unknown)
Progressive Christians, like Jim Wallis of Sojourners, have been calling on Pat Robertson to retire and permanently shut up because of the damage he has done to the faith.
DefJef,
That sort of talk provides fuel to the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world.
Here is an example: As I said, I live in a community in which a lot of Catholic Latino’s live. One thing the traditional Catholic Church enjoys, is processions (you don’t see it much here, but go to Italy or Spain and you will see what I mean). Every now and then, around a sacred time they process through the neighborhood, proclaiming their faith. Similarly, when I lived in Santa Barbara CA in the 80’s there was a fantastic Summer Solstice Parade. There is no way that anyone should be forced to HIDE their beliefs from the rest of us.
Another example. A lot of the African-Americans who live in my neighborhood are Jehovahs Witnesses. Every Saturday they are out on the streets ringing doorbells in their endless quest to save the souls of the unsaved. To tell them to stay home would prevent them from practicing their religion. And if you take the time to actually talk to them, you might be surprised in the ways you see eye to eye (I love to get them going on Bush! Its always fodder for a great laugh and I don’t feel so bad about not being saved).
The Right has been somewhat successful in promoting the meme that Democrats hate religion. This is false. As it should be. Why would or anyone else hate anything which provides meaningfulness and pleasure to another human being?
But try to pass a law telling me regulating my freedom to pursue meaning and pleasure, thats another story.
Here’s an article I’ve had bookmarked for awhile that does a great job of explaining some history about religion and the forefathers:
It’s a Free Country, Not a Christian Nation
Back in 1960 JFK made some excellent speeches on religion. Several come up on google, here’s one:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/in…..rac/66.htm
Well, it’s confession time, I suppose, and what I have to confess is near total ignorance about what this thread is about. I generally think Taylor is great, btw — thanks for the post –but I’m not following the discussion this has provoked. I have some questions.
What exactly does it mean to say America is a “spiritual” nation? What are the indicia? How is this measured? And just to make it clearer, what country would we define as “non-spiritual” so that we could understand the distinction? When I think of “spiritual, I think of individuals, believers/practitions or certain faiths or actions — and then think of Buddist monks, or Tibet, ,or India, or even Native Americans etc, but the last country I would think of in these terms would be America.
What are the signs that American is particularly “spiritual” or that the country as a whole, or its government(s) in particular function in a “spiritual” manner? Sorry, I just don’t see it.
OTOH, if this is a discussion about the different political inclinations of those with different religious affiliations, then I can make more sense of this. It appears that a lot of people who call themselves Christian (or whatever)are quite prepared to support some pretty mean-spirited policies, wars against other humans, disregard of inhumane policies abroad and here at home, and so on. Others who also call themselves Christians (or whatever) find these same policies morally abhorrent. I have trouble making much sense of that when the discussion is in “religious” terms. It just doesn’t seem to be very helpful.
I would prefer government officials who told me nothing about their religious beliefs or spiritual inclinations, but who explained their views of the means and ends of governance without such references, so that I could tell what they were likely to do once in office. When someone tells me they’re driven/motivated by their religious beliefs, I get nervous. And if they say these things because they think politically they have to speak that way, they lose my respect.
the part of spirituality/religion–the most important part to my way of thinking/believing–that the true believers (Bush, Robertson, Falwell, etc.)miss is the seeking. Once what you believe in is absolute or when your belief is cast in concrete, well, game over, it seems to me…seeking as opposed to knowing seems to call for openness, inclusivity, humility and questions. All good to my way of thinking/believing
ShowMePatriot –
I disagree. i think that your statement reveals how much people have internalized the right’s messaging.
What I understand DefJef to call for is a robust public explanation of why there should be very serious separation between church and state. Two examples spring to mind — the first is positive: When G. Ferraro was running as the candidate for V.P., she was asked to comment on her position regarding abortion. As a very devote catholic, she had the most elegant answer I have yet heard and I will do it no justice here, but the gist was: “As a religious individual, I am opposed to abortion, but as a politician in this country, I must actively support people’s decisions to chose differently than me.”
The second is a negative message — if you as a religious organization begin to take federal money for your faith works, we will regulate you like any non-religious organization. This is the true threat of state-sponsored religion and many many Christian service providers understand the dangers inherant in mixing faith and politics (and political money). The religious right believes they can do it because of their current access to power, but they do not know what damage they will bring to their own organizations.
What I hear DefJef calling for is a return to original, founding principles — indeed what Taylor referred to in her post. Private religion, public compassion — whether informed by religion or not. I do not think this is offensivce to the vast majority of Americans. In fact, I know most catholics and Methodists and Jews and Muslims and and and would appreciate that kind of clarity and space to be free to practice their beliefs without the pressures of public critique. Ask any Quaker you meet….
I am calling for the whole lot of the cash and carry christians, jews and moslems to retire…
I really wish they would all go to the holy land, as they call it and work it out over there and leave the thinking part of civilization to make some progress.
The determination of Republicans to bring religion into schools and government should be recognized for what it it: a failure of their churches to provide meaningful religious expression. Republicans would not seek religion elsewhere if their churches performed their functions.
Heads up,
Sounds to me like Dept of Homeland Security will be coming after the terrorists at FDL next…
EXCLUSIVE: DHS Warns Companies Of Evil Terrorist “Flyer Distribution”
In a bulletin issued yesterday, the Homeland Security Department warns U.S. businesses of the threats they face from animal rights group and “eco-terrorists.” Such radical extremist groups may use several tactics — each devastating in its own way — including:
- “organizing protests”
- “flyer distribution”
- “inundating computers with e-mails”
- “tying up phone lines to prevent legitimate calls.”
- “sending continuous faxes in order to drain the ink supply from company fax machines”
If the ink runs out of your fax machine, that means the terrorists have won….
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000380.php
Shoot my link didn’t take. It’s a great read.
It’s a Free Country, Not a Christian Nation
RevDeb – I absolutely agree with your comments. Community is about sharing, and if we are lucky, we find ourselves being part of many communities where we are strengthened and uplifted by our participation.
I did not mean to give the impression that there is no value in religion or in faith – I just object to sort of the “I’m standing on higher moral ground than you because I’m a member of Church XYZ†attitude that seems to be prevalent. Likewise, I just don’t understand the withholding of help based on judgments about why the person needs the help. If I give a homeless person $5, is it really up to me to first judge what he or she will spend the money on before I decide whether to give? Maybe if the person only gets $5 he or she will spend it on whatever the most pressing need is, but maybe if he or she gets $15, there might be enough for a meal or two. On the other hand, if I give $20 to the people who have set up a meal station on the street, and are giving out hot soup and sandwiches, maybe more people will be able to eat, so I try to direct my spontaneous giving at things like that.
From a political standpoint, I do not think it is necessary to give the Democratic party over to religion in order to highlight that what we advocate are things that are common to many religions. That the party doesn’t align itself with any particular brand of religion should not allow us to be branded as “godless,” or anti-religion. I fear that we’re tying ourselves in knots trying to prove that we are “just as good” as a party that increasingly wants to inject religion into government, instead of emphasizing the commonality of philosophy we share with the religious community.
Not sure if that makes sense…hope so!
It seems that for Taylor and Ralph Reed alike, the “last word” for American moral and political life is religion; non-religious people do “exist” but apparently have the political valence of convicted felons, with no voice worth hearing or mentioning.
Going “me too” in a theocratic worldview competition with the GOP, whether “nice” theocracy with minimum wages or “nasty” theocracy with forensic vagina specialists a la El Salvador… No thanks.
Throughout this thread, I have been thinking about Jimmy Carter. He was the 1st president I voted for, and I remember being so hopeful that he would be able to bridge the divide between what we called the ’straight’ people (religious, socially conservative) and the progressives. Sadly, I remember his deeply held, and very personal faith being absolutely lampooned by the left. We may look back with nostalgia on his playboy “I lust im my heart” confession, but at the time, me and many of my friends found it hilarious. I regret that now.
In a sense, he was the 1st born again Christian President. And look how he lives his life now. That is what we should be embracing. It doesn’t matter if one is motivated by humanism, private spiritual beliefs or by a particular religion, the point is that there are many religious people who embrace and live the values of progressive democrats. And they should not feel alienated because some of us think its ok to look down on their beliefs.
hmm, my posts are held for “moderation? why is this?
when my Congresslady is asked about religious questions, she replies that she is running for the U.S. Congress, not the pastor of a church or the imam of a mosque…
new thread – new spit
OfT: I hope Scalia and DeadEye get a chance to hunt together this weekend.
Ha! Good one Badwater! Which is why you don’t see a lot of liberal or minority churches beating that drum.
- “tying up phone lines to prevent legitimate calls.â€
Sans Culotte, That list is not what terrorists do, it is a list of recent Republican National Committee political dirty tricks.
Just cracks me up how these people project.
PS Please put your pants on. Or is your moniker a reference to The French Fporeign Fighters? or the Canadian mock-rock group?
lina #37 says: “You’ll see the people who can find some kind of power greater than themselves (if only in their mind) at peace with their situation. The atheists are railing and gnashing and appear to be miserable.”
That’s not my experience at all. In my experience, the religious and irrelegious are at peace or suffer at roughly the same rate.
This argument is a variation of the line about “no athiests in a foxhole” — and it’s not true.
Some people find great comfort in religious belief. More power to them. Others do not require it to find comfort and direction. That’s good too. Whatever works, go with it!
A few years back, I wrote a little commentary about the destruction of Sodom that seems relevant here. So, here’s a brief excerpt:
The reasons Sodom was destroyed are listed in plain language in Ezekiel 16:48-50. Homosexuality is not in the list unless you choose to interpret “abomination” in an atypical way. Even with the most homophobic interpretation possible, homosexuality wasn’t bad enough to warrant naming specifically, but take a good look at what was considered bad enough.
The next time some rabid Christian warns you that god is going to give the US the Sodom treatment, tell them what their Bible says: “Perhaps we can avoid it if we stop being such arrogant assholes.”
Wonderful post. If the U.S. is really so very religious (see Time Magazine cover stories every few months on some variant of “Religion in America”), why aren’t we reading pieces like Taylor’s over and over?
Frankly, as a Jew who went to Episcopalian school and was touched by the story of Jesus, I am floored and disgusted by the present incarnation of faux Christianity. Christ without the compassion? Sermon on the Mount not to be discussed?
Give me a break. These people are the lions, not the Christians.
wrt the image; it looks like a Daniel Deroux of Juneau, who sometimes reworks the classics
I know a new thread is up but I hope we continue this thread theme more this weekend.
As for the waiting moderation, in WordPress under comments and moderation preferences they have the option toggled that any post with more than 2 links is temporarily held for moderation.
timewarp,
you flatter me much too much. I’m just out here trying to maintain community—both religious and political—while we work for that peace and justice that seems so illusive right now.
In 12 step meetings they put forth the need for a higher power and that power can be the group for those who don’t have a notion of a god that works for them. For many, the blogs serve that kind of purpose too. It doesn’t matter if you are or are not religious, are or are not spiritual. That you have liberal and progressive values that you want to share and live is what we are here for.
Think for a moment. If we did not have this community or others like it how bereft we would feel in the face of the evil empire that is running this country. Most people feel this way about the world in general, that’s why we form groups and communities, so we don’t have to be alone.
The point here is that we have this community to work for political change. I have my church community to work for peace and justice. It so happens that in my case, much of the work overlaps. I can take the collective wisdom I find here and share it with my congregation and we find more foot soldiers for our work. It’s the same damn thing the right wingers have been doing for the past 30 years. Look where they got us. I see no reason why we can’t share our wisdom and energy to work for liberal and progressive values the way that wingers have IF we have the ability to do so. That’s what MLK jr. did, that’s what Gandhi did. That’s what William Sloan Coffin did.
For those who have faith and have motivation to work for justice, great. For those for whom faith or religion is superfluous, that’s OK too, just don’t dis those of us who are motivated BY our faith to do this work. We’re on the same side and we want to keep religion out of politics and politics out of our religion and our bedrooms. But if we on the “religious left” don’t speak up, everyone will assume that the wingers speak for all religious folk. That just ain’t true.
End of sermon because I really do have to leave this and work on my Judas sermon for Easter Sunday.
Blessings to all.
RevDeb
Honest Government, Fair Taxes, and REAL Freedom
The GOP Mantra of Less Government, Lower Taxes, and More Freedom sounds good, but like everything else GOP, they are LIES — baldfaced, flat out LIES.
The Democratic counter punch Mantra:
Honest Government, Fair Taxes, and REAL Freedom
I’ve been pitching this for years, but there is no time like the present.
This particular construct — Honest, Fair, and Real — has the benefit of encompassing all of the key tenets of Democratic values, while exposing GOP hypocrisy.
There is no end to the need for Democratic Message Development, but this slogan is a good start.
immanentize,
lol,
sans-culottes translates literally to ‘no breeches’. The name was chosen by the working class French Revolutionaries (you know, the “off with their heads” crowd) opposed to aristocracy who triggered what would eventually end dynastic rule across Europe.
So, I’m either into going around bottomless, or I identify with that movement, or both.
I kinda like the ambiguity.
The primary religious idea is that all is a Unity. That is the universal message of heart-based religion. Religion means “to bind again” with the Unity of existence. No separation. Oneness. Love-Bliss Light.
The primary obstruction to this native Realization of Reality and Truth is: EGO.
Ego is the root of every possible us-them dualism, whether Christian-Muslim, Jewish-Palestinian, GOP-Democrat. Ego is the fault. Not sex. Not satan. Ego. And responsibility for ego is the primary human, religious, and spiritual act. Modern day republicans demonstrate gross ego-minded insane egoity, untainted by any connection with the Unity of existence. The term “pharisee” comes to mind.
Responsibility for ego (which is insane and which is the source of ALL problems) is the adult disposition and the only means for real religious, spiritual, and sane life.
So children “believe” in a parental deity.
Adolescents reject authority in every form and stand free of parent.
Adults take responsibility for ego-illusion and ego-insanity and actually connect with the Reality and Truth that is prior to and beyond ego-based life and view. If you meet a spiritually infused person, you will see what I am talking about.
The adult view of religion must inform every organized religion, to the point of Unity, of ego-transcendence, of growth beyond “belief and doubt” into Reality and Truth.
The great living Sage, Adi Adi Samraj, has written: “The collective human world must relinquish the confrontational disposition (or the political and social idea of mutually exclusive “opposites”) and enter into cooperation (and the idea of inherent unity, unqualified relatedness, or oneness). Otherwise, the human species is risking its own total self-destruction — as well as the destruction of even all of earthkind, and of earth itself.”
This is wisdom, religious and spiritual wisdom, which is sane at heart. Sanity is required, not new improved ego-politics or new improved ego-religion.
Ego is what falsifies religion and perpetuates illusion. Beyond ego is what authenticates religion and destroys illusion.
True religious vision of Unity, of oneness, of heart-connectedness is sane.
Fundamentalism in every form, in every religious form, is ego-based insanity and entirely a form of addiction. Religious addiction is a whole field within the addiction recovery world, the same insecurities that drive people to drink obsessively, drive people to addictive fear-based ego-based religious addiction.
The great Hindu Sage, Swami Vivekananda said: “Mankind ought to be taught that religions are but the varied expressions of THE RELIGION, which is Oneness, so that each may choose the path that suits him best.”
Adi Da Samraj, a voice of spiritual wisdom and sanity, proposes this law of human wisdom:
Cooperation + Tolerance = Peace
May great wisdom and auspiciousness increase.
Dru #154
Just went to look at some of his stuff– he is good. thanks!
link to his website for those who might want to take a peek:
http://www.danielderoux.com/
Taylor, Nice work, I caught you on the SPAN a few Sundays ago with Nuthouse Moran. You did good there too. I posted at his site once and thanked him for putting the “Moe” back in Moron. I had no idea that his name was Moran at the time. Needless to say, the place went nuts.
Def Jef’s #21 post that the constitution should be tossed sounds alot like what Tony Perkins is saying these days. Their end results would be completely different I fear.
Recently we learned that 30% of the country believe your right to own a cat is protected in the 1st amendment of the constitution. The right under stands this and has been hard at work constructing a different history for their followers. The left does stupid stuff like sue to take the cross off the seal of the city of Los Angeles. It was founded by Spanish preists, let it alone. The right says that the country was founded by people seeking religious freedom. True, but they weren’t chased out of europe by a pack of howling secular humanists. That prize goes to to other Christians. And the 4 million slaves that helped build the country, didn’t come for “religious freedom.”
The settlers at Jamestown came to make money, not to find God. They beat that pack up in Mass. by 13 years. There were 2 goldsmiths and an assayer in that boat. Money, not religion is reason for the country we have today. The founders were smart enough to realize that fighting over ones beliefs got in the way of making a buck.
Nice post, Sanity, EGO really rules the day with BushCo.
…and thanks, Gyro. I can imagine the reponse to “Moe”! I have clips of my Washington Journal appearance here.
Amen RevDeb! And I would love to hear that Judas sermon on Easter Sunday ;-).
The trouble is that morality has become identified with rigid, punitive puritanical fundamentalism rather than with solidality and trust.
I agree with whoever said (basically it is the Asian view) that morality is a form of social capital — whether it comes from religion or not. We cannot endure as a society if “anything goes” nor, especially, if there is one code for the leaders that says greed is good and deception is ok, and another for everybody else. Our leaders must lead by example.
***********
According to Andrew Sharpe:
The Netherlands emerges as a success story in Maddison’s history of the world economy. . . it had the highest income level in the world for nearly three centuries from 1600 to
1800. More recently, it has been able to maintain a low unemployment rate and low inflation. Maddison notes that the solidaristic attitudes of the Dutch population, which have allowed the country to pursue an
effective income policy, have been responsible for the recent success.
The roots of these attitudes have a long history in Dutch society, going back many centuries to the reliance on control of water through
the system of dikes. This suggests that solidaristic attitudes are generated though historical circumstances and cannot develop
overnight. — Andrew Sharpe reviewing
ANGUS MADDISON’S NEW BOOK The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective
Thanks, Taylor for a wonderful post to start off the best thread I ever read.
The graphic blend of Maxfield Parrish and Bucky Fuller calls to mind this poem by Richard Brautigan.
All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
1967
and thank you for sanity wherever you are
This post is a terrific advertizment for the seperation of faith ( in spirit of any sort of invisible horseshit ) and state.
I’m with defjef. Reason trumps faith and faith has no place in politics or shouldn’t have since the 30 year war.
As far as Xtians go – for 300 years they could preen and pose as peaceful civil dissenters. Then as soon as Constantine became one they began maiming and murdering. In the last 1700 years have they stopped murdering and maiming for just one day?
Of course not.
Xtianity is a dangerous murder cult that gave us the dark ages, the female holocaust, the inquisition, the Shoah and the invasions of the Americas.
Thanks a yahoo.
If democratic socialism is to have a chance in fucking hell it will keep the seperation of church and state alive and the dream of reason alive.
And if there was a god it would be necessary to destroy it. ‘ Shit to the spirit’ Antonin Arteud
amen sister
Most of the big-name founding fathers (TJ, BF, JA, GW, JM) believed in universal natural moral law that was embodied in most religious traditions. So, they believed in some kind of universal Providence that revealed universal moral laws (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t lie, etc.) to humankind. This had nothing to do with narrow sectarian beliefs or dogma at all. So they believed in public religion to the extent that they believed society should respect these fundamental moral laws. It is this moral law, revealed by some undefined divine Providence, or God, or something, that they are referring to when they assert the need for religion in public life. Nothing more. John Adams, the one true crusty conservative of the founding fathers, was a staunch Unitarian, and saw no difference between the fundamental religious truth, and moral laws of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism. He didn’t know much about Hinduism (other than the Veddic hymns), and next to nothing about Buddhism, but that was his opinion from what he did know of them. That is how Jefferson could welcome “infidels of every description†to the US, and still express the need for moral law in quasi-religious language.
My favourite line from the Infallible Book is to be found in Matthew 19:24:
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Somebody really ought to go tell Santorum, oh, and Robertson, and Falwell, and Bush, etc. ad infinitum.
Desana 169 –
RE: Matthew 19:24:
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The word “camel” may be a mistranslation — the word in the original text also means “rope.”
Little thought seems to be given to the rationale behind the separation of church and state that was dictated by the founding fathers. Religious views and values are legitimate but given the absolute nature of such beliefs, no one government system can assuage all of the belief systems. Further blurring the lines between religion and government cannot succeed. This may mean that the only feasiblee common ground will require both sides to accept the original lines of separation that were used by our forefathers to determine individual freedoms…and likely nothing more or nothing less. For now it would be best if both sides acknowledged this reality.
read more observtions here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
“They wanted God in American pubic life…”
Pretty much the last place I want religion sticking its nose is my pubic life…
Even the current attack of Iraq is often framed as a clash of christianity and islam… We are engaged in a religious war and thousands are dying for tribal and religious beliefs…. as well as empire and oil.
Haven’t we had enough of destroying the city to save it. The separation of church and state must NOT BE DESTROYED to save the state.
Democrats SAY they want all those things for us… however they have yet to come up with a clear, concise, simple and unified way of getting those messages across to the people. Otherwise, why wouldn’t more Dems be in office?
I’ve hear that depending on how a question is phrased, approx. 70% of the population of the USA will agree with “liberal” or “democrat” principals and ideas.
Why can’t the Dems. figure this out and run with it?
It’s really frustrating.
They wanted God in American pubic life
Hey, I often invoke God in my pubic life. What’s the problem?
DefJef,
Would you say Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had “drunk the cool aid”?
That’s very simplistic thinking. And it is not true.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t want God or the Government nosing around where my crotch is.
Thanks, justintime. I can’t wait to see the ruckus I’ll likely cause on Easter Sunday.
Taylor,
Awesome post! You captured the right tone to embody the essence of the holiday.
As a nonchurch-goer, I think of myself as spiritual, not religious, and of Jesus, Buddha, etc., as spiritual philosophers who taught people to focus attention inwardly, toward the inner self rather than the material world; to love each other as ourselves, to choose compassion over fear, and take action to help others. Isn’t it a shame that the Religious Right and other religious people don’t emphasize that “inlook.” They judge what they see and fear rather than looking past their illusions into the hearts, minds, and ideas of others. I think many are in it for the power and money… *cough* Ralph Reed, Robertson, Dobson… the AmTaliban hypocrites.
When we are stirred physically, emotionally, intellectually, and creatively, that’s a spiritual dynamic at work, IMHO, which does not necessarily have an attachment to God for an experience without a religious context. Being “in the zone” can be spiritual. Atheists and agnostics can express transcendence. Music and art deeply move me spiritually and the magnificent beauty of nature. As an artist, I’m always trying to deconstruct religious dogma from inspired thought. Sometimes I fail but I’m in process, evolving as we are all (well, some of us). A delicious plate of soul food… yum… can be inspiring and deeply satisfying sensuously and emotionally.
I think you’ve got soul, Taylor, and I like. : )
Democrats may have lost our voice on religion
No. Just No. Democrats have not “lost our voice” on religion. Democrats have the same voice on religion we’ve always had — RELIGION DOESN’T BELONG IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE. Religion is a personal choice and a private matter.
Religion and values are not synonomous terms — even if the fundies would like to make them so.
A few commenters have noted Eric Hoffer, one of my favorite writers. Referred to him in relationship to the political establishment, Feingold censure, and voter disenfranchisement on another blog, March 19, 2006 at 8:02 PM. Quote from Hoffer, Good and evil grow up together and are bound in an equilibrium that cannot be sundered. The most we can do is try to tilt the equilibrium toward the good. See the link that Prof 63 posted. Hoffer sums up Taylor’s post without a religious connotation.
Margot 177 Would you say Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had “drunk the cool aid�
Good point.
Taylor, looking forward to the Sunday ruckus.
Peace to all!
For those who asked – I am a support person who works for an investment manager. I don’t make a lot of money, but I can pay my bills. I don’t work “on Wall Street.”
Someone asks me why I’m here, which has nothing to do with anything. But to answer this silly question: I’m here because I am appalled about the corruption and dishonesty of our illigitimate government. I am a big fan of Jane Hamsher’s.
Oh. And in addition to being an atheist, I am a feminist, a liberal, and a Democrat. Now that I qualified myself, am I allowed to be here?
Arabella 183 …am I allowed to be here?
Most assuredly, speaking for myself. I’m not an atheist but I support the separation of church and state and your right to free speech.
But since Republicans are supposed to be the religious ones, why don’t they ever infuse humanity into their policies? Why doesn’t the religious morality they tout make it into their foreign policy? What is it about the ultra-religious, who espouse their faith so openly, but who remain wedded to war first, talking reserved as a last resort? Why are Republicans so conservative with their compassion?
======
Because the word ‘meek’ to Republicans means “one who is a Bloodthirsty, Warmongering, Bigot”?
Amen, Becki Jayne 184.
And even though Christianity is a dangerous murder cult, professor rat, you’ve got a friend in me.
I am starting to see a theme lately. Democrats are about hope and building tomorrow’s future today. Republicans are about fear and escaping the neverending crisis of the future.
Both visions of public life are informed by certain brands of Christianity. There’s no law that says Christians have to be single-issue voters, or hellfire-mongers or millenialists. There are many who spend spring break rebuilding the Gulf Coast, who give their Christmas budget away to the poor, who don’t need to go off introducing strangers to the 4 spiritual laws and converting the airwaves to crimson.
The Democrats don’t need to be Christian or have any religion in particular. They need to articulate their positive vision of government, society, and the future we will all build together, and welcome all those who subscribe to it.
Thanks for explaining Arabella, as a courtesy and not as a requirement.
I asked my “silly question” because I was curious to know why you are here when you made the statement “The only reflecting I’ll do is on how I can pay less taxes this year, and why it’s so hard to find decent pink nail polish” Welcome.
angie #161; make sure you check out Lure of the Sea.
Speaking for myself, religion is part of my energy and motivation to work to make society better. My hero was always Dr. Albert Schweitzer. Now I do medical mission work in a developing country.
A commenter above was talking about religious leaders getting rich. Dr. Schweitzer was rich in spirit only. But isn’t that the higher road?
Dru – just because I treat myself to a pedicure on an very infrequent day off doesn’t mean I’m an elite. I’m in an artificially high tax bracket and my desire to pay less taxes does not make me a friend of Dick Cheney’s. Like most Americans, I worry about health care costs and savning enough money for my retirement.
Thanks for the welcome though.
Nice to “meet” you Arabella ;)
I don’t think the MLK wanted to change the democratic party’s approach and be more “faith based”. He spoke as a preacher against war, against racism. I have no problem with indivduals speaking their mind.
I don’t see that faith needs to be inserted into the democrat’s message.